Panzerschreck

Issue 16 Spring 2014

Destruction of Force Z

Salvo! 2nd ed.

Magazine of Wargame Variants — Solitaire Wargames

This issue’s wargame is available separately. To purchase a copy of DESTRUCTION OF FORCE Z (complete with illustrated 12-page rule booklet, full color map, counter set, and Reference Card), visit the Minden Games website, and order via Paypal.

(See page 10 for more details about the game.)

http://minden_games.homestead.com

2

Opening Rounds . . . The Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Featured Variant: Axis & Allies 1941 . . . Bradley Shatner. . . . . . . . 6

Campaign Analysis: The Destruction of Force Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Issue Game Description: Destruction of Force Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (Issue game available for purchase separately)

Mini-Sim PDF Game: Salvo! 2nd ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Short Takes: Inchon (Simulations Canada), Oil War (SPI),

Ortona (Simulations Canada) . . . James Meldrum . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Observation Post: Julius Caesar (Columbia) . . . Robert Smith . . .

Slouch Hats & Eggshells (Legion) . . . Gary Graber . . . . Fading

Glory (GMT) . . . Robert Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Solitaire Wargaming Theory and Retro’s Expanded Mission . . .

. . .William P. Driscoll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Synopsis of Games Published in Panzerschreck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Synopsis of Games Published in Panzer Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Extra Ship Counters for Destruction of Force Z . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Latest Minden Releases & PDF Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Panzerschreck #16, Spring 2014. Panzerschreck publishes articles and strategy

games for boardgamers. The magazine portion of Panzerschreck #16 is available as a

free download from the Minden Games website. Readers may print off a copy for their

own personal use, and may distribute it as long as it is not modified, is in its entirety, and

without charge. All rights reserved. Entire contents are copyright 2014 by Minden

Games. Panzerschreck #16’s issue game is Destruction of Force Z, available for pur-

chase separately at the Minden Games website.

Publisher: Minden Games. Editor: Gary Graber. Contributors: James

Meldrum, Brad Shatner, Robert Smith, William Driscoll. Ordering Informa-

tion: Game orders and Minden products may be ordered from the Minden

website, and purchased through Paypal.

© 2014 Minden Games

Panzerschreck

Issue 16 Spring 2014

http://minden_games.homestead.com

It has been a long time since I wrote

this column for Panzerschreck. A lot of

water has gone under the bridge since

then, but I do not intend to focus my

thoughts on that. Rather, I want to draw

our attention to the present, and future.

This magazine has always focused on

wargame variants and small games that

are typically solitaire friendly. I want to

continue that emphasis. I have nothing

against variants to new games, but I grew

up with the Avalon Hill and SPI classics,

and those are the sort of games that still

turn my crank the most. So, no one

should be surprised if out-of-print titles

continue to receive attention in these

pages.

The biggest change is, of course, the

manner of delivery for the magazine. I’ve

decided to make the magazine-portion of

Panzerschreck available as a free down-

load. The main issue game is available

for purchase separately. This accom-

plishes several goals. It reduces the price

of the issue. Exactly how much is open

to debate, but it is several dollars. And it

saves postage, especially for those outside

North America. Another advantage is

when I “publish” a pdf magazine issue, I

don’t need to resort to the printer. This

reduces upfront costs a great deal. I can

also use color on every page. The down-

side is that gamers do not get a printed

hardcopy of the magazine, but the upside

is they can print their own in color (or

view on screen) at no cost. In the past,

there was always a “split” in readership

between those who bought an issue just

for the game, and those who bought it for

the game and the magazine content. By

making these two things available sepa-

rately, I am hoping that each contingent

will be happy. After all, the magazine

component and the game component are

both still available, albeit separately, and

at a reduced overall price.

My guess is that readership of the

magazine will grow, given the new distri-

bution for the magazine. (And that is a

good thing.) This increased exposure

Send your name and email address and ask to join the Minden Pals. It’s free, and gives you access to special discounts and bonuses that are only

available to Pals.

To join, simply send an email (with “Minden Pals” in the subject line) to:

minden2@hotmail.com

and we’ll add your name to the list.

Opening Rounds by the Editor

4

should, in turn, increase sales of the issue

game, in the present case, Destruction of

Force Z. It is not 1998 anymore; onward

and upward should be our motto, in life,

and in wargaming. Exploring new ways of

marketing Minden products makes sense.

To answer a few obvious questions.

No, a revived Panzerschreck in this for-

mat does not mean anything negative

about Panzer Digest. Right now, the idea

is to have a downloadable magazine (the

former), and a hardcopy magazine (the

latter). No, I do not have any plans con-

cerning frequency of issues. I would call

Panzerschreck #16 an experiment, in that

regard. If sales of this issue’s game justi-

fies the approach, you can expect to see

more of the same format in the future.

We have a pretty good base of Minden

Pals and regular customers, and I am hop-

ing that their response to the new format

will be positive. Nothing else to say,

really, except that we’ll find out how it

works and go from there.

There are two games included in this

issue. One is a Mini-Sim (Salvo! 2nd

ed.), which in the Panzerschreck tradition,

forms a part of the magazine, and must be

printed off. The main issue game is De-

struction of Force Z. As it says in various

places within these pages, you need to

order this game separately. It is a design

that fits squarely within the established

Panzerschreck canon: small, playable,

historical, and solitaire. Game components

include thick, color card for map, count-

ers, and Reference Card, to go along with

the illustrated rule booklet. I am confi-

dent that anyone who is familiar with the

Panzerschreck games of the past will rec-

ognize it as part of the family. There is

enough in this issue to tell you about the

campaign and the game itself, and I hope

you will give it a try and order yourself a

copy. (And, if you are not already a Min-

den Pal, why not sign up? It puts your

name on our Pals mailing list, and gives

you access to specials and discounts.)

Finally, a few words about the content

5

continued on page 34

Axis & Allies 1941 is a new, introduc-

tory game in the Axis & Allies series. It is

designed to play in under two hours.

While it uses the familiar game system,

the game has a new map, fewer units, and

less income generated per turn. This

makes the game more accessible to rookie

players than standard A&A.

While not wanting to argue against the

game’s premise (a quick playing design

for beginners), here are a few variant rules

that we use for A&A 1941. They are

meant to enhance your gaming fun, with-

out adding complexity or new rules.

Mix or match the rules as you want. _______________________

1. Game Pieces. We use pieces from

other A&A games to supplement those

found in A&A 1941, as sometimes pieces

run a little short. Simply borrow a few

infantry, tanks, etc. for each country and

keep them on hand. We also prefer the

classic chips used in A&A, instead of the

cardboard ones in the new game. It’s easy

enough to do this, so why not?

2. IPC Money. In the same way, we

use IPC money from standard A&A, to

keep track of IPCs. (Use Monopoly

money if you have to.) It’s easier and

more fun to pay for pieces with money

than keeping track on a chart!

3. USA Starting IPCs. The rules say

the US starts with 15 IPCs, the board says

17. We go with 17, which I believe is the

official ruling.

4. Starting Forces. I am aware of

discussions about play balance in the

game, and how adding pieces at the start

of the game can address this. We have

adopted the standard A&A 1941 set up,

with these additions. The new, additional

pieces may start in any area the owning

player wants as long as there is at least

one other piece of that country that starts

there already. In the case of the Soviet

Union, the new pieces may start in the

same or different areas.

Soviet Union: 3 additional infantry

Germany: 1 additional infantry

United Kingdom: 1 additional battle-

ship.

Japan: 1 additional fighter

United States: 1 additional destroyer

5. Additional Income. I know the

income in the new game is supposed to be

low, but why not rev it up at least a little?

We suggest each country gets three extra

IPCs per turn. To make it easy, just make

each nation’s capital worth three more

IPCs than the map says. So, Germany is

now worth 7 IPCs, Russia 6, etc. The

original Axis to Allied ratio of IPCs at the

start of the game is 21:36 in favor of the

Allies (Axis have 58% as many as the

Variants for Axis & Allies 1941

by Brad Shatner

6

Allies). Using this variant, the starting

ratio is 27:45 in their favor (Axis start with 60% of the Allied total). So not much dif-ference. But more IPCs mean more pieces

in play. If increase of three IPCs is too high (or low) for your taste, adjust accordingly.

6. Bidding for Sides. If play balance is your thing, one of the best ways to intro-duce it into the game is to bid for sides.

We suggest bidding on who will play the Axis. This will work for two player or four

player games (two teams of two). What you are bidding on is the starting IPC level of

the Axis side. In a normal game, this is 21, e.g. Germany 12, Japan 9. (With variant #5 in play, this would be 27, with Germany 15

and Japan 12.) Each team secretly makes a bid, which must be a positive or negative

number (or zero) divisible by three (e.g. –3, 0, +3, +6, etc.).

Low bid plays the Axis, at the stated bid. (If tied, roll off to

see who plays the Axis.) The area “Germany” gets two-

thirds of any increase (or de-crease), and the area “Japan” one-third. For example, on a

winning bid of +3 in a game using the original IPC starting values, the

“Germany” area is raised by 2, and is worth 6 IPCs, and the Japan area is raised by 1, and is worth 5 IPCs. Or, a winning bid of

–3 means “Germany” is worth 2 IPCs, and Japan 3 IPCs, and so on.

7. Alternate Victory. To overcome the “turtle” defense (where an almost de-feated foe places almost all his pieces in his

capital and ignores everything else), play that a country must control at least two

areas it started the game with (one being the capital, the other being any area it

started the game with, whether IPC produc-ing or not) or else it is defeated. This pre-vents Japan, for example, from simply hol-

ing up in Japan, it must hold Japan and at least one other area noted on the map by

Campaign Analysis:

The Destruction of Force Z

8

the “Rising Sun” symbol (like Iwo Jima), or it is defeated. A country is still defeated

if it loses its capital.

