From: Peter Card Subject: GMT's Crisis Sinai I played through Senario I "Across Suez" with a friend. As I owned the game and had spent some time reading the rules and playing through a solo game turn, I took the Egyptian side, which has more units and more things to do. My opponent later suggested that I had taken advantage of his trusting nature. Sour grapes, I say. A complete historical setup is provided for the Egyptians, and I would recommend using it first time out. The Israelis have about a brigades worth of armour on the map, and the Bar Lev garrisons holding the canal line, with reinforcements arriving each turn. The strong points provide the initial Egyptian attack with only minor opposition, but represent a harvest of victory points. My main challenge was the mechanical problem of ferrying the first wave infantry brigades across the canal while beginning the bridge construction program. The special rules "program" the Israelis to launch immediate counter attacks on land and in the air. The game realistically simulates the devastating toll taken by the Egyptian air defence system. It also punishes "hasty" attacks and rewards proper use of combined arms. Forced to attack in insufficient strength, with no supporting infantry, the Israeli tank attacks were blown apart, as in real life. My opponent was beginning to get a feel for the way things were going, and was not too suprised when his radar system failed to detect a nightime Egyptian helicopter assault on the Mitla pass on the final turn, combined with a quick armoured thrust by Third Army to garner a wholly gratuitous 25 extra VPs. The victory conditions assume that Egyptans are largely successful in crossing the canal, but it is difficult to see how the Israelis can prevent a decisive defeat, in game terms. Assuming that most of the Bar-Lev strongpoints are taken, that the Egyptian player errects all his bridges, and that the Egyptian player at least holds his own in combat losses, which are all safe assumptions, you are looking at an easy Decisive Win for the Egyptians. No doubt the other scenarios, and the campaign game provide differently balanced games. We were taking about an hour per game turn, with a break in middle to watch the Hungarian Grand Prix ( Go Damon, Go!!), so the scenarios seem to be playable in an afternoon. As a simulation, it certainly succeeded in simulating the psychological impact of the Advance Modern Warfare Tuition Program the Israeli's received on October 6/7th. I have a minor quibble with the ratings on the box. As far as I can see, ALL GMT games are described as moderately complex, with high solitaire playability, for 1-4 players. This is nonsense. Sinai is definitely more complex than the GBOH series, for example and is a two player game, whereas Waterloo, for example, actually has three player scenarios.