GREAT BATTLES OF WORLD WAR II (GB) , written by Bruce McFarlane, appeared in 1995, published by the Canadian Wargamers Group. GB is solely concerned with the WWII battles in which Canadian forces were engaged. In addition to the rules (16 pages), there are 8 scenarios (about 40 pages) and another is pages devoted to the background of the Canadians in the war.
One of the scenarios is the Canadian landing at Juno Beach, June 6th, 1945. I set this up because it' s a solo scenario ... the player controls the Canadian forces, while the Germans are "pop-ups". Each time a Canadian force approaches to within 6 inches of a town or works or a trench or whatever, percentage dice are thrown, and a chart denotes the particular German force that pops up to defend the position.
Bruce's other wargames rules publications contain solo scenarios ... more power to him for this. There is no better way to learn to play a set of rules than to engage in a solo scenario, talking your way through each situation as it occurs, with no opponent to argue the nitty gritty even before you fully understand what the author intends to do.
GB is a grand-scope WWII game. A stand represents a company of infantry, about 4 stands a battalion, and a couple of battalions a brigade. The scale, in either 6mm or 15mm, is such that the 4-stand battalion is supposed to defend a 12 inch frontage. The scale is 150 to 200 yards an inch.
The 3rd Canadian Division landed at Juno Beach. The COB lists 3 brigades in the division, with each brigade averaging 3 battalions (12 stands in all) plus 3 supporting tank company stands (9 in all). The total Canadian landing force, therefore, counting additional supports, headquarters, etc., came out to around 5" stands ... a good size force for learning the ropes.
The scenario encompasses 3 days of battle, and here we stop and look at the sequence. We had a problem in interpreting the scope of the sequence of each bound ... perhaps because, in effect, there are no bounds. The text starts out clearly enough:
- Each day consists of a dawn phase followed by a number of day turns for both sides, and finally a clean-up night phase (page 19)
So far, so good. A day-turn consists of cycling through 2 sets of 10 phases each, starting with determining the weather, and working down to the 10th phase of morale checks for a11 units that took hits during the previous 9 phases. The first set of 10 phases is for Player A, the second set for Player B. Thus the full-cycle day-turn has a total of 20 phases in it.
Now, how many 20-phase "day-turns" in a day? Page 25 states that a day's fighting may encompass 8, 9, or 10 day-turns, depending upon the scenario.
We fought 2 battles, and these lasted 2 full battle days, hence we went through 20 day-turns (2 days at 10 day-turns per day) wherein each player cycled through a total of 200 phases (20 day-turns at 10 phases each.)
The terminology is confusing at first ... it took quite a bit of reading and discussion amongst those tableside before we thought we understood what was going on.
To help clarify (?) the situation, I setup a per-day timing diagram. Since a day contains 10 day-turns, I arbitrarily assigned each day-turn the length of one hour. The battle commenced on the first day-turn at 0900, and 10 hours later, at 1900, the day's fighting was done. It was dinner time, and both sides took time out to eat and watch the 7:00 news.
Now that we have purportedly worked out the time scope of the game, let's look at the weather. In the listing of each side's 10 phases per day-turn (page 19) the first phase is weather determination. Weather determination? Every hour? Or worse yet, every half-hour, since each side gets to go through the 10 phases in the hour long day-turn. Something screwy here ... either we didn't understand the weather phase, or else the weather phase does not belong in the 10-phase listing, and changes in weather should be determined much less frequently.
In the Juno Beach scenario, however, we slavishly followed the rules, testing for weather every hour, or day-turn, and looked at the following table:
| 10-sided die toss of 1, 2 Toss of 3 thru 10 |
Clear, air support permitted Rotten weather, no air support allowed. |
We used this chart in both the battles we played, and the result was that rarely did clear skies appear. This led to another problem. When air support is called upon, the delay in day-turns (hours) is diced for. But with rotten weather continually showing up, we rapidly discovered we'd never get our planes in the air. And so we decided to forego the dicing; if a clear sky emerged, then WHOOMP!, our air strike appeared immediately... no delay.
I should note that GB's other battles have a less horrendous weather chart ... Clear skies appear on a die roll of 1 through 6.
Back to Juno Beach. The scenario map was covered with little circles indicating German positions. These were often less than a foot from one another, and at first sight, with Germans apparently going to pop up all over the place, things looked bad for we Canadians.