8. North Africa. In the game, North

Africa is worth zero IPCs. With this vari-ant rule, it is worth 1 IPC. Historically this seems to make better sense. Germany now

has an incentive to garrison the area. If

using variant #6, adjust accordingly.

There you have it. Axis & Allies 1941

is a simple but fun wargame well suited for beginners. With these variant rules, you can

introduce just a little more sophistication without increasing complexity. This is a great game, well suited to such tinkering.

Give them a try sometime.

Defense of the Far East was always in the minds of the allies in the run up to the sec-ond world war. Singapore was the main British strongpoint port in the region, and was

the center of any proposed defense. It was hoped that, in the event of war with Japan, US battleships based in the central pacific would assist the British.

With the start of the war in Europe in 1939, the British could not afford to send many capital ships east. Churchill argued that sending two battleships and a carrier would pro-

vide enough of a naval presence to deter the Japanese. While it was not wise to divert too many ships from the Atlantic theater, providing some support was prudent, if only to demonstrate Britain’s solidarity with Australia and New Zealand.

In November, 1941, a squadron of warships sailed to the Far East. This force was comprised of the modern battleship Prince of Wales, the World War I vintage battle-

cruiser Repulse, and four destroyers. The recently launched carrier Indomitable was slated to sail with the group as well, but it ran aground off Jamaica in early November, and the necessary repairs precluded it accompanying the others. The ships arrived in

Singapore on December 2nd, where they were designated Force Z. On December 8 (local time) news arrived of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as

well as invasion of parts of Malaya, including Kota Bharu. Admiral Tom Phillips, re-cently named commander-in-chief of the naval forces in the Far East, made plans for

Force Z to sail into the South China Sea, to disrupt invasion plans, threaten communica-tions, and perhaps deal with Japanese surface vessels. Hampering the effectiveness of Force Z was the fact that the RAF (such as it existed

there) told Phillips they could not guarantee protection of his ships from the air. In hind-sight, the admiral can be criticized for moving out without air support. But at the time,

with the Japanese on the move throughout the region, it would have been contrary to the offensive-minded spirit of the Royal Navy to do nothing, especially since the RAF and British army were actively engaged in fighting.

Force Z sailed out of Singapore into the South China Sea in the early evening of December 8. The

commander, on board Prince of Wales, had ordered strict radio silence for his squadron. The plan was to

reach north to the Gulf of Siam, undetected, and from there possibly wreck havoc among enemy warships, HMS Repulse

transports, and invasion sites. The immediate danger was, if sighted, Force Z risked the wrath of land-based Japanese bombers located in

Indo-China. This danger was reckoned to be minimal. Sailing initially went according to plan. They passed to the east of

the Anamba Islands, and then swung toward the north. Without its knowledge, the British ships were sighted by submarines the afternoon

of December 9th. Later that day, Japanese scout planes sighted their position as well, and Phillips, realizing this, decided it was too risky to proceed toward Kota Bharu. From the most northern position

reached, about half-way up the Malayan peninsula, Force Z turned south under cover of darkness the evening of the 9th, and made toward Kuantan, the rumored location of an-

other invasion force. Radio silence was still maintained; Singapore knew nothing about these changed plans. The British ships arrived off Kuantan the morning of December 10, but found noth-

ing. At mid-morning they were once again sighted, and land-based Japanese bombers were dispatched. Still, radio silence was not broken, even though those on the ships

knew they had been sighted. The bombers arrived piecemeal, but in force, beginning a little after 11 am. All told over 80 Nell bombers—about 50 armed with torpedoes, and

the rest with bombs—attacked the ships in several waves, over a two hour period. Curi-ously, no radio signals were sent out for the first 45 minutes of the attack. a critical mis-take. By the time distress calls went out, around noon, it was too late. RAF fighters took

off and made for the British ships, but they did not arrive in time. Repulse slid under the waves first, at 12:30, the result of five torpedo and one bomb hit. Prince of Wales lasted

about 45 minutes longer, finally sinking due to six torpedo and one bomb hit. RAF fighters reached the area about 1:20pm, but both capital ships were gone, for the loss of but 10 Japanese planes. Nearly 2,100 British officers and men survived (picked up by

friendly destroyers), out of a combined total of 2,900. The shock of the loss on British morale was palpable.

Churchill received the news the next morning, Lon-don time. He later wrote, “In all the war, I never received

a more direct shock… The full horror of the news sank in upon me. There were no British or American ships in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific except the American survi-

vors of Pearl Harbor…. Over all this vast expanse of wa-ters Japan was supreme, and we everywhere were weak

and naked.” Force Z was no more; the British naval pres-ence in the Far East had been shattered.

9

Wargaming on the ‘Net

Consimworld www.consimworld.com

Web-Grognards grognard.com

Prince of Wales, while abandoning ship.

Admiral Tom Phillips

Destruction of Force Z Royal Navy Disaster in the Far East, December 1941

What’s Included:

12-page illustrated rule booklet

Thick card color map,

set of 59 counters,

and Reference Card

Title: Destruction of Force Z: Royal Navy Disaster in the Far East, December 1941

Issue #: Panzerschreck #16 Designer: Gary Graber

# of Players: Solitaire Playing Time: 45-60 minutes

Description: This is a solitaire wargame that simulates the air and naval action off the

coast of Malaya in December 1941, between Japanese forces and Force Z of the Royal

Navy, based in Singapore. You (as the British) are faced with a difficult situation. Pearl

Harbor has just been attacked. The entire Malayan peninsula is under treat of invasion.

Your offensive options are few, but sailing and doing something to take the war to the en-

emy is better than doing nothing at all. Perhaps you can disrupt invasion sites? Intercept

enemy warships? Whatever you decide, it will be an uphill battle. Do you sail with radio

silence? Where should you sail? By what route? If your ships are found, they risk the

wrath of land-based Japanese bombers in Indo-China, made all the worse as the RAF has

warned they cannot guarantee protection of your ships.

Destruction of Force Z is a highly playable game standing squarely within the Panzer-

schreck tradition. Counters (which must be cut apart prior to play) represent individual

warships, and individual bombers and fighters. Besides regular rules, optional rules—

including having the aircraft carrier Indomitable sailing with Force Z—provide you with

everything you need to recreate the original campaign.

The game casts you in the role of Admiral Tom Phillips, commanding Force Z. Each

turn you must check for weather, send (or not send) radio messages, move your ships, and

deal with Japanese minefields, submarines, warships, and aircraft. The game system han-

dles enemy movement. If your ships are sighted, they are subject to possible aerial attack

from individual torpedo and level bombers. Anything can happen, but the odds are stack-

ed against you. Can you win an improbable victory, and avoid the destruction of Force Z?

Description of Panzerschreck #16’s

Main Issue Wargame

To order, visit: minden_games.homestead.com

10

Get a hard copy of Salvo! 2nd ed., free upon request with any

Minden Games order.

11

This issue’s Mini-Sim: SALVO! 2nd ed.

SIMCAN AT INCHON

Simulations Canada’s Inchon game was unique when it was published because it

was one of the very few games done on the Korean War before it was fashionable to

explore this conflict in any detail. Inchon was all the more unique because it dealt

with the single battle that turned the tide of the entire Korean conflict and sealed the

fate of the North Korean People’s Army (IMG). There are a number of factors that

affected the outcome of the UN landings at Inchon and this article will explore a few

of them. Unless otherwise mentioned, all rules from Inchon will be in effect unless

specifically mentioned.

The US 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment could have been used as an assault unit

during the Inchon landings and could have entered the battle (and game) via a para-

chute drop. This variant may be used in any of the scenarios in the game. In all cases,

the US airborne units are in supply for three game turns after they land. When this

variant rule is used, the US airborne units are not counted as part of the UN limit of 15

units arriving as reinforcements in a single game turn. The airborne unit may land in

any clear, rough, or airfield terrain hexes. No airborne unit may land in a hex contain-

ing an enemy unit and has no zone of control on the turn in which it lands. Airborne

units’ movement allowances are halved on the turn in which they land. On the fol-

lowing turn and all subsequent game turns airborne units may move and function nor-

mally.

When conducting airborne landings in Inchon, place each airborne unit in the de-

sired terrain hex and roll a die for each airborne unit except the headquarters unit. On

roll of 6 the airborne unit is eliminated; units landing in rough terrain are eliminated

on a roll of 5 or 6. Any airborne units landing adjacent to an enemy AA unit are

eliminated on a roll of 4 - 6. Any other result is no effect.

As an alternative, any airborne unit landing in a hex already occupied by an enemy

unit must attack the enemy unit in the ensuing combat phase. Failure to eliminate the

enemy unit or cause it to retreat results in the elimination of the airborne unit at the

end of the combat phase.

Try playing Inchon by allowing the North Korean player to

have 100 points of indirect air support points to use anywhere

the map. This represents the replenishment of the North Ko-

rean Air Force with extra Russian and Chinese pilots and air-

craft. Historically this was only a remote possibility since the

USAF destroyed the North Korean Air Force early in the con-

flict and held air superiority over South Korea for most of the

war. At the same time, it prevents the United Nations player

from having a super easy time of pushing the North Koreans

back. James E. Meldrum

Short Takes

12

OIL WAR: SCENARIO FOUR

11.41 Historical Notes

This is a late 1970’s Iranian Hostage Crisis sce-

nario for the SPI game Oil War. As a hypothetical result

of the United States’ hostage situation, the US conducts a

punitive campaign against Iran. Immediately after the hos-

tages are released the US strikes back with a limited inva-

sion and multiple air strikes.

