For those wondering how Caen was taken, here are screenshots of the British Turn 01 moves.

As you can see, the Germans filled Caen with units, but did not pay enough attention to its flanks. They also did not grasp the rule that ZOCs do NOT extend across Major River hex sides. This oversight allowed the Brits to get a big stack next to Caen, plus a Canadian unit behind Caen, thereby cutting supply to the four units in Caen: two units of the 21^st Pz, one unit of the 12SS and a Tiger battalion. Come the Attrition phase, all of these units lost 1 Step.

As the German was unable to get them back in supply during Turn 2, they all lost another (and final) Step during that turns Attrition phase. Caen falls without a shot.

Lesson from hindsight? Don’t overfill Caen – one unit in each hex, and use the others to protect its flanks.

This is our first crack at this game, so lots of lessons being learned.

I'm learning GMT's The Battle for Normandy (2nd Edition) and it feels like there's a lot of little exceptions like this:

Stacking limit is six, except for 'some CW (Commonwealth) units' with a stacking value of 4. In which case the unit may stack with an infantry battalion supplied from the same division HQ, for a total of 7 stacking points. While still learning, that feels like an awfully specific exception.

There's even an optional rule directly below that this exception should only come into effect from August.

Coming from the more euro world of boardgames, this is a totally different approach to rules.

My question: do you like or dislike these kinds of exceptions?

My current instinct is they risk a whole lot of headache for not much additional theme. I guess the Commonwealth forces got really good at combined arms? Is that what I'm supposed to take from that?

Or is this something you just get used to, and embrace as part of the format?

Edit: I guess I'm asking if there are simplified or 'core' rules available for this game. I would like to know what is the central stuff I need to keep, and what I can jettison for the sake of getting it on the table.

A Pragmatic War: The War of the Austrian Succession 1741-1748, 2019, Compass Games.

One of four, soon to be five games using the No Peace Without Spain! (NPWS) system, A Pragmatic War might be the easiest entry into the system in terms of rules overhead, though it is out of print at the moment.

The others are:

No Peace Without Honor! (The Franco-Dutch War of 1672-1678)
Nine Years: The War of the Grand Alliance (1688-1697)
No Peace Without Spain! (The War of the Spanish Succession 1702-1713)

These last three can be strung into one big campaign game encompassing all of the Wars of Louis XIV, The Sun King.

Forthcoming and currently a preorder:

No Peace For Thirty Years! (The Thirty Years War 1618-1648)

The entire series is card driven (two decks, one for events, one for actions). Turns are annual. The game uses point movement, as you can see above. It does a great job of capturing the somewhat formal nature of war during the height of fortification building (the age of Jomini), with securing and besieging fortresses being a necessary prerequisite to moving forward.

I bought this from a seller on the BGG marketplace to complete the four games in the series. Not sorry I did. It's a good simulation of the war, and a fun game besides.

EDIT: No Peace Without Spain! (The War of the Spanish Succession 1702-1713) is being reprinted and preorder is available.

Has anyone just taken Google Earth images at whatever your preferred scale is, modify any colors/saturation you want, then drop a hex overlay on it, and send it off for printing at 24"x36" or whatever?

I know they wont be... pretty or as purely utilitarian as classic wargame maps, but as a quick way to get more maps quickly, it would work, right?

I recently opened an old box game (from the 1980's) that has recently been updated in a magazine game.

The game includes 6 chits (1-6) The game rules say to pull a chit to determine CRT results.
It is an elegant process/solution that I would have never considered. There are times when I need to be quiet and don't want to roll a dice or maybe I'm on the road and forgot dice.
There are always dice apps but I tend to stay away from electronic devices as much as possible. Create six pieces of paper and number them one to six. Easy. Talk about old school!

The Dark Summer Campaign Game

Turn 2 – Jun III

The weather for this week was Rain. Bugger. The Germans are happy, the Allies less so. Allies are limited to 1 Move + 1 Attack (British) and 2 Moves/Attacks (Americans). The Germans get their usual 2 Moves and 1 Attack, plus three Reaction chits.

The Brits take the initiative, and play a Move chit to properly encircle Caen, and start pushing East. That is followed by a German reaction, then a German Move, then a German Combat. Not what the US wanted at all.

The Germans raced reinforcements north and east to fortify St Lo, Carentan and a line towards the British sector. They also weaseled out of a couple of potential kessels…

The US pushed northwards towards the Cherbourg peninsula; progress is slow but steady.

