The June REVIEW contained an article in which I gave my first impressions on the modern armor rules set, GB, written by Bruce McFarlane. In my younger days, I usually sent such an article to the rules' author prior to publication, and published both my comments and his in the same issue. Not so here... and below are Bruce's thoughts on the subject, correcting me on the topics wherein he thought I had gone astray. 1. I noted that, in the GB sequence, there seemed to be a problem in how often weather conditions were determined. It appeared that the rules permitted weather changes almost every hour. Bruce's comment: Thanks for the PW Review article on Great Battles. I wanted to comment on some of your discoveries. First, your confusion about the length of a day was totally my fault. I was sure I mentioned somewhere that weather is only rolled on the first turn of every day and that the weather remained the same for the rest of the day. I was sure , but apparently this wee bit of information didn't make it into the final publication. In the end (other than the weather) you figured out a day's length correctly - 10 Canadian turns and 10 German turns. We label our 10 turns 6:00, 6:15, 6:30, 7:00. 7:30, 8:00, 9:00, Midday, Afternoon. Evening - but it really doesn't matter. 2. The scenario for the Juno Beach landing seemed a wee bit too easy for the Canadians. This solo scenario provided tables for the strength of the German forces... when the Canadians approached a German emplacement, dice were thrown and a table entry determined the type and number of German units located there. Percentage dice throws of 01 to 66 (two thirds of the time), indicated that the emplacements were devoid of Germans. Bruce's comment: As to the ease of the Canadian victory at Juno, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the German reinforcements. In fact I took the historical German emplacements and made triple the locations on the solo-map - hence the 66% chance of nothing appearing. These garrison troops are meant to annoy the Canadians, rather than stop them. The real fighting power comes from the German 21st Panzer Division or the 12th SS Division. When these reinforcements arrive (see ''German Deployment" page 50) the Canadians are hard pressed to hold their ground, much less advance. Bruce's reference to the German reinforcements (two divisions worth!) is interesting in that in our test plays, we... umm, gee, well, uh... we sorta ignored them. Our focus was solely centered on the 'pop up' Germans located in the various emplacements on the field. I should note that, in retrospect, if we had permitted the German reinforcements to arrive, I think that the Canadians couldn't have handled them. Despite the relative lack of German defensive 'pop up' units, those few that did appear took great big chunks out of the advancing Canadians. 3. During the fire phases, targets that are hit, but not destroyed, are 'suppressed'. I thought that, once suppressed, a stand (battalion) had to remain suppressed all day (10 turns) and could recover only during the night phase. Bruce's comment: You made suppressions far more deadly than they are supposed to be. For the cost of one action you could rally a suppressed - stand with a Rally check (rule 14.7) 4. I commented, in my article, on the apparent lack of cover modifiers during the firing procedures. It appeared that the advancing Canadians, approaching a town in the open, had the same cover modifier, i.e., none!, as the well dug-in defending Germans. Bruce's comment: Ah Yes! The cover modifiers. I wondered when some reviewer would take me to task on this. Take another look at the "To Hit" modifiers, Wally. Why is there -2 for "Target not activated" Those men are behind cover - all sorts of cover - boulders, fences, tree trunks, outhouses. Even on our billiard table smooth open spaces individuals will seek cover if they are not advancing. This cover is too tiny to show on the table, at this scale, but its there none-the-less. So the advancing Canadians are not at the same odds as the dug-in Germans. The Canadians are standing and advancing, the Germans are prone and behind cover. This also forces players to shoot at a group of stands (i.e. battalion) instead of singling out which unit is in the church yard and which is not. The major cover that is represented on the table affects Morale and Recovery. If the battalion is "anchored" in some way, it is less likely to withdraw and more likely to recover. Bruce is quite correct... I missed this completely. In the fire charts, there is a "target not activated" modifier, which knocks off some 20 percentage points from the probability of hit. The term 'activation' refers to the number of actions assigned a division... on its half of the bound, divisions on the active side can be assigned either 0, 1, or 2 actions. An action is required to either fire or move. I translate this to mean that on the Canadian half of the bound, Canadian units that dice for, and receive, zero actions, are deemed to be seeking cover when, during the Germans' "opportunity fire" phase, the Germans fire defensively. In similar fashion, on the German half of the bound, when the Germans fire at full effect, the non-active Canadian units have, by definition, no actions assigned, hence automatically get the protection of the "target not activated" modifier. In any case, I feel better about the whole 'cover modifier' situation, and can finally get some sleep. 