JUST LIKE A WOMAN

GUDERIAN'S BLITZKRIEG by DEAN ESSIG

From THE GAMERS

Two 22" by 34" maps, 1160 counters, two rules books, dice, boxed. Published by the

Gamers, $39,

Reviewed by CARL GRUBER

I don't recall any time in the last 10 years when there were so many games published … and so many good ones, at that. Guderian's Blitzkrieg, Dean Essig's intensive simulation of the 1941 German drive on Moscow, may be not only the best game published this year, but also the best one to appear for several years now. What makes Guderian's Blitzkrieg so great are the same qualities that make some women so attractive: physical beauty and enough complexity to intrigue and hold one's interest without becoming tedious.

This game is an example of the great progress that has been made in the graphic quality of games in the last few years. The map has a great deal of color (the forest pattern actually has the golds and reds of Russian trees in autumn!) yet manages to avoid looking crowded or garish. And, in what must be a first for an Eastern Front game, the town names are even spelled right! The counters are very legible, with color coding for a unit's command and

different movement modes. Given the inexpensive ease with which this is done by computer, it doesn't seem like there's much of an excuse for certain other game companies to be still turning out such ugly maps and counters. The entire physical production, from the maps and counters to the rulebook, is sharp and clean.

The system very simply (well, it's simple once you get into it) and logically models ALL aspects of land movement, combat, logistics and air power. The scale is 5 miles per hex, and units range in size from battalions to divisions for the Germans and brigades and divisions for the Russians. Each combat unit is given a combat (or barrage) factor, a number of steps (in regimental equivalents as in Europa) and an Action rating. The latter is compared to the enemy's in combat, and the difference provides a die roll modifier which can also make it possible to achieve surprise (up to 6 column shifts) in the attack or defense.

Each game turn is a week, broken down into two, alternating, symmetrical player turns foreach side per turn. This basic Igo-Hugo stuff avoids being hackneyed because each phasing player's turn is interrupted by the non-phasing player's reaction phase, which includes its own movement and combat. In effect, the structure is very interactive. The fluidity of the action is also enhanced by unit modes (which affect their combat strength and movement) and the lack of any real zones of control, except against units using truck movement. Combat can occur as overrun during movement, in the non-phasing player's reaction phase, during the combat phase, and again during the phasing players exploitation phase. Armored and motorized units can fight and move halfway across the map during the course of a single turn, and this rapidity and fluidity make the action very unpredictable, forcing players to make intelligent decisions, often far in advance.

This is not a game for hard-charging "panzer pushers", those gamers who think tanks can do everything except but jump out of airplanes. The armor in GB does take ground very rapidly, in the right terrain, but it cannot effectively hold it against a determined counterattack. If an entire panzer division is united in one hex, it is susceptible to air strikes and artillery barrages, while if you spread it out, its subunits can be overrun and destroyed piecemeal. Players (especially German players) who revel in romping all over the map with their armor will pay for their lack of judgement and insight when they find their precious panzers out of supply and in exposed and precarious positions, where a competent Russian will gladly -and easily - cut them to pieces. This teaches some very accurate lessons about the strengths and weaknesses of WWII armor. The winner is the player who shows enough judgement and discipline to plan ahead, anticipating possible enemy reactions.

One of the most important aspects of the game is logistics. In this, GB is reminiscent of Campaign for North Africa. Supply is critical, because everything - from building fortifications or airfields, to flying airplanes, to artillery barrages - costs supply points. Naturally, combat - attacking or defending) - can consume a prodigious amount of supply. Unlike CNA, supply has been boiled down to abstract, generic supply points. But like the Monster of the Desert, you can't use the points unless you get your hands on them. So they have to be transported by trucks… with far too few of these to go around… by rail, by air or by wagons. Fear not, though, this is all accomplished without burdening the player with mind-numbing, record-keeping minutiae; it is, rather, a matter of consuming supply points stacked in a hex within supply range of a superior HQ. However, the fact that the almighty tanks need fuel and ammo will no doubt frustrate those "panzer pushers". Again, a little foresight and planning pays off.

It took a good, four playings to "crack" the game. This was so not because of the game's complexity (no more than that of The Gamer's Civil War Brigade series) but, rather, the situation itself. Almost everything costs supply, and the German player has a very limited flow of supply points. The German also has a lot of ground to take, and the formation of pockets in the first few turns keeps his infantry tied up and unable to support the advancing armor columns. The German must be very careful in choosing where to attack. If he attacks everywhere indiscriminately, the next turn will find him out of supply and very vulnerable to Russian air strikes and ground counterattacks. The Russian player has much more supply but faces some tough decisions about where to fight and when to run. He has to get back into the Moscow defenses, but he dares not move a unit when it means going into the combat-weak, Move mode. This means achieving a balance between sacrificing some units to slow down the Germans and saving as many of his "good" troops as possible for the eventual counterattack. He can also be certain of being outflanked almost anywhere he makes a stand, and the units he would like to keep in reserve for a counterattack can easily be fed back, piecemeal, into the battle just to keep the Germans from overrunning every objective. Both players have a lot of hard choices to make, and such hard choices make for good, engrossing gaming.

GB offers 6 "training" scenarios for learning the various subsystems, and a number of smaller scenarios using one or both maps. There are two campaign scenarios, one of which offers a freer setup, allowing players to start the game a turn (week) earlier than it did historically. There is also a Russian counterattack scenario. One interesting feature of the game is that Dean Essig has gone to what must have been considerable trouble to give the setup at the start of every turn, so that players can start at any point in time they choose. Incredible.

This is a well-conceived, solid design, one of the best games to come out in several years. Any player even remotely interested in the Eastern front, who prefers making choices and planning an operation to mindlessly pushing counters around a map in an effort to feel dicely superior, will love this game. Both sides have a lot of tough decisions to make, and they suffer limitations not through the artifice of idiot rules but because of the nature of the situation. In almost every way, Guderian's Blitzkrieg is a monumental achievement. Best of all, the publishers are already working on a Kharkov sequel.

CAPSULE COMMENTS:

Graphic Presentation: Outstanding. Pleasing, uncluttered and functional.

Playability: The system itself is easy to learn, remember and use, but mastering the situation will take some practice. But be warned, this is a monster game. The rules are long and, at first glance, complex. And. although there are some smaller scenarios for those with little time or space, you're going to have to leave this one set up. Solitaire play is possible.

Replayability: Very high. The game is complex enough to offer players opportunities to experiment and/or make their own mistakes.

Historicity: More realistic, in both information and feel, than any other game on the same subject. Player faces the same tough choices their historical counterparts did.

Comparisons: Somewhat like Duel for Kharkov in scale and Campaign for North Africa in its logistical aspects, but a good deal simpler than either. Superior to SPI's Typhoon in that the Germans get to start the game early enough

to have a chance of winning.

Overall: I've played a lot of Eastern Front games. Guderian's Blitzkrieg is by far the best … and the most fun. Total immersion time.