But g12.ry bc and hallelujah! (that's an old Canadian expression) It turned out that or the charts listing the forces of the pop-up Germans, 4 of the 5 charts indicated that for a percentage dice throw of 01 to 66, the result was: "no German units at that location". Thus, statistically speaking, two-thirds of the time, there'd be no one to block us. And, as usually occurs when random dice are called upon to decide an outcome, we far surpassed the 66 percent criterion. In other words, Juno Beach proved to be virtually empty of Germans!
I should note that the few German forces that did pop up were fierce little beasties; they fought to the death... "retreat" was not in their operative vocabulary. This lack of German units, in effect, shortened the scenario; we had fewer units running through the sequence. Another reason the game was foreshortened was that we gave short shrift to the German side.
Note the listing of the 10 phases which a side undertakes during the full day-turn:
| 1. | Weather Determination |
| 2. | Deploy reserves |
| 3. | Activate battalions |
| 4. | Place artillery barrage templates; determine barrage delay |
| 5. | Resolve incoming artillery fire |
| 6. | Determine each battalion's actions (either 0, 1 or 2 ... a zero indicates the battalion can neither move nor fire) |
| 7. | Move or fire battalions |
| 8. | Opportunity fire for non-phasing side |
| 9. | Resolve close combat |
| 10. | Morale test for all battalions that took losses |
The Canadians could do all the above, but since the Germans were essentially pinned in place and ordered to fight to the last man, we ignored the above outline for the German half of the turn. By not going through the 10 phases for the Germans, we halved the playing time of the scenario. All that the popup Germans could do was fire ... and die.
Even so, it took two full days of battle-time for we Canadians to accomplish our objectives. There were a number of towns on the field, each had a certain point value. The extent of the Canadian victory depended upon the total points accumulated.
What really held us up was the hourly weather determination. Any high toss on the 10-sided die produced rotten weather: low visibility, rain, overcast, and slow going through the muck.
We thought the Juno Beach solo scenario was rather cleverly designed, and having familiarized ourselves with the scope of the rules, we set up a second solo action. Four small Canadian brigades stormed onto the field, the objective being to capture and destroy one of the airfields at either Larma or Parma.
This was an operation in Sicily ... we noted in the GB text that the First Canadian Division took part in Operation Husky. In setting up this game, I researched the Simon archives rather vigorously to ensure great historical accuracy. The resultant map shows the Canadians entering on the south edge, making for the towns of Stromboli and Pepperoni.
Each of the four Canadian brigades consisted of a single battalion of infantry (4 stands) , plus an anti -tank company (1 stand) , plus 3 supporting tank platoons (3 stands). In all, therefore, a total of 24 Canadian stands.
In accordance with the 'day-turn' criterion, I defined the battle-day to consist of 8 hours, in other words, 8 day-turns. Fighting commenced at 1000 in the morning and continued until dinner time, 1800. Union rules (Local 202) decreed that the forces then separated, had din-din, and went to sleep.
All who played the first game were unhappy with the pop-up charts used for Juno Beach. We wanted more Germans, stronger Germans. For this solo scenario, therefore, I created another pop-up chart.
At any given German position in the field, when the Canadians approached to within 6 inches, a low percentage dice throw (01 to 20) meant no Germans were present, while for a high toss of 81 to 100, the Canadians were in trouble ... the defending Germans would consist of 3 rifle companies (3 stands) 2 supporting heavy tank platoons (2 stands) plus one anti-tank company (1 stand).
The 1st Canadian Brigade attacked the town of Stromboli and discovered it was defended by only 3 German rifle companies (3 stands). The following paragraphs indicate the sequence of combat actions in the attack on the town.
1. Phase 4 of the 10-phase day-turn sequence calls for calling in artillery. The Canadians were given 8 artillery templates, 8 "barrages", for the entire day of 8 hours. We used 2 of our shots immediately, placing 2 artillery templates (1-inch diameter circles) in Stromboli.
2. On Phase 5, we went to the "Barrage Delay" chart to see if the barrage would fall immediately, or on a later day-turn. A percentage dice throw of 01 to 40 indicated the artillery would be immediate. We lucked out, since a high toss would have caused a 3 day-turn (3 hour) delay in the artillery barrage.
3. The defending Germans in Stromboli were defined to be in hard cover ... all stands under our templates were diced for and a toss of "4" or less on a 10-sided die "suppressed" a stand. We managed to suppress one stand. A suppressed stand is in trouble. It can move, but it can't fire, nor can it engage in close combat. And its parent battalion, on the 10th phase of the day-turn, must take a morale test. Not good. Once suppressed, a stand stays that way until day's end ... suppression markers are removed at nightfall.
