SPI Revival, Issue No.1, version 1.0

PREMIERE ISSUE, NO. 1 Version 1.0

http://www.manzana.com/webx

SPI REVIVAL • Issue One • July 1997PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN

page 2

TRADEMARK NOTICEMost game names are trademarks of the company publish-ing the game. Use of a trademark to identify a productcommented upon in this publication should not be con-strued as implying the sponsorship of the trademark holder.Use of the name of any product without the mention oftrademark status should not be construed as a challenge ofsuch status.

Unless otherwise noted, the copyrights to theindividual articles are the property of the individualauthors.

SPI REVIVAL is published six times a year by John Kranz,13426 E. Cindy St, Chandler, AZ 85225. This publicationis distributed for free. By request, you may receive a hard-copy of this publication by sending five dollars to the pub-lisher.

All editorial and general mail should be sent to the Editor:John Kranz, 13426 E. Cindy St, Chandler, AZ 85225.Communications may also be sent via the internet to thefollowing email address: [email protected]

About the Authors

Ted H. Kim is a graduatestudent in Computer Scienceat UCLA. He is employed asa research assistant. Ted hasenjoyed playing wargamessince 1972. He resides in theLos Angeles, CA area.

Ted can be reached via email at:[email protected]

Skip Franklin joined the AirForce in 1975 and retired in1995. He now works for theUS Postal Service as an IScontractor. Skip owns nearly300 wargames, Aide DeCamp, and quite a fewcomputer wargames. He has

reviewed games for Paper Wars and Web-Grognards. Skip’s favorite games areWACHT AM RHEIN, COBRA, and as nosurprise, PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN.

Skip can be reached via email at:[email protected]

Our other authors can also be reached via email.

Danny Holte: [email protected] Leggat: [email protected]

Ronald Wright: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 Editorial4 Random Thoughts on PGG5 Game Review by Ted Kim21 Battle Report by Skip Franklin26 “My Best Panzergruppe Guderian Game” by John Leggat26 “My Variant Rules for Panzergruppe Guderian” by Ronald Wright27 Game Errata28 Order of Battle and Organization by Danny Holte30 Magazine Reference List by Danny Holte31 Counter Art Manifest, Front & Back

In Our Next Issue:WINTER WAR

mailto:[email protected]







page 3

From the Publisher

July 25, 1997

Dear SPI Revivalist,

I’d like to take this moment to welcome you tothe premiere issue of SPI REVIVAL. This“virtual” publication is dedicated to the in-depthreview of a single SPI game title per issue.

HOW THIS IDEA STARTED

The brainchild of this project is in large part dueto how I was first introduced to consim gaming.Back when I was a teen in the mid ‘70’s, mybrother was playing some of the old AH’s clas-sics: MIDWAY, GUADACANAL, TACTICS II,and BLITZKRIEG - just to name a few. At thetime, I thought Avalon Hill was not only the“last” but “only” word in the hobby. Their gamescould be found in every toy store.

Lo and behold and I somehow stumbled upon agame catalog from Simulations Publications, Inc.I looked over the catalog, which at the time had amodest selection of games on varying themes andtopics, and decided to go with WACHT AMRHEIN as my initial purchase. Considering all Iknew about the hobby and that “monster”BLITZKRIEG game I was enjoying with mybrother at the time, I was in for quite the shock.Guess what my reaction was when that SPImonster package arrived?

The rest is, as they say, history. I was hooked.

Fast forward nearly 20 years, and SPI is longgone from the game publishing scene as a viablebusiness entity. Of the boardgame publishersdoing business back then, only Avalon Hillremains. Gone are Battleline, Nova, GDW,Taskforce, RAND, Sim. Canada, 3W, etc. - thelist goes on and on. Yet if one combines all thegames published by other publishers, they stilldon’t match the volume of games SPI waspumping out in its prime. To this day, many enjoya good SPI game now and then, while lamentingabout the poor development of many other SPItitles.

This brings up back full circle to how this projectgot started. SPI still enjoys a large following,witnessed by internet discussions and the manygame auctions. However, nowhere out there canone find a publication which discusses theirproducts in depth. This is the niche area SPIREVIVAL will now command.

WHAT TO EXPECT

Being the premiere issue, one can safely say thatthis is a grand experiment of sorts. While I don’tquestion the quality of reviews that will bepresented within these pages, I am certainly eagerto see the response this publication generates. Aslong as their is a healthy interest in SPI gamesand the opportunity to revisit them, I knowimprovements can be made in the formatpresented herein for your reading enjoyment.

While I would have liked to provide the reviewfor online viewing, the size of the publication isbest suited for printing and storage in your SPI

game. If you do not have access to a quality b/wlaser printer, you may contact me and receive ahardcopy. The cost for printing, shipping andhandling is $5.00. Please send orders to:

John KranzAttn: SPI Revival13426 E. Cindy St.Chandler, AZ 85225

It is my hope, of course, that you will be able torely on a friend to access a quality laser print outto forgo any expense. Please only rely on me as alast resort...this publication is meant to beaccessible free of charge.

SPECIAL THANKS

This publication would have not been possiblewere it not for the tremendous effort put in bySkip Franklin, Danny Holte, John Leggat, andRonald Wright. Saving the best for last, however,I want to take this opportunity to recognize TedKim for his herculean effort in putting togetherwhat is, I feel, the best darn game review I haveread since the early days of Fire & Movementmagazine. Once I received Ted’s initial draft, Irealized the responsibility placed before me to dohis piece justice. The future success of thispublication will certainly not be based on theeffort I put in to get the next issue out, but howmany Ted Kim’s are out there interested inreviewing SPI titles. Based on correspondence inpreparing future issues, I’m confident that thebenchmark set in this issue can be replicated inthe future.


page 4

CSR AWARDS

Needless to say, the next time the Charles S.Roberts award are upon us to select the BestReview/Reviewer, please make a mental note thatthis effort would have not been possible withoutTed Kim. His execution was flawless. Of course,the supporting cast played a big part as well.I certainly don’t mean to downplay their ownefforts. Anyway, I don’t know if Ted will makeORIGINS next year, but it would be an absoluteprivilege and honor for me to pick up an award onhis behalf and present it to him. He’s definitelyearned it.

Naturally, SPI REVIVAL now qualifies as anamateur publication, so if you want to giveBROG (a publication I thoroughly enjoy) a runfor it’s money, you now know how to cast yournext vote as well.

THE INK NEVER DRIES

One nice feature worth noting is that each issuecan be easily updated, so what you have beforeyou now is simply version 1.0 of issue #1. Shouldothers wish to provide feedback or additionalmaterials on PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, Iwill gladly update and release a new version ofthis issue. One thing I will do for certain ispublish the feedback you provide in version 1.1of this publication.

NEXT ISSUE

I hope to get an issue out at least once every twomonths. Scheduled for issue number two is SPI’sWINTER WAR. Contributors are presentlyworking on this piece and I look forward to

releasing it sometime in September if all goes asexpected.

FEEDBACK PLEASE

This being the premiere release, feedback fromthe readership is critical. Please let me know whatyou think of the format presented herein, andwhat improvements you would like to see in thefuture. Since I won’t be able to track who isdownloading the Acrobat document, it would benice to find out who is receiving and reading thisissue as well.

There is also a discussion board available on theweb so you can chime in with your commentsregarding SPI REVIVAL (in the Game MagazineDiscussion area). This web site is The VirtualWargamer Headquarters, located at the followingURL: http://www.manzana.com/webx

Please also feel free to contact the authors of thisissue as well. They would welcome yourcomments and feedback.

I look forward to hearing from each one of you. Ihope you enjoy the SPI REVIVAL, and tell yourfriends where to find it. In closing, I’d like toshare with you some player comments regardingPANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN.

Sincerely,

John [email protected], Arizona

Random Thoughts on PGG

“Back in 1976, an Ops Sgt by the name ofCharles Sharpe (who subsequently has made aname for himself in this hobby) loaned me hiscopy of PGG. It became, and remains, one of myall-time favorite solitaire games. There are short-comings to the game, but the untried Soviet unitsstill guarantee no two identical games for me.

This game also kindled my interest in SPI, andensured that I had to go be a Friday nightplaytester when I went to NYC in 1980. That wasthe experience which launched me into thetesting and development I have done since then.”

- Tony Curtis, developer GMT’s BARBAROSSA

“One of the secret joys of playing the Soviets inPGG is confounding the German player who isso enthralled in the glamour of panzer pushingthat he does not recognize the limitations of themagnificent weapon he wields. High summer of1941 means the Soviet player must think and actdefensively, but not passively. He must throwrepeated blocking lines in front of the Germanadvance, harry the German flanks, marshalscarce resources for limited ripostes, andconfound the concentration of German armor.

What Dunnigan has forged in this jewel is a nearperfect wargame.”

- Doug Dery

continued on page 20

http://www.manzana.com/webx



page 5

A. IntroductionPANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN (PGG) madequite a splash when first published in Strategy &Tactics (S&T) magazine, issue 57 (July/August1976). It was well-liked, innovative and widelyplayed. It was republished in other packaging atleast three times. It spawned several other EasternFront games. Way back when in 1978, RalphVickers, in F&M 12, was asking if PGG was aclassic [22]. Today, many regard it as a watersheddesign that still arouses interest. Many place PGGon their top ten list of SPI games and even ontheir all-time top ten list. Designer Notes forrecent releases (e.g. SPIRES OF THE KREM-LIN) still pay homage to PGG as if claimingdescent from a famous progenitor. Few gamescan make similar claims. In this review, we take alook at the parts that make the whole of thisfamous game.

Before proceeding, though, a note is in orderabout the game’s subject. So what is the subjectof this popular game? Almost everyone knowsthat PGG is about an Eastern Front battle.However, Smolensk is not exactly a battle withimmediate name recognition like Stalingrad,Kursk or Kharkov. In fact, one would be hardpressed to think of any other game which treatsthis battle with more than passing interest. Thesame can be said about books. How many publi-cations have even one chapter focusing on thisbattle?

To search out this battle, we must dissectOperation Barbarossa and follow the actions ofArmy Group Center (AGC). We can briefly sum-marize the context of the battle as follows.Smolensk was the third encirclement in a chainleading from East Prussia and divided Polandsome 400 miles towards Moscow. The Battle ofSmolensk was the climax of the initial AGCthrust. Fighting around Smolensk took placethroughout July 1941; resistance finally ended inthe Smolensk pocket on 5 August 1941. Whilethere were still major problems with the Sovietforces at both an operational and tactical level,

Soviet forces put up a much more tenaciousdefense than before. This included an escalatingseries of fierce counterattacks, which at timesstopped the Germans. However, this was not themassive victory that Soviet propaganda hasclaimed. On the other hand, this was a much bet-ter showing than before and foreshadowed muchgreater potential. Afterwards, this sector of thefront moved relatively little as German mecha-nized forces were diverted south for the Kievoperation. Only in October, did the Germansrenew the offensive in this area with OperationTyphoon.

PGG’s strength is its play value and interestingsystem. It is both an exciting contest and a gamethat evokes the feel of Eastern front armoredwarfare. Some may argue that the game fallsvictim to stereotypes of that titanic conflict (per-haps, even in its title! [7]). However, the game isjust plain fun. On the simulation side, PGG has alot of minor faults. For better or worse, many ofthe abstractions would probably receive the“design for effect” label had the game beendesigned today. Nevertheless, the game mechan-ics were innovative for the time and are an inter-esting study in game design.

B. Components

When first published in S&T57, PGG consistedof a 32” x 22” map, a countersheet with 200counters and eight pages of rules. SPI also soldflattray and “Collector’s Edition” bookcase boxversions. The bookcase box version had a mount-ed map. The flattray version was also used as afree bonus for subscribing to S&T.

“PGG’s strength is its playvalue and interesting sys-tem. It is both an excitingcontest and a game that

evokes the feel of Easternfront armored warfare.”

Game Reviewby Ted Kim

Panzergruppe Guderian:The Battle of Smolensk, July 1941

SPI, 1976 (S&T57)AH, 1984

Design:James F. DunniganDevelopment:Richard Berg

Physical Systems and Graphics:Redmond A. Simonsen

Production:Manfred F. Milkuhn, LarryCatalano, Kevin Zucker, Linda Mosca


page 6

B.1. Map

The map includes the playing area, turn recordtrack and terrain key. Along the mapedge aremarked reinforcement entry zones. The hex gridand framing is standard SPI tan over an off-whitebackground. Map features and lettering use otherstandard SPI colors: dark brown and blue. PGGalso used green, which came into use in S&Tgames with BREITENFELD (S&T55). The stan-dard “cottage cheese” blue forests were given agreen overprinting. Also, the city artwork is olivedrab, and the swamp graphics are green.Definitely, graphics have come a long way in twodecades. In this respect, the map of PGG showsits age. It is definitely functional, but there is notmuch artistry shining through. On the other hand,the wide open spaces do suggest room for fluidmaneuver, which this game certainly delivers.

