Out on Manoeuvres

Wow, it's been a long time since I've written anything here. I still have to complete a report on a fantastic DAK2 game Mike and I had at the beginning of the month. He's already blogged it on his site (and on BGG) so I need to add my comments.

Last Monday, we finally got back together for a gaming session. It was Mike's turn to pick and he chose GMT's new release Manoeuvre. This is a game that sat on GMT's p500 list for a LONG time before finally being released and, not unlike Twilight Struggle, the buzz for the game has increased greatly post-release.

When you first open your Manoeuvre box, you'll see eight small decks of cards, a sheet of counters, a stack of modular terrain tiles with a 4x4 square grid, and a 4x6 (or something like that) rulebook.

Game setup is relatively simple. You basically just choose four terrain tiles, two armies, deploy, and go at it.

Game play is almost as simple. On your turn you discard as many cards as you want, draw back up to five, move a unit, optionally fight, and optionally do a restoration action.

Combat is by far the most complex thing in the game, and it's not all that tough. There's two types of combat – ranged and close. Close combat involves the active player playing a card matching the lead unit in the combat, the defender plays cards in response, then the attacker can play leaders and additional unit cards to emphasize the attack. Each unit has a two steps and a strength level and most unit cards provide dice (6, 8, or 10 sided) to add to the attack. A typical attack might be a 6-strength unit with 2d8 of dice vs. a 6-strength unit with 2 points of terrain defense. You roll the dice, add up the total, and compare it to the defender's total:

• Less, you take a hit (step loss);
• equal, no effect;
• greater, defender's choice of hit or retreat;
• double or greater, attacker's choice of hit or retreat;
• triple or greater, hit and retreat;
• quadruple or greater, defender is eliminated.

It's real easy to remember. The attacker usually will have to pursue into a vacated space, and cavalry may be able to inflict an extra hit in pursuit. Ranged combat is simpler, but involves less dice, and simply scoring a greater score inflicts a step loss on the defender.

The restoration phase allows you to rally units, build redoubts, and possibly a couple other actions. Only one of those things per turn, though.

The game is designed to be played in around an hour, and we got two games finished in just over 2.5 hours. Given I'd never played and Mike had only played a couple times, I think the hour estimation is just about perfect once you understand the game.

Like I said, we played twice. Our first game was the “standard” French vs. British where Mike took the French. I really failed to understand the implications of the pursuit rule, and frequently ended up with my units surrounded. Mike proceeded to crush me via attrition 5-1, I believe.

In our second game, I chose Spanish vs. Americans, and I got the Americans. We ended up with a LOT of terrain on the board and it was a much closer fight. As time went on, though, a few bad die rolls (including one memorable total of 4 on 2d10+1d6) ended up death-spiraling my game and we ended up with a nightfall ending and Mike winning by controlling 14 squares on my side of the board to my getting 5 on his.

The details of those two games aren't really that important. What's far more important are the impressions made by the game.

First, from a high level, the game is chess where you have to fight over the spaces instead of just automatically capturing your opponent's unit. The terrain layout ends up being an 8x8 square grid, and each army has 8 figures. The requirement to move one unit per turn aids in the chess comparison.

Second, controlling space is almost as important as killing opposing units, and if neither side loses five units the winner is determined by most space controlled on the other side of the board.

Third, you must track your deck. Each army's deck consists of 40 unit cards (5 cards per unit) and 20 other cards. The latter is where the decks differ from army to army. You might be planning a late-game assault, but if you've already gone through the five cards for that unit, you're not going to be able to lead an attack with him. It can definitely make a difference.

A side-effect of this is that maintaining tempo and initiative (in the real since, not as a game mechanic) is critical. If you can force your opponent to use their unit cards for defense and rallying purposes, they can't use them for attack. This allows you to force the action on your terms, and that can almost trump any die rolls.

Manoeuvre is exactly what it claims to be, and no more – it's a distant derivative of chess in Napoleonic clothing. It's not a simulation. It's not a heavy game. It's a good, solid one-hour game that will give you some tough decisions, reward you for advance planning, and penalize you for being too rash. The rules seem to be pretty tight (we really only had one question and while it wasn't directly addressed, the way the rules around it were worded gave us the answer indirectly.)

I can see why this game took so long to get through p500. It's really hard to explain in a way that replicates the experience. I'm sure this post isn't going to really do it justice, either. The experience of playing Manoeuvre is much greater than the sum of its parts. And, with 20 terrain tiles, and 8 different armies in the box, the replayability is through the roof. And, at an hour or so per game, I have a feeling it'll get played a lot. Even though I got my butt kicked in both games, I greatly enjoyed the challenge. Two thumbs up from me.

