Nicholas Barker wonders aloud what he and his regular opponent can turn to with a hundred games of Breakout Normandy behind them . . . and in the immediately preceding paragraph enquires if the The Gamers' WW2 produce is any good. Coincidence? Difficult to believe. For Tunisia is not only an outstanding game but also one with such an individual flavour it will refresh even sad cynical hacks who believe there is no design talent in the hobby today. If you play any Gamers' game, make it Tunisia.
The game runs from 15 November 1942 to the end of May 1943 in half-weekly turns. That means it is potentially a very long game. (CHV: Another practically designed game for the average gamer to enjoy then!) initially because it can be played in either of two styles, both valid in their different ways. My regular opponent and I, impressed enough by the system to agree after the first sitting to play it to conclusion, are doing so thoughtfully and conservatively with the long-haul in mind. After six or seven afternoons, we are within sight of the conclusion which should be achieved in about two more sessions. But Tunisia is also a game played every year by a group of friends at the AHIKS Chester weekend meeting. With a foregone time-limit, their style of play is far more aggressive, betraying a "use-them-or-lose-them" mindset. The two styles of play find the front stabilising broadly along the same terrain features each time . . .. but whereas ours generates two sets of coherent lines, the Chester game invariably results in positions held by a quarter of our unit-density, with as a result both sides' southern flanks hanging on air! A game that can accommodate two distinct styles of play and yet come up with satisfactory and believable results either way is an impressive product (what happens when a Patton plays a Monty I have yet to find out!)
Tunisia is the third in the Operational Combat Series, the first being Guderian's Blitzkrieg (late '41, medium-sized), the second Enemy at the Gates (monster Stalingrad game), and the fourth Hube's Pocket (small Ukraine 1944 game). The fifth is due to be published at Origins '97 and, several years in development, is eagerly awaited: DAK. My own opinion is that in The Gamers' inventory, the Operational Combat Series is an outstanding system, but the Standard Series uninteresting and the Tactical Series too detailed. Fortunately, there are enough OCS games published now that they form a coherent Gamers subset and you should need never to mess with the others.
If you want to try out the OCS without pain then you should select Tunisia (two maps: tons of terrain) or Hube's Pocket (one and a half maps: minimal terrain). I've always enjoyed 'heading them off at the pass' so for me Tunisia was the obvious choice.
And does it have terrain. . . ! Imagine a comb scraped west to east in sand and you'll have a feel for the Tunisia game map. But before the defending Axis player claps his hands in glee to see so many mountain ranges, there is one thing he needs to appreciate: there are no zones of control in this system! Oh oh. You mean? Yes! To defend a valley you have to be actually down there, on the valley floor, in (gulp) clear terrain! There's no sitting on escarpments potting lazily at the advancing enemy below, relying on zones of control to prevent him whizzing past. (CHV: Interesting that, do you believe this treatment to be correct Marcus? Piqueting the heights to sweep the valley floor has been a common tactic since ranged weapons arose, why is it wrong here?).
That one change from practices established decades ago gave me an enjoyable couple of evenings just trying to devise a doctrine of defence. And then I found it. The mountains are not defensive terrain but channelling terrain: they delay lateral north-south redeployment (especially when fighter-bombers interdict) allowing players to seal off critical areas for a turn or two, or conduct an unexpected spoiling attack unmolested for awhile. By defending at the home end of a comb of valleys, you can even arrange to be on interior lines while the opponent is effectively on exterior lines. Or, looked at another way, skilful play means being more aware of movement factors than of combat factors.
Now I wasn't quite truthful when I said there are no zones of control. There are very weak ZOCs which interfere with trucks . . . and in this game all supply is truckbound. Furthermore, trucks and mountains don't mix: without playing clever games with headquarters, you can't trace supply through even a single mountain hex without a road. Now consider this highly original rule: supply is judged between movement and combat, and units unsupplied at that moment have (depending on quality) between 27% and 100% chance of immediate elimination.
Get the picture? Yes, you have to defend the valley floor, but having done that you don't have to bother with the mountains themselves, because any unit creeping around behind you will risk dematerialisation even before he has had a chance to fire at you! Feeling smug, Mr Defender? Well, you shouldn't be . . . because both sides have a limited capability to airdrop supplies. Clever, eh? (CHV: Frankly, no!, it might work as a game but surely its poor history?) Generally, the mountains are impassable but if the attacker really really wants to get behind a particular hex then he will do so.
