Peter McCord - 12:29pm Mar 26, 2002 PST (#655 of 660)

The following are posts from a playtester (DAVID ROBERT) on what is new
with MASTERFRONT (as compared to EUROFRONT). I copied these from the
columbia forum on their website:

Alright, Not seen much to justify 20 bucks... hum :) Here is my (biased)
point of view: MaF (MasterFront) is the result of extensive playtesting
since early 1999 (that make for 3 years of tests and fine tuning). I
show know... I am one of Craig Besinque playtester. Here is a short list
of some problems that were present in EuF 1st Ed:

Summer 1939 * Poland: Problems with when to involve the Soviet player ;
Problems with early Soviet attack, e.g. Rumania.

* Free Game: See above. Additionally early unrealistic German attack on
France to throw the Western Allies out of the game. Main problem is to
balance the game that it becomes a challenging replay of history without
giving one side the option to eliminate the enemy by some unrealistic
actions due to weak spots in the rules. Winter 1939

* Winter War: Somewhat ugly to conduct. Just ordered by the rules,
although the war was historically seen rather unnecessary. Missing what
if options.

* Norway: Quite unrealistic due to the need to fit it into the game turn
sequence. Hard to balance the need to conduct the Norway operation. No
real unit action or step losses, thus not following the usual game
sequence... Summer 1940

* Fall of France : Very hard to balance. Especially the French surrender
procedure! On one hand the historical option of Vichy must be possible,
on the other hand also a different strategy must be possible. Many flaws
due to Allied Blitz movement to secure French North Africa being
possible.

* Late MF opening Also hard to balance as e.g. Axis player could save a
lot resources by not opening the Med Front (thus sparing resources for
Barbarossa). Winter 1940

* Axis pre-Barbarossa shortcuts (Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete): Missing
Axis need to conquer Balkans. Turkey nearly completely ignored as part
of the Balkans. 1941-1942

* MF unbalanced when compared to standalone game

* Insufficient Allied landing threat in 41-42 to discourage Axis EF 
overload

* Axis overloading MF with WF PP

* Torch initiative flip-flop

Most of those problems are addressed by the concatenated MasterFront /
EuroFront 2nd ed rules. Now the "Northern Campaigns" (Norway / Finland)
are a bit more tought to prosecute (I would say excrutiating for the
Soviets) but the effects in terms of overall logistics for the Axis and
Soviets represent in an very easy way the efforts they had to provide
for those campaign. The Allies investment is also important even if much
lower than the Axis one. You must also consider that all the units
shuffling, step loses and thus the induced PPs expenses needed to
rebuild the units representing the Northern Campaign efforts are also
designed to be coherent with a yet highly hypothetical "North Front"
expansion (but real - I have the maps and unit listing as well as draft
rules). This means that IF (and that a really big IF) CG & Craig decide
that it is possible (and profitable) to publish such a expansion, the
basic game and the expansion will fit together in an easy way since all
this have been thought ahead. To sum it up: the Northern campaigns are
much less abstract and there some choices involved. But read on and test
it and you will see the changes when compared to EuF1.

About Poland, its annexion process by Germany and USSR has been modified
with some nasty rules like border disputes where one side can continue
to advance in the other part of Poland if opponent did not garrison the
border. THat led to some interesting border changes in Poland in our
test games :) The most tricky part has been Summer 40. We have been
looking for a better way to simulate it for the past 3 years. And the
final result is a good balance between what happened in real life and
play balance.

Moreover, this is not a Axis walkthrough: Bad planning on the Axis
player part and/or daring/cunning moves from the Allies can make this
short and pretty one-sided campaign a real HQ steps hog for the Axis.
And the Allies is now left with some choices and is not any longer a
passive onlooker of Belgium & France demise, even if most of the time
France surrender in June. Another point in this campaign that has also
been thought about was the "after fall of France" part with Anglo-French
union, French North-Africa status and the MedFront implication. (oh, by
the way, I'm French)

About the Balkans, Axis has to pacify it to be able to plan his
Barbarossa (or lack of) correctly. And to achieve this, the Axis player
must "pacify" this region where Mussolini started to mess up things.

Now about the MedFront: it was too easy to overload the MF with external
units, even with the restrictions imposed in EuF. Now, the desert
maintenance costs as well as the production "Basing" and the list of WF
units that can be sent to MF cleared things a bit. And now MF is again
the tough game it was as a standalone, even when playing it in the
campaign.

Now one remark about the exit zones & transit boxes: EastFront 3rd
Edition introduced some changes in the EZ / TB rules when it was
published (some of those changes came from our ongoing work on
EuroFront). The difference between the two is that EZ are connected to
the main map (by rail or road connections) and TB are even more remote
and far away areas connected to either other TB and/or EZ but never
directly to the map.

