A REVIEW OF EAST WIND RAIN

by Gecko53

OVERVIEW

East Wind Rain is a strategic level 2-player game of the war in the
Pacific from 1941 to 1945. The design goals of Mark McLaughlin
(War&Peace, Thirty Years War) and Chris Vorder-Bruegge (Shiloh, South
Mountain) were to put each player into the role of the
commander-in-chief for each side with a heady mix of strategic and
operational decisions leavened with some basic economic considerations.
The military emphasis is on the naval war (understandably) but without
neglecting the air and land aspects.

I must acknowledge a comprehensive review of EWR by Fred Hellferich (see
Grenadier # 28 from 1986!). It includes a reply by the designers and is
worth digging out whether you are considering getting the game or
already own it. I think it's a cracking game but must admit to only
playing through a couple of the shorter scenarios solitaire as yet.

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS

A five colour 22"x34" map kicks off the design goals (yes, you can still
use your dining table). It depicts a sizeable amount of the Pacific
theatre in an oversized hex grid from Madras to Hawaii and The Aleutians
to Samoa. The hex grid is cunningly divided into 'areas' which contain
island or land areas of military interest. Careful demarcation of the
areas and some simple rules about crossing area boundaries mean that
large stretches of empty ocean can be omitted but still allows
geographic recognition of the theatre. Another important feature of the
map are 'zones', these are places are outside the main theatre and are
represented by blocked out sections around the periphery of the hex
grid. Most of these are Allied-only bases (such as India, South
Australia and the US West Coast). However China is depicted almost
entirely by zones and these can be entered and fought over by either
side. World In Flames (WIF) players should be familiar with this sort of
representation but EWR takes the idea a stage further. The EWR map is
not as stunning as those for WIF or Pacific War but it is perfectly
adequate and those oversized hexes are extremely useful. In fact I've
often wondered if more use should be made of large hexes, relative to
counter size (leave that one to the newsgroups). Interestingly (for the
name watchers out there) Kevin Zucker of Napoleon At Bay fame is
credited with the map graphics.

The 800 counters are a typical mix of sea, air and land combat units
together with markers for the various game functions. The combat units
are pictures rather than symbols and are in plain matt colours with red
for the Japanese (JP), blue for the US and grey for the Commonwealth.
Some generic unit types used by both sides, such as destroyers,
transports, CVEs and subs, are simple black silhouettes on white
counters. The other naval counters though are individually named with
each of the smaller half inch square counters representing a pair of
light cruisers. Centre stage of the counter mix, though, are the large
one inch by half inch counters for the capital ships. That's one named
and silhouetted counter for every CV, BB, BC and CA involved in the
conflict! There's enough space to easily show the various ratings
(gunnery, torpedoes, air capacity, armour, speed etc) needed to model
the capabilities of these ships but, well to be honest, the chrome
factor always helps to win me over. It's a lot easier to believe your
thinking and acting like a Nimitz if you are ordering the Enterprise and
the Hornet forward to head off a JP amphibious move than it is if you
are allocating 2 SP's of CV. Delusion I know but, well, even the WIF
designers added names to their CV and BB counters eventually.

Air and land units are more abstract: infantry SP, naval air SP, army
air SP and the like rather than counters for Zero's and Hellcats. There
is still the necessary variety in these units with bombers;
superbombers; green pilots and the mandatory US marines to provide some
depth to the modelling.

Key 'administrative' counters to mention are the strength point markers;
task force (TF) markers and base markers. The strength point (SP)
markers are a neat improvement on the norm. Through clever use of small
numbers against each face a double sided counter can be used to show an
SP value between 1 and 9 (called 'Pollard' markers apparently). I've
seen them used elsewhere and they save searching through a tray for a
number 3 or similar; just rotate the counter to the correct number. In
case you're wondering how an eight sided counter can represent nine
strength steps...anything without a counter under it defaults to 5 SP.