11.42 Initial Deployment:

Arab/Iranian Player

In Iran: 2m, 4a, 1i, 2F5, 2F4, 1F14

US Player

In the Gulf of Oman: 1 US F4, 1 US A6, 1 US A7, (optional - 1F14)

In Germany: 3 US al, 2 US i, 1 US m, 1 US a, 6 US F4, 2 US F111

11.43 Special Rules:

1. The Iranian player is allowed to use one US F4 to represent Iranian F14 aircraft.

This unit is based at the airfield at Ahvaz. The Iranian F14 unit must always

base at Ahvaz.

2. The Iranian player receives reinforcements from the reinforcement track as in t h e

regular scenarios.

3. The Iranian player may not move any ground unit beyond his borders; if forced

to do so the units in question are eliminated immediately.

4. The US player may not use F111s on the first game turn. The US player receives

reinforcements from the reinforcement track used in scenarios one and two but he

may only use those reinforcements from turns two, three, and seven.

5. The US player receives ATPs as in scenario two.

6. The US player may base his units anywhere in Bahrain, Qatar, or in Dharan

(hex 1521 only).

7. The SAM sites in hexes 1521 and 1823 are assumed to belong to the US p layer

and may be used by him according rule 7.5 of the regular game rules.

8. A port hex is assumed to exist in hex 1610 (Kharg Island) and belongs to the Ira-

nian player.

9. The US player is the first player in this scenario.

Victory Conditions:

Victory is decided on the basis of which player holds the largest number of oil facility

and port hexes inside Iran; the player controlling the largest number wins. In order

the US player to win, he must fulfill the victory conditions just given, and in addition,

he must hold at least one port hex.

11.44 Notes:

This scenario was intended to be relevant to the situation that existed in Iran

in the late 1970s - early 1980s. The possibility of a conflict is a result only of specula-

tion. This scenario is intended to have started before the Iran - Iraq War began.

The US player is given only the minimum of ATP’s available to simulate

airlift capacity and reaction time problems that confronted the US at that time. By

virtue of the map design, the scenario can’t take into account what is happening else-

13

SENTRY BOX

Canada’s Largest Adventure Gam-

ing and SciFi & Fantasy Bookstore

Huge Selection of Wargames!

1835 10th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, AB T3C 0K2 Canada

www.sentrybox.com

where in the Middle East, southern Russia or the Indian Ocean. The US player is as-

sumed to have basing privileges in Bahrain, Qatar, and Dhahran. James E. Meldrum

ORTONA

SimCan’s Ortona game depicts the obscure and bloody

battle fought along the northern coast of Italy as British and

Canadian forces advanced up the Italian boot during the Al-

lied campaign in Italy during 1943. The variants presented

in this article are intended to highlight various factors that

could have altered the outcome of the Battle for Ortona. In

all cases, the rules for Ortona are in effect at all times unless

otherwise mentioned. All or just some of the variant mate-

rial given here may be used in any of the scenarios included

in the regular game.

To further simulate the effects and difficulties of city fighting, try playing

Ortona without allowing zones of control to penetrate into any hex of the city. Units

defending in city hexes (only) may ignore all DR results.

A free deployment rule is an obvious choice for a variant in any Ortona sce-

nario. Either one or both sides may place their initial units in a scenario on the map as

they please. Both side’s reinforcements appear at the same times and locations as in

the regular game. The only restriction is that Canadian units must all set up south of

the gully; German units set up on or anywhere north of the gully.

Try playing scenario 11.2 using either the German para units or the optional

German forces in place of those used in the historical scenario.

When playing with the German parachute units, place all of them in the gully

hexes so that all adjacent gully hexes are occupied by German para units or their

zones of control with no more than one unit per hex. Place the para artillery units in

hex 1206. The German player receives no additional reinforcements while the Cana-

dian player receives only his turn two reinforcements.

When playing with the German optional units the Germans receive 5 x HQ,

1 x anti-tank (in hex 1105), 6 x heavy weapons, and 18 x infantry units deployed the

same as for the para variant. Of the remaining

27 optional units, the German player may re-

ceive 9 reinforcement units each on turns 2, 3,

and 4. The Canadian player continues to receive

his reinforcements normally.

Try playing scenario 11.3 but let the

Germans deploy all para units freely, and allow

the Canadian player to receive all remaining

armored and mechanized infantry units as rein-

forcements on game turn one representing a

stronger Allied effort. As an alternative, the

German player may use any 30 optional units in

place of the paras but at least four of these must

be HQ units and one anti-tank unit must be in-

cluded.

James E. Meldrum

14

JULIUS CAESAR

Columbia Games

Designer: Justin Thompson

Reviewer: Robert G. Smith

The Roman Civil War between Caesar and

Pompey was a natural evolution from the tur-

moil that was an undercurrent through Roman

life the previous 75 years. It is my opinion that

in retrospect this conflict was unavoidable

considering the force of the personalities in-

volved. Once Sulla was killed in the East

against Parthia, and Caesar’s daughter who

was Pompey’s wife died – the die was cast.

What Columbia Games’ Julius Caesar (JC)

nicely does is combine a mix-

ture of strategic and opera-

tional play for the game. De-

spite its simplicity in terms of

mechanics, JC captured

enough of the flavor of the

period that I never thought I

wasn’t playing a game on the

Roman Civil war. The series

Rome nicely covers this pe-

riod. Recommended readings

are Rubicon by Tom Holland

the Caesar series by Conn

Iggulden. Hand it to Columbia

Games for naming it Julius

Caesar – heck face it – it reso-

nates better than the Roman Civil War in terms

of market strategy. Game length will run be-

tween 1—2.5 hours with 2 being the average

for this game of five turns.

COMPONENTS: The 33” x 17” map is

pleasant to look at – but it is a map with no

hexes and areas. Moving from city to city

primarily by roads and on occasion by am-

phibious or naval transport is how the game

moves. Control of cities is important – par-

ticularly cities with blue victory points in

them. There are 63 blocks in the game – 31

tan, 31 green and 1 blue for Cleopatra. There

are also 27 cards and 4 dice. What’s cool is

that as an added bonus on the map, Columbia

Games marks the location of the major battles

and by color coding tells you who won that

particular battle.

RULES: As a veteran Colombia Games

player I had no trouble quickly grasping the

game unlike with Athens & Sparta. Even if I

had been unexposed to their games before, the

rules were easy, made sense and I noticed

nothing that stood out as major issues. I do

wish the naval rules had some better examples

as I believe that is the weakest area in the

rules. Unlike in Athens & Sparta where the

rules used some terms interchangeably, every-

thing in JC’s rules were tight in terms of clar-

ity and simplicity. Victory is

determined at the end of each

year. If a player reaches the 10

point threshold, the game is

over. Scoring is based upon the

value of friendly cities and 1

victory point for each leader

killed. Should neither player

meet the end of year total, the

one with the highest victory

point at the end of 5 years

wins.

GAME PLAY: Once Caesar

committed to going over the

Rubicon (which nobody today

knows where it was) Pompey

needs to determine his strategy. The forces of

Pompey and the Senate are somewhat scat-

tered, inviting defeat in detail. This is where

understanding the interplay of the simple me-

chanics is critical to your success. Now card

play drives the game. The first part of this is

the higher card will determine initiative for

that turn with ties going to Caesar (it’s good to

be Caesar). There are two types of Events

Cards – Command cards and the Gods cards.

The Gods cards convey special events such as

allowing you to attack first or causing a unit to

defect to your side. Command cards are used

to determine the ability to move or raise new

levees. The banner tells you how many moves

Observation Post

Reprinted from Panzer Digest #11

15

you have that turn and the circles on the staff

indicate the number of levees. The use of

levees allows you to either issue replacements

to existing legions or other units or build new

units. I like the simple nod to logistics. At the

end of the play of five cards there is a winter

turn. Winter supply is harsh, as you can only

supply a maximum of 3 blocks from a given

city, unless it has a blue city value which in-

creases the limit up to that amount.

Let me return to the beginning game since

it presents a strategic dilemma for both play-

ers! Caesar has the opportunity to strike deci-

sively early on except that his navy is on the

other side of Italy. Both sides are pretty bal-

anced except for the distribution of forces. The

work horses of the game are the legions – most

of which are of the 3 strength point variety but

each side has several 4 point legions. Each

side has leaders, legions of course, auxilia,

equitatus (cavalry), ballistia and navis / war-

ships/fleets. Units are rated by letter for initia-

tive – A rated blocks fires first and so on down

the line. You need to pay attention to the road

network as major roads allow for the move-

ment of up to 4 blocks but minor roads allow

but two. Most movement on land is done by

groups of blocks. You can move two cities on

a move if no combat is involved – if combat is

involved you can only move one. Figuring out

naval strategy is also important – and I think

the area where Columbia needed to devote just

a little more effort towards.

For those who have never played a block

game before, the combat rating is determined

by the numbers along the edge of the block

with the current rating on top. As the unit takes

hits, you rotate the block to reflect the lesser

combat value. Movement values are the same

for all units in the game and in this era that is

no real issue – and who is going to really de-

bate and get bent out of shape about one le-

gion’s rate of march vs. another? Combat is

simple – roll a number of dice equal to your

current combat value with hits generated by

dice equal to or less than the current combat

value of a given block.

