За любителите на "по-сериозните" настолни симулации - готова за сваляне (в дъното на поста) е пълната игра "Балканските войни" на Джозеф Миранда (безплатно, естествено) 
Доколкото ми е известно, това е единствената игра, която пряко разглежда този доста интересен период от българската военна история. Разбира се, тази и рядкост/уникалност не е единственото и качество - играта е доста забавна не само поради нейната тематика, но и заради сравнително интересната система като цяло.
Профил в BoardGameGeek
Инфо в Web-Grognards
AAR
Забележка: Ако просто обичате да "разцъквате" - моля незабавно напуснете темата, тъй като си губите времето тук (играта е настолна, все пак). Правилата и механиката на играта изискват известно време докато се усвоят до нужната степен при която да се елиминират възможните неясноти.
From "Strategy & Tactics" Magazine #164:
BALKAN WARS is an operational simulation of the two wars which were fought in the Balkans immediately prior to the First World War. There are two scenarios, one each for the First Balkan War and the Second Balkan War. In the first war, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece fight the decaying Ottoman Empire for control of the Balkans. In the second, Bulgaria fights its former allies for possession of the spoils from the just concluded contest. In both, the possibility of Great Power intervention and even a genuine World War casts its shadow over the situation...
Each side commands the forces of a coalition of belligerent countries, depending upon the scenario. The game is played in turns representing one week of real time. During a turn, a side may move its units, attack, and then attempt to rally its demoralized units. Combat is resolved on the Combat Results Table; this uses an odds ratio modified for troop performance, quality, terrain, and the like. Also important in each turn are Political Events; these bring into play the wide variety of diplomatic and strategic factors which had a decisive effect on the operations of the war. Each game turn equals one week. Each hex is approximately 15 kilometers across (about one day's march). Each regiment is about 1-4,000 men. Each brigade is about 2-8,000 men. Each division is about 5-10,000 men.
BALKAN WARS: GAME NOTES
by Joseph Miranda
One of the reasons the Great Powers expected a future general European war (i.e., World War One) to be over quickly was because the Balkan Wars had shown that maneuver and quick campaigns were still possible, despite increased weapons power. In Balkan Wars both sides' flanks are wide open, and a player can, by exploiting command, envelop an enemy force. What was overlooked in 1914 was the far greater size of the Great Powers' armies. The Balkans are approximately the width of the Western Front; try playing the game with four times as many units on each side (the approximate strength of the Western Front armies) and see what that does to mobility.
The basic idea behind the simulation was to show how World War One era combat was fought on the operational scale. This meant that the game had to include command control and logistics. Players are in the role of the supreme commander of each side, and have to maneuver their forces to win; the HQ units provide a seemingly small but definite edge to do this. There was more to operations than just throwing masses of riflemen at each other. There was the potential for mobility and decisive battle, if a commander understood his forces, and, in point of fact, several decisive battles were fought in 1912-13.
The units were rated for both combat and morale (cadre). This was the best way to show the widely divergent unit organizations. The Bulgarian brigades had eight battalions, almost as many as the Ottoman division's nine or ten. Assigning each unit a cadre factor allowed the game to show the difference between large but ineffective units, and small but well trained ones. I included the Austro-Hungarian Corps as a reference point to compare what major European armies were like, The 15th Mountain Corps was a fairly elite unit within the Austro-Hungarian army, and approximately equivalent to what the Germans could field.
Logistics are also critical. They heavily restrict operations. Remember, aside from the railroads, virtually all transport was ox or horse drawn. While troops could carry basic rations and rifle ammunition, the masses of artillery rounds needed to sustain offensive operations had to be hauled cross country. Getting your Mobile Supply units to the right point is a priority. Similarly with command. This was before the era of efficient radio communications. Messengers and telephone lines were about the limit. These problems were not overcome until 1917-18.
And now for a few words about zones of control. Units can move through them when under the control of a Headquarters. The problem is supporting units once they infiltrate. The relatively low command and supply radii make it difficult to support units which have broken through. This was due to the primitive means of communications and transport that still persisted into the early 20th century, particularly in relative backwaters like the Balkans. This would later prove to be a decisive element of the First World War, when offensives bogged down due to units outrunning their artillery and logistics support. So you can receive an "early warning signal" as to why World War One stalemated. The historical actors didn't get the message, and paid the price in 1914-1918. Still, there was a real opportunity for decisive action, and players can explore this. You have to use your forces properly, having your headquarters, artillery and logistics at the right point. It's really up to you.
