A popular subject for conflict simulation games is tactical naval combat in the Twentieth Century, and numerous boardgames and miniature rules on this topic are available. Simulations Canada recently released a set of three "mateable" games, designed by Stephen M. Newberg, which propose to simulate tactical surface, subsurface, and air-sea combat in all theaters of World War II. IJN and Kriegsmarine deal with surface and air combat with Japan and the Axis European powers, respectively, while Torpedo! covers submarine and antisubmarine warfare all over the globe. The three games share a common scale, data base, and rules, such that units from different games may be combined to construct hypothetical scenarios or scenarios not included in the individual games. In this review of IJN, Torpedo!, and Kriegsmarine (referred to collectively as ITK) we shall see that Mr. Newberg's game system blends various features of naval miniatures and boardgames to produce exciting surface battles, but with seriously flawed airsea and surface-subsurface interactions.

Components

Each of the three ITK games includes a 22 by 27-inch mapsheet, 255 backprinted die-cut counters, and a 20 page rules booklet, packaged in a ziplock bag. The identical mapsheets represent a featureless expanse of light blue ocean, divided into eight lettered sections which can be cut apart to form a geomorphic playing surface. Each hex is individually numbered using the SPI system.

The counters represent individual warships, torpedoes, and airplanes of many nationalities: American, British, German, Italian, Japanese, French, Canadian, Dutch, and Soviet.

In addition, there are counters representing smoke screens and merchant ships, plus some randomizer chits. A wealth of information is included on each halfinch cardboard counter. For example, each warship counter contains the vessel's silhouette, nationality, type, class, and ID number, as well as ten numbers representing its movement, combat, and search parameters. The numbers on the counters are small but easy to read, although it would be much more convenient if the ID number was on the back of the counter rather than the front. No less than fifteen different types of warships, three types of merchant vessels, five types of aircraft, and three types of torpedoes are included in the counter mix, with several classes present within each of these types. The counters are printed in black ink on brightly colored and easily distinguishable backgrounds.

The rules are organized in outline fashion and include an index. The rules and tables for the three games are basically identical, although Torpedo! includes some additional rules regarding the use of submarines and antisubmarine weapons. In general, the rules are well organized and clearly written, but typographical errors abound. Also, I have written two letters to SimCan to get numerous points clarified. I received prompt and detailed replies from Mr. Newberg. Included in the rules booklet are sample unit status sheets, which are used to record the movement, damage, and other data for each unit in play. Players must make copies of this page, as a separate status sheet is needed for each unit. The number of unit status sheets that must be maintained in even a medium-sized scenario can make your playing area look like a bureaucrat's desk, so players may wish to devise a more compact system for keeping records.

The rules booklet also contains the various charts and tables needed for play: sighting table; gunfire, bomb, and torpedo combat tables; torpedo evasion table; optional weather table; night effects chart; and so on. Again, the tables are the same for all three games. The tables are all easy to read and use; however, it would be much more convenient if each player had the most important tables on a separate card, so the rules booklet doesn't keep getting passed from Viand to hand.

Scale

The ITK system uses a scale of 100 yards per hex and 90 seconds per game turn, which results in one movement point corresponding to a speed of two knots. It is worth taking a closer look at the implications of these numbers. To begin, Table 1 summarizes the scale parameters for several games which deal with tactical naval combat in World War II: ITK; CA (SPI's early Pacific surface combat game); SPI's Dreadnought; Dauntless (the Battleline/Avalon Hill tactical air combat game); and Avalon Hill's Submarine. Dauntless has numerous scenarios involving attacks by airplanes on ships, but the orientation of the game towards air combat results in most ships moving too rapidly, up to 45 knots.

Table 1. Scale of Several Tactical Naval Games
Game	Yards/hex	Seconds/game turn	Knots/MP
ITK system	100	90	2
CA	1000	400	5
Dreadnought	1800	900	4
Dauntless	244	10	45
Submarine	100	30	6

Conversely, the focus of ITK on surface vessel action means that aircraft fly much too slowly. They are given stall speeds of only 40 knots and must make bombing attacks at speeds of 80 knots or less. Neither of these games adequately solves the problems of interfacing air and surface naval units. However, they are both superior to the tactical stage of SPI's Fast Carriers (40 second game turns and 1000 yard hexes), in which ships do not move at all.