4. On Phase 6 of the day-turn sequence, the 1st Canadian brigade diced for, and received 2 actions. On Phase 7, it fired for the first action, and for the second action, moved into contact with the defenders of Stromboli. There's an entire page of fire charts in GB, far too many for my taste. Infantry weapons range out to 8 inches, while heavier guns reach to 12 inches. Each firing stand tosses a die to see if it hits its target, and if so, a second die is tossed to see if the target is destroyed ... otherwise, it is suppressed.
5. The heavy weapon gun charts give the to-hit values at 1-inch intervals, 12 values in all. And there is a different value for different targets (dismounted infantry, soft skin vehi7les, light armor, heavy armor, etc.) which makes for a hellacious amount of to-hit and to-destroy numbers.
6. At Stromboli, on Phase 7, the 4 attacking Canadian infantry stands each tossed a die, looking for a "1" or "2" to hit the Germans. One German stand was hit; it was only suppressed, since the to-destroy die roll was unsuccessful. This left a single operative German defending stand. After the infantry fired, the 2 supporting tank platoons of the 1st Brigade fired, looking for 8 or less to hit. No success!
7. On Phase 8, the remaining German stand took its opportunity fire. This fire by the non-active side has a huge negative modifier attached, requiring an extremely low number to hit.
8. We noted a lack of cover modifiers in the fire procedures. In his designer's notes (page 76), Bruce discusses this ... in effect, he says, the cover modifiers show up in the morale and rally charts, rather than in the f ire effect . Boo! I'm an old fashioned cover-modifier man. To me, cover should affect whether or not you hit the target, and not just what his response will be. Different folks, different strokes.
9. Phase 9 of the day-turn is close combat. Add up your modifiers, (armor attached to infantry...+2; each additional stand...+1, etc,), add a die roll, and the higher total wins. with only one German stand capable of engaging in combat- the 1st Brigade literally walked into Stromboli.
10. The three German rifle companies, having been driven out of Stromboli, retreated to some nearby field works, and we discovered why. When the 1st Brigade approached the works, a high percentage toss revealed that up popped the maximum German force permissible ... 3 additional rifle companies, 3 heavy tanks and an anti-tank gun. This force was denoted as German Brigade Alpha.
The above 10 paragraphs outline the GB combat procedures we followed at Stromboli.
Stromboli, of course, was only the first phase of the battle. The town of Pepperoni also had 3 defending rifle companies. and here, in our artillery and firing phases, we suppressed all 3 stands, which meant that when the 3rd Canadian Brigade approached for close combat, the Germans didn't fight but automatically lost and retreated. A losing unit, after it moves back, takes a rally test. A die is tossed for each stand, and if it fails, one of 2 things happens ... if the stand was already suppressed, it is destroyed; if not, it receives a suppression marker. At Pepperoni, the 3 stands had suppression markers, and failed their test, hence were destroyed.
The 1st Canadian Brigade, victorious at Stromboli, together with the 4th Brigade, now went on to attack Vermicelli. Alas! A high percentage toss revealed that here there existed the maximum German force possible: infantry, heavy tanks and an anti-tank gun ... German Brigade Beta.
The combination of German Brigades Alpha and Beta beat the pants off of Canadian Brigades 1 and 4 at Vermicelli. Both were driven back, both failed a post-combat morale test, and both had to wait until nightfall to be reactivated. GB uses Activation Points to bring on reserves and to bring back to life units that fail their morale tests.
At the end of the first day of battle, Stromboli and Pepperoni had fallen, and two of the four Canadian Brigades had had their collective heads handed to them ... in short, the picture was bleak.
Not to worry.
Here's where the friendly Umpire helped out. It was obvious that the existing Canadian units on the field were far too weak to smash through the German defenses, and so the Umpire decreed that a reserve Canadian Brigade would appear at Pepperoni during the night hours. Nothing is free, however. This reserve unit required the play of 2 Canadian Activation Points. Reinstituting the 1st and 4th Brigades each required 1 Activation Point.
It was noted that the Canadians had started with a total of 6 Activation Points, and at the end of the first day, had used 4 of the 6. If any other Canadian brigades lost in close combat and flubbed a morale test, the entire Allied advance would be in trouble.
The second day's battle commenced ... heavy fighting at Vermicelli, where both German brigades were holding out in meritorious fashion.