The map is actually slightly longer than most,about 32.5” long. The playing area uses a short-grain 16mm hex grid with 59 columns of 31hexes. (As actually printed, though, the hexesseem a hair smaller than 16mm.) At 10.5 km perhex, the map covers roughly an area of 535 x 325km. The top of the map is oriented towards northwith Rzhev appearing on the edge. On the eastedge is Kaluga. Further north near the road toMoscow, the east edge is probably aroundMozhaisk. Near the western edge are the cities ofVitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev. Going east from thethree cities, one crosses a relatively empty area tothe next set of objectives: Smolensk, Yelnya andRoslavl. The Dvina and the Dnepr are prominent-

ly featured as well as other rivers. The gapbetween the rivers is known as the “Orshalandbridge”; this route is the direct path toSmolensk. Also, a road and rail net is printed onthe map, including the main highway and raillinks running towards Moscow. As with any hex-grid map, distance distortion is most severe(about 15%) in lines parallel to hex-spines (i.e.zig-zagging against the grain). In this case,probably the greatest impact is on those portionsof the transportation net that are rendered asexactly east-west on the map.

The topography is not all that accurate. Whencompared to many sources (e.g. Rand McNallyAtlas, CIAWorld Fact Book, [5], [15]), it is cleardistances are distorted from reality. According toBerg (the developer) the published map is a com-posite, replacing the first map given to him byDunnigan (who was the designer) [19]. In thesame source, Berg espouses a philosophy wheremap fudging can be done to fit the game’sobjectives. It’s not clear, though, if that was donefor PGG. It is possible some inaccuracies areintentional. In general, the terrain interpretation israther sparse on forest and swamp. There are alsosome oddities. For example, Gzhatsk and Kalugaare on the wrong side of the river. It’s not clearwhat the lake in the northeast corner represents,since this map does not go far enough northeast to

include any of the reservoirs. These are, as onewould hope, relatively minor issues with littleeffect on play.

One might ask why large portions of eastern partof the map are even included, since fightingrarely extends out there. To this reviewer, the maphas a nice indicator effect. Because victoryconditions are primarily based on geographicalobjectives, the front line at game end is usually agood indicator of who won. If the front line is farto the west, the Soviets have won. If it’s firmlyinto the eastern half, then the Germans have won.The most serious issue with the eastern half of themap is the distortion of the east-west transporta-tion links. The bend in the road and rail linksbetween Gzhatsk and Vyazma is overly exagger-ated and overextends by about 40 km. Overall,there is probably about 60 km extra distance inthe main Soviet reinforcement routes from eastedge to Smolensk including hex-grid distortion.There is some uncertainty in this estimatebecause some terrain features are hard to corre-late. For example, the Moscow river should benorth of the rail at the east edge but south wherethe river ends in the west, not the other wayaround. Anyway, it appears the size of Russia canbe a surprise even to Russians.

On the western half of the map, the distance fromthe western cities (Vitebsk, Orsha, Mogilev) tothe next set of game objectives (Smolensk,Roslavl and Yelnya) is simply not accurate. Orshashould be about 110 km from Smolensk. On themap, it is roughly 170 km in a straight-line pathor 190 km moving along the hexgrid (this equates

“The most serious issue withthe eastern half of the map is

the distortion of the east-west transportation links.”


page 7

to six additional hexes!). Roslavl and Yelnya arelikewise displaced eastward by 30 km or more(an additional three hexes). Also, there are otherissues with the terrain around Roslavl. There istoo much forest and river in the Roslavl perime-ter; in essence, this area has more defensive ter-rain than in reality. The Iput and the Oster riversshould not join together. Though roads are oftena judgment call in Russia, it seems there ought tobe a road from Roslavl to Krichev. Such a roadwould be a a tremendous asset to German supplyin the south. The net result is that the Germansmust go further to get to Smolensk, Roslavl andYelnya. At the same time, reinforcement of anyforward Soviet defense is tougher.

B.2. CountersThe unit counters are depicted using the standardNATO symbology with the expected combat andmovement factors. The counters are backprintedto support German step-reduction and Sovietuntried unit status. Soviet infantry divisions haveseparate attack and defense factors. Other unitsjust use a single combat strength. Historicaldesignations are also printed on the counters. Thecounters are clear and functional and estheticallysatisfactory.

Soviet units and German infantry units are divi-sions. German mechanized forces are representedat the regimental kampfgruppe level. This designgives the German panzer and motorized infantrydivisions more flexibility than other units, whichis probably warranted given their training.Because of the divisional integrity rule, it is

important to identify regiments of the samedivision. Reading the historical designations ofGerman mechanized units is important.Unfortunately, PGG does little to help in this task,since the historical designations are in a fairlysmall font. Today, many games use color bandingto easily identify each formations’units. At thattime, a color-coded approach was probablybeyond the graphic scope of the S&Tmagazineformat. Some games descending from PGG (e.g.KHARKOV, S&T 68) recognized this problemand enlarged the divisional designation on thecounter.

The decision to design at the division/regimentlevel is probably both an intentional designchoice and a result of format restrictions of S&Tpublishing. The game had to fit in 200 counters[19]. PGG abstracts away the non-divisionalunits. On the Soviet side, much of their strengthprobably ended up with the army headquarters.For Germans, probably a proportional “slice” wasgiven to each division. If there is an effect on thegame, this abstraction probably impacts theGermans slightly more, since it is not possible touse non-divisional units to temporarily holdflanks or stretch the line. For example, Guderianspeaks of Machinegun Battalion 5 and its role inthe campaign [9].

Soviet counters are orange-red with black letter-ing. The Soviet side also has army commandercounters which list the leader name and historicalarmy designation as well as leader rating andmovement allowance. There is also a Sovietinterdiction marker. The back sides of Soviet

divisions show type and movement allowancewith the combat factor given as a “?” to showuntried status. Unit strengths vary widely and donot follow a discernible distribution. The armorand mechanized infantry pool has values rangingfrom zero to eight. Infantry combat factors gofrom zero to nine. The zero units represent caseswhere units literally dissolved in combat. Forexample, Gorbatov, the deputy commander of25th Rifle Corps, reported an example of thathappening with the 162nd Rifle Division nearVitebsk [16]. Ironically, in PGG, this particulardivision is given a non-zero strength of 2-5-6. Ingeneral, infantry attack strengths average lowerthan defense. This is by design, according toBerg, to put realistic limits on Soviet counterat-tacks [19].

Untried units are perhaps the most famous featureof PGG. This type of uncertainty certainly adds to“fog of war” and the excitement the game gener-ates. Its historical basis comes from the idea thatSoviet units were of uneven quality and most hadnever seen combat before. Thus, even Sovietcommanders did not know how units would per-form in combat [19]. Some have felt the distribu-tion of strengths to be too random for historicalfact and good play balance [4, 22]. Attack anddefense strength for infantry divisions can alsodiffer by as much as five points and the correla-tion between the two is not very strong. Hereagain, some might say there is too much random-ness. In this case, it’s not clear if there was anyintent to show a dichotomy between attack anddefense unit quality or if it is merely accidentalrandomness.


page 8

German counters are grey with black lettering.The one SS division is black with white lettering.There is also one cavalry division, air interdictionmarkers and some game markers in German col-ors. Panzer divisions are made up of three units:a panzer regiment and two panzergrenadier regi-ments. Motorized infantry divisions have twomotorized infantry regiments, which curiouslyuse only the standard infantry type symbol with-out any motorization “wheel” symbols. TheReich SS motorized division is an exception andhas an extra motorized infantry regiment. Thereare also two independent mobile regiments. Allregiments have a reduced strength backsidewhich is roughly half of full strength. Germaninfantry divisions have four steps and thus need asecond counter to represent the last two steps.

The German units are the direct opposite of theSoviet unpredictability; they represent pure vanil-la-coded strengths. Their strengths are exactlyknown and within each unit type category, identi-cal in strength. There is no variance whatsoeveras one would expect to encounter from the histor-ical situation. There were certainly differencesbetween individual units! One might expect dif-ferences between the veteran and newly estab-lished “waves” of German infantry divisions andbetween the Panzer divisions, some of which dif-fered by more than 100 tanks in strength [12]. Bythe time of their appearance in the game, someunits had experienced significant strength loss.For example, one might reasonably expect somestep losses already inflicted on infantry unitscoming straight from reducing the Minsk pocket.It’s not clear if this was a “Design for Effect”

solution (“all comes out the same in the end” - seeEditor’s Note below) or simply that no historicalresearch was applied on a unit by unit strengthtabulation basis.

[Editor’s Note]: Design for Cause describesprocess-driven mechanics that focus on input,while Design for Effect simplifies processes i.e.simpler game system, to focus on appropriateoutput.

German units are generally stronger and fasterthan Soviet units. The average Soviet armor ormechanized unit is a 4-10. A German panzer divi-sion has a 4-10 panzer regiment and two 2-10regiments. A German motorized infantry divisionhas two 3-10 regiments. An average Sovietinfantry division is a 3-4-6. German infantry divi-sions are 9-7. German divisions were larger thanSoviet ones, but much of the strength differencealso comes from the fact that the troop qualitygap between the two sides was greatest duringBarbarossa. According to Brad Hessel, designerof PGG spin-off game DRIVE ON STALIN -GRAD (SPI, 1977), some of the German combatstrength advantage also comes from an abstrac-tion of German air power effects [10].

Soviet divisions are much more fragile than theirGerman counterparts. Soviet divisions have onlyone step, while German divisions have four to sixsteps. (The German cavalry division is an excep-tion.) The difference in unit size alone cannotexplain the vast difference. The disparity wasintended by Dunnigan to show differences incohesion and training [19]. Combat events thatshattered a Soviet division merely resulted insome strength loss in a German division. Eachstep loss approximately halves the currentstrength. Thus, unit strength losses result in aexponential decay. Some other games use differ-ent models such as linear loss (e.g. PeopleWargames’ DUEL FOR KHARKOV) or a“cadre” model (where casualties accumulate untilthere is a catastrophic loss in strength, e.g. TheGamers’ARDENNES).

B.3. Rules and Avalon Hill

As with all S&T games of this period, the rulesfolder could be removed from the center of themagazine. The text is typeset in three columns.All charts are printed on the back page, thoughvictory conditions and some reinforcementlistings are on the previous page. The errata forthe game, which amounts to a half-column oftext, was published in S&T58. It is easy to miss,because it is on page S4, an advertising insertpage in the center of the magazine.

After the death of SPI, PGG reemerged under theAvalon Hill label in 1984. It remained there untilgoing out of print. It still appeared in the limitedsupply “collectible” game section in a 1993 AH

“The difference in unit sizealone cannot explain the

vast difference. The disparitywas intended by Dunnigan

to show differences incohesion and training.”


page 9

catalog. Exactly who was in charge of the AHversion is unclear, since no credits are given. TheAvalon Hill version was in bookcase box formatwith mounted map. Overall, the AH version isnicely done.

The map was reduced slightly from the SPIversion, measuring 31.375” x 21.5”. As a result,the hexes are slightly smaller as well. The AHversion has 260 counters. The units and leadersremain the same. There are additional disruptionmarkers. New markers, not in the SPI version, areincluded for: out of supply status, German controlof objectives and rail cuts. Also, a fair number ofblanks are included.

The rules were reset in two columns of 12 pagesin a larger, more readable font. Illustrations arenow shaded in pink. The errata from S&T58 isincorporated, and some minor clarifications wereadded. The only new rule is for rail cuts. The noteabout play balance from S&T58 was omitted.(More on this later.) The tables and the reinforce-ment schedules appear on cardstock player aidcards. Also, two appendices are added to therules, listing some magazine articles on the gameand the distribution of untried unit strengths.(Note, the first two columns on the infantry tablehave their labels reversed.)

