Battle Report:
WARSAW
PACT
F&M's Battle Reports are 'first impression' game reviews intended to
assist our readers through the bewildering maze of titles in the
burgeoning wargame market. The emphasis of these reviews is on
how well the game in question plays, its feel and flow, with
additional comments on physical quality, historical accuracy, and
special design features. We hope these Battle Reports will serve as a
useful source of consumer information and calll attention to games
of interest which might otherwise have been overlooked.
by Mark Saha and Rodger MacGowan
WARSAW PACT
Designer: Stephen V. Cole
Publisher: JagdPanther Publications
P.O. Box 3565
Amarillo, Texas 79106
SPI's simulations of NATO/Warsaw Pact conflicts are generally
slanted to reflect Jim Dunnigan's belief that despite numerical
inferiority, NATO enjoys massive superiority in both 'software'
(trained manpower and tactical doctrine) and tactical hardware.
`Software',
oftware', especially, is felt by many to be NATO's decisive edge.
The generally lower levels of education and hence intelligence in the
Soviet army has forced upon that army some rigid tactical doctrines.
A front line Russian soldier has little or no authority to act upon his
own judgement; he cannot abandon what he feels is a hopeless task
nor can he, on his own initiative, grab at those fleeting moments of
golden opportunity that occur briefly in the heat of battle. The
consequences of these rigid tactical doctrines were demonstrated to
the world when Soviet-trained
trained Syrian troops tried to use them
against the Israelis on the Golan Heights in 1973. (Jim Dunnigan
also likes to talk about the Soviet unit that simply leaped out of
supply during the invasion
asion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.) While there
is evidence that the Russians are rethinking their tactical doctrine on
the basis of these experiences (Cf., Stephen Patrick's U.S. and the
Soviet Small Unit Tactics, Strategy & Tactics #56; also, the
booklet Modern Combat by Irad B. Hardy, Stephen B. Patrick, and
Frederick Georgian which comes with SPI's FIREFIGHT game),
as long as the average Russian soldier in the field remains
technologically unsophisticated it appears that little real change can
be accomplished.
ished. New doctrines are not hard to come by; the
problems arise when the men in the field try to implement these new
doctrines.
JP's WARSAW PACT is a game that gives (for the first time) a look
at the 'other side' of the hill. Designer Stephen Cole writes in his
introduction, 'The game is unique and unusual in that it is
intentionally designed with the published Soviet concepts and
doctrine as its basis....the game follows more the Soviet theory of
what the actual war will be like than it does the Western theory.' At
the same time, 'There is no intention to make any political statement
or judgement of the forces involved.'
GAME EQUIPMENT:
The physical components of JP's games continue to be their
weakest point (although I understand some changes are in the
t
works); they are adequate at best, perhaps average for a semiprofessional product, but buyers should not expect quality
competitive with AH, SPI, and GDW. The 28 x 17 inch map covers
roughly the same area of central Europe as SPI's NATO and
REVOLT IN THE EAST. The JP map, however, is much more
elongated in a Northwest to Southeast direction to include northern
Italy and Turkey to the Dardanelles and Bosperus. It is superior to
SPI's choice of terrain in that it covers the strategic flanks as well as
the center of the conflict; the Bosperus straits, particularly, are
crucial in one 'Sudden Death' scenario.
The three-color
color (black, white, and blue) mapsheet is dominated by
black-and-white,
white, which obscures the complex political boudaries of
eastern Europe (which are crucial during play). Anything can be clear
when you look directly at it but in operational terms the 'big picture'
is not always clear at a glance. Blue borders can be confused with
rivers, black borders lost in mountains;
moun
black mountains confused
with cities, etc. The problem is not fatal, but it does put an added
burden on the players.
The game also uses SPI's copyrighted, numbered, hex-grid
hex
system
although the WARSAW PACT map credits this to GDW (Cf.,
Another Note From The Consigular in Outgoing Mail, Strategy
& Tactics # 58, page 34).
Jp's unit counters are also less than convenient, in that they are a
bit thinner than most players are accustomed to using. It would
also have been nice if the individual counters had been numbered
for Play-by-Mail purposes.
GAME SCALE:
Each hex represents approximately twenty
twenty-five miles or forty kilometers.
Each turn represents approximately five days.
