Palambang or Palam "dud"? AAM session

Things were already pretty grim for the Japanese by this point on Turn 3.

Every so often you just have an off day and turn in an especially awful performance. You're not really an idiot -- or so you tell yourself.

Played the offciial Axis & Allies Miniatures scenario DI-1, Hell Furnaces of Sumatra, set in Palambang, Sumatra on Feb. 14, 1942. My redoubtable opponent was Game Store Tony.

Can't say I had a good plan, the dice were not in the mood to save me from having a bad plan and Tony's not the sort of player who's going to blunder and have a really bad plan himself to salvage your bad plan.

Unlike many of the AAM sceanrios, there's no need to revise the OB in any way to account for the later sets. AAM never got around to the Dutch, so the British proxies will have to remain and the Japanese troops are all basic units.

The scenario opens with a Dutch force of two machine gun teams and three rifle squads defending a 5-hex refinery with an engineer squad busy trying to set demo charges.

The Japanese start with one machine gun team, a mortar team, two Imperial Sergeant leaders and seven squads of SNLF paratroopers. One leader and two squads can start on the same map as the refinery defenders while the rest of the force starts on an adjacent map.

On the fourth turn a couple of squads of jeep-mounted reinforcements arrive for the Dutch from the North.

Well, my thoughts were to rush the defenders with about half the SNLF force, supported by the mortar and machine gun teams while a few squads tried to bushwack the reinforcements. Did I mention I had a bad plan?

Well, the plan started to unravel right from the first as I proceeded to lose the initiative and and Dutch began mowing down nearby paratroopers, including the ill-deployed mortar squad. before long the Japanese were on the ropes and were unable to even successfully ambush the reinforcements. Japanese fire was largely ineffective and the only Dutch casualties were one squad that unwisely didn't dismount from its Jeep and were killed when their trasnpoort was destroyed by the Japanese machine gun. That MG team was also the sole survivor of the Japanese force when the game ended on Turn 7 (of 8 possible). The industrious engineers were able to set demo charges for the entire refinery, although they porbably could have saved themeslves the trouble because the refinery was in little danger.

All-in-all a miserable little bit of generalship by your truly. Hopefully I'll recover and make the next fight a bit more competitive!

Session of revised In Harm's Way scenario

Last turn position

The other day I played a session of my revised In Harm's Way WAS-2 scenario.

I took the Allied fleet, as it seems they have the harder task. The Japanese player was a denizen of the game shop who has played War at Sea before, although he is, like most of the game shop crowd, primarily a Magic: The Gathering player.

As we shall see, he handled the Japanese fleet competently.

A couple of solitaire play throughs while I developed the revised scenario revealed that it was a very poor strategy for the Allies to come in with guns a-blazing as it just freed up the Japanese sooner, so my plan with the USS Houston and the HMAS Perth was to ignore the Japanese pickets and make a beeline for the transports. My analysis of the victory conditions indicated that it was vital to take out all three Transports because they represented a 20-point swing each (8VP for being sunk and 12VP the Japanese DIDN'T get for having the undamaged at the end.)

The Allies got a little luck as the Japanese lost two of the Fubuki-class DD's (proxied by Kagero's) due to the set-up die rolls.

The first turn saw the Allied cruisers slip through a gap in the Japanese line without being within range due to the Night Surprise rule. This couldn't continue, of course, and on the second turn the Japanese got close enough to shoot -- but did no damage. A return shot from the Perth crippled one DD while a maximum range shot by the USS Houston sunk a transport outright.

The loss of 2 ships was more than enough to let the Japanese shock wear off and also brought in the reinforcement group as well -- so the time pressure was on the Allies!

The next turn the Allied cruiser split up, with the Houston taking the more shoreward path while the Perth was towards the center of the channel to draw fire. I wanted to have at least 2 shots on the next turn -- which the Houston's secondary would provide.

The Perth was, of course, buried under a deluge of Japanese fire, but it was mostly ineffective as only one point of damage was caused by gunfire. A long Lance from one of the IJN heavies was all it took, though, to dispatch Perth. The Allied fire was able to damage the Natori, sink another transport and damage the third one, though.

