i. a radical new approach · forget '69. the wargame hobby and business were now over ten...

The year was 1969...

Richard M. Nixon began his first term as the President of the United States;Soviet and Chinese forces were fightingdisputed island; 25,000 U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, leaving474,000 remaining; Formal truce negotiations began in Paris to end theVietnam War; Charles de Gaulle resignedAmericans Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jthe Moon; Radio Hanoi announced the death of Ho Chi Minh; John Waynewon the Academy Award for Best Actorthe Baltimore Colts in the Super Bowl; the NewBaltimore Orioles in the World Series; and Newbeat Baltimore's Avalon Hill to the punch in designing and producing the firsttrue tactical wargame...

34 F&M Special Edition

Richard M. Nixon began his first term as the President of the United States;Soviet and Chinese forces were fighting on the Manchurian border over somedisputed island; 25,000 U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, leaving474,000 remaining; Formal truce negotiations began in Paris to end theVietnam War; Charles de Gaulle resigned as the President of France;Americans Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. were the first men to walk on

Radio Hanoi announced the death of Ho Chi Minh; John Waynewon the Academy Award for Best Actor in True Grit; the New York Jets beat

Bowl; the New York Yankees beat theBaltimore Orioles in the World Series; and New York's Strategy & Tacticsbeat Baltimore's Avalon Hill to the punch in designing and producing the first

A Radical New Approach

As you can see, 1969 was a prettyimportant year in both the "real world"and in the gaming world, except inBalt imore of course, they wanted toforget '69. The wargame hobby andbusiness were now over ten years old(Avalon Hil l Game Company havingbeen f o rm ed in 1958 by Cha r l e sRoberts). As game players we had cutour teeth on AH'sGettysburg1960's. We came of age with All'sKorps, Midwaythe midbroaden our base and mature in th6 0 ' s w i t h ne w gam e co m pan i e s ,magazines and game designers, i.e.,GameScience'sStrategy & TacticsF. Dunnigan.

In 1969 the latest release from Avalon Hillwas Anzio:Italy, 1944visit Rome this year... and bring along5th Army." Game reviews onmixed, with Paul Serio writing in#18,amount of time, paperwork and energyexpended in playing this game is notworth it. I feel that Avalon Hill has goneoff the deep end with this game..." Well,as we know today, AH didn't go off thedeep end andhas stood the test of timetoday considedidn't know it then, but that 18th issue ofS&Th i s t o r y o f o u r h o b by . A s e c o n dgeneration of board wargaming hadbegun.

James F. Dunnigan fo rmed a newcompany in 1969 called Poultron Pressand purchasedmagaz i ne f r om i t s f ounde r Ch r i sWagner. Dunnigan's first issue was #18and he began the "gamemagazine" format which revolutionizedthe industry (later to be imitated byConflict, Battle Flag, JagdPanther, TheWargamer, etc.). Also in that issue,Poultron Press (later known as SPI orSimulations Publications Inc.) ran a fullpage ad announcing ten new games!This was unheard of. We had all becomeaccustomed to one new release per yearf r o m A H a n d a n o c c a s i o n a l"independent" title likeTrafalgar.beginning of a flood of wargames whichwould reach its crest in the late 1970's.But let's return to the Poultron Press adS&Tt i t l e s l i s t e d we re

I.A Radical New Approach

As you can see, 1969 was a prettyimportant year in both the "real world"and in the gaming world, except inBaltimore of course, they wanted toforget '69. The wargame hobby andbusiness were now over ten years old(Avalon Hil l Game Company havingbeen f o rm ed i n 1958 by Cha r l e sRoberts). As game players we had cutour teeth on AH's Tactics II andGettysburg in the late 1950's and early1960's. We came of age with All's AfrikaKorps, Midway and Guadalcanal inthe mid-60's. And we were beginning tobroaden our base and mature in the late6 0 ' s w i t h ne w g am e co m pan i e s ,magazines and game designers, i.e.,GameScience's Battle of Britain,Strategy & Tactics magazine and JamesF. Dunnigan.

In 1969 the latest release from Avalon HillAnzio: A Realistic Game of Forces in

Italy, 1944 — the ad copy read "Why notvisit Rome this year... and bring along the5th Army." Game reviews on Anzio weremixed, with Paul Serio writing in S&T#18, "... In conclusion, I feel that theamount of time, paperwork and energyexpended in playing this game is notworth it. I feel that Avalon Hill has goneoff the deep end with this game..." Well,as we know today, AH didn't go off thedeep end and Anzio (revised of course)has stood the test of time — in fact, manytoday consider Anzio to be a classic. Wedidn't know it then, but that 18th issue ofS&T also marked a turning point in theh i s t o r y o f o u r h o bb y . A s e c on dgeneration of board wargaming hadbegun.

James F. Dunnigan fo rmed a newcompany in 1969 called Poultron Pressand purchased Strategy & Tact icsmagaz i ne f r om i t s f ounde r Chr i sWagner. Dunnigan's first issue was #18and he began the "game- in- themagazine" format which revolutionizedthe industry (later to be imitated byConflict, Battle Flag, JagdPanther, TheWargamer, etc.). Also in that issue,Poultron Press (later known as SPI orSimulations Publications Inc.) ran a full-page ad announcing ten new games!This was unheard of. We had all becomeaccustomed to one new release per yearf r o m A H a n d a n o c c a s i o n a l"independent" title like Battle of Britain orTrafalgar. This ad marked thebeginning of a flood of wargames whichwould reach its crest in the late 1970's.But let's return to the Poultron Press ad inS&T #18. Among the many excitingt i t l e s l i s t e d we re B ar b a r os sa ,

Normandy and Leipzig (all later releasedas SPI, boxed games) and a gameentitled simply Tactical Game 3. The adcopy read:

"A new departure in games. Aplatoon/company level game whose mainobjective was to compare differentweapons/tactical systems. This versiondeals with the situation on the Russianfront in 1944. Counters include T34c,T34/85, JSII, Su85, PzIV, PzV, PzVIb, andmany other armored fighting vehicles aswell as infantry, mortar, artillery andother types of weapons. A radical newapproach to historical gaming. The first tobe published of a series of similargames... $5.00."

This truly was a "new departure" inwargames. It seemed, to many of us,that for quite a number of years we hadbeen experiencing some kind of self-regulation in the game design business.As if certain topics or subjects were offlimits or just plain "undesignable."Tactical level wargames fell into this offlimits area, but then Tactical Game 3opened the door to a new genre ofgames as well as a new approach todesigning and playing wargames. Itwasn't that we dislikedstrategic/operational level games, likeAH's Stalingrad or Guadalcanal, but someof us found it difficult to imagine eachcardboard counter representingthousands or tens¬of-thousands of men.How about one counter representing ahandful of men or a few tanks, likeminiatures do — we could relate to that.What about realistic terrainconsiderations, like line-of-sight andproper tactics like fire-before-movement.Maybe some kind of "plug-in" multiplescenario format.

