2 MOVES nr.

56, published Feb/ Mar 1981

Opening
Moves
Write for MOVES
at $8 per Column
Recently, I have been getting quite a
Circulation: 9950 good flow of respectable material to publish
in our magazine. My reaction to this is:
Editor/Executive Art Director Redmond A. Simonsen thanks, guys! For that, you get a 330/0 raise!
Managing Editor Robert J. Ryer Starting with the next issue of MOVES,
Associate Editor Michael Moore wri ters will earn an honorarium of $8 per col-
Art Director Manfred F. Milkuhn umn (or $16 in credit towards SPI merchan-
dise). This, I believe, makes MOVES the
Contributing Editors highest paying gaming magazine except for
Claude Bloodgood, Ian Chadwick, Ares and S&T. Not that anyone's going to get
Steve'List, Thomas O. Pratuch, Charles Vasey rich or payoff their mortgages by writing for
MOVES Maga7.ine is copyrigh t ~) 1981, Simulations Publications , Inc . Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved. All
ed itorial and general mail should be addressed to Simulations Publicat ions Inc., 257 Park Avenue South, N. Y., N. Y.
MOVES, but if there's a topic that's dear to
10010 . MO VES is published bimo nt hly. On e year subscriptions (six issues) are available for S 11.00 (US) . Back issues your heart and about which you can easily
or single cop ies of the current issue are available at $2 .25 per copy. Please remit by check or money order (US funds) . write, then $24 per typeset page is not bad
Printing and Binding by Wellesley Press, Inc., Framingham, Mass. remuneration. And $48 in merchandise is in
GREAT BRITAIN &: EUROPE: British and European customers should place their orders for SPI products or the professional writer's pay category.
subscriptions with SIMULATIONS PUBLICATIONS , UNITED KINGDOM, Crown Pas sages, Hale, Altrincham, I want to encourage you LO write about
Cheshire. WA IS 9SP, United Kingd om. Basic subscription rate for SPUK is (pounds) 9.90 per year. AUSTRALIA & other people's games. You know, ODW,AH,
NEW ZEALAND residents should place orders with MILITARY SIMULATIONS PTY LTD., 18 Fonceca Street.
Modailloc. Victoria3195, Australia.
Chaosium, TSR, and so forth. Pick games
that are of broad interest and relatively
ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS: Readers are invited to submit articles for possible publicatio n in MO VES Mago'l.ine.
Manuscripts must be typewriuen , double-spaced. on SV,xll white bond, with generolls line length of 55 to 65 popular. Or pick categories that are natural
characters. Pleaseinc1ude your last name and page number on each MS page, and your name, address, phone number, and interesting (like our Arab-Israeli survey
suggested tille, and honorarium preference on the cover page. With submission, include a stam ped selfaddressed in this issue), and cover a whole group of
postcard with the name of your a rticle on the message side . Articles and illustrations cannot be returned. In no in- games from some angle (not necessarily re-
stance, however. can SP I assume responsibility for manuscripts and illustrations not specifically solicited .
viewing them) .
...And JuatWhat's in MOVES
for $8 per Columnl
The other day I got a letter from a fellow
In this issue... complaining about the " ... increasing
amount of space devoted to sf and fantasy
A Survey of Arab-Israeli IAN CHADWICK 4 junk in MOVES ...." I then proceeded to
War Games show him (as I've had to do with a few other
wolf criers lately) that the percentage has ac-
Advanced Tactics THOMAS G. PRA TUCH 14 tually gone down since the issue he indicated
Reality and Games, Part 2 as the "start of all this" (issue 51). He had the
exact opposite impression and argued
Central Front Series: CHARLES T KAMPS, J R. 18 vehemently on that basis. Beyond the simple
Fifth Corps and Hof Gap point that people often knee jerk into an
emotional confusion when advocating an
SPIBUS: Why I'm Really IAN CHADWICK 28 editorial mix, I would like to say that
Buying a Microcomputer.. MO VES will continue to deal with science
fiction and fantasy games (on a modest level)
Convention Organizeys BR YAN AND KATHLEEN 33 because they represent a substantial part of
our hobby. The preponderance of MOVES
Data File Nr. 1 BULLINGER
pages has and will continue to cover
Opening MOVES REDMOND A. SIMONSEN 2 historical games. Please don't start drawing
dark conclusions from single data points.
MOVES in English CHARLES VASEY (ed) 22 Those of you who dislike fantasy and science
fiction, be a little tolerant (after all, some
Designer's Notes SPI R&D STAFF 26 other historical gamer can't abide the period
you're interested in and wants it expunged!).
Forward Observer ERIC GOLDBERG 35 In this issue, there is a good amount of
space devoted to computer games. Now
Feedback/Playback Questions vox POPULI, vox DEI 38 don't get all paranoid about that - it's a
significant new area of our hobby to which
we should all pay some attention . We are
growing not only in depth but also in
Simulations Publications, Inc . 257 Park Avenue SOllth, New York. N. Y. 10010 breadth. One must become comfortable with
the idea that every sector of our hobby
benefits from the growth of every other.
-Redmond
 3

Build an Empire
that stretches
across a galaxy!
Sword and the Slars is a game of Galactic Em-
pire building in which one to five players guide
the destinies of star-faring races as they expand
from star system to star system. Based on SPI's
popular Empires of the Middle Ages, Sword
and the Stars simulates the dynamics of the crea-
tion, expansion, and perpetuation of an empire
that strelches across hundreds of light years.
Each player controls the central government of
one race; during a year, the race may attempt to
expand its range of operations through the crea-
lion of a StarGate, defend its system through
the construction of a GuardianWeb, improve its
technical level, encourage trade, or go on raids
of pillage and conquest. Special rules cover lhe
Confederation of Worlds, random events (from
advances and failures of technology to the top-
pling of governments), colonization, and the
appearance of alien raiders. Sword and the Stars
includes a 17" x 221/ map showing one quarter
of a spiral galaxy, 56 Year Cards, 400 cardboard
playing pieces, rules, and various playing aids.

Available as of 1 April 1981

through retail outlets nationwide!

SECTOR CHECKS: No ne reguired . Card Nr. 35 SECTOR CHECKS : 1,2. Card Nr. 42
Operation Result Target Act. Base Operation Resu lt Target Act. Base
CONQUEST C(6~) - 1(5~) - 1(~4) CONQUEST C(5~) - 1(3~) -IC.... 2)
RAID - I RAID - 1(3~) -1(~3)

GOVERN + 1(5~) GOVERN + 1(4~)

COMMUNICATE T(I~) COMMUNICATE T
GUARDIAN WEB G GUARDIAN WEB G(8~) -1(~8)

STARGATE S STARGATE S(8~) -l( ~8)

SECTOR CHECKS: None required . CardNr.49 SECTOR CHECKS: None reguired. Card Nr. 56
Operation Resu lt Target Act. Base Operation Result Target Act. Base
CONQUEST C -I - l( ~4) CONQUEST C(8~) -I
flAID - 1(7~) -1(~8) RAID R(l~) -I
GOVERN GOV1!RN +1
COMMUNICATE T / C(8~) COMMUNICATE

GUARDIAN WEB G GUARDIAN WEB G(1~) - I(~I)

STAFIGATE S STARGATE S(l~) - I( .... 1)

4
REVIEWS
A SURVEY 0 ARA
WARGAMES
by Ian Chadwick
This issue o f MOVES might be called " MOVES in
Canadian . .. ." The author of this piece and the
tw o- par ter on compute r gaming is a prolific p ro-
fession al newsman from To ronlO. Ian's tastes and
abilitie s ra nge across the speC\rum of this greet
hobby of o urs - trom Napoleonics to elec tronics .
Having him as a c on -ribulOr is an editor's delight
(except tor the funny way those Canadians spell
words ending in "or." Wo nder where t hey pic ked
that up?l -Redmond
The reawakening of the Arab nation
and the growing Jewish efforts af rebuilding
the ancient monarchy of Israel. .. these two
movements are destined to fight each other
continually until one of them triumphs over
the other.
Neguid Azourny in The A wakening of the
Arab Nalion( 1905)
On 29 November 1947, the United Na-
tions voted 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions lO
partition Palestine and establish a Jewish
state. In the three decades- which followed,
this small sliver of land would become the
batdefield of four wars. It would attract the
attention of every nation and affect almost
all of them, and its wars would become the
arena for the superpowers to test each other's
strengths and weaponry. The Arab-Israeli
wars would measure differing tactical doc-
trines, weapon systems, the effects of
morale, numerical superiority, and the first
strike in modern warfare. They would also
test the international policies endorsed by the
major powers in terms that were both pnic-
tical and measureable.
Given the importance of this small area
of land in international affairs, it is surpris-
ing that so few games COver its history. The
small fronlage the wars encompass makes it
relatively easy to portray the entire territory
of conflict with a wealth of detail. Owing to
the current popularity of modern, armour-
oriented wargames, the 1973 Yom Ki')pur
War has been given the most coverage, with
previous wars covered by one or two games,
plus a handful of scenarios in the tactical
games. The pre-state period between 1880
and 1947 has a particularly rich potential for
both military and political simulation . It saw
the growth of the Zionist aspirations coin-
cide with the rise of Arab nationalism and the
bitter conflicts that these two movements
generated. Those of us interested in this
period, and those generally interested in the
Middle East, can hopefully look forward to a
wealth of games to come when the designers
tire of recreating WWII tank battles or the
Battle of the Bulge for the umpteenth time.
In the reviews that follow, I have rated
the games from A (best) to E (worst) in the
categories of playability, component quality,
and historical accuracy. In the case of a
game which covers more than one war, the
component description will be found in the
earliest period, while ratings may change ac-
cording to scenarios covered. There are a
number of other games with scenarios in the
Middle East, but I have avoided including
them as not central to the article (including
SPI 's Combined ArmsandAir War).
THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
November 1947-July 1949
The period after the partition vote saw
both Arabs and Jews in an escala ting struggle
to gain control of I he strategic locations in
Palestine, hindered occasionally by British
interference (usually in favor of the Arabs).
The Jews had some mili tary background,
partly from the training given prior to WWII
by Orde Wingate, a British officer in
Palestine, and part ly from [he 32,000 men
and women wh o volunteered for service in
the Bri tish Army during the Second World
War. Their defence organization , the
Haganah, had nearly 46,000 members, in-
cluding the Palmach, an elite wing of 4,000.
However, due to a serious shortage of anns,
only about one quarter of these were ready
for combat in 1947, and most of the olhers
were reservists or involved in the defence of
local communities.
The Arabs, on the other hand, had plen-
ty of arms since the British imposed few
restrictions on Arabs bearing weapons.
Although the Palestinians were equipped
mostly with light arms, the neighbouring na-
tions had modern, fully-equipped armies,
mostly trained and supplied by the British.
These Arab nations would field some 42,000
soldiers in Palest ine by May 1948, not in-
cluding the many natives who would
ultimately join the fight.
The Palestinians were poorly organized,
being basically tribal in nature, and suffered
from low morale and poor leadership . Their
self-appointed leader was Haj Amin Hus-
sein i, the Mufti of Jerusalem , who had
helped Hitler organize Arab S.S. units. He
1
was as fanatically dedicated to his hatred of
the British and Jews as he was to his political
ambitions in Palestine, and it was he who in-
stigated the Arab League's mass invasion of
Palestine on 15 May . In the Jerusalem locale,
the Mufti's cousin, Abdul Khader Husseini,
was in command of the military_ He was a
capable and charismatic leader whose death
in April 1948 was a serious blow to the
Mufti's plans for success. A number of the
other Palestinian leaders had also received
their equipment and training from the Nazis.
Both sides had terrorist organizations
whose activities took a toll of civilian lives,
but which did little to influence the war to
any great degree.
In January 1948, a large force calling
itself the Arab Liberation Army crossed the
border from Syria into Pales tine and began
to assemble its army under the command of
Fawzi EI Kaukji, another Arab who had
joined the Germans during WWII. The
British, so busy defending the shores against
illegal Jewish immigration, could not spare
even a single soldier lO watch the eastern
border for infiltrating armies . Nor, it seem-
ed, could they spare one of their 50,000
troops to compel the 2,000 mercenaries to
return home . Thus encouraged, the ALA
built itself up to a force of nearly 7,000 men
by spring. However, Kuakji' s inability to
command made it a relatively ineffectual
force during the wars.
Fighting was widespread throughout
Palesti ne in early 1948. Jewish settlements
and convoys were under continual attack and
the roads to Jerusalem almost completely Cut
off to Jewish traffic. The Jews took 10 the of-
fensive in April to open the roads, capture
strategic towns and pu t pressure on the
beseiged settlements . When the British pull-
ed out on 15 May, Israel announced its
sta tehood, and the surrounding nations im-
mediately advanced on all fronts with their
armies. Lebanon, Syria, Egypt , Iraq and Jor-
dan all fielded armies to join the ALA and
the Mufti's gangs.
The Lebanese and the Syrian advances
held for a short lime, but the front gave way
[0 the mounting pressures; the Lebanese in a
combined assault with the ALA and the
Syrians pushed through into central Galilee.
The Syrians established a bridgehead across
the Jordan north of Lake Kinnerel. The
ALA and the Iraqis made significant gains in
central Palestine, seriously endangering the
coas tal strip between Tel Aviv and Be'er
Sheba.

The adva nce halted duri ng the first
tru ce, but when the fig hting broke out again,
the Israelis managed to win back much of the
territo ry lost in the north and some of the
Negev from the Egyptians. Although they
were ab le to open the Jerusalem co rri dor in
the wes t and relieve some of the pressure o n
the city, the Israelis lost the O ld City and
could not break [he strangleho ld at Latrun .
Opera tions in the later part of the yea r
(Operations Hiram and Horev) made great
gains in the G alilee and the Negev, and in Ju-
ly 1949 the Israelis raised their flag at Eilat on
the Red Sea. Most of rhe figh tin g res ulted in
a Israeli victory by the m iddle of July 1948 ,
and the boundaries of the new state were
established by the end of that yea r. Against
all opposition, Israel had become a rea lity .
Jerusalem!
Simulations Design Corp., 1975
Designed by John Hill
28 pages of rules and hisrorical background, 270
counters, one /6" x30" unmounted map,
zip lock bag, 0.4 miles/hex, / weeklfum.
COllnlers represent companies, pla/Gons, and
individual/eaders.
A/Al e
As the Brit is h accelerated their
withdrawal of troops, so did the fi ghting for
Jerusalem and the roads which lead into the
city intensify .
Fans of John Hill games will recog ni ze
both the game system a nd the map style
("schematic rather tha n an exact representa-
tio n" say ~ he des igner's notes). Uni ts move
individually or in small groups, stopping in
an enemy zone of con trol, but th ey may con-
tinue ttl move after comba t if they succeed in
eliminating all of the enemy's pieces at whic h
they fire (a system similar his latest SPI
ga me, Batffefor Stalingrad).
In combat a unit Illay fire at either the
entire stack or at units one at a ti me.
Defenders get first fire, however, and all of
the units in the attacked hex(es) get first fire .
Both sides have garrison uni ts (for se t-
tle ments or villages) which cannot move or
attack, but which may fire defensively when
attacked. Both sides have infantry, arti llery,
armour and trucks. The Jews also have ar-
moured buses and the J erusaiem convoy
which must arrive in Jerusalem each turn or
the Jewish player m ust either eliminate or
demobilize a u nit.
Initially, the A rab player has numerous
units (garrisons and weak infantry) spread a ll
over the ma p . A lth ough these un its hinder
the progress of the Jewish player, they a re
not an effective figh ti ng force unless .concen-
trated into large r stacks (they cannot move
without the p resence of a leader). During the
first few turns, the Arab player tries to con -
solidate forces while still blocking the roads,
and the Jewish player attempi., to open the
roads and get the convoys th ro ugh each turn.
As the game progresses, the smaller uni ts o n
both sides suffer high at tri tio n but a re replac-
ed by stronger units. T he Jews receive (aside
fro m starting forces), units of the Alexan-
droni Brigade and the 7th Haganah Brig ade
among ot.hers. The Arab player is strongly
reinforced by the Arab L egion, t he stro ngest
force on the board, plus weaker Iraqi, Egyp-
tia n and Syrian units.
Leaders playa c!'Ucial role fo r A rabs in
the early game-tu rns. N OI only do they allow
t he irregu lar infant ry 10 move, but they give a
zo ne of control to Arab garrisons and add a
combat mult iplier to a stack: Khader triples
combat value, three others do u ble it , but
Kaukji halves it - a reflection o f his poo r
leadership qua lities . The Arab is provid ed
wit h ten dummy units to help confuse the
Jewis h player as to the whereabouts of
leade rs (A ra b leaders and dummies de ploy
upside-down), The Jevis have on ly one
leader, Shaltiel, who adds a factor of 12 to a
combat, but he must no t be more tban four
hexes outside Jerusalem at any time. Jewish
units can move wit hou t the presence of a
leader.
Both sides have te rrorist units which
ha ve a limited effect bu t, when successfu l in
their mission, a re deadly . Late in the game ,
the Jewish player recei ves bulldozer units
whic h may be used" to b uild road hexes
around Arab blocks. These a re reall y " last-
ditch" units since they ar rive too late to dig
more than a rew hexes of road. Both sid es
have artillery uni ts .....ith ranged fire
capabilities plus vehic les to tra nspo rt the ar-
tillery and infant ry.
Jerusalem.' is an excellent contes t which
offers numerous strategic and tactical op-
tions to both players. After the in it ial turns,
when the attrition of the weaker units is
greatest , the more powerful units arrive and
lend to move a bou t. the map in large stacks,
often forcing the end game into one or two
significant batt les which decide the outcome .
The Arab player has tw o options: he may
either try to take and hold Jerusalem with the
bulk of his forces , or he may use those forces
to blockade the roads into the city. To a
limited degree , he can do both, b u t emphasis
must be given to one or the o ther.
The Jewish player has to b Ol.h clear the
roads and tak e five hexes of Jerusalem to
win . Victory conditions are based on the UN
criteria as to who held the city at the time of
the first truce, so the game is mOderately pro-
Arab. In a letter, John Hill suggested that if
the Arab Legion were to have lost two com-
plete regiments (or the equivalent of six in-
fantry companies), they would have been for-
bidden to initiate any new attacks. This
ma kes sense since the Legion had no effective
replacements o r rei nforceme m s available at
. this time. This helps the balance of the game .
T here are, however, historical inac-
curacies in Jerusalem! although they do not
arfect its playab ility. Kaukji is allowed to act
as a leader for the Arab irregu lars (tribal
mercenaries und er the control of Khader and
the Mufti). In reality, he commanded the
Arab Li beration Army in t he north-central
area and did not campaig n sou th of
RemaJlah. A lso, Kutub never commanded
any units but may do so in the game, nor d id
[he M u fti personally lead troops but may do
so. No tabl y absent are the British , whose ef-
fect is to prevent uni ts Slaying in certain
hexes until the y depart (May 14). H istorical-
ly, they inter fered continually, usually 011 the
side of the Arabs .
5
T he re are also a few noticeable errors o n
the map: a village is displayed in Bab el Wad
. which is merely the beginning of a narrow
passage up to Jerusalem. Arabs fighti ng
there came mostly from neighbo u ring Deir
Ayub. Also, the st reams which cross the map
are, actually, dry wadis, except perhaps in
the winter. The te rr ain of the Judean moun-
tains is so rough so as to prevent most
vehicles fr om traversing it except along the
roads, yet no hex is barred to ve hicles .
Still, it's a fine game and one which can
provide hours of excellen t competition and
excitemen t for both sides . It would be unfor-
tunate for this game to lie bur ied and gather-
ing dust ",jth older games now no t con-
sidered "state-of-the-art"; this game still can
stand up with the best of them .
No other part of the '48 war has as ye t
seen simulalion. This is .unfo rtunate, for the
war was a series of tense, despera te battles
fought betwee n an overwhelmingly la rge
Arab force a nd a sma ll bUI determined group
of Jews. It re presents an excellent game
situation.
THE SUEZ CAMPAIGN
October-November 1956
T he 1948 war was a shocki ng defeat for
the Ara b nations which had at tacked the
fledgling state . Although considerably
stronger oil paper, the Arab armies suffered
from inept leadership and low morale, while
the Israeli forces had shown the world they
had strong leadership and exceptionally high
morale. Not only did the Israelis hold on to
the land allolted to them by the part ition
plan, but they managed to win a significant
amount (m uch of it by default) of the area
that was intended for an A rab state; its in-
ha bitants were told to leave by the invading
Arab armies and to return for their booty
after the expected Arab victo ry. The Arabs
only succeeded in preventing the interna-
tionaliza tion of J erusa\em and, in doing so,
they also granted the Israelis partial control
of the city.
The effects o f the defeat on the proud
Arab nations reverberated throughout the
ent ire Arab world for decades . Many Arabs
closely scru ti nized their leaders and found
them wa nti ng. Social a nd political upheaval
occurred in many Arab nations followi ng the
1948 war, including Egypt where a mili tary
coup in J952 led by Gamal Abd ai-Nasser
overthrew the government and sent King
Farouk into exile . Nasser, an officer in the
Egyp tian army during the war and deep ly
humiliated by his country's defeat, was
determined to see the eradication of Is rael in
his lifetime (Nasser, like many A ra b leaders,
had collabora ted with the Nazis in WWII).
Nasser was to become the most charismatic
leader in the Arab world for al most two
decades.
Nasser encouraged and provided arms
for the terrorist attacks mounted from
E gy ptian-held territory, as did Syria and
Lebanon . In 1953. Egypt had closed the
Straits of Tiran and thus the port of Eila! to
Israeli shipping despite the internat ional
status of the waters. In 1955 , the waters were
closed to all Israel-bound ships, of all na-
3
tions . Egypt also began to receive large quan-
tities of Soviet arms. Nasser's every move
brought the threat of war closer. Egypl
entered into a joint military command with
Syria in late 1955 and was joined by Jordan
in October 1956. Nasser nationalized the
Suez Canal, a direct threat to British,
French, and American interests, and then
massed troops along Israel's border. Con-
demnations of Israel and open threats
poured from Egyptian media in increasi ng
doses.
Israel had not been asleep during the
years since independence. The Israeli Army
had been upgraded, rebuilt, and honed to a
fighting peak by retaliation raids against the
fedayeen terrorists. But even Ihe mOSI op-
timistic of Israel's military advisors gave little
chance of surviving a concerted attack from
the Arabs with their new Soviet arms. A
re/uclant decision was made for a first strike,
to capture the Gaza Strip and the Straits of
Tiran, defusing Egypt's dual economic and
military threal.
Meanwhile, Britain and France had
decided to invade to regain control of the
canal. Looking for an excuse to legitimize
their attack , they came 10 Israel and sug-
gested Ihat she ;ltlack Egypt and appear to
threaten the canal. The allies could then land
troo'Ps and separate the opponents, thus
"protecting" the canal for international
shipping. They originally expected ail-oul
war, but later agreed that a pre-emptive
strike would be sufficient excuse for their in-
terference. Although Ihe allies would not
provide direct support, the French promised
to provide aerial protection from the Egyp-
tian Air Force for Israel's cities.
I On 29 October, the Israelis launched
Operation Kadesh. A parachute drop meant
to capture the pivotal Mitla Pass was follow-
ed by a broad advance toward strategic road
junctions and the Egyptian operations cen-
tres. Aided by the element of surprise, the
Israelis isolated many of the Egyptians and
took their goals in record time. Although
many Egyptian formations reacted poorly
and fled en masse, others managed to put up
stiff resistance, even mounting loca l counter-
attacks, particularly from El Arish. The
Egyptians were successful in their defence of
Abu Agheila and the Mitla Pass, against
which the Israelis had a poorly planned of
fensive. The Israelis suffered from over-
extended supply lines in the first two days
when their progress proved beller than ex-
pected . In the southern tip of Sinai, the battle
for Sharm el Sheikh raged, but the fortified
objective, cenlral to the operation, proved a
rough nut to crack. The paratroopers at
Mitla were withdrawn and dropped near
Sharm el Sheikh and the outpost surrendered
5 November.
The Egyptian Air Force was also caught
off guard and suffered severely from allied
bombing. 260 aircraft were destroyed, most-
ly at bases near Cairo. The allies were slow to
initiate Operation Musketeer and had to stall
a potential ceasefire in order to launch it 5
November. The combined airborne and
seaborne attacks and incessant air raids forc-
ed the fall of Port Said, but the Egyptian
defence proved determined in the face of
what was before them. The pretext of
"separating the combatants" fooled no one,
but the war was ended with this operation.
THE ARAB-ISRAELI WARS
Tank Battles in the Mideast,
1956-73
Avalon Hill Game Co., 19n
Designed by Seth Carus and Russel Vane 1
36page booklet of rules and notes, 464 counters,
Jour 22" x 8" mounred mapboards, boxed. 250
metres/hex, 6 minures/t urn. Counters represent
barteries, platoons, and half-companies.
AICIC . original forms. Also, morale is introduced
Arab-Israeli Wars is a collection of tac-
tical scenarios which depict various actions
between 1956 and 1973. It is Ihe third genera-
tion of games that began with PanzerBlitz
and, despite refinements and improvements,
remains essentially true to the PanzerBlitz
system. Only two scenarios deal with 1956:
one an early raid against the Jordanians
prior to the war which pits an Israeli bat-
talion with armour against seven Jordanian
infantry units holding a town. Another six
Jordanians with one mortar enter the map on
turn five. The Israelis throw ten infantry plus
seven halftracks against the defenders on
turn one. Four Shermans, four infantry, and
four half tracks enter if the Israelis lose three
units or more in the assault by turn eleven.
The scenario presents litfle challenge to the
Israeli player and the Jordanian player is very
pressed to survive for long. The scenario uses
the standard rules, which include morale .. in-
direct fire, close assault attacks, overruns, air
strikes (nol in this scenario), split fire and
move, fortifications and rules for the Suez
Canal (nOl incluc!.ed in this scenario).
The second scenario, covering the war,
uses only lhe basic rules. All Israeli armoured
brigade (5 Sherman 5 I '5, 2 Sherman 50's,
and 5 AMX-13's) meets an Egyptian ar
moured brigade (12 T-34's and 3 SU-JOO's) .
The Egyptian lanks have a range of 8 hexes, .
compared 10 10 and 12 for the Israelis. That
disparity gives the game to the Israelis.
Although fas t and easy to play, this scenario
teaches nothing about the war or its com-
batants .
Arab-Israeli Wars is basically an easy,
fun game to learn and play, presented to
players in formats of increasing complexity
and heightened realism. There are 24
scenarios covering the combat since 1956,
but most deal with 1973. The counters and
the mapboards are done in AH's glossy style,
not popular with this author, but represent
high production standards (if you like
glossies, rate the components a B) . Combat
results are still either elimination or disper-
sal, but a number of the PanzerBliIzlLeader
rules have been changed for the better: in-
direct fire, overrun, and the weapons' effec-
tiveness chart are all improved over ,their
quite nicely into.the game .
This game can be fun and exciting if not
. overly realistic. Gamers new ro the system
will find it a full, varied course offering many
hours of enjoyable gaming, but those of us
more used to playing PanzerBlitz and Leader
may not be SQ enthralled with the system
despite the improvemen ts. See the notes
under the 1967 and 1973 wars also .
SINAI
SPI,1973
Designed by Jim Dunnigan
20 pages oj rules and scenario sheet, 225
counters, one 22" X 34 " unmounted map, boxed.
12 km/hex. 12 hours/turn. Counters represenr
brigades or balfa/ions.
C/B/S
Sinai, on the other hand, offers a
strategic version of the war. The map covers
the entire area of Israel from the Golan
Heights to the southern tip of the Sinai. The
game has a number of scenarios - variants
on [he 1956, 1967, 1973, and future wars. It is
surprising and disappointing thaI a scenario
for the 1948 war was not also included. The
map is also a source of disappointment; it
treats all rough areas alike, prohibiting
meehanized units, but . allowing non-mech
units to move through at a cost of one move-
Illent point (certain terrain is prohibited to
Arab units in the 1956 and 1967 scenarios, in-
cluding rough, sand, and rough/track).
There are few named towns or forts on the
map (in Israel, for example, only Jerusalem,
Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Eilat have names and
locations, and in the Sinai only El Arish and
Sharm el Sheikh are named, although un-
named forts and fortified settlements are
shown with a special symbol) . Roads are cod-
ed as to how they existed (if at all) in 1956,
1967, and 1973. Although prohibited from
emering certain hexes, a unit's zone of con
trol may still extend into these hexes, with the
exception of zones extending into . nemy
cities or fortifications. However, corritJ'~'tcan
occur with an adjacent unit that is in a pro-
hibited hex, which strikes me as an in-
congruity.
Sinai's straightforward rules cover sup-
ply, overrun, Jordanian participation, Arab
command comrol, trucks, air strikes, .Israeli
airmobile capacity, and fortified settlements.
Special rules and exceptions to general ru les
are found in the scenarios for such considera-
tions as lhe Bar Lev Line, the Suez Canal,

