Note: This is the original, unedited version of a review that appeared in BERG'S REVIEW OF GAMES (BROG). If you're interested in seeing more of Richard Berg's celebrated wit and insight in BROG, you can contact him at BergBROG@aol.com. BREAKOUT IN NORMANDY Ah yes, Avalon Hill, the Rorschach blot of wargaming. In which direction are they going ? Having nailed the lid on the coffin of Victory Games, are they moving strictly to market the war/family game hybrid epitomized by BLACKBEARD and the recently released WE THE PEOPLE ? Does the publication of HERE COME THE REBELS and BREAKOUT IN NORMANDY demonstrate a continued commitment to main-line wargames ? Or are they just grumpy because Baltimore didn't get one of the new NFL expansion franchises ? Evidence would seem to point to a middle ground between the first two possibilities. Judging by the financial success of BLACKBEARD, Avalon Hill appears to have solidified a niche in the hybrid market, while their continued publication of such traditional war games as STONEWALL JACKSON'S WAY and their patronage of Avaloncon show that they are still interested in supporting wargames. This is a welcome sign that the last of wargaming's old foundations (remember when SPI, GDW, and Avalon Hill dominated the business?) will remain, if not influential, at least visible in the hobby. BREAKOUT IN NORMANDY is the fourth game published using the system introduced in STORM OVER ARNHEM and followed by THUNDER AT CASSINO and TURNING POINT: STALINGRAD (Avalon Hill sure loves those snappy titles). The title of BREAKOUT itself is very misleading; this game doesn't really cover the breakout from the Normandy beachhead. Instead, it begins with the Allied invasion on June 6 and covers the following three weeks of bitter, pounding combat as the Allies tried to enlarge and secure their foothold on the continent. I hope you're not expecting to find tanks charging over the French countryside. None of the free-wheeling Patton/COBRA armored thrusts here-- what you get is lots of hard slogging through the bocage and over the rubble of Caen. The original STORM OVER ARNHEM system, as designed by Don Greenwood, has been modified in subsequent versions until, as the Designer's Notes for BREAKOUT inquire, just to show that Keith Poulter isn't the only one suffering from delusions of grandeur, "Dare we claim to have perfected the system ?" How do you answer a question like that ? I must confess that I have not played this system since STORM, so I can't say. What I can say, though, is that they have here a solid design and a pretty good game. The box advertises BREAKOUT as a game of moderate complexity. Again, like the title, don't believe everything you read. CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH AFRICA it ain't, but there are a couple of complex elements here to trip up the unwary and the inexperienced. The STORM OVER ARNHEM system eschews hexes for breaking the map into irregularly sized areas, with each area representing a notable piece of terrain- Caen, Cherbourg, the beach areas, and so on- and given a Terrain modifier to reflect its defense suitability, so that Caen gets a +5 while the open ground around Sword and Juno beaches gets a measly +1. Areas are often divided by rivers and flooded ground, so that the control of bridges becomes crucial during play. Units are mainly regiments and brigades with a few battalions putting in appearances (but they usually don't last long). Area movement is a good solution to the design problems inherent in urban fighting, so it worked well in STORM OVER ARNHEM. I was skeptical about its appropriateness to campaigns in the open country, but I think it's effective in simulating the combat in Normandy, channeled as it was by rivers, flooded terrain, and the bocage. The destruction and capture of bridges becomes of primary importance, as it was during the actual campaign. Avalon Hill long ago mastered the art of tailoring a game's graphics to reflect its intended market. ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER is a complex game, so they load up the counters with all sorts of numbers and symbols and put about 50 different types of terrain on the map. BREAKOUT is meant as a medium-simple game, so the counter's are nice and big (this is area movement, after all, so who's worried about space ?) with simple NATO symbols and large type. The maps are sturdily mounted, colorful without being garish, with plenty of charts and diagrams around the edges to help players keep track of what's going on and what they should be doing. Off-map zones, an Avalon Hill innovation which appears quite frequently in their games, prevents the edge-of-the-world mentality by allowing players to move on and off the map. The box cover is a fine piece of original art, although for some odd reason the game title is written in black stencil, making it invisible from more than six inches away. A tightly written rulebook with plenty of illustrations and historical notes rounds out the package, which meets the usual high Avalon Hill standard. The sequence of play is the most important, and the trickiest, part of the system. Turns span one day, during which players alternate impulses, each impulse activating one area, whose inhabitants may then move, fight, repair/blow bridges, etc. Units become "spent" after activation, limiting them to, generally, one impulse per turn. Mixed in with the impulses is a die-roll to see whether the sun has set, ending the turn. If the die-roll is less than the impulse number, the turn ends; if higher, the turn continues while the impulse number increases by one. The kicker is that the first Allied die roll in each impulse doubles as the sunset die roll, so that the more actions the Allies perform, the shorter the turn will last. This is not an easy process to get the hang of, and I suspect that novice gamers will quickly become frustrated-- better to play BREAKOUT for the first