From: Mike Hoyt Subject: SS Panzer (Review) SS Panzer covers the fighting on the outskirts of Prokhorovka on July 12, 1943 during Operation Citadel. This is the last ditch effort by 2nd SS Panzer to push through the Soviet lines and close the pincers around the Kursk salient. To stop them, the Russians counterattack with 5th Guards Tank Army, thereby creating a head on collision between two massive armor formations. This is a game that I'm predisposed to love; Eastern Front armor, advertised low complexity and a subtitle of "Bloodbath at Kursk", all promise a fast, tense slugfest. All the more so since victory on this small slice of the Kursk battlefield requires both players to launch extensive attacks. Certainly the stage is set for recreating "the greatest armor clash of all time". Unfortunately, that is not what you get. SS Panzer suffers from two near fatal flaws; rules which are still in rough draft, and an image of the battle as a stalemate, not the slash and burn affair I would have expected. Designers sometimes complain that reviewers should stick to the game as published and not worry about what the reviewer wishes had been done, but I don't agree. I believe it is appropriate to discuss how well the game meets expectations (you'd probably think me remiss if I failed to mention that a movie called "Strippers" was about furniture refinishing). In SS Panzer, a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the game's point of view, which was succinctly summed up by developer Chris Perello as, " Historically, the best tank units in the world met in an even up fight and neither went very far." Precisely where SS Panzer players usually end up. The combat system emphasizes "suppression" over step losses, and there are only four turns to get everything done. You get the image of a war fought by Unions, everybody knocks off at noon in SS Panzer. The rules are the other major flaw in SS Panzer, quite simply they were not ready for publication. The implicit assertion in listing three playtesters in the credits is impossible to take seriously. Playtesting should include giving the rules and components to players with no previous exposure to the system, and seeing if they can make sense of it. In this case, that role fell to the subscribers of COMMAND. Fortunately, they have responded with a barrage of questions and suggestions, and Chris Perello, to his credit, has provided timely, intelligent errata to cover most of the issues raised. I have incorporated that errata into this review. The 34" x 22" map covers the area south and west of Prokhorovka at a scale of 500 meters per hex. The map is attractive and functional, including all of the charts needed to play the game, except for a scatter diagram mentioned in the airstrike rules. Experienced wargamers won't have any trouble working around that one, it is a familiar concept. The map includes icons to show where the Soviet Static Infantry setup. The Static Infantry are the survivors of units already mauled in Operation Citadel. They cannot move, but they will defend their hex and thus serve as something of a speedbump to slow down and channel the German attacks. The three German divisions must set up within three large areas and the six Russian corps/division are free to set up anywhere outside of the German areas. With the game lasting only four turns it is obvious that setup is a key, but it is difficult to develop a good plan without having played the game a couple of times. I'd recommend spending the extra $4.95 to buy Issue #36 along with the game, you get several maps of the battle and an informative nineteen page article. The victory conditions depend entirely on control of objective hexes, casualties don't count. The German player needs to control 13 of 18 hexes to win, or grab three specific hexes representing the outskirts of Prokhorovka for a decisive victory at any time. The Soviet player needs to control 7 of 9 hexes (the rules say 10 but there are only 9). The turn sequence consists of: a Soviet Bombardment phase, a joint Action phase in which players draw chits from a cup to activate each corps/division in random sequence, as well as artillery support and airstrikes, and finally a Recovery phase in which most suppressed units become unsuppressed. As modified by the errata, this all works pretty well, and some parts are impressive. One subsystem I particularly liked was the handling of artillery. The Soviets have their massive batteries and relatively poor fire control, while the Germans have considerably fewer tubes but better communications so they are much better at reaction fire. SS Panzer handles this by giving the Soviets a Bombardment phase at the beginning of each turn, during which they can make 16 separate artillery attacks against anything within the LOS of any Soviet unit. Following this prepared bombardment, each of the 16 Soviet artillery chits goes in the cup with the corps/division chits to be randomly drawn during the Action phase. The Germans get only three artillery chits per division, nine total, but they are more flexible. Each division can fire all three of it's guns during it's Action phase. Each German division can also use it's artillery an unlimited number of times during German entry fire, which is triggered anytime a Soviet unit tries to engage a unit of the same division in close combat. The drawback for the Germans is that only the first use of each of their artillery chits each turn is "free", all subsequent uses come with a one in three chance that the Soviets will successfully counterbattery fire and the Germans will lose the chit for the duration. A few errata items come up regarding the Bombardment phase. First, the rules don't say what die roll you need to score a hit on an infantry unit (Answer: 1-3). Next, there is considerable confusion throughout the rules about the effect of hits once scored. In SS Panzer, the first hit by a firing unit causes the target to be suppressed, and all subsequent hits by the same firing unit cause a step loss, up to a maximum of two step losses. It is critical to note that step losses can only occur when one firing unit gets two or more hits. Single hits by other units firing at