This column is becoming a semipermanent feature of the Grenadier, and presumably will become a regular feature, barring a sudden upsurge of hate mail from the readers. What I intend to do is keep the format fairly open-ended and talk about some general design issues that come to mind. If you have some thoughts on design theory, send them in; when I accumulate enough on a fairly related subject I'll run them as sort of a forum. The theory of game design is a subject of great interest to me, and it strikes me that very little is presently written about it.

Scott has asked me to talk some about a project I'm currently working on, which is scheduled for release at Origins this summer. I've agreed, since it provides me with a convenient springboard for a subject I've had on my mind for a couple of years now. The game is Crusader (a working title for an operational game of the Winter Battle in North Africa, 1941); the subject is designing operational -tactical games.

Let me start by defining the terms operational and tactical, at least as I use them. The term tactical, as used in the industry, notes a mechanical approach to combat resolution and movement exhibiting a high degree of concern with the behavior of individual men and vehicles or very small units of men and vehicles.

Such an approach tends to be very process-oriented, as opposed to product- oriented. That is, the primary, concern is not merely which unit is more effective, but rather how and why one unit is more effective than another. Panzer Blitz was really one of the first tactical games in the industry, due to its mechanical concern with such factors as variable effectiveness of specific weapons at varying ranges and against differing target types.

An operational game, on the other hand, is concerned with presenting the player with the same operational (sorry for defining a term with itself, but there really is no better word for this) choices and confronting him with the same problems that a middle-level commander faces. Battle of the Bulge is an operational game.

It should be obvious after a moment's thought that the two above definitions are not mutually exclusive; while tactical games are identifiable by their combat and movement mechanics, operational games are identifiable by their scope. Thus it is possible to combine the two into an operational-tactical game, combining operational decision-making with tactical combat resolution. A few examples of this sort of games are Fall of Tobruk, Avalanche, and Highway to the Reich.

The Crusader project falls into this category as well. The game has five maps with a ground scale of 11/2 miles per hex and covers everything from Gazala in the west to the Misheifa rail-head in the east. (Actually, the map goes about halfway to Matruh from Sidi Barrani. Unit level varies somewhat depending on type of troops. Infantry is mostly battalions, although all of the infantry in the Tobruk garrison (three brigades of the 70th division, the Polish Carpathian brigade, and one and a half Australian battalions left over from the withdrawl of the 9th Australian division) will be represented by companies to enable then to disperse along the perimeter. Armored vehicles and reconnaissance units are in companies. Artillery is either in batteries or platoons /troops, depending on battery size. (A British anti-tank troop has more guns than a German field battery, and is generally deployed with the same amount of independence.)

The game will employ step-reduction by numbered chits under the unit counter, with each step equal to four vehicles, two guns, or approximately one platoon of infantry. The front of the counter will contain a standard unit type/unit size symbol, unit identification, a movement factor, and number of strength points. The reverse of the counter will contain an anti- tank factor, a direct-fire factor, a close assault factor, an indirect-fire factor, indirect fire range, morale, and defense factor.

In the case of the four combat factors, the number listed will be number of fire or assault factors per strength point, as I've always found it easier to multiply in my head than to divide. Aircraft will be in squadron-sized units with step reduction by individual aircraft. There will be a total of about 1200+ combat units.

Heart

The real heart of the system, though, is in the rules on forming columns. For despite its rather large size, Crusader will be a simultaneous movement game. If you are put together like everyone else around here, upon first hearing this announcement you will begin to look about on the floor for the marbles I have obviously just dropped.

Actually, a simultaneous game of this size would be impossible to play anywhere but in a North African setting. Two things in North Africa make it possible. First, the terrain is virtually devoid of landmarks; as a result, units tend to navigate by compass. Second, units tend to operate together in semi-autonomous columns for days at a time.

As a result, it becomes possible to plot simultaneous movement without either recording individual hex numbers or developing eye strain from trying to make out unit ID's from three feet away. All combat units are kept offboard on a Column Composition Chart. (Each column can consist of a battalion and two companies, although there are some additional doctrinal restrictions.) The columns are numbered consecutively from 1 to N (about 250 per side, although I can't envision a situation where all would be in use unless someone manages to get himself very badly scattered).

All that appears on the board are column markers which have an arrow (indicating direction of movement) and the column's number. Each turn, the players plot eight onehour moves. Each move will consist of a compass heading and a number of hexes. Twelve compass headings will be used, with vertex movement similar to that used in Air War. Simple, yes?

Well, it's still a hell of a big game, and very early on in the going it occurred to me that the most practical form of play would be multi-player.

With three players to a side, each can command a historical corps and so I've designed the game especially as a multi- player game with a number of rules on corps and division HQ's and commanders. (One rule provides for a commander "stealing" units from his neighbors.)

As the multi-plaver rules have developed, it begins to look like the only practical way to play will be with several players. While I don't see anything particularly wrong with this, as it appears that most big games are played by teams anyway, I did want to put in a number of two-player scenarios of shorter length. One of these will be the dog-fight around Sidi Rezegh airfield. Rommel's dash to the wire may be another.

The most important of the scenarios, however, will actually be a separate two- player game included in the package - Battleaxe. Operation Battleaxe, the British offensive in June, looks to be an excellent introduction to the game system. The battle lasts about three days (nine turns), the forces on both sides are quite manageable (two brigades each of armor and infantry for the British, three weak divisions for Axis player), and it can be played on two maps.

There, I've told you about Crusader and what it will be like when completed. (Playtesting of Battleaxe has already started as of this writing.) As I seem to have used up my space in this issue, the general discussion of operational-tactical design will have to wait until next issue.