the franco-prussian war - Strategy & Tactics

This game represents some effort in assembling anorder of battle, assigning combat factors, androughly designing a battlefield, but the rules areterribly inadequate and players will, on the whole,have to figure out their own.018a. Pharsalus (1972, order from ADA, $1 50). byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the battle of 48 B.C.in Greece between Caesar and Pompey in whichPompey was decisively defeated. The treatment isvery much the same as that of Granicus: a 30 squareby 30 square map is roughed out and an order ofbattle with combat factors is provided, but not actualmap or unit counters. Pharsalus has many more unitsthan Granicus: Pompey has 112 combat units andCaesar 42. There is a great disparity of force betweenthe two sides, but some of Pompey's troops may bedropped to balance the game. The rules are morecomplicated but also even more incomprehensible.The combat system is very much like that of thestandard Napoleon at Waterloo 1046). The ADArecommends with this as with several of theirofferings, "Buy this game if you want to know hownot to design a game."018b. Thapsus (1972, order from ADA, $1.50). byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the battle betweenCaesar and the Senatorial forces in North Africa in 46B.C. It was Caesar's last battle. It is done in the sameoutline fashion as the other two (018 and 018a), butsince the game is more complex, the problems arecompounded several times. The map is suggested,but since the terrain is very complex, it is quiteuncertain how to make the board. Caesar has over100 beginning units, some of which can be brokendown somehow according to extremely unclearrules. The Senatorial Forces have only about 80 unitsbut also have the benefit of walls of Thaosus. The-game involves naval forces and siege units as well asland combat, but all is described in a set of rules thatare truly remarkable for their disorganized incomprehensibility.Again, ADA recommends, "Buy thisgame if you want to know how not to design0 n0mP "~ . ~ - ~ -019. Decline and Fall (2nd edition, 1972, WRG,$9.50 including postage by surface mail), by TerrenceP. Donnelly, is basically the same game reviewed inMOVES #4 lp. 14, 015). The main changes arephysical: the board is now mounted and printed infour splendid colors; the counters are laminatedcardboard, already cut and with attractive symbolsand colors, and the whole is in a box (too weak a boxas yet, but the publishers are attempting to get newones). The game is still an excellent and historicallyinformative game for four people who must combinewargame skills and diplomatic skills to survive or towin. Some changes in the rules have been made:ambiguities in the sea movement rule have beenresolved with an example of such movement; theconflict resolution table has been altered slightly; theretreat after combat rule has been changed to makeit more unlikely than before that an enemy piece canbe destroyed by forcing it into an unfriendly zone ofcontrol. A few new optional rules are added whichwould have the effect of increasing the eventfulnessof the game and its element of chance. The gameshould still have a strong appeal to historians,wargamers, Diplomacy players, and admirers ofgames which are fairly simple in their mechanics butcapable of a wide variety and sophistication in play.032. Breitenfeld (1972. order from ADA, $1.50, byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the decisive battlewith which Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden burst intothe Thirty Years' War. It is not to be confused withanother game of the same name and subject (S8TGuide no. 1,032). Like the other games in this series,this comes without board or counters but with roughinstructions for making both. There is nothing wrongwith the idea of a do-it-yourself game, but this is avery bad example of that idea. The sellers, the ADA,confess, on their list, "Buy this game if you want toknow how not to design a game," and that is thetruth. The rules are unbelievably vague, incompleteand ungrammatical. There is very little attempt toreflect the warfare of the period and the wholepackage of 5 typewritten and duplicated pages isfantastically overpriced.033. Musket and Pike: Tactical Combat, 1550-1680(1973, SPI, $7.00), by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F. Milkuhn,deals with the tactics of the period including the CivilWars in France and England, the Revolt of theNetherlands and the Thirty Years' War. It was aperiod of great confusion in tactics because of theincompatibility of the two main infantry weapons,the musket and the pike. The soldiers of the timefound that both were unnecessary, but constantlystrained to find a tactical system which wouldcombine them without destroying thevalue of one orthe other. This dilemma is neatly reflected in thestacking and other rules of this game. You can mixthe two kinds of units this way, but no matter whatyou do it will be wrong. The game also shows thepower and weakness of pistol wielding cavalry, but itprobably gives the Swedish cavalry a little too muchpower. The game is smooth and simple to operate,the map is not overly cluttered with terrain. The rulespresent few difficulties with one major exception: theoptional (but really necessary) rule for using infantrysquares is nearly useless. There are 18 variedscenarios. There has been an attempt to describe thetendency of each scenario as favoring one side or theother or being evenly balanced, but I found thesepredictions to be very dubious. Nevertheless, it is afine and valuable interpretation of the warfare of.the period. [Note: The above was written before Ireceived the errata sheet for the game. The sheetclears up several things including the squareformation rule.]037. American Revolution (1972, SPI, $7.00). byJames F. Dunnigan, graphics by Redmond A.Simonsen, is a game of grand strategy dealing withthe entire war, four moves to a year, from Spring1775 to Winter 1783. The total is 32 moves. Thecounters represent Continental or Militia forces forthe Americans and Regular and Tory forces for theBritish. This loses many distinctions. Cavalry andartillery are averaged in with the infantry. Hessiansare subsumed into the British regulars. The map isdivided into movement areas with some designatedas wilderness which is more difficult to move into.especially for the British. But rivers and lakes play ndpart in the game except as they were used as