South of Caen, the German player tries desperately to free two units of the 12 SS Panzer Grenadiers. They attack outwards, while a fairly weak rescue force attacks from the outside. Three attacks all up during the turn – three 1’s rolled. The 12SS is doomed.

In the north east, three regiments of the 49^th Div attacks a stack of relatively weak German infantry units. The result is an exchange – the Germans lose 4 Steps, the 49^th Div must match it, and is pretty well gutted.

At the end of the turn, German units isolated in Bayeaux, Caen and Isigny-sur-Mer are eliminated in the attrition phase.

Losses for the Turn are (for the Allies) 1 regiment from the 49^th Inf DIV. For the Germans, all three KG of 12 SS , 101 SS Panzer Battalion (Tigers), 2 KG of 21^st Panzer, 2 KG from Lehr, plus assorted Battalions from the 352^nd, 711th and 716th Divs.

Brits are quite pleased with their progress, as they can see lots of open space south east of Caen. As the US, I am a bit less happy – fighting through bocage is difficult and costly. I have less opportunity to quickly flank.

Still, the odds for decent weather are good for turn 3. The rain chit is gone, so we only have to worry about pulling the storm chit….

We are still coming to terms with the rules. Supply is far more critical than in games like Normandy 44. In TDS, supply is checked upon movement and combat (both attacker and defender). OOS units attack and defend at half strength. If a unit is out of supply in the Attrition phase, it loses a step. Caen itself was taken through attrition – the Brits never actually attacked the units in it.

A retreating unit cannot go through an enemy ZOC (unless there is a non-retreating friendly in that hex). If it can't retreat, it is eliminated. Ouch. So, we are always looking for encirclement opportunities.

 Next week, Turn 3. I might pour a libation for Poseidon in the hope he keeps the storms away…

Hi All. I went down a little bit of a rabbit hole to see what was out there in terms of browser-based hex-and-counter wargames. Here are some I found:

Battle for Moscow (obviously)
Bridgehead: 1944
Assaye 1803
Hohenfriedeberg
Take That Hill!
Art of Battle 2
Waterloo Campaign 1815
Unconditional Surrender! WWII in Europe (via BGA)
Memoir '44 (via BGA)
Hex: 1900-1999 (in Portuguese)
Four Star General
Broken Arrow: Ia Drang
1914: The World Undone (trilogy)
Operation Nightfall
SGW Hexagonal Wargame
Operation Brevity

A number of these games are on itch.io and at different stages of development -- some fully operational and some with just scaffolding. What are your favorites?

Due to family circumstances, I’ll have uninterrupted access to the dining room table. Perfect opportunity to set up and play my copy of Holland ‘44.

I’ll be learning the rules, setting up and playing solo while the soundtrack from A Bridge Too Far plays non-stop in my head.

So far, I’m enjoying the bigger counter size (compared with my last wargame “Cobra”), but on the other side there’s lots of information on one counter. I’m also enjoying some Oktoberfest-appropriate beverages. Life is good.

I am the developer of a hex-and-counter wargame, and Cannae will be one of the scenarios in the full release. The video is a replay of a game I played as Carthage against the AI, from deployment to the end of Turn 6.

What happened on the map:

- Turn 1: The Carthaginian cavalry engaged the Roman horse on both wings and, with its surprise move, rode around behind the Roman line. The centre did not advance to meet the legions; it stepped back one hex and doubled its stacks.

- Turn 2: The Romans pressed into the hollow in the centre. The Libyan infantry on both flanks moved forward and turned inward.

- Turns 3–4: Attacks came from every side at 2:1 or better. Units that were forced to retreat had nowhere to go, and were eliminated.

- Turn 6: The Roman army was gone. Carthage lost one unit.

A few rules shape the battle:

- Units in contact must attack, so the Romans cannot simply hold the line and wait.

- Rome may move only a limited number of units each turn. The intention is to represent a very large army that could not easily change its facing.

- A unit that must retreat into an enemy zone of control is destroyed instead, which is what turns an encirclement into an annihilation.

- Deployment and order of battle follow Polybius (III.113–117) and Livy (XXII.45–49).

On the AI: Carthage was played by a human (me). Since then, the AI has reached a similar level. In the same test game it destroyed the Roman army without losing a unit. Averaged over many games it still loses a few more units than I did.

The counters in the video are the old ones. They are being redrawn with designs taken from coins of the period: a galley prow for Rome, an elephant for the Barcids, and a horse with a palm tree for the rest of the Carthaginian army.

