2 MOVES nr.

40, published August/September 1978

Opening
Moves
SpiGroups:
A Free Listing Service
to Encourage the
Formation and Operation
of Gaming Associations
Circulation: 9100
Although I've never been much of a
Editor/Executive Art Director Redmond A .. Simonsen clubman myself, I appreciate that there is a
Managing Editor need for clubs or at least gaming associations
Robert J. Ryer
Art Director in order that a regular source of opponents is
Manfred F. Milkuhn
available. Wargaming may be growing expo
Contributing Editors nentially but we're still pretty thin on the
Richard Berg, James F. Dunn igan, ground in this great land of ours. J feel that
Phil Kosnett, Mark Saha, Jerrold Thomas by providing a listing service, MOVES can
MOVES ,"'agazine is copyright 1978, Simulations Publications. Inc. Printed ill U.S.A. All rights reserved. All help in the formation of nuclei around which
editorial and general mail should be addressed to Simulations Pu blications In~., 44 East 23 rd Street, N . Y., N.V. 10010.
MOVES is published bi-monthly. One year subscriptions (six issues) are avai lable for $9.00 (U.S.). Back issues or will form local communities of garners. Of
si ngl e copies oflhe current issue are available at $2.50 per copy . Please remil by check or money order (U .S. fu nds on ly) course, this is presently happening even
Printing ami Binding by Wellesley Press, Inc ., Framingham, Mass without the listi ng but perhaps we can ac-
ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS: Readers are invited to submit articles for possible publicat.ion in MOVES Magazine. celerate the process.
Manuscript s mus t be typewrilten, double-spaced, on 8 V, x 11 white bond, with generalis matgins . Plea,e include your There will be a few rules concerning the
full name all each MS page, and yOur name and address on the cover page. Ifyolt wish your manuscript returned, in- listing - in re turn for doing all the work of
clude a stamped, "elf-addressed 9 x 12 envelope. In no instance, however, can SP I assume responsibili ty for compilation and the administrative expense-s
manuscripts and illustrations no! specifically solic ited.
involved, you must adhere to the following
rules:
1. The listing will appear in every even
numbered issue of MOVES. Your listing
In this issue... must be re-submitted each time you wish it to
appear. This makes the listing an automatic
You Too Can Be An Air War Ace ROBERT S. HOPKINS III 4 ally self-cleaning directory. I f you don' t send
in a listing req uest, your association won 't
Tactical Nuclear Weapons Simulation JOHNA. GRAHA M 6 appear (even though it's appeared in some
previous issue and in fact is still operating).
Could the One True Ring Be Brass? NEIL RANDALL 9 The deadlines to be listed are as follows :
MO VES 42: End of Oct. '78
Secret Search V.J THOMAS 11 MO VES 44: End o f Feb . '79
MO VES 46: Endof June '79
Other Faces, Other Times JOHN LlNDSTROM-FURUTANI 12
This cycle (Feb/June/Oct) will repeat in-
Objective: Moscow SCOTTRENNER 14 definitely until! later notice of alteration or
termination .
Nor Dark of Night. .. THOMASG. PRATUCH 18 2. The group that you form (or have
formed) does not have to be a formal club
Airburst MATTHEWW. FOSTER 20 with dues and bylaws, etc. - it may simply
be a gaming association, i.e. , a bunch of peo-
Drive South to Stalingrad TOM GRA VELINE 23 ple who get together to play games on a
somewhat regular basis. In fact, such in-
Wacht am Rhein JIM GOVOSTES 25 formal groupings are encouraged. Each
group (whatever its nature) must have a nam-
A Compendium of Errata 28 ed , responsible individual who can deal with
inquiries and whatever paperwork is involv-
Opening MO VES REDMONDA . SIMONSEN 2 ed in maintaining the good order of the
Designer's Notes SPIR&DSTAFF 3 group. This person will be known as the
Group Agent.
Fonvard Observer RICHARD BERG 32 3. Clubs and associations will not be
listed by formal name - rather they will be
Playback THE PLAYERS 33 listed under a \vorking tag tha t derives from
the first three digits of the Zipcode plus the
Feedback/Playback Questions VOX POPULI. vox DEI 34 name of the Agent 's city or town and the last
name of the Group Agent. So, for example,
if I were the Group Agent of an association ,
Simulations Publ icat ion s. Inc .. 44 East 23 rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10010 my group would be tagged" 100 New York/
Simonsen Group. "
4. O ther information (including the
contact address/ phone) must be listed strict-

Iy according to the prescribed format (and
'strictly' should be interpreted literally - de-
viant submissions will be invalidated). Typo-
graphical errors will be corrected in the re-
submissions for subsequent listing.
S. To qualify as a Group, the associa-
tion must have at least four charter members,
two of whom are either current MO VES
and/ or S& T su bscribers. A separate sheet of
names and addresses of the charter member-
ship must be included with each request to be
listed. To document the conformance to this
rule, the SPI customer codes of the sub-
scribers must be included with the docu-
mentation.
6. The average age of the charter
members will be indicated by averaging the
year oj birth of the members. So for exam-
ple, I was born in '42, my friend in 1950, as
well as 48 and 54 respectively for the other
members of the group. Our average birth
date is 49.
7. The following format is to be used
when making a submission.
LINE ONE
Three Digit Zip, Town or City/ Agent's Last
Name
LINE TWO
Nr. of Curr~nt Members/ Avg. Birth-
date/Year Formed/ Frequency of meet-
ings/and three ranked period preferences us-
ing the Feedback response numbers.
LINE THREE
Group Agent's Full Name and Phone Nr.
LlNEFOUFI
Group Agent's FuJI Address
So, if I were submitting a listing, it
might look like this:
100 New York/ Simonsen Grou p
04149175/ Bi-weekly/ 957
Redmond A. Simonsen (212) 673-4103
44 East 23rd St., N.Y ., N.Y. 10010
The above would mean that the group
currently has four members with an average
birthdate of 1949 and it was formed in 1975;
meets every other week and likes to play
science-fiction, civil war, and WW2 games in
that order. The listing will be printed as sub-
mitted and all listings will be made uniform
as to style (and I'd appreciate it if you made
an effort to conform to the format every
exactly).
The format and exact information is, of
course, subject to change as we gain
experience in handling and presenting the
information. The main idea is to keep it
"lean and dean" and to avoid having the
announcements lapse into adolescent chest-
beating. Please type! Do not include your
listing with orders or other correspondence.
Send to "SPI-Groups" c/o SPI, 44 E. 23rd
St., New York, N.Y. 10010
THE SPECIES OF THE ORIGINS
More than a dozen little SPI elves went to
Ann Arbor in mid-July. They flew there in a
big silver bird (which they took because their
charter flight was an hour late) .." The pict.ure
shows Manny Milkuhn doing his . {lmusing
aircrash imitation to the delight of all ' the
passengers in the boarding lounge.
Our home away from home was the Ann Ar-
bor Inn - which was really keen (and if in
the unlikely event that the Inn staff should
see this, you all did a fine job).
The elves piled into the campus shuttle bus
and trundled off to the campus (although
where the campus ended and the town began
was always a matter for speculation).
The ultramodern facade of the North Cam-
pus Recreation Center did little to disguise
the fact that it was just another un-aircondi-
tioned gymnasium. The exhibit hall was-
similar in m9st respects to that of Origins 77
- even to the tarps on the floor.
The weather was a little steamier than 0'77 so
this meant a little more sweating for the ex-
hibitors working their booths (see the strip-
ped down Kevin Zucker selling furiously,
copies of his self-published game Napoleon
at Bay - or should that read 'furiously seil-
ing"? (see this issue's FO). {conlin"ea011page24/
3
Designers
Notes
WORK IN PROGRESS
Please do not order any of these titles
until their availability is announced in S&T.
Campaign for North Africa
The Sandy Behemoth is finally in Pro-
duction Land. The order of battle and
counter mix have been finally set (until and
unless we find the two missing battalions of
Commonwealth units .. .) at 1800 counters;
1021 of these are considered "combat"
counters, with an approximate breakdown of
157 German, 437 Italian and 421 Com-
monwealth. This does not include ships
and / or planes . (The latter counters are used
somewhat more abstractly than the land
units, although abstract is a humorous term
to use in CNA). The last minute changes to
the OB proved difficult - the whole OB for
Africa proved to be an immense chore. We
had several problems with the grotesque
number of ad hoc Italian units (territorial
and garrison troops, splinter artillery units,
etc.} and even the British armored battalions
gave us some fits (who belongs to what and
when - and why?) We are quite happy with
.our OB ; we think it is the most accurate ever
published in such form. There are, to be
sure, discrepancies. For instance, Playfair
states that the 1st Sherwood Foresters was at
Tobruk when it fell; Joselyn states that the
Foresters were in Cyprus and nowhere near
Tobruk. One book lists the 10th Indian Divi-
'sion with two brigades; another source gives
it three brigades (oh where are you, 25th?); a
third SOurce says there is no 10th Indian Divi-
sion!!! Try playing games with that sort of
information. Other minor touches have been
added: Rommel is now away on trips to
Berlin, the British have evaporation and
spillage problems (above the norm) because
they have lousy containers, prisoners can
now escape, Dummy Tank Formations and
the Desert Recovery Squadrons have been
added ... the list of minutae is endless. We're
pushing mightily on CNA , and we're looking
for a mid-Fall release. Rich Berg
AirCav
After an eight-week hiatus, I have been
able to make some time to start rolling again
on this game. Normally, that would be a
chore. The way that SPI operates, with a lot
of inter-dependent people involved on any
one project, tooling up one that has been in-
terrupted can be tiresome, with a lot of
wheel-spinning and re-treading as one at-
tempts to remember all the half-perceived '
nuances and solutions lost in the shuffle. But
even given the fact that I must assemble a
new corps of play testers and cope with notes
to myself that have somehow declined in
cogency with the passage of time, Air Cay
(co"ti1luecJ 011 pag~ 291,'
4
OPERATIONAL ANAL YSIS
YOU TOO CAN BEAN AIR WAR ACE
But You'll Have to Buy Your Own Scarf
bv Robert S. Hopkins, 11/
Air War is an excellent effort (even if Dave Isby
didn't take my suggestion about using the Battle-
Fleet Mars 3d movement system - maybe you
would've gotten the gravitational constant right if
you had, David) and although, as Robert in
dicates, it is intimidating, one should give it a try. I
do have a complaint about all tac flying games,
which I would like to, ah, air: everything happens
so slowly - it's more like building a plane than fly
ing one. I suppose I'll have to wait for a good real-
time microcomputer simulation. - RAS
"Rove your assigned airspace, spot the
enemy, shoothim down, and anything else is
rubbish."
-von Richthofen
"Everything is funny so long as it happens to
someone else."
-Will Rogers
A love for airplanes would seem natural
to someone growing up as an Air Force brat.
More so when this individual brat's father
flew everything from fighters to bombers,
and then did it again. So you can imagine my
immense pleasure when SPI produced Fox-
bat & Phantom. The rules were thoroughly
digested and intense playsessions ensued. It
soon became apparent that Foxbat was
grossly shortchanged when the developer got
hold of it (not to belittle a fine job by Kevin
Zucker). Rules were added for air-to-ground
combat, new planes, and even air-to-air re-
fueling. There was even hope for super-pilot
Dad to get into the fray. Then came Air
Force.
Complexity became the key word in air
games, .as the SiMove system made book-
keeping a dreary task and "flying" secon-
dary. Dauntless helped, but it was still Leo
Tolstoi instead of Saburo Sakai. The over-
due and anxiously awaited Air War by SPI
filled a void left by all the other airgames,
and immediately moved onto the "bestseller
list." It also established a new complexity
record (8.2), passing USN as the most com-
plex game produced by SPI. With this com-
plexity came a major problem: how to play
A ir War? Specifically, how to get everything
out of the game for which it was originally
designed? A brief review of the game will be
conducted to allow the reader insight. as to
whether or not he should purchase the game.
Once done, both strategic and tactical
analyses will be presented to guide the novice
along the gilded path of moaern"aerial com-
bat.
Air War is a 600 counter, eight-piece
geomorphic map game. It has some 48 pages
of rules and discussion, 16 pages of charts
and tables, playing adjuncts such as "instru-
ment panels," and the all-important aircraft
data sheets for 31 aircraft (and their variants)
and 23 missiles. Aircraft counters have white
silhouettes of the specific aircraft rep-
resented, with the remainder being informa-
tional counters. Physically attractive, the
game does require more space than usual to
set up and play (a la Fast Carriers). It is
wholeheartedly recommended that players
take care when sorting counters to facilitate
set-up time. It is also recommended that the
aircraft and missile data sheets be kept in
clear plastic notebook folders to maintain
their viabili ty.
Mechanically, Air War functions as a
game based on probability. A given event has
a given probability of occurance, which is
then cross-referenced with a twodice roll.
Since the probability table is used frequently,
among others, it is also recommended that
this table be copied for each player (some-
thing which SPI might consider adding to
future games.)
The rules deal not only with the game
itself, but do an excellent job of discussing
modern aerial tactics and do a likewise
superb job of integrating the same into the
game. Extensive scenarios are not present,
but more than adequate material is provided
to build a virtual plethora of scenarios. This
preparation of scenarios is as enjoyable as
playing the game itself.
Once set-up and started, Air War plays
much more smoothly than might be an-
ticipated. To facilitate play, all players (up to
16 individuals could play. although four is
the optimum number using teams of two)
should have the sequence of play committed
to memory . SPJ wisely inCludes a rules sum-
mary, not of major concepts, but of the
minutiae which are required to play the
game. It is strongly suggested that players be
extremely familiar with these. The second
longest delay in playing Air War is the cons-
tant referral to the rules and myriad of
tables.
Air War is a beautiful game, one which
is highly accurate as a simulation. There is
however so much of it that most garners are
reluctant to spend a great deal of time
becoming attuned to its intricacies. Hope-
fully, this problem may be overcome with
some of the tenets presented within the con-
fines of this article.
Like any pilot, learn to fly. Practice
level flight, banking, climbing and diving.
Prepare a set of simple maneuvers to be ac-
complished: make a pass over a given hex,
bank into a steep climb and reverse dfrection,
passing over the target hex from 90 degrees to
the original pass. This "cloverleafing" will
be helpful in learning the concepts of
maneuvering in a three-dimensional environ-
ment.
The rules include a section on special
maneuvers, e.g., Immelman, Barrel-roll, etc.
Each of these should be practiced for a given
aeroplane. Note that flying a third-
generation fighter in one scenario is quite un-
like flying an older bomber in a second
scenario. These maneuvers should be com-
mitted to memory, (it seems that there is a
great deal of memorization in this game ... ).
The next topic of interest to be treated is
weapon utilization. Know the parameters of
all weapons a given aircraft will be carrying,
particularly with air-to-air missiles. These
weapons are to be treated just as another air-
craft - they, too, are flown by the phasing
player. Each missile carried is useless if it is
fired in such a way that the target aircraft can
simply out-run or out-maneuver it in any
given environment.
Know your opponent's aircraft. This is
not to be construed as a suggestion to use his
aircraft data chart. Instead, it is a suggestion
to be cognizant of the potential advantages
and disadvantages of his aircraft. Use ex-
treme care to prevent your opponent's air-
craft from obaining any advantageous posi-
tions while at the same time attempting to ex-
ploit his weaknesses to the fullest.
Perhaps the most important subject in
Air War (which is poorly treated by most
players) is the set of Victory Conditions. In
many cases, the player who escapes is the
winner. An underdog aircraft pitted against
several superior aircraft can "win" by simply
passing over a given hex or by not being shot
down. Players who are desirous of a
"Turkey Shoot" should bear the Victory
Conditions close in mind when selecting a
scenario.
Basically, know what has to be done,
with what it must be accomplished, what
problems might be encountered and how
they might be best dealt with. With these
thoughs in mind, novice A ir War players will
soon find that there is a lot more to the game
that is not readily seen. It is this area to be
next explored.
Defining a specific tactic for Air War is
quite unlike discussing Wellington's Victory.
There are no terrain objectives nor units to
capture or destroy. Therefore, each scenario
played will have specific tactics to be learned

and utilized. There are, however, key ideas
which will enhance any player's flying skills.
Think flying: Think as if you were in-
deed a pilot flying a MiG-25 on a recon-
naissance mission over the Sinai and the two
objects aproaching you are Israeli inter-
ceptors planning to blast you from the sky.
React to a specific situation just as if you
were truly in that situation. This concept of
flying will be stressed throughout the re-
mainder of this article.
Air=me:
Mikoyan MiG-25A
Foxbat
Speed: Surprisingly enough, the faster
plane is not necessarily the best plane. A high
rate of speed can often be useful. However,
an aircraft also possesses a turn mode, which
describes its ability to turn at a given speed.
This is dependent on factors such as wing
loading, wing area, flight control systems,
and other mechano-physical items . Use the
turn mode to good advantage. Keep the
speed as high as'possible (or needed) and the
turn mode as low as possible . This will allow
more maneuvering (which is the name of the
game, is it not?). Experience in Southeast
Asia and the Middle East has shown that
most dogfights occur at low speeds. This is
for two reasons, both of which may be
demonstrated in Air War. Either the air-
planes themselves physically are incapable of
higher speeds (MiG-17 liS. F-4), or the faster
aircraft maneuvers best at lower speeds.
Bear in mind that reconnaissance
scenarios might encourage Mach-3 dashes
across the game board in an attempt to
"win" the scenario . In direct contrast would
be a "duel" between two "third-gen"
fighters. Clearly, speed should be utilized
judiciously.
Altitude: Height cannot be over-
emphasized. Aircraft which are high may
dive to gain speed and attack lower airplanes
in fewer turns than an aircraft could attack a
higher target . Again, experience has
demonstrated that aerial combat is like
DNA, an ascending helix. Aircraft combat
should occur in an optimum environment for
any aircraft, and for many, this is best
described as vertical. Thus, the bounce from
above coupled with the high-speed, low-turn
mode attack is probably the best method of
attack. By passing through the target aircraft
at a high rate of speed , the target aircraft will
not be able to catch the attacking aircraft
allowing escape or a second pass if the first
was unsuccessful. This is not to say un-
equivocally that Height is Right. When
fighting an electronic war, say a nuclear
strike mission with heavy ECM and a high-
threat radar environment, Nape of the Earth
(NOE) flight is great. Low altitude affords
more than ample protection from heat-
seeking missiles and suitable protection from
radar weapons. (It should be noted that at
low altitudes many forms of anti-aircraft
weapons are in their optimum combat
envelope.) For example, a B-52H on a
nuclear strike at an altitude of 250 feet is at
the height of choice whereas an A-IO over
Central Europe is in a highly lethal environ-
ment at this altitude .
Cannon: In the late fifties and early six-
ties, a doctrine demeaning the airborne can-
non was issued. This clesign philosophy was
reflected in the F- I d1, -102, -106, and F-4
(nee F-IlO). The value of the airborne can-
non is of such recognized importance today
as to warrant the addition of the "Six. Pack"
to the F-106 and the M6AIE in the nose of
theF-4E.
Cannon combat in Air War is critical.
Cannon fire may cOI1).pletely destroy a target
aircraft Or cripple it to the point where it
becomes ineffective as an airborne fighting
weapon. Cannon is best used from close
range. This necessitates a commanding
knowledge of maneuvering toward the
target. More specifically, attack with cannon
fire is best executed from directly behind and
slightly above. Note that this conflicts with
the concept of behind and below. The latter
concep t is best used to avoid visual contact
with the target aircraft. Maintaining height is
still of importance . If the opponent climbs to
escape your fi re, he will climb right into it,
slowing as he goes . If he dives, you will in-
evitably remain behind him in the dive, still
firing away. One additional note about can-
.,.
non use : don't waste cannon shots, par-
ticularly low-probability, high-range shots.
'Nuff said.
d'
+
Aircraft Name:
McDonnell Douglas F-4E
Phantom
Heat-Seeking missiles: Heats are the
next best thing to cannon in dogfights. How-
ever, their use is dependent on a variety of
factors, which often limit their use. A good
player will strive to keep the enemy aircraft
inside the launch envelope of the heat-
seeking missile he carries. . As with heat-seeking missiles, radar-
Like cannon, the above and behind 1.. '
tack is best (of times the only) place to launch
a heat-seeking missile. Advanced heats, such
as the AIM-9L, can strike from any direc-
tion, but the better pilot will prefer the "up
the pipe" shot from behind.
Heat-seeking missiles have several ma-
jor drawbacks. They are virtually useless at
low altitudes due to ground clutter (an exam-
ple of when it is better to stay low). This is
offset by an aircraft which emits a high ex-
haust temperature . Nonetheless, the chance
for a missile to malfunction at very low
altitudes is still greater than the worth of
"wasting" the shot. If it is the only shot you
may take, then by all means, take it. Things
can't get worse.
Heat-seeking missiles are also prone to
go ballistic (become defective and useless) by
tracking the sun as a heat source. They are
also highly susceptible to jamming by
relatively simple means, e.g., hot gas or
5
flares. They are also limited in range, so a
close-in shot is required.
One ~ord of warning when firing a heat-
seeking missile into a crowd: the missile will
track the nearest target regardless of na-
tionality. Avoid scoring kills against your
fellow aircraft.
Radar-Homing Missiles: Radar-homing
missiles have one major advantage: the long-
range kill. In many cases, an out-and-out
dogfight between two aircraft is quite biased.
To offset this problem, indirect combat may
be utilized. Specifically. send a single weapon
to destroy a better target. The Israelis used
this concept to good advantage by using
precision-guided munitions (PGMs) against
highly-lethal targets, such as SAM sites.
Classically, the comparison becomes
more vivid in Air War. An F-14 may not be
able to "out-dogfight" a gaggle of MiG-17s,
it can, however, fire its compliment of
Phoenix missiles from a great distance with a
'"
high degree of accuracy. still emerging the
victor.
T a~
4=
A ircraft Name:
Grumman F-14A
Tomcat
7L ,
Aircraft Name:
Mikoyan MiG-17D
Fresco
Like any other weapon systems, radar-
homing missiles have some type of shortcom-
ing. The first of these, although not a
technical flaw, does indeed impair their use.
Some nationalities prohibit the unconfirmed
firing of missiles at target aircraft. For exam-
ple, the U.S. required visual confirmation of
a target over North Vietnam before it could
be attacked. In many cases, this necessitated
the firing aircraft losing its advantage of be-
ing able to attack from outside visual range.
homing missiles are susceptible to ground
clutter and thus lose their effectiveness when
fired at targets at low altitudes, particularly
when the firing aircraft is more than 2500
feet above the target. Radar-homing missiles
are also jammable with the myriad of ECM
devices which are available in the game. This
is particularly so when playing a hypothelical
modern-day scenario as the non-U.S. coun-
try.
Radar-homing missiles also require a
two-turn radar lock-on before the missile
may be fired. Thus, while remaining locked
onto a target aircraft, the tracking aircraft
may not radar search for or engage in combat '
by other means with any other aircraft (the
F-14, F-15, and MRCA are notable excep-
tions). Care must be taken not to allow the
tracking aircraft to allow the target aircraft
to leave the tracking aircraft's radar search
area, or to allow the target aircraft to evade
or break the lock-on.
/continued on page I>J
6
SCENARIOS & VARIANTS

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

SIMULATION
With Particular Reference to Firefight and Similar Games
by John A , Graham, 11/

The following article treats with the nuclear batlle- (ion just determined and for the distance Type E: Exposed personnel, dismounted
ground scaled to FireFight in particular ~ but it found on Chart I. See Note 3. infantry, towed artillery not in
could be made applicable to any modern tactical
3. For each unit (both Enemy and Friendly) revetments (the crews, not the
game adjusting for the scale change . As the
author points out, the nuclear environment really within the destruction range of AGZ: weapons).
requi res more space than the FireFightmap allows a. Find the distance from AGZ to the Type P: Protected personnel, infantry in
(see , this is really another cheap tric k to get you to unit. This distance is the "range" for use foxholes, artillery in revetments .
buy lots of mapsetsl . In my heart of hearts I do still Type W: Wheeled vehicles, artillery being
on Chart II.
believe, however, tha t after the first few " t actica l"
b. Roll a die. Find the appropriate graph towed (excluding personnel), any
nuclear weapons are detonated, their use will
quickly escalate into the general strategic con- on Chart II for the weapon being detonat- non-armored vehicle.
flagration, and battleground ta ctics will be a mOOI ed. Cross-reference the number rolled Type T : Tanks, armored vehicles of all
point. -RAS with the range to find the point on the types induding APC's .
chart that determines the effect of the det- Type D: Depots, concrete bunkers, rein-
onation on the unit. These effects are as forced concrete buildings, bridges.
follows. See Note 4,
On the graphs on Chart II, there is a line
These rules may be used to include nu- Nuclear Weapon Effects labeled with the letter for each of the five
clear weapons in any tactical scale combat The effects of the nuclear weapon on a types of target units. If the point found in
simulation. The charts included with these unit depend not only on the distance from step 3b, above, lies to the left of the line for
rules were designed for use with FireFight, AGZ, but also on the type and situation of the particular type of unit, that unit is de-
but they may be used withany game when the unit. For the purpose of determining nu- stroyed, If the point lies to the right of the
appropriate adjust ments for hex size and clear effects, units are broadly classified as line fo r the type of unit, the unit is not de-
time per turn are made, This simulation was follows: stroyed, But such units may be moderately
prepared using unclassified U .S. Army
Training Manuals (FM 101-31-1, PM
101 -31-3). Informed sources confirm that the
effects resulting from these rules are very ~~T :1: DiSta~~~ ~i Actual G ro~nd, 'i~ro.(AGZj :~,::, ;,.~'{:~:;".':,~:r:?2r~j~;;-::t
close to the actual classified effects . These , "',' from Desired 'Ground 'Zero (DGZ)', '.:~: ',;- .' ~'. ;, .';::',;' :
rules are very brief, since they are to be used
for reference when playing already compli-
cated simulations. Further discussion and ex-
Raj};: '. I Di~ROn3(~rii~~ry):56 "., :Ri~~ ..~Di~~OU2~~o~:e~'~:'~~~~~~>:~ \
planation for the rules is given in the design- 2 1 5-6 1 1 2 3 4
er's notes, as referenced in these ru les, 3 - ~. - ' 1 1. , 7-S r ,', i ;-- 3':. 4 .<:,~::~:Jf:
Nuclear Phase P rocedures 4 1 2 9-10 2 3 4 5
The Nuclear Weapons Phase should be 5 1 2 ' 11-121 2 " 3" ,4 ;'';;'$-:'. 6
the first Player-turn Phase. 6 1 I 2 13-14 1 2 3 4 5 7
1. Check off firing preparation delays for 7 .11 2 3 . :'1 5-16 ' l ' 2: 3 -' ,f ;,6': .. 8 ;~
rockets and missiles currently being 8 1 2 3 17-18 2 3 5 7 9
readied to fire, See Note 1, 9 .. 2 J 19-20 I, , 2 .4 6 ' 8 10
2. For each weapon scheduled to impact this 10 2 3 4 21-22 1 3 5 7 9 11 .,
Turn:
a, Place a marker on the hex where the
Maximum Range' for Sh~rt Range. A"illery
2
23~24 ' 1 5 7 .: 3'.
:9
.. 1'2'
11 3 4 25-26 1 3 5 7 10
weapon is aimed to impact. This is the hex 12 1 1 2 3 4 '27;.2.8 '.1 . :;,3 , 5,' 8 Jtj-
referred to as 'I Designated Ground Zero" , 13 ,3
1 ., 2 2 4 29-30 3 6 9 12
(DGZ).
14 2 2 3 5 3i-32 4 7 10 ,. 13
b . Find the range from the firing location
to DGZ. This is given in the scenario if the F5 1 .-- ,1. 2 2 3 5 33-34 4710
firing location is off the battlefield map 16 I 2 3 4 5 . 35~36 .Z' S ~. 8' li
-~~.
board . See Note 2. 17 I ... ~
1 2 3 - 4 ,5 37-38 2 5 8 11
c. Roll a die, Cross-reference the die roll 18 1 2 3 4 5 39-40 .. ' 2 ; 'S :' '8 Y4 '
number with lhe range to find the distance 19 , 1 ... 1 2 :3' 4 6 ,,,,,,"
from DGZ to "Actual Ground Zero"
20 2 3 4 6
(AGZ) using Chart I for the type of weap- . ,f!I1ctXimum 'Range forMedlul n Range Arti!lePi.
r . . -~~..;. - '",: c ...... .
~? :'~' ~~". ~ -'.
on firing.
' N~te: ..All adJus tment distances are'given'as 50met~rm:uitipl~s:'Th~~ . ah: adjustlJl~i:tt;or .'.:.;
d. Roll a second die to determine the di- .. "5'" ' is .5 x' 50;'()r2~0 " nieters from;desired' gr6und ?zer.o(Dqzr'td :aCt6ajgr~ll,i.1(ti~rq<i ,..
rection from DGZ to AGZ (in the same (AGZ) .. " .'. .~ .. ' ,. .'> '",~::>,) ;,;,:~. .. ,'
manner as for other artillery) . Move the
marker from DGZ to AGZ in the direc-

