Boots and Saddles

Tactical Combat in the 80's

Reviewed by James Baker

Designed by Frank Chadwick Developed by John Harshman and John Astell
Game Designers' Workshop PO Box 646, Bloomington, IL 61701
Release Date: August, 1984
Catalog No. 475
Price: $18.00
Complexity: High
Solitaire Suitability. Low
Rating: ***1/2

Boots and Saddles might best be described as a stylized modern miniatures game. If you're interested in modern land combat, this game and the entire Assault series is worth a serious look. Boots and Saddles, however, is very complex and takes several playings before it.'s mastered. Although Game Designers' Workshop (GDW) has done an admirable job of simplifying individual parts of the game system, Boots and Saddles includes so many things, it requires concentration to keep everything straight. if played with all options, it also requires a lot of paperwork and time. This game isn't for the casual war gamer, but is a playable simulation of modern combat.

Boots and Saddles is a tactical-level simulation of modern land combat including helicopters. The scale is 250 meters per hex and 5 minutes per turn. Each unit represents approximately one Soviet or U.S. platoon. it is the second in a series of games initiated by GDWs Assault However, it does not require the purchase of Assault and is a complete game in itself

The components are nice. Combat units are presented as standard military symbols for infantry units, and in silhouette for vehicles and helicopters. The mapsheet is a hexgrid superimposed on a multi-colored contour map, and gives an accurate impression of the terrain.

Boots and Saddles also contains many charts and aids that are essential for playing the game. To give an idea of the complexity of the game, there are 13 separate pages of charts for use in determining all options, plus scenario setup charts and general information sheets. while these are well presented, they're a lot to digest at one time.

There are only three scenarios in Boots and Saddles, but each side can have several different force levels for each scenario. The use of inverted counters and dummy units keeps your opponent from knowing exactly what hes up against. if the game is combined with the Assault game, you have an incredible number of possibilities.

Each scenario is balanced by adjusting the victory points to the strength of the force level. if you're very strong, you're supposed to do a lot more. The units in each force level correspond to actual U.S. and Soviet organizations.

Units on the board may be either in "Combat" or "March" formation, as designated by the positioning of the unit in the hex. Units in march formation move more easily over the board and don't have to be ordered to move; however, they can't fire normally. Units in combat formation may fire normally, but must be commanded to move. This works well in demonstrating the differences in command structures between the two sides.

The Soviets are usually short of command units, and must move and fight in formation (Soviet "battle drill") to be effective. The U.S. player has a more flexible command structure. Unfortunately, the command rules require that you keep track of the expenditure of command points on paper.

Combat is conducted either as "direct" or "indirect" fire. indirect fire must be recorded in advance (more paperwork). Direct fire, both antiarmor and conventional, is done during mutual fire phases, while the opponent is moving ("opportunity fire"). Anti-armor fire is done using a fairly simple system which determines "hits" and "kills."

"Conventional fire" and "indirect fire" are resolved using a ratio of total attack factors versus the defense of the unit.

I found that anti-armor fire was elegant and quite easy to do. However, calculating the odds ratios for the other types of fire sometimes involved several multiplications and could be confusing.

Units on the board are kept inverted until an enemy "spots" them, Spotting is done with a simple decimal die-roll, but terrain often may block line-of-sight, and determining line- of-sight can often slow the game. inverted units also make the game unsuitable for solitaire play. The inverted units do add considerably to the uncertaintv and "fog-of- war" and they allow the multiple-forcelevel scenarios to be used effectively.

Helicopters are generally treated as vehicles with special capabilities, including the ability to react to enemy movement. They I re also hard to hit, unless special anti-aircraft weapons are used. The helicopter rules fit well into the general system.

One option in the game is ammunition limitations. Although the rules are optional, research of the available ammo shows that not using them may distort the simulation. For instance, units may have only one or two shots available, and using ammunition limitations (especially for missiles and and- tank rounds) will considerably decrease the amount of low-payoff attacks that are made. Also, many helicopters have variable ammunition loads that must be chosen before the game begins. The rules require considerable paperwork, but add more realism to the game.

Also included are morale rules, special rules for laser designators, heat-seeking missiles, etc.

The game covers most of the concepts of modern land warfare. The individual parts of the game are well done, but in totality the game complexity may daunt war gamers who aren't specifically interested in modern combat.

On the whole, the system is interesting, and I look forward to the Reinforcements module, scheduled for release this year.

More Reviews

Back to Table of Contents -- Game News #1
To Game News List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 by Dana Lombardy.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com