Poor Pompey – the first year is not a good

one for him – even the first game turn can be

very rough. Historically Pompey did the

“Great Skedaddle” out of Rome to Bridinsini

and then sailed off to the Balkans to his

strength. So it seemed to have played in my

games – but I got to thinking…why not have

him go to his strength and go to New Car-

thage / Spain to begin with? Or have him pre-

emptively strike Caesar? Proper play of the

Gods cards most of the time will set up the

first year within its historical context – but

after that I found play devolved in an interest-

ing fashion with no set patterns. I found the

game very easy to play solitaire. What I did

with card play was examine both sides cards to

determine which card to discard. Then I shuf-

fled their respective year’s cards and drew

them blindly. This randomness I found made

for a very interesting game against myself.

Reminder that unoccupied cities revert to neu-

trality – hence you need to leave units of some

type scattered about to protect your victory

point base.

CONCLUSIONS: Small. Simple to play

but with enough choices to not be total game

light – and who can resist a playable Roman

Civil War game? It is far deeper than it ap-

pears at first blush in terms of game play but

always fun. Put this one on your sweetie‘s list

of games you want this holiday season – you

won’t be disappointed.

Panzer Digest

Past winner of the Charles Roberts Award, Panzer Digest is an irregu-larly published wargame magazine

from Minden Games.

Each contains wargame articles and reviews, and a complete game

or games.

Visit the Minden website for infor-mation on the most current edition,

as well as back issues.

minden_games.homestead.com

16

SLOUCH HATS & EGGSHELLS

Legion Wargames

Designer: Vance von Borries

Reviewer: Gary Graber

Slouch Hats & Eggshells is a WWII simu-

lation covering the campaign conducted in

French-occupied Syria and Lebanon by invad-

ing allied forces, June-July 1941. Here, Brit-

ish, Australians, and Free

French square off against

Vichy, French Colonials, and

German units. The design is an

updated version of von Borries’

Syria 1941 that was published

many years ago, updated in a

Quarterdeck edition, and now

brought up to speed to the cur-

rent state of the art. It is a

“companion” game for Rom-

mel’s War (RW), published by

L2, and may be linked up with

that design if you own it. Vic-

tory in SH&E turns on whether the Vichy

French surrender by the end of the game. If

they do, the allies win.

COMPONENTS: This was the first title I’d

ever seen from Legion, and I’m impressed

with the quality of the product Randy Lein has

given us. The 22” x 34” map, covering Syria,

Lebanon, Trans Jordan, and surrounding areas

at 10 miles/hex (and 10 days/turn), looks good

and is nicely done. The 184 .6” die-cut count-

ers are typically battalion and regimental level;

they not only look excellent, but they easily

punch out. As 90% of the fighting units have

combat factors of 2 or less, maneuver oriented

players will no doubt have a field day. Large

event chits (20) are included, and inject his-

torical chrome into the game. The 28 page

illustrated rule booklet is laid out nicely. I did

not have much trouble getting into the game.

There are two scenarios provided, the histori-

cal Operation Exporter (6 turns), and a hypo-

thetical German intervention one (8 turns).

The sundry player aid charts are well thought

out, and helpful. Everything in the box

(including the box itself) is top notch. The

main thing that left me scratching my head

was the game’s odd name.

RULES: This is a fairly traditional “I go/

You go” design, containing nothing that a

wargaming veteran will find too hard to han-

dle. Some of the rules are a little too fiddly for

my tastes (let’s see, 29 separate phases in the

sequence of play each turn), but nothing seri-

ous. During play, sides scurry about for

“victory points” (holding key towns); well,

they are not actually VP, but points to be spent

to get drm on the Vichy Surrender Table,

which is the key to victory. There seemed to

be a lot of cross-referencing in

the rules to RW, which could

either be seen as a bonus, or a

hindrance to clarity.

CONCLUSIONS: I haven’t

seen Syria 1941, but have no

doubt everything about SH&E

(apart from its name) is an ad-

vance. Its physical quality and

off-beat topic will make it ap-

preciated by WW2 gamers,

particularly von Borries fans.

FADING GLORY

GMT Games

Designer: Joe Miranda, Alan Emrich, Steve

Carey and Lance McMillan

Reviewer: Robert G. Smith

When we think of Napoleon we think of

Waterloo, Borodino, Wagram and of course

Austerlitz. Seldom does Salamanca come to

mind. I doubt if anyone ever ponders and day

dreams about a game on Smolensk. I am

thrilled somebody did a game on Smolensk for

I found this to be one of those great what-if

battles. I’ve always been slightly surprised

someone had not given that battle more atten-

tion. So it was with more than a little surprise

that I greeted the GMT/VPG boxed partner-

ship of four mini games in Fading Glory. They

are actually VPG’s games given the full-blown

GMT treatment. We first saw this with Carl

Pardis’s No Retreat that conveyed very nicely

to a GMT upgrade component wise – particu-

larly the map. Surprisingly the box had a de-

cent heft to it. My guess is this will be a game

that comes off the shelf when you want to play

something but don’t have hours to get into an

OSG game.

COMPONENTS: In the box are two

mounted 17” x 22” mapboards. The boards lay

nicely and are very nice to look at without a

17 continued on page 33

Introduction

Discussions about solitaire wargaming

tend to follow one of two paths. In one direc-

tion, the discussion concentrates on games

designed specifically for solitaire play. Exam-

ples include games like Ambush, Raid on St.

Nazaire, Tokyo Express, and so on. In the

other direction, the commentary addresses

solitaire play of games designed for two or

more players, but the emphasis focuses on

devices for dictating the play of the “non-

phasing” side. The assumption seems to be

that players cannot play both sides fairly on a

solo basis. As a result, additional rules must

instruct or limit how one side or the other

moves or fights. For example, some players

suggest the preparation of several detailed

battle plans for the “other” side from which the

solitaire gamer randomly selects a plan to fol-

low.

The games designed specifically for soli-

taire play are too few and too limited to merit

further discussion here. As for solitaire play of

two-player games, the obsession with addi-

tional rules to guide the play of the “other”

side completely misses the point. In fact, the

addition of more rules to implement solitaire

play only makes play more difficult.

Most solo players can make the necessary

mental adjustment needed to play each side in

turn with fairness assuming that the game itself

does not depend upon such devices as hidden

units or simultaneous movement. The real

difficulties with solitaire wargaming have little

to do with the “fairness” issue. Instead, the

solitaire gamer faces other obstacles to solo

play related to the process of game play itself.

Cumulatively, these obstacles amount to a

complexity burden that overwhelms the soli-

taire player, bogs him down with trivia, and

wastes precious gaming time. In the end, the

player can master any two-player rules system

at the cost of sacrificing any enjoyment of a

game’s fun factor.

The best effort to address the fundamental

difficulties of solitaire wargaming in a sensible

manner is the Retro Variant produced by Min-

den for use in WWII tactical games. This

article will examine in more detail some com-

mon obstacles to solitaire play. It also will

identify some ways in which Retro helps the

solo gamer overcome those obstacles. Finally,

it ends with a call for an effort to “Retro-fit”

many more wargame systems to enhance the

solitaire gaming experience.

Obstacles to Solitaire Play

Wargame play has three parts: (1) think-

ing about what to do; (2) knowing how to do

it; (3) actually doing it. The first part amounts

to the strategy or tactics involved in the play of

the game. The second part requires knowledge

of the game’s rules. The third part involves

the mechanical or physical manipulation of

counters, charts, and dice in the actual play of

the game. Obstacles to solitaire play can arise

in any of these stages. The following list at-

tempts to create a catalog of such obstacles.

(1) Interactive Turn Sequence

Recently, a trend has appeared which

wargames favor an interactive sequence of

play over the “Igo-Yougo” sequence of early

designs. The relatively new Advanced Tobruk

System and PanzerGrenadier System provide

two examples. The MMP/Gamers Tactical

Combat System (TCS) also uses an intensely

interactive system of fire and counterfire.

While the interactive feature of these game

systems enhances the tension of face-to-face

play, it adds a mental challenge for the soli-

taire player. In the rigid “Igo-Yougo” turn

sequence, a player generally must decide

whether or where to move and whether or

where to fight. In the interactive turn se-

quence, the solo player must assume the bur-

den of figuring out the best order in which to

move and fight for both sides simultaneously.

This additional mental requirement compli-

cates play tremendously. In the Igo-Yougo

18

system, the player can move the Germans, say,

and then walk around the table to study the

board from the Russian perspective. As a

game becomes more interactive, the solo

gamer will find himself racing back and forth

from one side of the table to the other as Ger-

man, German, Russian, German, Russian,

Russian, German, and so on through a series of

short impulses. This rapid-fire shifting of

point of view breeds a kind of paralysis fatal to

the fun factor of these games for the solitary

player.

(2) Details and Exceptions in the Rules

All wargames represent abstract simula-

tions of historical events. For example, the

quantification of the morale of all German first

line troops as “7” in ASL assigns a numerical

value to subjective feelings. Troop morale

results from any number of factors –

quality of recruits, food, water,

warm clothing, disease, leadership,

recent events – no wargame with

any pretense to playability could

account separately for all such fac-

tors. The simple assignment of a

standard morale value abstracts all

of these factors into one convenient

rating.

However, a trend exists in qual-

ity wargames to expand the level of

detail and to reduce to some degree

the level of abstraction. Of course, this proc-

ess takes the form of new, and usually more,

rules. As a result, a kind of rules inflation has

made the task of the solitaire gamer much

more challenging.

The original Europa I – Drang Nach Osten

(DNO) appeared around 1973 with 19 pages of

rules to game the German invasion of the

USSR in 1941-42. Its successors in the Eu-

ropa series of games and its cousin, the Great

War series, show how rules have multiplied.