James F. Dunnigan provided us with thesystem and tools to simulate theseconcepts with Tactical Game 3. The nextbig step came in 1970 when Avalon Hillbought the rights to the game fromDunnigan and released PanzerBlitz: TheGame of Armored Warfare on the EasternFront 1941.45 — the start of the secondgeneration.

II.The Blind Alley of Realism

For many wargamers PanzerBlitz wastheir renaissance in wargaming. Itbrought many disenchanted, disinterestedand "turned-off" players back into thefold and for many others it marked thebeginning of a new and exciting hobbyexperience. The level of energy andactivity in the hobby and business wentup. PanzerBlitz was a giant hit (it wouldeventually sell over a quarter-of-a-millioncopies!).

F&M Special Report

Squad Leader

Of couse no t h ing i s pe r f e c t andPanzerBlitz was no exception. Thegame naturally had its limitations and itscr it ics. One of the cr it ics was thedesigner himself. Dunnigan stated in Fire& Movement #15, "...I always felt thatTactical Game 3 was a better gamethan PanzerBlitz. I think we justadded a lot of accessories on a small, butnimble little vehicle and thus loaded itdown..." And among PanzerBlitz'sdevoted fans were those who didn't likethe "PanzerBush Syndrome" or theywanted more "realism," more weaponssystems, more game maps, morescenarios and more of everything.

Thus the early 1970's saw numerousnew tactical game systems. Almost all ofthem were designed by Dunnigan andSPI. They included Grunt (1971), whichdepicted the ongoing war in Vietnam on theplatoon level; Combat Command (1972),which was suppose to be the WesternFront sequel to PanzerBlitz, but failed togenerate much excitement (change ofscale hurting it most); and Soldiers(1972) truly one of the real sleepers in thehistory of the hobby — an excellent WWItactical wargame.

Then, incrossed into another of those off limitsareas. The game wasStar:Europe in the 1970's.subject of potential future warsand the clear depiction ofUnion as the realdoor . S ince t he re lease o fStar/White Starnumerous tactical level games on thesubject and related subjectsmention operational/strategic leveldesigns. This dividing line betweenWorld War II and Modern Era tacticalgame designs remains today as most20th Century tactical games fall intothese two categories.

Red Star/White Starsuccess forwas disappointed with it. Dunniganreflected on his overall development oftactical wargames in

"Red Star/White Starobsolete game. Just for the record,PanzerBlitzUnfortunately, the twogames available today areand Red Star/White

Then, in 1972, Dunnigan did it again, hecrossed into another of those off limitsareas. The game was Red Star/WhiteStar: Tactical Combat in WesternEurope in the 1970's. The controversialsubject of potential future wars in Europeand the clear depiction of the SovietUnion as the real enemy opened anotherdoor . S ince the r e l ease o f RedStar/White Star we have seennumerous tactical level games on thesubject and related subjects — not tomention operational/strategic leveldesigns. This dividing line betweenWorld War II and Modern Era tacticalgame designs remains today as most20th Century tactical games fall into one ofthese two categories.

Red Star/White Star proved to be a bigsuccess for SPI, but again its designerwas disappointed with it. Dunniganreflected on his overall development oftactical wargames in MOVES #12 (1973):

"Red Star/White Star is an unrealistic andobsolete game. Just for the record, so isPanzerBlitz and Combat Command.Unfortunately, the two most populargames available today are PanzerBlitz

Red Star/White

F&M Special Edition 35

Star. While it is true that I am notrepresentative of most; or even many, of thepeople who play PanzerBlitz and RedStar/White Star, I did design both of them. Sothat does, I feel, give me the right to saysomething about their authenticity anddesign quality.

The basic reason for this rather negative attitudelies in the fact that tactical games are extremelydifficult to design with a large degree ofrealism. This was readily apparent whiledesigning PanzerBlitz. We went through agood half dozen approaches. The one wefinally arrived at was not, in our opinion, the bestone. In o the r words , the r esearchand development on tactical game designscould not stop with PanzerBlitz. This is probablyfairly obvious to those of you who later sawCombat Command. Some of you mayalso have seen Tactical Game 3, thepredecessor of PanzerBlitz. Still later, ofcourse, we came out with Red Star/WhiteStar. This game was the highest developmentof the tactical game system begun withTactical Game 3 and continuedthrough PanzerBlitz and CombatCommand. The Tac3 approach wasultimately a blind alley. It could really gonowhere. In order to add any morerealism to a game using this approachrequired enormous sacr if ices inplayability... This brings us to theobvious point of this article: redesigning RedStar/White Star. The most important thingneeded for the redesign of Red Star/WhiteStar is the use of a simultaneous movementsystem... Of course, in redesigning RedStar/White Star we could not merely be`adding' simultaneous movement. Manyother changes will be made also. This is, ofcourse, because no game is ever finished asfar as its design goes. Not only does the stateof the art change and improve, but thehistorical data on which you base a gamebecomes more abundant, more insightful, andmore useful, the longer the game is out. Agame, after all, is a research tool..."

Thus Dunnigan realized that tacticalwargame design had reached a fork in theroad and the correct direction was towardssimultaneous movement. The first two gamesusing this new system were released in 1973,KampfPanzer and Desert War.

The concept of Simultaneous Movement wasor ig inated in the opt iona lPanzerBlitz modular movementsystem, which was really only half-turns. Theconcept held that all combat is reallysimultaneous — one force doesn't sit backwhile the other moves past it or fires at it.The integration of movement /fire was the goalof this system. In part it


F&M Special Report

Squad Leader

was successful , but the cost inbookkeeping and recording each units actionsbegan to take its toll — as the S&T review ofAnzio had said, "...the amount of time,paperwork and energy may not be worth it..."Dunnigan's fear of sacrificing playability forrealism was coming true. Tactical wargameswere in danger of losing the "fun factor."

III.The End of the First Era

Simultaneous movement had become thecenterp iece of SPI tac t ica lwargames. Sniper!: House-to-HouseFighting in WWII (1973) was the nextdesign to use the system. Here againDunnigan's leading edge conceptscrossed into another off limits area as man-to-man, vehicle-to-vehicle combat was beingsimulated. For the first time each counterrepresented an individual soldier. The abilityto visualize each counter representingthousands of men was now boiled down tovisualizing only one — yourself. Thefoundation for future small unit tactical gamesand even role-playing was initiated withSniper!. The counter you were moving was"you" and this resulted in new playing habits.Greater concern for cover and limited risktaking became the order of the day — lookingout for number one took on new meaning.

