News As History - July 9, 2008
News As History - July 9, 2008 |
|||
|
Wargame Reviews Return to Wargame Main Page Return to Wargame Reviews Index PANZER CAMPAIGNS: SMOLENSK '41
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION PANZER CAMPAIGNS: SMOLENSK '41 is the first in a planned series of "operational" games. Inspired by Jim Dunnigan's classic boardgame PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN (1976), this is a simulation of the initial German central thrust towards Moscow in July-August 1941. The scale is one hex per kilometer, turns range in duration from two to four hours (day/night), and units generally represent battalions and/or regiments. STOP! There is none . . . well, actually there is, but it is located on the CD. This reviewer knows and understands the economic rationale for such a decision, but it does not mean that he likes it. Since this simulation is sold only by mail, the cost of publishing a stand-alone manual would be cost-aggravated by the additional postage charges. But what this means is that the consumer will have to spend c. $10 in printing out the manual on his own (paper and ink costs). There is the main program manual (51 pages), the scenario editor manual (41 pages), the order of battle editor manual (10 pages), and the user manual (44 pages) -- for a total of 146 pages. And the aggravation continues -- the manual has been redone with the latest patch, and there are no provisions for supplemental pages, only a "do-over". {Note to HPS: next time, add a file for supplemental pages as well so that the user does not have to expend an entire toner cartridge in order to have the full manual} Of course, there is always the argument that an experienced gamer does not need the hard copy ("we don't need no steenking manuals"), but for the more intellectually rigorous (or anal-compulsive) gamer, a hard copy is a requirement (at least until the bathroom and public transportation offer readable screens). The documentation is detailed but somewhat haphazardly organized. In effect, everything is there, only spread out among the different manuals. For those familiar with Mr. Tiller's previous designs, the manual will be superfluous; for those new to the Russian Front, careful reading and analysis of the manual will have to be supplemented by actual play (the player should not begin the larger scenarios until he has played some of the smaller scenarios, in order to get a "feel" for proper employment). The sound is perfectly adequate; at the operational level, there is no need for multiple .wav files of battlefield noise and clutter. Here, the background music is appropriate, although the battlefield noises, while informative, can be somewhat repetitious. However, the graphics suffer from what has become pandemic in the gaming industry -- "gloat and bloat". This reviewer has to admit that he is enthused with graphics; having said that, he must also note that the trend of operational level simulations illustrating a 3-D perspective is overgilding the lily. The 3-D perspective is good for impressing non-gamers and occasionally just kicking back and enjoying the ride. However, as a device for operational deployment and maneuver, it is useless and can detract from proper military planning. There are four view perspectives: 2-D normal, 2-D zoom, 3-D normal and 3-D zoom. Jim Rose of TalonSoft once noted that the "actual facings of the uniforms were all correct and hand drawn" in his WATERLOO game. This reviewer was suitably impressed, but expressed the reservation that such attention to detail would be lost on 99.5% of the users, and wouldn't a better use of effort be directed by maximizing the artificial intelligence? The (unsaid) answer is that graphics require time but may be easily added; implementation of a better AI or design innovations are more invisible and harder to accomplish. GAME MECHANICS AND/OR GAMEPLAY The game mechanics are reminiscent of TalonSoft's BATTLEGROUND and CAMPAIGN series -- a not-so-unusual resemblance when one considers that John Tiller was the programmer/designer for most of these games. At one time, there was a legal battle waged between TAKE 2 (TalonSoft's corporate parent) and HPS, concerning the "look-and-feel" of Mr. Tiller's designs once he had begun publishing his own designs. This reviewer is unsure if either or both sides are totally free to discuss the matter, but the end result as far as gamers were concerned was "bad blood"; however, the appearance of Mr. Tiller's designs do indeed resemble those of TalonSoft or might it more accurately be said that a "John Tiller design is a John Tiller design?" Although trained as an attorney, this reviewer does not have any expertise in copyright law. To him, the "look and feel" of SMOLENSK '41 is derivative of TalonSoft designs; but in a similar fashion, the Windows GUI (graphical user interface) is derivative of Apple's designs, and the MicroSoft Internet Explorer is derivative of Netscape's browser. Let the conclusion be that this product will be familiar territory for those acquainted with TalonSoft designs. Units can be placed in different modes. Make sure to determine what units should be in what mode; there is nothing more aggravating than finding one's