thebasis for designating areas. The map also containsregions (one to five movement areas each), fromwhich the American draws his recruits and which areworthy victory points to the occupier. The Britishplayer wins by occupying and holding, with ananti-militia garrison, 51 points worth of territory, i.e.,Canada and a little over half of the 13 states orcolonies. There is a system for the entry of theFrench into the game after a major American victory.Meanwhile, the British, who have overwhelmingstrength during most of the game, are dependent onrolling good numbers on a die in order to move theircounters according to any plan. The rules arerelatively simple and the game is easy to learn andplay. However, most of the task of the Americanplayer is rather dull, since most of the time the onlything he can do is get out of the way. So far, indeed,it appears that the American player has little chanceto win. It is possible for the British player to movecautiously so that he never takes any chances ofbeing attacked by the Americans, at least until verylate in the game. The only chance the Americanshave is to avoid all battles involving Continentals untilnear the end of the game.042b. 1812: The Campaign of Napoleon in Russia(Strategic Game) (1972, SPI, $12.00 with grandtactical game), by John Young and Phil Orbanes,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F.Milkuhn, is an innovative, valuable and evenfascinating game on Napoleon's fateful invasion ofRussia. Unfortunately it does not quite work. Thereare several problems: Battles, for which a matrixsystem is used, are either too potentially disastrousor too inclusive. Although the matrix system iscomplex, it still does not allow enough choices.Forced marches are much to chancy to be tried bymore than one or two units per game. Then thesupply rules, when understood by the French player,work to his advantage. The French player can movehis units in groups of three corps anywhere in Russiawith a depot and supply unit and never suffer for lackof supplies, while the Russians do not have the depotunits to pull that trick. So the game becomes a puzzlewhich can be solved by the French player while theRussian player either looks more or less helplessly onor tries a succession of desperate gambles in aneffort to stop the process. Most often the Frenchplayer will win with this relatively simple formula:fight no battles unless necessary; attempt no forcedmarches unless you are going to lose the unitanyway; concentrate enough to force Russians toconcentrate and deplete their supplies; then marchthrough depleted Russia with expeditionary forces ofthree corps each; do not try to take Moscow; justtake everything else. These remarks, of course, referonly to thecampaign game (Scenario 1). Scenarios 2and 3 start after the French have made mistakes.Thus, in Scenario 3, the French situation isimpossible, while Scenario 2 might be the closest to abalanced game.042c. 1812: The Campaign of Napoleon in Russia(Grand Tactical Game) (1972, SPI, $12.00 withstrategic game), by John Young and Phil Orbanes,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen and ManfredMilkuhn, is the companion of the other 1812, but isbased on the veteran Leipza system for marchingand fighting. This allows a little more freedom inforced marching than the strategic version and muchmore certainty in battles. Now the French player canseek a battle with more confidence while the Russianwill avoid all clashes with the French main force. Thesupply and several other rules are virtually the samefor this version as for the strategic. Thus small forcesof French troops can march around with depots andsupply units without suffering while the Russianarmy gets progressively worse off. Again there arethree situations or scenarios with the game: Scenario1 (the campaign game), heavily favoring the French;Scenario 3 (with the French beginning in Moscow)virtually assuring their destruction; and Scenario 2being a little closer to a balanced game.0453. Waterloo 1 (1971, ADA, $1.00). by StephenMarsland, is not to be confused with Waterloo 1(045). and is not recommended even by its author. Itdoes not attempt to deal with the actual battle ofWaterloo. Instead; it is supposed to represent theconditions of warfare of the period in a situation thatis vaguely reminiscent of Waterloo but is made up.The game is very poor physically. The unmounted,uncut, typed and hand-drawn counter sheet is alsopoorly colored and needs to be nearly all recopied.The mapsheet is small and unattractive but usuable.The rules contain several unnecessary complexitiesbut are for a basically simple game with fewdifferences among the three arms.048. Napoleon (1972, ADA, $4.00), by StephenMarsland, is a hypothetical situation reflectingNapoleonic warfare on the grand tactical level. Theunits are infantry and cavalry divisions and artilleryunits; the French player chooses from among 41possible units, the Austrian from among 28 units.The mapboard represents "someplace" in Germanyapparently, but the hypothetical scale is notannounced. Basic movement for French infantry is 4hexes for a two-hour move. The game is quitecomplex so it is fortunate that there are relatively fewunits. It would be much better to operate the gamewith an umpire, although the rules are written in theassumption that the game will be played by twopersons who are not only scrupulously honest, butalso painstaking in their bookkeeping. Bookkeepingcomes from complex movement and combat rules.The counters on the board ordinarily are "strategiccounters" which represent up to 9 divisions. They aremoved only according to orders that have to bewritten one turn before they start to take effect.When opposing strategic counters meet, they areremoved and their constituent units are deployed onthe board according to simultaneously writteninstructions. The Combat Results Table uses twodice and has eight different possible results, some ofwhich are combined. Then the results have to bekept track of for three or six phases. Victory is basedon a complex point system. The game is certainly notfor everyone. It is well-thought out and subtle. It hasnumerous difficulties in its innovative rules, but itoffers command problems not met with in morepopular games. Physically, the game is uninteresting,with a hand drawn map on an SPI hex sheet, spiritduplicated rules, and crudely drawn countersmounted on uncut cardboard. But is a valuablesimulation of some aspects of Napoleonic warfare.