From: Hank Meyer Subject: Krieg! A Disenting Opinion (fwd) ((from rec.games.board)) Newsgroups: rec.games.board From: casper@axcrnb.cern.ch (Dave Casper) Subject: Re: Krieg & The Big One Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:57:00 GMT [stuff about The Big One snipped] I got a copy of Krieg when I was in the US for AHcon. I haven't had the chance to play it yet, but I have fairly mixed reactions after reading the rules. I am not sure this game lives up to its advanced billing as simple, fast, or historical. It may very well be fun to play, don't get me wrong. Is it simple? Well, I didn't think so. My main complaint in this area is that the designers seem to have been obsessed with breaking every rule that people are used to - friendly units block enemy ZOCs, to give one example. Another bizarre rule is that you have to have ground unit in a port you control (outside your home country) in order to use it. Another bizarre rule is that the enemy can build units in his cities behind your lines if they aren't occupied by a ground unit. The victory conditions (or rather the victory check procedures every seasonal turn) are extremely convoluted, and for me difficult to understand. The rules for breaking down and building up units are surprising difficult to follow. And I would say many of the special rules are non-intuitive and apt to confuse people or be overlooked. I read the rules for Negotiations and Armistices about three times, and still couldn't figure out what the design intent was. Is it fast? Well, the game runs 57 turns, I think, although I don't remember if this includes the possible extension of the game into 1946. That's still an awful lot of turns. Even if a player-turn only takes 15 minutes, which would seem optimistic to me, that's still about 30 hours, or roughy comparable to A3R. Is it historical? In some ways, it may be too historical - for instance there is no provision, as far as I can tell, for altering the composition of your forces (i.e. having a smaller army and a bigger air force, or vice versa) and there are no naval units whatsoever. There is also no strategic warfare (submarines/bombing) as such, as these seem to have been abstracted to develop along essentially historical lines; hence what Churchill called "the only thing that really worried me in the war" - the Uboats - are absent. Another element I don't understand is US entry. From what I can tell, In other ways, I worry about the wild things that are allowed to happen. For instance, Germany decides when it attacks Poland whether Poland is a Western or Russian minor country. If Germany decides Poland is Western, the Russia remains under the restrictions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and can't attack the Germans immediately. If, on the other hand, Germany declares Poland a Russian minor country, the Western Allies are under the restrictions of "Appeasement" and are similarly hamstrung. I nearly hit the floor when I figured out what this rule meant - it means if Germany wants to attack Russia starting in 1939, the Western Allies will sit passively for some period of time. Why the Germans should be allowed to make this decision (Poland: Western or Russian) frankly escapes me. Another blooper is (unless I've missed something hidden somewhere outside the weather rules) is that Spring mud affects North Africa - hence Rommell's first offensive (which was in April 1941) must somehow happen in the face of a) air support is forbidden, b) no Blitz segments are allowed, c) the defender receives a 1 column shift, and d) exploitation is not allowed. Air power, which is *extremely* powerful, as it must fulfill the role of both air and naval power due to the fact that there are no naval units in the game, is strange in that air "combat" simply consists of one side placing an air unit somewhere and the other side (if they have any air units still available) announces they will contest it, and both air units are eliminated. Eliminated air units are placed in the "Delay Box" where you will later roll a die to see how soon they return. A successful Sealion looks to me dependent on a lot of luck for Germany... OTOH, once you have a one-unit air superiority in a sea zone, you can invade anywhere in the zone. So essentially the entire eastern and southern coast of England can be invaded. I don't mean this to be an overly negative review; the game is attractive (although I wish they'd cut the map instead of making me do it) and the rules are not badly written, it's just that what they say is often at odds with many things I've come to take for granted in wargame rules, and there are some pretty well-hidden interconnections between rules (i.e. what side of the victory marker is up or what cards have already been played influences a lot of things). Anyhow, as I say, I haven't played the game, and if it plays well, that's all that matters, but as a dyed-in-the-wool A3R'er, I doubt I'll be switching anytime