the franco-prussian war - Strategy & Tactics

Ma. Austerlirz (1973, SPI, $7.00), by John M.Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen, is a fairlyaccurate representation of the fateful battle of 1805in which Napoleon destroyed the Austro-Russianarmy and thereby became Europe's chief mapmakerfor nearly 10 years. The game board shows the areaof the battle and lasts for 13 turns or 13 hoursstarting, I presume, shortly after sunrise. Except for afew units which arrive on turn 2, all the units have anassigned place on the mapboard. So the allies arepoised to launch their attack on the French rightwhile the French are massed opposite the allied rightcenter. If I am right about its accuracy, the gameshows that the allies had lost the battle before it evenbegan. At least I have not seen them win the gameyet. The allies have few large units. The French havemany more and faster though generally smaller units.But some stacking is allowed so the French canconcentrate when they want to. However, thecombat system is basically the same as that ofNapoleon at Waterloo which saves its richestrewards for those who surround enemy units. ThusFrench speed is worth much more than concentrationanyway. The game gives points to the allies ifthey can put men off the board to the west (if theybreak through the French right) or if they bring menoff to theeast (if they retreat). I've seen few go off ineither direction. It is possible that the best alliedaction is to retreat the fastest units and sacrifice therest of the army to safeguard their retreat, but I'm notsure if that would work either. The game is fast andeven a little tense at times. The rules like those ofNAW and Borodino are nearly perfectly clear.049. La Grande Armee: The Campaigns of Napoleonin Central Europe, 7805 to (1972, SPI, $7.00). byJohn M. Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsenand Manfred F. Milkuhn, is three games in one: the1805 campaign against Austria and Russia, the 1806campaign against Prussia, and the 1809 campaignagainst Austria. The game uses the Leipzig system ofmoving and fighting. That is: the units are armies,corps and divisions, which can build up and breakdown into each other; the combat results table hasseveral sets of odds between 1 to 1 and 2 to 1;attacks from different stacks cannot be combinedand retreats are allowed through zones of controlwhich tends to result in battles of one large stackagainst another; leader counters are used to affectthe offensive or defensive.value of the combat units.The major new element in the system in La GrandeArmee is that it is now possible to use up a supplyunit and accomplish a double forced march safely.Otherwise, double and triple forced marches arerolled on a table which can result in elimination,disruption or safe arrival. Another difference is not adifference in the system but a difference in thecounters. In Leipza the opposing armies are identicalin all but numbers and leaders. But in La GrandeArmee the differences between the Napoleonicarmy, the Frederician Prussian army, the ancienregime Austrian army of 1805, the new modeledAustrian army of 1809, and the cumbrous but toughRussian army are all reflected in different countervalues and systems of building up as well as indifferences in numbers and leaders. It makes for amuch more interesting game. The three scenarios, orgames, are very well put together, with some of thepolitical factors included by such provisions as apossible Prussian intervention in the 1805 campaign.In all of the scenarios, the French have the edge, ofcourse, but they also have the burden of theoffensive.052. Rifle and Saber: Tactical Combat, 1m- 1900(1973, SPI, $6.00). by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen. deals with company levelbattles of the mid- and late-19th century, with 17scenarios from the Sepoy Mutiny (18571, Austro-Sardinian War (1859). American Civil War, the SevenWeeks' War (1866). Franco-Prussian War (1870),Russo-Turkish War (1877). War of the Pacific (1879).Spanish-American War (1898), and the Boer War(1899-1900). The game contains three different setsof infantry and artillery counters to show the rapidtechnological changes in weapons during this period.The action is fast paced, the playing system isfortunately simpler than that of Grenadier. There isan ingenious road movement system which showsroads at closer to their time tactical value than inmost games. Unfortunately, the game as a wholedoes not work. Almost all of the most importanttactical conditions of the period are distorted or evenreversed. Artillery is nearly useless on the defensivewhile it is fairly useful on the offensive when it shouldbe deadly on the defensive and only mildly useful onthe offensive. It is advantageous for all units tobunch up most of the time. Cavalry charges andbayonet attacks are devastating while rifle fire isrelatively innocuous. A highly ambiguous set of rulesfor retreats, ambiguities in special rules for thescenarios, an erratic optional morale rule, anincomplete order of battle which renders Scenario#10 useless, all add to the confusion. The gameshows the result of much research and thought, butit definitely needs more work on translating researchinto game mechanics. [Note: The above was writtenbefore receipt of the game errata sheet. Unfortunately,this sheet does nothing to save the game as awhole, although it does clear up the problem ofScenario # 10.1054. Wilderness Campaign: Lee vs. Grant (1 972,SPI, $7.00). by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F. Milkuhn,deals with the two-month campaign (or one of themonths) which brought Grant from the Rapidan tothe gates of Petersburg in May and June of 1864.The units are generally Union corps and Confederatedivisions. The Union army has larger units and agreater total strength, but the Confederate has moreunits and is therefore difficult to outflank. Victory isbased on a variety of criteria: territory and casualtiesgive assorted amounts of victory points. By thecriteria of the game, the original General Grant lostthe original campaign by a good margin, and it isdifficult to see how it can turn out otherwise here.However, the Confederate must try to win in .adifferent way than Lee did - it is difficult to see howhe can hang on to the Shenandoah Valley or how hecan make any attacks at all. The game has a numberof good points: the command system based onGrant, Lee and Early Counters with units outside of"command influence" being required to roll a die formovement does reflect the difficulties of communicationsand the cussedness of subordinates in theCivil War; entrenchment rules demonstrate the habitthat the armies had fallen into by 1864 - a habitwhich made attacks increasingly costly; the supplysystem and the Union sea movement are workableand faithful to the spirit of the situation. The gamehas a semi-hidden movement system which adds avital note of uncertainty to the movements of theopposing army. But there are also some oddities ofthe game: the "Wilderness," the important terrainfeature after which the campaign and the game werenamed, is not on the map; and the rivers, because ofthe operation of zones of control, are a source ofweakness to units trying to defend behind them.There are a number of difficulties brought on mainlyby hidden movement and command rules. It is atense game and a variety of "what if" scnearios,which are included, might make it a closer game.062. The Marne (1972, SPI, $7.00), by John M.Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen andManfred F. Milkuhn, deals with the action northeast,east and southeast of Paris from August 30 toSeptember 15, 1914. Each move equals one day sothe long game is 17 moves, a shorter game dealingwith the German advance is 7 moves, and the gamedealing with the German retreat is 10 moves. Theunits are mostly divisions and with 6 allied armiesfacing 4 German armies, there are a very manageablenumber of units on both sides. Stacking up to 3 unitshigh is allowed but less practiced than in most gamesbecause the front line is long in proportion to thenumber of units and because special advantages aregiven to flank attacks. The game is unique in SPl'scollection for its sequence of play: each player hastwo combat phases as well as the two movementphases that are quite common. In the second,set ofphases, units which did not attack in the first combatphase may move again and attack. The result of allthese factors is a much more fluid game than oneusually thinks of in connection with World War I. Infact it is so fluid that the disadvantaged player (theallied in the first week, the German in the second) haslittle choice but to run like hell for most of the week.The game is also unique in that both sides in thecampaign game or the first week scenario enter theempty map from the same map edge. This results insome tricky situations which are not fully covered inthe rules but which are adjustable. The Germansalways move first but have to "pass" on the first turnsince they don't have any units on the board. Victoryin any of the games hangs by a point system whichweaves together the destruction of enemy units, theoccupation of specific towns and the exiting of unitsoff the map. There are an assortment of what-ifswhich alter the victory conditions and the Germanorder of battle. The game mechanics are quite simpleso the game could be used to introduce new peopleto wargaming.072. Tannenburg lsicl (1972, ADA, $4.00), by GuyHail, is not to be confused with the early PoultronPress (now SPI) Test Series Game, Tannenbergwhich may someday be republished. This Tannenbergdeals only with the situation around East Prussiaand requires the Russians to attempt their fatalinvasion. The Germans must only retain Konigsbergto win. The game is starkly simple. There is, forexample, no supply rule. The combat systemeliminates chance, and attacking is voluntary, so it isunlikely that those combat results which hurt theattacker will be used. Terrain affects the "combatnumber" and also changes the part of the table usedin the attack. Defenders are always separated for theattack. The game is interesting and demands skill. Ithas a little to do with the original situation, but it isnot very realistic and even though it is simple, therules are so undeveloped that numerous interpretationproblems arise in the course of a game. Thegame map is hand drawn very adequately on acut-down SPI blank hex sheet. The counters are justadequate, but the nubmers have to be darkened byhand in order for them to be used with ease. Theywere mounted but not cut. The rules are on two spiritduplicated pages.073. PBI (1972, TMI, $4.00). by Vernon JayStribling, is a simple infantry game which presentssmall actions from World Wars I and II. The titlestands for "poor bloody infantry" and the subject issquad to squad fighting. Each counter represents asingle individual and the only weapons in the gameare rifles, submachine guns, automatic rifles,machine guns, knee mortars, grenades, and flamethrowers. The mapboard represents an indeterminatearea across which a rifleman can run (indefinitely) atthe rate of 5 hexes per one minute turn(approximately). There are four simple scenariosfurnished with the game and the promise of more tobe published in Battle Flag magazine. The scenariosinclude the soldiers of several nations and times andhavea very few rules to represent these differences.The map is well drawn but the terrain is poorlydefined in the rule book. The playing routine is quitesimple; the firing routine, using simultaneous fire,involves adjustment for cover, movement of thefiring unit, position of target, but not for themovement of target. The rules say that more thanone man may occupy a hex, but the rules do not sayhow many. This and a few other problems make thegame uncertain in spite of its basic simplicity. It canbe compared with Move Out (159). which issomewhat more complex in allowing for individualdifferences among the infantrymen and whichcontains many more situations. PBI, however, isbetter presented physically with a printed map sheetand printed counters, die-cut but faultily so.096. Battle of Britain (1968, Zo, $5.00, without box,soon to be raised to $7.00 with box), by Louis B.Zocchi, is available again. It was reviewed in S&TGuide no. 1 (092). It is a good game but a lot of workand only fairly reflective of the actual campaign.096a. Battle of Britain Revision Kit (2nd ed., 1971,Zo, $3.00), by Louis B. Zocchi, is a necessary additionto the original game. It was reviewed in S&T Guideno. 2 (095). The revision complicates the game andmakes it more realistic in several particulars, but itstill does not reflect the actual situation.102. Sink the Bismark [sic] (1971, Sparta, $4.001,by Tony Morale, deals with the foray of the Germanship Bismarck into the North Atlantic in May, 1941.Partly it is a revision of Avalon Hill's now extinctBismarck, but it is more sophisticated and realisticthan that effort. It is played with a strategic boardvery much like that of the earlier game, but now the