Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998

The
BOARDGAMER

Dedicated To
The Competitive Play Of
Avalon Hill / Victory Games
Board, Sports and Card Games
Featuring: Squad Leader, We The People, Britannia, Tokyo Express,
Panzer Leader, Avaloncon 1997 and AREA News & Ratings
 2 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998

Current Specific Game AREA Ratings

Up Front War At Sea Victory In The Pacific
129 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 79 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 114 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
1. John Emery 2037 FI-C7 1. Timothy Hitchings 1883 FI-D7 1. Alan Applebaum 2034 JLAG7
2. William Edwards III 1914 ILFC7 2. Philip Rennert 1800 DH-C6 2. Ray Freeman 1964 GICE7
3. Bruce Young 1886 FIAC7 3. Stephen Packwood 1706 FI-E7 3. Michael Kaye 1933 EE-C7
4. Richard Mello 1877 JI-E7 4. Ray Freeman 1694 EICD7 4. Steve Packwood 1920 HK-F7
5. Jeff Paull 1853 HLEB7 5. Glenn Petroski 1686 BC—6 5. David Targonski 1913 IK-E7
6. Donald Hawthorne 1807 JN-J7 6. Bruce Reiff 1679 BC-A6 6. Edward O’Conner 1903 EF-C7
7. Steven Huskey 1793 DG-B7 7. Jon Lockwood 1673 CF-D7 7. Tom Johnston 1865 GG-F7
8. Will Miner 1755 CF-A7 8. Vince Meconi 1651 EI-D7 8. Thomas Gregario 1813 GIDE7
9. Stephen Buchholz 1748 CDD-6 9. Robert Mull 1647 BD-A6 9. Daniel Henry 1802 KMDG7
10. Andrew Maly 1745 GHBD7 10. Ron Artigues 1638 ACD-7 10. Michael Ussery 1784 IJBF7
11. Craig Tenhoff 1733 NM-I7 11. Patrick Richardson 1634 CF-B7 11. Timothy Proksch 1764 GH-E7
12. James Murphy 1729 JK-I7 12. John Pack 1612 FIED7 12. John Pack 1757 DFAC7
13. William Anspach 1718 CE-B7 13. Scott Sirianna 1601 BD-A7 13. Kevin Kinsel 1753 BCE-7
14. Pat Mills 1713 CEC-7 14. Bryan Eshleman 1599 BD-A7 14. Chuck Kaplan 1724 DF-D7
15. Nicholas Cascone 1710 IJ-I7 15. Bruce Monnin 1597 ILJF7 15. Philip Rennert 1723 BE-C7
16. Bruce Schlickbernd 1710 HI-H7 16. Joseph Beard III 1588 BD-C7 16. Bruce Kernan 1704 CB-B6
17. James Doughan 1705 DE-A7 17. Frank Cunliffe 1584 BE-D6 17. Glenn Petroski 1703 NOEH7
18. Brian Devitt 1704 GI-G7 18. Andy Gardner 1563 AC-A7 18. Bill Thomson 1669 BDDA5
19. James Matt 1688 FFGB7 19. Michael Kaye 1548 ACAB7 19. Vince Meconi 1659 FH-E7
20. Frank Simon 1677 EC—7 20. Michael Peck 1548 AA-A7 20. Casey Adams 1647 CD-B7
21. Jeff Matthews 1672 RG-D7 21. Alan Applebaum 1547 BE-C7 21. Joel Klein 1643 CD-B7
22. Mark Dumas 1656 BE-A6 22. Gary Moody 1547 BD-A6 22. Michael Knautz 1611 HJ-F7
23. Maria Hawthorne 1649 DH-B7 23. George Young 1542 ABC-7 23. Robert Kircher 1609 BD-B7
24. Michael Rodgers 1643 ABA-6 24. Wayne Melnick 1538 ABC-7 24. Clifford Smith 1605 DF-D7
25. Richard Worden 1639 BC-B7 25. Thomas Walsh 1537 AAB-7 25. Robert Kondracki 1598 DE-D7
26. Bob Hranek 1621 BE-A7 26. Sharee Pack 1535 AAA-7 26. Jeff Miller 1596 AB-A7
27. David Blizzard 1604 ABC-7 27. Ron Dietz 1535 AA-A7 27. Alan Tomaszewski 1592 CE-C7
28. Kendell Whitesell 1603 CE-B7 28. David Rynkowski 1534 CF-D7 28. Karsten Engelmann 1591 BD-C7
29. Chris Geggus 1601 BD-A6 29. Robert Kircher 1534 AC-A7 29. Lance Ottman 1586 BCC-6
30. Ray Stakenas I 1589 HIBE7 30. Jim Cavallari 1534 AAA-7 30. Stephen Resman 1582 BCD-6
31. Gordon Rodgers 1585 BE-A7 31. Rusty Pywtorak 1533 AAA-7 31. Max Zavanelli 1573 BEAB7
32. Buddy Sinigaglio 1577 BE-A7 32. Larry York 1528 AC-A7 32. Louie Tokarz 1571 FFCC7
33. Thomas Weniger 1576 AAB-7 33. Robert Fiorio 1525 AC-A6 33. Andy Gardner 1565 BD-A7
34. Warren Smith, Jr. 1571 ABC-7 34. Michael Anchors 1523 AC-A7 34. Peter Lerch 1563 AC-A6
35. Robert Mull 1570 BD-A6 35. Ken Gole 1518 AB-B7 35. Paul Carlson 1557 ABB-6
36. Blair Bellamy 1570 AC-A6 36. Joseph Powell 1515 BE-B7 36. Kenneth Nied 1550 HKAF7
37. Winston Forrest 1568 AC-A7 37. Michael Knautz 1514 DG-C7 37. Michael Pustilnik 1543 AC-A7