soon. The intent of the rules is often baffling, there are many elements of the war I feel are important which were left out, and on the whole, I think it is not the game for me. I do hope I'll get a chance to play it eventually though, as there may be some good ideas worth stealing... It's hard to say who this game will appeal to - it is a bit simpler than A3R; I'm *not* so sure it is easier to learn than Vanilla WiF, though. Compared to WiF, it is probably shorter, but much less detailed - the WiFfers who criticize A3R for having generic air and fleet factors and abstract Strategic Warfare will, I think, find A3R is about as much more detailed than Krieg as FBWiF is more detailed than A3R... Still, as far as I'm concerned, any game which is good enough for people to enjoy playing it is good for the hobby, and I wish Krieg and its players well. Dave d.casper@cern.ch From: Danny Holte Subject: Re: Krieg! A Disenting Opinion (fwd) At 08:55 PM 8/23/96 -0700, you wrote: >((from rec.games.board)) > >Newsgroups: rec.games.board >From: casper@axcrnb.cern.ch (Dave Casper) >Subject: Re: Krieg & The Big One >Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:57:00 GMT > >[stuff about The Big One snipped] > >I got a copy of Krieg when I was in the US for AHcon. I haven't had the chance >to play it yet, but I have fairly mixed reactions after reading the rules. I >am not sure this game lives up to its advanced billing as simple, fast, or >historical. It may very well be fun to play, don't get me wrong. > Dave, I've played this one several times now, and I think I can address some of your points. I find some quite valid and justified, and some not so. Obviously, playing the game will clear up some of your questions, (and it may raise more!) But I think you'll enjoy the hell out of it, nonetheless. >Is it simple? Well, I didn't think so. My main complaint in this area is >that the designers seem to have been obsessed with breaking every rule that >people are used to - friendly units block enemy ZOCs, to give one example. >Another bizarre rule is that you have to have ground unit in a port you control >(outside your home country) in order to use it. Another bizarre rule is that >the enemy can build units in his cities behind your lines if they aren't >occupied by a ground unit. The victory conditions (or rather the victory check >procedures every seasonal turn) are extremely convoluted, and for me difficult >to understand. The rules for breaking down and building up units are >surprising difficult to follow. And I would say many of the special rules are >non-intuitive and apt to confuse people or be overlooked. I read the rules for >Negotiations and Armistices about three times, and still couldn't figure out >what the design intent was. > I agree with the simplicity prob ; KRIEG! is more difficult to dive into than billed. This is really due to: a) lack of an index, and b) not much cross-referencing of somewhat important rules. I think Alan Emrich is putting up a website to keep a Q&A + more. As far as the ZOCs go; I believe it's realistic and does work in the game. Remember, this is 60 miles to the hex! An army or corps should be able to move through occupied territory even when adjacent to enemy units, IMHO. The port rules for occupation are there for supply & logistic purposes as well. Look how long it took for the Allies to get French/Belgian ports up & running in 1944-45, even though they had taken them some time before. The victory conditions take no more than a few _seconds_ to check once you've played for a while. It really comes down to the differential between enemy victory hexes occupied. That's it. I agree also with the charts on breaking down & building up units: it's lacking. However, I hardly have to think about it now (after 4-5 games.) More detailed charts would have been helpful for the first 1-2 games; after they just would have been extra carboard. >Is it fast? Well, the game runs 57 turns, I think, although I don't remember >if this includes the possible extension of the game into 1946. That's still >an awful lot of turns. Even if a player-turn only takes 15 minutes, which would >seem optimistic to me, that's still about 30 hours, or roughy comparable to A3R. > You're right on track here. I can get through a year in about 2-3 hours, however. I'm wondering if this couldn't be accomplished with 3 players who really know the system. - ??? >Is it historical? In some ways, it may be too historical - for instance there >is no provision, as far as I can tell, for altering the composition of your >forces (i.e. having a smaller army and a bigger air force, or vice versa) >and there are no naval units whatsoever. There is also no strategic warfare >(submarines/bombing) as such, as these seem to have been abstracted to develop >along essentially historical lines; hence what Churchill called "the only thing >that really worried me in the war" - the Uboats - are absent. Another element >I don't understand