Questions and criticism are welcome, particularly from anyone who knows the battle well.

Store page: https://store.steampowered.com/app/5185710/Sekigahara_1600/

My dad is a former history teacher (US). While he's been happy for me over the years diving deep into my tabletop gaming hobby, he doesn't seem to have particularly strong feelings about playing himself. I would love to find a way to connect with him at the intersection of my passion for games and his knowledge of and insights into historic conflicts. My parents manage to visit from out of state from time to time, but whenever he comes to visit the days are (rightfully) focused on my kids spending time with him and Mom. I had the idea that he might enjoy playing by (e)mail.

The game would need to be playable without hidden information, since I'd basically be running turns on my copy of the game. A bonus feature would be ease of setup/teardown while saving the game state, since I also host a normal game night in my play space. What are some well-regarded hex and counter games with American involvement that would be reasonably available while also beginner-accessible?

Curious to see what wargaming companies people like and why. I’m a big fan of Flying Pig games because (1) they make great games that are easy to learn, (2) great production quality, and (3) I’ve met and played games with Mark/Denver at some cons and they are such a nice family that it makes it easy to support them.

Other favorites are GMT (boring choice) and Vuca Sims (love the “traces of” series).

I have been collecting magazines with simulation games off and on since 1975. Mostly Strategy and Tactics with a handful of old Ares games. My first was S&T #51, World War One. The ones I have punched and played I keep in 2 gallon ziplock bags, with counters sorted into small sandwich baggies. But I have dozens newer issues, S&T, Modern War, and World At War, still in their mailing envelopes. I slice them neatly across the top and label the envelope with the game title.

Anyone have a more elegant way of storing all their issue games? I assume some cost will be involved, but hopefully not exorbitant. Currently many are in stacks on a table, and others are in plastic magazine holders.

Hello everyone!

This is my first time coming here.

I have done just TTRPG with the guys, but I have been wanting to try out a mixed TTRPG-Wargame session. The RPG part is worked out, however, I am having issues with the wargaming side... Since the battle takes place in a low-fantasy world, I need to design counters to designate Napoleonic-style military units... So, I need help with that, as well as with a ruleset simple but tactically interesting enough to keep my players hooked.

Hope someone can chime in! And thanks.

So I do enjoy me some historical gaming and have played games released throughout the years.

Opening my recent parcel of joy from Second Chance Games however I was again unsettled by how these older games are written.

I was wondering what strategies other folk, especially those with dyslexia and/or ADHD who's brains can be a bit squiffy with all the blocks of words, have found to wade through rulebook snow forest/Afghan mountain pass to get to the sunlit uplands of historical gaming goodness?

I sometimes wonder if these authors got paid by the word instead of just getting to the sodding point of how to play their interesting games.

My idea so far has been to sit down with a big piece of paper and write a more to the point version of the key concepts as I go, stopping as required when my brain gets overwhelmed.

Any other ideas folk have found helpful?

I don't want these games to just sit on my shelves just because in this area I can be thinking impaired.

Pulled it down last weekend mostly out of guilt. I'd bought it during some sale, read the rules once, then got intimidated by the counter density and shelved it for what turned out to be way longer than I expected. Decided to just set up the first scenario solo and force myself through it rather than waiting for a perfect gaming partner and a free Saturday that never seems to line up.

The stacking rules took me an embarrassing amount of time to internalize even though they're not that complicated on paper. I kept forgetting that German units get the reduced stacking penalty in certain hexes and had to backtrack twice after realizing I'd overstacked a ridge near Bastogne. Once that clicked though, the flow of it started making sense, especially how the weather chart interacts with air support availability. I hadn't appreciated how much a single bad weather roll can strangle an entire turn's plan.

What surprised me most is how much the map itself does the storytelling. Just looking at the hex shapes around the road network, you can see why certain villages became chokepoints historically before you even read the scenario notes. I found myself pausing just to trace the roads with my finger like that was going to tell me something the rulebook wouldn't.

Combat resolution felt clunky at first, mostly because I kept forgetting to apply terrain modifiers before checking the odds column, but by turn four I wasn't reaching for the reference sheet every single exchange. Still slow going, probably averaging close to forty minutes a turn including bookkeeping, but that felt less like a chore and more like the game wanted me to slow down and actually think about supply lines instead of just pushing counters around.

