DEEP SIXED

Scratch One Flat Top! by Peter Bertram

from 3W

Two 17" x 11" maps, 200 counters, Rules Book, 5 off-map cards Hit Record Sheets, two 6-sided dice; boxed. Published by 3W, Cambria, CA; $30.

Reviewed by Terry Rooker

Among 3W's game explosion there have been a fair number of naval games, all of which appear to suffer from that peculiar 3W mal de mer: lack of development. With Scratch One Flat Top!, Peter Bertram's game on the Battle of the Coral Sea, while the overt symptoms of that malady may be somewhat reduced, the nausea it produces is still present. There are, however, some signs that a cure may be at hand as, within the framework of what Bertram intended to do, the game works fairly well.

As with other, recent 3W games, Scratch has acceptable, if not exactly award-winning, production quality. The components are sturdy, the colors are not garish, and everything is pleasant and serviceable. The worst one could say is that the counters are a little drab. And then there are the rules.

3W's catalog lists Scratch One Flat Top! as possibly the first errata-free wargame. Perhaps … and depending on one's definition thereof. True, I didn't notice any of the usual flubs: typos, glitches, etc. But then, unless it makes the game unplayable I tend to ignore such things anyway. What I did notice is that the rules needed a good editor. To say that they are poorly organized is to give them the benefit of the doubt. For some reason, known only to the minor gods that watch over these productions, Bertram and 3W have decided to use the "Components" section - and how many of you skip over that by rote - as the main source of information! Now there's a breakthrough in game design!

And don't bother to look for the usual summary of the Sequence of Play. There is a whole section that is titled "The Turn Sequence", but that only tells you the obvious. The rules sections that follow that brief listing are keyed to the sequence, but if you want to look at a summary then look on the reference card. Thanks.

And there is more. Section 9.5 is entitled "Phasing Player Resolve Air Strikes." The rules beneath the headline then proceed to inform you that the phasing player resolves air strikes using the procedures in the next section (9.6). Back when I was in public school, learning how to outline, I was told that if a section header has nothing underneath it, then you probably didn't need that section. But at least you can understand clearly what 9.5 wants to say, even if it's not very helpful. Not so for the charts and tables. Part of the reason that there is so much information in the components section is that the charts and tables were configured by Daffy Duck. I have been playing games for many years, and I can usually figure out combat charts without referring to the rules. In this case even after I read the rules I still had trouble lining everything up. Only after going through everything very slowly was I able to get it all straight.

None of these problems are fatal; they just make it difficult to learn a game that is not overly difficult to play. Many rules sections simply refer you back to that above-mentioned components section. Of course, neither place has the entire rule, so you keep flipping back and forth. But, as 3W promised, in all that flipping not one typo did I find … probably because I couldn't find enough of the rule to figure out whether or not a typo even existed.

Scratch One Flat Top! uses a double blind format. Wait . . .wait!! Come back!! Before you all run away, I realize that there have been some disastrous games using the double blind format. Sometimes, though, it makes sense, and naval games just may be the place for this format. I have long been interested in naval history and naval games. I have found most tactical level naval games lacking a gut feel for what goes into a naval engagement. In most modern naval battles, one side usually had a decided advantage, and only if something untoward happened to that player would the weaker side win.

For example, I was teaching a friend to play Ironclads (the old Yaquinto game). I was using a scenario that pitted two wooden ships against an ironclad. Because of a critical hit on the ironclad, the wooden ships actually won! From my study, such a victory would have been far more the exception in reality. After years of thought, I realized that there were few factors (or force multipliers) that the players could manipulate. After all, there are no trees or other terrain to exploit. Basically, the player who got the first effective hits against his opponent went on to win.

This problem is not an artifact of game design; it is the way of naval combat. (For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon I suggest reading "Fleet Tactics" (Naval Institute Press.) The main consequence of this in terms of game design is that any naval game that does not involve search (i.e. the positions of both sides is not known to both players) is neither very realistic nor very much fun. Game designers appear to have come to appreciate this, as the last major naval game without a search mechanism was the ill-fated Yamato (Hobby Japan).