C. System

The PGG system was quite innovative in anumber of respects in 1976. Yet, many of itsmechanisms were not original. Rather, they werecrafted together in a way that produced new andexciting results. PGG set a new standard forEastern Front operational games, and its influ-ence still looms large today. Before PGG, theestablished pattern for the Eastern Front was pri-marily corps/division level games such asKURSK (SPI, 1971), BATTLE OF STALIN -GRAD (SPI, 1972), DRANG NACH OSTEN(GDW, 1973), WAR IN THE EAST(SPI, 1974)and VON MANSTEIN (RAND, 1975). PGGmoved down to the division/regiment level and

added a few ideas such as overrun, trading lossesfor retreats and untried units. The result was amuch more fluid, exciting and sweeping view ofmechanized warfare.

PGG was very widely played when it was firstreleased. It seems safe to believe that the gameeven appealed to those who were not World WarTwo enthusiasts of tank warfare or the Russianfront in general. The system is relatively clean,playable and fast moving. A game can becompleted in a day or less. The system is notoverly complex. The rules, themselves, arereasonably clear; though, there are still some tinyunresolved ambiguities still lurking to this day.

C.1. Force Differences

A fair part of the rules center around modeling thedifferences between the Soviet and Germanforces. The Soviet forces were not well organizedand lacked in tactical training and cohesion whencompared to German forces. The discussionabout unit values touched on some elements ofthis. Other elements are reflected in the systemthrough the sequence of play, German divisionalintegrity, Soviet leaders and untried units.

The sequence of play for PGG is rather conven-tional. Each turn, which represents two days, ismade up two player turns. Each player turn hasmovement followed by combat. There is a mech-anized movement phase after combat. This turnsequence was not new, going way back to suchgames as FALL OF FRANCE (S&T27) or evenSTRATEGY I (SPI, 1971). What is unusual, but

TAHGC’s version of PGG pictured above.

“PGG set a new standard forEastern Front operational

games, and its influence stilllooms large today.”


page 10

by no means unique, is that the turn sequence isasymmetric. Only the German gets a mechanizedmovement phase. This small difference hasdramatic results. Even though mechanized unitson both sides have the same movement factor,German mechanized units get twice as manymovement points. They are given the opportunityto drive through a combat breakthrough at fullspeed. The Soviet player must be content withadvance after combat. He must wait until nextturn to exploit; thus granting his enemy a greaterchance to recover. The mechanized movementphase also allows the German cavalry division tomove faster than infantry divisions despite itslower movement factor.

German mechanized forces are represented at aregimental level. This allows these divisions tosplit up or stay together as desired. The penaltyfor using the ability to split up is captured in theGerman divisional integrity rule. On the surface,German panzer and motorized division combatfactors look less powerful than German infantrydivisions and some Soviet divisions. The divi-sional integrity rule doubles unit strengths whena complete German mobile division is stackedtogether. This places the strength of Germanmobile divisions above all other divisions,German or Soviet. A full-strength German Panzerdivision has 16 combat factors under this rule. Amotorized infantry division has 12 factors, exceptfor the three regiment SS Reich division whichhas a strength of 18. PGG has no “combinedarms” modifier for combat. The divisionalintegrity rule, however, basically encapsulatesthis effect.

Some aspects of the integrity rule are ratherstrange. A division loses integrity if other divi-sions are present. One would assume that unitsobeying stacking limits are not squeezed so tight-ly that they become randomly intermixed.Another odd interaction occurs with retreat rules.Because the enemy controls the direction ofretreat, mechanized units are routinely split up todeny them this integrity bonus. This does havethe effect of temporarily lowering their useful-ness for overrun, as perhaps intended. On theother hand, there is no historical foundation tobelieve that mobile divisions have less cohesionthan other divisions that cannot be split up.

Soviet leaders (army headquarters) are an advan-tage for German forces because there are no sim-ilar command restrictions imposed on Germanforces. Essentially, Soviet forces need leaders tobe in supply, attack or overrun. They also haveanother role in representing support capabilitiesby adding strength factors to an attack. This is arather simple, clean way to show Soviet com-mand limitations. This rule makes Soviet com-mand control a vulnerability, which can some-times be exploited. For example, pocketed Sovietunits without a leader will be unable to break out,because they cannot attack. In fact, because oflocking ZOCs such units do not even have to besurrounded. They will just sit there indefinitelyuntil destroyed.

Untried units have been alluded to before. It’sworth noting that untried units was not a newconcept. The idea appeared first in INVASION:AMERICA (SPI, 1976). However, in that game,

the idea was just some extra chrome. In PGG, ittakes center stage. In fact, since PGG has beenmuch more widely played than INVASION:AMERICA, in the hearts and minds of many,PGG is really where the concept of untried unitsinitially appeared. It’s a key aspect to the “fog ofwar” and excitement of the game.

C.2. Stacking and MovementStacking for both sides is three combat units perhex. Stacking three divisions roughly implies acorps could be put into a hex. For some reason,though, German mobile regiments are counted asjust as large as divisions for stacking purposes. Atbest, you can only get one German panzer divi-sion into a hex. Theoretically, other units can bepresent with a motorized infantry division.However, the divisional integrity rule generallymeans motorized divisions do not stack withother divisions either. Mobile formations do takemore room but not that much. Most games ratepanzer divisions as no more than 50% larger thaninfantry divisions in stacking “size”. For exam-ple, TYPHOON (GMT, 1995) makes panzer divi-sions one-third larger than infantry divisions.Within a 10.5 km hex, it seems quite reasonableto have space leftover for another division.Whether for simplicity or some other reason, thestacking rule does not address this distortion. It isinteresting to note that the spin-off game DRIVEON STALINGRAD (SPI, 1977) made stackingthree divisions of any type per hex, although thischange was only made in the errata.


page 11

Movement is fairly conventional except foroverrun, which is discussed below. As expected,mechanized units have higher movementallowances than infantry or cavalry. In clearterrain, mechanized units move faster thaninfantry. While forest allows the infantry tooutrun mechanized forces, remarkably the swampdoes not. Both players have interdiction markerswhich can slow ordinary enemy movement.However, these markers are rarely used this way.For the German, rail movement is usually thepreferred target. The Soviet interdiction marker ismore valuable for blocking supply.

Bridges receive unusual treatment. Essentially,there are none for ordinary movement. All roadlinks are broken where intersected by rivers. Notonly that, Germans pay a bigger penalty to crossrivers. It’s not clear what this models. Guderiandoes speak about Soviet attempts impede cross-ings by bombing bridges [9]. One has to wonder,though, if the Luftwaffe wasn’t even more harshon Soviet forces. Maybe it has to do with a lackof bridging equipment or the home fieldadvantage. Oddly enough, rails do cross rivers,and bridges do exist for supply purposes.

Rail movement is fairly conventional. Only theSoviet player gets any rail capacity. This is appro-priate since the German rail conversion effort hadin no way caught up to the rapid advancesachieved so early into the campaign. The AHversion adds a rule about rail cuts. This addition-al rule eliminates the need for German forces togarrison the rail lines. Under the SPI version,Soviet forces could sometimes rail troops behind

German lines. Thus, it became mandatory in thatversion to assign some units to guard the rail.

C.3. Closing With the Enemy

Zones of Control (ZOC) in PGG are semi-active(attacking is optional) and locking. Lockingmeans that units entering the ZOC must stop, andthey cannot voluntarily leave except as a result ofcombat. This leads to the tactic of pinning enemyunits by placing them in ZOC. This is a fairlycontroversial element of the PGG design.Locking ZOCs are rather unusual for a game inthis historical period. This certainly made sensein some other historical periods where all controlwas lost after the enemy made contact (e.g.hoplite warfare). Why it would be so difficult todisengage from the enemy in a WWII simulation,though, is harder to understand. Units canextricate themselves, but they must attack (oroverrun) to do so. To become mobile again, theymust destroy or retreat the enemy or retreat them-selves. In essence, they must “force the issue” toleave a ZOC. However, this view doesn’t alwaysmake sense. If the defender has enough steps,higher odds can actually lead to a lower chance ofbeing able to leave a ZOC, since there is a lowerpossibility of attacker retreats. (If the attackerwants to retreat out of ZOC, the best odds are1:1.) Also, it hard to believe that mechanized

units can be pinned by infantry. One expects unitswith superior mobility to be able to escaperegardless of what the enemy did.

Locking ZOCs, however, are not all bad news.The idea of “nailing the enemy down” and thenmaneuvering to concentrate at a schwerpunktactually seems to have validity in this game. Also,being anxious to avoid the “sticky” enemy,reserves are actually held out of the front line.Unlike other games, a high movement factor isnot enough to qualify as a reserve. Thoughadvance after combat ignores ZOCs, suchadvances go at most a hex beyond the vacatedhex. Thus, defense in depth will still entangle thevictorious forces in ZOCs. Defense in depth canalso limit penetration from overruns as well.

PGG’s CRT calls for elimination or step losses.Some results call for losses on both sides. Whilefirst contact in combat can be dramatic due tountried units, the CRT, itself, is actually some-what deterministic. At 3:1, one loss can be guar-anteed. At 7:1, two or more losses are assured.(Defender eliminated results start appearing at6:1.) In many cases, steps are more important todefense than actual combat strength. Perhaps,something like a D10 or 2D6 could have addedmore “fog of war” to the CRT without distortingthe averages. The unusual feature that PGGadded to combat resolution was that step lossescould be converted to retreat hexes. The conceptof trading losses and retreats already appeared insome other games (e.g. WORLD WAR 1, S&T51). The effect was that combatants could decidebetween holding their ground and taking loses or

“One expects units withsuperior mobility to be able

to escape regardless ofwhat the enemy did.”


page 12

retreating and giving way. This softened theeffect of locking ZOCs, so that it did not alwaysdegenerate into a deathly choke-hold or endlessstalemate. Interestingly, the direction of retreat(which is also the path of advance) is controlledby the enemy. It gives the impression that retreat-ing forces are in a panic and always do the wrongthing. No one gets to retreat in good order in PGG.In combat, the defender’s strength is doubled inforest, cities and behind rivers. Strangely, swampis no help for the defender nor a hindrance to theattacker. Also, PGG seems to show a paranoia forfractions, especially for combat strengths.Halving involves rounding. Thus, doubling doesnot always undo halving. As a result, the order ofapplying modifiers (for overrun, terrain, supplyand divisional integrity) becomes important.There is some ambiguity in the rules aboutwhether halving and rounding should be done ona unit by unit basis or only on totals. The appar-ent simplicity of having no fractions is a mirage.

Overrun as implemented in PGG was a novelidea. According to Berg, this was perhaps themost difficult rule to develop in the game [19].An overrun represents a hasty attack right out ofmarch formation (i.e. during movement phase).This differs in intent with “automatic victory”rules that model attacks so overwhelming that thedefender can be ignored during movement.Obviously, hasty attacks have little time forcoordination or force concentration. Thus, in thegame, overruns are limited to single stacks andcombat strengths are halved. But, overruns can becarried out at any odds as long as the requiredthree movement points are available. Since

overruns are partly based on “momentum”,combat results are interpreted slightly differently,allowing the attacker to be stopped in his tracks.Defending units that were successfully overrun,but not destroyed, become “disrupted” for a turn.Disruption robs the unit of many of many of itsnormal capabilities. The successful attacker cancontinue to move unless entangled by ZOCs.Obviously, this mechanism is most dramatic withmechanized units, which have a high movementallowances, but it is not prohibited for infantryunits.

The implication of overrun is that essentiallyextra (albeit weaker than normal) attacks can bemounted in the same turn. If these extra attacksare mounted against the same hex, a defendermay be worn down by successive attacks beforehe has a chance to act. For example, if a Germanattack conducted during the combat phase is notenough to eliminate the last step of the defender,then he can try to overrun the weakeneddefending force during the MechanizedMovement Phase to clear the position before theSoviet player’s turn. In some other games,double lines of weak units are an effectivedefense, because there is only one combat phase.But with overrun, such lines are easily penetrated

and swept away. Overrun is an early attempt tointegrate movement and combat together. Thisrule helps the game achieve a fluid flavor, despitethe presence of locking ZOCs. Mechanizedforces can roam freely and overrun weakpositions, but they are encouraged to bypassstrong ones. Since many units targeted for over-run are of untried strength, there is often addeduncertainty and anticipation about the result.

C.4. Supply and PartisansThe effects of supply are fairly simple. Loss ofsupply halves movement and combat strengths.Supply is cut by enemy units and ZOCs. The lossof supply is, in fact, the payoff for executingsweeping encirclements. The pocketed units areimpaired and probably easy to destroy. The fearof being the victim of this type of development iswhat causes many unit retreats to occur duringplay.

