The Operational Combat Series came to me at a time when I felt that many of my games seemed to lack something and were either no fun as a game or failed as simulations. A few, like Jack Radey's operational East Front games, stood out, but innovative and detailed yet playable operational level games were far and few between. I considered writing my own rules system that would have all the elements I felt should be in a game. The project soon became mired, but this brief foray into game designing did was generate a list of desirable elements of an operational-level simulation game.

1. The map scale should be 10 miles or less per hex depending on the size of the battle being simulated and the number units involved.
2. Some attention should be paid to the way in which artillery is portrayed, taking care to address its unique employment and effect on the battlefield.
3. The combat system should be more intricate than simply counting factors and determining odds.
4. The concept of troop quality should be addressed.
5. Logistics and administration should be given more than a cursory look and be detailed without being cumbersome.

Some time afterwards a friend showed me his cache of games from The Gamers, and the OCS especially caught my interest. As I learned the game system it became apparent that it quite possibly was the operational system I had always wanted.

Game Scale

The first thing that catches the eye is the map and unit scale. Division-level games are good, especially if the entire Eastern Front is being simulated, but operations covering a specific battle or campaign should have smaller unit formations and a smaller map scale. While this game system is in some ways division level, it is in reality a regimental-level game. All formations but the infantry divisions are deployed as brigades or regiments. There are also a number of independent brigades, regiments, and battalions.

Playing Hube's Pocket the Axis player will have most of his infantry divisions broken down into regiments much of the time. It seems to me that the German infantry divisions could have been represented at regimental level. A typical German division can spawn three regiments leaving the original division marker in play with three step losses. This remnant represents the division's support elements, an anti-tank, recon and engineer component, and an artillery regiment. Perhaps this is a trivial matter, but it might have been better if the infantry divisions were portrayed in components the way the mobile formations are. That aside, the map and unit scale used and the evolving combat phase give this game a quasi-tactical feel that is greatly enhanced by the terrain depiction.

Combat Model Rules

The combat system rules are easy enough to learn; applying the rules and translating them into effective strategies and tactics is another matter. It is not a game that is easy to learn how to play well, unless you already have a good idea of how to manage a campaign much as a real commander would. There are considerations to be made playing this game that are not present in many other games of this type. The game turns are very interactive. Sound logistics management, the proper use of reserves, and being able to outwit your opponent are essential to success.

The OCS is certainly not a system that lends itself well to the purely mathematical approach. You know the type, the guy who spends what seems like hours moving up units being careful to ensure that he amasses the exact number of strength points for a 10 to 1 attack. You can't play that way because you don't know if your enemy's artillery or air power will disrupt or destroy some or all of your units. You don't know if your own artillery and air power will be effective.

You don't know if the enemy might overrun some of your units before you attack. You don't know if the enemy might move additional units into the hex that you plan to attack. You don't know if surprise will be a factor. You don't know a lot of things and this is why you have to plan carefully each turn on both sides of the ball.

The concept of no ZOCs was very familiar to me so this didn't worry me until I started setting up the Germans in Hube's Pocket. How were they going to even attempt to hold such an extended line all stretched out like that? After all, with no ZOCs you had better not leave any gaps in the line or those Russian hordes will come pouring through like blood from an open wound, won't they? Not necessarily, for several elements come into play that make rash behavior of that nature less likely than you might think.

The most telling reason is the seemingly innocent placement of the supply determination segment after the friendly movement segment. Any units planning any deep excursions into the enemy's rear had better bring supplies with them if they are to move beyond established supply sources. Attrition can be swift and brutal. The other major reason deep penetrations need to be thought out is the defenders' significant ability to interfere with the attackers' plans. Properly placed enemy reserves can do much damage to stretched-out attacking units that plunge recklessly through gaps in the defenders' lines. It's not good enough as the attacker to punch a hole in the enemy's line and then push on during the exploitation phase. You have to be able to reinforce and consolidate as you progress. If your opponent gains the initiative next turn, and he probably will, you may find him violently counterattacking your nice little salient.

[Ed. note: for some interesting ideas about dealing with penetrations in Hube's, see Dave Friedrich's "No Glory" in Ops 26.]

But even before that happens, he will be able to react with reserves that are reasonably close to the threatened hex. The defender has the time-honored option of moving reserves into a threatened hex, or he can mount a counterattack per se using overruns. He may also barrage with any reserve artillery units. So the attacking player must be equally careful when positioning reserves and even more careful managing his logistics. He must be careful not to plunge ahead recklessly and to have reserves advantageously positioned in order to take and hold objectives.