Sniper! was followed in 1974 by twoa d d i t i o n a l S P I s im u l t a n e o u s

movement/combat system games:Patrol!:Century20thexpanding the series and stretchingsystem.Sniper!countryside.emphasized armored fightinginfantry and other weaponswas the "queen of

But with these sequels and seriesexpansions the degree of complexity,additional bookkeeping and the "plugthe games started to turn playerspricerealismdirection to go?correct fork

1974 also saw the long awaited release ofHill's second tactical wargame,PanzerLeader:Warfare on the Western Front 1944rulesbook did not identify thebut everyone knew the gameDunnigan'snatural sequel. Randyt he ex tens i v ehe tried toThe result was quite successful and this alsohelped to inject renewed interest in thatwarhorse"

The sequel and expansion kit werebecoming the norm. Just like televisionmotion pictures, the gamewere developing "spinwere being ignored.design a systemvariations as

1975 say wargaming steal another pageTV's book, "replacements" for old"new and improved"three:

1)Star/White Star

2)Command

3)Grunt

All three titles had the "new andSimultaneous(SSPS). Each playerfire without knowing his opponent'sintentions. Movement, on the other hand,was s equen t i a l . T he p l o t t i n g andbookkeep ing chores f ound inKampfPanzereliminated. It worked!

movement/combat system games:Patrol!: Man-to-Man Combat in 20thCentury and Tank!: Armored Combat in20th Century. Dunnigan was working onexpanding the series and stretching thesystem. Patrol! was the natural sequel toSniper! featuring open terrain andcountryside. Tank!, on the other hand,emphasized armored fighting vehicles overinfantry and other weapons systems — the tankwas the "queen of the battlefield."

But with these sequels and seriesexpansions the degree of complexity,additional bookkeeping and the "plug-in" look ofthe games started to turn players off. Whatprice realism? More to the point, was thisrealism or just more dirt? Wasn't there anotherdirection to go? Had Dunnigan selected thecorrect fork in the road after all?

1974 also saw the long awaited release of AvalonHill's second tactical wargame,PanzerLeader: Game of TacticalWarfare on the Western Front 1944-45. Therulesbook did not identify the "designer",but everyone knew the game was based onDunnigan's PanzerBlitz system. It was thenatural sequel. Randy Reed had donet he ex tens i ve development work andhe tried to improve and update the system.

result was quite successful and this alsohelped to inject renewed interest in that "oldwarhorse" PanzerBlitz.

The sequel and expansion kit werebecoming the norm. Just like television andmot ion pictures, the game companieswere developing "spin-offs" — new conceptswere being ignored. The answer was simple,design a system and then put out as manyvariations as possible.

1975 say wargaming steal another page out ofTV's book, "replacements" for old series — the"new and improved" version. SPI releasedthree:

1) MechWar '77 replaces RedStar/White Star

2) Panzer '44 replaces CombatCommand

3) Search & Destroy replacesGrunt

All three titles had the "new and improved"Simultaneous-SequentialPlay-System(SSPS). Each player committed his units tofire without knowing his opponent'sintentions. Movement, on the other hand,

s equen t i a l . The p l o t t i n g andbookkeep ing chores f ound inKampfPanzer t o Tank! wereeliminated. It worked!

Dunnigan's continued efforts to find thesolution, the "magic bullet," paid offwith the new SSPS system. There weremany who doubted the new system atfirst and quite a few who were upsetwith having to "replace" old favorites,but the result was success f u l .P laye rs cou ld now achieve newlevels of "realism" without sacr i f ic ingp layab i l i t y . Th is sys tem al lowedplayers to handle more units thanever before without overloadingthem. Dunnigan wrote of this in Fire &Movement #15 (1979):

M e c h W a r ' 7 7 w a s a b i gimprovement over Red Star/WhiteStar and I think with that I f inal lyachieved the 'state of the art,' as itwere. In fact, since then, I havestepped back from tactical level gamescontent to let other people carry thetorch. Of course, the main reason I didthe tactical games in the f irst placewas because nobody else wanted todo them..."

Thus the first era of tactical wargamedesign had come to an end. Dunniganbegan it all in 1969 with Tactical Game3/PanzerBlitz and closed the book on itin 1975 with MechWar '77/Panzer 44.Now someone else had to take thelead and try to advance the state of theart —who could carry the "torch?"

IV.The Commandments

of Playability

The new year, 1976, brought us twonew, tact ical wargames: (1) AH'sTobruk: Tank Battles in North Africa,1942 was de s i g n ed b y a n e w ,i n d e p e n d e n t designer, Hal Hock.His background in the civilian end ofthe defense industry proved of greatvalue to his work; (2) SPI's Firefight:Modern U.S. and Soviet Small Unit Tacticswas actually designed a n dd e v e l o p e d b y I r a d H a r d y .Dunnigan was involved, but mostly interms of putting the project togetherwith t h e U . S . A rm y . Y ou se e , SP Iwa s approached by the U.S. Army todesign a wargame on modern tacticalcombat to be used as a training device— SPI had come quite a way from theTac3 days! It really made you stop andthink about our hobby.

This same year, 1976, saw thepremiere of Fire & Movement magazine.Due to a number of reasons (see F&M#49 for details) I had chosen AH'sTobruk as our first, feature "Close-up"review. The extensive report andanalysis, as you m ay re c a l l ,c en t e r e d o n weap ons capabilitiesrelating to projectile shapes, bal list iccoeff icients, round-to-round dispersion,muzzle velocity and the like.

F&M Special Report

The debate went on for the first threeissues of F&M. It was the beginning ofthe "realism" and "accuracy" debate.

Firefight, on the other hand, was a gamethat emphasized "tactical doctrine" overeverything else. The fact it wasdesigned for the U.S. Army resulted inall kinds of restrictions for the SPIdesign staff. The l im it at ionsimposed, the one-s ided scenarios,the rigidity of Soviet doctrinedominated everything and helped tomake Firefight dull.

No one p icked-up the " to rch" wi t hTobruk or Firefight. 1976 was a badyear for tactical wargames. The quest formore "realism," be it in weaponssystems or tactical doctrine, wasagain hurting "playab i l i t y." Th is wasa l l about to change.

The first real hint of something importanthappening in tactical game design wasreported in F&M#2 (July 1976) during anint erv iew with J im Dunnigan in LosAngeles. We asked Jim about any recenthobby rumors he knew about and hesaid that, "... (AH) have approachedJohn Hill to do a game like Tank!, (but)a squad level game..."

