The "Bulge"-all those green, exhausted Americans dug-in in the snowy woods (Van Johnson in Battleground,); the overwhelming failure of Allied intelligence; the bad flying weather; the sneaky German infiltrators in American uniforms and gear; Patton's prescient planning and masterful execution of the move from the South; Montgomery's hesitation to commit from the North; McAuliffe's wonderful "Nuts!" [if that's what he said]; the German atrocities; Christmas in Bastogne.... Good stuff: no wonder it's been the subject of so many films, stories, histories, and wargames.

This month our review takes a look at two of those games: 3W's The Last Blitzkrieg [Blitzkrieg], 1994, Michael Scott Smith, designer; and The Gamers' Ardennes, 1994 (part of their "Standard Combat Series"), Dean N. Essig, designer.

Blitzkrieg presents the battle at regiment and brigade level, with twelve-hour turns and two-mile hexes on one 22" by 34" map; Ardennes works at levels from battalion through brigade, with twenty-four-hour tums and one-mile hexes on two 22" by 34" maps. On the Blitzkrieg map, the grain runs North-South; on the maps for Ardennes, the grain runs East-West.

Blitzkrieg and the Standards

The rules should tell us how to play the game. Except for some pertinent quotations at the beginning of each major rules section, Blitzkrieg's rules do not indulge in extraneous comment. The rules set forth the game mechanics clearly and straightforwardly. The writing is clear, understandable, and direct.

The rules should be organized logically. Blitzkrieg has several logical organization faults; they are not particularly misleading, because the other rules appear closely enough on the page that the thoughtful reader can immediately see what the structure is.

These faults consist mostly in dividing a thing into one part: thus, 4.1 (but no 4.2); 5.71 (but no 5.72); 6.1 (but no 6.2); 11.71 (but no 11.72).

Also, although the "Table of Contents" lists a section "20.0 Automatic Victory," no such section appears within the body of the rules, which goes from 19.0 to 21.0. Presumably, there was originally such a rules section, but we'll never know.

Also, the page presentation initially misleads. For example, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are runin, without separate heads; 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 (which, at least from the numbering, should be coordinate with 5.1, etc.) are standalone, bold face heads. Similar presentation occurs at 16.1 and 16.2.

These logical lapses are not particularly misleading, merely embarrassing. More serious is the sequence of the headings (see below).

The rules should be presented in the order that the gamer needs to know them. Blitzkrieg does not conform to this standard at all. For example, the first thing the player needs to know how to do in the Sequence of Play is how to check the supply status of his units. The section of the rules that deals with supply (11.0) is twelve columns away. The first player is the German, and there is a further restriction on German supply another three columns away at section 14.0.

More seriously, section 17.0 contains a number of rules (the "first turn surprise") that reflect how thoroughly the Germans caught the Allies off guard. All these rules significantly affect the play of both sides during the first game turn: does it make sense that the pertinent rules should come on the next to-the-last page of the rules?

Most of the rules appear in a sequence that will have the player flipping back and forth during play.

The rules should separate non-playing information from playing information.

[Aside: From some of the comments we've received, there seems to be some misunderstanding about this standard, which simply asks the designer to separate rules used in the Sequence of Play from other kinds of rules. The gamer needs to know some things (for example, the Zones of Control approach, if used) before he begins the steps of the SOP; if these things haven't been presented before the SOP, the gamer has to stop during the SOP, look for the pertinent rule(s), and then return to the SOP.]

Blitzkrieg does not conform to this standard. For example, immediately after 4.0 Sequence of Play comes 5.0 Movement, 6.0 Stacking, and 7.0 Zones of Control, of which only the first figures in the play sequence. The player needs to know about stacking and ZOCs before he begins the SOP. The playing and non-playing rules have been shuffled throughout the rules.

The rules should contain complete "housekeeping" coverage.