As noted earlier, Soviet supply is dependent uponthe presence of army leaders. Units must bewithin a leader radius. The army headquarters,itself, must also trace a supply path to a friendlymap edge. Again, there is a nit to pick regardingthe swamps. Supply (Soviet or German) cannotbe traced through swamp terrain. This is strangebecause all types of units (mechanized, foot andcavalry) can move through swamps. Onewonders how supply is transported if not by oneof these modes.

German supply is either traced through 20 orfewer hexes to a road leading off the western map

“Overrun as implemented inPGG was a novel idea.

According to Berg, this wasperhaps the most difficult

rule to develop in the game.”


page 13

edge or directly to the west map edge in 20movement points or less. Units drawing off theroad network are probably being supplied byarmy-level truck feeds. The road method ofsupply has a drawback; there is a bottleneck (asingle road) at the western edge. The Soviet play-er has a partisan/air force interdiction unitwhich can block supply. Obviously, thebottleneck is the preferred location. The Sovietplayer can place the interdiction unit on thebottleneck for three turns in the game.

Those units drawing directly from the westernmap edge are limited by movement points,because they are probably using their owndivisional supply organizations. Unfortunately,checking supply by counting movement pointscan be somewhat of a nuisance. Because of thedifferences between mechanized and infantry/cavalry movement, hexes that are in supply rangefor one type of unit may not be in supply for theother. To muddy the waters further, bridges existfor purposes of this supply rule, though not fornormal movement. It may be necessary for eachGerman unit to check supply more than once in aturn: in each movement phase, in each overrunand in combat, whether attacking or defending.This is one place where the relatively clean rulesof PGG might benefit from further simplification.Perhaps, the range to the western map edgeshould simply be a given number of hexes.Alternatively, a supply range line could simply bedrawn on the map. Any German units behind theline capable of tracing a path off the western edgewould then be in supply.

D. Victory Conditions and Strategy

While some comments on PGG gameexperiences and lessons learned are presented inthe Battle Report Section, a strategic frameworkfor game play is provided here. The victory con-ditions of the game are based on victory points.Points are accumulated by the German byoccupying cities and east map edge entry zones.The Soviet player can reduce the German total bydestroying entire German divisions and liberatingcities from the Germans. The Soviet may alsoconcede some points by taking optionalreinforcements. The total is compared to a tableto determine the winner and level of victory. Inmost games, only the city points really make anydifference. Destroying divisions or retaking citiesare rare occurrences as one might suspect.Usually, the Soviet player takes reinforcementsup to the four point level (four divisions), sinceall city points and most levels of victory are basedon multiples of five points.

No German forces setup on the board; all of thementer from the west map edge or northwestcorner. Drawing supply directly from the westernmap edge will only carry you so far. Eventually,road supply must be used. This forces theGerman to clear the main road to Smolensk. Deepindependent thrusts in the north or south arereally not possible without some support from themain road. A victory point count reveals that thewestern cities (Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev) plusSmolensk leaves the German just short of amarginal victory. One more objective must be

taken to achieve an Axis victory. Usually, Yelnyaor Roslavl is chosen. It is practically impossibleto win without Smolensk.

The rules, themselves, suggest that the optionalLeader Evacuation Rule can tilt the balance of thegame. Also, since victory is determined by a pointcount, it is obvious a bid system could used torectify any perceived imbalance. Another sugges-tion is to vary the Soviet reinforcement rate fromMoscow [11]. A German advantage can becountered by adding a fixed number of rifledivisions to any reinforcements entering fromentry area “X”. But the official word on balancecame with the errata published in the followingissue of S&T (issue 58, September/October1976). Among the errata was the pronouncementthat the expected and historical result was aGerman marginal victory. For play balance pur-poses, it was recommended that a GermanMarginal victory be considered a draw and thatother German levels of victory be shifted onelevel in favor of the Soviets. Practically speaking,this means that Smolensk, Roslavl and Yelnyamust all be taken as well as other objective(s)further east, e.g. Vyazma. For many, this has beenthe last word on play balance. However, not allagree with this errata.

While the German has to do the bulk of attackingand has several tactical choices, his strategic planis relatively constrained by victory points andsupply. Meanwhile, the Soviet player has morestrategic options. The shape of the game is deter-mined primarily by the Soviet plan. While theSoviet commander must react tactically to


page 14

German moves, he must also keep his overallstrategy in mind. On the first turn, the Sovietcommander has two armies near the west edgefleeing east from the Minsk pocket. There arethree other armies, but two of them require dierolls to determine if they can even move on thefirst turn. With these five armies and onereinforcement army, the Soviet player must formthe beginings of his defense on turn one. Duringthe first half of the game, the Soviet player is alsoprohibited from moving to the western map edge.This gives the German a protected corridor toshuttle his forces north and south.

Only a month after the errata, one of the earlieststrategy articles appeared in Moves 29(October/November 1976) [17]. In this article,Redmond Simonsen advocates a Soviet “MainLine of Resistance” back as far as Smolensk andRoslavl. Only minor forces defended further westto form speed bumps along the road to Smolensk.This strategy relies on the adjustment of victorypoint levels in the errata. It also paints a rathergloomy picture of Soviet play. Similar thinkinghas led some to feel that that the Soviet role isfrustrating and not interesting to play [4].

Somewhat later in Moves 33 (June/July 1977), anew Soviet defense called the “Egg” was broughtforth [6]. The Egg was a much stronger forwarddefense in an arc-shaped defensive position fromnortheast of Vitebsk following the Dvina south tothe woods just northeast of Orsha astride the mainroad to Smolensk. The authors of the Egg felt thatthis strategy was so effective that they advocatedusing the original victory conditions. In F&M 12

(July/August 1978), a variant of the Egg strategyis advocated [22]. The “Southern Egg” strategymoves the Soviet shield south so that the northernend blocks the road to Smolensk. However, theauthor does not endorse reverting back to theoriginal victory conditions.

When published under the AH banner, the victo-ry conditions did not include the adjustment fromS&T 58. Since all other S&T58 errata is includ-ed and reference is made to the above articles, itappears this was intentional. Apparently, the AHdeveloper felt the game was balanced under theoriginal victory conditions. (We cannot confirmthis, since AH does not name their developer.)Anyway, after publication by AH, another waveof Soviet strategies appeared. AH players musthave agreed with their developer, since each newSoviet strategy seems to be more aggressive thanthe last. Among them was the “QuagmireDefense” in General 22/4 (1986) [14]. In thisplan, the Soviet forward defense is expanded andbecomes a full-fledged line defending all thewestern cities. An even more aggressive Sovietdefense is highlighted in General 24/1 (1987) [8].The “Second Stalingrad” is, of course, notchronologically correct, but it does convey theresult that the author feels is possible.

E. Game as History

E.1. Order of Battle

The order of battle in PGG for the Germans isfairly accurate. There are some minor errors. Theregiment numbers of the 10th Motorized Divisionshould be 20 and 41. The numbers printed on thecounters appear to have been mistakenly takenfrom the 10th Panzer Division. By this period, theDas Reich SS division should have Der Fuhrer,Deutschland and the 11th regiments. TheGermania Regiment was detached earlier to helpform the Wiking SS division. Also, Lehr wasofficially a brigade and not a regiment.

The Soviet order of battle is, as one would right-fully suspect, much less certain. At the time PGGwas designed, there was little information aboutthe details of the Soviet army. Even now withmaterial slowly coming out of Soviet archives,many details remain sketchy. According toGlantz, the 13th Army should probably only startwith four rifle and no armor divisions, thoughsomewhat later a mechanized corps did join it [5].It also appears that the armor division countermixought to include some of the 100 series divisions,which were renumbered when absorbed into theReserve Front. In particular, the 101st TankDivision appears to have participated in counter-attacks to relieve the Smolensk pocket [5].

“The authors of the Egg feltthat this strategy was so

effective that they advocat-ed using the originalvictory conditions.”


page 15

E.2. German View

The history of the battle is well-described in S&Tissue 57. Here, we only consider if the game doesa good job at simulating history. Germancampaign objectives certainly included takingSmolensk. It was intended that Panzergruppe 3with 9th Army and Panzergruppe 2 (commandedby Guderian) with 2nd and 4th Army would meetat Smolensk in a pincer action. While a pocketwas plainly intended, it is not clear exactlywhether Smolensk or destruction of Soviet forceswas the primary objective. The infantry armieswere not immediately available. They were tieddown by the operation to reduce the Minsk pocket.

Actually, Panzergruppe 2 and 3 forged ahead on afairly broad front with five different thrusts [16].Historically, Panzergruppe 3 mounted an attackin the north. Vitebsk was taken on 9 July 1941[9]. Further attacks included action north and eastof Vitebsk. Panzergruppe 2 attacked in the south,eventually including attacks along the Sozh riverand the main road to Smolensk. On 9 July 1941,the Minsk pocket capitulated, finally releasingthe infantry forces for this battle. A small pocketwas formed around Mogilev on 13 July. Thesedefenders of the Soviet 13th Army held out until26 July [5]. On 16 July, Panzergruppe 2 tookSmolensk[9]. However, Panzergruppe 3 did noteffectively seal the leaky pocket from the northfor about a week. Persistent Soviet attacks werealso mounted to relieve the trapped Soviet 16th,19th and 20th Armies. Exactly, what was tohappen after forming a pocket is somewhat hazy.There was bickering throughout the campaign

about objectives and this continued. By 20 July,forward elements of Panzergruppe 2 had gone onto Yelnya, but were subsequently subjected tofierce counterattacks [9]. Operations along thesouthern flank captured Roslavl on 1 August [9].The Smolensk pocket finally yielded on 5 August1941 [16].

The victory conditions certainly make Smolenskessential to any German plan. However, thesupply rules make it difficult to conduct indepen-dent thrusts in the north and south as was histori-cally the case. Perhaps, the supply rules overlyfocus the German assault on the road to Smolenskand discourage a true pincer attack. Even alongthe direct path to Smolensk, supply rules are

perhaps overly restrictive. Historically,Panzergruppe 2 did not have access to the mainroad near Orsha as late as 20 July (game turn 9)but was fighting around Smolensk and Yelnya[9]. One could even argue whether Germanvictory should be so heavily tied to geographicalobjectives. Certainly by doing so, it forces theSoviet player to defend these objectives, whichdoes seem to have a historical basis. At the endof a well-matched game, front lines tend to endup near the center of the board which would be anaccurage depiction. Historically, both the takingof Roslavl and the capitulation of the Smolenskpocket occur after the game ends.

Depending on how you read the argumentsbetween commanders, OKH and Hitler, destruc-tion of the Soviet army could also be considereda major goal. Perhaps some accounting ofdestroyed Soviet units should be reflected in thevictory conditions. This would encourage pocket-ing Soviet forces, though the Soviet player islikely to be more careful than his historicalcounterpart. Another approach would be to addsome variability to the victory conditions toreflect the confusion and dischord about theoperational objectives.

At a lower tactical level, the game seems toprovide a good illusion of armored warfare.Massive breakthroughs are possible with armoredunits brushing aside (overrunning) weak units. Aswe have already examined the various nits of thesystem, we do not delve into them here. As far asthe troops go, the game does reflect a Germanadvantage in several areas. The question is

Historical Essay as appeared in S&T issue 57.


page 16

whether the size of the gap is properly reflected.Here you could get conflicting opinions. But forsuch an early part of the struggle, it’s clear thatthe difference was fairly large. On the whole,things seem to go as a tank enthusiast expects. Atthe same time, the German player experiences ashortage of infantry early on. Thus, at times hismobile forces become bogged down in lockingZOCs and attritional fighting.

E.3. Soviet ViewFrom the Soviet point of view, the German thrusthad to be stopped. Smolensk was the next logicaltarget on the road to Moscow. Remnants thatescaped the Minsk pocket, armies from ReserveFront (19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd), and a steadystream of reinforcements were gathered togetherunder West Front command [16]. The 16th Armyunder Lukin was positioned near Smolensk. The24th and 28th were positioned further back nearVyazma [5]. The 13th Army held Mogilev andwas surrounded by Panzergruppe 2 advances. Asthe German attack progressed, counterattackswere repeatedly ordered. While they did exact aprice, they were very costly as well. Starting from11 July, the 19th Army under Koniev was railedin and went straight into the attack towardsVitebsk [5]. By 13 July, the 19th Army hadalmost been destroyed. A few days later, the 20thArmy resumed the attacks near Vitebsk [5]. Theseand other attacks to the north and south weresupposed to part of a coordinated plan. However,many went off so badly that the Germans felt thatthey were isolated efforts [5].

