Tag Archives: James F. Dunnigan

Wolfpack

Posted on by

Wolfpack is a solitaire game in which the player takes the role of the WW2 Germans trying to have their U-boats sink as much Allied merchant shipping in the North Atlantic as possible. Despite the game’s subtitle – Submarine Warfare in the North Atlantic, 1942-44 – the four scenarios provided cover February, March, April and May all in 1943.

The game, designed by James F. Dunnigan, is a high-level, low-complexity treatment of the subject, much of the action being abstracted, though it does enough to reflect some of the real-life challenges and decision making. It was published with S&T 47.

Scale

Each game turn is 24 hours, each hex is 43 nautical miles, and each counter represents individual U-boats or packs of U-boats, a convoy, a group of escort ships, or an unknown number of aircraft. Each scenario is 15 game turns. The game map displays part of the North Atlantic from Britain to Newfoundland.

The Wolfpack map.

Sequence of Play

Convoy Initial Placement

You put the next convoy on the map. Convoys appear in numerical order, alternating from eastern to western-bound, and with a hidden escort. The escort may be a dummy or a real one with a combat strength from 1 to 3.

Weather Phase

In this phase, existing foggy weather is removed, then existing storms randomly move on the map. Convoys that are touched by a storm may straggle making them more vulnerable to U-boat attack. You also randomly determine whether another storm or fogged-in-zone appears.

Air Phase

First, you allocate air units as escort to qualifying convoys. Then you conduct searches for U-boats with remaining air units. Air units may then attack any U-boats they have found. These procedures are programmed into the rules so you cannot cheat the system.

Naval Phase

In this phase, you move each convoy according to a random movement procedure. You may find that a juicy target has moved in a most inconvenient direction! Convoys will move to avoid U-boats spotted in the Air phase. Also in this phase, escorts may search for and attack U-boats they find and U-boats may try and locate convoys that enter one of their search zones. A single U-boat has a single-hex search zone. A wolfpack has a three-hex search zone. If the search turns up a dummy, that convoy is removed from the map.

U-Boat Operations Phase

First, you may freely organize your U-boats that are stacked. A single U-boat has a combat strength of 1 and 8 movement points. A pack of 6 U-boats has a combat strength of 7 and 6 movement points. A pack of 12 U-boats has a combat strength of 15 and 6 movement points, and so on. A pack of 30 U-boats has a combat strength of 40, but only 4 movement points. In this way, the game models the clash between concentration – good for combat, but reducing search capability – and dispersal – good for widening the search, but reducing combat ability.

A bundle of U-boat counters from the game Wolfpack.

Next, you may move your U-boats. If there’s a spotted convoy, you need to move adjacent to be able to attack it. On the other hand, you might try and put your U-boats where you anticipate convoys may sail so you can try and spot them and make them targets.

Combat Phase

Here, U-boats may attack adjacent located convoys. Escorts get to counterattack. Finally straggling – which comes in 2 strengths – is reduced from 2 to 1 or 1 to none.

Game Turn Indication Phase

The almost universal administrative requirement to move on the game turn counter!

Game Play

The first thing to note is that I had no problem with the rules. Indeed, a search for errata was unsuccessful. It appears that SPI learned some lessons from the Fall of Rome game.

The second thing worthy of comment is that the game is easy to play. There are one or two details that are hidden away – like the effects of straggling – which would have been best added to the tables printed on the map. However, this minor issue aside, the game flows well. The sequence of play is straightforward and the game mechanics are logical, well-explained, and easy to do. After the first couple of turns I rarely had to go back to the rule book.

Close up of some convoys and U-boats on the Wolfpack map.

It plays quite quickly though this is dependent on how active you are with your U-boats. For example, if you have widely dispersed your forces and there are lots of searches to do, things will take longer. I finished some game turns in under 10 minutes and I think the longest was about double that.

I managed a German Substantive Victory in my game. This suggests it is too easy to win. However, I wouldn’t take a single game experience as definitive. Further, for some strange reason, I seemed to remember some of the tips and tricks I discovered all those years ago that helped maximize my score. This doesn’t always happen!

