Chuck Messenger - 01:45am Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1804 of 1812) Well, I just got through my first DTP game -- Tigers in the Mist. Neat game! Unfortunately, it won't attact my wife, which was what I was hoping for -- a real simple-n-fun Bulge game which was accessible to non-wargamers. For those who don't know -- TitM uses point-to-point movement. It has 360 pieces (only 200 or so in use on average). It is billed as an introductory wargame, and as such, seems quite promising. Beyond that, it has potential as a simple, fun wargame. However, working against this goal is the combat system, which is both complex and slow. Units in the same area can engage in combat. The units in the battle are taken off-board (I marked my place with a dime), and arranged such that "high quality" units attack eachother. (there are 5 types of units -- in order of quality: engineer, armor, mech, motorized, inf.) The idea is fair enough -- to distribute losses in an appropriate manner. Otherwise, the owner would always choose his lowest-quality units to absorb losses (ala Axis&Allies), while the opponent would kill the best stuff if given the choice. However, the rules describing the pairing-off method are quite complex -- I'm not certain I understand them quite, myself. I found myself using my own fudged system -- same idea, but a bit more streamlined. Even so, combat was quite awkward -- it seemed like half the time, I was just moving units back and forth between my "battle board" and the playing board, and rolling dice for combat. I hate to criticize the combat system too much, since it did seem to yeild good results. However, I think the game would be significantly improved with a simpler, even if somewhat "less perfect", combat system. For example, a CRT comes to mind. Basically, I find games which use the lots-o-dice (or lots-o-cards) combat resolution method to be reasonable as long as combat isn't too frequent (e.g. Hannibal/We the People), or as long as its just immediately obvious -- like in East Front. In short, Tiger's combat-resolution system, while interesting the first few times, became stale -- too great a % time/mental-energy spent on a not-interesting-enough mechanic. My solo game lasted several hours. Again, this was a bit disappointing -- I was hoping it would be more like Hannibal/We the People -- lasting more like 2-3 hours. I think the game would be better if it played more to its fast-n-fun strengths -- perhaps cutting down on the number of areas, reducing the number of units, and/or (as I've previously harped on) streamlining the combat system. Hey -- here's an idea: figure out how to use cards for combat! And/or for random events. Yeah -- that'd spice it up! Don't know how to use them, exactly, but cards, with cool graphics, would definitely work with the game concept, I think. For example, they could represent fuel shortages, traffic snarls, and the "dirty tricks brigades" (or whatever the proper German name is...) OK, I know -- I'm trying to make it into Hannibal. Maybe there could be elephants, too -- right? OK, so back to the game itself. In my game, the Germans rocked. This seems to be by design -- Ray admits that he's beefed up the Germans, with the premise that they had plenty of fuel (vs the historical reality). This fits the tradition of Third Reich -- purposefully distorting the history to make a better game. I think it's not an unfair thing to do, given how the game is positioned -- more toward the fun end than the "accurate" end of the spectrum. After all, it's lots of fun to do greivous harm with your Panzers. Limiting the Germans more to their historical performance might detract from the Panzer fever -- the historical result was really quite pathetic for the Panzers -- not their greatest moment! No need to let history get in the way of having some fun! I like the way the areas channel you in historical directions. It's like a short-hand for a typical Bulge game -- the historical route of Kampfgruppe Peiper is represented by about 6 areas (e.g. Malmedy, Trois Ponts). It's nice how all the peon-level stuff is abstracted, while you're still left with a very compelling picture of the battle. Again, a great concept -- distilling the battle to its essential elements. However, as I've said over and over and over again, ad nauseum really, the combat system is directly at odds with this broad sweep vision. Building the set was quite a pain. Literally! My wrists were just killing me after cutting a couple of dozen counters. I then reverted to using a paper chopper -- and that worked like a charm! Ten times faster, and no wrist pain! (even if it wasn't quite a pretty...) One problem with the pieces was that the German and American colors are very close. With my aging, borderline-blue-green-colorblind eyes, in not-so-good light, it was very hard to tell them apart sometimes. Another problem was that, with so many units covered with "unit moved" markers, it was hard to tell at a glance