SCENARIOS:
The eight-page
page rules booklet (81/2 x 11 inch) is readable, clear, and
fairly complete. Cole's style of explaining the design intention of a rule
when necessary is most helpful in learning and remembering, and is
interesting reading. The lack of a numbering system or index, however,
is most inconvenient. Players are advised to read the rules with a red felt
pen in hand, underlining out-of-the-way
way items (Avoiding the, 'Now,
where did I read that rule?' syndrome during play).
A few other simple steps also greatly improve playability. For example,
the rules give the hex grid locations of lines along which British and U.S.
may arrive. We suggest you use a pencil and ruler to draw and label such
reinforcement lines before play. You may also wish to type out the
Soviet Supply/Distance chart on an index card, as it will be in constant
use.
WARSAW PACT:
The basic game mechanics of WARSAW PACT are fairly standard. In
fact, it's hard to escape the impression that SPI laid the fundamental
groundwork with NATO and REVOLT IN THE EAST; and that
the latter game, especially along with the SPI Modern Battles system,
served as prototypes. I'm speaking here of influence, not plagiarism.
The game clearly evolves from this game 'family'.
Nonetheless, Steve Cole has built a simple, but effective system of
startling originality on that foundation. Thus, as in SPI's Quad system,
Zones of Control are rigid and combat mandatory. You cannot
withdraw from an enemy ZOC except as a result of combat. However,
Steve Cole allows units to stack, which adds considerable local tactical
flexibility to the system. Also, to simulate rigid Soviet doctrine, a Soviet
unit that has made a successful attack must advance and occupy the hex
vacated by the defender. There is no choice. This rule is critical because
the game has a second movement phase after combat; too often, Soviet
units cannot take advantage of it because advance-after-combat
advance
has
pinned them in a new ZOC.
But the most remarkable aspect of this game system is the supply rules,
especially as they apply to the Soviets. Russian units must be able to
trace a supply line off the eastern map edge. But what is even more
important, the Soviet player has a sort of Supply point 'bank account',
which is perhaps the most realistic and yet playable operational supply
system yet devised. Lett us suppose, for example, that the Soviet has 100
supply points in his bank. Everything his combat units do consumes
supply to some extent. Even if his units do nothing, he must expend
one supply point per unit, per turn — or the unit is inverted and
becomes a `Battlegroup' (depleted). While a Battlegroup is easily 'rebuilt'
by being resupplied with Supply Points, it makes for a weak defense.
Still another drain upon supply is the distance a Soviet unit has
advanced from the Warsaw Pact border into central Europe; a simple
chart is provided to show supply cost in relation to a unit's distance
from the 'East-West
West Border'. All these supply costs are totalled at the
beginning of a turn and subtracted from the Soviet supply bank.
Finally, perhaps most important, is the fact that Soviets can expend
supply to double, triple, and even quadruple the combat strength of
attacking units. Of course, doing so also increases supply consumption
dramatically. Thus, supply is both a help and a hindrance...how he will
use it can make or break the Soviet's game plan....
The scenarios are set in three time periods (1967, 1974, and 1981) with
minor changes in the OB for each. There are various `environmental
options' — these include a Hasty Attack (units are mobilized during the
game); Surprise Attack (mobilization precedes hostilities); Limited War
(involving an attack on Turkey only); and a Yugoslavian Civil War. In
deciding on a scenario you first select a time period, then you select an
environment.
All scenarios, except the Limited War scenario, use a single set of victory
conditions. At the end of the scenarios the Warsaw Pact Player totals the
number of cities that he has captured. This includes only cities in NATO
countries, Austria, Switzerland, Albania, (and if it has revolted and joined
NATO) Yugoslavia. The Warsaw Pact Player then subtracts the total
number of cities that have revolted and not been reoccupied plus those he
has lost. The net number of cities captured is then adjusted for the military
posture of the belligerents. The resulting number determines the level of
victory.