Fire in the East, an updated version of DNO,

had 31 pages of rules. Scorched Earth contin-

ued WWII in Russia with 40 pages of rules.

Second Front took Europa to Normandy with

72 pages of rules. In a related series, the sys-

tem went back to World War I. Over There,

the latest available title in this series, uses a

Europa-like system to model the West Front

and some secondary theaters of WWI in a

modest 192 pages of rules. It should be noted

that none of these counts include the pages

required for orders of battle. In the process,

the system has increased in realism at a tre-

mendous cost in playability for the solo practi-

tioner.

(3) Repetitive Motion Disorder – Or Ad-

dicted to Dice

A unit from Side A moves adjacent to a

unit from Side B. In the course of the rest of

Side A’s half of the turn plus Side B’s half of

the turn, it is possible for a total of 16 die or

dice rolls to occur just to resolve the various

fire combat, melee combat, and morale checks

for those two units. The game has about 50

units per side. With only 10 units on each side

in contact, a single turn could involve 160 rolls

of die or dice. These computations come from

a real (but out of print) game.

Certainly, one could argue that a

game with all that dicing has a de-

sign flaw whether it is played face-

to-face or solitaire. However, at

least in face-to-face play the per

player dice-rolling burden amounts

to half of the solitaire total.

While this game represents an

extreme, other popular game sys-

tems have a high dicing require-

ment. Examples include the Ad-

vanced Tobruk System (3 rolls for

each tank-to-tank shot if a hit occurs), Tacti-

cal Combat System (unlimited defensive fire

and return fire), and Advanced Squad Leader

with its frequent morale checks, rolling to pick

up a weapon, rolling for fires, and rolling for

“battle hardening” among others.

(4) Time The time factor in solitaire play involves

the additional time required in each step of the

gaming process – thinking about what to do,

checking the rules to see if a questionable

move is “legal,” and actually implementing the

mechanics of the game. Some of these aspects

of solitaire play are unavoidable. In a two

player game, Player A can think about his

move while Player B is moving. The solitaire

player cannot think about two things at once.

No way around this inefficiency of solitaire

play exists.

19

In other respects, the solitaire player’s

difficulties are derivative from rules complex-

ity or inordinate amounts of dice rolling built

into the system. In a two-player game, one

player can consult the rules while another

player moves. The solitaire player loses this

efficiency in resolving questionable situations.

As a result, the effect of longer rules with

more details or exceptions not only taxes the

solitaire player’s memory and concentration,

but it also lengthens playing time. For a given

number of hours, the solitaire player gets to

spend less time enjoying the game and more

time checking the rules compared to the two-

player game.

The cost of additional rules consultation

for the solitaire player is exacerbated by the

requirement that he must handle the mechani-

cal tasks assigned to both sides. For example,

in a two-player game, while one player moves,

his opponent can sort and stack reinforcements

for entry on the up-coming turn. The solo

player loses this efficiency. As wargames

involve more detailed mechanics for tracking

different variables of play such as supplies,

morale, action points, initiative points, con-

struction points, victory points, or whatever,

the impact of the double administrative burden

on the solitaire player grows. Similarly, the

game mechanics themselves can take a toll on

hey count rules of play only. Now, a direct

comparison of DNO with Over There implies a

ten-fold increase in rules. Since the two games

do not cover identical subjects such a compari-

son probably exaggerates rules inflation some-

what. However, the underlying principle re-

mains unassailable. Wargames have become

more difficult to play because a player must

master many more rules to do so.

Other games fit the same model to some

extent. The La Battaille series of Napoleonic

games has increased the length and complexity

of rules for player, who must retain multiple

details to resolve a single move or combat.

Europa provides an example with its system

for defining armor attack bonuses in terms of

the fraction of armor units relative non-armor

units, but exclusive of certain neutral units.

With several attacking stacks of seven or eight

counters against a defending stack eight units

deep, the process of computing two different

fractions of armor/antitank factors and then

computing an attack and defense total wears a

player down. The substitution of a simple

counting of armor units net of antitank units

often would yield a similar result with signifi-

cantly less mental effort.

The point is that a game mechanic of rea-

sonable difficulty for two players to implement

can become much more imposing for the lone

player. Some of the inefficiency associated

with game mechanics is inherent in solitaire

play, but in many ways adjustments in the two-

player rules can streamline solo game play so

that the solitaire gamer minimizes the effi-

ciency of playing alone.

Retro’s Solitaire Friendly Approach

The Retro Variant for playing tactical

WWII games addresses a number of the issues

raised for the solitaire gamer in many game

systems.

(1) Retro eliminates most of the interactiv-

ity of the turn sequence by the use of the Hesi-

tation mechanic. While the existence of some

defensive fire possibilities continue to exist

under Retro, the limitations on defensive fire

relieve the solitaire player from the necessity

to make many decisions as the defender even

as he plays the role of the moving player. In

terms of face-to-face play, the return to a se-

quence of play with a more Igo-Yougo struc-

ture would not necessarily look like progress.

As a solitaire friendly modification, it has

great merit.

(2) Without going into detail, Retro does

simplify the rules for tactical combat. How

much, or even which specific rules in a given

system, Retro simplifies is not exactly clear

because the Retro rules tend to adjust tactical

play in concept rather than through point-by-

point modifications. Nevertheless, the Retro

Variant reduces both in detail and in spirit the

volume of rules to which a solitaire gamer

must pay attention.

(3) By eliminating many morale check

dice rolls, Retro makes the game mechanics

more protective of the solitaire gamer’s wrists.

Risk of repetitive motion disorder recedes with

this variant.

(4) The reduction in rules complexity and

reduction in the amount of dice-rolling re-

quired to play WWII tactical games allows the

solitaire Retro gamer the opportunity to com-

20

pensate for the loss of some of the efficiencies

offered by two-player play. The variant saves

time and makes much larger scenarios a more

realistic prospect for solo gamers.

Need for More “Retro” – Fitting

Retro fails only to the extent that it does

not go far enough. It works with only a few

rough edges when applied to Squad Leader or

Advanced Squad Leader. With other tactical

games like the Advanced Tobruk System, Tac-

tical Combat System, or PanzerGrenadier

System only significant adjustments will make

it work.

In a broader sense, as a philosophy of sim-

plification for solitaire play, Retro has much

greater, but unfulfilled, potential. Tactical

combat in earlier historical periods could bene-

fit from major simplification for solitaire play.

A reduction in the number of morale dice rolls

and less emphasis on facing effects are two

examples of adjustments by which more

streamlined play could occur. For example,

many game systems from the Napoleonic era

or earlier periods emphasize the importance of

facing and flank attacks. This emphasis re-

quires careful attention to the placement of a

unit in a hex with consequences for rules about

facing, turning, stacking, and so on. In the

spirit of Retro, if a unit is attacked by one unit

from an adjacent hex, why not assume that the

defender has its front to the attacker without

actually worrying about how the unit “faces”

in the hex? Under such a simplification of

facing, any unit attacked from different non-

adjacent hexes could be assumed to be the

victim of a flank attack This small change

could streamline play without the loss of an

important tactical concept.

At the operational level, perhaps a similar

streamlining of Europa-type games could

make them more accessible to solitaire gam-

ing. Simplification might take the form of

more abstract rules related to construction,

supply, and rail transportation. Such changes

would achieve a time-saving reduction in the

amount of administrative trivia on which the

solitaire gamer must spend time. As suggested

earlier, simpler combined arms combat modifi-

ers could lessen the computational burden on

the player who must keep all of the computa-

tions in his head because there is no second

player to remember that the defender’s combat

value is 26 with a minus two modifier while

the first player sums the attacking units’ com-

bat value and modifiers. (Could the solitaire

player simply write down the defender’s val-

ues? Sure. But even that takes additional

time…)

However, it is important to emphasize that

the process of restructuring many games for

maximum solitaire enjoyment requires more

than a couple of “house rules.” Instead, only a

more organized effort by which comprehen-

sive adjustments retrofit a game for solitaire

play can make them both accessible and fun

for the solo gamer.

The wargames marketplace has an enor-

mous variety of attractive games with the most

colorful components and the most detailed

orders of battle ever published in the hobby. It

is unfortunate that these improvements in qual-

ity sometimes come at the expense of the abil-

ity of solitaire players to enjoy them. Retro

shows the way out of this dilemma. Now what

is needed are more efforts by game designers

to follow this new way.

(From Panzerschreck #13)

21

RETRO 4th ed.

This variant game system for WW2 squad level tactical wargames allows you to trans-form the host game into a clean, playable

alternative, that emphasizes fun, historicity, and playability. Includes 36-page illustrated rule booklet, two Reference Cards, 70 un-cut color counters, and several scenarios.

Available from Minden Games.

This listing is provided to record all past games that have been published in Pan-

zerschreck. Apart from the current edition, issues are no longer available. Some of

these designs have appeared in other editions. For instance, Cold Harbor (issue #3)

was reissued in updated Zip Edition format as Cold Harbor II, and Barbarossa Cam-

paign (issue #3) was republished by Victory Point Games. The listing below only

refers to games published in Panzerschreck. All titles were designed by Gary Graber,

unless otherwise noted.

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Reichstag: The Fall of Berlin 1 WW2 tactical solitaire land

The player (Russians) fights building to building in downtown Berlin and must “fly the

flag” over the Reichstag as quickly as possible.

Nuremberg: Trial of the Century 2 WW2 abstract solitaire abstract

The player (prosecuting Allies) must convict Nazi war figures, balancing a fair trial with

keeping the Soviets happy with the number of convictions.