where American vs German units were. Perhaps if the unit-moved markers were colored the same as the country's units, it would alleviate this problem. Obviously, the map (black-and-white, straight-line roads) was a drawback -- but really, this comes with the DTP territory, I think, so it's not a particularly legitimate gripe. Well, this has sure sounded negative, given how much I enjoyed myself playing it. I guess the best endorsement I can make is that I'm happy to have spent the effort (and the relatively-negligible $$) to build and play it -- and would consider using it as an introductory-level game with someone fairly dedicated to the idea of wargaming (e.g. not my wife). In any case, the DTP-specific problems are, hopefully, soon to be beside the point -- GMT's planning on putting TitM on its P500 this year, and if all goes according to plan, we'll have a nice, polished version, whose graphics will enhance the flavor of an innovative, fast, fun Bulge game. Ray Freeman - 03:39pm Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1805 of 1812) Berkeley, CA Well, obviously I gotta respond to Chuck+s post above. Hopefully this won+t be too incoherent. I+m home sick with the flu and it+s quarter to 4 in the morning (can+t sleep any longer). The target priority idea and system in Tigers can be perhaps a bit difficult to grasp at first, but I think you+ll get it Chuck after a few careful readings of the appropriate paragraphs and examples of play. I am always happy to answer any questions a customer has via e-mail, so you can get pretty quick assistance just by asking. The targeting system I+ve chosen is a little more complex than the usual figure the odds, roll the die, consult CRT method of most games, but it renders results far more reasonable than Axis and Allies for example where fighter planes do all the killing (but rarely die) and infantry are the cannon fodder. Chuck does have a point about the combat resolution. There are a fair number of die rolls. (I hope you+re grouping your shots together to reduce the number of throws... it does help) This does slow the game down a bit, more than I+d like, but it does result in attritional results that actually illustrate the erosion of unit performance caused by constant combat. After three or four days those SS panzer divisions look like chopped liver, and are just about as effective. Now I love playing The Russian Campaign. It+s a fabulous game. But how many times do the Germans start spring of 1942 with a full strength, fresh as a daisy complement of panzer corps? More often than not. Realistic? Not hardly. I don+t hear too many complaints about the die rolling in many of the Columbia block games. They use similar systems to Tigers, except that battles usually go several rounds instead of just one round. Perhaps they have less battles per turn? In a typical Tigers campaign game, there are occasionally as many as 20 battles per day. Often it+s significantly less. The US player will typically have 3-4 DRs per battle, the Germans 4-5...if you use different colored dice and try to maximize efficiency by grouping your throws together. I would also like less die rolling in the game, but I couldn+t see how to get the same overall effects of attrition and the relative uncertainty of the outcomes I get with the system used in any other way. The Germans are more capable in the game than they were in reality. Their small unit leadership in offensive action was very poor by December 1944. This is factored in to some extent, but I didn't want to get into the armed mob type of incidents that occurred over and over in the Bulge. There's no point in doing a Bulge game if the German infantry is gonna rely on totally stupid tactics most of the time. Also, I'm relatively certain that I've understated the US artillery. In the actual battle, it was devastating. It+s pretty nasty in Tigers as well, since artillery alone will often cause a German step loss in most battles. However, it is not going to singlehandedly blow entire kampgruppes away as it did at Dom Butgenbach and Elsenborn. Basically, I enhanced the Germans chances just enough to give them a decent shot at reaching the Meuse River in one week of combat. That+s the whole premise of the game. As for the time and effort prepping the game, this is the -price- one pays to make up for the low cost in dollars with a DTP product. I+m looking into buying a die cutter, a la Markham Designs for my next effort. The GMT version will be die cut and hopefully Rodger MacGowan will be sufficiently recovered from his treatments to do the counters so I don+t expect the color closeness will be an issue. I+ve never had a problem like you describe and my 48 year old vision started going too, about 2 years ago. Get a better lamp? As to the unit moved markers, they will be colored to match the nationalities in the GMT version (always working to improve the product). My map always gets panned. The ones I take to conventions I colored up with markers