Be warned that this game has a lot of luck. You can have a good search result only to find the convoy is a dummy. You can mass your U-boats for an attack only to roll poorly and squander the opportunity. And, as mentioned above, convoys don’t always go where you expect them to.

History

As a high-level look at the topic, the game does a reasonable job of imparting some useful historical patterns. For example, it quickly becomes apparent how important airpower was. Also, weather is a fickle beast that can make convoys more vulnerable but also slow down your U-boats and make discovery harder. The whole convoy movement seems a fiction as in reality the convoys had a route that they followed and it didn’t typically include sudden drastic changes of direction as may occur in the game. The abstraction seems to be design for effect and if you suspend your disbelief a little it makes sense. The game’s optional rules give you added insight to some of the key elements of the historical campaign.

Overall

The physical components are fine: the map and counters are clear and the rules are well done. Given the limitations in place, it’s a fine looking game.

It was fun playing Wolfpack. It wasn’t the toughest challenge, but it was quite quick and provided decent entrtainment. It’s held up reasonably well. It’s not a game you absolutely have to play, but if you get the opportunity it probably deserves some of your time. If you do try it, check out the supporting article in S&T 47 first.

KampfPanzer

Posted on by

KampfPanzer by James F. Dunnigan is a two-player game about early tank warfare (1937-40) with each unit representing five tanks, a platoon of infantry, or a battery of guns. Hexes represent 100 meters of real terrain and each game turn is three minutes and forty seconds of real time. One of several distinctive features of the game is that it uses pre-plotted simultaneous orders.

Components

KampfPanzer was released with Strategy & Tactics 41. The counters (not backprinted) have silhouettes for vehicles and are pretty nifty. All are clear and easy to read.

A sample unit from KampfPanzer with each unit value labeled.

The map is bare and dull. The rules are printed on one of the foldout pamphlets that were a regular feature of SPI’s output. (There’s a small amount of errata which you should track down if you want to play the game.) There’s also a separate sheet with scenarios, historical notes, and the charts and tables.

Game Turn Sequence

Each game turn includes the following:

  1. Simultaneous Movement and Combat Plot Phase
  2. Panic Determination Phase
  3. Combat Execution Phase
  4. Panicked Movement Plot Phase
  5. Movement Execution Phase
  6. Disruption Removal PhasePlaying the Game

Playing the Game

To get me in the right place to do this post, I chose Hannut from the nine available scenarios.

The game is not really suited for solitaire play given that you start each turn by writing out the detailed orders for each unit. The plotting system is well explained with plentiful examples, and in face-to-face play it adds a considerable amount of tension to the game play.

When playing this solitaire, I wrote out orders for one side first. Then, took a coffee break, returned and did the other side. To try and alleviate my knowledge of the other side’s orders, for the second side I tried to give each unit at least two sensible options and let the dice decide which one was selected.

Panic determination involves one die roll per side and a quick and easy process for finding out who has been affected. However, as with PanzerArmee Afrika, the system has its limits in that not every hex is equally at risk. For better play, I suggest using one of the options mentioned there.

Panic is a misleading term as it’s more to do with command and control. (And, in PanzerArmee Afrika, it was referred to as command control.) Units plotted to fire, don’t fire. Units plotted to move, do a random (die-roll determined) move. The latter was too chaotic and unrealistic for many players with several suggestions for house-rule replacements being touted. For sure, the result does give you a challenge because you cannot guarantee your units will do what you want them to do. In my opinion, that’s both a good thing and realistic.

KampfPanzer game in action showing German units engaging French.
Action from my replay of the Hannut scenario. The French, suffering from bad command and control, are outmanned.

The scenario runs for ten game turns. In the first game turn, both sides plot movement orders as each needs to head for the victory point area.

The French (with a Panic Level of 3) suffer a bad breakdown of command and control with several units going off in the wrong direction in the first turn. The Germans are untroubled. By the end of the turn, the French have a toehold on Hill 2, and the Germans are not quite there. Turn two sees the advance German forces start to arrive and turn three sees much combat. By the end of turn four, lots of damage has been down. Slowly, but surely, the German superiority in command and control tells – as does their superior firepower against the French infantry and anti-tank guns – and by the end of turn seven, it’s clear the Germans are going to win.

