Paul Aceto  - Mar 25, 2009 7:18 pm (#27595 Total: 27655)  
"Ever wondered if poop serves any useful purpose?" - actual 
headline on Washington Post Kidspost page, 3/23/09 	 

In the Trenches -- Long

On the Table over last weekend was In the Trenches: Opening Engagements
(ITT), Jeux Grenier Games’ new release featuring platoon/company-level
combat in the early stages of WWI. Later installments are planned for
the mid- to late-war. The game is designed by John Gorkowski, whom I
discovered not only lives near me but also works at the same place as I
do. John graciously played host (and rules-explainer-in-chief) at his
place last Saturday, and we did the first scenario, a meeting engagement
between French and German troops at Neufchateau. I enjoyed the game a
lot, and can recommend it strongly with one and a half caveats noted at
the end. I eagerly await the next games in the system. 

As the game is about tactical WWI combat, some might wonder how it
compares to David Isby’s 1973 company-level game from SPI, Soldiers. In
one important aspect, it is similar. Defense against fire is based on
terrain, meaning if you are caught in the open by artillery or machine
guns, your men will die in large numbers. In one smaller aspect, it is
also similar, in that in contains a scenario featuring the
Japanese/British assault on German positions at Tsingtao, China. But
that’s about it. ITT reflects that many design developments that have
occurred in the hobby since 1973, most notably by including command and
control elements and by featuring a variable activation system that
reflects the ebbs and flows of combat. 

Command and control is represented by the need to activate units or
formations, using a limited amount of orders. There are no leader units;
they are factored into the system. Basically, you can use an order to
activate a single unit, or a formation of 2-4 units from the same
company. We’ve seen this before. ITT adds a twist, though, by forcing
activated formations to give up 1/3 of their movement allowance to
reflect the time needed to confirm orders, coordinate movements, etc. So
at times you will face the choice of getting a single unit forward with
speed, or moving up several units more slowly. In addition, activated
formations that fire give up their terrain advantage – their commanders
have ordered them up to the front of the woods to form firing lines,
thus denying them the defensive die roll modifier they would usually
get. Another choice you often have to make. 

ITT also adds a twist to the usual variable activation mechanic. I’m a
big Panzer Grenadier fan, so am familiar with having both sides roll for
initiative in the first impulse, and then alternating activations after
that. In ITT, each side rolls two dice for initiative each impulse, with
the winner getting orders equal to the difference in the dice rolls
(i.e., anywhere from 1-10). The loser then gets an equal number of
orders in his half of the impulse. What’s more, in any impulse but the
first of each turn, if you roll doubles the turn is over. So you get
great swings in actions, with the uncertainly of knowing when the turn
will end. I like this a lot, and wonder if it has been used before. Note
this also makes the game great for solitaire play, as there is a good
deal of variation in each turn. 

The movement rates for infantry and MG units are low (usually 3 and 1,
respectively), meaning it takes time to set up attacks. Given that most
of the time you will be moving in formation, it slows things down even
more. But the feel is right. You get masses of troops lumbering forward,
finding cover when they can, often dying in large numbers when they
can’t, and attempting to form firing lines to degrade the enemy. 

Which brings up combat. Let’s start with artillery. It is deadly. You
will learn to fear it. In our play, John inadvertently left two stacks
of infantry close together after entering the map. I had to ask, “Can my
observer see those guys?” John, to his credit, answered truthfully. Next
turn, a hurricane barrage descended upon them, wiping out half the guys
in one stack. Ouch (to paraphrase John’s response). Artillery fire takes
two turns to execute. One turn is used to place target markers (more on
why this is plural in a bit), within spotting range of an observer. Next
turn, you roll to see if the target is hit, or whether it scatters to an
adjacent hex. Once you determine where it hits, you place impact markers
to reflect whether it was a drumfire barrage (hits only target hex, with
full force), hurricane barrage (target hex and six adjacent hexes, with
a negative modifier to firepower) or barrage (a line of seven straight
hexes centered on target, also with a negative modifier). A couple of
times John and I were able to lay down seven-hex barrages that had enemy
units in five or six of the hexes. 