Man hoovers

After a brief hiatus due to family, work, and general life intervening, Eric and I got back together again, and my choice was the recent GMT game Manoeuvre (BGG). I'd played this a bit with other gaming buddies, but this was Eric's first play.

We started off with Eric's Brits vs. my French. I had a good hand with unit cards for my 3 strongest units, plus a good leader, and advanced strongly on my left flank. However, Eric didn't oblige by giving me a way to gang up on his units. Eventually I started whittling him down, without losing any of my own units, and eventually managed to end the game by scoring a 5th casualty. Right at the very end I had 4 cards for 2nd Legere and a Forced March, so ran up and issued the coup de grace.

We turned around, this time Eric chose the Americans, and I the Spanish. The board came out with lots of terrain in the middle, hills and forests, and we spent the first part of the game cautiously advancing until we faced off in two parallel lines. Eric started pushing my weakest unit back on my right flank, chasing it all the way to the very edge of the board, but was never able to get the card in hand to kill it off. In the mean time I'd been slowly grinding down the middle, building a 4-1 lead in casualties. This time, however, the end of the day arrived before I could score the 5th casualty, winning about 14-4 in territory.

I'd give more details of the games, but, like our recent playing of C&C:A, the details have gone from my head already. Maybe it's just that I'm an old git, but these games just don't have any staying power in my memory. That's not to say that they're bad games, or that they weren't enjoyable (neither is true, not even close). However, given that they're both short, light, almost filler, games, perhaps it's not surprising that I don't remember too much about them.

Anyway, after several playings how is Manoeuvre working for me? It's a fun little game, with just the right combination of simplicity, playability, choices, luck. I'm really enjoying it. Well, I didn't enjoy the last game with Eric quite as much, as what started out as a tight little game devolved into a one-sided affair as it was Eric's turn to roll crappy dice, suffer from our card distributions, and have 2 of his 4 leader cards come out in the bottom 3 cards of the deck. Up until that point though, there was a fair amount of manoeuvre going on, as we probed for weaknesses, looking to create situations favorable to our hands.

A few things are clear, though. Using multiple unit cards in a single battle can be lethal. I used that tactic a lot, building up to a mega-attack, looking for that 4-1 killer blow. This is especially true if you also have a leader card and can bring in supporting units. Maintaining a line to prevent your opponent using Leader cards is also vital, as things can go sideways rapidly if you get flanked.

Counter-attacks can also be painful. So make sure that you really want to advance into that flanked position before you play that unit card to attack, as advance after combat is mandatory, unless the unit card states otherwise (rare). I also found the Forced March cards useful to bring pressure to bear in an unexpected location, especially if you also have unit cards for the same unit that you move, advancing quickly and making a strong attack.

Once things start going wrong it can spiral down pretty quickly. Once you have a unit disrupted, you then have to choose between using the unit's cards to attack or rally, so once forced onto the back foot it can be hard to recover. You use your cards to recover instead of attacking, and your opponent causes more damage. This is what I felt happened to Eric, as I managed to get my fist in first in both games.

Yep, a very decent little game. Fast to set up, simple to play, and with lots of variety/replayability. It doesn't come much better than that.

Tricky Dick gets Tricky

Mike and I got together this week for a little bit of a context switch. I had considered our Tunisia battle last session to be my choice, but Mike insisted it was a joint choice. So, that meant it was my turn to choose. Instead of wargaming this time, I suggested a game I had received as my secret santa gift that I'd really been looking forward to trying: 1960: The Making of a President.

Now, it's true that 1960 is not a wargame, but it certainly has its roots there. The game uses the card-driven wargame (CDG) system pioneered in We the People and refined into probably 20 or more designs over the years. (There used to be a list on the net somewhere. I'm curious if it's been kept up-to-date. I'm sure there's a geeklist I haven't discovered.) The primary difference between 1960 and most CDGs is that there aren't any armies. Like Twilight Struggle, you're manipulating influence across the map instead.

Unfortunately (or, maybe not) it's going to be impossible to talk about this game without comparing it to Twilight Struggle. There's simply too much in common – not a surprise given they share a primary designer.

The game simulates the last two months leading up to the 1960 US Presidential election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Each turn is a week, and an interstitial turn covering the debates is included. (I believe these were the first televised debates in US political history.) The major features of the game cover things that actually happen in political campaigns – media influence, random events, comments from related parties, and nothing matters except the final scoring – the actual election at the end of the game.