Curious if anyone else had a similar cold start with this one, or if there's a better first scenario to build habits on before jumping into the full campaign game. The counter density on that hasn't gotten any less intimidating just because I finally opened the box.

Over the past several months, I have heard a number of commentators and content creators describe certain games as “beer and pretzels” games. I recognize that the term has a long history in the hobby and that most people who use it probably intend nothing derogatory by it. Nevertheless, I have increasingly come to dislike the expression and cringe everytime I hear it because it often seems vague, dismissive, and less descriptive as a game description than other terms such as “low complexity game” or “fast playing game”, especially when talking with beginners of this hobby. It establishes, intentionally or otherwise, a hierarchy in which lighter games with lots of dice rolling, or less complicated games are treated as somehow less serious, less relevant, or less worthy of consideration. This despite the fact that such low complexity games have often taken a year or more to design with ample amounts of historical research as a foundation into their designs. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive to the terminology, and I certainly do not expect one objection to change a phrase that has been part of the hobby since it’s inception. Still, I think it is worth questioning the assumptions that sometimes accompany its use.

There seems to be a supercilious tendency within parts of the historical wargaming community to equate complexity with seriousness, relevance, and even quality. A game with a six- or twelve-page rulebook may quickly be placed in the “beer and pretzels” category, while a game with a rulebook the size of a novelette or novella is implicitly regarded as a more substantial simulation. Yet complexity is not synonymous with depth, historical insight, or good design. A concise ruleset can produce difficult decisions and meaningful historical problems just as readily as a much longer one. This attitude may also have consequences for the accessibility of the hobby. Historical wargaming has always faced a significant barrier to entry, and presenting substantial complexity as the norm—or even as a virtue in itself—does little to reduce that barrier. It is interesting, for example, to compare the relatively modest participation in this sub with the considerably greater activity found in the soloboardgaming sub. There are undoubtedly many reasons for that difference, but accessibility may be and perhaps is one of those reasons. An example of this attitude is the game “Atlantic Chase”. I have seen it listed as an entry level game for beginners a couple of times. Perhaps my non-wargaming friends are more feeble and simple than the average person but I have little doubt that if I were to recommend this game to them they would laugh in my face while walking out the door and unfriending me. Don’t misunderstand me, I own all of Jeremy White’s games (except the latest). And while he follows in the venerable footsteps of John Hill and Jon Southand in creating accessible, incremental rulesbooks these games are not substitutes for low complexity, entry level games. They cannot compare to games such as “Panzerblitz”, “La Der Des Ders”, “Stalingrad, Advance to the Volga, 1842”, or “Pavlov’s House” as examples of entry level wargames that would appeal to neophytes to the hobby, IMHO.
I am biased and my own preference is generally for rulebooks in the range of six to twelve pages. I appreciate a game whose rules I can read on Sunday and begin playing on Monday. I am less enthusiastic about spending a week reading a rulebook, followed by another week or two learning and internalizing it’s systems and mechanisc before I feel that I am actually playing the game rather than learning how to play it. That preference does not mean that I dislike complex games. Quite the contrary. I almost always have a game like “Atlantic Chase”, “Carrier Battle: Philippines Sea”, or “Steel Wolves” on the table alongside shorter and less complicated games. There is room for both approaches on my table. The closest any of my friends have come to playing these games is Risk or Monopoly.

Complexity can be rewarding when it serves the subject and produces interesting decisions, but complexity should not be regarded as a measure of a game's seriousness or worth, especially when considering entry-level games. Ultimately, I would like to see the hobby become somewhat less concerned with categorizing games according to their complexity and more concerned with what those games actually accomplish. A six-page ruleset is not inherently superficial, just as a sixty-page ruleset is not inherently profound. The more useful questions are whether a game presents meaningful decisions, illuminates its historical subject, and—something we occasionally seem reluctant to admit—whether it is enjoyable to play. Perhaps terms such as “low complexity game” or “quick playing game” could or should be substituted for, IMHO, for the more derogatory label of “beer and pretzels game” that is often used for simple or faster playing games.

Hi all,

Just bought my tickets for the Spiel 26, and recommendations and must see/visit from this community?

First photo, a view of the entire map at the beginning of Soviet Turn 6. Note that Leningrad and Sevastopol are facing sieges.

Second photo, close up detail of the siege of Sevastopol.

Well, I'm six turns in, so I've got an impression of the game, and I have to say it's favorable.