This game system does not discourage bold maneuvers, but you will need to put some thought into how you execute them. For attacks done correctly, there is plenty of opportunity to tear gaps in the enemy line and make deep penetrations.

During the combat segment some of the attacking units may achieve breakthrough status, meaning that they may move (1/2 MP) and attack again in the exploitation phase. Their chances of achieving breakthrough status depend on the odds level of the attack, the die roll for that attack, and the action ratings of the involved units. The offensive player may also move and attack during the exploitation phase with any reserves he may have on hand, and unlike those units who achieve a breakthrough during combat, reserves may move their full movement allowance.

The overrun rules don't rely on simply achieving a certain odds level, which is great. Overrun rules that require that certain odds be met for guaranteed success are supremely annoying. It is better to have an overrun rule that is not quite so predictable. This may be because I think of overruns more like attacks from the march or a form of meeting engagement. In the OCS overruns are much like regular attacks except only one unit or stack can be used in any given attack and no barrages against the hex to be overrun are allowed (exception: Hip Shoots). The attacker can overrun with a stack of units and attack with those units during the combat phase and possibly again during the exploitation phase, assuming he has the supply to expend for all those attacks.

All this adds up to a combat phase that can be very fluid, tense, and tumultuous. Both sides will be flexing muscles and delivering jabs though obviously the attacking player will dictate the course of events. Both players have to prepare as best as is practical for a number of threats the enemy might pose. This is difficult because the combat system is such that nothing is certain. Action Ratings, the artillery and aircraft rules, and the CRT all combine to ensure that except at extreme odds, no given attack will have a foregone conclusion. Artillery has come into its own in this game and is given the respect it deserves as an essential and unique weapon system. The OCS artillery rules eschew the traditional method of portraying artillery (and air power) simply as a means of adding additional strength points to a given combat. Instead artillery uses its own CRT to resolve barrage attacks with results that are very different from those found on the regular or "ground" CRT.

One thing that is certain about artillery is that it will use up a lot of supply. Unless you are blessed with a lot of battalion-sized units with really good barrage factors (fat chance) you will see supply dumps diminish with alarming alacrity. [Ed. note: OCS optional rule 4 from the DAK rules book disconnects barrage cost from organizational size of the firing unit. See "Choosing Your Optionals" on page 18.] Barrages may also be directed at installations, trucks, and supply dumps using separate barrage tables. This is very reminiscent of SPI's Campaign for North Africa, another game that sought to address the special function of artillery. Optional rule 2 concerning artillery vs. hard and exposed target types [from the 2.0i series rules] should not be optional. Basically it reduces the likelihood of step losses being inflicted upon armored targets subjected to barrage attacks. Tank units seem to get eliminated fast enough as it is. In all, the artillery rules are clean and easy to use and represent one of the best features of the series.

A somewhat novel feature is the treatment of armor effects. Previously one of the most detailed systems for this particular function was found in GDW's Europa system. While I applaud that attempt, as it was in some ways effective, I always felt that something was awry in its application. It just didn't seem right for a division level game. If you are one who strenuously believes that combined arms is the way to get favorable die roll modifiers or column shifts in combat, you may not like the approach to simulating armor effects in the OCS. Mr. Essig's emphasis is on the shock power of armor on the attack rather than combined-arms bonuses. This evaluation is correct for an operational-level game. Combined arms tactics are best represented at company or battalion level and are usually awkward when fitted into systems that use larger unit formations.

Because of the anti-tank capability of tanks, SP guns, and assault guns, optional rules 1.b and 1c, which lessen but do not negate the effects of attacking armor in open ground, are recommended once you're familiar with the game.

An element sadly lacking in many wargames and nearly all above tactical level merrily finds a home in this game. That element is troop quality. Incorporating rules to address this factor adds tremendous character to a game. It gives your units a little personality. You may feel a genuine pang of sorrow when one of your tank units with an Action Rating of five is reduced to holed hulks. As you play this game you become aware that action ratings make their presence felt in many subtle ways. The most prominent impact is their effect on surprise determination. What this means is that a numerically inferior force of quality troops can defeat a less well trained or experienced adversary. It means that some units are better than others for reasons other than that they have a bigger combat factor.

Quartermaster's Dream

I'm probably in a distinct minority, but I like logistics. Not that they should be so complex that they are overburdening, but more than a cursory approach is necessary for a game that is detailed in its other systems. A detailed logistics system that is also manageable for the players is perhaps one of the most difficult design problems to overcome. Mr. Essig just about pulls it off. There will be some who feel that the OCS supply rules are a drain on playability; most probably won't.

