At War with the Evil Empire, Part II

The storm front: Pact positions on the eve of invasion

There are a number of ‘special’ attacks that can be made, either before or during the Ground Combat phase for each side.  Close Air Support (CAS) can be used, with the number of units determined by die roll and Turn number, and modified by Weather variables.  Artillery barrages can be called by the Pact player, either as its own attack or in conjunction with a ground assault---but there must be sufficient ammunition, and the supply is finite.  The use of special, high-tech munitions by NATO against mass Pact formations fall under the abstraction of Assault Breaker attacks; they, too, are of limited supply, and become less numerous as time goes on.  NATO also has the option of assaults by Attack Helicopter battalions, which have the key strength of being able to assault a single division while it is in a stacked formation; unfortunately, AH units can be savaged and Disrupted by divisional AA, and can (unlike CAS units) be destroyed.

 

After all of the “special” attacks like possible CAS, Attack Helicopter, Artillery Barrages, Assault Breakers, and possibly Chemical/Nuclear, it still comes down to armor and ground-pounders shooting at each other.  An attack against a ground unit takes into account relative Attack/Defense Factors, terrain, external support (CAS, Artillery, etc.), and previous levels of Disruption, if any.   All of these are then combined to determine the Odds between the two forces, then rolling for results on a table, both for the Attacker’s assault and for the Defender’s counter-attack.  I have always liked and preferred the “simultaneous damage” approach, and it works well in RS. 

Victory for either side is determined by a point system.  For the Warsaw Pact, points are accrued by taking and holding West German population centers, each of which has a specific point value.  For both sides, points are accrued by the number of enemy units eliminated.  So, NATO achieves victory by minimizing the number of points accrued by the Pact, either by successful defense or retaking of urban centers, or by eliminating enough Pact units to put a dent into the Pact’s score when the results are tallied. 

The weakest area in gameplay is Air Warfare.  There is an optional Air Superiority system which relies more on luck than technology and other factors, and which is also somewhat clunky to use.  It is the least attractive part of the game mechanics, in my opinion, and it skews the game in that air superiority and CAS were primary to NATO defensive strategy, and would be tilted in NATO’s favor.  This is one area when Hemphill’s apparent desire to avoid a lot of “chrome” actually shortchanges the game.  For the purposes of my game, I chose to use CAS only, ignoring the optional rule. 

One optional rule that makes life harder for the NATO player is the French Intervention Rule (17.0).   In essence, France holds its units back and avoids involvement until Turn 3, when France examines the current strategic situation and decides whether or not it will support NATO, and to what degree if the answer is positive.  While the fickle nature of the French is well-known, and de Gaulle’s withdrawal of French military forces from NATO is equally well-known, the Intervention Rule was based upon incomplete knowledge on the designer’s part; we now know that France had signed classified agreements with the US to honor its military commitments to NATO in the event of war with the Pact.  While an interesting “what if” and, in its way, darkly humorous, it is not historically accurate. 

On the whole, the game is solid.  There are, however, several major weaknesses which can affect gameplay and which (to me) hurt the game’s authenticity.  It’s not a bad game to play, and it moves with speed since chrome is kept to a minimum, but I usually prefer a bit more detail and complexity in my games.