5. As we worked our way through the rules, perhaps because it was the first time through, and we had no guiding light, it seemed slow-going. Bruce's comment: I have to take exception to your observation that Great Battles is a long game. You seem to have pushed through your first game, without any guidance, in a reasonable amount of time. At Historicon '95 we played a two-day Corps level game (Falaise Gap) within 3 hours. At Enfilade '96 we played Juno Beach in 2 1/2 hours. That's not bad for a Division to Corps level game that covers days of battle. The Agira scenario (Sicily) takes about 90 minutes to play. The Hockwald scenario (Siegfried line) will take a couple of evenings to play 6 days of constant grinding. 6. I stated that "... we didn't like all the fire charts with which we were presented." GB has one page of such charts; the page lays out all the percentages for both small arms and heavy weapons fire. Bruce's comment: Are there really that many fire charts ? I count six: infantry, SMG infantry, light, medium , heavy and Super heavy guns. Pick any other armour game. Command Decision has 77 charts, just for the German forces. Spearhead has almost 300 fire charts. Great Battles has 6, and they're all on one page too. 7. One of my comments had to do with weapon effectiveness. I cited the relative whupping power the rules gave a PzKw IV when pitted against a Sherman, and then rapidly backed away, professing to know absolutely nothing about the subject ( I should note that there are many wargaming authors, with an even more abysmal lack of knowledge on the subject than I have, who would never hesitate, in fact, be overjoyed, to discuss the topic in learned fashion). Bruce's comment: As to historical accuracy, I am quite pleased how Great Battles turned out. Players make historical decisions, using historical resources and logical results occur. When you're commanding a Division or Corps you're far more worried about how much artillery you have saved up and what condition your battalions are in than whether a Sherman can penetrate the hull of a PzKw IV at 2,000 yards. In fact, Great Battles was designed specifically to get away from the technical obsessions of most WWII rules. Your example of a PzKw IV against a Sherman only tells part of the story. When the "To Hit" factors are added in we find that the Sherman has a 70% chance to hit (suppressed) and then a 30% chance to destroy, versus the PzKw IV's 80% chance to hit with a 50% chance to destroy. But this still isn't the whole story. How many shots (actions) each company gets is totally dependent on the quality of the troops. It very well could be the case that a veteran company of Shermans gets two shots at 70%/30% verses the German's one (or none) 80%/50% shot. In the Hockwald scenario the 88's are manned by Russian POW's. They rarely get an action to fire with. When was the last time you saw a game where Shermans treated 88's with disdain ? Whether the company "goes to ground" (halts the attack and seeks cover) or rallies also depends on the quality of the battalion and its condition. In Great Battles the quality of the troops is far more important than the quality of the machinery. Is that more historic ? I don't know. It does make for an interesting and different WWII game, however. 8. Finally, I'd have to say that, when compared to COMMAND DECISION, and other modern armor rules I've played in the past, I'd toss my hat in the ring in favor of GB. Bruce mentions SPEARHEAD, Arty Conliffe's latest entry into the field... no comment here... I haven't tried it. Bruce's final remarks have to do with future expansions of GB; he states: In a further twist we have made activations variable in the first expansion module to Great Battles Drop Zone. Our problem was that in airbourne operations the attackers start with all the initiative and then loses it over a period of days or even hours. Our solution was to use a deck of cards for activations (a rather Wally Simon-like solution, wouldn't you say). The paratroopers start with a whole handful of activation cards, but only draw one or two at the end of every day. The defender starts with none or few activation cards but draws 4 to 8 per day. This adds a whole new dimension to the game. As the attacker, how far do you expand and how many activations do you keep for a counter attack ? As the defender, how long do you wait until attacking the paratroopers ? The scope and scale of Great Battles also allowed us to link three scenarios into a "Bridge Too Far" - Market Garden campaign and four scenarios into an Operation Mercury (Crete) campaign. Back to PW Review July 1996 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1996 Wally Simon 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