MATANIKAU DIARY

MATANIKAU by SAM SIMONS

from THE GAMERS

22" x 32" unmounted map; 700 die cut counters; Series and Game Rules; two unmounted morale tracks; two dice. The Gamers Inc., 500 W. 4th St., Homer, IL 61849. $36

Reviewed by MARK HERMAN

15 February '94

The phone rang late in the evening. The loud, rippling electronic pulse jarred me awake. It was Berg on the other end, barking out my orders: I was to take Matanikau, and I had two weeks. The phone went dead, I had my mission.

16 February ' 94

I took Matanikau off the shelf, wondering why I had bought it. Was it the cover art? Interesting, but rather uninspiring. Was it the publisher? Good bunch of guys, good bunch of games. No, it was the subject matter. I had been fascinated by Guadalcanal ever since hearing my uncle's hair raising stories of being a Marine on that fetid deadly island. Here was a tactical game covering just that. Yeah, that was the motivation. Now I had to learn how to play it.

17 February '94

The Gamers' Tactical Combat Series rules focus you, right away, on the Command system. Basically, you pre-plot your operations orders for your units on a small version of the game map. This is accomplished using various graphic symbology amounting to, for the most part, drawing arrows and unit boundaries. I had no problem with this, since this is basically how we conduct wargames in the Pentagon. The uninitiated might find it something of a barrier, however. At first, I thought that this part of the game would be useless in solitaire play, but I was wrong. I filled out the forms just to see what it entailed, and, after playing the game, I realized that it was an extremely effective solitaire technique whose most interesting feature was its representation of command decision cycles.

A command decision cycle is the amount of time a combat organization takes to receive information, decide what to do, and then to initiate a new action. Superior commanders turn within their enemies decision cycle, repeatedly translating their time advantage into a maneuver/fire advantage, which in turn results in an asymmetrical application of force (on a CRT this is a force ratio advantage). If you do this often enough you tend to win in the real world. In wargames this element, especially in an Igo-Hugo sequence, is, for the most part, ignored. In Matanikau, using the Tactical Combat Series 3.0 (TCS 3.0) rules, that is not true

Much to Dean Essig's credit (he designed the original system), this most important aspect of warfare is neatly handled and imbedded in the mechanics. For example, in Matanikau, the US player has a Command Prep Rating of 4, versus a Japanese 6. What this translates into, if you analyze the Command Prep Table, is on average (an approximately 50% probability of success) the US player can change his current set of written orders in around one hour and forty minutes (game time), whereas the Japanese player will take around 3 hours and forty minutes. This gives the US an inherent command advantage that is significant in play. The procedure is fairly straight forward and places almost no burden on the game. I liked this aspect of the game very much, a big plus in my book. Next, I needed to examine the combat system. Does it give a realistic feel for tactical fire combat?

18 February '94

One of the first things I do in most tactical games is see if they allow stupid, ahistorical things to occur. I call this The Pickett's Charge Test: if you can consistently charge the guns and win, there's usually a problem with the game. I started with the Kelley's Heroes scenario, mostly because I liked the movie. [Ed. Which movie had nothing to do with Guadalcanal, but why quibble?] This scenario pits two Marine rifle companies against a reinforced Japanese battalion in prepared defensive positions. Historically, the Marines barely got out alive.

I landed the Marines and moved inland to the objective, Hill 84. The hill was defended by a Japanese infantry company with some heavy weapon augmentation: a Heavy MG and a 75mm gun. I started by shelling the hill with my off board gun on the USS Ballard, which began to chew up the Japanese infantry platoons. Then my Marines charged up the hill. The initial overwatch fire suppressed my first platoon, which caused it to go into fire mode and stop moving. Interesting. Then the second platoon moved out, took losses, but passed its morale check and closed in for the kill. Oops, they were shot to ribbons during the assault. TCS 3.0 passes the Pickett's charge test. The Area Fire Table punishes foolhardy tactics. Now for my second test: is it Panzer Chess?

Most tactical wargames have one side maneuver, then the other side reacts, and the end result is usually a long firing line somewhere in the middle of the map. In a nutshell, Panzer Chess … a concept Jim Dunnigan first articulated to me long ago in a wargame company, far, far away. The better tactical games get around this by using some kind of interactive movement or, in Jim's case, panic rules. How would TCS 3.0 and Matanikau stack up. Tomorrow would tell.