is US entry. From what I can tell, > You really need to analyze the cards, their political & logistic implications, and play the game, to see how your force structure can vary in KRIEG! The U-boats are represented, albeit abstractly. It looks like something dropped from your original post here, but U.S. entry is very simply based on when the Axis plays their first Total War card. Generally, it will be about 6-12 months after this point. I think it's handled well without making U.S. entry obscure or difficult to decipher. >In other ways, I worry about the wild things that are allowed to happen. >For instance, Germany decides when it attacks Poland whether Poland is >a Western or Russian minor country. If Germany decides Poland is Western, >the Russia remains under the restrictions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and can't >attack the Germans immediately. This is historical, not wild. The Soviets split Poland as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and this is handled through the use of the Soviet Poland Border Dispute card. >If, on the other hand, Germany declares Poland >a Russian minor country, the Western Allies are under the restrictions of >"Appeasement" and are similarly hamstrung. I nearly hit the floor when I >figured out what this rule meant - it means if Germany wants to attack Russia >starting in 1939, the Western Allies will sit passively for some period of time. Again, check out what the Allies did historically on the continent between Sept 1939 and Spring of 1940. Also, don't bet that the British and French would have done anything but grab popcorn and a beer if Germany had gone at Russia in 1939. They would have sat back, enjoyed the show, and cheered both sides on. That was the whole premise behind the policy of Appeasement. >Why the Germans should be allowed to make this decision (Poland: Western or >Russian) frankly escapes me. Another blooper is (unless I've missed something >hidden somewhere outside the weather rules) is that Spring mud affects North >Africa - hence Rommell's first offensive (which was in April 1941) must somehow >happen in the face of a) air support is forbidden, b) no Blitz segments are >allowed, c) the defender receives a 1 column shift, and d) exploitation is >not allowed. Air power, which is *extremely* powerful, as it must fulfill >the role of both air and naval power due to the fact that there are no naval >units in the game, is strange in that air "combat" simply consists of one >side placing an air unit somewhere and the other side (if they have any air >units still available) announces they will contest it, and both air units >are eliminated. Eliminated air units are placed in the "Delay Box" where you >will later roll a die to see how soon they return. A successful Sealion looks >to me dependent on a lot of luck for Germany... OTOH, once you have a >one-unit air superiority in a sea zone, you can invade anywhere in the zone. >So essentially the entire eastern and southern coast of England can be >invaded. > You are correct on the mud effects. I agree that this should be adjusted for North Africa and Syria/Persia. I also would expect to see Air grounded in Winter as opposed to the mud turns. But then, the Luftwaffe flew in some pretty negatory conditions in Stalingrad. I'd have to defer to someone more expert than I on this particular rule 'curio'. Play the game to try out and see the implications of a Sealion. It seems like it would be easy, but it's no piece of cake. Also, it's not the end of the world for the Allies, either... >I don't mean this to be an overly negative review; the game is attractive >(although I wish they'd cut the map instead of making me do it) and the rules >are not badly written, it's just that what they say is often at odds with many >things I've come to take for granted in wargame rules, and there are some >pretty well-hidden interconnections between rules (i.e. what side of the >victory marker is up or what cards have already been played influences a lot >of things). > Exactly; some cross-referencing would have been very helpful. And again, play the game. It's a very elegant system that takes _time_ to understand fully. There are no free rides in this game: Every card and every plan has a 'dark side'. This is one aspect of the game that cannot be simply explained to someone who has not played it. The _play_ of the cards is simple; implications of the use of the cards is not. If you figure out the perfect plan for this game, _please let me know! Personally, I don't think it exists. >Anyhow, as I say, I haven't played the game, and if it plays well, that's all >that matters, but as a dyed-in-the-wool A3R'er, I doubt I'll be switching >anytime soon. The intent of the rules is often baffling, there are many >elements of the war I feel are important which were left out, and on the whole, >I think it is not the game for me. I do hope I'll get a chance to play it >eventually though, as there