The fourth and final turn saw the Houston continue its "death ride" into the transport area. As it turned out, friendly fire from one of the IJN ships took out the last transport! The Houston, of course, stood little chance of surviving under the IJN fire and was sunk. It's return fire took out one DD.

The final score was 28 VP for the Japanese for the two Allied cruisers (14 VP each) while the Allies earned 30 VP (24 VP for three sunk transports, 2VP for the crippled Natori and 4 VPs for the sunk DD).

The Eversten did not make an appearance as I figured it was very unlikely it would do as much damage as the Japanese would earn for sinking her.

So it ended up being a very close-fought contest. The point total for the Allied force on the revised OB is significantly less than the original scenario (30 VP is all three ships are used instead of 41 VP). The Japanese force is also somewhat reduced in point value but only the cruisers are worth their full VP value for the Allies if sunk. In the original scenario the Allies really have to sink the Natori as well as the three transports while in the revised scenario the transports are enough so long as some damage is also done to the CL/DD covering force.

Revised 6-set OB for WAS-2 In Harm's Way scenario

Continuing the updates for original War at Sea scenarios now that we have 6 sets to choose from, here is a revised OB for WAS-2 In Harm's Way about the Battle of Sunda Strait:

Revised 6-set OB for WAS-2 In Harm’s Way scenario

Allied Task Force

USS Houston CA
HMAS Sydney CL (HMAS Perth)
Witte de With DD (Evertsen)

Japanese Transport Force

Kinai Maru x 3
Jintsu CL (Natori)
Yukikaze DD x1 (Hatakaze)
Muresame DD x3 (Fubuki, Hatsuyuki, Shirayuki)
Nagatsuki DD x 1 (Asakaze) (card’s SA do not apply – no Long Lance, Tokyo Express)

Japanese Escort Force

Mogami CA x 1
Suzuya CA x 1 (Mikuma)
Shigure DD x 1 (Shikinami)

Discussion

The official scenarios were published when War at Sea was brand new, as part of the marketing effort, Being so early, they required a crazy amount of proxies and some pretty extreme ones as well. This second official scenario, like most, had to use proxies for most of the units. With five more sets many of the gaps can be filled, but some proxies are still needed.

I thought it would be interesting to revisit and revise those scenarios now that we have six sets worth of units to choose from In the case of scenario WAS-2, The Battle of Sunda Strait, we see some of the key units from the historical battle now appearing as themselves, including the USS Houston and the Mogami.

Notes and rationales
Allied task force
USS Houston CA – we now have the actual ship, so it is used. The special rule doesn’t apply because the Houston doesn’t have extended range anyway. I considered reducing the Houston’s firepower because of its damaged third turret, but the Allies already have a challenging situation. Optionally reduce the Houston’s main battery firepower by 1 die.
HMAS Sydney CL –stands in for sister Perth.
Witt de With DD – stands in for near sister Evertsen.

Japanese Transport Force
Kinai Maru x 3 – no change
Jintsu CL – No change, proxy for similar Natori
Yukikaze DD x 1 – Stands in for sister Hatakaze.
Muresame DD x 3 – One of the biggest gaps in the War at Sea line is the Fubuki class destroyer. The later Kagero-class is the closest proxy. Stands in for Fubuki, Hatsuyuki and Shirayuki.
Nagatsuki DD x 1 – This stands in for the older Asakaze, which was a pre-Long Lance design, so it doesn’t get the special ability
Japanese Escort Force
Mogami CA x 1 – the actual ship is available, so it is used.
Suzuya CA x 1 – Stands in for sister ship Mikuma.
Shigure DD x 1 – Another Kagero stands in for the Fubuki-class Shikinami.

Original scenario: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah2007121707
_________________

This looks promising

Mongoose Publishing reports on a reboot of its Victory at Sea naval miniatures rules, possibly for later this year. this looks to be a much bigger book than the original set.

The tentative index includes:

Basic Rules
Introduction
The Turn
The Movement Phase
The Attack Phase
The End Phase
Special Actions
Special Traits

So far, so familiar for those who are currently playing the existing edition, though there are already many, many differences between the basic rules fo the two games. For example, Critical Hits are now mainly progressive, as in A Call to Arms: Star Fleet and Noble Armada, but they also have the ‘sudden death’ potential as well, allowing for rudders to be knocked askew on an otherwise relatively undamaged ship, or to allow for the ‘Hood effect.’