Standard CDG mechanics apply. There are a certain number of rounds per turn, you can play a card for the event or the action points, and the action points can be applied to one of three types of actions. Pretty standard framework. There are four primary features of the game that interact. The map, issues track, media influence, and the political capital bag. If you can get these four features to interact most advantageously, you're going to win. In the end the map matters most, as you would expect. That's the only place points are scored.

The issues track is processed at the end of every turn, and you're given either momentum markers (more on them soon) or media endorsements or both depending on how well you did on issues. There are also a number of events that help (and occasionally hurt) the leader in a particular issue.

Media support comes in two forms – influence and endorsements. Influence lets you avoid support checks for attacking your opponents entrenched positions, and can give some other ancillary benefits. Endorsements end up acting as tiebreakers during the election. It seems like a small thing, but you'll see otherwise given the outcome of our game.

The Political capital bag is interesting. At the start of each turn, initiative is determined by pulling cubes out of the bag until one side has two pulled. They get to choose who goes first. (And it's not always a clear-cut choice.) When you try to add influence in a state your opponent is carrying, the points you apply to that state are not applied directly to the state but are a support check instead – you pull that number of cubes out, and only the ones in your color apply. This is almost the same as the rule in Twilight Struggle where influence costs double in countries controlled by your opponent. It's just a tad more random and subject to influence. Each card you play during a turn gives you some number of “rest cubes” between zero and two. (The number is actually four minus the action point value of the card.) These are then added into the bag at the end of the turn. So, if you were dealt a had full of low-point cards, you get a bone thrown to you by having a lot more cubes thrown into the bag than normal.
At the end of a turn, you'll have at least one card left over. You stash away a card (or two in later turns) to be used in either the debates or the election. You tend to want to stash high-value cards during the first part of the game as they'll help you in the debates, but you have to be careful and not destroy your hand in doing so. Those high-value cards are helpful.

I ended up as Kennedy from a random draw, and we started off. I found myself playing a fair number of events, and as the turns plodded along, I noted that Mike had many fewer cubes left in his supply than I. Given that there's no scoring until the end, it was a bit unclear early on if I was doing well or not.

Mike didn't fully grok the debate rules, and as a result I ended up sweeping the debates. The resulting nine cubes let me lock in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. (The last of which had been hotly contested up to that point.) Connecticut became a bit of a battleground due to an election event (Early Returns) giving the winner of Connecticut support checks in California.

On the last turn, I won the initiative. (I think for only the second time in the game.) I chose to go last after looking at my hand. For what I think was my last play (an event I don't remember), I removed Mike's solitary cubes in four midwestern states (Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky, IIRC) rendering them cubeless. ("undecided.") As I had a Midwest media endorsement, I was looking at taking all four of those states, and the 47 or so votes that came with them. (Winner is the first to 269 votes, I believe.)

What I didn't count on, however, was the issue track in the last turn. Mike swept the issues with his last play, and got a momentum marker and two endorsements. These both turned out to be in the Midwest. The first eliminated mine, and the second brought those four states into his camp. Now, this sounds like a bit of wackiness, but I can exactly see the real-life scenario here. The Indianapolis Star and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had been endorsing Kennedy, and two days before the elections change their endorsements over to Nixon with well-written editorials. For those four closely-run states, it's the deciding factor. After all, it only takes a few popular votes to swing a states entire collection of electoral votes.

The election events were mostly a non-issue, other than I got eight support checks in Illinois (five from an event, and three from a stashed card), and stole that from him. None of the other election support checks changed anything.

When the final tally came in, I came up short. Nixon won the election 283-254, if I remember the scores properly. (Where Mike mishandled the debates, I misread the tiebreaker rules for states with no cubes and no endorsements. I thought they just went to Kennedy, where they actually go to their historical victor – this definitely cost me some votes, but maybe not as many as my debate victories cost Mike.)

I had only won 15 of the 50 states. But I had just about every large state except California. Only five of my states provided single-digit votes. I had also completely abandoned the west. (Which is not dissimilar to history: Kennedy only carried Nevada, New Mexico, and Hawaii in the west.) In the end, though, it was not enough. (Had those endorsements turned out differently, though...)

What does my gut tell me about this game?

First off, this is a very simple CDG. There are some tweaks that really change your thought pattern from the standard CDG and Twilight Struggle, however.

First off, cards are mostly see once and forget. Both players are drawing from a common deck, and if our session is any indication, you're not going to get too far into a reshuffle. I think we only saw five cards twice. The deck management portion of most CDGs is simply not here. Second, there really isn't much worry about card interaction. There are very few prevention events, and in fact we didn't play a single event that prevented the use of another card. Third, there's not much variance in the cards. Most CDGs have cards that provide between 1 and 5 action points, but in 1960, the swing is only from 2-4. Your hands will be far more consistent from turn to turn.