Fierce battles in Smolensk, eventually forced the16th Army out of the city [5]. In the north,Rokassovski assembled an ad hoc group to try toprevent Panzergruppe 3 formations from closingthe pocket. Rokassovski went on the attack start-ing 18 July [5]. Starting 21 July, four armies(24th, 28th, 29th and 30th) attacked Germanforces along a front from north of Smolensk southto Yelnya and Roslavl [5]. On 23 July, frominside the pocket, 20th Army attacked as well. Afew days later, renewed attacks occurred toattempt a relief of the pocket. Some forces didbreakout [5]. On 26 July, Mogilev finally fell. On5 August, resistance ceased in the Smolenskpocket.

The game has a few discrepancies with morerecent historical accounts regarding armydesignations and arrival dates. However, giventhe untried units, they probably have no apprecia-ble effect on play. In general, the Soviet playercan attempt a better handled defense thanoccurred historically. With historical hindsight,he has a better chance of avoiding encirclement.In terms of victory conditions, though, it’s notthat easy to do much better than a historicalresult. The game generally comes down to toavoiding German conquest of cities. The victory

points for destroying German entire divisions arejustified, but very hard to achieve. Similarly, thepoints for retaking a city are generally notawarded. The minor morale and propagandavictory that retaking a city represents maybeought to be extended to western edge cities whichhold out a long time. Mogilev was a historicalexample of this. (In game terms, it falls on the lastturn!)

True to history, the Soviet commander findsmany factors outside of his control, such as theability of his armies to react on turn one anduntried unit strengths. In these aspects, the fog ofwar is quite thick and appropriate. Likewise, theleader rules are fairly good at simulating theproblems of command and control in the SovietArmy. Historically, there were several majorSoviet attacks. Many of them suffered fromcoordination and other problems. In PGG,leaders, untried units and generally low attackstrengths discourage the Soviet player fromtrying many attacks. Perhaps, the Soviet playerknows too much to attempt what the historicalparticipants did. Certainly, the payoff in victorypoints for retaking cities is not sufficient to takemany risks. Also, it appears the average gamesees lower than historical German casualties.Perhaps, there ought to be a greater payoff invictory points for successful attacks or someadditional attack capability is called for in selectleaders like Rokassovski.

“From the Soviet point ofview, the German thrust hadto be stopped. Smolensk wasthe next logical target on the

road to Moscow.”


page 17

F. History of the Game

In S&T 53 (November/December 1975), anumber of game proposals for folio games wereplaced into the Feedback Questions. Theproposed games would be folios with 22” x 17”maps. A version with mounted maps would alsobe available. One of the proposals read asfollows:

Question 66. Smolensk, 1941: Guiderian [sic]leads outnumbered German armored forcesagainst massive, but disorganized Russian forcesin one of the decisive battles of the Germaninvasion in 1941.

This was the begining of PGG. Obviously, adifferent scope or scale was contemplated withonly a folio size map. Also notable was the firstof many misspellings of Guderian. Berg statesthat the game was hit in feedback [19].Apparently, a larger format was already contem-plated to counter resentment about smaller foliosize games and less traditional topics in S&T.

In fact, by the time S&T 54 (January/February1976) reported on “Work in Progress”, the game,which was scheduled for S&T 57, was describedas having a 34” x 22” map at 7 km per hex, 200counters, division/regimental level and many“new design elements”. The map was not at thefinal scale, but the size of the game haddefinitely grown. The title of the game wasreported as “PanzerGruppe Guderein [sic]: TheBattle of Smolensk”.

Dunnigan’s initial design centered on a few keyelements [19]. He worked up an initial CRT.Relying on his background in the area, his initialhistorical research on the game was completed inonly a few hours. The initial map an adapted fromthe one in DESTRUCTION OF ARMY GROUPCENTER (S&T 36). Dunnigan also set down thebasic pattern of overrun, supply and untried units.

Dunnigan wrote all this up in short paragraphform, including an order of battle and preliminarycountermix, and then looked for a developer towork it all out. Kip Allen, the developer ofWORLD WAR 1 (S&T 51), was chosen. GregCostikyan notes that this was Dunnigan’s style.He would hand his developer “8-10 pages ofscribbled notes, a preliminary map and a suggest-ed reading list” [2]. Of course, Dunnigan wouldmonitor progress and be available to consultduring development, but it was the developer’sresponsibility to see that things moved forward.Dunnigan’s own recollection was that PGG wasan easy game to design [3].

Unfortunately, Kip Allen was in the process ofrelocating (PGG was his last assignment at SPI).These circumstances prevented him from givingthe game the attention it needed. The gameneeded major work. Results were wildly unstableand had no resemblance to history. Either theSoviets were completely wiped out, or theycounterattacked and pushed the Germans back.“With time running out”, Richard Berg wascalled in to replace Kip Allen as developer [19].

Moves 25 (February/March 76) described thegame as “Panzergroup Guederian [sic]: TheBattle of Smolensk”. Many elements of the finaldesign were present at this time. ZOCs weresemi-active. The range of Soviet leader valueswas two to five. Soviets could use rail movement.Soviet units were single-step, untried and neededto be in the radius of a Soviet leader to receivesupply. German motorized units were representedat the regimental level with two steps and divi-sional integrity. German infantry divisions hadfour steps. From the onset, Dunnigan intendedthe larger number of steps in German units toreflect their superior training and cohesion.

However, there were elements reported in Moves25 that differed from the final version. The gamewas slated to contain “numerous scenarios”.Untried units were reported to have strengthsfrom zero to eight in value. It appears at this timethat rifle divisions still had a single combatstrength. The final version added separate andmostly lower attack strengths. This reduced theSoviet counterattack ability to realistic levels.The final range of combat values for infantry waszero to nine.

Moves 25 reported that divisional integrityapplied when at least two units were together.Dunnigan’s original rule also only applied toattack strength. Berg changed this to require allregiments and to include an effect on defensestrength. This further encouragement to keepmechanized divisions together made the Germanattacks more concentrated and encourageddivisional cohesion on defense.


page 18

The snapshot in Moves 25 also described overrunsomewhat differently. It was implied that overrunwas available only to the Germans; it waspossible to overrun at half or one-third ofstrength. The effects of Disruption were alsoslightly different. Overrun proved to be thehardest rule to debug. Berg had to rewrite the ruleseveral times, especially to clarify the interactionwith ZOCs. Dunnigan’s original rule allowed fora two movement point expenditure for one-thirdstrength overruns and four points for halfstrength. Further development simplified thingsinto the final version of half strength for threemovement points.

Also, ZOCs were reported to be rigid (allowingunits to leave next movement phase). At somepoint in the design, ZOCs were apparently active(making combat mandatory) as well as locking.After contact, units became locked into deathstruggles. This meant that Soviet units often wereforced to attack at low odds and kill themselves.Berg initially tried to change the ZOC rules to fixthe problem. Apparently, Moves 25 captured asnapshot of experimenting with ZOCs. Theeventual result was that the semi-active naturewas kept to avoid suicide at low odds, but ZOCseventually went back to locking. Later, we willsee Berg eventually added another element forthe final fix to the overall problem.

A part of the problem with Kip Allen’s wildplaytest results was the initial map. Dunniganfrankly admitted that he had suspicions about themap’s source. Berg had a new composite mapdone in about two weeks with the help of Virgina

Mullholland. This map produced much morehistorical results. German thrusts were “directedinto the areas historically chosen” [19]. It quiteprobable that the map was fixed before many ofthe other problems. It is clear, though, thatsomething had changed by S&T55. That issuereported the map was now at a new scale.

S&T 55 (March/April 1976) reported that“Panzergroup Guederian [sic]: The Battle ofSmolensk” would use a scale of approximately 9km per hex and two day turns. Double impulseturns allow German mobile forces to advance asmuch as “twenty hexes a turn”. The CRT isreported to be “somewhat bloodless”. The timescale reported is as published in the final version.It’s also apparent that German mobile units nowhave their final 10 point movement allowances,in spite of the fact that the map was still not at thefinal 10.5 km per hex scale.

The fact that the CRT is reported as fairly blood-less is interesting, because Dunnigan’s originalconception of the the CRT had no possibility ofretreat. His original CRT differed from thepublished version in not having any “split”

results. Also, the “Engaged” results wereexchanges. Berg made all these changes to intro-duce somewhat more variability. But, the mostimportant change was allowing step loss to beconverted into retreats. This gave the Sovietscontrol over standing and paying in blood orretreating. This finally solved the problem oflocking ZOCs. Now units did not necessarilyhave to stay in a static defense just waiting to die.Late in development, interdiction was also addedto give some flavor of air operations. Victoryconditions were not defined until the end ofplaytesting. Berg frankly admits play balance isnot that important to him [1, 19]. More importantto him is a representation of the historicalobjectives. The first formulation required theGerman to exit three supplied mobile divisionsoff the east edge. The Soviets requirements wereto keep certain eastern rails under their control.These were eventually discarded in favor of thecurrent point system. The original victoryconditions are interesting, because they showwhat playtesting was producing. It was notunusual for the German to get to the eastern edge.

In S&T 57 (July/August 1976), PGG waspublished. PGG had gone from game proposal topublication in four issues of S&T. In S&T 58(September/October 1976), errata for the gamewas published. Then, in S&T 59 (November/December 1976), the first feedback on the gamewas published. The numbers were astounding.The game was rated at a whopping 7.23.Dunnigan thought the game would do well, buthe too was surprised at the overwhelmingresponse [3]. By the time S&T60 (January/

“The fact that the CRT isreported as fairly bloodless

is interesting, becauseDunnigan’s original concep-

tion of the the CRT had nopossibility of retreat.”


page 19

February 1977) came out, PGG had gone into theRating Chart at a 7.0 acceptability (popularityrating) with 74% played. At the time, there were13 games above PGG in acceptability and nonehigher in percentage played. In Moves 33(June/July 1977), 434 readers rated PGG in thePlayback Review at a 7.60 overall rating. It alsowas rated well above average in most othercategories, including ease of play, play balance,game length suitability, complexity suitability,realism, percentage who would still buy andpercentage who received their money’s worth.

About two years after publication, the RatingChart in S&T68 (May/June 1978) showed PGGhad climbed in acceptability to 7.2, though theplayed percentage had dropped to 59%. Climbingin the ratings chart is rather unusual. At this time,nine games were rated higher in acceptability andtwo were higher in percentage played. Of theoriginal 13 that were rated higher in acceptabilityin issue 60, all but three had sunk below PGG.After another year, the Rating Chart in S&T74(May/June 1979) showed another increase inacceptability of PGG up to 7.3. Percentageplayed had dropped slightly to 53%. Also, theprice had apparently gone up by a dollar to $10.There were now only four games rated higher(TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD, CROSS OFIRON, WACHT AM RHEIN, WAR OF THERING). Three games had been played morewidely. Two of these were related games:COBRAand KHARKOV.

PGG had many children, though none had quitethe same success. PGG spin offs started

appearing in 1977 with DRIVE ON STALIN -GRAD. Also, 1977 saw a derivative systemappear in COBRA (S&T 65). In 1978,KHARKOV (S&T 68) was published. ARMYGROUPSOUTH QUAD was published in 1979.In 1980, the last SPI spin-off was published withLENINGRAD. But in the same year, anotherPGG descendent on the same campaign waspublished by 3Wunder the title ASSAULT ONLENINGRAD (Wargamer 14). Finally, yet a thirdgame using PGG derived mechanics on the samecampaign was published as ARMY GROUPNORTH by SSG in 1982. Many other gamesborrowed from PGG and thus maybe should beconsidered cousins. One of its more famouscousins is OPERATION TYPOON (SPI, 1978).

After SPI’s passing, PGG was republished by AHin 1984. TSR republished DRIVE ONSTALINGRAD (1984) and COBRA(1985).Lastly, Decision Games published LENINGRADagain in 1994.

G. Final Comments

To many, PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN is oneof the all time great wargames. The reasons for itsappeal include mechanized combat and a fairlyinteresting Russian front topic. But its appealwent well beyond that. It skillfully combinedsuch elements as overruns, the ability to tradelosses for retreats, untried units, an asymmetricaldouble-impulse turn, divisional integration,Soviet leaders and even locking ZOCs to producean exciting, fun and playable system that was notoverly complex. Even a reasonable amount of

“fog of war” is included in this clean system.Untried units introduce uncertainty, and Sovietleaders add command control limitations.