may be some good ideas worth stealing... > >It's hard to say who this game will appeal to - it is a bit simpler than A3R; >I'm *not* so sure it is easier to learn than Vanilla WiF, though. Compared to >WiF, it is probably shorter, but much less detailed - the WiFfers who criticize >A3R for having generic air and fleet factors and abstract Strategic Warfare >will, I think, find A3R is about as much more detailed than Krieg as FBWiF is >more detailed than A3R... Still, as far as I'm concerned, any game which is >good enough for people to enjoy playing it is good for the hobby, and I wish >Krieg and its players well. > WAAAAAAAYYYY easier that WiF in _any_ form, IMO, Dave. I've tried to sit down and learn WiF on my own, and either fall asleep or completely lose interest. I must admit I haven't tried it in a while, but if my two unplayed WiF 5.0 sets are any indication... Good points though, and especially on the Mud/Air rule and the rules clarity. However, I was able to get through them pretty easily in an evening, and I'm becoming more and more 'size of rulebook vs. #of children' challenged. Like I said before, you really must give it a play. -Danny Subject: [WarinEur LIST] Krieg Critique -- Alan Responds From: cgwalan@aol.com (CGW Alan) Newsgroups: rec.games.board Subject: Krieg Critique Date: 24 Aug 1996 00:55:23 -0400 "I got a copy of Krieg... I haven't had the chance to play it yet, but I have fairly mixed reactions after reading the rules... Is it simple? Well, I didn't think so. My main complaint in this area is that the designers seem to have been obsessed with breaking every rule that people are used to - friendly units block enemy ZOCs, to give one example." You've never seen that in a wargame before? REALLY? "Another bizarre rule is that you have to have ground unit in a port you control (outside your home country) in order to use it. Another bizarre rule is that the enemy can build units in his cities behind your lines if they aren't occupied by a ground unit." Besides play balance and simulating 1) the "logistical tail" to operate a foreign port, and 2) the garrisons required to keep control of a country that is not conquered, these rules are so you don't have to REMEMBER a damn thing about who-controls-what. You just look at the map, and you either have a piece there or you don't. It's simple. "The victory conditions (or rather the victory check procedures every seasonal turn) are extremely convoluted, and for me difficult to understand." Hmm... better re-read the example. It's novel, but shouldn't be burning your fuses out. If you need specific help, please feel free to email me. "The rules for breaking down and building up units are surprising difficult to follow." It's tough to explain that you can only create multi-step units from one-step units. People tend to think that steps are like "change," which isn't the case. Multi-step units (armies) can be broken down into one-step units (corps), but not switched from one multi-step unit to another willy-nilly, as players tended to do. It's much harder to explain than to play, thank God, but since you've only read the rules and haven't played Krieg!, you wouldn't know that. "And I would say many of the special rules are non-intuitive and apt to confuse people or be overlooked." For that, hit the web and go to my new Home Page [http://pages.prodigy.com/aemrich]. I created an index of the rules to help you find stuff you thought you read, but forgot where it is. That's the best I can do... "I read the rules for Negotiations and Armistices about three times, and still couldn't figure out what the design intent was." The intent is not expressly stated. The mechanics are, during an Armistice/Negotiation, you can't enter an EZOC. You can still fight if you happen to have units adjacent to the enemy (this quickly creates a 1-hex demilitarized zone, as is intended), but there's no reinforcing the line. To reduce Armistice to Negotiation or remove a Negotiation marker, you have to do it AT THE END OF your turn (during the War & Peace segment), giving the other guy(s) first whack. That makes you think twice. It's like comedy -- timing is everything. "Is it fast? Well, the game runs 57 turns, I think, although I don't remember if this includes the possible extension of the game into 1946. That's still an awful lot of turns. Even if a player-turn only takes 15 minutes, which would seem optimistic to me, that's still about 30 hours, or roughy comparable to A3R." It's about 30 hours to play a campaign game. The bad weather turns tend to go quickly, especially the mud. "Is it historical? In some ways, it may be too historical - for instance there is no provision, as far as I can tell, for altering the composition of your forces (i.e. having a smaller army and a bigger air force, or vice versa) and there are no naval units whatsoever." Some decisions that were made by each nation's leaders prior to Turn 1 do impact the game. The air force/land unit