A lot of talk about 'opening up the game' a bit for the Germans. Should they be able to move through ZOCs sometimes, some units? This whole issue is so difficult to unravel because we don't seem to know how to represent in game terms what the Germans did so well, the interesting ways they used armor, really against all sense, behind enemy lines, that they learned on the eastern front. It all gets back to that thorny question: What does a ZOC represent? The answer is, well, nothing, but we still have to believe in one. Should it apply in broken terrain, or only clear terrain? Who knows? We can't go back in time and study the ZOC of the Bastogne Hex. A combat result of 'Pinned' or 'Surpressed' could be added to certain results with an asterisk or whatever, that would take away a unit's ZOC for any further attacks and advances that turn. This result would only apply if you had at least let's say 5 SPs of tanks in the attack. It comes to mind that Dark Dec is exactly the same ground scale as Napoleon at Bay (3.2 km per hex). In NAB we say 'A Force may pursue into an Enemy ZOC but not directly from one Enemy ZOC to another" ... but then, in parenthesis ... "(ignore any ZOCs into the first hex, which was vacated by the retreating Force, as well as the ZOCs of any Forces repulsed in the pursuit)." And Repulse during pursuit was added for the 3rd Edition of NAB, where it wasn't in earlier games in the series; there is even errata about it in Highway (which is a sure sign that the concept is still evolving ... we have added Repulse during Forced March too, at para. [130.]) All of which seems to be struggling with the same problem as the issues being batted around over a game from an era 130 years later. In the current Dark December prototype have changed the ZOC rules so that Enemy-occupied ZOCs are ignored (by everybody except the 'occupant'). However,the unattacked adjacent defenders have the option to Counterattack, or join in a counterattack, after the attack resolution. Danny Parker has begun to evaluate our Dark December prototype and add his expertise to update his creation with the benefit of further studies. The following exchange took place between Parker and Kevin Zucker. From: Danny Parker I will probably recommend reconstituting the Peiper rule in some form (perhaps just one turn of the ignore ZOCs). Can I ask the reason for its removal? Player objection? From: Kevin Zucker I am happy to reinstate the rule as you suggest. I took the rule out myself. My opinion of KG Peiper is quite low. I regard them as a bunch of thugs who were handy with their weapons when facing unarmed opponents. The SS was created to instill terror in enemies without and within the Third Reich, not primarily a military organization. However, I may be unaware of certain military successes achieved by the Kampfgruppe. Besides the massacre at Malmedy, what did they really achieve? They got boxed in and cut apart, if memory serves. From: Danny Parker Perhaps one of the most devastating and ruthless combat teams of the war, I do agree that they were uncontrolled hoodlums-- killing civilians at the flip of a hat. However, Peiper had trained his people in night combat and breakout operations during nighttime. They habitually broke through the Russian lines in the East every week and rampaged behind Soviet lines. So the breakout rule is quite legitimate and my respect for their combat strength is quite a bit higher than it was. That said, my respect for the U.S. 99th Infantry Division is higher than it once was. Peiper's people were criminal on one hand, but deadly effective in fighting ability. Peiper (and some other SS leaders: Kurt Meyer etc.) also, habitually had his team use an attack style at odds with just about anything else being done. The method was: Night: locate the enemy, deploy through stealth. Then, on signal, advance at full speed (literally 20-30 mph) with all weapons firing. If there was room to deploy, the half-tracks led in a wedge, tanks right behind. If confined to roads, a Mk IV led with two half-tracks interspersed between tanks. One platoon each of tanks and half-tracks in the Panzerspitze. Don't stop until the line is pierced or the attack is destroyed. Day: As above, but with a quick artillery barrage just before the "charge." The innovation was the wasteful use of ammunition with all guns firing. Today, the same idea is called "suppression." The full speed advance was fool-hardy, but that is the way these people fought. Very effective if they could get through. In Russia, at night, they set the villages on fire. Light helped the attacker more than the defenders and the flames were understandably frightening to anyone... We have concluded that Dark December is not fluid enough. The problem is that old alternating series of units and ZOCs: what we need is a way for units