Amazingly, the game was produced in only eightmonths from original conception. There are manynits to pick in the area of simulation. But none arefatal to the system or to the fun. Even at thispoint, game strategy and balance are notnecessarily answered questions. In thisreviewer’s opinion, the answer to Ralph Vicker’squery posed in F&M 12 is obvious.

PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN is definitely aclassic.

H. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank John Setear andSkip Franklin for their helpful comments.

I. References

[1] Richard H. Berg. Private email. 28 Februaryand 1 March 1997.

[2] Greg Costikyan. Developer Notes forCONQUISTADOR.http://www.crossover.com/~costik/conqnotz.html

[3] James F. Dunnigan. Private email. 1 March1997.

[4] Jon Freeman. The Complete Book ofWargames. Simon and Schuster, NY, 1980.


page 20

[5] David M. Glantz and Jonathan M. House.When Titans Clashed: How the Red ArmyStopped Hitler. University Press of Kansas,Lawrence, KS, 1995.

[6] Bill Dunne, Mike Gunson and David Parish.PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN: A DissentingApproach. Moves 33 (June/July 1977), pp. 8-10.

[7] James F. Goff. Pro-Nazi Bias in East FrontWargame Titles. Wargamer vol. 2, number 4(January/February 1988), pp. 17-19.

[8] Mark Green. A Second Stalingrad: A SovietVictory in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN.General 24/1 (1987), pp. 42-44.[9] Heinz Guderian. Panzer Leader. Da CapoPress, NY, 1996.

[10] Brad Hessel. Designer Notes for DRIVE ONSTALINGRAD. SPI, 1977.

[11] Markus Kaessbohrer. CONSIM-L email. 28June 1996.

[12] Victor Madej and Shelby Stanton. TheSmolensk Campaign: 11 July -5 August 1941.S&T 57 (July/August 1976), pp. 4-19.

[13] Moves issues 25, 33. SPI.

[14] Brett Murrell. The Quagmire Defense:Playing the Reds in PANZERGRUPPE GUDER-IAN. General 22/4 (1986), pp. 42-44. (Also see“Letters to the Editor” in General 23/1, p. 43 forcorrected diagram.)

[15] Richard Natkiel. Atlas of 20th CenturyWarfare. Gallery Books, NY, 1982.

[16] Albert Seaton. The Russo-German War1941-45. Presidio Press, Novato, CA, 1993.

[17] Redmond A. Simonsen. PANZERGRUPPEGUDERIAN: Assaulting the Mystery. Moves 29(October/November 1976), pp. 4-9.

[18] Tom Slizewski. Wargame Collector’s Guide,2nd ed. Panzer Press, Arvada, CO, 1993.

[19] Staff of Strategy & Tactics. WargameDesign: The History, Production, and Use ofConflict Simulation Games (Strategy & TacticsStaff Study number 2). SPI, NY, 1977.

[20] Strategy & Tactics issues 53-55, 58-60, 68,74. SPI.

[21] Rick Swan. World War 2 Anthology Chapter3: The Eastern Front Operational Games. F&M63 (December 1989/January 1990), pp. 14-24,55.

[22] Ralph Vickers. PANZERGRUPPE GUDER-IAN: Is it a Classic? F&M 12 (July/August1978), pp. 16-24, 50-51.

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON PGG (cont.)

“I can remember when Panzergruppe Guderianfirst hit store and the thrill I felt when my cousinand I went to pick up our copies. The excite-ment in the air as we unwrapped the game andpunched the counters was almost palpable. Thegame had been touted as having somerevolutionary rules such as untried unit strengthsfor the Soviets and a unit integrity bonus forGerman Panzer and Panzergrenadier Divisions.Back then the rules seemed to be long andsomewhat complex (only eight pages back then).I still remember the enjoyment of that firstplaythrough even though I have no idea whichof us won the game. I just remember liking thegame and the system.”

- Larry Caskey

“A great 1st or 2nd game! I have over the last 15years introduced many newcomers to wargam-ing by playing PGG. This game is without adoubt one of my personal favorites, and one ofthe few non-Napoleonic era games I play.”

- Dr. S. Borkowski, M.D, Oslo, Norway

“Those untried Soviets changed the way Iplayed ALL wargames. YAHOO!”

- Michael Balog


page 21

German Player: Skip FranklinSoviet Player: Lloyd Hudgens

Soviet Turn One: THE RETREAT FROM MINSK

The German planes bomb the rail line just southof Vyazma and a communications breakdown atStavka keep the 16th and 19th Armies fromactivating. This shortage in badly needed troopsis going to hurt. The retreating 13th, 20th, andnewly arrived 22nd Army stop on theDnepr/Dvina River line. The front line is solidexcept for a hole near Velizh that 13th and 22ndcouldn’t close. 24th Army rails to Smolensk andthe Reserves march west towards Gzhatsk. Theground commanders are now well placed with allbut five divisions in supply on the entire gamemap. Short of a perfect turn, however, consider-ing that hole in the front line and the ten divisionsglued to the ground west of Smolensk.

German Turn OneHoth enters the Fray. 39th Panzer Corps entersthe map near Vitebsk. In an effort to attack theSoviets before they recover from their retreat;thus denying them of defensive terrain, FieldMarshal von Bock orders the crossing of theDvina River and surrounding of Vitebsk. 12thPanzer and 14th Motorized force the Dvinawithout much effort (0-10 Soviet armor unit),20th Panzer and 20th Motorized expel infantryout of the trees south of Vitebsk while 7th Panzer

takes the western half of Vitebsk. Follow-upmovement finishes the isolation of Vitebsk. Asolid German first game turn.

GAME TURN ONE RESULTS

A 0-10 Soviet tank unit lost. No German losses.

Soviet Turn Two: DEFENSEIN DEPTH

The Smolensk defensive belt deploys and Vitebskis left to the invaders. The northern shoulder isheld by 22nd Army, and Smolensk is defendedwith 16th and 19th Armies, while the 13th and24th deploy further forward. 20th Army holds thesouthern flank. Rokassovski is building upreserves using provisional reinforcementdivisions and is now up to 10 divisions instrength. These formations now march forwardtowards Gzhatsk.

German Turn Two57th Panzer Corps enters the area of operations.6th Corps moves up to assist in the attack onVitebsk, while 57th Panzer Corps slices towardsVelizh. Vitebsk holds out with losses, and most ofthe Wehrmacht is engaged and no major breaks inthe Soviet line. Hoth demands more action overthe next few days or the army is in danger ofbecoming bogged down by the Red infantry.

GAME TURN TWO RESULTS

One Soviet tank and three infantry divisions lost.One German motorized infantry step lost.

Soviet Turn Three: THE RETREAT

A strategic re-deployment puts the front line fromthe lake north of Velizh, south to the Dnepr, west

a few miles then south to the Sozh river where itenters the area. A second line is behind the Sozhriver near Mstislavl. 21st Army is at Roslavl, 30thArmy between Vyazma and Smolensk andRokassovski still marching in from the rear.

German Turn ThreeGuderian throws his troops into battle. 6th Corpsfails to clear Vitebsk with an overrun as hardfighting keeps the Germans out of the city for thisturn (engaged). Since the Soviets evacuated theDnepr river line, 3rd Panzergruppe could notengage the enemy line. 46th and 47th PanzerCorps are able to engage two infantry divisions.Soviet units in the Vitebsk/Dvina River area areeliminated. Mogilev and Orsha both fall.

GAME TURN THREE RESULTS

Two Soviet tank and three infantry divisions lost.No German losses. The Soviet player has kept theGermans from penetrating their lines and theGermans haven’t been able to bring the Soviets tobattle.

Soviet Turn Four: THE RETREAT CONTINUES

More retreating, as Smolensk fills with suppliesand stragglers. Another reorganization of thefront line now originates from the lake, runningsouth through the trees, along the Kasplya Riverand swamps, through the open ground where theunits are double-stacked then along the SozhRiver. The line is fairly strong now in the south,but up north in the open ground, there exists ashortage of units. The 30th Army is strong east ofSmolensk with Rokassovski not far behind. 28thArmy is now marching onto the map.

Panzergruppe GuderianBattle Reportby Skip Franklin


page 22

Gerisamenko has two tank divisions in reserve atRoslavl.

German Turn FourAssault is the key word. The Dnepr River defensehas a hole since the south end (hex 0831) is notbeing defended. While a unit positioned there isunable to retreat, the 24th Panzer Corps will beable to attack the river defensive position withoutthe defender being doubled. Attacks are conduct-ed all along the line but only the attack in theKasplya marshes scores a success. The newly-created hole in the Kasplya marshes is nowexploited by three motorized divisions and DasReich. Vitebsk falls during the breakthrough.

GAME TURN FOUR RESULTS

Five Soviet infantry Divisions eliminated. OneGerman PzG regiment step loss. The Germansstill can’t bring the Soviets to battle. Thisprovides the Soviet player with a strong pool ofinfantry divisions to draw upon in maintaining adefensive posture.

Soviet Turn Five: COUNTERATTACK!The German 18th Panzer has penetrated theRussian defense line. Although the even-oddscounterattack is rebuffed, a regiment of theGerman 18th Motorized Infantry Division isdestroyed after repulsing the other regiment.Smolensk is holding firm against all the Germanscan bring to bear.

German Turn FiveRevenge! 10th Panzer catches the Soviet 16thArmy in the open, overrunning it. A pocket west

of Smolensk containing some 7 Soviet Rifle and1 Tank Division has now been formed. All thesedivisions are crushed in continued overruns andassaults.

GAME TURN FIVE RESULTS

The Soviets lose eight Infantry, one tank and the16th Army HQ. The German 18th MotorizedDivision is reduced to a single step, leaving nomore than garrison duties for this formation. DasReich suffers a single step loss during an overrun.

Soviet Turn Six: RECOVERY

As only Gerisamenko’s headquarters is holdingSmolensk, it’s very fortunate indeed thatKhomenko’s 30th army is located just to the eastwith six rifle divisions. Rail movement brings inanother three divisions to Smolensk.Furthermore, six divisions are transferred fromthe river defensive area south to bolster theSmolensk area. Things aren’t looking good forthe Russians. Smolensk could fall in a turn or twoleaving only Roslavl and Yel’nya for a Germanwin. Too bad the German 18th Motorized wasn’tkilled outright.

German Turn SixThe infantry continues its forward advance, butthe Soviet retreat is causing problems for theWehrmacht. The German infantry are simplyunable to keep pace with their key area penetra-tions due to their lack of mobility. If the Sovietshad stood their ground longer, the units couldhave made their presence felt by assaulting theRussian line. But alas, it is nowhere to be foundin the vicinity of the advancing German infantry.

Low-odds attacks on the Sozh river nonethelessis good enough to release the panzers fightingthere, as they destroy two Soviet divisions buttake a step loss in return. Two Soviet infantrydivisions are also eliminated in Smolensk, at thecost of only one step of German infantry.

GAME TURN SIX RESULTS

Thus far, the Germans have lost 1 step of infantry,three steps of mechanized and four steps ofmotorized infantry - three from the 18thMotorized no less. The Soviets have lost no lessthan 26 infantry and five armor divisions,including Lukin of the 15th Army. The pocketwest of Smolensk really hurt the Soviets. Havingnow reached the halfway point of this operation,it’s building up to a German victory with sixGame Turns still remaining to take Smolensk andthen breakthrough to capture Roslavl or Yel’nya.Only time will tell....

Soviet Turn Seven: BATTLE IN THE BALANCE

In light of the tightening grip being put onSmolensk, it’s time to start establishing the nextdefense line. Unfortunately, the Soviets may needto engage the Germans just to acheive A1 results;thus releasing Soviet units trapped in thedeteriorating defensive positions presently held.

German Turn SevenSmolensk is a bust as the attack is repulsed, evenallowing for some Soviet infantry to advance outof the city towards the German troops. Theseunits will certainly die quickly at the gates ofSmolensk, but they have been positioned there fora purpose; to greatly hamper the German timeline!


page 23

GAME TURN SEVEN RESULTS

The Soviets only suffer the loss of an infantry andmechanized division. The Germans lose aninfantry step.

Soviet Turn Eight: RECYCLE

The Germans have been careful in positioningtheir divisions where they can not be surrounded.Soviet infantry are being recycled this turn andreinforcements are being rushed to the Smolenskarea to head off the oncoming panzers.