[Another aside. "housekeeping" rules comprise all those things the player needs to know outside of the SOP-terrain effects, definitions of terms, and so on. Gcncrally, he'll need to know these things before beginning the first step of the SOP.]

Blitzkrieg contains complete housekeeping coverage, although it is intermixed with SOP rules, as mentioned above.

Where appropriate, the rules should cross-reference related rules. The designer's conformance to this standard becomes especially important to the player when standards two through four have been ignored, because the designer now has condemned the player to a continual searching back and forth among the rules. If this standard's requirements have been met, the player will havc an easler tlme ot It.

Blitzkrieg does an adequate job of internai cross-referencing, but it now and then slips up in one of the most important aspects of the process: the references have to be accurate. For example, rule 8.3 proficiency Rating (PR) contains a reference forward to rule 9.23. 8.3 is about comparing the PR of the attacking and defending units before combat resolution and modifying the die roll. Some of these units may previously have been "shocked," and the reference to 9.23 is pertinent; but if the player reads only 9.23, he will miss important information: the reference should have been to 9.23 and 9.24, which contains important information about how the effects of shock affect combat.

The rules should present examples of play. There are only two discussion-type examples in Blitzkrieg, and there are no purpose-drawn illustrated examples. I lowever, the writing in the rules is clear enough that experienced wargamers should have no trouble understanding the rules despite this scarcity of examples. More examples would probably have helped the novice gamer get into this game more easily.

The rules should adhere to the conventions of language, presentation, and typesetting. The language in Blitzkrieg follows current practice well. Sentences are clear, their meaning apparent, for the most part, on first reading. There are some minor discrepancies (especially in punctuation-mostly things that an editor should have caught) and inconsistencies, but nothing that jars the reader.

The page presentation also conforms to the standard. The eye follows the presentation easily, only questioning now and then the differences of coordination and subordination among headlines, as mentioned above. On the whole, the rules pages are pleasingly nonintruslve.

The typesetting also follows the standard, but not as well as it could. There is no particular reason, for example, for the number of typefaces on the page, and there are far too many all-capital headlines for my taste: but few readers will find the typesetting misleading or offensive.

The counters will be designed and executed so that the player can immediately know whom the counters belong to, know what values the counters present, and discriminate necessary information from unnecessary information.

Blitzkrieg's counters have been designed for ease of recognition: the background colors for the counters cover the whole area left over from the numbers and symbols; and this large area of color (gray for the Germans, black for the German SS, olive green for the US, and red for the British) makes recognition immediate. In addition, the unit symbol boxes are colored to identify the unit's parent organization (for example, light green for US 1st Army, red for US 3rd Army). Administrative counters that apply to a certain side bear that side's color; counters used by both sides have a neutral coloration.

It's easy to discriminate necessary information from unnecessary information on these counters; and the printer did a good job, with nice tight registration and die cutting.

Blitzkrieg has 300 counters, of which just under 216 are units in play and the rest are administrative.

However, the counters in Blitzkrieg are greatly disappointing in one respect: the major numbers along the bottom of the counter (the combat strength, proficiency rating, and movement allowance-the numbers that the player uses to the exclusion of nearly everything else on the counter) have been printed with a drop shadow that makes them look, at first glance, as if the printer made a mistake. Even at second glance, theyjust look fuzzy. The type itself is large enough to read (nine-point boldface), but not large enough to bear the drop shadow. (The smallest drop shadow I've ever used was fourteen points, and that was against my better judgment: the rule of thumb among most graphics designers is that nothing smaller than eighteen points gets a drop shadow.)

To make things worse, the color of the drop shadow does not offer enough contrast with either the background color or the color of the number to add distinction to itself: the drop shadow color repeats the color of the unit's parent organization. So, for example, the counters for German 6th Panzer Army have black numbers, a light blue drop shadow, and a light gray background. The situation is even worse for the SS-white numbers, a light gray (about a ten percent) drop shadow, and a black back ground. The lack of size and poor color selections create a set of numbers that's continually diffcult to read and that sometimes implies double vision.