J ohn H i l l wa s , p r obab l y , t he m os tr e s p e c t ed , i nd e p en d e nt de s i g n e ra r o u n d . H e h a d h i s o w nd e s i g n ph i losophy, in fact , he hadrecent ly written an art icle in MOVESentitled "Designing for Playability."The art icle

conc luded wit h h i s " t en commandments" of playability. Hill's reputation as"head designer" forand Pres ident of the Conf l ict GamesCompany kept him much in the gamepublics' eye. His Bsuccess and hisgame, was very popular. Could thisbe the fellow who could pick"torch"

Now, ten years later, we know that theanswer was "yes." John Hill's design forAvalon Hi l l was re leased in 1977 asSquad Leader:Combatis wargame history.

As fate would have it, I was contacted byAva lon H i l l to do the packag ing onSquad Leader.during development and knew that thisgame would be important. I askedfor rush copies of the game forcoverage inAvalon Hil lT h e r e f o r e , i nF&M #9 was releasedon Squad Leaderdepth report on the game inbusiness. It would prove to be one ofF&M'sdraw attent ioapproach" to tactical wargamedesign.

CIRCLE 24 ON READER SERVICE CARD

conc l uded w it h h i s " t en command-ments" of playability. Hill's reputation as"head designer" for Conflict magazineand Pres ident of the Conf l ict GamesCompany kept him much in the gamepublics' eye. His Bar Lev game was a bigsuccess and his Battle for Hue, tacticalgame, was very popular. Could this

the fellow who could pick-up the"torch" and run with it?

Now, ten years later, we know that theanswer was "yes." John Hill's design forAvalon Hi l l was re leased in 1977 asSquad Leader: The Game of InfantryCombat in WWII. The rest, as they say,is wargame history.

As fate would have it, I was contacted byAva lon Hi l l t o do the packaging onSquad Leader. I followed its progressduring development and knew that thisgame would be important. I asked

rush copies of the game forcoverage in Fire and Movement andAvalon Hill q u i c k l y r e s po n de d .T he r e f o r e , i n November of 1977,F&M #9 was released and the feature

Squad Leader was the first, in-depth report on the game in thebusiness. It would prove to be one ofF&M's ear ly scoops and it helped todraw at tent ion to th is " rad ical newapproach" to tactical wargamedesign.



F&M Digest:

The following are excerpts from theReviews and Designer's Notes of theSquad Leader series as they appearedover the last ten years in the pages of Fire& Movement.

(Close up Squad Leader byRay Lowe in the November, 1977issue of F&M #9)

Ever since the publication of AvalonHill's PanzerBlitz in October of 1970,tactical land wargames have more or lessfollowed a clearly discernible trend.Thus, industry writers will refer to thePanzerBlitz "family" of games, or theSniper-Patrol-Starsoldier 'series' ofgames, and so on and so on. Usually theuse of such generalizing terminology isjustified by the clear 'evolutionary links'between most tactical land warfare gamesystems. It is therefore only after carefulconsideration that I dare refer to anyta c t i c a l wa rgame as be ing t r u lyinnovative. Avalon Hill's new release,Squad Leader, most certainly deservesthat distinction. Mind you, innovationand excellence do not always go hand-in-hand, but exce l lence in my mindcertainly implies at least some degree ofinnovation.

Much of the uniqueness of SquadLeader can be attributed to the designphilosophy of designer John Hill. Aveteran designer with many well-known titlesto his credit (SDC's Jerusalem, ConflictGame's Kasserine Pass and Bar Lev, toname a few), John Hill is unique in his ownright. That is, he is one of the fewindependent, out-of-house game designersever to make a name for himself. Thosereaders who have ever played a John Hilldesign will probably recognize his touches inSquad Leader. I will discuss some ofthese later on.

The other major personality responsible forthe f inished product of Squad Leaderis developer Don Greenwood.Greenwood's refining tenacity andAvalon Hill's resources combine with JohnHill's talents to make a game which faroutclasses any of Hill's previous efforts.


F&M Special Report

Squad Leader

The map art is absolutely superb. ScottMoores deserves all the credit due to him.The closest thing to the near-photographicrealism of the Squad Leader boards isthe board art for Richtofen's War, butthere is one important difference. Theartwork on the Squad Leader boards isalso highly functional. For instance, brownbuildings are wooden, while gray ones arestone, which has greater protective value.The shape and size of woods, buildings andother obstacles is important, since Line ofSight is blocked only by the symbols. This isradically different from most tacticalgames where the entire hex locks the LOS ifany part of it contains blocking terrain. Inthese and other ways, the Squad Leaderboards achieve the clean functionality ofSPI maps (and then

som e ) wh i l e a l s o a ch i ev i ng anunprecedented 'real' look.

Up until now I have deliberately avoidedmentioning the time/distance scale ofSquad Leader.discussion must necessarily lead into ad iscuss ion of John Hi l l ' s des ignphilosophy. Nominally the Turns inSquad Leadertime, while each hex is 40 meters across.That sounds easy enough, untilrealize that on the urban terrainis an 80 meter trek to cross thethat it takes the better part ofto do so. These anomaliesthe game's Designer's Notes. Essentially,these time/distanceproducts of Hill'sphilosophy. In short,

s om e) wh i l e a l s o a ch i e v i n g anunprecedented 'real' look.

Up until now I have deliberately avoidedmentioning the time/distance scale ofSquad Leader. This is because such adiscussion must necessarily lead into ad iscuss ion of John Hi l l ' s des ignphilosophy. Nominally the Turns inSquad Leader represent two minutes of realtime, while each hex is 40 meters across.That sounds easy enough, until yourealize that on the urban terrain board itis an 80 meter trek to cross the street andthat it takes the better part of two minutesto do so. These anomalies are discussed inthe game's Designer's Notes. Essentially,these time/distance inconsistencies are by-products of Hill's `design-for-effect'philosophy. In short,

Hill is willing to sacrifice cartographicaccuracy for a game which 'feels' correct inplay. Streets in Europe are not really 80meters wide, and Hill does not mean tosuggest that they are. But what he doeswant to depict is the fact of life that inorder to cross the street, one must crossopen ground. And since the 40 meter hexworks so well with the rest of the game,rather than change the scale or sacrificethe correct 'feel' of having open spacebetween blocks, Hill simply makes thestreets 80 meters wide. To those of usfamiliar with other John Hill designs, thistype of fudging is nothing new.Jerusalem's map is a Boy Scout'snightmare, and movement values inBattle for Hue were fudged torepresent history more than unitcapability.