The TF markers and the base markers have a role is in representing the
'fog of war'. Naval units are deployed off map in TF holding boxes and
the TF marker is all that appears on the map. The structuring,
deployment and use of naval TFs is, in fact, at the heart of the game
IMHO. A maximum of 20 ships are allowed per TF and, normally, a maximum
of 3 TFs per hex. This injects the required tension and uncertainty into
play as, until you roll a successful contact, you don't know if the
menacing looking enemy TF is a lone submarine or a 20 ship fast carrier
attack force. Bases come in two sizes; the smaller can only base air SPs
whilst the larger function as ports and air fields. As expected the key
to winning the game hinges on the establishment and or capture of bases
in enemy territory (they directly affect VPs). A number of major
historical bases (Singapore, Truk, Rabaul and the like) are already
established in the game scenarios but the ability to build new bases
adds an extra dimension to the players' planning. This contrasts with
WIF where the major naval bases (ports) are fixed on the mapboard.

Before covering game mechanics I must mention the tables and charts are
all on a single A4 sheet, albeit printed on both sides. They cover
searching and the various combat situations but what is striking is
their relative simplicity. No rafts of 3 axis tables or complicated
diagrams with extensive annotations as in PW (yes I know they are there
to help, I'm just highlighting the differences).

GAME MECHANICS

Where and how to introduce complexity are questions that must dog game
designers from day one of a new project. If you're modelling World War
II in the Pacific then the underlying complexity of the campaign will
come through (er...I must admit to not having played Victory in the
Pacific).. EWR is no exception and it comes through in the multi-phase
turn sequence; the rafts of supporting rules for both general
'operations' and for the different combat situations that can occur. The
review I mentioned criticises the EWR rules, characterising them as an
albatross around the neck of the game design. That's as maybe but any
attempt to explain a highly integrated series of actions with the
classic serial narrative format of games rules is going to hit problems.
The EWR designers try to alleviate this with comprehensive (read 'very
comprehensive') examples of play and with a flowchart explaining some
aspects of the TF interactions that take place.

I digress.  

The full campaign game runs from Dec '41 to Sep '45 with a single turn
representing 3 months of campaigning. There are shorter scenarios though
including an introductory single-turn one covering April-June 1942 i.e.
the obligatory 'Midway' scenario.

A turn starts with some economic activities for both players and then an
Allied-only attempt at MK Ultra code breaking to get an intelligence
advantage for the upcoming military activities. With the short scenarios
the economic resources (ERs) are given, all you have to do is spend
them. However the full game also requires you to 'harvest' ERs through
markers placed at various points around the map (a lot of them in the
East Indies unsuprisingly) which have to be transported to the home
country to be used. This is more of an issue for the Japanese player as
he needs them to supplement the home country production. He will find it
a significant drain on his forces to allocate transports, escorts and
other cover forces to ensure these ERs are safely harvested. ER's are
the supply side of the equation. Military operations are the demand
side. Just about anything you do military costs ER's and this acts as a
further dimension to your planning

The key military phases are the Deployment, Operations and Combat phases
each working at different levels. Deployment is the staging of air SPs
from air base to air base and the moving out of naval TFs from their
bases and into the sea areas ready for operations. There are some
limitations on TF deployment (you can't deploy too close to enemy bases
or already-deployed enemy TFs) but it is basically free reign strategic
decision making time: select your objectives for the turn; choose your
force structures and send out the TFs accordingly. Sounds
straightforward...it isn't. These are a tricky set of decisions in
themselves but making them turn after turn within an overall strategic
plan and accounting for counter action by that perennial nuisance...the
enemy...adds up to challenging experience. Gaming heaven for some;
purgatory for others.

The Operations Phase deals with the next level down - execution. Any
force whether naval, air or land can declare an operation but it is with
the 'ballet of TFs' (as Fred Hellferich calls it) that the fun really
begins. As soon as an operating TF moves it can be intercepted by an
opposing TF (again within certain limits); the operating TF has to
freeze temporarily in place whilst the interceptor starts moving. Howver
the interceptor can then be counter-intercepted when it starts to move
and so on. In fact the only limit to pushing interceptions onto this
surrogate 'stack' is the number of eligible TFs within range. In this
way large fleet actions can develop with covering TFs getting sucked in
. Numbered markers are used to indicate the sequence of who is
intercepting who. Once all the interceptions for a given operation have
been declared the individual combats are resolved in sequence until the
originally moving TF is reached.

