A few years ago I discovered EastFront. The game had some interesting mechanics, was simple, ftin and tense. I liked the limited intelligence and the idea that one could not keep on attacking indefinitely without building up supplies. Nor could one rapidly change the logistical focus of the offensive.

When I found out that Columbia had also designed a game on North Africa, I bought it. After reading through the rules I liked some of what I saw and disliked other parts. But when I actually played the game I was greatly disappointed. I feel the game is a very poor simulation, similar in realism to Afrika Korps by Avalon Hill, perhaps even worse. There were many rules that could be improved or brought up to date, and many things I would abstract or modify. RitD was designed with clean rules and mechanics, but it's not a simulation, and with a little more effort and not much dirt, it could be improved.

To perform an action, a supply card must be expended, but the length of the logistical trail is irrelevant, being abstracted by making it costlier to rebuild units that are farther from home base. This may roughly simulate the disadvantage of fighting far from one's base, but it doesn't give the player the correct historical feel. And just because the overall effect is simulated doesn't mean that a rule works.

A more realistic way to simulate long supply lines is to increase the cost of activating units farther from base. Thus it would be difficult for the Germans to attack and maneuver around El Alamein, whereas now they can move as easily as if they were at El Aghelia.

It is grossly inaccurate that units are able to extend the supply line for other units. The game not only allows this, it encourages it. While a unit might have some organic mechanized transport, it would not be enough, and it would require extra fuel, parts, and maintenance. If units were really able to extend supply lines, the entire campaign would have been fought differently.

Group and regroup: what do these rules represent? Certainly no historical doctrine. A much better system would have allowed a certain number of units to be activated per supply card played, and units beyond a certain distance from a port or base would cost more to activate. While this system would not be as clean as the original, it would not be too difficult or time consuming.

In EastFront, units may withdraw from a hex without being fired on, if they leave a rearguard, and the rearguard may be able to escape serious damage because of its speed. Not so in RitD. If one has to withdraw, very heavy losses are suffered. I would change the rules to be the same as for EastFront: all units but the rearguard may withdraw, and only the rearguard may be fired on if it chooses to withdraw.

This applies to many North Africa games, but the Germans need a decisive victory to win. Realistically, holding Tobruk at the end of the game means nothing. And the Allies should also be encouraged to play for a decisive victory, not just winning on victory points. The ultimate objective for both sides is not a stalemate or a minor victory. The Allies want to protect the Suez Canal and the east while clearing North Africa of the Axis. The Axis is trying to break out to the east and threaten the Persian Gulf oil fields, or link with the German forces near Turkey.

Thanks to Brandon Einhorn for providing an alternate view of Rommel in the Desert -ed

Rommel in the Desert

Rommel in the Desert: Game Review
Rommel in the Desert: Devil's Advocate (Rebuttal)
Rommel in the Desert: Component Manifest
Rommel in the Desert: Collector's Value