an already suppressed target have no effect. This tends to create a lot of suppressed units, but few step losses, a situation which most players will have trouble reconciling with the games subtitle. Another item which comes up in Bombardment and throughout the game, is the treatment of the railroad berm. The Belgorod-Kursk railway cuts the map roughly in half and serves as a barrier to both movement and LOS. According to the introduction to the rules, and as is obvious from the map, the railroad berm is hexside terrain, but the LOS rule treats it as hex terrain, just like a woods or town. Chris Perello says it is a hexside terrain feature which blocks all LOS, even between units which are adjacent to the berm. This means you cannot fire at units on the other side of the railroad, nor can you spot them for artillery. This is true even if both the firing unit and the target are adjacent to each other. To my mind, that is not a railroad berm, it is the Great Wall of China. The Action phase is the meat of the game. When a corps/division chit is drawn, all units of that formation are allowed to participate in a mix of fire and movement. Movement is a little unusual in that all vehicular units have a base Movement Factor (MF) of 10 and all non-vehicular units have a (MF) of 4. Each individual unit then has a Movement Cost Factor (MCF) which is a measure of how clumsy the unit is. A unit pays either 1 MF (clear terrain) or it's MCF (most other situations) to enter each hex. Note that the Soviet Paratrooper counters should have a MCF of 1, not 6. During movement you may enter/exit an enemy ZOC (taking fire for doing either, or 2 fires if both) but you may not enter an enemy occupied hex until after all movement is concluded Combat consists of both ranged fire and Close Combat. Each unit has an Anti-Infantry factor and a Gun factor which is used against vehicular targets. The Anti-Infantry fire is resolved by rolling less than or equal to the Anti-Infantry factor when firing at a target within the range printed on the firing unit's counter. Fire at vehicles is resolved differently. Range is the difference between the firing unit's Gun factor and the targets unit's armor factor. If you're within range, then hits are scored on rolls of 1,2 or 3, regardless of the Gun factor. Range is also always limited to the current visibility, which fluctuates throughout the battle as dust and smoke take their toll. (There is also a rule which says that adjacent units can always fire at each other, but this has been contradicted so many times in the errata that I suspect the best thing is to just ignore it). Having the two different systems to resolve ranged fire does a nice job of modeling the interaction between weapon and target types. After all other Movement and Fire is concluded, units can engage adjacent enemy units in Close Combat by moving into their hex. On the way in, the enemy unit is entitled to use "Entry" fire in a final attempt to keep from being overrun. This fire is resolved at a range of 1 hex and any attackers who are suppressed must return to their original hex and do not participate in the Close Combat resolution. German units can call for artillery support during entry fire. Note the range of 1 hex specified for Entry fire, many units in the game have a range of zero and therefore cannot fire at all until Close Combat is actually joined. Close Combat itself is resolved simultaneously, with preference given to combined arms. In fact, many armor units cannot target infantry unless they are accompanied by friendly infantry. This lets the Soviet player recreate the historical tactic of using artillery and ranged fire to suppress the German infantry and then close assaulting any unescorted German armor that comes forward alone. Unfortunately, the rules for Close Combat are poorly worded, or outright omitted, this paragraph draws heavily on the errata. Airstrikes are the other activity that occur in the Action phase. A single aircraft counter is placed in the cup and a roll is made against the Airstrike/Visibility table whenever it is drawn. This table yields both a new visibility level (1-5 hexes), and a number of aircraft (0-6) which either the German or Soviet player receives. The idea is that one side or the other has gained a temporary air superiority over the battlefield and can launch a few close air support missions. Once the airstrikes are resolved, a single aircraft counter goes back into the cup, to be drawn again and trigger another change in visibility and a new wave of airstrikes. This does a nice job of including air support without giving the players an unrealistic level of control over what was essentially a whole separate battle. During the Action phase Suppressed German units can also attempt to recover and both sides can create kill zones for those units which have not moved. Kill zones allow the firing unit to roll more dice when firing, and may allow it to participate in creating a crossfire situation with other friendly units. Crossfire's yield an additional favorable DRM. Once all of the corps/division formations have had their Action phase, the final step is a Recovery phase during which all suppressed units not adjacent to enemy units automatically recover. Each of these subsystems works fairly well once they've been clarified with the errata, and some (notably the artillery and Gun/Armor interaction) are even elegant. Combined into one game system though, there tends to be a lot of confusion. The original rules are full of exceptions, contradictions, and omissions, all of which gets old in a hurry. Which brings me back to my central point. This game just wasn't ready for publication. As a reviewer, I give it a C- for the poorly written rules and the amount of errata. I also thought the four turn limit made it virtually impossible to achieve anything other than a draw, a historic result but one completely lacking in the action and drama which were very much a part of the historical battle. As a "Playtester", I'm excited about what is clearly an innovative game. COMMAND may use this system again for a North Africa game, I hope so, it will be fun to revisit this system once development is completed.