to infiltrate through. On the one hand the 'ZOC-link' is too strong, but, if it does break, then it's too great a disaster for the defenders. Surrounded units need to be able to say 'nuts' more frequently than seems to occur in in so many Bugle games. Danny has proposed to add a number of battalions which were important in the opening of the battle. I propose treating them as 1/2 SP 'Vedette'-like scouters and delayers. We might even add some German scout battalions. From: Kevin Zucker Danny, I am in favor of limiting the number of battalions, but including the ones that you think impacted the flow of the campaign. What I would like to be different about OSG games, is they are more about flow than about static positions such as is the case with Chess. So many wargames are just two front lines facing each other from map edge to map edge. What interests me is what happens when there ARE no front lines. Peiper is a prime example of this. Most wargames to this day cannot deal with a non-static 'front.' The game breaks-down because of what happens to surrounded units. I think surrounded units should be stronger than portrayed in the typical wargame, (even including mine), that say a surrounded unit may not retreat and must be eliminated. This is sometimes appropriate, but sometimes the unit says, '[Tough].' Sometimes you have General Mack, surrendering an entire army because of a rather loose cordon (in 1805). And sometimes, you have BASTOGNE. I do not think any wargame yet has allowed for enough freedom of action to surrounded units and infiltration. A unit should be able to break itself up into vedette-like ghost units that, in game terms, can 'fly' to a distant hex, almost like your old radio command rules. Units that are expert in infiltration tactics, like paratroops, should be able to retreat freely through enemy ZOCs. Surrounded elite units should be able to say 'no' to retreat results. Our current Dark December rule entitled Zones of Control (para 113) (broken up into phrases for ease of reference) says ... 1. A unit's ZOC extends across rivers, 2. (exception: Primary Rivers, bridged or unbridged) and 3. into hexes of all terrain types. 4. If a (friendly) unit occupies an Enemy ZOC, 5. other friendly units may ignore the Enemy ZOC in that hex; 6. such a ZOC is ignored as well for the purposes of tracing supply or retreat paths. I propose that phrase 3 is questionable (and there is already an exception for tanks in forests). But I would recommend the same exception should apply for infantry. I would also recommend modifying phrase 4, to say that 'if no _enemy_ units occupy a ZOC, a unit may infiltrate through the ZOC, possibly losing some of its heavy weapons and a few of its isolated squads. From: Danny Parker Kevin, I agree that Phrase 3 under EZOCs is redundant. Also agree that ZOCs should not extend into dense forest hexes except along a road. I also suggest that the presence of friendly unit negates enemy zones of control for the purposes of movement. What that does is allows movement slowly through enemy lines: stacking costs full MPs, but friendly units negate EZOCs for the purposes of movement. I agree with you on the fundamental problem in the games: two lines facing each other with few surprises. I also believe that "elite" units should be allowed to refuse to surrender. I think we re-instated this rule into the game for U.S. airborne and German SS units (please check that this is so). However, the big problem is that movement is too anticipatory. "I know that you can move to X and I will counter it by moving to Y...." The solution to that in my mind is what I suggested before. Both players do their AM and PM movements and combats in sequence before the other player does. That way, you have no idea what situation you will be facing at the beginning of your turn. Sequence of play would be: 2.1 FIRST (GERMAN) PLAYER TURN 2.1.1 Allied Air Interdiction Segment 2.1.2 Supply Determination Segment 2.1.3 Replacement Segment 2.1.4 AM Reinforcement Segment 2.1.5 AM Movement Phase 2.1.6 AM Combat Phase 2.1.7 AM Exploitation Phase 2.1.8 Defensive Reaction Phase 2.1.9 Construction Demolition Phase 2.1.10 PM Reinforcement Segment 2.1.11 PM Movment Phase 2.1.12 PM Combat Phase 2.1.13 PM Exploitation Phase 2.2 ALLIED PLAYER TURN (Note Allied Player loses AM segments in his first turn). 2.3 GAME TURN MARKER ADVANCEMENT I have confidence that will fix the anticipatory problem and allow breakouts to occur in a natural fashion and require defenses be rough and ready and padded with redundancy rather than calculated with certainty with regards to odds and outcome... Back to OSG News May 2002 Table of Contents Back to OSG News List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 2002 by Operational Studies Group This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com