Stake The Bunny,
Open the Box

Reds! (Russian Civil War)

by Charles Vasey

Reds! (Ted Raicer for GMT): This was originally intended as a Command issue game (and on that basis I foolishly subscribed) but even as a full-price game this is very good stuff indeed. It has Ted Raicer's trade-mark mixture of simple rules (usually with a twist) and strong characterisation of both sides. It is also a game demanding considerable thought as errors (and its wild combat system) on a sparsely populated map can soon result in defeat. The Reds must be particularly careful here because though they have large powerful units these have only two steps (just like most White units) and can soon be damaged and lost.

The Whites have many small units so this is less concerning but they too have a talon d'Achille, in that many of their units are not replaceable. Their divisions of officers are tough but not numerous and Red popularity can grind them down. Every three turns there is a Strategic Step that reinforces the view of the Red Hordes. The Whites may at the most get a couple of their useful faction units (we'll disregard the semi-white Poles). However, the Reds get usually three (one for each of Moscow, Petrograd and Tula) plus one for each three other resource areas held. When the whites start to collapse the result is dramatic.

Let's start with scale, this claims to be 65 miles per hex, but whatever it is the map stretches from Krakow to Tashkent. (And a delightful map it is too). There is a good feel of distance and very little of a secure front to build. The map is split into six Fronts plus some peripheral areas for the Reds. The Reds' capacity to fight is calculated by the number of Fronts that they can activate each turn (three at the start of the game). This limit is not too important as the Reds cannot usually stack and must keep an eye on disordered units which reduces their attack capacity across the whole map. Trotsky and his Red Train help here with their ability to guarantee rallying by Red units. My experience as Red commander is wholly counter-revolutionary, I attack too much and too early. It is unwise (for example) to really push on more than one front, and since replacements occur in the Strategic Turns only, and not each player turn, one can be a long time waiting for these.

Unit scale is wide and units are rated for manpower as well as military prowess. Most Red units are armies (4 manpower) and many White units are regiments, brigades or divisions (1 or 2 manpower). But each unit has modifiers for attack and defence which is where the elite (but scarce) Whites benefit.

Combat needs a brief word here. The system used encompasses the wilder events of the actual war but in a way that is wholly dice based. It has been argued that the system requires something that rewards momentum rather than simply injects chaos. I see the strength of the argument, but suspect most people will have played the game enough under the current system. As the maximum per hex (bar important exceptions below) is 6 manpower this prevents two Red armies stacking (8 manpower) so that the Reds are big but somewhat diffuse in effect. They need to be operating in numbers hoping to trap stacks of Whites, and pulling out disordered units as they suffer losses. One opens the combat sequence by deciding the Odds using manpower only. This is important because skilful attacks by brigades on armies can cause their opponents to retreat but will still be more likely to penalise the attacker. God is not entirely on the side of the small battalions. One then throws a dice and multiplies the number of units by the score.

Remember stacking, the Whites might have four units in a stack, so a six to them opens the strength at 24, the same score for a single Red army is a 6 (one unit multiplied by six)? The Red Latvian rifles with their 1 manpower are very useful here as they can add to a Red army stack. To this product one adds or subtracts the various factors on the counters and gets a combat differential between the two sides, which is read off the CRT to give losses and retreats. Although large stacks can be amusing if you get it wrong they can suffer from results that give a loss to each unit in a stack, and if retreating through ZOCs will lose more. The Whites can feel awfully powerful until it all goes wrong. One place where it may go wrong is where Random events give the Reds leaders who can authorise a number of 2 army stacks (and then watch the fun). Both sides are delightfully caricatured so that one gets a very good feel of their different abilities not only in factors but in many other ways.

With a big map and low movement (three for most units and four for the cavalry forces) the risks of being cut off are considerable. Going out of supply causes a disorder to each unit, and a re-disordered unit perishes. Once again one must peel the onion of an enemy front carefully. Driving forward, getting disordered and then cut off is not much fun. The opening four tactical turns are fought during the Great War and the Ukraine is "out of bounds". But once the Germans go home the opening of the old Brest Litovsk area really makes you feel alone and constantly watching your flanks. If Hitler had played REDS! he would still be in power as he absorbed the size of Russia.

After a bit of Strategic Movement the actual operations phases (per Red front or White faction) are played out (move then fight) by drawing chits. This jumbles up things very well and into this Ted brings a logistic step. When the logistic chit is drawn being out-of-supply is punished by disorder, and all in supply but disordered units can dice to rally which usually happens on a 1-2. Failing to recover your units can be deadly as they may suffer more disorder and be lost.

The rules are well written and clear and very nicely presented. This is an excellent piece of work by GMT. The only down is that there are 24 turns (but also two scenarios, although only one starting point). On to a good chassis Ted Racier grafts much else. There are excellent Random Events, rules to include tanks, aircraft, partisans and river flotillas. The Allied intervention forces are powerful but only attack on a Random event making them less than impressive (until they get two in a row and knock-off Petrograd). The Tsar may survive, the Reds may capture the Imperial Gold and Wrangel command instead of Deniken. I will not even go into the fun of Nestor Mahkno or the rules for Cossack krugs. Yet these are not half-baked ideas from Ted, each works very well in the terms of the history.

Reds! is an exciting game and a demanding one, it is not for the faint hearted. Zen Master Tom Kassel opines that the Whites are a disaster waiting to happen and has also questioned the simulation of the Russo-Polish War. You will often have to plunge ahead to win. Victory is cleverly worked into play. The Whites depend for any chance of maintaining strength on Allied support. But the demob-happy Allies require an increasing number of resource centres to be under White control. If this number is not hit there is a Minor Withdrawal and if they are missed again a Major Withdrawal. After that the odds are on defeat for the Whites (no replacements and reduced rally of disordered units). Accordingly the Whites must advance or be defeated, very much as the historical White armies behaved. Ted takes the view, with which I agree, that the lack of a viable White political solution (or rather the unacceptability of the old solution) meant they would lose unless they struck hard and fast. Urra, urra, urra!

Stake The Bunny, Open the Box

Back to Perfidious Albion #103 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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