38. John Gibbins 1568 ABB-7 38. Philip Van Wiltenberg 1514 BE-B7 38. Philip Van Wiltenberg 1541 CG-C7
39. David Bozzini 1566 FF-A7 39. John Welage 1513 BD-C6 39. Alan Mulroy 1541 BCBA7
40. Jeff Kimmel 1566 AA—6 40. Bruno Sinigaglio 1511 AB-A7 40. Steven Cooley 1541 AB-B7
41. Bruce Maxwell 1564 BE-A6 41. Weldon Lee 1539 AAA-7
42. John Kilbride 1560 BE-A7 1776 42. Jerry Cecchin 1533 BE-B6
43. Nick Vlahos 1553 DF-B7 16 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 43. Robert Beyma 1529 AA-A6
44. Gregory Courter 1547 GHGE7 44. Joseph Dragan 1525 DE-C7
45. Brian Rood 1547 BD-B7 1. Stephen Packwood 2050 EG-D7 45. John Sharp 1515 JNDF7
46. Thomas Drueding 1546 AB-A6 2. Michael Sincavage 1863 DE-C6 46. Mike Robinson 1515 AB—7
47. Ray Stakenas II 1545 EFAD7 3. Mark Miklos 1821 EF-D6 47. Bruno Wolff III 1510 BD-A7
48. Marc Guenette 1539 BCF-7 4. Rod Coffey 1685 BC-B7 48. Brian Petroski 1510 AA—5
49. Mark Meck 1533 AAA-7 5. James McAden 1598 ABC-7 49. John Bullis 1508 AB—7
50. Royston Taylor 1533 AAA-7 6. Scott Bowling 1521 AB-A7 50. James Falling 1504 AB-A7
51. James Stevens 1531 AC-A6 7. John Barrett 1508 AB-B7 51. Steve Mininger 1502 ABA-6
52. Stephan Magnifico 1530 BD-A7
53. James Rush 1528 BA—6 Dune Merchant Of Venus
54. Jeremy Billones 1527 GHBD7 21 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 3 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
55. Robert O’Connor 1519 BDF-7
56. Ken Scheer 1517 BD-A6 1. Roger Cox 1769 CF—7 1. Robert Hamel 1566 AB—7
57. Scott Pfeiffer 1514 ON-A5 2. Keith Blackwell 1712 CF—7
58. Greg Schmittgens 1510 DF-C7 3. Alan Camp 1691 CF—7 Air Baron
59. Scott Russell 1510 BCDE7 4. Charlie Corn 1542 AC—6 8 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
60. Kevin Piper 1507 BD-A6 5. Chris Ponder 1538 AC—5
61. Charles Hawkins 1506 AAB-5 6. James Garvy 1536 AB-A5 1. Stu Basker 1536 AC—6
62. George Young 1503 ABC-7 7. Mitch McMillian 1522 AC—7 2. Diana Hamel 1523 AB—7
63. Greg Jablonski 1501 AC-A7 8. Kenny Schultz 1522 AC—7 3. Matthew Hamel 1510 AB—7
 The Boardgamer
First of all, I’d like to welcome aboard
the new subscribers. I recently decided
to reach my short arms into my deep
pockets and send out a mailing to a few
hundred known gamers. As a result, we
have not only a few more subscribers
but also a few more contributors.
Therefore, this portion of the magazine
was much more difficult to write than
usual. I do not have to devote as much
space here as is normal to whining and
begging for articles (although I could
always use more). I believe I had a
greater choice in articles for this issue
than I’ve had in a while, and the next
issue is also shaping up quite nicely.
These two issues will have articles on a
nice variety of games, a trend I shall try
to keep up in the future.
Just as a sneak preview, here are some
of the games I expect to see articles on
in the next couple of issues of the
BOARDGAMER:
Panzerblitz
Russian Front
Wrasslin’
Assassin
1776
Title Bout
March Madness
Across Five Aprils
Victory In The Pacific
I currently have two series replays in the
pipeline for the next two issues, but I
could always use some help on this
front. Neither of the two series replays
are yet complete, so anything I receive
could see print fairly shortly.
On another topic, this is something of an
off season for gaming for those of us
who do not have a local gaming group.
However, there are some alternatives to
help keep sharp until the summer
convention season comes around
again.
First of all, for those who are online,
there are various AREA PBEM ladders.
Just offhand, I know of ladders for
History Of The World, War At Sea,
Victory In The Pacific, Gangsters,
Across Five Aprils and Breakout
Normandy. If you want details, drop me
a line and I’ll try to get you set up.
For you Victory In The Pacific fans,