force pool limitation is a good example. "There is also no strategic warfare (submarines/bombing) as such, as these seem to have been abstracted to develop along essentially historical lines; hence what Churchill called "the only thing that really worried me in the war" - the Uboats - are absent." Also you said, "Air power, which is *extremely* powerful, as it must fulfill the role of both air and naval power due to the fact that there are no naval units in the game." And, "Air power is strange in that air "combat" simply consists of one side placing an air unit somewhere and the other side (if they have any air units still available) announces they will contest it, and both air units are eliminated. Eliminated air units are placed in the "Delay Box" where you will later roll a die to see how soon they return. A successful Sealion looks to me dependent on a lot of luck for Germany... OTOH, once you have a one-unit air superiority in a sea zone, you can invade anywhere in the zone. So essentially the entire eastern and southern coast of England can be invaded." Allow me to quote myself from the Developer's Notes, due to appear in an upcoming issue of Moves magazine: The lack of a tangible strategic air and naval warfare element made Kos [the designer] a bit nervous. While he wanted players to feel like they were addressing these elements, nothing seemed to work within the elegant framework of the land game that was evolving. It was at this time when Air Support units began to double as beachheads, control sea zones, and provide convoy support missions. This put considerable spunk into the naval war, but what about strategic bombing? The historical Western Allied bombing campaign of Germany is factored into the cards already. Basically, the Axis have a limited number of good Total War cards and what s left is all they can muster in light of Allied bombing, represented by the US Entry Level numbers (which also works the Axis delay die rolls and in favor of the Western Allies, further representing strategic warfare). If the West wants to step up their bombing efforts a bit, they have an Option Card that allows them to do so. But now let s briefly consider another strategic air campaign, The Battle of Britain.... It is sometime during the Summer of 1940 and France has fallen. Do you know what happens if the Axis can place an Air Support unit in the North Sea? Bring on the beachheads and crank up Operation Sealion! Thus, without players requiring bomber markers, per se, most of the aerial campaigns concerning the support of land and naval forces, such as The Battle of Britain or the air war over Malta, can be simulated very well within the clean abstraction of the current air system in Krieg!. It was this need for more strategic warfare variations that got me thinking about the delay die rolls, and the light bulb went on. What if their effect was to increase/decrease player s delay die rolls? Kos and I considered the dramatic effects of adding to, or subtracting from, delay die rolls, and that worked perfectly for simulating variations in strategic warfare and the big mo (momentum). The tempo in which Air Support markers, in particular, return to the game is what determines how much juice a player can muster when and where he needs it. The myriad of things that can modify a player s delay die rolls seems like a lot to remember, but most of the modifiers are symbolized by markers in the nearby Strategic Warfare portion of the map. We found, too, that these die roll modifiers were so vital to each player s war effort that they seldom failed to pay close enough attention to them. Thus, these delay die rolls, modified by strategic warfare considerations (including the US Entry Level), worked out very cleanly, simply, and well. As for invading anywhere along the English coast, that's true. But only one-step corps units will get very far. You'd better re-read the difference between Amphibious Movememt (3.6) and Naval Transport (3.7). That will open your eyes. "Another element I don't understand is US entry." That's what "Total War" does (or the Collapse of Britain). These events trigger US Entry. I'm not sure what don't you understand about that. "I worry about the wild things that are allowed to happen. For instance, Germany decides when it attacks Poland whether Poland is a Western or Russian minor country. Why the Germans should be allowed to make this decision (Poland: Western or Russian) frankly escapes me." This is an option they have on the first game turn only, to simulate German pre-war diplomacy. "If Germany decides Poland is Western, the Russia remains under the restrictions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and can't attack the Germans immediately. If, on the other hand, Germany declares Poland a Russian minor country, the Western Allies are under the restrictions of "Appeasement" and are similarly hamstrung. I nearly hit the floor when I figured out what this rule meant - it