The Balkan Wars are shown within the context of the greater diplomatic struggle going on elsewhere in Europe. This is why the Diplomatic Conflict Table is potentially decisive. The way the Matrix is constructed, the more diplomatic strength a player commits (and the less the enemy does), the greater the chance of gaining a result in his favor (i.e., a change in control markers), If both sides commit a moderate amount of strength, they have a reasonable chance of gaining an Armistice. The problem is that when both sides over-commit, World War One breaks out. So the whole thing can become the most delicate of balancing acts. Welcome to the" Cockpit of Europe"-as it was, is now, and perhaps evermore shall be...
From "MOVES" Magazine #81 (Analysis):
The system for Balkan Wars (S&T 164) is based on that of White Eagle Eastwards (S&T 156). The game system emphasizes mobility, "charges" to enhance combat, and headquarters leadership. This may seem peculiar at first. After all, World War One is generally thought of as being a war of position, not maneuver. Trench lines and attrition were the order of the day. This is a common misperception.
Most of the armies of this period (1900-1914) were trained for—and fully expected—to fight quick, mobile campaigns which would culminate in battles of annihilation. The lesson learned from the wars of the previous decades, the Franco-Prussian through the Boer, was that modern armies could cover a lot of terrain. With the support of railroads and telegraphs, it was now possible to both supply and control a nation's forces operating deep in enemy territory. The experiences of the "Great War" would bear this out—at least initially. The 1914 campaigns in the West and East were fairly mobile affairs. The Germans swept through Belgium and France, only being stopped at the Marne. In the East there were also great battles of maneuver, like Tannenberg. It wasn't until 1915 that the trench deadlock developed. Even then, mobility remained on some fronts, as in the far flung frontiers of the Ottoman Empire. Players in Balkan Wars have the opportunity for decisive action. It is a question of how they can best use their armies...
The game was fairly easy to design. Orders of battle were comprehensive. Quite fortunately, I could use the research I did for Russo-Turkish War (S&T 154) to build on. The Turks, especially, tried to upgrade their military system; but they still had problems conducting "modern" warfare. One contemporary military correspondent commented that the Turks were never quite able to make the transition from war as "art" to war as "science." The Turk's foes were no slouches either. The Serbs, especially, were good. They used their experiences in this war to fight the Austro-Hungarians to a standstill in 1914.
Each unit in the game has a cadre factor as well as a combat strength. This reflects the differences in training and leadership. It also gives the armies more "personality", as each general class of unit has a distinct identity. There is a real distinction here between small veteran units and large masses of ill-trained conscripts, other than combat factors. The cadre factor comes into play for several game functions. It serves as a die roll modifier during combat if used to declare a "charge." It is also used to rally the unit when Demoralized. This latter function is very important because the better a unit's cadre factor, the more likely it can be returned to full combat effectiveness.
Scenario 1, the 1912 Balkan War, initially presents a disparity of forces. While the Balkan League has a preponderance of quantitative factors, as well as morale, the Ottomans still have a few advantages—if they remember some key things. The most important is the victory conditions. Since the Ottomans are on the defensive, they get Victory points for holding their own cities. Constantinople is worth 10 points, while Adrianople, Salonika, Skopje, Scutari, and Tirana are worth 5 each. This means that if the Turks can successfully defend their capital, plus three other cities, they have a reasonable chance of winning. The Balkan League can always pick up 1 point per Ottoman town they control, but this will cause their armies to be dispersed into numerous minor garrisons, reducing their strength (although this is a good mission for the numerous Balkan League reserve units).
The Turks should fall back to two basic defensive positions—one in the east, the other in the west. The eastern position should be anchored on the fortresses of Adrianople and Kirk Kilisse. They must hold this line, because by so doing they will secure Constantinople. Loss of Constantinople will be a DISASTER. Aside from the loss of victory points, a Balkan League army operating around the Bosporus will block reinforcements from Anatolia.
In the west, the Ottomans must try to delay the League as much as possible. Salonika appears to be a good place to make a stand, but it can be quickly surrounded and turned into a pocket. An alternative strategy is to conduct a delaying action in Turkish Serbia, trying to hold the various fortresses and victory towns there and in Albania. The rougher terrain will do much to slow the enemy advance and enhance the Turks' defenses.
The Turks should not try for a general offensive. This is what doomed them in the original campaign. They marched forth to engage the Balkan League and were defeated in the open. Their defeat and rout swept them back, making defense difficult to impossible later on. What works best for the Turks is a solid defense line, backed up by reserves. Save counterattacks for restoring the line, or to cut off enemy units which have advanced too far.