In this system, units take hits in terms of levels of disruption. There’s also a Pin result that prevents units with a move order from moving. You have to roll for recovery from disruption, so disrupted units are potentially out of the action forever if you roll badly. Pinned units automatically recover. I’ll admit the French recvovery rolls were awful. Such is war.

Good Stuff

The capability of the different types of unit (tank, infantry, guns) is portrayed well, as is the fact that the German tanks were not necessarily the best in the world.

This game is a great starting point for looking at creating your own game about tactical warfare in World War II. You get an impression – broad brush, to be sure – of what combat at the sharp end might have been like and a sure appreciation of the difference troop quality can make. It would be straighforward to replace the simultaneous plotting parts to make the game more solitaire friendly.

The simultaneous plotting adds to the tension.

Not So Good Stuff

This game doesn’t teach a lot about the tactics of armored combat of the time. You won’t see much of a difference between the German forces that were masters of the Blitzkrieg and for example the French forces that were, in general, swamped. The exception is that the German forces will have a better Panic Level and so be less prone to panic and not implementing your chosen orders. That’s a somewhat shallow differential, albeit it does highlight the advantages of (presumably) better command, control, communications, and troop quality. But the influence of artillery and air power, not forgetting radios, are sadly missing.

The unit ratings are a mystery to me. For example, the article in Strategy & Tactics gives armor thickness figures that don’t seem to directly relate to defense strength. The speeds given seem more closely related to each unit type’s movement points (MP). Here’s a sample of units with the armor thickness (as given in the article) and the defense strength in the game, then speed per the article and MP in the game.

  • French B1 Armor 60, Defense Strength 5 <> Speed 18, 8MP
  • French S35 – Armor 55, Defense Strength 4 <> Speed 25, 12MP
  • French H39 – Armor 45, Defense Strength 4 <> Speed 22.5, 10MP
  • French R35 – Armor 45, Defense Strength 4 <> Speed 11.8, 6MP
  • British A10 – Armor 30, Defense Strength 4 <> Speed 16, 8MP
  • British A11 – Armor 60, Defense Strength 6 <> Speed 8, 3MP
  • German Pz I – Armor 13, Defense Strength 1 <> Speed 25, 10MP
  • German Pz II – Armor 30, Defense Strength 3 <> Speed 34, 15MP
  • German PzIVD* – Armor 30, Defense Strength 4 <> Speed 25, 10MP

*Note: there is no Pz IVD counter, only a PzIVE counter. The latter type wasn’t available till 1941 so I assume it’s a typo and is really the type D.

The numbers are close, but it appears there are other factors being taken into account when calculating defense strengths. There’s no hint what these might be – size, speed, metal quality – making it next to impossible to expand the unit coverage for DIY projects. At least speed and MP seem close enough.

The combat system has not aged well.

The scenarios are not especially engaging.

The map is drab and dreary, and looks unrepresentative of any real-life battlefield.

In Conclusion

KampfPanzer is an OK game and while I enjoyed my time playing it, this may well be the last time it hits the table, at least in its present format. Some people in the hobby developed the combat system for the related game Panzer 44 (though it has a different ground scale) and hopefully at some time I am going to try that out.

I remember being excited when this game originally arrived as part of my S&T subscription. Some 52 (!) years later, it’s less exciting, but I had some great times with KampfPanzer and I’m glad I got the opportunity to enjoy it.

PanzerArmee Afrika

Posted on by
PAA at-start setup at El Agheila, showing several stacks of Axis units versus a sole Allied brigade.
At-start setup at El Agheila

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:

  1. Supply Determination Phase
  2. Command Control Phase (Allied player only)
  3. Movement Phase
  4. Combat Phase
  5. 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.

Image of German and Italian units approaching Allied defenders.
A tentative start by the Germans as they ponder what route to take.

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.