German Turn EightA very determined German drive yields gloriousresults. A determined assault south of Smolenskand an infantry attack in the north represent theturning point. Further attacks are also fruitful. Ahole is blown in the Soviet line west of Roslavl,allowing the near isolation of two armies aroundKrichev. The Germans are now threateningRoslavl, as well as the open road east to Yuknov,while th elimination of all Soviet forces aroundSmolensk appears only a matter of time!

GAME TURN EIGHT RESULTS

Although the Germans lose two steps of mecha-nized infantry during overruns, the results arefavorable. A Soviet Leader (Gerisamenko), anarmor division, and six infantry divisions aredestroyed during the first movement phase alone!Four additional Soviet divisions are destroyedduring combat and an additional infantry andmechanized infantry are eliminated during over-runs following these attacks. Better than antici-pated results for the Germans no doubt. Panicshould rein supreme throughout the Soviet ranks.

Soviet Turn Nine: RECOVERY

A partial restoration of the front line. There is stilla hole south of Roslavl, however, but fortunatelythe rivers should keep the Germans fromadvancing quickly. One lone attack on a Germaninfantry division is disastrous and opens up a holein the line directly south of Smolensk as threeSoviet units are forced to retreat west.

German Turn NineThe Slaughter Begins. The Krichev Pocket isbeing prepped for its finish as Roslavl is takenwith little resistence. The northern shoulder isbeing placed in a compromising position as well.Smolensk is surrounded by a panzer division inthe south and three infantry divisions in the north.Attacks on Smolensk gain little to speak of at thistime, however. Panzers have now pushed over theDesna River south of Yel’nya. Other mechanizedtroops are flanking the Soviets east of Velizh aswell.

GAME TURN NINE RESULTS

The German have destroyed twelve Sovietinfantry divisions and Rokassovski is no more.There have been some German losses due to theheavy fighting, but full reports have not come into the communications center.

Soviet Turn Ten: STILL HOLDING OUT

The Soviets realize the Germans haven’t wonquite yet. Taking the optional SWreinforcementsmay have had an impact if exercised two turnsago, but would only make things worse now. It isunlikely that the Soviets can hold out muchlonger. The women and children of Moscow must

dig deep now to set those tank traps. Good thingthe Germans are out of supply due to ourpartisans.

German Turn TenHeadquarters says push forward. The KrichevPocket shrinks to half it previous size and is nowonly several kilometers wide. The battle forSmolensk has achieved some success. The rest ofthe front is either stuck in mud, harassed bypartisans, or being interdicted by Russian planes.The only loss this turn is a Soviet infantrydivision in Smolensk.

GAME TURN TEN RESULTS

The Soviets call out their air interdiction marker,putting a momentary halt on the German drive.This timely delay, along with some much neededluck could work in the Soviets favor. The game isin a tight balance at this time with only two turnsremaining.

Soviet Turn Eleven: A STRONGSHOWING

The supply line is re-established to Smolensk andthe defensive front is mended on the southernflank.The Germans lose heavily in attacks aroundSmolensk. The northern front is also sewn up.

German Turn ElevenSetup for the kill. A minor hole is blown in thenorth and the noose around Krichev Pocketcontinues to tighten. Smolensk holds out eventhough the northern hex is taken. Three divisionsbar the way in the south. The last turn will bringback full strength to the Wehrmacht.


page 24

GAME TURN ELEVEN RESULTS

Three Soviet infantry divisions are gone as theGermans regain some momentum. The game nowhangs in the balance as we enter the final GameTurn. Smolensk must be taken at all costs!

Soviet Turn Twelve: STAND AT ALL COSTS!Preparing for the final assault. Every unit tries topin down the Germans. Smolensk is reinforced.“C’mon Germans!” (Please don’t look to hard atYel’nya.)

German Turn TwelveLast Gasp Effort for the Germans. Initially, theKrichev Pocket is reduced to two points ofresistence via overruns. The northern portion ofthe line gains a hole to exploit, but Smolenskcontinues to hold. 7th Panzer blasts through a unitin an attempt to surround Smolensk but can’tadvance (engaged). The Krichev Pocket is noweliminated except for a provisional unit. Thehighlight of the last turn is when Das Reichassaults across a river line into trees against anunknown unit which results in a 1-2 odds attack,achieving only an “Engage” result.

Despite the route to Yel’nya being uncontested,the Soviets still win. Even an attempt to jumpacross the Dnepr to the north side also fails. Theforce in Smolensk is too large to be overrun at1-3 odds. One more Game Turn would haveallowed panzers to break through to Vyazma oreven take Smolensk.

GAME TURN TWELVE AND THE GAME

As usually happens in PANZERGRUPPEGUDERIAN among equally-matched opponents,it more often than not comes down to the finalPlayer Turn. In the dozen games seen here theGermans plow through Soviet infantry like alarge truck through football fans, but the Sovietshave a preponderance of men and the interdictionmarker which can put the Germans out of supplyfor three turns. This game is balanced so well thatmost games are decided in the last three gameturns. The German player must be ready toabsorb losses in panzer units in tight situationsand the Soviets must just be ready to lose lots ofmen. Considering that half of the German tankswere in this part of the Eastern Front, it is nowonder the Soviets had such a hard time. WhenHitler sent the panzers south to help out in theKiev Pocket the prize of Moscow was lost. WithMoscow and its transportation hub gone, the warmay have well been over. After a winter ofsurvival the German could have attacked out ofMoscow to take the Crimea, Leningrad,Stalingrad and the oil fields. The Germans hadfour enemies on the Eastern Front: Time, Mud,The Sons of the Soviet Union and Hitler.

KEY LESSONS LEARNED

Soviets: Retreating in front of superior forces willlessen the blow, but you have to turn aroundsometime and fight.

Germans: Don’t advance in the face of strongreserves without flank support. The German 18thMotorized was victimized by this oversight.

A lot can happen on the battlefield in three days.Ten divisions were lost by the Soviets throughone turn of maneuver. Attacks are easily wonwhen the enemy is surrounded and out of supply.Try this threat against an opponent sometime, “Iplan on taking that city (or whatever) BYNEVER ASSAULTING IT...i.e. the Russian willconceed the objective.” In fact, you can take mostgeographical locations solely through propermaneuvering. Simply cut off your enemysupplies and in more cases than not, yourobjectives will simply fall in your hands - at leastuntil it comes down to that “Do or Die” objective.If the Soviets are keen enough to pull out of sucha situation - fine. Then you can easily mop uppockets so long as you pay heed to yourtimetable.

The Soviet player must take on the rule ofaggressive defender and be willing to carry outwell-placed attacks into the teeth of panzers. Atleast two divisions must be destroyed or a firmgrip held on Roslavl and Yel’nya. The Germanscan normally take Smolensk and still only behalfway through the game to take Roslavl or

“The Soviet Player must takeon the role of aggressive

defender and be willing tocarry out well-placedattacks into the teeth

of the panzers.”


page 25

Yel’nya. The trick is to get advancing Germanunits surrounded and out of supply. The Sovietsmust husband their forces carefully for the lasthalf of the game. To stand and fight early willonly chew up your valuable units in the face ofthe fresh panzers. Poor management during theswirling battles and not realizing when to giveground will result in pockets and the SovietPlayer’s undoing.

Game Turn Nine is the final turn in which theSoviets can place their interdiction marker. Itcan’t be used on Game Turn Twelve. The Sovietplayer screwed up in this game by not placing themarker one turn earlier.

PLAYER’S NOTES

In defense of the Soviet Player, Lloyd hasspanked Skip in TAHGC’s GETTYSBURG (2ndEd.) and most other games with linear tactics(stand 100 yards apart and blaze away withmuskets). Skip needs tanks to support his morale.

For a marginal win, not counting friendly losses,the German player must take Vitebsk, Orsha,Mogilev, Smolensk and either Roslavl or Yel’nya.The five cities will give the attackers 55 VictoryPoints. The Soviets could take two cities backtemporarily or destroy one German division andstill lose. According to what I’ve read and heard,the Germans should be able to win the majority ofthe time. However, a resourceful or sneaky Sovietplayer can pull off a win. The best plans know for

the Soviets is the Quagmire Defense, aspublished in The General magazine.

Interesting side note. Normally the Sovietprovisional reinforcements don’t show up at theright places for the Soviets. The first two turnsbrought divisions to Rokassovski and the thirdturn came in with Gerisamenko. Turn Four, Fiveand Six brought a division to point 6 for the riverdefense. Turn Seven and Eight brought them topoint 5 near Roslavl just where they were needed.Turn Ten was point 1 where the German wereattempting to flank the Soviets. Right on time!Turn Eleven is the first bad turn with the pointbeing number 3. This unit will not enter battle inthis game. Turn Twelve brings infantry in behindthe German at the Krichev Pocket. Never hassuch good rolling been seen for the provisionalunits.

The only rule change I would like to see is adisengagement rule as in COBRAfor at least theleader units. You spend half your movement toexit an enemy zone of control (EZOC) andcannot enter another during the phase. I don’t likehow leaders get trapped in an EZOC and usuallyend up dead. Seldom do they get a chance to usethe optional evacuation rule.


page 26

Over the years, I've played a bunch of PGG andhave found it to be highly variable and wellbalanced, with either side able to developwinning strategies. I've seen every possibleoutcome, from a Soviet Decisive with themholding Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev to a GermanDecisive with no Soviets left on the map and theGermans sitting on the eastern edge of the board.It's been my experience that two experienced andreasonably paced players can complete a 12-turngame of PGG in about four to five hours. Ofcourse, I've been in games where, due to themanner of play, it has taken twice that long.

My preference in most wargames is to move playalong, trading perfect moves for a bit ofspontaneity and uncertainty and more closelysimulating the fog of war. I don't especially likeplaying with opponents who agonize over theperfect move of each piece, the total optimizationof each position or the perfect attack. This is oneof the reasons I prefer limited intelligence games,of which PGG was a prototype. It is with this inmind that I now describe what, for me, was mymost memorable and enjoyable game ofPanzergruppe Guderian - a tournament in whichthe participants all played with chess clocks.

The way the tournament was organized, each pairof opponents had a chess clock and following theusual bid for victory points and the right to beGerman, each side was given a specific amountof clock time. As I recall, it was 3 hours for theGerman and 2.5 hours for the Soviet. The chessclocks were set for those amounts with theunderstanding that either side running over theirallotted time would forfeit victory to theopponent. So, to have any chance of winning,each player had to complete the twelve turnswithout exceeding their clock time. The clocktime included all movement and overrun combat,but the clock was stopped for each player'scombat phase.

With twelve turns in the game, the Germanplayer had an average of 15 minutes per turn andthe Soviet had 12.5 minutes per turn. So, eachside was forced to budget their time and prioritizetheir movement. It was not possible to sit andponder endlessly. Both sides were in the game atall times as even while the opponent was moving,each player had to be considering his alternativesand preparing to take his turn. The result was avery tense and highly charged game. I recall that,early in the game, both of us planned to spendmore time as, for the Germans, their earlieroffensive requires opening holes in the Sovietline by shredding their defense. During themiddle game, both players were assessing theirposition and checking their elapsed time againstthe amount remaining to determine how to bestallot the remaining moves. By the end of thegame, both players were feverishly moving in theleast amount of time with only the most critical

activities allowed. Gone were the beautiful linesof perfect stacks every other hex. Instead, the endof the game centered around getting the lastvictory hex without running out the clock.

At the end, both players were moving and passingfrantically and the last couple of turns were just acouple of minutes long. But, both of us made itwith scant seconds to spare. I truly forget whowon the game, but I vividly remember that bothof us considered it the most exciting game ofPanzergruppe Guderian that we had ever played.

I have been playing this game off and on since itfirst appeared in S&TIssue No. 57; even aftertwenty years it still remains one of my all timefavorites. I have played it solitaire, competitively,and have used it with great success in teachingnewcomers to our hobby.

I enjoy playing the game as it was designed, but Ialso have developed a few variant rules which Ifeel better balances the game and makes it lessgimmicky. I believe that the German player has aslight advantage in the game, as even SPI lateradmitted when they suggested that a Germanmarginal victory be considered a draw. I havenever particularly liked the impact of the Soviet

BONUS SECTION“My Best PanzergruppeGuderian Game”by John Leggat

BONUS SECTION“My Variant Rules forPanzergruppe Guderian”

by Ronald J. Wright


page 27

"air interdiction" rule, because it often leads tothe ludicrous, ahistorical placement of a string ofGerman units “guarding” the supply road to areaE. The fact that some Soviet units have nodefense strength certainly hightens the tension ofthe game, but it can ruin the best laid plans of theSoviet player when a key hex is discovered tocontain nothing more valueless red cardboard. To“fix” these perceived problems I offer thefollowing variant rules, which have been tested.All of the rules should be used together.