CHART II: Nuclear Weapons Effects
PE
1
2 sile-delivered warheads are affected by
5 are included in simulations on the scale of
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RANGE (hundreds of meters)
EFFECTS OF A 10 KT WEAPON
1
2
~3
I'tt
:l;j
~ 4 ~----+-+-~~~-~--~-- ~~--~~----~~~
r-
5r-----~~~~~--~--~----~----~._------~~
6r------+~--~--4r--~--~~----~----~~----------~~
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
RANGE (hundreds of meters)
damaged so they may not move nor fire for
several Turns (minutes): See Note 5. The
numbers between the dashed lines give the
number of minutes (or FireFight Game-
Turns) the unit may not move or shoot. The
crews and passengers of vehicles suffering
moderate damage may be unloaded and
move or shoot as if nothing has happened, as
the vehicle protected them. (Tank crews may
be represented by light fi'reteams in FireFight
jf they are attacked before repairs are com-
pleted to their tanks.)
Designer's Notes
Note] (See Nuclear Phase Procedure 1).
Rockets and missiles must be fue/ed, fused,
and otherwise readied to fire, long in ad-
vance of the time they are intended to impact
on the battlefield. If you do not have actual
arming times for the rockets and missiles you
are simulating, the following generalizations
may be used:
Free Flight Rocket (FFR or FROG): 30
minutes after movement is completed, 5
minutes for on-call targets. FFR deliver 5
KT, 10 KT, 50 KT and 100 KT warheads .
Light Guided Missile (LGM): 30 minutes
after movement is completed, 10 minutes for
on-call targets. LGM deliver 2 KT, 5 KT, 10
KT, and 20 KT warheads. See Note 3 for fur-
ther LGM guidance.
....WitiJe-larger missiles and warheads are
_ available, it is felt that the destruction of
EFFECTS OF A 1 KT WEAPON
9 10 11 12 13 14
Note: For effect of a 0.5 KT weapon, add
100m to actual range and use 1 KT Chart. For
effect of a 2 KT weapon, subtract 100m from
actual range and use 1 KT Chart. For effect of
a 5 KT weapon, add 200m to actual range and
use 10 KT Chart.
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
warheads greater than 10 KT is so great as to
make them unusable as tactical weapons, at
least in simualtions on the scale of FireFight.
It is recommended that when nuclear
weapons are included in a Scenario, that an
"earliest impact time" be given for them .
This is because most tactical simulations are
for a real time that is much less than the prep-
aration time for FFR and LOM. Also, the
location of DGZ must be recorded at least
five minutes (8 FireFight turns) before im-
pact, to simulate the computation and ap-
plication of firing data to the FFR or LGM.
Note 2 (See Nuclear Phase Procedure
2b). Most tactical Scenarios wiII be of a scale
such that the nuclear delivery systems are
"off map," not actually located on the bat-
tlefield map board. The minimum and maxi-
mum ranges for short and medium range
cannon and FFR are shown on Chart I.
Most delivery systems wiII be fired at a range
about midway between the maximum and
minimum. When off-board nuclear delivery
systems are included in a tactical Scenario,
the following ranges to the near edge of the
map board are recommended:
Short Range Cannon (Max range less than 10
. Km): 5 Km. (fires 0.5 to I KTwarheads)
Medium Range Cannon (Max range over 10
Km, less than 20 Km): 10 Km. (fires 1.5 to 2
KTwarheads)
FFR: lO Km LGM: 15 Km
7
Note that the actual range used for
Chart I wpl be the above range plus the dis-
tance from the edge of the map board (near-
est to the firing weapon off board) to DOZ.
Note 3 (See Nuclear Phase Procedure
2d). All artillery cannon and rocket or mis-
winds, small un preventable aiming errors,
and enemy counter-actions. These cause the
actual impact site to be different from the site
toward which the weapon was aimed, some-
times. This is why artillery dispersion rules
FireFight. It can be seen that the farther the
target is from the firing location the greater
the error usually is . This is true for cannon
and FFR. but not true for guided missiles.
LGM accuracy is classified, but it may be ap-
proximated by using the 8 Km line on the Ar-
tillery side of Chart I, for all ranges.
The marker for AOZ may be left on the
map to determine radiation effects on troops
that pass through the impact area, optional-
ly. These radiation effects are negligibly felt
by troops during a few-hour tactical Scenar-
io. But up to two weeks later, they may die
from radiation poisoning. If the Scenario
gives points for the number of units de-
stroyed, then units receiving a lethal dose of
radiation should be counted as des troyed,
even though they go on fighting during this
battle as if nothing has happened. A lethal
dose is received under the following
conditions:
Types E, P, and W: Divide the KT of the
weapon by 4. Any type E unit
passing within this distance of
AOZ has received a lethal dose.
Thus if a 2KT weapon were fired,
any type E unit passing within 500
meters of AGZ is dosed.
Type P and W: Same as type E.
Type T: Divide the KT by 20. Thus a 2 KT
weapon lethally doses type T units
if they pass within 100 meters of
AGZ.
Type D: No radiation effects unless person-
nel leave the bunkers. If personnel
leave the bunkers, they become
type E units for radiation.
An additional use of the AGZ marker
that may be optionally used is to compute
"tree blow-down" effects. Any wooded hex-
es and any town hexes within the distance
found by dividing the KT by 4, become im-
passable to vehicles. This includes town hex-
es with roads through them when the road is
blocked by fallen trees and other debris.
These hexes may be cleared by engineers in
the same way they remove other road blocks
and obstructions (if such rules are in your
game).
Note 4 (See Nuclear Phase Procedure 3).
Only two graphs of nuclear weapons effects
are given, one for 1 KT weapons and the
other for 10 KT weapons. These two charts
may be used for 0.5 KT, 2 KT, and 5 KT
weapons by adjusting the range from AGZ as
described on the chart. Purists will note that
the effecl curves on both of these charts are
straight lines, while nuclear effect attenua-
8
iion follows a logarithmic curve. Straight
lines were used because the data used to com-
pute the curves was only within 10010 of ac-
tual, just as the straight lines are within 10%
of a log curve. Straight lines were found
easier to see and use when the system was
tested.
The unit. types for calculating nuclear
blast effects are straight from the current
doctrine. This is why effect curves were avail-
able for them. It should be noted that per-
sonnel are not dispersed, pinned , or sup-
pressed by the effects of a nuclear blast. They
are either casualties or physically able to
fight. In reality, certain blast effects will
cause a "pinning" of a few personnel at the
"safe" ranges given on Chart II. Night
blindness (due to the atomic flash), ringing
ears, slight blast shock (shell shock), cuts and
bruises, may be experienced by some person-
nel. But it will be so few to the right of the
E-E line that it will not affect small unit per-
formance. To the left of the E-E line, some
may have these light effects, but so many will
have greater injuries that a fireteam will be
ineffective for at least the rest of the day. It
will be evacuating its wounded, fixing its
weapons, waiting for sight or hearing to re-
turn, and such things as to render the team
unfit for combat.
Note 5 (See Nuclear Weapons Effects).
Moderate damage to vehicles is defined as
damage that can be fixed by the crew, but
such damage as to make the vehicle com-
pletely unfit for combat. This is beyond the
definition of vehicle suppression used in
FireFight. Nuclear blast will clog radiators
and grills, clog exhausts, clog weapon bar-
rels, crack view port prisms, fill view ports
with earth, fill engines with debris without
harming them, burst tires, break treads,
remove ATGM rails, remove external
machineguns, and similar damage that the
crew can fix, but which prevents the vehicle
from performing its normal mission.
It may be more realistic to treat the last
ten minutes of nuclear moderate damage
delay as being normal vehicular suppression.
But the vehicle remains in the suppressed or
Kms state until it does not move for ten
minutes (15 FireFight Game-Turns). While
this may be realistic, it involved so much
bookkeeping when tested that it was not in-
cluded in the regular rules due to playing de-
lays it caused.
Commentary on the Nuclear Battlefield
When playing FireFight, one rather
quickly falls into a pattern of placing smoke
on Enemy positions and overrunning them
just before the smoke clears. Such close-in
massed combat creates large Enemy casual-
ties with the fewest Friendly casualties when
well executed. But then the Enemy masses his
forces in a fortified position and usually
prevents the attempted overrun. Both sides
then tend to mass or bunch-up their units to
gain maximum local fire-power.
But nuclear weapons change this ten
dency. As soon as an attacker bunches his
forces, they are nuked into dust. When a de-
fender builds a too-strong hardspot, it too
gets nuked into vapor.
The attacker then disperses his forces
across a wide front for the approach march
toward an Enemy hard spot, smoking the ob-
jective as usual, but not actually massing his
units until they arive on the Enemy hardspot.
And the normal bloodshed occurs, with the
attackers massed too close to the defender
for a defensive tactical nuke to do any good,
until too late.
Consolidation of the objective, which
classically meant the reorganization of the
trench lines so they face their former owners,
rather than their former enemy, now has a
new meaning. It means quickly dispersing
away from the just captured hardspot, to
avoid any follow-up nuke its former owners
may have called in just before their demise.
For the defender, the nuclear battlefield
also means dispersion. His hardspots must be
small enough not to tempt the enemy to nuke
them, but big enough to withstand an attack
like the one just described. The dilemma is
apparently unsolvable, because the Enemy
will nuke anything too big to easily overrun.
So the defender uses a liquid mobile defense,
few if any hardspots, and lots of electronic
sensors and patrols.
When the direction and apparent intent
of Enemy movement is detected, several
defending platoons and companies are set in
motion from their widely and deeply dis-
persed positions. Their movements are timed
so their arrival at the ambush position coin-
cides with the arrival of the Enemy at the se-
lected site. This again makes too intimate a
contact for either side to use nukes. If the at-
tacking force is too big for the counterattack-
ing or ambushing force, the counterattack
withdraws leaving blockades to hold the
Enemy position until a nuke can impact on
them. The counterattacking force then de-
stroys any survivors and again disperses.
The Warsaw Pact echeloned attack for-
mation may make this mop-up and disperse
tactic difficult. The second echelon becomes
an ambushing force for the opposing am-
bushing force . This could result in a series of
entrapments and counter-entrapments, with
the wiliest commander being among the few
survivors. World War Two battlefields had
nothing even remotely resembling this. The
closest example might be the desert warfare
in North Africa, where battles consisted of
several days of maneuver to entrap the oppo-
nent for a few hours of actual combat. But
even then, the battlefields were described in
tens of kilometers and forces in brigades and
battalions, where the nuclear battlefield will
be described in hundreds of kilometers, and
forces in platoons and companies. And there
will be no front lines, only local perimeters of
platoons and companies, all mixed together
like lettuce and vegetables in tossed salad.
They will be constantly tossed, trying to trap
without being trapped, observe and nuke
without being observed and nuked, and find
somebody's resupply trains to use to keep
going.
The depth and width of the FireFight
battlefield should be doubled to allow proper
dispersion for any given Scenario with nucle-
ar weapons inclUded. The number of nuclear
weapons included should also be limited, just
as the supplies of warheads is limited in reali-
ty. A 0.5 KT or 1 KT weapon with one war-
head per company, and a 2 KT or 5 KJ' weap-
on with one warhead per battalion is about
righ t for addition of nuclear weapons to Fire-
Figh t Scenarios.
While some may insist that lighting the
comer of the battlefield map with a match is
the best nuclear simulation, you wiII find the
dispersion of reality a challenge worth
simulating.
You Too Can Be an
Air War Ace {conti71,<edJrompageJj
Again, like heat-seeking missiles, radar-
homing missiles have aerodynamic launch
envelopes, so the ability to launch any type of
missile is limited by preceding maneuvers or
the attitude of the launching aircraft. Radar-
homing missiles are perhaps the most dif-
ficult weapons to use as they have a great deal
of pre-launch req uiremen ts to accomplish (or
avoid) before they may be fired.
When selecting weapons loads for par-
ticular scenarios, it is strongly advised to be
quite discriminating. Cannon weapons are in
order (unless the addition of a pod would
cause the carrying aircraft to be in a loaded
configuration). The selection of missiles is
also to be based on the previous idea, that of
loaded configuration. The player must also
take into account the combat environment
and the expected target aircraft, altitude con-
siderations, the ECM environment, the time
of day the combat is supposedly about to en-
compass, and the effectiveness of the carry-
ing aircraft in firing that weapon, e.g., the
ability to search and lock on with its on-
board radar.
concepts of aerial combat have been treated
in a game-objective manner. There remains
an extensive quanitity of optional rules inAir
War, such as visual and radar search, air-to-
ground and ground-to-air combat, and pilot
capability, which make the game truly the
gem that it is. These optional rules are of
such magnitude and complexity that they are
best treated in a separate premise, rather
than in this introduction to Air War.
Without a doubt, Air War is a complex
game. But is by far the best and most ac-
curate, yet most playable, game of aerial
combat available today. It is certainly worth
adding to any collection of great wargames.

DESIGN CRITIQUE
COULD THE ONE TRUE RING'
BEBRASS?
The Impact of Perfect Intelligence on War of the Ring
bv Neil Randall
Here an interesting central point is raised: how
does one simulate a work of fiction accurately and
completely and yet still allow for surprise and alter-
native outcomes? Is it possible to "keep the faith"
with what is possible in the bo ok and yet still have
a playable and in teresting game? Another ques-
tion occurs to me : to some extent, characte rs
become what they are through what happens to
them in the plot of a novel - how then can this
dynamic be simulated with the static cha racters
found in wargames? The Puppet Master (the
Player) cannot be the sole source of personality
dynamics in such a case - so, interactive,
mutable characters seem to be required. - RAS
It is fashionable these days to criticize
the popular. Anything that becomes popular
also becomes the property of the public that
made it so, and that public is, for the thing
itself, both its raison d 'etre and its most
dreaded foe. For the public first gives
popularity and then takes it away with a
fickleness that would make Cleopatra wince
with envy. Yet, there is nothing wrong with
criticizing something that is popular: there is
no wor k of any kind that is above criticism . It
is wrong, however, when something popular
is criticized merely because it is popular; and
this, it seems, is more often than not the case.
It is, therefore, with extreme caution
that I criticize the very popular War of the
Ring (please note that I am using the term
'criticism' in the sense of 'finding fault with';
Le., the negative side of appreciation.) It is
very easy to lose credibility when dealing with
a currently popular work, for the reasons
shown above. The critics of the critic become
far more numerous than the critics of the
work itself. This critique attempts to show a
few major weaknesses in the game, while at
the same time pointing out its major
strengths_ Still, as in all works, the strengths
are both expecLed and taken for granted,
while the weaknesses define to what extent
the work is to b~ valued.
War of the Ring sets out to accomplish a
major task: to bring to life, in game terms,
probably the most widely-read novel of the
current generation . As one of the designers,
Rich Berg, writes in the Designer 's Notes,
"Lord of the Rings is distinguished by the
fact that it is not only widely read but almost
committed LO memory by many Tolkien
devotees . Obviously many trained eyes
would be scrutinizing the game for flaws and
so the research was of paramount impor-
tance." Clearly, as shown by the above state-
ment and those that he gives in the Fire and
Movement interview, Berg realized the pro-
blem with what he was attempting to do_ The
nit-pickers, he knew, would be out in full
force, claiming that Frodo should be given
such-and-such an ability and that Gandalf
should have a slightly Jesser sorcery level than
Saruman, etc. Therefore, as the advertising
copy on the game itself states, "Every major
event of the novel - and many minor ones
- are re-created in a fast moving, exciting
game_ .. " The wealth of detail and the
amount of research that so obviously went
into the creation of the game is truly stagger-
ing. The graphics are beautiful, the play is
fast, and the outcome is always in doubt. It is
easy to learn and quick to play, and the
whole thing just seems to ooze with Tolkien-
isms .
But the game has a flaw of such scope
that it undercuts the very basis of it. That
flaw is, simply, the Search System. At first, it
seems a minor flaw, forgiveable in that it
fairly accurately recreates the problems of
finding characters while at the same time
dispensing with the unplayability which
would result from a true hidden-movement
system. But after a few playings it becomes
evident that the whole system nullifies all the
brilliance of the rest of the game's systems
and components. The very core of the novel
has been bypassed, and what we are left with
is a game with beautiful and necessary
chrome, a solid steel body, but absolutely no
engine.
The problem is this: The Search System
(apparently adopted so that the original hid-
den movement system - as discussed in early
Progress Reports - could be abandoned)
fails to work both tactically (as will be
discussed later) and, most importantly,
strategically. If the purpose of a simulation
game is to allow the players to adopt alter-
nate strategies (to the original) within the
limits of the decision-making abilities and
options of the original combatan t.s, then War
of the Ring fails in its purpose. We are given
the ability to move the characters wherever
we will, with an endless choice of strategic
options , but we are only partially, and not
fundamentally, given the high-level pro-
blems that faced the two protagonists.
And it is the lack of hidden movement
of Fellowship characters. along with the pro-
blems of the Search System, that creates
these basic unrealities . Basically, there are
nine Fellowship counters on the map to begin
the game. These are placed face-down in
Rivendell, from where they proceed to head
towards Mordor. Only by spotting these
characters can the Sauron player find out
which character is where. Even if he spots a
9
hobbit, the Fellowship player merely states
that a hob bit has been spotted; he does not
reveal the hobbit's name. Thus, the Sauron
player is kept constantly in the dark as to
where the Ring-bearer really is. So far, it is a
good and extremely playable system . But
here the problems begin.
The Sauron player has two methods of
searching (in order to spot the Fellowship
characters). During the Search Phase, he
draws a Search Card (from the pile) and
checks to see if there are any Fellowship
characters in any of the th ree named pro-
vinces. Ifthere are not, nothing happens. If
there are, he may, by expending the required
number of Shadow Points, move his search-
ing force (either Orcs or Nazgul) to the pro-
vince and conduct a search. (For the pur-
poses of this article, the mechanics of spot-
ting are unimportant; they are realistic within
the context of the game's Search Procedure,
and are thus not an issue here.) This first
method is basically sound; the second
method, however, is not. During the Fellow-
ship Player Movement Phase, whenever a
Fellowship character enters a hex that con-
tains pieces friendly to Sauron, the Sauron
player may search that hex. If successful, the
character is spotted as above. If not, the
character keeps on moving.
This system leads to some extremely un-
realistic situations. As stated in the Players'
Notes, "one of the best tactics is to try to
pJace Nazgul or other Dark Power characters
directly in the path of Fellowship characters,
so that the exact dispositions of the latter
may be discovered ." A favorite tactic, then,
is for the Sauron player to stack a group of
NazguJ on the exit hex of a mountain pass
and wait for the members of the Fellowship
to come out; since there is only one exit hex,
and since the Sauron player knows (by his
ability to see the counters on the map) that
there are pieces moving through the pass, he
is sure of getting a chance to spot somebody.
The Fellowship player tries to get through the
Nazgul-infested hex one or two at a Lime (to
lessen the chances of being spotted) and the
Sauron player rolls each time to try to spot.
With enough Nazgul in the hex, he has either
a one-third or onechalf chance of spotting
somebody, and he will do so given enough
die-rolls. If, therefore, the Fellowship player
attempts to get through Moria (as was 'his-
torically' tried), he has two problems, one
historical and one not so: he has to face the
Servant of Sauron in the Mines of Moria
(and he prays that it is not the Balrog), and
this is historical; but then he walks out of
Moria and must immediately attempt to run
10
the gauntlet past a group of Nazgul who are
outside waiting for them. This latter event is
totally ahistorical. Now, please do not mis-
interpret: I am not one who wishes a game to
recreate its historical events (unless, of
course, the players so wish). But this is part
of the decision-making problem and is
elaborated below.
This problem becomes acute at the end
of the game. Because of the various move-
ment point costs, a character cannot move
both into Mordor and onto Mount Doom in
the same turn (and this is correct in itself).
Thus, the Sauron player always has at least
one, and probably more than one, turn to
react to a crossing by a Fellowship character
into Mordor. In that turn (or, more likely,
those two' turns) he can forget about every-
thing else and ship his Nazgul (assuming he
has protected as many of them as possible)
back to Mordor, placing them on Mount
Doom to await the Ring-bearer. As soon as
the Fellowship character(s) enter the Mount
Doom hex, the Sauron player conducts a
search (as per the second method) . If he rolls
well, he will probably destroy the Ring-
bearer; if he does not roll well, he loses the
game.
Of course, the Fellowship player can
lessen the chances of his characters being
found and/ or destroyed on Mount Doom in
two ways. First, he can send his characters in
diversionary marches around the borders of
Mordor so that the Sauron player does not
know which one bears the Ring. Second, he
can send as many characters as he can muster
to Mount Doom with the Ring-bearer in an
attempt to win the final character battle and
have the Ring-bearer survive the attrition. In
the latter way, the Ring will be destroyed on
the next turn, and the Fellowship player will
win. The problem is this: both alternatives
would have been thoroughly unthi'nkable in
the book itself. The Fellowship leaders (Gan-
dalf and Aragorn) knew that secrecy and sur-
prise were essential if the Ring was to be
destroyed.. The diversions were necessary,
but not, above all, in the area of Mordor
itself; Sauron had to be kept unaware that
Mordor was the true objective. Too, even
had the Fellowship not been sundered by
, Boromir's rashness, it is likely that Aragorn
would have advised it anyway; it was simply
too risky f or all eight (GandaJf was dead at
the time) to travel together.
The problem is, then, that both players
are faced with strategies that are extremely
viable in the game but which were impossible
in the book. The necessity for surprise is
demonstrated by the following brief quote. It
is from The Fello wship oj the Ring, Book II,
Chapter 2, "The Council of Elrond," and is
spoken by Gandalf in reply to a question of
the wisdom of carrying the Ring to Mordor:
Well, let jolly be our cloak, a veil before
the eyes of the Enemy! For he is very wise,
and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales
of his malice. But the only measure that he
knows is desire, desire for power, and so he
judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought
will not enter than any will refuse it, that hav-
ing the Ring we may seek to destroy it. Ij we
seek this, we shall put him out of his reckon-
ing.
Later, in The Two Towers, Book IV,
Chapter 5, "The White Rider," Gandalf
(now the White) reiterates that Sauron is still
unsure of the purpose of the Fellowship, and
thus that surprise is still in their favor. I
return to this a little later.
Admittedly, there is no way to simulate
the fact that Sauron did not d ream that the
goal of the Fellowship was the destruction of
the Ring. Every historical simulation has as
its one basic unreality, the problem. of hind-
sight, and War of the Ring is no different.
Part of the problem was solved by the
designers in the inclusion of two types of vic-
tory for either player: a Ring victory or a
Military victory. This, too, is a valiant at-
tempt at simulating uncertainty as to the vic-
tory conditions, but it fails in that the powers
of the West sought only for a Ring victory;
the Council of Elrond demonstrates that
point. A military victory, which they saw as
hopeless, was also futile; without the
destruction of the Ring, Sauron could only
be delayed , and then not for long. But I do
not criticize the game's victory conditions.
The Sauron player has already read the
history and knows exactly what the
Fellowship player intends to do. The victory
conditions as they stand are as accurate as
they could possibly be.
But a valid compromise was possible in
the design between the uncertainty in the
book and the hindsight in the game. Had a
system of hidden movement for the Fellow-
ship characters been adopted, all of the ma-
jor problems in the game would never have
existed. There are only nine characters in the
Fellowship; thus there would be, at the very
most, nine plots. And a clean hidden move-
ment system would have allowed the Fellow-
ship player to plot by merely naming the final
hex into which each character would move
each turn; the actual path would be un-
important, because the sea rch system would
also be revised. Also, as some of the char-
acters would probably travel together, stacks
could be plotted together, resulting in even
less bookwork. Yes, the game would be
slightly more complex, and complexity is
something that SPI was understandably try-
ing to avoid; after all, the appeal of a Tolkien
game is wider than the normal wargaming
audience, and SPI realized that the oppor-
tunity existed to draw many more people into
the hobby. The effort is to be applauded, and
the game had to be fast and l;>asically simple
(but not simplistic) to achieve this purpose.
In avoiding a hidden movement system, the
designer ensured that the game would be easy
to learn for non-wargamers. But those non-
wargamers are also Tolkien devotees, and in
ignoring hidden movement the designer also
ignored the most vital part of the simulation;
the Tolkien fans are not going to miss that
fact. And, as a result, they may be turned off
completely.
Why do I keep harping on a hidden
movement system, you ,ask? Simple: the
Sauron player knows too much. He knows
what the Fellowship player has to do to win,
and he knows where the Fellowship char-
acters are at all times. He also knows how
many there are, but this is accurate: in the
Two Towers passage mentioned previously,
Gandalf says, "He knows now the number
of our Company that set out from Rivendell,
and the kind of each of us." He even, says
Gandalf, "has long known that the Ring is
abroad, and that it is borne by a hobbit."
But throughout the book he had only vague
ideas where the characters were. Indeed, it is
precisely because he did not know that Frodo
and Sam had slipped into Mordor that the
Ring was destroyed in the end. Instead of
having his Nazgu! awaiting the expedition on
Mount Doom, as the game designers would
have us believe, Sauron had them fighting
abroad while the Ring was right under his
nose. The proof is in The Return of the King,
Book VI, Chapter 3, "Mount Doom."
Frodo and Sam are at the Cracks of Doom,
and Frodo, overcome at. last by the evil of the
Ring, has put it on his finger and claimed it
for his own.
The Dark Lord was suddenly aware oj
him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked
across the plain to the door that he had
made;, and the magnitude oj his own jolly
was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and
all the devices of his enemies were at last laid
bare . . .
From all his policies and webs of fear
and treachery, from all his strategems and
wars his mind shookfree; and throughout his
realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and
his armies halted ... The whole mind and
purpose of the Power that wielded them was
now bent with overwhelming jorce upon the
Mountain.
An historical game must be able to re-
create the history which it simulates. The
Fellowship player can win in War oj the
Ring, but he will never win by totally sur-
prising the Sauron player. Instead, the
Sauron player will be waiting for him, and it
will never be possible to have "his folly
revealed to him in a blinding flash." Know-
ing the victory conditions gives the game the
[conrinued on page22j