The map will use color sparingly and consistently. Blitzkrieg's map is a pleasure to look at and play on. The basic color for the map is a very pale beige, which tends to disappear nicely during play and avoids the glare of a large white area. The terrain features use the standard symbols for forested areas, rivers, bridges, towns, roads, etc. I would quibble with the colors chosen for rough (a sort of peach color), road (a bright orange), and town (a gray a bit too close to the gray background for some of the German counters) as a bit unexpected, but these are quibbles only. The colors are both spare and consistent.

The map will avoid harsh colors. The map does avoid harsh colors-in the map proper. There are some shocking deep red borders that separate the playing portion of the map from some illustrations and the Game Turn/Air Allocation Track and Terrain Effects Chart; other than that, the colors are not harsh.

The map will accurately represent the battlefield. I do not personally own the necessary references to judge whether the map isaccurate. The major place names all seem to be in about the right place. (But see further comments towards the end of the article.) The portion of the battlefield inc]uded for the game seems appropriate (that is, you should have enough room to play intelligently) for the scale of the game: Liege is at the northernmost edge of the map, just to the west of center; St. Vith is twenty-five miles west of the eastern map edge; Namur is about twelve miles from the western edge. The narrow edge of the map runs North-South, as does the grain.

The map will contain as much playing information as it has room for. Blitzkrieg's map contains both a Terrain Effects Chart and a Game-Turn/Air Allocation Track. The TEC lists the effects of terrain on movement, distinguishing between nonmechanized and mechanized units. But it does not show the effects of terrain on combat, and it could well have. The Game-Turn/Air Allocation Track keeps up with the days of the battle, lists the Air Allocation Points available to the Allies and the Germans for each day, and reminds the players that unusual rules apply to certain days ("1st turn surprise," "Peiper breakout," etc.).

Play-aid cards will conform to the standards for rules, counters, and maps. Blitzkrieg needs only the one play-aid card, which contains the Combat Results Table and the Terrain Effects on Combat table. The card is easy-to-read, the results are easy to understand and apply. For some reason, the card uses several weights of three different typeface families: one would have been enough.

There are also two "Order of Appearance" cards, one for the Germans, one for the Allies. For their unit icons, these cards use a copy of the counter artwork (about 25% larger), and the problems noted abovc have been retained: you're not getting double vision; it's just an ill-advised drop shadow.

The game also includes a sheet of "Random Event Cards," which the player must cut out before play. They're well-conceived and produced. (But see further comments about these cards below.)

Play-aid cards will contain references to pertinent rules. Blitzkrieg doesn't make many references on these cards, mostly because they're unnecessary; the cards are clearly laid out and understandable by themselves. The CRT and Terrain Effects on Combat card contains only one reference to the rules, and it's only marginally necessary. The Order of Appearance cards contain no rules references, and don't need any. The Random Event Cards sheet contains a reference to the applicable rules section.

Play-aid cards will conform to professional standards for tables, charts, etc. There is a difference between Blitzkrieg's play-aids that leads me to believe that more than one person was involved.

Except as noted above, the Combat Results Table/Terrain Effects on Combat card is well laid out, easy to read, easy to understand. So are the Order of Appearance cards. This person is following the traditional standards.

But the tables printed on the map must be from a different hand:

• The title of the Game-Turn/Air Allocation Track table would bencfit from putting "Game-Turn" on one line and "Air Allocation Track" on the next.
• The background colors for the cells in both tables is initially confusing, then aesthetically unpleasing.
• In general practice, text should be centered both vertically and horizontally within the cell. In the Game-Turn/Air Allocation Track especially, the dates look like they're trying to run away through the bottom of the cell.
• Subdivided columns (such as the Move ment Costs column in the Terrain Effect Chart) commonly should have a vertical line between them, just like any other column except that it begins just below the major column heading; one is needed here.
• Common practice involves setting the column (and row) headings in a typeface (not type family) different from the table entries. In both these tables, the typeface is identical.