FM SpecialReport

Before anyone condemns this sort offudging before the Grand Inquisition ofRealism, they would do well to consider thequestion, 'What do we mean by realismin a wargame?'. Is realism most vital inscales, unit values and charts, or is it to besought in making the players make real-lifedecisions? Sure, both are desireable, butwhere do our priorities lie w h e ns o m e t h i n g h a s t o b ecompromised? These are questions thatevery designer and gamer shouldconsider because they make a profounddifference in the way a subject is treated ina game. Just as one example, note the vastdifference between Hal Hock's'hardware' approach to tactical warfare inTobruk and John Hill's 'software'approach in Squad Leader.

Squad Leaderinnovative and outstanding treatment ofwarfare, and one which has great potential.Expansion kits with additionalboards, and scenarios arepublication in 1978. ItSquad Leadergames in itsattendantsuch astands now,that any serious gamer should atlook at. Aa must!

(Designer's Notes

by John Hill;

The fundamentalSquad Leadereffect'dramatically shows the 'decisive effect' ofbattlefield events being simulated. Inall cases this effect will be multimany effects interrelating.example, it makes littleshoot at a squad, torch itflamethrower, blast it withrun through it with a tankis quite limited. True, alldistinctly different, butof three things willsquad can be wiped out; it can be'shocked' to some degree;no effect. No matter howresult will fit into one ofThis is what is meantthan ' inc ident 'concentrating on the 'finalcan quantify a largeincidents. And thisdesign assumption

In working with this 'effect technique', itvery important to accurately define thedec i s ionsimulated level of conflict. An ArmyGeneral, for example, is concerned with thedeployment of many Corps, and will not beinvolved in the decisionwhich Squad will be used in the initialattack. Likewise, a Captain,which machine guns tothe edecisionresupply. Hence, ifan accurate simulationcompany level combat,making of the Player had to correspond tothe decisions thatexpected of acommander. Now awill know howwhat theirability willknow theweapons his

Squad Leader stands as a trulyinnovative and outstanding treatment of tacticalwarfare, and one which has great potential.Expansion kits with additional counters,boards, and scenarios are being planned forpublication in 1978. It would be nice to seeSquad Leader burgeon out into a 'family' ofgames in its own right, and to see theattendant refinements in the system thatsuch a move usually entails. But even as itstands now, Squad Leader is certainly a gamethat any serious gamer should at least take alook at. And for you tactical buffs... this one isa must!

(Designer's Notes

by John Hill; F&M #9)

The fundamental design approach used inSquad Leader is what I call 'designing foreffect' — creating a game system thatdramatically shows the 'decisive effect' of thebattlefield events being simulated. In almostall cases this effect will be multi-layered, withmany effects interrelating. In real life, forexample, it makes little difference if youshoot at a squad, torch it with af lamethrower, blast it with mortars, orrun through it with a tank —the final effectis quite limited. True, all these events aredistinctly different, but in each case oneof three things will happen: either thesquad can be wiped out; it can be'shocked' to some degree; or there can beno effect. No matter how you look at it, anyresult will fit into one of those categories.This is what is meant by 'ef fect ' ratherthan ' inc ident ' designing. Byconcentrating on the 'final result', a designercan quantify a large diversity of battlefieldincidents. And this is the heart, the basicdesign assumption of Squad Leader.

In working with this 'effect technique', it isvery important to accurately define thedec i s i on -mak ing p rocess a t t hesimulated level of conflict. An ArmyGeneral, for example, is concerned with thedeployment of many Corps, and will not beinvolved in the decision-making process ofwhich Squad will be used in the initialattack. Likewise, a Captain, worrying overwhich machine guns to use to soften upthe enemy, will not be involved in thedecision-making process of divisionalresupply. Hence, if Squad Leader was to bean accurate simulation of platoon andcompany level combat, the game decisionmaking of the Player had to correspond tothe decisions that would general ly beexpected of a company or platooncommander. Now a company commanderwill know how many squads he has andwhat their probable morale and fightingability will be. He will also probablyknow the number and type of supportweapons his


company has. And, if he is worth his salt, hewill know generally which men, in terms ofleaders, he can depend on, and those whoare a little "flakey'. That is all he knows orcan control in his 'frame of command'. Hecannot control the throwing of 'a' Handgrenade, or exactly how a particular squadwill deal with a particular enemy tank. As adecision-maker he can only deploy hissquads, leaders, and weapons, and hope forthe best. As a decision-maker, that is theextent of his 'effect'.

Both Don Greenwood and I are 'old line'wargamers. We both started ourwargaming back with the originalTactics II and D-Day, and both of us were'entrenched' wargamers when SPI was but agleam in Jim Dunnigan's eye. This is bothgood news and bad news. It is good news interms that both of us have been exposed tothe evolution of board wargame design in itsentirety, but it also means that we areprobably `set' in our ways'. Thus, while webrought an incredible inventory ofexperience to Squad Leader, we alsobrought a lot of preconceived notionsconcerning the `best' way to do things. Afinal ingredient in the process was that bothDon and myself have the immense egostypical of wargame designers.

The first package I sent to Don consisted ofthe first three scenarios and the basic gamerules. I expected that I, the 'soft' ruleprophet, might run into some problemswith the 'hard' rule philosophy of Don andAvalon Hill, but tried to be ready for them. Ilabored mightily to write the rules in a 'soft'approach that still covered all theloopholes — or so I thought. The initialfeedback from AH was that the game wasreally brilliant in its concept, but therewere a few possible loopholes in the rules.Don then produced a list of seventy-sixrelevant, per t inent quest ionsconcern i ng ambiguities, oversights,clarifications, etc. Those seventy-six 'good'questions were sobering. I began to suspectthat perhaps I was wrong, and the 'hard'approach might have something to say forit. The spectre of Mr. Murphy peeked aroundthe corner...

From then on, things got... worse. Donattempted to re-do the rules fromscratch, but the translation was horrible. Ingoing from the 'soft' approach to a `hard'approach, the spirit of the game was lost.We now had a set of loopholeitis 'soft' rulesand a set of indecipherable `hard' rules. Theresult, no progress, and a month of t imedown the drain. Meanwhile, back at thedrawing board, it was decided — ornegotiated — that I would do the designingand Don would


F&M Special Report

criticize, then Don would write the rules and Iwould criticize. Now, that might not be thebest system, but at least we had a system.And it was certainly better than Don and meyelling at each other long-distance.

Eventually, Don and I developed a goodworking relationship — although we werestill plagued by Murphy's Law. For example,one of the game's armor concepts wasthe 'short gun' which had a hitting detriment atlong range. I defined the SU-122 as havinga short gun, but Don thought I meant theJSU-122, which had a very long gun. Weargued statistics back-and-forth withoutrealizing we were each talking about adifferent vehicle. It was finally cleared upwhen I sent Don a picture of an SU-122labeled: 'This is tank I talk of'. It took twoweeks of 'mail time' to get things ironedout. No one was `wrong', it was justanother instance of crossed signals.