SYSTEMS & TECHNIQUES
SECRET SEARCH
The Thomas Randomized Information-Proof Equation
by V. J. Thomas
This is (a s far as I canJemembe rl my first author
writing f rom New Zealand - a country I've never
visited but which has always held attractions for
me ever since I did a geography paper on it in
grade school. It really seems a lovely land -
perhaps the last unspoiled civilized place on th is
planet. As to the search system - this seems to be
getting close, although perhaps you ca n thillk of
ways in which it can be made yel simpler. Those
out there with the same inventive sort of mind as
Mr. Thomas, give it a bash (the system, that is; not
your minds), -RA S
In MO YES 37, in a footnote to the letter
from Friedrich Helfferich, Redmond Simon-
sen presented a challenge to devise a secret
search system which gave information only if
both players have uni ts in the same hex. Here
I present the Thomas Randomized Informa-
tion-Proof Equation, or TRIPE for short.
Like David Clark's original suggestion,
mine involves coding the hex numbers and
comparing the two resulti ng lists . As noted in
Friedrich Helfferich's letter, if the code is
known to both players, decoding the other
player's list becomes a simple matter. Thus,
to be effective, the code must be unknown to
the players. At first sight this appears to be
an impossible requirement. One would sup-
pose that the code must be know to someone,
and if we bring in a third party, they might as
well get around the whole problem by having
the third person compare the u ncoded lists.
For those who want to see the final sys-
tem, without following the intermediate rea-
soning, go straight to the summary at the end
of this article, and skip the bit in between.
The way to make the code unknown to
the players is to do what (so r believe) some
businesses do with a combination safe -
each of two people knows half the combina-
tion. Neither can unlock the safe on his own,
but both together can. In our case, each
player has his (with appropriate apologies,
his includes her) own coding system. Player
A codes his hexes using his code and gives the
result to player B who then codes it again
with his own code. Simultaneously, B codes
his hexes and gives the result to A who then
codes the list again_ Suppose we represent
A's code by "a," and B's code by "b_" If
"x" is one of A's hexes and "y" one of B's,
the process is shown symbolically by
x is coded by A to a(x), which is coded by
B to give b[a(x)]
y is coded by B to bey), which is coded by
A to give a[b(y)]
11
The two final code lists are then com- original hex 1529. We could now look up the
pared (that is, a[b(y)] and b [a(x)]), matches code for 3105, producing a third order code
indicating units in the same hex. These for 1529, and so forth. If the original code is
matches are then decoded to give the actual properly selected, the successive order codes
hex number. for a particular hex will work through all
The codes used cannot be arbitrary. The possible hexes before repeating.
conditions the coding systems must satisfy To illustrate this idea, I will show how
are: the first order and higher codes can be de-
I . The order of coding must not matter. vised in a simple case. Assume that we have
That is, if both players have units in hex x, only ten hexes. Write down the numbers 1 to
the number that comes out of the double lOin some arbitrary order (this is called a
coding must be independent of the order permutation of the numbers 1 to 10), for
of coding. Symbolically, we must have example:
a [b(x). = b[a(x)]. In mathematical terms, 5 4 10 7 8 I 6 3 2 9
the coding transformations must be Now write down a column of numbers 1 to
cumulative. 10, in order . Complete the first row by start-
2. The codes must be easily changed from ing at 1 in the above list and copying the
move to move, otherwise, once a player numbers in the same order, gOing back to the
has identified a particular hex in the final beginning of the row when the end is
code (by both sides having units there) he reached. This gives
1 6 3 2 9 5 4 10 7 8
can reverse his coding for that hex and so
discover his opponent's coding. He would
for the first row. Complete the table by fill-
then always be able to identify that hex in ing in the remaining rows in the same way.
his opponent's coded list on future
Label the columns 0 to 9. The final table is:
moves, whether he himself has uni ts there 0123456789
or not.
3. Each person's code should give different 1 6 3 2 9 5 4 10 7 8
results for different hexes. Thus a(x) = :1 9 5 4 10 7 8 1 6 3
aCyl only if x:oy, and b(x)=b(y) only if 3 2 9 5 4 10 7 8 1 6
x=y. David Clark's method fell down in 4 10 7 8 6 3 2 9 5
t his respect. 5 4 10 7 8 1 6 3 2 9
4. If a player identifies his opponent's code 6 3 2 9 5 4 10 7 8 1
for a particular hex on a particular turn, 7 8 1 6 3 2 9 5 4 10
he should not thereby be able to deduce 8 6 3 2 9 5 4 10 7
the other hexes for that turn. Thus, know- 9 5 4 10 7 8 1 6 3 2
ing x, a(x), and aCYl, B should not be able 10 7 8 6 3 2 9 5 4
to deduce y, with a similar restriction for
A. Now column one is the first order code,
column 2 the second order code, and so on.
5 . Both players should be provided with Suppose now that player A selects one col-
dummy codes which can never produce a
umn, without player B knowing which one,
match. This is to prevent even such mini- and uses that as his code. Player B does tlJe
mal information as knowing the number
same. The resultant code, after two codings,
of hexes occupied by the opponent. is some other column of the table, and it does
David Clark's code relied on a numeric
not matter in which order the codes are ap-
calculation, in which condtion 2 was not nec- plied . Say A has selected column 3 and B col-
essarily met. I prefer a simple substitution
umn 4. The final code is column 7, whichever
code in which all the hexes are listed, and order the coding takes place. Thus the first
then listed alongside in some other order.
condition is met (independence of order o f
This leads to a rather long code list for nor- coding), as well as the third (unique codes).
mal maps; but never fear, a simplification is
Expressed mathematically, letting the
given later which reduces the list to manage- basic or first order code be c, and supposing
able proportions.
A chooses column m and B column n,
Suppose now, that we call this list our
a(x) = c(x) m times
basic code. We can apply this basic code over
and over again. For example, the code for b(x) = c(x) n limes
hex 1529 might be 0248. We then look u p the b[a(x)] = c(x) m + n times
code for 0248 and discover it to be 3105, say. = c(x) n + m times
This is a kind of second order code for the = a[b(x)]
[ccmlinued on page 22/
12
DESIGN CRITIQUE
OTHER FACES, OTHER TIMES
An Appeal for Esoteric Games
by John Lindstrom-Furutani
In a way, this is a counterpa rt to an Opening
Moves column I penned a number of issues ago
concerning innovation in game system design .
Here a ca ll is made for game subjects lhal are f resh
and Innovallve . I personally applaud this , but
return the respons ibility 10 the audience - we can
on ly produce off-beat titles if you're willing to buy
them in su fficient n umbers to make them econom
ically feasible . So cut loose your thinking and en -
co urage us by writing and voting fo r Fee dback
suggestions that free us from our cultura l biases.
-RAS
Tn reading the various magazines
devoted to the hobby, browsing though sales
catalogs or stores for titles, I have noticed
that the preponderance of wargames tend to
concentrate on Europe (east and west), and
the Mediterranean, with a sizeable block of
Middle East games. Aside from the few con-
flicts where U.S. involvement is extensive
(such as World War II, Korea and Vietnam)
or where national interest may turn (such as a
Sino-Soviet conflict, or the Rhode-
sian/ South African conflicts), the Third and
Fourth world countries and conflicts are ig-
nored. This is not accidental or the dictates
of free market whims, but rather is the
logical extension of the cultural focus impos-
ed by England in particular and Western
Civilization in general.
Now before you go on to the next article
on utilization of step reduction for marginal
victory, let me say this is not a polemic: nor is
it to be considered a dissertation suitable for
establishment of credentials in your local
ivory tower. What this is intended to be is an
observation of the lack of creativity in game
subject matter, with a focus on one aspect as
I see it, and subsequent comment on the
gaming market in generaL So please, bear
with me.
First, why the emphasis on European
based games? I submit that the primary
reason is that the vast majority of the gaming
public are of Eu ropean descent and / or live in
countries under the influence of European
cultures (Australia, for instance) . The in-
dustry itself seems to be Anglo-American: ef-
forts seem aborning in other countries via lhe
amateur route, but these slill emerge from
European areas. All of us over-educated
fanatics have been inundated with history,
science, art, philosophy, religion and the
contlicts associated with, and firmly rooted
in, Western Civilization.
Naturally games start with Alexander
the Great and Julius Caesar; work their way
up through the Vikings , Saracens, Moors
and the Crusaders; skip past the Renaissance
into the Reformation; prod Marlborough's
campaigns; linger briet1y over the Age of
Revolution before gOing beserk with
Napoleon apd his legacy; explore thoroughly
the American Civil War and the military ef-
fects of industrialization; ghoulishly recreate
the carnage of the Firsl World War; overdose
on the Second and continually refine the
stepping stones towards, and mechanics of
the Third. Most of us have been shaped
physically and mentally by Western Civilizac
tion's efforts and excesses, its benevolence of
science in peace and efficiency in war; events
that shape our current world are of interest to
us and we enjoy learning about and from
them (why else would we spend so much time
to recreate or change history?).
However, a lot of this interest has been
shaped for us, an off-shoot of the school of
thought that the Earth is flat, is the center of
the Universe and England/Italy/Russia/
France/Spain/Germany/ United States etc.,
is the highest expression of its attributes. The
books written, read, quoted, plagarized,
consulted or otherwise relied upon for infor-
mation have all originated with people whose
livelihood or interests are concerned with the
effects of Western Civilization with them ,
and they naturally pass these concerns on to
us, the masses . (This is not to say the process
is wrong - no society could exisl without it.
But it would be foolish for anyone to believe
that they have a "mind of my own". and the
gaming public is no exception) .
This kind ofthinking tends to ignore the
impact other nations and civilizations have
had: China, for instance has had an over-
whelming impact and millions of people and
numerous cultures. The cultural blinders
lead to assumptions and preconceived no-
tions that have enabled Mao Tse Tung and
Nyugen Vo Giap to conquer nations and
defeat world powers. They ignore areas of
potential conflict that are of equal impor-
tance (such as Singapore or the Horn of
Africa). And this type of thinking tends to
produce wargames that reinforce its bias, to
the exclusion of subjects with equal palential
for impact and appeal.
SPI, for instance, offers 150 titles, of
which sixteen have direct applications to
Asian history, with another three or four
related to Third World countries. And none
of these are strictly native, regional conflicts.
Avalon Hill tends to ignore Asia altogether,
while Game Designers Workshop, Conflict
Simulations, and Battleline offer the stan-
dard WWII/Korea/Vietnam triumverate.
Only London Wargaming offers anything
resembling a "different" game. For exam-
ple; Samaurai, with miniature rules for
feu dal combat and some board application,
was created due mostly to the popularity of
the martial arts.
Second, why the emphasis on World
War II and modern era games? Science fic-
tion games are easy to understand: the genre
is popular in literature, and to a generation
reared on the movies and television, Stellar
Conquest is a natural. But why the populari-
ty of Russian Campaign or Wachtam Rhein?
Again, the Western bias has a lot to do
with it. Adolf Hitler's impact on Europe and
the world has been staggering, completely
real igning power, boundaries and philo-
sophies in the four decades since 1939. Add
to this the German military record, the Wer-
macht conquering most of Europe and near-
ly succeeding in Russia, and there is an ideal
situation or continuous study and play for
the garneT.
The European Front is thus very appeal-
ing: researched and documented thoroughly
over the years, it has a number of crucial bat-
tles and campaigns where historical out-
comes, sheet size of armies or officer reputa-
tions lend themselves to the player attitude
"What would I have done in the same situa-
tion?" I am assuming that the gaming public
is interested in the history inherent in their
games (questions of playability aside) and
that they respond to games that allow dupli-
cation and/or alteration of a known out-
come they can measure performance against.
The terrain is familiar, there is a clear cut
timetable and victory conditions that have

already been dissected and explained clearly
in the history books. What gamer worth
his/her salt wouldn't like to knock on the
gates of Moscow ahead of winter, or better
Patton's rush to the German border?
The Pacific Front is another matter; it's
not as clearly defined, the countries, borders
and strategic areas are not as familiar. Jungle
fighting precludes massive tank battles, and
the tactical options tend to be less interesting
(who likes cutting down banzai charges or
cleaning out tunnels?) The crucial battles are
fought mostly by air and naval units, the
game systems not as satisfying as -those on
land. Fighting in Asia is like fighting on
another world: people and terrain are too
alien to Our thinking.
The industry isn't blind to these con-
cerns. World War II games on Europe are
numerous, revolve around land battles and
pit those ever familiar Panzer units against
somebody. Pacific Front games tend to be
fleet against fleet, and island invasions, the
grand front games oriented towards pro-
gressing steadily along the island chains with
some attention paid to the continent. These
games are less evident on the shelves, and I
would wager they account for fewer sales and
dollar volume in consequence. The campaign
doesn't seem to be all that exciting, since
Japan is way over-extended and doesn't even
rate the mainstream effort (the "Germany
First" policy).
World War II and modern era games
also offer an element of speed (what we
usually refer to as playability). Things
develop quickly, subject only to the limita-
tions of game system and victory conditions:
move your units up, maneuver for position,
let loose and see what happens. Other eras
don't seem to offer the immediacy and im-
pact produced by the internal combus-
tion-the ability to rip through countries,
control continents and dominate worlds.
Modern technology expanded battlelines to
borders, and participants to whole civilian
populations, and this expansion of scope
necessitates speed in accomplishing goals. To
people raised on the television, telephone
and labor saving devices, where time is
money and saving it is the essence of modern
living, games that move would ha ve more ap-
peal, and popularity and sales figures seem to
bear this out. Vehicles, whether wheeled,
tracked, aerial or spatial, are either the main
focus or at least an essential element of any
game. Those relying on equestrian and foot
movement are interesting, but sell because of
their historical value, not because of their
scope: I have not been able to find a game,
for instance, that recreates all of Napoleon's
campaigns, primarily because it is the con-
duct of individual battles that appeal, and
the broader picture is not as well defined or
of as much interest.
As an ideal sample of the blend of these
notions, we can turn to the popularity of
Middle East games. Air and armor
predominate and the necessity of Israeli
movement in the face of a numerically
superior foe produces a quick paced, hard
hitting game. Doctrine for both sides is
13
Western based (English, American and dollar so that returns are marginal at best,
homegrown for the Israelis: Soviet for the and causes acrimony and debate over which
Arabs) and adaptability is essential as tank game is tlie most playable or has the best
and airplane design, anti-tank weaponry and treatment of the subject. I am taking the
electronic warfare improve continually. The elitist viewpoint that those of us with the pa-
gamer is able to keep up with changes in tience to sit down and actually play these
hardware and doctrine, play scenarios based games are also learning something from
on complete documentation of manpower them, and r think I've learned enough about
and events, and thoroughly study a situation the German Army to last a lifetime. Vietnam
that has the potential of the Balkans prior to has shown us the dangers of not being aware
World War 1. Each successive conflict adds of the world as a whole, of learning doctrine
another game to the market, and State of the and hardware to fight the last war and not
Art continues to incorporate Middle Eastern the one at hand. To avoid this syndrome re-
situations into every new design . quires an expansion in our studies,
Obviously, the gaming public has in- I am ready to vote with my time and my
dicated its choice of product and the industry dollars, and place my head on the chopping
has responded accordingly. The subj ect con- block if only to stimulate the hue and cry.
tinues to be the same, with a switch in title Perhaps this time next year I'll be able to sit
and an increase in realism and graphics . down and role play the 47 Ronin or Chiang
There is so much more to examine and play Kai-shek in Shanghai. If not, I'll have to bear
with, however, that a new market may open with the next game on the Russian Front out-
if the industry commits itself to altering the side Moscow or in the Fulda Gap, and
trends of the past. wonder what the hell is going on in
For instance, while games are emerging Malacanang.
on the Crusades, siege warfare in the Middle
Ages, and the Reformation, the feudal
periods of other cultures are ignored . There
are subjects that could be as captivating for SPI WINS 13-13!
the public, such as the Mongol invasions of
China and Europe: this offers opportunities
SOFTBALL BOX SCORE
for colorful maps, fast paced movement (the Avalon Hill/Simulations Publications
Mongols were notoriously efficient horse- at Origins '78
men, the Panzer divisions of their day). The Avalon Hill ab r h bi
Onin Wars in Japan feature two warring Reed-Ie 5 2 3 0
clans battling each other and stubborn Burke-2b 5 5 5 0
daimyos for control of rice fields and access Shaw-If 5 3 4 2
to the Emperor. India is as diverse an area as Coates-rc 4 0 1 4
Germany ever was, independently ruled McCauley-lb 4 0 1 0
regions that war intermittently with each Greenwood-c 5 0 3 I
other - why not role-playa rajah as well as Uhl3B 4 1 1 0
an Italian Doge? J. Dott-ss 4 2 1 0
In the modern era, China during World Milligan-rf 3 0 1 1
War II was an interesting three way struggle, Davis-p 4 0 1 0
the Japanese versus the Communists versus Skinner-dh 4 0 2 1
the Nationalists. What kind of a game could Total. 47 13 23 9
be designed where the headaches of supply,
leadership and victory conditions are com- Sim'l'ns Pub'c'ns ab r h bi
plicated by never knowing which enemy will lrgang-c-p-c 5 340
strike next, or whether your nominal ally Balkoski-ss 5 2 I 2
may turn against you? Or a game that might Perez-3b 4 0 3 4
present the problems of conquering and Nosworthy-pr o 0 0 0
holding Southeast Asia from Japan's view in Herman-cf 4 0 1 I
1941 or China in 1980? Iran is rapidly emerg- Goldberger-1b 5 020
ing as a potential military force in the Middle Werden-2b 5 0 2 0
East - why not produce a game in which Berg-p-dh 5 000
Iran is battling for supreme power against Milkuhn-lf 422 0
Arabs and Israelis (an attempt was made at Ryer-rf 4 3 3 2
this in Oil War, but I feel it was less than Walczyk-sf 3* 1 I 0
complete and somewhat half-hearted) . Barasch-dh-p-c-p 4 2 3 1
The point is that there are any number Total 48 13 22 10
of subjects in Latin America, Asia, or Africa r h e
that have not been tapped; and with the in- AH 20312220113236
novations constantly emerging from the in- SPI 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 0 5 13 22 8
dustry, games could be produced that would Walczyk reached tirst On catcher's interference.
be as informative and as much fun as the cur-
rent sellers. The complaint I've heard most E-Reed, Walczyk (2), J. Dott, Milkuhn (2),
often is of the overdose of titles on the Werden (2), Coales, Greenwood, Balkoski (2),
Burke (2). DP-AH 1, SPI I. LOB-AH 10,
market, and the duplication of many sub- SPI 10. 2B-Irgang, Shaw, Coates, Perez,
jects. [n many respects, this competition in Burke. HR-Ryer. SF-Perez, Coates . Win-
the industry is self-defeating: while offering ning Pitcher-Barasch. Losing Pitcher-
freedom of choice, it also tends to duplicate Davis.
efforts in the creative end, split the consumer
14
GAME PROFIL EI CRITIQUE
OBJECTIVE: MOSCOW
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
by Scott Renner
Scott has mixed emotions about this somewhat
mixed game. You'll please note that this article is
" unretouched," evell though it ta kes a number of
shots at graphic design of the map Isome of whi ch
are based 011 a faulty understanding of how maps
are developed, but ot hers of which are perfectly
val idJ. T his piece rai ses the issue of th e game as
delivered being somewhat differellt from the gam e
as envisioned in the proposal - an unavoidable
probl em, particularly as one drifts towards th e
whackier edge of game design . Space M a ri nes?
- RAS
Many of you will remember Invasion:
America, SPI's simulation of a hypothetical
invasion of the United States in the year
2000. Since then, I've been waiting for SPI to
work on another such game, covering the
future invasion of Russia. Recently, SPI did
just that: they published Objective: Moscow,
a game which neatly turns the tables on the
Russians.
Objective: Moscow follows the standard
format for a $20 SPI game - four maps,
three countersheets, and two counter sorting
boxes, plus the rules booklet and an assort-
ment of playing aids and charts. The
counters are very well done, with a good type
face, many colors, and a minimum of die cut-
ting errors. The numerous colors are
necessary to represent the many countries in-
volved in one scenario or another. We have
the three major powers (Russia, China, and
the United States), plus the second-string
countries (West Germany, France, England,
Japan, and the Warsaw Pact countries), and
a large number of third world nations, like
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North and South
Korea, Vietnam, et.al. . For comic relief, the
two-division (and practically worthless)
Mongolian army is included.
The game map, too, looks nice - from
about twenty feet away. A closer examina-
tion gives the impression of a horribly clut-
tered board, and an even more detailed
scrutiny reveals several serious mapping er-
rors. The map was made using a polar pro-
jection, which reduces distortion in a map of
this scale. It took me some time to become
acquainted with this map, as I am used to
Mercator projections of Europe and Russia;
even now, the map doesn't seem quite
"right" . Most of the terrain types look nice,
but the det.ailed symbols - like major and
minor airfields, refinery hexes, aircraft fac-
tories, etc . - tend to get lost in the rest of the
terrain unless you happen to be looking very
closely. The national borders, weather zone
borders, and communication zone borders
blend into the hexgrid. These problems are
intensified when the mapboard is covered
with units; each of these symbols means
something, and it can be difficult to
remember just where a crucial oil refinery is
when it is covered with a stack of units .
The mapping errors present an even
greater problem than the general clutter, One
such problem is the "trans-Urals canal", an
unbroken chain of rivers stretching com-
pletely across the Urals mountains. This
"canal" starts from a place called Obskaya
Guba (hex NW 1046) and runs south by the
cities of Kurgan and Sverdlovsk, then turns
north and runs by Izhevsk, Gorki, and
Yaroslavl, through Lake Onega, and even-
tually winds up in the Barents Sea. True, the
Urals aren't much in the way of mountains,
but this canal is a bit much. Modern Soviet
technology strikes again.
The rivers in Objective: Moscow (and in
some other SPI games) pose several pro -
blems . Either they have no headwaters (like
the rivers composing the trans-Urals canal),
or they have no destination. Some of the
rivers suffer from both problems; witness the
frequent rivers in Afghanistan and elsewhere
that start from nowhere and flow to
nowhere. The longest of these rivers is ac-
tually a chain of rivers, with the center
located at Ulan-Ude (hex SE 1916). This river
network has a total length of 90 hexsides,
covering a distance well over 3000 miles, and
doesn't seem to fl ow anywhere. My atlas in-
dicates that the river should flow through hex
1917 and into Lake Baikal. I can't imagine
why the designers couldn't find an atlas like
mine. With a map as large as the one in Ob-
jective: Moscow, I can see why the designers
might miss this problem, but I would think
that someone else would find it and point it
out. I noticed it within the first ten minutes .
Another mapping error , perhaps the
most ridiculous, concerns a minor mistake in
the border of East Germany, a matter of one
hex. This mistake would not be minor to the
citizens of Dresden; in fact, I imagine they
would be quite surprised to wake up and find
out that SPI has moved them to Czecho-
slovakia. This mistake is really hard to ex-
plain - anyone, from the person who drew
the play test maps to the artist who made the
final version should know that Dresden is not
in Czechoslovakia. This blunder cannot be
written off as a little thing: someone really
goofed, and the fact that this error got
through indicates an alarming lack of proof-
reading on the maps, if not the entire game. I
am, however, reassured by the order of battle
(at least concerning this one point) for the
NATO front scenario, which lists East Ger-
man forces starting in Dresden. At least they
didn't start the Czechoslovakian army in
Dresden (see map detail, page 15).
The other graphics in the game look
pretty good, but the mapboard easily cancels
out the fine work done on the counter sheets.
I have to give this game low marks on the
physical aspects. It certainly isn't the sort of
thing we're used to seeing from SPI's art
department.
The game systems are a combination of
old, well-used ideas mixed with some
relatively new concepts. The movement rules
are a fine example of this. The basic move-
ment system is straightforward enough: units
are allocated a certain number of movement
points. and expend them during movement
at varying rates depending on terrain and
unit type. Mechanized units are allowed a se-
cond movement phase after combat. Most
units exert a t1uid zone of control into the
surrounding hexes, which inhibits but does
not prohibit movement. All ofthis is relative-
ly familiar, but the designer goes on to in-
troduce some different concepts. The in-
troduction of "bonus movement" allows
those units far away from the enemy to travel
faster. This is frequently seen in tactical
games, but not so common in strategic
games. As the designer points out, most
games allow units engaging in heavy combat
to move farther (by means of advance after
combat) than units far away from enemy
units. Anyone with the foggiest notion of
what happens on a battlefield will know that
this isn't so; units move much faster when
freed of the need to guard against possible at-
tacks . Another movement innovation is
something called reaction movement, which
allows the non-phasing player to move some
of his mechanized units after the other
player's combat but before his second move-
ment phase. Given the weak zones of control
and the great expanse of room in Russia, this
feature is really a necessity; without this rule,
players would be able to blow small holes in
the enemy lines and then run rampant in the
rear area. With this rule, the defending
player can move rear-area reserves to plug
gaps in his line. Of course, if he doesn't have
the reserves in the first place, he can be in
serious trouble.
I have only two complaints about the
movement system, and both center around