One of the most serious realism flaws in the ITK system arises from the fact that ships of all sizes are represented by counters which occupy a single 100 yard hex. Thus, the 899 feet of an Essex class aircraft carrier are telescoped to only 300 feet in IJN. Submarine, which also employs 100 yard hexes, addresses this problem by utilizing double-sized counters for surface vessels and submarines. The ITK rules place no restrictions on the spacing of ships steaming in line to compensate for the too-small counters. Thus, a large part of the challenge of manuevering formations of large ships, which should be part of the flavor of a tactical game, is lost. (It should be noted here that this shortcoming is less applicable to Kriegsmarine and Torpedo! than to UN, as most of the units appearing in the former games are light cruisers or smaller vessels.) A reasonable solution to this problem would be to leave at least three empty hexes behind a capital ship, two empty hexes behind a cruiser, and one behind smaller vessels.

One benefit of the scale used in ITK is that the activities of individual warships may be handled with less abstraction than is possible in CA or Dreadnought. After playing many of these games, though,, it seems to me that a scale of 500 yards per hex would be optimal for simulating the actions of both large and small warships in reasonable detail in a boardgame. It is really not too much fun to say, "Bang! My 73 strength points just sank your measly 13 defense strength", but it is terribly time consuming to check to see if every 8-inch hit penetrated a barbette or armor belt. IJN and Kriegsmarine offer an intermediate level of abstraction which balances playability and realism.

Searching

The initial phase of each game turn (Table 2) in the ITK system is a search phase, except that search is omitted for daylight scenarios in Kriegsmarine and ITK. Searching involves comparing a searching unit's applicable values for visual, radar, and sonar search (plus magnetic anomaly detection for certain aircraft) with an enemy unit's "aspect" value (large aspect means hard to see). Modifiers are applied for night scenarios, then a two-dice roll is cross-referenced with the sighting superiority to see if the enemy unit is spotted.

Table 2. Sequence of Play in the ITK Game System

A. Search Phase
B. Gunfire Phase
C. Submarine Depth Charge Phase
D. Vessel Movement and Depth Charge Combat Phase
E. Aircraft Movement and Bomb Combat Phase
F. Torpedo Launching, Movement, and Combat Phase
G. Submarine Movement Phase
H. Sighted Unit Removal Phase
I. Damage Control Phase (Optional)

The sighting table has a fine continuum of probabilities, but a scenario involving more than a few units has a great deal of dice-rolling during this phase. Only sighted units are placed on the mapsheet; unsighted units move and launch torpedoes secretly. All sighted units are removed at the end of each game turn, and the entire procedure is repeated next turn. No provision is made for an increased chance of sighting units which were spotted on the previous game turn.

One interesting feature is the presence of "false contact" counters which behave just like submarines during search and simulate the many mistaken sightings of submarines which occurred under battle conditions.

The searching procedures leave something to be desired. My experience has been that for night scenarios involving only surface vessels, the sighting rules do add excitement and uncertainty at an acceptable cost in playing time. However, no rules are included to deal with several standard methods of night illumination used during World War II: star shells; searchlights; and burning ships (although unsighted units which fire during the gunfire combat phase are considered spotted). Sonar is given no constraints upon range or direction of search, but it's still just about impossible to locate a submerged submarine.

But that's okay, it's pretty tough for a submerged submarine to spot surface vessels, too. In one game, a German U-boat was unable to keep an Allied convoy in sight at ranges of less than 2500 yards (point blank range for a torpedo), and it had to remain on the surface in broad daylight to improve its target opportunities. This is a major flaw in the historical accuracy of Torpedo!.

Another problem is that if an unsighted sub fires unsighted torpedoes at a sighted target, the presence of an unsighted vessel in the line of fire is not taken into account. Thus, a solid wall of escorts around a valuable target is useless unless the submarine spots the escorts during the search phase. This kind of problem is not easily resolved within the framework of the searching procedures used in the ITK system.

