Basics

The second installment in the Operational Combat Series will be Enemy at the Gates which will appear next summer at Origins. It will cover operations in the south Russia, winter of 1942 through the spring of 1943. It opens with the Soviet 1942 winter offensive (quite familiar to Stalingrad Pocket fans) and continues through the German counteroffensive in February and March 1943. In it, the player can choose to stand at Stalingrad (or run ... with the danger of sudden death defeat by handing out multiple victory points too early in the game), supplying the pocket by air, attempting to relieve it, and all the operations against the Rumanian, Italian, and Hungarian armies. It is a full-course operational meal -- one to savor again and again.

For the German player, there are high points of intense drama, operational decisions of record scope and impact, incredible chances for counterattack and a whole zoo of odd units with which to work. The game affords the opportunity to learn why it is important to hold Stalingrad as long as possible-not for the game-induced reason of victory points or "Hitler Directives" but because the pocket ties up large numbers of Russian troops and denies access to the all-important rail links the Russians need to drive west. You will see that driving out of the pocket with the mobile troops can create a mobile reserve to use, but might not be worth the supply expense in the pocket. You will have a slew of odd units at your disposal such as Turkistani Battalions, Italian Territorial troops, and the first Tiger tanks. In addition, you will forever wish you had more of the most potent offensive weapon at your disposal (which still remains in pretty good shape) -the Luftwaffe.

The Russian player will learn new respect for the operational skills of the commanders running these early Soviet offensives. If you think it will be a cake-walk to blow through the Rumanians and encircle the 6th Army, think again. You must handle the Russians with a skill and finesse that most gamers think was not there to accomplish what they must with the available forces in the allotted time. Tight control and efficient utilization of the Soviet attack armies is the only way to get the noose around a wily German neck. Your logistics are tight and there always seem to be more missions than troops to carry them out.

During the prolonged playtest period devoted to this game, I have seen about everything-German blowouts (you know, the Germans turning on the Russians to launch their own 1942 winter offensive across the Don), Russian blowouts (Soviet bridgeheads on the Dnepr at the end of December 1942), and numerous things in between. Many times we began a scenario to adjust the game so that both side's capabilities were within proper boundaries. We left enough leeway to insure that competent and incompetent play would receive appropriate reward. Idiotic play will generate unavoidable strange results. Decent play can give a good range of results. For instance, a good German can cut his way into the pocket and relieve it from the jaws of death ... either to pull the units out or to reinforce them with men and supplies. Historically, the pocket held out for 2/ 3rds of the game's length and game play can replicate this feat. Fortunately, the Germans can butcher and eat the horses of the artillery and wagon units in Stalingrad--right, Rod? (This is an inside joke from our fall retreat. Rod Miller was all set to let the pocket sit and rot in good time--or so he says--until I evoked the "eat your horses" rule. He then smashed it like a ripe melon.)

The game will contain the usual assortment of rule books, player's aids, and charts & tables booklets. It will have a deeper box (in response to all those who wanted more space for storage). Four full-color maps (yes there will be limited map-area scenarios) and about 2,000 counters will round out the package.

The OCS System Up Date

The OCS rules will enter their version 1.5 status. Playtesting (and reports from players about GB) revealed a number of gimmicks and gamey tricks players could use to by-pass the game's intent. I endeavored to eliminate those as well as add a finer polish to areas that were too raw in the original. Reserve rules come to mind as an example of the latter. First, I reduced the regular movement of Reserve Mode units from 1/2 to 1/4 of their movement allowance. Why? The regular movement of these units was there to allow them to follow the battle before release not as a method of extending movement. I suppose the anal retentive player will still try to use the 1/4 movement as such a bonus, but I have more tricks up my sleeve for him. Too many reports have come in of players who cannot seem to share Reserve Markers or who intentionally hog them as a method of beating the enemy. (The depth to which some gamers will go still amazes me.) Therefore I cannot let the issue pass. In EatG and future games each side will have a set number of color-coded Reserve Markers to use. Finally, the weakest element in the original rules was the "pop the unit out of Reserve" rule. To counter that silliness, we will adopt the Reserve handling rules presented in OPS 9.

I have also noted that gamers over-emphasize the limited intelligence aspects of the rule that prohibits pawing through enemy stacks. To counter this, we devised an order of stacking that places the large units on top of the stack, etc. Furthermore, we adopted a recon in force rule (similar to the one presented earlier in the mag) to allow the player some of the recon assets the real commander had. The result of the original system was a cock-eyed "shell game" that had little to do with warfare. Hiding units became a driving force behind operations instead of the other way around. I had enough of these gymnastics and felt they were taking away from the fun of the game-not adding to it.

A subtle change that leads to many neat effects was a restriction on ZOCs (or the pseudo-ZOC effects in the game) that allows only those units with an attack strength of 1 or more to give ZOC effects. This rule means the artillery units in EatG (there were not so many in GB) do not have ZOCs. Also, tiny weak units such as penal units and HQs also do not give out a ZOC. The rule eliminates the kind of inappropriate uses I have seen with these units.

To eliminate the challenging of terminology encountered due to my original choice of words, I will change the presentation of the sequence of play so you get an Over phase followed by two game turns. This will not change anything in the game. It will make the form of the turn coincide with the expectations of many gamers. Several people called because the use of the term "player turn" puzzled them. This will assist the ability of new players to know what is going on.

I have saved the major changes for last. First, the surprise roll will lose its optional status, become asymmetrical, and have a higher chance of affecting combat. The rolls will be 2-5 Defender, 10-12 Attacker (overrun) and 2-4 Defender, I I - 12 Attacker (otherwise). I found the odds of a combat were too predictable the old way. Players were setting up combats with little worry of anything odd (like a defender surprise) happening so they could guarantee themselves the level of success they desired. This change will add more spice to the mix.