  Ardennes and the standards

  [Prejudice. I must admit to a long-standing prejudice against games with two sets of rules, one a "standard" set meant to apply to a series of games, and one a "specific" set with rules that apply to the specific game within that series. The prejudice, in many instances (and Ardennes is one), become a postjudice.

  This prejudice has a number of reasons at its foundation. The first is that the player learning the game (and having to refer to the rules after having "learned" the game) must continually look back and forth not just in one set of rules, but in two sets of rules; and, especially with a badly organized and badly written set of rules, this continual back and forth business can be tedious and frustrating. (Some of us may remember this state of affairs as of the fourth module of Squad Leader.)

  Another reason is that two-book sets of rules seem somehow to require the writer to violate the most basic logic and organization and sequencing in their rules-almost as if, by the very act of separating the rules into two sets, logic and organization and sequencing disappear as self-imposed requirements on the writer.

  Yet another reason is that there's no longer any real reason for separating the rules in this way. Longer ago than many of us want to remember, the old SPI quad games and their spin-offs began this process of standard rules and specific rules. In those days, typesetting a set of rules was a matter of sending copy out to a hot-lead typesetter, who set and printed long strips of type ("galleys"). The galleys came back to the layout department, who did an initial paste-up to see how things fit: if they didn't, everything went back to the typesetter for different type sizes, leading, line depth, etc. After several iterations, a set of rules would emerge to go before the printer's cam- era for negatives, then plates from the nega- tives, then onto the press.

  All in all, the whole process was expensive and time-consuming, so it made at least some kind of economic sense to produce a set of general rules for several games (and print enough copies for the whole series) and a set of specific rules (with a shorter print run).

  But today's computers make short work of this process. Page-layout and word-processing software take the place of the old hot-lead typesetter. Now, when things don't fit, the operator can change type size (for example) for a whole range of pages with just one keystroke. Likewise, moving pieces of text and illustrations is as simple as clicking and dragging with the mouse. And, most impor- tant, merging two separate files into a third, single file, is both quick and simple. There is no longer any economic or time-saving reason for separate rules booklets.

  If there is someone out there producing rules on a hot-lead Linotype machine, he should join the twentieth century. All those producing two-book sets of rules on a computer should merge the rules into one booklet before production and, while they're at it, take a careful look at the resulting logic, organization, and sequencing of the rules.]

  The rules should tell us how to play the game. Ardennes' rules tell us how to play the game; but, aside from the two-book business, they do not go about it in a straightforward manner. This is a generalized standard; my comment is not about content, but manner.

  The rules should be organized logically. Both books of rules inArdennes mostly follow logical division and subdivision in their or- ganization. The few exceptions don't mislead: for example, 2.0 Zones of Control has been divided into one part 2.1 ZOC Effects. But, while reading these rules, I have a continual sense that little attention has been paid to coordination and subordination and that the sections have been numbered (or not: whether Ardennes' rules are numbered or not is incon- sistent) to present the appearance, but not the substance, of logic.

  The rules should be presented in the order that the gamer needs to know them. Neither rules book presents the player with rules in any kind of a recognizable sequence, either within one set of rules or as an overall, two- book set. For example, as its first step for the first (German) player, the specific rules for Ardennes requires weather determination. Be- tween the Sequence of Play and the rule for weather determination, nine major rules headings intervene. Likewise, the second step is US air point determination: eighteen major rules headings intervene before the pertinent rule.

  The rules should separate non-playing information from playing information. Ardennes follows this standard in that both rules books put the "Designer's Notes" (and player's notes) at the end of the books. The books contain rules about how to play the game (the steps in the Sequence of Play) and other kinds of rules (housekeeping rules), and both kinds have been thoroughly mixed. The player will continually flip back and forth between the two kinds of rules and between the two books.

