From: Rajendra Nath Datta Subject: Review : Indo-Pakistani Wars, S&T #174 Hi, I am enclosing a review of Indo-Pakistani wars, S&T #174. I have seen a few reviews of games on your grognard web-page, and of course I had to write one up too. BTW, I wish to thank all the people who have helped put together www.grognard.com it is indeed a wonderful resource. I have also written up a variant, which I will send along in a later email. Do let me know what you think. Rajen (rajen@lucent.com / rajen@acm.org) General Review: --------------- Era & Sub: 1965-1990s war(s) in the Indian sub-continent. Mainly between Pakistan and India. Scale: 30kms / hex; Units: Divisions/Brigades/AirGroups; Time: 2 days/turn Components: GOOD (on a scale of EXC/GOOD/AVG/UGLY) HistFeel: GOOD/AVG (on a scale of EXC/GOOD/AVG/BAD) Complexity: Avg (on a scale of V.Hi/Hi/Avg/Lo/Simplistic, Simplistic == Risk) Summary positive features: Well done map; good attempt at separating inherent unit and military capability (dependent on equipment/ training/doctrine/morale etc), general logistical issues, and C3I capacities of the sides; interesting game mechanic of impulses used to depict logistical capacities. Summary negative points: Eastern game map has errors; politically unfeasable intervention scenarios (especially 1965 and 1971); scenarios too closely tied to the game (and vice-versa). Rating(personal): 4 (on a scale of 1-5, 1 lo, 5 hi) Remarks: Detailed remarks follow. Weak Points: ------------ 1. Separation of scenarios from the game: The different scenarios should have differing objectives, and so victory points should not be the same in all the wars, but should depend on what each side was attempting to accomplish. 2. Same map/units for different eras: The road/rail n/w did not remain the same from 1965 right upto the 1990s. The relative strengths and capabilities of the two armies were NOT the same during the two wars. The 1971 war saw a much stronger Indian armed force. Although the comparitive strengths of the two sides in the 1990s would be debatable, there is information from the 1965 and 1971 conflicts to go on. 3. Map errors: The eastern map has some errors. Most the hexes in the northern part of the map (especially around Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri are "clear" hexes. These are foot-hills to the Himalayas, and the terrain here is anything BUT clear. All these hexes should be "rough". 3. Intervention scenarios: Intervention by the super-powers are too easy. Especially the US seems easily able to wade in, and take complete control. This is very far from what was possible BOTH politically (imagine the US going into open conflict with the "world's largest democracy" AND fighting Vietnam in 1971!!! The pro-India lobby would have a field day), and logistically (it would take the US a little longer to mobilise a ground-based force and have it fight alongside Pakistani forces under some kind of joint command). Soviet involvement was not politically unfeasable for the Soviets, but was not a palatable thought for the Indian govt. More likely however, was Chinese involvement, and that in turn triggering Soviet intervention. However, in both these cases the respective sides should be paying much higher VPs. 4. C3I model & Logistical capacities: A very good effort here, but not completely to my liking. The major problem is C3I capacities and logistical capacities are discussed separately, but jumbled up together in the rules. This leads to a non-modular design. I argue that even though C3I and logistics are closely inter-related and dependent, they should be separated, and should be more scenario-specific. 5. Combat modifiers: Terrain effects on combat and movement are summarized onto ONE chart. While space-saving, this is not an elegant implementation. Further, the game does not completely depict the effects of terrain on different units in different terrain. If I put my armoured divisions in the mountains of Kashmir -- I can only use the roads and rails for movement, but I can STILL use the awesome 11-pt combat power they have, and infantry divisions pitted against them (with 6 combat points), are still at almost half armored strength. Some attempts have been made in this direction, however, and they are reflected in special rules -- such as light mountain divisions being able to attack with double their strengths on mountains, any unit in a city being able to defend with double its strength etc, but this is not comprehensive enough. In addition, there is no weather effects modeled into the game. 6. Target destruction: Only air-units seem capable of destroying targets. If an armoured division has taken control of a hex with an oil refinery (for example), it can do nothing, but capture the oil refinery. It should take minimal effort to employ division engineers to blow the thing up. 7. War ending: Wars do not end at a particular time that is known before-hand to the commanders. A decent guess could be made by either side, and in the modern world, other nations (through the UN), start putting pressure for peace. So, after a certain number of turns, the PROBABILITY of the war ending should arise. This is more realistic, as the two sides have to be a little more flexible. There will be less of -- let's throw ourselves into the fray right now, since this is the last turn, and my opponent will not be able to move again, so to hell with all my defensive positions. 8. Article and scenario research: I would like to play the game out exactly following events as they occured, and that way, one can tell if it models what actually happened, and captures the essence of the problems faced by the two sides. Unfortunately, detailed initial deployments and OOBs are lacking for both wars, but especially for the 1965 war. These could be obtained from the Indian or Pakistani army.