From: David Wessman Subject: First Arab-Israeli War Q&A - long (was RE: Gulf War) Danny asked if anyone's playing S&T 185's First Arab-Israeli War. I'm in the middle of my 2nd game. Our group has collectively played this at least half a dozen times. We, (and others) had a number of questions that were posted and answered by the designer, Joe Miranda on AOL. Here they are: Subject: Re: More Arab-Israeli War Questions Following our second play of this game, we have several questions: MY ANSWERS ARE IN CAPITALS--JOSEPH 1) Do supply points advance or retreat after combat? MAY NOT ADVANCE. RETREAT IS COVERED UNDER RULE 19.a/b. 2) Shouldn't Arab nationalities be prohibited from stacking and attacking together? A) Egyptians should only be able to stack with Yemen/Morocco/S.Arabian or AAS units B) Syrians and Lebanese can stack with ALA and AAS C) All can stack with AAS THIS IS COVERED BY EVENT 21-26. THIS WAS EASIER THAN WRITING ADDITIONAL RULES TO COVER ALL SORTS OF CONTINGENCIES. 3) Shouldn't Arab leaders only be able to stack with in a hex containing units of the same nationality? A) El Tel should only be able to stack and attack with Transjordanian units B) Abd should be able to stack with AAS (Palestinian) units. SEE ABOVE. 3) Shouldn't the defender declare fanaticism first? WHY? 4) Guerrilla/commandos can choose to defend on the raid CRT, but they should not be able to choose the assault CRT if the attacker has already chosen the raid table. REPRESENTS HISTORICAL TENDENCY OF GUERRILLA FORCES TO GAIN THE INITIATIVE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. SO IT STANDS. 5) Clarify: Are all attacker shifts taken first (leader, fanaticism, etc.) and then defender, or are the modifiers taken sequentially (first leader shifts back and forth, then terrain shifts back and forth, etc.)? ADD ALL ATTACKER THEN SUBTRACT ALL DEFENDER SHIFTS. 6) David Wessman already posed the question vis-à-vis recycling upgraded battalions after they have been used to form brigades. *** Subject: Re: Not Enough Terror >>"David Wessman, who also notes there are 44 populace symbols, but only 14 Terror markers. Good thing we've got 4 copies of the game now!"<< Or scrounge them from S&T Afghanistan, issue 147. --Joseph *** Subject: Re: OB in 1st Arab-Israeli War >>The interpretation that I favor is that when battalions are reorganized into brigades, the battalion counters are not "freed up" to be used elsewhere. In fact, it helps to set them aside in holding boxes so you don't forget this. Rules 4 & 5 seem to support this, especially the design note at the end of Rule 4. The counter mix for the Arabs fits this interpretation, except for the Egyptians which appear to be short one infantry battalion, (but have an extra mechanized battalion.<< The designer comments: Battalions/brigades do become available for reorganization/reinforcement purposes the instant they are removed from the map via combat or reorganization. >>On the Israeli side, there are not enough infantry battalions for the 5 mech brigades and the 6 infantry brigades. You have to choose between having 6 infantry brigades, 2 mech and 1 armor, with 3 battalions each of recon and commando, or 5 infantry brigades, 5 mech and 1 armor. The fact that the Israeli commando battalions must be incorporated into the mech brigades forces a significant decision on the Israeli player, also. Do you retain the tactical flexibility of the commandos or trade that for the increased firepower of the mech brigades?<< The designer comments: See above note. Also, consider that while the Israelis did form 12 brigades in the war, in game terms several of them were broken down into battalions to provide area defense. >>I note that the order of battle on page 11 of the accompanying article also tends to reinforce this. The Israelis have a total of 12 brigades, the Eqyptians 5, Syria 3, Transjordan 3, Iraq 4, etc.<< The designer comments: Also consider that all sides increased their strength throughout 1948 (see charts, pp. 15 and 16). The number of brigades represents total command control capabilities for both sides, given shortage of trained higher level officers and staffs. But there is nothing to stop you from deploying a horde of battalions as independent units. >>The problem with this is the idea that you have burn up units in order to get then back as "reinforcements", when it seems the designers intent is that the are "replacements." In any case, it would have been helpful if the rules included a sentence or two along the lines of "for example, the Syrian forces on the map can never exceed 3 brigades or 9 battalions, or any equivalent mix thereof."