time with someone already familiar with the system. Despite some reservations, I do like the impulse-based sequence of play, a good way of simulating the ebb and flow, attack/counter-attack nature of World War II land combat. My doubts arise from the cumbersome method of randomly determining the end of the turn, exacerbated by a poor description in the rules of just how the sunset die roll works; I never was quite certain that I was doing it correctly. The rest of the game, however, is fairly simple. Combat is resolved in each area at the end of the impulse for the units that were just activated-- each side picks one unit, and determines a combat value by adding that unit's attack/defense factor to a host of modifiers for terrain, supporting units, divisional integrity, etc., and a die roll-- the lower value loses and takes losses equal to the difference in combat values with voluntary retreats. There is no bonus for combined arms combat, which I find a major deficiency, especially for this type of game. Combat losses take the form of disruptions, with three disruptions eliminating a unit. I am against combat systems where only one side suffers casualties, nor do I think it reflects combat in Normandy, which quickly became a war of attrition. Combat is essentially one unit vs. one unit, with any friends in the same area sitting on the wings as cheerleaders. A strong defending unit in tough terrain can hold out against a horde of attacking units well nigh indefinitely. Why can't the attacker bring more than one unit to bear ? BREAKOUT repairs some of the earlier transgressions of STORM OVER ARNHEM, particularly in combat where it used to be that the weakest defending unit contributed its defense value, but now I think they have gone too far the other way. Nevertheless, combat is easily learned and quick to resolve. Supply takes a hand by setting a limit to the number of units per turn that can recover from disruption. A player may stockpile unused supply points to provide extra impulses in the next turn, an effective method of allowing armies to build up for an offensive. A rather odd rule gives the "Advantage" to one army, allowing that player to "spend" it on redoing a dieroll, taking a double impulse, or effecting the arrival of sunset (I might call this the Canute rule); once a player spends it, the opponent gets the Advantage. This is supposed to reflect a stockpiling of supplies or a shift of momentum-- I found it to be a rather artificial deus ex machina. There is only one scenario. The basic game covers the invasion of June 6, with extra phases thrown in for the airborne landings, to June 13, while an extended game adds on two more weeks of fighting, with players checking at the end of each week to see if the game will continue. The Allies are trying to capture Cherbourg and exit units into the off-map zones, while the Germans must limit, if not squash, the Allied beachhead. The game plays well, despite the artificial nature of some of the rules. The situation is a good one. The Allies land with ease but are badly separated in their beachheads, leaving the Germans with a number of tough choices: use the precious panzers to isolate the beaches and drive the British into the sea, or simply consolidate around Caen and Cherbourg and fight a battle of attrition ? Most invasion games tend to be solitaire affairs as the good guys roll ashore, but the alternating impulses in NORMANDY allow the German player to be more than just an interested spectator during the landings. The Allied dilemma is just as acute. Unite the beachheads or press inland quickly to relieve the beleaguered airborne troops ? You're never quite sure when the turn will end, so much nailbiting ensues as players try to solve every crisis before the sun sets. I think the system tends to favor the defender, so in this case the Allies have a hard time making headway beyond the beaches. The more experienced player should definitely play the Wogs and Yankees, as familiarity with the nuances of BREAKOUT's system is crucial for them to break into Festung Europa. Solitaire-wise, I think BREAKOUT loses much of its edge because the feint/attack/counter-attack tension is lost (then again, I guess that all depends on how schizophrenic you are). But for a situation that seems frought with exciting possibilities, it's amazing how the latest round of Normandy games have managed to miss the boat; VICTORY IN NORMANDY is more like slow-motion racquetball, OMAHA is a ton of die-rolling for little purpose, and ST. LO covers only a portion of the campaign with an agonizingly immobile system. Of all of the latest Normandy games, I find BREAKOUT to be the best. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: The usual solid job we have come to expect from the boys from Baltimore. Playability: A little tricky at first, particularly if you don't know the system. The rules aren't the clearest, either, in elucidating some of the stickier points. Needs a couple of plays to get the game down pat. Replayability: A strong point. The variable turn length means that players can never rely on getting everything done at once, instead forcing a tense juggling of crises. Truly, every game will be different. Creativity: Being a system game, it's not really innovative. However, a welcomed fresh approach to gaming the Normandy invasion. Historicity: Again, the usual high Avalon Hill standard. Players get a good feel for the historical situation. Comparisons: The best Normandy published in a long time. Smaller and much more accessible than WESTWALL and THE LONGEST DAY, meatier than D-DAY, although nothing quite matches up with that classic, a whole lot more fun than VICTORY IN NORMANDY, and on a larger scale (and much more balanced) than OMAHA. Overall: A refreshing sign that Avalon Hill is still producing good stuff for us cardboard pushers. If you're an invasion fan, this is your game. David Fox fragilfox@aol.com