Arab non-cooperation, and scenario
variants . See also co~ments under the J 967
and 1973 wars .
The 1956 scenario is, to be blunt, a
push-over for the Israelis. The designer's
notes state as ml:lch . But that' s really a matter
of hindsight since, at the time , the Israelis
made contingency plans to pull out quickly if
resistance proved strong in order to pass the
attack off as a raid. The allies are nowhere to
be seen (in one scenario, the Egyp tian player
gets more units to simu late their non-
appearance). Neither side has airstrike
capabilities, but the potential was there; the
Israelis were worried enough about it to de-
mand French air protection. Jo rdanian par-
ticipat ion was a possibility, and it is given
here as a varian. The victory conditio ns are
more or less the same as those given for the
1967 war, alt hough lhe when the operation
was launched, it had much more limited
goals than were actually acHieved.
Unfortunately, the 1956 scenario in
Sinai is neither a good game nor a good
historical simulation. If oversimplifies the
situation, ignores too many possibilities, and
gives the Israeli player a guaranteed victory.
The situation was much less a certainty in
1956 than in la ter veal'S, but no unknowns
prague eit her side . Even [he sur prise facto r is
lost by the amoun t of intelligence each player
has . The Egyptian player can only altempt to
lose better than his historical counterparts
did. The game should be redone, with the
potential for an Arab first strike, surprise,
and allied intervention taken into accoun t to
make it a good exercise in simula tion.
THE SIX DAY WAR
June 1967
The events in the Middle East which led
inexorably to the 1967 war pa ra Jlel those
which led to thc 1956 war. Under interna-
tional pressure, Israel returned the lands oc-
cupied in 1956. Despite the presence of a UN
peacekeeping force , terrorist a ttacks into
Israel continued , partly due to the
singleminded delerm ination of the El Fatah,
created in 1958 by a relative of the Mufti ,
Yassir Arafat. Although no maj o r border
clashes occurred with Egyp t, Syrian forces
constantly shelled and machine-gunned
Israeli settlements from the Golan Heights.
Every major population centre in Israel was
wit hin range of Arab artillery by 1967.
The Arab world was plagued with more
violence and disrup tion as almost every
country in the Middle East surfered political
upheaval, revolution, or civil war while Israel
was b lessed with relative political calm. Civil
war in Yemen deeply divided Arab sen-
timents when Nasser supported the
republicans (moving 40,000 troops to their
side by 1967) and Saudi Arabia and Jordan
supported the royalists . The Lebanese civil
war of 1958 had only been quelled by US
military intervention. Jordan had received
British'mili tary intervention to bols ter King
Hussein's regime agains t Egyptian and
Syrian subversion . In Iraq, King Faisal and
his prime minister were overthrown in a
bloody coup. In Syria, the Ba'at. h movement
seized power a nd became not only the most
repressive government in the area, bu t also
one of the most violen tly opposed [0 Israel.
Nasser' s position was being undermined
by his actions in Yemen and by the new
Syrian regime. In 1958, Egypt and Syria had
formed an alliance called the United A rab
Republic (UAR), an ambiguous coalition
which made no sense politically or
economically and offered uncertain military
support. Nasser ravoured tactical restraint
with Israel. and did not look favoura bly on
either Syria's ac tivi ties nor on t.he terrorist
activities of EI Fatah. This also weakened his
position in the eyes of more radical Arab
leaders, while Syria took to the fore agains t
Israe l by active harassment from [he Golan.
T he West began lOSing its hold on the
Arab world as many of the governments pro-
ved increasingly leftist and aligned
themselv es strongly with Moscow (who pro-
vided massive arms shipments ro any coun try
she approved). The Soviet shadow of protec-
tion provided Syria with the opportunity 10
take action Without serious risk of retaliation
from Israel.
By early 1967, clashes bet ween Syria a nd
Israel had escala ted enormously. asser relt
forced to regain his poli tical supremacy by
direct action. The Soviets in terferred di rect ly
in May 1967 by informing Egypt tha t the
Israelis had massed eleven brigades on t.he
Syrian border; it was an enormous lie,
designed to incite rhe Egyptians into action.
It worked. The UAR demanded the evacua-
tion of the meagre UN force from its ter-
ritory and the UN complied without a
whimper. Emboldened by his effortless
political triumph , Nasser aga in blocked the
Strails of Tiran as he had in 1956, and Egyp-
tian troops again rook their places along the
border. Nasser proclaimed t ha l he would
"throw Israel into the sea" while Egyptian
radio hurled bloodcurdling threa ts to Israel.
Egyptian General Moutaghi announced on
31 May, "In rive days we shall liquidate the
little state of Israel." Similar sta tements
came from Damascus. The stage was set for
another war.
On 5 June, the Israeli Air Force (IAF)
undertook a preemptive attack against the
Egyptian Air Force. Flying low, under Egyp-
7
tian radar, they effectively eliminated the
Egyptian Air Force on the ground : 391
planes were destroyed while another 60 were
downed in aerial combal, compared to the
loss of 19 Israeli planes . Israeli troops ,
mobilized in latc May, moved agains t the
Egyptians massed in the Sinai. The Israelis
had lhree divisional task forces against seven
Egyptian divisio ns including 1,000 tanks.
Since the 1956 disaster, the Egyptians had
taken care to rebu ild and fortify derensive
positions and strategic locations so tha t an
Israeli advance would not prove as easy as
the previous war and , indeed, the Egyptians
offered stiff resistance . No netheless, several
breakthroughs were made, and the Israelis
advanced behind Egyptian lines, supported
by an extensive air cover and by airborne
landings .
Israel warned Jordan prior to the war
that the fight was strictly betwcen Israel and
Egypt. Unless Jordan at tacked first , no
Israeli troops would move against them . Jor-
dan, however, preferred to believe Egyptian
broadcasts of their victories against the
Israelis (a rotal news blackout was in effect in
Israel) and opened fire on Israeli cities and
settlements, particularly Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem . The Israelis responded im-
mediately, taking a number of positions
along the Jerusalcm corrido r and several in
the hills flanking Jerusalem. Israeli forces
moved swiftly into the West Bank , isolating
Jordanian forces and reaching the J ordan
River by 7 June, .effectively taking the entire
area by 8 Junc . Despite fierce resistance, Jor-
danian troops were also rorced out of the Old
City of Jerusalem and, for the first time in
almos t 20 years, the West.ern Wall was in
Jewisli' hands . There was minimal damage to
the holy places, despi te Jordan's use of the
Temple Mount as an ammunition dump and
the al-Asqa mosque as a sniping post.
In the Sinai, Gaza was taken in two days
after heavy fighting, and Israeli forces fan-
ned out from El Arish into the nonhernSinai.
Israeli naval forces took Sharm el Sheikh on
Day 3, and Israeli armoured forces in the
centre of Sinai were sealing off Egyptian
forces retreating to the Suez Canal. Bir
Gafgafa, taken by Israeli forces under Tal ,
withstood the last heavy armoured counter-
atlack by the Egyptians . By Day 4, the Suez
had been reached and, in the area of lhe
Milia Pass, o ne of the largest armou r barrles
in history had resulted in a decisive Israeli
victory. By 8 J une, both Jordan and Egypt
accepted a cease-fire from the Security
Cou ncil of the United Nations . .
During the war, Lebanon rumbled, but
had not taken any activity. Syria, on the
other hand, had been con tin u ously shelling
Israeli setllemelllS a nd even made an abonive
attempt to capture Kibbutz Dan. The possi-
bility or Syria emerging unscathed to con-
tinue harassing israeli settlements forced
Israel to move quick ly to secure the Golan
Heights before any interna tional cease-fire
took place . On 9 June, rreed from other
fronts , the Israeli Air Force brought Syrian
gun positions under attack, but failed to
force the Syrians out. Infantry and armour
 8
scaled the Heights under constant barrage
and suffered high casualties, but a
breakthrough was achieved in the northern-
most sector. Moving quickly to consolidate
their opening, the Israeli Defence Forces
(lOF) used helicopters to land paratroops
behind the enemy lines, then brought the ar-
mour in to support them. By 10 June, with
the Israelis firmly established and the danger
of Syrian shelling removed, the Syrians reluc-
tantly accepted a cease-fire. The war was
over. Israel had swiftly and successfully
defeated three Arab armies and removed the
threat from her borders, at \east for the time
being.
THE BATTLE FOR JERUSALEM
Part of Modern Battles II Quad
SPI.1977
Designed by Mark Herman
4 pages of general rules, 4 pages of exclusive
rules, iKenarios, and nOles, 100 cbunlers, one
22" x 17" unmounfed map, boxed with 3 OTher
games. 1. 6 miles/hex, 12 hours/fum. Counters
represent barlalions alld bal/eries.
A/A/B
The Battle for Jerusalem simulates the
combat between the IDF and the Jordanians
in the northern West Bank where the majori-
ty of fighting . took place (Jordanian
resistance south of Jerusalem was minimal).
There are three scenarios: the historical,
which favours the Israelis, and twO non-
historical, which favour the Arabs in increas-
ing degrees. in each, the Israeli player mus t
destroy all four bridges across the Jordan
River and / or capture all four Jerusalem city
hexes to win a vicLOry. As well, the Israeli
player must not lose more than six uni ts or he
reduces his victory by one level. Despite the
usual Israeli success, he is not likely to gain
such a vic LOry as in the actual war. The Wes t
Bank is mostly rough or mountain terrain
which reduces zones of control to adjaceOi
contiguous road hexes. Furthermore, ar-
mour, artillery, and mechanized units may
only move through this terrain along roads,
effectively channelling the advance (or
retreat) of units.
Although basically a typical quad game,
there are a number of special rules which
distinguish The Battle jor Jerusalem: stack-
ing is allowed, three for the Israelis, two for
the Jordanians (reduced by one for each in
rough or moun tain). The Israeli player can
blow bridges by expending one extra movc-
ment point adjacent to a bridge, and the
Israeli player receives air strike markers
which have unlimited range on the map, Tel
Aviv hexes have an intrinsic strength of 5 and
special rules cover Jerusalem and Mount
Scopus. T he Jordanian player is hampered
by command control restrictions which allow
only 15 units to be moved on turns one and
two, while three of his armour brigades are
reserves which have further restrictions plac-
ed on them , Command control restrictions
are lifted in the "Jihad" scenari o .
Overall, the game is fairly good , easy to
play, and captmes some of thc historical
. flavour of the campaign. The victory cond i-
tions are accurate, but do not allow for a
possible cease-fire forced by the UN. There
was a diSTinct possibility that Syria's entry
would draw troops from the front also, '
which could be a what-if scenario.
With no artillery or air-power allov.'ed to
fire into Jerusalem's Old City, this strategic
hex must be taken by assault. It's a bloody
business, and the cost may well cause the
Israeli player to lose the game. In the
historical scenario, the game is a mere ten
turns long. Thus, although he has the
stronger force, the Israeli must use his (fOOPS
to their utmost advantage, since time is on
the side of the Jordanian. The Jordanian
reacts to the Israeli advance, plugging holes
as necessary and counterattacking when the
opportunit y arises 10 destroy units. The
Israeli is pressed 'to mount overwhelming ate
tacks in the rough or in the mountains and
can do lillie more than force his opponent's
forces to retreat. The lack of zones of control
in the rough or mountain makes a break-
througll past the line to the Jordan River
easier, however.
The game is a fair challenge to both
sides . Tile' map is colorful, even if it over-
simplifies the terrain of the area. There is a
.c onspicuous absence of towns, kibbutzim,
and place-names which would be a nice
IOU ell , albeil cosmetic. An interesting and
p layable variation not included is to allow
free set-up for both sides.
SINAI
SPL 1973
See component description under 1956 war.
B/B/B
In Sinai, the 1967 scenario is the base for
both 1956 and 1973 scenarios (which have
special rules to append to the 1967 rules).
There are six scenarios o ther than the
historical, which examine possibilities rang-
ing from fasrer Iraqi response to Arab fan-
tasy - all variations Wh ich improve the
Arabs' chance of victory. They usually need
all the help they can get in Sinai since Arab
units of different nationalities may no t at-
tack the same Israeli unit in the same turn.
Three victOry conditions must be met by
the Israeli player: clearing the Golan, clear-
ing the West Bank, and occupying or being
the last to pass through all Suez crossing
hexes on the east side of the canal. The points
awarded for these goals are incremen ted for
each lurn before turn 12 (six days) in which
they are achieved. If Jordan does not enter
the war (turns one to four on a roll of I to 4,
after which there is no chance of entry), then
the Israeli cannot clear the West Bank. The
Arab gains points for destroying Israeli for-
tified settlements, destroying and occupying
Israeli cities, and eliminating Israeli combat
units, which lowers the Israeli point total.
The Syrians enter the war on the first turn, in
full force in Sinai - somewhat ahistorical-
but the weakness of their forces makes them
of little danger to the Israeli player initially.
The Arab player cannot attack an Israeli for-
tified settlement with less than a + 4
superiority, and the most that the Syrian can
bring to bear (in two stacks) is eight strength
points, so they can at best altack only one
settlement per turn. Moreover, any israeli
unit on a fortified settlement must be attack-
ed first and removed before the settlement
itself can be attacked, making them easier to
defend.
Sinai has twO major faults: artillery is
not present as separate units, but ra ther is in-
tegraled into the combat strengths of o ther
units. The artillery barrages from rhe Golan
Heights were the historical reason for the at-
tack in the north. On this scale, long and
medium range artillery and missiles could be
shown with a range of twO or more hexes.
Second, since units' zones of control are un-
affected by terrain, players can have "solid"
lines of units forming fronts. In the Sinai, the
Egyptian can retreat with an integral front of
connected zones of control, giving an er-
roneous picture of both the terrain and the
na lUre 0 f the comba t in t he area.
The designer's notes men tion the in-
evilability of an Israeli victory; the only ques-
tion is not whetller the Israelis will reach the
Suez, but when they will reach it. This again
is the game as modeled after the result and
balance is wanting unless one of the pro-
Arab what-if scenarios is chosen. N onethe-
less, the game is playable and entertaining.
THE ARAB-ISRAELI WARS
Avalon Hill Game Co., 1977
See componen t descri ption under 1956 war.
A/C/C
The 1967 scenarios in The Arab-Israeli
Wars considerably expand on the game's
potential and reach into the complexities of
the system. There are four scenarios: three
using the standard rules, one using the ad-
vanced rules. The former three on one or TWO
boards are bloody comests between large
forces. The advanced scenario uses three un-
connected boards and is perhaps one of the
most interesting.in the entire game .
Scenario S-2, Abu Agheila, is a truly
bloody, knock-'em-down, drag-'em-out
si tuation. More ihan 100 combat units are
concentrated on a single board as the Israel.is
attempt lO assault a fortified EgYPlian posi-
tion and advance around it. There is lillie
room for maneuver or subtlety here. This
should be a favorite of those who enjoy
massive tank bat tles. The other two scenarios
deal with the Baltic for jenin in the West
Bank, which pits a smaller Jordanian force in

a fortified position against a larger attacking
Israeli force (with armour) . I t is not the
pushover the 1956 scena rio is - the J orda-
nians ha\'e a rmour as well and a considerably
larger for ce than in that scenario. Sti ll ,
despite blocks, mines, and fort ifications, the
Jordan ia ns must retreat in t he face of thc
assault (enforced by the vict ory points given
for exiting infant ry uni ts) . T he next scenario
adds the Iraqi armour brigade to the same
Jordanian posltJOn, which sign ifica ntl y
changes the balance of the game. Althou gh
neither side has off-board anillery, Ihe Israeli
has 10 air st rikes which are very useful in
weakeni ng the Jordanian force.
The advanced scenario offers an in-
teresting challen ge to bo t h players. Three un-
connected boards are used and only Israeli
units and Egyptian tanks may exit a board to
move to a more wes terl y board (toward the
Suez.). The Israeli must clear t he road junc-
tions and towns while elim'inating Egyptian
unils. The Egyptian in fantry and artillery
cannot leave t he boards but the Israeli player
gets points for each enemy unit rema inin g o n
a board from which he has exited uni ts. The
Egyptian player should a LLack with
everything he has, since both unit s
eliminated and units rema ining give the
Israeli the sam'e viClory points. Seems hardl y
fair, but it makes for a very act ive game and it
appears well balanced .
All three games provide a different look
at the ! 967 war and cann Ol easily be com-
pared. The Battle for Jerusalem provides a
fast, balanced game, especially for those w'ho
like the quad system and its rather si mple
mechanics. Sinai has a good game system,
but the scena rio is not balanced and the
omission of artillery and the simplified ter-
rain rules make it a leSS-I han-accura te
simulation . Arab-Israeli Wars has four in-
teresting, playable scenarios and thus may be
the bes t of Ihe three in a dollar-for-dollar
comparison, but it does not o ffer any
scenarios covering the potentially gameable
situat ions that abounded in the war, such as
Ihe battle a l Ihe Mitla Pass, the battles for the
Golan, and the bailies in and aro und
Jerusalem wh ich could improve the game .
Perhaps some will appear in t he General. The
September '80 iss ue of (hal magazine pro-
vides errata and rules clarifications plus
useful information about the armies and
weapons involved, mostly to justify or ex-
plain design criteria. Critics of the
Pan zerBlilzlLeader games will be pleased to
see that Arab-Israeli Wars has bene fitted
from betler researc h and design analysis than
the fo rmer games.
THE YOM KIPPUR WAR
October 1973
Israel learned fro m her wars not to be
persuaded 10 give up thc land won dur ing the
1967 war. The precedent for hostilities from
t he~e territories was sufficient proof that
they would continue should the land be
returned . Keeping the land also removed ma-
jor Israeli popu lation centres from the range
of Arab anillery and, in theory, gave Israel a
buffer zone in the event offurther allacks.
Bet ween 1967 and 1970, rhe new borders
of Israel saw little peace . Artillery barrages
against Israe li posit ions in both the Golan
and alo ng the Suez soon escalated int o loca l
conflicts; retaliatory raids by t he Israelis
came soon after. Iraqi troops sta ti o ned in
Jo rdan shelled T iberias and terroris t attacks
were mOlln led in force fr om bases in Jordan
and Lebanon. Nasser's "\Va r o f Atrri tio n, "
begun in 1968, was in full force by 1969. H e
intended to wear down Israeli defences by
constan t, unrelenting harassmelll, but this
mere ly served to provoke mo re retalia tion.
One Israeli raid netted a seven -to n
Soviet-buil t radar insralla tion , a llowing the
West their first examinat ion of such Soviet
equipment. Terrorism during those years
rcached a new level. Internatio na l incident s
of hijacking, kidnapping, and destruct ion
combined with increasing bombings, raids,
and killings of civilians in Israel. The ter-
rorists even altacked Arab govern ments
which did not actively support them , bomb-
ing Arab embassies, killing the Jordanian
P rime Minister, and attacking buses of Arab
workers in Gaza . The at tac ks culminated in
the murder of Catholic pilgrims in Lod Air-
pOrt by t he Red Front of Japan and the
assassination of elc;'cen Israeli athletes in
Munich by the Black September group, both
in 1972. By fa r the greatest fue l for (he ter-
roris( fi re was the a lmost co mplete lack o f
positive action taken against them by any
government .
In Seplember 1970, J orda n 's King Hus-
sein fe lt his position threatened and eroded
by the terrorists' " sta te-within-a-state." He
moved to clamp down on the huge terroris t
population in his counlry by attacking the
camps and known centres wilh his army. E I
Fatah later claimed he inflicted 20,000
casualties, more lhan had been inflic ted on
the P alesti nian Arabs in aJJ Ihe clashes with
the J ews and Israel since 1920. That
September became kno\Nn as "Black
September." The terrorists called upon Syria
for help, a nd Syria prompt ly a ttacked Jor-
dan. T hey were d rive n back partly by t he J or-
danian Air Force a nd partly b ecause Russia
was unwilling to come to their aid when the
US threatened to intervene if they did so
(Scenario S- 3 of A rab-Israeli Wars dea ls
wit h this battle.) In the same month, Presi-
dent N asser died of a heart allack and was
succeeded by the Vice P reside nt, Anwar
Sadat , one of the original officers in the coup
that overthrew Farouk and one of Nasser's
co-co nspirators with lhe Nazis in WWIl.
Sadat rapidly eliminated his political opposi-
tion and pronounced 1971 as the "year of
decision" on the A ra b-Israe li issue. Failing
10 act, Sada t proclaimed in 1972 and then in
1973 that he would act within the year. Like
the little boy crying WOlf, Israel paid him no
heed - un til it was tOO late .
Egyp t had been receiving enormous
anns shipm ents from the Soviets, includin g
SAM installations, int ended to reduce
Israel' s air superiority and provide an um-
brella under which Egyptian fo rces could ad-
vance. They a lso received MiG-2 1'5,
MiG-23's, and Sukhoi Su-11 's. Some 21,000
Soviet militar y "advisors" and lech nicians
9
we re stationed there tOlrai n the Egyplians to
use the equipment. In July 1972, Sadat
demanded better equipment , newer technol-
ogy, and more "offensive" weaponry, but
Ihe Soviets had liltle faith in the Egyptian
a bility to use such equipment and refused.
Sadat , angered, expelled the en tire Soviet
contingent from Egyp t. This did not deter
arms shipments, however, wh ich co ntinued
in lat e 1972 after a short hia tus . It did lull
Isra el into believing that the sting was remov-
ed from E gypt 'S war-making potential. Syria
had also been receivi ng similar massive
Soviet arms shipments since early 1971, and
su bstan l ial numbers of military and technical
advisors he lped rebui ld the Syrian army by
1973.
Israel had rebuilt and honed her armed
forces each time after the wars of 1948 and
1956 until they were the most competent
force in the Middle E ast. The 1967 viclo ry
made Israel feel con fident and comfortable
about her abili ty to deal with any Arab
threat, and the buffer zones gai ned in the war
were intended to allow ample warning of a ny
Arab threat before it cou ld reach Israel. They
were caught by surprise in Oct ober 1973
because they doub led the Arab ab ility to
learn from the wars or the determinati<.'n of
the Arab nations to go to war against Israel
so soon. Israel buill the Bar-Lev line along
the Suez by 1969 and believed that this row of
26 fOrli fied positions could wit hstand any at-
tack, much the same way the French believed
in the Magino t Line in 1940. Israel had
estimated tha t it would take Ihe Egypt ians
rime to reduce rhe steep banks of [he ca nal
and to construct bridges across - projects
that wou ld ta ke up to two days - and
the refo re offered sufficient time to meet any
threat. In reality, it took only two or three
hours, using hi gh pressure water jets to erode
the bank s, and thence it took 6 hours to
bridge . Israeli intelligence, excellent at
documenting Arab military maneuvers, fail -
ed to identify the nature of the threat to
Israel on either front until the very last mo-
ment. The I DF was to discover that the
Arabs had indeed learned from their past
mistakes and had become adept at fightin g a
war.
At 2:00 PM on 6 October - Yom Kip-
pur, the holiest day 011 the J ewish calenda r
and a time when many Israelis were still in the
synagogue - the Syria ns and the Egyptians
simultaneously launched assaults on Israeli
positions. Both fronts opened their offensive
with a massive arlillery barrage while an air
assault under the protection of SAM net-
works attacked IDF and IAF bases and
Israeli sett lements . Egyptian commandos
raced across the canal in rubber dinghies
while Syrian armoured division attacked the
positions along the Golan. Helicopters land-
ed forces which took the Israeli outpost on
Mount Hermo n .
The Syrian altack was two-pronged: one
arm, including 500 tanks, attacked from the
no rt h towa rd Quneitra, while the o the r, with
800 tanks, attacked from the south toward
Rafid - the two weakest points in the Israeli
line. A third armoured di vision was held in
reserve . .Facing them were two armo ured
10
brigades (one understrength) and the forces
holding the Israeli fortifications and set-
tlements. The Israelis in the nort h managed
to hold back the at tackers somewhat better
than in the south where the line was forced
back . They inf1icted heavy casualties on the
Syrian massed armour formations, but
Israeli pilots took heavy losses trying to pro-
vide' ground support and attempting to
destroy Syrian SAM's .
In the sou th, the Egyptians quickly
bridged the canal and assaulted the Bar-Lev
fortifications (only 16 were manned), bu t
refused to waste precious time in sledging
stubborn positions, leaving these behind for
troops. The infantry, armed with an abun-
dance of excellent anti-tank weapons, forced
heavy casualties on the Israeli armoured
reserves advancing to meet them. Portable
SAM-7's provided a mobile defence against
Israeli air forces, already suffering from
Egypt's initial air strikes. Crack Egyptian
troops were borne by helicopters deep behind
Israeli lines, but many of these were shot
down by the IAF, and the survivors were too
few to be much more than a nuisance.
Within 48 hours, the Israelis had been
forced back in some places to the very edge
of [he Golan plateau and their positions
along the Suez were completely overrun .
Reserves poured into both fronts . On the
Golan, the northern end of the line still held
back the Syrians, and Israeli counterattacks
from 8 October on reversed the Syrian
thrusts in the centml and S0ut hern sector,
forc ing the invaders back to the original lines
by 10 October. The Israeli counteroffensive,
between 11 and 24 October, pierced the
Syrian line and the extensive fortificat ions
and minefield belt they had built encircling
the front since 1967. Various counterattacks
by the Syrians and their allies (the Iraq is, Jor-
danians, and Saudis) failed to break the
Israeli lines, and Israeli attacks were thrown
back at Sasa, where- the retreating troops
(wit h Kuwaiti reinforcements) reformed to
prevent the advancing Israelis from reaching
Damascus . The Moroccan-held position on
Mount Hermon was taken 22 October in the
last major battle on the fronl.
Along the Suez, Israeli counterattacks
were thrown back, but they had blunted the
Egyptian advance . By 8 October, the Egyp-
tians had over 660 tanks across the canal, and
their bridgehead was eight kilometers deep
(another 500 crossed between II and 13 Oc-
tobe r). Between 9 and 13 October, the
Israelis could merely attempt to contain the
Egyptian expansion. The Egyptians ventured
outside their SAM umbrella for the first time
on 14 October to stage an armoured assault
north of Greal Bi Iter Lake, but were repulsed
with heavy losses . The Israeli counterthrust,
begun on 15 October, led by Sharon's divi-
sion, broke across the canal and established a
bridgehead on the western bank. The Egyp-
tians attempted to cut off the Israelis by con-
vergent attacks by both armies at the battle at
the Chinese Farm . The Israelis were still able
to reinforce their bridgehead and threw the
Egyptians out of the Chinese Farm by 18 Oc-
tobe r. F rom then on, they poured across the
canal, securing their foothold until 24 Oc-
tober, when figh ting ceased. By 23 October,
they had completely encircled the Egyptian
3rd Army, ensuring themselves a greater
lever in the upcoming peace negotiations.
Although ini tially surprised, the Israelis
had responded with alacrity and determina-
tion, retrieving the situation on both fronts.
They had underestimated thei r enemies, for
which they paid dearly, but they had turned
the situation around to obtain a decisive vic-
tory agai nst an overwhelming Arab force .
GOLAN (SPI, 1975)
(one of MODERN BATTLES QUAD)
Designed by Irad Hardy
4 pages of general rules. plus 4 pages of
exclusive rules, 100 counters, olle 17" x22"
unmounled map. boxed with lhree olher games.
1 mile/ hex, 12 hours/ furn . Counters represent
baftalions. Also available in a separale edition.
boxed Wilh mounled mapboard.
A/C/C
Golan simula tes the battles in the
no rt hernmost two-thirds of the Golan
Heights. Like the other lvfodern Battles
games, it uses a set of standard ru les com-
plemented by an addenda of exclusive ru les.
The simplicity of the system makes these
games fast and enjoyable, but realism is
sacrificed . Zones of control are rigid and
units can only exit them through com bat.
Ranged artillery can use both barrage and
fi nal protective fire in a turn . Combat be-
tween adjacent units is mandatory and the
Combat Results Table uses a comba t dif-
ferential rather than an odds table. The ex-
clusive rules give the attacker,he option of
using either a mobile or active combat results
table: the latte r being far bloodier and
decisive for both sides than the former. SPI
chose to use silhoue ttes instead of standard
military symbols on the counters, which is
not popular wit h the author, but if the reader
likes the style he or she should rate the com-
ponents a B.
Although the Syrian player is given six
SAM units, the Israeli player does not have
air units, merely the use of up to 30 ground
support points each turn . This abstract
means of dealing with air power and SAM
units is in keeping with the basic system, but
it conveys no feel for that part of the ballie.
A lillie added complexity here would have
improved the game. There are three
scenarios: one historical, one which ex-
amines a better Israeli defence, and a third
which examines a better Syrian defence. Vic-
tory depends on territorial gains only in all
three scenarios.
This is a good, tough game, one easily
played to a conclusion in an evening. It is a
seesaw battle as the Israelis attempt to hold
onto the Golan unti l reinforcemen ts arrive
(game-turns two through five) when the
situation is reversed and the Syrians are forc-
ed back on the defensive . Rules built into the
game simulate the historical outcome but
restrict the Syrian player to historical
precedents: Syrian artillery must only be used
in coordination with a ground unit allack
outside Syria . Syrian reserves may not move
until turn eight (or until an Israeli uni t enters
Syria). The mandatory Syrian offensive rules
force the Syrian player into a headlo ng at-
tack and neithe r player has [he option of a
free set-up. Once having seized at least three
Israeli fortified hexes, however, the Syrian
player can achieve a decisive victory by exit-
ing a unit off the west edge of the map.
Despite flaws, it 's primarily a game and
as such lives up to what it sets out to be. As a
simulation, it's mediocre, but this can be
forgiv en due to the ease and enjoyment of
play.
CHINESE FARM (SPI, 1975)
(part of MODERN BATTLES QUAD)
Designed by Howard Barasch.
Same componenr makeup and scale as Golan
(.~ee above).
A/C/C
Chinese Farm simulates the battles of
the Israeli counteroffensive in the Sinai,
north of Great Bitter Lake near an ex-
perimental farm called the Chinese Farm. It
uses the same system as Golan, including the
treatment of a ir support and SAM siles, but
special rules include bridging the Suez Canal
and the Egyptian defence force at Ismalia.
The Egyptian artillery is unde r the same
res trictions for barrage as the Syrians in
Golan.
There are three scenarios in Chinese
Farm: two historical (the first dispenses wi th
air points and SAM units) and one whic h
allows flexibility in the set-up and gives bo th
sides larger" forces. Victory is determined by
how many Egyptians manage to survive on
the east bank of the Suez plus how many
Is raelis they have eliminated compared to
how well the Israeli player has achieved ter-
ritorial gains in Egyp[. In the third scenario,
the Israeli player also gets points fo r des troy-
ing Egyptian units. It's no t a questio n of
whether or not the Israelis will cross the
canal, but how well they do so .
Chinese Farm is also a very playable
game. It's no t as f1uid as Golan, but none-
theless fast and enjoyable.
BAR LEV
Conflict Game Co" 1974
Designed by John Hill
14 pages of rules plus lO pages of charlS, tables,
and errata, 450 cou nters, one 22" x 34" unmounted
plaslicized map, boxed. Scale nOI given, bul
approximately 5km/ hex on the Golan fronl alld
lOkm/ hex on Ihe Suez front. Counters represent
bailalions and regiments.
A / O/C
BAR LEV
Game Designers Workshop, 1977
2nd edit ion design by F rank Chadwick
12 pages of rules plus II pages of charts, 352
co unters. two 18 " x25" unmounred maps, .
boxed. Golan front: 3km/hex; Suez fronl:
6km/hex. Counters represent ballalions and
brigades.
B/B/A
Since GDW' s Bar Lev is a redesign of
John Hill's earlier version, these two games
should be considered together. Although
Frank Chadwick used Hill's design concepts,
the second edition is very different from the
fi rst. Each represents a different emphasis on

