William Terdoslavich  - Jul 22, 2009 10:33 am (#29871 Total: 29926)  
I'm in print again--seven contributing chapters in "It Looked Good On 
Paper, another three in "Haunting Museums". 	 

Re: Storm over Stalingrad. 

First impression: a very good game, but I'm left a bit unsure about it
as a simulation. More on that later. 

Britt described it well: "it plays clean." We were off and running in no
time. Set-up was made intuitive by printing game turn or start space on
the pieces. I did find fault with the print job in one respect: area
letters were red, but were not distinct enough against the background. I
am partially color blind, so this was a minor annoyance during set-up. I
really had to look for those letters. 

But that was outweighed by ease of play. Storm over Stalingrad is one
bigass sequencing puzzle. You really have to figure out the order of
attacks and moves, as each action flips the piece over, rendering it
useless for the remainder of the turn. 

Card play is well linked to the game. Cards represent tactics or
supporting elements that were present at the battle: artillery barrages,
air support, engineers, minefields, snipers and the like. This added
chrome to the game with a "tap", making for variation without
game-stopping exceptions. 

Where I find myself taking issue is with the simulation aspect. I would
describe my objection more as a caveat, which may be dispelled by
further play. There is a mechanic that allows you to mass fire into an
adjacent area. Britt used this well to deliver 'stand-off attacks" that
basically wore down the Russian defenders so that the "second wave" of
German attackers could then take the space. 

Historically, urban combat in WWII was very nasty and bloody. Britt only
lost two German units while squeezing out his win. I cannot object to
good play, and the rules allowed it. But it doesn't square with what I
know about the battle. Divisions were worn down to the size of regiments
by the time major areas of the city were cleared out. So long as the
Germans maintained something like "divisional integrity", they could
deliver nasty standoff attacks into some dense spaces. German losses
were thus kept to a minimum. (Historically, the Russians suffered 90
percent losses defending the city, so a high dead pile was expected.) 

This analysis does leave some room for doubt. I only played this game
once. I could have played it differently, concentrating Soviet assets
for spoiling counter-attacks to throw the German off-balance. I also
could have drip-fed the defense units into contested areas to force the
Germans to expend more resources taking spaces. In this game, time is a
resource. A stubborn Soviet defense could leave no more than two
counters left on the board by the end of turn 7. But if they are in the
spaces the Germans have to take, Russia wins. And that is what makes
Storm over Stalingrad a good game. 

I am more than willing to play this one again. For all I know, my
"objections" are probably wrong, but only replay can prove it. 

As for the game played last night, I managed to retake and hold Mamayev
Kurgan until turn 6, thus adding a tactical card to the Russian hand.
But I gave up the flanks too easily. Thinking I could surrender ground
to improve concentration, I let Britt get into some valuable spaces too
easily. I didn't grasp the meaning of time until halfway through the
game, using drip-fed cannon fodder to deny the Germans a key space on my
right flank they needed to concentrate for a final push on the river
bank. 

By game's end, I had one unit left in each of the two remaining
riverfront spaces, each with a ferry landing. Britt successfully killed
the last unit with his last activation to snare one of the two spaces,
thus negating the Soviet victory condition and winning the game.