There are obvious huge similarities to Twilight Struggle. The biggest is that you're manipulating area control instead of armies. One tweak over TS, though, is that only one side can have influence in a state at at time. Adding your influence in a state leaning led by your opponent first reduces his influence to zero before any of yours is added. Also, in TS, your opponents events automatically happen if you play their card. In 1960, however, you must spend a momentum chit in order to trigger these events. And, if you spend two momentum chits when you play a card, you prevent your opponents ability to trigger that event. We definitely saw a couple instances of chit-fishing with the intent to draw out the last remaining chit before playing a card with a particularly nasty event.

It's hard to get a real feel for a game like this after a single playing, but I do like what I see. In the inevitable "1960 vs. Twilight Struggle" scorecard, it comes out like this: 1960 is a far more forgiving game for inexperienced players. TS is very prone to early Russian auto-victories when inexperienced players are involved. This sours the initial take on that game. Experience brings balance there. Here, however, I'm not sure how much deeper it gets. There's probably some instances where you don't want to commit resources to one state or another until a certain card has gone through the game, but the effect is nowhere near as pronounced as in TS.

Net-net, this is a fantastic intro-level CDG, and is better than We the People, Hannibal, or Twilight Struggle in that role. Inexperienced players can have a very enjoyable experience, but will still likely lose to an experienced player. It's further down the learning curve where I think 1960 is going to fade compared to TS. It's chow mien compared to TS being teriyaki. (Paths of Glory, Here I Stand, and For the People are the five-course meals in comparison.)

Given the relative rankings, as of this writing, on BGG between TS (3rd) and 1960 (13th), I think they're about right, all things considered. 1960 is a great introductory CDG. Twilight Struggle is a fantastic bridge game between wargames and euros, and is soon to hit its third printing. I'll happily play either game, but I think if given a choice and the extra hour to play, I'd still choose TS.

Given access and interest in theme, I think I'd introduce a new player interested in 2-player CDGs to the games in the following order:

1. 1960
2. Twilight Struggle
3. Hannibal or Wilderness War
4. from here you can deviate as desired by theme and availability. A player versed in the previous three levels could tackle any other CDG with similar amounts of work.

As usual, the game was highly enjoyable, and only took us about two hours. It'll easily be playable in 90 minutes with a couple games under your belt.

It's Tricky Mickey in a landslide

Back to our regularly scheduled sessions after our OCS Tunisia marathon (my take, Eric's take, Eric's thoughts. After some 'After you, no, after you' on whose choice it was, Eric picked 1960: The Making of a President. I initially had this game on my 'to buy' list, but after reading some reviews I wasn't so sure about it, so it got removed. I was more than happy to get this on the table to try it for myself.

I ended up with Tricky Dicky, and only half-jokingly asked for confirmation that Kennedy won the original election. (Hey, I'm the foreigner here, and was only 1yo at that time.) I started with a big push in the East, not knowing that there were many cards in the deck that gave Kennedy an advantage there, so I'm not sure if that was a sensible move or not. However, grabbing NY and PA forced him to spend time to recover them, so maybe it wasn't totally wasted.

From there I pushed into the Mid-west, South, West, and back to the Mid-west. In the mean time I'd been shoveling cubes into the bag as if they were the crux of the game. At the end of turn 3, with the Debates turn coming up, we went over the rules again on how they worked, but it wasn't sinking in. By the time the debates came up I had crummy cards, and at the end Kennedy had out-debated Nixon 3-0. However, all wasn't lost, as I still felt my position was decent, with presence in a lot of states, if control in few.

In the last couple of turns I drew strong CP cards, with 5 of 7 in the last turn worth 4CPs. In the last play I chose to go for Issues, controlling 1st & 2nd. In his last play Eric Campaigned in the Mid-west, clearing four states of cubes, a smart move as he had an Endorsement marker there.

However, when evaluating the Issues, I picked Endorsements and drew 2 for the Mid-west, gaining the endorsement and an 80-90 vote swing for Nixon. Balanced against that, Eric drew 4 blue cubes from 5 to grab IL from me for a 54 vote swing back in an Election Day event, but I'd protected CA so it was safe from a similar event.

We picked up all the counters, added it all up (using fingers and toes, for some of us) and it worked out that Nixon had won by 284-253. (Or near enough to that.) Kennedy had won the larger states in the East, South and Mid-west, but the West belonged to Nixon, as well as a lot of smaller states.