the stacking rules. The designer's notes point
out that an immense number of troops could
be crammed into one 6O-kilometer hex.
However, 'the designer set the stacking limit
at the number of units that would provide a
textbook line defense; namely, three divi-
sions per hex. This rule goes far to reduce
mapboard clutter (and with this game, every
little bit helps), but does not seem to consider
the textbook frontage for a division on the
offensive, which runs about two miles . This
would place about 12 divisions in a hex for an
offensive all along the hex, something strictly
prohibited by the rules. Since headquarters
units can absorb units (the divisions are plac-
ed off-map on a chart), allowing head-
quarters to stack seems like a good solution.
Unfortunately, headquarters are forbidden
to stack in the same hex. This rule reveals a
problem in the NATO front order of battle,
which indicates that two headquarters are to
start in hex NW 2805. Again, we have an ex-
ample of poor proofreading. The fact that so
glaring a mistake could be overlooked makes
me wonder how many subtle errors are con-
Detail of Objective: Moscow northwest map section
tained in the game , errors that I have no
chance of detecting myself.
The combat rules in Objective: Moscow
use the standard odds-ratio system seen in
most wargames . Rough terrain, urban hexes,
and the like double the defender's strength,
while attacking across a river cuts the at-
tacker's strength in half. The combat results
table is extremely bloody, with exchanges
popping up ever)'\vhere. One new idea in the
combat rules is the inclusion of a "personnel
value" on the counter, which represents the
unit's relative manpower and ability to with-
stand losses. Exchanges are based on person-
nel points, rather than number of units or
number of combat factors . The force with
the fewest personnel points is eliminated ,
and the other force loses an equal or greater
number of personnel points. The greater
staying power of most NATO units in the
contemporary scenario is represented both
by a greater number of personnel points and
by the reverse side of the counter, which
depicts the unit at reduced strength. NATO
units can utilize this flip side of the counter
15
when they are called on to lose personnel
points in an exchange . Some units, like zero-
strength headquarters and mobilizing Soviet
units, have personnel values of zero; these
units are automatically eliminated in ex-
changes , with no loss to the other player.
Many of the units start the game in an
untried condition; their true combat value is
not known until they are actually in combat.
All of the Soviet and Soviet-'allied units are
untried, as are the Chinese and Iraqui - in
fact , only U.S. and U.S.-allied units have
known combat factors (with the exception of
the North Koreans, which start the game aSH
neutral power). The designer explains this in
two ways. First, the United States army con-
tains the units most recently tried in combat;
for this reason, their combat performance
can be better predicted than that of other ar-
mies. This seems reasonable for the contem-
porary scenario, although I'm not sure of the
value of Vietnam combat experience in 1988.
Secondly, since NATO units are supposed to
have greater staying power in battle, the
reverse side of the counter is required to
16
depict the reduced state of the unit, and
therefore cannot be used to indicate an un-
tried unit. Any alert gamer will realize that
this is an arbitrary and artificial facet of the
game; furthermore, it places an unrealistic
handicap on the Soviet player . There is no
reason to suppose that NATO commanders
could predict the performance of a French
infantry division any better than Russian
generals could foretell the performance of a
Russian armor division. I don't mind untried
units, but I prefer that they be used con-
sistently. This particularly applies in the 1988
scenario, where the reverse side of the
counters is not used for reduced-strength
units .
The effects of supply in Objective:
Moscow are fairly simple: units out of supply
have their combat and movement factors
halved. The rules for supply determination
are a little more complicated. U .S. and U .S.-
allied units draw supply along the roads from
a friendly map-edge, although a limited
number of units can be supplied from ports.
Soviet and Soviet-allied units draw supply
from the railroads, not the roads; this ex-
plains why the two separate nets are includ-
ed . Soviet units have two supply sources;
supply for movement purposes is drawn
from refinery hexes, while combat supply
comes from urban hexes . Chinese units
draw both combat and movement supply
from Chinese urban hexes, although Chinese
leg infantry units are always in movement
supply.
To be in supply, land units must be
within two hexes of a supply source, or
within three hexes of a headquarters unit
which is itself in supply, Only the presence of
enemy units will block the supply line; enemy
zones of control will not. Considering the
size of the hexes, this rule is quite realistic.
US 3 \is e sw So US <I(l
FB FIll F F 15 FB Vggn B (except for a minor limit on advance after
B52
9U23 0-614 , 1(4) 82280
The air units in Objective: Moscow are
one of the best features of the game, and cer-
tainly an improvement over the abstract air
system used in Invasion: America in that
players can easily observe the effects of their
air attacks. (In Invasion: America, the prin-
ciple effect of air attacks is the neutralization
of defensive terrain benefits.) The only ap-
plication of air units in Objective: Moscow is
ground support. I was interested to note that
strategic air warfare was purposefully left
out. This seems logical to me; although I
can't imagine how conventional bombing
raids could be mistaken for nuclear strikes, I
think the Soviets would be likely to strike
back against enemy industry with the only
weapon available - ICBM's.
The air rules themselves are ingeniously
simple. Every air unit has a range instead of a
movement allowance, which indicates the
number of hexes the unit can fly to its target
and return. The phasing player moves his air
units to their targets in the movement phase;
the other player moves his air units to the hex
in the interception phase. Combat takes
place in the interception phase , using the
standard combat results table, but not in the
normal fashion. The intercepting airplanes
attack the phasing player's aircraft singly, in
the order that they are stacked; the attack
and defense factors of the two stacks are not
added together for one large combat. Each
airplane must be attacked at even odds or
better before the plane beneath it may be at-
tacked. In this fashion, fighter protection for
bombers becomes practical; also, because of
their low air-to-air combat factor, bombers
will not be used for interception often. After
the interception phase is complete, inter-
cepting air units return to their. airbases. The
surviving aircraft on ground support add
their ground attack factor to the friendly
land units, if any. Air units may attack
enemy ground units by themselves, but are
halved in combat strength when they do so.
In an exchange result, one air unit is
equivalent to one personnel point, regardless
of the air unit's strength. I give the air rules
high marks; they provide a good simulation
which seems realistic, yet at the same time
they do not add too much to the complexity
of the game.
The Soviet Army does not begin the
contemporary scenarios at full strength;
many of its units must be mobilized before
they can fight at maximum efficiency. There
are other games which require one or both
players to mobilize units during the game,
but very few give the option of committing
the units to combat before mobilization. Ob-
jective: Moscow gives the Soviet player this
option. The Soviet Army is divided into three
classes of units: class I units, at full strength,
class II units, partially mobilized at 50-75070
strength, and class 111 units,which are cadres
at 10-30% strength. The class I units are
combat-ready at the beginning of the game.
The Soviet player must make a decision for
each of the other units on his first turn. He
must decide whether to mobilize the unit, Or
combat during rain conditions). This strikes
use it immediately at reduced strength . The
decision, once made, is permanent: mobiliz-
ed units may not move, and if attacked must
defend with their peacetime strength. Class II
units require two turns of inactivity to
mobilize; they become active at their wartime
strength in the reinforcement phase of turn
t.wo. Class III units are mobilized sometime
between turn five and turn seven. On turns
five and six, one die is rolled for every class
III unit mobilizing. The unit becomes active
at its wartime strength on a roll of one or
two. Once mobilized, units are replaced with
a separate counter, indicating that the unit is
at wartime strength on the front of the
counter, and concealing the actual combat
value on the rear ..
The optional nuclear combat ru les are
another good feature in the game. Nuclear
attacks may be made in place of conventional
attacks in the combat phase . Different units
can bring a certain number of nuclear attack
points to bear on the defending units . Not
surprisingly, U.S. divisions and 8-52 bomber
units are the strongest in terms of nuclear at-
tack capability. There is on ly one real limit to
nuclear combat - every attack has a one in
six chance of triggering a nuclear holocaust
and ending the game. This makes players
very cautious about using their tactical
nukes; a player who uses them too often will
wind up losing the game. The rules also place
a limit on the number of nuclear points that
can be used for the entire game . While the
Chinese player can easily use all of his points
in two or three attacks, the Soviet and NATO
players have enough points for at least 26 at-
tacks. The odds that one player will use all his
points wi thou t triggering a holocaust are very
slim, less than one chance in a hundred. Ob-
viously, this last restriction will not bother
the Soviet and NATO players much,
although the Chinese could conceivably run
out of nuclear points.
No game of this scale set in Russia is
complete without some weather rules. Bitter
experience from previous invasions of Russia
shows the importance of the weather condi-
tions. Objective: Moscow has a good set of
weather rules . The mapboard is divided into
ten weather zones - and not just into a series
of arbitrary concentric circles, either, for dif-
ferent weather zones appear sporadically
across the map. Each weather zone is in one
of five possible weather states at any given
time. Clear weather has no effect on play.
Clouds have the effect of grounding limited
weather aircraft, but do not affect land units.
Rain grounds some airplanes, and doubles
movement costs. A freeze allows all aircraft
to fly, and causes the major rivers to freeze
over, allowing units to cross without the
usual movement penalty. Snow weather, the
harshest condition, grounds all limited
weather aircraft, doubles all movement
costs, and cancels the movement benefits of
the road net. One master table dictates the
weather conditions in each zone, while a
table of die roll modifications allows for
seasonal trends in weather. No weather con-
dition has any effect on combat or supply
me as a little strange; surely adverse weather
would make supply and combat more dif-
ficult. Other than this objection, the weather
rules look pretty good ..
OO [i]
~4
S1
4-5-4
-
C43
us.
(][]O
S11}-5
Objective: Moscow has several types of
units with special capabilities. Some of these
units are familiar, like the marine divisions
and the aircraft carriers; others are possible
future development.s, like hovercraft and
cruise missiles; still others are downright
silly, like the United Space Marines. The
naval units simply serve as naval airbases,
although they come with their own air unit.
U.S. Marine divisions can make amphibious
landings in unoccupied coastal hexes, and
are always in supply when on the coast. A
few infantry units are d~signated as moun-
tain infantry; these units are tripled when
defending in rough and broken terrain. All
the Chinese infantry divisions are classed as
mountain infantry, presumably to simulate

their defensive ability in mountainous ter-
rain.
~
US 101 S8<
1813 ~3
4-5-5 5-62
The rules covering airborne units are
simple, yet provide a reasonably accurate
picture of airborne operations. The airborne
division must start the turn at a friendly air-
base. The unit flies to the target hex exactly
like an air unit, may be escorted and inter-
cepted like an air unit, and defends in air-to-
air combat like an air unit (with a strength of
one). This last fact makes it necessary for
players to provide strong escorts for their air-
borne divisions; otherwise, the enemy player
will intercept and shoot down the valuable
units before they can reach the ground. Air-
borne units can be dropped directly on
enemy ground units, but they must eliminate
the unit or force it to retreat, or the airb'orne
unit is automatically eliminated. Airborne
units may drop any number of times, and in
theory are capable of making a drop every
turn, which seems a little much. Fortunately
it doesn't happen very often. As for the air-
mobile divisiol1s, the rules say only that they
do not have to pay an extra movement point
to leave an enemy zone of control. I would
think that they should be a little easier to air-
lift, but the rules don't mention anything
about that.
~
s evasive action by the shuttlecraft. However,
IE] 1
33-7
'Hovercraft units first appeared in Inva-
sion: America, and in Objective: Moscow
they have the same powers. They act as vcry
fast mechanized di visions, but can move over
all-sea hexes and pay only one movement
point per hex regaJdless of terrain. However,
they are forbidden to enter broken, rough, or
urban hexes. Given the size of the hexes, I
would imagine that the hovercraft units
would be unable to attack in the above ter-
rain types. As the rules stand, hovercraft are
quite capable of attacking an enemy urban
hex, although they cannot move into it, even
if the hex is unoccupied .
Cruise missile brigades are unique to
Objective: Moscow, as are the Japanese
Samurai divisions. The first of these repre-
sent control centers for tactical cruise
missiles. While they have no combat strength
of their own, they enhance the combat ability
of the units they attack with. The Samurai
divisions are a less credible invention of the
game. Apparently they represent infantry
trained in fanatical, if not suicidal, assault
tactics. The U.S. player may convert any
Japanese mechanized infantry unit into a
Samurai division, thereby tripling the unit's
attack strength and reducing the defense
strength by the same factor. The troops are
::>bviously motivated to win; any attack made
by the unit must have a result of "defender
eliminated", or the Samurai division is itself
eliminated. The rules do not mention ' if
Samurai divisions can switch back to regular
mechanized infantry divisions, but I assume
they cannot.
Nothing could make the Samurai divi-
sions more believable than a glance through
the rules covering the Space Marines. These
units function as airborne units that can land
anywhere and cannot be intercepted. The
rules state that the Space Marines" .. . free-
fall from orbital shuttlecraft in an erratic
fashion to avoid the laser ABM defenses . .. "
Sounds a lot like Starship Troopers to me.
There are two problems with this rationale.
First, free fall means just what it says - faIl-
ing freely. Free-falling objects do not fall in
an "erra tic fashion"; they fall in easily
predicted parabolic paths. If each and every
Space Marine had maneuvering rockets on
his re-entry suit (and some way of insuring
that he would land with the rest of the
brigade if he used them). that would be dif-
ferent. Secondly, the falling marines
shouldn't be too threatened by the ABM
system in the first place. Any ABM system is
going to be designed to knock out several
hundred ICBM's coming from different
launchers and heading for different targets;
the system is not going to be designed to
destroy several hundred man-sized targets
landing in the same place. I doubt if the laser
targeting systems would even recognize a
marine as a target. The shuttlecraft, on the
other hand, should make excellent targets for
the laser ABM system. Reflective and
ablative shielding might work. as might
since there is no reason why these things can't
be done to an ICBM, we must assume that
the ABM system can overcome these
defenses. I'm afraid that in real life the
lifespan of a Space Marine would be very
short - he faces an excellent chance of being
killed long before he can land and fight the
enemy.
The Space Marines have One other ad-
vantage besides their ability to drop. which is
their high defensive factor. I don't see how
these units justify such a high defensive abili-
ty; it seems to me that all of their combat fac-
tors should be lower than those of a typical
airborne division. The problems involved in
transporting equipment and supply for a
brigade into orbit must be overwhelming -
and certainly much harder to overcome than
transporting equipment for an airborne divi-
sion by airplanes . I would think that the
Space Marines would be forced to work with
very little equipment, and therefore should
not have such a high defense factor. (Please
don't tell me that the defense factor is due to
the powered armor suits they wear!) Since
the Space Marines are the only units with the
capability to drop behind enemy lines, they
can force the Soviet player to garrison his
rear areas - once those units are lodged in a
city, they won't be easy to force Out.
There are several scenarios in Objective:
Moscow, most of which deal with the con-
temporary battles. There are three local one-
map scenarios, covering the European front
(NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact and Russia), the
Mideast front (Russia and Iraq against
Turkey and Iran), and the China front
17
(USSR against China). The contemporary
campaign game ties all of the fronts together.
Sadly, there was only one scenario dealing
with the 1998 campaign, which I thought was
the most interesting part of (he game. Final-
ly, there is a Korea minigame, ,,,,hich pits the
North and South Koreans against each other.
Victory in the contemporary scenarios is
determined only by possession of cities, oil
refineries, ports, airfields, and other ter-
ritorial objectives. Victory in the scenarios is
relatively simple; the scenario has a set
length. and the player attacking the Soviets
must exceed the Soviet victory point total by
a certain number to win. The campaign game
is designed around the idea of three separate
sides in the war (N A TO, Russia, and China);
victory is determined for each side even if one
player controls both NATO and China. On
certain turns. the current victory point level
of the Chinese forces and the NATO forces
are compared with the victory level chart.
This chart lists two point totals; exceeding
the first results in victory, while dropping
below the second results in surrender. The
victory conditions in the 1998 campaign
game are more ambitious - the U .S. player
must conquer the Soviet Union, the Chinese
player must recapture Siberia. The concept
of three separate forces is retained; victory
for the U.S. and Chinese players is determin-
ed separately. and both forces must win if
one player controls them.
['m not completely satisfied with Objec-
tive: Moscow. There were too many little
flaws - mistakes in the map, poorly-worded
rules - which I hoped could be avoided.
Still, minor mistakes occur in virtually every
game and do not spoil the game in them-
selves. But there was way too much emphasis
on the contemporary scenarios - and
therein lies my principle complaint. Virtually
every design innovation in the game was
made specifically and solely for the contem-
porary game. The optional nuclear rules,
limited weather aircraft, and headquarters
units are not used in the 1998 scenario. The
mobilization rules might as well not be used
in the 1998 game, since all the Russians start
out mobilized. Even the scenarios are heavily
based on the contemporary game - there are
five contemporary scenarios, and only one
for 1998. The game was billed as a simulation
of the invasion of Russia in 1998, yet the 1998
scenario looks like it was added as an after-
thought. I would have been content if the
cont.emporary scenarios had been completely
omitted . This would have allowed the
designers to concentrate on the 1998 game,
given them more counters to work with, and
perhaps provided incentive to develop more
1998 scenarios. I think Objective: Moscow
would have been better had this happened;
there is no doubt that it would have come out
looking more like the game advertised.
Objective: Moscow is not a bad game. It
isn't a classic, either - a pity, since I think it
could have been one. In a few years, Objec-
tive: Moscow will be remembered as just
another game published by Simulations Pub-
lications, Inc . in 1978 . Frankly, I had hoped
for more.
18
SYSTEMS & TECHNIQUES
NOR DARK OF NIGHT. ..
Happiness Can Be Properly Simulated Gloom
by Thomas G. Pratuch
I personally have no desire to find out what it's like
to have people shooting at me in the dark, so I stay
out of bad neighborhoods after dusk and don't
play night scenarios. For you who do either or
both, perhaps Mr. Pratuch's organized sugges-
tions will lead you to the light of understanding of
the problems involved in simulating combat in the
gloom . Thomas has done a weather article for us
previously and is building a reputation as an
'environmentalist' - simulationally speaking of
course .
- RAS
One of the more neglected areas of war-
gaming is the night combat scenario. Admit-
tedly part of the reason for this is that only a
small percentage of battles have historically
occurred at night. The reason for this is the
loss of command control, reduced ability of
observation and difficulty in navigation that
occur because of the low light levels . Yet
combat during the night periods is becoming
more common because of technological ad-
vances which allow increased observation.
The other reason that conflict simula-
tions do not have night combat scenarios is
the players' omniscience in knowing enemy
unit locations. The use of inverted counters
and blanks does not adequately simulate the
confusion of night combat. The purpose of
this article is to present a method for
simulating the problems of night conflict.
Some of the special equipment that has been
developed is included in the discussion.
Operational Consideration.s
The first area that must be dealt with is
the area of nighttime limitations on unit
abilities. There is one assumption made in
presenting these items, and that is that there
is a quarter moon or better and a sky with not
more than 300JG cloud cover. If the night is
supposed to have a lower illumination level
then only specially equipped units will be
able to move and engage in combat at greater
than melee ranges. The changes in the rules
from daytime are: (1,4 moon to full moon
distances)
L Personnel can be detected at only 50-200
meters.
2. Vehicles can be detected at only 200-800
meters.
3. Units caught in the illumination area of a
flare or searchlight may not visually detect a
non-illuminated target for the game
equivalent of thirty minutes . (Visual target
means no artificial illumination source is
used.)
4. Units in an illuminated area may not
detect any targets outside of the area, by any
means, as long as they are in the illumina-
tion.
5. Units moving at night are reduced to 1,4 of Again, it must be stated that this scatter
their daytime speeds. If artificial lighting is does not affect a unit's ability to engage in
present, or the vehicles are equipped with combat. It merely simulat.es the navigational
problems inherent in nighttime. Players may
visual aids (passive sights, etc.), then the
vehicles may move at Y2 daytime speed. freely modify the DNV for different na-
Another aspect which needs to bt tionality or types of units .
covered is the difficulty in navigating across Once a unit is subject to scatter, it re-
terrain at night. This ability varies with the mains in that state until:
type of terrain to be crossed. The way I han- 1. Changing terrain where it is again tested
dle this is to assign each type of terrain a Dif- by a chit draw .
ficulty of Navigation Value (DNV). The 2. Reaching a terrain feature that is a map
DNV is similar to a "Panic" Level except locator (i.e., road, major stream/river,
that it does not affect the unit's ability to
hillcrest free of woods, town, etc.). Upon
engage in combat. This value is from 0 to 9 reaching such terrain, the unit is either re-
and is subject to modifiers.
quired to remain stationary one or more
Examples of DNV and modifiers: turns or is penalized movement points
depending On the time scale of the game. The
Basic Terrain Modifiers purpose is to simulate the time spent using a
Type DNV (to any basic DNV
map to establish its location.
terrain)
Clear Stream/River -1 Nighttime Vision Aids
Various means of creating light or
Town/ Village 2 Road - 2
amplifying existing light levels have been
Broken/ Mixed 4 Fog(Mist) +3 developed to aid night operations. The use of
Woods/Forest 6 Rain/ Snow +2 this equipment is subject to more than simply
giving a unit 'X' hexes of observation
The DNV is checked whenever a unit capability. The equipment will be discussed
changes from one type of terrain to another , by type to cover capability, use and limita-
The player draws a chit from a cup contain- tions.
ing ten chits numbered 0-9. If the chit is equal The first development was the obvious
to or less than the DNV for the hex the unit is type - burning of materials to create light.
in, the unit scatters. By way of illustration: The following table presents these devices:
An infantry unit is moving along a road in
clear terrain (DNV = Basic Terrain + modi- fllumination Type Illumination Area
(Diameter in meters)
fiers = 1 + ( - 2) = - 1 or unit does not scat-
ter). The player has the unit leave the road Hand Grenade 200
and cross a clear terrain area. The DNV is Hand Flare, 450
checked in the first clear terrain hex . The Rocket propelled
player draws a chit and obtains a '3.' This 40mm Grnd 250
value is greater than the DNV so the unit Flare
does not scatter, The DNV does not have to Artillery Delivered
be checked as long as the unit stays in clear Slmm 1000
terrain. In a later turn the unit enters a wood- 4.2" 1500
ed area. This time the player draws a chit lOSmm 1000
with a value of 5, and since this is less than
lSSmm 2000
the DNV of 6 for a woods, the unit scatters.
A modified scatter system is used. Two dice lllumination Time Comments
are rolled, one for distance of scatter and one (in seconds)
for direction, and the unit is moved accor- 27 Hand thrown up to 40m
dingly subject to the following limitations: 16 Inaccurate delivery up
1. If the unit would be forced to scatter into to 250m
terrain with a higher DNV (modifiers are not 30 Fired in 40mm grenade
considered here) then the unit halts its launcher up to 450m
movement..
75 All artillery-delivered
2. If the movement would be further than 90 flares must be fired at
the unit is capable of performing, using its
60 2 rounds per minute to
movement allowance and paying terrain 150 provide continuous
costs, then movement is halted. Units are illumination .
always moved 1 hex unless in violation of The accuracy of all, except the rocket
paragraph 1 or the terrain is prohibited to hand flare, should be treated the same as
that unit. their conventional round counterparts in the

game. Except for the hand grenade, all flares
have a parachute and will be subject to wind
drift.
The next development was the various
forms of searchlights. Use of these in a game
presents a slight problem. :The player(s) must
specify if the searchlight is being used to
sweep for a target or scan an area. The first
technique is used when a target is known to
be at a certain location. The second is used to
check an area for the presence/absence of
targets.
Searchlights should be treated as direct
fire weapons. They cannot illuminate a target
that could not be fired upon under the same
situation in daylight.. Searchlights have a
range limit (given in the table) and may be
operated iIi. two manners : infrared or white
light. The infrared mode is not visible to the
unaided eye but can be seen by any unit
equipped with infrared viewers (covered
later). The white light mode is visible to any
unit. The beams illuminate only a limited
area when the beam is kept stationary. This is
shown in figures 1 and 2. The following table
gives information on the three major types of
searchlights:
Type Range Comments
Tank lOOOm Infrared mode
mounted
1500m White light mode
15/1 Vehicle 4000m White light mode
mounted
3500m Infrared mode
23 " Vehicle 5000m White light mode
mounted
4000m Infrared mode
The vehicle mounted searchlights are
normally assigned to divisional head-
Smith & Wesson Star- Tron night vision equipment.
19
quarters or higher and are deployed to lower Night ob- lOOOml Used by itself fo r
echelons as needed. servation 1200ni night observation, it
scope is too large for a
Theinfrared viewers require an artificial weapon.
source of illumination. The viewers may
detect any infrared source within line of sight Guidelines for Night Combat
providing no blocking terrain intervenes. To There are some guidelines for the use of
observe an illuminated target, the viewers the special equipment that' has been
must be within the effective range of the presented here. The first is that none of this
source from the target. equipment has x-ray powers. If the target
The most recent development was the would not be visible in daylight to the firing
advent of starlight scopes. These sights do unit, then it is not visible at night even with il-
not rely upon artifical illumination sources. lumination.
Instead they amplify existing light from the A player cannot specially place illumina-
moon or stars. These viewers can also detect tion on a target without a reason. The target
infrared sources. unit may have moved within night visual
The following table presents informa- distance of the illumination unit or another
tion on both types of viewers: unit which could radio for illumination. The
illumination may also be planned for a
Range
(star- specific turn on a hex.
light, Tank units have one special capability
. Types moon) Comments that is not available to any other unit. That
Metascope Small hand held de- is, one tank may perform a sweep of an area
vice, not weapon with its searchlight to check an area then later
mountable, 50m return to a target found by this manner. Pro-
range with own vision should be made in the rules for the
source. tank to be fired upon by any capable (oppos-
IR Binoculars Has no IR source . ing) unit before it is allowed to engage any
IR Riflescope 250m range with its targets found. This is because the searching
own source, adds tank would be revealing its position.
considerable weight Once a player has implemented some of
to weapon. the suggestions here, he may add-on such
Tank IR Sigbts The tank command- items as aerial dropped flares, ground-
er and gunner each surveillance radar, unattended ground sen-
have a sight. The sors, and thermal imaging sights. These
sights cannot be used
items, however, will require extensive rules
off the vehicle.
and are ou tside the scope of this article.
Rifle 300m/ Used on rifles and
starligbl 400m machineguns.
scope Opening MO VES /continuedjrompageJ4/
Crew- 800m/ Used on medium and possibility of affecting this - I'm just kvet-
weapons 1200m heavy machineguns.
starligbt ching.
scope 3. The assinine. gross guide to dope and
prostitution on page 69 of the official pro-
gram for the convention. I consider this to be
a truly inexcusable lapse on the part of Paul
Wood and the entire Metro Detroit Gamer
organization. Dumb, tasteless, gratuitous,
offensive and sexist.
4. The spread-out nature of the site.
5. My name spelled incorrectly in the
Biogs in the Program (and I'm famous -
I've got a plaque that says so!).
6. The fact that GDW's biogs were
three times the length of anyone else's and
obviously wri tten by their mothers.
7. The attempt to cram 50 pounds of
convention into a 40-pound weekend. Too
much, guys.
Things That Were Good at Origins:
1. The ambience of the convention and
site.
2. The eagerness to help on the part of
the convention workers.
3. The friendliness and maturity of the
attenders.
4. The sense of hospitality on the part
of the sponsors.
5. The generally competent job of
staging (albeit too much).
6. The fact that my name wasn't on that
plaque.
20
SCENARIOS & VARIANTS
AIRBURST
Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Fulda Gap
by Matthew W. Foster
Heavy on the nukes this issue, eh people? Soon I' ll
be seeing nuclear rules for Swords &
Sorcery . . . or does that comewith the standard
game? Deeper into the Strangelovian aspects this
time with neutron bombs (ah, make that "enhanc-
ed radiation weapon," pleaseJ. As the author
points out this is not a real ly new concept - just a
new realization as to how destabilizing their
deployment could be (or rather the imention to
deploy them, eh comrades?), Or is it al l just a trick
to make you buy Nexc Wa,? - RAS
It's 0620, D plus three, forty klicks east
of Frankfurt. The 3rd Armored has been
fighting like hell since contacting Threat
forces early on D plus one, but the sheer mass
of the enemy assault has taken its toll. Stocks
of the vital TOW missiles are down to twenty
percent inventory, maybe one more day's
ammo. Dragon stocks are even lower. Burnt-
out hulks of enemy tanks litter the battle-
field, but the rumbling nearby says it's a
fresh division that's jumping off to assault
the 3rd's positions. The 3rd's combat units
are still at sixty-five percent TOW, but with
the ammo going so fast, a fresh division or
two will shatter the tenuous line for sure.
French divisions are racing madly for the
Gap, but it looks as if they're going to be far
too late to save the front.
As the 4oo-tube softening barrage lifts,
T -62s suddenly break from the wood lines
4000 meters in front of the 3rd's FEBA (For-
ward Edge of Battle Area) spotters. Massive
spread phalanxes of tanks roll across the
1500 meter front toward the 3rd's positions.
BMPs follow close behind, their Saggers
ready to destroy any point targets that ap-
pear. That is it.
There is one last card for NATO play.
Coded authorization to use battlefield
nuclear systems came through to Division at
0400. The 3rd's troops wonder where the
Warthog strikes have gone, but they cannot
know that all NATO aircraft have been
warned away from the area. Orders flash
from Division. Units prepare for the nearby
tacnuke detonations. CBR troops, exhausted
from the Threat's two-day old chemical at-
tacks, prepare for action again. Decon-
taminants are readied ,
DivArty's (Divisional Artillery) tubes
train to pre-selected points. The two Lance
missile task forces arm their new W70-3 war-
heads. Time-an-Target is scheduled and the
Fire Direction Center (FDq orders Fire!
Eight-inch howitzers and 155s rumble; Lance
missiles hiss from their launchers. FDC
coun ts down: "Eighteen . .. seven teen .. . "
" ... two . . . one . .. SPLASH!"
Bright flashes appear 100 meters above
the enemy's formations. NATO troops are
disappointed at first; it wasn't half the show
they'd expected and not nearly enough tanks
and APCs were toasted.
Then tanks begin to slew crazily about
and ram one another . APCs wander aimless-
ly about or roll to harmless halts. The ad-
vance becomes a grisly comedy as vehicles
scatter in all directions. NATO troops sud-
denly realize that they've just witnessed the
world's first neutron barrage. The Threat of-
fensive degenerates into total chaos all across
the Gap. Preparations for counter-attack
begin.
Let's see: CBR troops, neutron barrages
- Super-Ogre, right? Wrong. No fairy tale
this. If the funds for development and pro-
duction are allocated, this could be the
battlefield scene in West Germany by mid-
1979, or even earlier.
Modern Threat (I use this euphemism to
leave everyone's feathers un-ruffled) tactical
doctrine calls for the great concentration of
an attacking division's forces at the point of
breakthrough. Such massed formations are
hard for a strained and thinned defensive line
to turn, but they make nice targets for tac-
tical nuclear strikes. Any grand offensive
movement by Threat forces, especially
against a desperate NATO, runs the risk of
being nuked into little greasy spots. Not even
the heaviest counter-battery can silence every
gun within support range - besides, it only
takes one nuclear' 'stick" to do the job.
The only problem is that NATO "con-
ventional" nuclear battlefield systems may
not be able to do the job. NATO has about
7000 nuclear warheads deployed in Europe;
most of these are in the ten to 50 kiloton
range of yield.
These medium-yield systems ' rely on
blast and heat to do their dirty work. Col-
lateral damage is likely to be considerable,
and certainly a hell of a lot of fallout will be
kicked-up by tacnuke strikes. Countryside,
urban areas, and lingering civilians are going
to be wasted just as well as enemy forces.
Fulda Gap fails to take this into account.
The whole question of whether or not
tacnukes will even be used is debatable. Will
the warring powers want to risk escalation in-
to a full-scale nuclear slug-fest? Fulda Gap
pretends that they won't escalate, and so will
I, but clearly the nuclear warfare rules and
the victory system could use some fiddling in
this regard.
First, roll a die to see when tacnukes can
come into play. Political decisions have to be
made. and this die roll is your "politicans."
The following is my suggested die roll -
availability. Turn
Die Roll Available
1 [
2-3 2
3-5 3
6 4
Only one roll is needed, because when
one side uses nukes, the other side will too. It
matters little who went first, but for your
own purposes. you can roll a second die, with
an odd number meaning that a frustrated
NATO shot first, evens meaning the nasty
Russians did it. What this all means to you is
your own business, but remember that since
"days" occur simultaneously for each
player, both sides start nuking in the same
Game-Turn no matter who shoots first .
Next, give the nuking player's opponent
(the poor sap being nuked) victory points for
each warhead detonated according to ter-
rain. The rationale here is simple. The Threat
governments don't want to capture (well,
they might, but they would find that policy
useless) piles of nuclear slag instead of cities.
It's also hard to imagine an abashed NATO
spokesman saying, "We had to destroy
Wurzburg to save it." VPs in clear terrain are
simple too. There is no purely clear terrain in
Europe; there are houses, farms, and villages
everywhere. No one would appreciate an un-
solicited airburst over his property. The
following is an additional VP schedule.
This brings me to the subject of the
enhanced radiation weapon - the Neutron
Bomb (old earth style, you grimy
Xenophobe). ERWs have been tooling
around Army R&D since the early 60s, but it