Combat is only joined if the target is 'found' through a successful
search die roll. If this fails, the interception fails and the searching
TF is flipped from it's normal faceup 'active' side to the face down
'patrol' side. It also has to retreat out of the sea area. It can still
perform interceptions, but within a more limited range. So if your fast
carrier defence force fails its search it is not necessarily going to be
completely idle for the rest of the turn. Nevertheless it does mean some
calculated guesswork before committing your TFs especially as the
composition of the enemy TFs are not known until they are detected
through search.

Once a target has been 'found' it can typically search straight back
and, in fact, will be at a combat disadvantage if it doesn't spot the
incoming attack. In any case combat is joined and resolved in accordance
with the type of forces involved. This is the Pacific War so there are
bewildering variety of combat situations: surface naval vs surface
naval, surface naval vs CV, CV vs CV; any of these vs a base; army air
vs surface naval and so on in combination. Throw in land forces
attacking on land or by amphibious assault and with or without
supporting naval bombardment or air cover...phew...and you can see how
the complexity layers up.

Once you've located and understood the bits of the rules that apply,
combat is reasonably straightforward but quite tactical. this is the
third level to the game. I'll describe just two combat types to give an
idea of the structure and sequencing of the action.

SURFACE FLEET ACTIONS

In surface naval vs surface naval the ships are deployed into three
squadrons: screen, main and reserve. Again markers are used to save
deploying the ship counters and the action is resolved on any free area
of the mapboard. The forces slug it out through a fight, maneuver,
fight, maneuver sequence until one side withdraws or is destroyed. TFs
have a morale level assigned; it is based on the biggest surviving ship.
If it is reduced too far (by combat loss) then withdrawal is mandatory.
Gunnery and torpedo attacks are made with different factors depending
upon range, time of day (the Japanese are better at night) and what year
it is (i.e. the US/Allies have radar fire control after a certain point
in the war). Hits result in accumulating damage points and when these
reach certain breakpoints the target is crippled and then sunk.
Interestingly fog of war is still maintained for naval actions as the
ship counters are deployed face down and targets selected with only the
limited information on the rear face of the counter. Again this adds to
the uncertainty...did you whack an old cruiser with your torpedo rush or
the Yamato?

AIR COMBAT

Air combat is similarly multi-stage. The assault planes are formed into
waves and divided up into strike planes and fighter escorts (within some
% limits on the maximum number of escorts allowed). This a neat
work-around to avoid having a complex counter mix of separate fighters,
dive bombers, torpedo bombers and the like. CAP can then rise up from
the target base or carrier group for some air to air dogfighting (again
within the maximum % limit). This is where the spotting is important for
the defender; if the incoming strike has been spotted then more CAP can
be deployed and exceptional reconnaissance (i.e. a high die roll) can
even get a bonus in the dogfight.

If the strike breaks through the CAP then it suffers flak fire from the
ground or naval target before finally getting it's licks in. This is
where the lone air SP gets its chance to 'scratch a flat top' (sorry,
it's too good a phrase not to use in a review). As you'd expect the
naval air SPs are more effective against ship targets whilst the army
air and bomber SPs are better against bases and enemy land forces. This
just gives a flavour of the combat options. There are further layers
such as simultaneous strikes (where the enemy carriers try not to leave
their air groups idle while you blast away at them); immediate second
strikes, where the attackers reload, reform and attack the same target
again all as part of the same action; finally if the attack was the
first action for an operation then the whole thing can be repeated as
the second action of the operation. This is the double barrelled nature
of an 'operation' it allows for a maximum of four consecutive air
strikes against the same target or of two distinct naval actions.
However we are talking about three months of activity after all and I've
always found that one of the forces involved is pretty beat up after
that amount of activity.

At the heart of the combat system is a clever bit of uniformity that
makes the complexity elsewhere more manageable. Every 10 combat points
equates to a basic 1 hit on the target ship, aircraft, base or whatever.
A single 1D6 roll is used to vary the actual number of hits caused with
some DRMs used as appropriate to the combat situation. Careful factoring
of the various combat values makes it all work e.g. the Yamato packs 9
pts of gunnery factors, a naval air SP strikes ships with 10 pts, an
army air SP strikes ships with 5pts and so on. Once you've got the # of
combat points sorted the resolution is simple.