Advanced Rules
Advanced Rules: This is a catch-all chapter for all the advanced stuff that does not deserve its own chapter – things such as bad weather, radar, evading torpedoes, and so forth.
Aircraft: Born again hard in this edition, along with rules for (possibly) keeping carriers away from the front line in a ‘deep deployment’ rule. ‘Aircraft only’ forces will be permitted, allowing you to play out the likes of Taranto and Pearl Harbour.
Coastal Forces: PT Boats and the like will this time be fully integrated into the main rules, and will include harbours and coastal defences.
Submersibles: No longer allowed within the ‘core’ fleet engagements, games involving submersibles will form their own scenarios as they harry convoys and ambush forces steaming towards a battle over the horizon.

Battles at Sea: This is the ‘scenario’ section of the book.
Scenarios: A primer on how to read and use the subsequent scenarios.
Victory at Sea: This is the ‘default’ and perhaps tournament scenario for the game, but it is now much more than just ‘basic deployment, set up your fleet and go!’ You may now have to contend with bad weather and night-fights, and there is now a scouting phase before the battle where you can detach aircraft and ships to watch for the approach of the enemy. Effective scouting will allow you to have a more advanced deployment area, to ‘deep deploy’ your carriers, and also gain benefits such as initiative bonuses.
Tactical Challenges: General/generic scenarios that will allow you to use any fleet in a variety of tactical situations, both based on real engagements and hypothetical confrontations of your own devising.
Battle of the River Plate: The first of the historical scenarios. Each of these is treated with an in-depth commentary on how the battle came about and how it was fought, before presenting you with the relevant forces and any special scenario rules. Think you can defeat the Royal Navy in this engagement? Think you can sink the Graf Spee before it reaches port (difficult!)? This is your chance to prove it!
Battle of Calabria
Attack on Taranto
Battle of Matapan
The German Battleships at War: A medley of battles, charting the history of the great German battleships of the war, and each of their major engagements, from the Attack on the Northern Patrol (the Allied player must try to survive for as long as possible with the HMS Rawalpindi) to the death of the Bismarck.

Though we have concentrated on the Atlantic and Mediterranean up to now, we will also have plenty of battles from other theatres (just starting work on Pearl Harbour right now!), allowing you to wage the war across the oceans during any period.

The War at Sea: This section looks at the history of the war in naval terms, what factors affected the fighting, how technology came into play, and so forth. The following lists what we have done thus far, but there is much, much more to come.
The Washington Treaty
Ruling the Waves: The Royal Navy: We have done a chapter on every major fleet that took part in the war, looking at their tactics and philosophies, and the obstacles they struggled to over come. There is also, for want of a better term, a ‘card file index’ in each chapter, detailing the statistics and history of what we are hoping will become every military ship that floated during the war, along with some ‘hypotheticals’ (such as the N3).
Commerce Raiders: The Kreigsmarine
A New Empire: The Regia Marina
The Sleeping Giant: The US Navy
Banzai: The Imperial Japanese Navy: Yes, we really need a better title than that!
Fight for Freedom: The Marine Nationale
What Might Have been: The Military Maritime Fleet of the USSR
A Thankless Task: Civilian Shipping
Where Were the French?
War in the Mediterranean
The Atlantic Convoys
The Submarine War
Carrier Operations

Fleet Lists
The Royal Navy
The Kreigsmarine
The Regia Marina
The US Navy
The Imperial Japanese Navy
The Marine Nationale
The Military Maritime Fleet of the USSR
Civilian Shipping

Appendices
The Royal Navy Order of Battle
The Kreigsmarine Order of Battle
The Regia Marina Order of Battle
The US Navy Order of Battle
The Imperial Japanese Navy Order of Battle
The Marine Nationale Order of Battle
The Military Maritime Fleet of the USSR Order of Battle
Historical Carrier Complements

Some thoughts on war with Iran illuminated by Persian Incursion

War talk is in the air again, in the wake of a New York Times article this weekend suggesting that Israel may have already decided on making a strike by April.