19 February '94

I reset and begin the scenario again. Using "proper" move and fire tactics, combined with gunfire from the USS Ballard, the Marines chew up the defenders. I now assault the suppressed and weakened Japanese. I take some losses, but the Stars and Stripes is raised over Hill 84. What can I do with the other four-fifths of the Japanese force? Well the 12th company, the one furthest in the rear, had been given a contingent counter-attack order which I immediately began to implement. Of the other three companies, one was to lay down fire on the newly acquired American hill - for which it didn't need any new orders - and the other two attempted to implement a counterattack into the Marine flank. By nightfall (and the end of the scenario) I was still trying to get those companies on the move… a most realistic effect of command and a satisfying solitaire experience. This game definitely ain't Panzer Chess.

It was during the latter half of the scenario that the Marines finally got some more off board artillery. I had heard many a horror story of how, in Omaha, you felt like you had personally loaded each die into the artillery rules and fired. TCS 3.0 has significantly reduced this negative impact on play, but it still takes a minimum of five die rolls per artillery battery, plus extra die rolls for each additional allotment of ammunition used, to resolve each fire. And this is before anyone is hit, imposing additional dice rolls. An intense artillery phase, where you really want to hurt someone, can take about 30 dice rolls. When you do finally hit something there is a satisfying impact on the game, and there is the tangential effect of developing strong wrists while doing so. Wow, a wargame and an aerobic exercise all in one; the Dice Potatoes should love it!

Most artillery phases aren't like the one described, because you have finite quantities of ammunition which naturally limit the volume of artillery fire. An example of how all of these artillery dice rolls fit together would have been nice, and this area is still the weakest part of the design. But its no show stopper. Its the kind of thing you put up with because the rest of it is so well done.

20 February '94

Upon reflecting on yesterday's battle, which took around 4 hours, I came away with a mostly positive impression of Matanikau and TCS 3.0. It is one of the few tactical wargames I have played where the infantry doesn't feel like guys hanging around tanks, but like infantry units with their tactics intact. The question then arose how does it play with the vehicles? Now anyone who knows anything about Guadalcanal knows it wasn't the Battle of Kursk. There is, however, a tank assault scenario, so I cranked it up.

21 February' 94

Well one thing about the area around the Matanikau River, it isn't the rolling plains of Europe. The only real place to employ the tanks was down the road, over the very exposed sand spit, through bottleneck hexsides directly into the teeth of the Marine AT guns (both towed and on half-tracks). The point combat system, as opposed to the area combat system for automatic weapons fire, uses a differential table with each counter representing one tank. Talk about tactical. I don't like differential combat tables in general, but this is one of the few types of wargame interactions where they work quite well. Anyway, the armor attack passed my Pickett's Charge Test: the Japanese armor was smoked. It shouldn't have worked … and it didn't.

22 February '94

I'm really enjoying Matanikau. Its a game I will play again, which for me is a rarity. It has a solid tactical feel, wherein all pieces of the combined arms equation (command, infantry, artillery, armor, logistics) are important. Its fun to play, realistic, and, most importantly from my perspective, it teaches you something about tactical combat on Guadalcanal. A rare game indeed.

23 February '94

I call Berg this evening. He asks to change the billing in the next GBH game. I hang up. Mission accomplished.

CAPSULE COMMENTS:

Graphic Presentation: Excellent, clear and concise

Playability: The artillery phase slows things down, but not painfully so. After a few turns the various game procedures become second nature.

Replayability: Good, especially when playing against an opponent where the number of potential set ups and order combinations is very large.

Wristage: Heavy doses of inflammatories recommended.

Creativity: Excellent, the Command rules and the infantry feel of the game are outstanding.

Historicity: The scenario orders of battle and situations are accurate. I have a small quibble with the full strength nature of the Japanese units.

Comparison: This game falls in scale between ASL's individual tanks and the old Yaquinto's Panzer and West End's Tank Leader Series Platoon sized infantry units with heavy weapons sections. It's a lot less complicated and playable than ASL (heresy, he's a witch, burn him) and a lot more realistic feeling than the Tank Leader series. In my opinion the best of the lot.

Overall: Excellent; a real winner.