so they don+t look too plain, but out of the zip-lock it+s pretty stark, no dispute there. Anyway, the important part of Chuck+s post was that he enjoyed the game. That+s really the bottom line. If I don+t like playing a game, it goes into the attic or into the next flea market. If I do, it doesn't gather dust on the shelf. Playing time: The full campaign takes about 5 hours to play with players who are familiar with the system (which only takes a few turns to get up to speed pretty well). I+ve been working diligently on some scenarios for the GMT version. There is an introductory scenario posted on Web-Grognards which plays in under an hour. Maybe you wife can be induced? There will be two other short scenarios in the GMT version with playing times of roughly 3 hours. Also the map for the GMT version will be drastically different from the DTP version. Joe Youst is supposed to do the map graphics. I+ve changed it to look like an area type map with lots of woods, towns, and crossroads without altering the mechanics of play at all. The map is based on topographic maps dating from 1928-1964 I found in the University of California map room. This change, and Youst+s graphics, should help the visual appeal a great deal. The game should go onto the GMT P500 list in a week. Hopefully it will be a success. Tigers really is quite different from most other Bulge games and for that reason is, I think (OK, I'm biased) worth a look. It will not appeal to everybody, but the feedback I've gotten from players has been overwhelmingly positive. Almost everyone agrees it's fun to play. Many thought it was a pain to construct (no shock there), and many think the graphics were pretty plain. The GMT version should solve the latter two problems while retaining the fun aspects of actual play. Chuck Messenger - 10:17am Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1806 of 1812) <> Agreed -- the combat system's results were quite good. As the Germans, I had the definite feeling of patching together whatever garbage was at hand to make one last, desperate lunge, trying to crack through (which, right at the very end, they managed to do), while the Americans were continually patching the line with anything which could crawl into place -- making for a tense, compelling game. <> Let's take East Front. For a typical battle, I only need to roll two handfuls of dice -- one for tanks, one for inf (can do both at once w/ multi-colored dice) -- and add up the 5's and 6's. No need to remove the units to a battle board. No need to recall the combat strengths (which, admittedly, came quite naturally by the end of the game, but were a hindrance early on). Few modifiers. No artillery determination roll, followed by possible artillery fire. All in all, E Front's combat system is very streamlined, and doesn't feel burdensome. Now, as I said, I'd hestitate to suggest any change to your system, as the results are quite good. Any streamlining would doubtlessly result in less "accurate" results. On the other hand, I also felt that, since the game is positioned as a quick-n-fun type, that perhaps the accuracy issue isn't so great. Maybe just have 3 quality levels: tanks & eng, moto/mech inf, foot inf. Hits must be distributed evenly through the units, starting with the highest-strength unit. Just some way to eliminate the battle board -- that would really speed up the game and increase the fun. <> That would be much appreciated! Die cutting by hand wasn't much fun. What's your next effort going to be? <> Sounds very appealing! How will you handle the roads? I really liked your movement system, by the way. For those who don't know it: there are 2 types of road -- major and minor. Major roads take 1 MP, minor take 2. Plus, you pay 1 extra MP for entering an occupied space -- whether occupied by your or your opponent. This makes the major thoroughfares very important strategically, as they should be. You get a great flavor of the actual battle, where the Germans were constantly trying to outflank the major roads (which were strongly held, and in any case, were traffic-jammed by them) by charging up minor roads -- always sniffing around for intact bridges. All this is well captured by the game, with great economy (except for the combat system, of course). <> Great! You've got my "vote"... Ray Freeman - 03:39pm Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1810 of 1812) Berkeley, CA <> I don+t think -accuracy- is the correct term. What I was striving for, and I think it+s pretty clearly stated in the Designer+s Notes, that without those rather artificial unit quality rules, the US player would pick off the German tanks and engineers and NEVER bother to shoot up the volksgrenadiers. That+s not what happened historically. This mechanic was added because I recognized a gamesmanship problem in the system and this was my imperfect -solution-. The problem with the 3 groups as Chuck suggests are these: Engineers are few and far between and are the most valuable units