Wargame SITREP 24-37 ~ Wargame of the Week – Ruled out in Air & Armor: Wurzburg (Compass Games, 2024)

For the past week I used a slow, methodical, almost-programmed approach to learning how to play Bruce Maxwell’s Air & Armor: Wurzburg – Designer’s Signature Edition from Compass Games (2024). This posting, the seventh in the Air & Armor Wargame of the Week series so far, should be the end of learning what is all-but-called the “basic” game of Air & Armor. It has only take 97 pages of rules to get through it…

Reaction -or- mixing command, movement, and fire

Case [19.0] REACTION in Air & Armor is a special case that mixes elements of the rules for command & control, movement, and fire together. As such, it draws heavily on concepts laid out earlier. Even so, it still takes much explanation because of the many interruptions in the flow of events reactions invoke. Inevitably this leads to longer play times with a more organic back-and-forth of play. Organically good for play but game time efficiency bad.

The aim of combat

In Air & Armor case [20.0] RECONNAISSANCE is built on the premise that although players can “see” units on the game map they can only discover details under specific game conditions:

Design Note: This game is based on the idea that a player can look at the board, see exactly where his opponent’s units are, and still have no idea where his main forces are located and what they can do this turn. However, each army had a wide variety of resources dedicated to gathering this intelligence, including ground and helicopter reconnaissance patrols, ground surveillance radar, radio direction finding and signals intercept units, drones, and photo reconnaissance flights. Each Brigade and Division HQ had a military intelligence cell that collated all this information into actionable intelligence. The Reconnaissance Points described in the rules below represent these reconnaissance and intelligence resources.

[20.0] RECONAISSANCE

This case also introduces another game marker, the Acquisition Marker, to the game board to mark when units are acquired. Oh yeah…more fiddly counters to stack…

Fire Support

These three cases, [21.0] FIRE SUPPORT, [22.0] ARTILLERY, and [23.0] STRIKES, are very closely related in. Looking ahead in the rule book for Air & Armor I see the next few “advanced” game cases are [24.0] AIR UNITS, [25.0] ATTACK HELICOPTER UNITS, and [27.0] ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE. Seeing how all these cases are related to “fire support missions” I decide to plunge on through all of them to accelerate my learning of Air & Armor.

[I purposely skip case [26.0] UTILITY HELICOPTERS as they are used for airmobile activities and not fire support.]

Conceptually, the rules for fire support in Air & Armor are not that complicated. The player calls for fire, an asset to respond is identified, an observer is usually required, and the strike is executed. A few notable cases stand out to me not for their complexity but as examples of design decisions.

[22.1] DIRECT FIRE. Artillery in particular is intended to be used for Indirect Fire though there are (limited) exceptions for using it in a Direct Fire mode. As the Design Note states:

Design Note: The prohibition on the use of artillery units to participate in offensive operations reflects the doctrine of both sides, which was to keep artillery out of harm’s way as much as possible. The WP did plan to use the howitzers in their RAGs (Regimental Artillery Groups), typically comprising a battalion of 18 x 122mm guns, in a direct fire role when necessary, which is one reason why these guns have been factored into the Attack Strengths of the regiments themselves.

[22.1] DIRECT FIRE

Case [22.5] FIRED MARKERS introduces yet another marker to the game board. More “yeah”…not!

Airing out the rules

Joint Strikes. Maxwell does not seem to be a strong believer in the U.S. Air-Land Battle Doctrine or the Soviet Reconnaissance-Strike Complex as evidenced by the Design Note under case [23.0] STRIKES:

Design Note: Most armed forces attempted some form of joint coordination between air force assets (jets) and army assets (artillery and attack helicopters), but these efforts were difficult to pull off at the best of times, let alone under wartime conditions in the presence of both friendly and enemy air defenses. Moreover, the risks of fratricide increased exponentially in these joint operations. Accordingly, this game system does not allow joint service strikes. Air units always attack alone.

[23.0] STRIKES

Maxwell doubles-down on this limited view of jointness in another Design Note introducing case [24.0] AIR UNITS:

For a game called Air & Armor, the air support available may strike players as surprisingly stingy. This is because the game is set in the opening week of the war when every aircraft with sufficient range is being used to strike high value targets well behind enemy lines and close air support is at the absolute bottom of each air force’s priority list.

[24.0] AIR UNITS

In another Air & Armor fiddly counter stack instance, case [24.3] AIR UNIT ASSEMBLY warns, “Air units are unique in that they are assembled with a Unit Counter, a Step Marker, and a third marker called an Attack Profile Marker.” The case goes on about how the specific attack profile must be selected and strength steps assigned. Not only is this another fiddly counter stack but I question if it is adding another decision layer that is perhaps beyond the scope of the Air & Armor game.

Shattering expectations

The last of the recommended “basic” game cases in Air & Armor is [31.0] SHATTER. This case addresses the reality that units will become combat ineffective over time in a somewhat chaotic, unpredictable manner.

Who are you?

As I finish up my rules reading of Air & Armor I am left with a puzzling question as I go off to start play. Depending on the phase of the Sequence of Play the player acts as a NATO Corps/Division/Brigade commander (Front/Army/Division/ Regiment for the Warsaw Pact), intelligence officer, operations officer, supporting fires officer, air liaison, and more. Given all the roles represented in Air & Armor spanning from technically detailed to tactical to operational levels of war it is no wonder playing the game is complicated—the players have too many things to do.

Manifest complexity

Note that I said “playing the game” is complicated. After this thorough rules review of Air & Armor I am convinced that the core game design and the mechanisms used are in-and-of-themselves not complicated. Even looking at the latest errata file one can see that the errata for the “basic” rules (cases [1.0] thru [23.0]) is just over two pages in length but the “advanced” game errata (cases [24.0] to end of rules plus scenario, charts and tables, map and unit errata) take up four more pages.

In my opinion, complexity in Air & Armor comes not from the game mechanisms but mostly from the components of the game. From a lengthy rule book with text that runs into the center gutter with overwrought rules and less-than-helpfully formatted player aids; from misprinted counters to many game markers to fiddly actions with stacks of counters it is in the table-hog physical game of Air & Armor where the complexity manifests itself.

Thermopylae

Given real-world commitments, my play of the introductory scenario for Air & Armor, case [47.1] THERMOPYLAE, will likely be put off for at least a week. In the meantime I will be punching out and arranging the over 1,000 unit counters and markers and rearranging my gaming room to get an adequately sized gaming table.

---

Feature image “Picture #3” from case [28.0] PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER in Air & Armor rule book (Compass Games, 2024)

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