Barbarossa Campaign 3 WW2 strategic solitaire land

The player (Axis) launches Operation Barbarossa in this strategic level game (quarterly

turns, army sized units) that emphasizes economics.

Cold Harbor 3 ACW tactical solitaire land

Mini-Sim. The player (Union) makes a frontal assault against the Confederate positions in

the hope of achieving a breakthrough.

Battle of the Atlantic 4 WW2 operational solitaire naval

The player (German) must try and sink enough tonnage each month to bring Britain to her

knees.

Berchtesgaden 4 WW2 operational 2-player land

Hypothetical battle in 1945 pitting Axis and Allied units in combat around the rumored

“National Redoubt” in the Alps.

First Day of the Somme 5 WW1 operational solitaire land

The player (British) must plan and execute the Big Push of 1916. After the whistle blows,

he must watch to see how his plans fare.

Dogger Bank 5 WW1 tactical 2-player naval

Naval combat during the Great War between individual British and German battlecruisers

in the North Sea.

Commando Raid on Rommel 5 WW2 tactical solitaire land

Mini-Sim. The player (British) executes a commando raid on the coast of North Africa in

an attempt to eliminate the Desert Fox.

Fall of Constantinople 6 medieval operational solitaire land

The player (Ottoman) makes a final desperate attempt to capture Constantinople from its

heroic Christian defenders, A.D. 1453.

Jellicoe vs. Scheer 6 WW1 tactical 2-player naval

Expansion of the Dogger Bank game system to include all British vs. German naval en-

gagements in the North Sea during World War I.

‘Nam Diary 6 modern tactical 2-player land

Mini-Sim. Jungle firefight between individual US and NVA soldiers.

Synopsis of Games Published in Panzerschreck

22

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Sacrifice in the East 7 WW2 operational 2-player land

Germany tries to stave off defeat by the Soviets in the east, 1945. (James Meldrum)

Andersonville 7 ACW card game multiplayer abstract

Abstract, strategy card game of survival and endurance, based on life in infamous Ander-

sonville prison camp during the Civil War

1914: Opening Moves 7 WW1 strategic solitaire land

Mini-Sim. The player (Germans) plans and executes the war in the West, with off-board

East Front strategy often the key to victory.

St. George’s Valour 8 WW1 tactical solitaire land/sea

Battle of Zeebruge, April 1918. Simulates the daring British (the player) raid made on

German U-Boat pens. (Paul Rohrbaugh)

The Fall of Röhm 8 WW2 abstract solitaire abstract

The player (the National Socialist Party) attempts to manipulate various factions and purge

the SA to insure Hitler’s succession of Hindenburg.

Göring’s War 8 WW2 tactical 2-player air

Mini-Sim. Simple air-to-air combat game pitting lone British and German fighters against

each other in the Battle of Britain.

Battle for Bataan 9 WW2 operational 2-player land

The 1942 Japanese assault on the American forces in the Philippines is depicted in this two

-player game. (James Meldrum)

Escape of the Goeben 9 WW1 tactical 2-player naval

Expands the Jellicoe vs Scheer system to include the Mediterranean fleets of major allied

and Central Powers nations during the Great War.

Siege of Leningrad 9 WW2 abstract solitaire abstract

Mini-Sim. (Logistical Module I) Playable alone or as a plug-in to existing east front

wargames. See if you can keep Leningrad from falling.

La Bataille de York, 1813 9 1812 tactical solitaire land

Mini-Sim. The player (British) tries to turn back the American invasion near York

(afterwards, Toronto) during the War of 1812.

Operation Typhoon 10 WW2 operational 2-player land

Two player game (corps/army level, weekly turns) on the German drive on Moscow during

late 1941. (James Meldrum)

Sniper Attack 10 WW2 card game solitaire abstract

Simple solitaire card game of sniper action in World War II. (Reprinted in Panzerschreck

Anthology.)

Jellicoe/Goeben Supplement 10 WW1 tactical 2-player naval

Expands the Jellicoe/Goeben game system to include the US, Japanese, and Russian Baltic

Fleets during the Great War, along with new optional rules. Ownership of Jellicoe vs Scheer or

Escape of the Goeben necessary.

Panzers in the Southeast 11 WW2 operational 2-player land

Two-player game (corps/army level) pitting the Germans against the Soviets in southeast

Europe during the final months of World War II. (Pieter de Wilde)

QAR: Quick Armor Rules 11 WW2 tactical 2-player land

Miniatures rules system covering the fighting in North Africa in early WW2. Sup-

plied counters represent major British, German, and Italian tanks and guns.

23

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Sink the Tirpitz 11 WW2 operational solitaire naval

Mini-Sim. The player (British) attempts to sink the famous German battleship in this sim-

ple solitaire game. game. (James Gordon)

Drive on Leningrad 12 WW2 operational 2-player land

Two-player game (corps/army level, weekly turns) of the German drive on Leningrad

against the Russians, June-September, 1941.

Masada 12 ancient tactical solitaire land

Mini-Sim. Simple solitaire game where you replay the famous Roman siege in Judea, A.D.

72-73. (Reprinted in Panzerschreck Anthology.)

Invasion 12 19th C. abstract 2-player land

Classic reprint Mini-Sim. Abstract two-player wargame involving the invasion of England

in the late 19th c. after the Royal Navy has been neutralized. (unknown)

Tsaritsyn 13 WW1 tactical 2-player land

The Whites attack the Reds near Tsaritsyn (later, Stalingrad) in 1919 during the Russian

Civil War.

Assault on Cherbourg 13 WW2 operational 2-player land

Simulates the American attack on Cherbourg, France in mid-June, 1944, after the Nor-

mandy invasion.

Graf Spee 13 WW2 tactical 2-player naval

Mini-Sim. Tactical naval game pitting the German pocket battleship Graf Spee against

three Royal Navy cruisers in late 1939 off the coast of South America.

Race to the Vistula 14 WW2 operational 2-player land

Simulates the Russian drive to the Vistula against the Germans in mid-1944 at corps/army

level. (Pieter de Wilde)

Brandy Station 14 ACW tactical 2-player land

Recreates the largest cavalry battle of the Civil War, June 1863. Brigade level, two-hourly

turns.

The Mighty Hood 14 WW2 tactical 2-player naval

Uses the Graf Spee game system to recreate the naval battle between the Hood and the

Bismarck, May 1941, along with additional ships and scenarios.

Mortain 1944 15 WW2 operational 2-player land

Simulates the German counter-offensive against the Americans in France, two months after

D-Day. Division level, daily turns.

Raid on Schweinfurt 15 WW2 operational solitaire air

The player (US) plans and executes a massive B-17 bombing raid against the factories of

Schweinfurt in Germany, 1943.

Hippodrome 15 ancients tactical multi-player land

Multi-player ancient Roman chariot racing card game, which places the emphasis on rac-

ing strategy. (Neil Graber)

North Sea Campaign 15 WW1 strategic 2-player naval

Replay the entire campaign of the British vs. German dreadnought fleets in World War I,

using individual ships, with each turn representing six months.

Madagascar 1942 PA WW2 operational solitaire land

The player (British) must secure the northern part of the island from its Vichy defenders in

a race against the clock. (PA = Panzerschreck Anthology)

24

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Destruction of Force Z 16 WW2 operational solitaire naval

Simulates Royal Navy Force Z (Prince of Wales & Repulse) sailing against Japanese ag-

gression in the Far East, December, 1941.

Salvo! 2nd ed. 16 WW2 tactical solitaire naval

Mini-Sim. New edition of the Salvo! game, with different ships from Britain and Germany.

Games appearing in Panzer Digest are similar in style to those in Panzerschreck.

The current (and some back issues) of Panzer Digest are still available for purchase.

Visit the Minden Games website for current information about prices and availability.

All games were designed by Gary Graber, unless otherwise noted.

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Falaise Pocket 1 WW2 operational 2-player land

Summer 2007. Simulation of the Falaise Pocket in France, August 17-21, 1944.

Longstreet’s Disaster 1 ACW tactical solitaire land

Summer 2007. Solitaire treatment of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, July 3, 1863, with the

player handling the CSA forces.

Salvo! 1 WW2 tactical solitaire naval

Summer 2007. Solitaire, tactical WW2 naval system, with warships (BB, BC, CA, and CL)

from Britain and Germany.

Penal Battalion 1 WW2 abstract solitaire land

Summer 2007. Abstract game using standard deck of cards to simulate land mine clearing

in WW2.

Swordfish at Taranto 2 WW2 tactical solitaire air

Autumn 2007. Plan and execute (as the British) the daring air raid by individual Fairey

Swordfish bombers on the Italian fleet anchored at Taranto, 1940.

Issue games come complete with rules, map, units, and components. Except for issues #14

and #15 (which had die-cut counters), counters must be cut prior to play. Mini-Sim games have

components included in the pages of the magazine which must be photocopied and cut prior to

play.

Games by Period Games by Scale Games by Theater Games by Players

World War II 25 Tactical 21 Land 26 2-player 22

World War I 9 Operational 13 Naval 12 Solitaire 19

Civil War 3 Abstract 5 Abstract 3 Multi-player 2

Ancient 2 Strategic 4 Air 2

Modern 1

Medieval 1

19th C. 1

Napoleonic 1

Synopsis of Games Published in Panzer Digest

Analysis of Games Published in Panzerschreck

25

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Evacuation of Königsberg 2 WW2 operational 2-player land

Autumn 2007. East Prussia, spring 1945. The Germans trying to hold off the advancing

Soviet army, with victory determined by how many civilians can be evacuated to the west.