Note I said you place target markers. You get three markers for each
off-map battery, two dummies and one real. When you place them, you do
so inverted, so the enemy does not know where the real fire will take
place. In our game, it usually seemed obvious where the hurt was going
to be applied, especially since the markers were always placed adjacent
to each other. So near the end of our game I asked John what the point
of the dummy units was. He reminded me that you can place the markers
anywhere on the map that an observer can see, they do not have to be
next to each other. I then imagined a situation where you had two enemy
MG units (a frequent artillery target) in separate locations. If you
plunk a marker down on both, the other guy has to decide whether to try
to move both out of harm’s way before the hammer comes down in the next
turn. So the threat of bombardment can disrupt the MG’s ability to act.
Another interesting mechanic. 

Fire combat took a little bit to get used to. You total your firepower
factors (which can be added together if firing by formation), and then
divide by three, rounding down. The result is the basic fire combat
modifier. Terrain can add a negative modifier. Then roll two dice and
apply the net modifier. If the result is greater than the unit’s resolve
value (in our game, 8 for the French, 7 for the Germans), it degrades in
status (Free to Engaged, Engaged to Spent, Spent remains Spent). If the
result is 10 or greater, then the unit loses a step (either flipped, or
if already flipped, wiped out); survivors retreat and are marked Spent.
All the division, addition and subtraction eventually becomes second
nature, and the net modifiers are computed quickly. 

There is also provision for close combat, which is basically odds-driven
based on the number of steps involved. It came up only a couple of times
in our game, primarily in the woods where fire was limited. 

I mentioned above Engaged and Spent status. This another thing I like in
the game, although it requires a lot of markers placed on units which
eventually will clutter the board. Units start out each turn in Free
status. Performing most actions will degrade them to the next status,
Engaged. Engaged units can still fire and conduct close combat (with a
penalty), but cannot move. If Engaged units fire they become Spent,
meaning they are essentially done for the turn. Ordnance and MGs go
directly from Free to Spent status when they move, meaning they cannot
move and fire. All units recover to Free status at the end of the turn.
Another interesting twist: when MGs fire defensively against moving
units, they move from Engaged to Spent status only if they roll doubles.
So a well-placed MG unit can potentially dominate the terrain around it
during an enemy’s entire turn. 

John posted some pictures of our game over on the ITT folder in World
War I, and I copy them below. The first is the set-up. Victory is based
on which side controls more woods and level two hill hexes at the end of
12 turns. The French start in the hills, with some units in the
northwest corner. The German have some units to the east of the woods,
near the town of Neufchateau. The French will get reinforcements in the
northwest, while German units will enter to the east of the hill. 

Our game revolved around two main efforts – dueling fire and artillery
barrages in the hills, and a race to occupy woods hexes. The second and
third pictures below show the situation at the start of turns 3 and 7. 

The pennies and dimes were used to remind us which side had last
possession of those hexes. 

In the end, the Germans managed to throw the French out of the hills,
helped by some deadly artillery barrages, and they were able to occupy
enough woods hexes to get a victory. I honestly did not who would win
until we finally started counting up the hexes. 

I mentioned one a half caveats above. The big one is that the game does
require some assembly. The units are mounted, but in two-column strips.
The strips must first be cut in half vertically, and then glued back to
back to be double-sided. You then cut the strips to produce individual
counters. There are 30+ strips, so it does take some time to do this. I
used a glue stick for the mounting, a rotary cutter to split the strips
and scissors to chop out the individual units. The result is a nice set
of thick counters, but they can be just a tad lopsided depending on your
cutting skills. 

The half caveat I have is that the game comes with only three scenarios:
a French/German meeting engagement at Neufchateau, a Japanese/British
assault on German entrenchments at Tsingtao, and a cavalry clash between
Russian and Austrian forces in Jaroslawice, Poland. On the plus side,
you get units from six countries, fighting in three very different types
of situations. And Neufchateau (the only scenario I’ve played so far)
did seem like it would be replayable. Still, though, it is only three
scenarios, and one hopes that Jeux Grenier Games or dedicated users
might be able to post some new scenarios to download. 

Bottom line: am I glad I bought this game? Absolutely.