Certainly very similar to Twilight Struggle, although a lot simpler in the game play, which is both its strength and its weakness. From a casual player's point of view it's a far more approachable game. There are fewer options available, there are only a few card interactions. That's not to say that there are no decisions to make, there are, and they can be significant. That's the strength.

But it's a two-edged sword, for those same strengths for the casual player are weaknesses for the more dedicated player. Fewer card interactions, fewer options, more random wackiness, all features that could turn off someone looking for that deeper gaming experience offered by Twilight Struggle. In TS the player who knows and understands the game's intricacies will win most of the time, less true of 1960.

I'm very much on the fence about TS. I really like the game, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to dedicate enough of my precious gaming time to get to a higher level of play. I find I'm in the same position with 1960, on the fence that is, but for the opposite reason. I'm not sure that I want to dedicate my time for something that feels a trifle light. I'd give it a second go, but for the moment it's not going back on my 'to buy' list.

Eric's OCS Review

I mentioned a few days ago that I'd be putting my more detailed thoughts about The Gamers' OCS into a separate post due to length. I've started writing this post about three times now, and I think I've finally figured out the approach I want to take. My apologies for taking a bit longer with this than I've planned – I'm fighting a nasty cold at the moment.

OCS examines large operations, mostly from WWII. Games published to this point have covered various parts of the East Front (Guderian's Blitzkrieg II, Case Blue, Hube's Pocket, Enemy at the Gates), Africa (DAK2, Tunisia), Sicily, Southeast Asia (Burma), and the Korean War.

First, let's look at the structure of the typical OCS game.

All OCS games come with a game-specific rulebook that includes the scenarios as well as game-specific rules. The scenarios usually include one or more massive, full-campaign scenarios. For example, DAK2's full campaign is some 240 or so turns. Obviously, not something you'll be completing in a single weekend, let alone an evening. However, there's a number of smaller scenarios that give you a chance to play the game in ways that handle nearly any time frame. For example, the Race for Tunis scenario we played is 14 turns, but the full campaign game is up to 58 turns starting from the same deployment.

When you first look at an OCS game in any sort of detail, the following features will stick out:

• Comprehensive rule book
  
• Relatively standard turn sequence
  
• Detailed counters
  
• Unit Modes
  
• Supply
  

Let's take a look at each area in turn.

Rules

The rules are up to iteration 4.0 as now shipping with Case Blue (and available gratis on The Gamers Archive website.). Given that the system is over fifteen years old and has been through constant modification and use, they show their maturity. The rules are very cleanly written and are not overly dense. There's also bits of Dean Essig's (the designer) wit. For example, if you manage to get a combat where both sides have zero strength you “call it 1:1 and just shake your head.”

However, even though the rules have been revised a number of times, the older games require very little change, if any, to use the new rules. In fact, there are only two changes to Tunisia (which shipped with version 2.0i of the rules) required to use version 4.0. One is to add a Flak value to the ports at Bizerte and Tunis. The other is to ignore the game-specific rule on rail control. Everything else still works which indicates that the fundamentals of the system are very sound – it's just the details and implementation that have changed over time.

A very nice feature of the rulebook is a well-designed index. It came in handy many times during our recent game.

Game Flow

The turn sequence is very straightforward and is structured as follows:

1. Weather and Initiative determination.
2. Air unit return and refit.
3. Reinforcements
4. Movement (includes breakout, movement, and barrage segments)
5. Supply
6. Reaction (includes movement and barrage segments)
7. Combat (includes barrage and combat segments)
8. Exploitation (includes movement, barrage, and combat segments)
9. Clean Up

Each player goes through steps 2-9 in this sequence, and the turn is complete. Some games may alter this sequence a tad, but never drastically.

It's just a slightly modified Igo-Ugo system. (The exception being the reaction phase allowing limited activity on your opponent's turn.) Nothing groundbreaking here, but as exists throughout OCS, it's the interplay of the various parts that make the game stand out.

The biggest thing to note here is the possibility for a double turn. If you went 2nd in one turn, there's a 50/50 chance you'll have the choice to go again before your opponent can respond. Timed well, this can be devastating. Of course, if you DO get the double turn, your opponent may find himself in the same spot on the next turn. So, it's a situation you must plan for.

Detailed Counters

The counters in the game are very detailed. Some have as many as 11 pieces of information on them. Here is a typical combat unit counter.



This is the Royal Scots Greys Battalion from the 7th Armored division as fought at El Alamein. This counter is in combat mode. (The flipside of this counter is the move mode version and the bottom three numbers are 3-4-18.) Standard NATO symbology is used indicating this is a tank battalion. The yellow background in the symbol indicates the Armor category of unit. (Red = mech, clear = other.) The yellow bar indicates it's part of a multi-unit formation, in this case the 7th Armored division. The numbers across the bottom are combat strength, action rating, and movement rate. The red-on-yellow indicates a tracked unit. (white = leg, black = truck.) Full details on this are in the rules, but as you can see there's a lot of information here. Divisional units may have size ratings, artillery has range, etc.