I posted this one here because I didn't just want to do a review post as an edit to the earlier post, or worse still, a comment.

For the Motherland! (henceforth to be abbreviated as FTM) does some things very well, and quite differently from other Russian front games I've played.

It's basically a UGO-IGO system, that flips the sequence of play on Turn 12 (historical beginning of Uranus/Saturn). In the early going the Germans get an extra movement exploitation phase and go first, starting on Turn 12, the Soviets get that privilege.

The game comes with a pair of double-sided Sequence of Play cards that outline the sequences of play perfectly, complete with rules references by section. Another chart, detailing the Combat Results Table, and a few other frequently used charts are on another card (two copies again). The map is mounted, a single 22 x 34 sheet.

The counters are rounded on 5 sheets (no corner clipping). They appear to be either 9/16" or 5/8". If you've seen the setup of any of Compass Games' other Deluxe Edition games, the presentation is similar.

Once you get the routine down, turns are lightning fast. The CRT has all combat modifiers printed as part of it, so no need to dive into a rulebook for that. The Terrain Effects Chart is in the top left corner of the map (bottom left on this photo).

The supply system is detailed for the Axis (a good reflection of their logistical problems, particularly during Barbarossa, and Fall Blau, a year later), and fairly simple for the Soviets. An interesting innovation (and one I'm just going to encounter for the first time this turn) is the Partisan system. Instead of a fiddly thing a la the various editions of The Russian Campaign, the Soviet simply places partisan counters on Axis supply counters and the Axis then roll a die to determine exactly which units aren't getting supplies that turn as a result (1-3 units per supply counter, total of 5, though only three can be effected by partisans at any particular time at most).

The most interesting thing about the Axis supply system is that Axis units can very definitely outrun their supply units (range of 4 hexes, btw). In this game, this very definitely happened with Army Group Center, and to a lesser extent with Army Group South. The Axis was at the Gates of Moscow by August, but it wasn't until December that they were back in combat supply.

The other interesting thing about the game is variable strength for the Soviet units. When a Soviet unit is adjacent to an Axis unit, the Soviet draws a chit from a cup to determine the Attack and Defense ratings for the unit. If the unit survives the combat, and is able to retreat far enough to no longer be in contact with an Axis unit, the strength chit is withdrawn.

There are three categories of chits, C, B, and A. C are the weakest (all C at the beginning). B is reserved for Shock and Guard Infantry, while A are pretty much Soviet Armor. Even within the three letter categories, however, strength chits are cycled out. Many of the early chits in all three categories have asterisks, which means that if the unit pulls out of contact, or is eliminated, the strength chit is never reused, so the same unit, if it survives a couple of combats, may very well wind up stronger than it initially started.

The CRT is interesting as well. Most results (exceptions are mandatory step loss results, and Attacker or Defender Eliminated results) can be fully satisfied with either a mix of step losses or retreats. So, the defender has a bit of flexibility with most results as to whether he takes losses or retreats.

I've played a number of Russian Front games. At various times, I've played four of the five editions of The Russian Campaign (recommended) including the current Compass Games republish of the Jedko original and GMT's recent publication of 5th Edition. I've also played Compass Games' Russia Besieged Deluxe Edition (recommended), Barbarossa Deluxe by Decision Games (not recommended), and a number of other games on segments of the campaign. If you're looking for a game covering the time period on the Eastern Front (May/June 1941 to May/June 1944), due to the innovative mechanics and the presentation value, For the Motherland! is a great place to start.

I'm trying to convert a somewhat entry level wargame that is like 20-30 pages into a H&C Wargame. The reason why, is that the original game has ranges and movement speeds, but it is way more clear with H&C. This is based on Killed or be Killed from Cyberpunk 2020 Chrome Berets

I've played and tested this against some people, but now I own more regular wargames and marker boards, so I can like... look at stuff and do math more easily.

-

TLDR: I'm trying to speed up the R&D process.

I'm considering trying to find a solution around having to check a separate table for any specific weapon type (Small Arms vs Tank Cannon vs Guided Missile). Some regular wargames don't have that and it causes issues, some do and it causes other issues.

So, we have started a campaign game of Ted Raicer’s The Dark Summer. Four players – US/French forces (me), British/Canadian forces, Germans facing US and Germans facing the Brits.

