From Moves#68

HOLY WAR: AFGHANISTAN

DESIGNER'S NOTES 

by Joseph Miranda

This should have been called "Strategy &
Tactics' Long Road to Kabul." I was originally
commissioned to design Afghanistan in the
spring of 1988, long before I became editor of
S&T. I put together the initial design quite
easily. The situation seemed to be made for
wargames. Excellent orders of battle were
available. The original game system used
multiple impulses with the defender being
allowed to react to show guerrilla operations.
You could push an offensive as far as you
wanted, if you were prepared to pay the cost.
Control of provinces was accounted for by an
off-map roster. The problem was that it was too
realistic-players ended up with a stalemate,
with the Communists controlling the cities and
the Resistance the high ground. Afghanistan
ended up going through two major redesigns
until we came up with the current system. The
basic problem was trying to catch the spirit of
the war in Afghanistan, the constantly shifting
sands of alliances, loyalties, and battles.

The game gives the players the chance to
step into the role of either the Resistance
leadership in exile or the Kabul government. I
ended up using a lot of simple play mechanics,
most notably the picking of political markers,
to simulate a wide range of political,
diplomatic, cultural and military factors. The
idea was to minimize the complexity, and
keep the game from being turned into a mass
of charts and status displays. (The political
marker subsystem owes much to Jim
Dunnigan's Russian Civil War game, I should
note.)
	
Units are evaluated for the three essential
areas of insurgency warfare: combat,
intelligence and political subversion capability.
There is a trade-off here, as generally the
stronger the unit, the lower its intelligence
factor. The attacker uses the lowest
intelligence value unit when setting UP
intelligence factors because if you go charging
into a guerrilla situation with heavy divisions,
the enemy will know you are coming ahead of
time. I amalgamated a number of unit types in
the order of battle. Secret police units, for
example, represent intelligence, security and
border guard forces. On the game scale the
distinctions are minimal. Given the
fluctuations of unit strengths and capabilities
throughout the war, a too-precise order of
battle would have tripled the number of
counters to no real advantage. Why do all
terrain types cost one movement factor?

Within the time period of a turn (three
months) a unit could reasonably get across the
entire country. The real problem was getting
through enemy controlled areas.

Holy War shows why the war in
Afghanistan developed the way it did. The
trade-off is between using your political
strengths (quantified in agitprop markers) to
build your own side's loyalties, or for
undermining the enemy's. The game also
shows the development of the Soviet army in
the 1980s. It starts as a fairly conventional
mechanized force, but is changed to a much
more flexible one as the game progresses. The
Soviets learned a lot from Afghanistan
(although, they did not learn enough in the
end to save their own system from collapse).

The populated hexes were a late addition
to the game system. We came up with several
different ways to show popular support in the
countryside, and this one worked out the best.
The political situation in Afghanistan was
somewhat different from other insurgencies.
Here, pretty much the entire population was
in arms against the government (along Afghan
tradition). Unlike, say. the Indochinese or
Central American insurgencies, there wasn't a
centralized rebel political infrastructure to
rally the people. This also had its
disadvantages for the Resistance, because the
movement fragmented into an array of locally
based movements.

A word or two about the Political Action
Markers. Notice that there is a greater chance
of drawing the Resistance Disunity and
Government Purge markers if their respective
sides are winning. This reflects the tendency
of Afghanis to turn to fighting each other for
control when things were going well.

The combat system integrates both
intelligence and different types of tactics. As
in reality, whoever has superior intelligence
can determine the pace of fighting. The use of
non-simultaneous CRTs gives Holy War a
slightly tactical flavor, and gives players some
selection in their operations.

I included the Rapid Deployment Force
more to give the game variation than because
of any historical probability of the U.S. and its
allies intervening. The U.S. "Task Force
Afghanistan" represents an ad hoc
combination of a brigade each from the 82nd
Airborne and 101st Air Assault divisions, plus
support units, used for rapid response.

One of the questions raised about the game
is "why can guerrilla units use the Conventional
combat results tables, and conventional units
use the Guerrilla?" In a sense, there is no basic
difference between a guerrilla and a regular
soldier: both are a man (or woman) with a gun.
The difference comes in training and source of
support. The way the combat system is set up,
these differences are demonstrated. Units have
both an intelligence and a combat factor. The
intelligence factor could just as well be called 
"contact" factor, the ability to determine the
pace of fighting. In most guerrilla conflicts,
guerrillas initiate around 80 per cent of all
firefights. They hit and then run. They do not
stand and fight because to do so would mean
getting slaughtered by superior enemy
firepower. In the game, the higher intelligence
factor of the guerrilla-type units (as well as
special forces and other light infantry) reflect
this. Generally, guerrillas will be able to
determine the course of individual battles,
because in the game, whoever has intelligence
superiority gets to fire first. And, generally, it
is better for them to use the guerrilla combat
results table, in as, much as this allows them to
hit and then run through use of the mobile war
(M) result. They can actually leave the hexes
from which they are fighting, in effect
canceling the enemy's ability to fire back.