In the MF, the EZ/TB have been modified to represent more correctly the
sea and road links existing there (as well as correcting the "travel
expanses" needed to ship units from UK to egypt). Some of those boxes
(Mid East and Turkey) are also represent offmap & offgame zones that may
(same really big IF as for NorthFront) come in play with an expansion
kit for Turkey/Caucasus/Persia (got map too). Those
MidEast/Turkey/Caucasus EZ/TB can come in play if Axis manage to
prosecute a very successful campaign in Russia in Summer 42 (check in
the Dipl. Events).

Oh one more thing that comes to my mind is the simple fact that by
testing this game system and modifying it for 3 years we read through it
countless times and since some of the playtesters were non native
english speakers we often asked Craig to clarify some rules that even if
clearly understood by most native english speakers where a bit tough to
understand for the rest due to some "subtleties". I think that this long
process made the rule system in a more easy easy to grasp one. And if
you have still doubts about wether MaF is worth your $20 or not, take
all the components game rulebook and try to mix them all in 1 rulebook
along all the special EuF rules so that there is no contradictions in
the resulting book. Try it... You'll see it takes some hard work
there... Yours, David

Peter McCord - 12:32pm Mar 26, 2002 PST (#656 of 660)

He also followed up with these comments:

Interesting issues you raise. I shall try to address them before my wife
forcefully enjoin me to shut down my comp :) as it's 23:00 here (France)
and that above piece of techno junk is in our bedroom... France: The DF
defensive fire for Infantry units is a strong deterent against front
assault on the north-eastern French defensive lines. But as explained (I
think) in the rulebook, this strong defensive fire comes from the way
the French army used and dispatched its armor & artillery assets to its
inf divisions. And that's only defensive.

Here is - as far as I remember - the chain of events that Craig and us
used as a guideline for the Fall of France campaign: Belgium reverts to
neutrality in the late 30's. France & United Kingdom try to persuade
Belgium to reconsider. But the most they get is the authorization to
send troops in Belgium IF its neutrality is not respected by Germans.
The French & UK government kind of "guarantee" Belgium neutrality by
promising to rush to its aid if and when troubles start. Since Belgium
defensive system was to be the continuation of France own Maginot line,
this neutrality (and stop of further defensive works construction) was a
problem. That's why Allies ought to rush to Belgium's aid.

The downside of letting Belgium die is that this means that first Allies
do not fulfill their promise to help Belgium (much political trouble and
dissension with Army, potential change of government/defense minister,
further causing mess and troops posture changes in the French army).
Moreover, a complete and fast defeat of Belgium will throw the French
defense plans down the drain. Thus Belgium defeat > loss of French
infantry DF defensive fire.

Now about sedan: Sedan/Philippeville is French & Belgium hex (even if WF
map shows this hex as mostly Belgium). That's why the Allies has the
opportunity to set up there a unit. As long as Belgium is undefeated
this hex, border with rivers can prove to be a tough nut to crack. But
since it is technically in Belgium territory, on the turn Axis declares
war upon Belgium, all assaults in its territory cannot be repulsed. Thus
the most likely scenario is: Axis, during its first turn, engage Sedan
while trying to crush Belgium and get Bruxelles (Blitz). If this
succeeds, the French Inf lose their DF and Sedan can then be massively
attacked with reinforcements (French troops there were unable to repulse
the 1st wave thus no more repulses). A cautious Allied player would have
put a 4cv Inf unit there making it still chancy to get through that
easily but a determined Axis may well do it (Blitz). And this means that
if there is no backup French units in Cambrai & Reims the French are
then in real deep trouble. But having backup units in both Cambrai and
Reims means less units available to defend Lille (the city where I live)
and Calais thus making Axis job more easy there (usually that's where
Allies put the British troops and Axis has a very deep interest in
destroying or hurting those since they are most precious and often one
or two of those are also earmarked for MedFront).

If on the other hand, Axis fails in their daring plan to attack and
crush Belgium so as to throw the French army off-balance and then strike
at Sedan, the Allies have the opportunity to reinforce Belgium by
landing troops in Ostende and sending the BEF and French troops to
Bruxelles and attacking in Mons (saw it happen more than once). Just try
the Fall of France part. You'll see. It can be tough for the Axis if the
Allied player know his job. At least, it will be tough in terms of HQ
steps expanded and thus PPs spent.