Incidentally, note what was happening to the German pop-up forces. I had crafted the pop-up chart such that there was only a 20 percent chance (percentage dice toss of 81 to 100) that a full German brigade would appear. Yet that was exactly what happened when we diced for the Germans strengths at four of the positions we encountered.
Once again, statistics went haywire. Many times in the past, I had sworn never to depend upon a random dice toss to determine when reserves appeared, where they appeared, what the reserve strength would be, etc. Here, I had violated my oath, and obviously got what I deserved. Or more properly, the Canadians got what I deserved. Having flubbed it for the Canadians, the friendly Umpire helped them out again. This time, the decision concerned the fate of beaten German units.
In the original Juno Beach scenario, all German units were to fight in place ... no retreat ... they were to die with their boots on. In this scenario, we first permitted beaten German units to fall back and to rally. But as our pop-up dicing produced powerful German forces way beyond what we could normally expect, we decided: "no more Mr. Nice Guy". A German force that lost a close combat would be removed from the field. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Buffered by this latest change to the rules, the Canadians, I am happy to report, reached their objectives, the airfields, before the end of the second day's battle.
Despite the fact that we had actually halved the game time by eliminating the German half of the turn, GB proved to be a long game. Wargamers who like modern armor games thrive on this ... COMMAND DECISION games, for example, seem to go on forever. I lose patience if a battle lasts longer than 2 or 3 hours, and it appears that a full scale GB encounter would take way more than this.
Due to its unusual scope and scale, GB takes a wee bit of "getting used to" . It's got some extremely clever procedures in the way it handles artillery, suppression, reserves, etc., and I'm willing to bet that in the near future, we see other rules sets "borrow' the procedures for themselves.
As for our "didn't likes'... in truth, there weren't that many.
As I had previously mentioned, we didn't like the way cover was dealt with, or rather, wasn't dealt with, in the combat procedures. I can understand Bruce's rational in considering cover modifiers as determining "...how readily stands will recover", or "... how likely a battalion will be to evacuate its position". But it just didn't seem right when the advancing Canadians, in the open, had the same probability of hit tiring at the dug-in Germans as the Germans themselves firing at the Canadians.
I must mention that we didn't like all the firing charts with which we were presented. It's true that, in other similar modern armor rules sets, the endless listings of weapon range versus penetration versus angle of impact versus armor value, and so on, far outweigh the listings in GB, but we thought the GB heavy weapon impact chart, in listing impact values every inch out to 12 inches, could have been curtailed. But then again, we're fairly lazy people, to whom looking up chart values is regarded as work.
A third "didn't like" concerned the way the rules were laid out. For some reason, the format appeared "choppy", and there was a huge amount of thumbing through the text before we could find the appropriate paragraphs. Perhaps if the text had been laid out such that the explanations followed in synchronism with the various phases of the day-turn, we'd have done better.
And finally, we must attack the problem of "historical accuracy". I'm sensitive to this subject, since, in the past, when I set out a game to review a set of rules, I have been sorely chastized for focusing solely on the procedures and the gaming system itself. I tend to ignore the "realities" of the situation as defined in the rules ... items such as the relative strength of armor, i.e., should a Panther make mincemeat out of a Sherman at 2,000 yards, or the relative effectiveness of units, i.e., should Napoleon's Young Guard be "that much less effective" than the Old Guard, etc.
For example, here's how GB lays out the relative weapon effectiveness of two types of tanks firing at each other. For the weapon to destroy, a 10-sided die roll must be equal to, or less than, the numbers given.
| Range (inches)= | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| PzKw IV Heavy gun, medium armor | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
| Sherman Medium gun, medium armor | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Thus at 5 inches range - somewhere between 750 and 1000 yards -a PzKw IV wipes out a Sherman with a toss of 5 or less, while the Sherman destroys the PzKw with a 3 or less.
Now if you think, for one moment, that I'm going to take issue with GB's relative assessment of this situation, you've got to be kidding ... you're out of your mind. All I know is that GF tells me that the heavier PzKw IV weapon car, blow up a Sherman in easier fashion than vice versa. Which sounds extremely logical to me.
The rules give the subjective evaluation of the situation as seen by the author, and that's good enough for me. I will argue with procedures that seem silly, and I will find fault with sequences that don't make sense ... in short, I'll look at the items that go toward comprising an interesting game, but as for the particular numbers (firing, melee, morale, etc.) tossed into the rules by the author to reflect his point of view, I draw back.
And as for GB, overall, try it ... you'll like it.
Back to PW Review June 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