  The rules should contain complete "housekeeping" coverage. The special rules book for Ardennes badly needs an illustration of its counters. Other than that, the ru]es contain relatively complete coverage, although it is intermixed, distractingly, with SOP rules, as mentioned above. And much of it will remain tantalizingly unclear, due mainly to a severe case of bad writing (see below).

  Where appropriate, the rules should cross-reference related rules. There is some cross-referencing in both books (the special rules book has more than the standard rules book), but surely not enough. Much of the interrelatedness of the rules, both within and among the two books, will only become apparent after much deduction.

  The rules should present examples of play. There are no illustrations in the special rules book, and it would certainly benefit from some, especially for the modifications to the stacking and overrun rules in the standard rules.

  The standard rules contain seven illustrations, of which one shows a typical counter and the others show ZOCs and terrain effects on ZOCs. Illustration three shows how a unit expends movement points in moving through various ZOCs; it's misleading until you realize that "ZOC" actually means "EZOC" for the moving unit. The fourth illustration shows how to trace a supply line, continuing the confusion between ZOCs and EZOCs. However, you can figure them out; it's just poor presentation.

  But you'll have significantly more trouble with the last three illustrations, of which the first two illustrate the same move. In "Example of Combat part 2," you may find difficulty in determining how unit 14 went from a strength of 2 (in part 1) to a strength of 0 in part 2: is there a replacement counter in the mix? or did this counter have a strength of 2 on one side and a strength of 0 on the other? And what about unit 7 in the same illustration: did it have the option of reducing to a 0 strength?

  Altogether, yes, there are examples; but they tend to introduce more questions than they answer.

  The rules should adhere to the conventions of language, presentation, and typesetting. The language in these two books falls far short of acceptable technical writing: where it needs to explain, it is confusingly unclear; where it is reasonably clear, the content is less than important. For example,

  Units that overrun can stack with those which aren't (adjacent to the target hex) and that the hex's stacking total must be within the stacking limit.

  (I assure you that I have faithfully transcribed the sentence and that there are no typesetting errors in this quotation.)

  You should note that this sentence appears in the standard rules book. From its title (Series Rules, ver 1. 6), we can deduce that the rules have been through five previous versions before reaching this sixth version. I find it amazing that this kind of writing could survive the first rough draft, let alone make its way into the sixth printed version.

  The page presentation and typesetting follow the more amateur practices, worse in the special booklet than in the standard booklet. The basic type family is Times Roman, nine points with two points of leading, on a twelve-and-a-half-pica line depth, resulting in an easy-to-read basic presentation. Normal, italic, and bold faces ofthis family appearwith a Helvetica bold face and a Helvetica condensed for various heads. The problem arises from the indiscriminate mixture of these faces and all capitals and underscores. For example, Times Roman appears as normal face, bold face all capitals underscored, bold face, and italics-all in the same sentence (1.7a) of only twenty-two words!

  The counters will be designed and executed so that the player can immediately know whom the counters belong to, know what values the counters present, and discriminate necessary information from unnecessary information. The counters in Ardennes meet this standard very well. The colors are about what you'd expect:feldgrau and black for the Germans, olive drab for the US. The type is readable at a comfortable playing distance. My only complaint is that using a drop shadow without an outline on the playing numbers tends to let the characters break up on the non-shadowed side.

  The map will use color sparingly and con- sistently. The map colors for Ardennes are used consistently, but not necessarily spar- ingly. The basic color for the map is a plain white that almost glares, but not quite. The forests are represented by the standard symbol in a muted grayish green; secondary roads are a greenish brown with a black outline; pri- mary roads a bright yellow with a red outline; cities are red; and the streams and rivers use two different colors of blue, both with out- lines. All in all, a bit too colorful.

  The map will avoid harsh colors. As noted above, the white on this map almost glares; it could have been avoided merely by printing on a paper with a bit of color to it. But the colors for the other features on the map do glare, especially the major roads; during play, the map continues to call attention to itself rather than to disappear under the counters.

