From: Markus Stumptner Subject: [consim-l] Operation Shock Troop John Nebauer and I played Operation Shock Troop for the first time on Saturday. It was a strange experience. Strange enough for me to spend a couple of hours writing it up. GAME: Operation Shock Troop, S&T 168. For those who don't know it, the game is generally considered by word of mouth a reasonable product from one of S&T's better periods (although the great creative flowering of the Early Miranda period was arguably on the wane). OST covers the Israeli counteroffensive towards Damascus from 11 to 23 October, 1973, at company/battalion scale and 2.4 km per hex. This had intrigued me for some time because it is fairly close to the scale of Air and Armor, probably the best modern operational game ever designed. The time scale though is quite different because turns in Air & Armor cover 2-4 hours while an OST turn represents one or two days of real time, so that the game has only 8 turns in all. I suspected that this much slower pace of operations was mostly driven by the fact that both sides had been fighting for some time before the game's period and so had to deal with fatigue and logistic difficulties. This turns out to be true when one reads the article accompanying OST. The game has the expected chrome: airpower, artillery support and barrages, Syrian defensive positions (forts and emplacements) and the infamous ATGM (anti-tank guided missile) units whose first-time large scale use is a characteristic of the Yom Kippur War. The other, deeper similarity between OST and A&A is that both use a non-standard sequence of play to show the different command control capabilities and doctrine of both sides. In Air & Armor, NATO flexibly assembles task forces during the turn to act and react depending on the situation on the battlefield, while Soviet forces move by regiment and need to assign orders to their formations before each turn. In OST, the sequence is not interactive but the Israelis move in sequential impulses (a stack moves, then attacks, with other stacks, particularly of the same formation, being able to participate in the attack, then the next stack moves etc.). This enables them to leverage an enemy position apart by multiple blows over the course of a turn, although each hex can be attacked at most twice. The Arabs on the other hand have a normal "barrage then move then combat" sequence, and units of different nationalities can never attack together. Most Arab units are brigades and comprise forces from Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, with the Israelis mostly having companies. Stacking limit is 3 companies or 1 battalion plus some extras. Movement ratings are generally 14 for mechanized units (halfway across the map in clear terrain) and 6 for infantry. The Saudi forces appear to be mostly non-mechanized. It strikes me as fairly unlikely that they didn't have at least trucks given their propensity for expensive and exotic equipment, but since they are only one division that does not matter a lot. The game has normal ZOC rules (stop on entering, exit first if starting in one) with some infiltration capability for Syrian tank hunter teams. Combat is odds based with voluntary attacks. The first notable feature is that the two sides use different CRTs, the second is that units are rated for both "leg" and "armor" combat strength. Alan Sharif wrote a review available on Web-Grognards. I generally like Alan's reviews (although unlike he, I think the series games he professes to dislike were some of the most brilliant S&T games ever). But I think referring to the game's mechanisms as a "design breakthrough" goes a bit far. It's creative but A&A and other games with doctrinally different play sequences came out earlier. Differing anti-tank and anti-infantry strengths are not that new either. But that is a minor matter, all are clever mechanisms that arguably do not see enough use and so it sparks the interest to see them used. The map (showing significant Mark Simonitch influence like much of Joe's early work for S&T) is overall quite nice and effective. There are a number of oddities in the terrain analysis such as the fact that moving on roads is no faster than riding through the rocky desert but they do not affect play much. The terrain is made intriguing by the fact that the lava fields in the center are impassable to vehicles, and Mount Hermon to the north is completely impassable. (It is spelled Mount Herman and we're lucky Richard Berg never noticed or we'd have seen hundreds of tired jokes about this by now.) So, we sat down and played. We did not play to the end (we had started to play after dinner) but the game moved right along. By turn 4 it was fairly clear that, most likely due to my initial inexperience with the system, my Israelis were far behind the historical schedule and although they kept up or increased the pressure, by turn six it was clear they would not reach the historical outcome. As a nice touch, the game has separate "historical" and "balanced" or "game" victory scales, and we were clearly in Arab game victory territory. The cause lay probably in the first couple of turns where historically the Israelis blew through the Syrian first line and advanced far into their rear before things were stabilized; didn't happen in our game despite the fact that the Syrians cannot move on those turns; there is a fair number of them to plow through but probably I just should have focused more on the roads. It did take some turns to get the hang of the Israeli sequential movement capability. The Israeli ability to attack the same hex twice is much touted in the rules but of limited use as the Israelis will rarely attack the same hex twice - most attacks will see the defender retreating voluntarily anyway. This enables the Arabs to conserve their strength and retain enough of a line to contain breakthroughs for most of the game even as they are continually forced back. Step losses on the CRTs are rare (more on this below) and having your whole line forced back three hexes per turn from turn 3 onwards is fine because that will only get the Israelis halfway across the map by the end of the game and that's not where the major VP locations are. Ironically one of the main Israeli