From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: First review for September The Forgotten Axis: Finnish Campaign (S&T 199) This is a Mike Benninghof design covering two battles taken by the darkest corners of WWII, the forests of Karellia between Finland and Russia. You get two 17" x 22" maps almost totally covered by forest hexes, pointed by a few lakes, even less city hexes and no more than a couple road/railroads. You get also 280 counters, with all the units needed for the two games (and several more, as I haven't found mention in the set-up of many German units and a few Russian ones in any scenarios - probably they will be used in future Moves scenarios). Graphics is good both for the map and the counters, up to the better standards of Beth Queman (normally fair to good). Units are rated for attack - defense (normally a greater value) - movement; artillery units have also a support value and a range of support. The battles covered in this issue (both with two scenarios) are Allakurtti and Loukhi. All the rules for the system fit in only 4 pages, but Benninghof's design need to be praised for its easy of use and its effectiveness (at least as a game): it plays really fasts, it's full of interesting points (yes, even with only 4 pages of rules you may get a very interesting system) and, given better scenarios, should be re-playable over and over (a fact that is very unusual for the standard magazine games since a long time ago). Each army is divided in formations: each formation gets an activation counter that you have to put in a cup to random drawing during each turn: when you draw the counter for the formation, you may take action with all the units of that formation - you get reinforcements, if any, when move your mechanized units, you have combat and then move all the units you want to move (even the mechanized ones already moved); your action are limited by HQ range, if that formation has an HQ, or by independent activation, if the units are independents: to move them you have to roll singularly for each unit and if you get 1-3 (1-4 for starting independent units, not for units out of HQ range or whose HQ was destroyed) you may attack and move with that unit. The fact the you normally use very few formations (the heart of this system) in a given game greatly adds to the enjoyment of the games. ZOCs stop movement but you may move directly from a ZOC to another ZOC. Stacking is limited to 2 battalions plus one company sized units, or 1 regimental plus 1 company sized units, so you normally have a maximum of 2 units in a single hex, but for a few company sized engineer or antitank German units. Combat is always voluntary and uses a ratio CRT, with step losses/retreat results, with only a few adjustments for terrain (the defender is normally always doubled, as both forest and city hexes doubled the units defending inside) and combined arms for the attacker only. There is also a simple bombardment rule, and you may use artillery (not very effectively) to disrupt the enemy, halving its combat value and negating movement until the end of the turn. The most important rule in the game is effectiveness, a rule that is stated by the designer as optional but in my opinion fundamental for the correct feeling of the game: if you use effectiveness, each formation puts a counter on a numbered track, going up and down (normally down) the ladder as its units get losses or inflicts ones; the track is divided in several parts, reflecting the variable morale of the formation: you may get bonus or malus for the attacks and the defense, and if your effectiveness is at peak you get a second formation counter to put in the cup, so you may choose when to activate your formation (at the first or at the second draw from the cup - a very important bonus for the player!!), while, on the other hand, if your morale is dismal you may not enter enemy ZOCs. With this rule, the coordination of the various formations becomes an important issue in your overall strategy and the game is really tense and exciting. Without this rule, the game is more predictable and certainly less fun to play. Apart from this, the system has several interesting points: the use of formation chits to activate the units is now standard fare in most of the recent operational games, so it's no more in doubt, in my opinion, as a very effective method to randomize the play of a game to make it really enjoyable solitaire without hampering too much the face to face kind of players (unfortunately very few); anyway, it works very well even here. The unusual sequence of play that reverse the normal move-combat-exploitation movement kind of sequence of play we are used on Eastern Front games since at least Panzergruppe Guderian gives very often the choice to accept combat to the defender (a fact that simulates well, for me, the adverse terrain condition where these battles were fought) and makes the game (if you use the effectiveness rule) an interesting see-saw. Even the bloody CRT is an interesting device, in a wargaming world where normally retreat takes always predominance over stand and fight in most of designs. The worst part of the games are the scenarios: I have played the first scenario from Loukhi and the game was interesting, but not too inspired; the fact that the victory conditions were based both on losses inflicted on the enemy and on territorial objectives makes the game at least interesting, but the effectiveness rule limits probably too much the German player (who has only two formation, one of them in practice out of play for several turns as it has a very low starting morale); anyway, not bad (or at least, not too bad). The second scenario from Allakurtti is instead totally unplayable: if there are no errata for the victory conditions, the Soviet player has won the instant he places his units, as he need only to have one of his units on the central road for the end of the game; it's totally impossible for the German player to reach this objective in 12 turns using the effectiveness rule, and probably also without using that rule. I think there is a serious mistake in this scenario (that could probably already be corrected on Grognard or on S&T - I haven't checked). All in all, I give the system a 7+, while these two issue games reach at the most a 6+.