<< The designer comments: There is no distinction between reinforcements and replacements per se. The only time you can not deploy units is if you have everything on the map. --Joseph *** Subject: Re: More First Arab-Israeli War Questions >>This is a good simulation and a good game! <>While we're at it, why not allow the "Burma Road" to be built around Latrun to the New City of Jerusalem (as it was historically)? It would take one turn and one supply point turn to build one hex of "Burma Road" starting in hex 4419, continuing to hexes 4319, 4320 and ending in 4321 (New City of Jerusalem).<< The designer comments: I thought about this, but in game terms this is represented by burning extra supply to allow other supply units to force march through Arab zones of controls (yes, supply units can force march). >>Players could indicate a "Burma Road" hex with an inverted British air unit counter.<< In the "if I had to do it again" category, I might have included an Israeli bulldozer counter. >> I would also prohibit the "secret airfield" or the "arms factory" from being setup in Jerusalem -- no Jewish government would have allowed such a key resource to be bottled up in the Jerusalem corridor.<< The designer comments: The thing is, you get to choose one place for your arms factory. If you place it in Jerusalem then you are denying some other part of the front the supply points. Often, it is more useful to place the arms factory in the northeast where the Arabs can frequently run amok. Remember, Jerusalem is very difficult for the Arabs to take, but once the Israelis get routed out of, say, the Golan they can have a hard time getting it back. >>On a final note, we are going to implement a rule that when there is more than one Arab player, the Arab players must communicate with each in writing (only) vis-à-vis their units on the map. Further, this writing must be shown to the Israeli player. Should be fun...<< The designer comments: Onwards! *** Subject: Re: First Arab-Israeli War After-Action Report >>One question for Joe M: can units execute overruns into terrain they cannot enter by movement? Since the rules say that overrun is treated exactly like combat, and the combat rules allow units to attack into terrain they cannot move into, this would seem to be allowed. I, OTOH, do not like the ability to do so-I think that units shouldn't be allowed to overrun into prohibited terrain. What say you, the designer?<< Perhaps "overrun" is the wrong term. This is really a meeting engagement type of situation, where units attack from march order. It's in there mainly to keep one player from blocking vital LOC's by stringing out a bunch of weak units along a road. So overrun is the same as normal combat except that it takes place in movement and has the one column leftward shift. Incidentally, which terrain can units attack into but not enter? Lakes/seas are prohibited to both movement and combat. --Joseph M *** Subject: Re: First Arab-Israeli War After-Action Report >>As we watched the player controlling the AAS & ALA move, we gathered our own opinions as to the most efficacious way to play. Overrunning aggressively in tandem with the Forced March and Supply rules are a good way to setup the following combat phase (especially when forced to use the Raid CRT, as you are in the first five months of the game). << Designer comment: And this also shows the course of the running convoy battles. >>We called it quits after we got to the end of the summer of 1948. Aggressive Arab play had sliced the Jewish-held areas into several pockets. It looked grim for the Israelis, and we left wondering how a Jewish player would win the game. However, we retired to my house where Joe Youst and I got the game out and played it a second time, discovering that there were several rules we had gotten wrong the first time.