David Buckland - 11:58pm Apr 22, 2002 PST (#664 of 665) We have played through to the end of the MasterFront (MaF) 1940 campaign against France a couple of times, having started in September 1939, and herewith our initial reactions. Firstly, the Free Game has gone, and not been replaced. The original EuF (EuroFront) version had some problems, though it seems a shame that it could not be tweaked into a workable format. This means that games beginning in September 1939 all start with the Germans at war with the Poles, French, and British. The big choice for the Axis, present in the Free Set-up game (but not in the Historical or Semi-Historical versions) is whether to go west immediately, or take the historical route, and annihilate the Poles. It seems that designer Craig Besinque and his playtesters feared going west was too attractive an option as things stood originally. So, several steps have been taken to make this tougher for the Axis. Firstly, French demoralisation – which used to disrupt French HQs for two turns after the Axis had declared war on either Belgium or the Netherlands – now only kicks in after the fall of Brussels, or after a hex of France has been captured by the enemy, although in MaF it is permanent, once it has come into effect. Secondly, undemoralised French infantry fire DF on defence (rationalised on the grounds that these are armies, as opposed to the British and German units, which are corps). The Belgians’ at start forces have been strengthened (by 1 CF), and their task made easier by allowing the French to deploy one unit in the Sedan-Philippeville hex. However, the biggest change has been to the Alliance Reaction Table. Previously, assuming the historical belligerents in September 39, one of the best ways to conquer the Low Countries as the Axis was to declare war on the Netherlands first, and only subsequently (the following turn) on Belgium, using the now-friendly Netherlands to outflank the Belgians, and prevent the Anglo-French armies from reinforcing them. In MaF, however, a Declaration of War on the Dutch will inevitably bring in the Belgians. Though the reverse is not true (there is a one-third chance that the Dutch will sit on the sidelines if the Belgians alone are attacked, presumably the former hoping that they can stay neutral, as they did in Round One), this change makes attacking in the West, especially in 1939, much more difficult. Attacking both Belgium and the Netherlands simultaneously – probably the best approach – it is still not going to be possible in 1939 to prevent the Allies from reinforcing the Belgians. Indeed, though the Dutch will not last long, the most likely outcome is a slogging match along Belgium’s northern and eastern borders, as the attackers struggle with adverse terrain (Brussels itself, the Ardennes), or tough units (the Liege fort unit, the beefed-up French infantry). The Germans may well prevail in the end – more manpower, and much better airpower – but it will be costly. And this is the crucial issue over any early-game Axis attack in the West: not that it will not eventually succeed, but at what cost? Much the same set of issues face the Axis in 1940, if they attack west at that point. In fact, the changes to the Alliance Reaction rules in particular led, in our first game, to the aforementioned attrition battles along the frontier. Most WW2 ETO games have a problem of some kind with the Fall of France in the early war period. The actual course of events is extremely unlikely to be recreated, even with the broad brush treatment these games are likely to provide. The best that can be hoped for is a reasonable facsimile. Thus, conquering the Low Countries before the Allies can effectively intervene, while not what happened in actuality (the Belgian Army was not crushed before the Allies reached it), is often what happens in Krieg (and Third Reich, I think, though my memories are hazy here). This at least gives the impression of a blitzkrieg-like campaign, and this the “attack-Holland first” approach in EuF seemed to mirror, by delivering much the same effect. The problem was that in MaF the changes to the Alliance Reaction rules seemed to substitute this approach, for all its imperfections, with a series of attrition battles along the Belgian frontier which seemed even less like the actual course of events, and I was thinking of writing a critical note to the designer asking whether this was what the changes in MaF were intended to achieve. Just as well I did not, because we had overlooked a very important rule. Though special exceptions are to be avoided as much as possible, in this case, I think the effects are entirely apt. Under the heading “Eben Emael”, the Belgian fort unit placed in Liege is treated as normal infantry if it is attacked by paratroops in conjunction with other forces. Though the initial attack will probably be limited to one (panzer) corps and the paratroopers (one or two CF at most), they – together with an air strike – should be able to destroy the Belgian fortifications in one combat phase, and open up a route for blitzing attackers to exploit. In addition, the German airborne unit only arrives in April – thus handily making a 1939 “Go West” strategy less attractive than heading in this direction in 1940. The other major change from EuF to MaF is in the treatment of the two early off-board northern campaigns: the Soviets versus the Finns, and the Germans against Norway (and Denmark). Firstly, the timing of both campaigns, which was fixed in EuF (running throughout the six months of Winter 39), has now been placed much more at the option of the players, and turned into “Diplomatic Events”. Though obviously these are pseudo-DEs, folding them into the diplomatic system does streamline matters. With only one DE per month for each side, there is a strong incentive for both sides to launch the attacks on Finland and Norway at roughly the historical times. Reducing Soviet HQ costs has been tied to success in the Winter War, so the Soviets will probably assault Finland in line with the historical precedent, in order to start the process of cutting their HQ costs as soon as possible. The Germans might choose to ignore Norway pro tem, in order to launch an attack in the West earlier, but this would suffer from a number of