Second and probably most important, the supply system will get a face lift. A single "Supplied" category (which equates to the old Low Supply cost in the Overphase) replaces Low and Full supply. Combat Supply is more important in the determination of how much supply a unit needs during the turn. Inactive units will automatically be in a low supply state (without the combat and barrage effects), but active units will bum supply at a massive rate if used in a hyperactive manner. Combat supply for the attacker will be IT per RE (or unit, whichever is more). For the defender, it will break at the same I RE point but will cost IT, or 2T instead. This has the desired effect of curbing players who insist on attacking everywhere (or who jump a small unit with three panzer divisions to get exploit for everyone). It simplifies the Overphase supply since everyone who is supplied at all is the same. No units need to be marked (except those Out of Supply), and the crazy tag-team HQ use I have seen will not be needed. This is a major change (to say the least), but I am confident in making it as we have run trials to examine the rates of consumption both in EatG and GB. It is dangerous for the player who does not plan ahead. A player who throws caution to the wind and runs a head-long attritional campaign can bum his entire stock of supplies in record time-even faster than before, for those of you who found yourselves out of gas on turn 2 of GB.

Last, I have made a couple of modifications to the handling of air units and their bases to kill off some other gamey techniques. First, air missions must move in a straight line from their base to their intended target, eliminating the kind of bob-n-weave flights that skirt enemy fighter zones. We talked long and hard about way-points, but concluded that some players would use these to water-down the intent and I can safely abstract them into the larger whole. Second, I added what I call the "put up or shut up" rule. At any time during a player's movement, he can point at one of his fighters on station and announce his desire to invoke this rule. The enemy air units within 5 hexes can run for home or jump into a joint air-to-air combat. This rule keeps fighter screens from "co-habitating" in the same space that leads to some odd effects. Air bases themselves have had the following modifications: now you can only use air base cards for air units, air bases have an intrinsic defense strength equal to their supplied level, and I have added a roll of 1-3 reduction for active air units whose base gets captured.

Enemy at the Gates

The game itself brings out some critically important themes. The German army has degraded a bit from its zenith in 1941. It is still potent but is beginning to show signs of wear. German motorization levels have fallen dramatically. Reliance on numerous Axis Allied armies gives the German player some "less-than -stellar" troops to use-a reliance he must use because of the vast areas he must hold. The German mobile troops vary in quality from the copiously equipped SS Divisions and the Grossdeutschland, to pitiful semi-Panzer divisions like the 22nd and 27th. The Axis Allies weigh inhere too with the Ist Rumanian and 1st Hungarian Panzer Divisions (interesting creatures that they are).

The Italian 8th Army gives players numerous good units-especially the D'Aosta Celere Division. The Italians, strangely enough, are some of the most motorized troops available in the area as most of the wheeled transport in Italy was requisitioned to support Il Duce's attempt to keep pace with the Rumanians and Hungarians. It was a last effort to prove Italy was at a level above the other Axis Allied nations. The Axis player has numerous strategic options that, depending on his choices, can lead to entirely different games. It is also flexible enough to give players a deeper understanding of the enormous questions of the day and a better appreciation of the actual meaning of some of the ideas bandied about.

The Soviet army matured greatly since we last saw them outside the gates of Moscow. What has emerged (yet is not finished being developed) is a powerful tool with which to launch methodical, carefully controlled, limited offensives. Soviet Tank Corps have improved and some fine units are emerging. However, they are still fragile, brittle units not quite ready for the sort of thinking on their feet at which the Germans are experts. Transport and logistical services have fallen behind in development as the tanks got a higher priority in Stalin's system. The Soviet Armies are tied to a weak logistical tail that is incapable of sustained operations over a broad front and extended period. Soviet offensives must go through a build-up phase followed by a short duration of intense action and a quick cessation of major operations. Another such sequence would follow and another buildup begin. Should the Soviet player allow his tank units to race out ahead of the supporting units (infantry, artillery, etc.), he will most certainly risk the still-potent Germans slapping him around:

It takes time for western-style gamers to adjust to the Soviet army and its system of doing things. They may not like what they see, being accustomed to the more familiar German system. However, the Soviets developed a tool which suits them and their style. It is a good system, but one that will collapse rapidly if used the wrong way. The doctrine that drives them is the right one for the tool they forgedfollowing a German-style doctrine with these guys will lead to disaster.

Directions

With the publication of Enemy at the Gates, I am sure trendseekers will say the system will move to ever larger games. They will say this will bring on an SPI-like collapse of the entire company. (Yeah, right ... ). On the contrary, the next games in the series will be smaller games on Sicily (one map) and Hube's Pocket (one and a half). Outside designers are currently working on them. My efforts will turn to Tunisia (two maps) and eventually to our North African Campaign game (5 maps). Further (get this ... linkable) games covering the entire Eastern Front will slowly come out. The entire front will take some 25 maps, all in games that are playable independently. The next direction that project will head is the maps needed to finish the 1942 campaign year which will link with the EatG maps. (As an aside, the EatG maps do link to the south edge of the GB maps. Heh, heh, heh.)

The system itself will reach a mature and probably finished state with the version 1,5 rules. I am making pains to address all known loopholes for gaminess and carefully testing each change. In that effort, I have received great assistance by the probing and questioning minds of Rod Miller and Mike Haggett who explore every option with me to determine the best fix for the stated problem. My stated goal to those in the project is that any system changes that we do will be done for this rules version. After its publication, the word will be hands off. I want to integrate the lessons learned from GB as well as those found in EatG playtesting. For that reason I opened the door to changes something about which I normally cringe. However, I felt you would prefer we fixed perceived problems rather than sweep them under the rug.