Field of Honour 2 medieval tactical multi-player land

Autumn 2007. Two-player or multi-player strategy recreation of a medieval jousting tour-

nament.

Napoleon in Italy 3 Napoleonic operational 2-player land

Spring 2008. The Austrians and French tangle in northern Italy during Napoleon’s 1796

Italian campaign.

Stalingrad: The Leather Factory 3 WW2 tactical solitaire land

Spring 2008. Tactical game in Stalingrad suburbs, where the advancing Germans (the

player) try to wrest control of key parts of the city, during their drive to the Volga.

Dogger Bank II NS WWI tactical 2-player naval

Autumn 2008 (NS = Naval Special). Updated version of game recreating the naval battle

of Dogger Bank (1915) using individually rated warships.

Courage Under Fire 4 modern tactical 2-player land

Autumn 2008. Battalion-level Vietnam-era area movement, card driven game of the battle

of An Loc, April 1972. (Paul Rohrbaugh)

NavTac 1914 4 WWI tactical 2-player naval

Autumn 2008. Naval tactical (“NavTac”) treatment of Mediterranean theater of the Great

War, using individual ships from Britain, Germany, and Austria-Hungary.

Gladiators of Rome 4 ancients tactical solitaire land

Autumn 2008. Stage an ancient gladiatorial contest using several different types of individ-

ual fighters. (Bob Flood)

Thunder Gods: Kamikazes at Okinawa 5 WW2 tactical 2-player naval-air

Winter 2008-2009. Two-player, card driven game of Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa, April

1945. (Paul Rohrbaugh)

Breakout at St. Lo 5 WW2 operational 2-player land

Winter 2008-2009. Simulates the battle in France between Allied and German forces near

St. Lo, after the D-Day invasion.

Day of Infamy 6 WW2 tactical 2-player air-naval

Spring 2009. Card driven system recreates the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Decem-

ber 7, 1941. (Paul Rohrbaugh)

1775: Invasion of Canada 6 AWI strategic 2-player land

Spring 2009. Simulates the American land campaign against British Canada, in the Ameri-

can War of Independence era.

Monitor vs. Merrimack 6 ACW tactical 2-player naval

Spring 2009. Battle of Hampden Roads, March 1862, simulating the first ever naval battle

between the famous USA and CSA ironclads.

Coronel & Falklands 7 WWI tactical solitaire naval

Summer 2009. Solitaire game using the Salvo! game system to recreate these two early

World War I naval engagements, Germany vs. Britain.

Occupation of the Rhineland 7 WW2 abstract solitaire abstract

Summer 2009. Germany has militarized the Rhineland in 1936, against the treaty.

The player (representing France) must remove them without plunging Europe into war.

26

Game Issue Period Scale # Players Theater

Remagen Bridgehead 7 WW2 tactical solitaire land

Summer 2009. The Americans (the player) cross the Ludendorff Bridge on the Rhine, and

into Germany, March 1945.

Poor Bloody Infantry 8 WWI tactical solitaire land

Winter 2009-2010. Go “over the top” with a single platoon of individually named British

soldiers as the whistle blows, first day of the Somme offensive, July 1, 1916.

Eindekker 8 WWI tactical solitaire air

Winter 2009-2010. Recreate the time of the “Fokker Scourge” on the western front, 1915,

with individual airplanes and pilots (the player representing the Germans). (Bob Flood)

Fall of the Philippines 9 WW2 strategic solitaire land

Summer 2010. The allies (the player) defends the island against the Japanese invaders,

December 1941.

‘Nam ‘68 9 modern tactical 2-player land

Summer 2010. Individually rated US and NVA soldiers engage in firefights in the jungles

of Vietnam, 1968.

Emden vs. Sydney CS WWI tactical 2-player naval

Summer 2010 (CS = Convention Special). Replay the naval battle between Emden and

Sydney, November 1914, using a modified Fletcher Pratt system.

Eben Emael 10 WW2 tactical solitaire land

Summer 2012. Tactical, solitaire design of the surprise German (the player) glider assault

on the Belgian fort of Eben Emael, May 10, 1940.

Panzerschiff 10 WW2 tactical 2-player naval

Summer 2012. Simple game of World War 2 naval combat between famous battlewagons

of several countries, including Bismarck, Yamato, Iowa, Rodney, Dunkerque, Littorio, et al.

Faith, Hope & Charity 11 WW2 tactical solitaire air

Summer 2013. Tactical plane vs plane combat (British, Italian, German) over Malta, 1941,

using the Battle over Britain game system.

27

Covers of Panzer Digest issues #1-9, and Convention Special

Issue games come complete with rules, map, units, and components. Thick card, color

counters must be cut prior to play. Published 2007 to present.

Games by Period Games by Scale Games by Theater Games by Players

World War II 15 Tactical 21 Land 16 2-player 14

World War I 6 Operational 4 Naval 8 Solitaire 14

Civil War 2 Abstract 2 Air 4 Multi-player 1

Modern 2 Strategic 2 Abstract 1

Ancient 1

Napoleonic 1

Medieval 1

AWI 1

Issue games come complete with rules, map, units, and components. Except for Panzer-

schreck issues #14 and #15 (which had die-cut counters), counters must be cut prior to play.

Mini-Sim games have components included in the pages of the magazine which must be copied

and cut prior to play.

Games by Period Games by Scale Games by Theater Games by Players

World War II 40 Tactical 42 Land 42 2-player 36

World War I 15 Operational 17 Naval 20 Solitaire 33

Civil War 5 Abstract 7 Air 6 Multi-player 3

Ancient 3 Strategic 6 Abstract 4

Modern 3

Napoleonic 2

Medieval 2

19th C. 1

AWI 1

Designers

Gary Graber 58 Bob Flood 2

Paul Rohrbaugh 4 Neil Graber 1

James Meldrum 3 James Gordon 1

Pieter de Wilde 2

Analysis of Games Published in Panzer Digest

Combined Analysis of Games Published

in Panzerschreck & Panzer Digest

28

Pa

nze

rsch

reck

cov

ers,

issu

e #

6,

7,

9, 1

1,

& 1

3

You may use these optional, extra ship counters when playing Destruction of Force Z. This adds counters for British destroyers, and the H.M.S. Indomi-

table, if that optional rule is being used. The optional rule for DD (as pro-vided on the back of the small counter sheet, below), reads as follows.

“You may use these ship counters when resolving air attacks; leave regular counters on the map. You may include these four Royal Navy DD with Force

Z (Electra, Express, Tenedos, & Vampire); two stay with Prince of Wales, and two with Repulse, the entire game. DD cannot attack, be attacked, or generate

VP. DD get 1 AA roll each when British ships under air attack (with –1 drm applied).”

These small, thick card counter sheets were made available to Minden Pals members. You may contact us about availability if you are not a Pal.

fro

nt

bac

k

Extra Ship Counters: Destruction of Force Z

29

Battle over Britain is a two-player (with solitaire option) game of WW2 air combat. Realistically rated individual planes go head to head in the skies over Britain, summer 1940. The game includes the planes made famous: Brit-ish Spitfire I, Hurricane I, Defiant, and Gladiator versus German Me-109E, Me-110, and Ju-87 (Stuka). Includes optional rules, and “roleplay” options, whereby each pilot and gunner can be named, and receive different flying/firing ratings and characteristics. Includes 20-page rule booklet, 16 plane counters, Dogfight Display, Reference

Card, single game and campaign game options. Fast, furious, quick playing fun for tactical air combat fans. Tally Ho!

NavTac: Mediterranean covers tactical WWI naval combat, focusing on the early part of the war, in the Medi-terranean, Adriatic, and Black Sea areas, using a modi-fied “Fletcher Pratt” approach to play, with dice and ta-bles substituted for range estimation. Includes 24-page rule booklet with standard and advanced rules, 71 histori-cal ship counters and data (British, German, French, Ital-ian, Austrian, Russian, Turkish; CL, AC, B, BC, BB at 1/3000 scale), Reference Cards, Tactical Display, soli-taire rules, and four scenarios, providing gamers the abil-ity to craft many historical and hypothetical encounters. Turns represent five minutes, and fire is calculated by individual turret (main & secondary).

Visit the Minden website for further details—and ordering information—on each of these new wargame titles released within the last year.

What’s New From Minden Games

NavTac: Pacific is Expansion #1 to the NavTac se-ries. It covers the early part of the Great War in the Pa-cific, specifically focusing on the exploits of Von Spee’s Asiatic Squadron, culminating in the Battles of Coronel and the Falklands. Includes 20-page booklet, counters and ship data for 47 historical ships (German, British, Australian, French, Dutch, Japanese; CL, AC, AMC, B, BC at 1/3000 scale), Reference Cards, new optional rules, five scenarios, and one campaign scenario (“Von Spee’s Adventure”), including small campaign map. This Expansion uses the standard NavTac game system. You must own NavTac: Mediterranean (see above) or NavTac: Standard (see below) to use this expansion.

30

Panzer Digest #11 (Summer 2013) is a 48-page edition filled with game reviews, articles, and complete issue game Faith, Hope & Charity: Air Battles over Malta, 1940-41. This design uses the Battle over Brit-ain game system, and includes full rules, dogfight dis-play, set of color counters, Reference Card, and sev-eral scenarios, including two campaign games. It is a two-player game, with solitaire option provided. War-game reviews cover eighteen recent releases from publishers such as GMT, Columbia, Victory Point, De-cision, MMP, Legion, Academy, and others, and focus on providing readers with the low down on the games. Follow the fun by reading Panzer Digest!