The supply rules force the players to competently manage their units and objectives and prevent them from moving and fighting with every unit every turn. The supply rules encourage the attacker to seek economy of force instead of massing every available unit for high-odds attacks. Not that you can't do that if necessary and you have the supply to burn, but a more common approach would be to try and ensure that your attack is made by fewer units with an action rating advantage. Besides, crowded hexes are more vulnerable to barrage attacks. This is perhaps the best thing the supply rules bring to the game, that they compel the players to think more realistically and more like a commander when planning and implementing operations. You can't just move stuff around and attack at will. Coming to terms with this "limitation" is an adjustment that may be hard for some to make, but it is an element that sets this system apart from most others of its ilk.

Trace supply refers to everything except fuel and ammo. Not being in trace supply means that your units will be subject to attrition and will have their capabilities impaired. Units are determined to be in trace supply using fairly conventional methods, that is to say within a prescribed number of movement points from a valid supply source, which is tiered to include headquarters units. Any unit can trace back to a de-trainable friendly rail hex that runs off a friendly map-edge but combat units will usually trace to a HQ first. Each HQ is given a "throw range" indicating the number of movement points that supply can be projected out from that HQ. A key phrase in the trace supply rules is "de-trainable" hex. No longer can you simply trace back to any friendly rail hex, but only to one that has some offloading capability: a modicum of urbanization or a non-mobile HQ. Units that are out off trace supply may burn on-map supply that is in range instead.

In most scenarios in the series, each side rolls each turn against its variable reinforcement chart to determine how many supply points arrive as reinforcements. Whatever amount you get, it will never, ever be enough. You'll get by in most cases. It's not like your troops will be salivating over dead horseflesh or down to the last bullet and gallon of gas [Ed. note: with the exception of the Sixth Army troops stuck in Stalingrad]. But you'll find that you won't be making some of the attacks you might have made in another game, and you certainly will not move anything that requires gas unless you have a specific and necessary reason for doing so.

The Third Dimension

The air rules are typically abstract for this level of game and are pretty straightforward. Actual air unit counters are kept to a minimum but players are advised not to overlook the important tasks they can perform. Air units can barrage like artillery and can give you a key disruption result when you need it. Players are limited to two air units per mission and often one of them will often be an escorting fighter, so most air attacks will be made by only one unit. This means that the number of barrage points that can be delivered by air in a given combat is usually small, but they can have a positive effect. [Ed. note: It's possible to build bigger air barrages with both the 2.0 and the optional air rules.]

Other air missions include interdiction and bombing of installations. Both of these in a given situation can be useful, especially if you have air superiority. Another handy mission is the hip shoot, which allows your air units to attack during the movement phase. Air units can try to soften up a hex that you may subsequently overrun. Properly employed and with a bit of luck this can be an effective tactic. The Russians usually do not have this optionÑkeep training boys!

Air-to-air combat occurs usually when an enemy mission enters the patrol zone of friendly fighters and the fighters' owner decides to intercept. Overall the air rules add just enough flavor without thickening the broth. Once you've played the game a bit you can make the air rules more hearty by adding one or more ingredients from the optional air rules section. There are options a plenty, all of which are worth considering although some more so than others. Perhaps this is a throwback to my old Europa days, but I find this game's rules for engineers a bit lacking. The designer understandably didn't want to muck up his clean system with a lot of detail, but I miss having those construction units to build things. Part of the reason the rules are so presented was to prevent players from using construction units as line infantry. If a player wishes to use cheap tactics to the obvious detriment of the simulation, that's up to him.

Personally I would highly prize such units and endeavor to keep them out of harm's way. As it is now you need to pull combat units or a headquarters unit out of the line to perform engineering duties. [Ed. note: Railroad Repair units are the notable exception.] All too often there will be no such units to spare.

There are many subtleties to this system that are not immediately apparent. Its major systems are simple in application yet realistic and varied in effect. With the exception of the construction rules, the secondary systems all serve their purposes well and enhance without impeding play. It's a fun game to learn to get good at. There is a lot that is new here, but it doesn't always jump out at you. As you learn that sound tactics, good operational and logistical planning, and a bit of luck often pay off, the system becomes fun to play. The unpredictable nature of the combat system makes repeated play enjoyable, and all of the games in the series offer many scenarios. The OCS shouldremains a viable force in the art of wargaming for some time.

I am currently working on a game using the OCS covering the campaign on the Crimean peninsula from Sept. 1941 to July of 1942. I hope to have a submittal ready by the end of this year. If you have any comments or suggestions about this topic, or are interested in playtesting, you can send an e-mail to gmwilde@bellatlantic.net.

[Ed note: This game has not been submitted to The Gamers, so we can make no remarks about when or if it might be published.]

Response: Letter to Editor (Ops34)