There's a lot of speculation in the article and on the Internet about whether Israel could pull it off, and the headline of the article even suggests it might be difficult to do.

"Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets"

It says.

Right.

As it turns out, of course, this question has been exhaustively examined in the Clash of Arms wargame Persian Incursion. I had hoped to write up a detailed review and session report based on an online game I had been playing, but real-life interruptions broke up the pace and its unclear whether it will get finished soon or ever. But I did play enough of it to get a good appreciation of the game's ability to address the question: Can Israel do it?

Let me address right off the protest: "But it's only a game!" True, but many experts familiar with both classified military wargames and civilian wargames have said that the military games have little or no advantages in accuracy over thoroughly researched open-source commercial games.

First off, it's important to note that Persian Incursion is really two games in one. The first is a political-diplomatic card game that can be played concurrently or prior to the military game and examines the complex interplay of politics, diplomacy, media, public opinion and other "soft" factors tat are critically important but hard to quantify. This portion of the game is highly subjective and not coincidentally provides the Iranian player with his best chance for successes. This is defensible from areal-world standpoint and, just as importantly, allows the game designer to create a competitive game experience for the Iranian side.

And the hard-data driven military game, which is basically a streamlined version of Larry Bond's super-detailed Harpoon4 game system, shows how necessary this card game option is because the Iranians, plainly have absolutely no chance militarily. Oh, sure, a lucky shot here or there may shoot down an Israeli jet or two or land an occasional missile in a Tel Aviv city block, with the consequent propaganda 'victory' for Iran, but the Iranians have no ability to impede the Israeli raiders in any significant military sense. Whatever the Israelis decide to destroy will be destroyed. The Israeli challenge is almost purely a technical and logistic one caused by the extreme distance and some limited resources. As such, however, it's also one that thorough planning by a highly professional military such as Israel's can be expected to overcome.

What the Israelis won't have to deal with is much of the way of unpredictably effective defensive action by the Iranian military. Their available aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles are several generations behind the Israeli attackers and, for the most part, will likely be completely neutralized. As I said, one can't completely discount a lucky shot, so there's some small risk for an unpleasant (for the Israeli side) incident or two, but losses will be minimal and damage extensive.

For the purposes of making the game competitive and challenging for the players, the game demands that the Israelis completely destroy their targets in order to get full credit towards winning the war. But in reality, all the Israelis have to do is destroy certain critical components of the targeted facilities -- whether nuclear or oil -- to accomplish their aim of delaying Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. It's clear that they should have little trouble doing that.

In the final analysis, Bond's game suggests strongly that the military success of an Israeli strike is about as sure thing as you're likely to see in the annals of warfare. What the game does not -- and cannot -- answer is whether such a strike would be a political and diplomatic success or a disaster. The card game, however, does imply that's where the biggest danger for the Israelis and, by extension, the US lies.

Session report for Revised War at Sea WAS-1 scenario

The peak of the action. Map and most of the markers are from Gale Force Nine, while the two red crosses are Litko markers showing that the ship's once-per-game special ability has been used.


Following up on this post, here's a resent session played at Arkham Asylum in Norwich CT. We had four players, so each player took one of the four task forces.

The pre-game die rolls were tough on bost side' destroyer forces. Iachino rolled a '5' and therefore had just two DD's while Campioni rolled a '6' and had just a single DD! The British hardly rolled better, rolling a five and therefore they were down three destroyers!

On the other hand, both sides were pretty fortunate with their reinforcement rolls. The British heavy ships showed up on Turn 3 while the Italian reinforcements arrived on turns 3 and 4. The Swordfish also made frequent appearances, missing just one or two possible turns. The Ark Royal must have been stationed just off the map edge.

The revised scenario seems a little tough for the British to me (as did the original version) but two solitiare playings did result in one British victpory on points, so it hardly seemed hopeless. There are a lot of random variables in the scenario, between destroyer rolls and reinforcement rolls, not to mention the air support rolls. It's also a very large scenario, with four capital ships, 11 cruisers and up to 20 destroyers.