was only last July that General Alfred D.
Starbird of the Energy Research and
Development Administration told the House
appropriations committee.
VPs to Opponent
Terrain per Warhead
City 1 hex on the "4" column of Table 19.24 and
Urban 2 contaminate on the "5" column of table
All other Yz
Ignore fractional VPs
Two ERW systems have been developed
as of the present. The W70-3 is a warhead
designed for the Lance missile, and the W79
is an eight-inch artillery fired atomic projec-
tile.
ERWs offer numerous advantages (see
Figure). An ERW's blast is about 17 percent
that of a similarly potent conventional tac-
nuke from airburst. ERWs kick-Up only
about 10 percent of the fallout. Conven-
tional nukes destroy by blast and heat,
ERWs by intense neutron-flux .
The neutron flux is over with inside of
two one-millionths of a second of detona-
tion. The neutrons, once released, are stop-
ped by atomic nuclei, principally nitrogen
nuclei in the air. This is why the ERW's
lethality drops' so quickly at range (see
figure).
ERWs are hard to shield against, too.
The armor thickness that stops 90 percent of
the gamma radiation from conventional tac-
nukes only blocks out about 30 percent of the
neutrons. The rest of the neutrons "shine"
through. The neutrons that ar e absorbed by
the armor cause the armor to begin emitting
gamma particles. Any shielding that catches
the neutrons becomes radioactive for a long
time.
So, what is this in game terms? First,
ERWs will be deployed with all artillery and
Lance task-forces (such as the artillery units
in Fulda Gap) and also with DivArty's
general support 155s. So, all US units in
. Fulda Gap, except SDUs and STUs, have an
ERW capability.
ERWs become available on Game-Turn
Four regardless of the tacnuke availability
result. This means that ERWs could be the
first tacnukes deployed, providing that con-
ventionals are also unavailable until Game-
Turn Four. If tacnukes are already in use, it's
just a NATO advantage.
Only US combat units may utilize ER W
strikes. Each division of three brigades is
deployed wih one ERW "stick" available.
Artillery units carry two sticks. One addi-
tional stick becomes available for resupply
for the artillery units on Game-Turn Seven.
ERWs may only be used initially in de-
fensive situations. That works like this:
before any Soviet attacks are made, but after
Soviet movement is completed, the US player
announces he is making initial ERW commit-
ment. Any artillery units within range of
Soviet units may fire an ERW strike. This is
in place of FPF from that unit, and the
Soviet-occupied he)( must be in range, not
the defendin~ US units .
Combat brigades may expend their divi-
sion's stick at the instant of combat, prior to
resolution. If only one brigade strikes, the
division's stick is expended just the same as if
all brigades had fired. All brigades may at-
tack one adjacent hex. This is in addition to
artillery ER W strikes.
Artillery unit ERW strikes attack the
19.33. Unlike conventional contamination,
affected units are contaminated, not the hex
itself. Place an appropriate contamination
marker on top of every unit in the hex,
regardless of whether or not that unit took
casualties. Units that incur at least a one-step
loss in the attack are retreated one hex and
disrupted until the end of the Game-Turn.
This simulates the total disorganization that
a neu tron strike would cause. Contamination
attacks occur in the Contamination Removal
Phase prior to contamination degradation.
Neutron contamination is reduced one level
each Removal Phase automatically.
After initial firing, artillery units may
expend their remaining sticks either in the
nuke phase or defensively as ou tlined above.
Supply units are still only affected by an "x"
result, but are considered ineffective as long
as they are contaminated.
Divisional ERWs attack on the' '3" col-
umn of Table 19.24 and contaminate on the
"4" column of Table J9.33. Otherwise their
effects are as outlined above, with the excep-
tion that they may be used only once peT divi-
sion and only in defensi ve situations.
ERWEFFECTS
Zone Effects of ER W
1 Buffer zone, little radiation
2 No blast damage, fatal radiation
3 Little blast damage, fatal rad.
4 Blast damage,fatal radiation
Airburst Diagrams
ERW
(Enhanced Radiation Weapon)
2'1
In the phase of initial defensive use, all
units that may make an ER W strike, must
make an ERW strike. This simulates a
"shock" doctrine for initial deployment.
No collateral damage is sustained by
units adjacent to the target hex, ERWs may
be safely employed close to US troops
because of a larger buffer zone and smaller
kill zone than conventional nukes. Only
hexes adjacent to US units may be offensive-
ly attacked by artillery units in the nuke
phase. Consequently, Electronic Warfare
has no effect.
A final note concerning all nuclear
strikes: I suggest that no airstrikes can be
made within one hex of any nuclear strike. I
don't think NATO command would risk fly-
ing a squadron of A-lOs into one of their own
airbursts.
Using ERWs may be realistic (pro-
viding .. . ), but it may also tip play balance
slightly in NATO's favor . 1 suggest that at
least half of the divisions recommended for
the Main Effort variant be used in conjunc-
tion with ERW rules . I think it's reasonable
to assume that the Gap would be a Soviet
main objective anyway. The addenda for
conventional strikes, however, is applicable
in either case.
These changes are strongly based on fact
and doctrine. Using them may require just a
little more bookkeeping, but only a
microscopic amount when compared with
the added dimension in game terms.
EjjeclSQf
Conventional Tacnukes
Blast damage, little radiation
Blast damage, some radiation
Blast damage, fatal radiation
Conventional
Tacnukes
22
True Ring [conri"uedfrompag~IOl
unreality that is common to all historical
simulations; knowing where the characters
are at all times, however, eliminates any ac-
curacy that the game could hope to achieve .
If The Lord oj the Rings is considered to be
the definitive text of the War (and it must be
$0 considered), then Mssrs . Berg and
Barasch have but given us a beautifully writ-
',,:n historical novel.
I do not here propose a system of hidden
movement for use in the game; I have one,
bUl it is insufficiently play tested to be in-
cluded here. Suffice it to say that one can be
added with no additional materials needed
except a piece of paper. The Search System
has to be revised (or the Sauron player will
never find anything); but as it will change
searches from things based on luck to things
based on alleast some skill, the revision will
be worthwhile. Do not toss away the game if
you do agree with my criticisms of it; it is far
too valuable even as it stands. Simply revise it
a little, and it will then become, in all pro-
bability, one of the best in anyone's collec-
tion.
Many areas of the game, most of them
excellent, need to be dealt with, but that is
Secret Search /con!inu.d!rom pace III
and the first condition is met. Obviously can
dition 2 can be met by changing columns
from turn to turn.
Condition 5 (dummy hexes) can be met
by adding dummy hexes to the code list and
letting player A use the first half and player B
the second half of these dummy hexes, as
though they had units there.
The above system does not satisfy con-
dition 4. From the final result, if there is a
match, player A, knowing he used column 3,
sees that the final result was column 7, de-
duces that player B used column 4, and im-
mediately decodes all B' s positions .
The solution to this is to give each player
only part of the table . It is not sufficient to
give one player half the table and the other
player the other half since; by following the
table creating system given above, the other
half could be worked Out.
To illustrate the means of avoiding this
difficulty, suppose we have 56 different
things to code (the reason for this number
will emerge). The table would then have 55
columns if written out in full . If we give one
player columns 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42, and
the other player columns 8, 16, 24, 32, 40,
and 48, each has a choice of six colum ns, and
it is not possible to calculate one part of the
table from the other . This can be proved, but
it is messy. As a byproduct, it in now imposs-
ible for the two codes to accidentally repro
duce the original hex numbers. Also, the reo
suiting code is not in either list.
This is, in essence, the code system I
propose. There remains the Question of the
overlong code list. SPI maps are numbered
by joining two two-digit numbers, one repre-
senting the map row, and the other the' map
column. These numbers, on an ordinary
not my purpose. I hope I have brought to
light a very major flaw in a very major effort.
If Mr. Berg is true to his word that he will
follow the progress of his games, then he will
hopefully consider the above comments. I
have attacked the game; I hope the designers
will either admit the fault or defend their
creation.
A number of years back, in an issue of
Rolling Stone, a reviewer said of the Band' s
then-new album, Cahoots, that he could not
decide if it were a flawed masterpiece or a
perfect failure. This article has attempted to
show the same indecision towards War of the
Ring. The album proved, over the years, to
be the latter. I hope that the game, with all
the things that it has in its favor, will prove to
be the former.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fo~rer.Robert . A Guide 10 Middle-Eartlk Ball antine
Book!; New Vork, 1971 .
Tolkien. J .R.R. The Lord Of 'he Rings. Methuen : To ran .
to, 1971. I aliempted La obtain the American Ballamine
edition in order to cite pa~sages more accurately, but it is
no longer available in Canada and I have long si nce given
aWlly my lasl copy of i(.
single map game, range from 01 to about 35
for rows, and 01 to about 50 for columns. If
these numbers are coded separately, perhaps
using different columns, a much smaller
coding list can be used . Of course, in case of
a match, the players will now be able to see
how many other hexes in that map row and
thai map column their opponent occupies.
For fanatics, this can be made more difficult
by coding the first and third digits separately
from the second and the fourth, but it is
doubtful if the extra security is worth it.
For this coding, a table with 56 codes is
adequate, and; as noted above, enables each
player to have a choice of six columns. Since
rows 37 to 56 do not occur on the map, J sug-
gest that one player use map rows 37 to 46,
and the other map rows 47 to 56 as dummy
hexes, combined with whatever map columns
they wish.
When matches in the doubly coded lists
are found, each player decodes the number
and gives the result to the other player who
then applies his own decod.ing to find the hex
in which the meeting took place.
It sometimes occurs that a player search-
es for the other player's units. Thus if player
A is searching certain hexes for B's units (us-
ing radar or whatever), A codes his search
hexes and gives the result to B. B codes the
hexes his units are on and gives the result to
A. Each then codes the other's list. B then
compares the lists and decodes any matches
he finds, and gives these values to A. A then
decodes this list. The effect of this is that B
does not even know what hexes he has been
discovered on (he does, however, know how
many times he has been discovered).
To round off this article, r have added a
summary of the method, and a sample of a
size 56 table, giving each player a choice of
six columns. My game computer has pro-
THE DESIGNER SPEAKS:
Mr. Randall has applied himself to a
valid "problem" area in WOTR, one that
caused both Howard B. and myself no end of
problems. He also has supplied his own
answers to the reasons behind the present
Search System: hindsight and playability.
They are why the game is like it is, and we
have no in ten tion to redo the "system".
However, the Search System as written
is somewhat flawed, and that should be cor-
rected. Two items are paramount, one a
complete change, the other a clarification:
1 . The results oj a Search (that. is, being
Spotted) remain in effect until the end of
the Game- Turn in which the Search oc-
curred. (Thus, no more hiding in the next
county.)
2 . Search in Mordor (i. e., Gorgoth and
Nurn) is automatic in that the Sauron
Player need not draw a card to search in
M ordor. (Spotting is still a dieroll result.)
A complete errata will be forthcoming
for WOTR, although a second edition rules
booklet is available (for $3; sorry folks) . The
errata sheet {free, when it comes out} should
be available this Fall.
- Rich Berg
duced a table with full map coding - hope-
fully the vast public demand will enable me
to make some arrangement with SPI. Unfor-
tunately the table is too big to fit into this
magazine. I also have a USN map version
and AH version.
Summary
One player should have part A of the at-
tached table, and the other should have part
B.
1. Each player lists the hex numbers he oc-
cupies, adding as many dummy hexes
(selected from rows 37 to 46 for the player
with table A, and rows 47 to 56 for the
player with table B, with the column
arbitrarily chosen) as he wishes or is
permitted .
2. Each player selects a column (1 to 6) in his
table. He then, for each hex, looks up the
first two digits of the hex number in the
table's left hand column, and writes down
the corresponding two digits from the col-
umn he has chosen.
3. Each player selects another column (or
the same one if he wishes) and similarly
codes the last two digits .
4. The players write a list of these coded hex
numbers in some arbitrary order, and ex-
change lists.
5. Each player then encodes his opponent's
list as in 2 and 3, using the same table col-
umns for the first two and last two digits
as he did in 2 and 3.
6. The resulting lists are compared. Where a
match occurs, each player (using the same
columns again) decodes the matching
numbers and gives the result to his oppo-
nent who then decodes it himself, to get
the actual hex number 0 f the meeting.

OPERA TlONAL ANAL YSIS
DRIVE SOUTH TOSTALINGRAD
Then Take a Sharp Left at the First Light
by Tom Graveline
Drive on Stalingrad has done a lot of swerving for
' such a recent game. The imbalanced sensed in the
early play testing was overcorrected and then the
errata patched a correctio n on that upon which
the jury is still out and the game bu yers a ra staying
away in droves - wh ich is too bad, because DOS
is a pretty good game in spite of its waffling . The
subject is a classic, of course, and DOS is the first
specific operational treatment of the ca mpaign .
It's a tad premature to be didactic about how to
win, but give Tom's approach a try. - RAS
Thanks to recently published errata,
Drive on Stalingrad has finally fulfilled its
potential. Particularly the rule changes
allowing three German mech divisions to
stack, the elimination of certain untried two-
step Soviet units, and the increase (50070) of
rail hexes permitted to be cleared in a Game-
Turn have given the German player a real
shot at victory.
However, against a competent Soviet
opponent, the German player will still have
his hands full . Voronezh should be marked
as a suicide mission in the existing game
structure as Soviet reinforcements on the
first Game-Turn bring the German player no
hope for any lasting gains in this sector. And
so, the German player must look south to
Rostov and to crossing the Don as soon as
possible. Immediately thereafter, most Ger-
man players will marshal their greater forces
and attempt to capture Stalin grad before,
on, or near Game-Turn ] 2. But once again,
rail movement allows the Soviet player to
transport the maximum amount of rein-
forcements per turn directly into the Stal-
ingrad area; i.e., a competent Soviet player
can make it almost impossible to capture
Stalingrad.
Therefore, propose an optional
Southern Strategy in which the German
player concentrates on capturing aU strategic
points on the southern map . Once these
points are captured, the German player can
then send most if not all of his southern
forces north to assist the attack on Stalingrad
and also to defend against the eventual
Soviet counterattack.
As occurred historically, I recommend
sending the mech divisions from the Sixth
and Fourth Panzer Armies directly to Stalin-
grad to "put the pressure on" in this sector
and to force the Soviet player to place a large
portion of his units in this area. The mech di-
visions from the First Panzer Army should
be sent south: the panzergrenadier division
to Tuapse, Sochi, and eventually hex 3935;
one panzer division to Maikop; a!ld the other
two panzer divisions to the greater Grozny
area, including Orzhonikidze (3915) and
hexes 3701 and 3801. By capturing all the
cities and rail entry hexes, the German player
can effectively shut off the southernmost
Soviet reinforcements and force them to
enter at Astrakan or east of the Volga (hex.
0601).
I
J",,, D; ~,;oc
/'181
6~9
Once the Grozny sectOr has been
secured, the mech units should wheel north
where Astrakan becomes the next target.
Depending on the supply situation, the Ger-
man player may be able to syphon a few units
from the Stalingrad area to help carry
Astrakan if- the Soviets are stubborn at this
location. (Once the necessary units have been
exited to Astrakan, they should be brought
back as soon as possible. The three Jaeger in-
fantry divisions (6-9) are easily recognizable
units to delegate for this purpose.) Special at-
tention should be given to Vladimirovskaya
(hex 3409) as tills is the only location south Or
east of the Stalingrad area where the Soviet
units can cross the Volga. The German
player should attempt to secure this city to
further solidify his flank by preventing any
Soviet outbursts here.
~ Mountain Division
L:::J
With regard to the disposition of other
units, Axis allied units are generally much
slower, cannot cross the Don if unsupplied
and don't pack much offensive punch. They
are best used to defend the Don in stacks of
three or to soak off while attacking or
defending, ("cannon fodder," as we call it).
Infantry from the Fourth Panzer Army
should assist the Axis Allies in defending the
Don, while infantry from the Sixth and First
Panzer Armies eliminate bypassed Soviet
units, secure supply lines, cross the Don and
drive on Stalingrad. The Seventeenth Army
and mountain units should be sufficient
along with the First Panzer Army mech divi-
sions to secure the Caucasus. German rein-
forcements should form a reserve to counter
any Soviet attack in the north, particularly in
the Voronezh sector. This plan usually
results in a balanced attack across the map
and really stretches the Soviets thin.
23
Now assuming that Voronezh, Kalach-
na-Donu, and Stalingrad - have not been
taken, but that all other points south of the
Don (from the north map) have been cap-
tured in time to garner the bonus victory
points, around Game Turn 10 or II, the Ger-
man player will have a victory count of 175 to
81. If Kalach-na-Donu is taken but not in
time for bonus points, the count would then
be 180 to 76. At this point, the German
player has a temporary two to one lead. Yet
he need not capture all of Stalingrad to win,
but just has to occupy one hex to cause the
Soviet player to lose control of the city, 20
points and the old ballgame. (A three to one
ratio wins automatically for the German
player.) Optionally, the German player can
win now by placing a unit next to the Volga
and keeping it in supply for most if not all of
the remainder of the game. This action will
partially negate the points the Soviet player
gains due to German failure to capture
StaIiI!&@~ by Game-Turn 12 and_beyond:
. The above point calculations do not in-
clude any points to either player for lack of a
continuous front, Strategic Withdrawal, etc.
The totals are based only on capture of cities
by a certain time, or the failure to do so. This
means that the German player should have a
greater number of points, as the Soviet
player is very likely to experience a lack of a
continuous front, Strategic Withdrawal, etc.
At the same time, the German player should
be very careful to maintain a continuous
front to avoid giving . the Soviet player
precious victory points.
Minor Modifications. For convenience I
use four German air armies at half strength
(one point per unit) instead of two. This
eliminates the hassle of trying to remember
how many points have been expended. Also I
have the Soviet reinforcements appear only
on Soviet cities with point values (in addition
to rail hexes on map edges). This was initially
due to a lack of additional counters to in-
dicate control of non-point cities , no desire
to keep track on a separate piece of paper,
and a distressing need to balance the game
towards the German player before the errata
was available. Both these changes give the
German player minor advantages, but I
don't believe that they materially affect the
course of battle. (In the war of playability vs.
realism/historicity; the former wins this bat-
tle with me.)
In conclusion, DOS initially received
less than favorable reviews due to an ap-
parent lack of adequate play testing. With the
published errata, it should certainly be given
a second look.
24
Opening MO VES (coT1/inuedfrom{Jagd]
Everyone and everything sold furiously; in
fact, SPI almost doubled its high sales record
of 0'77 - frustratingly we ran out of all our
new stuff in the in the first day of selling.
Rick Banner of GDW can be seen here
reading the rules to his company's latest crea-
tion to prove it can be done (only kidding!).
Miniatures were strongly represented as well
as a whole slew of micro-computer games -
a sign of the increasingly electronified times.
Parker Brothers, of mainstream repute,
showed their very nice abstract game, Black
Box, to the delight of the crowd - a gamer is
a gamer is a gamer.
Unfortunately for the foot-borne (including
your Tap-dancing Editor) the seminar-
giving-place was quite distant from the
exhibit-place - and also not decked with a
tremendous number of directional signs.
Once again, much of the space was un-air-
conditioned (but bearable).
An unbelievable number of events were
scheduled - and almost all occurred, but not
always on schedule. Your Talkative Editor
participated in one of the many convention-
sponsored pan.els plus he conducted one of
his own on graphic production. The Biggest
Talker I Know (alias J.F. Dunnigan) partici-
pated in a throat-hoarsening marathon of
panels and seminars and interviews and
general yak. The Avid Origins Listeners were
duly appreciative .
But most of the time they played games -
particularly new games andlor multi-player
games (logical - where else can you form so
many teams of players!).
And speaking of teams - sPt ran its softball
practice session on Saturday (it turned out
that they needed it - SPI won the game with
AH by the close score of 13 to 13 - trailing
badly by five runs in the bottom of the ninth,
SPI batters came up with the five runs need-
ed to decisively tie the game. Although they
lost the tie game, AH clearly had the best all-
round ball-player in the person of Tom
Shaw. They also had some persons on the
team who didn't exactly work directly for
Avalon HilI - but because they lost, we
didn't protest. SPI suffered from relatively
silent 'big guns' and an early case of the Big
Choke, but the less-than-stern hand of the
resolutely erratic field manager guided SP!
through to its thumping no-run triumph over
AH. The small, "gentlemanly" wager your
Editor had with R. Reed has been held over
'til next year at double the rates due to the
closeness of SPI's win. (see Box Score, p.13)
The -Impenan Wizards of the Origins
Committee decreed that come '79 the con-
vention shall be held in Philadelphia by
democratic arm-twisting of the PennCon
sponsors and the heroic efforts of the Metro
Detroit organization to avoid being saddled
with such a headache two years in a row.
While on the topic of headaches, the spon-
sors of 0'78 threw a beer blast for the ex-
hibitors" during which hundreds of adults
were tricked into playing a whacky
sociological party game. Ra Pah, Pah, N'est
c'est pas? .
The SPI Roast was almost undull this year,
thanks to the (truly) effective emceeing of
Jimmy Dunnigan (and the fact that it had to
be cut short so that the softball team could
get some sleep). Shown here are SpiMilitia-
men Gautier and Perez.
I was especially pleased to have met a more-
than-average number of nicer-than-usual
folk, some of whom are Phil and lovely Lea;
Bill the Headhunter and Ken the Chemist,
Barnstorming Jim Steuard of Baron Publish-
ing, a whole host of briefly met nice-guys
plus Donna the Cute Waitress.
The Charlie Awards for the Best This
and That were won by AH in both Strategic
(ViC. in Pacific) and Tactical (Squad Leader)
categories; by SPI for Best All-Time (til next
time) Fantasy Game (War oj the Ring) and
Pro-Magazine (S&1) and by Metagaming for
the best Semi-Pro mag (The Space Gamer).
And last and certainly least, Your Editor was
placed in the Hall of Fame (does tl~is mean I
get a free pass to the Yankee home games?).
And Reason Prevailed as an Awards Com-
mittee structure was set up for next year and
the categories ratjonalized. Of course, I will
be accused of being a snob for not showing
up at the Awards Ceremony (which was con-
veniently scheduled late in the afternoon so
that I could miss my plane if I decided to give
my long acceptance speech for a plaque
which did not then and will never have my
name on it - I guess I'm not all that famous
- it's a lot like getting an award addressed to
"Occupant").
Things That Were Not Good at Origins:
1. The almost universal lack of air-
conditioning and beer! One absent is
forgiveable, but both was torture!
2. The appalling drinking water which
permeated everything with a noxious poison
plastic taste. I know the sponsors had no
[continued on pagel91

