BAD DREAMS

POLAND '39: THE NIGHTMARE BEGINS, by TY BOMBA

BERLIN '45: THE NIGHTMARE ENDS, by JOHN DESCH

From XTR

Each game has one 22" x 34" map; 192 counters (P39), 320 (B45); Rulebook; Ziplock. XTR, P39, $17, B45, $20.

Reviewed by CARL GRUBER

I had a nightmare once. I dreamed I was locked in a room and forced to listen to "Play That Funky Music, White Boy" over and over again. And now, I'm beginning to wonder whether XTR is located on Elm Street, with a developer named Freddie Kruger.

The two titles, above, are the latest entries in XTR's ziplock line, which they have renamed "Command Historical Simulations". Make no mistake, folks; these are games, not

simulations. However, even as games, they seem to be nothing more than chromed clones of everything else XTR has published. There's nothing wrong with series games, but when the only real difference the player senses between games like Berlin '45 and 1918 are the maps, something's wrong. These are "shake and bake", alternating player-turn sequence games, with a little chrome thrown in here and there like the "seasoned" breading on your McChicken sandwich: calculated to offend no one, with a blandness to match.

That blandness extends to the physical production. The maps have little detail and use drab colors. The counters - and virtually all XTR counters look the same, regardless of subject matter - have very large, fat numbers. XTR must be after the geriatric market. Units range in size from regiments or brigades to corps, and they have the inevitable attack, defense, and movement factors. There are no command control rules or HQ units (I can see Ty B standing up, like Zwingli at an orgy, screaming "Anathema … anathema!"), supply uses the John Hill Method, traced any distance to a mapedge or supply hex, and there are no morale rules. This is pure move and fight, count your beans, and roll the dice. This can, occasionally, be fun, mostly as a break from larger games or just a way to kill some time. But there's no insight whatsoever into these battles, and you don't feel any different playing either these two games, 1918 or Krim. What a shame: both of these battles could have made interesting games.

On the positive side, the games do seem to accomplish what the designer intended, and they are relatively glitch-free. (I don't recall XTR ever having much of a problem with errata or quality). Both games also offer alternate scenarios which seem to be the heart of the design; the historical battles were so one-sided, there's really nothing to "game".

Poland '39's map covers all of that country and its adjacent border regions. Most units are divisions with a few regiments mixed in. The German objective is, of course, to conquer Poland … and to do that in as little time as possible. The Polish player

doesn't have even a ghost of a chance of saving this country, but he "wins" by making the German conquest take longer than it did historically or by exiting a lot of his units off the mapedge, so they live to fight another day. One noticeable difference between P39 and the other WWII games by XTR is that, while the German still "blitzes", here he does so with caution. Why? His armored units have much lower defense factors and can lose steps to Polish counterattacks, thereby exposing the German player to much embarrassment and ridicule. Considering the fact that Blitzkrieg was still an untried experiment in '39, and the

German army was not yet blooded, this is a nice touch. The alternate history scenarios offer a Polish free deployment (relieving him of the ridiculous requirement to defend all of

Poland), Soviets on the Polish side (say what?), and a third scenario with the Polish army prepared to fight and the Germans with no Panzer units or blitzkrieg abilities.

Berlin '45 models the blazing spectacle of the Nazi Götterdämmerung, minus the good music. (Actually, listening to "The Death of Siegfried" while rolling the die can be quite atmospheric here.) Given the fact that the Russians took 200,000 casualties in their drive on Berlin, this should have been a more interesting game than it is. Unfortunately, the design was given XTR's usual reductionist treatment. The system is the same, old,

alternating sequence with two day turns (OK, I'll do all my moving and fighting on Monday and you can have Tuesday). The chrome here comes from "concentric attacks" (simply attacking a unit from two or three opposite directions) for a column shift, air

power (again a column shift) and Soviet heavy artillery (contributing enormous attack factors). Except for German units in fortifications, there are no zones of control, which gives the game a good, fluid, "slippery" feeling. And, yet again, supply is from the John Hill School. Whatever historical atmosphere there is comes from the big, ugly Hakenkreuz in the middle of Berlin, and the historical scenario is over almost before it begins. The tables have turned on Jerry, and he is now as hopeless as the Poles in '39. Expect to

see a huge German dead pile within 2-3 turns at most. The first two game turns forbid attacks by the Second Belorussian Front, mobile assaults by any Soviet unit or artillery barrages by the First Belorussians. Why? Don't ask me, I just did what I was told by the rules… but I'd bet my lederhosen that it has something to do with historical circumstances requiring the designer to come up with some of those infernal, XTR-verboten, logistical and command rules!

Because the historical scenario is so one-sided, the real meat of this game seems to be the "alternate history" scenarios. The first of these is the "maximum" historical scenario, which postulates Hitler withdrawing the mechanized forces earmarked for the Battle of the Bulge and sending them east against the Russians. Of course, this is based on the rather large assumption that the Western Allies were nice enough to not take advantage of a sudden absence of German armor on their front, and the even larger assumption that the Germans would have actually had enough fuel for that much armor at that late date in the war. Nevertheless, this does give the Russians a harder game to win and makes the final fighting in and around Berlin itself very bloody. A second hypothetical scenario has the Western Allies deciding to go for Berlin and, like SPI's old Battle for Germany, the Allies control their own forces and the East Front Germans and the Russians likewise control the West Front Germans as well as their own troops. The scenario turns out to be a race for Berlin. Of all the scenarios, this one is the most plausible … and the most fun. The final two scenarios involve one of Ty Bomba's - and George's, to be sure - favorite themes, unleashing Patton on the Russkies.

If one considers XTR's philosophy of producing quick and playable games, these two titles have succeeded quite well. They are easy to learn, the rules are straightforward, and they do produce historical results in both campaigns. Furthermore, unlike so many other publishers these days, XTR can be credited for turning out finished, playtested games. However, encountering the same 20-year-old design technology in game after game soon becomes tedious, and such minimalist design techniques deprive the player of any sense of reliving an historical event. That's OK with me, as far as it goes, but why can't they

come up with some original ideas and give their games some historical flavor and unpredictability? From the player's perspective, there is almost no difference between Inchon and the two reviewed here. They're like Robert Ludlum novels: same plot, same incidents, only the names are changed to lull the dull. Moreover, other publishers have created "easy" games that are quick to pick up but offer their players real challenges, a feeling for what happened at these battles, and that je ne sais quoi that makes them fun and unique. Cf. Stalingrad Pocket, Anzio (S&T in 1990), and the herein reviewed Across 5 Aprils. In comparison, the Nightmare Twins are as dull as dishwater. Like much "minimalist" music, they're easy to assimilate, but the mind grows awfully numb after about two minutes of the stuff.

CAPSULE COMMENTS:

Graphic Presentation: Professional but bland; but you can read the counters from across the street!

Playability: Excellent. Easy to learn and no glitches. They also play in about 2-3 hours. Of tangential importance, is that XTR supports these products with extra rules and counters in their "Command" magazine. (E.g., see #20.)

Replayability: Little. The systems are very rigid, and the action becomes stereotyped after about 2 play-throughs.

Historicity: Very good at What; complete failures at Why.

Comparisons: As to subject matter, B45 supersedes the old SPI Battle for Germany. P39 is a lot faster than Europa's, Case White, version. As for systems, comparable with Krim, Mississippi Banzai, 1918, Inchon … or is it the other way around?

Overall: Quick, easy and body-strewn… but Minimalist Misery. I had more fun trimming the counters than playing the games.