Review: Mamanachos (also called Tactical Combat in Spain, 1936 – 1939). Game designer Perry Moore’s website offers a large series of self-published microgames on a set of topics that show his interests: the Russian Civil War, armored battles of WWII (both obscure and well-known), armored battles of the Arab-Israeli October War, guerilla wars between the Russians/Soviets and their neighbors (Chechnya, Afghanistan), and more. While some of these topics are obscure for wargames, there are few topics more obscure than the early use of armor before WWII. Perry designed Clash of Arms Games’ Landships, a fine game that details the development of the tank in the first World War, and the Infernal Machines expansion kit that includes battles of the 1920s. Clash of Arms announced a second expansion that will move Landships into the 1930s and early 40s, but publication was “imminent” two years ago and there is still no word of release. Until then, we have Perry’s Tactical Combat in Spain, 1936 – 1939 ($13; available by direct order from Perry’s website; http://pweb.jps.net/~perrya/). Mamanachos (also referred to as Tactical Combat in Spain, 1936 - 1939) is a very close look at how armor and other weapons were used in the Spanish Civil War. The scale is fifty yards to the hex, and each turn is thirty seconds long. Counters represent individual vehicles and weapons; infantry counters represent four men. Physically, the game seems to have been produced on Mr. Moore’s home printer. The rules are printed on standard letter-sized paper, folded over and stapled in the middle to create a thirty-five page rule book, with thirteen of those pages being scenarios. There are eight sheets of charts and tables (printed big, with lots of white space), an 11 x 17 inch map, and 280 1/2 inch counters, printed on stiff glossy stock that players will want to mount on heavier cardboard to avoid a cough disrupting the game. Both counters and map are in color. The map is disappointing, with crude graphics; the counters more than make up for this with crisp, top-view line drawings of the vehicles and aircraft, and side view drawings of individual weapons. I covered the map with clear contact paper to stiffen it up and protect the ink, and I did the same with the counters before gluing them to a sheet of cardboard and cutting them apart. Perry told me in an email that TCS bears a strong resemblance to The Avalon Hill Game Company’s Tobruk. This is an understatement: TCS is Tobruk. This does not distress me: I liked Tobruk, although in my opinion, the original game had three flaws: with all the die rolling, it took forever to play, especially with a lot of tanks on the field; the programmed instruction rules were intimidating to a high school kid (I never played past scenario four); and the one-sided nature of the scenarios made it a better simulation tool than an actual game. It wasn’t much fun getting pounded as the historically losing side, with little chance of victory. Of these three problems, TCS fixes the first: it plays fast. This is partially through smaller scenarios and less record-keeping, but largely through the expedient of covering a period where tanks had thin skins. Record-keeping and die rolling is much simplified when virtually any hit against an AFV destroys it. TCS also has slightly simpler rules because there are fewer types of units, but there are other problems, which will be explained later. TCS does make a number of minor changes to Tobruk, although these aren’t exactly innovations. Some of them are necessary for the change in setting: the board has terrain; armored cars are easier to destroy and follow different rules than tanks (because they have thinner armor); and because tanks of this period largely had similar profiles and armor protection, all tanks share the same damage determination table. TCS makes a few changes for infantry, too: where Tobruk used five infantry cover states (running, assault, stationary, good, and full), TCS has only two: normal and cover (prone, in a town, gully, or grove). Beyond these minor adjustments, there are three major changes that TCS makes to the Tobruk engine. One is the need to spot targets. Rather than making every unit on the board visible to any attacker, TCS requires potential attackers to make an observation roll to see their target before they can shoot. Unlike most other wargames, including Landships, individual units can only spot their own targets. Just because the T-26 sees the 37mm anti tank gun, that doesn’t mean any other attacking unit can. The second dramatic change is found in the air rules. In Tobruk, the Stukas were the only planes on the map. They were moved on the map like ground units, and their only effect was to drop bombs and possibly to receive anti-aircraft fire. In TCS, aircraft have a sub-game of their own. In addition to the bombers, TCS has fighters that can trade fire with the bombers and strafe ground units. To simplify air combat, aircraft are required to fly in straight lines. Intercepting fighters are assigned to specific targets and fly after them. Since the planes are forced to fly in straight lines across the board, air combat is entirely a matter of getting behind the enemy. Aircraft are rated for performance, and higher performance aircraft have more flexibility in