You sometimes get the feeling that games get rushed to press - that (because of schedules, economics, insistent owners, and so On) a good game just doen't get the time it needs for the wrinkles to submit to the iron. Such a game is Joe Miranda's On to Moscow, published with Strategy and Tactics number 171, November/December, 1994. The components include the standard 22" x 17" mapsheet, 240 counters, rule book, scenarios, and play-aid sheet.

The game covers the period from 1707 - 11, the end of the roughly twenty-year period during which the Swedes marched across most of northern and eastern Europe, pretty much having things their own way before their defeat at the hands of the Russians at Poltava in 1709.

The hexagon portion of the map covers central and eastern Europe from central Germany on the west to just past Moscow on the east, from Ukraine on the south to Finland on the north; the grain runs from north to south. No scale is given, but it's thirteen hexes from Moscow to St. Petersburg (about 375 miles for the crow); the game is thus at an "operational/strategic" level. About one-third of the map is covered with charts, tables, tracks, various boxes, etc.

Of the 240 counters, about 180 of them are units (that may be) in play; the rest are administrative or replacement counters for previous S&Tgames.

Let's see how On to Moscow fares with the standards:

The rules should tell us how to play the game. The rules should be organized logically.

On to Moscow's rules do tell us how to play the game, although the several kinds of confusions resulting, from illogical organization make it difficult to know that they do. They are not organized logically.

For example, the game has both a "Standard Game" and an "Advanced Game," and the rules are divided into these two major (unnumbered) sections. However, the opening rules (up to the "Standard" division) and the "Standard" rules (3 through 15) also include "Advanced" rules, which are marked by bold italics type or by a label "Advanced Rules" in bold italic type.

Because the rules are liberally sprinkled with italics, bold, and bold italics type, it's difficult to know immediately whether the rules applies to the "Standard" game. (This same mechanism applies to the play-aid sheet, but not to the charts, etc. on the map.)

The rules (and the map's charts and tables and the play-aid sheet) also include several references to 7YW, published in S&T number 163; it's sometimes difficult to know whether a rule is restricted to 7YW and how far the restriction runs.

The rules should be presented in the order that the gamer needs to know them.

Given the basic problem between the "Standard" and "Advanced" rules, you'll find it difficult to know whether the rules come to you in the sequence that you need to know them. However, a comparison of the sequence of rules in the Contents (Introduction, Components, Victory Conditions, Sequence of Play, Historical Events, Limited Intelligence, Leaders, Forces, March, Combat, Discipline and Morale, States and Alliances, Fortresses, etc.) with the steps in the SOP (Events, Diplomacy, First Impulse, Second Impulse, Rally, Logistics, Recruiting, etc.) will show that you'll need to know things in a different sequence than the rules present them to you. (References to rules in the SOP on the playaid sheet will confirm this illogical sequencing.)

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

The rules don't contain much in the way of nonplaying information. You'll find what I'll call "design explanation" scattered throughout, set off from the regular text in italics, which explain the design rationale behind the preceding rule. (They're not strictly necessary, but they're not obnoxiously in the way.)

The "Design Notes" occupy a shaded page on the back of the play-aid sheet and continuing on into a box on the last page of the rules; they don't interfere with reading the rules. I found these notes to be a very informative discussion of how the game came to be designed as it was. I recommend that you read them b~fore beginning with the rules and before play - you'll probably understand everything a lot more easily.

The rules should contain complete "housekeeping" coverage.

On to Moscow contains complete treatment of the non-SOP things you'll need to know. Most of it has been conveniently grouped in sections 1 and 2.

Where appropriate, the rules should cross-reference related rules.

There is very little cross-referencing within the rules; what there is occurs mostly in the discussion of the Game Turn and in the separate, expanded SOP on the play-aid card.

The rules should present examples of play. There are no examples of play in these rules. They could certainly benefit from some. For example, an illustration of how a force's Discipline Class affects combat results would be welcome, as would an illustration of the effects of attrition during the march phases.

The rules should adhere to the conventions of language, presentation, and typesetting. Except for one annoying habit characteristic of this writer, the rules follow the normal language conventions; for the most part, the sentences are clear and readable. The presentation shows strong signs of a lack of proofreading.

The typesetting suffers from using the same typeface to indicate different presentation methods and from using different typefaces to indicate the same presentation method.

For example, italics are used to present the "design explanation" comments cited above and also to add emphasis; conversely, both bold and italics faces are used for emphasis. Sometimes it's difficult to know which effect is intended.

