Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 9:09:21 EST From: Robert S. Dean Subject: REVIEW: Tet Offensive I finally had the opportunity to play the copy of GDW's Tet Offensive which I obtained at a pleasant discount ($25 US vice $40) in July. Overview: Tet Offensive's subject is pretty self-explanatory. It is one of the few wargames Game Designer's Workshop, formerly famous for their loving coverage of esoteric wars (Chaco, Red Star/ White Eagle) has produced in the last few years. A large mounted map and three sheets of counters are provided. The fourteen pages of rules are written in a conversational style as opposed to the old SPI legalistic style, and are generally clear, although I can see that I need to send off for an up-to-date errata sheet at the earliest possible opportunity (see below). The game only last for 5 turns, each of which consists of 8 phases: NVA/VC Movement, Combat, Replacement, US/South Vietnamese mechanized movement, Combat, US/SV regular movement, and Morale. The rules are laid out to correspond to the phases, which makes the game fairly easy to set-up and play through the first time, but a little confusing to find rules on occasion, since the paragraphs are not numbered. The object of the game is to demoralize both of the opposing armies, generally by inflicting casualties. The NVA/VC player can reduce his demoralization level by sparking rebellions in southern cities, and the US/ARVN player can reduce his by retaking rebellious cities. In addition, the US/ARVN player becomes more demoralized by bombing cities. The Components: The map is adequate. It uses an area movement system which works well for the subject (a series of separated fights with only the US player having extensive ability to move between distant cities), but some areas have barely enough space to lay out the counters, which can be a problem when stacks start getting high (and unstable). Important information in the city areas is obscured when the ARVN militia units are set up on the boxes, leading to a lot of fumbling around in the middle of the game to see the map displays which is not a Good Thing (tm). The counters come in three sizes: Very Big (little flags with plastic stands to set on cities in insurrection, which turn out to be a complete waste because the flat insurrection markers are quite easy to see, _and_ many areas of the board are already too crowded with counters to make me feel like putting more unstable upright objects near my unstable stacks), Medium size (insurrection markers, militia, and US Mechanized forces), and Small (panzerblitz) size. The die cutting job on the small counters is awful, and you will either need to cut them instead of punching them, or clip the corners, or be willing to live with big ragged corners to catch on things (like tall unstable stacks). (I harp on the stacks, because I saw them go as high as 15-20 counters around Saigon.) The medium size counters separate better, and are valuable because they clearly designate which units can move in the US/ARVN mech movement phase. Other than that, all counters are easy to read, and most contain only one or two numbers. Rules: Like many recent GDW products, the rules suffer from bad proofreading. The spelling is OK, but there are missing rules. There is no deployment rule for NVA replacements, and no set-up rule for ARVN militia. There were a few ambiguous bits about combat that I don't remember clearly enough right now to comment on. If you decide to buy the game and it has no errata sheet, or an errata sheet dated April 91, send for another sheet before you play. Game Mechanics and Flow: The game is unusual in that it is very short. The NVA/VC player only has _5_ movement phases, so he needs to develop a plan and stick to it. The US/ARVN player can only force combat with pieces moved during his mechanized movement phase, because there is an NVA movement between his normal movement and the next combat phase. This allows the NVA player to be 'slippery', and I think works fairly well to help simulate the 'guerilla' atmosphere. In addition, the NVA/VC player is allowed hidden movement, although without the use of dummy counters. Thus, US intelligence is pretty good about guessing _where_ the threat is, but not necessarily _what_ it is. Combat is a little odd: It is non-symmetrical. Odds calculations are used, but each player 'attacks'. That is, if I have a 10 and you have a 10, we each role for a 1-1 attack on the other. If I have a 10 and you have a 12, I roll for a 1-2 on you and you roll for a 1-1 on me. Still following me? If multiple units are involved, I can make my attacks any way I chose (subject to the limitation that I can only attack any given defending piece once), so I can gang up on your little pieces and ignore your big ones, and you can do the same. Results are "miss", "hit" and "Over-run". A "Hit" forces the enemy to retreat, although they are destroyed if they have no safe retreat route. "Over-run" is destroyed. Combat is generally simultaneous, and occurs twice per turn. I think that covers most of the game's unusual features. I'm not an expert on the Vietnam War, so I don't know how it rates as a simulation. As a game, I have reservations. I think, based on a solo play and one live play, that the American player has an advantage not compensated for in the victory conditions, but I can't prove it. If so, it could be fixed by adjusting the demorilzation thresholds needed for NVA/VC victory. Some of the physical features are sub-optimal, and the box is too big to fit easily on the shelf, as well as being mostly empty space. Tet Offensive seems to be fairly easy to play, and a more prepared player should take the NVA/VC side against a less prepared player, since the NVA needs a plan, and the US/ARVN player mostly reacts. I think the game is worth the $25 I payed for it, but I'd look around to see if I could play it before I'd pay the $40 cover price. Rob Dean