their speed, allowing them to drop behind lower performance planes and stay in that firing position. In play, aircraft attempt to trade positions, trying to get behind each other to take shots. The third change is very important to understanding 1930’s armor: doctrine. Doctrine rules are very basic. Nationalist armor is required to avoid Republican armor, staying ten or more hexes away. Republican armor units are required to roll for crew reaction when they spot an enemy tank: are they bold or cautious? Cautious crews must stay eight or more hexes away from enemy armor. TCS also has unit organization: one tank of each squadron must be designated as the commander, and the tank commander must lead the formation. Should the commander be destroyed, the rest of the formation must check each turn to see if they proceed cautiously, do nothing, or retreat off the board. Once the retreat option is rolled, that’s all the formation may do. How does the game play? It feels historical. Tanks have a hard time spotting non-AFV targets, so that a single anti tank gun under cover can easily repulse an attack. It’s a cinch that at least one tank formation will be forced to retreat before they can close to a range to spot their tormenter. Tanks are fragile and must be used cautiously. The Nationalists’ machine-gun armed vehicles are worthless when the Soviet T26s are about. The aircraft are critical: they are your best shot for eliminating enemy anti tank guns or machine gun emplacements, but you’ve got to be lucky. While TCS does not share Tobruk’s programmed instruction system, it has another problem with the rules. They are a horrible, muddled mess. As written, only one player gets to move in a turn; there are no line of sight effects for terrain; the close assault rules are confusing; some tables are garbled. Some weapons have breakdown values printed on their counters that are not explained in the rules (this is largely, but not quite entirely explained by errata on Perry’s website), and there are some marker counters that have no listed game function. I couldn’t find any rules on how to attack crew served weapons, such as anti-tank guns. The aircraft rules badly need clarification. In addition to a thorough editing and rewriting, the rules would be well served by examples to make specific rules clear. TCS also seems to share Tobruk’s unbalanced scenario flaw. I’ve played two of the scenarios, and they seem terribly one-sided. In the first scenario, a Republican force of T26 tanks and BA10 armored cars assault a lone 37 mm anti tank gun, stacks of infantry with a few Molotov cocktails, and a gaggle of CV35 tankettes. While Perry describes this as a romp for the Republicans historically, in play it comes across very differently. The CV35s, following doctrine rules, scuttle away and are forced to a distant corner of the board. The Republican armor chugs across the battlefield, unable to see the gun concealed in the town; the 37mm has numerous chances to pick off the two tank commander vehicles (marked with tank commander counters, as noted in the rules). Should a tank commander vehicle be destroyed, which is no problem for the plucky 37, the whole squadron retreats off the map. Even firing, the 37 is impossible for the Republicans to spot until they come within a few hexes of the town. Unless the Republican’s bombers can take out the gun on the first turn, they are almost certainly going to fail in their attack. I’ve played this scenario three times, and never come close to a Republican victory. Maybe I’m missing something, or perhaps I’m much worse at wargames than I thought. On the theory that scenario one was an aberration, a friend and I tried scenario seven. In this scenario, the Nationalist infantry defend the town with 37mm ATGs, machine guns and mortars, while the Republicans close in with tanks. A number of Republican aircraft swept in and devastated the defenders, dishing out enough casualties to make them unable to man all of their weapons units. The Republican tanks advanced and clobbered the defending machine guns; and by turn three, when the Republican infantry arrived to the flanks and rear of the Nationalist’s position, my opponent resigned. While the air attack may have been lucky with the die rolls, it seemed unbalanced to let the whole scenario be decided on the very first turn. Granted, we may have misinterpreted the rules, since we hadn’t found the errata or discovered that Tobruk’s rules would have answered some questions. But even if the scenario is better balanced with the right rules interpretations, it shows that TCS is not a polished product, ready for play. Given my criticisms, one might think I dislike the game, but that would be wrong. I think it shows potential. As both a fan of TAHGC’s Tobruk and somebody interested in how armor was used in the 1930s, this game could be a lot of fun, albeit mainly for solitaire play. I would recommend that potential purchasers make sure they have access to Tobruk’s rules. (Note: I don’t know if Critical Hit’s Advanced Tobruk System would serve as well.) With the necessary help of Tobruk to clarify Perry’s rules, TCS is a nice complement to Landships and Kampfpanzer in simulating early armor use. Robert Dushay rdushay@mindspring.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.