Breaking the Chains 2.0 is the 2024 reprint of John Gorkowski’s original Breaking the Chains: War in the South China Sea which was published by Compass Games in 2013 or 2014 depending on your source. The publisher’s ad copy for the original and second editions are virtually identical. The top-line blurbs, however, are different:
| Breaking the Chains (1st Edition) | Breaking the Chains 2.0 |
| It’s 2020 and current events have compelled China to employ its three aircraft carriers along with modern destroyers, amphibious ships, marines and paratroopers to assert control over the South China Sea. | Breaking the Chains (BTC) simulates a hypothetical, albeit very plausible, future military conflict over the South and East China Seas around the year 2020. Current events have compelled China to employ its three aircraft carriers along with modern destroyers, amphibious ships, marines and paratroopers to assert control over the South China Sea. This new 2.0 edition features a MOUNTED map, upgraded counters, and updates for incorporating errata, colorized rules book, new Designer Notes and FAQ, and four new scenarios |
In Breaking the Chains 2.0 you get…Breaking the Chains from 2014 except the map is mounted, the counters are redone a bit, a second book in the box with an FAQ (essentially errata) with a small designer’s note for the scenarios done with more color, and four new scenarios (all of which are available on BoardGameGeek).
Given the components of Breaking the Chains 2.0 are “upgraded” from the original edition one might expect the game itself to be updated to account for the past decade of advancement. Alas, the design notes remain unchanged.
On detection in the game model:
Design Note: BTC was originally designed with a “search to find” model typical of most naval war games, i.e. players could not attack the enemy until after they succeeded with a search dice roll to find him. However, play testing indicated that the “search to find” model in the 21st Century context just generated a lot of superfluous dice rolling. That’s because technology developed during and after the Cold War has inverted the central problem of naval warfare. In 1941, the problem was how to find the enemy on a vast ocean. Since then, advances in surveillance technology such as over-the-horizon radar, aerial drones, and satellite imagery have changed the problem to how to evade detection in a sea of radiation. The surest proof of this is the relatively recent proliferation of stealth technology and the sad fate of “un-stealthy” assets during the Falklands War and on through the 2nd Gulf War. So in BTC units are “spotted” by default, the question is can you evade that detection?
14.313 Design Note
Writing in 2024 I look at naval conflicts since 2013 and especially the naval operations in the Black Sea as part of the the War in Ukraine as well as the ongoing naval battles in and around the Red Sea. Are there any naval detections lessons to be learned there that confirm, deny, challenge, or otherwise help define this game’s detection model? It does not appear the designer or publisher sought an answer. [Interestingly, the 2.0 rulebook has a copyright date of 2022 across the bottom of every page apparently meaning the rules were “reviewed”…two year ago? If so the case could be made that the “review” pre-dated the War in Ukraine and the more recent Red Sea conflict. Still…]
On Air units:
Design Note: BTC postulates that by 2020 the F-35 will be America’s primary, manned multirole combat aircraft while China will employ the J-20. Other nations will follow with F-18s, Su-27s, and J-12s. All units will include some unmanned drones; many of which may in fact be fighters or bombers. In the game, each step of an air unit represents about 25 aircraft. Air unit weapons systems do not have a “range” like surface naval unit AS scores; instead the ability of aircraft to project power is accounted for by their normal operational radius.
14.32 Design Note
Well, writing from 2024, is is clear that while the F-35 is being built and deployed widely it is still not the primary manned multirole combat aircraft. On the other side, the PRC also struggles to deploy the J-20. It is clear that Breaking the Chains 2.0 remains a “future-cast” wargame.
Regarding Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM):
Design Note: The superior range and kill numbers for Chinese SSMs and Sovremeny Class DDGs come from their hypersonic, sea skimming Moskit (aka SS-N-22/Sunburn) missiles – the most feared rocket in the Chinese inventory. Red Star Over the Pacific reported that some studies estimate the Sunburn has a 40% chance of penetrating an Aegis defense system. Therefore, in this game, the Moskit-laden Sovremeny has an AS [Anti-Ship] number of 4 which would require a roll of 8 or more (about 40% likely) to overcome an Aegis Destroyer’s AMD [Area Missile Defense] score of 11. The AS scores of other units were estimated.
14.3311 Design Note
The Red Star Over the Pacific referenced above refers to the first edition of that title published in 2010. A second edition was published in 2018 and makes this comment:
…the PLAN has armed its warships to the teeth with a family of Russian and Chinese-made antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) boasting ranges of 120-130 nautical miles. Worse from the American standpoint, the Pentagon pegs the range of the supersonic YJ-18 ASCM now entering service on board PLAN combatants at an impressive 290 nautical miles. …(The SM-6 will do much to correct the range mismatch, but it appears the YJ-18 may outrange even the U.S. Navy’s newest missile. Much depends on what the true range of the SM-6 is—as opposed to the range given in unclassified settings.) In other words, major Chinese combatants can not only keep U.S. aircraft at bay, they can also unleash volleys of ASCMs at the U.S. fleet from beyond American weapons’ ranges.
Yoshihara, Toshi and James R. Holmes (2018) Red Star Over the Pacific Second Edition – China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, pp. 160-161.
It is clear that the text—and game engine—of Breaking the Chains 2.0 was not updated. Given that Breaking the Chains 2.0 provides some component upgrades from the first edition but no real update to the game system, why would anyone want to buy this game?
Regardless of the lack of updated game engine, Breaking the Chains 2.0 is a relatively low-complexity wargame exploring modern naval warfare. That core game combat model is fairly abstract, meaning the technical details are applied with broad strokes. The game model does not attempt to directly compare a YJ-18 to and SM-6—it shows the relative capabilities not specific technical details. Even without the text of the game updated the core game engine remains a reasonable balance of believability and playability…with a bit of a lean towards playability between the two.
Owners of the first edition (and long out of print) Breaking the Chains likely do not need to update their collection. For those who do not own the original edition but want a easy to learn, easy to play, reasonably believable (and still a bit fun to play) wargame model of modern naval warfare in the South China Sea and surrounding waters they should consider Breaking the Chains 2.0.
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 
The ground scale is still wrong. It does not manage over the horizon munitions and still requires a metric tone of die rolling. ‘Breaking the Wrist’ is an apt moniker.