Components of Co nflict Game Co. edition of Bar Lev.
design. Hill's Bar Lev is an exciting, tense,
fun (albeit long) game. Chadwick's (no rela-
tion to the author) is far more historically ac-
curate, clean, but less fun (although also
tense). Both are long -games, and both re-
quire a large area for maps and charts.
Both Bar Lev's use two maps to portray
the fronts: Suez and Golan. The 1974 game
has both on one board, while the 1977 game
has two separate maps. The Golan from
covers roughly one half the area of the Sinai
front, and the Golan is considerably rougher
than that part of the Sinai where most of the
fighting took place. In order to give the
players a feel for each area, the scale on the
Golan front is twice that of the Sinai. While
movement allowances remain the same on
both fronts, printed artillery ranges are
doubled in the Golan and stacking is halved.
Got it? It's not difficult, but it gets a liltle
confusing until you've played the game a bit.
More than once has an opportunity passed
this author to use artillery properly on the
Golan, simply because I forgol to double the
range.
Both games have a ground and an air
module; the ground rules may be played
separately, but the use of both is recommend-
ed since the air rules add more to the game
play than just extra complexity. Despite the
second edition changes, both games use the
same tables for direct fire, Israeli artillery,
Arab artillery, air-to-air and air-to-ground
combat (in the later edition, airplane types
have been changed) and anti-aircraft (SAM)
fire. Both games use silhouettes and military
symbols in their counter mix.
The most obvious difference between
. the two games is the maps. Hill's chQice of
colours is reminiscent of the psychedelic 60's:
flourescent orange maps with bright blue,
red, and brown terrain on which counters of
tan, yellow, and bright green were placed. It
was not pleasant to behold . Nor was it state
of the an even in 1974! The slope lines were
all hand drawn, giving it an amateurish look.
Hill's map is "representative" of the
military, not the geographic effects of ter-
rain. The second edition is toned down to an
almost presbyterian seriousness, but it
displays the actual terrain more accurately.
Hill's order of battle suffers from a fair
number of mistakes, since it was based upon
intelligence only then recently come from the
war. GDW improved and changed the order
of battle radically according to newer data.
In doing so, they altered the nature of the
play considerably. For example, the Arabs
had fewer SAM units in Hill's game and so
were forced to use lhem with extreme discre-
tion. In the newer edition, the number of
SAM's available is more than doubled. With
so many extra units, the Arab player need not
be so cautious in his play. The values ascribed
to each type of unit also differ. For example,
A Centurion 6- 6 unit became a 6-4-8 (the
four is the defense factor) and a Super Sher-
man 6-6 became a 4-2-8 . Most of the Israeli
infantry is mechanized in the 1977 game. The
initial set-ups are so different that anyone
11
familiar with one edition would fail to
rec.ognize the other by the order of battle.
T he res1-l1l of these changes is to make the
1977 game tougher for the Arab player to
win.
Hill's game is only moderately complex.
It has rules for first fire and simultaneous
direct fire for brigades and for special units .
The ground module sequence of play is
bridge building, indirect fire, move, direct
fire, advance and regroup, repeated for the
opponent .in the same turn. Units can be
eliminated by direct fire and eliminated or
neutralized by artillery. Those eliminated can
be refitted at a certain ratio of dead-for-live
units. Both sideS' may have broken morale
and exhaustion. The air rules include SAM's,
types of aircraft and their different missions,
ground attack, air superiority, air-lo-air and
ground-to-air combat, airmobile assault,
and air transport. Air units can be refitted
similarly to ground units. To win the 1974
game, the Syrian must hold any three Israeli
villages without losing any Syrian villages,
and the Egyptian must clear out the Bar Lev
line while preventing any Israeli tank units
fro m crossing the canal. Should any turn end
with no Israelis left on either map, the game
is an instant victory for the Arabs. The 1977
victory conditions require far more territory
to be held by either player on each front.
The game proved very popular. Easy to
learn and fun to play, it proved a tough
seesaw of offensive and counteroffensive.
The Israeli player can move units between
fronts t hrough a series of on-map boxes. A
typical game has the Israelis on the very brink
of the Golan, forced to use all available
reserves and air units to stabilize the Suez
front, then sending units to push back in the
Golan. Frequently the Israeli won , mostly by
the strength of his air force, but the game
played down to many cliff-hangers in the wee
hours.
The new game is more of a historian's
than a gamer's delight. Most of the rules are
cleaner than the original - first fire, ar-
tillery, morale, regroup and refit. New rules
have been added to cover irregular unit
movement supply and isolation, Arab con-
trol, Israeli mobilization, plus a number of
optional rules. To simulate slaff shortages
and command inflexibility, the Arab play has
"operations" points which he must expend
to perform certain necessary game functions .
The air rules. are essentially the same. Yet for
some reason the air module does not work as
well as in the original game. The Israelis can
now bounce Arab air units under the SAM
umbrella, but it's not much of an advantage
since the new order of battle has left them
weaker. Also, armour casualties are ex-
ceedingly high, especially from artillery fire_
To partially remedy this, Chadwick has sug-
gested adding two to the die roll for armour.
Finally, despite considerably better research,
there are a number of minor Arab con-
tingents -missing from play, including the
Moroccans, the Kuwaitis, and the Saudis.
These had only a minor role in the war.
I found it annoying that the lank
silhouettes are not identified on the counters
12
in th is edition; you must refer to a chart to
identify a particular tank. GDW's penchant
for charts and tables can get a little carried
away at times.
Play the 1974 edition if you wanl more
game; if you want more simulation, play the
1977 version. Both are good for their own
reasons. You might not be able to find a copy
of Hill's original game on sale, so you might
find yourself without a choice. But if you
have the chance, buy both.
SINAI
SPI,1973
See component description under 1956 war.
A/C/C
The J 973 and mid-70's scenarios are the
only games in Sinai that give the Arabs a fair
chance for victory. Changes made to the 1967
scenario rules include a new sequence of play
which allows two supply and.Jwo movement
phases per turn for each player. Turns now
represent 24 hours instead of 12 and include
improved Arab movement ability and
defence (double the printed strength), new
supply rules, the suspens io n of the fear and
Arab command control rules, new Jordanian
participation rules, Arab non-cooperation
rules, SAM units, the Bar Lev line, Israeli
garrisons, Egyptian reserves and ceasefire.
Victory depends on eliminating enemy units
and capturing enemy territory.
The 1973 scenario of Sinai is 'exciting,
but the scale makes for ahistorical play. In
the Golan, only one Israeli unit faces eleven
Syrian units (compared to the fi rs t edition of
Bar Lev game where 14 Israeli units face 34
Syrian units). The Syrian must first attack
the fortified settlements and can dest roy two
in the first combat p hase, exploit the
breakthrough in the second movement
phase, and be outside Tiberias (hex 3306) in
the. first 24 hours. Since the entire Golan is
only 15 hexes large, it is not possible to show
the bitter struggle that occurred between
small Israeli units and the massed Syrian
units. Similarly, on the Suez front, the Egyp-
tian can cause considerable damage pushi ng
to Israel's border by turn th ree . The game is
extremely fluid, and the threat to Is rael is far
more potent than when portrayed on the two
maps of the Bar Lev games. Israel must deal
with defending the entire coun try. not merely
two distant fronts. Units must garrison the
West Bank along the Jordan until full iorda-
nian entry.
There are two scenarios: the historical,
which favours the Israelis moderately, and
the full Arab cooperation scenario, which
favours the Arab p layer. Missing from the
countermix are the Kuwaitis and the Moroc-
cans, but the second scenario allows two Lib-
yan unils to participate. The mid-70's
scenarios are variations on the 1973 rules and
orders of battle. They include some in-
teresting possibilities such as Soviet interven-
tion, improved Arab logistics, and [he return
of all occupied territory (except in Jerusalem)
which may be somewhat more prophetic
than the designers anticipated!
Sinai's 1973 and later scenarios are
mobile, desperate, and yet simple enough to
be fun and playable in one sitting. The game
would benefit from some retouching and the
inclusion of a 1948 scenario, but it stands as
one of SPl's best effons to date.
ARAB-ISRAELI WARS
Avalon Hill Game Co., 19n
See component descrip ti on under 1956 war.
A/C/C
Fourteen of the scenarios in Arab-Israeli
Wars cover the 1973 war. One p re-war 1973
scenario and two pos t -1973 scenari os a re also
included. Most use the standard rules, but
three use the basic and three use [he advanc-
ed rules. The scenarios are widely varied,
allowing the players to choose from an in-
teresting selection of situatio ns th at include
meeting engagements, assaults on fortified
positiOns, tank versus tank, and infantry ver-
sus tank battles.
Arab-Israeli Wars uses a re lat ively sim-
ple game system, but it sacrifices realism by
re ta ining the PanzerBlirz mechanics. The
game plays well, and the scenarios are well
chosen. Basic tactical lessons are easily learn-
ed: armour attacking in fantry ar med with
an ti- tank weaponry needs infantry support
or it will be quickly eliminated. Range is
crucial in shoot-outs. The player who best
coordinates his combined arms will emerge
the winner. But certa in game mechanics con-
vey a fals e picture of the battlefield environ-
ment. For example, it is possible to combine
firepower to achieve an elimination result
that would not occur on the field (such as us-
ing mortars and small arms to increase the
odds to guarantee a hit against armour).
Also, the dispersal effect is not a realistic
combat res ul t , and there is no attrition or
reduc tio n of strength fro m a unit, only
elimination. In order to grant the units the ef-
fecti veness they showed in the wars, the
Is raeli firepower has been infla ted - a ra ther
artificial means to an end. Finally, the rigid
fire/move mechanics eliminate surprise so
combat often becomes too predictable. The
opportunity fire rules help im prove the si tua-
tion, but not nearly enough.
Arab-Israeli Wars is an addition to a
fami ly of games, not a new game. There are
no surprises, no innovations, just revisions
and improvements. It ;s entertaining but
unrealistic and, in the long run, unlikely to
maintain popularity in the competitive games
business.
OCTOBER WAR
SP1,19n
Designed by Irad Hardy
12 pages of rules, 200 coun rers, one 22" x 34"
unmounred map, boxed. 200 merres/hex, 2
minures/lurn. Counlers represent platoons.
B/B/B
Oerober War came out about t he same
time as Arab-Israeli Wars, inviting a lot o f
critical comparisons between the two . Both
are tactical armour games of approximately
the same scale. When released, October War
was SPl's latest ge ne rat io n in a long ancestry
of tactical armour games. It combined not
only the mechanics of its ancestOrs, but in-
novations as well. Ocrober War's armour
u ni ts represent th ree-ta nk platoons. Hits
reduce the number of ta nks, thus reducing
firepower. There are three combat results
ta bles, one for each number of tanks remain-
ing in a platOon. Units fi re individually at a
target, preventing otherwise ineffective units
from being added to a combat to guarantee a
hit. The combat table does not use odds, but
rat he r uses the attack strengt h of the unit as
modified by range, type of target, and
target's terrain. Defending uni ts suffer par-
tial losses of hit, and indi rect fire may cause
suppression or panic movement. An attacker
may fire at individual units in a stack. Other
rules include overrun, mines, improved posi-
tions, mounted combat, panic, indirect fire,
and opportunity fire.
There are two clumsy areas in October
War: panic and movement. Panic is checked
by a dice roll prior to any movement or fire
attempt. If the unit fails the roll, it cannot
perforrn as intended tha t turn. Inst ead it
panic moves until it passes a subsequent
panic roll. This works better than the old
system where units panicked according to the
last digit of the hex they were in, but it still
creates the anomaly of a panicked unit
breaking out of a column to run at the
enemy. T he morale rule in Arab-Israeli Wars
is a more elegant solution. Movement is a
comprise between sequential and
simultaneous systems: first one player moves
a unit, then the other, and so on until all
movement is completed. This is only
moderately successful as a game mechanic
since it still makes intentions too obvious and
allows opponents to react too easily to each
other's moves. Since only one unit at a lime
can move, this prevents overruns with a stack
of unilS, which usually makes overruns too
costly to be of much use. If stacks are allow-
ed [0 move together it would alleviate this
problem. Uni ts may fire or move in a turn,
but not both (personnel units may fire from a
transporting APe). Units are de ployed face
down until spotted, allowing some element
of surprise.
In the eleven scenarios which include
two campaign games, victory conditions are
territorial. Two addil.ional scenarios are pro-
vided in the errata, and there is less errata

than expected for a first-effort game. The
decision has included a number of new and
revised rules in the errata which increase the
complexity and realism: overwatch fire, pull
back, suppression of armoured vehicles, and
night combat. Overwatch allows units (0 fire
at enemy units which fire that turn .
October War manages to present a com-
plex idea in a rather simple, compact format.
The best surprise of all is that it works quite
well. The game plays smoOthly, despi te the
awkward panic and movement rules. Ease of
play make it a game capable of holding in-
terest for longer than most games today. It
sti ll stands as one of the belter tactical a r-
mour games available .
MECH WAR 2: Suez to Golan
SPI,1979
Designed by Mark Herman-
36 pages oj standard rules plus 16 pages oj
exclusive ru les, 800 cOl/nters, two 22 " x 34" un-
moumed maps, boxed. 200 melres/hex, 5
minutes/lurn. Counlers represenl platoons and
squads. (Also available with Mech War 2: Red
Slar/ White Slar).
C/B/B
Mech War 2 is the latest product in SPI's
drive to create the ultimate tactical armour
game. It also is designer Ma rk Herman's
mOSt ambitious attempt to da te. It is not
merely a refinement of previous systems, but
a new, innovative game with an exceplional
amount of simulation de tail and applied
data . Its very completeness makes il a dif-
ficult gamej eigh t pages arc required to
display all the charts and tables alone!
Vehicle counters show the type and
silhouette, targe t profile, armour class, and
movement allowance. Infan try counters
show automatic weapons strengths at four
ranges. There are also aircraft and
helicopters and artillery units in light,
medium, or heavy concentrations, battali o n ,
battery, and seclion sizes and either
howitzers or mortars . Neutral markers in-
clude defilade, column, minefield, smoke
(battalion, battery, or section sizes), and
starshell (light, medium , howi tzer or
mortar), bridge (in tact or deSiroyed),' abat is,
ferry, suppression, and combat strength.
Combat uni ts may be given one of six
commands each turn: bound (move), over-
watch (opportunity and di rec t fire),
bounding-overwatc h (split fire and move),
withdrawal (due to combat losses), rally (to
restore morale), and reg roup (recom bine
units). Rules cover movement, observa ti on,
direct and opportunity fire, a utomatic
weapons fire (infantry), main gun and
ATGM fire, close assau lt, indi rect fire ,
defilade, smoke, transport, mounted com-
bat, and morale. Advanced rules include
minefields, aircraft and he licop ters, short
halt, ammunition depletion , night, positions
of advantage, ambush, camouflage,
engineers, and fire-and -move. The exclusive
rules cover special terrain fealUres, special
units, wea ther, command, and doctrine.
There are seven Sinai scenarios and six Golan
scenarios. Victory condi tions are based on
territorial considerations.
The maps represent "typical" terrain in
the Golan and Sinai. They are not visually
pleasing. The choice of coloured splotches [Q
represent terrain types make the maps look
as though they have contracted a rare
disease. They are very readable, however.
Terrain includes five increments of hei ght,
two typ es of woods and three of rough , plus
road, Lrail, fortifications, firing ramp,
escarpment, canal, road , city, anti- tank
ditch, rail embankmelll, and prohibited
hexes . The designer has assumed thaL in
every hex some cover can be found, so units
can en ter defilade in any hex by merely ex-
pending movement points. This may work
effect ively in the Golan, but parts of the Sinai
are as flat as billiard tables and provide no
cover in any form, so I question the general
application of this rule (defilade offers no
benefit if the firing unit is two or more levels
higher than the defending vehicle unit) .
There are four types of fire: oppo rtuni-
ty, o verwatch, final, and withdrawal fire.
P la yers determine the weapon system firing
and cross-i ndex with range, target profile,
and number of firing points. Combat results
are modified according to the "loss
modification" procedure to determine the
number of vehicles or infantry steps lost. In-
direct fire is subject [0 scatter, which deter-
mines whether the on-target or off-target
res u lts tables is used. Losses may also cause
suppression or an increase in the morale
status. The higher the morale stale, the worse
the performance of tbe affected units: units
wit h a morale state of twO Or higher cannot
be given bound or bounding overwatch com-
mands, and units with a morale state of th ree
may nOL fire.
The system works well and funct ions
with a clear logic , although combat resolu -
tion is long and involved. The scenario order
of battle informa tion is poorly displayed,
and players are required 10 search through
three sections in order LO set lip. The layout
of other data requ ires an inordinate amount
of searching and paper shuffling , which do
nothing to ease the playing of this complex
game. With all the dice-rolling and modify-
ing, players can spend more time reading and
13
rolling than moving units, making this a dull
game for action.
The game's biggest problem is scope: it
attempts to simulate all of the factors which
influence the modern battlefield. 11 may well
do so, but it suffers as a game accordingly.
It is also difficult to relate Mech War 2 to the
Middle East on this scale. The only rules
which even moderately distinguish Arab and
Israeli (aside from organization) are those
covering independent command and doc-
trine. It is one of the best simulations of tac-
lical armoured combat available, but it is not
the best game available on the subject.
Designer Irad Hardy's October War -
developed by Mark Herman -is fa r bener in
that respect . Still, for the information it of-
fers alone, it is a game no armour buff should
bewithout - even if they never play it.
FAST ATIACK BOATS
Yaquinto Publications, Inc" 1980
Designed by Neil Zimmerer
and Craig Taylor, Jr.
8 pages oj rules, 179 cou!!lers, one 12 II; " x 25"
mounied map. No scale or lime given. Counlers
represerH individual hoals and missiles or
lorpedoes.
AICID
If Fast Attack Boals teaches us nothing
about strategy and tactics in the 1973 naval
war, it does teach us the inappropriateness of
the game concept in this siwation. Fast A (-
tack Boals is one of Yaquinto's "album
games": the map is mounted on the inside of
a double-record jacket, and where once it
might have held a copy of the White Album,
it is now used for SLoring rules and counters.
While this unique packaging idea works well
wi th some of their other games , lhe restricted
playing surface is unsuitable to portray a
situation which requires a large r area for
maneuver.
The game mechanics are quite simple
and can be learned in a few minutes. Se-
quence of play is clean and concise : sequen-
tia l movement-simultaneous gunnery fire-
sequential missile movement-simultaneous
missile hit. BoalS must always face a hexside,
but missiles and torpedoes have no facing .
Since gunnery range is nine hexes and t he
board only 18 hexes wide, it is impossible to
pass a well-placed enemy s hip outside its
range . Torpedoes have a maximum range of
10 hexes, which reduce.~ their effectiveness.
The board is 32 hexes long, so the the Arab
Styx missile, wit h its range of 27 hexes, is
almost always in range.
T he Arabs have P4 torpedo boats as
well as missile boats, and fhei r missiles have a
Ianger range than t hose of the Israelis .
Although torpedoes and Styx missiles must
be launched directly through the frontal hex-
side, they have no further restrictions on
movement after launching. Despite the
shorter range of (heir missiles, the Israelis
have other advalllages: they can carry more
missiles on their boats (although they have
fewer boats in any scenario) and their
missiles can be launched through any frolllal
hexsides. When determining hiLS, Israeli
missiles are more effective and their boats are
faster than many Arab boats. The counters,
/com;nued an page 171
14

THEORY & TECHNIQUE

ADVANCED TACTICS, REALITYAND GAME

The Relationship of Military Tactics to the Play of Simulations, Part 2: The Defense
by Thomas G. Pratuch

FIGURE 3:
Route Analysis
Map: Map A of Red Star/ White
Star f rom Mech War 2.
Given a scenario where the ene my
(attacker) forces must exit u nits
fro m the east mapedge, t he map
has been ana Iyzed for prima ry
routes of att ack an d defensive
posi t ions to bloc k .

a~~ = Primary Route

@!IIi!j!" = Secondary Route

0 =Initial Positi on

, - - "" = Secondary Pos ition

' .... -..,.#

Here we continue from last issue in cOrltrasting
what is ac tually do ne w ith w hat is actua lly pl ayed .
The game system used to illustra te this artic le is
Mech War 2 , a S\'stem tha i enco urages the use of
good so u nd doct ri ne {probab ly to its disadvantage
as a \No uld be eas l( to play gamel. Presu ming
you've liked vvhat you've read so far, vve' ll ad d to
t his series with help fro m M r. Pratuc h's perl .
-Redmond
THE DEFENSE
The offense may be the more exciting
pan of playing a wargame. The joy of Over-
running your opponent's units or watching
him remove counter after counter as your
successful attacks roll down the board is only
a small portion of the overall action found in
play. A player who neglects his defensive
planning will soon find himself losing games
even if he is a mas ter of t he at tack.
There are several reasons for military
units gOing on the defensive. It is not always
possible to maintain the momentum of the
at tac k, and a break in ope rat ions is needed to
bring up fresh units or provide the altacking
force a needed res t. Nor is it possible to have
attacks going along an entire front in com-
baL In order for military commanders to
concentrate sufficient forces fo r the at tack in
one area, a second area must be guarded with
reduced numbers of units. This means going
on the defense.
As in the attack, t here are hasty and
deliberate defenses. Ag~in the designation
refers to the amount of time available to
building and planning of the mission. The
considerations used in arranging the defense
are the same in either case.
What are the types of defenses? There is
far more variety to defensive planning than
LO allacking, Options open to the defender
are positio nal defense, active defense, delay,
and strongpoint.
Positional Defense. This is a classic style of
defense and the type most familiar to
wargamers. A unit is given a specific area of
ground with the mission of remaining on that
area unless ordered to move by the com-
mander of the overall defensive area. While
some planning is given to moving to other
areas for conducting a defense, the unit is
primarily intended to hold that Spot of
ground. As an example, a company size unit
may be given the mission of defending a
small town. While .t he platoons and squads
might move as necessary within the town 10
defend against attacks, the company will not
seek to leave the town to defend from a
woodline or hill outside the tOwn without
receiving a specific order from a unit at a
higher level.
Active Defense. A more recent develop-
ment in defensive positions is the active
defense. Units are required to plan for move-
ments to several different defensive posi-
tions. Overall the operation resembles a
delay (to be discussed next) , except that the
movement of the defenders is intended to
concentrate forces against the attack instead
of stalling for time. Movemems are perform-
ed on the order of the overall area eom-
mander. Initially, the active defense looks
. similar to a positional defense set-up. Units
are spaced to provide mUlual support and
given specific areas [0 defend. Then, as the
enemy attack develops , the defensive units
are moved into planned positions along the
enemy altack route. Some units are left along
the flanks of the defensive area, which re-
quires greater areas to be covered by their
positions. As the attack continues, the
defender may have /0 defend deeper wilhin
his territory to halt and destroy the enemy at-
tack. Once the enemy at tack is halted or
destroyed , the defender then seeks to re-
establish a defensive line at the same posi-
tions as at the start of the defense,
Delay. A delay is intended to trade ground
for time in an effort to halt or slow down an
enemy attack. It can be distinguished from
the aCtive defense by the lack of lateral move-
ment to bring defenders into a position in
front of the enemy attack. It can be
distinguished from any other defense by the
generally reduced preparations around the
positions. Minefields tend to be hasty inslead
of deliberate, few engineer-emplaced
obstacles are in evidence, and planning to
move back under enemy fire is emphasized.
The reduced effort is not a deliberate intent
of the commander, but is a funclion of the
lack of time available to plan and prepare a
regular defense. A delay operation is usually
given to an area where the available units are
no t sufficiently strong to stop an all-out at-
tack by an enemy force . Notice t hat this does
not mean that all units automatically begin a
delay under enemy attack. I f the enemy force
is weak, the delaying force might not move
and simply destroy the allack from the first
delay position. Each movement back is plan-
ned to bring all units into a defensive Ijne. In
order to perform this movement in the face
of a heavy enemy artack, units are dire(;ted LO
begin their moves pdor to the enemy force
reaching a poim where t he enemy fires pre-
vent a unit from moving.
Strongpoint. This is actually a specific case
of the positional defense, but it merits its
own discussion. In a strongpoint, a unit is
given an area to defend and maximum effort
is expended in preparing the area to resist an
allack. Typically, a town is chosen as the site
of a st rongpoint. All other units in the defen-
sive line may be required to defend in a posi-
tional or active defense, but are also required
to plan around the strongpoint as the main
effort of the defense. This means that a delay
cannot be planned around a strongpoint: the
resulting gap would create a weakness when
Lhe delaying units pulled back, and the
st rongpoint defender would end up sur-
rounded.
What are the key factors in planning a
defense? Conducting a good defcnse re-
quires more than placing a unit on a piece of
ground. Hov..' the defensive fircs are
oriented, where artillery will be used, what
engineer-emplaced obstacles might aid the
defenders, and what movement might be re-
quired to conduct the defense - these are a
few of t he considerations.
15
Alternate and Supplementary Positions. A
military unit does not plan its entire defense
from one specific spot on the ground . Plan-
ning is made for conducting the same defense
from a second spot in the same general area .
This second location is called an alternate
position . When the first position is under
heavy enemy fire, the defender will shift to
the alternate position. This forces the at-
tacker to shift artillery and direct fires, giving
the defender a respite from losses .
Supplementary positions are planned
for the defender to use if the enemy attack
should come from another direction than the
one the defender plans for the first position
to block. As with the alternate position, this
area will be close to the first position used.
Both positions must be within relatively
short movement times of the first position.
Orientation of the Defensive Effort. At
first glance, a map of a planned defensive
area will look as if the attack can come from
anywhere. But to the careful eye, certain
details will become evident, indicating areas
of enemy attack. Note Figure 3. The large ar-
rows indicate the probable enemy movement
routes for an at tack against friendly force s in
a "typical" defense scenario (i.e., an enemy
force enters from the west edge of the map
against a prepositioned defender; the viclOry
condition for the attacker is to exit the east
mapedge with a maximum number of units,
and the defender'S goal is to prevent the at-
tacking force from exiting by destroying
units). Before continuing, it must be
understood that the routes shown do not in-
dicate that the attacker will never utilize the
woods and villages during his attack. It sim-
ply means that the overall movement of the
at tacker will be along the areas indicated.
The resulting pattern shows rhat there
are only two rouces possible 10 the attacker
for the first haWof the map, and only one
general route off the map in the second half.
Continuing the analys is, it is evident
that there are three distinct areas which an
enemy force would probably travel through
or near. These areas are designated kill
zones, and the defense is planned with these
areas as the primary consideration for how to
orienlthe defense.
In planning the defense , it is best to
assume that the enemy force will be large
enough to have some elements by-pass the
defensive positions if a positional defense is
utilized. Since the overall objective is to pre-
vent any enemy units from gelling off the
east mapedge, an active defense will be used.
The initial positions of a battalion
assigned to defend this sector would be along
a line from the town of U tzwingen to a point
in the woods on the north mapedge (vicinity
of hex 3700). The later positions of the
defense are also shown in the Figure. Since
the game enjoys far more information and
control of the units than a real commander
would, the exact sequence of use for the posi-
ti.o ns is not required. Simply put, a company
size unit will move back, as necessary, to oc-
cupy a defensive position which will permit
fires into the enemy forces .
16
The battalion SCOUIS are used in a sc reen
to the west and north of the ballali on posi-
tions. The purpose o f I he scoulS here is to ob-
ta in definite information o n t he enemy al -
ta ck . For most games, this in format ion
would be superfluous, sinc e the counters are
face-up o n th e map . But for those games
where rules are inl roduced 10 create" fog of
war," this point must be conside red . Another
criti cal func tio n of the scouts is to develop
the enemy attack into a pattern fo r the defen-
sive com mande r that can be understood.
T his role is more critical to the gamer than
the reconnaissance aspect of scouts . By using
direct fires from th e scout Dragon and TOW
ATG M's and the indirec t fires of su pport a r-
tillery ava ilab le to the baltalion, the enemy
commander's tendency to by-pass or I he 51 yie
of attack he will use becomes a pattern th a t
the defe nde r can see and pian to courller.
Artillery Fi res. The planning of an ille ry
fires is the simplest aspec t of the defense . In-
direct fi res are planned for target areas
meeting the following cri teria:

FIGURE 4: Defensive Final Set-Up
Map : MapA of Red Star/ White Stflrfrom Mech War 2,
Counter Set- Up (US only) :
M150: 2829, Idefilade!; 2734, 2323 I defiladel; 2025 [defilade I; 2419
Idefiladel ; 2904Idefiladel; 3805 [defilade ]; 3804 1defiladel. M60A2: 2631;
2417 Idefilade); 3704 (defilade!. Infantry w / M113 [dismounted): 2723;
2830; 3105; 3308. Infantry w / M113 [mounted): 2524; 2720, HQ : 3815
Idefilade]. 4.2" Mortar: 3819, 81mm Mortar : 3920, 4020. Scouts
(Dragons w / M113): 1425; 1811; (TOW's) : 2632; 3912 rd efilade!; (M113):
1031 ; 291 1 Idefilade!. AA Jeep: 2817 [defilade!' ARTILLERY: 1408;
2421 ; 2319; 1224-1226 [in clusive); 4023; 1026; 1213; 3215; 4926; 5715.
OBSTACLES . Minefields : 1419- 1718 lin line); 1309; 1310; 1407; 1408.
Abatis : 0523; 1505; 2202, Town Rubbled : 1131 ; 1231 IMinderoffingenl;
1116; 0914; 1014; 11 15 IFremdingen l ; 1910; 2010 rS chopflohe!. Bridge
Blown : 02 11 / 0112 [ hexsidel. Artillery Delivered M i nefield Planned
for : 3215; 4023; 1026; 12 13;5519; 5715.

I. Terrain which limits the effectiveness of
direct fires and is h ig hly useful to enemy
forces. Examples of this type of terrain are
woods and towns.
2. Terrain which cannot be covered by direct
fires. Back slopes of hills and depressions are
typical targels.
3. Areas around obstacles ",,'here the enemy
wo uld choose to go around the obstacle
ral her than attempt a breach.
4 . .Major road junctions.
5. Areas where the te rrain wou ld rest rict the
lateral movement of military forces , such as
bridges or trails through woods/forcsi.
The artillery fires should be planned on
such areas Ihat meel any of these criteria,
whether the area is in front of or behind the
defensi ve posi tio ns. Addit ionally, arl i Hery
should be planned on the defensive posit ions
in case the defender should,leave I he area due
to a highly suc<.:essful enemy attack.
Obstacles. This is a much more difficull
aspect to plan tllan artillery fires. Obstacles
take a great dea l of I ime to constl"Uct. T llus,
if an obs tacle is placed ""''fong, t here is Ii tt Ie
opportuni ty to build a new one in front of an
enemy attack.
Obstacles musl always be covered by the
direct o r indirect fire of the player who
emplaced the obslacles. Without such cover-
ing fi res , an enemy force will breach the bar-
rier wi th impunity. Granted tha t there is a
loss of time to the enemy commander, but
the main use of an obstacle is to de lay the
enemy under the effective fires of the
defender by denying the use of critical te r-
rain.
As wi th artillery fires , obslacles should
be planned in fr ont of and behind the defen-
sive positions. One pro blem with obstacles is
that they will hamper friendly moveme nt if
not carefully emplaced. In some ins lances,
the barrier may be crea ted after friend ly
forces are through the area (such as blowing
a b ridge), bu t the drav'iback is thaI the com-
mander may find when the smoke clears that
the ba rr ier did not result. His tory is rcplete
wi th examples of such disappoin lmen ts.
What other factors are to be considered?
Smoke is helpful to the defender. If can pro-
vide a needed screen when moving bet ween
positions. It can also be used to block the line
of sight from ponions of the attacking fo rce.
T his allows the defender to "piecemea l" lhe
enemy at lac k in to groups that are Otit-
numbered by the defensive units firing upon
them, Care mus t be taken by the defender in
us ing smoke. II is all tOO easy to inadvertent-
ly create a smoke SCI'een which helps the at-
tacker move around defensive positions.
If the defense re lies on movement for
maintaining effective fires on the a[[acker,
then care mUSI be taken to begin movement
with sufficient time to make the move to the
nex t posil ion before the enemy is ab le to fire
on the path of movemcn t. If the a llacker gets
too close to the defen de r, the latter will find
himself unable 10 move wit hout opening his
units up to effective direct fire from Ihe at-
tacker.
One of the best ways 10 avo id t his pro-
blem is to siagger lhe movement of a defend-
ing set of units. As soon as the attack has
begun, one or twO small un its stan the move
back to the nexi posit ion . As the altack
develops, more uni ts from the defensive
position are sent back. Finall y, the last one or
twO units are pulled off just in front of the
enemy, but with the ncxt posilion back
already occupied so tha I the defendel' can
protect t he last depaning units.
Taking all of the poi nts d iscussed on
defense, it is time [0 go back 10 the map and
look at the final set -u p Llsed by the defende r
(see Figure 4). No tice tha t the dcfende rs do
set-up 011 elevated ground in order to ob tain
effcctivefields offire, bu t the lOpS oflhe hills
and ridg es have been avoided as much as
possible, because del'end ing un it s occupying
such posit ions would be silhouetted against.
the skyline, permill ing early deteci ion .
Are You Changing
Your Address?
: If you are, you mUS I lei us know in advance i ~
orde r [0 avoid missing any of your issLle of
S& T, ,',10 YES, and/ or Ares.
1. Your name - as it appears on I he mail ing
' label ofyourS&1~ MOVES, or Ares.
2. Your Customer.Code arid Expiralion Codes
(rhi> i5 Ihe very top li ne of informat ion on your
r'nailing label).
3. Your old add ress (clea rly indica Ie Ihal iI is
you r old addre_I$).
4. Your new add ress (clearly i ~dica le lhal it is
yoUI' new add ress),
5. The effective dale of you r new address.
Note: When correspond ing wjlh SPI aboul
your >ubscripi ions, please write your name ex-
aply as it appears on the mailing labeL For ex-
am ple , if the label reads John J. Doc, do nO!
refer 10 you rself as .J.J. Doe or any other alia,.
If you have amilharyrank, please write il after
}~ou r name: fo r exam ple, John J. Doe, Lt .,
rather thanLt. John], Doe_ This mel hod will
n,ot confuse. our COmPUler and wilt lead to bei -
ler service.
When you send us a change of address, .do 001
, enciose any Ot her'correspondence Ihal does nOI
"pertain [0 Ihal change - it just slows up the
processing of the change and neales a possi-
bility o f missed in rorma lion. A posl card is
best: Write 10:
"Simulations Publications, Inc.
CustomarService, cOAOept.
257'Park Avenue South
New.York, NY 10010
17
Arab~lsraeli
/contifltuJd/rom page J3j
though well drawn, are thick and clumsy and
do not remo ve cleanly from their matrix.
Hits are cumulative, reducing move-
ment and gunner y factors until the boat is
sunk. Shou ld a boa l close with its opponent,
it may also engage in ram combat. Victory
goes 10 the survivor. T he campaign game
basically plays out a number of smaller bat-
tles for a cumulative total of wins.
Fas/ At/ack Boats is fas t, easy, and
hig hly playable, but it only simulates the
equipmel1l, not the na ture of the navies in-
volved. It would be considerably beller if
played on a larger map , since t he small play-
ing surface forccs artificial tactical con-
straints on the players. The game could also
use some rules to sim ulate the morale and
train ing of the d ifferent crews . However, it is
a game worth considering when searching fo r
one to introduce a novice to wargaming,
since it offers fast auion, lots o f shooting,
and is quite inexpensive .
BISLIOG RAPHV
A lthough there have been many books
written aboUl the Middle East, few of these
offer "hard" military da la. The primary
sources listed below are all suitable
references for military infor ma tion .. Those
listed as secondary are also useful, bu t are
generally less technical in their prescnlalion .
Primary Sources
The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps,
by Mart i11 Cii Iben , Weiden fcld & Nicol.lon ,
London, J 975,
Armies of the Middle East . by Olto von Pivka,
Collins, London, 1979.
The Edge of the Sword: Israe l's War of
Independence, by Neranici Lorch, Massada
PreS,I , Jerusalcm , IWil,
Elusive Victory: Tha Arab-Israeli Wars,
1947-1974, by Trevor N. Dupuy, Harper and Row,
New York, 1978.
Israeli Defence Forces: The Six Day War,
by Col. Mordcchai Bar On, Chillon Boob,
Philadelphia, 1968_
The Israeli Army, by Edward LUI\wak and Dan
Horowilz, Harper and Row, New York, 1975,
One Long War: Arab Versus Jew Since 1920,
by Ne l ~ n i el Lo rch. Hert.1 Press, New York , 1976.
Seven Fallen Pillars, by Jo n Kimchc, Da Capo
Press, New York, 1966.
The War of Ato nemen t: October 1973,
by Maj. Gen. Chaim Herzog, lillIe Brown,
BOolon, 1975 ,
Secondary Sources
American Volunteers and Israel's War of
Independence, by A. Joseph Hechelman, Kla v,
New York , 1974.
The Battle for Jerusalem. by LI. Gen .
Mordechai Gur, Popul,,, Library, Toron to, 1974_
The-48 HourWar, ediled by Alex Benson, .In
Pub lishi ng, New York, 1907.
Ganesis 1948, by Dan Kurzman , Signel Boob,
. ew York, 1972.
A History of Israe l: From the Rise of Zionism
to Our Time . by Howard Sachar, Knop f,
New Yo rk, 1979.
18
OPERATIONAL ANAL YSIS
FIFTH CORPS &
HOFGAP
by Charles T. Kamps, Jr.
At our boot h at the recent Hobby Industries
Show, we had a b lo w up of t he map plan of tile
Central Front Series. It showed the ares 01 Europe
enco m passa d by the ten maps of the p utalive
Central Front Sy stem. Fi lled in in miniatu re colo r
ve rsions were the tw o ex isting maps, Hof Gap
and Fifrh Corps. Th e maps in thi s syslem are
some of t he hea viest t he S PI Art Department has
ever conquered. Seei ng the eight blanks in the
sys l em Ilever failed to make my jaw drop ill CO Il-
temp lat iOIl of doi Ilg all tha two rk.
Redmond
THE RATIONALE
Jim Dunni gan 's origi na l concept in
desig ni ng the Ce ntral Fro nt Series was to
produce a sor t o f supe r Modern Bar tles scale
game wh ich would de pict individua l. co rps
areas in Ge rman y along major Warsaw PaCl
avenues of approach. T he resuh woul d be an
examina tion o f current operati o nal level
com bat which woul d avoid dle mire of tac-
tical level rninLlliae as well as the enormity of
The Next War. By borrowing design features
from NATO Division Commander an d Next
War, and concentrating 011 gro u nd combat
through the abS Iraction of other features , the
essential flavo r of div ision and corps action
coul d be attain ed.
The scale o f 4 kni per hex worked alit
very well on seve ral counrs. First, the scale
coincided wi th 1:250,000 military maps,
I
available from (he government. Addit ional-
ly, 4 km rep re sents th e normal fro Illage fo r a
defend ing NATO battalion o r attack ing
Soviet regimenr, as we ll as the range through
wh ic h t hese un its can project a ' ';:one of co n-
trol" b y heavy weapo ns fire . T he mu lti-
phase game turns ? nd FP system go hand in
hand, by all ov>ii ng players the option to com-
press more acl ion into a given period by in-
lensifying combat at the expense of " b urn ing
out" their uni lS.
Composit ion of the more common un its
in the series accompan ies this article. NATO
units are generall y battalions , excepl for the
armored caval ry screen whi ch consists o f
very powerful companies whic h a re assigned

