Authors: Alex Macris, John Moher, and Arty Conliffe Period: WWII to Current Time Scale: 1 Turn = 15 to 30 Minutes Ground Scale: 1 Inch = 100 Meters Figure Scale: 1 Model or Infantry Stand = Platoon Some rules writers rehash old simple rules from Don Featherstone and Charlie Grant. Some add complicated routines to old board game rules seeking technical detail. A few are able to distill the old guard’s almost biblical cannon of simplicity with technical detail to produce playable accurate games. Only a handful of authors are able to truly produce something new. The authors of “Modern Spearhead” have done this… Let me start by establishing my credentials. Back in the mid 80’s at the height of the Cold War I started modern gaming . Our group in Chattanooga ran through “Challenger 2”, “MBT”(a board game), and the WRG Post WWII rules before finally settling on ”Combined Arms” by Frank Chadwick of GDW. This rule set featured an innovative platoon scale which we felt more accurately portrayed the era. With “Combined Arms” one could fight a Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiment against a NATO Battalion. We hoped that this would solve the NATO “Turkey Shoot” vs. a hapless Soviet opponent scenario which was so prevalent in the smaller scaled games. Unfortunately the problem persisted. The higher scale of the game did allow for a greater amount of Soviet combined arms integration, but it still exhibited some the sillier aspects of the “Turkey Shoot” problem. The Cold War ended and so did my hopes of finding a modern game system which portrayed modern combat as anything but a “Turkey Shoot”. The Gulf War perhaps made things worse . The war seemed to confirm the shooting gallery aspect of modern combat. As the 1990s wore on ,my modern figures saw less and less action. The great match up of NATO vs. Warsaw Pact was history. The games were boring anyway. Still something bothered me about my gaming experiences. The war I saw on the table top was not what the US Army was envisioning- at least not according to my army friends. Also some interesting information was leaking out of newly free Russia. Remember those Soviet T72s which died by the score in the many NATO vs. Warpact games?--- Well, the Sovs didn’t have any T72s in Germany. They were all second line tanks. The T64 was the first line tank. Author and tank expert Steve Zaloga published armor ratings for Soviet cold war era vehicles. The front line Soviet tank (the T64) actually rated a better armor and gun than the vaunted M1 Abrams. I rushed to the gaming table expecting things to square with what my army friends had lead me to believe. Newer ratings and orders of battle helped, but the nature of the battles still didn’t square with my expectations. Games were still somewhat of a “Turkey Shoot”. This all leads up to the solution to the problem- “Modern Spearhead”. The game is an extension of Arty Conliffe’s innovative WWII rules into the post WWII era. Like WWII Spearhead, the smallest unit of command is a battalion. The smallest combat element is the platoon. Unlike other platoon level games companies are not represented. This was bothersome to me at first until I considered the game scale. Furthermore, play testing revealed that a player needs to form his own companies for effective tactics. Thus company formations while not explicit in the rules are natural organizations formed by players. Battalions are governed by the following orders, Attack, Defend, Reserve, and Retreat. Within each of the orders, individual platoon actions are severely restricted simulating the fog of war. Ranges are surprisingly short . Smaller terrain features which block line of sight cannot be accurately depicted at the ground scale. So, maximum spotting distance is marked at 1800 meters. This fits well with the actual engagement ranges for central Europe. Spotting ranges for desert terrain or the North German plain can be adjusted accordingly. All of this makes for a completely different game. Our first play test consisted of a standard NATO battalion defending a 5km frontage against a Soviet Regiment. The NATO battalion had one maneuver element. The Soviet Regiment had four smaller elements. The NATO commander deployed three companies forward and kept a small reserve. The Soviets whose mission was to secure a crossroads attacked with two battalions abreast, flank marched a third and kept the reinforced regimental reserve in reserve. The two attacking battalions hit one US Company. Then the magic happened. In other game systems the US would have been able to support their defending company by either super long range fire or an immediate maneuver response. The “Modern Spearhead” command system and realistic line of sight rules kept this from happening. While the American’s company tremendous firepower caused Soviet casualties, the Soviet’s numbers forced them to retreat. The two Soviet battalions pursued while the flank marching third battalion cut behind the retreating US troops. In short order the retreating US were flanked, overrun, and destroyed. The flanking Soviet battalion captured the crossroads. The US player was forced to counterattack with his remaining forces against a hasty Soviet defense while more Soviet forces moved on their flank. The US suffered huge casualties and surrendered the field. The Soviet reserve never entered the battle. I was shocked. We repeated the game with a reinforced Soviet Regiment against ½ of a US Brigade (two battalions). We gave NATO one Bradley/Abrams battalion and one US National Guard M60/M113 battalion. The results were even worse for NATO than our first game. The Soviet had five maneuver elements vs. NATO’s two. The US National Guard battalion was roughly handled by the Soviets. The Abrams/Bradley battalion with its tremendous firepower and mobility was forced into costly counterattacks. Again the Soviets won a major victory. The essence of the game was that the NATO player was forced to make a choice. If he deployed both battalions forward they would be able to savage any Soviet attack with their superior firepower. He would also be vulnerable to the guaranteed Soviet flank march. If he deployed his M1/Bradley battalion forward and kept the Nation Guard in reserve he would have to counter the Soviets flank march with the older slower unit. Deploying the National Guard forward and the fast powerful M1/Bradley unit in reserve risked mass Soviet firepower against the outmatched National Guardsmen. To win the NATO player would need to maximize his advantages not just rely on overwhelming firepower. The game was no longer a “Turkey Shoot”. As anyone reading this can ascertain I have a high opinion of these rules. I will however mention their drawbacks. First, I don’t recommend these as convention rules for participation games (Do we have anything else here in the US?). The strict command rules governing movement and fire will chaff players used to moving their units in all directions and perfectly picking out every target. The need for reserves will create commands which sit for much of the game without doing anything-no fun for a convention player. I would suggest limiting these games to either club or demo situations. Second, these rules are not for the technical detail oriented type of gamer. The combat resolution doesn’t even feature range bands. This will no doubt shock many modern gamers. Even the original “Spearhead” featured two range bands. I won’t go into the details of the argument. The authors defend their decision quite well in the design notes. Suffice to say play testing confirms their side of the argument. This is simply not a game for someone who wants to know if their TOW missile hit that T80 in the IR Searchlight which is not protected by reactive armor. Third, this game was designed for large grand tactical engagements- classic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact engagements. One of the book scenarios is a German Brigade against a Soviet Division. Such a game is large but easily playable. Smaller games suffer. Larger Arab/Israeli battles such as Chinese Farm will play well. Smaller engagements such as Lebanon in 1982 or the Valley of Tears will not play well. The same problem exists in original WWII version of “Spearhead”. Eastern front engagements play well. Western front battles are more difficult. To conclude, “Modern Spearhead” is the first set of modern rules I have played that captures the correct nature of modern grand tactical warfare. A strong buy recommendation. Be warned however, the game will challenge a lot of your preconceived notions. Back to Dispatch August 2003 Table of Contents Back to Dispatch List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by HMGS Mid-South This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com