From: Brandon Einhorn Subject: Re: Korean War Review Alan, This is a more coherent (although still somewhat rambling) review of Korean War - Victory Games. > > Korean War - Victory Games, 1986 > Designed by Joe Balkowski > Reviewed by Brandon Einhorn > > Korean War is a division level simulation of the first 12 months of the > Korean War. There are 2 maps covering all of Korea. There are 400 - 560 > pieces, many of which are informational, step loss, or only used > optionally in the campaign game. There is very low counter density > with a maximum of 50 pieces per side, and usually 20 -40. Each game turn > is one month, and there are two action phases (mini-turns) per game > turn. This is a fast playing game, but will still require at least 2 > solid sessions to finish the campaign game. > > There are also several small (5 action phase, 1 map) scenarios that can > easily be played in a short session. Victory is determined by victory points. > Only the UN forces score victory points (VP), and they do so by > holding VP cities at the end of each turn. In addition the North > Koreans (NK) win if they ever take Pusan, or Masan and Taegu which they can > do early on given good luck. > > The first decisions at the beginning of each turn are made by the UN. > They may get additional forces or more effective use of their forces at the > risk of increasing the Global Tension Level (GTL) which costs them > VP. Each level of reinforcement/air power doctrine/mobilization effort > has a destabilization value. This value may never decrease, and each turn > the UN player rolls on the Global Tension table. The greater the > total destabilization level of all the UN options the greater the chance > the GTL will increase. If the GTL reaches 7 the game is over [WW3] and the > NK wins. In addition each turn the UN loses 5 VP per GTL. > > That is a KILLER as a GTL of 2 on turn 4 will cost 9*2*5=90 VP. Since > the UN need 168 to attain a marginal victory he will almost certainly lose. > There are three ways the UN player may increase his war making effort: > > 1) Rules of Engagement - Initially the UN air force is restricted to > South Korea (SK). The range operations may be gradually expanded into North > Korea. This is important for ground support, but its even more important for > supply interdiction. UN air units interdicting in N Korea are up to five times > more effective than those interdicting south of the border. > 2) Reinforcement Schedule - There are varying levels of UN commitment. > But the first few are too weak (and the UN would never be able to push the NK > out of S Korea and the later add too few forces, too late in the game to > justify their expensive cost (in terms of raising the GTL). > 3) Mobilization Level - affects how fast UN units are rebuilt, how many > units may launch amphibious assaults (hello Inchon!) , and whether the UN gets > extra National Guard divisions. > > Each player may receive Korean reinforcements each action phase depending on > how many cities they control. The NK units may include armor, and are better > than the SK units. Chinese and Russian intervention is rolled for. The UN may > commit the Taiwanese at a risk of an increased GTL. Each player places depot > markers in hexes that can trace supply lines (roads and railroads) and rolls to > see how many supply points SP they receive. The farther one is away from > their home bases the fewer SP the receive. By interdicting the NK supply lines > the UN can greatly reduce the number of SP the NK receives. > > Supply points are expended each action phase, and failure to due so (due > to lack of SP) results in units being halved in combat. Expending extra > supply points increases combat strength by 50%, and then 100%. This is one > reason why its almost impossible for the NK to sustain themselves deep in > S Korea. Excess SP may be saved for the following turns. However units that > are out of supply still have their attached tanks operate at full strength. > And I dont like the fact that units can trace a supply line of unlimited > length over mountains to avoid being isolated. > > [House Rule #1 - Armored assets attached to units that trace an extended > supply line may not be used. If tracing a supply line in secondary range, > they are halved if the unit has its combat strength halved (i.e its at > miniimal effort)] > > The heart of the game is the interactive movement system. Each player > rolls on an initiative table, and depending on how many supply points each > player expends, he may be able to activate multiple units before > his opponent may respond. Each activation allows a unit to activate. > Activated units may entrench, buildup/breakdown, or a perform a combination > of moving and fighting. After a unit is activated, it becomes fatigued, and > drops to around 60% of its full strength. Fatigued units recover at the end of > the action phase, but remain vulnerable during that phase. Units may move, > attack, move, but by forgoing movement they gain combat modifiers. When an > attack is launched, adjacent units may participate, thus it can be deadly to > leave a unit adjacent to 3 enemy units. Some units have armored assets > [TANKS!] that can provide a big combat modifier. Losses are usually in steps, > and most units have three steps. Since stacking is not allowed a reduced