As I continue my initial reading of the rule book for Bruce Maxwell’s Air & Armor: Wurzburg – Designer’s Signature Edition from Compass Games (2024) I continually wrestle with warnings of the game’s complexity. Having read through the first eight “cases” of the rule book which deal with what I call “game background” I am finally at the point of digging into the game mechanisms of Air & Armor served up through the lens of the Sequence of Play.
Given an expected increase in rules complexity, coupled with a finite amount of evening reading time, I am dividing the next few stages of learning to play Air & Armor into three phases. Phase I, the subject of this post, covers cases [9.0] SEQUENCE OF PLAY, [10.0] ACTIVATION CYCLE, [11.0] UNITS, [12.0] COMMAND & CONTROL, and [13.0] OPERATIONS. Phase II will focus on movement while Phase III will focus on combat.
[9.0] SEQUENCE OF PLAY
As promised in the early parts of the Air & Armor rule book, the Sequence of Play (SoP) is found in both the rule book and on two double-sided player aid cards (SEQUENCES CARD 1 and SEQUENCES CARD 2). While I certainly appreciate the player aid cards, I feel they would be more effective aids to play if instead of two double-sided 8.5″x11″ text-dense cards they were instead a single double-sided 11″x17″ card with more of a flowchart-like layout. Having one card to reference instead of two and following rules “as they flow” would, in my mind, decrease play complexity and make following the SoP easier.
There is a very important piece of errata to the SoP for the Warsaw Pact (WP) Planning Phase of Air & Armor that is found on the typed and stapled AIR & ARMOR ERRATA FILE (2-18-24) included in the box. A check of BoardGameGeek reveals the errata file in my box is already superseded by a newer file (AIR & ARMOR ERRATA FILE (6-1-24)) which is nearly double the page count from the 4-page February version.
The errata file for Air & Armor starts out with this paragraph. I’ve included it here not to teach you the rule but instead to allow you to see some of the designer’s intent behind errata:
Note from the Designer: My decision to require the WP player to place his Lead Unit Markers during his Planning Phase was a poor one. It gives too much information to the NATO player ahead of time. Accordingly, WP Lead Unit Markers are not placed during the WP Planning Phase but rather during the Activation Segment at start of the Activation Cycle for each individual division and then only for the regiments in that division. This change is reflected in the amendments to Cases 9.0, 10.0, 12.3.2, and 19.1 and in the amendments to the Sequence of Play Cards, as provided below. Otherwise, this errata covers edge cases and clarifications. All the errata below have been incorporated directly into the rules for later games in the series.
I applaud Maxwell for admitting that the original rule as written was in need of refinement. It is unfortunate that it was discovered/decided upon so late in the production process that the rule book as printed is immediately outdated.
[10.0] ACTIVATIONS
The Activations case is where the real differences in command and control between the Warsaw Pact and NATO as depicted in Air & Armor begins to show. Warsaw Pact activates by Division whereas NATO activates by Brigade; for NATO an echelon below the Warsaw Pact. This is where the tactical flexibility of NATO (and the corresponding inflexibility of the Warsaw Pact) begins to be felt.
As I read case [10.0] ACTIVATIONS and compared it to case [7.0] FORMATIONS (discussed in a previous post) and case [12.0] CHAIN OF COMMAND (below) I am struck by just how similar the three cases are. They are not identical but the concepts within each have a fair amount of overlap. The seeming similarity across these three cases, covered in ~13 pages of rules, makes me wonder just how tightly the rule book is written. In turn, I wonder how much of the complexity of learning the rules comes from repeated (and needed?) exposition. I’m not ready to render any judgement yet but I am taking note of it…
[11.0] UNITS
This is the case in Air & Armor where Steps are explained. As defined in the Design Note for this case, “Each step in a ground unit represents a reinforced company or a battery except for WP artillery steps, which represent a whole battalion.” Two subsections of case 11.0 stand out to me.