At long last the development process wascompleted — the playtesting, the artwork,and everything. Al l that remained wasthe typesetting, a final proofreading by Don,and then off to the printer's in time for Origins'77. We were home free, nothing could gowrong. HA! Mr. Murphy was not to give upthat easily. At this critical time, Don wasstrick down by Amebic Botulism. But the gamehad to go on. Surely someone else at AHcould do the proofreading, though no oneknew Squad Leader like Don... Crunch!Crunch! The presses grind out 2500 of thelittle devils. It is done. Now Don is betterand looks over the final, printed version of thegame. Uh-oh! Don is sick again!...

The rulebook was loaded with typos. Suchirritating things as the red being off-center andscrewing up all the carefully drawn line-of-sight 'clar if icat ion' sketches. And theexample on the tank counter, MG's, isbackwards, and —what's this?!? Therandom Order of Battle Chart has beenguillotined! The final aggrevation: SGT Hill'sname has been misspelled three differentways...

I was aware of none of these problems whenI collared Tom Shaw at Origins '77 andcheerfully asked, 'Well, how did SquadLeader turn out?' You can imagine how Ifelt when I heard his one-word answer:'Disaster.: Fortunately, Tom's judgementwas premature. Despite what may bean Avalon Hill record for printing gaffs, thehard work that was done by Don and myselfshows. The game rules themselves areglitch-free. What errors are there are mostlyso blatant that they are quickly dismissedby Players as what they are — goofs. At

least in this case, screwing up big wasbetter than screwing up small...

Will Squad LeaderNo, I don't think so. It is simply toocomplex, and one of the requirements ofa classic is that it be a good beerpretzel game.intense for casual playing, the margin forerror is almost nil in terms of tacticalmistakes. You cannot fudge your waythrough. One Turn of mental laxnessand 'WHAM' you take 70% casualties.

I entered theduring ORIGINS I in 1975 when John Hillsought each other out forcollaboration on an Avalon Hill design.was one of the first freelanceto make a name for himselfBar-Lev,develop one of his games astitle for AH. He had threefire at the time, andto try was calledin favor ofout, the name change would have beennecessary anyway due to SPI's use of thesame name.)

By August, 1976, John had finished theinfantry rules, and sent me GAME SETwas immediately impressed by thenovelty of the system and the suspense itgenerated in playfeatures ofentirely new system devoid of thatgame's drawbacks and oh, so realistic. Iit so much that I resorted to solitairesomething I detestdown, and recruiteto go through the firstand over again. As itplaying it wrong, butAfter a postal

least in this case, screwing up big wasbetter than screwing up small...

Squad Leader become a 'classic'?No, I don't think so. It is simply toocomplex, and one of the requirements ofa classic is that it be a good beer-and-pretzel game. Squad Leader is toointense for casual playing, the margin forerror is almost nil in terms of tacticalmistakes. You cannot fudge your waythrough. One Turn of mental laxnessand 'WHAM' you take 70% casualties.

I entered the Squad Leader pictureduring ORIGINS I in 1975 when John Hill and Isought each other out forcollaboration on an Avalon Hill design. Johnwas one of the first freelance designersto make a name for himself with his hit

Lev, and I was as anxious todevelop one of his games as he was to do atitle for AH. He had three brands in the designfire at the time, and the one we finally agreedto try was called Firefight — a name I droppedin favor of Squad Leader. (As things turned

the name change would have beennecessary anyway due to SPI's use of thesame name.)

By August, 1976, John had finished theinfantry rules, and sent me GAME SET I. Iwas immediately impressed by thenovelty of the system and the suspense itgenerated in play — all the winningfeatures of PanzerBlitz but in anentirely new system devoid of thatgame's drawbacks and oh, so realistic. I likedit so much that I resorted to solitaire play —something I detest — to get the systemdown, and recruited some local playtestersto go through the first scenario overand over again. As it turned out, we wereplaying it wrong, but enjoying it nonetheless.After a postal

question-answer session covering severalhundred separate questions, I had the basicgame down pat enough to write my ownfirst draft of the rules — the first of aneventual four rewrites.

This rewriting was the cause of the only realfriction I was to experience with John Hill.John had a humorous, conversationalapproach to rules writing, which I could notabide, but which apparently his localplaytesters found to be the only way towrite rules. His draft was full of ambiguitiesand contradictions,it was going to be mewho would be stuck answering the 'nutmail', it was my 'legalese' style which wouldbe the medium for the rules. This wasJohn's sole complaint throughout the ninemonths which followed, but I wasn't aboutto have another Third Reich rules mess onmy hands, and which style was betterquickly became a non-issue as far as I wasconcerned.

(Profile: A Cross of Iron by Al Bisaskyin the March, 1979 issue of F&M #16)

Even before Squad Leader made itsdebut at ORIGINS '77, the braintrust atAvalon Hill was already hard at workdeveloping ideas for future expansiongames that would transform it from agame unto itself into an entire gamingsystem with literally endless possibilities.Each of these expansion games,called `gamettes ' , wouldconcentrate on a particular themesuch as the Russian Front, France1940, etc., and each would bu i ld ontothe bas ic system and itspredecessors. These future gametteswould int roduce the personne l andweapon r y o f t he ma jo r and m ino rantagonists that took part in the SecondWorld War.

For the first gamette, Messrs. Hill andGreenwood have chosen theRuss ian Front as the theater ofoperations and the armor and artilleryrules for redesign and expansion. It isn'tdifficult to see the reasoning; both theRussian Front and armored combatare extremely popular subjects amongwargamers, and in order for thegamette series to be successful it wouldneed a good starter. Actual ly,

F&M Special Report

Cross of Iron is quite a bit more than whata gamette was originally intended to be, dueto its sheer scope. In this single gamette thedesigners have not only revamped andexpanded the armor and artillery combatrules to their final form, but have alsocompleted the entire German and Russianorders of battle for the Squad Leadersystem. According to Don Greenwood,Cross of Iron will be the largest of thegamettes. It proved to be quite a bit morethan any of us expected to see in a gametteand, in the case of the price, a hell of a lotmore than we probably wanted to pay.

Avalon Hill claims to have spent almost asmuch time on the rules of Cross of Iron asthey did on the whole Squad Leaderdesign. It shows — Hill and Greenwood didtheir homework well as usual. I have butone major complaint: with all the addeddetail, playability does suffer, although notexcessively so. Realism? About as much asyou could reasonably expect out of theSquad Leader system. And to face facts,how much can you really expect fromcardboard, paper, and a brainstorm?