There are five scenarios which cover different types of environments. The
Hasty Attack or Unexpected War: In this scenario, war has 'broken out'
suddenly without a slow build-up
build of tensions. Mobilization is not declared
until after the Warsaw Pact crosses the border. The Surprise Attack: The
Russians have been on maneuvers in East Germany at the time an
`unexpected war' occurs. The Deliberate Attack: In this scenario some
situation has developed which is sufficient to trigger mobilization but not
war, at least at first. When war does break out, the forces are in some state
of mobilization. Limited War: This scenario is covered in detail in the
following After Action Report. The Yugoslavian Civil War: Tito has died
and a Civil War is raging inside Yugoslavia between Soviet-sponsored
groups and Yugoslav Nationalists.
AFTER ACTION REPORT:
The Limited War. This fascinating scenario assumes the Arabs and
Israelis have gone to war again. Russia has opted to reinforce the Arabs, but
the situation is apparently so critical that Soviet and Bulgarian forces decide
to seize Istanbul (and hence the straits) in a swift ground action. If they
succeed within three turns, the game ends and Russia wins. If they fail, on
Turn Three the game reverts to a developing situation and NATO can
automatically counterattack in central Europe. Also, if at the beginning of
Turn Three, the Russian sees he probably won't take Istanbul, he can take
the initiative and attack in central Europe.
Warsaw Pact: Mark Saha NATO: Rodger MacGowan
Turn 1:
WP: Bulgarian forces, reinforced by Soviet army groups, drive
south and slam into the Turkish border guard. The Soviet,
determined to blitz his way to quick victory, quadruples the
attack strength of his units, which guarantees obliterating the Turks, but also
burns up supply at a fierce rate.
NATO: The Soviet has made a grave blunder. Greek units are available,
believe it or not, to assist the Turks in this game! The Greeks drive into
Sofia on the first NATO move; the attack eliminates Sofia's intrinsic city
defense factor, and Greek/NATO
TO combat units are in the capitol! A quick
die roll on the Revolt table reveals that — unless Sofia is retaken by WP this
turn — Bulgaria
aria will go Neutral! That, in turn, will mean the Russians cannot
trace a supply route through Bulgaria to Turkey, and then Ivan's number will
be up!
Turn 2
WP: Every WP unit — Soviet or Bulgarian — that can reach Sofia, swings
north for the counterattack! Meanwhile, Soviet units that cannot reach Sofia,
and newly arriving Soviet reinforcements, continue to press the attack on the
Turks. Once again, due to this dispersed effort, the Soviet player chooses to
quadruple the attack factors of most units and burn even more supply. The
lengthening supply lines are also burning Soviet supply points.
Results: Sofia is retaken by the Soviets! Also, another shattering attack in the
south hits the Turkish army! But the danger to Sofia is not over. The NATO
player takes advantage of the rigidity of Soviet doctrine, which — both
players now realize — is truly, beautifully simulated in this game. Soviet
`game' doctrine states that whenever a Russian unit eliminates/retreats
elimi
a
NATO unit, the Russian must advance and occupy the hex. Therefore, the
Turks have very cleverly placed a weak unit in the front line, and a second
unit behind it. Thus, the Soviet opening attacks were 'forced' (i.e., Soviet units
began in enemy Zones of Control); but when the Soviet attack eliminated the
defender, the Soviet unit was also forced to advance, entering a second
Zone of Control! Thus, Soviet units in Turkey are still pinned there and
cannot move during their second movement phase.
se. They cannot redeploy to
Sofia!
NATO: U.S. Marine and Parachute units arrive in Turkey to reinforce the
few remaining Turks. The Greeks counterattack again at Sofia. An Exchange
wipes out the fragile Greek attackers, leaving nothing to occupy Sofia.
Bulgaria is saved by the die!
TURN 3
WP: The Russian sees he cannot possibly take Istanbul on this turn; and so
— it's war in Europe! The Soviet has gambled too much — burned too
much supply. Therefore, he attacks again in Turkey, while his Sofia forces
drive into Greece. His plan is now to force a Southern-Europe-Ceasefire
Southern
(Soviet player may declare a ceasefire in southern Europe at the end of any
turn in which (1)
1) he has Istanbul, and (2) there are no Greek units outside of
Greece.) The purpose of a Southern Ceasefire being to relieve the Soviet
player of having to supply troops there. Clearly, the Russian realizes he has
been burning supply excessively!
NATO: The NATO player pulls his Greek units back into Greece, away
from the Soviet advance. If Russia wants to put Greece out of the war, Ivan
shall have to pay the price of a long and hence expensive supply line.