Modes

Units are always in one of a number of different “modes.” (Combat, move, reserve, strat, disorganized, exploitation.) All but the last two are voluntary and can be changed before a unit moves during the movement phase. Disorganized mode is cleaned up during your cleanup phase, but if you get put in DG mode during your opponent's combat phase, and he gets a double turn, well, you'll be thankful if you get a chance to clean up the DG later on – odds are those units won't be around by then.

Supply

Supply and logistics are pervasive, of course. This is probably the signature feature of OCS. You must move supply counters around the board, and you can only do this by air, rail, or transport points (generally trucks.) In addition to the typical “trace supply” you see in most wargames where units must trace a path to some supply source to be “in supply” that's only part of the picture in OCS. Here, you must also spend supply for fuel to move truck/tracked units, refit air bases, artillery barrages, or for combat. (On either offense or defense.) Needless to say, you have to plan in advance where you're going to be attacking, and the supply situation dictates when as much as anything else.

The side effect of dealing with this admittedly fiddly feature of OCS is that it indirectly enforces a pacing to an offensive that comes close to matching what happened historically. You can't just run a huge offensive across an entire front unless you have LOADS of supply to pay for it.

OCS is not designed for beginning wargamers. I think the 40+ page base rulebook, highly detailed counters and sheer size of the games would scare off new players, in any case. That said, once you're ready for a game like this, there's really nothing like it.

Pulling it Together

Mike and I spent a fair amount of effort into learning OCS. It is, after all, a 40-some page base rulebook (combined with 5 or 6 pages of game-specific rules) and we wanted the game to go relatively smoothly. The rules are detailed, but each individual section makes sense. After finishing a section, you're not going “huh?” and rereading things because you're confused. You end up rereading because you want to capture everything you can. As a result of this preparation, we had a VERY good initial experience.

The design of the game is such that you typically only deal with one piece of the rules at a time. For example, in your movement phase, you want to get supply into place to fuel your units. How do I do that? Trucks, air, rail or shipping. Which do I currently have available? All but rail? Cool. How do I ship supply? And here you're only dealing with shipping. Each individual task is simple enough that it becomes second nature after you do it a couple times.

For example, in our game all my supply reinforcements come either into Algiers or on trucks tied to divisions coming into play. How do I get the supply from Algiers up to the front? Ship it or airlift. Shipping is relatively simple: I've got a max capacity overall, and each port has a maximum it can handle. Portion accordingly.

Of course, I might need to use some of that shipping capacity to bring in new units as well... Decisions decisions...

Another example: I want to attack a stack of units and hopefully both damage AND push them back. How did the real-life commanders do it? Soften them up with either air or artillery barrages (or both) then charge in with the troops. Hopefully you've also got tanks in reserve to exploit the gap you opened.

How does it happen in OCS? Exactly the same. Air barrages happen at the end of the movement phase. Call in air support and see what happens. There are actual plane counters that must be within range of the front, and you better bring a fighter escort just in case you're in an enemy patrol zone. If that doesn't work out, fire the ground artillery. Artillery barrages happen before combat is resolved, and hopefully you can disorganize your opponent by now. If you've got good strong troops and you've weakened your opponent, fortune might provide you and exploitation result from the combat allowing your units to plow through the gap. Even if not, units placed in reserve can be released to take advantage of the opening you've hopefully opened.

Exactly how you read about it in the books, eh? That's how it feels on the table. You can plan and execute operations just like the historical model. Of course, having all these moving parts at your disposal means it's pretty easy to mess up these operations as well :)

All the maxims you hear about warfare apply. “Keep reserves.” “Maintain a rearguard.” “Garrison supply dumps, ports, and other important sites.” “Don't outrun your supply lines.” All these tenets have to be adhered to, and it's because of the subtle indirect effects of the rules.

For example, you'll never find a rule mandating a rearguard. However, enemy zones of control have limited effect on movement. (You must be in combat mode, and units using leg- or track-based movement can ignore your ZOC in any case) means it's hard to avoid leaving gaps in your line. Keeping a rearguard can make the enemy pay for sneaking through these holes. Reserves can be released in the exploitation phase to take advantage of holes created during combat, or released during the reaction phase on the opponents turn to shore up positions under attack.