Panzers suddenly forced to engage a dug-in enemy position when in travel mode. While starting and final positions may be selected, this often leads to less than desired routes. Simply put, computer intelligence cannot adequately travel on a road by itself. While this is a minor irritation in a small unit ten turn game, it assumes elephantine proportions in a campaign scenario. SMOLENSK '41 fails as an operational simulation because of its scale. With game turns of two-four hours and units in battalion/regimental size, this is simply a tactical simulation writ large -- in effect, a "grand tactical" game. As a point of comparison, PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN utilized game turns of two days and units of brigade/divisional size. The difference is both instructive and informative. With the board game's grosser scale, one could assume the role of Marshal Timoshenko or General Guderian and seek to achieve a resolution through operational analysis and maneuver. The computer simulation forces one to assume the role of the field commanders down to the 0-6 level and the minutiae obscures the relevant functional of operational command. In terms of contemporary military thought, "the division commander thinks battalions, fights brigades, but still knows detail" (RB 101-5, Command & Control of Combat Operations, p. 5-2, 1980) and this is where the simulation succeeds. But at corps level and above, the commander's role is more diffuse and broad. Personally, this reviewer would have liked to see an option which would have allowed the user to simply circle the combat assets and have the staff assistant (a la HARPOON) report on whether it was an effective tailoring usage, given divisional integrity (cf. below), area of operations and unit boundary lines. The sheer innovativeness and gameplay of PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN established certain criterion as mandatory design concepts in any simulation of the Smolensk Campaign. The main three concepts were overruns (having become a de facto standard of game design), untried unit strengths, and divisional integrity bonuses. The latter two are not included in SMOLENSK '41 because of the smaller scale. Yet, the actual brittle formations of the Red Army contributed to its operational employment; the tactical scale herein does not reflect its special characteristics. Similarly, divisional integrity would be harder to model in a tactical scale, but it should have been done so in order to assuage the old-line grognards. The actual employment of the "Panzers and Landsers" is based on a model of movement and not doctrine; similarly, Russian doctrine is opaque within the game system. Given the time period (early Barbarossa), one would expect Soviet formations to melt away from the fast-moving Panzers. But those familiar with history would know that isolated armor units are extremely vulnerable to counterattack and that the Pzkw IVs and Tigers are dreams of the future. German armor should always be employed as part of a combined arms offensive -- except when it is required to act alone. And this is the Axis conundrum: the Panzers are insufficient to win the battle, but their speed forces them to outstretch their infantry support. Combined arms should be utilized to maximize results. Generally, the Axis is on the offensive, with the Soviets only having the capability to mount limited spoiling attacks. While Soviet infantry is plentiful, its endurance in combat is limited. But even German infantry units cannot sustain prolonged combat operations. The key to victory is realizing when units need to be withdrawn for refitting purposes and when such considerations must yield to the goals of victory. Artillery, with its multi-hex range, should be used to disrupt enemy formations. While artillery is a capable killer of "soft" targets, its effects against armor are more limited. However, this does not mean that it can be ignored; proper utilization of battery and counterbattery fire are just as important as front line maneuver. Artillery is the "queen of battle" and it can often be decisive if properly employed. However, most wargamers are not adept at maximizing artillery usage. Careful planning and analysis should be expended in order to get the most out of one's artillery. Remember, Napoleon was an artillery officer. Whether it be Scuds, 155s or 88s, those on the receiving side of a barrage know that there is nothing that they can do except endure. So make sure that the enemy is generally on the receiving side. Soviet artillery is not as effective as its German counterpart, but it often begins with the advantage of having been sited in place; so the Germans must disrupt Soviet artillery early, while the Soviets attempt to maximize damage before becoming combat ineffective. Reconnaissance elements are composed of both air and ground elements. While they are fast and mobile, they are vulnerable to enemy fire. Historically, such elements were adept at determining enemy positions without entering their kill zones. In game terms, their use is more of a "fire and forget" type of weapon, and too often there is a gaming tendency to simply "redo" the turn when surprises occur. Air support is less effective