The Balkan League, while appearing to have an edge in both quality and quantity of forces, cannot afford to underestimate what they are up against. The main problem is time. The first scenario is only seven turns long (although if players agree they can continue beyond that). If the Turks have conducted a fairly effective delaying action, the League will find its armies unable to get into position to attack the critical Victory objective hexes in time.
As for tactics, use the special Headquarters rule to infiltrate your units through the enemy line. The way the rule works, units which are within Command Range of a friendly HQ may move through enemy zones of control, at an extra movement point cost. This is useful for cutting off enemy supply and routes of retreat. While the "infiltration" rule might at first appear to be somewhat ahead of its time, being more evocative of 1918 than 1912-13, remember the scale of the game. Each hex is 15 kilometers across. This was too much terrain for the units of this period to cover, with their limited mobility and primitive
communications. A force could easily exploit such a gap in this era. The real problem was not so much outmaneuvering enemy forces, but having a command structure which could recognize that such a gap existed and then get the troops moved into position. This rule will only be useful in certain specialized circumstances, mainly when a player has gotten his headquarters into position facing a relatively weakly held portion of the enemy line.
The ''infiltration" rule, incidentally, will be one to watch as the system develops. One of the problems in this era was maintaining command and control of units. Once units advanced into enemy territory, command control links quickly broke down as units got beyond friendly telegraph lines. One of the major revolutions in the First World War was the improvement in command and control. This was partly through the use of technical means, such as wireless radio and liaison aircraft. But it was also through improved leadership. By 1918, the Germans and certain Allied armies were giving their lower level commanders more flexibility and initiative, allowing their units to exploit gaps in the enemy line and to keep on going—thus restoring mobility. The older, more rigid, command system was abandoned. In its place, lower level leaders were given mission objectives and then allowed to use their own initiative to fight their way through. Since they no longer had to go through the time consuming process of referring all matters back to their higher headquarters, units could now exploit opportunities as they arose.
In combat, always try to use the charge modifier. The Alternative CRT, presented later in this article, makes this tactic more expensive. This CRT reflects the massive attrition suffered by the infantry armies of the period. The more you put into the attack, the greater your losses will be. The game system rewards the player who takes the offensive—but sometimes at a horrendous cost. The real problem isn't so much losing units as having your armies reduced to a mass of demoralized brigades and divisions. Most combat results are in terms of demoralization. It can be difficult to eliminate an enemy unit, unless you are able to hit it several times in succession. Pursuit is important, as a result. Once an enemy starts to break, you have to keep after him to finish him off. This also leads to some interesting tradeoffs. Once a considerable portion of your army has become demoralized, do you continue to fight, or fall back to rally? The Demoralization rule makes reserves critical, because you will need forces which can exploit an enemy collapse, or relieve a demoralized line. Consequently, it pays not to put everything "up front."
The game requires players to think about how they manage their logistics, their supply capabilities, and their headquarters. All three of these are important for the offensive. Obviously, out of supply units get a negative column shift in the attack. But you also have to look at getting your HQs to the critical point in the front, because they are useful for allowing units to infiltrate through enemy ZOCs, as mentioned. Players can attempt to pull off a "Tannenberg" by exploiting this rule. HQs also are also good for assisting unit rally and adding their Shock value to friendly charges.
The problem with the supply and headquarters units is that there are never enough of them. But then, it was logistics and command control breakdowns which pretty much brought things to a halt in this era anyway. The point to grasp is that World War One era armies were not just masses of infantrymen, blundering to their annihilation through artillery barrages. They are capable of some great maneuvers—if you know how to handle them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Пълната игра:
1. Правила (всички корекции са маркирани в жълто).
2. Алтернативни (допълнителни) правила (всички корекции са маркирани в жълто).
3. Карта (34 х 22 инча, може да се принтира на 8 Letter Size (8.5 X 11 инча) листа.
4. Каунтъри Лице (8.5 х 11 инча).
5. Каунтъри Гръб (8.5 х 11 инча).
6. Strategy & Tactics #164 (съдържа увода към играта плюс правилата).
7. MOVES Magazine #81 (съдържа анализ на играта, алтернативни/допълнителни правила и два нови сценария).
8. Balkan Wars Resolution Tables (не особено елегантен опит за частична автоматизация с цел ускоряване на играта и намаляване на грешките в различните формули, калкулации, таблици и т.н. Данните се въвеждат където/когато е необходимо, а заровете, формулите и резултатите се калкулират с натискане на клавиша F9).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Поздрав,
Рамбо
Доколкото ми е известно, това е единствената игра, която пряко разглежда този доста интересен период от българската военна история. Разбира се, тази и рядкост/уникалност не е единственото и качество - играта е доста забавна не само поради нейната тематика, но и заради сравнително интересната система като цяло.