means if Germany wants to attack Russia starting in 1939, the Western Allies will sit passively for some period of time." You got it. Those are the exact implications. However, if you try a Russia first strategy as the Germans... well, let's just say that some player experience is necessary to see the long term ramifications of this action. It's not like the West is completely asleep, you know. "Another blooper is (unless I've missed something hidden somewhere outside the weather rules) is that Spring mud affects North Africa - hence Rommell's first offensive (which was in April 1941) must somehow happen in the face of a) air support is forbidden, b) no Blitz segments are allowed, c) the defender receives a 1 column shift, and d) exploitation is not allowed." As anyone looking at the Turn Record Track can see, time simulated each game turn in Krieg! is somewhat elastic. There's also an April 1941 turn that preceeds the mud turn where clear weather is featured. "I don't mean this to be an overly negative review;" And yet, you seem to have succeeded. "...the game is attractive (although I wish they'd cut the map instead of making me do it)" So do I. "...and the rules are not badly written, it's just that what they say is often at odds with many things I've come to take for granted in wargame rules, and there are some pretty well-hidden interconnections between rules (i.e. what side of the victory marker is up or what cards have already been played influences a lot of things)." Innovation often requires that you unlearn something complicated in order to learn something new and simple. As for the well hidden interconnections, you're right. All I could do was offer you an Index. Copy it from my home page at [http://pages.prodigy.com/aemrich]. It should really help. "Anyhow, as I say, I haven't played the game, and if it plays well, that's all that matters," And, thank God, it DOES seem to play well! You think the rules are (almost, it seems) too innovative in THEORY, well wait until you play the damn game in PRACTICE! "...but as a dyed-in-the-wool A3R'er, I doubt I'll be switching anytime soon." Finally, we know where you're coming from! It may interest you to know that I was on the A3R team from the start, so in a way they're both "my babies." I put a lot of work into that sucker, as I have into Krieg! They're both worth my money, but I'd say that Krieg! is more worth my time. Your mileage may vary, of course. "The intent of the rules is often baffling, there are many elements of the war I feel are important which were left out, and on the whole, I think it is not the game for me. I do hope I'll get a chance to play it eventually though, as there may be some good ideas worth stealing..." Don't play Krieg! You'll find more than a few ideas worth stealing, and you'll only want to play it again to explore yet another of the myriad of strategies the game affords you. Once you start, you can easily become hooked. Save yourself the trouble of challenging your clear favorite, A3R. If you really bother to learn Krieg! and play it... well, don't say I didn't warn you or you copy of A3R! "It's hard to say who this game will appeal to - it is a bit simpler than A3R; I'm *not* so sure it is easier to learn than Vanilla WiF, though." I worked on 2nd and 3rd editions of WiF, too, back when it was more "vanilla," as you put it. Considering the innovations in both, I'd say the learning curve is roughly equal. "Compared to WiF, it is probably shorter, but much less detailed - the WiFfers who criticize A3R for having generic air and fleet factors and abstract Strategic Warfare will, I think, find A3R is about as much more detailed than Krieg as FBWiF is more detailed than A3R... Still, as far as I'm concerned, any game which is good enough for people to enjoy playing it is good for the hobby, and I wish Krieg and its players well." And that, after all, is the game of the hobby -- gaming. Alan Emrich "The pay isn't much, but at least the hours are lousy." --Alan Emrich From: Danny Holte Subject: KRIEG! Card Play (One perspective) casper@axcrnb.cern.ch (Dave Casper) wrote: >One last comment for Alan Emrich and company: it would certainly help me, and >I'm sure others, come to grips with some of the more subtle elements of the >Krieg cards if there were a short paragraph available explaining a bit about the >effects of each card. For instance, what does one hope to achieve by playing >it, when is (generally speaking of course) a good time to play it, and when is >not a good time. I realize this would be some work, and you want people to >learn through playing, but the implications of some cards are far from obvious >to the new player. Since some cards (i.e. Mobilization, Coalition, War >Production, etc) are duplicates, every card wouldn't need a blurb, just every >type of card. Dave, I'll throw-in my 34,645 pesos: Give the Axis to the player with the most experience. The Axis must be decisive and has the least room for