In our first playing of Enemy at the Gates, we noticed that an inordinate number of German Corps HQs ended up trapped in the Stalingrad pocket. Since the number of HQs trapped exceeds the number necessary for supply purposes, we would like to offer the following for use as an optional rule.

Meals a la von

The German player can convert excess Corps HQs into SPs within the boundaries of the Stalingrad Fortress (while the fortress is in effect). To do so, during a German Supply Phase, remove the Corps HQ and exchange it for 2T (1T for the staff and 1T for the caches discovered while rousting the staff).

The same restrictions on use apply to supply generated in this manner as to supply generated according to rule 2.13.

We had thought of instigating a VP penalty for SPs generated in this manner but realized that, though the Soviets would have sensationalized such an occurrence, the Germans would have vehemently denied it, and it would have scarcely been believed in the West, as the Soviets were notorious for such embellishments when it suited their purpose.

[This sounds just like the "Meals a la Homme" item we had as a joke in the playtest rules. You could turn your excess infantry into food-quite a deal! Have a good one. And thanks. -Dean]

Open Letter to All Gamers

I am seeking someone who has expertise in computer programming to help me with an enterprise which I think will open a new world for wargamers.

I have been working for five or six years on a refereed, multi-player version of The Gamers' Civil War, Brigade series games. After coming up with a workable system, I ran a complete game of Barren Victory (Chickamauga) with thirteen players as the corps and army commanders in 1992, refereed by telephone with weekly turns. [Ed. note: see Larry's article in Ops 11] Right now I am in the middle of the 2nd day of a complete running of Thunder at the Crossroads (Gettysburg). As a result of countless hours spent refereeing the game, I have had enough experience with the game and the referee system to iron out the bugs and provide the players with a very enjoyable, polished system.

I would like to make playing the refereed game an experience available to every person with a computer. I have spent the last year drafting the design of this game for play by modem, with a central computer as the referee. While using The Gamers' CWB design as a basis, my design, played in weekly turns, would include the following additional features (this is only a partial list):

Players for every division, corps, and army commander

Complete cartooned graphic representation of everything (terrain, units, and combat) a commander is able to see (even while moving) according to the line-or-sight algorithm

An "opportunity fire" system which effectively combines movement and combat in each turn (especially deadly to units marching across the field of fire of well-placed enemy batteries)

A communications system which uses the courier system down to the brigade level. This system, combined with the "fog of war," reproduces the natural tempo of Civil War battles without the need for command rules.

I need a computer programmer to help turn this game into a reality. Anyone interested may call me at (916) 483-9427 or write me at the address below. The future belongs to those who can take advantage of the coming "information superhighway."

Scott Johnstone and I have played your wonderful CWB games many times. One of the things we noticed in Barren Victory was the tendency for our corps leaders to spend most of their time stacked with the army commander. This is not the historical result, but gamers do it to improve the status of order approval. In-person verbal is the desired method for orders.

Here are Scott's proposed rule changes. You can offer them via the magazine as optional rules.

Corps commanders must stack with a non-wagon unit or the HQ unit of his corps. The exceptions are that if he has orders to report to the army HQ or he has no orders (accepted or delayed), then he may go to army HQ in search of orders.

The army commander can only issue aide-carried orders from his army HQ. All reports are directed there, so if he isn't there, the "game piece" doesn't know what's going on out of his sight. HQs may not stack together.

HQs must always end movement on a road hex. (I am not sure I like this one. Perhaps on or adjacent to a road hex if there is a building in the hex.)

The army HQ may not move except to enter the map or via an emergency retreat. (I definitely do not like this one.)

These rules keep the corps commanders from spending the battle at the army HQ awaiting orders, increase the chance of commander casualties, and force the army commander with forces scattered over two maps to choose between staying put and issuing weak orders or moving to a corps and losing touch with everyone else (Bragg at Chickamauga). The player as army commander is faced with the choice of sitting tight or taking a more active role in just part of the battle.

Other comments from Scott:

The easiest way to keep coordinated dawn attacks from occurring (they were rare) is the no rolling for acceptance until a number of turns in advance rule. [Ed. note: see "Procrastinator's Special" in Ops 6 for a similar idea.] Using the commander's rating gives good results. Longstreet can start rolling 4 turns in advance for order acceptance while Ewell starts only 1 turn in advance. Only the best generals can organize an attack in the dark, and this rule covers any attacks at a given hour. Civil War battles were "littered" with dead from uncoordinated attacks.

When using the NBS order acceptance table, use the following column shifts:

-1 for simple, -3 for complex

With the above shifts, when a 4-rated commander gives simple orders to another 4 with no current orders in person with force 2, it is resolved on the "10" column, the top of the chart, and all other cases fall below. This result seems justified, since the top of the chart is only used for ideal conditions.

With all the "D4" results, no modifiers are needed for defensive orders, as the odds are already good enough.

[Perry, if you want even more rules to choose from addressing the too-mobile leader question, turn to page 10.]

Compliment

I would like to compliment you on #14 and to renew my subscription. Having recently put away Ardennes to play EatG, I particularly enjoyed your article and Don Nesbitt's. Kevin Kiconas' submission was also very interesting.

Kevin's article is one of two types that I always enjoy: "How to" articles on the hobby (not on playing). Dean's pieces on game design, for another example, I found interesting and useful.

The other type, well represented in # 14, is, well, "How to" on playing. I differentiate playing from gaming, as you and Don did (although I may have it backwards semantically). I do not like articles that crunch numbers, purport to break some non-existent code, or suggest some game solution as the game solution. Rather, I prefer a discussion of how the system and situation can be mastered through certain kinds of operations, themselves altered as the game situation changes. Some supporting data or examples, like Don's Table 3 or your 1-110th example, are often helpful.

Of course, I read the thing cover to cover, and there's no part I actually dislike, but the above examples I especially enjoy.

I had a little start, however, with one thing you wrote, perhaps inadvertently. Surely you don't want us to strive for the kind of blitzkrieg speed that Peiper thought he attained by shooting prisoners? Instead, how about the kind of speed where you point your prisoners to the rear and then leave them in your dust? Neither event actually occurs in a game, and both kinds occurred on all sides in the war (I have little doubt), but I nevertheless thought the suggestion both cavalier and callous. In any case, optimizing reserve/combat mixes and racing for the Meuse (Moscow/Donets/ ... ) does not mean throwing all other concerns aside.

P.S. congratulations to Dean et. al. on the awards!