North Africa Quads: SPI's quadrigame reviwed by Ralph Vickers

The Borodino game system is one of the finest SPI has developed.
Happily, it has not been debased by being adapted for the North Africa
Ouadrigame. In fact, one of the flaws of the original system - the
exchange combat results - has been eliminated and quite a number of
interesting innovations have been added.

The quadrigame is four games in one - four attractive half-sized maps
and four sets of units dealing with various battles of the WWII North
African Campaign. There is a basic set of rules for all the games, then
special and/or optional rules for the separate games and their
scenarios. Play level is battalion-brigade, hexes are scaled at two to
three miles and game turns represent one day. There are never more than
a hundred units in play, games tend to be reasonably short, so they're
good games for two players on a wet afternoon.

Most of the scenarios stick fairly closely to the basic rules. No
difficulty in shifting from one game to another. The exception is
Kasserine which has special weather and withdrawal rules and a rather
complicated victory point scoring system and reinforce ments schedule.

Kasserine deals with the German attempt to knock out the newly-arrived
Americans and Cauldron is the battle of Gazala. Both have only one
scenario. Supercharge (the battle of El Alamein) and Crusader (the
struggle for Tobruk) both have three scenarios.

For the price it's a rich feast - far more material than one reviewer
can cope with within reasonable time and space limitations but the crux
of the matter is the game system. It is still a basically simple systern
no stacking, rigid Zones of Control (ZOCs) mandating combat and a play
sequence of movement, then combat. There are interesting embellishments
on this theme - the advance after combat rules, for instance (up to four
hexes) gives the game great fluidity. After a combat phase the front
line rarely looks even remotely like it was. There are usually a few
deep armoured thrusts into somebody's back yard cutting off units and/or
obliging one side to hastily mount a counter offensive that wasn't
anticipated. It is a very realistic rule simulating the cut, thrust and
parry of open desert warfare.

The Integrated Combat Results Table is a good example of how far wargame
design has progressed in the few years since the advent of Borodino.
Instead of the simplistic "defender doubled for rough terrain" combat
results are fine-tuned to six different situations: an attack into rough
terrain; broken terrain, ridges, stream or town; bridge, grove or ditch;
mixed terrain; and an attack by armour against a position supported by
an anti-tank unit. It's a bloodless CRT - there are only three results
of Attacker Eliminated and none of Defender Elirninated - so the same
Borodino strategy of outflanking to cut retreats is preserved. I hope to
see more of these Integrated CRTs in future games.

But that's not all. Another fine rule enables a defender, after the
phasing player has launched a specific attack, to bolster his defences
with protective fire from his artillery and/or ground support strength
(air and off-board long-range artillery). This is a far more legitimate
technique of introducing uncertainty and surprise into combat results
than a die roll. (I hope that SPI will continue to develop this idea to
the point that one day they can try a game with no die rolls at all).

On-board artillery and ground support strength can also be used to
reinforce attacks,so it isn't a one-sided rule. In fact, without
impairing the "fairness" of the games it adds to the drama by enabling
both players to escalate their attacks when a vital position is at
stake.

Regrettably, however, this review cannot be wholely on a paen of praise.
While SPI (and the other game producers as well) has made breathtaking
advances in the sophistication of game mechanics, they still persist in
their ancient ways of rule writing and playtesting. To err, forget and
goof is human, so we can all forgive SPI for omitting a dozen units from
one of the Initial Deployment Schedules and a rule here and there (all
confessed in the errata) but as usual there are other sins that are
harder to pardon:

(1) When is a unit's status for attack determined? At the beginning of a
player's turn, or at the instant of combat? On this point the rules are
mute. Yet it is a vital point and it is hard to understand how the
playtesters overlooked it. I opted for the latter alternative, which
seems to be the norm in SPI qames today.

(2) Does the list of omitted units for initial deployment in the
Crusader errata apply to all scenarios?

(3) Just like they did in PanzerArmee Africa the art department all over
the map drew trails and roads running parallel but not touching through
the same hexes. Again the rules are mute on how much, if anything, it
costs to switch from one to the other. (I'm certain this is a detail
that will fox many players, particularly the uninitiated.) Well, in PAA
the errata ruled that if you moved into such a double-trail hex paying
normal terrain costs you could claim to be on whatever trail or road
suited you. But if you move into a hex along a trail or road and want to
switch over to a parallel line, then you have to pay normal terrain
costs. A lot of dirt that could have been avoided by running parallel
roads through separate hex rows, surely?