error. The Allies can afford to spend a little time on OJT, but the Axis cannot. The Axis sets the pace of the game, as with every other ETO game I've played (at least in the beginning) First, plan what you want to accomplish strategically in the game, at least in the first 2-3 seasons. One thing that can really help, is, after placing the on-board and force pool units, sort the later reinforcments according to what card will bring them into the game. This helps immediately to I.D. the cards that you'll want when preparing for a major offensive. Also, note which cards bring in Conditional Reinforcements, and what is required to obtain those units at the end of your turn. Some, like the Axis 'Soviet Ultimatum' card, are not useful unless you plan on holding Moscow by the end of the season in which the card is played. I think that would be what's called an "itchy trigger finger" on the first turn... Since you start the game with only the Limited War cards, using a process of elimination you can narrow the focus to just a few cards which will help to obtain your planned strategic objectives. Pay attention to the Political Event requirement on the card as well. If you don't want to go to war at the moment, and you're playing Axis, then an 'Ultimatum' card wouldn't be a good choice. By the above process, for the various sides, you can determine the following: Axis German Mobilization - If you hold a city outside of Greater Germany, you'll get 2 panzer and 6 infantry steps each turn. Only it's not a blitz card, so you'll only get one attack, and since you don't start with any of the required cities, it's probably out. Hint: It seems like a likely choice to take this during the summer, where you'll net a full 6 Pzr and 18 Inf steps. Again - It's not a Blitz card, and you'll spend an entire summer offensive season with 1/2 the attacks and no armor advantages. Peace Offer - Allows you to eliminate a Brit or Sov Ultimatum card, and you'll have to roll on the Political Event chart. Siskel & Ebert give this one a thumbs down to begin the game, but when the plot later thickens... French, British, and Soviet Ultimatum Cards - Great if you hold a capital or several Allied Strategic Hexes, not so if you don't. These would be a "no" on the first turn.. So, that leaves you with (4) Ultimatum (Blitz!) cards and (3) Treaty cards. Now, depending on what you want to accomplish strategically, you've narrowed it down to two very distinct choices. Fight, or hit the negotiation table and make some friends. Western Allied Again, by examining the cards you can probably eliminate (for the first turn): Coalition (Blitz!) card - There's only one, and you _probably_ won't be making any attacks on the first turn. Save it for those pesky Italians if they show their face in Egypt. Or, for a lucky counter-attack opportunity if you decide to send th BEF over the channel. Careful, though... Lend-Lease - Great for the Russians, but only if the Nazi-Soviet pact is lifted. Don't forget this card later if your Soviet friends get in trouble, though. Mobilization - If Appeasement Restrictions have been lifted, you'll get an extra infantry step each turn while it's in play. On the first turn they have not, however, been lifted. Save it. Home Defense - Again, a Blitz card, though you do get that nice London HQ. It can wait at least a season or two though. That leaves you with 7 Coalition cards and a War Production. I'd play the coalition, hope for lady luck, and see if you can't give the Germans a little indigestion. But don't put away your own Alka Seltzer until _after_ you roll. Soviet Allied Great Patriotic War - Definately not. It's useless unless the truce marker is gone from Moscow. Mobilize - Not as effective until you get some Ceded Borders going (with a roll under the # of ceded borders, you'll get an extra tank step. Soviet Initiative - The two of these also are based on existing Ceded Borders. Baltic Settlement and Baltic Pact - ditto above That leaves three cards for initial consideration: Border Dispute cards - Turkish, Polish, Finnish, and Rumanian. These will solidify your borders (especially the Polish & Finnish) and allow play toward the other cards listed above in later turns. 3 replacement steps can't hurt, either. Manchurian Settlement - Odd 1st turn play, but when you get it into the game, you'll get all your units one turn faster from the delay box. Stalin Challenges Germany - Aggressive play. Nets you 2 tank and 9 infantry steps! The problem is that you have to discard the Counteroffensive card, a Total War card which will later net you 2 tank and _18_ infantry steps. You do get a roll on the Political chart, which could cause heartache for the Germans (or less likely, YOU.) I realize that this has covered only first turn play, but it is an example of how to look at the cards and narrow your focus to only the ones which will help to obtain your strategic goals, and then choose the best (or, the lesser of evils!) -Danny