a delaying mission. Warsaw Pact uni ts doc-
tl"inally operale al regimental level, but bat-
talions are represented for airborne and
special purpose un its. The "brigade" size
Pact art illery groups are simply collections of
battalions which, fo r game purposes, were
segregated according to compatab le range
and capabilities. Some players may be upset
by thc apparent weakness of Wesl German
uni ts. The organization used for the games
was taken fr om the Brigade 80 model
descri bed in I. he German Defense Min ist ry'.';
White Paper. No less Ihan five experimeIHal
brigade o rganiza tions have been tested in the
last few years, b ut none of them may actUall y
be adopted army-widc. In the test organiza-
tions, combat power is dispersed amo ng a
greater number of smaller units. Players
wish ing to use thc standard organization may
make their own count ers: a panzer brigade
being 2 x 4-5 tank bns and I x 3-9 mech bn; a
panzergrenadie r brigade being 2 x 4-9 mech
bns and I x 4-4 tank bn (overrun strenths be-
ing the first number in each). Brigade and
divis ional artillery are unchanged.
\Varsaw Pact maneuver regiments ",,'ere
each assig ned a share of divisional assets to
account for small units which would other-
wJse flood the counter mix. US batt alions,
based on location, were assumed lO be
organizcd (when possible) into mech-heavy
or lan k -hea vy t ask forces . This results in
higher combat strengths for the cross-
attached units than the "pure" ones. Under
the form er German system, cross-
attachment was also prac ticed along fairly
regular li nes. A[ present it is not apparen t as
to how, or if, this is being done. German
uni ts are thus depicted as "pure" except for
the a tt ac hmen t of brigade asse ts .
ATTACK HELICOPTERS
Attack helicop ters are panicularly
strong yet vulnerable units. Since the av ia-
tion out fits depicted in the games a re all
doctrinally assigned" com bi ned arms" roles,
it was decided to treat [hem as a sort of flying
artillery in support of ground units. Thus ,
there is no oppo rt uni ty fo r players to use
helicopter units as "ground-holding"
maneuver clements such as they would be in
an Air Cavalry Combat Brigade. The long
range of helico p ter units makes them flex ible
and valuable, at the cost of increased vulner-
ability (mandatory FP gain) and main-
tenance (1 FP reco ve ry per turn).
ARTILLERY
The artillery u nits reflect t he doctrines
and capabilities of NATO and the Warsav,,'
Pact. NATO artillery is gencrally beller gun-
for-gun because of greater flexibili ty in fire
control and use of sophisticated munitions
(laser-guided; scallerable mines; ICM's).
Without the laue r, US 8" and 155mm bat-
talions would be worth 2-2 cacll. Soviet ar-
tillery derives benefits from direct fire as they
practice it ['egularly and find they can achieve
quicker responsc and place more otdnance
on target wit h less ammunition expenditure.
One salvo from a battalion of only 18 launch-
19
er vehi cles can throw six limes the explosive Army fulfills a number of fun ct ions, chief
effecl of all the artillery in a US di vis ion. The among them being the repository o f replace-
cost, of course, is in ammo supply. ments for the active army ; The Territorial
HSK brigades consis t of light infantry ba t-
ZONES OF CONTROL talions (included in the games), which in
theo ry could be expanded after a comprehen-
Zones of Control at'e hand led differelll-
sive mobilization. The VBK organization is
ly for company size units (and non-mech in -
represented by the static infantry available [0
fan try) as it is easier to d isengage from outfits
the NATO Player. Although these units are
which lack (he ab ility to do much about it.
only the tip of the iceberg of the VBK struc-
Stacking res tri ct ions represent the usual
[lire, most of its troop~ would be broken
problems of road space and dep loymen t,
down into small unit.s charged with traffic
allOwing for doc trine and terrain. Combat
(on lro l, guar di ng te lephone exchanges and
comes in two varicties - normal and over-
power stations, blowing bridges, etc In fau,
run. Normal combat represent S the stereo-
VBK demolition reams are simulated by the
typical set-piece engagement consisling of
ease with whic h the NATO Player can
lo ng range duels be tween tan ks and
dest roy bridges.
ATGM's, fo llowed by an orderly advance of
units in geometric format ions . The overrull
depic ts short, sharp actions, usually accom-
panied by a whirlwind ba rrage and smoke, in
which the altacker atlempl S a penetration on
a narrow front with the aim of disrupting the
defender in order to ge l behind him and cut
him off from command co ntrol and routes of
re[rea[. Thcse are more li ke ly to be under -
taken during some type of reduced visibili ty;
therefore, close rangc weapons assume a
greater importa nce. In non-overrun situa-
tions, the defen der can rninimize losses by
trad ing space in a delaying action - sub-
stituting retreat for FP's - or take it on [he
chin and remain in place, gaining more FP's.
"Sofl" uni ts are devoid of armo r protection
and are re lat ivcly less mobile, meaning I hal
they will absot'b more losses before they can
AIRBORNE
successfully break off an d retreat ([he man- All di visi ons of bOI h sides ha ve organic
datory 2 FP gain). combat engineers who assisl with mine clear-
ance and river crossing operations. Thus,
SOVIET DOCTRINE I hese capabilities are abst racted wil hin no r-
The Soviet Doct rine rule in Hof Gap, mal movemellt rules. The only engineer for-
which should supercede t hat in Ihe Fifth mations depicte d in the games arc spccial am-
Corps ru les, is fair ly accurate in that the phibious engineer battalions, ""hich serve as
Soviets will go that extra mile on Ihe regimen - foci fo r any extraordinary engineer opera-
tions. Eleclronic warfare uni ts are abs tracted
tal level without rega rding their flanks . The
inlO tables based on relati ve capabilities. For
original doctrine ru le in F{rlll Corps is a li l t Ie
game purposes, electronic warfare was stru c-
100 stereotyped to be entirely credible. The
tured to favor the attacker. It was felt th at
NATO SUrprise Attack Bonus enhances
offensive EW would be bet ter prepared and
NATO combat powe r whe n they can bring
generally more e ffec tive. Addit ionally, the
off a successful combination against an ex-
Warsaw Pact plans to minimize radio traff ic
posed unit. Soviet "inflexibility," as it were,
during offensive operations, leaving NATO
comes into play here. Warsaw Pact/Soviet
EW assets few ta rgets of opportun ity .
Marc h Order is ano the r do ctr inal point
Airborne ru les are fairly conventional,
which is addressed, but [ends to lose impor-
but the capabilities of tile mechanized Sovict
tance ra ther quickl y. The Soviet pre-emptive
airborne forces far exceed those of any o ther
strike is one fe at ure th at used to give me
airborne troops in history. Mos t NATO air-
nightmares in Germany. The thought of all
borne fo rce s in lhe theater would be used in
those tanks lined up track 10 track ilnllotor
pools - the possibil ity of an entire armored an airmob ile role, but in future games thet'e is
no reason to exclude th em from ro ug hly [1110
battal ion rendered useless with one napalm
run . . .. In the Seventh Army scenario, the same "jump" ability that the Soviets have .
Pact Player shou ld be able 10 eliminatl;' about Airmobile units will be J ound useful to the
nin e US baltalions and cripple many more by Soviet Player in [hei r doct rinal ro le of seizing
going after the large concentralions posed by lac[ ical features such as bridgeheads in the
brigade garrisons. The pte-emptive strikes NATO rear, and cutting off NATO retreat
rcpresent a ponion of Soviet air power. The ro ules. NATO airmobile uni ts can plug gaps
res t are assumed to be pasting NATO air- or aid in limited coun terattacks.
fields - hence the inclusio n of the Initial Air The US Major T raining Areas rule pro-
Supremacy r ule. vides for a numbcr of units which may be
routinely training a t Grafenwohr (on I he Hoi
SPECIAL UNITS Gap map) o r Hohenfels (off the sOUlh map
Several special uni t types dese rve pass- edge). These tWO MTA's are more Ot less in
ing mention. The Wesl German Territorial continuous use, and il is not unusual to find
20
as many as six armored battalions at "Graf"
during di visional tan k gunnery q uali fication.
Other NATO countries use these areas as
well, but a compromise of one US brigade
seemed appropriate for game purposes. The
US Paralysis rule (which will extend to other
non-German NATO allies in future games) is
an abstraction of the problem caused by lack
of heavy weapon ammunition in congested
garrison areas. A long time will elapse before
US units can get trucks out to ammo supply
dumps to bring crated ro unds ou t to the
troops at the front for breakdown and
distribution. Under conditions of surprise,
this scenario looks too much like a rerun of
Isandhlwana for comfort. Rather than allow
defenseless US batialions to move out of
their alert areas, a logical solution for game
purposes seemed to be to restrict US move-
ment while the unit s uploaded their ammo.
Battalion s at training rang~s were nalUrally
exempted from such restrictions.
Since th e Soviet U nion retains a virtual
monopoly in the field of offensive chemical
warfare and maintains a commanding lead in
CW defense, the game system depicts the
currently prevailing "one way st reet." A new
optional Nuclear Warfare rule would
duplicate the doctrinal clutter which attends
each side's employment of such weapon s,
and forces the player to plan and account for
each warhead - as in real life. An altempt
was made to redu ce some of the din .by
limiting the weapons mix to those types with
a major tactical effect confined to one hex
for a period of one Game-Turn .
THE BIG PICTURE
As far as the la rger picture is concerned,
Fifth Corps and Hof Gap (maps 6 and 8)
complete the forward area of US Army
Europe. Currently in design is BAOR (i.e.
British A rmy of the Rhine) which covers map
4 (Hannover), the corridor 10 .The Ruhr .
Featured in BAOR will be I British Corps
and I Belgian Corps as well as a division each
from West German I and III Corps . The op-
position will consist of 20 Warsaw Pact and
Soviet divisions. Projected for the future is
North German Plain (map 6, Ham-
burg/ Bremen), and perhaps Donau Front
(map 10 - perhaps reconfigured - the
Munich Plain) . These games all depict fron-
tier battles extending about 200 km into West
Germany. If the Soviets make their advertis-
ed rate of advance, the y should be nearly off
the west edge of any of these maps in about
10 Game-Turns. As each individual game can
get pretty lengthy , thc second tier 01' maps (1,
3, 5, 7 and 9), covering the deep objectives,
may be made available as just that - maps.
Also, since I suggest that changes be made to
about IOOJo of the current counter mix,
rep lacement counters might be offered in a
later game or separatel y.
To address another topic, one of the real
judgment calls in this series is the lineup of
opposing forces. The "in place" units on
either si de are prel ty well known. Where they
will go is another question . On the ATO
side, some allempt has been made to ra-
t ionalize the counter mixes along lines of na-
tional corps and division integrit y, except
when a formation's proximity to the border
will defacto involve it at the oUiset where it
is . Across the Iron Curtain one can only
speculate on probable thrust lines based on
unit locations and major avenues of ap-
proach through NATO terrilOry .
REINFORCEMENTS
Reinforcements are a no ther problem.
Some NATO units from Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Britain wi ll undoubtedly
reach the combat zone within the firs r five
days. On the other hand, significant
Reforger reinforcements from the US will
probably not get into action within the same
time frame . In fact, I he ." off map" US unils
(3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division; 3rd
Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division ; and 17th Ar-
tillery Group) will probably have to drop
back into a CENTAG Reserve role while
guarding Reforger equipment depots until
the first few brigades deploy from the States.
In Hof Gap and BA OR, consi derable Soviet
reinforcements arrive from "Category . II"
formations in Russia . The arrival of these
units was based on a compromise between
the possible and the probable, bUl falls far
shon of the estimates of the Warsaw Pact' s
"best effort" (sending out 80-odd divisions
in the first week).
FIRST MOVE
Many western analysts believe that the
Pact can only achieve surprise with a jump
from garrison, and any lengthy buildup
would send NATO units up to the border in
full strengr h . Unless you are into fantasy,
don't believe il. As of the lime of this writing
(January 1981) the Soviets have been
mobili zing the Western Military Districts
since last Augusl, and NATO is jusl as un-
willing to make any move as it was in 1968
when Czechoslovakia was invaded.
Players are encouraged to experiment
with Pact in vading forces. For example,
Fifth Corps and Hoj Gap were done on the
assumption that the US 8th Mech Division
might deploy elsewhere, and that the Pact
might find Ihe Meiningen Gap (center north
edge of the Hoj Gap map) more attractive
than Fulda. Recent US shifts, however, seem
to lock Ihe 8th into the Fulda area. There-
fore, players wishing to try a revised Fifth
Corps game (including the 8th Division)
could accurately charge thro ugh Fulda with
the 8th Guards Army and 1st Guards Tank
Army al a ratc of Iwo rein forcing divisions
per turn, and add the 3rd East German Army
as well (bringing in two divis io'"1s on Game-
Turn One and another division on Game-
Turn Two) .

CENTRAL FRONT UNIT COMPOSITIONS Soviet Independent Tank Battalion

C}
Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiment (BMP)
r:.
2.114 men; 112 x BMP ; 40 x T-62 MJ3T; 10 x T-55 MJ3T ;
lO x BRDM AC; 18 x l20rmn Mar; 4 x SA-9 SP SAI\l :
~ 4-4
4 x ZSU-23-4SPAA: 36 x SA7 SAM; 8ixRPG -7 ATGL;
9 x BRDM / ATGM. Plus , from di vision:
3 x BRDM I ATGM and 6 x 125rnrn SPAT. (Regirncmal
anillery is represenled in mher units.)
Soviet Tank Regiment
1,066 men; 95 xT-72 MBT; 30xT-55 MBT; 34 x BtvlP;
4x BRDM AC; 4 x SA-9 SP SAM; 4 x ZSU-23 -4 SPAA :
36 x SA-7 SAM; 29 x RPG-7 ATGL; 6 x 120mm Mor;
7 x ve hicle-launched bridges.
Soviet Self-Propelled Artillery Group
I x Bn o f 18 x 152mm SP How; 2xBns o f l 8 x 122mm SP
How each. (Group in a lank di viso n has only 1 x 122mm
SP H ow Bn.)
" li t
Soviet Regimental Artillery Group i;1]
3 X Bns of 18 x 122mm How each. (Group in a lank
[;; 3 20 3
division has only 2 x Bns .) Note: Sec Addenda .
Soviet Division Artillery Group
1 x Bn of 4 x FROG SSM la lln~hers; I x Bn of 122mm
Multiple Rocket Launchers. Note: See Addenda.
II
51 x T-62 MBT; 10 xT-5 5 MBT.
Soviet Airborne Assault Battalion
400 + men ; 31 x BMD ; 6 x 120mm Mar ; 27 x SA-7 SAM;
3x ASU-57 SPAT (ma y be deleted) ; 3xjeeps/ ATGM;
2x23mm AA ; 30 x RPG-7 ATGL. (The "3-4" Reinforced
Ball ali on Group additi o nally has 12 x ASU-85 SPAT;
6 x BRDtvl AC; 4 x BRDMI ATGM; and 6 x S-60 AA from
division.)
Soviet Airborne Division Artillery Group
36 x I 22mrn How; 18 x 140mrn Multiple Rockel
Launchers.
Soviet Attack Helicopter Regiment
36 x Mi -24 Hind Atlack Helic oplers . (Various types for
Warsaw Pact allies .)
US Armored Battalion
559 men; 37 x M-60A3 MBT; 17 x M -60A2 MBT;
II
23 x APC; 4 xSP 4.2" Mar; 4 x SP TOW ATOM;
IQ]
~ 4 x Dragon ATGM; 5 x Redeye SAM: 2 x vehicle-launched
4-5 bridges . (The " 4-6" Armored Bn Task Force gives up
17 x M-60A3 MBT and gains 1 x rnech infantry company.)
 21
US Mechanized Infantry Battalion N II
90) men ; 69 x APC; 22 x SP TOW ATGM ; 4 x SP 4 .2" ~[2) West Germa n J agar Battalio n
/'o.10r; 9 x SP 81 111m M or; 40 x Dragon ATGM ; 5 x Redeye 43 x M-I13 APC ; 6 x 120mm Mo r; 9 x Miian ATGM;
SAM . (The " 3-T' Mech Bn Tas k Force gi ves up 1 x rifle ~ 1-3 37 x ATG L.
company and gains 17 x M-60A3 MBT.)
West German Panzer Battalion
c. II 33 x Leopard MBT plus 4 x JP R/ HOT ATGM from
US Armored Cavalry Troop (Regimental) ~[
12x M-60A3 MBT ; 6 x SP T OW ,A.TGM; II x APC; brigade. (In Panzergrena dier Bdes, the Bn is reinfo rced by
3 x SP 4 .2 " Mor ; 6 x Dragon ATGM; I x Redeye SAM; "2-3 8xJPK SPAT and 4 x .JPR/ HOT AT GM.)
1 x vehicle-launc hed bridge ; 10 x motorcycles. (The" I-I "
Tank Troop bolds 17 x M-60A2 MBT only.) West German Divisiona l Recca Battalion
28 x Leopard MBT; 32 x Luchs AC; 18 x Hot chkiss APC;
<t II
us Combat Aviation Battalion 6 x 120mm Mar.
~!i] 42 x A H-l S Cobra attack helicoplers; plus I x assaull
~ 530 5 helicop ler com pany wilh U H -I's and a general su p porl
avia lion company ror liaison and command . (The Cavalry , II West German Fallschirmjager Battalion
Reg iment 's Air Troop " 3-3" has 21 x AH-I 's .) ! ~
6 x 81111111 Mor ; 9xMiian AT GM; 37 x AT GL; plus 4 lO
US Divisional Direct S u pport Artillery Battation ~ 1-4 8 x 120mm Mor and 10 to 15 x jeepl AT GM from br igade .
18 x 155mm SP How. (The Wes[ German brigade artillery
Bn "33" is simi larly eq uipped . The US Cava lry How Bly
" I-I" holds 6 x 155mm SP How .) II
;; @i2l West German Corps A nti-Ta nk Aviation Regi m ent
56 x PA H - l a n ack heli co pl ers wi[ h HOT ATGM's.
US 'Divisional.I. Co rps Genera l Support 7307
Artille ry Battalion
12 xSP 8" How. (The " 2-2" BIl carries 12 xSP

~
. II . West German Territorial Jager Battalio n
175mm guns. )
:: ~ 36 x ATGL; 36 x LMG; 8 x 120mm M or; 6 x 106ml11 RR;
us Divisional Armored Cavalry Reg iment
~ 1-2 6 x 20mm AA . PillS, 4 x J P K SPAT 01' M-48 MBT and lip
<t II . [0 9 x 120mm Mo r from brigade.
893 men ; 36 x M-60A3 MBT ; 18 x SP TOW ATGM;
.<:2 19 9 x SP 4 .2" Mar ; 22 x Dragol/ ATGM; 43 x APC ;
'" ~ A BB RE VIATIONS :
::\ 4-7 9 x A H- J attack H eli copters; 18 x uti lity and observa tion A C : Armore d car. AT G L: Am i lank gren ade launcher. ATGM : Ami'-tank .guided
Helic opte rs; 30 x moto rcycles. missile. A PC : Armored per>onnei carrier. BMP: Mechanized infa ntry figh ting ve ld
d~_ BR DM : Wheeled armored vehicle in armored car and anti-tank variam s. BM D:
West German Panzergrenadier Battalion Airbo rne mechanized :infant ry fi ghting vehicle . FROG: Free rocket over ground ,
43 x Marder fig hti ng vehicles; 6 x SP 120mm Mor ; How: Howitzer. JPR : Jadgpam<:r rakcl e. JPK : Jagd panzer kanone. MBT: Main
33 x Milan ATGM. bailie wnk . Mor: Mona,', SP: Se lf-propelled. SA M : Su rfacet o-.ir mi ss ile . SPA A :
Self-prope lled alll i-aircrafl Sll n . S PAT: Se lf. propell ed anti-la nk gun . SSM : Surface-
to-sur face mise,j le .

.'

CONVENTIONS linois. Contact: Chicago Wargamers Assn. , J

Up and Coming
The follow ing is a tis t of conventions scheduled
. to be held in the upcoming months, induding
place, name of convenlion, and whom to COI1-
tact for further in formation. Mu ch of [he
._ material in this fealUre is derived from the
Midwest G8m i n~Assoc i8ti on Boardletter.
I MBrch'13- 15
CO ASJCON 81, Biloxi, Mississ ippi. Com acl:
CoaslCon, POB 6025, Biloxi, MS 39532.
March 20-21
SIMCON Ill, Rochester , New York . Conracl;
SimCon, POB 5142, Roches[ef , NY 14627.
March 27- 29
OAMEFAIR 6, Peoria, Illi nois. Contact: Fred
Soad y, Heart of U\inois Game C lub , Illinois
Central College, E. Peoria, IL 61635.
Apri l 3- 5
GWA SP RI NG GAMESFEST, G len Ellyn, Il-
lin ois. Con /(Jct: Chicago Wargamers Assn" I
East Schiller 1118B, Chicago, IL 60610.
Apr il 4- 5
KUBLAI CON, 'Columbus, Ohio. Confacr:
AlIa n ,Carson, 1467- N. Fores t, Columbu s, OH
43201.
Ap ril 4-5
UNH SPR ING GAM ESFEST, Durham, New
Hampshire . .Contact: R. Brad Chase, UNH
Simula lions Club, Memorial Building, Univer-
. sity of New H'ampshire , Durham , NH 03824.
. Mav 15-18
. ,. "CANGAMES 81, O[ tawa, Canada. Contacr:
Bruce Knight, 2011 B Sl. Laurent Blvd., Ot-
lawa, Ontario, K IG IA3.
May 22-25
G RI MMCON III, Oakland, Californ ia . Con-
tact: Grim mCon, POB 4153 , Berkeley, CA
94704 .
May31
. MIGS '8i, Cam bridge , Ontario , Canada .
Conracl: Les Scanlan, 473 Upper Wentwor lh,
Hamij[on, Omario L8M 2MI.
J une5 -7
GH E NGIS CON, Denver. Colorado. COl/tact:
Denver Wargamers Associati on, 2527 Gaylord.
Street, Denver, CO 80205.
June5 -7
DALLCON 81 , Dallas, Texas. COl/ tacl:
Rich land Wargames , Richland College, 12800
Abrams Road , Dallas, TX 7.5243.
J une 12-14
MICHICON 10 GAMESFEST, Roches ter ,
Micl)igan. COl/ foci: Melro D etroi l Gam ers,
PO B 787, Troy, MI 48099.
Ju ly3- 5
PACIFIC ORIGINS, San Maleo , Califomia.
Contact: Pacific Origin s, POB 5548, San Jose,
CA95150.
July12-13
MINNESOTA CAMPAIGN, Roch esler, Min-
neS0l3. Contact: Fred Fun"k, 343 N . 19th
Street, Minneapolis, MN ,
Ju ly 17-19
CW A CON 8 1,Norlhlake Hotel , Chicago, II:
EaSl Schi ller 1118B, Chicago,l L 6061 O.
July23-26
GENCON EAST, Cherry H ill , New Jersey.
Contact: GENCON East , POB 139, Mid- .
dletown , NJ 07748.
July 24- 26 .
AT LA TleON, Ba lt im ore, Maryland. Con-
tacl: Allamicon, POB 15405, Baltimore, M D
21220.
J u ly 3O ~A u gust 2
NANCO N , Houston, Texas . Contact: Nan's
Toys & Gaines, 1385 Galleria Mall,5015
West heimer, H o usto n, TX 77056,
August 7- 9
AUGUST CON 1t3, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada. Contacl: Mike Girard , RR#I, South
\Voodslee, On[ario. Canada NOR I YO.
August 14,-16
apoleonic Symposium, with David Chandler,
Col umbus, Ohio . Con lact:' jim Getz, 546 Col
onial Ave.nue, Worthington , OH 43085.
August 20. 23
GENCON, Kenosha, 'l'i isconsin . Contact:
GENCON, PO B 756, Lake Geneva, W153 147.
September 11-13
D RAGONFLlGH T . Sea't lle , Washington,
COli/act: Brass Drago n Society, P OB 33872,
Seallle, WA98133.
November 13-15
W1NTE RCON 10 GAM ESFEST, Detroil"
Michigan. Con/acl: Me lro De[roi t Gamers ;
POB 787, Troy, MI48099
22

MOVES IN ENGLISH edited by Charles Vasey

~ ALLABOUT
AIR WAR
by Gray80ak

Air War has been amaz ingl y popu lar - and, with basically those published in MOVES, but another miss by 2000 feet. Perhaps I am
the Update, s till seems 10 sell well over here. For there are some additions, omissions, and misin te rpreting the rules , and shou ld count
this reason. and Ihe very nature of the game, I ask- changes. the two bombs as o ne attack, thus eit her hit
ed Gray Boak for Ihe arlicle that fo llows. Gray us-
How d oes the game work with all these or miss, but not both . Mea Culpa . The
ed t o write fine articles on various airgames in my
changes? Is everything on the hexes now reader may well wonder just what I am lalk-
magazine. Perfidious Albion (advLl , based on h is
job which is "something" at British Aerospace crystal-clear, with no room lerr ror im- ing about , as there is, no Scatter of Munitions
w here Ihey make Tornadoes. The result is, I hope provement? Table provided . I used the play- test version,
you w ill agree . both challeng ing and interesling.j and appe nd it to this article.
Dave Isby. w ho was visiting over here 10 take in *********************
Farnborough Ai r Show, attached his c omments. I Two lanks sit, one on each side of a small
am so rely temp ted to dig myoid set out and once bridge. Some 3000 feet above them , two F-SE MUNITION SCATTER
more climb into t he g leamin g cockpit of my Sabre,
fig hters orbit lazi ly. Let us nol be too precise D,rSTAI\iCE TABLE
and head o ut to d uel w ith M iG's, Can we hope thaI
just where we are geographically, for two
the follow ing d iscussion may lead to A ir War II?Harriers at 250 feet are ahout to shatter this , ACCURACY MULITPlE
- CHVrustic scene. Both carry Sidewinders to match DIE % 1 . 2 -3 4
F-S's, bu t whereas one carries 2 x 1000 Ib
The arrival of the Revised Edition pro- 1 1 1
bombs, the other has two Matra rocket pods.
vides a welcome opportunity to stud y Air This onc open~ the act ion b~ ripp le-firing both 2 ~1"2
War again . Criti cising the game is rat her akin pods at the second tank, and turnin!!, away 3 2 2 2
to criticising the Spitfire in 1940 - it may nO[ towards the F-5's.
be perfect, but it is the best we have got. Yet As the other heads towards the bridge, the 4 I 2 3 3
no t even the Spitfire achieved perfection, F-S's split, one di ving to cnt ac ross the bom ber 5 I 2 2 3 4
Could it have better guns? Could it fly fur- . whilst the second accelerates to a head-on pass 6 2 2 J 4 4
ther? Could it carry bombs? Some of these with the rocketeer. They are face-to-face ,
changes were brought about, but other prov- cannons lwink.iing, t hen ~hoot pa~t eac h 01 her. 7 2 3 4 4 5
The bombs fall towards (he brid!!,e, (hen the
ed unattaina ble for the basic design . 8 3 3 5 5 5
Harrier jinks Iefe and rig ht, the 1'-5 s l idc~ in
So what could have been done with Air fron t of hill! for II poi nt-blank high- angle-off 9 3 4 5 6 6
War? Minor niggling little changes tend to be shot and onc F-5 is blow n to pieces.
open to opinion - or alternate data sources. One bomb falls wide, 2000 feet from the Modifications:
For example, my Tornadoes carry ARM's. bridge, the other sla p on target. The bombin!!, if therange (in hexes) from t he release hex tp
Major changes can be plugged into the rules Harrier heads for home. The surviving F-5 has the ta rge,'.s hex is o,:er )'0.hexes (6.hexes for
as they stand, such as my later suggestions banked to the righ t, hoping for II rear attack on rocke rs) , add 1 torhe die 1'011. .
for the Turn Modes. Even so, there are major this Harrier, hu t the rocketeer has hauled his 1f the 'range is 'over 60 hexes (9 for rockets),
flaws so firmly embedded in the game nose up and around , swivelled his nozzles down add 2 lothe die ro ll .
and whipped around to his left. The Harrier
mechanics to require a disproportionate stagge rs in the sky, speed almost all gone, bu t I r the-range Is over 90 hexes (12 for rockets),
amount of work to improve, and it is better the .~-5 is well placed for a Sidewi nder. He twis ls add 3 to the die roll. -
to wait for anothe r game to appea r. I feel to the right and the missile flashes past his sidc,
that the climb rules are the worst offenders but he has crossed the nose of the acceleratil1!!,
here. Harrier, and two Aden s sco re again! H owever, my one 1000 lb bomb only
To the contents of t he expansion . There gained a- probability of 4 for the bridge's
are three new manoeuvres : Di ving Vertical ********************* destruction . What is this bridge, the Paul
Roll, Climbing Venical R oll , and Horizontal 250 feet is the lowest altitude allowed in Doumer? I was imagining something a little
Break. The Air-to-Ground rules have some th e game - RAF Harriers would be at 50 feet smaller. Surely a better measure would be a
very welcome extensions - those bombs do d odging arou nd and amongst the terrain. totting-up o f hits; e.g. , a small bridge re-
fall forward - and there are 14 new aircraft Such detai l would be difficult 10 handle quires a single hit of 1000 lb or two of 500 lb,
types: Hunter, Meteor, Harrier, Lightning, without m ore work than is desirable - a medium requires a grand total of 4000 Ib
Mirage F, Draken, Viggen, A-6, F-IOO, perhaps we should press for transparent hex- worth of hits ... . and .s o on.
F-104, F- 106, F-8, Su-J 5, and MiG-19 / F9. sheets so they can be overlaid on an Ord- I was not pleased v... ith the rocket attack,
This last should be F-6bis or even A-5, but nance Survey map? Air War is, as always either. There is no differentiation between
one problem with modem games is tha t fresh seemingly, an air-to-ai r game where all the rocket pods, so that a pod with 4 Zunis
information will keep appearin g! Special air-to-ground ru les have been added as an counts the same as a Matra pod with 17
rules are provided for the F-8, F-4, Kfir, afterthought. This is understa ndable, but it smaller. rockets. Yet a rock et attack can hit
Foxbal, and Harrier. Fourteen specific does lead 10 so me curious simplifications. four targets in o ne hex - that's purty fancy
historical scenarios are new, and two There is no finesse in the Scatter of shoot in ' with your four Zunis, pardner. Air-
gene ralised sce nario-t ypes. In addition, you Muni tions ru les. Whether from 50 fe et or to-Air unguided missiles are allowed one "at-
get rules for air-lau nched cruise missiles, 50,000, the bombs sca tter to the same extent . tack" for every eigh t missiles , which might
nuclear-armed Air-to- Air missiles, and ext ra In the last scenario , note th e ama zing have been a useful ru le to carry across to the
details for ECM warfare . The Addenda are ach ievement of having one bomb hit and Matras,~ giving two attacks per pod. By