(Designer's Notesby John Hill; F&M #16)

Cross of Iron, unfortunately, will alwayshave one strike against it. It had theunenviable task to 'follow' Squad Leader —and that is a difficult task indeed. When DonGreenwood and I sat down to design Crossof Iron, we were well aware of theproblem. And, we asked ourselves, whatexactly was Cross of Iron to be? Whatreally is an expansion kit, a `gamette'?

Originally, our intention was merely to fill inthe major holes, to supply the vehicles andtroops that were left out of Squad Leader— for example, the Tiger and Panther forthe Germans, the T 34/85 for the Russians,some SS infantry, some cossacks, maybe afew 'funnies'. Yet, Cross of Iron turned outto be much more complex than SquadLeader; is nearly a complete game by itself;and carries a rather non-gamette price of$12. I am sure, many a gamer is asking,'what happened?'

This philosophy of 'design for effect' was mycornerstone in Squad Leader, and I wasdetermined to carry it over to Cross ofIron. However, Cross of Iron was to be atank expansion kit, for the tank buff, and inits development it was felt more and morethat the tank buff would demand greaterdetail, and that 'actual data' would be betterreceived than `effect data'.

Both Don and I developed a bit of tunnelvision in that we began to think of all theseplaytesters as being the allthe whole market. But theSquad Leadertrue historical fanaticsonly realism, provided ithere is the catchmissed: beingin one, theymuchWhat isfor theeven know there were that many differenttanks around. And to these playtestersbecame slaves. In many respects,designed the game, not we.game they designeddesigngame with maximumand realism, in aTo this group,nuances ofIron is

The most apt final comment onIron was probably made by Don himself.He said, "If I had known at the start that itwould become this big and this detailed, Iwould have broken it into two expansionkits —

(Profile:Jay Selover in the July,issue of

Crescendo of Doomsecond "gamette" in theser ies and covers the ear ly years ofWorld War II. It is an expansion kit,and both the parent game,Leader,Iron are

The "feel" of the scenarios is distinctlyinfantry. There is a closer link toLeaderarmor is almost always functioning in aninfantry support rule.

I t wou ld be a m i s t a ke , t hough , t oprejudice this gamette on the basis of thehistorical facts it models. Thesituationbut was byand the twelve

Both Don and I developed a bit of tunnelvision in that we began to think of all theseplaytesters as being the all-andend-all ofthe whole market. But the playtester is aSquad Leader freak. This was a group oftrue historical fanatics that would craveonly realism, provided it were playable. Andhere is the catch which both Don and Imissed: being historical and game freaks allin one, they had an 'unplayability threshold'much higher than most other gamers.What is playable to them might not be sofor the average fellow who perhaps didn't

know there were that many differenttanks around. And to these playtesters webecame slaves. In many respects, theydesigned the game, not we. However, thegame they designed — or, rather, made usdesign — was the game they wanted: a

with maximum historical informationand realism, in a format they could handle.To this group, we delivered. In terms ofnuances of tactical tank warfare, Cross of

is unequalled.

The most apt final comment on Cross ofwas probably made by Don himself.

He said, "If I had known at the start that itwould become this big and this detailed, Iwould have broken it into two expansion

it simply is too much for one'.

(Profile: Crescendo of Doom byJay Selover in the July, 1980issue of F&M #22)

Crescendo of Doom is Avalon Hill'ssecond "gamette" in the Squad Leaderser ies and covers the ear ly years ofWorld War II. It is an expansion kit,

both the parent game, SquadLeader, and the first gamette, Cross of

are needed for play.

The "feel" of the scenarios is distinctlyinfantry. There is a closer link to SquadLeader than to Cross of Iron in thatarmor is almost always functioning in aninfantry support rule.

I t wou l d be a m i s t a ke , t hough , t oprejudice this gamette on the basis of thehistorical facts it models. Thesituation in 1940 was mostly infantry,but was by no means trench warfare;and the twelve


scenarios genera l ly present thatsituation very well.

The rules fall into what I see as threecategories: 1) rules which makeimportant additions to the system, and areapplicable to most scenarios you are likely toplay; 2) rules which add to the system interms of spice or flavor, but are morespecialized or options; and 3) rules writtenspecifically to cover the new situations.These latter are concerned with the pre-1942 combatants, the terrain on thenew boards, and the peculiarities ofcombat early in the war.

One thing I can't help but be curiousabout is the future of the Squad Leadersystem, both specifically for the nextgamette and generally for the wholesystem. I imagine that G.1.: Anvil ofVictory will cover American forces, withscenario potential of North Africa, WestFront 1944-45, and perhaps Italy (ifI ta l ian counters are inc luded) Thegamette can be envisioned as a limitedexpansion (say $6-7) with only theAmerican order of battle and severals c ena r i o s , bu t I ' l l b e t t he m o recom p rehens i ve $15 t ype w i l l bedelivered. It is hard to imagine that DonGreenwood and his friends will be able towrite another 36-page rule booklet, but Iam sure they'll come up with something.

In the long run, what does the future holdfor Squad Leader? Now many moregamettes will be produced? The design ofthe Squad Leader series so far willresult in a pyramid for the sales of eachs u c c e e d i n g g a m e t t e . T h i s i s ,Crescendo of Doom cannot sell anymore copies than Cross of Iron did.W ith each gamet t e requ i r ing thepreceding one, sales of each new one willdecline as subscribers to the seriesgradually lose interest and drop from theranks of the faithful. Whether this willeventually spell the end of additions tothe system, or Don and friends will runout of combat situations to model first,only time will tell.

(Designer's Notes by DonGreenwood; F&M #22)

I should like to allay Dr. Selover's fearsthat the gamette ser ies might notcontinue. The popularity of the SquadLeader system remains high, and saleshave already justified the G.1. gamette,which should appear in 1981 and forwh ich the bas ic research has beencompleted. Plans beyond that dependindeed on future sales. As Dr. Seloverpoints out, the gamettes are destinedby their very nature to have a pyramidsales structure; should any one ofthem suffer a disappointing salesperformance, the


F&M Special Report

ones that follow would be similarlyaffected. Yet, there are always newenthusiasts joining the fold with their initialpurchase of the basic Squad Leader game— and enthusiasts of the system areextremely dedicated. If they had their way,not only would the number of gamettes beexpanded, but the system would be usedto cover everything from ancient warfare toscience fiction. Doubtlessly, they will bedisappointed in the time it takes to producewhatever else is forthcoming. Crescendoreceived a great deal of playtesting anddesign input. In my opinion, it was worthit. The errata compiled thus far arepractically nonexistent, and that isremarkable for a game as involved anddetailed as this one. As I am the fellowwho has to answer all those questionswhen they do come in, you can restassured that I shall take my time in makingfuture gamettes as tight and error-free asCrescendo —all of which translates intotime. Don't expect G.1. before next July.