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 for the game are well-designed for the purpose. The colors discriminate well and they do not disappear into the map, and the necessary counter information stands out when needed. The back-printing on the counters contains a symbol for the nation the counter belongs to: these are well executed and can be seen at a glance. Because much of the game is played with this side showing, the design is all the more appreciated.

The map will use color sparingly and consistently.

The hex portion of the map uses the standard terrain symbols we've all become used to. The colors are consistent and easy to play on, without glare. The "periodness" of the symbols for the fortresses is especially well done.

The map will contain as much playing information as it has room for.

On to Moscow does especially well in this regard. Just about everything you'll need to play the game is right there on the mapsheet (although some of the type is pretty small for convenient reading). It even repeats the March Table from the play-aid card.

Play-aid cards will conform to the standards for rules, counters, and maps. The charts, tables, etc. on the map do pretty well in this regard. Presentation is relatively straightforward, with a few lapses now and then (a missing symbol from the Terrain Effects Chart, completely different symbols in the Recruiting Chart from the ones shown in the rules and on the counters, etc.), but none that will very seriously interfere with your use of the tables. The March Table on the map is easier to use than the March Table on the play-aid sheet.

The only thing you'll need the play-aid sheet for is the SOP and the Historical Events Table.

The SOP contains an expanded explanation of each of the steps in a game turn, with a number of references to pertinent rules. When you first glance at the SOP, your eye will be confused by all the typefaces and allcapitals in the text; when you get past the confusion (is bold face for emphasis or for titling? is all-caps for rules references or for something else?), you'll find a reasonable play-aid in this SOP The Historical Events table is internally self- explanatory, well laid out, and easy to use.

General Comments

Design.

Only one thing really bothers me about the design: the separation of the rules into "Standard" and "Advanced" seems phoney; that is, I believe that the game was designed first and that the separation took place afterwards, almost as if the designer felt the influence of someone's demanding that he make it easier to get into the game. From whatever cause, the separation doesn't ring true. Right from the start, you should plan on learning and playing all the rules.

Also, as the rules point out, play of the "Standard" game will be unbalanced in favor of the Russians. I'll go even further: the "Standard" game is but a pale shadow of the "complete" game, so different in actual play that you'll disappoint yourself if you restrict yourself to the "Standard" game. And learning the "Standard" game first doesr~t make learning the "Advanced" game all that much easier: in fact, the "Standard" game may distort some of the game's basic concepts by giving you a preconception about those concepts (for example, Recruiting) when applied to the "Advanced" game.

That said, I'll go on to say that I really like this design. As I mentioned above, I believe that you should read the "Design Notes" before you do anything else with this game. You'll read there that the game owes it origins to a number of earlier Miranda designs, among them the Ancient Wars series (Trajan, Roman Civil War, Caesar in Gallia), the Age of Nationalism series (Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Turkish War, Austro-Prussian War), as well as the previously mentioned 7YW. Whatever its lineage, On to Moscow makes the best of whatever is the best in those games simplifying some things, developing others.

Joe goes into how the game resulted from the design approach very thoroughly here, and his approach seems to me to have resulted from a close reading of the history. The resulting game is a prime example of getting the horse in front of the cart: the designer studied the history, distilled the pertinent points, and asked himself how to embody those points in a game design. The design then produces those points, one by one, rule by rule.

General appreciation.

Two points that bother me about the game:

The first is that the solitaire rules seem to me to have been added as an afterthought, some way to get around the very important limited intelligence and fog of war rules and find a way to play the game solitaire. For me, at least, they just don't work: I couldn't enjoy the game solitaire.

The second is that the rule book in this game gives me the impression that the game was rushed to press before it was ready or that no one at S&T can put together an acceptable set of rules. The designer tells me that errata for this game will be published in S&T number 173; but, if they're anything like the errata that appear typically in that magazine, they won't do much to save the rules.

Indeed, about the only thing that can is for you to take the rules to the nearest copier and make a set on one side only; cut and paste them into some sort of reasonable order and sequence, collating the "Standard" and "Advanced" rules into one set; then re-copy them and settle down to enjoy the game.

After those negatives, let me say how much I enjoyed the game. To me, at least, it plays very much like the "Design Notes" predict that it ought to play. Most of the rules and mechanisms - Shock Points, Recruiting, Attrition, etc. - would in many another design look suspiciously like "chrome"; but, in this design, they are the first causes of the game itself, not something added to a skeleton from somewhere else. I plan to play this game again - that is, if I can talk your editor into letting me keep it!

[This review is the last that will appear in The Armchair Gamer. The column itself may appear from time to time, dealing with various subjects; but it will present be no more reviews.]

Reviews Reviewed