TURN 4:
WP: Istanbul falls! The Russians drive deeper
eeper into Greece, expecting to take
Athens next turn.
Meanwhile, on the central front, things are not so easy. The Soviet army is still
superior, but most reinforcements are in Turkey or Greece. The Soviet must
burn extra supply for his Central Europe attacks. NATO is being pushed
back on all fronts, but the rate of Soviet supply consumption is absolutely
fantastic! They couldn't consume it faster if they blew their own supply
dumps!
NATO: The NATO player comes up with a nasty trick:
Obviously,
iously, NATO doesn't want a Southern Europe Ceasefire to
relieve Soviet supply consumption. The only way to prevent it
(sence the WP has Istanbul) is to put a Greek unit outside of Greece this turn.
But where? The Greeks cannot get to Bulgaria or Turkey in face of the Soviet
advance from there; and they dare not invade Yugoslavia, creating a major
Soviet ally. Solution: a Greek unit invades Albania! The Soviet cannot reach
him, and the Southern Front war lingers on still another turn!
TURNS 5 through 8...
Eventually, the Soviet knocked Greece out of the war and declared a
Southern Cease Fire. Soviet units in the south were then redeployed to central
Europe, which now became the war. NATO was giving ground here too,
there was no doubt. But too much time had been lost; the Soviets had burned
far too much supply in the southern debacle; and it was clear the Soviet
advance in central Europe was not taking nearly enough cities (only Munich,
M
Frankfurt, Ruhr, Bonn, Hamburg) to hope to be able to withstand the
eventual NATO counterattack. Then, on Turn 6 (third turn after war in
Europe) China declares war on Russia — and the debacle is complete!
The Russian resigns as he sees his offensive
offensiv making only disappointing
progress and China soaking off his reinforcements.
reinforce
Clearly, it was the supply
debacle that was his undoing. The NATO player, even while on the
defensive, used double defense lines to pin Soviet units that were forced to
advance after combat (thus depriving them of redeployment options during
the second movement phase); and went for the throat in forcing the Russian
to burn as much supply as possible (for example, having the Greeks invade
Albania to prevent a Southern Europe Ceasefire).
Mark Saha's Comments:
WARSAW PACT has a fantastic richness and flavor to it; especially
considering it is basically a 'little' game, without many more components than
SPI's REVOLT IN THE EAST. I'm especially enthralled with the Soviet
supply and rigid doctrine system that screwed me up in this battle. The fact is
that you have to play the game once or twice to develop some sort of sense
of judgement or 'feel': to know how much supply you can really afford to
burn per turn. Of course, I went all out because I wanted a 'Sudden Death'
win; the price of failure was a nightmarish quagmire.
I might add that the very richness of these rules is not without a price. It also
translates into a little bit of 'game dirt'; i.e., special rules for each individual
country, for various units with varying capabilities, etc. The fact the rules
aren't ideally organized for information retrieval and the physical components
frustrating at times add up to make WARSAW PACT something of a
'special interest' game. Steve Cole puts a lot more military flavor into his work
than SPI does in the Modern Battles system. But he puts it there at a price. If
you're interested in this period and area — and intend to play this game more
than once — it's a bargain at $5.00. My only regret is that it isn't available on
the physical quality and rules organization level of SPI's simulations.
Rodger MacGowan's Comments:
I enjoyed seeing Mark's frustration in this contest, but I make no special
claims for brilliance; the fact is, there's little else a NATO player can do in the
opening turns of this scenario. When you have only five or six units to move
(in the south), you tend to think much harder about what you want to do
with them than if you had a hundred. It was also interesting to pursue an
`abstract' strategy — forcing the Soviet to burn supply at an excessive rate. I
call the strategy abstract, because you really couldn't see any results until much
later in the game.
Although I like this game, I feel some players could find it frustrating and
slow during those turns when the Soviet offensive is slowing down and the
NATO counteroffensive has not yet geared up. I say this only because a
number of gamers felt that SPI's YEAR OF THE RAT also 'tended to bog
down in mid-game'.
game'. They didn't seem to realize that it was inherent to the
game that the VC drive eventually bogs down, followed by a SVN
counteroffensive. The same thing happens here. Both games, however, start
with a bang.• •