[11.1] UNIT ASSEMBLY. If I am reading this case correctly, when setting up a scenario the player is given a certain number of steps to allocate across the assigned units. As the rule states, “There in no requirement that a player use all the Unit Counters available, but he must us all the steps available.” This immediately creates a worrying question in my mind: Will I have to decide unit/step allocation at the start of every scenario? The allocation of steps across units seems to be an important decision, perhaps even a fatal mistake. I hope some guidance for newcomers to Air & Armor is given in the scenario setup instructions. Then again, I also recall the advice of designer Sebastian Bae in their Littoral Commander game series on the selection of Joint Capability Cards (JCCs), a set up condition that is akin to the decisions behind Step Allocation in Air & Armor:
**DESIGNER NOTE: Player selection of JCCs can prove fatal or the key to victory – with small margins for error at times. For non-military professionals, this feature in the game may seem brutal and unfair, especially for first time players. However, LC [Littoral Commander] is an educational game designed to allow players to explore hard problems – not to provide specific answers. Similarly, players may want a list of recommended JCCs for each SCENARIO to help ease the learning curve. This was specifically excluded to avoid bias in JCC selection. Suggestions from the designers inherently imply a specific paradigm to look at a SCENARIO or implies there is a singular solution set. This goes against the very spirit of this game and its educational purpose. Moreover, we wanted to encourage players to find and explore different tactics and approaches – even ones we never thought of. Players should attempt various combinations of JCCs and tactics in the pursuit of victory. At times, it will work brilliantly; other times, you will lose spectacularly. This process of learning capabilities, forming theories of victory, and adapting previous approaches is part of the learning process – a campaign of learning. Embrace it!
Littoral Commander: Baltic draft v4
[11.2] HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE. These are the rules that govern inspecting enemy stacks in Air & Armor. This is also the start of the “intelligence” rules in the game. As [11.2] boldly states, “A player can never examine an undetected unit.” In play this means a player can always “see” the units on the board which includes the formation and type, and can only “inspect” a unit—view the Step Marker for strength—if it is adjacent or under an Acquisition Marker. I like this nice, easy to learn, easy to enforce limited intelligence rule.
Given my near-phobia aversion to large stacks I am also very heartened to read the Play Note that recommends:
Play Note: To avoid disarranging an opponent’s units, it is best if a player asks to reveal the exact contents of a hex rather than physically examining it, but a player always has a right to confirm this information by physical examination.
[11.2] HIDDEN UNITS
This “I’ll touch my own stacks, thank you” rule is welcome but I also wonder how much “down time” for a player is taken away by the need to be engaging with your opponent by examining stacks instead of planning other game turn activities.
[12.0] CHAIN OF COMMAND
While case [12.0] CHAIN OF COMMAND in Air & Armor may sound much like case [7.0] FORMATIONS it is in case 12.0 where the OODA [Observe -Orient-Decide-Act] loop in the Air-Land Battle Doctrine of the late 1980’s is shown in terms of game mechanisms. Maxwell, however, choses to use the term Intelligence-Decision-Action (IDA) Cycle. Whether you call it OODA or IDA doesn’t really matter to me; the important part is laid out by Maxwell in the Design Note at the beginning of this case:
The upshot is that NATO’s decision making was highly likely to out-clock the Pact’s in any fast-moving situation. This advantage is reflected by the requirement that the WP player preplan his operations, while the NATO player can assign them on the fly and execute them immediately. This difference is the NATO player’s greatest counter to his opponent’s numerical superiority. A few troops at the right place and the right time can completely defeat a much larger force caught wrong-footed. Air & Armor places the advantage of a shorter IDA Cycle squarely in the NATO player’s hands. If he doesn’t use it well, he will lose the game every time.
[12.0] COMMAND & CONTROL
Unsurprisingly, case [12.0] COMMAND & CONTROL takes a bit to explain; in fact, it takes almost eight (8) pages to lay out the rules. Make sure to cross-reference the rules in the book with the (latest) errata file too.
[13.0] OPERATIONS
Reading case 13.0 of Air & Armor brought home to me the point of consistent usage of terms. An Operation is, “The movement and possibly fire of one or more WP regiments or NATO task forces.” An Operation takes place during the Activation Cycle (“The sub-turn in which one WP division or NATO brigade conducts its movement and fire”) which both form an Action Cycle…which has no glossary defintion. Per the SoP, in the Maneuver Phase of a turn the player with the initiative conducts one Activation Cycle within which an Operation can occur or passes. So…the Action Cycle is the Maneuver Phase, yes?
Next: Pass go
So ends my explorationof the Sequence of Play and Activations/Operations for Air & Armor. Next I will focus on the rules cases for movement.
Feature image by RMN
The opinions and views expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and are presented in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Navy or any other U.S. government Department, Agency, Office, or employer.
RockyMountainNavy.com © 2007-2024 by Ian B is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 
Rocky Mountain Navy Gamer 