In the late 70’s, Game Designers’ Workshop (GDW) released a number of games under the umbrella of the 120 series. The idea was that they were individual designs (i.e. not sharing a common rulebook), but commonly, would each have less than 120 counters and play in under 120 minutes.
Compass Games have just brought three of those titles back into print and combined them into a single boxed game called WWII Campaigns 1940, 1941, 1942.
1940 deals with the battle of France and was originally designed by Frank Chadwick. 1941 covers the Barbarossa campaign and was originally designed by John M. Astell. 1942 looks at the Japanese campaign against Malaya, Java and the Philippines and was originally designed by Marc. W. Miller.
As is happens, the Barbarossa and France games have some similarities, which I hope will make it a little easier to move between those two games when the time comes.
They are pretty much straight reprints of the originals, with even the maps being done in the original style, which used the old 4 colour process of the time.
For the rest of this post, I will be taking 1940 - The battle of France, out for a spin and using that to example the package. Please use the ‘read more’ tab for the rest of this post.
Each of the games get their own map, counters, play aid and rules. So, for France 1940 we get 94 counters, a play aid chart and a 12 page rule book. The map (graphics by Art Lupinacci) as far as I can tell is based around the graphic style of the original, save for the growth in hex size, allowing the now bigger ⅝ counters to be used.
The total map area is 22” x 28”, using a very heavy paper, with a good quality surface and the folds do not cause any cracking along the seams, as can sometimes be the case with coated papers.
As an initial observation, whilst there is a charm to the ‘copying’ of the original, I feel some opportunities have been missed by a slavish reproduction. Firstly, the maps are a matter of taste, there is no good reason for current publishing practices, with superb and subtle graphic effects to be locked in to a 'look' that reproduces the old four colour process.
The counters are in effect single sided, on their reverse side they have the year of the game that they are from i.e. all of our 1940 counters are simply stamped 1940 on their rear side. This has a single use …… sorting out the counters when first punching them, so the right counters end up with the right game. After that, the ‘1940’ stamp serves no purpose, yet in this game, units can end up DISRUPTED and are flipped over to their rear side and so that rear side could have been better utilised.
Disrupted units lose their Zone of Control and cannot move or attack and importantly, enemy units are not obliged to attack them. It is something of a puzzle therefore, why, when this information and status is integral to playing, that the reverse side of the counter does not show unit details, but instead has what amounts to a redundant ‘1940’ stamp.
Worse (who ever had this idea?) ALL the backs of the counters are a single colour - BROWN! so when they are flipped over as disrupted, the players not only don’t know what kind of unit they are, but don’t even know what nationality they belong to, something that does have an impact on smooth admin. (this caught me out, as a Panzer unit sat there on the front line and from game memory, I thought it was a French unit and I missed an opportunity).
The rules also have some basic edit fails that should have seen them more cohesively aligned to the latest reprint. The map is described as 17 x 22 inch (the old size), when now, in this printing, it is fact double that. It says there are 120 counters, no doubt true on the original game, when the standard counter frame would have been created for up to 120 counters across the series, but actual counter numbers for this game, as already mentioned, are 94.
There are 4 German counters in the game that have their fighting value bracketed, the 'why' is not explained in the rules and was never explained in the original rules - they are just totally absent. An internet search shows these 4 divisions were positional units for defence, so one can presume with some certainty that the attack value can only be use in defence - not attack ..... perhaps!
I have no idea how much of the rules are simply a straight reprint, but small things like this, taken together with the look of the map and the issues with counters, leave me wondering whether this is all simply just a copy of the original game, without any errata being smoothed out etc or improvements made to the administration of the game, other than giving the maps big hexes.
There are also some administration distractions within the game, such as units going out of supply and there are no 'out of supply' game markers or say a counter that would be useful to show Eben Emael active / destroyed or aircraft counters etc. This could all have been a better out of the box experience had some better and more caring thought gone into this.
Anyway, that aside, I still start out with some relish at exploring these games, partly a nostalgia thing I suppose of Old School gaming, but I also have an interest in the subject and I like the original designer …. Frank Chadwick.
Looking at the simplified map, a 12 page rulebook and an ethos of the 2 hour game, I got an initial impression of this being a simple game - but it is certainly not simplistic. I am reading the rules a second time before play, because there is plenty tucked away here and my initial reading, with note taking was not enough to make a good start.
I am also seeing things here that I have been reading about in Lloyd Clark’s book on the subject 'Blitzkrieg', so it looks like a good effort has been made to get the history into the game.
A few of the system things that stand out are;
The sequence of play is unusual. The player moves through a cycle of Movement, Combat and Recovery phases, but rather than play then flipping over to the other player, the current player gets another cycle of Movement (though only half rate this time), Combat and recovery. So a player will get to move and attack twice before the other player can do likewise.
The Allied and German fighting models were quite different in this campaign, with the Germans executing a ‘Blitzkrieg’ style of fighting and generally out performing the Allies in terms of Command and Control. I might have expected an unusual sequence of play to represent those differences, but it doesn’t, both sides get the same sequence so I am not sure what that ‘attack twice’ feature is all about. EDIT - it doesn't matter, it works.