<< Designer comment: This is a game that can be unforgiving on a player who makes one mistake too many. >>The second play of the game was very enjoyable. Miranda has designed a well-balanced, taught and sophisticated game. I am looking forward to playing it again. Either side can win, and win big (the reverse is also true). My cursory reading on the topic indicates a high degree of historical accuracy as well. What a pleasure! << Thanks! --Joseph M *** Subject: Re: Manchild Joe in Promised Land >>My assessment of the seeming discrepancy between actual population and the relative number of Populace centers in the game had much to do with Joe's view/opinion/whatever as to their relative value . . .sheer number comparisons are often (not always, often . . .or "often frequently") treacherous to behold. << Mainly, I was showing the general centers of Israeli/Arab populaces. Joseph M *** Subject: Re: More 1st Arab-Israeli War Population Musings >>I think Mr. Bolt raises and interesting question that I would like to see the designer answer. In game terms, there is a significant incentive to terrorize the enemy populace. Because of the difference in the number of populace symbols for each side, the Arab player can earn a lot more VPs by this method than the Israeli can. I am curious why this should be so. Is it merely a game balancing mechanism?<< The Arabs had more people in Palestine, but the Israelis were much better organized. *** Subject: Re: more first Arab-Israeli war questions >>1) The rules governing the placement of Israeli reinforcements limit you to placing no more than 3 battalions in any one of 3 cities, i. e., you can legally place 9 battalions per turn, yet on the June turn the Israeli player receives 10 battalions?<< Designer comments: That turn they can place four per hex. >>2) I'm not sure if this concerns a problem with the game or dumb play, but..... On our first playing the following occurred: turn 1 ends with Israel firmly in control of Jerusalem, Latrun and Ma'ale though with Arab units or ZoCs all around Jerusalem. The random event for turn 2 is a 1 turn truce, which means no movement through ZoC, etc. The Israeli reinforcements for turn 2 cause the units in Jerusalem to be overstacked, since no unit can move, so they disrupt. Turn 3 is normal, so they Arabs attack the disrupted Jerusalem garrison, which at any odds above 3:1 guarantees the elimination of the garrison, and at odds down to 1:1 gives a 2/3 chance of elimination, since disrupted units that receive another disruption or retreat through an enemy ZoC are eliminated. Isn't this too easy?<< Designer comments: : Represents historical problems of overcrowding, limited supplies, etc. --Joseph M From: David Bolt Subject: Additional First Arab-Israeli War Errata David Wessman posted a list of errata and clarifications from Joe Miranda concerning the First Arab-Israeli War. Joe Youst, the mapmaker for the game and Joe Miranda (the designer) played the game in L.A. last weekend and Joe (Youst) brought back the following additional errata: 1. A force that doubles its movement through the expenditure of a supply point doubles the cost for overrunning units (from 2 MP to 4 MP). 2. Mechanized (not armor) may overrun into a mountain hex. The cost to do so is doubled in terms of MP (from 2 MP to 4 MP). If the mechanized unit is part of a force that doubles its movement through the expenditure of a supply point then the cost to overrun a mountain hex is 8 MP. 3. Whenever an overrunning unit(s) receives a result of NE on the CRT, that unit must cease movement. It may only attack the hex it was attempting to overrun in the upcoming combat phase (although it may choose not to attack at all). 4. When resolving combat, first determine the raw odds, then add all attacker shifts, finally, subtract all defender shifts. For example, the Israeli player announces an attack at 7-1. The Israeli player then announces that a leader is participating in the combat, providing one CRT column shift. The Arab player then announces that the terrain in the defender's hex provides a shift. The end result is that the odds remain 7-1 as the Israeli player's leader shift cancels out the Arab player's terrain shift. 5. The countermix is not a limitation in terms of entrenchment counters. Any terrain that is not prohibited to a unit can be entrenched (i.e., British forts can be entrenched). These five errata will alter the play of the game considerably. Particularly with the hyper-aggressive group that David Wessman and I play with here in the SF Bay Area. David Bolt From: Noel Wright Subject: Errata for Byzantium & First Arab Israeli War (This errata appears in the new (186) issue of S&T) First Arab Israeli War (S&T 185) Israeli Reinforcement Chart: Note #1: The Israelis may place up to four (not three) reinforcement battalions per hex.