Subject: Fw: Smolensk: early comments Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:15:17 -0000 Henri H. Arsenault ... After only one day, here are my quick comments on Smolensk 41 (they could evolve over time). The game sits squarely between East Front and TOAW: EF deals mostly with battalion-size to division battles, Smolensk deals mostly with division to orps-size battles, and TOAW deals mostly with Corps, Army and above.The units in EF are mostly squads and platoons, those in Smolensk are mostly battalions, and those in TOAW are mostly divisions. So the game fills a nice niche.The game feels more to me like East Front than to TOAW, but it has a character of its own. I like a lot the way that fatigue and disruption is modeled. One of the problems with most wargames is that they are a bloodfest: one side is usually wiped out and the other is seriously battered. In Smolensk, when a unit becomes too battered, it becomes useless and must be retired at least temporarily; so you can have cases where most of an army is still standing, but is basically unable to fight because all of its units are disrupted or broken. Needless to say, such a situation should be avoided at all cost. This means that tactics must be changed: no more fighting to the last drop of blood; instead, disrupted or fatigued units should be taken behind the lines for recovery. Since a unit that is both extremely fatigued and broken cannot recover, it is important to cycle units during battles to give them a chance to recover, especially in long games, where the failure to do so should ensure defeat. The interface is reminiscent of both East Front and TOAW, but looks more like East Front with some additional buttons. The 3D map is more cartoonish than that of EF, but most battles will be fought in 2D mode anyway. Artillery is much more important than in other games, whereas air power seems rather weak, especially compared to TOAW where it is the single most powerful weapon. Command and control are there, but it is too early for me to judge how good it is. Some have complained that it does not sufficiently encourage divisional integrity. There does not seem to be any penalty for units from two divisions attacking together, as long as their HQs are close enough. I guess I can live with this, since changing it would probably make the AI weaker.In any case, having a leader nearby can make the difference between a unit breaking and holding on. Strong units with low morale and low supplies can break easily under an attack from a determined foe. A good additional kick in the groin to a disrupted enemy unit that is tired can break it and take it out of the game for good, so one is always considering the dilemma of whether to try to disrupt undisrupted enemy units, or to try to break those that are already disrupted.In most cases, the prudent player will opt for the second option, but the gamble is not always obvious, and one has to consider the additional damage to his own forces that could result from concentrating too hard on a smaller number of enemy units.In a long game especially, it might be worth taking a few more casualties in order to get a strong enemy unit out of the game for good. The AI seems to be rather good as AIs go, which may not be saying much. I don't have enough games under my belt to judge.I do have the priliminary impression that the AI seems to have a tendency to abandon strong defensive positions easily, for example in the Mogilev scenario. On the other hand, maybe the AI is smarter than me and perceived that the situation warranted a retreat to a more defensible secondary defensive line... The quality and clarity of the manuals is uneven: in two places, I found sentences that contradicted each other in the same PARAGRAPH! Zones of control are mentioned only is saying that they block supplies, but it doesn't say anywhere which units have them (I think that all do, including artillery), or if broken units have them or not (it seems that they do, which should be changed). I can already say that any serious wargamer MUST get this game, despite the lack of a printed manual and despite any nitpicks. I had just finished printing two of the four manuals when I discovered that there was a patch along with new manuals. Oh well... The title of the game indicates that this is the first of a series, which is good news. But this one should stay on my disk for a good while, because there are a lot of good scenarios, and if I ever get into the campaign game, it should keep me busy for some weeks playing the 170 moves (let's see, three hours a day at one move an hour means...yikes, almost two months!...) Henri