The effect of (admittedly a lot of) straightforward rules is that you find yourself, after a few turns, playing the situation, not playing the game. You're thinking about what you're trying to accomplish and where you can pull the resources from to get it done. The fact that we were doing this five or six turns into our first full-scale playing still blows my mind. I did NOT expect things to go so smoothly.

After having gone through the rules after we played, we've found 6 that we missed. Six. And these weren't always full rules – in a couple cases it was a single sentence within a rule. Now, a good portion of this is due to good preparation but I believe it says great things about the maturity and intuitiveness (if that's a word) of the rules. The net result was the most engaging and engrossing wargaming experience I may have ever had. It was a lot of effort to get to this point, but it was worth every minute. I can't wait until the next time we get it on the table.

OCS is not a system everyone will like. There can be a fair amount of downtime between turns when there's a lot of counters on the map. Not everyone will like dealing with the fiddly nature of the supply counters, or just tracking supply at such a detailed level in the first place. And some of those counter stacks can get pretty tall. However, as far as "monster" wargames go, OCS is right at the front of the pack of big games that make sense and are playable. If you go through the rules and they seem inviting to you at all, give OCS a shot. You won't be disappointed.

Tunis race

One of the things that Eric and I have talked about for some time has been doing a larger game, with one of the Operational Combat Series (OCS) games being top of the list. These are detailed treatments of various battles or segments of WWII, mostly at the battalion/regiment level, and including a heavy emphasis on logistics. Several of the games are of the monster category, e.g. the struggles in Russia, or in the desert, featuring multiple maps, more counters than you can shake a stick at, and requiring a dedication that the average adult wargamer is unlikely to be able to commit to, short of a serious lottery win. The smaller ones, and various scenarios from the big ones too, however, are eminently playable.

With my new-found (re-)interest in wargames, I've been looking for the games that really hit the twin spots of an interesting subject, and are also good games, especially looking for game series that allow me to learn one set of rules and use them in multiple games. So far the Columbia Front series, GMT's Glory series, Avalanche's Defiant Russia/Strange Defeat, and FAB (OK, only one play so far, but I was seriously impressed with it) have really hit the spot for me. But I've still had an interest for something more, and from reading the rules for OCS I was fascinated with the series/system. The rules just seemed to cover everything in a very simple way, it just clicks into place.

After pushing the various games, scenarios and options back and fore, we settled on the Race For Tunis scenario from Tunisia. I'm not normally a desert fan, but this looked more intriguing, but, perhaps more importantly, it's fairly readily available on eBay and so was a cheap entry into the system, and not too much loss if I didn't like it. (Although, to be quite honest, I almost included OCS in my top ten wargames, just from reading the rules, I was that taken with them.) So, the day finally came, and Eric and I sat down, with the random draw giving me the Axis forces.

(Pics of the game are available here.)

My initial reaction on looking over the available forces in the scenario were 'Gulp, that's not much to work with.' A few puny Italian and German March battalions, and a couple of decent armor units. I decided that the first line of defense would be in passes of the low hills running north/south along the Djebel Abiod (D.A.) - Bedja road (34.27-36.22 on the map), particularly 34.27, 36.25, and 36.22-23. Mountains guarded either side of each pass, except for the very southern position, which had rough and a river. Good enough.

Eric won the initiative in the first turn (Nov 15th, 1942), and moved aggressively forward, pressing up to my line in the north and south. However, I immediately returned the favor, attacking at Bedja, and was rewarded with killing the unit there, and, even more importantly, capturing his supplies that he'd moved forward. I had been lucky enough in the attack to gain an exploitation, and used that to attack his other force there. However, they were stronger than I'd expected (or, perhaps, hoped) and I was lucky to not get off too badly. A good start.

Winning the initiative in the next turn (Nov 19th) allowed me to go first and strengthen my defenses, before he was in good position to attack, as well as retake the hills I'd had to evacuate in the previous turn's failed attack. The weather had closed in, and without being able to use his superior air strength I managed to survive his attacks.

The 22nd again saw the Axis win the initiative, and the weather clear up. I continue to build up, and use an artillery barrage to disorganize (DG from now on) his main force at Bedja. This just focused Allied attention on D.A. and my forces were subjected to a massive air strike causing a DG, and the follow-up attack causes my first loss. Fortunately, the Allies had an option on a loss, and chose to retreat, which meant I could ignore my option.

However, the 26th saw the Allies win the initiative, and with good weather they pressed home their advantage, killing my armor unit at D.A. and forcing a big retreat. However, the Allies don't strike at Bedja, perhaps due to supply issues. Either way up, I'm not liking my position and fighting on two fronts at the same time would be one front too much. The Axis turn is one of trying to rebuild a new defensive line. I'd landed two armor units from 10Pz in the previous turn, and they were rushed to the front line, much as I wanted to keep them as a reserve. However, I also was able to land another two armor units in Bizerte this turn, so at least I had something to fall back on.

