From: Daniel Thorpe Subject: Command #42: Blitzkrieg 1940 (LONG) A couple days ago someone asked how Ty Bomba's "Blitzkrieg 1940" (B40) in Command #42 compared to GMT's "Victory in the West" (VitW) by David Ritchie. I haven't seen anyone else reply yet, so here goes… First off, subject and scale are the same. Both games use 2 day turns and primarily Division (some Regiments/Brigades) sized units to recreate the German May 1940 campaign through the low countries and northern France. Despite a slightly different orientation the maps (one full and one half sheet in VitW; one full and one quarter sheet in B40) cover approximately the same area - most of Holland in the North down to just below Paris in the South; the Channel ports in the West, to the Ruhr cities in the East. Scale is 7 miles/hex in B40; 11 km/hex in VitW - identical. With 21 two day turns VitW covers the initial German blitz to the coast, which decided the campaign; the pause for refitting which followed; and the opening moves of the mopping up operations (as far south as Paris) that resulted in French capitulation; B40 has 10 turns also representing two days each to cover just the initial German operations. As these were the days that decided the campaign, and neither game includes southern France, the only real effect of B40's fewer turns is to pressure the German player: blitz fast Heinz or run out of time! Parenthetically, I think this is a great game subject: it was in northern France, not Poland, that the mechanised blitzkrieg was born, and by focussing on this part of the battle both games are able to give the topic a proper operational-level treatment. Two earlier, folio-sized games (AH's "France 1940" and GDW's "1940") use Corps sized units and so lack operational feel, though both were fun in their day. VitW uses the classic Panzergruppe Guderian system, but was published during GMT's "detail-intensive" period (the time that also produced "Crisis Sinai," "Britain Stands Alone," and "Operation Mercury" - all good titles but demanding more work, perhaps, than warranted). In consequence PGG's conventional underpinnings are overlaid with many sub-systems, almost all a little over-written: special bridgehead rules and airborne coups de main; reaction rules (tied to Corps HQ ratings; the division of airpower into Tactical and Strategic types, each with different ranges and capabilities (even though air points are abstract) etc etc. With B40 Bomba manages to incorporate a lot of this into the basic mechanics. Every turn consists of two "couplets" (that awkward word XTR loves so much) each with a German and Allied player turn. Each player turn all friendly units can Move-Fight or Fight-Move (player's choice). Since there are two couplets per turn, each represents only one day obviating the need for VitW's reaction and overrun rules. A neat combat modifier captures much of the difference between the two armies without any additions to the mechanics: the mobility oriented Germans get a positive shift on their attacks when they choose a Move-Fight turn; the more ponderous Allies are penalised a shift unless they choose Fight-Move. I really like this turn sequence. It's not as excessively rigid as some earlier XTR games that limited the less mobile side to always Fight-Moving, yet it still captures the differences between the two armies, and the trade-offs between attacking off the line of march and prepared attacks - all without any formation or mode rules! As to the actual combat mechanics: VitW rates each unit for quality as well as offence and defence strengths. Low quality units can produce refugees, which move about and gum up allied operations. B40 instead rates all allied units with a "plus" strength, which is added to a die roll each combat to determine its actual strength. The combat strengths are scaled so that good units (the BEF) have high plus strengths, so their actual strength will stay within a reasonable percentage of this. The dregs get all their strength form the die roll, so will vary widely in combat. I'm a little dubious about the "wristage" this entails, but it can't be any more work than moving refugee markers in VitW, and requires far fewer rules. B40 has some other interesting touches: Panzer divisions are very weak on defence - making them vulnerable to allied counter-attacks if they stick their necks out unsupported, but - in keeping with their high morale - they have four steps (most units have two, and weaker allies have one) giving them good staying power. When it comes to secondary mechanics Ty Bomba didn't feel the need to re-invent too many wheels. Representing the need for good traffic control in a mechanised advance B40 stacking limits apply throughout the turn, just like VitW. His airborne mechanic even uses the same "coup de main" name and can negate some allied forts in similar fashion. B40 is consistently a bit simpler and cleaner than VitW, though: its stacking limits are based on unit size while VitW crams yet another rating on its counters (Stacking Points); B40 has fewer regimental sized units, no HQ units; and no weather rules. I think these are all reasonable simplifications and, with a twenty page rulebook, one chart sheet, and 550 counters (90 of which are just for a 1939 scenario) B40 is certainly more approachable than VitW which weights in at 40 pages of reading, 5 chart sheets, and 720 counters. B40 does get a bit too abstract for me in two areas though: airpower and supply. There are no German air units as Ty feels the Luftwaffe was so pervasive it could be factored into the German unit strengths. Except this kind of "design for effect" hides the reasons behind those strengths, and one of the reasons I play games is to answer questions about "why." Also, the great thing about air power is the way it can quickly be concentrated at vital points - impossible if it is abstracted away as here. Supply uses the standard XTR rule - trace a line of unlimited length back home. Also typical for XTR no roads are drawn on the map, so the line can run anywhere except through enemy ZOCs. I much prefer VitW which shows major highways on the map, and limits the off-road portion of the supply line to three hexes (even the German's transport was limited and road-bound). The treatment of command and supply is one area where I've always differed philosophically from XTR's approach, and I know well from past discussions Ty's answer: there is no need to draw roads on a map where every hex could justifiably include one; they get factored into the terrain costs. Not all of these roads, though, could support a Corps advance - only major highways could, and these I think are worth including on the map, along with some less abstract supply mechanics. Just the difference between my "quartermaster" outlook and Ty's "many" approach to history, I guess. On the whole, though, the above should give the impression I like this game, because I do. Command seems to be getting back on track after some spotty issues. Even the graphic quality has taken a step back up (though Beth Queman's map is neither as sophisticated nor as detailed as the one in VitW; hmm, maybe I'll play B40 on VitW's map...). At the price Command charges it's revealing that we're comparing it's components on an even basis to a fairly expensive boxed game, though. And the current policy of publishing the magazine, hobby notes, and game rules in separate booklets means the rules layout is no longer marred by extraneous material; even the rules seem cleaner and more tightly written compared to the somewhat wordy and rambling style of Commands past. Speaking of wordy and rambling, this has gone on long enough. B40 is a game worth writing about, though. Daniel