LOOK AND FEEL

I like the game, but then I like most 'big' simulations. EWR grasps the
entire war in the Pacific through three nested levels like a Russian
doll: strategic, operational and tactical. It has most in common with
Pacific War in this respect. Your long range strategic planning needs to
encompass all the major theatres and campaigns of the area (yup the
Burma/China camp get a look in). You have force structuring and
commitment decisions to make as operations get underway. Finally you get
involved in low level tactical actions where you are manoeuvring
destroyer screens or allocating fighter escorts or stationing single
infantry SPs to defend island bases.

In this respect it's not as clean a system as WIF where the action never
gets tactical (IMHO) but easier in some areas than USN where you have to
laboriously plot out every air strike mission for the entire theatre,
twice a turn. 

The span of decision levels may seem wide but I suspect most gamers like
to get hands-on at the critical points. You feel more in control when
it's your decision on the exact timing of the torpedo rush or on which
wave your best bomber pilots should ride in on (the last usually, hoping
all the CAP has been exhausted).

My own game experience is limited to two scenarios as solitaire
exercises so, for certain aspects of the game, I can only conjecture on
how well they work. However things I do like are:

1) The force structuring and deployment decisions for each turn. Once
you've decided the objectives for the turn, you organise the TFs and
deploy them and the air fleets forward. Well it feels like strategic
planning to me.

2) The way large air battles develop between carrier groups in open sea
or between army air groups over key bases. Whirling, cracking, nail
biting fun.

3) The nice chrome to naval actions with those named capital ships
banging away with gunnery whilst the DDs and CLs race around trying to
breach each others screen to get a torpedo lick in.

4) The unpredictability of air strikes. One lone SP remaining after
penetrating the fighter CAP and flak fire can swoop in and scratch your
best fleet carrier with a lucky critical hit. (Historical?)

5) The overriding importance of bases. Of building them, repairing them,
garrisoning them and, even, capturing them. They are the tangible means
to victory (within reason) and the springboards for your assaults into
enemy territory.

The integrated nature of play means each player is doing something
throughout a turn but, as I have said, this integration of the action
and the number of interrelated systems make the rules creak at the
margin. Fred Hellferich was disappointed and felt he was reduced to
'guessing the designers intent' at some points. However the worked
examples in the rules and especially the errata and flow chart brought
out for the second edition help tremendously...get them they're in the
second edition game (naturally) or in the Grenadier number I mentioned
earlier!

I do agree with Fred Hellferich that it is best to play with 'cards in
the open' at first i.e. no fog of war concealment. This gets the game
mechanics firmly understood and should allow you to approach the
designers expected 2hrs per turn. Then you can explore the depths to the
game with the mentioned long range planning, the use of surprise and
bluff and in devising your own approach to sequencing of a particular
operation.

For example the capture of an island base by amphibious assault may take
several operations over a turn or two...depending upon the resistance. I
suspect the sequence goes like this: establish air superiority over the
enemy air by striking the target base and any adjacent enemy bases;
provide air cover for the amphibious assault from CVs or from your own
air bases; float in the amphibious group with plentiful BB or CA gunnery
support to shoot the SNLF/marines ashore; don't forget a surface cover
force in case a powerful enemy squadron tries to intervene. Once you've
eliminated the defenders either repair the captured base or build a new
one. Debark a garrison of infantry; fly in some army air points and
repeat the whole process for the next target! Well that's my guess and I
could do a lot worse than suggest you read up on the historical campaign
to find out how such operations were actually conducted.

CONCLUSION

So do I recommend you try EWR. Well of course I do. There are many
aspects I have omitted from this review that provide extra chrome and
depth to the game (including the ominous Rule XXX: THE BOMB'!). If you
can track it down I think it is both a good game and a good simulation.
Then again I'm impressed by most board wargames I've come across. Ours
is a small specialist hobby and the obvious care and attention that our
specialist designers put into their work never ceases to amaze me; to
that end I'm willing to give them free wheeling, generous support.


==========

Please feel free to comment on EWR and on this review (offensive flaming
excepted) to gecko53@borodino.freeuk.com