than one would think, and the additional time required to utilize it often seems wasted given the results. Headquarters units assist in logistics and reconstitution (reduction of fatigue). However, divisional and corps missions are not within the scope of the design. For an "operational" game, this is a major omission. There is a scenario and a unit editor, but unfortunately no map editor. Thus, one can adjust units and scenarios, but the geographic milieu is fixed. Of course, if one tires of Smolensk, one can simply design the "Destruction of Army Group Center" in 1944. This feature will generally be more "oohed and ahhed" than used; designing scenarios is a difficult task (at least if a challenging and accurate end result is to be achieved). The truly dedicated grognards will be placing their scenarios on the Web and that is the best place to find additional challenges. PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION SMOLENSK '41 provides a detailed simulation of tactical maneuver. For the professional military officer, the game's details and breadth offer an interesting staff study of a historical situation. But this is offset by the game's failure to accurately reflect a proper sense of command control. Military experience shows that a commander is concerned with a "two elements down" conceptualization; thus, an Army Group Commander would be concerned with corps and divisions; anything below that would be beyond his interest level (a "forest versus trees" concept). And this is the basic problem with SMOLENSK: at the regimental/battalion level, one would be hard pressed to deal with more than two divisions. Now, several shorter scenarios are within the scope of this "span of control", and they offer a fine learning tool. However, the longer scenarios (including the 170-turn campaign) are simply unmanageable in terms of proper training and command control. The expansion set (available at no cost from the web site, infra) consists of ten additional scenarios -- all of which emphasize the tactical nature of the simulation. The scenarios range in duration from 10-22 turns, and are generally less than 1,000 square kilometers. Thus, they are ideal for tactical maneuver of a subset of the Smolensk battlefield. American commanders in Vietnam were criticized for taking control of units below their command level of interest (e.g., the brigade commander directing platoons from his command chopper). SMOLENSK offers the same attractive but wrong ability in the campaign. Utilizing small scenarios, one may well recognize the problems of the divisional commander; utilizing the campaign, one cannot properly recognize the problems facing the army group commander. The following UNIFORM JOINT TASK LIST items are supported, although the operational elements are simply accomplished by "piling on" of the tactical elements:
Table 1 Uniform
Joint Task List Supported Items
RATING: Rating this simulation provides a challenge for this reviewer. He considers both designers as personal friends and feels some reluctance to sharpen knives upon their abdomens. However, having said that, there is still the duty to be impartial as a reviewer. Normally, ratings are given separately in regard to grognards and the general gaming public. In the case of SMOLENSK '41, that dichotomy is insufficient: General Gaming Public: let's be candid -- the general gamer thinks of Smolensk as some type of herring. Overall, the subject matter, depth of involvement, intensity and duration would yield a rating of **. But such a rating is misleading, since HPS does not market to the general gaming public. None of its games are sold in retail stores, and aside from direct mail sales, only CHIPS & BITS carries its products. Thus, its objective sales are probably in the 10-15,000 range (with actual sales probably running 3-8,000) Grognard: Here is where the problem arises. The micro-manager grognard will enjoy this tremendously. Having the responsibility for an entire campaign with the ability to order units as low as battalions and regiments will prove satisfying -- ****+ But to the user more interested in realistic levels of command & control, the game offers too much involvement in tactical detail and insufficient attention to proper military command. Therefore, while the smaller scenarios offer a rating of ****, the larger and more cumbersome scenarios (ostensibly the raison d'etre for the design) yield an overall rating of ***. Perhaps the best summary is that this oeuvre may be described as "PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN on a battalion scale"; veteran gamers will know what this entails and can decide for themselves as to its intrinsic merits.
Barnett, Correlli, ed., Hitler's Generals, Quill Press,
1989. {pp. 431-463, for a short biography of Guderian}; HPS: Publisher of SMOLENSK '41. (BE SURE TO DOWNLOAD THE LATEST PATCH AND THE NEW FREE EXPANSIONS) cdmag.com: Check out the "forums" for an on-going discussion exceeding 650 messages. consimworld.com: Check out the "forum" for an on-going discussion exceeding 150 messages. BIOGRAPHY OF REVIEWER: M. Evan Brooks
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © 1998 - 2008 StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. |