Профил в BoardGameGeek
Инфо в Web-Grognards
AAR
Забележка: Ако просто обичате да "разцъквате" - моля незабавно напуснете темата, тъй като си губите времето тук (играта е настолна, все пак). Правилата и механиката на играта изискват известно време докато се усвоят до нужната степен при която да се елиминират възможните неясноти.
From "Strategy & Tactics" Magazine #164:
BALKAN WARS is an operational simulation of the two wars which were fought in the Balkans immediately prior to the First World War. There are two scenarios, one each for the First Balkan War and the Second Balkan War. In the first war, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece fight the decaying Ottoman Empire for control of the Balkans. In the second, Bulgaria fights its former allies for possession of the spoils from the just concluded contest. In both, the possibility of Great Power intervention and even a genuine World War casts its shadow over the situation...
Each side commands the forces of a coalition of belligerent countries, depending upon the scenario. The game is played in turns representing one week of real time. During a turn, a side may move its units, attack, and then attempt to rally its demoralized units. Combat is resolved on the Combat Results Table; this uses an odds ratio modified for troop performance, quality, terrain, and the like. Also important in each turn are Political Events; these bring into play the wide variety of diplomatic and strategic factors which had a decisive effect on the operations of the war. Each game turn equals one week. Each hex is approximately 15 kilometers across (about one day's march). Each regiment is about 1-4,000 men. Each brigade is about 2-8,000 men. Each division is about 5-10,000 men.
BALKAN WARS: GAME NOTES
by Joseph Miranda
One of the reasons the Great Powers expected a future general European war (i.e., World War One) to be over quickly was because the Balkan Wars had shown that maneuver and quick campaigns were still possible, despite increased weapons power. In Balkan Wars both sides' flanks are wide open, and a player can, by exploiting command, envelop an enemy force. What was overlooked in 1914 was the far greater size of the Great Powers' armies. The Balkans are approximately the width of the Western Front; try playing the game with four times as many units on each side (the approximate strength of the Western Front armies) and see what that does to mobility.
The basic idea behind the simulation was to show how World War One era combat was fought on the operational scale. This meant that the game had to include command control and logistics. Players are in the role of the supreme commander of each side, and have to maneuver their forces to win; the HQ units provide a seemingly small but definite edge to do this. There was more to operations than just throwing masses of riflemen at each other. There was the potential for mobility and decisive battle, if a commander understood his forces, and, in point of fact, several decisive battles were fought in 1912-13.
The units were rated for both combat and morale (cadre). This was the best way to show the widely divergent unit organizations. The Bulgarian brigades had eight battalions, almost as many as the Ottoman division's nine or ten. Assigning each unit a cadre factor allowed the game to show the difference between large but ineffective units, and small but well trained ones. I included the Austro-Hungarian Corps as a reference point to compare what major European armies were like, The 15th Mountain Corps was a fairly elite unit within the Austro-Hungarian army, and approximately equivalent to what the Germans could field.
Logistics are also critical. They heavily restrict operations. Remember, aside from the railroads, virtually all transport was ox or horse drawn. While troops could carry basic rations and rifle ammunition, the masses of artillery rounds needed to sustain offensive operations had to be hauled cross country. Getting your Mobile Supply units to the right point is a priority. Similarly with command. This was before the era of efficient radio communications. Messengers and telephone lines were about the limit. These problems were not overcome until 1917-18.
And now for a few words about zones of control. Units can move through them when under the control of a Headquarters. The problem is supporting units once they infiltrate. The relatively low command and supply radii make it difficult to support units which have broken through. This was due to the primitive means of communications and transport that still persisted into the early 20th century, particularly in relative backwaters like the Balkans. This would later prove to be a decisive element of the First World War, when offensives bogged down due to units outrunning their artillery and logistics support. So you can receive an "early warning signal" as to why World War One stalemated. The historical actors didn't get the message, and paid the price in 1914-1918. Still, there was a real opportunity for decisive action, and players can explore this. You have to use your forces properly, having your headquarters, artillery and logistics at the right point. It's really up to you.