there is the 3rd annual Midwest Open
coming up (March 6&7, 1998). Glenn
Volume 3, Issue 1
From The Editor
Petroski hosts this event which sports a
competitive field (26 entrants last year)
which is probably second in quality only
to the Avaloncon VITP tournament.
Glenn can be reached for details at:
Glenn Petroski
6829 23rd Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53143-1233
414-654-5044
(GELP@juno.com)
Of course, there are also many PBM
tournaments around. These go quite a
bit slower and require a longer time
commitment, but the slower play can
allow for more in depth analysis of each
move, and thus a better understanding
of the game. Glenn will be glad to direct
y o u t o war d s a n y k no wn PBM
competition in the game you prefer.
Also, the GM’s of a number of these
PBM ladders were listed back in the
April 1997 Volume 2, Issue 2 of the
BOARDGAMER.
Finally, there is the old fashioned PBM
methods for those of us without local
FTF opponents. I am currently involved
in a PBM Diplomacy game which is just
starting up, and for quality PBM
opponents for many games (especially
the two-player games), there is always
AHIKS.
Finally, to wrap this up. I feel I have to
state here how much I have enjoyed the
first two plus years of putting together
this magazine. I always wanted to read
the type of articles which are published
here, and now I can. Besides, I love
talking with the subscribers about the
hobby in general, whether by phone,
email, or by running into you at the halls
of Avaloncon. I’m not the most outgoing
person by nature, but this magazine has
let me talk with many of you and enrich
my personal hobby experience.
I was just talking with my wife the other
day about how I spent 8 months writing
my first article for the GENERAL, and
probably only finished it because she
kept hounding me to do so. Had she
only known the path she was sending
me down. Then again, she doesn’t
seem to mind as long as I keep up on
everything else around the house, so I
see no reason why I won’t still be doing
the BOARDGAMER for years to come.
January 1998 3
The BOARDGAMER
The BOARDGAMER is published by Bruce
Monnin. The BOARDGAMER is intended to
be a compilation of quality articles on the
strategy, tactics, and variants for a variety of
board, sports and card games.
Articles from contributors are considered for
publication at the discretion of the editor.
Rejected articles will be returned whenever
possible. Potential authors should be
advised that all outside submissions may not
have previously been submitted to other
publications unless permission has been
granted and The BOARDGAMER has been
notified. Articles may be reprinted
elsewhere, although the editor’s permission
is requested (and will usually be freely
given).
Unless otherwise mentioned, all game titles
mentioned are trademark names of The
Avalon Hill Game Company/Victory Games,
as is the GENERAL and Avaloncon.
EDITOR: Bruce A. Monnin
ADDRESS: 177 South Lincoln Street
Minster, OH 45865-1240
E-MAIL: MONNINB@BRIGHT.NET
PHONE: (419) 628-3332
Copyright 1998
Subscriptions
To The
BOARDGAMER
The BOARDGAMER is to be
published quarterly with mailings
near the beginnings of January,
April, July and October. Individual
issues are $3.50 each and a one
year (4 issue) subscription is $13.00
($12.00 for members of AHIKS).
Though issues are currently sent by
First Class mail, eventually all
domestic subscriptions will be sent
via bulk permit.
Canadian deliveries require an extra
$0.50/issue. European deliveries
are an extra $2.00/issue. For other
overseas and foreign deliveries,
contact the BOARDGAMER about
additional postage charges.
The BOARDGAMER
177 South Lincoln Street
Minster, OH 45865-1240
(419) 628-3332
 4 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998