One element that worked against the British was initiative, Despite having only a +1 edge on initiative rolls, the Italians won the initiative all but one time during the game.

Admiral Holland's cruiser force shaded to the north as it advanced, which Iachino's cruisers initially matched. Initial exchanges of fire were fairly even with the Italinas losing a destroyer and the Berwick being crippled and forced to fall back.

Somerville's capital ship/destroyer force soon arrived and started to close, although the Ramillies couldn't seem to make a speed roll (it failed every single one!) an was soon left behind.
Meanwhile Campini's force also arrived on the scene. Taking advantage of their initiative and spped special abilities the Italian cruisers swept south suddenly while the battle line headed straight at the British force. An awful turn of firing saw every single British cruiser miss its shots while the Italians sent two light cruisers t the bottom. This proved to be a major turning point, as it put the Itaians seriously ahead on points. Despite some clever maneuvering and efffective smoke screening by the British destroyers the Italians were able to capitalize on their firepower superiority to continue pounding the British while taking less damage in return.

With the "Limited Opportunity" die roll ending the game on Turn 7 the Italians pulled back to preserve their win. The Renown charged in to boarding range under a hail of Italian fire that left it crippled, but afloat, on the last turn. At point-blank range the Renown clobbered the Guilio Cesare and, with the assist of a DD-fired torpedo, sunk her!

This made the final score somewhat closer than it would have been, with the Italians scoring 112 points and the British 86. The sole survivors on the British side were the cripples Renown, Berwick and a destroyer -- and an unscathed Ramillies. One of the two swordfish also survived.

The Italians were in much better shape. The Vittorio Veneto and two heavy cruisers were undamaged, two cruisers had 1 point of damage and one cruiser was crippled.

While I think the scenario is more challenging for the British, it does appear they have a chance. Bad British luck during the first turn where both cruiser forces were blazing away at each other put them behind the power curve. The British commanders also didn't take advantage of the slight edge they had in reinforcement arrivals to draw the Italian cruisers out of supporting range of the battleships. With the aid of the smoke screening destroyers they could have arranged at least a one-turn firepower advantage. While called light cruisers, the British warships in Holland's task force are comparable in points, firepower and protection to Iachino's cruisers. Holland's task force is worth 63 points, rolls 31 dice at range 3 and all have armor 4 while Iachino's cruisers are worth 85 points, roll a total of 36 dice at range 3 and have armor values of 4 and 5. But add in Renown and the British have another 33 points of ship, with 11 more dice and an armor of 7. It's a fleeting potential edge, however, and in the event the British didn't achieve it.

Overall the revised scenario worked well. It's been suggested that the three Luca Tarigo's in the revised scenario should be replaced with more Ascari's to better reflect the historical OB but in this case so many DDs were removed by the pre-game die rolls that none of the Luca Tarigo's appeared anyway, so it made no difference.

Game ending positions

Revised 6-set OB for WAS-1 Action Deferred scenario

Revised 6-set OB for WAS-1 Action Deferred scenario

Changes Bold

Italian

Admiral Campioni’s Task Force

Vittorio Veneto BB

Guillio Cesare BB

Luca Tarigo DD x3 (Freccia, Saetta, Dardo)

Ascari x 4 (Alpini, Granatiere, Fucilieri, Bersagliere)

Italian must split DD lost by scenario special rule evenly with odd number his choice)

Admiral Iachino’s Task Force

Bolzano CA x1

Gorizia CA x 1

Zara CA x 2 (Fiume & Pola)

Trento CA x 2 (also Trieste)

Ascari DD x1

Camicia Nere DD x6 (Carabiniere, Lanciere, Gioberti, Alfiere, Carducci, Oriani)

First 3 DD lost by scenario rule must be Camicia Nere, after that, Italian choice)

British

Admiral Somerville’s Task Force

HMS Repulse BC x 1 (Renown)

HMS Royal Oak BB x 1 (Ramillies)

St. Laurent DD x 5 (Encounter, Faulkner, Firedrake, Forester, Fury)

Vasilissa Olga DD x 4 ( Gallant, Greyhound, Griffin, Hereward)

All Allied DD have Lay Smoke SA; British must split DD lost by scenario special rule evenly with odd number his choice)