  The map will accurately represent the battlefield. As noted above, I do not personally own the necessary references to judge whether the map is accurate. The major place names all seem to be in about the right place. (But see further comments towards the end of the article.)

  The map will contain as much playing information as it has room for. Appropriately, Ardennes' map contains an explanation of the terrain symbols, a turn track, a weather track and table, a weather change table, and a US air point track.

  Play-aid cards will conform to the standards for rules, counters, and maps. Ardennes doesn't have separate play-aid cards; instead, the necessary tables appear on the last two pages of the special rules book. The information in the tables is clear. There are also several boxed text blocks, which repeat the SOP, some special rules, and the Victory schedule. The information boxes on the map reflect some amateurism: many of them have their text actually touching the outline of the box, without any margin or white space at all.

  Play-aid cards will contain references to pertinentrules. There are no references to the rules within these tables.

  Play-aid cards will conform to professional standards for tables, charts, etc. The CRT and the Barrage Table are both professionally laid out, but the Terrain Effects table is an example of amateurism: a horizontal line (intended only to guide the eye across the table) is two points in weight, over twice as heavy of the stroke weight in the characters in the table; and this line obliterates the descenders of the letters above it.

  Some General Comments

  In Blitzkrieg, the German initial setup will become very important: the setup merely specifies a number of units to be set up on "any [setup] hex with a figure" five, six, or seven (a reference to a number of hexes with a red digit to indicate a setup hex). US units, however, are placed in specific hexes. The game will probably have as many variants as there are variations in German setup.

  On the other hand, the five scenarios in Ardennes allow no variation: all units are placed in a specific hex. Ardennes setups are very tedious: some scenarios require six rules columns just for the setup.

  General Comments

  I have mentioned that I don't personally own the references to make a judgment about the accuracy of the maps, other than to point out that the major points seem to be in the right places on both games' maps. However, there does seem to be enough discrepancies between the two that some serious questions should be raised: if the scale of Blitzkrieg is two miles to the hex, and the scale of Ardennes is one mile to the hex, then the distance between major points in Ardennes ought to be larger by twice than between the same points in Blitzkrieg. But they aren't. Nor are the roads all that similar (Blitzkrieg doesn't discriminate between "major" and "minor" roads, as Ardennes does.)

  Blitzkrieg's Order of Appearance cards contain some comments, and the importance of these may not be immediately clear. The rules reference the cards, without further explanation. These comments strongly affect play: players should take the time to understand them thoroughly.

  The random events cards in Blitzkrieg are an unnecessary non-event. There is only one random event in the game (at the beginning of turn 18); and there are only ten possibilities, fully explained in the rules text. Players should dispense with the cards and roll a ten-sided die for the results.

  Blitzkrieg doesn't have the depth of detail of Ardennes-for example, Ardennes has both an overrun and an exploitation mechanism, where Blitzkrieg doesn't. But pay attention to Blitzkrieg's rule 13.0 Armor Reserve: this short, simple little rule adds immeasurably to your concept of the game (too bad it doesn't come earlier in the rules). And rules 13.0 through 17.0, the random event, and the above-mentioned German setup variations combined to give me a pleasurable gaming experience.

  I invested about two hours in studying the rules and maps and counters and cards before setting up Blitzkrieg for play. I invested many hours in flipping back and forth between the two rules books of Ardennes, many more than I thought rewarding. My copy arrived from the editor, who (with several other players) had spent several hours trying to play it before giving up; it came to him from another wargamer, who had the same experience. I would like to tell you that I had a better experience with the game, but I didn't. I still don't know what the pink counters are for, or what the skull and crossbones counters are for, or what the scenarios' "dead pile" means. About half way through the tedium of setting up a scenario, I suddenly remembered an important previous engagement and took the trash out.

  [Next month, 3W's Barbarians.]

  ---

  Back to Table of Contents #5
  © Copyright 1995 by One Small Step, Inc.