analogy, this would permit two possible hits
[rom a4-Zuni pod.
No allowance is made for carrying
armour-piercing rather than high-ex plosive
heads, and the re is no spotting modifier to
simulate the bright flashes of rocket launch-
ing, a + 7 modifier? Whilst we are on the
subject, one Lightning option is for the fit -
ting of re trac table rocket pods in the nose.
[Never used.' -DCl]
Of course, the F-5 player really blew his
defense. H e shou ld have been a lot higher,
allowing him to Spli t-S OntO the tail of the
H a rriers as they try to escape. Given such
limited warning he could not possibly have
intercepted the intruders before their strike.
(And I should hope not! The entire scenario
was se t up in order to play the bombing
rules .) It is just as well that he chose F-5's;
had he chosen Skyhawks, he would have
discovered that SPI had omitted the cannon
type fr om their revi sed gunnery tables. [ ap -
pend that, too .
Cannon Type J
2 x 20mm Mk 12 (Skyhawk)
SECOND DIE
FIRST
DIE 1 2 . 3 4 5 6
1 total lack of appropriate avionics make the
E I 1 1 1 1
2 1 Ef I 2f 2 2f
3 2 2 E 2 2 2 generally, Russian aircraft are automatically
4 3 3f 3 Ef 3 3f
. truck in North Vietnam (and how cost-
,
5 3 3 3 4 E 4 effective is tha t a way of waging war?) yet
6 4 4f 4 4f 4 Ef
It is nOl the fault of the F-5 player that
there are no psychological rules in the game.
No one ever breaks away from a head-on
pass, no one is ever put off his bo mbing aim
by worrying ab out the presence of enemy
fighters. There is ro o m for some useful ex-
tensi o n of the Ace/Novice/Turkey rules.
The head-on pass was useful to
demonstrate the VIFFing (not VFFing) rules ,.
in this case 104.42: Pitch and Roll. N ote
that VIFF does kill movement, and quite
rightly, but does not COSt Movement P oints
in the t urn used. I should really have hit him
with that Sidewinder, but it all worked out in
the end. It does seem to me that the standard
Ha rrier (no n- VIFFing) is rather too good at
turning, the original being less renown ed
than olher aircraft in the game with sim ila r
Turn Modes . I would increase the Harrier by
one throughout and see what happens then.
Discover the need for VIFFing!
H owever, VIFFing is hardly the magnet
for H ea t-Se eking Missiles that it appears in
the ga me. Harriers do not have reheat , a nd
hence should never count as High Heat-
Emission Signatures . Abandon the first par t
of Case 104.46. Indeed , in trials against the
Sk yhaw ks around Beaufo rt , it was found
that the AV -SA was more difficult to pick up
on the Sidewinder'S seeker. In turning
ma noe uvres, the exhausts were shielded by
I he wing, and the "cold" blast from th e front
23
no zzles were covering up the "h ot " blast dh'ing vertical roll, the enemy escaped. The
from the rear ones. T hus, a Skyhawk's seco nd F -104 had railed to obtain another firing
tailp ipe could be picked up with the Harrier pOSition so unloaded and headed to join the
some (say) 45 "behind a nd up '/ whereas you leader. The Harrier VIFFed , pitched down and
had to be "behind and below" the Harrier to swung into an ideal firing position - but the
missile hung up.
register. This can be codified as fo llows:
"The Harrier counts as having a Low *****~***************
Heat Emission Signa ture to an attacking air-
craft which can see a partial o r lotal upper A very educati onal game. Good lactics
plan view of the Harrier." by the Starfighters, but luck was definitely
on their side . The unsighted Harrier could
Harriers are fun to play with, particular-
have managed a missile shot at the over-
ly as they are quite accurat ely treated in the
shooting lead, and a misfire is bad luck in any
Muni tio ns Characteristics Ta ble, o therwise a
language. However, the firs t Harrier shot
bundle of laughs. A CF-104 with 41 x 1000 lb
was avoided because of a gap in the rules .
bombs is surely a misprint cryi n g out for a
The Starfight er was di ving steeply, with
caricaturist, the Viggen's inaccuracy with
a Sidewinder following him down. H e did a
napalm equally misprinted, but why should
Diving Venical Roll, thus rotat ing his rear
the Harrier, A-6E, (B- 1!), and Viggens be
three arcs away from the missile, resulting in
superio r with bomblets? Why are certain air-
the missile being unable (0 track. Obvious on
crary without ground-attac k sensors raled
the board, but visualize it in three dimen-
hig!lly? [Bomb systems or good weapons
sions. GOing straight down, his jet p lume is
platforms. -DCl]
pointing st raight up. If he rotates 180,so
: This las t question is easy to answer, and
what? A missile diving on him will still keep
draws attention 10 a consistent bias in the
tracking. Tracking cones vary depending
game. The "certain aircraft" are those terri-
upon whether the missile is climbing or d iv-
ble twins, the F -14 and F - 15 . That these are
ing (14.16) and it seems to me that the rear
excellent in their specific roles is generally
cone of the aircraft; which the heat-seekers
agreed (not without certain qualification ~.. ),
h ome on, should be considered in a parallel
but this does not make them all-round
way, pointing up when the aircraft points
marvels. Cenainly the low wing-loading and
down.
This will in troduce another complica-
F-15 in particular a real pig in A ir-to-Ground
tion, namely that some m issiles require a
work . Reduce those over-rated va lues. More
"blue-sky view" in order to work. Randy
Cunningham may fire a Sidewinder at a
inferior to their US counterparts, and
somewhat curious in themselves, a MiG-17
being more accurate than either a - 15 or - 21.
Red Flag Agg resso rs suffer surprise kills
A MiG-27 is suitably accurate (did that ad-
because of needing to see "blue sky" and
mittance hurt?), ye t a Flogger-D is feeble.
forge tt ing their target's pal a few miles aft.
Sorry folks; even on your charts they are the
I suggest separat ing early missiles from
same aircraft. Russian aircraft never cany
modern ones - the early ones need to be
napalm, presumably in accordance with
fired at a target on the same level or above,
some G ene va C onvemio n that the Wes t ig-
the later o nes can be fired downwards. This
nores?
will be [rue for Radar-Homers as well as
Further, why cannot the Tornado carry
Heal-..See kers. How to define "on the same
ARM 's? It is nOI Russia n . Incidentally, Tor-
level" more precisely may be a problem:
nad o also has a Laser Target Desig nator, and
should a diffe rence of one level be enough? I
as UArmee de l'Air Jagu ars have one, il is a
wo uld say yes, but it you want a m ore relaxed
pre tty safe bet that ground-attack Mirages
requirement , then how about Lhis : draw a
will do sho rt ly, if not a lready. Swing-wing
straight line between attacker and target,
Su- l7's, not included in the game but readily
allowing fo r height drop, extend this line un-
modifiable, also do and we can reasonably
til it hits the grou nd. If the range to the
assume all 1980 fight er-bombers will have it
ground is greater than that which the missiles
as an option. Ditto flares , chaff, etc. - the
ma y travel in the game, then the missile can
"etc. " being the interesting part. Enough o f
be fired at the target.
this; bac k to the glorious knights of the air ... ,
Flying the F - J 04 against the Harrier
does point out a curious anoma ly in the ac-
********************* celeration tables, in that the Harrier is far
The Sta rfigh te rs were a( 35,000 feet when (he)' superior. First though ts were to improve the
saw the (wo Harriers at eleven o'clock, heading
away some thousand feet below. The lead
F-104, ye t compared to other aircraft in the
Harrier had alread y seen (he enemy, and as the game, it seems less unreasonable. It still
F- I04 's dived down , he turned his formation should be imp roved, perhaps by adding 1 for
into them. His number two failed to see the first all altitudes, increasing liz to I. T he Ha rrier
F-I04 as il shOI past him, abandoning its spoiled remains the fastest accelerating ume- heated
pass, but the second Starfighter was given a aircraft in the game, flattering if justifiable.
good Sidewinder shot. The Harrier rolled Bul bear in mind the astonishingly low values
loward s the attacker and VIFFed 10 swing its tail given to the Lightning. F ar too low: treat as
away, bul the Sid ewinde r ho med on the jet
the Starfighter and add I, tak en from the
plume and its proximity fuse took care of (he
res!. over-rated Super Sabre.
The lead Harrier had followed the firsl More generally, the Acceleration Tables
Slarfighler into its dive and managed a fail to allow for the great difference between
Sid eWInder shot, but h~' diving hard and doing a re -hea t on and re-heat off, largely beca use
24
the Throttle Setting subsumes two different
activities, the engine acceleration and the air-
craft's "True Movement through the Ai r,"
Movement Allowance being the horizontal
component of this "True Movement." In
combat, it is considered a good idea to "set
the throttle to the firewall and leave it there"
(let us not worry for the moment just where
the firewall is on a jet fighter), but even so,
re-heat is switched on or off as required; e.g. ,
to remove obvious smoke trails from Phan-
toms, but re-heat-on time is kept to a
minimum because of excessive fuel consump-
tion. It is fair to add that few games of Air
War ever last sufficient time to make fuel use
significant, and no doubt this was well con-
sidered in the design stage. ' game-turn, both are still pointing in the same
\ Fighting at the higher altitudes of the
second game, the difference in turning
capability was noticeable. The Starfighter
was noticeably pathetic - believably so. The
Harrier was litile changed fi-om the lower
level, and this is certainly wrong. Air War
was criticised because the aircraft turned too
fast, a criticism with which I heartily concur,
at least in part. To correct this, the Turn
Mode / Point Translation Table has been
changed. The two best modes, 1 and 2, have
disappeared. The new 1 is the old 3, 2 the old
4, ,and so on. This is undoubtedly the easiest
answer, needing the least work, for there is
thus no need to renumber every Performance
Chart.
Unfortunately, Ihis correction is totally
misfounded . (II is worth pointing out here
that many Performance Charts were
modified anyway. Mistit li ng was corrected,
and extra variants added . The buyer is still
left to add 2 to "Game-Turns in climb before
making Immelmann" on every Performance
Chan. Personally, I just add one .) The major
flaw with the turn mode was not that of
overall values, but the lack of adequate
variation with al tilUcte, The variations with
Mach Number has been caught quite well,
but too many aircraft turn just as well al HI
alti tudes as at La. Remember that aircraft
have no sustained turn rate at their maximum
altitude - all their thrust and aerodynamics
are going into keeping it up!
Compare the turn modes for Harrier
and Starfighter at Movement Allowance 4:
LO ML MH HI
Harrier 2 2 3 3
F-104 6 8 9 12
The Starfighter is believable: indeed,
with the revision, even pessimistic. My
original idea for correcling Turn Modes was
to add 1 for ML, 2 for MH , and 3 for HI,
making the Harrier (remember early com-
ments):
3 4 6 7
but the Starfighter would be devastated by
such a rule applied to the revision.
The new modes are undeniably too low;
the F- 4 was well matched, at sea level, by the
original LO levels. I suggest varying the
values by using the old table at La, the new
one (old + 2) at MH, an intermediate at ML,
and a (new + 1) at HI. This returns the low-
level game to its original, faster pace.
Beware! A few aircraft are already quite
well matched for altitude variations, namely
F-104, Su-19, and MiG-25. Others seem a
little "half and half," e.g., F-I05, A-7,
F-111, and Su-7. Use your own judgement
there. I suggest adding I to ML and MH, and
2 for HI for these.
The surviving problem with the Turn
Modes is inherent in the system, rather than
the numbers plugged into it. The player must
sacrifice Movment Points for Turning, and
when steadily turning, this does severe
damage to a realistic simulation.' Consider
two aircraft with Movement Allowance 10,
Turn Mode 10. One moves straight ahead,
the other turns as hard as possible. After one
direction, but they are now 2500 feet apart;
one has covered twice the ground of the
other. This can be very useful in the game for
carrying Out an overshoot, but it does seem
,exaggerated. How to correct this without
IImaJor game re- d eSlgn,
. I cannot say.
*********************
Two Foxbatscrossed the horder, high and fast,
one rapidly oulpacing the other. Ground Conlrol
passed the word to Ihe Phantom CAP, silling on
Iheir perch over the "sensitive " industrial sitl; ,
One Phantom clawed for local altitude, the other
raced away lowards the border. Cock pit warning
ligh IS rlashed 9S radar beams searched, crossed,
fliCkered, seeking an elusive contact for a firm
lock-on.
The lead Foxbal swep t pasl 'way o"erhead,
flying a genlle curve over the site as the
Phantom slruggled upwards , rolling liS he
climbed to keep the Foxbat in co nlact , bul
imp Ole nt through lack of height. The seco nd
Phantom was closer as Ihe Tecce Foxbal rushed
back across Ihe border, hu I his missi les laCked
b 01 h range a nd speed.
T hai evening, as sensor records were
displayed al Ihe United Natio ns, Iwo F-15's flew
inlo the forward base.
*********************
The problem with playing Foxbar and
Phanrom (what a great name for a game!) is
that the Foxbat player can sit so high and so
fasl that t he Phantom just cannot play; from
his ceiling', his missiles cannot reach the
elevated MiG. This does not make for a good
dogfight, but Air War aficionadoes will have
recognised the PhOto-Reconnaissance
scenario, shorn of a few irrelevant - for my
purpose - fighters. This would make a good
solo scenario, with the lone recce Foxbat f1y-
ing an optimum path , and various Western
fighters / tact.ics being tried against it.
Three days laler the F-15's had their
turn . They did manage several missile shots
(none successful) and tangled with the escort-
ing fighter Foxbat. Improved tactics would
give the F-15's a very good chance. On this
level (pun intended) Air War is both (super-
ficially) a good simulation and an enjoyable
game - if you happen to like long drawn-out
games decided by a few die rolls in the final
turns, and heaven help you if you did
something wrong 20 turns back.
Minor points fi rst: the Phantoms were
carrying Shafrirs and early Sparrows. I was
surprised to learn that both were credited
with the same range. No way! Shafrir is listed
with the late Sidewinder, all credited with an
extended range. Whatever the improvements
to the Shafrir's seeker, it is normally regard-
ed as a slot-range missile, at times, quoted as
even shorter-ranged than the early Side-
winder. I would suggest reducing the "Turns
in Flight" for the improved Sidewinder from
6 to 4, and the Shafrir to 2. Any larger makes
an unreasonable comparison with the Spar-
row, early and late. Perhaps the Sparrow
should be extended, certainly so according to
some sources, but missile performances are
notoriously difficull to find, unreliable, and
dependent on many other factors .
When doing steep climbs, particularly
Verticai Rolls, remember my comments
about Tracking Cones and rear Heat areas.
The climb rules, particularly [he steeper
ones, are where A ir War moves particularly
far away from aircraft behaviour.
The basic flaw in the mechanics is a
failure to differentiate between two very dif-
ferem ways of gaining height. Conventional
aircraft climb at a constant speed by using
the difference between (a) the power required
to maintain level flight at that speed, and (b)
the thrust available at the desired engine set-
ling. This occurs with the aircraft attitude
more or less level, and increasing not with
climb rate, but with altitude. Alternatively,
the aircraft can "zoom" by pulling its nose
up, increasing att itude, and tradi ng velocity
for altitude by f1ying a more or less constant
energy curve.
The game presents aircraft climbing in
series of arcs, Type I, II, and III climbs being
progressively steeper, gaining more height at
the expense of speed-over-ground, if not
speed-through- the-air. This is a compromise
between the two kinds of climb, and it
creaks. When aircraft such as the F-15 are in-
troduced , with their very high thrust-to-
weight ratio, the game has even more prob-
lems . These types can stand on their tail and
accelerate vertically upwards, at least at low
level .

At low and medium altitudes, the game
is little damaged by this basic problem, but
cannot represent genuine fight er tactics at
high altitudes, whe re the zoom is most com-
monly used. At al1levels of combat, a fighter
may desire to gain allitude in return for los-
ing speed . Witness the yo-yo manoeuvre, not
particularly wel1 represented in the game. At
high levels, for interception, this desire can
become paramount. A fight er flying at high
speed and high altitude, near its ceiling, can
move outside the normal limits of its flight
envelope by zooming. As its speed falls, it
can reach an altitude considerably above the
service ceiling. It will continue to gain
altitude at the expense of speed until it
rcaches such a low speed that it no longer has
the co ntrol power to maintain a stable posi-
tion, whereupon it must dive to regain its
normal flight envelope. This allows an in-
terceptor to launch its missiles at an over-
flying bomber (or reece-type) beyond its nor-
mal reach.
The technique is also used to capture
world records for alt itudes and time-to-
height. Hencc the exaggerated figures oHen
quoted in reference sources for such ai rcraft
as F-15, F-104, F-4, or Foxba!, all aircraft
credited with ceilings wel1 above their true
se rvice ceilings. As a rough guide, a 1960's
fighter will reach 65 ,000 feet (e.g., F - 4),
1970's fighter 75,000 feet (F-1S). Count the
F-I 04 as a better-than-average 1960's and the
Foxbat as just plain superb.
Zoom techniques are nOI only used to
achieve high allitudes beyond the flight
envelope, but also to reach speeds lower than
normal minimums. Much research and de-
velopment work is currently being done on
':post-stall manoeuvring," and the current
F -18 problems show that answers are far
from certain. The game has taken some of
this il1lo account ; it would take a brave man
to lay down the law here.
Nonetheless, some form of zoom rule is
required. I suggest using the following rules
only for high alt itud e games, particularly
bomber! recce in tercepts:
Prerequisite:
The aircraft muSt be in [he bes t possi ble Type III
Cl imb. Each [urn spen t in a lOom the aircrafllo>es
1 Thrortlc Selling Poinl and gains a number 01
levels. The maximum number of levels possi ble [ 0
gain is equal to twice the Throllle Sell ing mirlll >
tw ice {he number of lurns in Ihe zoom. The Move-
ment Allowance is set at {ha t appropr iate for the
best Type III Climb at the aircraft's Throule Sel-
ting. The aircra ft can continue zoom ing unlil
reaching its minimum Movemen t Allowance, but
once moving above Ihe normal ceiling, the ai rc raft
must either continue warning or dive to rega in the
normal ceiling.
Postrequisite:
The ai rcraft is placed in a Type I Dive. The follow-
ing turn it must enter a Type II Dive . and the thi rd
lllrn a Type III Dive. All following Iurn s mUSI be
spem in tbe steepesl possible Type III di ve. On the
[urn ai"ter reaching the normal ceiling. norma l
rules apply for recovery from dives .
I hope these rules better represent air-
craft behaviour, but admit that they are far
from perfect. Ideally a set of rule s should be
produced 10 accurately represent not only
zooms but yo-yo's as well, but the confusion
between Throttle Setting and True Move-
ment hinders all attempts to improvement.
To fully " correct" the Climb rules would re-
quire major re-writing, as Dave Isby is well
aware. Witness the discussion as to whether
an aircraft can or cannot accelerate in a
climb, as to whether Movement Allowances
are completely re stored as aircraft reduce
from Climb-Ill to Climb-II, and so on.
Less importantly. many aircraft ac-
celera tion tables show a good variation with
altitude, but some are much less satisfactory,
falling off too much transonically and low-
supersonically. These aircraft would run out
of fuel long before reaching their maximum
speeds (incidentally a problem often
associated with the MiG-21, a fighter about
which much rubbish has been written!).
Many of the early supersonic types have an
acceleration "island," where at high altitudes
the acceleration capability actually increases
above Mach I before reducing to zero at the
boundaries of the envelope. And for "ac-
celeration" we can also read "climb rate" or
even "turn rate," the parameters being in-
timately connected. Until this physical
linkage is paralleled in the game information
and rules, Air War will inadequately simulate
fighter conflict.
It is still the best we have .
ENTER THE ISBY
After reading Gray Boak's article, [
wanted to play Air War. If combat in the
game can be like the bal tIes Gray described,
then [ did something right back in 1976 when
[ designed the game.
Gray was a great help in the design of
the Update, and knows much more about
flight and how ai rcraft behave in the air than
I do - [ am a lawyer by trade, not an
aeronautical engineer. His praise is thus the
better received, his c riticisms often on target,
but I crave your attention to let me explain
why I made certain decisions in the design of
Air War.
The climb system (which incorporales
the angles of climb into the different levels of
the Type I, II, III system) and the turn system
(which incorporated both rate and radius of
turn illlO one turn mode) were artemp ts to
keep the game sys tem simple. At that I suc-
ceeded; read rules pages 3 through 16 and
you're up and in aC lion. But the com-
promises I made to achieve this level of
simplicity were really, with hindsigh t, nO[ the
best way to achieve my objective. The
simplest way in these situations, I have since
found, is to present the game as close to reali-
ty as possible. The player thus only has to
know reality to know the game . Air War
would actually be a si mpler game if abstrac-
tions made in the name of simplicity had nO[
been made - and let tha l be a caution to
game designers who tread in the highly
. technica l fields of 20th Century combat.
Any Air War replacement s hou ld also
use a co-ordinate system of representing
position, similar (0 BattleFleet Mars, rat her
than the distortions of hexagons and altitude
levels. (I should point out that Redmond
Simonsen suggested this before the original
Air War took shape on paper, but I did not
25
then realise that, coupled with a separate
display to show fine gradations in headi ng, it
was obviously the best way.) It should also
deal with knots rather than movement
points, "G" forces rather thaI) turn modes,
and angle of aLlack units rather than climb
types, the specific rather than the general.
The aircraft performance figures were,
of necessity, estimates in many cases. I only
had thorough performance envelope figures
or "Dash-One" manuals for a few of the
many aircraft included . Anyone out there
got a spare Backfire flight manual lying
around the dacha? The degree of informa-
tion is directly proportional to the accuracy
of each aircraft's charts, and my impressions
of how each aircraft should perform.
A few other points Gray reaches: sorry
for not differentiating air-lo-ground rockets.
They are supposed to be standard US 2.75"
FFAR pods. There just was not room for
another chart. Much of my informa tion on
VIFFing comes from conversation with
USMC aircrew. (The "heat seeking magnet"
bit also came from the Marines, obviously
not the chaps who flew the tests G ray men-
tioned.) Bridges can be altered to taste and
scenario. I was thinking of something along
the lines of the Paul Doumer, the Thanh
Hoa , or the Ludendorff bridges. (If you have
read this far, [ assume you know where they
all are.) MiG- I7's are apparently more stable
low altitude weapons platforms than any
other pre-Flogger MiG. Even wilhout VIFF,
Harriers have a large SEP (Specific Excess
Power) and an extremely good horsepower!
weight ratio. Hence good acceleration and
manoeuvrability.
In a field where the good is often ig-
nored and the second-ra te exalted, I can
understand A ir War drawing tlak that no one
would bo ther lO direct at oiher efforts. Air
War is the best we have, or are likely to see
for the near future. I learned much when do-
ing the game, and the next one will be better.
I shall give you all this caveat. I cannot in-
clude all the dala on al1 the world's aircraft,
rocket pods, ECM pods, bridges, ejection
seats, etc., without compiling and printing
reference tables the size of several Janes
annuals. Perhaps Air War cannot fully
simulate modern fighter combat, but to do
thai you need a multi-million dollar com-
puterized system, such as the one the USAF
uses for development purposes . Granted that
the state of the art is always expanding, and
that improvements are always to be hoped
for, but you should not ask a game design to
do too much, for this can be as fata l as asking
an aircraft design to do too much. An F-15
cannot deliver bombs with the accuracy of a
Tornado, nor a Harrier speed through the
cold skies of the upper air, com rai ls stream-
ing, the way a rec ce Foxbat can . No one ex-
pects one airplane to be all' things at al1 times.
No one should expect that of a game either,
even one as complete, exciting, and admit-
tedly flawed as A ir War.
(One additional omission deserves cor-
rection. Su-IS Flagon-E's use (he MiG- 2S
Foxbat en try on the effects of jamming table.
Earlier Su-15 versions use the Su-19 Fencer
entry.) __
26
Designers
Notes
WORKS IN PROGRESS
Please do not order these games in ad-
vanCe of their publication announcement in
Strategy & Tactics.
British Army of the Rhine
The necessary research on the OB for
this game has already been completed by the
Central Front series' redoubtable designer,
' Chuck Kamps . Yours truly has recently com-
pleted the game-map. BAOR is well on its
way. Despite being developed as an S&T
issue (#88), BA OR will include a full 400
piece countersheet. The number of units in-
volved is staggering. The Warsaw Pact will be
fielding the equivalent of four armies, in-
cluding units from Poland and the Western
military districts of the Soviet Union. Ar-
rayed against them will be elements of the
BAOR,. the Belgian I Corps, and the West
German III Corps. The terrain involved is ex-
tremely varied. The northern quad ram of the
map depicts the beginning of the North Ger-
man Plain - densely populated , but other-
wise devoid of obstacles . The southern two-
thirds-of the map is surprisingly rough terrain
and pr:omises to offer some very difficult
fighting for the advancing Pact forces . Both
players will have to make some interesting
sacrifi0es in order to pursue their main objec-
tives in such varied terrain. A number of
aspects ' of the game mechanics have been
evolving ' fairly rapidly from game to game.
This is .a healthy development, but we appre-
ciate the need to maintain overaJJ consisten
cy. We will pause some time in the near
fut'u re and issue a definitive wrap-up apply-
ing to the whole series . Bruce Maxwell
Great Battles
ofthe American Civil War
First I would like to thank all of those
people who wrote me and offered their ser-
vices as blindtesters. I have many more
names now than I can possibly use', bu t that
is preferable to not having enough. 1 havc
sellt out lheblindtest kits for Corinth and
Jackson at the Crossroads (or rather Bruce
Maxwell sent out Jackson). My Quest for
names for these games led to some really fun
ny responses : Brice's Crossroads as Flistest
with the Mostest, That Devil Forest , Critrur
Company, Piercing Sherman's Lifeline; Bel-
mont as There is a Yankee, You Looked Like
Giants, Grant 's Grunt (I can see it in Barnes
and Noble); Cross Keys/ Port 'Republic as
Surely "he Lord Is on Our Side; Olustee as
Loss of a STate, Sunshine Stale Campaign
(how about Orange Tree State Campaign) ;
and filially, my favori te, Corinth as A Hot
Fight (in Mississ ippi). I do appreciate all the
title suggestions that were sent in and I don't
mean to unfairly pick on the people who
wrote those above. It does show how dif-
ficult it can be to think of a suitable title. I
think wha t I'll do is name the games after the
battle, as in Pea Ridge, and then append a
subtitle, e.g., The Gettysburg of the WeSI .
Now for the final word on the game
.evaluations. I have already begun develop-
ment of Richard Berg's Corinth design, Jim
Simon's Cedar Mountain design, and our
new R&D staffer, Bruce Maxwell, has begun
Jackson at the Crossroads. The other games
in the running have not disappeared,
however. We have bought Mark Herman's
New Market game, David Martin's and Len-
ny Millman's Pleasanl Hif{ game, and I am
seriously considering the purchase of Brice's
Crossroads. Why so many? The games arc
good and their release wi!! be staggered over
the next few years . Thus, after the three
Origins releases this spring, there will be a
break in the release of the small games. Even-
tually Marlin and Millman 's game will be in-
creased up to a two game package covering
both of the battles of the Red River Cam-
paign, Mansfield and Pleasant Hill, with a
method of connecting the resulls of one game
with the other. The other games thal were
submiLted will be returned to their designers
or an option will be bought on them, allow-
ing us the privilege of full purchase at a later
date.
Corinth. This game has been a joy to
develop so far. My blindtesters are all
- responding wi th good material, the
manuscript is in good shape, and the game is
fun and big. I wish all games went this
smoothly. At present, I am rewriting the
rules for Army Commanders, and the
various Confederate Entry rules. The only
real problem so far uncovered in the game is
a tendency for the Confederates to be trap
ped against the far map edges. By the time
you read this report, this problem will have
been long solved . My object in Corinth is to
create a real balanced "player" along the
lines of the original TSS, that is, a game
where the players are fully in control of the
strategic options of their armies.
Cedar Mountain. Cedar Mountain is off to
a much slower start than Corinth. This is due
to the fact that Corinth was designed by a
veteran SPI designer and Cedar Mountain is
the product of a design tcam's first effort.
Ultimately the game will be very good, color
ful , and exciting. I have a lot of work ahead
of me since I have to generate an entire
manuscript. Some of the main assets of the
game are a beautiful map wi th enough room
for the charts and tables, the need for
vigorous allacking on both sides, and very
few special rules. In short , this game by its
very nature will be a player's game.
Eric Smith
Jackson at the Crossroads. Jackson at the
Crossroads, designed by Joe Reiser, arrived
on my desk already well develuped at the
beginning of January. The battle represents a
very interesting situation, with each player
having one flank on the offensive and one on
the defensive. Historically, Jackson Was
completely caught by surprise by the initial
Union advance, and only managed to figh t
his way free of the Union encirclement after
making several very aggressive responses.
The Union reacted ex tremely slowly to the
opportunjtiescreated, and indecision lost the
day. Recreating the tremendous imbalance in
command initiative without ' straight-
jacketing the players into the historical out-
come has proven to be the major challenge of
the game. Joe and I have run through a great
many command and control varian ts for
both sides. We believe thai we have found a
solution that accurately portrays the
-historical realities without destroying player
initiative. The game is now in the hands of
half a dozen blindtest groups who will short-
ly provide an objective evaluation of our ef-
forts. Initial reactions to the game have been
highly favorable so far. Despite the highly
tactical nature of the game system, there is a
markedly strategic flavor to the options each
player faces in deploying his forces . The
game promises both players a real challenge.
Bruce Maxwet!
The Alamo
By the time you read this, Alamo will
have been turned into David Ritchie fot the
R&D edit and, indeed, may even be in the Art
Department. A few clays ago I was given the
incredible news tha t the managers have
decided to increase the size of my little game
from a capsule map to a folio map. I am very
happy a bou t this! r can now pu t charts and
tables on the map and increase the hex size
for easier play. The game will be better for
this stroke of fortune at the end of its R&D
life. Eric Smith
Battle Over Britain
Have no fear! BailIe Over Britain is still
flying high. Projects of higher priority have
pushed back BOB's publication, but it wit! be
published and it will be fine. While r have
been wrestling with Voyage of the Pandora,
Universe , and Laserburst, the strategic game
has bj:en play tested here at SPI and blind-
tested across the country regularly. That por-
tion of the game is entirely finished. The Tac
tical Combat Game (consisting of a number
of scenarios that aUow the players to recreate
actual raids) is finished too', except for the
final rules manuscript. The Advanced Tac-
tical Game (play it forever) is stilt in the
developlnent Stale. I cannot say for SLlre, but
look for BOB in the fall of '81 .
John H. Butterfield
Spies
Lenny Glynn and John Prados col-
laborated on the design for this project, and
the results are, 1 think, really exciting. The
subject matter is the bitter espionage ,var that
took place in Europe between 1933 and 1939 . .
As currently configured, Spies is a five-
player game wherein each player is a
spymaster guiding the intelligence operations
of Germany, Italy, Britain, France, or
Russia. Turns are aile year in length (7 tLIrns
per game). During the course of each turn,
players maneuver agents across Europe pick-