Admiral Hollands’ Task Force

HMS Kent CA x1 (Berwick)

HMS Sheffield CL x 3 (also Southampton & Newcastle)

HMS Belfast CL x 1 (Manchester)

British Carrier Support Group

Swordfish Mk. II x 2 (Special rule applies to both squadrons together, i.e. one shootdown or 12 DR affects both units)

Discussion

The official scenarios were published when War at Sea was brand new, as part of the marketing effort, Being so early, they required a crazy amount of proxie and some pretty extreme ones as well. A good example is this scenario, where, as originally published, the American battleship USS Tennessee stood in for the Guillio Casare! I’m not sure how many of these scenarios got played as written anyway because few people would have had the models required, such as FOUR Bolzanos (a rare) or up to 14 Luca Tarigo’s.

I thought it would be interesting to revisit and revise those scenarios now that we have six sets worth of units to choose from In the case of scenario WAS-1, The Battle of Cape Teulada we go from having just one actual ship and a couple of sister ships with all the rest proxies to having no fewer than seven named ships and all the others either sisters or near-sisters with no proxies required at all.

Notes and rationales

Vitttorio Veneto – no change

Guillio Cesare – we now have the actual ship, so it is used.

Luca Tarigo x 3 –can cut down on the number of Luca Tarigo’s now that we have Soldati-class DDs available.

Ascari x 4 – we substitute Ascarisfor the four Soldati-class DDs in Campioni’s task force

Blozano – We only need one now for the actual ship.

Gorizia – actual ship now available

Zara x2 – Two Zaras are used to represent sister ships Fiume and Pola

Trento x 2 – We have the actualship for the Trento and use another one for sister Trieste

Ascari -- we have the actual ship

Camicia Nere x 6 – I think it’s a bad idea to require inordinate numbers of particular model when sister ships are available. Here we substitute a half-dozen Camicia Nere for the other Soldati-class DD’s present. Due to the scenario special rule you’ll always lose at least one DD from each group, so you actually only need four Ascari and five Camicia Nere models in practice.

HMS Repulse – Substitute for sister ship Renown, and as everybody knows, the model is actually the Renown anyway, so we could consider this as having the Actual Ship.

HMS Royal Oak – Substitute for sister ship Ramillies.

St. Laurent x 5 – C class DD substitutes for near sister of the E and F classes)

Vasilissa Olga x 4 (Greek DD substitutes for near sisters of the G and H classes)

I added the Lay Smoke Screen SA as a special rule to keep an important tactic available to the British side that the Javelin DD’s had made possible.

HMS Kent – Substitute for sister ship Berwick

HMS Sheffield x 3 – One is the actual ship, with the other pair representing sisters Southampton and Newcastle.

HMS Belfast – Substitute for sister ship Manchester

Swordfish Mk. II x 2 – I doubled the number of Swordfish to make up for the increased point differential between the two sides cause by the various substitutions and also because the British carrier Ark Royal was the carrier present, not the Illustrious. Optionally you can add the Ark Royal and one more Swordfish to Admiral Somerville’s Task Force and skip the special rule, although I am not sure this helps the British overall.

1942: The Hinge of Fate

We're a month into 2012, and also a month into the 70th anniversary of 1942, probably the pivotal year of the entire war.

In Winston Churchill's epic 6-volume History of the Second World War, Vol. IV was called "The Hinge of Fate." It's also no coincidence that the classic version of the Axis & Allies war game is set in 1942, the moment when everything seemed to hang in the balance.

It's true that the seeds for ultimate victory and defeat were laid earlier -- but they always are, aren't they? But it';s also true that 1942 represented the point at which things could go either way. On the one hand, if the Axis could build on their 1941 successes in Russia, the U-Boat war, North Africa and the Pacific, ultimate victory was was in sight. On the other hand, if the Allies could stem Axis advances, there was every expectation that eventual victory was assured as their superior economic might came more and more into play.

Bataan, Malaya, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, Gazala, El Alamein, Operation Torch -- the year was full of dramatic developments but by the end of the year the Allies had succeeded in stopping the Axis advances and could start the slow process of rolling them back.