in the game. Both sides will (and should) try to kill them off at every opportunity. Allowing armor to shoot engineers up at will would destroy the bridge demolition and repair systems which are critical components of the game and in the historical battle. All US infantry is motorized, so they would naturally prefer to pick on panzergrenadiers (movement = 8) rather than volksturm (movement = 5) every time. Thats why mech units are elevated above motorized units, so the US infantry has to shoot at VG first. Again, I readily admit the mechanic is somewhat artificial and abstract, but it does work, as Chuck says. <> Hearts and Minds, a strategic level game on Vietnam 1965-1970. Very abstract. Very beer and pretzels. No pretense of simulation, but with a reasonably decent -feel- for the campaign. I just gotta do the graphics and it+ll be ready for blind testing. <> The roads go mostly from a road center in each area to other road centers in adjacent areas. Some adjacent areas aren+t connected by roads, so movement isn+t allowed. The major roads will look like asphalt paving, the minor like dirt roads. It wasn+t that hard to do. <> Glad to hear it. I think the GMT version will be way cool. <> I disagree, and I believe I state this unequivocally in the Designers Notes. Tigers is first and foremost a game that is meant to be easy and fun to play while giving a feel for the Battle of the Bulge. It is not, and was never intended to be, a historical simulation. In defense of the gas shortage issues, the references I have consulted point out that the Germans had plenty of gas stockpiled for the Bulge...certainly enough for the first week of operations, but Hitler+s fanatical security precautions caused the quartermasters at the fuel dumps (on the EAST side of the Rhine) to be lackadaisical about moving it forward fast enough. In other words, the gas pump jockeys didn+t know there was a major offensive afoot. In my game, Colonel Hans von Luck stands next to the quartermaster and while holding a pistol to his head offers him the choice of being dead, or a live hero...get those fuel trucks on the road Mejor! In retrospect, despite the absolute surprise and confusion the initial attack caused, in real life the Germans had about zip chance of getting over the Meuse given the incredible incompetence displayed by German units in tactical offensive combat and really dreadful logistical planning, combined with the resilience displayed by most US units. I tilted the balance of factors enough to give them the chance to make it to the river, because with proper preparation, they well might have. I did this for one reason. The Meuse is a natural boundary for the battlefield. So it made real sense in game terms to skew the respective capabilites of each side just enough to allow the Germans a 50-50 shot at getting across the river. <> I agree. Chucks -review- and criticisms are both detailed and basically fair. This is much more informative than: -I thought the game sucked- or -Hey dude, Tigers rocks! Go scarf a copy.- Plus he+s given me an opportunity to explain why things were done the way they were done. Can+t complain about that! Chuck Messenger - 05:11pm Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1811 of 1812) In my game, Colonel Hans von Luck stands next to the quartermaster and while holding a pistol to his head offers him the choice of being dead, or a live hero...get those fuel trucks on the road Mejor! So, you see it as basically an alternative-history game. One problem I see with this is that, playing the game, a novice would get the idea that the German war machine was far more effective at this stage of the war than it really was. Part of the story of the battle is just how pathetic the Wehrmacht had become. Another problem is that, if the Germans were more effective in their offensive, isn't it possible that more Allied resources would have been brought in? After all, if the historical offensive had been as successful as it can easily be in TitM, then it could result in the destruction of a good portion of the Allied armies. Surely this would merit a stronger response? I suppose the counter argument could be that, within the 6 days modelled by the game, a stronger response wouldn't have been possible. It still seems to me that a historical scenario would enhance the value of the game. About the combat system: why not just say that Engineers are the last to go in a battle? The way your system works, the engineers battle against eachother, while the Panzers duke it out separately, etc. Is this historical? Surely, the engineers are sort of cowering in the back (that's what this engineer would be doing, anyway...) So, you roll the dice for everyone at once, including artillery (I'll get to that later), then divvy up the losses "as evenly as possible" amongst the units -- as in East Front. For artillery, why have one roll to determine if there IS artillery, then another to see if the artillery hits? Why not just combine