To minimize the amount of dice rolling during the search phase, I suggest the following. Write down each unit's search and aspect values on its unit status sheet so you don't have to keep referring to the counters. Start searching with the unit having the highest relevant search factors, and use that unit to hunt for each opposing unit, then try the unit with the next highest search factors, and so on. The search rules add a lot to surface combat, but can be a real nuisance in other cases.

Combat

Two factors are involved in naval gunnery combat: first, obtaining a hit on the target; and second, causing some damage with that hit. The former problem is one of range, visibility, rate of fire, weather, gunfire direction, and speed (of both ships). The damage inflicted is principally a function of the type of ordnance used, range, where the shell hits the target vessel, and armor protection of the target at that spot (i.e., whether or not the shell achieves penetration). Simulation games can approach this dichotomy from either extreme. In the simple abstraction used in CA, a single die roll is cross-referenced with an odds ratio of gunnery strength to defense strength to obtain some generalized power or weapon damage.

The other extreme is found in many naval miniatures rules, in which individual hits are scored on a specific part of the target ship in some fashion, and comparing the type of shell or gun involved with the armor determines the specific nature of damage, which accumulates bit by bit. The ITK system uses an unusual intermediate procedure to convey the flavor of naval gunnery without all the red tape of miniatures.

Each surface vessel is rated for gunfire combat strength, torpedo salvo number, torpedo/gun defense value, and bomb defense strength. The scale of the games is such that guns have unlimited range, although gunfire strengths are halved between 21 and 40 hexes distance and quartered at longer ranges. Detailed (although somewhat confusing) rules covering split gunfire are provided, as well as facing restrictions on the amount of gun strength that can be applied to a single target. Light and heavy cruisers split their fire into 60% primary (P) and 40% secondary (S) batteries, while battlecruisers and battleships split into 75% P and 25% S.

Although I received different answers to two inquiries, it appears that these large warships fire %P plus 1/2S strength at a target in their bow or stern area, and P plus 1/2S to port or starboard (broadside). Rather than using a calculator for each shot, I recommend preparing a table of the primary, secondary, bow/stern, and broadside gun factors for each class of CL, CA, BC, and BB in UN and Kriegsmarine.

The mechanics of gunnery combat are quite straightforward. Gunfire is considered to be simultaneous and results are applied at the end of the gunfire phase. Each ship fires individually at its target or targets; no rule is included for reduced effectiveness when several ships fire at a single target. The target's gun defense strength is subtracted from the applied gunfire strength to get a gunfire attack superiority, which is crossreferenced with a two-dice roll to see if a hit is scored. If it is, then a separate roll is made on the damage incurred table, where the target unit type determines the result of the hit.

Possible outcomes include reductions in gunfire strength, search values, movement allowance, or torpedo attack capabilities, as well as destruction of the target. The gunfire combat table has a marvelous continuum of probabilities, with 36 columns covering attack superiorities from -33 (freighter shooting at Yamato) to +106 (vice versa). These procedures are unusual in that the gunfire and defense strengths determine whether a hit is made, while the type of target ship determines the damage inflicted.

Thus, in ITK, it is easier to get a hit by a broadside of 18-inch shells than by one of 5-inch shells, but the damage done is the same in either case. According to the designer's notes, this system really indicates whether armor penetration is achieved, instead of simply considering the probability of obtaining a hit.

Aircraft engaging in air-to-air or air-to-surface gunfire use the same CRT as the ships do, during the same phase. Bombing attacks are made during a separate aircraft movement and bomb combat phase. Restrictions are placed upon the actions of aircraft while executing torpedo, level, and dive bombing attacks, but no consideration is given to the altitudes of the airplanes, so a high level bomber could strafe its target, while a plane following the procedures for torpedo bombing could not. It turns out that kamikaze attacks are the most effective form of bomb combat, and airplanes of any nationality may make suicide attacks.