Now about "West". It's right that Allies do not have much assets at
their disposal in 39 to threaten the Axis in the West. But... If you
have read the rules about Norway, you see that Axis must pre-position as
many units as possible in the staging areas for Norway from the start of
the game or this will costs that much HQ steps to put those units there
over and above all the movements needed to finish off Poland then
garrison properly the Curzon line then pull back units West and
prosecute Norway campaign. This means that the German defensive line in
the West is most often 1 unit thick only. And not the best units.

Try to fiddle a bit with the French army deployment and you'll see that
the French can attack in September in Saarbrucken without river assaults
with at least the following: 2cv HQ blitzing in Metz sending a 3cv Inf,
4cv Inf and 3cv Mech in Saarbrucken. Most often there will be a 1cv Fort
there and/or supporting infantry (1 or 2cv). But I often saw Axis
players putting there only 1 unit here. So there is a slim chance that
the French troops may breakthrough. And even if they do not, they may
well clean the Hex in 2nd blitz turn. Try to imagine what that would
mean for the Axis will the attack on Poland is unfolding...

I agree that is can be a coslty gamble for the French but the result can
be devastating for the Axis in terms of HQ steps burned because of this.
And since this can be achieved with only French units, British HQs and
troops are still fresh and can then be used to even more deplete Axis HQ
while prosecuting Norway campaign later on. But that's only some IFs.
Players have to try them. :)

Now about the overloading of EF & WF by Axis: there are some serious
limitations about what HQ and units can go in those 2 fronts. This added
to the fact that by cleverly placing units, the British can managed to
send rather strong troops in MF as soon as it opens if the BEF affair in
France is managed correctly make MF in EuroFront a more balanced part of
the game (as it was in standalone version). But it's right that Axis can
send some more units in the East to start Barbarossa with better troops
and maybe some better deployments. But do not forget that the Soviet
players also has the opportunity to deplay his troops in a more
barbarossa-aware way and this tends to balance things a bit. About
Balkans, it's right that Yu can be defeated pretty fast. But again it is
also a matter of deployment and... luck. If the Allies manage to get
Greece when or before Yu is attacked they can properly protect Yu supply
lines at least during the 1st turn of the attack.

You write that to defeat Yu, you do not even have to attack it, just cut
supply. That's right, but in my mind, supply denying is just another
weapon to be used in this game as well as Armor and Inf corps. :) THe
games I enjoy the most are those where there is more movements and
moneuvers (and often supply problems) than pitched battles.

MasterFront does not try to fix things that are pretty well historical
in the way they unfold or at least if the results achieved may be
historical. What was a-historical was when some Axis players simply
chose not to meddle in Balkans preferring to build up troops for
Barbarossa and trying to get Rumania and other balkans states later on.
Now at least there are some incentives for Axis to crush Greece and Yu
so has to fully pacify the Balkans. "Balkan pacified" is precondition
for at least 4 diplo events, among those the release of Satellite armies
and MidEast Rebellion. THis last one is really important since it forces
the Allied player to dedicate one MF combat unit to garrison MidEast so
as to keep their 10PPs there. And most often this means an MF Veteran or
resident Infantry corps.

Now about the cost. Well, ok that's some real money there, but even if
all the rulebook were uptodate so as to fit perfectly, they would still
be separate product. And to update fully the old EuroFront rulebook, you
would have either to handle a many pages long errata or write all the
erratas in the existing book (but many sections were
moved/changed/added) and that would have been not very handy. And all
charts would have to be modified reprinted.

That's just what CG did: reprint a coherent comprehensive rulebook, with
reprinted diplo charts etc. Are you sure that's not worth the bucks
asked for (or at least part of it... grin) ? Well, ok those could have
been made available for free download on the Internet (that's the way I
played and tested this baby since 1999 so this means that it's possible)
but do you truly expect its author and the firm that publish those
products to let this sum work go for free?

CG is no philantropic organization. It's business. :) They got bills to
pay (as we do) and I think it's fair for them to ask us to pay to get
this. Now, on the other hand, I would appreciate if we could download
the updated and printable versions of the component games rulebooks on
the same principle as the BobbyLee/SamGrant and PacVictory "living
rules". For those, it's no problem to have them for free: to play, you
MUST have the blocks and maps. And to buy them separately but without
the rules would cost you as much as buying the full game... But on the
other hand, MaF is just printed material and making it available to
download would deprive CG and its author of the sole way for them to get
paid for their work. But that's only my humble opinion...

Now let me go catch some ZZZzzzz so that I can continue my work on this
other nice "piece" of Blockgames, the ADC2 gameset (since my opponents
is in Norway, that's how we are also testing MaF, by using the ADC2
gameset, thus making a double test). Yours, David