them into a single roll? In fact, since artillery support is always proportional to strength points (for those unfamiliar with it: you divide your strength points by 3 -- that's the number of "artillery calls" you get. Then you roll to see if each call is "answered", then you roll for each answered call to see if it hits), why not just incorporate artillery into the intrinsic unit strength? Americans would just be somewhat stronger overall. Would this really detract from the game? To account for stronger German artillery in the starting front line areas, just give them a beneficial DRM there. Between these two changes, you could eliminate the battle board entirely, and speed up the game significantly. It seems to me the game could be played in more like 2 hours, if it were sufficiently streamlined. This would suit the overall character of the game, I'd think. Ray Freeman - 11:19pm Mar 24, 1998 PST (#1812 of 1812) Berkeley, CA <> Aren't they all? Why do we play these things? To see if we can do better than the historical result for the side we're playing. What's the big deal? All I'm saying is that the Germans could have had their act together better, which could have improved their performance. <> Granted. Would you like to design and develop such a scenario? It could be in the form of an article in C3i magazine, or, if done and tested in time, could be put into the game. I+m sure Gene would like such an article. <> Not very often they don+t. There+s only 7 German and 4 US engineer units. Having engineers of both sides present in a battle is a rare occurence. I can+t envision any compelling reason for the Germans to risk an engineer in an attack on a US engineer. <> That solution is obviously much simpler to apply (at least on the surface) than the system used in Tigers, but it bothers me as seeming more abstract than I+d like. A matter of taste. <> This is tied to the combined arms concept (and combat DRM) that is one of the basic premises of the system. Whether the artillery hits or not is less important for the Germans than whether it+s there at all. That+s why the two rolls. If the attacker doesn+t have Armor, Infantry, and Artillery present in a battle the defenders shots all get a negative DRM. Further, if the artillery was abstracted into the unit strength, you wouldn+t have any artillery in game terms. Therefore, I think yes, it would detract from the game. Chuck Messenger - 08:38am Mar 25, 1998 PST (#1813 of 1821) <<"So, you see it as basically an alternative-history game" Aren't they all? Why do we play these things? To see if we can do better than the historical result for the side we're playing. What's the big deal? All I'm saying is that the Germans could have had their act together better, which could have improved their performance.>> This sort of illustrates one of the problems/features of the game -- it's focused on the Germans. You're right -- we all like to do better than the historical result. By beefing up the Germans, you ensure they will do better than historically, but at the expense of the Americans, who will almost never equal their historical result. This makes perverse sense, in that Tigers models only the first 6 days of the battle -- before substantial Allied reinforcements arrived. The Americans are much less involved in the game than the Germans -- they're just there to take blows. Playing the German side gives you the ego boost. It's human nature, I guess, to identify with the offensive, rather than defensive, side of a battle. <<"It still seems to me that a historical scenario would enhance the value of the game." Granted. Would you like to design and develop such a scenario? It could be in the form of an article in C3i magazine, or, if done and tested in time, could be put into the game. I+m sure Gene would like such an article.>> Well, unfortunately, I don't have time to do something constructive like that -- I only have time to make snippy comments from the sidelines. But if I did have time to work on it, I'd like to experiment with ways to make the game card-driven... <<"About the combat system: why not just say that Engineers are the last to go in a battle? The way your system works, the engineers battle against each other" Not very often they don+t. There+s only 7 German and 4 US engineer units. Having engineers of both sides present in a battle is a rare occurence. I can+t envision any compelling reason for the Germans to risk an engineer in an attack on a US engineer.