tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post2046403093184998909..comments2024-01-04T23:48:09.384-05:00Comments on Pawnderings on Games: Phase Line Smash armored cavSeth Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12206653100499935990noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post-13215424055783179842014-04-10T22:02:23.110-04:002014-04-10T22:02:23.110-04:00Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from ...Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from me is that the first one didn't show up for a day or two, so I thought it had gotten eaten, and wrote it again but with some additional information added. It looks like they both just got hung up in a queue somewhere.<br /><br />"History book in game form" is a nice way to look at it. That would actually be a fun genre to get into, but it actually evolved into that form rather than being intended that way. It was intended from the beginning to be solitaire, as it was just too hard to imagine anyone wanting to play the Iraqis. In fact, expecting much interest in the game at all was probably going too far, as there was a dismissive sense of, "that was too easy" afterwards. The genesis of the game was when Tom Clancy said to Frank, "we didn't need a whole corps, we could have done it with a single ACR, or a troop of Girl Scouts." Those kind of popular misconceptions derive from the fact that, "making something look easy" is not the same as, "it IS easy," and is a discredit to all of the hard work and professionalism that it required. So the desire to help people see that more clearly, coupled with GDW's position as a Gulf War analyst led to the game. <br /><br />As I was working on it in the year immediately following the war, I had the opportunity to review a large number of returning unit commanders and got a tremendous amount of detail, allowing me to refine and sharpen elements of the game. And then the Schwarzkopf-Franks flap blew up, so we really needed to address that (the game shows that we came down firmly opposed to Schwarzkopf's assertions—which I found disingenuous: he claimed to have gotten over it, but then repeated them in his best-selling autobiography). And before you knew it, the game had the opportunity to address in detail all of these current events, and I thought it would be a crime with all of the relevant primary research to not do so, as the research was already there. So I pushed our budget people to get the second booklet added to allow room to get it all in. That's why the price and UPC were on a sticker, we had to raise the price of the game to cover the added components.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610853220688539645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post-9816290476781652532014-04-02T15:48:08.325-04:002014-04-02T15:48:08.325-04:00Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from ...Thanks, Seth. The reason there are two posts from me is that the first one didn't show up for a day or two, so I thought it had gotten eaten, and wrote it again but with some additional information added. It looks like they both just got hung up in a queue somewhere.<br /><br />"History book in game form" is a nice way to look at it. That would actually be a fun genre to get into, but it actually evolved into that form rather than being intended that way. It was intended from the beginning to be solitaire, as it was just too hard to imagine anyone wanting to play the Iraqis. In fact, expecting much interest in the game at all was probably going too far, as there was a dismissive sense of, "that was too easy" afterwards. The genesis of the game was when Tom Clancy said to Frank, "we didn't need a whole corps, we could have done it with a single ACR, or a troop of Girl Scouts." Those kind of popular misconceptions derive from the fact that, "making something look easy" is not the same as, "it IS easy," and is a discredit to all of the hard work and professionalism that it required. So the desire to help people see that more clearly, coupled with GDW's position as a Gulf War analyst led to the game. <br /><br />As I was working on it in the year immediately following the war, I had the opportunity to review a large number of returning unit commanders and got a tremendous amount of detail, allowing me to refine and sharpen elements of the game. And then the Schwarzkopf-Franks flap blew up, so we really needed to address that (the game shows that we came down firmly opposed to Schwarzkopf's assertions—which I found disingenuous: he claimed to have gotten over it, but then repeated them in his best-selling autobiography). And before you knew it, the game had the opportunity to address in detail all of these current events, and I thought it would be a crime with all of the relevant primary research to not do so, as the research was already there. So I pushed our budget people to get the second booklet added to allow room to get it all in. That's why the price and UPC were on a sticker, we had to raise the price of the game to cover the added components.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610853220688539645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post-44540180214426554872014-03-29T00:04:03.890-04:002014-03-29T00:04:03.890-04:00Thanks for the additional insight. I was just maki...Thanks for the additional insight. I was just making my best guess based on the facts presented in the game. It's nice to see I was in the ballpark based on your more direct knowledge.<br />PLS I think of as a history book in game form more than a game. I think it was wise to make it a solitaire game.Seth Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12206653100499935990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post-30616298507711329462014-03-28T18:01:40.049-04:002014-03-28T18:01:40.049-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful and appreciative assessm...Thanks for the thoughtful and appreciative assessment. When the game came out it was not terribly well-received; I think a lot of people assumed this would be something quick and light, rather than an in-depth study. In the years since then it appears that the guys who did want something like this finally got a chance to pull it out and devote the time and attention to it they’d always wanted to, and a number of nice appreciations have popped up on the Internet, yours included. In making this, Frank and I wanted it to be an accurate representation of what actually went into a corps operation to make it turn out so well. With the more recent reviews, it appears that we finally did find the kindred spirits we made this game for, and that is always rewarding.<br /><br />Re: 3d ACR, after 22 years my recollection from talking to people in all three units is that 3d ACR was made OPCON to 24th Mech (not really doctrinal) because of the sense that XVIII ABC did not really know how to use an ACR as a corps asset (logically they would have no experience with this), and that as the (US) mechanized operational know-how was in 24th Mech, give it to them to use properly. Here opinions diverge a bit, including the notion that McCaffrey was a bit of an empire-builder and would snap up all assets offered to him. I think it is fairer to say that as a division, 24th Mech/McCaffrey didn’t really have the ability to oversee 3d ACR operating in a corps-level mission (i.e., as a peer rather than subordinate unit, same level as 24th Mech), so a good compromise was to place 3d ACR under 24th Mech, but use them in a primarily flank securing/screening role. Which is basically what you derived in your analysis, but from another direction.<br /><br />3d ACR’s organization in Desert Shield was fascinating. As one of the first heavy units in theater it served as a magnet for lots of heavy units in case they had to quickly go to war. I don’t have the material in front of me, but like 2d ACR, 3d ACR at one point was a mini-division, with additional armored battalion fragments attached, and at one point even its own MLRS battalion and battery. Obviously not doctrinal, but if the balloon went up without warning they needed some kind of organization. These things mostly got farmed out elsewhere in XVIII ABC (mostly to 24th Mech) when VII Corps closed in theater and allowed 3d ACR to be pulled from the line to swap out their M1s for M1A1s.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br />Dave Nilsen<br />PLS co-designer/developer<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610853220688539645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7799357743004909192.post-45260441521680803332014-03-28T02:45:27.661-04:002014-03-28T02:45:27.661-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful assessment. At the time ...Thanks for the thoughtful assessment. At the time it came out I think a lot of buyers were expecting something more fast and light, which was not what PLS was intended to be, so got rated accordingly. It looks like over the years people who were looking for this kind of study finally got a chance to dig into it (it does take time and attention) and enjoyed what was in there. The OB details were a great deal of fun to get into, most of them I got from interviewing participants during the year after the war, poring over their personal and unit papers.<br /><br />Now that it's 22 years later, I believe the opinion at the time was 3d ACR was OPCON to 24th Mech due to a combination of 1) an Airborne Corps didn't know how to properly use an ACR (logically, they wouldn't), so they had to put it under a heavy organization who would know how to operate it, and 2) McCaffrey was a bit of an empire builder and liked having another heavy brigade. I believe the most fair thing to say is that since McCaffrey was already running his division he couldn't readily oversee 3d ACR in an independent corps-level mission at the same time, so operating it as a fourth maneuver BDE focused on flank screening was a practical compromise.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610853220688539645noreply@blogger.com