A Lesson in Reading the Rules

It was a dark and stormy night (OK, so it was really early afternoon, in the low 50s with not a cloud in the sky, but hey, my literary license is about to expire so I need to use it while I can).

Collating Ardennes games. (l to r): Paul Herkes, Danny Larson, Bob Schindler (in back), Dan Brown, and Jeremy Przadka. The unsung heroes of every game.

"Great," I thought to myself, "my copy of Hunters from the Sky is here." So, I unwrapped the box and eagerly pulled out the map (the first thing I do with any new game is survey the battlefield, or a "map recon" as we used to say in the Infantry). As I neatly laid the map out, I noticed that the morale boxes listed only I company per battalion. "Well," I said to myself, "I guess that could be right. the Commonwealth troops had taken quite a pounding in Greece. And I suppose the Germans might have only used I company per battalion to assault (fat chance, but if it's a misprint I can hit The Gamers with it on Monday)."

With that taken care of, I quickly proceeded to flip through the game rule book, looking for scenario set-up information. "Hmm, something missing . . ." So, merrily I went, punching out and setting up platoons and weapons and I heartily prepared to start playing my newest game. "Great," I said to myself, "2 maps, lots of infantry and an airborne assault. What a perfect way to spend a weekend. now, lets look to planning this thing out. Hmm, something missing ... Wait a minute?! Where's the Op Sheet?" In a minor state of panic, I quickly looked at the game rule book, only this time, I figured I should read it. "Well, no wonder: no command rules are used. O.K. I can live with that. heck, it'll make the game go that much faster. Great! now, let' s see, where are those game charts? Oh, here they are??? Spotting ranges? Sortie Tables? Hey! What's going on here? Who changed my game? I don't remember any spotting range table. Well, now that I think about it, it has been almost 2 weeks since I last played GD'40, and my memory has been giving me some problems lately.

Well, let's see what the series rules have to say. Now, what did that series rule book look like again? Ah, here it is. Series Rules, ver. 3.1. Great, now spotting ranges? Spotting range??????? 3.1 ? 3.1 ? ver. 3.1??? Where's my GD'40? Let's see now, Series rules, ver. 3! Ohhh! Now I understand. Someone took the best tactical game series on the market and trashed it. Yeah, I remember that mentality from the Army. Take a good thing and ruin it. Probably some bureaucrat somewhere thinking he knows more about tactics than I do. Well, wait till I get my hands on that "arm-chair general." I'll teach him a thing or two about tactics.

Of course, by this time, I was pretty upset with the whole thing. I would have called The Gamers' help line right then and there, but I figured I could give it a try and see what happens. "Hmmm," I thought as I tried the "thing" out, "plays pretty fast. More overwatch fires, that seems a little more accurate. Miss those artillery plots though. Oops, now I know what they meant about chasing into those artillery barrages: that hurt. Now, if only those Greeks would get rid of that battalion morale, it's killing me. Great, I can see that stack, but I can't get a shot in. Even when I was an Infantry officer, I hated those little undulations in the ground. Well, I guess it wasn't so bad. In fact, it seems to play a little smoother. I guess some change is good, after all. And I suppose I can live with a more fluid sequence of play. I'm going to miss plotting those artillery fires, though."

Well, just wanted to share some thoughts from one gamer. I still think the TCS is the most accurate simulation of WW2 tactics I have ever seen. The 3.1 rules are a great improvement over an already great game system. I just need to remember to read the rules first. Thanks to everyone at The Gamers for putting together a great system. I can't wait for the next game in the series to come out. In the meantime, I think it's time to see how well ver. 3.1 works with Omaha.

(John, you have fallen victim, so to speak, to the success of the series concept. You did what you're supposed to do with a Gamers game: you set it up and jurnped right in. By now - you have learned about the differences between TCS 3.O and 3.1, some large and some subtle. For further discussion, check out Lee Forrester's article in this issue.)

It was with some levity that we read the article in Operations 15 replaying Afrika. Supply drives everything in that game. Before commenting further, let us post for players some interpretations concerning Afrika solicited over the phone from the designer [and sprinkled with comments from the editor]:

1 . As there are no stacking limits in off-map boxes, can Rommel move any number of non-motorized units present in a box during exploitation? A: Yes. [Note that keeping a horde offoot-mobile units supplied once you move them onto the map can detract from efforts to truck supply points to the front Using Rommel to force-march slow (8 MP) infantry units from the Tripoli box all the way onto the map can save you from having to provide supply in the "limbo " box next to the map edge. But you still have to plan ahead for any march onto the map so the troops will have adequate supply along the way. Benghazi is an obvious place to store provisions for any units marching onto the map.]

2. A unit with twelve movement points starts in Tripoli. Can it move onto the map in one impulse? A: Yes, it costs ten points to enter the next box, and the remainder to be placed on the map edge.