This is an attack-counterattack game. Mechanised units are doubled when attacking into clear terrain, which means virtually every valley floor. However, push too far forward, and your gallant spearheads are likely to face the doubled firepower of the opponent's armour counterattacking in his turn. Better find some decent terrain quick!
There is an excellent Reserve rule, whereby units placed in reserve in the previous turn get to move and (if artillery) barrage (but not fight) between the opponent's move and combat. If short of units, a legitimate tactic is to hold the line with cannon-fodder, keeping a handful of top-quality infantry units in reserve just behind, ready to slip into the most threatened trenches. This isn't a perfect approach to defence though as overruns in the movement phase are potent. Personally, what I like in reserve is my best artillery, which I then use to break up inbound attacks as they occur. And in a nice gesture, there is a real countermix limit on the number of units which can be in reserve, so some hard decisions on priorities have to be made each turn.
There are severe penalties for divisions whose components cannot use the same supply-route. This makes non-divisional units very valuable as fire brigades. This is also one of the few games where many of the Italians are perfectly respectable (better than comparable Americans in many instances!) And their predominantly leg-bound nature is a positive asset in a game dominated by fuel and its lack.
This is also a game of supply point logistics. It costs a supply point to build a -1 DRM hedgehog, a supply point to barrage with two artillery regiments, a supply point to move a mechanised division, a supply point to attack with it, a supply point to defend with it. When I tell you that typically neither player gets more than five or six supply points per turn, you will understand immediately that this is a very realistic game of short sharp offensives interspersed with long lulls accumulating the wherewithal. Monty and the Mareth Line are a prime example: the Axis player quakes to see hordes and hordes of top-quality Commonwealth divisions turn up on his south-eastern border . . . until he realises Monty receives only three supply points a turn! Thus in our game, the Allied player is depressed to have only just now cracked the Mareth Line after many foiled set-piece attacks, though consulting my historical atlas I see he is actually bang on schedule (shame about the Wadi Akarit up ahead where, unlike Rommel, I have built my MLR!)
Quality is everything in this game, and is represented by a digit from zero to five printed on the counter between combat and movement factors. The difference in quality between the best attacker and the best defender not only generates a DRM on the CRT, but also helps determine whether attacker, defender or nobody gains surprise. If one side gets surprise, that player rolls one die and shifts the combat that number of columns in his favour .... a mechanism that creates those occasional amazing moments when some Horatio really does hold the bridge. This prevents the game becoming predictable (that, and the possibility of a double-turn flip-flop . . . ouch!)
But quality has its price. The unit nominated to provide the best rating in the combat must also be the first unit taken as a loss. So, while it is standard procedure to stiffen dross with a Quality 5 elite unit, that elite unit will be leading from the front and will be the first into the dead pile too. So much for the heroes.
Mind you, when 10 Panzer Division gets moving, it is a wonder to behold. Dormant week after week to avoid supply expenditure, a commitment of just three supply points can see this superb unit completely unhinge the Allied line in a single turn (a favourite dodge of mine is to use exploitation to retreat back behind friendly lines before a counterattack can bite off 10 Pz's head). Even when not actually attacking, the quality panzer divisions act as fleets-in-being, forcing caution on every Allied move.
Is there anything wrong with the game? Well . . . to my mind the air rules are far too detailed an fiddly. The standard air rules produce some strange situations. Fortunately, the optional air rules are far far superior and should be used from the outset by all (if you think an aerial stacking limit of three air units feels weird, ignore your feelings: however odd, it works, so don't knock it).
I am also a bit dubious about some of the quality ratings. The panzers are supermen and the Americans are truly dreadful . . . but so too are many of the British. The French (which I presume are defecting Vichy units) are also remarkably strong, one of the best being a French police unit (presumably local knowledge!) The Luftwaffe is tougher than I expected, a real bulwark against the Allied advance, but that may just be because I have been using it throughout our long game as a fleet-in-being, committing it only to important point targets. These however are only quibbles. As a package, the game works superbly well.
Back to Perfidious Albion #96 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 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