5.2 Soviet First Turn Special Rules: Do not rollfor the 16th and 19th Armies. Instead, the Sovietplayer may move the units of one of them - hischoice. The other army stays in place and theunits comprising it must satisfy stackingrestrictions.

10.4 Evacuating Soviet Leaders: Use this rule.

12.3 No-strength Units: All Soviet units have aDefense Strength. All “0-0-6” rifle divisions areconsidered to have a value of “0-1-6.” All “0-10”armor divisions are considered to have a value of“0-1-10.”

13.4 Soviet Interdiction: Omit this rule. TheSoviet interdiction marker is never placed on themap.

14.2 Soviet Southwestern Front Reinforcements:The Soviet player receives four rifle divisions onturn two. The Soviet player must enter them, andthe German player receives four points. TheSoviet player receives only these four units from

the Southerwestern Front for the entire game.

15.2 Levels of Victory: This rule is altered asfollows:

50-79German victory points = Draw80-124German victory points = German margin-al victory125+ German victory points = German strategicvictory

Increase these levels by one at the end of thegame if the German player achieves a victorylevel on on before turn six; e.g., if the Germanplayer achieved 50 points by turn six, he would

gain a marginal victory rather than a draw at theend of the game.[3.4] CLARIFICATION: The Soviet Mechanizedunits are considered to be Armored Units forset-up and reinforcement purposes. There aremore Soviet Armored units in the countermixthan are needed for play. This was donedeliberately to give wider fluctuation to Sovietarmored capabilities in the game.

[6.59] CLARIFICATION: Supply for all unitsinvolved in Overrun attacks is determined at theinstant of overrun.

[15.11] CORRECTION: In the last paragraph ofthis case, the reference should read 14.23 (not13.23).

[15.2] ADDITION: The actual outcome of theGerman campaign was a German MarginalVictory. The Play of the game reflects this tosome extent (i.e., there is a bias in favor of aGerman Marginal Victory). If the players so wishthey may consider a German Marginal Victory a"historical" victory, but a German "player" maywin only if he achieves a Strategic Victory orbetter. In such a case, a German Marginal Victorywould be considered a draw.

[16.1] CLARIFICATION: The Reinforcementschedule in the rules is right, not the table on themap. i.e., the Soviet player does not receive Turn12 reinforcements.

[16.2] CORRECTION: In Game-Turn Two, theGerman Player receives the 26th InfantryDivision, not the 16th.

[16.2] ADDITION: On Game-Turn Seven,Entrance Area E, the German player receives, inaddition to those units listed, the 268th InfantryDivision.

[6.7] TERRAIN EFFECTS CHART; CORREC-TION: Under Road Hex, the referral to Case11.14 should read 11.13.

Panzergruppe GuderianGame Errata, including AHversion rule change


page 28

Avalon Hill Version Change

6.37 (addition to AH version): German combatunits moving through a Railroad hex may cut thatrail line. Mark cut rail lines by placing a Rail CutMarker in that hex. Soviet units may not use RailMovement into or through a Rail Cut Marker.Rail Cut Markers are removed by Soviet combatunits entering the Rail Cut hex while moving nor-mally during the Movement Phase. RailMovement may resume over repaired rail linesduring the Turn following their repair. The num-ber of rail cuts permitted is restricted by the num-ber of markers provided with the game (6). TheGerman Player may, however, remove Rail CutMarkers previously placed by moving a Germancombat unit over the cut, and thus make themarker available for new cuts.

Game Counters - Soviet

Soviet Organization in Panzergruppe Guderianshould be considered as loosely historical. Sincethey are setup unknown at the beginning of thegame, this is not a serious consideration. Theywere presumably somewhat abstracted for designeffect rather than strict historical simulation.

Infantr y Divisions (78 Divisions)

0-0-6 8 0-1-6 11-1-6 3 1-2-6 11-3-6 5 1-4-6 11-5-6 1 2-1-6 22-2-6 3 2-3-6 42-4-6 5 2-5-6 32-6-6 1 3-3-6 33-4-6 6 3-5-6 33-7-6 1 3-8-6 14-3-6 1 4-4-6 24-5-6 5 4-6-6 14-7-6 1 5-4-6 15-5-6 3 5-8-6 36-5-6 1 6-6-6 16-7-6 1 6-8-6 17-6-6 1 7-7-6 18-8-6 2 9-8-6 1

Mechanized Infantry Divisions (10 Divisions)

1-10 1 2-10 14-10 3 5-10 16-10 1 8-10 3

Tank Divisions (10 Divisions)

0-10 3 3-10 34-10 1 5-10 27-10 1

Headquarters (15 - In orderof appearance)

24th Army Rakutin (2) 1016th Army Lukin (3) 10

19th Army Koniev (5) 1013th Army Remezov (4) 1020th Army Kurochkin (4) 10Reserve Army Rokassovski (5) 1022nd Army Yershakov (3) 1030th Army Khomenko (3) 1021st Army Gerisamenko (2) 1028th Army Kashalov (2) 1029th Army Maslennikov (3) 1031st Army Dolmatov (2) 1049th Army Zakharkin (3) 1032nd Army Vishnevsky (2) 1033rd Army Onuprienko (2) 10

Air Interdiction Counter (1)

Soviet Order of Battle

All Soviet Order of Battle information is locatedin the Game Rules.

Game Counters - GermanUnit Organizations

Panzer Division (9 Divisions)2-10/1-10 Panzer Grenadier Regiment (x2)4-10/2-10 Panzer Regiment (x1)

Infantry Division (18 Divisions)9-7/4-7 Infantry Division (x1)

In addition, each infantry division has a 2-7/1-7counter available for further breakdown due tocombat losses (4-steps total).

Panzergruppe GuderianOrder of Battle andOrganizationby Danny Holte


page 29

Panzer Grenadier Division (5 divisions) 3-10/2-10 Motorized Infantry Regiment (x2)

Das Reich SS Motorized (1 division)3-10/2-10 Motorized Infantry Regiment (x3)

IndependentLehr 3-10/2-10 Panzer Grenadier Regiment1st 4-5/2-5 Cavalry DivisionGross Deutschland 4-10/2-10 Panzer Grenadier Regiment

Air Interdiction Marker (x3)

Disruption Marker (x3)

Game Turn Marker (x1)

Order of Battle

ARMY GROUPCENTER - von Bock

GAME TURN ONE (Note: In the game, the12th Pzr Division is listed as part of the 39th PzrCorps. It should be attached to the 57th PanzerCorp.)

3rd Panzer Gruppe - Hoth39th Panzer Corp - Schmidt

7th Pz Div - von Funck6/7 Pz Gren, 7/7 Pz Gren, 25/7 Pz

20th Pz Div - Stumpff59/20 Pz Gren, 112/20 Pz Gren, 21/20 Pz

14th Pz Gren Div - Furst11/14 Mot Inf, 53/14 Mot Inf

20th Pz Gren Div - Zorn76/20 Mot Inf, 90/20 Mot Inf

57th Panzer Corp - Kuntzen12th Pz Div - Harpe

5/12 Pz Gren, 25/12 Pz Gren, 29/12 Pz

GAME TURN TWO3rd Panzer Gruppe - Hoth

Lehr Pzr RegtLehr Pz Gren

57th Panzer Corp - Kuntzen19th Pzr Div - Knobelsdorff

73/19 Pz Gren, 74/19 Pz Gren, 27/19 Pz18th Pzr Gren Div - Herrlein

30/18 Mot Inf, 51/18 Mot Inf

2nd Army - von Weichs6th Corps - Forster

6th Inf Div26th Inf Div (listed as 16th Inf Div in Game Rules)

GAME TURN THREE9th Army - Strauss

5th Corps - Ruoff5th Inf Div35th Inf Div

8th Corps - Heitz161st Inf Div

2nd Panzer Gruppe - Guderian47th Panzer Corp - Lemelsen

17th Pzr Div - Weber40/17 Pz Gren, 63/17 Pz Gren, 39/17 Pz

18th Pzr Div - Nehring52/18 Pz Gren, 101/18 Pz Gren, 18/18 Pz

29th Pzr Gren Div - von Stockhausen15/29 Mot Inf, 71/29 Mot Inf

46th Panzer Corp - Vietinghoff10th Pzr Div - Schaal

69/10 Pz Gren, 86/10 Pz Gren, 7/10 PzSS Das Reich Pzr Gren Div - Hausser

2/DR Mot Inf, 3/DR Mot Inf, 4/DR Mot Inf

Gros Dtshld Pzr Gren Regt24th Panzer Corp - von Schweppenburg

3rd Pzr Div - Model3/3 Pz Gren, 394/3 Pz Gren, 6/3 Pz

4th Pzr Div - von Langerman12/4 Pz Gren, 33/4 Pz Gren, 35/4 Pz

10th Pzr Gren - Loeper69/10 Mot Inf, 86/10 Mot Inf

1st Cav Div - Feldt

GAME TURN FIVE4th Army - von Kludge

9th Corp - Geyer137 Inf Div263 Inf Div

7th Corp - Fahrmbacher23rd Inf Div

GAME TURN SIX4th Army - von Kludge

9th Corp - Geyer292nd Inf Div

2nd Army - von Weichs12th Corp - Schroth

258th Inf Div

GAME TURN SEVEN4th Army - von Kludge


page 30

7th Corp - Fahrmbacher7th Inf Div15th Inf Div

2nd Army - von Weichs13th Corp - Felber

17th Inf Div3rd Panzer Gruppe - Hoth

20th Corp - Materna268th Inf Div

GAME TURN EIGHTARMY GROUPCENTER - von Bock

252nd Inf Div4th Army - von Kludge

7th Corp - Fahrmbacher78th Inf Div

GAME TURN NINE2nd Army - von Weichs

12th Corp - Schroth31st Inf Div34th Inf Div

Campaign #79• pg 10Game Analysis: Panzergruppe GuderianLarry Lippert, Gregory Mumm • Strategy

Campaign #82• pg 28Panzergruppe Guderian: a rebuttalCharles Starks • Analysis

Fir e & Movement #5• pg 43Der RusslandkriegFriedrich Helfferich • Review

Fir e & Movement #12• pg 16Panzergruppe Guderian: The Battle ofSmolensk, July 1941Ralph Vickers • Analysis

Fir e & Movement #63• pg 21World War 2 Anthology, Chapter 3: The EasternFront OperationalRick Swan • Review

General Vol. 21 #4• pg 5Is Smolensk Burning?Henry C. Robinette • Strategy

General Vol. 21 #4• pg 10Series ReplayAndrew Lockton • Replay - Nixon vs. Clunkey

General Vol. 22 #4• pg 42The Quagmire DefenseBrett Murrell • Strategy - Playing the Reds inPG Guderian

General Vol. 24 #1• pg 42A Second StalingradMark Green • Strategy - A Soviet Victory inPanzergruppe Guderian

General Vol. 24 #6• pg 29By the BookDavid S. Bieksza • Strategy - A Manual ofAdvanced Tactics for PGG

General Vol. 25 #3• pg 35Storming Smolensk Via the Postal RouteJim Lutz • Panzergruppe Guderian By Mail

Moves #25• pg 3Designer's Notes (Preview)

Moves #29• pg 4PanzerGruppe Guderian; Assaulting TheMystery (Operational Analysis)Redmond A. Simonsen • Strategy

Moves #33• pg 8PanzerGruppe Guderian; A Dissenting ApproachBill Dunne,Mike Gunson,David Parish •Strategy(Opposing view to strategy article in Moves#29)

Moves #50• pg 24On The Eastfront; Twenty-Nine Games in Print:A SurveySteve List • Review

S&T #57 • pg 4The Smolensk Campaign, 11 July - 5 August1941Victory Madej, Shelby Stanton AccompanyingHistorical article w/game issue

S&T #58 • (Insert)Errata and Addenda for Panzergruppe Guderian

Special Thanks to Danny Holte for providingthis Reference List. He will be selling aComprehensive Reference List for all consimgames published in these periodicals shortly.

Reference List forCampaign, Moves, F&M,S&T, and The General


page 31


page 32

SPI Revival, Issue No.1, version 1.0

Documents

Transcript of SPI Revival, Issue No.1, version 1.0