Wargame SITREP 24-35 ~ Wargame of the Week – Movin’ on Air & Armor: Wurzburg (Compass Games, 2024)

The rule book for Bruce Maxwell’s Air & Armor: Wurzburg – Designer’s Signature Edition from Compass Games (2024) is a whopping 148 pages. To get through the what I term “game background” material and the Sequence of Play (SoP) rules (called “cases in Air & Armor) has taken 48 pages so far. The next section of cases I am looking at cover movement.

[14.0] STACKING RESTRICTIONS

I once again discover that part of the reason the rule book for Air & Armor is lengthy is because designer Bruce Maxwell adds many Design Notes where they share the reasoning behind certain game mechanism decisions.

Design Note: The stacking limits in Air & Armor do not reflect the practical limits of unit density. Each hex in Air & Armor represents a square mile. It would be physically possible to park the vehicles of an entire division in a single hex. Instead, the stacking limits and restrictions inthis section refl ect command and control limitations and logistical constraints on force management.

[14.0] STACKING RESTRICTIONS

Case 14.0 also serves as yet another example of how what could (should?) be a rather straight-forward concept is complicated by overwrought terminology. In this case the difference between a “stack” and a “force:”

These rules refer to a “stack,” (a static concept) and a “force” (a dynamic concept). A stack is defined as all units that are stationary in the same hex. A force is defined as all units participating in the current operation (which can be an enemy operation if the force is retreating or reacting) that start in the same hex and are moving together as a single group. Forces can be combined (see 16.6.2) or split (see 16.6.3) during their movement. Units in a stack can be divided into multiple forces that move separately and multiple forces can end their movement in the same hex creating a single stack (see Force Movement, 16.6). Once a stack, part of a stack, or a single unit starts to move, it is always referred to as a force until its movement has ended.

[14.1] STACKS AND FORCES

The use of both “stack” and “force” illustrates to me the challenge many game designers face when writing a rule book. The designer must decide what approach to take when writing the rule book; do they choose to emphasize game mechanisms and write in very mechanical terms (“There is no limit to the number of ground unit steps that can end their movement stacked in a hex”) or in a more thematically immersive manner (“There is no limit to the number of forces that can move through a hex”). In Air & Armor Maxwell appears to have chosen to do both hence the lengthy rule book.

I must say, however, that case [14.4] MASKING is most interesting. In many wargames, stacking rules absolutely forbid overstacking in a hex often with a penalty calling for removal or ending movement in a previous hex. In Air & Armor if a hex is overstacked the units that most recently entered the subject hex are “masked” which imposes limitations and penalties on their ability in combat or response to enemy activities.

[15.0] ZONES OF CONTROL

In a move that I am sure disappoints—maybe even angers—the vocally active progressive segment of the conflict simulation wargaming community, Air & Armor uses an ancient game mechanism born in the early, darkly conservative days of hex & counter wargames: the Zone of Control or ZoC. In response I submit that this case may be perhaps the best written one encountered in the rule book as it is presented in a very straight-forward manner with helpful graphical explanations that takes up a mere two columns (one page) of space.

[16.0] GROUND UNIT MOVEMENT

The core concept of ground movement in Air & Armor is presented in case [16.1] GROUND MOVEMENT which is a just under one page in length. The next seven pages are more detailed explanations and large examples and in more than a few cases the exceptions and edge cases. I sense that Maxwell tries to “cover all the bases” in these rules which is likely driven by a rule writing philosophy that rules should be exhaustive because gamers will inevitably misinterpret the rules (and complain loudly as they do so).

Case [16.3] PROTECTED MOVEMENT is yet another example of a case in Air & Armor that appears duplicative and overwrought. The key concept behind protected movement is, “When a maneuver unit occupies a Close Terrain hex adjacent to an enemy unit, it is said to “protect” that hex for any other friendly unit or force that is currently moving.” At first glance protected movement appears to duplicate an exception listed under [15.0] ZONES OF CONTROL, to wit, “4. No ground unit ever exerts a ZOC into an adjacent “Close Terrain” hex. Close Terrain is defined as any Heavy Woods, Town, or City hex.” That comparison admittedly is an oversimplification and there are some other effects of protected movement that are not covered by a simple ZoC approach. Case 16.3 once again illustrates the challenge Maxwell faced when writing the rule book and whether to choose a mechanical or thematic approach to communicating the game mechanisms and how doing both adds length to the product.

Case [16.5] WP ATTACK FROM MARCH is an excellent example of how a mechanical rule can convey an important thematic situation in Air & Armor. As the Design Note for the case comments: “This game is built on asymmetry. This rule is one of those asymmetrical cases. The WP was quite good at what it trained to do, and it trained extensively in making a rapid attack from march.“

I wish the Design Note for case [16.6] FORCE MOVEMENT was presented earlier as it enunciates the basic principle behind several previous game design decisions:

Design Note: To wrap all the movement and step transfer rules together, consider this: the basic principle of Air & Armor is that steps are the real units in the game and Unit Counters are merely where steps begin and end their movement. Any movement is allowed provided that no Unit Counter makes an illegal move, and no individual step makes an illegal move between the Unit Counter it starts in and the Unit Counter it ends in.

[16.6] FORCE MOVEMENT

It would certainly have been helpful to encounter this core game principle earlier in the rule book to enhance the understanding of why certain rules are written to interact the way they do.

[17.0] RIVERS

Case 17.0 is, again, pretty much what one expects. The core game mechanism is explained along with thematic variations and exceptions. One example, however, stands out to me as a warning of the how fiddly the Step Markers in Air & Armor can be with the need for spare unit counters.

Gunner! Sabot!

Next time…COMBAT!

---

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