ing up "secret" counters (representing
special anti-tank rounds, encoding
machines, and the like) and trying to avoid
the police uni ts controlled by other players.
Most of the game dynamics are supplied by
two decks of cards: the Event deck and the
Action deck. The Event deck provides a
background of random events which alter
the strengths of the characters, feeding
money and Action cards into the game and
changing the map of Europe. The Action
cards are necessary to conduct all game
operations except for a very few simple ac-
tions (such as police sweeps in search of
enemy agents). Generally, whenever any ac-
tion is taken, a card must be played. Included
in the Action deck are cards allowing agents
to assassinate other agents, present false
papers when rounded up by unfriendly
police, penetrate enemy networks, set up spy
residencies and the full gamut of similar ac-
tivities.
Currently, the game is undergoing
development here at SPI to separate out the
basic game elements from the advanced game
and to clear up some minor rules glitches.
That process should be completed in another
eight weeks, in time to put the game through
production an,d have it ready for an early
mailing to participants in a tournament at
Origins this summer. SPI is, by the way, of-
fering a $1000 cash prize to the winner of that
tournament and lesser prizes to fina lists.
Golly gee, Daddy War bucks.
David J. Ritchie
Lasorburst
Play testing is well underway on our
ship-to-ship space combat game. It will ap-
pear in Ares 9 and will also be included in our
Universe game. The game uses a twO-
dimensional movement: system that incor-
porates Newtonian physics in a relatively
painless manner. Each spaceship consists of a
hull with a bridge, sub-light engine, a force-
field (sometimes), and a varying amount of
armor. To the hull are attached a number of
pods of a wide variety. The attributes of each
ship are recorded in its Battle Log. During
the course of play, the players keep track of
damage incurred by the sections of each ship
and mark the expenditure of energy and
missiles. The ships range in type from two-
man fighters, to clunking freighters, to ar-
mored fortresses. Also included in the game
are planets (and rules for their gravity wells),
asteroids, .and stationary commercial and
military outposts. A variety of scenarios and
rules for making your own scenarios will be
included. John H. Butterfield
Universe
Our science fiction role-playing game is
really coming together now. The character
generation system is near completion; all that
remains is LO finalize the game effects of the
100 or so skills that a player may choose for
his characters. I am currently wrestling with
the encounter and personal combat systems.
Extensive charts and lists detailing en-
counters with spaceships, imperial
au tho rities, non-player characters, lots of
27
strange creatures, and unexpected accidents monwealth player would always argue (often
allow the players to get into play of an adven- at length) that he should be allowed to arm
ture right away. Comprehensive rules on the natives, leave Australia undefended, strip
customizing these encounter matrices allow Cairo of air cover, and do anything else
the GM to introduce his own ideas into the vaguely imaginable to increase his combat
system smoothly, so that eventually the en- power in Malaya while the Japanese player
counters .may spring entirely from the GM's would invariably argue on behalf of a serene
mind. The combat system is simple, em- austerity.
phasizing initiative, maneuver, firepower, Currently, we are testing a handicapping
and terrain cover. Pure strength only helps system based on victory point accrued for
when involved in hand-to-hand combat or destroying enemy trOOps, capturing
when using . non-energy projectile weapons Singapore and Kuala Lu mpur, and destroy-
(bows, slings, etc.). Our main objective in all ing shipping (among other things). The
this is to make Universe new and original, various . options input by the designer have
not just a role-playing retread. been assigned a numerical value based par-
John H. Butterfield tially on the likelihood of their happening
and partially on the relative diversion of
Singapore resources necessary-to accomplish them, and
This title has recently undergone an this value is subtracted from a player's vic-
upgrade to a folio map which takes a great tory point total whenever he employs each
deal of p ressure off the developer. The .scale option. It is thus possible to additionally
remains the same, but the size of the hexes reinforce Malaya to one's own detriment
has changed to 19mm and Lhe charts, tables, since the diversion of resources LO th at area
and tracks are all handily scattered about the increases the difficulty of one's task (relative-
mapsheet for quick reference. The increased ly) at the same time that it increases one's
space for charts and tables has meant that ad- power to accomplish that task. These .
ditional information could be included on numerical values are currently undergoing
those charts and tables, and that has done testing and modification in the last round of
more than any thing else to ease the flow of -development before the game is turned in to
play. the Art Department. David J. Ritchie
In addition to reconfiguring Lhe game's
component mix, I have been attempting to
solve the inherent imbalance in the game
situation by allowing more la titude for
historical "what-if's." The campaign on
which the game is based saw an outnumbered
Japanese army outmaneuvering (and often
outfighting) the larger, but less weill trained,
equipped and motivated CommonweaJLh ar-
my down the length of the Malacca Penin-
sula in about 10 weeks. Here, numbers mat-
tered less than training, doctrine, support,
and leadersh ip. In balancing the game, one is
faced with the heartbreaking fact that there
was simply no way that the Commonwealth
army was going to hold Malaya or even do all
that much better than they did historically.
This was an army of mostly green troops,
unused to the jungle, unsure of themselves,
convinced that their enemy was some sort of
superman, and generally of inferior quality.
Similar bodies of troops would requi re two
years of campaigning in Burma before they
were able to meet the Japanese on an equal
footing in the i ungle.
The fix for this problem which the
designer put intO the game included a series Important Notice
of optional rules covering upgraded training, Address all correspondence
commitment of additional forces to Malaya
(which was very much a backwate r of the
to SPI's New York Office
Empire in 1942) , and a number of strategic All mail, including orders and service
options such as invasion of Siam, mobiliza- complaints, and any return of merchandise for
tion of the natives, and heavier use of whatever reason, m US L be add ressed to SPI's
New York address (not the New Jersey address
engineering, which were available to the
on the mailing label). Please send all corres-
Commonwealth, but were no t employed in pondence to:
the campaign. The problem with aU of these
SPI
optional rules was that there was no structure
2S7 Park Avenue South
in the original design that allowed players to New York, NY 10010
input them in the game without mutual
Note: This notice applies (0 direct mail service.
agreeme . in advance and no handicapping
system tt) keep every option frpm being used
in every game. Accordingly, the Com-
28
TECHNOLOGY & REVIEWS
SpiBus
WHY I'M REALLY BUYING A MICROCOMPUTER
AND WHAT I'LL PLA Y WHEN IT GETS HERE
by Ian Chadwick
The co mputer is no lon ger seen as t he franke n-
stei nian device it was once po pu larly thought to
be, but it isn' t totally accepted by a lon g shot.
Because of the un bounded enthusiasm of its p ro-
pon ents, the personal comput~ r has been" over-
sold versus its true capabilities. Nevertheless, the
relatively cheap electronic information mani-
pulators will have a significan t and lasting effect
upon our hobby. We should ali familiarize
ourselves with their promise and their problems.
, - Redm ond
In the November issue of Personal
Computing, Scifi writer David Gerrold
wrote "All right, I confess. I really bought
the computer fot the games." In doing so he
lifted up some of the guilt many of us have
been carrying because we, too, purchased
our machines for the very same reason, but at
last someone had come out and said it in
print!
Yes, I bought the computer to play
games. Sure it can do tax forms, record my
cheques, edit my letters and figure out the
balance left on a mortgage, but so can I
without a computer and at only a few hours
longer in effort. But when you have family
and guests over, do you think .it will impress
them if you display the past year's record of
cancelled cheques? Ho hum, you mean you
just spent some $2000 on something that
does what a free bank statement does each
momh? How consumerish of you.
Nope, not me. 1 run for the copy of In-
vaders or Dancing Demon or Santa Paravia
to give them something to think about. For
the non-participant types, I use graphic
displays, music reproductions and the flashy
software to win them over. I've twisted arms
and minds, but I've also won two friends
over to the field and convinced them to buy a
computer, and I have hopes for more.
My first experience with computers goes
back about seven years. My upstairs neigh-
bor introduced me to the APL system (a
mainframe) at the University of Toronto. It
had a large library of games available, in-
cluding Star Trek, and using his access code,
I could play games virtually unhindered be-
tween the hours of 9 p.m . and 3 a.m. That he
later ran off with my wife, who had become a
computer widow early in life, did give me
pause to quest ion his motives for making the
introductions, but what the hell, it was my
first step into a larger world and I forgave
him at the di vorce set t lemen t.
A few years down the road, the
microprocessor became a reality and soon
a host of "affordable" computers followed:
Apple, Pet, TRS-80, Sorcerer, OSI
Challenger (affordable in the sense that a full
system with 48K + of memory, two disk
drives, colour monitor and printer would
cost about the same as a new car so one had
to decide on driving to work in the old jalopy
or just drooling at the machines in the shop
windows .. .). A gamer of 20-odd years and a
wargamer some eight years give or take, I
knew immediately to what use I would put
such a device: games. Pure and simple. Any
other function was gravy as far as J was con-
cerned.
So I spent six active months examining
the available systems intensely before I made
my final choice just over a year ago. In
descending order, these are the criteria for
my choice:
1. Cost. Money, the root of all evil, is also
the source of all pleasure when you're trying
to spend it. In Canada, what with our sinking
dollar and exhorbitant Customs duties, a
microsystem can cost easily twice the US
price, so the "affordable" micro may not
seem such a bargain. An Apple 2 Plus with
48K RAM, colour moniLOr and RF
modulator runs about $2400 Canadian. The
TRS-80, no colour, 48K RAM is about
$1900. (The Commodore PET is somewhere
in between these two costs, if you have 4SK
memory.) Well, $500 will buy a lot of soft-
ware, magazine subscriptions, and books ....
2. Software. How much is available and
how much orit is game-oriented? No use ask-
ing the retailers; they will promise you the
moon. Sure they might be able to buy it for
you, but delivery.... Well, the best bet is to
peruse the computer magazines and read
their ads, since neither Apple nor Pet has its
own software and Radio Shack has only a
dozen or so items of their own (when I was
looking, the Atari wasn't on the market),
Well, that is surely another point in the
TRS-SO's favour, anyway. There is con-
siderably more software - games especially
- for it than for any other machine ,
although Apple software is catching up now.
I had no intention of buying a computer
without extensive software backup. So what
if the Compucolour II is a better machine if I
can't play Star Trek on it?
3. Hardware. I've been a~ound just long
enough to know that the case does not make
the machine any better, so you can forget the
looks; tell me about the architecture of the
machine itself. Unless you're very close to the
source, understanding the difference be-
tween the 6502 and Z80 chips is like trying to
describe the difference between Mozart and
the Beatles to a deaf man. So let's look in-
side. The Apple is designed for easy repair,
service and expansion, the Pet less so, and
the TRS-80 not at all. Both the former two
will take on extra memory internally, the
TRS-80 needs an additional interface (an ex-
tra 32K memory plus interface costs over
$800). Hmm. Say I buy just the basic 16K
system from the store; can I buy peripherals
and expand my system later with outside
equipment at a lower cost? Yes for the Ap-
ple, capital YES for the TRS-80, and yeah,
some, fo r the Pet. Both Commodore and
Radio Shack try their best to sell their own
hardware, claiming it to be substantially
superior to the competition's and warning of
dire consequences if you use the inferior
brand. This is malarky, especially in the case
of Radio Shack whose disk drives are made
by Percom and whose printers are made by
Centronics. Don't be fooled by glib
salesmanship.
Okay, so how about graphics? Despite
some nice graphic control from the
keyboard, the Pet has a tiny screen, and
fewer characters/lines on screen than the
others. Really micro! The Apple, on the
other hand, has great graphics (if you buy the
Hi-res board) and colour. Admittedly you
need a larger TV screen than a 9/1 monitOr to
appreciate them, but if graphics were the on-
ly difference, the Apple would be 'the top
dog. The TRS-SO has lousy, low resolution
graphics which make a simple diagonal line
look like a flight of stairs. But on the other
hand, you can easily upgrade by adding one
of the Electric Crayon'(for hi-resolution col-
our), the E-RAM (for high resolution B&W),
or the 80-Grafix board (for additional
character set). As a matter of fact, a 101 of the
drawbacks with the TRS-80 can be overc ome
by adding on hardware (such as the Exatron
Stringy Floppy for fast, efficient software
loading). The Apple on the other hand does
not seem to need much to improve it. All
three machines offer a wide range of
peripherals .such as joysticks and light pens
available from any of a number of sources,
some requiring minimal amoun ts of internal
engineering, usually in the case of the
TRS-SO.
4. Et Ceteras. Since I wasn't worried about
the computer matching my decor, I was able
to iook at other factors such as language,
ease of use, keyboard function, speed,
machine-language useage, sound capabili-
ties, and the availability of immediate servic-
ing and repair. The TRS-80 proved to have
the mos t powerful BASIC of the three.
Pluses and minuses add up for each machine
depending on individual needs and
preferences, but fo r me the Micro soft

BASIC used by the TRS-SO is the better pro-
duct, a nd t he editing functions of the TRS-SO
are certainly excellent. I discarded the PET
by virtue of small screen , over-dependence
on Commodore hardware (cassette player
and disks) for expansion, and less software
backup. The choice fell between the Apple
and the TRS-SO. For me, since games were
lhe motivation for the purchase,. the big
factor in comparing the machines was
graphics. After all, when I was intending to
zip through the galaxy at warp speed, I
wanted it to look like I was doing just that,
not some chunky representation of same.
But cost intruded on my musing and the
reality of prices for the basic system I intend-
ed to buy (16K, no disks or printer yet) made
up my mind (in Canada, t he Apple 2 plus
with Applesoft BASIC with colour monitor
and hi-res board is about $2100+, while the
TRS-SO 16K Level 2 basic configurati on,
with num.erical keypad, is o nly $11(0). So I
charged out and bought the TRS-SO.
All right, So now you' ve go t the
machine, and you've bought up a whole lot
of software for playing games. Where do you
go from here?
My first hint of d issatisfaction came
about a week into my gaming with the com-
puter. I no ticed that a lot of the software was
designed with great programming intended,
using slick, sophisticated technique bu t made
for lousy games, and thal the typewriter
keyboard is a poor mechanism for playing
most games on, especially the arcade-style
fast action games . And that BASIC is SLOW
but the fast machine language games could
not be listed or easily altered . Also, too many
of the games were, no matter the number of
players involved, non-interactive or solitaire
games . No t to mention that there was a bor-
ing similari ty among many games.
Okay, whoa and slow down. There are
th ings you can do to change the situation.
You can rewrite the programmes or write
your own from scratch . Fine, except that this
means you have to learn BASIC and maybe
assembler and that takes time and effort . But
do you have any choice? No, so pu t down the
toys and pick up the manual; let's see, if
x"" n, then ... and so on for the next year or
two. Not that all software is in need of
rewriting - tha t may just be a vanity on my
part . But such a good game as Taipan would
certainly be a better game if more than one
player could compete at the same time,
wouldn't it? And Santa Para via would be
much improved if players could buy, sell,
and trade with each other, even wage war on
each other, yes? And then too, since a 101 of
these games were written by people who were
. programmers first and game players second
(or worse), they often overlooked a lot of
variables a gamer might ca tch , or prefer,
such as preventing enormous deficit spend-
ing in Santa Para via to get ahead . But wait a
second, .. start making a lot of additions and
adjustments to most programmes and you
start seeing OM (out of memo ry) errors ap-
pearing on the screen with distressing fre-
quency,
That leads right into dissatisfaction
number two: hardware. First thing you learn
is thai loading a 16K programme via cassette
takes a long time . Maybe 4 or 5 minutes .
Watching the flashing asterisk may hold your
attention for an un limited time, but it seldom
captivates your audience, whom you have
just promised the sight of their meagre lives.
And if you get a bad load that try? Why,
we'll just try again .. . wait, where are you go-
ing? So you grit you r teeth and mutter ex-
cuses and dream of the day when you get a
disk drive and you can load in a matter of
nanoseconds. Get two or three bad loads in a
row and you'll be drawing pentagrams on the
floor in order to conjure up someone to
mortgage your soul to in order to buy your
disks right NOW!
But with luck you've loaded all righ t and
you've got some Space Potatoes game up and
running to try to impress the hell out of your
friends. So you say here, tr y it, and instruct
them how to move and fire their spaceship .
Great until one of them pushes the number 4
and enters it before you're running . Neat!
Now line 4 has vanished from the pro-
gramme and you have no way to recover it so
it crashed into incoherency. So we'll just
have to reload the programme and ... wait,
where are you going? And it's back to the
books trying to uncover a way to write-
protect your programmes.
But after one or two experiments in find-
ing the right friends to show your new toy,
you find a suitably receptive character and
you ' re engaged in a no-holds-barred game of
Galactic Revolution where each turn is
critical, when the game crashes and the
screen spits up an OM error. While your
friend goes off to see how they're doing a t
the local PanzerBlitz tournament, you
thumb through the ads looking for a suitable
add-on memory you can have flown up in a
jiffy to try and win back confidence in the
power of your machine . And for less than an
arm and a leg.
Any of this sound familiar? You then
have to face up to the question of accepting
the limitations of your present system or the
eventual up-grade and concurrent cost of
same. If you choose the former, you can take
solace in the fact that most of the software is
for solitaire play anyway, and who needs
friends when you can immerse yourself in 24
hours straight play in an Adventure game,
right? Or you can start examining the options
for up-grade.
One step is to move up to a new com-
puter which offers all of the necessary ingre-
dients for worry-free use . If you can find
such a system, and you can afford it, good
luck, enjoy it. For the rest of us there are
three options we must give serious thought
to: extra memory, disk drives, and a printer.
The latter two are software driven, so if you
haven't got enought memory for the pro-
grammes you already use, lhen what use is
wasting precious memory without . the
former? Here are my choices in the matter:
1. You can get extra memory without mov-
ing up to disk, or with option to expand at a
later time. About 900,70 of the TRS-SO pro-
grammes are intended fOT 16K, with a few in-
29
tended for 32K machines, so you probably
only need add on another 16K immediately.
Radio Shack' s interface has a host of
doodads such as disk controllers and cir-
cuitry to insert an RS232 board into, and
space for either another 16K or 32K of
memory, but at the highest cost of all ($SOO
for 32K, Canadian) Micromint offers 16K of
memory plus disk controllers (wilh an option
for 32K) without the RS232 capacity for
about half the Shack's price; great if you
have no plans to get into modems, time-
sharing, and 110 devices controlling your
home. I chose the Microtek 32K addon
memory with the printer controller, but no
disk controller. Why? I have chosen not to
get disk drives for the reasons following . But
I chose 32K of memory in the expectation of
having a few programmes which require 32K
so I would have the additional 16K in which
to load utility programmes such as
renumbering software, IRV, T-SHORT, o r
BPA (Basic Programming Assistant) in case I
wanted to rewrite it, And why not get the full
memory now rather than wait?
2. To disk or not to disk. Everyone seems to
agree that the step up to disk drives is the on-
ly way to move out of the minor league into
the realm of the big players. Only via disk
systems can you get such items as competen t
business software, PASCAL, APL, COBOL
and FORTRAN translators, CP/M, and a
host of other goodies. Oh really? What if you
still intend to use the thing primarily for
games? Disks offer easy, fast loading, ex-
cellent storage and retrieval, new commands,
and most 32K programmes are available on
d isk only anyway. Fine you say, but before
you pull out your cheque book, think a mo
ment. The TRS-80 requires the interface
before you can add on disks. For the 32K ex-
tra memory tha t means an outlay of over
$800, The first disk costs about the same, a
second around $500. That's a total of more
than $2100 (Canada) for a two-drive system.
And how much d id you say you paid for the
system initially? So you look around for
some alternatives and what do you find? The
Exatron Stringy Floppy. Fast as a disk (give
or take a few seconds) but smaller, comes
with Microsoft's Level 3 BASIC which adds
pretty well the same commands as disk-basic,
stores and retrieves quickly and costs about
$300 (US) for the starter set. So you get the
Microtek memory for $200 (US), plus the Ex-
atron system, plus a bus extender cable which
offers multiple connectors ($50, US) for
some $600 with tax (about $S50 in Canada).
Compared to the disk cost, that's pretty
good . And lhal's not counting the additional
cost of getting such niceties as a data
separator, bus extender, dual disk housing
with fan, disk storage containers or disk
cleaners. So it may not offer the wealth of
control a disk offers, but if offers nearly as
much for about one-third the price. You see
why I chose nOl to go the disk route? There is
another consideration also: the state bf the
technology. Things change in the industry,
and they do so quickly. One day I might be
trading my S-bit microprocessor in on a
shiney new 32-bit job. And all the equipment
30
have with it may be as out of date as
Chrysler. Disk systems are improving 100;
what is the top of the technological heap now
may soon be replaced wi th some better, more
efficient system . And what about a DOS
(disk operating system)? Which is best ,
which can I afford? And what drawbacks are
there to a disk system? Wha t about
overheating? What happens when a dirty
disk gets into the machine? Ask an owner
what happens when a cat hair (attracted by
the lovely static in your place) attaches itself
to the disk unnoticed and it hits a disk head
which floats about one-third the diameter of
the hair above the disk? Hmm. So there are
some viable alterna tives. The only difficulty
is that some software manufacturers are not
making cassettes for those who choose the
Stringy Floppy. Hopefully they will wake up
to the fa}:t that the alternatives are catching
on at an increasing pace and then start offeF
ing cassettes that can be saved on a Stringy
Floppy.
3. Why do I need a printer when I only wal1l
to play games? Easy: you want to write them
too , anci you may th ink you can simply hand
write all of your programmes, but see how
long it takes to write out a 16K game ... let
alone a longer programme! And you can
debug a programme wi th considerable ease if
you have the hard-copy, compared to trying
to do so simply on the video as it scrolls by
you . And too, if YOll have a copy of each pro-
gramme on hand, ,when your clumsy friend
accidentally erases line 4 from your game,
you can easily re fer to your listing 'and re-
enter it wit hout the bother of reloading it.
And you can get into word-processing and
write letters and the like on the computer
wi th remarkable ease. The cost is high;
printer prices are gradually fall ing, but a
reasonable machine will cost somewhere be-
tween $750 and $)000 (usually above $)000 in
Canada). If you have chosen to take the same
route as I have with the Stringy Floppy, and
cheaper memory, you can still buy t he prin ter
and it will cost you less than the two disk
system! Am 1 getting my point across? Cost
was a major facior in choosing the machine I
own, so I will continue to factor it in lo any
subsequent choices I make concerni ng add-
on material, as I suspect others will. The ex-
istence and popularity of these alternate
systems proves that.
Finally, despite the sophistication of
your machinery, you are still stuck wi th the
problem of having a lot of software bu t few
really outstanding games. You can, as I said,
rewrite them, if you think you can improve
on what is already there (few programmes
cannot be improved) , and you think you
have the necessary experience in BASIC or
machine-language to do so. Or you can wri te
your own; long, difficult , bIIt rewarding if
you manage to produce a saleable, playable
game. Remember that the computer is more
than a monetary investment, and not to
utilise it to its fullest is to waste that invest-
ment, even if you're only playing games on it.
You must decide what kind of games
you want to play - and write . The very
popular arcade-style games are fun, but
don ' t hold your interest over an extended
period of time, and the typew riter keyboard
of your machine is not weil suited for such
hard, fast play-use. Besides, if you only want
to play arcade-s tyle games such as Invasion
or Meteor Storm or what-have-you, then
you're better off in the arcade game where
the machinery and graphics are suited for the
game. Besides, you can get an awful lor of
$.25 games for the amoun t you spend on a
computer. ...
By getting a compu ter and not simply a
home entertainment system such as the Atari
or Bali and 1ntelevision systems, you havc
made a large step into a new w'orld; you have
joined a community not merely as a spectato r
but as a participant, so you had best live up
to it. It's no t easy, and it means work, but it is
rewarding and it is the wave of the future ,
and it sure can be fun. Just be careful not to
turn your spouse in to a "computer widow ."
Now, let's see, if I starve the peasants this
turn, I can buy about 1000 hectares of land,
and up the justice to harsh , bu t I might lose
too many workers, so I'd best. ...
SOFTWARE REVIEWS
Reviews of Games
and Simulations
for the TRS-80
M.icrocomputer
The foll owing are short reviews of some
of the currently available software fo r the
TRS-80 16K Level 2 Modell microcom-
pu ter. It is by no means a complete guide to
available programmes.
I have used certain convemions to help
the prospective buyer evaluate the program-
mes: noted are the number of players and the
level of player-imeraction from excellent to
poor, or the solitaire playability. ML means .
machine language, and MU means the pro-
gramme also offers music or sound output.
The games are rated accord ing to their
graphic display, playability as a game,
simulation accuracy, and o verall capacity to
hold attention over repeated playings , from
A (best) to E (worst). The letters na are us ed
where the rating is not applicable to a
category.
Since many games are al ike , I have
grouped them into larger categories of type
and included general notes in some cases . It
should be understood that the "overall"
rating is highly subjective, but tha t the
author has attempted to be fair by presenting
a consensus from local users where possible.
ARCADE-STYLE GAMES
These are the games which depend upon
reflex and hand-eye coordination in order to
play and win. Usually they are similar to
those found in pinball arcades. The low-
resolution graphics of the TRS-80 are not
well suited to suggesting the high-resolu tion
of its arcade coun terparts, and BASIC is too
slow to make these games as fast as the
originals, so beller programmers have writ-
ten their games in machine language and at-
temp ted to offer the best the graphics can
produce. '
ALIEN INVASION
Ramware
Solitaire, MU
. 8/C/na/C
This was one of the first simulations of
the popular arcade game to emerge. Written
in BASIC and using a machine language
routine, it is irritatingly slow in its response
to commands. Only one missile may be fired
at a time, and a second shot fired while the
fir st is on the screen will eliminate the first
sho t ! The aliens move rather slowly to and
fro across the screen, but do nor descend
toward the firing unit. The number of bombs
they send earthward seem. unaffected by the
number of aliens remaining. The program
occasionally fails to recognize that you have
shot down all of the aliens and continues to
unleash bombs, forcing the player to dodge
umit the time cycle completes itself, often
declaring a loss when you have visibly won
the game. The graphics displays are well
done, and the program offers such random
delights as ion storms, black holes moving
through the prot.ective gas clouds, asteroids
which plummet onto your laser, and rarely a
freebie laser. The music/ sound routine is well
done, bu t the game does not s[and up well
against the newer versions in machine
language .
BALL TURRET GUNNER
Instant Software
Solitaire, MU
B/B/na/C
Although written in BASIC, Ball Turrel
Gunner makes extensive use of machine-
language subroulines for graphics and
sound. The player may choose one of five
options of varying difficulty, but the purpose
of each is the same: destroy a number of ap-
proaching enemy vessels. The player com-
ma nds a " st ratoblaster" wh ich can be moved
360 0 horizontally and from - 30 0 to 60 ver-
tically, while enemy ships approach random-
ly froin points in the firing arc. Basically, one
mus t destroy all approaching ships to win a
round, and then either repeat the same or go
on to a differen t (usually more difficult) op-
tion. Although the graphics are well done,
the game is nOt very exci ting and does not
hold at tention for an extended period of
time. Although challenging to win at the
more difficult levels , the game offers lillie
that cannot be better had in other games.
More interesting is the way the programme is
structured to inpu t both BASIC and machine
language routines, making copying difficult
and suggesting ' a possible method of write-
protecLion fo r software authors.
BASIC AND INTERMEDIATE
LUNAR LANDER
Instant Software