The battles of 1942 are very popular topics for wargames because of their inherent drama and because, I think, so many of the battles were pretty even. I'm going to try to note these as the anniversary dates approach -- and also 1862 for the Civil War 150th and try to get at least some commemorative games played.

Some Thoughts on War at Sea Special Abilities in the post-RB era

With the departure of lead designer Rich Baker from WOTC and the subsequent uncertainty about the future of War at Sea Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures, it's worth considering how fans of the game will cope with various issues related to the game.

One of those is what to do about the various ships that never appeared in the six sets that were published. While custom units have been a popular feature at Axis & Allies Fourmini all along, these were always 'unofficial' and subject to be superceded when the ship finally appeared in official form. The problem now is that there will be no 'official' versions of some ships, but it would be nice to have a consensus among the players on the accepted game stats for some of the ship's likely to appear, epecially given the Shapeways ability to make models compatible with WAS.

Generally the basic stats like speed, hull points and even firepower dice are not too controversial, but special abilities are another matter. They're improtant for giving the game it's flavor, but at the same time they can be highly subjective.

I think the current SA fall into three broad categories.

The first are the ones that are inherent abilities of a ship or weaposn system as will pretty much always appear when the ship's hardware warrants it. Some examples include the Long-Lance Torpedoes SA of most Japanese surface combatants, the Extended Range X SA of most battleships and the Submerged Shot SA for most submarines. These aren't so much "Special" abilities as they are standard abilities that just don't occur often enough to have a spot on every card. Most of these are pretty uncontroversial and if a ship has the hardware it gets the SA.

The second type of SA that is all-about giving a ship a unique flavore based on some unusual event in its history. Examples of this include the Fatal Flaw SA for HMS Hood, the Embark B-25 SA of the USS Hornet or the Inspiring Example SA of the USS Arizona and Giogios Averof. Often these SA aren't even much of an advantage and they are always highly subjective and often controversial. In my opinion these sorts of SA should probably be avoided in the future without RB's explicit endorsement. I think they'd likely be contentious when ap[lied, which defeats the purpose of having widely accepted semi-offfiical stats for new models.

The third type is, by far, the largest, and these are historically justified SA that are selectively applied to certain units -- generally for game balance and interest -- but are by no means exclusive to those units. A good example of this is the Lay Smoke Screen SA, which every destroyer is the game could legitimately have, but is limited to certain units. Other examples include Sub Hunter, Radar Fire Control and the various Expert plane SA that many aircraft carriers have. Most of the game's current SA fall into this group and it would be interesting to see where opinions fall on how often to include these for new models and if there are any criteria that should be applied.

The future of D&D and RPGs

And interesting article from an insider explaining why the RPG business is in trouble and some thoughts about where it may go from here.

Mussolini as Schrödinger's cat

The Storch lands next to the hotel in preparation for evacuating Mussolini (represented by the German Victory Medal) under the protection of Otto Skorzeny (represented by the Green Battle Star counter). The landing site is well-guarded by German paratroopers, but note that each unit has lost a figure. At upper left is a unit of Italians (here depicted using Russian figures) trying to stop the evacuation.

Was he alive, or was he dead? It all depended upon when you looked, Thursday as Game Store Tony and I took a short break from our Russian Campaign to play a scenario from the new Memoir '44 Campaign Book 2, specifically the Rescue of Mussolini scenario from the Air Aces campaign.

I really wanted to try this one out because it's quite different from the typical Memoir '44 scenario. For one thing, victory is not based on medals -- but simply on Mussolini's fate. If he's rescued the Germans win, if not, they lose.

There are quite a few special rules and a chance to use pieces that don't see much use otherwise, such as the Storch liaison plane and paradrops.

The Italian force is comprised of eight regular infantry units deployed in four pairs across the hill and mountain hex adorned map. Mussolinui, himself, is represented by a German Objective marker in the Prison Camp Hex.

The German force is comprised of six elite infantry units which enter via the Paradrop procedure, which in Memoir '44 involves actually dropping the pieces from about a foot above the map! After they land the Germans can give a marker to one of the units representing the legendary German commando leader Otto Skorzeny. The fnal element of the German force is the Storch Liaison plane, which must be used to evacuate Mussolini.