GAME PROFILE
WACHTAM RHEIN
A Well-Rounded Bulge.
by Jim Govostes
For some strange reason, Wach[ am Rhein is not
getting the attention it deserves . I have a sneaking
suspicion that the fact that it is a good big game is
so absorbing its devotees that they don' t have
time to write about it. Could it be that I've
discovered the Catch-22 of articles on interesting
big games? Of cou rse, what I'd like to see is a good
little game on the whole battle - of which there
are presently none . As with many a WW2 gamer,
the Battle of the Bulge is one of my laves, but I just
don't have the time for WAR. Don'1, however, let
my lack of times stop vou ..
Perhaps the most popular battle in re-
cent history, the "Bulge " has been the sub-
ject of innumenible game efforts. Wacht am
Rhein (hereafter WAR) is SP1's third and,
far and away, the best effort on this topic.
While the basic gal1l,e system is from Panzer-
gruppe Guderian, its application to this set-
ting has opened new realms to other situa-
tions such as the battles around Monte
Cassino, Anzio, Sicily, Metz-Nancy .. .
This game was to incorporate all the
previous knowledge of this battle that would
have "dirtied up" Bastogne or was glossed
over in The Ardennes Offensive. That it ac-
complished more can only increase the
system's viability and usefulness for future
games, The game is designed down to bat-
talion and company levels with each hex
representing an area one mile across. The
regular a,m, and p.m, Game-Turns represent
41;2 hours of real time, while the night Game-
Turn represents 15 hours (with provisions for
a special Night Bonus Turn) . The game is
played on four maps covering from Prum to
the Meuse RiveL Tn all, the maps cover the
front of the U.S. V and VIII Corps.
The terrain is broken into clear, broken,
and woods hexes with towns, villages, rivers,
creeks, and both primary and secondary
roads. Woods, towns, and villages affect ar-
tillery Barrage Strengths, All other combat
effects are incorporated into the Combat
Results Table. The key elements within the
terrain effects are stacking, Road Mode, and
the Zone of Control (ZOC) rules_ The grow-
ing sophistication of simulations has led to
the natural intertwining of t.errain, move-
ment. stacking, formation. and combat.
WAR, which incorporates this perspective,
must be analyzed juxtaposing all these fac-
tors.
Prior to examining these basic design
features, a short note on the unit counters is
in order. The majority of combat counters
are on a battalion level, with U.S . units hav-
ing company level breakdown possible. Units
are backprinted with reduced Strengths for
most battalions, Most units have both an At-
tack and Defense Strength reflecting both
staying power and doctrinal differences . AT-.
tillery has Barrage and FPF (final protection
fire) Strengths with ranges up to 16 hexes. In
addition. there are Headquarters (HQ) units
(supply function), bridge counters, improved
positions, entrenchments, Isolated and
Fatigued counters, and March Mode
counters. In all, there are some 1600 counters
included in the game,
The functional mechanics are designed
to recreate the "grand tactics" feel of this
battle . While we are accustomed from past
games to terrain and ZOC affecting move-
ment, we are less familiar with stacking, for-
mation, and logistics lines having effect.
Incorporation of these variable elements
makes the Player consider not only moving a
unit, but also the shape of the unit prior to,
during, and after movement and combat; its
strength; its mobility; and supply prior to
and after moving. Tactical/operational plan-
ning becomes the foremost item when play-
ing the game.
Units are broken into Class A (six move-
ment points or less) and class B (seven or
more movement points). Formation rules
allow units to assume Tactical Mode (nor-
mal) or March Mode. March Mode requires
a special counter and costs four Movement
Points to place it on a unie Up to three units
may stack normally, while units in March
Mode may not stack. March Mode immedi-
ately spreads a division out , creating the long
lines of vehicles traveling on the road nets.
March Mode is not allowed in woods (which
represent the bulk of the hexes) except on
roads, which leads to tremendous little fights
occuring at key road junctions. Formation
and stacking rules have an enormous impact
on artillery units. To date, other than
Highway to the Reich. this is the best 1 have
seen modern artillery handled. The need to
consider the artillery unit's state (in/out of
battery) can have a great import upon cur-
rent Game-Tum's attacks or defense. Artil-
lery plays its critical role with U .S. units
being able to call down tremendous barrages
/ FPF and erase German unit combat superi-
ority_ Anyone having played the game and
having tried to crack the Elsenborn Ridge
can attest to this fact.
Unit frontages have been taken into
consideration in that, while three battalions
may stack in a hex, only two or these may at-
tack (or two battalions and one company siz-
ed unit) rrom that hex , Combat is mandatory
in Enemy ZOCs. However, disengagement is
25
allowed in that one can move out of an
Enemy zoe to avoid combat. Zones ofCon-
trol do not extend into cities, towns or forti -
fied hexes (improved and entrenched). This
allows the defender to turn a couple of com-
panies backed up by artillery in such terrain
into a veritable fort.
The benefits of integrated combat re-
flect the superiority of regimental attacks as
well as attacks supported by armor and artil-
lery, A Regimental Integrity Bonus shi fts the
odds one column if at least two of the units in
the attacking/defending stack are from the
same regiment. A Combined Arms Attack
Bonus - offered if armor (pure) is stacked
with infantry, mechanized infantry, para-
chute, glider, engineer or recon forces -
shirts the odds one column in the Attacker's
favor. A Combined Arms Defense Bonus is
possible if armor (pure) or antitank is stack-
ed in a hex where a CAAB attack is occur-
ring. The Defense Bonus negates the Attack
Bonus; it never applies to any other type
attack. The net effect of the Regimental Inte-
grity Bonus is to force a Player to keep a
division together and conduct attacks in regi-
mental strength. As with the Combined
Arms Attack Bonus, the units that qualify
the stack for this bonus need not be attack-
ing/defending; they need only be stacked.
This stipulation represents the build up of
reserves for any attacks that would be con-
ducted in the real world. The rule adds a nice
touch and reflects current tactical doctrine as
well.
One of the more subtle rules prohibits
the "soaking off" that became prevalent in
older type simulations, In this game, mini-
mum odds must be met for a particular type
of attack or instant elimination takes place
(FPF fire does not affect this rule; i.e., the
defensive player cannot create instant elimi-
nation by dropping the odds below minimum
through allocation of FPF points). So now
we have fewer suicide attacks that can be af-
fected by lucky die roIls_
Another innovative concept is the Night
Bonus Game-TUrIl_ This rule allows a Player
to move units (except HQ and artillery) at the
risk of "fatigue"; i.e., they don 't get to
sleep. Any night attacks also fatigue a unit.
Recovery takes the better part of the follow-
ing day, initially halving movement and at-
tack factors. and a slow recovery process
allows a unit to be upgraded during the fol-
lowing day, The rule allows for a trade-off of
combat and movement for the ability to ex-
ploit an opening with what is essentially
"stealing" a march. It reflects the staying
power of a unit nicely over the course of 24
26
hours and confronts the Player with hard de-
cisions about ti~e, distance, and combat
power.
These specifically designed rules coupl-
ed with German artillery ammunition deple-
tion, river/creek bridging, and armor river
crossing rules nets out to a reasonable fac-
simile of the problems facing the two sides in
the Battle of the Bulge. Road nets are crucial
to fast paced advances; road junctions (espe-
cially communications hubs like Bastogne,
St. Vith and Manhay) become centers of
tremendous action . The gripping tension of
trying to achieve or halt a breakthrough in
the first three days (10 Game-Turns, not
counting any Night Bonus Turns) is created
by the design system. Clerveaux slows the
2nd Panzer; st. Vith requires a huge expen-
diture of time and resources before it falls;
and Elsenborn Ridge is well nigh impossible
to crack. J would classify these first three to
five days a study in frustration for both
players - it should bring out the best (and
quite often the worst) in simulation Players.
Two problems exist in the above design
that should be rectified. First is the no-stack
rule of March Mode units; second is the ef-
fect of woods hexes on March Mode units. If
a unit is forced to retreat while in March
Mode into a hex where another unit is in
March Mode, the first unit is eliminated; it
cannot violate the no-stack rule. However, a
rule states that after combat, a unit must lose
its March Mode marker if forced to retreat.
Elimination seems too harsh and unrealistic.
A unit can be forced to retreat as much as
three hexes (three miles). To condemn a
marching unit to annihilation because it must
stop in a hex with another unit in March
Mode over that much distance is too difficult
to believe possible. And the caveat that says
after movement the March Mode marker is
removed does condemn the unit. A dual dis-
ruption due to route seems more in order
here. A condition in which both units
become incapable of movement for the next
Game-Turn with some sort of combat reduc-
tion seems more in line with the basic tenants
of the game design. It is easy to conceive of a
recon battalion being driven back upon the
vanguard of the division causing an inter-
mingling of the units and a loss of unit cohe-
sion, unit effectiveness, and command until
the lines are "tidied up." Perhaps even a
recovery step might be included.
The same comments apply to units forc-
ed to retreat into woods hexes while in March
Mode. Rather than elimination, a harsher
disruptive effect should take place. A unit
simply does not disappear because it is forced
off the road and into the woods while in col-
umn march. That it may be reduced in
strength and rendered totally ineffective for a
period of time is surely possible. Design
mechanics should not simplify such effects;
rather they should multiply them.
The Game-Turn sequence was designed
to enable either Player to block exploiting
forces of the opponent (exploitation exists in
the advance after combat/path of retreat
rules). Supply is judged for both P layers at
the start of each Player Phase. A unit in sup-
ply in one Player's Phase can be out of sup-
ply during the other Player's Phase. The
sequence forces a Player to commit units to a
tactical formation prior to any movement,
thus affecting maneuverability. Bridge blow-
ing/construction follows movement, forcing
a Player to plan ahead. Combat is last. The
sequence is innovative and well matched to
the basic developmental aspects of the game
system.
The Combat Results Table integrates
terrain, and the odds are progressively worse
for the defender in less covered terrain. The
system of allowing retreats - which can be
followed up by victorious forces - or step
losses presents the Players with further
choices. While the Combat Results Table is
not "bloody," the cumulative effects ofhav-
ing to constantly take step losses to hold key
terrain features or road junctions soon saps
the strength of the defender, while the need
.to seize these points causes the attacker to
take excessive losses. Simple in design but
brilliant in conception (thank you, Mr. Dun-
nigan), this Combat Results Table fits the
game system as it reflects the real problems
facing those who attack or defend. For in-
stance, 2: 1 odds across a river will only bring
an attacker grief, while at 5: 1 he has a 50-50
chance. This is one of the few games out that
reflects poorly on the old 3: 1 superiority
adage and admits that one can never be too
strong at the point of attack.
Supply is centralized around division,
corps, and army HQ units. This seems de-
rived from Highway to the Reich. It
represents a more realistic view of supply, ad-
mitting that units on the same road in the
same division may well be in different stages
of supply, depending on their distance from
a central supply point. Supply and road nets
are what this game is really all about. Dif-
ferent unit types are handled in various ways.
The U.S. player has more freedom in that
every division has a HQ unit (from which
supply radiates to the divisional units). He
also has several Corps HQ units, which eases
his supply headaches. The German player
has Division HQ units for his P anzer and
Panzer Grenadier units only. All other units
draw supply from Corps or Army HQ units,
which are limited in number, and this com-
plicates his supply problem. Eventually, sup-
ply considerations channel the German
attacks, allowing the buildup of U.S. forces
to exploit weak areas. ,
Several new twists have been added to
supply . Units can be out of communication
and remain unaffected by supply rules until
they engage in combat. These units then
become unsupplied. Such a state affects
movement of Class B units and halves attack
strengths. Isolation results from being
unable to trace any sort of supply line to a
HQ unit. There are two steps to isolation, the
second stage again resulting from involve-
ment in combat. During the a.m. Game-
Turns, there is the possibility of Stage 2
isolated units surrendering. This is the only
case where supply can eliminate units.
The impact of logistics upon combat is
nicely shown in these rules. The free-
wheeling days of not worrying about this
crucial element in war are hopefully now
over for simulations. Wacht am Rhein cer-
tainly has state-of-the-art supply. The next
step would be a supply class breakdown into
ammo, food, and fuel. The inclusion of at
least Class IV (fuel) and truck units would
make the game more interesting. The HQ
organizational set-up is excellent. One com-
ment is in order, however. Supply lines are
chains. HQ units should be considered and
inclu ded for every division in the game. Sup-
ply at any given moment is limited, and its
dispersal down the chains is an operational
decision. Thus, while all divisions of an army
may be capable of being unsupplied (as re-
quired by the supply chain rules - whatever
those may be), the commander must decide
how to apportion his supply and take into ac-
count the delivery of that supply. We will
then get into stockpiling, prior logistics (as
well as tactical planning), striking for op-
ponents' dumps, etc. The potential of the ex-
pansion and inclusion of supply has been
greatly enhanced by these new concepts.
I am not impressed with the air power
rules. These are an extension of the old Kursk
system. With such an advance in game design
having been made, these rather pathetic rules
seem out of place. It appears that the lessons
were learned as Atlantic Wall, based on this
same game system, has updated air power
rules. As I have not seen the game, r cannot
comment other than to hope that they are up
to the standard of the game system in
general.
The game has several nice touches that I
truly recommend. The German variable rein-
forcement rule makes the game more enjoy- .
able and places an added burden on the
Allies, as does the German ability. to select
variable objectives unrevealed to the Allied
player. It does not unbalance the game. The
German will find his many columns getting
tangled up, causing traffic jams and lost
time. The rule improves the German chances
of success in the 7th Army area, where a
good Allied Player can upset the whole tem-
po of the German attack . The Green Unit
Rule is one that should be definitely includ-
ed. It requires a certain amount of bookkeep-
ing to record which units have been involved
in combat, but it adds the element of doubt.
I sincerely recommend the use of the
new artillery rules, the German engineer
rules, and the morale rules (which necessi-
tates combat factor changes) that were in the
errata in MO YES #34. These rules clarify
some anomalies while simplifying the hand-
ling of certain aspects of the game. They also
make each move more involved, but they
benefit the overall system.
One missing element is leader counters.
There were several prominent men who af-
fected the outcome of the battle. To have in- '
cluded these leader units, as in Highway to
the Reich, would have added to the system.
Leader units also could have been allowed
the addition of benefits from combined
assaults a fa Highway to the Reich. Hopeful-
ly, this is an element that will be included in
any future use of the system.
{COlt tin "eel Olt page 3 J/

NEW INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
FOR MOVES ARTICLES
Most of the articles in MO VES are written
by its readers. We'd like you to give it a
try - if your article is well written and on
a subject of interest to readers, there's a
good chance it will see publication.
The Subject of your article is up to you.
From time to time the Editor will suggest
potential article topics. Don't be afraid to
write on other publishers' games -
MO VES is not a "house organ" that ig-
nores the rest of the gaming world.
Types of Articles. The kinds of articles
we're looking for fall into the following
general categories:
1. Operational Analysis. Deals with the
tactics and strategy of play in a specific
game.
2. Game Profile/Review. Description of
a game or games with particular attention
to its simulational system and playability.
Any criticism must be well-supported by
logical argument and fact (not simply per-
sonalopinion).
3. Documented Play. Description of and
comment on the move-by-move progress
of an actual two-player or multi-player
game. Documented play should be the re-
sult of several playings, the most relevant
of which being the subject of the article.
4. Field Report. Provides organized,
valid information on some aspect of con-
flict simulation of general interest.
5. Scenariopiex. An experimental section
of scenarios (each no longer than two
typewritten pages) in the style of the
parent game rules.
6. Footnotes. Short essays (no longer
than 500 words) on almost any subject
related to gaming. No honorarium is paid
for Footnotes.
7. Miscellaneous. Articles that don't fit
in the specific categories, but which the
author feels appropriate for publication
in MOVES.
Manuscript Requirements. Typewritten,
double-spaced on white bond. Line length
55 to 65 characters; no more than 25 lines
per page. Min-max length: 6 to 30 manu-
script pages. Pages should be numbered
and tagged with author's last name.
Cover sheet should give date written, fuU-
name, address, phone number, suggested
title, and honorarium preference.
Honorariums. For all published submis-
sions (except letters and Footnotes)
MO VES Magazine pays an honorarium at
the rate of $5 per running 10" of edited
text, calculated to the nearest half col-
umn. Alternatively, Authors may elect to
take their honorarium in SPI products at
the rate of $10 per 10" rendered against
the list price of the items. Honorariums
(cash or credit slip) will be rendered 30
days after publication.
Copyrights. All submissions to MOVES
automatically become the property of
SPI. Be it understood that any text, con-
cept, or creative work submitted may be
used by SPI as it sees fit, whether or not
such submissions are published in
MOVES articles. No attribution or com-
pensation will necessarily be rendered for
such material save that normally granted
when published as an article in MOVES.
In submitting material to MOVES, the
author affirms that his submission is
neither pu blished nor under consideration
for publication elsewhere and that no part
of his submitted material is copyrighted.
The following statement, signed by the
author, must be appended to all submis-
sions to MO VES Magazine:
AGREEMENT:
This agreement, between Simulations
Publications Inc. (hereafter SPI), a cor-
poration of the State of New York with Its
principal place of business at 44 East 23rd
Street, New York, N.Y. and (insert your
name) (hereafter Author) of Unsertwork-
ing title of article), (hereafter Work)
WITNESSETH :
1. Should the Work be published in
MOVES Magazine it is agreed t hat the
Author will be compensated at the most
recently published standard rate for
MOVES material .
2. It is understood and agreed between
SPI and the Author, tha t should the Work
be published in MOVES Magazine, it shall
be considered a work made for hire as de-
fined in the 1978 amendments to the
Copyright Act and the Author assigns all
his right. title, and interest in the Work
and any copyright in the Work to SPI or
its assigns, absolutely_
Fo r SPI Title: date :
Author date:
Please include with your submission a
stamped, self-addressed postcard. On the
message side of the card write the name of
your article. This card will be used to in-
form you of the status of your submis-
sion. Articles and illustrations can not be
returned.
Address all submissions to:
Redmond Simonsen, Editor
MOVES MAGAZINE
SPI
44 East 23rd Street
New York, N.Y. 10010
27
CONVENTIONS
Up and Coming
The following is a list of some of'the conven
tions scheduled to be held in the upcoming
year, including place, name of convention, and
whom to contact for further inrormation .
Sepfember 30
NATIONAL CAPITAL MILITARY COL-
LECTORS, Annual Exhibition and DinneL
Contact: Robert S. Lippman, 9209 Chanute
Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20014.
October 4-7
NASAGA '78 (Simulation/Gaming in Educa
tion). Contact: Kent School, University of
Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40208.
October 13-15
FOURTH WORLD FANTASY CONVEN-
TION, Sheraton Hotel, Ft. Worth, Texas .
Contact: Mike Templin, 1309 S. West, Arling-
ton. Texas 76010.
October 14-15
OCTOCON II (Science Fiction con, benefiting
Guild for the Blind). Contact: OCTOCON 11,
P.O. Box 1824, Santa Rosa, CaHfornia95402. I
October 14
ANNUAL CHICAGO SHOW, Military
Miniature Society of Illinois. Contact: Peter
Kailus, llOr Butternut Lane, Northbrook, 11- .
Iinois 60062.
October 22
MSCC '78 and NORTH AMERICAN
HISTOREX FINALS, Model Soldier Collec-
tors of California. Contact: Beverly A. Gor-
don, 18818 Leadwell Street, Reseda, Califor-
nia 91335.
October 28-29
NORTHERN OHIO W ARGAMING SOCIE-
T Y CONVENTION, Berea Armory, 72 Rocky
River Drive, Cleveland, Ohio 44129. Contact:
Dave Ulatowski, 6103 Thoreau Drive, Parma,
Ohio 44129 or Rob Reese, 4493 West 148th
Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44135.
October 2829
ROCKCON IV, Ramada Inn, Rockford, II
linois. Contact: Ken Lythgoe, 312 Hollister
Avenue, Rockford, Illinois 611 07.
December 2-4
WINTERCON VII. Conract: Al Slisinger,
19941 Joan, Detroit, Michigan 48205 .
28

HELPWANTED
More than most people realize, the pro- A COMPENDIUM Game Date of EmJta
(MOVES issue)
cess of designing and publishing historical
games is very much a co-operative effort.
OFERRATA Panzergruppe
While the amount of input from outside (through July 27, 1978) Guderian 25 Jul 1977
SP I varies considerably from project to Red Star/White Star 31 May 1973(9)
GAMES IN PRINT 3 Apr 1978
project, very little happens here at SPI Red Sun Rising
Gtlme Date of Errata Saipan 19 Sep 1976(29)
that is not affected by opinions and/or in-
(MOVES issue! Shiloh 19 Sep 1976(29)
formation generated by people outside
the company. The people working here at After the Holocaust 25 Jan 1977 Sniper! 1 Oct 1975 (23)
SPI do as much editing as they do writing Air War 19 May 1978 Soldiers Aug 1973(111
or designing. And most of us enjoy that Alma 19 May 1978 Spitfire 30 lun 1973
sort of work; a constant influx of new American Revolution 30 lun 1973 (9) Stonewall 1978
ideas is a critical element in sustaining a Antietam 19 Sep 1976(29) Strategy I 31 Oct 1973 (3)
,- creative community. If you want to, you 31 May 1973(9) Supercharge 29 Jul 1976
Ardennes Offensive
can probably help us in one . way Or Tchernaya 19 May 1978
Arnbem 19 Sep 1976(29)
another. Terrible Swift Sword 22 Feb 1977(29)
Atlantic Wall 3 J May 1973 (9)
USN
Researcb. We are constantly in need of Austerlitz 1975(10) .Tul 1977(34}
Wacht am Rhein
military information. This applies both to BaJaklava 19 May 1978 War Between
particular historical games (watch the Bastogne 19 Sep 1976(29) the States 12 Ju1 1978
progress reports on the games to see if Ballie of Nations 19 Sep 1976(29) War in the East (errata out
something you. have infq on is being (15t edition) of prim)(17)
Battle of Wilderness 19 Sep 1976(29)
worked on) as well as contemporary in- War in Europe 20 Apr 1976
Bloody Ridge 19 Sep 1976(29)
formation for FYEO (TO and E's, de- War in the West 20 Apr 1976
ployments , and weapons data, espec- Blue and Gray Quad I 19 Sep 1976(29)
Winter War 31 May 1973(9)
ially). Borodino 31 May 1973(9) Feb 1975
World War Three
CA 1975(10) Feb 1975(16tl
Games Testing, If you live near New World War Ii
York, why not get involved in the ongoing Cauldron 29 Ju1 1976 * errat.a in Moves /I 10 are a 31 July 1973 version
game testing we do at SPI? Generally this Cemetery Hill 19 Sep 1976(291 t errata in Moves 1116 are a Dec 1973 version
is done Friday nights. If you don't live Chickamauga 19 Sep 1976(29)
near New York, perhaps you would be in- Cobra 4 Apr 1978(23)
terested in "blind-testing" SPI prototype The Conquerors (undated)
games. Write to Tom Walczyk. Constantinople 1978 OUT-OF-PRINT GAMES
R&D Employment at SPI. We are always Crimean War Quad 19 May 1978 Game Date of Errtlta
on the lookout for people with experience Crusader 29Jul1976 (MOVES issue)
in gaming, historical analysis, and writing Descent on Crete 24 Mar 1978 Armagcddon 31 May 1973{91
who are interested in working on games Desert War 1974(14) Breakout and
for a living. Starting salary for a full-time Drive on Stajingrad 19 May 1978 Pursuit 1974(10)
R&Der ranges upward from $7-8,000, 1974(14) Centurion 31 May 1973 (9)
The East is Red
with swift raises to the regular Staff level Combat Command 31 May 1973(9)
FireFight (1st edition) 26 Aug 1976
($15,000) for those who can hack the Dal'k Ages 1974(12)
work. Write to Brad Hessel. Fredericksburg 19 Sep 1976(29)
Destruction of Army
Global War Jul 1975 Group Center 31 May 1973 (9)
Data Files. A "Data File" is an intensive
Golan 19 Sep 1976(29) 1812 Dec 1973
examination of a narrowly defined mili-
tary topic, historical or contemporary. Grenadier 1974(12) E I A1amcin 31 Jul 1973
"they appear in S&T. If you think you Highway to the Fall of Rome 1 Sep 1973
have a topic you could do justice to, let us Reich (1st edi tion) (errata incor- Flying Circus 31 May 1973(9)
know (do not write one and send it in porated into Franco-Prussian War 31 Oct 1973
without discussing it with us first). We 2nd edition) Grunt 31 May 1973(9)
pay $50 a shot; contact Joe Balkoski . Hooker and Lee 19 Sep 1976 (29) Kampfpanzer 1974(14)
Inkerman 19 M ay 1978 Leipzig 1974(14)
Game Suggestions. Have we done. your 31 May 1973
Island War Quad 19 Sep 1976(29) Lost Battles
favorite game yet? If not, you can't really 31 OCl 1973
Kasserine 29 Jul 1976 Marne
complain if you haven' t let us know what Aug 1973 (11)
Normandy
it is. We do read the suggestions on the La Grande Armee (undated)
(errata also out
Phalanx
feedback cards. Even more persuasive are Lee Moves North 30 Jun 1973(9) of print)
the letters that thoughtfully explain why a Leyte 19 Sep 1976(29) Riflc and Sabre 30 Apr 1973
game on such and such a topic, heretofore A Mighty Fortress Mar 1978(38) Scrimmage 1975(10}
ignored, really would be interesting and Moscow Campaign 31 Oct 1973 Wilderness
worthwhile. 19 Sep 1976(29) Campaign 31 Oct 1973
Mukden
Comments. Every letter contallllng Musket and Pike 30 Apr 1973 Year of the Rat 31 May 1973(9)
general comments is read by at least three NATO 1975(10*)
people. I f you can, please type, and if not, North Africa Quad 29 lui 1976
try to print - you can see who reads the October War (table) 1977(33)
most letters by the thickness of the Okinawa 19 Sep 1976(29)
glasses! We may not be able to reply, but Panzer Armel" Afrika 1974(14)
your input is appreciated.

Designer's Notes {con linuedjr(!m page >J
has benefited from the delay. Basically, this
is because during the eight weeks that I was
doing other things , I continued to sift and
collate pertin ent data from a variety of
sources, and I am now in a much better posi-
tion to evaluate the performance of the rele-
vant weapons systems. For example, I realize
now that the original ratings of the SA-7 and
SA-9 that we were using were much too op-
timistic. (One specialist with whom I spoke
explained that if his worst enemy in the world
had a Cobra TOW and he were equipped
with an SA-7 or SA-9 system, he would take
a crash course in How to Win Friends and In-
fluence People.) I also know now that the
current Soviet doctrine on the deployment of
the one effective (against choppers) surface-
to-air missile system, the SA-8, will probably
not affect the ability of the U.S. Cobras to
fend off S6Viet tank attacks, as the SA-8's
are intended chiefly to provide rear area anti-
aircraft security, and will rarely be found
along with advance elements.
In the last three weeks, we also have
finally licked the observation problems with
an accurate, usable system of determining
Line of Sight. The new system has likely ap-
pliCability to most tactical games (except
Mech War). Currently, I am (once again)
formulating rules, after which play testing
will be expanded from the present staff level
to full-scale' 'public" testing. Some of SP!'s
best modern tactical "blindtesters" are lined
up to take over after that, so the future is
rosy. Hessel
Mech War '80
There have been two major advances
since our last report. First off, we have final -
ly come up with an elegant sequence of play.
This is important since the original one was
composed of a total of 23 separate Phases.
As of this writing, we've managed to pare it
down to less than half of that (11 Phases) . As
might be expected, the main result of this is
to greatly speed up play. The other develop-
ment has been the evolution of company and
battalion morale rules . These are similar to
those found in some other tactical games
(such as Terrible Swift Sword and Stonewall)
and help to compensate for the tendency of
units to always fight to the last man (or tank),
especially in situations where victory condi-
tions are basically geographic (take this
town, clear that hill, etc.).
On the negative side, a problem remains
with the Line of Sigh t rules. While several ac-
ceptable systems exist, we would like to de-
velop one that more clearly defines realistic
features such as reverse slopes and "round-
ed" rather than " plateau-like" hilltops.
These are difficult concepts and no easy solu-
tion springs to mind . Tom WalCzYk
Battles for the Ardennes Quad
Play testing is nearing a close on all the
Folio games in Battles. C{ervaux, Celles, and
Sedan are in the can with St. Vilh being the
only Folio that still poses some balance and
playability problems. By playability, I don't
mean that the game is too hard or confusing
to play, but that it isn't as exciting as the
other Folios.
Historically in St. Vith, the Germans
had a limited breakout on the second day of
the battle, but were trying to head directly in-
to tough terrain and oncoming American re-
inforcements. This, and the American ability
to hold the northern flank and the town of
St. Vith, slowed the German assault to a solid
front slugfest (a situation that doesn't hap-
pen in the other Folios and the Campaign
Games, I am happy to say) . Now, the game
usually develops along lines similar t o those
of the historical battle, which is as it should
be as far as a simulation is concerned. But
I'm developing a game and want to make
sure that as a game, St. Vith offers an enjoy-
able blend of historicity and a good time. I'm
fiddling with it, though, and swear to solve
the St. Vi!h enigma by my next progress
report.
Meanwhile, testing of the Battle of the
Bulge Campaign Game continues to be very
rewarding. Of the five tests so far, the most
exciting was a hard fought grudge match be-
tween Danny Parker (the game's designer, as
the American) and myself (as the German).
Danny was in New York for a week working
on the Quad with me, so we played the cam-
paign for 17 hours straight the day before he
left. The game ended with a battered Panzer
Lehr division retreating from its bridgehead
across the Meuse as the British Guards Ar-
mored Division came pounding down on the
German salient. If the British hadn't been ac-
tivated by the German crossing, things would
have gone poorly for the badly weakened
American forces however.
This and the other campaign play tests
have given rise to a number of new rules used
exclusively in the Bulge game, such as re-
placements, British activation, German fuel
shortage, and the release of German rein-
forcements based on the achievement of ob-
jectives . Testing will continue for another
month or so, but the 1944 (and the 1940)
Campaign seems to be working very well.
John Butterfield
The Crusades
The Crusades is ready for publication in
the next issue of S&T, so there's little to re-
port other than to say it's finished. Play test-
ing by two outside sources (one in England)
was invaluable, especially in usage of names
and titles (we have a lot of those). A few rules
were changed: the Crusaders in the First
Crusade now pick their own Victory Condi-
tions (!) and we adjusted supply rules to ac-
count for the use of Fleets. The Fleet CRT
was changed (our fearless Commonwealth
cousin, Duc de Vasey, felt the original CRT
reflected losses to barnacles) to make it a bit
more snappy, but, in general, we are quite
happy with the game. Or really two games,
because there will be a two-player game for
the Third with a massive multi-player game
for the First. Both are quite different in play,
although they use the same basic system.
Rich Berg
Commando
This game disappeared for a while dur-
ing the period that Swords and Sorcery was
29
going through the Art Department, but a
"Rescue Game" spell has been cast and the
project is back on the track. My poor blind-
testers should be receiving their copies fairly
soon, for which they have been waiting for a
month. But the month has allowed me to put
down my thoughts about or.ganizing this
game. It is clear to all who have perused the
rules that there are a huge number of pro-
cedures to follow and die-rolls to make (if a
flamethrower explodes in the vicinity of
Friendly and Enemy men, it is possible that
twenty die-rolls would be required before the
next action is considered!) But the overall
complexity of the basic system is relatively
low, and intentionally so, because the idea of
the games-mastered version (or to be more
precise, the role-playing version) is to anow
the Players to layer on levels of complexity.
However, that version of the game is just
tooling up, ruleswise, and should not be sent
out in blindtest form until the beginning of
August.
Greg Costikyan has been brought in as a
troubleshooter on the project, and also to
give fresh outside input on the game. He is
primarily interested in the role-playing aspect
of the game, but will also be assigned to
editing my rules. We have collaborated on
two games, and seem to work well together,
so his presence should help the game.
I talked to some of you at Origins '78
about the game, and I was pleasantly sur-
prised to see the amount of interest evinced
by many. If anyone out there has ideas that
they wish to see included in the production
version of the game, I can only suggest that
you send them to me, and if I feel that they
merit inclusion, I will use the concept and
credit you for your idea. Eric Goldberg
CityFight
I know that all of you are sick and tired
of hearing about this game's supposed
"progress," but it's back to the drawing
board that we go. First, let's summarize the
strategic situation concerning CityFight. A
while ago it was decided that CityFighl was
making about as much progress as an ant
against a brick wall. About this time, I had
been working on a game-system for Arnhem
Bridge - a system which of COurse also
revolved around urban warfare. A sweeping
decision was made to combine the Arnhem
and CityFight projects in order to simulate
this type of warfare from 1914 to the present
day. Thus, CityFighi is beginning to look a
bit different from its original feedback pro-
posal. The game's ini tial severe setbacks were
basically caused by the inapplicability of the
FireFight system to the smaller scale and
restricted fighting of CityFight. But - not to
worry - the basic redesign of the new City-
Fight is well under way. It looks like the game
will be on the individual man level, with at
most a squad in action on either side at once.
The system wiII be somewhat abstract , as our
basic goal is to make this game above all
playable. It looks like we will use cards for in-
dividuals . All of us have our fingers crossed,
as play testing is about to begin. Oh yes, for
all you Arnhem fans out there - don't
30
worry; we will have at least one scenario for
you in C;ityFight. Joe Balkoski
Cassino
Cassino is John Prados' first game for
SPIsin~e Y(!ar of the Rat, and a lot of water
has flowed downstream for both John and
SPI since those days (1972). John's Cassino
is OUf second ongoing effort to coordinate
wilh a designer who does not maintain an of-
fice here at SPI (the first being the work be-
ing done on Battles for the Ardennes by
designer Danny Parker in Florida and devel-
oper John Butterfield in New York). John
Prados, who lives in New York, has been
supervising his own play testing, so the diffi-
culties that arise are not so exacerbated by
distance as with the Ardennes project. But
problems there are. Someone has to coord-
inate John and our corps of play testers .
Someone has to make sure that John's rules
changes get inputted through our text-editing
system in a timely fashion. Someone has to
stay close enough to the project to be able to
pick it up if John gets hit- by an errant air
strike intended for a remote abbey. Our in-
tention is to gear up the capacity of the SP!
R&D Staff to deal with outside designers,
and thus increase even more than before the
flow of new ideas and creative input to which
we have access and from which every game
we design and develop benefits. /"
At any rate, I am now supervising the
testing of Cassino myself while John does
some digging in the stacks of Abilene, Kan-
sas for his thesis. While I am beginning to
suspect that the Allies have an even tougher
time in John's game than they did in actuality
(and that's saying something), I am primarily
cleaning up ambiguities in the system and
laying out possible solutions and adjust-
ments for John to decide among upon his
return (some three weeks hence). The system
plays very well and is one of the cleanest that
I have ever seen for a tactical game. The Air
Cav Line of Sight rules seem to work pretty
nicely, making the game even cleaner. The
two biggest tasks remaining are balancing the
game and polishing the rules. The latter job is
one that John is approaching with enthusi-
asm, and with the conviction that working
within the SPI rules format guidelines will be
a big advantage. Hessel
NATO Division Commander
The game is entering the nitty-gritty
stage of its development; that is, the period in
which we choose the directions in which the
basic design can best be pursued. The basic
viewpoint of the game (not very surprisingly)
is that of the Division Commander. The
functions of the game revolve around the
role of individual leaders and their staffs in
modern combat operations. Generally,
NATO has the advantage in both of these
areas while the Soviets rely on Blitzkrieg at-
tacks and their superior numbers to carry the
day. (And any Player that attempts to quick-
ly switch a Soviet division from a road march
to a deliberate assault will immediately find
out why the Russian army continues to be
pictured as a lumbering steamroller) . We
hope to eventually provide three different
methods by which the game can be played:
(1) the basic P layer/Controller arrangement;
(2) a more conventional two-Player "open"
game; and (3) the game in its ultimate form,
with two Players and one Controller, in the
style of traditional military wargames.
Tom Walczyk
War in the East QuadriGame
Although the W.l.E. Quad developer is
up to his neck in the Ardennes Forest, pro-
gress is being made on our newest East Front
games. Joe Angiolillo brought in Kiev two
weeks ago for its initial play test, which went
very smoothly. He uses some interesting
special rules in the game that contribute to its
historical validity and playability. A Stalin
no-retreat rule limits Russian options in the
second half of the game, and a morale rule
makes Soviet Untried units even more
unstable than in Panzergruppe Guderian.
Conversely, rules covering rivers and swamps
slow the German eastward advance until
Guderian comes charging in from the north.
Rostov begins public play testing this
week. The game was actually designed
months ago by myself as an independent
Folio game using the PGG system and has
already been play tested by some of the staff
here. Aside from conforming it to the Quad
format, and play testing, Rostov is ready to
go. Korsun (designed by Steve Patrick) and
Von Manstein (by Dave Werden) are still
awaiting order of battle information (that
always seems to be the case with East Front
games). German maps from the National Ar-
chives in Washington are on their way to the
rescue, however. John Butterfield
Hundred Vears War
We have begun manually testing the
various "Computer" routines of the design
of the Hundred Years War. These "rou-
tines" entail upwards of 50 legal sized pages
of minute flow charts which deal with
various factors within the game. Dealing
with the massive amounts of detailed infor-
mation that our researcher Al Nofi continues
to find for us leaves me believing that Mr.
Nofi has a computer at his home generating
the tremendous amount of information that
he is finding. A command center has been set
up in my office wherein three to six people
are working on the project.on any given day,
which sometimes resembles the Stateroom
scene in "A Night at the Opera.'''
The computer program is designed to
run each Fief (one player's basic land posses-
sion) automatically so that we can test the
routines and autopilot a Fief until a new
player is assigned if a player drops out of the
game. So far the project is boundless - so
much so, in fact, that the major work being
done at this moment relates to determining
which mechanics enhance and which detract
from the game. David Werden
John Carter of Mars
Due to the Origins crush of events and
putting out The Next War, John Carter has
taken a temporary backseat, but some design
work is done in spite of everything. The Stra-
tegic Giime has a map of ERB's Mars which
displays the hemispheres. All major cities
and terrain features are portrayed. Players
move between cities by expending movement
points to move across spaces bridged by
canals (there are no hexagons). A character
can be mounted either on a thoat (horse) or
walk. In addition, a character may fly, but
there are special risky restrictions for this.
Upon entering cities, players must draw ran-
dom events cards that will dictate the tactical
situations that a character will run into. In
addition, players will draw objective cards so
that their scenario will be known to them. A
player's scenario may be altered as the game
goes on due to the changing strategies of his
arch rivals. Mark Herman
Mini-Game
At this moment there are four Mini-
games being designed and developed at SPI.
Physically, the concept will take the form of
a game-map one half the size of a folio map
with approximately six to eight pages of
rules. What is truly exciting about the project
is that four people - John Butterfield, Greg
Costikyan, Phil Kosnett, and myself - are
all intensively working on all four games
much as a college or graduate symposium.
Each person is responsible for designing one
game (however, Greg is designing two while I
am coordinating the project, and each per-
son in the seminar is also responsible for rip-
ping each other's game apart to make it bet-
ter). If this method of working is successful,
each of the people involved in the project will
have had a definite hand in each of the
games. What is truly happening at this mo-
ment is that we are all witnessing each game
being consumed in the flame and rising as a
Phoenix not once but several times. Our
hope is that each project will be improved
through this intensive development.
David Werden
War in the Ice
The Antarctic Conflict, 1992
This is a weird game. The map covers
the whole continent at 80 km to a hex, which
is huge considering that the basic combat
unit is a mechanized team of about 500 men
with very light tanks and personnel carriers.
Other land units include laser batteries,
robot tanks called DRo.mS (Deepfreeze
Robots On Independent Direction), hover-
tanks, engineers, paratroops and airmobile
units, and a few heavy infantry base garri-
sons (with the only howitzers on the con-
tinent). Air units include light and heavy
transports, transport and attack helicopters,
fighters, ground attacklspotter planes, and
Electronic Warfare planes. Players may
launch reconnaissance satellites and killer
satellites (the latter to knock down the
former).
Why, you may ask, are the USA, USSR,
and South American Union (a Brazilian-
dominated alliance first seen in Invasion:
America) fighting over Antarctica? The
game's future history postulates that the
remnants of a weird and advanced civiliza-
tion have been discovered under the ice, and

