Recently on the Wargames Developments WhatsApp group the subject of Strike Force One came up. This was first produced in 1975 by SPI as an introduction to (board) wargaming and they used to give it away free at conventions etc. Hilariously it is still in use today on professional (as in DoD etc) wargaming courses in the USA, where the students are introduced to the basic game and then modify it for Cyber, drones, chem etc. One of my WD colleagues was involved in some of the chat about modelling chemical weapons, and some of the others were a bit disparaging about how simple it was etc.
Anyway, I'd completely forgotten I own it, but of course it was given away free with Nicky Palmers 1977 book "Comprehensive Introduction to Board Wargaming", a book I read cover to cover at the time. Nicky Palmer also took part in the definitive two part series replay of 'Third Reich' in the AHGC General along with Marcus Watney, from which I learned a few more interesting strategies. I was fortunate enough to play a few games with Marcus in later years.
Anyway, I digress. I did play Strike Force One a few times in the 1970s and then forgot about it. After the chat on the group, I just had to give it another go.
It really is pretty minimal, ten counters, four turns but a surprisingly comprehensive set of rules as it has to explain in some detail concepts like CRTs, 'moving adjacent' (aka Zones of Control) etc. There is a page or so of advanced rules which include things like stacking and more advanced terrain effects.
The game is set in a hypothetical WW3 invasion of West Germany with four US companies facing six Soviet ones. The Russians have four turns to capture two of the three towns.
The initial setup is fixed. ZOCs are sticky and in the basic games woods are impassable - lets assume everyone is mechanised and these are dense forests. Units can only stack one per hex, movement is four hexes and every unit has the same combat value. The CRT is pretty brutal, a 2:1 only gives a 50% chance of success and most results are retreats. A single 'Defender Eliminated' appears at 3:1, so most eliminations will be by forcing retreats on units which cant - due to ZOC, stacking or blocking terrain.
The Russians swarm unit X at 3:1 and push it back. This exposes unit Y to encirclements next turn if it doesn't do something. Combat between adjacent units isn't mandatory btw, but ZOC stop all movement and retreat.
The US try a 1:1 counterattack and manage to roll AE! that isn't good. They push Z forward to protect Y southern flank (it is on an objective).
The defence collapses spectacularly in concentric attacks. One Russian pins A in the village at the top.
By turn 4 it is a complete wipeout.
OK, that was good to remind myself of the rules. I need to be much more canny with the US and make use of the blocking terrain to channel attacks so they are only at 2:1 or worse. Unfortunately the initial setup is fixed so X is always going to get attacked at 3:1.
On the next run the US did a bit better, and ended the game losing but with half their units and one village in hand.
Next game ended up much the same. I seem to recall the attacker having a much easier time of it when I used to play, but some of the people on BGG seem to think it is more balanced game, so I'm either a brilliant Russian or useless US player.
I thought I'd give it a go with the advanced rules. Woods cost 2MP but combat strength defending is doubled in them. Units can also stack two per hex. The US weathered the first attack, abandoned the centre and then occupied a lot of woods. The ZOCs block access to the villages and the defending units are doubled in the woods, and they all have open retreat routes. This is a much tougher position for the Sovs to attack.
The Russians focussed on the north and managed to drive the US out of the woods (at 2:1 with four units) and then the village.
I'm not quite sure how the US managed to both lose a unit and get another surrounded! I must have made another mistake.
With two villages in the bag, the Sovs just put ZOC on the last US units to keep them bottled up.
That was actually kind of fun and an interesting blast from the past. I think it is very funny that serious people are still playing this, but I can see how it is a simple framework you could add chrome to - rather like the Neil Thomas One Hour rules.
Ah, yes: I well remember Strike Force One. As an unserious person, I would play it again (along with the other SPI/AH titles from those days I still have or have re-acquired).
ReplyDeleteI'd completely forgotten about it until it came up in a discussion. I still think it is wildly unbalanced against the US, but perhaps I'm just reallbad at defending!
DeleteWhen I bought Nicky Palmer’s book, no game was included. Like you, I read that book cover to cover, many times over.
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting, possibly different editions of the book? It still graces my shelves, sitting alongside Phil Sabins "Lost Battles" and "Simulating War" .
DeleteAll three books still remain on my shelves.
DeleteMartin, out of interest, this is the 2nd of your posts that I have not picked up. I went into my blog reader thingy on the blogspot dashboard and discovered your blog is no long in my list! I re-added it and then checked the list and you are back as normal.
ReplyDeleteI am mentioning this against a background of some problems that we are seeing with blogger lately. I don’t know how widespread these little hiccups are!
Thanks for making the effort to add me back to your list!
DeleteI now seem to be inundated with posts which have obviously been sitting in a back log somewhere, so many apologies to people I follow as there is suddenly too much to comment on..
Hopefully things are returning to normal in blogger land.
I never gave Strike Force One a serious look back in its day, but we have more recent examples of micro-games that embody useful ideas, like Philip Sabin's Take That Hill (for principles of fire-&-manoeuvre). It must be time to go back and take a proper look at Strike Force.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly a very useful micro game to use as a basis for extension, and has the benefit of being a fairly asymmetrical scenario.
DeleteMy first thought was replacing it with figures, using a detailed set like Combined Arms! It seems there is an extended version with armour, support and air.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting if set in a 1970s period and the Soviets could have an advantage - BMP-1 v M-113.
Neil
It is certainly small enough to make an interesting figure game, although as the Russian units have the same combat value as the US, I'd say they were 'company equivalents'. My usual rule of thumb is one NATO company is the equivalent of half a Warpac battalion, you've actually got four NATO companies vs three Sov battalions.
DeleteExcellent stuff. I remember this from our library book version :)
ReplyDeleteThank you. A real blast from the past.
Delete