On our first go around, the raid was pretty much a disaster. Two of the six German units were destroyed while landing and the others were scattered. While Skorzeny was able to lead two units in an assault on the prison that liberated Mussolini, the Italians seemed to have no shortage of useful cards, and were able to react energetically. A mad dash for some safe spot was unsuccessful and the Italians ended up mopping up the whole German force and recapturing Mussolini. The Storch was never brought on.

We set up and played again and this time it was the Germans who seemed to get most of the luck. Only one German unit was lost in landing and the three units in the eastern batch landed in a tight group near the hotel, as did one scattering unit from the western group. Skorzeny again led a charge on the hotel that liberated the deposed dictator but this time there were a bunch of supporting units along for the show. Meanwhile the Ilatlians had areal drought of usable cards, being stuck with several for a sector where they had no units.

The Storch was brought in, landed and took off with Mussolini for the win -- although possibly just in the nick of time, because the Italians had just drawn the Bombardment card, which Game Store Tony was clearly going to use on the grounded Storch if there had been another turn.

We agreed that we needed one more game to resolve the split, so we made plans to play a tie-breaker at the first opportunity!

Arkham gaming

Had some nice gaming sessions at the opposite ends of the time spectrum at Arkham Asylum this weekend.

On the one hand there was a quick, 45- or 50-minute game of Memoir '44 on Friday where my Germans were able to make short work of a large force of Russians during our continuing grand campaign game. Even though Tony's Russians had son many troops they overlapped the enire baseline by two ove rand each side and had two more reinforcements the Germans were just hot on the dice and had pretty decent cards to back them up as they rolled to a 6-2 victory.

On the other hand all day Sunday was spent in a grand campaign of another sort as we played Axis & Allies 1940 Global rules using the Alpha +3 revisions. Three fellows from the Hartford group came down to play myself and Roy at Arkham. Two of the Hartford gamers played the Axis, with one controlling Italy and Germany and the other Japan. A Hartford colleague controlled the British and the French, Roy handled the Russians and I handled the USA, ANZAC and China.

To make a long story short, I think things went relatively satisfactory for the Soviets (Moscow was at least 2 turns away from falling when we ended on Turn 5), the ANZACs (Homeland safe, fleet just took Okinawa) USA (large fleet parked off Japan, troop convoys forming in USA, Philippines never fell) and China (Almost all territory liberated) but this didn;t make up for a series of disasters involving Britain. The British player was aware of the threat of a Germa

+n Sea Lion on Turn 3 but he forgot to move the destroyer he intended to sacrifice to block the North Sea approaches. This, of course, created a cascade of negative effects elsewhere, despite the fact that Britain recaptured London on the next turn. Perhaps the most damaging effect was that Italy was basically left alone to rampage throughout Africa and the Middle East. Italy's economy got up to 50 + bonuses and Italian troops were as far south as the Belgian Congo and as far east as Western India at game end! The Japanese essentially abandoned much in the way of effort against the US and China to concentrate on the British and managed to take India on Turn 5. This second blow caused the Allies to concede, as we judged this was not a recoverable situation. While the Soviets could hold out to turn 7 or maybe even 8, there was no prospect of relief for them even then and the German juggernaut was just gathering stean and had substantial Italian troops available for devastating one-two punches against Russia. I had some hope of the US and ANZAC taking Japan by turn 8 or 9, but this would have been far too late as the Germans were poised to take London AGAIN on turn 6. With the fall of Moscow (and necessarily the third Soviet city as well) the Axis would win a European victory on Turn 6, long before the US plans could bear fruit.

A sea of green US pieces surrounding Japan does no good as disasters elsewhere doom the Allies cause.

It was good playing against such experienced Axis players, however. I picked up a lot and have some ideas of what to do for next time. We were really hurt by the British error, which negated some pretty good play on the part of the Soviets. I didn't feel too bad about how I was doing but the problem for the US is that it's hard to start to have a game impact unless the Brits can hold out.

Overall, though, it was a good game. I don't know when we'll do another Arkham Global 1940, but we may make a trip up to the hartford group's "Bunker" this spring.