the superpowers are making sure nobody else
has a monopoly on whatever important finds
may be made. In the science fiction scenarios
of WITI, those finds are several tens of
thousands of Ice People soldiers emerging
from suspended animation beneath the ice to
fight a long-forgotten war - and joining in a
new one.
This game is being designed for two au-
diences: a science fiction group and strictly
serious modern gamers. The scenarios with-
out Ice People are simply late-20th Century
battles in a very weird environment. The
combat system has separate air-toair, anti-
aircraft (both laser and ballistic) and land
combat systems, all making heavy use of
electronic warfare capabilities as well as the
terrain, incredibly rough weather, and theef-
fect the Magnetic Pole has on communica-
tions and electronics. There are extensive
rules for locating these thousand-man units
in 22,000 square km hexes (the counters are
on the map at all times, but cannot be attack-
ed until "detected") as well as a simple
logistics system where the amounts of sup-
plies carried by vans and transport aircraft,
and stored in bases are recorded on an off-
map display. My favorite part of the game is
that players choose every unit and Supply
Point. Thus a Player may win the war by cap-
turing his opponent's bases (of which there
are no more than nine on the whole con-
tinent) but lose because he has built too large
an army and lost too many units in doing so.
It is purely an economic war rather than a
"Crusade," and players must plan ahead to
build a balanced force suited to their own
strategy and tactics. Phil Kosnett
Bloody April
Initia i feedback to the Civil War games
has been exceptionally strong, and the next
game using the TSS system to appear will be
Bloody April.: The Battle oj Shiloh. Using
two game-maps and 1200 counters (approx-
imately 340 of which will be regiments and
brigade-level and up commanders) BA will
utilize the basic system started in TSS. How-
ever, that system will be further honed and
modified to fit the Shiloh situation. Plans are
made for more extensive melee rules, the
problem of the segmented Union Lines of
Communication and the resultant Con-
federate surprise, and modified artillery and
cavalry rules (all dependent on the remark-
able terrain features of Pittsburg's Landing).
Scheduled for mid-'79 release and plotted in
at $15, Bloody April will be the first in a line
of Major Civil War battles to be covered on a
grand tactical level. Rich Berg
Trafalgar
This is to be the first in the new Great
Battles oj History series. I can tell you almost
nothing about the game as of now, other
than that its system will be somewhat simple.
[ can do virtually no work on the game until
I've knocked Cityjight Mark III out of the
way (something which all of you are looking
forward to, I'm sure). Al Nofi is beginning to
do extensive research on Trafalgar in prepar-
ation for an article on the subject to be pub-
31
lished with the game. We have been discuss-
ing the general nature of sea fighting in the
age of sail in order to pave the way toward a
NEW and NOW
'.
new game-system on the subject. Incidental-
ly, about one month ago I was aboard HMS
AVAILABLE
Victory in Portsmouth - it was an incredible
experience. The only problem was those low
deck beams... Joe Balkoski
Quatre Bras
This will be an S&Tissue game for fairly
far in thefuture (Number 74). It will be based
on Wellington's Victory and will have (hope-
fully) one map and 200 counters. For those
of you who are not familiar with the name,
Quatre Bras was the struggle between Wel-
lington and Marshal Ney on June l6, 1815-
two days before Waterloo. The battle revolv-
ed around a critical crossroads that tied the
British Army with the Prussians, doing battle
during the same day with Napoleon at Ligny.
Joe Batkoski
Wacht am Rhein [conlinuedjrnmpoge26}
It is not the purpose of this article to go
into the tactical/operational considerations
of the system. Yet, because of the growth of
"big" games, and the general lack of playing
* Operational Combat~ Inter-
of the games by the buyers, I have a few hints
action between Armor~ Infantry~
and Artillery
to those interested in doing more than just
looking at the game box. * Extensive Sea Landing
System~ Naval Bombardments,
First is planning. Sit down at the map
and plan. Don't try to jump right into play- Beach Defenses, Tides, and more
ing the game; there is just too much inform-
ation to handle. I spend as much as three or
* Individual Air Groups,
Parachute Drops, Troop Carrier
four days planning. It makes the game go
smooth ly, as fewer stumbling blocks and Wings, Pathfinders, and Gliders
mistakes are encountered . Write an opera- Atlantic Wall simu lates Second World War com-
tions plan designating objectives. resources, bat with all its comp lexities 011 every level, from
supply lines, time frames, etc. Then execute quasi-tactical to operational to strategic. As a
it. Usually a sequence of five to ten turns is theater commander, you must make the c ritical
all the plan is worth. But at least your strategic decisions: Which divisions should get
strategy will be coherent. the meager su pplies a rrivi ng a t the ha If fi n ished
Second, institute a system of periodic "M ulberry" artificial harbors? S hou Id the Coten-
ballie reports wherein you describe the days' tin Peninsula be cut at Carteret followed by a
drive on the all-important port of Cherbourg, or
action for each division, corps, or any con- shou Id a n a lIout drive be made on the crossroads
venient unit. Reviewing this battle report and at Coutances la city which was to cost many
the operations plan will indicate the progress thousa nds of lives when taken later du ring Opera -
and "feel" of the battle to you and provide tion Cobral? Where should the German Player p it
generalized information at your fingertips- his fast-arriving PallZer Divisiolls? In the relatively
it tends to involve you and makes the game open terrain west of Gaen, or in the dense bocage
more alive. It becomes difficuH to lose in- on the American fro nt?
terest over long periods of inactivity. In fact, Jumpingoff fro m where SPl's Wacht am Rhelil
I find myself spending lunch hours at work {the fi rst true operational- level game covering t he
planning for the weekend. Organization is Second World War! left off, A Ilanlic Wall at-
the key to success and enjoyment. Big games tempts t o perfect th e playable. yet detailed sys-
are no more difficult than well designed tem of simulating this t ype of combat. The dis-
tinction of this system lies in its attempts to por-
smaller ones. They require more thinking, tfa y a/f aspeC1S that might be considered crucia l
organization, and time (as well as space). from anyone from a Regimenta l commande r on
When the game is a well designed one, like up . The number of things to think about each
Wacht am Rhein, the experience and know- ' GameTurn are truly staggering , yet Players will
ledge of the campaign or battle to be gained soo n easily adapt to the gamesystem as it is writ-
is tremendous and creates insights into why ten in the rules. Any student of history with an in-
events transpired as they did. terest in this period will not wan t t o miss this
I heartily and highly recommend Wacht simu latio n. $28 (boxed) from SPI.
am Rhein. While there are flaws, they are
small . The guts of the game system is a thing
to behold. The game can take one from the
very heights of euphoria to the depths of ut-
ter frustration easily. It is one of my choices
for SPI's best.
32
F.O
by Richard Berg
CORPORAL ENJOYMENT
Though we've beaten him and flayed
him, yet he still rises once again. Napoleon.
No single personage in all of Military History
has had more simulations published covering
battles, campaigns and operations in which
he has had a direct influence than the
dimunitive Emperor of France. The games
run the gamut from Avalon Hill's simplistic
Waterloo through GDW's colorful 1815 all
the way to Frank Davis' stunning, if con-
voluted. Wellington's Victory. And these
three not only barely scratch the surface. but
they cover only one battle/campaign! That
there are plenty of other areas of Napoleona
has not been lost on companies both big and
small, although I often wonder why, with all
this steady interest in Napoleon, there has
not appeared any work on either the Italian
or Egyptian campaigns (excluding a minor,
amateur effort that appeared several years
ago).
There is even one company that makes a
living exclusively from Bonaparte . Marshall
Enterprises of California has been dissected
(almost literally) in a previous column for
their work on Auerstadt, and their third ef-
fort (if you include La Battaile de [a
Moskowa, which is now owned by GD'W) is
now out - another Napoleonic game,
Preussich-Eylau - which avoids, to some
extent, the excesses of the previous game.
(Their plan is to do all the battles of the
Emperor). Their rules are a bit clearer in
language, their counters are still glorious (if
confusing), and their maps still look like
Hobbitland.
Even with all this Gallic competition,
Napoleon is still a safe bet if you want to start
out. And Napoleon is just the subject two
new companies have chosen for their first ef-
forts, and although the games are quite dif-
ferent in scope and design, as they are first ef-
forts, it would be interesting to see how they
are handled.
Dresden 1813 is the first packaged game
by the folks who put out the UK Wargamer
magazine. Wargamer is a sort of hybrid Fire
& Movement, using the same content mix
(with somewhat less success) and, unfor-
tunately, little of the style and panache that
Roger McGown brought to his excellent
magazine. No matter, The Wargamer is quite
a good magazine, and each issue contains a
game that is reminiscent of S&T issue games
in the 30-4O's (issue numbers, that is). The
last issue was Kesselring, a rather ambitious
Italian WWII project. The only major gripe
that I have had so far with The Warga mer is
that they still have game reviews by the
designer of the game. Now, let's face it, any
designer that pans his own game is a bigger
fool than the editor who allows such spurious
material into his magazine; and any other
opinion in the review is equally spurious.
Having succeeded in raising their subscrip-
tion level to the 6000 mark (a decidedly
second-hand bit of information) the UK
Wargamer folks have now gone whole-hog
and put a brand new design in a box, with an
eye towards the retail market. The subject is
Dresden. and the style is colorful if totally
non-innovative. The game is physically quite
attractive, including the nice multi-color box
artwork. The most striking feature is the
game-map. It is printed in 19th-century style
with a solid dose of color, and the effect is
quite attractive. Unfortunately, much of this
good artwork obscures the hex numbers
which makes setting up a pain in the glut~
maxo. The counters are also brightly col-
ored; however, for all their colors there
seems to be little scheme or plan to grouping
the different corps by nationality, a defect
exacerbated by the fact that the rules only
hint at which units are Austrian, Prussian,
Russian, etc. The entire effect is quite pleas-
ing to the eye, but somewhat confusing to the
mind.
As for the game system, if you've played
Napo[eon at Waterloo or any of that ilk you
could play this without reading a single
rule . .. well, maybe glancing at a column or
two. It is not a large game - the map is 24"
X 29" and there doesn't seem to be more
than 125 counters - and designer Ken
Broadhurst, who has done several of The
Wargamer's entries, has seen fit to travel the
path of Tried and True. So we have the old
move-and-fight, with rigid ZOC's and a
DE/DR CRT. The CRT itself is rather
bloodless (mostly retreats), but this is
ameliorated by a nice Disorganization system
(one of the few "innovations" , along with a
Reorganization rule that is also somewhat
familiar). Nothing new, but then again,
nothing bad. The situation of the battle is in-
teresting, what with the French outnumbered
and waiting for their reinforcements, while
the Allies have trouble getting their act in
gear. Given the simplicity of the game, the
latter is handled somewhat artifically, yet the
feel of the situation is still prevalent.
There are some problems, even with the
simple level of play. The rules are crowded
together, and some are not easy to discern.
As mentioned above, no differentiation is
given for the different Allied corps (except by
unspecified color), and as the countries move
at different times this can be annoying,
unless you know, for example, that
Schwartzenberg is the Austrian commander
and which corps are his. The Victory Condi-
tions are also over-complex, and the terrain
is a mite confusing (certain city hexes have
numbers the meaning of which is obscure).
The garpe also states that it has rules for ad-
vanced play, but nowhere is this indicated .
Now, I am not partial to simple games,
as they tend to favor the game at the expense
of the simulation. Bu t Dresden is still a lot of
fun. It plays smoothly, and, as with simple
games, the players rarely have to go search-
ing for rules and clarifications. That, in
itself, makes it recommendable, along with
the nice artwork, even if a bit overpriced.
(What isn't, these days.) It's conservative,
but cute .
Now conservatism never gained a strong
foothold with Kevin Zucker, the new mentor
of the brand-new Tactical Studies Group
(and ex-SP! employee). His new Napo/eon at
Bay is big and bold, and its point of view
relatively innovative. Yet, throughout it all,
NAB retains a scent of familiarity in both
physical appearance and design.
Your initial contact with the game will
produce more than a sense of familiarity;
deja vu is a more accurate feeling. It has that
unmistakable SPI air. The counters, for all
their bright colors, could come from any SPI
game, and the CRT's and other tables have
that distinctive Simonsen look. The two
maps are a bit different, but mostly because
of the types of terrain used , not because of
the color scheme. Moreover, both the rules
and the scenario books, despite the use of
two rather than three columns, have that un-
failing SPI imprint. None of this is surpris-
ing, given Zucker's background and the fact
that he used the same printer and die-cutter
as SP!. And the result of these wise decisions
are that Napoleon at Bay is the most
professional-looking "first" game I have
ever seen. It is first-class work.
And the game itself is not all that far
behind. NAB is a movement-oriented game,
as most 19th-century operations were. Posi-
tion is important, and the system reflects
this. Zucker's main theses lie with command
and communications. And his sympathies lie
with those games that have emphasized these
two facets, as is obvious from what he has
borrowed (intentionally or not). The use of
alternating Forced March segments spaced in
the opposing player's sequence of play is an
idea that should be standard in all pre-20th
century operational games; it was first used
(at least to my recollection) in Frederick the
Great. Other mechanics, such as Attrition,
Force Movement by Initiative (or Com-
mander's Rating), and Leader control of
subordinate forces by rating have all ap-
peared elsewhere.
All of this borrowing is a smart move on
the part of Zucker. Having used tested
systems for a great part of the game, he is
then {ree to try his hand at some experimen-
tation in others, knowing that he is not biting
off more than he can chew. (Borrowing is a
time-honored method in game design. I, par-
ticularly, practice it extensively; if it worked
once before it should work elsewhere,
especially if molded to fit the situation.)
Thus, to add to the already existent system of
movement by Leader Rating, Napo[eon at
Bay has a system of Dispatch Commands,
wherein a Force may move freely by expend-
ing Administrative Points that come from an
Operations Center. The closer to the base of
operations, the more "Commands" may be
used to move Forces. This results in a highly
"realistic" system of centralization of com-
mand, where units are virtually tied to their
base of operations.
Napo/eon at Bay does have its pro-
blems. The rules are somewhat shoddy (in
 33
type) and obscure in meaning, and some of
the tables and charts are virtually labyrin-

Playback
thine. I fear that the designer was reaching MOVES Feedback responses . Readers have
for a new and more narrative (or informal) been asked to rate each aspect of the games on
a scale of 1 (Poor) to 9 (Excellent) . For the ac-
style of rules. The intent is fine (if a bit in- tual text of the questions. see Section B of
judicious' in a first effort - but then again, Feedback on page 35. P ublishers Abbrevia
this is not Zucker's first effort), but the result
is often flawed. I found myself doubling READER REVIEWS tions: SPI=Simulations Publications, Inc.,
New York; AH = Avalon Hill, Baltimore,
back several times to see exactly what was go- Playback ratings are reader evaluations of Maryland; CGC=Connict Games Company,
ing on, only to find that what I was looking games that are acquired through S&T and Normal Illinois.
for was simply obscure. However, none of .~~
<'f><:;
the rules is particularly complex; they are all
based on common sense, rather than arcane .,""' ~
~oS 0<' ~ '$'
design formulae, and no one will have any oO~O ~.." ~~ ~'~
problem discerning the designer' s intent,
especially with the voluminous notes and
~ ..
:....~ _~~
~.
(,0
~o; . ~~
,~
Rating
'!'.0T'I
.;;"" . yplca

comment. Publisher SPI SPI SPI CGC AH Range

Moreover, the game plays well. As I fublication D~,te " 9i7T 7/77. 5/77 2/7~ ,: 2/78 .'
stated before, this is a movement-oriented Price 9.00 10.00 15 .00 11.98 10.00
game. The combat system is quite basic
(odds/ratiO and point losses) and is more a 'N r .. orPlayers~evl~wi~g" ' 308 99 132 ..... 51. ,' J,'i2
result of play rather than the "end to the Date Rev.iewed 7/78 7/78 7/78 7/78 7178
means;" i.e., combat becomes a result of ~:Ma~;P)1ysiCal Q~ality . , 5 .756.fi9 7:3,9 7'. 12 '6 ; 296~1-6. .:8 ':
how the players' play, not something they are B. Rules, Physical Quality 6.07 6.77 7.02 6.61 6.56 6.4-7.1
playing to get to. The fun in the game is in the ,C, C~unters,p'bysica' 9.066 ..39 . 7.37 ' 7:4'f ' 7.53, 6;5"i~L
judicious use of Movement Commands,
D. Ease of Play 5.81 6.99 6.68 7.34 7.60 6,.3-7.0
when to move slowly and when to make that
sudden all-out lunge towards an objective, E: RulesCom'pleteness .. 5.88 635 6.23 ; 6:58'.; ,6 : 6,o6~3~6.9 ,
catching your opponent completely F. Play Balance 5.89 6.65 6.67 7.04 6.32 6.1-6.7
unawares . There is a lot of bluff, and a great G:G.sme Length Suitability ', .. ... ~ .52 5,.3.1 . 6.36 ~ 7..18 6~90. ~ 6~2~6~8 .'
deal of second-guessing - all the elements of H. Set-Up Time Suitability 6.91 7.15 6.04 7.20 6.91 6.2-6.8
a 19th-century operational campaign. Play is 6.12 . :: 6.58 ";'0.92 tOO ;'6~03" 6~2~6:9}"
'. l '. C9mpJexity.SuftabHity ' ...... :"
smooth, and I found it to be somewhat faster
than the recommended 40 minutes per turn. K. Realism 5.67 6.04 6.82 6.36 4.65 5.9-6.5
Even so, the full campaign is not a short af- . L. 'O~er8I!' Rating 5.70 : 7;06 ' 7.08 : 7;22',' 6 :6l, 6j-6:.8~
fair . Then again, there are so many scenarios M. % Who'd still buy 48% 86% 89% 981110 78070 770/0
that you can play any sort of game in a few N. % . Rec'dmoney's worth 65llJo 870/0 ' 92% 960/0 83"10' . 82"70 '
hours. Set-up time is minimal (there are few
counters actually in play) and the game is S&T SURVEY DATA
digested quite rapidly, thanks to its overall % Who've played game 33ClJo l3ClJo 13% na na
..
familiarity. . Acceptabilitr R~t!JJg" ',:' 5.9 "6.'8 7.0 ,
"",~,~