Secondly, Motorised and Non-Motorised are treated differently when it comes to moving within an enemy Zone of Control, retreating through a ZoC and drawing supply through a ZoC. I shall need a sharp memory to always capture that, but it should create some nuances in play.
Thirdly, if a unit attacks, then every enemy adjacent to the attacker must also be attacked, whether by the original attacker or other friendly unit to the attacker. I like these sort of rules as they put a brake on attackers being able to ignore other enemy presence, while they gang up on one unit. EDIT, one must keep a sharp eye out for this and rigorously apply it, it is easy to slip into old ways!
In anticipation of this game being released, I started reading Blitzkrieg by Lloyd Clark and as with many modern books, it lays claim to be revisionist, but it really does approach the subject as a bit of a myth buster, showcasing that German success was not a forgone conclusion.
The book looks at the plans of both sides, the constraints on the armies due to military traditionalism and a variety of missed and gained opportunities. The German planners were torn between what the prime objective(s) should be and a good body of staff did not even believe that the German army was ready for such a campaign. Hitler’s insistence on the operation made it happen within a shortened time frame that worried many.
Likewise, Allied planners had internal division, they were entering a war that they did not want or were ready for. The Maginot Line fortification heavily influenced the Allied plan and reduced their flexibility in ‘imagining’ a successful German assault that did not involve the Maginot line, other than through the Low Countries. An approach via the Ardennes was not regarded and not later recognised for what it was … even once it got under way.
The game on the face of it is quite simple, yet our opening task is that each side should secretly select a plan from a choice of three available plans. This uncertainty about what the enemy was doing is a good reflection on the situation that both high commands found themselves to be in.
This is an excellent two player mechanic, but it loses a little bit in solo play, so I have two choices, roll a die to randomly choose the plan for each side or go with the historical plans. For a first game, I am inclined to go with history, just to see how the game copes with the known campaign environment.
For the Germans, this means selecting the prime objective to be capturing towns and ports in northern France and Belgium ……. by attacking via the Ardennes With Army Group A.
For the Allies, they will be selecting 1st Army Group (Allied left flank) to be the lead army group, in the belief that the main German effort will be an attack via Holland and Belgium.
I am ignoring the three optional rules ‘The Mechelen Incident’, ‘Belgian Late Alliance’ and ‘French Air Force’, as the last two are ‘What ifs’ and the first was just one of those chance things that needn’t (shouldn’t) have happened.
This is an 11 turn game, with each turn representing 5 days and hexes each representing 26 kilometres across.
What follows is a light overview of my game, interspersed with some gaming situations that give some game insight.
Firstly the set up options are a little involved and since I am playing solo and for the first time, I decided not only to go with the historical plans, but to research the orders of battle, so that units would set set up within the areas of their historical Army Groups and so it is, that my opening gets a pretty pure historical start (I have listed that order of battle over on BoardGameGeek).
Now, the truth is, to win well, the Germans must achieve their plan, inflict heavy losses on the enemy, especially the British and if possible, also capture the objectives that are in the other German plans - so in other words, the German player has their work cut out.
Above - this is the 1940 map - (Click for closer detail).
Above - the map populated with 'at-start' units.
The game actually starts on turn zero, representing two days and only has one sequence of phases per side.
Above - The circled city is Sedan. On turn 2 (which is really the third turn because of the initial ZERO turn) I annoy myself. Despite just reading about how the Germans launched a surprise attack through the Ardenne forest, taking Sedan rather easily and then breaking out ... I capture Sedan almost accidentally and then realise that I don't have enough nearby force to breakout and exploit, while the enemy are all over on the other flank!
Above - Holland can be knocked out of the war if two of their major cities are captured. At the start of turn 3, I find myself in the above situation. I decide to invest everything this turn to capturing Holland and freeing up much needed units.
Airborne 22nd Division capture The Hague in an airborne operation, that we can imagine involves captured airfields etc. I divert all air support assets to support a land forces attack on Rotterdam, which also falls. The capture of the two cities results in the fall of Holland and the release of 7 desperately need corps.
Above - The Germans have breached the Maginot line (grey hexes), which is starting to suck German units in. Note the three flipped counters, now on their brown side, at the bottom of the picture (Disrupted).
Above - and ..... just above the Maginot Line attack, the French have extended their right flank outwards (white circle), drawing more German units away from the actual point of crisis .... above Sedan! The arrows show the breakout and encirclement path that I SHOULD be doing!
The German attack has become fragmented, perhaps the release of troops from Holland can help bring some focus.
June 11th - 15th (Turn 7) - The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) make their first attack as the Germans begin their approach along the coast to the French ports, closing on Ostende, but the BEF are repulsed.
June 16th - 20 (Turn 8) - The Maginot line falls, the Allies are in crisis as Ostende falls and 1st Cavalry Corps are compelled to fall back to protect Paris!
