From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: one review Forgotten Axis: Murmansk 1941 (S&T) I've previously reviewed the second magazine game of this Benninghof's series of obscure WWII titles, but this Murmansk 41 is effectively the first issue of this very interesting system, marred by almost unplayable situation for the scenarios chosen. This Murmansk gets a full map (22"x34") and 140 counters, with graphics up to the better standard for the magazine. The rules fit in only 6 pages, but they are very good and there is also place for three different scenarios and a few optional rules (but the formation effectiveness rules is too good to be passed over). Counters have values for attack - defense - movement, with artillery units (and the Soviet naval units used as such) rated even for range and support value. 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 game. 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 to disrupt the enemy, halving its combat value and negating movement until the end of the turn. As I said before, 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. As for the other two battles covered in a later S&T issue, even this Murmansk is not in my opinion very good as a playable tool: the terrific terrain conditions (this time Tundra - 3 MPs to cross one hex, most units having 4-5 points to move in a single turn) that dominates the game and the fact that river are only crossable at bridges or through engineer aids (and the engineer units are normally one for each formation) makes the game a slow, really painful march for the Axis through the only road going to Murmansk (and Polyarnyy, the other victory city), while the Soviet player cannot tried any counterattack toward Petsamo (taking it, automatically wins the game for the Soviet player, but it's an almost impossible occurence), because terrain is too limiting even for him and attacking is always a serious risk to take. So, you have three different scenarios, all 24 turns long, but you have the same situation repeated at three different river crossing on the map. Yes, this is probably very historical, but even with a system as good as this one (that force players to correctly use the few artillery pieces they have, and resting formations when needed) cannot overcome the really boring playing situation. So another time, we have a terrific system, that I really like for his simplicity and fastness, marred decisively by a terrible gaming situation. I don't know if the third time gets lucky. As for the other game in the series, I rate this system 7+ but this Murmansk scenario gets a 5+.