Torpedo attacks by surface vessels and submarines take place after movement is completed. One torpedo equals one torpedo salvo point, so a unit's torpedo salvo strength equals the number of tubes on board. Submarines have their tubes separated into bow and stern locations. All subs and Japanese surface ships carry torpedo reloads and can fire double their printed salvo strengths during a scenario. No more than four torpedoes may be stacked in a single hex, and a target ship can only be attacked by the first four torps that approach within one hex of the ship on a single game turn.

Different types of torpedoes are rated for attack strength, movement allowance, and duration (number of turns it remains in play), although most attacks will take place within a range of one or two turns of movement.

The torpedo defense strength of the target is subtracted from the combined strengths of those torpedoes that were not evaded by the target, and the result is cross-referenced with a die roll to see how many flooding points the target takes. The torpedo combat table covers attack superiorities from -30 to +47, although the latter is an impossibility in all of the games. Most attacks will use the middle portion of the table, and the differential between columns of seven points is really too large.

For some reason, the attack superiority is rounded down on the torpedo combat table but is rounded up on the bomb/gunfire combat table. Having extreme column headings of -20 and +35, with a column differential of 5 torpedo attack points, would help reflect the actual potency of torpedo attacks without compromising the intentions of the designer.

An optional rule covers torpedo reliability and Graf Spee); the several naval battles of Narvik; the Battle of Cape Matapan; attacks by German warships on Arctic convoys OP11 and JW51 B; the Battle of North Cape (the sinking of the Scharnhorst); the attack of Scharnhorst and Gneisnau on Glorious; several battles between British, American, and Vichy French vessels in North African waters; and, of course, how can a game entitled "Kriegsmarine" ignore the sinking of the Bismarck? The small scale fights between frigates, destroyers, and light cruisers become monotonous, since one game seems much like another. And the scenarios provided do not offer much insight into the differences between the opposing forces which proved to be historically decisive in battle.

One possible explanation for the omission of so many important battles from both IJN and Kriegsmarine is that the distance scale of the ITK system (100 yards/hex) is really too small to simulate accurately the distances involved in some of the more famous naval actions of the Second World War. As described above, this scale poses some additional problems in accuracy of the simulation. Mr. Newberg indicates in the designer's notes that ITK is a departure from the larger scale of older games like CA and Dreadnought, but perhaps 100 yards per hex is too small. On the other hand, the game mechanics of ITK are well-suited to a moderately detailed (that is, somewhere between CA and naval miniatures) treatment of even capital ship actions. Perhaps SimCan will publish additional scenarios and counters in expansion kits to simulate some of the more interesting battles left out of IJN and Kriegsmarine.

Conclusion

IJN, Torpedo!, and Kriegsmarine comprise an integrated system for the simulation of many tactical naval actions of World War II. The system is easy to learn, and play moves quite rapidly. The games are suitable for two or more players, but solitaire playability is marginal. The components are nicely done, and the rules are quite functional, although it is time to see more comprehensive addenda with some badly needed rules clarifications and additions.

The game system purportedly covers all aspects of tactical naval combat during WWII. However, there are serious omissions of some important scenarios which render this statement only partially true. Despite some shortcomings in realism which could easily and profitably be remedied, the main attraction of the ITK games is their high playability. But the gamer with a serious interest in WWII naval combat will only be partially satisfied. Kriegsmarine and IJN provide entertaining simulations of surface combat, and the inclusion of some better known scenarios will make these games even more appealing. However, the airsea interface is sorely deficient, a feature shared with many other games that attempt to link air and surface naval combat. And Torpedo! does not even come close to being "a reasonably accurate simulation of Second World War submarine and antisubmarine warfare". The level of abstraction is just too great to be very rewarding, and all sorts of historically unreasonable things can happen in the course of a scenario.

This reviewer has the following suggestions. If you want to attack ships with airplanes (and vice versa), then play Dauntless. If you want a detailed and exciting simulation of undersea warfare, then play the advanced game in Submarine. But if you want an enjoyable and fast-paced game of surface naval combat in World War II, check out IJN and Kriegsmarine.