Above (click) - The Maginot Line (the circle) is fully in German hands. The left arrow shows the vulnerability of Paris and the right arrow shows the drive of Army Group B along the coast.
June 21st - 25th (Turn 9) - XLI Panzer Corps enters the Eastern part of Paris!
The German High Command urge the advancing Divisions from Army Group B, to push on aggressively along the coast to take the ports, but with Lille still in stubborn British hands, the German advanced elements get cut-off and the Allies counter-attack. They destroy four German divisions, likely saving Boulogne and possibly Calais.
June 26th - 30th (Turn 10, the final turn) - The Germans put maximum air effort into supporting an attack on Calais with their forward and now out of supply troops. The port falls, only to be swiftly recaptured in a coordinated French and British counter-attack. Another four German divisions are lost. The desperate actions around the port have seen the Germans suffer more losses than in the rest of the campaign.
Above - The Allied counter-attacks against the German coastal spearhead. The red star shows the first group of 4 divisions that were lost. The ZoC line shows how the German supply is cut by the British holding Lille. Also note the raft of counters with that anonymous brown coloured rear side.
Paris is surrounded, but strong French forces still control 2/3 of the city.
So, now the important bit ... who has won. As usual, I try and guess before counting the numbers. The Allies have suffered terrible losses and it was only in the last couple of turns that any significant German losses occurred.
The Germans have taken the Maginot Line and had this been their prime objective, then together with Allied losses, this would likely have given them the game ...... but it wasn't, their prime objective was to take the ports and in that, they have failed, since Boulogne and Calais remain under Allied control.
Counting - well this is all a bit strange. There are quite detailed victory point calculations and outcomes ..... but our result of the Germans failing their plan, but scoring more VP's (casualty based) does not seem to fall within any of the victory outcomes! it sits out in no-mans-land, somewhere between a draw and an Allied Marginal Victory!
Had the Germans chosen the Maginot Line as their prime objective (which they got) then the result would still only have been a draw because they have to also get at least one of the other not chosen objectives, to elevate their victory to something better.
Conclusions. There are some interesting nuances going on within the rules, but keeping on top of them and always using all of the rules fully and properly, makes play thoughtful and the rulebook was regularly in my hands. This comes as surprise as on the face of it, it at first glance seems a simple game - perhaps it is just me and more playings is what I need.
I felt that returning to an old classic has been really enjoyable, but other than the big hex and counters, I don't feel the Compass Games approach to a new print run has been as effective as it could have been.
There feels an obvious lack of admin counter support, I was left relying on using tiddlywinks as markers re the recovery times of disrupted and out of supply units and making notes for some other functions - not game breakers, but neither a sense of real care.
The anonymous nature of the flip side of the counters is a case in point.
The play aid is not as useful as it could have been. The Combat chart is very good, with large print, but the only other thing on there are the victory conditions and points, which is only needed at the end of play and in any case is fully described in the rulebook, so this is wasted space.
Instead they could have listed combat results, added reminders such as the column shift uplift for armour V's non-mech and perhaps just included some other important reminders on areas of the rules.
I have been reading a very good account of the battle (Blitzkrieg by Lloyd Clark) and I felt during play that the designer has done a very good job in replicating the book narrative.
It took me a while to break into this game and to honest, near the start, I almost packed it away and planned to sell it. But I stuck with it and I'm glad I did. I will replay it, now with some additional insight and look forward to the other two games in the package, particularly Barbarossa.
One of my prime reasons of buying was to add to my collection of games that can play in a single session for our face-to-face games. In this regard, I'm not sure how to rate this. It is meant to play in under 2 hours, but that was not my experience. I am not a slow or deliberate player (he says!), so I just don't know. Now that I better understand the direction of the game and the system, my speed may pick up.
For the solo player, playing the actual game is very easy, without any solo hurdles. The one issue is the initial setting of plans, which are meant to benefit from secrecy, but really, I dealt with that by going historical and I could have easily done a selection randomly as well.
I have researched a list of which units were allocated to which group and posted this on BoardGameGeek. There is a link below if this is of any use to you.
For those of you that follow this blog, you will know that it is rare for me to be critical of a game. If I like it, I take the time to write about. If I don't then it doesn't make the blog, even if work has started on it.
Those that read these articles tend to like the same stuff as I do, so that doesn't matter.
This is an unusual beast in which I feel like a good game has remained a good game, but that the production side of things has left my customer experience wanting. If more games are planned in the series then please look at it and say 'how can we make this a brilliant playing experience'.
EDIT - I am just prepping up the 1941 game (Barbarossa) and it looks like it will offer an excellent outing for our next face-to-face session. I think this will be easier for us to break into than the 1940 game, so readers may wish to take that into consideration when selecting which game they play first.
I will likely cover that on the blog in due course.
Resource Section.
The list of historical deployment can be found at BoardGameGeek at this LINK.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3275117/suggested-historical-start-for-the-france-1940-gam
My sister webspace ‘COMMANDERS’ showcases the various figure and boardgame systems that I am enjoying and gives a flavour of where current projects are up to. Link.