>> In that case, why worry about the engineers? Just say that engineers are always the last to die. That eliminates one of the 5 quality levels. For the rest, I don't see that it would change the game much, or even at all, if losses were divvied up evenly between the tanks and infantry. Is it historical that the infantry and tanks each paired off? No -- it's simply an abstract mechanism designed to spread out the losses appropriately. However, it's a very expensive mechanism (in terms of game playing time), which has the added drawback of giving a false micro view of battle (the pairing-off of unit types). Eliminating the pairing-off mechanism would not only simplify the rules tremendously (making it more accessible to beginners, for example), but it would eliminate the battle board and speed up the game tremendously (making it more fun). Next time I play, I think I'll do it that way. <<"So, you roll the dice for everyone at once, including artillery then divvy up the losses "as evenly as possible" amongst the units -- as in East Front." That solution is obviously much simpler to apply (at least on the surface) than the system used in Tigers, but it bothers me as seeming more abstract than I+d like. A matter of taste.>> If your "less abstract" battle system were more representative of battle than my simplified one, you'd have a good point. However, as far as I'm aware, there's no historical precedent for pairing off infantry and tanks (even to the extent motorized infantry duke it out seperately from mechanized!). It seems to me that your mechanism is mostly designed to protect engineers -- so, just treat them as a special category (always last to die). About the artillery mechanism: <> At the level of abstraction of your game, it would seem reasonable to me to simply translate the artillery advantage into a constant DRM throughout the game. Let's see -- for every 3 strength point (SP), the Americans get an 80% chance of artillery, which gives a 50% hit chance, resulting in 0.13 damage per SP (on defense, which is where Americans almost always are). Infantry normally does 0.4 damage per SP, so adding in the 0.13, you get about 0.5 damage per SP. Thus, American artillery can be approximated by increasing the hit range from 1-4 to 1-5. Germans get a 40% chance for every 3 SP, with a 30% hit rate, meaning 0.04 damage per SP (on offense, which is what matters for them), but get a 50% boost when attacking into a "front line" area -- giving 0.06 damage/SP. This is about half or less the damage of American artillery. Unfortunately, you'd need a 20 sided die to model this correctly. So, you could instead model it by saying Germans get a DRM when attacking a start area, but no artillery otherwise. This would hurt the Germans somewhat, but is balanced by the fact that the Americans aren't quite getting all their money's worth (they lost 0.03 hits/SP by rounding fractions), and by the fact that sometimes, the German's won't get artillery, meaning they should suffer the additional DRM penalty for lack of combined arms. It should all come out in the wash. So, to summarize, the Germans would still be 3-4 (attack-defense) for inf and 4-5 for tanks, while the Americans would be 3-5 for inf, and 4-6 for tanks. Germans get a DRM in "starting front line" areas. There -- that's it for artillery. Nice 'n simple. No artillery rules to explain, and no extra dice to roll. Further, if the artillery was abstracted into the unit strength, you wouldn+t have any artillery in game terms. Well, I'd argue that you don't really have artillery in game terms as it is. Just rolling for abstract artillery on every battle doesn't give me the illusion of artillery participation -- it's just a chore. If you want artillery to be part of the game, there should be explicit artillery units, with range (perhaps 1 area?) I think that would needlessly complicate things, though. While I'm at it: why have motorized and mechanized infantry? What's the difference? Maybe I missed something in the rules... garry haggerty - 09:55am Mar 25, 1998 PST (#1816 of 1821) Some of Chuck's initial comments on TIGERS IN THE MIST (TITM) gave me deja vu -- after my first play-through, my first thought was: "gotta find a way to speed up combat." The thing was, after only one game, I was already completely sold on TITM's turn sequence (three move/combat impulses per daily turn wherein each unit can be active in only one impulse per turn -- how this deceptively simple framework creates an intense, decision driven game is a subject unto itself) and I enjoyed this maneuver system so much that resolving combat did seem to unduly slow down the fun. So, like Chuck, I toyed with some "probability compression" schemes to hasten the battles. (Unlike Chuck, I never considered ditching the clever, clean artillery call rules). Fortunately, I was rescued by my own sloth and ended up simply playing game 2 "straight up." Three things happened (and the rest is history): 1) combat resolution became second nature and as quick to resolve as the typical odds based methods -- the target priority rules are actually quite intuitive and TITM only has four (!) possible die roll modifiers to remember; 2) I began to appreciate the tension that TITM's "direct dice" combat system itself was contributing to the game (in TITM combat there are NO "sure things," or even the "minimal expectations" that a CRT can provide...genuinely astonished cursing-of-the-dice is part of my TITM playing ritual); 3) I recognized how deeply