Because search is everything, operational scale games tend to be "better", since it is easier to handle the search mechanism on that scale. This accounts for the popularity of such topics as the search for the Bismarck, even though the battle resolution in such games is often terribly one-sided. It also explains why a game such as The Far Seas (S&T/3W) was so popular. The combat system there was very abstract, but the search mechanism was the prime ingredient and made for a very tense game.

Unfortunately for you historians out there - but perhaps not for the "players" among you - Scratch takes a step back in terms of simulating carrier battles. Over the last 20 years, the trend in carrier-oriented games has been towards increasing complexity. Most of this increase has been in the area of combat resolution and plane handling. I think the zenith of complexity (and accuracy, at least on some scales) was Carrier Battles (Rising Sun Simulations). CB definitely had the most detailed procedures for plane handling yet seen by gamedom. As if that wasn't enough, the search procedure was also highly detailed. While this detail was important to purists, it probably kept the game from being more of a commercial success, as many players felt that that aforemnetioned "zenith" was really a nadir. There are simply too few gamers interested in that kind of microcosm, especially in a naval game.

Scratch wisely uses a simpler system, so it will likely appeal to a broader range of gamers. The double-blind format is an integral part of making this simplicity work. Rather than use some complicated limited intelligence rules, each player gets his own map. That way you can attack only what you find and mark on your map. Of course, the problem with this is that you have to call out hex numbers to search. (Tangentially, we note that all of these games are nothing more than an extended version of study-hall "Battleship": "H-7!" "Damn, you got my submarine!" Now, there was a naval game!!) Your opponent, who knows the rules (well, knows them as well as the rulesbook allows him to do so), can use that knowledge to determine some information from your call hexes. There are some gamesmanship tactics that can limit this problem, but there is little the players can do to avoid it.

As it turns out, the Coral Sea situation is relatively straightforward, so that is not much of a problem. The map is small. Even so, the overall situation is such that only about half of the 17" x 11" surface will ever be used! In addition, there are usually one or two US task forces, with 3-to-4 for the IJN. Granted, there are lots of air units, but they are tied to the carriers and the bases. And therein lies a problem: the game covers only that one battle. This limited scope is probably what will keep the game from achieving any great level popularity. There are numerous scenarios covering smaller preliminary actions, but there are no variants or other such excursions (with the minor exception of the one tacked onto one of the preliminary scenarios).

In addition, there is only one strategy for the IJN: go after the American carriers. There is a rule preventing his transports from advancing on Port Moresby until the carriers are neutralized. The American player, though, has a choice. He can either go after the Japanese carriers or he can go after the transports. That's it. This limited approach and micro-scope have an obvious downside payoff: limited replay value.

Ultimately, for $30, you don't get that much. This is basically a magazine game in a box. Yeah, there are lots of display sheets, but when combined with the maps they amount to nothing bigger than a standard mapsheet. The rulebook is a little long, but with concise editing (please, oh please!!), cleaning up the charts so they need less explanation, and moving some of the less important scenarios to a supplement or magazine support article, you have a magazine game. A $30 magazine game; boxes aren't that expensive. While Scratch One Flat Top! is worth playing once or twice, I couldn't find any way to justify the price. 3W is giving us lots of games, I only wish they would be worth getting.

CAPSULE COMMENTS:

Graphic Presentation: Nothing earth-shattering, but very functional.

Playability: As with many recent 3W releases, the emphasis is on "playability". Considering certain limitations (i.e.complexities) of the double blind format, the game is easy to play. Takes about an evening (maybe a long one) to finish.

Replayability: Unfortunately, there is not much variation in the game, so repeated playings may become repetitious.

Creativity: A step back in the slowly increasing complexity of carrier simulations.

Historicity: The double blind format is excellent for recreating the cat-and-mouse hunting that was typical of carrier operations.

Comparisons: There have been a lot of games - some listed in the review - on this subject, and, other than in the use of the double-blind format as a search mechanism, they are all probably better buys. However, Scratch does have the advantage of simplicity.

Overall: A simple, solid design that accomplishes its limited goals. While not the definitive simulation of WWII carrier operations, the simplicity might allow others to actually try playing the game.