(4) The basic rules say ground support points and reinforcements are
listed on the Turn Record Tracks; they are not. (Suggestion: to keep
score on ground support points expended, use a pile of discarded units
on the track like chips).

(5) The Dash to the Wire scenario of Crusader begins in mid-turn. The
British player is assumed to have completed his phase. A natural
question left unanswered is whether the British player expended any of
his ground support points or not. This should have been mentioned, even
if the British player is assumed not to have expended any. Just because
the rules say nothing it doesn't assure me that for play balance a "no
expenditure" answer is fair.

(6) Rule 7.97 has a diagram demonstrating the mechanics of advance after
combat. I think that the majority of players will assume that this
diagram depicts a segment of the battleline. Let's assume that it does.
The diagram depicts units A, B and C advancing along an enemy's Path of
Retreat - all advancing illegally and no doubt causing endless confusion
and arguements among players not wise in the ways of interpreting
wargame rules. A, B and C have all advanced out of supply (even a
friendly occupied hex does not negate an enemy ZOC in respect to supply)
and Rule 12.24 states: "No unit may move into an unsupplied position
during an advance after combat...". Do they really mean this or not? My
guess is it's the diagram that is wrong, not Rule 12.24.

Of course, it can be argued that this diagram isn't part of a continuous
line, that in this case the supply path of the advancing units comes
around the bottom or top of the diagram etc. etc. Okay, but my point is
that the confusion wrought here is unnecessary - the diagram could
easily have been changed one way or another. Remember, a diagram has
more impact than a thousand words.

The truth is that this is the sort of error - let's call a spade a spade
- that will continue to creep into rules so long as the game publishers
continue to playtest in their old ways. It is no good having "Friday
night playtesting sessions" by players who are already familiar with the
qame. And worse, with the anxious designer hovering over their shoulders
"explaining" everything.

Games have to be finished, then playtested by bright, independent people
who have never seen the game. And the game desiqner should be locked up
in another room. All those willing to pay a few pence more to cover
these costs, please write to your favourite game publisher.

Here I must confess that when I faced this multi-game I had to decide on
one of two review strategies either skim through all the games, or
concentrate on one. Riqht or wrong, I elected to concentrate on one. I
picked at random Crusader: Dash to the Wire. It was the game I didn't
want to study because it looked to me like a static seige of Tobruk. I
am elated to report that the designers were much more crafty than I
expected. If all the games and scenarios are typical of this one, then
all are first rate.

There is a seige of Tobruk, but the Axis don't win a single victory
point even if they overrun the fortress. The main battle takes place in
the open desert where allied relief columns are attempting to push
through. The Axis win points for desroying and/or cutting supply to
allied units. The allies also receive points for destroying the enemy
but their big payoff is for reaching Tobruk.

Tobruk is in the upper left hand corner of the map, surrounded by
Italians who must keep the feisty Tobruk garrison penned up. To be sure
thay do, the Axis player must assign the Italians a backbone of German
units that he can ill spare. The main concentration of German power is
massed in the desert about forty miles southeast of Tobruk. The allies
arc confronting this strong force with a line stretching in a
semi-circle frorn the south to the seacoast in the north. On the far
riqht is another pocket of Germans defendinq Bardia. This is a weak but
constant threat to the British "corridor" running to the coast.
Everybody is almost surrounded by everybody else. A fascinating game
situation.

For the allies the best approach to Tobruk is along the coast. But how
much strength can they afford to commit there and still contain the
panzers in the south?

On the other hand, should the Axis try to push their panzers along the
south, joining with Bardia and cutting supply to the allies in the
north, or should they switch their strength to the north to meet the
allied advance head on? They certainly cannot afford to have their
northern front sandwiched between the allied relief column and the
Tobruk defenders. Yet they have got to guard their southerly supply
lines against a swift allied strike. It is a delicate situation for both
sides and meanwhile those Italians around Tobruk keep tangling with the
garrison and screaming for reinforcements. On the other hand, Tobruk
cannot hold out indefinitely. Really intriguing!

If the other games and scenarios are half as good, then North Africa
Quadriqame is going to be popular for a long time.