drawbacks. Firstly, the Allies will maintain Naval Superiority, making a post-Fall of France Sealion a lot more difficult than it is already. Secondly, the Germans might be forced to react if the Allies decide to take action in Norway themselves, so they cannot count on being able to leave it to later. Thirdly, the period after the French defeat may well be needed for other diplomatic initiatives elsewhere in Europe, leaving little time for a foray into the fjords. The northern wars have also been changed in terms of costs, and how they are waged in game terms. In EuF, the costs for both were solely in terms of Production Points (PPs). In EuF, they are expressed as reductions in on-board HQs and units, which must also be properly positioned (and which process has costs of its own). The campaigns themselves have been shortened, but intensified. Thus, the Winter War involves only three months of “attacks”, not six, but the cost is now 2 HQ steps, plus four other units reduced one step. Looking at the cost in PP terms, whereas the EuF cost was 150 Soviet PP, the revised MaF version will cost 168PP (at start HQ costs, plus four infantry armies). Norway, if it runs the full course (and, in both versions, either side may bow out early, but the maximum is 6 months in EuF, four in MaF), costs 90 Axis/60 Allied PP in EuF, but 135 Axis/84 Allied in MaF. The overall effect of these changes is to make doing anything else while these campaigns are under way very difficult. For example, the increase in costs for the Soviets may not look that great, but when added to the fact that substantial forces will need to be concentrated in the north (Leningrad, the Finnish frontier, and Tallinn), and allied to the paucity of Soviet resources in the early going, all combine to make an early Soviet intervention against Germany even less likely was the case already. Meanwhile, although MaF gains immeasurably from combining the basic game system rules, as gradually refined in the individual Front games, with the additions needed to game the entire war in Europe, there are still some rules problems, inevitably. So, for example, is Allied Solidarity assessed after the Allied turn, or after the Axis? This can be a moderately important distinction. Once the Germans have advanced into France, or captured Brussels, the French become much shakier adherents to the Allied cause. A die-roll is made in the Political Events phase at the end of the player-turn, and compared to the British commitment to the continent – the bigger the BEF, and the more it occupies frontline positions, the more likely the French are to fight on. But while the rules indicate that this determination is made after the Axis player turn, the example given in the rulebook states that the dr follows the Allied turn. In our games, we preferred to give the British the choice as to whether they would stay and prop up the French, or flee to fight again another day, feeling that this more accurately portrayed the British dilemma as the French Army implodes under German pressure (stay, and keep the French in the ring for another round, and stave off the possible invasion of Britain, but risk heavy casualties to the all-too-few British units). Or again, while I think that making the reduction of Soviet HQ costs more variable, and more dependent on player decisions, is a MaF gain over EuF, the rules covering this could be clearer. So, after defeating the Finns, the Soviets can try (50:50 DE chance) to start their recovery from the purges, and reduce their HQ costs from 20 to 15PP. The next stage, down from 15 to 10PP, is supposed to take place no earlier than 12 months after the defeat of the Finns, or from the first HQ cost reduction. But this first reduction can only take place after the Finns have caved in. A look at the historical course of events included in MaF shows that the second phase of the cost reductions takes place 12 months after the end of the Winter War, so presumably this was the intent, despite the confusing reference to a time running from the first reduction. This might sound esoteric to anyone not familiar with the game, but to a Soviet player in MaF, this process is absolutely vital, if they are to be in shape for a possible Barbarossa in 1941 (let alone 1940). However, despite these problems, it would be true to say that we felt there were fewer rules issues than with other games covering WW2 in Europe (eg. Krieg, A3R), and the odd glitch is to be expected. Overall, comparing MasterFront to EuroFront, the former is much more likely to run along broadly historical lines in these opening months, if the Historical or Semi-Historical set-ups are used, though in some ways it has less mandated actions than its predecessor. This is not to say that the game will always do so – the Free set-up version in particular allows for an alt-history approach. The Germans can attack west first, but then the French can build the Maginot Line along the Belgian border: which side benefits from this starting position is not easy to say. Nor are these the only changes in MaF: this just covers the early going, up to the Fall of France. There are quite a number of other significant alterations to come, as it were: Gibraltar has been made more vulnerable (though Spain is still unlikely to join the Axis, so this may remain moot), and costs to increase forces in Africa beyond historical levels have been radically increased – to mention just two of the changes apparent from reading the MaF rules. David Buckland - 12:00am Apr 23, 2002 PST (#665 of 665) But meanwhile, in our current game, the Allies have reached a critical point in the Battle of France. The Poles were steamrollered as usual, and the British wimped out of Norway earlier than their historical counterparts. The Germans have overrun the Low Countries, and after heavy fighting in Sedan and Rheims, the cream of the French Army has been crushed. The desperate French look to their British allies, who have committed four corps to the continent, but which have somehow so far managed to avoid any really serious fighting. The British, meanwhile, though they have one corps engaged in defending Lille which may be difficult to extricate, are beginning to feel that the time has come to redeploy the BEF in a strongly homewards direction…..