The Balkan Wars are shown within the context of the greater diplomatic struggle going on elsewhere in Europe. This is why the Diplomatic Conflict Table is potentially decisive. The way the Matrix is constructed, the more diplomatic strength a player commits (and the less the enemy does), the greater the chance of gaining a result in his favor (i.e., a change in control markers), If both sides commit a moderate amount of strength, they have a reasonable chance of gaining an Armistice. The problem is that when both sides over-commit, World War One breaks out. So the whole thing can become the most delicate of balancing acts. Welcome to the" Cockpit of Europe"-as it was, is now, and perhaps evermore shall be...
From "MOVES" Magazine #81 (Analysis):
The system for Balkan Wars (S&T 164) is based on that of White Eagle Eastwards (S&T 156). The game system emphasizes mobility, "charges" to enhance combat, and headquarters leadership. This may seem peculiar at first. After all, World War One is generally thought of as being a war of position, not maneuver. Trench lines and attrition were the order of the day. This is a common misperception.
Most of the armies of this period (1900-1914) were trained for—and fully expected—to fight quick, mobile campaigns which would culminate in battles of annihilation. The lesson learned from the wars of the previous decades, the Franco-Prussian through the Boer, was that modern armies could cover a lot of terrain. With the support of railroads and telegraphs, it was now possible to both supply and control a nation's forces operating deep in enemy territory. The experiences of the "Great War" would bear this out—at least initially. The 1914 campaigns in the West and East were fairly mobile affairs. The Germans swept through Belgium and France, only being stopped at the Marne. In the East there were also great battles of maneuver, like Tannenberg. It wasn't until 1915 that the trench deadlock developed. Even then, mobility remained on some fronts, as in the far flung frontiers of the Ottoman Empire. Players in Balkan Wars have the opportunity for decisive action. It is a question of how they can best use their armies...
The game was fairly easy to design. Orders of battle were comprehensive. Quite fortunately, I could use the research I did for Russo-Turkish War (S&T 154) to build on. The Turks, especially, tried to upgrade their military system; but they still had problems conducting "modern" warfare. One contemporary military correspondent commented that the Turks were never quite able to make the transition from war as "art" to war as "science." The Turk's foes were no slouches either. The Serbs, especially, were good. They used their experiences in this war to fight the Austro-Hungarians to a standstill in 1914.
Each unit in the game has a cadre factor as well as a combat strength. This reflects the differences in training and leadership. It also gives the armies more "personality", as each general class of unit has a distinct identity. There is a real distinction here between small veteran units and large masses of ill-trained conscripts, other than combat factors. The cadre factor comes into play for several game functions. It serves as a die roll modifier during combat if used to declare a "charge." It is also used to rally the unit when Demoralized. This latter function is very important because the better a unit's cadre factor, the more likely it can be returned to full combat effectiveness.
Scenario 1, the 1912 Balkan War, initially presents a disparity of forces. While the Balkan League has a preponderance of quantitative factors, as well as morale, the Ottomans still have a few advantages—if they remember some key things. The most important is the victory conditions. Since the Ottomans are on the defensive, they get Victory points for holding their own cities. Constantinople is worth 10 points, while Adrianople, Salonika, Skopje, Scutari, and Tirana are worth 5 each. This means that if the Turks can successfully defend their capital, plus three other cities, they have a reasonable chance of winning. The Balkan League can always pick up 1 point per Ottoman town they control, but this will cause their armies to be dispersed into numerous minor garrisons, reducing their strength (although this is a good mission for the numerous Balkan League reserve units).
The Turks should fall back to two basic defensive positions—one in the east, the other in the west. The eastern position should be anchored on the fortresses of Adrianople and Kirk Kilisse. They must hold this line, because by so doing they will secure Constantinople. Loss of Constantinople will be a DISASTER. Aside from the loss of victory points, a Balkan League army operating around the Bosporus will block reinforcements from Anatolia.
In the west, the Ottomans must try to delay the League as much as possible. Salonika appears to be a good place to make a stand, but it can be quickly surrounded and turned into a pocket. An alternative strategy is to conduct a delaying action in Turkish Serbia, trying to hold the various fortresses and victory towns there and in Albania. The rougher terrain will do much to slow the enemy advance and enhance the Turks' defenses.
The Turks should not try for a general offensive. This is what doomed them in the original campaign. They marched forth to engage the Balkan League and were defeated in the open. Their defeat and rout swept them back, making defense difficult to impossible later on. What works best for the Turks is a solid defense line, backed up by reserves. Save counterattacks for restoring the line, or to cut off enemy units which have advanced too far.