Solitaire
D/C/E/D
This programme is perhaps best used to
introduce the young to lhe computer, since
otherwise as both a game and a simulation it
offers little. There are two games, bUI both
use the same mechanics of play: each turn the
programme stops and patiently waits while
you type in the turn's cur.rem fuel use, a'1.ld
then lowers (or raises) the craft accordingly.
The lander is not shown; instead, a con-
tinuous "trail" marks its location and path.
It cannot be moved horizontally by lhe
player, but continues from left to right across
the screen, the distance varying somewhal
with the fuel useage. Basic Lunar Lander of-
fers a simple, nat surface on which to land,
while Intermediate Lunar Lander has only
one available flat spot in a rugged landscape
for landing. Unlike the popular arcade ver-
sion, the scale does not change when landing.
Although not panicularly interesting for
adults , it should be considered by parents
wishing to offer a lightly challenging, in-
teresting in trod uction for child ren. Those
who wish an adult lunar lander simu lation
are better off buying the programme in
machine language from Adventu re Interna-
tional.
BEEWARY
Ramwa!e
Solitaire, MU
A/ A/na/B
This is one of the gems produced by Leo
Christopherson, the wizard of graphic
displays. It is written in BASIC, but tucks
machine language sub-routines into reserved
string spaces for a fast, enjoyable game.
Although not an arcade game per se, it does
require fast reflexes and a quick hand . The
player moves a flying bee on lhe screen, at-
tempting to sting a computer-controlled
spider which attempts to catch - and eat -
the bee. Sound effects include buzzing bee
and a sinister burp when eaten . The pro-
gramme is skillfully wrinen and plays quite
well, making an excellent demo to impress
your friends . The only drawbacks in the
game are (1) the difficul ty in stinging the
treacherous spider and (2) the length of time
it takes the spider to die when stung (done
.with accompanying dramatic gestures and
phrases). My own sting-to-dinner ratio is a
poor 1 to iO!
COSMIC PATROL
Instant Software
Solitaire, ML, MU
A/ A/na/B
This is a fast action game that offers one
of the best demonstrations of graphic com-
petence I've seen. The game is simple to play:
you move your gunsight via the arrow keys
until you find a moving ship, and attempt to
shoot it down. You ". . in when you have shot
down all 15 ships; you lose when you are
either destroyed or run out of energy (tied in-
to the number of hits you've taken and time).
Some of the ships are transports, which are
moving targets, tricky to hit, but which don't
fire back. Some, however, are drones, which
take evasive action, and close with you in
order to get a shot at you. The player has the
option of either the regular or fast speeds. II
is a well executed programme, although once
mastered it offers little challenge. It can be
used as a demo programme, and since each
game is short, a number of players can take
turns for an amusing round of play.
INVADERS
Instant Software
Solilaire, ML, MU
This is a short, fast little simulation of
the arcade game which offers considerably
smoother, faste r play than the previous Alien
Invasion offered. Not onIy can you fire as
many shots as you can manage to send up ,
but the aliens move progressively closer to
your gun as the game progresses. Although
the game does not offer all the variants of the
former, it does have a vessel which crosses
the screen at random intervals, worth an ex-
tra gun when shot down. You can pick levels
of speed and difficulty from I 10 9, although
after level 5 the game becomes almost im-
possible due 10 the limitations of the
keyboard response and the strobing routine
of the keys. Fasl, easy and fun, this is a good
game 10 while away an hour or \wo.
MISSILE ATTACK
The Cornsoft Group
Solitaire, ML, MU
B/A/natB
'Based on the popular arcade game, this
programme will delight addicts of the
quarter-consuming ancestor. It is incredibly
fast, smomh, and deadly. Basically you have
two missile siloes (15 missiles each) with
which to protect your thrte cities). Enemy
missiles arri ve from the tOP of the screen,
heading toward your cilies and siloes. You
move your sight LO a position and fire; your
missile explodes at the place where the sight
was when you pressed the fire key. Hopefully
you are fasL enough 10 move the sight and
fire in fast enough succession to destroy all
incoming missiles. After a wave has ended
(either all landed or deslroyed) you get your
sHoes back, full again to face another wave,
faster than the previous one, but survival is
worth more points each wave. Points ac-
cumulate for surviving cities and unspent
missiles in your siloes, not for shooting
enemy missiles . If all three cities are
destroyed, the game ends. Unless you are ex-
tremely coordinated and fast, that won't be'
very long to wail. The game has only one
flaw; il uses lhe @ key to fire the left (?1?)
silo - an awkward position . The rules say
that it should fire the right silo, but tha t is in-
correct (in my versio n anyway) . Supposedly
there are 12 waves yo u must su rvive . I
wouldn't know, since my best is four. I f I
could fire the left silo easier I might do better.
Good luck. . You may scan either 'the eight adjacent sec-
LUNAR LANDER
Adventure International
31
Solitaire, ML, MU
A/B/C/B
~;
A close relative of its arcade cousin, Ihis
version does nOL quite offer all the options or
the smoothness of the larger model. It is fast
. and graphics are fine (it even changes scale
when you get close enough to the surface),
but it does not respond as well as the arcade
game, nor does it alia"," all of the varia.nts in
physical motion lhe larger game has (such as
non-inertial movement). You have nine dif-
ferent sites to land at, worth from 100 to 900
points according to difficulty. The 900 point
sites are located impossibly under overhangs, .
so you must maneuver down, sideways and
back up again before landing. There is also a
site where you can refuel. Like its cOUnter-
part, you play each game until you run out of
fuel; crashes cost fuel, no t points. The space
bar fires the main thrusters, the right and left
arrow keys control lateral movement. The
ship does not pivot or turn over, but stays in
an uprigh t position. The tricky pan is not
nearly so much the difficult landing sites as
the extreme caution necessary to avoid
brushing any other part of the surface with
the projecting legs of the craft - easy
enough to overlook in a stressful landing .
The only troub le I have had is the sluggish
response of the controls which has not allow-
ed split-second adjustments, leading to far
more numerous crashes than need be. I'm
not NASA material by this standard , but it
offers a lot of fun and anxious ho urs,
although it still does not present real rivalry
to the arcade game - yet.
SPACE GAMES
One of the original computer games
played on the mainframes was Star Trek, and
although many variants existed, they all pret-
ty well played the same. Slar Trek is still
with us, but space games have improved con-
siderab ly since then. However, many of the
following games are variants on the original.
INVASION FORCE
Radio Shack
Solitaire,ML
Bf A/na/A
This is part arcade game, part Star Trek.
the player searches a iO x iO universe to find
and destroy enemy (Jovian) ships. There are
two kinds of Jovians, both of which move
and fire: regular ships, which can be killed by
either missile fire or maser fire, and the com-
mand vessels, which can be destroyed only by
the anti-matter pods. Movement may be
either hyperspace (to move between sectors)
or ion drive (to move within a sector), both at
variable speeds . The player allocates energy
to drives, scanners, deflectors, missile tubes
and masers at anytime during play, allowing
a fair degree of control over ship function.
tors for bases or the enemy, or make a long-
range scan of known sectors . To further
enhance the game, sectors may contain stars
32
(shooting one will cost you the game!), triton
mines (shooting one will des troy everything
in the sector), bases (to replenish energy,
missile stocks, make repairs, and obtain new
anti-mat te r pods), and unknown objects
which act differently in each sector and each
game. Your ship is also equipped with an ex-
perimental ray which can have positive or
negative results when used. Finally, you can
self-destruct if all else fails! This is a fine
game, one of the best of the genre, challeng-
ing, complex, and amusing. If you master
one level, you can move up to another level
of difficuliy (I fo 9). Recommended for your
software library.
INVASION ORION
Automated Simulations
Solitairf!
STARFLEET ORION
Automated Simulations
2-pfayer (excellent interaction)
(Both) DI AIBIB
Since both games are really one and the
same except for the number of players in-
volved, I have joined them together for this
review. These are two or the best games
available, 'both well designed and provided
with excellent documentation (including pro-
gramme lis ti ngs i), In both, players control I
to 9 ships on the screen, directing missiles,
torpedoes, and laser fire at the enemy.
Players record their moves and both sides are
executed simultaneously, allowing su rprise
and demanding careful planning. You fire '
your torpedoes in a direction, and t hey hit
t he first object in their path, while you p lot
the location of the explosion of your missiles
and they affect nearby objects only. Beams
are fired at a particular target and their affect
depends on distance and shield strength of
the target, as well as energy points used to
fire. The only drawback is t he length of time
it takes to input commands for a high
number of ships each turn. Players control
the amounts of energy allocated to each ship
function, depending on what's available each
turn. Ships move according to d rives , mass,
and energy allocated. Players can get ranges
. to enemy ships by using the R com mand .
Hi ts are first scored on t he screens, but excess
damage may reduce missile tubes, beams,
drive, or shields. Bmh games document ship
characteristics and have a builde r pro-
gramme to allow you to either enter one of
the 10 scenarios included, or 10 create your
own (maximum of nine ships/side), and to
save them on tape for later use. The graphic
display is poor, but utilitarian at least. The
solitaire Invasion Orion uses an algorithm in
the programme which allows ihe computer to
"guess" your next positions for missile and
torpedo ta rgeting, and il does it quile well ,
although it can be foo led by random or ap-
parently ra ndom moves. Both these games
will pro vide' a tough, enjoyable session with
many hours of interest to offer.
SPACE BATTLES
Level IV
Solitaire
CIClnalC
A variation on the Star Trek theme,
Space Battles offers a few twists to the
theme; not only must you explore the
universe in search of aliens to destroy, but as
a mercenary you must worry about your pro-
fits as well! Aliens destroyed generate reward
money but you must pay for missiles, repairs ,
and energy. Also, laser hits can cause crew
sickness an death due to radiation, which can
either cost you the game or money for
hospital care at a star base. Missiles can be
fired as a salvo, a nd you can choose th e
spread before launching . The aliens are com-
puter controlled, and not only 'd o they fire
back, bu t th ey dodge and close or retreat!
When you encounter a star base, a nice
graphic display is used for docking your ship.
Despite the additions to the game system,
the re are ot her dirfi cult ies in play. The screen
is blank except for ships or sta rbas es, pro-
viding a dull graphic display, and making
hyperdrive movement confusing (it is hard to
tell if you have moved , and how far you have
actu ally gone!). The computer is impatient
when demanding commands, and allO\vs
about 30 seconds in which to answer move-
menl co u rse and distance figures, otherwise
you have only some iO seconds in which to
command . You also have no control over
your spending at a starbase; you have to take
what is given. A short machine la nguage
subroutine is used for graphic d isplay, im-
proving somewhat the o therwise dul.1
graphics. It is a fair game if you have never
played the Star Tre k games, but il does not
offer much in the way of long term inte rest.
STAR TREK 111.4
The Software Exchange
Solitaire
C/B/na/C
This is probably the closest to the
original game as played on the mainframes.
The designer, Lance Micklaus has created
and improved the game in some rive ver-
sions , the latest, IILS, offering sound and a
more in telligen t Klingon. Although no t state-
of-the-art, this game still has the ability to
captivate newcomers into hours of play.
Possibly it is because of the Star Trek
mylhos. You must move about a galaxy
8 x 8 x 3, destroying Klingons, findi ng and
exploring p la nets, and doing so within the
time limit of the game. A few twists have
been added since the original; black holes,
pulsars, and the 3-D grid, but movement,
combat, and commands are much the same
now as they were six years ago (when I first
encou ntered Star Trek in a computer). It
does not require much t hough t once you
have the hang of it, but it is fun and manages
to stay around mu ch the same way Panzer-
Blitz is still with us after so many years. This
may be more popular than th e newer varia-
tions because it utilises the Star Trek li ngo
and characters as well.
-::) '~>. - '~ ~'. .;. :. ' .,. "i::<~' >";::
INST:RUC:TlONS '~' "
, 'r rO'AUTHORS FOR
;"', ',:M~VES"A'RTIC;tES ,
":> M6s[~:of rhe'arlicies inMCiVES'are:wri1 tn ~
' b,J it.headtrs. We'd like:;,;ou 'to give il a lry,'- if
yOur anicli' is wellV>TiHenand' on a"subkgr"o (
':'inje.resl" (o 'relider,s~jhe~e'5: a.goo'd dia(lce it \il'ill :;
's'ee ,(lUblrcaliotl i The subject df.your art icje~s .
'" un to Y.o,u, From :dmeto lime:the Edi tgr \>iiJI:
.suggest.pO:!ential'ar-ticletopici:D6n'I be'~'frajd
to wfire.on orherpub lisliers'gamcs - MOVES':
is' not a ;'house orgail" tlia(ignor~s'lhe restoi
'.l h~ gaming world, "',',' .. ,
Types' of Articles. Th'c kinds Of articles
. \ve are' looki'ng ' for fa il ' into the , fbllowiilg ,
,'ge~eral categor:ies:;, :: . ..
1. Operaliofw.lA na}ysis. Deals with the tactics '
arid striuegyqfplay in aspecific ganie. '
' :i. Game ProfilelRevi'eJv. A 'deScripti on o'f ,ii .
"game or games witli paniculiu.attentiOIHo its ';
siniLilatioi'l:ai sy;Stel11"a~d' playabilit,y. Any criti- .
Cisni must be well-suPPorled by 16g ic a La:~gu - i
ment and fact, not'simply perso6al opin ion." .
3. cDocurilenred Pia): DescririliOIl, of an cOln~
~i~~r 'Oil' t h~, llJ(iVe ;bY~indl'e pi~gress ~ofan ae- '
;tual' two-player "0; multi-player game . ' Db~u- .
meJiled' rday shoulUb,e (he reSlill of 'severaL
pl:;i.yings ,' t h most' rdc\'ant of\vhic'h' being the ':
" subject ofthe,anick : ,'.. :',
'4. Field RepoTt. Jtrovide organized, vaLld' in- .
forniation 'on santi! aspect 'of confliet siriliila-
lion'o'[ generai in i.erest.< ' ,
5. ,Sceriarjoplex. A li experime ntal sectional'
sce,ha rio ~' Ceach no: lon'ge~ ihiln rwo:l'ype writlerl
p'agesJ ifI rhe sryle of i;heparenlogame ru les.
:6. 'Miscetlaneous, Arricles"! lra t do nor'fjr irnhe ,
sfiecificcaregories , ;buf which 'theauthor feel~ '.
app l:opriate fo r, publicati'on inMOVES. ' ,
. ', Manuscr.ipt ReqIHremen'ts. Typew'riJ -,
,len, doubl'e;spaced on whiie bon"d. Line length
55to'65 chat:actel's; 110' mace than 25 linee per
page.' Min'max leil'gth : 6 1'0 30 nuinuscfipr
:pages. Pages ~holi id be:llum bered ' an d, tagged
' w:ith' all thor'~ last' name;' Cover" sheet should
"gi,,:~date v.,ri ttel), fu!l':ha~e, address, ' phone, .
nLi:I]lber, sllggested litle, ."and , honorariUm'"
preference , ' .. .
. ' HQtrorllri~mi;.For ili: pll,blished ~lI5mis: '
"sions (except letters\ MO VES:Magazinepays
a'n honorari llm at ll\'eraEe o f $8 pe r mil ning
10" of edited'i'ext, caiclilcated,to t,he neaTest half
, ~olumn, Alternatively; ' aU[llorsmay elec t t(j ',
' fake their: hono rar iuririn: S PI pt:Qduets at tl1'e '
'fare of $16 per 10" 'rend!,red' againstth~ 'lis t ..
' price' of Ihe item!;. HUTIorarhlmo {cash arcredit'
5lip)'wilJ bnendered'BO,days a fter Pll bllc,arion , .
", C,opyr'igtj~s an~:Agr"e,ement. These are "
locah:d on .the 'backflap of th e Feedback .C afd
''i n''[lii$:,ssue, A fadimile,maybe used. .
." ", Please i nclude'~fit)l,~'ybur ~lIbmiss ion a '
Slamped,setfc,j'dd:rei;~edpoSlcard ,'O:n : ihe, ':
,message side of I.lie' card', write the .na'nie of
,'yo;lrartide. ThiS'Card~ ";"ill 'he lls'~d 10 infon'n
, y6u' of .the: siafu'sofyour s~libin issiol{ AnicleS'
~' and illus~raliol1i 'c~nnot be reiu rpeikAddres,s
' allsubmissions.to:
Redmoncis'imortseii. Editor, '
MOVESN1AGAZINE '
25:7Pa~kAv'enueS~u't h ' '
~ Ne.w York: Ny' 10010
S'iitish. Isies .~ Re~der~:in Ihe British Isles
wislii ngro submit: articles to MO VES should
'direct subniissions ~nd,correslJondence 10: .
~harle$:Va$ey' ,
'5 Albion Ternice ."
9uhb()~oilgh', 'Cle~'eiand 15 i46jH, VI<
,. . ." -:: .~. ~ .

CONVENTION
ORGANIZER'S
DATA FILE Nr. 1
By Bryan and Kathleen Bullinger
Th is is the first of a series ofarticles on convention
organization, published as a service to the industry
in co-operation with T he Midwest Gaming Asso-
cia tion Boardl ette r.
In an y discussion of conventions, the
debate tha t centers around the monetary
aspec ts is li kely to be Ihe most voca l and most
inaccurate. The account ing process relevenl
to convention organizers basically divides in-
to th ree sections: budgeting; record keeping,
and fina l re poning.
BUDGETING
Unfortu nately, the budgel, which is
pe rhaps I he most important aspec t in the ac-
eouming process., is usually the most im-
precise. A budget offers several advan tages
in a iding the organizers in early planning of a
convention, howeve r, and is thus a necess ity.
No t only does it require early thought by the
organizers co ncerning such items as site COSt,
events COS t, etc.; it addil ionally requires early
thought as to where financing will come
from. (Remember that most expenditures
will be made prior to any in flow o f income).
Without gelli ng too technical , two ac-
counting theor ies may be put to use, the first
of which is tha t of Fixed and Variable Ex-
penses . In any give n evalum ion of costs, ex-
penses are going to break down inl o either:
1. those groups that va ry in cos t per unit, o r
2. th ose that remain the same COS L
Example: The cost of t he convention site
(ren l) will rema in the same whethe r you have
100 or 1000 atlendees and, thus, is a fixed ex-
pense . The cost of ma ili ng, however, in-
creases wi th each a dditional unil a nd, thus ,
classifies as a variable expense. Determining
your tot al fixed expenses is rather easy as it is
all of your fixed expe nses added up.
To find your var iab le expense for each
item, sim ply mul tip ly the number of units by
the price per unit. This will be used on such
items as mailings, tou rnamen t prizes, pro-
gram booklets, and so forth . (Note: This is
generally the main source of errors in the
budget as the number of uni ts is based on an
es timate.) Your lotal variable expense is
determined by adding up (he tOlals of each of
your variable expenses.
The total expense of the convenlion is
obtained by adding yo u r total fixed expense
to your LOtal variable expense, plus a percent
addition (0 allow for error. This fi gure can
then be compared in a ra tio agains t your
min imum projected attendance figure 10 give
you the amount that you need to charge to
break even.
TOTAL EXPENSES + % ERROR ADDITION = $ PER PERSON
MIN IMUM PR OJECTED ATTENDANC E BREAK EV EN
Example: Your mailing list has 1000 names,
and previous experience shows a 20070
response rate. Other advert ising is a l1l ici-
pated to bring in anot he r J 00 gamers. A 20070
margin for error in es timating attendance is
Ihen assumed . Total mailing cost (copies,
poslage, staples, etc.) is found to be $.20 per
piece; building rental, $250.00. Each cvent is
a llo tted $5 .00 for prizes , and 25 events are
estima ted. The program book is esl ima ledlo
cost $.25 per copy, and ID badges are $.05
per piece. The mailing lis t costs $60.00, and
you allot a IOUJo marg in for error. The
following calculations are then required :
Fixed Expenses
Renl . .. ........ . . . .. .. ... .. . .. .. . . $250
Mailing List .. .. . .. . . . . ....... ........ 60
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 50
Total Fixed Expenses . .. . ... . . . .. $360
Variable Expenses
Mailing Cost
(1000 pieces x $.20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200
Program Book Cost
(360* pieces x $.25) .... .. . .... . . ... .. . 90
Prizes
(25 pieces x $5.00) .. .. ....... .. : . . .. 125
lD Badges
(360* pieces x $.05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Toral Variable Expenses . . . ... . .. $433
Toral Fixed and Variable . ... ..... $793
Plus 10% Margin/or Error . .. . .... . 80
Total Estimated Expenses .... .. $873
TOTA L ESTIMATED EXPENS ES ~ S873 =$3.64 PER
PROJECTED ~ INIM UM ATTENOANCE 2401 PERSON
*360 represenl S the projcc rcd max imum
fli lendancc. 1240 represenls the rrojec lcd
minimum a llendanr.:e .
T hus, an admission charge of $3.64 wou ld
then be req uired in order to gua rantee that
you b reak even with anticipated expenses.
Note: These fig ures do not reflect real wo rld
COsts and should not be used for com pa rison
or c hec k figures.
RECORD KEEPING
It is not our inte nt to discuss internal
controls or t he syst em used to facilitate th e
inflow and disbursement of funds . For the
sake of simplicity, I his art ide assumes a cash
flow th rough o ne person. This person will
dis tribute funds to meet expenses either per-
sonally or on presentation of a receipt. It is
recommended, however, tha i a different per-
son be ch osen to keep Ihe reco rds .
The second accoun ting theo ry used is
Iha t of Keeping a Journal - a book of
original entries on all transactions. All events
that cause a "changing of hands" of money
wi ll be recorded here. Example:
Stamps ....... .... .... . . ........... ($24)
Bill Smith pre-reg ...... . .. . ..... .. . .... 5
Note: Ou tl ays of funds are subtracti ons, and
are thus put in parentheses to easily separate
t hem from in flow of fu nds.
T he en tri es in the journal are then plac-
ed (posted) in a second record book called
Ihe ledger. Formalit y is no t a necessary re-
quirement here, and due to t he limi ted
number of transactio ns and lime span, on ly
two ledger accounts - expenses and income
- should be required. All items listed in Ihe
journa l in parentheses are pos ted to the ex-
penses ledger. All other items in the journa l
are posted to the income ledger. Example:
Expenses Ledger
Slamps . ...... . . .. .. . . . ..... . . . .. $25.00
ID Badges . . . .... .. ... . . .. . ... . .. . 50.00
Miscellaneous (posters) . . . . . . ... . ... . 4.50
Inco me Ledger
Bi ll Smith pre-reg . . ... . . . ... . . . ... $ 5.00
Ad Income . . . . ..... . . ..... .. .... . . 30.00
Prize Donation ......... . .. ... . . .. . IO.~
The use of two sets of books does tend
to lead to transcl"iption errors. If plescn la-
tion or rec eipts is req uired before posting the
items, howeve r, this tends to catch mistakes
and is a t leas t no mo re e rror-ridden than the
method of keeping only one se t of boo ks . I
believe Ihe extra safety factor of tw o sets of
b ooks is I\,orth the trouble, plus twO sets of
books aid in the later ana lysis of wha t has
happened.
FINAL REPORTING
If the ea rl y records are well kept, this is
t he easiest part. Admi tledl y, it can be made
more complicated, if yo u wish, by keeping
separate ledgers for eac h type of income or
expense. Tho ugh this does make it easier in
the end to delerm ine what went where, etc.,
it is not necessary. The two -ledger sys lem
works qu ite well in mos t cases.
A ll the items li sted in eac h ledger are
tota lled, and the IOtal for [he expense ledge r
is then su btracted from tht: lo ta l for the in-
come ledger to give you you r Ne t Income or,
rather, your profit. Example:
INCOME STATEM ENT
Income
. Admission Fees (pre-reg) .. . . . . . .. . .. . $500
Admission Fees (at door) . ...... . . . . . .. 200
Ad Income . . .. .... .. . . .. . . . .... 200
P rize Donat io ns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 100
Total Income . ... . _ . . .... .... . $1000
Expenses
Mailing .. . ... . ...... . . ........ . ... $400
Prizes ......... .... .. ...... .. . . ..... 250
Convention Materials .. . . .. . .... ... 50
Renl .. . .... . . . .... .. . . .. . . . . . .. 250
Miscellaneous . .. . . ........ . ..... . . ... 50
Tora/Expenses . .......... . ..... $900
Net Income or profit . . . ... $100
EXAM PLE OF SIMPLE FORM
Income Statement
Income ........... .. .... . .. . ... . . $1000
Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... ($900)
Net Income or Profit . .. . .... ... $100
34

BELLEAU
WOOD Paris is saved by the Marines. Today , the Allied High
Command announced the Huns were retreating to their
trenches after encountering the Yanks at Belleau
Wood. It seems the spirited Marines, although
outnumbered and short on supplies, were able
to give the Huns a bloody nose , and stop their
advance on Paris, thus
p reve nti ng the fa ll of
the French Capitol!
Historical Alternatives announces the
release of the game BELLEAU WOOD .
Designed by Mr. Roger Nord , it was two
years in th e development. BELLEAU WOOD
ranks as one of the finest games 0(1 WWI.
U~ing a unique game system, BELLEAU
WOOD simulates WWI combat as it actua lly
was. You'll discover why th e machine gun
was such a deadly defensive weapon. See
artillery blow holes in the enemy lines,
clouds of gas float over the field of battle.
Yet, in the final analysis, it is the
responsibility of the In fantry to take and
hold the grou nd. BELLEAU WOOD is a
Company ground level game with daily
turns. Covering the entire battle from the
French retreat to the American counter
attack on the Huns, both sides have
opportunities for offens ive and defensive
. strategies. The game is highly mobile, with
no trenches on the three color 34" x 22"
game board . Comes complete with map,
order from
270 die cut counters printed 3 colors front
HISTORICAL ALTERNATIVES
and back, a 16 page 'easy to read ' rule book
1142 s. 96th AVENUE
ZEELAND, MICHIGAN 49464
and boxed for only $11.00
MF.MB EjtI Of.

PHONE: (616) 3928597

Dealer Inquiries Invited

Cift\\
TH E GAM
MAN U ~AG T U~ Efl!>
A SSOCI AT ION
Also Available .. .
Roark ' s 0 ri ft . . . . . .. .... ...... ... . . $10.00
Kampfgruppe . . . .. . . ... . ... . . . . . . . $ 7.00

F.O.
by Eric Goldberg
The Return of the Great
White Elephant
The game should be enjoyed slowly...
The rules to The Longest Day claim to
be more than simple instructions for play.
The reader is advised to a nalyze 'the game
system and the historical backg round , to
study the corrlponents and the researc h, to
" fool with" the game mechanics, and to
dissect the his torical and game strategies. If
he eschews these options to tackle the simula-
tion itself, he mayor may pot enjoy lhe ex-
perience, but he will assu redl y do so slowly.
The title of The Longest Day is often all
lOa approp riate. At mid-game, the f10v. of
play and COllnters across the ma p is disturb-
ingly reminiscent of rush-hour traffic in
downtown Manhattan. Two unb ro ken lines
span the map, marred only when the Ger-
mans give ground grudgingly. Gaps in the
front are speedily patched, unless the Allies
irreparably breach the German defenses, a t
which point the game is effectively over.
The torp id pace of t he game is no acci-
dent. Several basic design decisions ensure
that play will occur as described . A uni t has a
zone of control, wit h which it can restrict the
movement of adjacent enemy units, only
when it is in a hill or for tification hex, which
are few a nd far between. The lack of ZOC's
along the front, for the most .part, forces
each player to maintain a continuous line of
units, else the enemy mobile units will slip in-
to the rear areas and play all sorts of havoc .
Design technology has not reached the stage
where few or no ZOC's work well in a high-
unit density, hex-map game.
The offensive capability of each side is
dictated by supply reserves . Generally, the
pattern of attacks is cyclical: a lull while sup-
plies are built up, and then a shor t period of
_ persistelll local assaults upon the perceived
enemy weak point. It is not wise to ini tiate
more than five a ttacks per turn except during
the last turn of a scenario, when " the world
ends now" mentality prevails. The low
number of attacks requires a like number of
responses from the defender, so only a full"
scale breakthrough can be considered com-
pletely successful .
The Allies are fortuna te to have
recourse to their air support. Air cover can
paralyze German units in a few connected
hexes, affording the Allied grou nd units
some leeway when a Llac king. However, a
string of good combat results does nor
necessarily resu lt in the permanent gain of
ground; advanced units not buttressed by
other friendly combat units lend to be
swallowed up in enemy counteroffensives.
According to a rumor that escaped out
of Baltimore, a play test group spent three
months day-in, day-ou t to get halfway
through the campaign game. My play ex-
perience causes me to be impressed with the
alacrity with which the prototype run-
through was dispatched.
Nothing has been sacrificed
in the way of "simulation"
to make it [a polished, well-tested product].
Critics and designers have decided tha t
it is a bad thing to dis tor t or elimina te one
iota of historical facl in order to solve a play-
balance problem in a large game. Having
learned of this opinion the hard way, I must
de mur from endorsing the adage en ti rel y. It
is possible, as is the case here, that the recrea-
tion of minutiae pro duces peculiar results in
the larger picture.
For instance, the supply system manages
to pervert the intent of the carefully compiled
orders of battle . Everyone will agree that, in
a sim ulation, units of one organization
should be encouraged to operate together.
H owever, the smart tactic in The L ongest
Day is to combine single units from differen t
formations into one attack, which avoids
drain upo n supply. Since there are no multi-
for mation allack penalties , the modern-day
Eisenhower and VOIl Rundsted t are encour-
aged to thoroughly muddle their armies.
A far more serious f1aw, and one that
bothers me most about this game, is the lack
of a 'Western Front "feel" from time to time.
There are three different cha racteristic stages
of play in The Longest Day, the most com-
mon of which is the deadlocked front. (The
workings of the invasion are, of course, uni-
que, as the Allies try not to strangle on their
fragile chain of supply, a nd the Germans
moan about the woefully undermanned
defenses. The breakt hrough, when it occurs,
barely presages the end of the game.) The
campaign played bears more resemblance to
the opera tions a t the Westwall, which is be-
yond the scope of this game .
[Enemy combat units] may move into,
through or remain in a hex with a
friendly supply unit without effect.
Veteran gamers have long recognized
this type of rule as something that slipped by
du ring proofreading. Even so, one can
almost ta ke the literal meaning seriously be-
cause of a corollary which Slates that friendly
su pply units are eliminated if an enemy com-
ba t unit ends a phase in a hex adjacent to
theirs. It was amusing, if not especially fru it-
ful , to po nder the resulting bizarre game of
leapfrog.
T he problem with de tail rules such as
these (I assumed that enemy combat units did
indeed eliminate friendly su_pply units when
occupying the same hex) is that they are often
less accurate than a simpler solution. T he air
system , which should be considered an
abstraction, works as well as, if nOl better
than, any other facet of the design in re-
creating history.
When measured by lhe exacting dic-
tionary definition , a warga me is a poor
simu lation. Men and equipment can not be
adequately represented by fo ur or .five
values, even shou ld these values be as close
as possible [Q "reality." Artificialities, such
35
as a hexgrid which creales an arbitrary divi-
sion of terrain, only detrac t from the model-
ling cap~city of the wargame. Therefore, it is
often best to capture the flavor of a mili tary
event in broad terms.
Secondly, garners being the inventive
and devious folks they are, it is safer to tes t a
simple rule than a d ifficult o ne. The complex
replication of the effects of f1amethrowers
which the designer was so proud about dur-
ing testing can come back to haunt him when
a purchaser figures out the "crock" after
publication. Design and research time yield
the most returns when the detail work is con-
fined to the research and easy design solu-
tions are sought in integrating that research.
[Pointe du Hoc] was always incorrectly
referred to as "Point du Hoe" .
in Allied publications.
The design annota tion is quite im-
pressive, ferreting out obscure historical
facts and explaining the rationale behind
seemingly perverse rules . Designer Randy
Reed expounds further in no less than eight
pages of designer's notes, an excess which
can be excused when one remembers that he
worked for over two years on this monster.
Still, many ques tio ns go unanswered.
Fresh evidence oJ Ame rican inabili ty to deal
with a foreign language is all very well, but is
the sudden reduction of beachhead landing
capacity after the tenth LUrn fo r historical
reasons or is it a dread play-balance
"fudge?" (No matter who much one gives to
the public, there will always be ingrates ask-
ing for more.)
The die has nothing I
to do with movement!
If the purchaser needs to know this in-
fo rmation, he eit her (a) enjoyed the movie or
book so much that he will buy anything with
the same title, (b) has more money than he
should be allowed to spend, Or (c) is in for
many mOre surprises , mostly of the unplea-
sant variety.
If the FTC were in the habit of printing
safet y warnings for games as well as toys, the
consu mer would have been advised to punch
out the circular headquarrers and supply
counters with a pen. (I nearly lost a finger
before I discovered the. la tter method of
removaL) While the circular shape does
make HQ's and supplies readily identifiable,
handling those counters in conjunction with
squares is a pain in a lender body part.
The ancillaries , which include displays
for reinforcements, ra ilnets , etc., are exten-
sive and well-organized. They also have,
when laid out, a surface area at least equal to
that of the map. When I move into a gym-
nasium on a permanent basis, I will be ever so
pleased to gel a chance to use them .
A plug to purchase SPI product in a SPI
magazine will always be greeted with suspi-
cion in some corners , but it is recommended
that the serious player of The Longest Day
purchase counter trays. 1500 or so counters
whic h have to be consistently sorted by .
designations printed in smalllype are enough
to try most people's patience.
36
Astu te players will notice that the campaign
game system is actually an interweaving of
several distinct sub-systams Bach rich in its
own subtle interactions.
Despite a heavy challenge from role-
playing, subtle remai ns the most overused
word in the adventure gaming hobby. As
often as not, garners are informed by a
designer that his game is "subtle" because he
wishes a fall-back should it nOI play well.
Other times, the designer is telling the world
he is proud, just ifi ab ly or no t , of his crea-
tion. Either way, "subtle" is a victim of
word inflatio n : the more it is used, the less it
comes to mean.
The Longest Day, fo r all its ponderous-
ness ana pretensions , is fully of straight-
for ward ga me mechanics and fairly obvious
strategies. In teraction is the key word in the
above quot e; the design st rength of the game
is the deliberate fashion in which the sub-
systems relate to each other: Eve n if a rule
does not make sense, it often can be figured
out in the context of the other ru les mean t to
su pport it.
The comment about astute players cap-
tu res the tone of the text as well as any o ther.
Reed strives manfully to mix hubris with
humility th rough out ; the impress ion is tha t
the duo of Jekyll and H yde had a hand in
composing the prose.
For an even match. the smarter players
should be on the German side.
Usually , the above or similar advice can
be construed as an oblique way o f saying the
scenarios a re unbalanced. The play testers
duly deny any possibility of imbala nce in
typica lly enthusiastic tact.ical hints, but
preliminary results ind icate otherwise. (In-
cidentally, it is high time the basically good
tradition of player's notes be rem oved from
high dudgeon. Having wo rked on the pro-
duction side oLmany a game, I can safely say
that these no tes suffer because they are
prepare d before final - and o ften very im-
portant - changes are written into th e ru les,
and because the authors have a disti nc t lack
of perspective from prolonged ex posure to
the subject. )
T he charitable interpretation of Reed 's
remark is that the German players will re-
qu ire patience, not intelligence . That certain-
ly is true. T he initiative rests almost ex-
clusively wit h the Allied p laye rs, who have,
as the saying goes, all the horses. German
stra tegy can often consis t entirely of an-
ticipating when the A llie's can be best
frustrate d .
Serious students of history and wa r-
games, and people who fa ncy themselves as
such , often become embroiled in arguments
about th e feasibility of simulating different
campaigns and battles . The Chaco War can' l
be done, says one expert, because it was won
by dise ase and change in air pressure (despite
this, the GDW game, u nfortunately out of
prin t, is s ti ll good) or any US Marines opera-
tion is awful fo r a game because the Marines
never invade except when they a re virtually
assured of tr iu m ph .
Some situations, such as th e Western
Front, have a less im posing im pediment in
the transpos ition from history to simulation.
The Allied might was sufficient to crush th e
Germans out of hand. The Allies could no t
'always bri ng the ir forces to bea r because of
lack of supplies first, and second because of
the German defense. For a week or twO, the
Germa n armies were retre a ti ng fast er than
their Allied counterparts. Reed accepts that
hap pening as an anomaly, merc ifully for t he
beleaguered German player. Nonetheless, it
is difficult for a player to accept that his a rmy
is nOt the chief obstacle face d by" the ar my of
his foe . And, since the Allied player will get
no satisfaction from his ch ronic b outs with
his supply pipeline, the designer of any
Western Fro nt game is in a pa rticularly awk-
ward position .
The town locatioTls are 100% accurate
with only minor displacements to avoid
hex side intersections.
Ah ! The marvellous English la nguage!
There is sufficient room amongst its 400,000
words to descri be gray as black with a
straight face.
This quote appears on one of th ree
pages t hat were no t in the edit ion I used while
writ ing th e re view for my previous column.
T he irlcomplete des ig ne r's notes are now
complete, and there is al.so a map of the
deployments of the Ge rman armies as of
D-Day.
Reed rai ls agai nst professed historians
criticizi ng his research wi thout sufficient
knowledge of the subject in question, and I
must shee pis hly admit that I erred, albeit not
in my criticism, in a correction to one of his
evaluat ions. The lind 55 Panzer Cor ps was
withdrawn to assist t he 1st Panzer Ar my in
Galicia wh ic h , un fo rt u nately fo r me and fo r-
tunately for centuries of Galicians, is not in
the Ba lkans. However, those units, as
previous ly stated, were overvalued.
STOP! READ NO FURTHER!
Renew your subscription to this magazine.
The Prog ra mmed Instruction method,
which is nOl one of my favorite methods of
rules presenta tio n a nywa y, is helped not a
whit by the peremptory command at the end
of each section. T he read ing exams which we
all know and loathe use a sim ilar warning as
idiot-proofing, even tho ugh o nly the late
Peter Sellers cared to be rega rd ed as an idio t
(and he was paid ha ndsomely for his unusual
sensibilities). Psychological testing has
show n that when people feel they are being
held in low regard by a writer, they tend to ig-
no re wha t he has to say. (For those at Avalon
Hill who may have missed that one, please
subd ue the tone of t he warning at the end of
each section.)
I ha ve spent th e greater portion of twO
columns exami ning va ri ous facets o f The
Longest Day, and suppose I must come to
some sort of a conclusion. The amount of
work inves ted in the fi nished product is quite
im p ressive, as is the research. The game
system is hi ghly erratic, varying from buf-
foo nery to elegant, insigh tful sub-systems.
Despite the time obviously spent to ensure
the smoot h flow of play, the game clanks
along at a n ungainly pace. The Longest Day
has the burden of living up to its exhorbitant
price , which is why I view it as a n inv es tment
on the o rder of a dated objet d'art.
Perhaps that is no t quite fair. The
Longest Day st rik es out in many directions,
and even achieves a d est ina tio n f rom some of
them . It's jus t not cos t-efficient.
All quotes. with the exception of th e last. ara
from the rules booklet of The Longest Day,
which is still from tha Avalon Hill Game Com-
pany. A company spokesman ca tegorically
denied that tha firm has moved from 4517
Harford Road, Baltimora. MD 21214. The
price of $65.00. we understand, has amb it ions
of becoming higher .
PRESS RELEASE
AWARDS
ANNOUNCEMENT
Th e Commi ttee fo r the Charles Robe rto
and H .G . \Vells AV'iards, t he mos t coveted in
the induslry, have joi ne d the Game Manufac-
turer's Assao cia tio n (GAM A.) lO reo rganize
the awa rd s p rocedure . U nder (he new sys tem,
a ll facets of the hobby ca n particip a te. The
nom inat ions for th e various categor ies will be
open to part icipat ion by all gamer,. Nom in a-
t io n ballots will be a va ila b Ie through every
hobby m agazine in Ihe indu stry. All ga mers
will be limited to one nom ina ting ballo t.
The final vO lin g wi ll be done by members
of Ih e new ly formed Academy o f Adventu re
Gam ing Arts and Des ig n. The Academy is
open to thos e ind ividu a ls who have m ade a
co nt ribu ti on to the products and / or general
advanceme nt of the hobby in a ny, some, or all
of Ihe major di visio ns: board game>, min iat ure
garnes, ro le-playi ng games, a nd' computer
game programs. It is open to designers,
deve lopers, amhors. art ists, ed itors, writ er-s,
reviewe rs , convention orga ni ze rs, and any pro-
fessional or amate ur who can prove a contribu -
t i o~ to the hobby . Members of t his Academy
will ha ve Ih e opportunity to vo te for the
C harles Robens and H.G. Well.l awa rds prior
10 Origins , the Natio nal Convention. through
a fi nal ballot sent d irect ly 10 Academy
membe rs 60 days prior to Origins for res ponse
by 30 days p rior 10 O rigin s. Th is allows a mo re
forma I and d ign i fied present at ion 0 f the
awnrd s 10 lhe win ne r,s a t O rigins , and wi ll per-
m it th e plaques to Ila ve inscribed on th em Ihe
na me of the winn ing pe rso n or produ ct.
Membership in the Academ y will COSt $2
pe r yea r rega rd less of how many div isions you
wish to apply for and can substantiate a co n-
tribution 10 (under t he gu idelines). The
mem bershi p fe e covers the COSt 0 f POS Iage,
prin ting, and awards. T here is a ma ximu m of
four one year renewals av ai la ble . for an
overall term o f five years. It is anticipat ed l ha t
renewa ls will be a\ $2 per year a lso . All
me mb ership fees should be eheck or money
order payable to th e Game Ma n ufac\U rer 's
Associ at io n. For membership app lica tion and
gu ideli nes, send a se lf-add resse d Siampe d
en ve lope t ():
Awards Committee
POB787
Tro y. MI48099
50,00 Slavny SO.DD Skory so. DO Krasny SO,CG k Chapae. SO.CG . 'LI Drozd
'tHb 't'd t 'Ne tt .+ b .d e

2*3*2c 3 M4 2 2* 2c* 3 0 3*3* 10*3 LB 2 3* 10* 3 14

SO.CG " Gro.ny SO.CV. Minsk

'ZJ,y,_
2 2* 2C* 3 18 3*4*2c 4 JS*

SO ,CG Moskva SO.CG Azov

s*
2* 3*20 3 K4 3*4*1c*3 LB*

sO,C:M ).,t Isakov Dallas US.SSN Ray

....&...-
3* 3* 10* 3 La A4 ,2 0 5 0 A4

US ,SSN

2 0 5 0 A4
Gala US .FF
..
2* 2 28 3 0

Voge

us. PC Hercules US.SSN N.Y, City

o ~3 AS 3 0 5 0 A4

US,FF Clark US , FF US_FF " Paul

*zz ,+ , ,t '
1*3*1C 3 A4 2*3 18 2* 3 18 3 A4

US_ FF Bowen US,DD US,DD . Corry

t t '. t+
2*3 18 '~ A4 2* 1 28 2 0

US.FF Perry US_F F US. DO " Luce

II .... d
1*3*1c 3 A4* 1*3*1c 2*2*1B 3 AS*

US,DD

2*2 28 3 A4*
Semmes US,DD
....
2*3 28 3 AS AS
US.C ?