unit > or a fatigued unit is vulnerable to a counter attack. While I like the concept > of the initiative table, and the idea that the side expending more supply > points may be able to react faster, I feel it has some problems as well. > Units that entrench (gaining a 50% or 100% combat strength increase) are also > fatigued, negating the entrenched bonus for that action phase. This makes no > sense as the formation is certainly not strung out and vulnerable, its already > deployed in a defensive posture. In addition units that move even a short > distance (say up to the front line) are fatigued and vulnerable. There is no > reduced movement, but dont become fatigued option. It might be more realistic > to have a rule like: units that move half their movement allowance (which > is 12 for all units) and dont engage in combat do not become fatigued. Lastly > a unit that expends even 1 MP is fatigued, and can move no further. But if one > moves two units adjacent to an enemy unit (in preparation for a third to attack > it), the defending unit can simply pull back (it will be fatigued, but it can > pull back behind an unfatigued unit, and leapfrog to safety) and the fatigued > attacking units are stuck. The NK can use this technique to greatly > delay the UN. The system is fun, but many unrealistic anomalies arise. > Unless you roll 2+ activations you cant reinforce a battered defender occupying > an important hex. This allows the attacker to take an objective that would not > be possible in most games. I feel impulse games allow the opponent too fast a > response to a developing situation, and I go/You go systems (with some sort of > reserve phase) are more realistic. > [House Rule #2] Units that entrench may not move but they are not fatigued. > > The game has two major flaws: The NK KNOW about the potential Inchon > landing, and the UN knows the CCF WILL intervene and in exactly what way and > with how much once the 38th paralelle is crossed. The problem is, as game > players we have 20-20 hind sight and are trying to win a board game. Our real > life counterparts were trying for decisive victories. Since Inchon is far > and away the best (only plausible) invasion site the NK player will always > garrison it with a reduced division, preventing the UN from annihilating his > forces deep in the south. But historically the NK didnt know the potential of > this invasion and thought they had adequately garrisoned the area. I propose > a simple rule > > [House Rule #3 - NK units may not hang back but must move towards the > front so as to end their turn within 4 MP or 4 hexes from an enemy unit. If > they cant reach this proximity they must expend their full MA moving toward > the front. This rule is waived when the UN launches its first amphibious > invasion.] > > Without this rule, the UN will rarely have a chance to win as the NK > will outnumber the UN even when the UN is fully deployed. Only the lack of > supplies will force the NK out of the southern tip of the peninsula. > And they can simply retreat in good order to Seoul, entrench, and > receive two divisions per turn. All the while giving up few VPs. And if the > UN does manage to cross the border, the CCF will come in (ultimately > another 30 divisions vs perhaps 10 for the UN). This house rule will > allow the UN the historical chance to crush the NK. Unfortunately the UN > knows the CCF will intervene, thus will not try to over reach. This is > unrealistic because the Chinese attack was a complete surprise. The > only way I can think of simulating this is either by reducing the likelihood > of intervention [say -2 to the die roll] or give the UN a greater incentive > to invade the north. Perhaps a rule like: All UN controlled cities > north of Wonsan and Pyongyang are worth double. This way if the UN is way > behind on VPs he can take a gamble. > > What the NK must do for the first 2-3 action phases is kill as many > units as possible. Even at the expense of a few VP. Because the UN is so > weak in the beginning, he may not be able to stop the NK from attaining a > decisive victory on turn 4. The UN must fall back quickly. Although > they want to keep the NK away from Taegu, they will lose their rear guard > units and actually be in a worse position if not careful. And with good > luck with activation rolls, the NK can win on turn 4. It is necessary > to force the UN to spread out his units, so I like to send 2 units with an > armored asset down the eastern coast road to threaten Pusan. Even if they > dont take it they can kill another couple of regiments and force the UN > to garrison Pusan with a division. And these two NK units can swing west to > cut off and put out of supply the main UN line near Taegu. > > This is an excellent game, and it would be quite popular if it were > issued today. It has the feel of a modern game, not an outdated game from > the 70s. I wish it covered the entire war. The only failings are the > inability to simulate the surprise of the Inchon invasion, and the > Chinese intervention, and strategic surprise is very hard to simulate in war > games. Many people like interactive movement, and will like this system. It > is fun, but as I stated above, there unrealistic situations occur that a > modified I Go/You Go system would model better. > >Overall I rate this game an A-.