3. Is the supply cost of a battalion one or one-half per stacking point? A: One.

4. Is Rommel's recall rolled for during the Axis Phase, Allied Phase, or both? A: Axis Phase.

5. Under fog of war, can a player ask his opponent how many units are in a stack? A: Yes.

6. Under combined arms, can an attacker declare a +5 die roll modifier to offset the defender's -1 and get +4 net? A: No, +4 is the largest die roll modifier the attacker can declare. [Game rule 1.16 states that the attacker can claim the bonus for up to 4 combined-arms stacks, not necessarily a +4 net modifier.]

7. Would Rommel, divisional integrity, and two air points provide a +4 column shift? A: Yes, Rommel's ability is an exception to the standard rule.

8. Does artillery advance after combat? A: Never. [Series rule 7.2e refers to non -artillery units with a printed attack strength of zero. In the OCS, artillery units may "tag along" with a stack conducting an overrun. This handv rule lets you keep units together, for example, in a divisional marker. Afrika does not explicitly include such a rule, but yes, artillery may ride along with an overrunning stack. This capability helps you keep divisions together to benefit from divisional integrity both during the overrun and on defense.]

9. Does Rommel affect barrage attacks? A: No.

10. Are off-map boxes considered on the map for the Rommel recall rule? A: Yes. Note that the holding boxes count as on -map for determining divisional integrity also.

11. After the Raid on Rommel, can the LRDG unit be rebuilt? A: Yes. [And nobody had better ask whether Rommel, the man of steel, can be rebuilt as the Bionic Nazi-stronger, faster, better.]

12. Because scenario turns are bi-weekly instead of monthly, are scenario movement rates reduced by half? A: No.

13. Must Rommel go with a unit in advancing after combat? A: Yes.

In the games where we played by the rules as written (RAW), we fell into a predictable pattern. The Italians would turtle early and the British would hedgehog in the midgame. Until the Germans and good trucks came in, the Italians were always under the threat of lack of supply. The Brit would bombard Bardia and Tobruk to cause as much consternation as possible. Once Rommel and the panzers arrived, the British would fall back to a well-boxed line at Alamein. Under the best of conditions, the Axis found it difficult to send more than two supply units to Alamein. We believe that an army based in the Benghazi area can count on four supply units, with Tobruk supporting three, and Matruh two. Even without combat, Axis units would be lost or kept away from the front. In such a situation, the Axis would need to be very lucky to break through the British hedgehog.

So the British army didn't need to attack the Italians in the early game. The hungry infantry divisions were sacrificed to supply as exploitation-capable units became available. [Ed. note: I no longer think the Axis can gain much of a positional advantage with the "Italian Gambit" against a competent Allied player. But one benefit of an early Italian attack is to savage the 7th Armoured. And Italian divisions that die with valor won't be around to consume supply points.] With the Commonwealth deployed into his defensive area, even withdrawals were suffered gladly. Once parity was achieved, a British army based on three supply points would leave its Alamein base and take Matruh. Then began the attritional battles around Bardia and Tobruk that would bleed down the Axis motorized forces. Extra supplies were used to creep boxed positions forward in a Vauban-type siege operation. With increasing amounts of Commonwealth material, supply, and replacements, the Axis would be crushed.

We are testing two rules changes to enhance our enjoyment as well as address the apparently inevitable success of the hedgehog: I . Each supply unit can now support a maximum of twenty units. Units that engage in any type of combat have their supply cost doubled. The RAW limit of fourteen for each supply point does not allow the chance to avoid combat and save supply. By showing a difference in supply cost for Sitzkrieg and Blitzkrieg, we wanted to give gamers some of the same options available to commanders.

2. During the Reinforcement Phase a player can trade new supply for replacement points and vice versa (one supply point equals one replacement point). This is to be done strictly in the sequence listed (i.e. a player could not trade a new supply point to rebuild an incoming reinforcement as the new unit would not be on the map at that moment in the phase). This allows the gamers some flexibility in requesting shipping allotments from overseas.

In conclusion we would like to express our appreciation of The Gamers support hotline. Having been left out to dry by other companies, your company makes the extra effort that good business management desires. May your successes continue.

You guys have discovered what sounds like quite a nonmobile approach to the North African campaign. If you have tried playing Afrika with the SCS 1.6 rules, especially rule 8.0b that requires the first step loss in a combat to come from the unit with the highest raw attack or defense strength, as appropriate, you may find even more advantage in your "Brits in boxes " approach. Under this rule, those panzer regiments won't stay on their 12-6-20 sides for long. Likewise, British armoured brigades will tend to flip firom 7-516 to 3-3-16 in a hurry.

I have no idea whether you have "proven " the futility of playing the Axis in the campaign game. In general, my experience is that optimal strategies and stereotypical course of play don't last long when you try them on a new opponent. You are certainly correct that in a struggle decided by weight of numbers and, especially, weight of supply, the Commonwealth has the edge in the long run. The real test is to try this approach against an Axis player who is a real mobility fanatic Such a player might make something dramatic happen before his forces are slowly crushed to death. Then again, Rommel created some dramatic situations, and you see where he ended up.