I recently (2002) dug out Kampfpanzer for some solitaire play. Some might ask "why bother?" There are many tactical armor games out there, but there are almost none that depict the period between the world wars. I first played this game nearly twenty years ago, but could only remember playing the Russo-Japanese scenario (Bain-Tsagan Hill), and seeing the Russian BT-7s romping all over the Japanese. This time, I wanted to pay special attention to trying to understand the armored doctrines of Europe of the day: why did the generals conclude that tanks were still a toy? How did the idea that tanks should mainly support the infantry become dominant? As a game, Kampfpanzer feels like a broken version of Panzerblitz. By "broken Panzerblitz," I mean units at platoon scale, but psychologically feeling like individual tanks; the tendency of armor to fly across the board, leaving infantry in the dust; the idea that combined arms is hardly necessary, as armored platoons seem to be able to do nearly anything in the game. There is no indirect fire. It's "broken" for a number of reasons. The spotting mechanic feels even more unrealistic than Panzerblitz's and tank units seem to be even more independent of infantry and artillery (although this might be a feature of this era). Infantry lacks any means to attack tanks at all, lacking Panzerblitz's Close Assault attack, although this is somewhat compensated for by the weaker overrun attack than Panzerblitz. Worst of all, the Weapons Effectiveness rules says that armor piercing weapons aren't penalized when shooting at infantry, and are even doubled at point blank range, just like they are against armor. I didn't feel I learned much about 1930's armored doctrine by playing it, and from the way the game played, it's hard to see how the conclusions of the day weren't "build more tanks!" However, it's possible that even if the game is an accurate simulation of the tactical battles of the time (a questionable assumption), perhaps the assessment of the tank as an infantry support weapon was rooted in factors that can't be modeled in the game. Consider: while the game shows tanks as virtually unstoppable against a defense lacking AT capability, it also shows that ATs are good for holding off tanks for a while, and dug in or otherwise strongly defended infantry is difficult to winkle out. (Infantry in the open is another matter.) From a WWI perspective, one could argue that entrenched infantry is still a potent defender, particularly since the thin-skinned tanks, unable to entrench, are poor at defense. Further, the AT gun is cheaper by far than tanks, and if there are enough entrenched AT guns, the tanks are at a real disadvantage. Offensively, infantry is difficult to maneuver into position without APCs (which were a relatively late development). If your opponent is entrenched, and well-supported with AT guns, tanks rushing in solo are going to be cut to pieces and will have problems taking terrain. For the attacker, one could see where massive numbers of infantry, supported by artillery, might be considered sufficient. As a defender, tanks add little that more infantry, entrenchments, and artillery could do. Add in the expense of the tank, and its mechanical unreliability, and you may have the reasons why the generals decided that tanks were inferior weapons. Kampfpanzer definitely shows these "conclusions" are wrong. Mobility is necessary for both attackers and defenders; tanks are a terror for enemy infantry, unable to fight back. Backed with artillery and infantry in APCs, tanks are a potent offensive weapon, and if used as a mobile defensive force, can make a real mess of an unarmored attacker, or even of an armored one. Just as a note, the soft unit side of the game works very well. Entrenched infantry is all but impossible for attacking infantry to close with and damage. Artillery is deadly against infantry, although less effective against entrenched defenders, or defenders in towns. Armor is necessary to break defensive lines. One could easily build a WWI tactical game based on Kampfpanzer. However, Clash of Arms' game "Landships" covers this ground in great detail. --Robert A. Dushay rdushay@mindspring.com