TITM's combat rules were integrated with the game's basic structure. Now, many playings later, I gotta report, at the risk of sounding boosterish or fulsome, that TITM is one game whose rules I've had zero incentive to tweak or "improve" with house rules. (How pleasant, but rare, when the designer's vision of what constitutes a great game coincides with my own, and he's already done all the work himself to make it so). My point? Certainly not that TITM is for "everyone" but that first-time players think twice before tugging hard on any perceived "loose threads" -- this is the rare game that works-as-written. (Oh yeah, de rigueur disclaimer: I am involved in GMT's playtest of their proposed TITM edition...but the game had become one of my favorites -- and at my own expense -- about a year before that opportunity arose). Chuck Messenger - 11:01am Mar 25, 1998 PST (#1817 of 1821) Garry: Yes -- I liked the 3-impulse movement system, too. It does make for some gaminess, however -- Panzer units leapfrogging eachother. But still, it makes the game move quickly, and adds some delicious tension (when should you commit your reserves as the American?). In a sense, there are only 6 turns in the game -- i.e. each unit will move/attack only 6 times in the game. So, this makes the game fairly quick (potentially). About the combat system (again!): how much faster do you think the game would play without artillery and without the battle-board system (i.e. with my proposed simplified system)? I'd hazard a guess that it would be twice as fast. If so, the question is, does the combat system add so much as to warrant a doubling of playing time? Wouldn't you rather just play the game twice? You may be right, that as you play it alot, combat speeds up. I certainly noticed this -- by the end, it was Chop Chop Chop! Still, I had to move all the pieces somewhere, put a dime to mark the spot so I didn't forget where they were, roll for artillery callups, roll for artillery hits, roll for each unit being attacked (seperately), then put everything back in place. Lots of activity -- of an uninteresting variety. Ray Freeman - 12:57pm Mar 25, 1998 PST (#1818 of 1821) Berkeley, CA <> I+ve seen games where the Germans never made it halfway across the board, so I don+t think I+ve ensured anything, other than the Germans have a chance to get across the Meuse. So -almost never- is hardly an accurate statement. Almost no one plays France 40 because while it generates -historical- results, the Allies always lose (or so I+m told). Your criticisms are based on how many playings? All solitaire? <> One could say the same thing about any Normandy game-the Germans are there just to get pounded on. The American side is somewhat easier to play (decision wise) than the German in Tigers. However, playing defense well is an art that some players enjoy doing well...few do. I generally take the US side at game cons because the US side is less forgiving of errors than the German and IT IS more fun (for most gamers) to be on the offensive than the defensive. This is not to say the US player has nothing to do but hide in a corner and get beat up. He has to decide when and where to fight for critical ground and where to merely delay or to cut and run. It has been said by many great captains that conducting a fighting withdrawal is one of the most difficult of military operations. The US player has sufficient forces to allow him to make those decisions. Loading up your front line of defense with everything you+ve got and spreading it out evenly is a sure way to get attritted out of existence. <> Which would make it a different game. <> Recent playings of a scenario I+ve been working on for C3i have convinced me that this would be a bad idea. The Germans need to kill off -the damned engineers-, as J. Peiper himself referred to them. It+s not easy to do under the system if the US player makes every effort to protect them. Your proposed change would make it even more difficult. <> Probably not rigidly, but I think it+s obvious that tank jockeys usually feared other tanks more than infantry so they tended to shoot each other up first. Infantry is best suited to fight itself due to the weapons systems (small arms) employed. While bazookas were fairly common in infantry units in 1944, the authorized complement for a US company was three. Other than that, infantry was relatively defenseless against tanks without the divisional TD battalions and artillery. <> You paid your money, so you are welcome to introduce any house rules to your games you wish. Still, I recommend giving it a few more tries as designed as well to obtain a fair comparison. <> Why must there be artillery counters? Victory in the Pacific has airstrike factors for carrier based aircraft, but no carrier plane counters. I don+t see the necessity. <> One rides in trucks, the other in halftracks (which have light armor and often mount automatic weapons) which make them less road bound and somewhat more formidable.