2*2*0 3 AS*
J I Dale

US_CG California US_CG~ US.CV Vinson US,CV Sa ratoga

.II1II"-
Biddle
+. Nimitz +i e

2*3*28 3 AS* 2*3*18 3 AS* AS* 02030 02030 02030

Search and Destroy

.on the High Seas!
Task Force is a high ly realistic simulation of modern naval
combat. Three of the most critical ocean-going routes - the
Mediterranean, the Norwegian, and the Caribbean Seas - are
represented on the game-map. Players must secret ly set up their
Task Forces (surface ships) and Subrons (submarine groups) on
[he map and then seek out the enemy neets. Search may be ac-
tive, an accurate but dangerous form of tracking, or passive, a
less accurate but less revealing method. Once the enemy is
discovered, combat is initiated. Surface-to-surface missiles are
launched, ships ' gunnery opens up, and aircraft streak in to at-
tack the enemy.
Task Force contains two identical 22" x34" maps, 440 single
and double-sized counters, rules booklet, and various playing
aids. The 12 scenarios are presented in four levels of complexi-
ty, from introductory to tournament. Additionally, instruc-
tions are included to allow players to create new scenarios, us-
ing the major neets of the world and their key ships that are
represented in the countermix.

Task Force is available for $18 as of 15 March 1981

through retail outlets nationwide!
38
Feedback
MOVES 55, Feb/Mar 1981-
How to use the Feedback Response Card : After yo u've
finished reading this issue of MO VES, please read the
Feedback questions below, and give us your answers by
writing the answer-numbers on the card in th e response
boxes which correspond to each q uestion number. See
centerfold for C<l rd.
Please be sure to answer all questions (but do not write
anyth ing in the box for question-numbers labelled " no
question"l. Card s that are in comple tely filled out cannot
be processed.
What (he numbers mean: When answering questions,
"0" always meanS NO OPINION or NOT APPLICABLE .
When the Question is a "yes or no" question, " I" means
YES and "2" means NO. When the question is a rating
question, ''1'' is the WORS T rating, "9" is the BEST
rating, "5" is an AVERAGE rating, and al l numbers be-
tween ex press various shades of approval or disapproval.
SECTIONA
1-3. No questio n (leave bla nk ).
Questions 4 through 13 ask you to rate the "rticles in this
issue on a scale of 1 = poor, 9 ~ excellen/. 0 = no opinion.
4. A SUrv8Y of Arabl srae i Wa r Games
5. Advanced TactiCS. Part 2
6. Cen tral Fron l Senes
7. SP IBUS: W hy I' m Really Buying a Micr ocompu ter
8. Convent ion Organ izer's Da ta File Nr. 1
9. MOVES in Eng li sh
10. Forv.'ard Observer
11 . Designer's Notes
12. Opening MOVES
13. This issue overall
14. Was this iss'ue beller than . he last one?
15-24 . No qu es tio n
25. Assume that YOLI don ' t subsc"be to MOVES. Woul d
the quali ty of this issue alone motiva te you to subscribe?
28. for how many issues have you had a continuous
subscription to MOVES? 0= I don't su bscribe; 1 ~ This is
my first issue; 2 = Thi s is my second or third Issue;
3 = This is my fou rth or fifth issue; 4 = Thi s 15 my sixth
issue; 5 ~ Th is is my seven tll thr ough elevemh issue;
6 ~ Thi s is my twelfth issue; 7 ~ This is my thi rteenth
through eighteenth iss~ e ; 8 ~ ThiS is my nineteenth or
subsequent issue; 9 = I am a MOVES Li fetim e Subscriber
(regardless of number of issues received).
Xl. What level of co mplexi ty do you prefer ir. games?
Rate your pre ference on a 1-9 sca le . w ith high er nu mbers
ind icating in creased co mplexity. Use t hese games as
guidelines: 4-5 = Chickamauga; 7 ~ Parral.'; 9 -Air Wa r.
28 . Your age: 1 = 13 yea rs old or younger : 2 = 14-17:
3 = 18-2 1: 4 ~ 22-27; 5 = 28-35; 6 = 36 or older.
29 . You r se)(: 1 = male; 2 = female.
30 . EdUC<l ti on: 1 = 11 .yearsor less: 2~ 12 yea rs; 3~ 13-15
years ; 4 = 13 15 yea rs and still in school: 5 = 16 yea rs;
6 = 17 years o r more.
31. How long have you been plaYing con fli ct simU lation
games 7 0 = less thana year; 1=1 year; 2=2 years _ . 8~8
yea rs; 9 ~ 9 or more years.
32. W hat is the average number of hours you spend play-
ing simulation games each month? 0= none: 1 = 1 hour or
less: 2~2-5 hours; 3 =6-9 hours; 4= 10 15 hours;
5= 16-20 hou rs; 6= 2125; 7 ~ 26-30; 8 = 3 140; 9 =40 or
more hou rs.
33. How ma ny simulation games (of all publishersl do
you possess? 1 =1 -10; 2 =11 -20; 3=2 130; 4~31-40;
5= 41 -50; 6= 51-60: 7 = 61 70; 8~ 71-80; 9=81 or more .
34. Did you send in the feedback card fo r your last issue
of MOVES? 1 = yes ; 2 = no.
36. Pick the one area about whi ch you wou Id most like to
see g am~s and ar ti cles do ne: 1 = An cient I Rome , Gree k,
Biblical 13000 BC-600 A DI; 2 ~ Dark Ages and
Renaissance WOO AD - 1600ADI; 3 = 30 Years W ar and
pre- Napoleonic 11600 - 17001; 4 = Napoleonic (1790
18301, 5 = Civil War119th Century 11830 - 19001; 6
Wor ld Wa r I 11900 - 19301 : 7 = World War II 11930
19451: 8 = postWorld Wa r II 11945 - prese nti : 9
Scie nce Ficli on and Fa ntasy .
36. How did you purc hase thiS copy o f the magazine? 1
= by subscnption; 2 = by mail as a Single c opv; 3 ~ in a
store; 4 = it was passed along to me by a friend; 5 =
othar means (des cribel
:no How ma ny peo pl e linc ludi ng you rself l will read thi s
copy o f MOVES? 1 = one lo nl v \,ou rse lf) ; 2 ~ ,wo ; 3 ~
Threp. _.. 9 = ninp. or more _
38. Do you own or plan to buy one of the followi ng
micro computer systems? 1 ~ I own an Apple II ; 2 = plan to
buy an Apple II : 3 = ow n a Radio Shack T RS-BO; 4 = plan
to buy a TRS-80: 5 = ow n Som8 other mi crocom pu ter ; ,
6 ~ plan to buy some other microcomp uter; 7 = have no
plans to buy a mi c roco mp uter because I am not i ~te r
ested; 8 = have no plans to bu y a microcomp ute r becallse
I already have access to a computer; 9 = have no plans to
buya micro compu ter for Some o lher reaso n.
Rare the following game proposals on a scale of 1 to 9,
with 1 indicating very little inclination to buy the .game if
published up through 9 indicating a definite intention to
purchase it.
39 . Richmond Redeemedl Thi s game wou ld be an ope ra-
ti onal level game of t~Te Union siege of Richmond. The
game would be divided into scenarios covering the ll1ajor
movements and operati ons around Petersburg and Rich-
mond in the late slages of th e war. Command would be
ernphasil ed, as would mo rale and supp ly. Assaul ts would
be resolvd in a simpl ... yet detai le d abstrac t assau lr
system w hic h wou Id take 20 to 30 minutes to execu te, bu t
w tT ic h would yield accu rat e battle resu lts . The ga me
w ould include TWO 22" " 34" maps, 400 counters, and
would sell to $20.
40. Ypres 19 14. On The weS tern fr ont. the fi rst mobile
phase 0 1 the Greal War cu lminated in " , e race m th e
sea" in whic h both the A llied and the German armies
rushed northwa rd from llle vicll1i Iy of Pa ris towa rd th e
strateg ica ll y c ritica l Frenc h ports o n the Eng lish Cha nnel.
From 30 October to 24 November 191 4, .he British Expe-
ditionary Force (BEFI. under Ihe c ommand of Field Mar-
shal French, dei ended the approaches to these ports
around The Belgian crossr oads CItY of Ypres_ Out-
numbered almos t five to-one by th e German forces op-
pos ing them. the BEF was even tu ally decimated . but
never yielded Ypres to rheir fo es. Ypres /914 would be a
simple game based on the Kaiser's Bailie game system
Ipubl ished in S& T 831. Hex scale woul d be appro ximately
one kilometer pet hex, while each GameTum would
represent one day. U nits would range in size irom com-
panies to regimen ts . Basically. t his would be a game tha t
wou ld be as quick ly playable as The Kaiser's Battle, w ith
one map , 200-400 counters, and eight pages o f rul es -
possibly for in clusion in S&T_ To sell for $10.
41 . The Keiser's Battle II. The simu lation o f the Kaiser's
Battle that w as illc l'Jded in S& T 83 was a representati on
of the last-ditCh German off ensive of the Flrs l World War
in Picardy. France. Due to Ihe magazine's space con
stra im s, this game was able to portray on ly the German
18th A rmy'S sel -piece offens ive in March 19 18. The 18th
Army's attack was only a portion of tile who le of Opera-
rion Michel. In fa ct, two o tiler entire German armies 12nd
and 17th} participated in the offensive on the same day,
covering a frontage that overlapped General Goug h's 5th
British A rmy to inClu de General Sir Ju lian Byng's 3rd Ar-
my in the no rth. The Kaiser's Ballie I/would simpl" be an
extension of the orig inal game , emplo ying th e exact
gamesystem an d GameTu rn and map sca le . It wo uld in -
c lu de a sing le 22" ,,34" map. wh ich cou ld be joined to the
origi nal game's map on ils northern edge. Thus, either
game could be played separatel y or they can be joined
toge ther to simulate the entire Michel offensive. To seil
for$ 10_
42. Zeppelin War. Th e ho rrendous casualties among
airmen in th e First World Wa r were bad enoug h. but the
g reat ai r disa ster of 1923 , in whic h the commercial ai r liner
Columbia c rashed at Idlew ild w ith the consequent loss of
27 lives clinched the matter. Heavier- then-air craft were
Simply not safe. Better by far to motor across the Atlantic
in a large, stable, helium-fi lled rigid aircra ft - one of t he
Queens of th e Skies. Developm ent of military airships
proceeded rapidly in every majo r power in the world . By
the outb reak of th e War Against Tyranny, airpower had
become a dec isive elem ent; in th eir li ghlning tank drives
ac ross nonhern France. the Third Reic h was aide d by its
dominance in the skies. The huge, swastika-laden zep-
- pelins swept th e smaller French airships before them . .
= Zeppelin War is ~ Ta ctical air game between li ghter tha n
- air c ra ft . It postu lates an alternate histo ry in Wllic h the
= zeppel in won out over the airpla ne, and mi li lary deve lop-
ll1ent coneen Ira led on lITe airship. A game of strategy and
maneuver. 200 coun ters, 22" x 34" gamemap, 24 pages
o f rules_Tosell for Si 2.
43 . Command in rhe PacifiC. A strategic level game
coveri ng th e entire Pa cific war on one map. The dif-
ference between this and other ga mes wou ld be tha I on ly
the Gamesmast8r gets to see th e map; 1119 oth er play ers
wo uld fol low the flow of the acti on on 11" " 1r
rep roducti ons o f the map. The Ga rn0smB ster would
resolve all baules, provide limited intelligence. c ' eate
haphazard even s (i rom a menu of possibil ities ind uded in
The ru iesi. and would move the pieces and carry out Ihe
plans o f the comma nde rs. The co mmand ers wo uld va ry
in fl Umber from tw O l one JApanese El rl d o ne Arner i ca f1~ to
seven 11Il re9 J apanese, th rae America n, and one Br iti Sh l.
depending on the nu mbe r o j players in the game_ The
comman ders w ould be giVen a fo ur page rules and c hart
summary, w hic h is all they would need to play th e game.
These rules would cover the specifics o f movement. sup-
pl y. and comba t. but would nO I go into proceduml deta il.
The Gamesmas ter' s rules book let wo uld be 24 pages long
and wo uld cover all the rules. Th e GM wou ld then 6x-
ecute the pla ns at the c ommanders, and the commande rs
w ould be left to true strateg ic pla nni ng (1 nd dipl omacy.
The game wou ld include one 22" x 34" map . one
22" ,, 34" d isplay. o ne GM rules booklet. six rules sum-
mary sheets. 400 cou nters. and Il1me 11" x 17" r'lpro duc
tions 01 the game map . To sell for $25.
44. Command in Europe_ This game woul d be simila r 10
Command in the Pacific fnumber 431 , excep t thR map
wo uld cover Europe. and th e players wo uld co ntro l the
destin ies of Germany, Russia. Britain , Francei USA ,
Italy. and the minor countries. The commanders wou ld be
in charge of th eir countri es begi nning before the ac tual
wa r is begu n and may thu s cha nge The directio n of The
war to su i I Ihere ow n strategi c conc ep ts _ The com-
m? nders wou ld instruct th e G M as to th e d irecti o n and
deployment 0 f t heir forces and the ope ration al objecti ves
for each game-turn. The GM would then perfo rm the
movement and co mbat of pieces and report Ihe result to
th e co mmanders. The game wou ld inctude c omponents
simila r to those o i Command in the Pacific and would sell
for $25 .
45. The Destruction of Armv Group Center Wh ile Ger-
man tro op s ifT France bat tled despera tely to ho ld the No r-
ma ndy li ne in Ju ne 1944 , all seemed quiet in the eaSt al ong
the front o f A rmy Group Cen ter. In jact, the German hig l1
command was expec ting a Soviet attack in th e south,
where A rmy Group South was holding the line in the Car-
pathians . However, o n 23 June, the Soviets launched a
pincer attack that cut o ff an d effectively desHoye d Some
28 Ge rman d ivis io ns an d rol led the remna nts of Army
Group Center back to Poiand . Desrruclion of AGe
recreates this decisive eastern fro nt batt le USing th e
popu lar Panzergruppe Guderian system. The game would
include tw o 22" " 34" maps and 800 counters, and w ould
sell fo r $18.
46 . Fighter-Bomber. Land games generally treat air su p"
port in a very abstract fash i o~ . A ir ga mes gene rall y end
wi1e n tne aircraft have successf ul ly reac hed tll eir targets.
Fighrer-Bomber wou Id bridge the ga p and accuratelv
depict the in terac llon of air and ground lorces on the fronl
line. Scenarios would be set in th e 1973 October War and
in Central Europe during the 1980's, covering such co m
plex combined arms operati ons as Ihe crossing of the
Suez Canal and th e surrou nd ing of the Egy pti an Third Ar-
my. Ih e atlriti on of 1st echelo n Sov,et divisio ns bl' NATO
covering forces before they reach the Ma in Li ne of
Resistance, and the sup port of friend ly airmobi le opera-
l ions. A ll types of cu rren tl y opera ti ona l ground SUPPOl t
c raft would be included. both fi xed wing and rotary, along
wi th battalion and regiment size ground units _ Fixed and
mobi le air dslense u nits wou ld be covered with careful al-
ten tion to th e elecuonic battlefield. T he game would
emp lo y 400 c oun terS and two maps, one covering the
sou tll ern porti on of 1he Suez Cana l and the Othe r cover-
ing the Main Ri ver line in Wes t Germany. T he scale wou ld
be not more th an two miles per hex, allow ing for a fairly
taclical consideratio n of the subjectg without sacri fi ClIlg
operati onal depth. To sell for $18.
47. 1990_ This game wi ll simulate t he battlefield o f to<110r-
' ow, when al l the major wea pons systems cu rrently unde r
deve lopmem have actua ll y been deployed. Weapons
systems such as the XM I , XM2. and XM3 tanks. The
American MRL and DIVAD vehicles, the Ass au lt Breaker,
 39
and the AH64 '""outd be incl uded, along w ith their Soviet 56. Tito We wJllask you to rate six games_ If you have not played
counterparts. The game woul d avoid a science fi ction ap - these games, or have not played them enough to be abfe
ST. Fifth Corps
to evaluate rhem, write a zero in the boxes.
proach to fu ture combat; rather, il would provide a pro-
58_ The Kaiser's Battle
jectio n of the battlefield of the immediate fu ture, for com-
parison w ith the battleiield oi the present . and thu s allow 59_ WorldKilier FIFTH CORPS
players to gauge the impact of current development ef- 60_ W reck of the Pandora 104, A Imapsheet) 111_ H Iset-u p timel
forts on arm ored wa rf are. Software advances in N BC pro 1015_B Irules) 112_ J Icomplexity)
61_ Ba rbarian Ki ngs
tecri on and elec tronic warfare would be in corporated , 106_ C (cou mersl 113_ K I rea lisml
62. Arena of Deat h 107, D lease 01 play) 114_ L (overall )
alo ng with the new orga nizational concepts proposed
under troe Army's Div 86 program . Ut ili zing on e map and 63_ Citadel of Blood 108, E (ru les compl etenessl 115_ M (then and now l
400 cou mers, the game wou ld be ba sed on the Oerober 64_ Pea Ridge 109. F Iba lancel 116_ N I money's wort h)
War syste m. Des ig n emp hasis would fall on speed o f play 85_ 110_ G Ileng thl 117, No Question
Drive on Washington
ra th er than compl ic ated and in-de pth simu latio n. To sell
66_ DragonQues t ARENA OF DEATH
for$12.
48. Foundarion and Empire. Based on Isaac Asimov's im-
fi7. 8 attlefor Stali ng rad 118. A (mapshee!! 125, H (set-u p timel
68_ Empires of the Middle Ages 119_ B Irules) 126_ J (complexity)
mortal " Foundation Trilogy." this game w OIJld simulate
the collapse 01 the mighty stellar Empire and the attempt 120. C Icounters) 127_ K. Irealism!
69. Kursk
by the First and Second Foundations to survive and then 70_ Baseball
121_ o lease of play) 128, L (overall)
to limit the extent of the new Dark Ages_ One player 122, E Irules completeness! 129_ M (then and now)
71 _ Football 123, F Iba lance! 130_ N Imoney's wort h)
would direct the cou rse of the Empire. a migh ty
behemoth slowly being undermi ned ((O m within and n. Across Suez 124_ G (length) 131.132, No Question
w it hou t; while trying W hold back invaders, the Empire 73_ Tim eTripp er
KURSK (1980)
must seek out to destroy the Foundations. The Found a- 74_ Da llas
133_ A (mapsheetl 140_ H (set-up time)
tion pla yer mus t keep his bases secret un til the Empi re is
75. Austerlitz 134, B Irul esl 141 _ J (complex ity)
no longer a threat and then ha ll th e diSinteg rati on of
civi lizat ion . Al l the major elements of the novels - th e 76, Palace of Omoncie 136. C (cou nters ) 142. K I realism )
n. HofGap 136_ D lease of playl 143_ L loverall!
Mu le, General Bel Riose, Hari Serdo n - wou ld be inco r-
porated into the play of the game_ Foundarioo and Empire 137. E Irules c ompletenessl 144_ M (then and nowl
78. Bl ad e of Al lectus 146_ N (moneY'S worth)
wou ld conta in a 22" x 34" map of the Empire , 56 138. F Iba lancel
cha racter I even t cards, 200 counters. and extensive rules Questions 79 rhrough 90 ask you 10 yore for your favorite 139_ G (len gthl 146_ No qu estion
w ith lots of chrome_ To sell for $15 . Availability subject to S&T and MOVES of 1980, vsing the same procedvre as
for the games in questions 53 through 78_ Vote for your EMPIRES OFTHE MIDDLE AGES
ag reement w ith the Good Doctor.
three f"vorite 1980 issues of S&T and your three favori te 147. A Imapsheet) 164. H (set-up time)
49 _ The Fin,,1 Frontier. When the Space Shuttle becomes 1980 issues of MOVES_ 148. B (rulesl 156_ J (comple,ity)
operational, the real raCe lor space will beg in - the race 149_ C (counters) 156_ K Irealisml
to exploit the unlimited possibilities of outer space for 79 . S&T78
150. D (ease of play) 157, L (overalll
pOlitical, military, economic. and scien tific purposes. 80 _ SeT 79 151 _ E Iru les completenessl 158_ M Ithen and nowl
Salar powered satellites, la se r baWe stal ions, and orbital 81 _ S& T80 152, F (bala nce) 159_ N Imoney's worth)
factories fed by lu nar mining - all are d iscussed today. 153_ G I length ) 160,161 . No Question
82_ S&T81
and they are only the begin ning. Eac h plaver will repre-
sent the pol ic y makers in th e US, US SR , EEC, or a mu lti - 83_ S& T 82 BASEBAll
nati ona l c orporation who decide whether land howl 84 . S8T 83 162. A Imapsheetl 169. H (set-up lime\
these possibil ities will be c onvert ed into rea lity_ Eac h 85_ MOVES48 163. B (rulesl 170_ J (co mpl ex ityl
player wi ll ha ve his own set of gOJ IS, technical
86 _ MOVES49 164. C Icountersl 171_ K. Irealisml
capabilities, and politica l res traints wi thin whicl1 he mus t
fn _ MOV ES50 165, 0 lease of playl 1n, L (overal ll
opera te, depl oying his limited resou rces to expand hi s
166, E Irules completeness) 173_ M Ithe n and now)
technical abiliTies or fund actual operation s in space. SlI C- 88. MOVES51 1fn. F (balance) 174. N Imoney's wort h)
cessfu l achievement will tend to increase your budge t, 89_ MOV ES52 168, G (length) 175. No question
allowing furth er develo pment, but the actions of others
90_ MOV ES53
will also have an effect . Thus, a Soviet breakthrough in FOOTBALL
the develo pment of an o rbital AB M system could trigger 91 - 96_ No question
176, A (mapsheetl 183_ H Iset-up time)
increased fu nd ing fo r the US military; while a second
1n_ B (rules) 184_ J (complexity)
power setting up orbital facto ries wou ld cut in to the pro-
178_ C (countersl 185_ K Irealisml
fits of the first. The ga me w ill cover the period from 1982
179_ D lease of play) 186_ L (overalll
to 2020 in three-year game-turns. Military actions wou ld
SECTIONB 180_ E (rules co mpleten essl 1fn. M Ithen and nowl
be abstract, w ith the emphasis on politica l and economic
The results of the following survey as vsed in our P/"y- 181 . F (balancel 188_ N Imoney's worthl
conflict . Wi ll include two 22" x 17" displays, 400
back system. This system reviews games by showing the 182. G (Iengthl 189- 196_ No Qu estion
counte rs, and 20 pages of rules. To sell for $15 .
response of the p eople who play (he games. Qvestions
The Once and Futura King_ Kin,q Arthur's kni,qhts had
104-188 are part of Playback. After each game title there
to prove the worthiness of their calling. In addition 10 the
are 13 questions, lettered A through N_ Questions A
jousts that measured 11 kmght's strength, there were also
through L are answered with" 1 (poor) through 9 (ex-
Call for Game Proposals
quests - the rescue of a fair lady from a foul kmght. for
cellent! rating_ Questions M and N are answered 1 (yes) or In the Feedback section of every issue of
Jnstance - and rhe most famous quest of all, the search
2lnoJ_ MOVES we propose about a dozen historical,
for the Holy Grail_ In addition, there w ere also great con-
tests of might between kingdoms. The game could be A _ W hat d id you think of the physical Quality and layout science fiction, and fantasy game ideas for
done in one of three possible ways (please rate each one of the mapshee1? your approval or disapproval. Most of these
separatelyJ. B . W hat d id you think of the phySical quality and layout proposals spring from our heads during brain -
50_ A full-sized game that wou ld cover every thi ng fro m of the rules folder' storming sessions held every other month .
the rise of Utl1er Pendrag on !O the final co nfl ic t between C_ What did you think of the physical qua lity and layout However, it is getting tougher and tougher to
Art hur and his bas ta rd nephew, Mod red. Wou ld conta in of the unit counters? come up with fresh ideas for each issue_ Now,
66 charact er cards, 400 playing pieces, and a 22 " x 34" D . What did you thin k of the ga me's ease of play Ihow we know all of you out there are filled w ith
map o f Engla nd . To sell for $16. well did the gsme move alo ngl? good c oncepts for great games, and we wou ld
51 _ A chara cter game in which players would become E, What d id you think of the com pl eteness of the rules like to hear from you_ Tvpe up your proposals
knights and go OU I on quests . Would co ntai n 56 cards. (was everything thoroughly ex plai ned!? and send them to the attention of John Butter-
100 cou nte rs, and a 22" x 34" map oi t he area around F_ What did you th in k of the game's play bala nce Iwas field here at SPI. Try to follow the format
Camelot . To sell for $12 _ the game interesti ng fo r both sides!? ad h ered to by the proposals in this issue : 10 to
52. An army ga me w hich would center on the ebb and G_ W hat did you thi nk of the appropriateness of the 20 typewritten lines (more if the proposal has
flow of kingdoms in the Arthuria n world . No cards, 400 length of playing time for an average game? more than one part) including a brief
counters, and 22" x 34" map of England . To sell for $1 2.
H _ What did you think of the amount of time required to background , a description of game mechanics
Questions 53 through 78 ask you to vote for your f8vorite set up the game before beginning to play? (what other game it might be similar to, it any)
SPI game published in 1980. Vote for your top three
J _ What did you think of the approp riateness of the and a summary of possible game parts _
choices only in the following manner; write 5 in the
game's complexity) Currently we are most interested in fan-
answer-box corresponding to your first fa vorite; write 3 in
the box corresponding to your second favorite; and write K. Whst did you think of t he ga me's realism? tasy and science fantasy game ideas (expecial-
1 in the box of your third favorite. Write a zero in ea ch of L. What did yo u think o f th e game overal l) IV those that conform to the Ares format of an
the other boxes_ M . Wou ld you have boug ht ti1is game if you knew than 11" x- 17" map and 100 counters), but we
53_ Patton's Third A rmy what you know now abou t it ? 11 = yes; 2 = no l. definitely need science fiction and historical
54 _ Berlin '85 N_ Do yo u thi nk you received you r money's wor th w ith proposals too _ Hope to hear from you soon.
56 _ Wil so n's Creek this game? 11 = yes ; 2 = nol.
Simulations Pub lications, Inc.
257 Park Avenue Soulh
New York, N. Y. 10010
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
FORT E IRSTTI
Richard Berg's Review ofGames
A i-Weekly Gamesletter of Independent Opinion and Criticism
... provides subscribers with ti mely and professionally
written reviews of games recentl y released or aboul to
hit the market. The inimi table Richard Berg edits this
independent newsletter and helps you examine I he
components, game sys tem, physical quality, play-
ability, and hisloricit y of al least three new games in
each bi-weekly issue. Also featured in each issue of
t he newsletter is "Grapes," a column thai keeps you,
the subscriber, informed of the latest hobby/ indus try
. news and gossip . If the newsleller saves you from
buying a couple of turkeys - or one big buzzard - it
will pay for itself in no time!
Don't miss a single issue of
Richard Berg's Review of Games
25 ISSUES PER YEAR
MAILED VIA 1st CLASS MAIL
TO INSURE "FRESHNESS "
$20 for a one-year subscription
BU LK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE PA I D
PER MI T NO. 15
FRAMINGHAM. M A.
EEVE
Excerpts from the latest
great issue ...
Richard Berg on Forward to Richmond!
"What we have here is a regimental pre system augmented
by heavy command restrictions. III a general. way, the
mechanics do convey the aura of this, the opening battle of
the Ci vil War. The command control rules pro ride such a
high level of uncertainty that feint and bluff become the
order of the day - and that makesfor a pretty good game. "
Jon Gautier on Java Man
"Pardine peppered the poorly organized rules with a dose of
bad and pOilltlessjokes. For example, the 'painstaking inch-
by-inch forage of an area,' as simulated by the intensive
Forage rule, uses the parenthetical phrase; 'Oak leaves!
Yum, yum. eat 'em up!'"