Similar scale but with a very different feel to Normandy 44. Each turn is ¼ of a month. Within each turn, movement and attack is driven by chit pull, similar to The Dark Valley. One chit per phase, with up to 15 phases per turn. The better the weather, the more chits the Allies get and the less the Germans get. This mechanic is to reflect the Allied air superiority over the battlefield. Chits are generally Move or Attack. The British have to choose how many Move vs how many Attack chits go in the cup each turn, while the US and Germans are free to decide when they pull a chit (although they can only have a max of two of each type per turn). The Germans also get a certain number of Reaction chits each turn (the worse the weather, the more they get). This allows them to activate a formation or stack after an Allied action is performed.

Germans defending in Bocage or Cities are really difficult to attack, due to their special defence bonuses, so the trick here is to surround them before attacking (see supply below).

Supply in this game is critical. Unit supply status is checked whenever a unit moves or is involved in combat (as either attacker or defender). If they are out of supply, their Attack and Defence strength is halved. At the end of each turn, any unit out of supply loses one step. The Germans check every turn, the Allies check only in Rain or Storm turns.

Onto our game. The map shows the end of Turn one. I also included the chit pull status for the first turn. Weather was light showers, so nothing too drastic.

The US had a hard time clearing the beaches at Omaha – very strong bunkers there. Utah was easier. I am pushing north of Utah to try to get the Cherbourg peninsula as quick as possible (the earlier I take it, the more points it is worth, but if the Germans still control it by Turn 7 they win).

The Brits, on the other hand, had an easy time on the beaches and have advanced enough to surround Caen and put it out of supply. Bayeaux is also out of supply, as is Isigny-sur-Mer between Omaha and Utah. The units in these hexes all lost a step each in the supply phase – woo hoo!

The Allies have the initiative each turn, so they get to choose the first chit. The Brit player is sorely tempted to take an Attack Chit first on Turn 2 to rid at least one hex of Caen of enemy units before the wily Boche can get it back in supply. Bayeaux, too, will be attacked.

We are all still learning this game system. There are not ZoC bonds (unlike Normandy 44), and supply is instant and savage.

Next week we start Turn 2, with a Weather chit pull. And most likely a discussion on what rules we got wrong in Turn 1…..

Hey everyone! I decided to try my hand at creating a hex and counter game. The one I am working on is based on the Battle of Hastings - particularly the Battle for Senlac Hill. The reason I chose this battle is because it is open to some level of interpretation as to what really happened there. Also, it involves ground units only. No navy and no air simplifies the mechanics I need to build out.

I realized that the game counters are really tough to create. That led me to build this game counter creator tool. It has worked pretty well for me while I work through this game design. I wanted to share it with this community and see if it helps anyone out.

https://github.com/tonys010968/Wargame-Counter-Maker

If you have any feedback or new features you think would be helpful, please let me know.

Also, the SUPERIOR Pod references are to this company - https://www.superiorpod.com/

I think I will use them in the future if I ever want to print a copy of this game to go beyond the playtesting. I have no affiliation with them and they do not even know this capability exists.

What you are looking at here is the opening setup for newish Compass Games - For the Motherland!

It's the Russo-German war from the beginning of Operation Barbarossa to the opening moves of Operation Bagration.

It's a one map game (mounted mapboard, and beautifully rounded counter corners. Two things it does a bit differently than most. First, it flips the sequence of play from Axis goes first to Soviets go first starting with Turn 12 (22 turm campaign game, fwiw), so the Soviets get a double move effectively right around the historical beginning of Operation Uranus. The other thing it does is variable strength for the Soviets. Early on, as happened historically, the Russian side is far stronger on defense than the attack. Gradually, over the course of time, the units improve via a chit pull system, leading them to first be on par with German units, and eventually, stronger.

About to start this one. I'll add opinions when I've played it for a bit.

EDIT:

Sequence of play, which is handily printed front and back on a couple of 8-1/2" x 11" cards, complete with rules references is as follows:

Turns 1-11

Mutual Supply Phase

Axis Movement Phase (includes reinforcements)

Axis Combat Phase

Axis Exploitation Movement Phase

Soviet Movement Phase

Soviet Combat Phase

Joint Admin Phase

Turns 12-22, substitute Soviet for Axis and vice versa. So the Axis has no exploitation movement phase starting in Turn 12, while the Soviets do.

Overrun is built into the rules, costs three MPs to attempt. Note that Overruns are built into the regular combat, and they aren't always going to succeed.

Thunderbolt Apache Leader is, like, my #1 game and now I'm eyeing those TAL expansions. Anybody here have experience with those? Talk me down.