NavTac: Standard contains the standard, optional, and advanced rules of the NavTac game system. It is provided for those who might already have their own 1/3000 scale naval miniatures, and simply want the rules. It may also be used to play NavTac: Pacific (see above). Includes illustrated 12-page rule booklet, sheet of six 1/3000 ship counters to get you started, and introductory scenarios.

Solitaire Module is a Battle over Britain expansion providing more rules, more planes, and more solitaire options for the Battle over Britain game system. Planes included are the Polish P-11c, Dutch Fokker D.XXI, British Blenheim and Spitfire, Italian MC-200, and German He-111, Hs-123, and Me-110C. Besides the enhanced solitaire rules provided, there are cam-paign scenarios for the Polish (September 1939) and Dutch (May 1940) campaigns. You must own the standard Battle over Britain rules (or Faith, Hope & Charity) to use this expansion.

Published in 2012 and reprinted in 2013, the Pan-zer Digest Print & Play Special is a 64-page booklet containing five complete “Print & Play” wargames, pre-viously published by Minden: Poor Bloody Infantry (WWI solitaire), Fall of Röhm (WW2 solitaire), Sword-fish at Taranto (WW2 solitaire), Dreadnoughts & Battle-cruisers Intro Rules (WWI two-player), and Monitor vs Merrimac (ACW two-player). B&W game components form part of the booklet, and players photocopy them to assemble each game. Five games covering a vari-ety of eras and systems, one low price.

31

An assortment of pdf games are available from Minden. We have found this op-

tion to be particularly of interest to some of our foreign customers, who can print the

file off on their own, and save. The way it works is, you place your order directly

from the Minden website, and we email you the game file, along with its password.

You can then print off a color copy of all rules and components. This option is pro-

vided for those gamers that enjoy the pdf format.

As you would expect, prices for pdf games are lower than physical games. Our

standard “postage charge” (which is a part of our Paypal set up) becomes, in effect, a

“handling charge” which, when added to the low set price of a file, offers you savings.

Since one flat rate is charged per order, gamers are encouraged to make larger orders,

and save more. All this is to say, the “price plus postage” equates to the “price” of a

file, which is below regular hardcopy prices, significantly below if two or more pdf

games are purchased at once. (PDF orders are usually filled within a day or two of

being received, although during high volume periods it can be longer.)

For more details, descriptions, and to place an order, visit the PDF Format page at

the Minden website: http://minden_games.homestead.com/pdf.html.

PDF Games Currently Available

Eindekker

Mighty Hood II

Battle of the River Plate

Panzer Digest Convention Special

Fall of Röhm

Jousting: Field of Honour

Poor Bloody Infantry

Evacuation of Königsberg

Panzer Digest Review Special

Great War Salvo! Promo Rules

Dispatches from the Front #1 (Dispatches is available as a free download… see main Minden webpage)

PDF GAMES… Print ‘em yourself, and save

32

doubt. They are pretty close to the Napoleonic

battlefields despite their game scale. I pulled out one of my Napoleonic Atlases and ascertained

they were pretty darn close – so the map boards got a go for accuracy. The counters are bright

and easy to read with big bold numbers, and

punched out without a single glitch. The 48 game cards are divided into four groups of 12 per bat-

tle. The art work is nice on them and all the events seem reasonable. Two Player Aid Cards

and a Full Color Rulebook & Playbook round out the game components.

RULES: Easy to read, easy to understand

and easy to get started. Each game has its own little game rules, but there are no strange condi-

tions that seem to go against the grain of the main rules. I found the rules here to either be

cleaner or they simply resonate better with me than my first encounter with the

series ala VPG. GAME PLAY: The one thing

that struck me half way into

playing my first game of Smolensk was that each die roll

REALLY REALLY mattered here. The low unit density

means battles matter so much here – like Strike Force One on

steroids. Add in the uncertainty

and tension of the cards which drive the game and you have

nail biting uncertainty the entire game usually. In a game at this

scale it is easy for combat to become either ran-dom or not really synchronized with the game.

Instead I found here that good tactical game

play was properly rewarded. In Waterloo, like the Allies, you withdraw and use a fighting with-

drawal strategy until you can go over to the of-fensive. Salamanca is just a dirty, nasty little

game that is a great introductory game, as long as the newbie isn’t given the French. However I

think Smolensk in the gem of the four games. It

would work nicely at the infantry school teach-ing young company commanders on how to fight

a battle against a foe that has the maneuver ad-vantage. Moreover your abilities are taxed here

because you must defend two widely separated objectives and your reinforcement arrival is

variable. In all, it’s a headache for the Russian player – and is perhaps the best solitaire game of

the four. What surprised me though was

Borodino. How they managed to capture and convey the lumbering and ponderous feel of that

battle at this scale is remarkable. It is a credit to

the rule design team that the separate rules for each game work to enhance the feel of the sepa-

rate battles. The game is driven of course by cards – sort

of. What I found drove the game was the morale

system. The old SPI Napoleon at Waterloo – the free version – had the morale chart that both

sides watched to see who would crack first. Here morale is a multi-faceted weapon.

You of course try to break the enemy’s mo-rale, for when it reaches zero the game is over.

You want to keep your morale healthy as you

can spend it for various actions. The two actions you’ll most likely spend it on are adding +1 to a

battle or as a modifier to rally a unit. Routs are to be feared on the CRT for they can cause your

carefully husbanded morale to vaporize. You do need to pay atten-

tion to your scenario’s special rules. I found the retreat rules

not too bad. I liked the emphasis

on the cavalry and the rules reflect its battlefield importance

and its fluidity. Add to it the drawing of the top card each

player turn, and you have a more than adequate amount of

surprise factored in. Due to the

low counter density the game is eminently manageable and al-

lows you to focus on fighting the battle and not the system or

stacks of units. I found it a hard choice on if I wanted to have a lesser Napoleon on the board

and have another wing commander who gives

you more flexibility – or the monster Napoleon unit. Interesting a game of this size would pre-

sent such a dilemma in the Command and con-trol sphere.

CONCLUSIONS: Fading Glory is much like my wife Katie – short and sweet. It bears repeat-

ing but Fading Glory is a set of games I suspect

you’ll pull out and play more than you suspect. It may be a little repetitive due to the limited

number of cards but I liked the fast sense of play. That mitigated the smack deck and its effect on

play as far as I was concerned. Think of Fading Glory as a more compact version of Command &

Colors and that’s no mean praise. I was not thrilled with the VPG version of these games but

GMT’s version truly feels different. Now…how

would this translate over to American Civil War or even WWI battles?!

33

continued from page 17

of this issue. I put it together rather

quickly. Most of the material is new, but

I did reach back for some previously pub-

lished articles (which are so marked in

these pages), and have included them. A

side benefit of the pdf format is I am no

longer bound by the “four page multiple”

rule. With a printed magazine, you aim

for 24, or 28, or 32 pages, or whatever, as

long as it is a multiple of four. With this

format, it is no big deal if we have an odd

page number. That in itself saves a lot of

time when doing layout. The easier it is

to compile a new issue, the more likely it

is that it will see the light of day in a

timely manner.

As far as contributions, I will say to all

readers, if you would like to offer an arti-

cle for publication, please do so. I prefer

“short” rather than “long” articles, vari-

ants, and/or game reviews. That approach

has been a hallmark of Panzerschreck in

the past, and I would prefer it to continue.

I cannot guarantee your effort will be

printed, but if you can string together in-

teresting prose, and have a variant or

strategy article to contribute, I’d love to

see it. By the way, when submitting

something, I would prefer it in MS Word,

or Rich Text Format.

If you are brand new to Panzer-

schreck, I do hope that you get enjoyment

from the magazine, and try out the issue

game. If you’re a veteran, welcome back.

The synopsis of past issue games has been

included once again, as it helps place

“where we are now” in context of “where

we have been”. It should be mentioned,

however, that none of the back issues

(Panzerschreck #1-15, and Panzerschreck

Anthology) are available from us. “Will

you be reprinting back issues? Where can

I find a copy?” No, there are no plans to

reprint past issues. As for getting a copy

of older editions, try eBay or leads from

Boardgamegeek. That said, it is possible

that some of the games will be reprinted

in Zip Edition formats (as some have al-

ready been reprinted). I’d suggest regu-

larly checking out the Minden website, to

see what is currently available. If you like

Panzerschreck/Panzer Digest designs, you

will no doubt enjoy our current line of Zip

Edition games as well. We usually have

over thirty assorted titles in stock, and

plan to add to that, but besides this gen-

eral observation, I can’t say anything

about when/if a particular out-of-print

game you missed the first time around

will be available again.

Well, enough of this editorial. I do

hope you have fun with this edition of

Panzerschreck, and its games. Increasing

your fun and enjoyment of games has

always been the primary goal of the

magazine. Board wargaming is a great

hobby, and we hope that whenever the

magazine drops through your mail slot, er,

inbox, you’ll be able to set aside some

time for it and enjoy what it has to offer.

Gary Graber

February 2014

Publishers…

Advertising space is available.

Contact us for details.

continued from page 5

34

Highlights of this 35-page edition of

PANZERSCHRECK #16

Opening Rounds Featured Variant: Axis & Allies 1941 Issue Game: Destruction of Force Z

Mini-Sim: Salvo! 2nd ed. Short Takes: Wargame Variants

Extra Ship Counters for Destruction of Force Z Observation Post: Reviews

Panzerschreck: Synopsis of Games Panzer Digest: Synopsis of Games Minden Games: Latest Releases

Panzerschreck

Panzerschreck — Established 1998