tricks I eventually learned is *not* to advance after combat since that will clog the hexes needed for the next attack in the turn. Instead you move the next stacks in for the attack on the defender's neighbours; only the last stacks in a particular area advances as far as possible to hinder re-occupation. So far I agree with Alan's review - situation and system present some interesting puzzles concerning a part of the YK war that, with the traditional focus on the Sinai, one tends to hear little about. Unfortunately we quickly found that the game has a problem that can be summarized in one word: combat. The first issue is the handling of combined arms. The game thoughtfully provides two ways to incorporate the leg/armor ratings. The rules point out how much more realistic the optional method (7.3) is, which we were only too ready to believe since the basic method, while workable, has some problems that were clear after first reading. So we used 7.3 right away. Only to find, after a single stack had been moved, that apparently, no one ever tried the optional method before, not even the playtesters, because it does not work at all. (Causing much hilarity for John and myself. We later checked the F&M review on the game; it's pretty clear the reviewer never tried the optional method either. Nor are there any errata for this problem that we are aware of. Anyone have any to offer?) The rule says "Only the attacking and defending combat units that belong to the dominant type [leg or armor] are used to determine combat odds. The dominant type is chosen by the defender. Only defending units of the dominant type are affected by the result." So, what happens if a tank column attacks an infantry battalion out in the open desert? Nothing, that's what. There are either no attacking units that can be used to determine the odds, or no defending units affected by the outcome. (No errata on this that we know of.) Rather than engage in a fundamental change after five minutes of play we decided to revert to the standard rule. Strike one. The standard rule (7.12, 7.13) uses the most numerous type of unit on the defending side to determine the "dominant type", so if you're attacking mostly infantry units, that's "leg". These values are then used to determine odds. So, if you have "the wrong type" on the attack you will need to pile on more units to get the same odds. Not quite how I envision modern combined arms combat since terrain should play a major role (take a look at Air & Armor to see how it's done). However, the game does give combined arms a nod by giving the Israelis a positive shift for having both leg and armor units in an attack, and Israeli units are generally rated closely on both ratings anyway. The hidden flaw is that the selection by "dominant defending type" is again nonsense, since it means armor units helping an infantry stack defend against attack are a waste and, worse, an ATGM unit (of either side) being attacked by armor is worthless unless it is stacked with tanks (ATGM units have zero "leg combat" ratings). Geeze Louise! For a war where they played a role as in no other, that is just awful. Why spend so much rules weight to incorporate them, only to fumble their effects? In fact looking through my files after the game I found that Noel Wright asked that question of Perry Moore here on consim-l back in 1994. Strike two. However, regardless what they face, attacking units are pretty much immune to damage anyway. Here's (almost) the final strike against the game. The structure of the Arab and Israeli CRTs is the same: odds go from 1:2 to 4:1, only very low rolls are step losses, then there are some retreats, with either one "Counterattack" or "Firefight" (one step loss each) result for high rolls but inexplicably only at high odds. The Israelis will suffer fewer step losses and fewer retreats but the CRT structure is the same. (As an aside, the Israelis will generally attack with 2:1 strength since elite units and the combined arms shift will bring them to the 4:1 column so units in excess of 2:1 are more effectively used in separate attacks.) The key effect is that except for the rare (1 in 6 chance at higher odds) CA and FF results there are NO LOSSES to the attacker, in particular not at 1:2 or lower. That's right, attack at 1:2 and you have a reasonable chance to force a retreat (even the Arabs have a 1/3 chance) or even a step loss, AT NO RISK TO YOURSELF. Anyone remember the infamous ground combat CRT from Tac Air? This one is just like it, except that it does not have the excuse of being part of a game focused on air combat and logistics. And it's most extreme at low odds. These CRTs here look like there's a fire based combat table in them that wants to get out but didn't quite make it. (Ironically, although the Israeli CRT is slightly bloodier, I don't see why combat could not have been handled using one CRT with a -1 modifier for the Israelis, and some shaded results (which the CRTs use anyway.) Overall, the reason why this is not an outright killer for the game is that (as with Tac Air) over the course of a turn, the effects even out. The to-and-fro shifting does not irritate as much in the open desert and I guess this is Perry's way of having both players spend turns that historically saw little movement and the occasional loss. Still, compared to Tac Air all of this is much more in the foreground and the basis for the tactics in the game. Oh yes, because of the "leg/armor" thing, the ATGM units do have some effect when attacking. Again, backwards compared to history. Of course most of the outcomes will again be retreats. John's conclusion as defender was that his main focus was on keeping up one's strength and focus on keeping a tight line so the strong ZOCs help preventing breakthroughs. I should point out that all these particular effects clearly were not overlooked in design or development. They are pointed out in the Player's Notes which exhort the Arabs to attack at low odds whenever possible because it's for free. Yes it is because the system makes it so, but why??? Perry's own accompanying article lists a number of crucial battles where key positions were held for days while the attackers repeatedly got a bloody nose. In the game, defensive positions do not