The Balkan League, while appearing to have an edge in both quality and quantity of forces, cannot afford to underestimate what they are up against. The main problem is time. The first scenario is only seven turns long (although if players agree they can continue beyond that). If the Turks have conducted a fairly effective delaying action, the League will find its armies unable to get into position to attack the critical Victory objective hexes in time.
As for tactics, use the special Headquarters rule to infiltrate your units through the enemy line. The way the rule works, units which are within Command Range of a friendly HQ may move through enemy zones of control, at an extra movement point cost. This is useful for cutting off enemy supply and routes of retreat. While the "infiltration" rule might at first appear to be somewhat ahead of its time, being more evocative of 1918 than 1912-13, remember the scale of the game. Each hex is 15 kilometers across. This was too much terrain for the units of this period to cover, with their limited mobility and primitive
communications. A force could easily exploit such a gap in this era. The real problem was not so much outmaneuvering enemy forces, but having a command structure which could recognize that such a gap existed and then get the troops moved into position. This rule will only be useful in certain specialized circumstances, mainly when a player has gotten his headquarters into position facing a relatively weakly held portion of the enemy line.
The ''infiltration" rule, incidentally, will be one to watch as the system develops. One of the problems in this era was maintaining command and control of units. Once units advanced into enemy territory, command control links quickly broke down as units got beyond friendly telegraph lines. One of the major revolutions in the First World War was the improvement in command and control. This was partly through the use of technical means, such as wireless radio and liaison aircraft. But it was also through improved leadership. By 1918, the Germans and certain Allied armies were giving their lower level commanders more flexibility and initiative, allowing their units to exploit gaps in the enemy line and to keep on going—thus restoring mobility. The older, more rigid, command system was abandoned. In its place, lower level leaders were given mission objectives and then allowed to use their own initiative to fight their way through. Since they no longer had to go through the time consuming process of referring all matters back to their higher headquarters, units could now exploit opportunities as they arose.
In combat, always try to use the charge modifier. The Alternative CRT, presented later in this article, makes this tactic more expensive. This CRT reflects the massive attrition suffered by the infantry armies of the period. The more you put into the attack, the greater your losses will be. The game system rewards the player who takes the offensive—but sometimes at a horrendous cost. The real problem isn't so much losing units as having your armies reduced to a mass of demoralized brigades and divisions. Most combat results are in terms of demoralization. It can be difficult to eliminate an enemy unit, unless you are able to hit it several times in succession. Pursuit is important, as a result. Once an enemy starts to break, you have to keep after him to finish him off. This also leads to some interesting tradeoffs. Once a considerable portion of your army has become demoralized, do you continue to fight, or fall back to rally? The Demoralization rule makes reserves critical, because you will need forces which can exploit an enemy collapse, or relieve a demoralized line. Consequently, it pays not to put everything "up front."
The game requires players to think about how they manage their logistics, their supply capabilities, and their headquarters. All three of these are important for the offensive. Obviously, out of supply units get a negative column shift in the attack. But you also have to look at getting your HQs to the critical point in the front, because they are useful for allowing units to infiltrate through enemy ZOCs, as mentioned. Players can attempt to pull off a "Tannenberg" by exploiting this rule. HQs also are also good for assisting unit rally and adding their Shock value to friendly charges.
The problem with the supply and headquarters units is that there are never enough of them. But then, it was logistics and command control breakdowns which pretty much brought things to a halt in this era anyway. The point to grasp is that World War One era armies were not just masses of infantrymen, blundering to their annihilation through artillery barrages. They are capable of some great maneuvers—if you know how to handle them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Пълната игра:
1. Правила (всички корекции са маркирани в жълто).
2. Алтернативни (допълнителни) правила (всички корекции са маркирани в жълто).
3. Карта (34 х 22 инча, може да се принтира на 8 Letter Size (8.5 X 11 инча) листа.
4. Каунтъри Лице (8.5 х 11 инча).
5. Каунтъри Гръб (8.5 х 11 инча).
6. Strategy & Tactics #164 (съдържа увода към играта плюс правилата).
7. MOVES Magazine #81 (съдържа анализ на играта, алтернативни/допълнителни правила и два нови сценария).
8. Balkan Wars Resolution Tables (не особено елегантен опит за частична автоматизация с цел ускоряване на играта и намаляване на грешките в различните формули, калкулации, таблици и т.н. Данните се въвеждат където/когато е необходимо, а заровете, формулите и резултатите се калкулират с натискане на клавиша F9).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Поздрав,
Рамбо