Théophile Monnier for Vae Victis Included in VV39 this game covers two battles - the Golan campaign and Arik Sharon's crossing the Canal. The system is essentially that used in Arnhem and Kharkov. One can best summarise it as rolling move and combat using alternating activations. Rules translations are to be found on Web Grognards. The scale is battalion/brigade. The Arab forces use a lot of brigades whereas Israeli units are battalions. This means that the Israeli forces are much "larger" than they seem. Three brigades have 9 steps (loss capacity) but the equivalent nine battalions have 18! We found the size indicators (a small OTAN symbol) were far too small, but usually one could tell what was what. As usual with VV the counters are very striking. Excellent illustrations of the major weapons or vehicles allow one to see what is what quickly (though we'll overlook my opponent's attempt to bombard with an AT battery). The range of illustrations is impressive. The effect is to give a lot of feel that one might get from a game with micro-armour. The units have combat values (with colour coding for which units are leg and which mechanised), and bombardment/support values for artillery. Lots of markers plus some nifty pontoons and aircraft/SAM units complete the package. Unfortunately some counters are printed in the pages of the magazines - I scanned these and then printed them. Units form up into divisions (with a handy colour code) and deploy and fight within these units. The currency of movement and combat are PO (operation points in English). These move you and are used to fight as well. There are three types of combat: an overrun (reduced support, one column reduction but only costs 1 PO), normal attack (3 PO better supply), and prepared attack (5PO, odds column increase more support, only one an activation). You can keep using overruns, effectively harrying your enemy, until you run out of PO (8 for leg units, 12 for mechanised). Each counter is supposed to count its PO separately, which is going to be a pain in practice. This can give odd results. Units adjacent to an enemy can spend 1PO to attack, and be joined by other units that have moved 9PO to get into contact. After battle the "late starters" can now make their full move, yet, in fact, they have been waiting for the other moving unit rather than experiencing a temporal shift. For ease of play (and temporal order) I suggest all counters are treated as having moved the highest figure of any involved. This still does not prevent the "rolling combat" where different formations drive up a road eliminating each roadblock so that the next formation can drive through. If only Montgomery had this trick in 1944! Movement is terribly fiddly. A Syrian tank unit might move two road hexes to the anti-tank ditch, pay to cross, then into forest, then pay for a ZOC and an attack. Lots of room for bogging things up here. Combat is similarly messy. As is common with many VV games the opening odds rarely bear much resemblance to the closing odds. A formidable battery of modifiers comes into play. Terrain can have a powerful effect (armour attacking fortifications is halved in addition to other modifiers) as well as air support. Other modifiers are to the dice, and here one thinks of artillery as especially horrid. Israeli tanks attacking Arab infantry suffer a malus (a reverse bonus), as do Arab tanks versus Israeli tanks, attacks by all battalions or brigades of a division, or with engineer support, and combined arms all have an effect. However, the attackers have another horror that is limited movement by the non-phasing player. This allowed me as Israeli to introduce extra units into one town thus reducing the attack odds dramatically. When I then threw in two battalions of artillery (-4 to the dice) the result was unpleasant indeed. With the fiddly movement and combat and the interaction activation system, we found this is a long game even with small scenarios. I reckon that a four or five hour session will be needed. The interactive system also has some interesting effects that need to be practised and learnt (or avoided). Is it best to hit your target once with a prepared attack (and a one column shift) or smash him five times with overrun attacks (and a column reduction). As the combat system is a "retreat or take losses" one the use of overrun to prevent the defender withdrawing slowly is important. I also wondered about the possibility of Israeli first turn bombardment knocking out the engineer units necessary to get tanks across the anti-tank ditch. Faced with the Israeli advantages of massed artillery and improved stacking (two brigades versus six battalions) I thought the Syrians were very unlikely to push back the Israelis much, but then perhaps they did not do so historically. And this is before the Israeli units dig in (lots of hull down Centurions). One did wonder about the need for quite so much fiddling. One cannot object to any of the terrain characterisations or combat modifiers but taken in the whole they went on a bit too long. Yom Kippour 73 is certainly not Bar-Lev. The ratio of key decisions to other activities was very small. Matthew Hayes suggested it would be perfect for solitaire play doing a few activations a session. We did not try the Egyptian front scenario. This features Sharon reaching the Canal, crossing it and fighting other units as they cam up. I am bound to say I did not fancy the Egyptians' chances. In conclusion: a surprisingly complex (but very pretty) small game. 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