On the other hand, conventional forces
will find that the conventional table is
generally better to use. Assuming the enemy
sticks around, conventional units will want to
inflict maximum casualties, and the
Conventional CRT is better for this. The
critical thing is that the game does not force
the situation. While it is generally better for
guerrilla units to use the Guerrilla Table, and
conventional units the Conventional, players
can gain an unexpected tactical victory.
Historically, guerrilla units have tried to
employ conventional tactics, and regular units
guerrilla, usually without much success. The
Resistance's 1989 Jalalabad offensive was
pretty much smashed when the guerrillas came
out into the open by superior Communist
firepower. The way the CRTs are set up, they
favor, but do not force, historical tactics. For
example, the Guerrilla Table usually works best
when a player has a smaller number of units;
this makes the chances of being able to hit and
run far greater. If using a larger number of
combat factors, it is better to use the
Conventional table.

I used a similar approach on the strategic
level. Guerrillas gain benefits from having the
local populace support them. In the game, this
is reflected by giving the side which controls a
hex bonuses for intelligence and combat (as
well as providing supply and impeding enemy movement). 
But, again, this is not fixed. A player can shift 
support in a hex to his side by subverting it. This 
gives the players an opportunity to change the 
strategic conditions which give guerrillas their
advantage in the first place. Once a player has
converted (or terrorized) populated hexes in
an area, the enemy will find it increasingly
difficult to operate in it.

The Optional rules allow players to
manipulate the game more. The multiple
impulse rule changes the game's level from
strategic to operational. The biggest
limitation was the counter mix. We had to
keep it to 200 counters. Originally, units were
brigade level. In the final game, we combined a
number of brigades/regiments into divisions.
We also had units representing bases, convoys
and caravans. They ended up being dumped,
and all the details subsumed into the Supply
rule. In the long term this works better, as it
keeps the game manageable.

In the Basic Game, units do not pay
terrain costs because each turn represents a
season; in that time, a unit could easily march
across the entire map. The movement rates in
the Basic Game actually represent the ability
of a unit to shift its center of operations more
than movement per se. However, when using
the multiple impulses rule, movement more
closely resembles cross country capability;
therefore, units pay terrain costs. The
movement penalty for entering an enemy
controlled hex represents the political costs
of moving, not the military.

All this was part of the design philosophy
for Holy War. The idea was to give the
players the strategic situation. It's a two-front
war: political and military.

Player's Notes

You have to keep yourself organized. The
most important thing is remembering that,
ultimately, the Political Index will determine
the course of die game. The more it is in your
favor, the more Political markers you will
draw and, hence the better your capability to
mobilize and enhance operations.

It goes without saying (but I'll say it
anyway) that ALL military operation.,
have to have a political goal in mind.
Wandering around the map and killing enemy
units at random is the path to defeat. You
have three basic types of units: military,
political and intelligence. Use each to its
best abilities (for example, using secret police
groups to hunt down enemy cadres), but at the
same time have all three types in an area of
operations to support each other.

For the Communist player, your military
forces have several missions, in this order:
safeguarding vital populated areas, working
with the political forces, and keeping the
enemy dispersed. Often it is better to occupy
key cities with stronger units than attempting
to engage the enemy. In the long term, this
will rack in more political points. Do not give
up cities without a fight---once you have lost
one, it may be impossible to get it back. When
you have secured an area gradually expand.
Use subversion-capable units to convert more
hexes to your side. Gaining control of the
populace is one of the paths to victory. Given
that the defender will have the advantage of a
shift for controlling a hex, often the best way
to convert an area is to first terrorize it with
military units, then attempt a conversion.

Afghanistan can be divided into several
geographical areas of operations: Kabul (and
its surrounding environs) , the Hindu Kush
(the high mountains down the center of the
map), the northern tier (adjoining the USSR),
the south (the generally clear desert terrain),
and the Pakistani frontier. For the
Communists, it is a must to secure Kabul. If
you lose it, there goes the country. The
northern tier is also important for maintaining
your communications with the Soviet Union.
Once these two areas are cleared of Resistance
controlled hexes, take the offensive. Do not
try to fight everywhere at once, because you
do not have the resources. The city of
Qandahar is a key position, and serves as a
linchpin of the southeastern area of the
country. It is worth fighting for, even if it
becomes isolated.

For the Resistance, you have several
tasks at hand. The first is to build a sufficient
force of cadres to mobilize your units. Keep
up the pressure on government forces through
subversion attacks. As was true historically,
you can use subversion to cause government
forces to melt away. The Soviets are a lot
tougher to take on, and it is better to avoid
them, at least in the early stages of the game.
Once you have worn the Communists down
both militarily and politically, strike for
several major cities to force their final
collapse.

Tactically, both sides have advantages.
The Communist player should use airpower
and airmobility as much as possible to remain
flexible and strike at Resistance forces in their
secure areas. The Resistance can use his
superior intelligence capabilities to fight only
on his own terms. Both sides should try to
fight in friendly controlled hexes, because this
will give favorable combat shifts.

As is true in any insurgency, players
in Holy War are in for the long haul. It
will take several turns for operations to have a
payoff, and massive "decisive blows" will
dissipate. Several of the Political markers, if
played judiciously, will give players a chance
to win (or lose) the game in a turn or two.
These include the Jihad, Socialist Revolution
and Soviet Offensive. Also, if the Resistance
can get the Rapid Deployment Force, he
can strike hard and fast, at least before the
negative Political Index modifiers kick in.

Finally, I would like to extend a hearty
congratulations to everybody involved with
Holy War: Afghanistan, most notably developers
Paul Dangel and Keith Schlesinger.

NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net)
on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society
(http://pages.about.com/strategygames/), 
originally collected by Andrew Webber 
(gbm@wwwebbers.com)