(Profile: G.I. Anvil of Victoryby Jay Selover in the March,1983 issue of F&M #33)

You may remember that Don Greenwood'spreface to Crescendo of Doom stated "thenext gamette in the series, G.I.: Anvil ofVictory, will not be available prior toFebruary of 1981." One certainly cannotaccuse Avalon Hill of breaking its promise:the gamette did not even appear beforeFebruary of 1982!

There may be some grumbling about the listprice ($30), which is more than that ofSquad Leader. If prices are correlated tothe amount of design, research, quality, andvolume of physical components, then theprice is justified. The research is on a parwith Squad Leader's. Game systemchanges are well thought out and theAmerican armor listings are as complete ascan be expected (ad hoc field modificationsare glossed over, but anything approachinga significant change in battlefieldperformance is covered). In physical size,G.I.: Anvil of Victory is actually largerthan Squad Leader, with one moremapboard, three more scenarios, 856 morecounters, and a bonus of two sheets of cut-out terrain overlays.

G.1.: Anvil of Victory presentsnumber of significant additions to, andchanges in, the basicsys t em. One such change is t heinclusion of "green" units. These infantryunits have low firepower, range, andmorale levels (generally the same as"inexperienced infantry") but are not inthe order of battle of any scenario.Rather, some forces (Americans at alltimes) are given "experience levelratings" for a scenario. Whenever a unitfails a morale check by more than itsexpe r ience rat i ng, i t b reaks andbecomes a "green" unit. This systemreflects the reduced efficiency ofinexperienced unit which loses one orkey members, even if the unit as arallied and gets back into the

Assuming the use of all published rules,Squad Leaderlow aftervirtually nil. Of course, there isstandard cop out: "If a rule causestoo much trouble, don't use it." And also,of course, many of the rules coverspec ia l s ituat ions. I f you des ign ascena r i o wi th parat roops land ing,swimming a river, climbing a cliff, thencommandeering bicycles to assault asplit-level building, you are asking fortrouble. It is hard to argue against anyonerule in theeach has a perfectly valid justification.But if ever a ga"game assist program" to be written on ahome computer, this is it. The famousSquad Leadermarvel of condensed information andrules references (with 24 separate tables,up from 19 injust cannot do the whole job. Forinstance, there is still nothing on the cardto remind us of special die rolls such aspart ia l armor penet rat ion, burningAFVs, or infantry cowering, pinning, orgrounding. (One very bright spot on thePlayer Aid Card irewr i t e of t he se r i ous l y ou tdatedSupport Weapons Chart.)

The idea of a complete rules compilationis very timely, but what can we expect inthe next gamette, and when? I washoping to learn that the other major Axispowers, Italy and Japan, might be due forrepresentation. There is no indicationt ha t t h i s w i l l b e t h e c a s e . D o nGreenwood's notes indicate that thenext gamette will include comprehensivelistings andGermany and Russia. I amthat the German and Russian vehiclesare now "somewhat obsolete," as Doncontends. It would be a shame for theSquad Leaderinto "Armor

G.1.: Anvil of Victory presents us with anumber of significant additions to, andchanges in, the basic Squad Leadersys t em. One such change i s t heinclusion of "green" units. These infantryunits have low firepower, range, andmorale levels (generally the same as"inexperienced infantry") but are not inthe order of battle of any scenario.Rather, some forces (Americans at allt imes) are given "experience levelratings" for a scenario. Whenever a unitfails a morale check by more than itsexpe r ience rat ing , i t breaks andbecomes a "green" unit. This systemreflects the reduced efficiency of aninexperienced unit which loses one or twokey members, even if the unit as a whole israllied and gets back into the fight.

Assuming the use of all published rules, theSquad Leader system's playability ratedlow after Crescendo of Doom; now it isvirtually nil. Of course, there is thestandard cop out: "If a rule causes youtoo much trouble, don't use it." And also,of course, many of the rules coverspec ia l s i tuat ions. If you des ign ascena r io wit h parat roops land ing,swimming a river, climbing a cliff, thencommandeering bicycles to assault a

level building, you are asking fortrouble. It is hard to argue against anyonerule in the Squad Leader system, aseach has a perfectly valid justification.But if ever a game was screaming for a"game assist program" to be written on ahome computer, this is it. The famousSquad Leader Player Aid Card is now amarvel of condensed information andrules references (with 24 separate tables,up from 19 in Crescendo of Doom) but itjust cannot do the whole job. Forinstance, there is still nothing on the cardto remind us of special die rolls such aspart ia l armor penetrat ion, burningAFVs, or infantry cowering, pinning, orgrounding. (One very bright spot on thePlayer Aid Card is a complete, succinctrewr i t e of t he se r ious ly out datedSupport Weapons Chart.)

The idea of a complete rules compilationis very timely, but what can we expect inthe next gamette, and when? I washoping to learn that the other major Axispowers, Italy and Japan, might be due forrepresentation. There is no indicationt h a t t h i s w i l l b e t he c a s e . Do nGreenwood's notes indicate that thenext gamette will include comprehensivelistings and revised vehicle counters forGermany and Russia. I am not so surethat the German and Russian vehiclesare now "somewhat obsolete," as Doncontends. It would be a shame for theSquad Leader system to degenerateinto "Armor Ad Nauseam"; this is

certainly not what John Hill originallyconceived as captur ing the feel ofinfantry combat in World War II. Ifconcentrating on armor continues, wemay never see the Japanese. SquadLeader should not neglect an armywhich provided so many innovations ininfantry tactics. On the question ofwhen, there are no rash predictions; Ican only say that we will get what we getwhen we get it. 'Nuff said?

(Designer's Notes by Don Greenwood;F&M #33)

Surprising, perhaps, is that Dr. Seloverpasses over the concept of "green"American units without really letting usknow whether he approves or not. Thisconceptualization of the G.I. was thecornerstone on which the entire designw a s b a s e d , a n d p r o v e d v e r ycontroversial. Many of my playtesters,among the game's strongest adherents,were quite bitterly opposed to theconcept. Indeed, some of them evenaccused me of being unpatriotic. Theydid not care for a game system whichrepresented the American fighting manin a comparatively unfavorable light.

Thus we come to my big confession, theone that will doubtless brand me by someas one who blindly attributes gloriousabilities to the Nazis: In my opinion, thea v e r a g e s o l d i e r f i e l d e d by t h eWehrmacht in the first five years of thewar was, indeed, the best man on thefield. There... I said it. By the timeAmerican divisions took the field, thecream of the German Wehrmacht hadbeen scattered all over (and under)Europe. American land victories, by andlarge, were won in the steel plants ofPittsburgh.


F&M Special Report

Squad Leader


i. a radical new approach · forget '69. the wargame hobby and business were now over ten...

Documents