PanzerArmee Afrika (PAA) is a two-player game about the war in the desert from April 1941 to November 1942 designed by Jim Dunnigan. Game turns represent one month of real time, units are battlions, regiments, or brigades, and each hex is 12 miles.
PAA was released with Strategy & Tactics 40. The original components were good for their time, but now show their age. The counters are not backprinted. The map uses a limited color palette, is clear, and more than functional. Redmond Simonsen – responsible for Physical Systems Design and Graphics – produced some outstanding work at SPI and this early effort of his set a high standard. I don’t recall having any issue with the rules other than whether eliminated units get to counterattack (they do) and I worked that out by a close reading of the overrun process.
Note: SPI later sold the game to Avalon Hill (AH), who published their version around 1982. Images on this page are from the AH version. I have the original map and rules, but the counters are missing in action.
To give some context, before looking at the game’s key features, let’s start with the game turn sequence.
Game Turn Sequence
Each game turn has an Allied player turn followed by a German player turn. The game turn sequence is:
- Supply Determination Phase
- Command Control Phase (Allied player only)
- Movement Phase
- Combat Phase
- Replacements and Reinforcements Phase
Supply
No game about this campaign would be complete without supply rules. PAA’s supply rules are easy and essential to master if you want to succeed. Supply flows from a source via depots (counters on the map). Depots can form a chain, extending supply as far as desired. However, you need to use your transport facilities (a truck counter) to move depots and you only have one truck. You can create another truck by sacrificing some units, but it’s a heavy price to pay.
- Units more than 20 movement points from a depot (connected to a supply chain) are out of supply. They defend at half strength and can neither attack nor move. They are also known as sitting ducks.
- Units within 20 movement points (and more than 8) of a depot (connected to a supply chain) are generally supplied, meaning they can move and defend at full strength, but their attack strength is halved.
- Units within 8 movement points of a depot (connected to a supply chain) are attack supplied, meaning they can move, defend, and attack at full strength.
- Units within 8 movement points of a depot (connected to a supply chain) which they consume in an attack are maximum attack supplied, meaning they attack at double their normal strength.
Therefore, in this game, you can quickly tell that each side needs to guard its supply lines. These straightforward rules do a nice job of representing the realities of warfare in this arena. You can quibble about the details, but the general impact seems to work.
Command Control
Before the Allied player moves, he has to roll for command control. The result of each roll is 3 numbers. If the number of the hex a unit or stack is on ends with one of these generated numbers, the unit or stack sits on its hands for the turn and does nothing; it may neither move nor attack.
This implementation of a restriction on the player’s control of his units is interesting. It’s not the first time something like this was used as a similar limitation was applied to barbarian units in Fall of Rome. However, that was a case of the enemy to the solitaire player being handicapped. Here, it’s you – if you’re the Allied player – who has to contend with this. It’s realistic, but it’s clunky. As printed, players can (and did) try to minimize the effects by putting their units on hexes with humber endings that come up less often.
A better process to achieve the same goal was to make a pool of 10 chits and randomly draw three chits, refilling the pool after each draw. This way, each hex was equally at risk.
An even better option was to take a broad brush approach, ignore the existing table and hex numbers and instead roll a six-sided die for each unit or stack, 1-2 meaning the units were affected and 3-6 meaning they were free of any restriction. More rolls of the die, but more chaos.
At the time it didn’t bother me that the German player got off scot-free. Now, I’m more inclined to believe the rule should also apply to the German player, but less severely. For example, using the last mentioned option, only a roll of 1 would affect the German player.
Movement
The units in this game had huge movement allowances: 40 movement points (MP) for the Italians, 50 MP for the Commonwealth units, and 60 MP for the Germans. This gave the game a very different flavor.
In my limited playing experience, it made the Allied player focus every turn primarily on trying to prevent the Germans sweeping around the flank and cutting off supply. Only when that position was secure, could the Allied player think about advancing, slowly. I have seen online discussions suggesting the game was broken because the German player could always easily achive that flanking maneuver, but the responses and my own play leads me to think that it’s far from a given. The German player has his own challenges about keeping his flanking forces in supply. A cautious, careful Allied player – assuming command control doesn’t screw him over completely – should be able to stay out of trouble. The discussion, however, shouldn’t hide the fact that it’s fun to have such liberated movemnent abilities.
Where the large MP numbers do have an adverse affect is on the simulation value. PAA is a good game, possibly a great game, but having one side being powerless – ie., sitting still – in the face of the enemy’s huge movement potential, is not realistic. There were optional rules kicking about that gave the non-moving player some reaction ability. (Look, for an example, at the AH version.) I have no experience of them. If I had the time or inclination, I would experiment by halving the MP of all units and doubling the number of turns, so each represented two weeks.
Combat
PAA used combat differential instead of combat odds. So, 6 strength points (SP) attacking 2 SP gave a +4 differential. This was the same as if 12 SP were attacking 8 SP. However, despite the differeng size of forces, the potential casualties remained the same. The other new tweaks on show here, or at least new to me, were (a) allowing the defender a chance to counterattack, even if eliminated so that no attack was risk free, and (b) overrun combat, allowing a moving stack to eliminate an enemy unit or stack during combat if it had a high enough combat differential.
Reinforcements and Replacements
PAA was also unusual in having reinforcements and replacements arrive at the end of a game turn instead of the more usual arrival at the start. This may have been done to make it easier for the Allied player who has to cope, additionally, with units being withdrawn. Dealing with the requirement at the end of the turn gave the Allied player extra time to get the withdrawing units back home. Failing to do this allowed the German player to pick the withdrawing unit; something to be avoided.
Overall
PAA is a good, challenging game. It’s easily accessible, there are not too many counters to maneuver and you can get through some turns quite quickly. Combat is never risk free because even an eliminated force gets to counterattack before dying. It was innovative in its time and remains a benchmark design. To prepare this article, I took the game out for a spin and solitaired a few turns. It was fun.
The strikes against it are that it is too long at 20 turns (unless the Germans capture Alexandria), the command control procedures need to be simplified, and it falls short as a simulation. For example, the victory conditions give the Allies a marginal victory by holding Alexandria and having more than twice as many combat strength points as the Germans. The Germans can get a marginal victory by holding El Agheila and having more than half as many combat strength points as the Allies. There’s no incentive, in terms of victory, for either side holding Tobruk, for example. These conditions need tweaked to encourage more historical strategies. PAA would also benefit greatly from some shorter scenarios, and a decent reaction rule. (The AH one doesn’t convince me.)
Her’s the acid test: if someone asked me to play PAA, I’d gladly accept the challenge. PAA is a game that deserves to be played.