The 29th saw more good weather, and although I won the initiative, I let the Allies go first, more from a fear of them gaining another double turn than anything else. The Allies change their focus, forcing the pass in the middle (36.25) and kicking me off the hills at Bedja. However, in doing so he's left his northern flank weak and hanging out to dry and I seize the opportunity. I fuel up 10PZ and force my way up the coast road.

1st Dec, and it gets better for the Axis, as they win the initiative and choose to go first. (No brainer, really.) I continue to force my way up the coast road with the armor, capturing Tabarka and some trucks, killing some replacements and an HQ, and forcing him to consume a lot of supply that would have been used to attack me. I also started squeezing through the mountains gaps between his forces, threatening to cut them off from supply. The question now is what retribution he's going to bring down on me. In the end, not much. His air barrages miss, and he surely is suffering from a lack of supply as the expected counter-attacks fail to materialize. In fact he withdraws from the hills in front of Bedja.

5th Dec see the first (and only) mud turn. I'm more than happy to see it, as it allows me to reinforce Tabarka, and move in more supply to replace my heavy expenditures of the previous couple of turns.

The 8th sees the return of good weather and Allied initiative. And Allied attacks, as the expected counter attacks materialize both north and south. His artillery barrage in the north is too successful, as it kills my armor unit, preventing him from doing a combat and any potential exploitation. In the south 1st Arm.'s attack is flanked as they are taken by surprise. (Eric rolls defensive surprise, for a large negative shift.) I'm left with a big decision to make. The bees are really beginning to buzz around Tabarka, and given that I can only bring in 1SP of supply or reinforcements per turn, I'm not confident of holding on. Given that his attack has cut off the land supply route I decide to cut my losses and withdraw, rescuing 10Pz Mech that I'd shipped into Tabarka in the previous turn, leaving a speed bump Italian unit. I think that I achieved my goals with the move. I caught him by surprise, forcing him to move more onto the defensive and to recapture Tabarka, eating up time and supply that could have been better used in the drive to capture VP locations. It cost me a couple of armor units, but I think it was a good trade from my perspective. In the south I continue to press, squeezing into those gaps, and threatening. I also made a sweep around the southern end of the line via Le Kef, attacking his armor replacement units. However, I'd forgotten to move up my supplies, and the attack was somewhat blunted by being out of supply, but it was another threat to his rear areas. (It's the unit with the blue OoS marker, just above the British HQ unit.)

(Note, if you're looking at the pics that go along with this, there is one unit that hasn't yet moved at the end of GT8 - the reserve unit in 39.26, which moves up to 36.25. This is a critical move for the next turn.)

12th Dec, and initiative returns to the Axis who make good use of the double turn to attack the exposed Allied artillery around Bedja. With high action rating modifiers, the artillery are taken by surprise, forcing a large gap in the Allied lines in the south, as the remaining Allied forces have transferred their attention north. The remains of 1st Arm are barraged by artillery and disorganized, which renders them mostly impotent in their turn.

With the 15th still giving good weather and Axis initiative (and it was getting quite late) we decided to call it a day there. With only 5 more turns, having captured none of their VP objectives, requiring 3 for a win, and being nowhere near capturing even 1, the Allies were not in a good position, with the Axis only needed to protect their position to secure the win. They've still got ample reserves in Sicily, and have the shipping/air transport to deploy and supply them. Alternatively, and more in keeping with a longer game, they can continue their push in the south, cutting off 1st Arm and beginning to threaten the Allied rear areas.

So, after all that, my thoughts? Simply 'Wow!'. Or, rather, 'WOW!' What a game, the time just flew past. We took our time over the first couple of turns, learning the mechanisms, with me especially talking through moves to ensure that I was getting the rules correct. This worked great for me, as by the end I wasn't needing to focus on how to do things, but could focus on what I wanted to do. I found the rules pretty simple in practice, yet yielding a game with a very different tempo to most games. Rather than the grind, grind, grind of most games, there was a build, prepare, attack, recover, that required planning and forethought. My attack along the coast caught Eric totally off-guard and in poor position to respond immediately. Both these elements strike me as a far more realistic representation of the ebb and flow of operational combat than any other game I've played. Combine that with the limited intelligence from not knowing what each stack contains and I think this is as good a consim gaming gets.

For the longest time I could never understand the ASL gamers who played nothing else. However, having played OCS, I now feel I understand better where they're coming from, as I could be the same way with OCS.