Two games published in 1979 attacted a lot of attention, praise, and award nominations. The two games (White Death from Game Designers' Workshop and Korsun Pocket from People's War Games) both cover the encirclement of pockets of German troops in the USSR, and both share a scale of one mile per hex and regiment/battalion size units. The historical outlines are also similar: the Soviets seal off the pocket, the Germans attempt to break through from outside, then attempt to break out, and are mostly destroyed. It is only natural that the two games should be compared in a review, and in due course Geoff Barnard did so in Phoenix, the English wargame magazine.

He concluded that Korsun Pocket could have benefitted from some of the innovations introduced in White Death, and that it was a shame that Korsun Pocket came outfirst. (Itmightbeworth noting that Frank Chadwick, the designer of White Death, described Korsun Pocket as the inspiration of his own game.) Geoff criticises Korsun Pocket because some of its systems (particularly weather, combat, and supply) are "clumsy" in comparison with White Death's. I can not agree, nor can I concur with the implications of the title of his review: "Gotta Pick a Pocket from Two."

I would like to discuss White Death first, then Korsun Pocket, paying particular attention to White Death's movement and combat systems.

White Death

To begin, White Death is a very high quality simulation with many outstanding features. The research, by Shelby Stanton, is excellent. The realism of the combat system is also excellent, particularly the interaction of tanks and antitank guns. (The one notable exception is the effect of artillery on AFV's.) The emphasis on morale and its effects also greatly heightens the realism of tactical combat. The movement system, which divides units into movement types (track, truck, cavalry, draft, leg, ski, motorcycle) and assesses different movement costs for different terrain types, while all units possess the same number of movement points, works very well. In all of these categories I gracefully concede that White Death does a better job than Korsun Pocket.

The movement and impulse system of White Death deserves close attention. Each player has ten movement points to spend each turn. The German player may move one movement point per impulse in ten impulses, or all ten in the first impulse, or any combination he chooses. The Soviet player must move a minimum of three movement points per impulse, but may move more if he wishes. Since, supply permitting, one can attack in several impulses, one player may use few movement points early in the turn, and after his opponent has used all or most of his movement, take several impulses, moving and attacking when his opponent is unable to react. A turn is equal to five days, which must make a movement point the equivalent of twelve hours.

While initially dazzled by these effects and the fluidity they introduced, I have begun to have second thoughts. Suppose the Soviet player opens a turn with a ten movement impulse, followed by the German player stinging back with a series of four impulses, attacking in three of them. What really happened in those five days? If the Germans stood still while the Soviets carried out five days worth of movement and assault, where did they get the time to react?

If used moderately, the system does reasonably reflect certain aspects of combat, but when used to its extremes, it strikes me as being a little fishy. While it is certainly a bold innovation (with appropriate credit for ideas to Desert Rats and Avalanche) I don't think it is quite right yet. I would not contend that the traditional "A moves, attacks; B moves, attacks" is superior, but after that initial feeling of awe wears off, I am not satisfied with White Death's system either.

Korsun Pocket

Korsun Pocket is much larger than White Death: four maps rather than one, 2400 counters rather than 600, seven Soviet Armies versus five German corps rather than one army versus a little over one corps. Consequently many differences between the games are differences of scale. If one is really interested in the history of the Great Patriotic War, there is no need to "pick a pocket from two." Each serves a different purpose and demonstrates different tactical and operational problems.

Despite its size and despite the fact that it is quite detailed (though not complex), the fact remains that White Death's third generation Bataille de la Moskova combat system is still somewhat cumbersome and time consuming, and counter for counter, Korsun Pocket's combat is quicker and easier. With its strength point marker system and seven different ratings per counter,White Death is certainly capable of a much more sophisticated simulation of tactical dynamics than Korsun Pocket, but the cost is a lot of time, die rolling, counter flipping, multiplying, and just fiddling around.

What makes this worse is that Frank chose to abstract the supply system heavily, so that it takes just as much supply for one regiment to attack as it does for a whole army. This causes attacks to be massive when they come, while Korsun Pocket's far more detailed supply system, which involves bookkeeping and the use of artillery ammunition point markers on the board, actually compensates for the time it requires by restricting the amount of attack that can be done. Low odds attacks tend to be expensive in Korsun Pocket, so one must concentrate artillery ammunition (and everything else) to achieve success. In White Death this is less true.

The design of the supply system for Korsun Pocket, which was aided by the new publisher of The Grenadier, was crucial to the whole game system, since much of the dynamic of the battle was bound up in the problem of supply. While it may seem cumbersome on first reading, it is actually quite simple to use and not very time consuming. In fact, I have received numerous letters from gamers praising the artillery ammunition system above all else.

Along with the supply system, Geoff Barnard chose the weather rules of Korsun Pocket with their various effects on ground condition and visibility as prime examples of the clunkiness of the game. I think I am on very solid ground when I reply: "Come on Geoff, it isn't anywhere near that hard." At the beginning of each turn the die is rolled twice, and the result when modified for existing conditions produces new ground and sky conditions, with a possible third roll needed if precipitation occurs.

Extensive play aids are provided to make these conditions and effects easy to use. Any reading about the battle reveals the profound effect of ground conditions and visibility, and the sudden changes in the tactical environment should keep both players on their toes. All of this almost takes longer to describe than to play. At Velikye Luki, the weather, though awful, was more consistent, and is handled more simply in White Death.

I know there are myriad fans of the MoskovaCrusader family of games, and for those who have the time, they offer a great deal of detail and include many facets of combat dynamics at the battalion level. White Death streamlines the system with no dizzying shifts in and out of base six, no percentage losses, but still . . . To begin, one must remove the assault marker from the attacking stack, flip over each unit in turn, multiply the accompanying strength point marker by one of seven numbers on the back, and then make the attack itself. Then there are morale checks and further counter flipping and die rolling. It is detailed and fairly realistic, but the time involved automatically limits the number of gamers who will get the chance to appreciate it.

Game Time

I recently heard of a game played locally that involved five veteran players who had all played White Death and other games of the same kind before. It took them twenty hours to play seven turns. While this represents thirty-five days of combat, and was sufficient to settle a campaign game (the massed German artillery had destroyed all Soviet armor, and the Soviets conceded), it is still awfully long for seven turns. These hours were devoted intensively to playing, by players who did not spend a lot of time talking to their dice.

By contrast, a similar group could handle ten to fifteen turns of Korsun Pocket in as much time, and while less game time would have passed, the players would have been handling about three times as much territory and troops. This is not to say that one is better than the other. One simulates the tactical aspects of the battle intensively, the other deals with the operational and organizational aspects of a larger battle. By necessity Korsun Pocket takes a lot of time.

It is inherent in the size of the game. White Death has the potential to make a lot of detail accessable to many more gamers, but I fear that the Moskova-Crusader combat system may put it sadly beyond the reach of most.

As for Geoff's conclusions, I must beg to differ. I think that White Death is superior to Korsun Pocket in many ways, but certainly not in smooth, speedy play. Both games are good, provided one has the time to get into them. Both advance the art of design of operational games, and it is indeed unfortunate that some people feel the need to "pick a pocket from two." Each game emphasizes a different aspect of operational level warfare, each is quite good in its own way. If you have a serious interest in the German-Soviet war, or in operational warfare, don't pick a pocket from two, get two pockets.