., M .. ,n~

Napo/eon at Bay is a colorful and im- Complexity Rating 6.0 5.5 6.5 na na
pressive debut by Tactical Studies Group,
and 1 recommend it highly to anyone with a ". '.. GaJtl~ 'Leng.th (J.tt,u...s} :2..0 5.0 " ~.(),.::>;; n;i'~,' na
serious interest in the era or the style of play. Solitaire Playability 5.5 2.0 6 .0 na na
(1 should also like to add here, in the interest
of what is euphemistically called Full Disclo-
sure, that, as an attorney, I have done some RAID strategic and tactical simuJaions of the Roman
legal work for Tactical Studies Group . How- Design: Mark Herman Republic 's easlward expansion after the Se-
ever, -I have no interest in the company and Development: Tony Merridy cond Punic War and Alexander's conquest of
approached the game as I would any other.) Art: Redmond A. Simonsen the western portion of the Persian Empire,
Comments: Tacticallevel simulation of com- respectively.
mando operations from World War II to the
Dresden, 1813, published by Simulations near future. Rules for command control, IMPERIUM
Games, 74 Cherry Tree Rise, Buckhurst Hill, observation, communications. helicopters, op Design: Marc Miller, with Frank Chadwick
Essex, England; 7.95 Pounds postpaid (from tional vehicles and weapons. and John Harshman
the U.S.). Comments: Empires in Conflict; WOI"lds in
A MIGHTY FORTRESS the Balance. Strategic level inter-stellar con-
Napoleon at Bay, published by Tactical Design: Rudolph W. Heinze flict; fairly complex sequence of play with sub-
Studies Group , P.O . Box 456, New York, Development: Richard Berg phases, reaction phases, etc . Includes regular
N.Y. 10024; $18 . Art: Redmond A. Simonsen hex movement and hyperspace; refueling and
Comments: Simulation of the spread of the transportation; space combat, planetary bom-
Lutheran Reformation and the subsequen t bardment, surface combat; economics and
Catholic reaction, 1532-1555 . Rules for com- points fo r " glory. "
bat, missionaries, conversion, diplomacy,
finances, excommunication. VICTORY IN THE PACIFlC
New Design: R iehard Hamblen
THE CONQUERORS Comments: World War II in the Pacific
Design/ Development: Richard Berg Theatre.
Art: Redmond A. Simonsen
Comments: Twin pack contai ning The COSMIC ENCOUNTER
Romans and The Macedonians - both No statistically valid sample.
34
Feedback
MOVES n.r. 40, published Aug/Sep 1978
How to use the Feedback Response Card : Aiter you've
finiShed reading this issue of MOVES .. please read the
Feedback questions befow, and give US your answers by
writing the answer-numbers on the card in the response
boxes which correspond to each question number. See
centerfofd for card.
Please be su re to answer all questions (but do nOT w rite
anything in the box for question-numbers labelled "no
question"). Incompletely filled-out cards C1;lnnot be pro-
cessed.
What the numbers mean: When answering questions,
"0" always means NO OPINION or NOT APPLICABLE .
When the Question is a "yes or no" ques tion, "1" means
YES and "2" means NO. When the question is a rating
Questiorl, " 1" is t he WORST rating, "9" is the BEST
rating, "5" is an AVERAGE rating , and all numbers in bet-
ween express various shades of 1;Ipproval or disapprova l.
SECTTONA
1-3. No question . (leave blankl .
Questions 4 thflJugh 18 ask you to rate the articles in this
issue on a scale of 1 = poor, 9 = excellent; a = no opi-
nion),
4. You Too Ca n Be an Air War Ace
5. Tactical Nuclear Weapons Simulation
6. Could the One True Ring Be Brass?
7. Secret Search
8. Other Faces , Other Times
9. Objective:' Moscow
10. Nor Dark of Night . . .
11, Airbu rst
12, Drive South to Stalingrad
13, Wac ht am Rhein
14. Opening MOVES
15. Designe r's Notes
16. Forward Observer
17, Playback
18, This issue (o"eralll
19, Was 1his issue better tha n the last one?
20-24. No Question .
25. Assume that you don'! subsc ribe to MOVES. WOLJld
the Quality of this issue alone motivate you to subscribe!
26. For how many issues have you had a continuous
subscription to MO VES? 0 = I don ' t subscribe ; 1 = This is
my first issue; 2 = This is my seco nd Or third issue;
3 = This is my fourth or fifth issue; 4 = This is my sixth
issue; 5= T his is my seventh thro ug h eleventh issue;
6 = This is my twelfth issue; 7 = This is my thirteenth
through eightee nth issue; 8 = Th is is my nineteenth or
subsequent issue; 9= I am a MOVES Lifetime Subscriber
(regardless of number of issues receivedl.
27. What level of complexity do you prefer in games?
Rate your preference on a 1-9 sca le, with higher numbers
indicating increased complexity. Use the following games
as gLJidelines. 1 = Strikeforce; 4-5 = Chickamauga;
7 = Patrol!; 9 = Air War:
28. You rage: 1 = 13 years old or younger; 2 = 14-17;
3= 18-21; 4= 22-27; 5= 28-35; 6 =36 or older .
29. Your sex: 1 = Male; 2= Female.
30. Education: 1 = 11 years or less; 2 = 12 years; 3 = 13-15
years; 4= 13-15 years and still in school; 5= 16 years;
6 = 17 years or more.
31. How long have you been pla ying conflict simu lation
games? 0= less lhan a year; 1 = 1 year; 2= 2 years . . . 8=8
years; 9=9 or more years.
32_ W hat is the average number of hours you sperld play-
ing simulation games each month 70 = none; 1 = 1 hou r or
less; 2=2-5 hours; 3=6-9 hours; 4= 10-15 hours;
5 ~ 16-20 hours; 6=21-25; 7 = 26-30; 8 =31-40; 9=40 o r
more hours.
33 . How many simu latiorl games (o f all publishers) do
you possess? 1 = 1-10; 2= 11 -20; 3= 21-30; 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 i eedback card fo r your last issue
of MO VES? 1 = yes; 2 = no.
3S. Pick the one area about which you wou ld most like to
see games and anicles done: 1 = Ancierlt (Rome, Greek,
Bibl ica l , 300 BC-600AD) ; 2= Dark Ages and
Rena issance (600 AD - 1600 ADI; 3=30 Years War and
p r e-Napoleonic (1600 AD - 1790) ; 4 = Napoleonic
(1790 - 1830), 5 = Civil War/19th Century (1830-1900);
6 = Wor ld War 1(1900-1930); 7= World War II (1930 -
1945) ; 8= post-Wor ld War II (1945- present) ; 9= Present
arld future (anythirlg goesl.
36 . Roman CiVil War Quadrlgame. In order for Julius
Caesar to estab lish himself as dictator of Rome he had to
fight a series of battles against the Repu blican party led bv
Pompey in the Roms " Civil War which lasted from 50BC
to 448C . First he defeated Po mpey at Pharsa(us ina battle
in wh ich he was heavily Outnumbe red . Next he crushed
Pha rnaces, so n of t he mOre well known Mithridates, at
Zela. Then in North Africa, at Thi;lpSUS, he beat Scipio,
Ca to, and King Juba. Fina lly, at Munda in Spain, in a
closely f oug ht banle at which he came close to defeat,
Caesar succeeded in removing the last Republican Army.
Th ese lour battles would const itute the Roman Civi l INar
Quad , each played Orl its own mapsheet . wiHl its own
cou nter urlits and victor'! condi tions . However, provisio n
would be made to link the 10m separate games into a
campaigrl game in which one p layer, representirlg Caesar,
would attempt to estab lis h himself as Emperor of Rome.
The victory conditions in t his case wou ld be related to tlis
performance throughout the four individual battles, if in-
deed he manages to get that far. This first Quadrigame on
an ancie"t subject would have ru les lor elep hants lof
comsel . morale. and individual leaders.
37. Finis Romae. This would be an add-o n module for the
War in Euro pe rtlap . From 395 AD on, the empire was per-
manently d ivided. The barbarians were more united than
ever before and the Romans had to lace almost constant
warfare alOrlg their Irontiers as the ba rba rian s tried to ex-
pand into the Empire. I n the manner of Battle for Ger-
many, one player would play the eastern Emperor a nd the
barbarian tribes facing the west: lhe other wou Id be the
western Emperor and the ba rbaria ns lacing the east. The
key element wou ld be tIle tax pool rai sed from lhe
provinces , as monel' would be used to field the army
(which oilen was not paid . ma king reli ability question-
ablel, buv invadi ng barbarians' allegiance to make them
allies {foederati l or , by bid ding against the other Emperor,
to try to redirect them against the other halt (as was done
with the Huns and the V isig01hsL The western Emperor
would have, a t various times , the two great genera ls of
the era; 1he east wou Id have the mo ney. Since all of the
major citi'es on the War irl Europe map (at least w ithin the
empirel had Roman-era origins, and the railroads prin-
cipally delineate the major transportation lines, the maps
would need little attention, aside f rom additionallorests .
38. Samurei. A Tactical game coveri ng the development
of warfare in Japan and mainland Asia in ancient and
medieval ti mes. Scenarios would be drawn from various
batt les which occurred du ring the Japanese Civil Wars.
wi1h units represemi rlg Samurais , warri or-monks, and
the Hari-Kiri, among others . The irltrodu ction oi f ire-arms
(which had far more devas tating results i rl Japan t ha" in
Europe, where it occurred more graduallyl would be il-
lusueted, as well as the military interaction of the
J apanese w ith the Mongol invaders, and the Chinese.
(T he latter had four-horse chariots, ancient tank s, multi-
bolt crossbows, and rockets .) Other scenarios cou ld
cover Tibetans, Arabs, Huns, Turks, Burmese (with
sixleen-man elepha n1 crews!), and even Romans . Each
troop type wou ld be ditlerentiated by weapon, armor,
and doctrine. $10.
39 . Casragnaro. Sir John Hawkwood, commanding tile
Paduan army of eight thousand mercenaries , witli d raws
his forces towards ihe sa l ety of Castelbaldo on the River
Adige . He is pursued by Giovanni dei Ordelaffi, whose ar-
my of Verona numbers lwelvc thousand mercenari es and
the peasarlt levy. Before the river crossing Hawkweod
find s the ground that suits him. The dam p and terrain
favor the EngliSh style of warfare. Hawkwood turns his
ou tnumbe red army to face the advanCing Veronese.
Marr.h ", 1387, wi ll witness Hawkwood's finest victo ry .
This is a tactica l level simulation. A variety of unit types
are represented in t his transitiorlal battle that echoes the
Middle Ages and foreshadows t he High Renaissance.
Men-at-arms , crossbowmen, long bowm en, arbalesters,
knights, peasants, and bombards are present at the bat-
tle . PiaI' is subject to the presence 01 the leader-counters,
who represent the individual mercenary captains. A single
map arld one hundred counters are used in the game.
40 . Napoleon's Marshals. A Power Poli tics game based
upon t he rivalry for Napoleon's favor which existed
among the marshals, prinCipal min isters and generals.
DeSigned as .. mult i-pla yer game, specific scenarios do
permit two-player or solitaire play. The p rincipa l actors
maneuver w ithin thei r poli1ica l andlor mi lita ry respon-
sibilities to c urry favo r or to sabotage the efforts of a rival.
Factions ca n form 1;Imong several actors. The actors are
rated ior a varie ty of abiliti es inc luding not onlv their basic
area 01 competence (such as military acumen for Davou t ),
bu t for ambition, du plicity, hOrior, etc . Those actors
recog nizing that they are too fa r from-l>Iapoleon's favor
may go the ex treme rOllte 01 consorting with the enemy,
seeki ng to elim inate Napoleo n. Some military action
co uld be represented, as well 85 d iplomatic or domestic
action , SQ that an actor's competence can be prQven. The
map cou ld be similar to the map used f or the Assassina-
tion of Hitler, or, il that ga me's problems indicate 'a dif-
feren t approach, then some other game board. Cards
mi ght be used as well as coun ters to represent random
events. Around 200 counters .
41. The Hundred Days' Campaign. This would be a
st rategic-leve l simulation of Napoleon's final campaign
aga inst Wellingtorl and Bl ucller. The game wou ld ieature
limited intel ligence. (Stacks would be covered wi1h a
cou nter revea ling only whether the stack was
predom inantly cava lry or infantry, but not the composi -
tion or size of the force. I Fu rther features would be a
game map covering the area from Mauberge to Antwerp
and from Liege to Dlmkirk (scale: 4 mi les per hexl, cavalry
probes, forced marches, stragg lers, and logistiCS . A wide
variety of victory cond itions wou Id give the French Player
numerous alternatives, while forcing the Allies to react.
Maneuver woUld be very important, and combat would
be fairly abstract. 200 coun ters.
42. Dano-Swedish War, 1675-79. IThe Scanian War) .
S PI 's first opera ti orla l-Ievel Simulation of late seventeenth
ce"tury land and sea combat wou ld cover the iighting in
and arOlmd the Danish province of Scania between the
Swedish nationa l Army and Damish partisans, and
mercenaries hired by the Danish king. The Swedes were
un ique in thi s early period in using an army raised by levy,
and the game would reflect the morale advantages that
this fa ctor generated. Also included in the game would be
weather conditions (critical in he lping the Swedes to win
the most bloody combat ever in Scandinavia, the Battle of
Lund) , fortresses, sea warfare (control of the sea was a
pre req uisite for the Danes , but not at all preordained), oif-
map fac tors (the Danes were als o fighting in their then
possessiorl, Norway, at this time), and partisans. The
game would consist of one map and '100 COll nters, and arl
article . $10.
43 . Hi/fskreuzer. A game covering the WWI and WWII
campaigns conducted agairlst Allied shipping by the Ger-
man naval stafi through the use of armed merchant
raiders , including the infamous " O-shi ps:'. The game
would cover both wars and the entire planet. It wou ld in-
cl ude Germarl U-boats (as their employment related to the
Hilfskruezer campaignsl and fleet units. The game wou Id
be designed both as a so litai re and two-player system . $12
including cards and an article.
44 . Spanish Civil War. One of the least understood and
most fa r-reaching conflicts in this century, the Spanish
Civil war was as much an irltemational as a na tio nal strug-
gle. Spanish Civil Warwill be a strategic simu lation of this
grea t con fli ct on a mod erately comp lex level. The mili tary
side of the game will inclu de air and naval operations, the
use of mechanized formation s, the utilization and training
o.f raw manpower, guerrilla warfare, and oi cou rse the use
of intern ational volunteers. The politica l side of the game
will take into aCCOUrl! the numerous contingents that
made up each side, includi"g reliability and bargainirlg.
Spanish Civil War will include two maps and approx-
imate ly 400 counters. Tilne sca le will be app roximately
two weeks to one month per Game-Turn . Final ly, an ex-
tensive historical articlewifl be inclu ded, $14.
45, Assaulr at Anzio. In January 1944, the Allies made a
bold attempt to outfla nk the German defenses in southern
I te ly by storming asho re at the sma ll fishing port of Anzio,
only 30 mil es south of Rome . Usirlg the game-system
developed for AtlantiC Wall, Assau/; ar Anzio would be a
two-map simu latio n of the Allied bid to ca pture Rome in a
single stroke . Two maps would be included at a scale of

approxirna tel\, one mile per hex and 8 hows per Game-
Tu rn , Units would be on battalion scale. $14 .
46 . Turkev ShoOI , A strategic/opera liona l simu la\lon of
the deds ivA U. S . noval "":: to r'l III the IvI,Hlanas in 1944 .
Tilroug l) a somewhat compl ex sys tem based lo osely on
SPI's Fast Camers, Turkev Shoot wou ld take both
strategi c and tactical c onsideration s into mi nd. Japa nese
and American task 1orees would search fo r each o t he r on
astra teg ie ma p, w hil e individual air- to ship Or ship !.O-
sh ip ac tions would take place on a separate tac ti cal batlle
m ap . Two maps , approximately400 cou n""s. $14.
47. Wall Street. An op portunity t o pit your m ind and you r
economic judgem ent aga ins t the best in t he bu si [less, us-
Ing a game 5'!stem so cea l and so accurate that il reflec ts
the stoc k market and I\S f luc tuations berrer than anyeOll~er
desig nod , Included in th e sySUlm will be quarteri'( and
projec ted earl1 i ngs, the gene ral VOlatility of a slOck, d irec-
tional trends, annual h ig h~ and lows as well as mov ing
nverages, and the general t rend o f the ma rket itsel!.
Pla ye rs iMost in com panies with statisti cs an d sca les b aS-
ed on those of ac tual co rpo rations. Using the ir business
sense, thei r flai r for til e ,jangerous, their gam bli ng in -
stinct, and simple common know ledge, tl1 ey try to "make
money" , The ga me, despite the descriptio n above, w ill be
of m oderatE) co mplex ity (as all thil t i nformation wil l be
cllaned ) and will plav in atl even i n~J , M oStl\, charts and
ca rd s, boxed for 810- 12.
48. Stmggle for the See Quad. A simlJl atl onoi hypo
thetica l actions ,H sea and in the co ntem porary and near-
t u twe eras, Based rou~l lly Or, the Sixth Fleet game-
sys tem, Struggle would stri ve to accu ratel\, represent
fle"t actions in th " nuclear age, Ind iv idu ol missile c ruise rs,
destroye rs. subs, and ai rc, a(t c" rri ers wou ld interact on OJ
time and space sca le of approximately 8 hours per Game-
Turn and 40 m iles per hr.x . Weilpon -sys tems simulated
w ould be ai rcwft. S'AM's, ship-lo ship m issiles , ASW
weapo ns. and torpedos, Four separate games would be
include d as pa rt of the Quad . These vvou ld be : Dellmark
Stroit. tl 18 t1ttempted passage o f " Sovist task lorce into
t il e A tlantic sh ipping lanes of NA TO; The Agee!).
simulat ing the r assag " of Soviet rl8vi3 1 for ess from \ he
Black Sea int o the Medit erranean Sea; The Ba/ric.
representi ng the st ru gg le between the Soviet Balti c Fl eet
and the West Germa n and Oa nish nav ies; an d linal ly Sea
01 Japan , simu lati ng Ihe co nfli ct be tween the PaCifi c
fleets of The two SlJpef powers. $14.
49. Witchery and rhe Whi,e Christ o r Forces 01 Light alld
DarknG'i;$, The Dark Ag es was a ti rne o f muc h conflic t be t
ween Ch riSTia niTY and t he rea l m of Faeri e. But it was al so
a larger c onfli ct - the conce pt 01 monoth eism was sHiv-
i ng aga ins t the still pmen t influ ence of tiTe 9 0ds o f
A sgard, I" tho end , of COUl se, the old fai th and al l its at
tendant w itc heri es we re des troyed. and the ' ea lm of UTe
supern atu ra l was dealt a mona l blow. But the old gods
w ere not defea ted wi t hom a s, ru gg le; and th e battle-
grou nd t he\" foug ht on was tha t of rTlen, For i r. was til e
m ora li1\' lo r Choice) of 1)!,Jmsns ThaT dec id ed which sid e
was to be the victor. And th e lolk of Faeri e fough t
am o ngs t 1hemselves - the tro ll s a no the elves, the WiT-
ches alld the demons. It w ns a period of m ig111 y f ea ts. of
terrib le gea$8S, a no o f fa tes and doorns; it was an epoctl
0 1 primi tive man de termini ng that he wou Id be c iv ilized
Thi s wo ul d be a lig III tha t inCluded Od in All FiHher,
Mo rgan Le Fay, Ar t hu r of i he B{ita ins, Beowulf , and
OUle( such figures of ean l>' s legenda ry pas t. It wou ld be a
comb inat ion power poli tics/fan tasy game, $12,
SO . Space Viking. Set in H. Beam PI per' s Space Viking.
Cosmic Compurer, etc . universe, The Terran Federat ion,
encompass ing thousands of cubic I ight years of space has
fragm ented and dissolved, The former m emi)er plane ts
range from th ose that ha ve managed 10 reta in the con-
trag ravi ty-hype rspace ju mp tec hnology 0 1 the fede rati on
to those that ha ve sli d a/l the wa,! back to t he p re-
gunpowder level. Preying on , his now mainl y ullde fended
reg ion are the Space V ik ings. Players wo u Id begin w it h a
smg le sh ip arld compeTe in makin g th e most money while
tak i ng th e least damaqe in o btaining ii , Pl ayers will hav e
to balance the c hoices of raid ing t he mos, w o rth while
land therefore best de!endedl pi a n<l ts againSl attacki ng
man'l poorly defended planets . Basic com p lex it)' simple.
plus optio nal ru les. Space and g rou nd corn l)al abstracted
(in the War in Ihe Pacific! Red Sun Rli;lng and The Con-
querors sensei. Playable so li ta ire to multi-pla'rer, One
map, 400co unters. $10.
51. Panzer 44 Rel/isited. A la rge comp lete remake of the
po pular Pa n2er 44 game . To be based o n the new armor
syste ms and conce p1S deve loped for the M ech War '80
game. Th e gam e w i ll dea l w ith individual ta nk losses, all
va rieti es of German, U, S " U eK" an d Soviet AFV's, plus
extensive air, engineer. morale . leadership , and arti ll ery
rules , Plu s man v other extras , T he game is to con tai n ~
maps dep icting ty pica l terrain for France i 1 map), Eastern
fr on t (2 maps), and th e Western desert (1 map). Th e
game wi ll can ta i n 2400 co u nters.
52. Askad: German Eas( Airica 1914 -19 18 A ca mpaign of
the fa scinatin g exploits of Vorbeck Von Lettow and hi s
asker i sc hutl tru pp e, The game w ill pit German Flerd COm -
panies against Kings AfriCOln Rifl e batta li o ns in a game of
gusrrill " warfare . Ex tensive rules fo' ambl) sh, artill ery-
bombardments, air recon na issance, diSeaSe, logis tics.
and di sengage men t. In ad di tion an in terestlng tac ti cal
game w ill be inclu ded on ,he exploi ts of the Ko nigsberg.
The ga rns w il l hav e 2 maps ,
53. Seklgahara. A g rand tactica l slmuletl on of the bottle
tha t pu t th e Tok ogawils into power.
54. Samurai, Sce nario-wpe game of Jap<1nese tac tical
warfare in the (ellda l peri od .
55. Man-Ar-Arms, Scenario-ty pe sim ula tio n of feudal
Eu ropean w arfare.
56 . Liege Lora, l'vI ulti-playe r heuri stic simUla ti on of the
process of ru l'1 ning 11 medieval principa lity .
57. Sen Juan Hill, Quad type ,lame o f 1hls fo rg01ten bat-
tle of the S pontSh-A merican W ar ,
58. Assave. Sir Arthu r Wellesley 's stunning vic tory I n I n-
dia, despite l -lOodds,
59. Leu(hen, Grand- tac tical simul atio n o f Frederic k the
Great's vIcto r',' in 1757,
We 'd like to know what fac tors you consider mos ! impor-
tant when making the deci$ion whether or not to pur-
chase a specific game. Rate each of the following Oil " 1
to 9 scale with "'1" indicating ii factor of little or no impor-
tance and ugu indiCating a factor of great ifnporrance.
60. T h r~ title of th e gam e
6t. The subjec\ of the ga me
62. The cover and packagi ng
63. The graphic desig n of th e game
64. The p{ieA oi th", game
65. The rep utation of the publ ishi ng compa ny
66. Th e rep uta tion 0 1the ga m e deSig ner/ deve loper
67. Awa rds won bv trle ga rne
68. Awa rds won bv the pu blishing com pa ny
69. Awa rds won by the game desi9 ner
70. A roview I" a go ming rnagazine
71. n re opi rlion of a f riend
72. The OI)", iol1 of a sal es person
73. TM Feedback rating olThe game
74 , Tile Playback ratings of th e game
75. The descripti o " of the game in an ad
76. A f irst hand examination of til e compone nts
77. W I1ether tile gam e is pa n of a "jamill'" of sim ilar
ga mes w iTh wh ich 'IOU ' re already fam il ia r
78. Your ini t'al percepti on of the game svstem
79 . The s!:a le of the ga rn ~ Itimeidistancel
80 . The plwsl cal sile of t l)e ga m e Ihow m any c ounters
and how muc h tab le spilce it occup ies) .
81. T I1e pla'ling tim e
l!2. When the game was pcrbllshed Ii ,e" ,ts "newness")
83. Th e ava liab il ity oi the ga me in stores
84. Th e ava lIabil iw of the ga me by ma il orde r
85 . Ed iTo rial descripti on o f i ll e game cfesign In pr'Ogr'ess
(i n S& T or else'Wr,ere)
8(, . VI/he ther the game has mounted maps
87. Whe ther th e qame is part of a set o r series t ha, yo u
eHG co nsiderin g
88. Assu mi lig tha, the game gives you va lu e for oach
do ll ", paid, what do you c onside r ,he id8;J1 price for a
game? 1 = $5 o r less ; 2 = $6 to $10; 3 = $1 1 ,0 $15; 4 =
$15 10820; 5 = $20 10 $25; 6 = .$26 to s30 ; 7 = $3 1 to $35;
8 = $36 to $40; 9 - $41 or more.
89. Keepi~g in m ind th at m ore c omponr, nts mean a
hiq her price. indi cate the One ph':!sica l configu rati on that
mos t c losA ly appro ximates what you co nsider t he id ua l in
terms 01 nurnber 0 1 map shee ts. I = one mop: 2 = ,wo
m aps , et c, 9 = ni ne or m ore maps .
90. How many counters Sll Ollld a ',JG lnO h i.l'Je !keeping in
m ind your respOr>Se to question 89)) 1 = about 50 ; 2 =
al)ol)t1oo; 3 - 200 : 4 = 400; 5 ~ 600; 6 = &00; 7 = 1000 ;
8 = l 6O:J; 9 = 2000 or m ore.
91. W ha t do you consider the Ideal pla Ying time for a
qarne? 1 = one hou r or less; 2 - two hours; 3 = thr ee
35
110lHS: 4 = fou r' llOU rs; 5 ~ fi ve to seven hou rs; 6 = eig ht
to 10 hou rs; 7 = llto 15 hou rs; 8 = 161020 homs; 9 =
mo re t han20 hours.
92. I f you anended Origi ns 78, how far did you hove to
travel to get th erE< lo n ~wa\, m ileoge 17 1 = 25 mil es o r less :
2 = 50 m lies or less; 3 = 100 miles o r less; d = 200 m iles
or less; 5 = 300 m il es or less; 6 = 500 rnlles or less ; 7 =
1000 m il es or less ; 8 = 2COO m iles; 9 ~ 3000 or more
m iles , 0 = D Idn', attend .
93. II you an ended Origi ns 78 , rate it on a 1 to 9 sca le w ith
'T' in dica ting a poor CD nven ti Oil and "9" ind icatinq an
excellen t convenrion _
94. Abo u t how mllCh did you spe nd on games purchased
at OrigIns 78 ) 1 = $5 Or less; 2 = $10; 3 = ~bOLJt $20; ~ =
about $30 ; 5 = aboll t $40 ; 6 = abou t $50; 7 ; abou t $75 ;
B = aboLit Sl00; 9 = more tha n $ 100.
95.%. No ques ti on.
SECTION B
The results of the following survey are used In our
PLA YBA CK system. This system reviews games bv
showing the response of the people who plav rhe games.
Questions 104-188 are part of PLA YBACK.
After each game title there are thirteen questions [lettered
" A" through '"N}. Unless otherwise noted, these ques-
tions are iinswemd with" '"1'" [ poor} through " 9 " ! excel-
lent/ rating.
Question A - Wha t did you t hink of , he physica l qua lity
and layout 01 th e mapsheeil
Question B - WI)st did you think of the physica l qual ity
and lavo ut of the rules folder ?
Question C - What d id you think of th e p hysica l qua lity
and la yo ut of the unit coun ters?
Question D - What did yo u think of t he ga m e's " ease of
pl"y " lhow wel l th e game moved alo ng?
Questi o n E- What did yo u think o f t he "complete ness"
of the game's rules (was everything thoroughly
expla in ed)J
Question F - WhaT did you think of the game's play ba l-
ance (was the game interest ing lor bot h s idesP
Question G What d id you t hink aboL' t the ap propriate-
ness of tflO le ngt h of the ave rage game?
Question H - What did you think of the amou nt of "se t-
u p li me" neede d before you c()uld begi 11 playing the
game 7
Question J - W hm d id you 1hink of . he ap pr opriateness
of the comp lexiw of this game?
Questio n K - W hat d id YOll think 0 1 this game's rea li sm?
Quesl io n L - W tJa t did you think of this game ove rall ?
Questio n M - Wall Id you still 11ave boU(]I1! thi s [lame if
you kn ew then wrlat you kn ow now about it fl ; Yes;
2= No),
Question N - Do yo u thin k yo u received you r money's
wort" with th is game? ! 1 = Yes; 2 = No! .
We Will ask vou to rate six games, If vou have not pl"yed
these games, or have not played them enough to be able
to evaluate them, the" simply place "0"' in the boxes.
SIEGE Of CONSl'ANTINOPU:
104. A ! mapshee t) 111. H (se t- up tim e)
lOS. 8 Iru les) 112. J fcom plex ity l
l06. C (countersl 113. K I rea lismi
107. 0 (ease of play) 114. L [ove rall l
108. E Irules com pletenessl 115. M Ithen and now)
109. F (balance) 116. N (m oney's w orthi
110. G (Iengthl 117. No q uestio n
RED SUN RISING
118. A (m apshee l l J25. H (set-up tim e)
1)9. B (ru les) 126. J I co mplexity I
120. C (co unt ersl 127. K I realism )
12 1. 0 lease of play) 128. L Im'eridll
/22. E Irules com pleteness ) 129. M !t hen and now)
123. F l balanoe) 130. N Imonav's wOrTh l
124. G (length) 131,132. No ques ti on
 Sim ulat io ns P ublications. In c.
44 E ast 23r d Streel
New Y ork, N .Y . 100 10
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
UP SCOPE
133. A ! mapsheet )
134. B (rulesl
J3S . C (coLIn lers)
136. 0 (oase of play)
137. E (rules c ompleteness)
138. F (ba l ~nce)
139. G (length)
OVERLORD (CGC)
147. A imaps heetl
148. B (ru les!
149. C (co unt ers)
ISO. D (ease of play)
1St. E (rulos comr(eteness)
152. F (balancE'l)
153. G !leng Th)
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE PA I D
PERMIT NO. 15
FRAMINGHAM, MA .
ROARK'S DRIFT (HA)
140. H [set-up ti me) 162. A Imaps hee l ) 169. H (sin -u p ti mel
FEEDBACK RESULTS
141. J Icom plex ity) 163 . B (rules) 170. J kom plex itvi
MOVES 38
142. K (realism) 164. C (counters) 17 I. K (realism)
143. L (overalll 165 . 0 (ease of play) In. L (overall) Rank Article Raling
144. M (then an d nowl 166. E Irules completeness) 173. M [ th en and now) 1. I)esi~ner's N ole~ r;.%
145. N (money's worth) 167 . F (ba lance) 174. N (mo nev's worth) 2. Red Sun Rising Ii.M
146. No qu estion 168 . G Ileng th) 175. No qu es tion J. Forward Obse",.r 6.50
4. Battlehn< in fhf,.' Air fd.1
MA YDA Y (CDW)
5. A Mighly FOrlre" (,.22
154. H (se l up time! 1'16. A (mapsheel l 183. H (set-up tim e) (,. Battlelme on Ihe Grollro<l 6.2()
155. J l complex it y) 177. B (flJ les) 1114. J (complex ity)
7. Baulclinc in PO\\icr Politics 6.19
156. K (realism) 178. C [cou nlors) 185. K I real ism)
II. Opening MOVES 6.07
157 . L (overalll 179. D I eOSQ of playl 186. L loverall!
9. J>la)hack 5.95
158. M (then an d nowl 180. E lru les comple teness) 187. M (Then anel now)
This Issue O"erall 6.39
159. N I money's w onh ) 181. F {ba lance l 188. N (money's worth)
160,161. N o question 182. G (Iengthl 189196 . No question