significantly help your troops (all they do is give a dieroll modifier that basically increases the chance of a No Effect result by 1/6). Instead, if are in a defensive position, the rules FORCE you to take a retreat as a step loss (otherwise a voluntary choice). Given how relatively easy it is normally for the Israeli player to force retreats (that are of limited use because the unit will still block his way to Damascus) compared to step losses (which are what he wants), finding Arabs in fortifications is a gift. As the Arab this effect is almost enough to make you want to leave defensive positions empty to conserve your forces (then you can try a bloodless 1:2 attack in your turn to keep pushing the Israeli advances back). However that's not really an option since the Syrians (unaware of this strange effect) historically built them often in hexes that one has to occupy to defend key intersections or cities. There's other niggling bits, such as the normal outcome of an air attack being a one-hex retreat, or the fact that the article notes that the Israelis took the critical Tel Shams position using an airlanding with paratroops on October 13. In the game, they walk in from the mapedge with their 6 movement points and cannot reach Tel Shams before October 17 when the campaign is half over. Ho hum. SUMMARY: We have a game that roughly shows the outline of the campaign (mostly because it roughly gets the inflow of reinforcements right) but has a lot of sloppy bits at the edges and some key mechanisms that just do not work right. It is not a very long game - I think between experienced players four hours would be achievable, and despite the constant grinding noises and the occasional shower of sparks (the latter in particular when an ATGM unit is scraped off the map due to its zero leg strength) one can play on, if one wants. The problem is, why bother? Alas, it just does not feel like the Yom Kippur war one reads about even in the designer's own accompanying article. One must ask why so many unusual mechanisms were combined to end up with the feeling of Napoleon's Last Battles - encircle and kill by retreat with lot's of 1970s equipment chrome. Multiple wrongs don't make a right and in some ways this game feels like a practice session for ATO's Kesselschlacht. Sadly, then or later, the the lessons were not heeded. RATED: "Tolerable but Surprising Disappointment" on the Hurlihan-Chantz Game Tolerance Scale. OUTCOME: Off to the "interesting enough to try to fix if if ever get around to it" pile. Last 3 games: Tide of Fortune, Operation Shock Troop, Go Tell the Spartans --------------- http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/ --------------- "Bakayaro! Bakayaro!" ("Stupid Bastards! Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942 From: Markus Stumptner Subject: [consim-l] Op Shock Troop, game 2 I decided to try a second game of OST to verify whether I'd do better with the Israelis the second time. My esteemed opponent indicated pronounced disinterest in a repeat performance with an unfixed game so a solo study seemed the appropriate action to take. This time, I paid more attention to the required ZOC-off-to-kill tactics - send the long-moving mechanized units around the flanks if possible, to kill the enemy with a low-odds attack that sends him into retreat. I sent the 9th brigade (which is stationed somewhat south of centre) along the centre main road as an additional push into the packed mass of units there, instead of (as in Saturday's game) barrelling into the desert with it on the lookout for isolated Arabs to attack. I sent the Tiran battalions into combat on the first turn of arrival - they are quite weak, but after all there is no weakness on the attack here. The "normal" Israeli brigades I organized as far as possible into 3-company stacks that contain a mechanized and two armor companies, so that with one elite unit in the stack, one stack alone achieves two column shifts on the attack. Since I was interested purely in the possible rate of advance with the rules as written I did not introduce any houserules and fixes. So far I am up to turn 3, and indeed the pace of operations fits Perry's article pretty well, as far as I can determine. (The article references many locations that are neither marked on the game map nor on a map in the magazine.) Two of the Moroccan battalions died on turn 1, eight Syrians on turn 2, and four more on turn 3. I made heavy use of the leapfrogging tactics that the game permits to the Israelis. The Maat-something crossroads in the center was reached on turn 2 (October 12), and on turn 3 I had five assault columns mostly from the 17th and 205th brigade race forward to take Tell Shams. (The paratroops of course, were walking through the desert west of the Israeli start line.) On the southern road, the Iraqis held things up, but needed to spread quite a bit eastwards to keep the route to Knaker closed for turn 4. The northern pincer worked nicely as well, with all objectives west of the Leja fields taken, and the first morale-affective village north of them (Mat-el-something) falling on turn 3. I might even reach Sassa in this game... Iraqi morale is 6, Israeli victory points are still fairly low (about 12 for terrain, 14 for units, but that's where I was on turn 5 or 6 in the other game). Most notably, the Israelis have (despite massive Iraqi counterattacking even at 1-1 odds) so far not taken much losses, four company-level steps have been removed (about the equivalent of 4 tanks; Tell Shams alone cost more than that historically). At the start of the Arab turn, their screens in front of the next set of VP locations are actually quite thin. With the remaining movement restrictions on Syrian divisions (the Command post has been disrupted all game and, being adjacent to the Israelis at Tell Shams, may well die the next turn) and basically only one Iraqi brigade reinforcing this turn (more Arab units next turn), things could get interesting. Markus Last 3 games: Tide of Fortune, Operation Shock Troop, Go Tell the Spartans --------------- http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/user/mst/games/ --------------- "Bakayaro! Bakayaro!" ("Stupid Bastards! Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942