Inside This Issue

Squad Leader 5
There’s Life In The Old Dog Yet by Eric Pass

Scenario Alpha 6
Learning Squad Leader By Playing by Alan Yngve with Lars Clausen

We The People 11
Some Basic Strategies by Jim Cavallari

Hadrian’s Wall 12
Optional Rules For Britannia by Charles Bahl

Avaloncon 1997 13
Late Reports From The National Championships by Avaloncon GM’s

PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express 19

Optional Rules and New Scenarios For Tokyo Express by Alan Arvold

Preserving The Red Berets 27

Panzer Leader Scenario #10 by Leslie Geraty w/John Laccone

A.R.E.A. News 28
Thoughts by Glenn E. L. Petroski

I Asked For It 29
Definitions For The Cynical Gamer’s Dictionary by Ray Freeman

Current Specific Game AREA Ratings

Age Of Renaissance Across Five Aprils Attack Sub
103 Active Players Dec. 5, 1997 52 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 4 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997

1. George Sauer 1603 AG-A7 1. Mark Miklos 1715 DF-D6 1. Marty Bryant 1566 AA—7
2. Michael Neal 1570 AE-A7 2. Mark Giddings 1710 CF-B6
3. Joe Gunderson 1564 AG-A7 3. Donald Stone 1667 BD-B7 We The People
4. Nicholas Anner 1562 AF-A7 4. David Metzger 1645 DF-C7 50 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
5. John Keating Jr. 1560 AG-A7 5. George Young 1616 BC-B7
6. Mike May 1556 AH-A7 6. Michael Sincavage 1598 BD-B6 1. Thomas Dreuding 1682 BE-A7
7. Randy Sands 1535 AC-A7 7. James Falling 1592 CE-C7 2. Brian Mountford 1639 BD-A7
8. Sean Finnerty 1535 AC-A7 8. Jerry Cecchin 1590 AB-A6 3. James Falling 1630 BE-A7
9. Marvin Birnbaum 1535 AC-A7 9. Chris Rice 1570 BD-B6 4. Nicholas Anner 1594 AC-A7
10. Mark Boone 1528 AE-A7 10. James Matt 1568 AB-A6 5. James Scott II 1575 JA—6
11. David Platnick 1528 AE-A7 11. Mark McCandless 1562 AC-A6 6. Chris Rice 1570 BD-A7
12. Joseph Jaskiewicz 1528 AE-A7 12. Scott Marcotte 1562 AB-A7 7. Marvin Birnbaum 1569 BD-A7
13. Steve Cuccaro 1528 AE-A7 13. Brian Conlon 1559 BC-B7 8. Mike Lochtefeld 1567 BD-A7
14. Marty Hoff 1528 AE-A7 14. Terry Lee Coleman 1546 CE-C7 9. Peter Fecurka 1564 BD-A7
15. Dennis Disney 1526 AE-A7 15. Chris Lefevre 1545 BD-B7 10. Steve Likevich 1535 AC-A7
16. Kenneth Good 1526 AE-A7 16. Mark Boone 1535 BC-A7 11. James Rush 1535 AA—6
17. Stephen Koehler 1523 AG-A7 17. Andrew Lewis 1533 AA-B7 12. Marty Ward 1535 AA-A6
18. Bruce Reiff 1523 AE-A7 18. Joseph Keller 1528 AB-A6 13. James Tracy 1532 AAA-6
19. William Lentz 1521 AG-A7 19. Jim Gutt 1527 AC-A7 14. John Selders 1531 AAA-6
20. Steve McCallum 1521 AG-A7 20. William Place 1525 BD-C7 15. John Poniske Sr. 1506 AC-B7
21. Wray Farrell 1519 AG-A7 21. Earl Anderson 1509 BD-C7 16. Chris Lefevre 1504 AC-A7
22. Micah Rabin 1514 AH-A7 22. Keith MacFarlane 1501 BD-B6 17. Mark Simonitch 1504 AC-A7
23. Dennis Mason 1508 AI-A7 23. William O’Neal 1500 BD-C7 18. Scott Sirianna 1502 AC-A7
 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998 5

There’s Life In The Old Dog Yet
Squad Leader (SL), the forefather of
ASL, was first published in 1977, twenty
years ago! Now in its 4th edition, the
game is still in print by TAHGC, so as
Mark Twain observed, "the reports of its
death have been greatly exaggerated."
For current support of SL and its
gamettes, now dubbed Pre-ASL, there
are a number of resources available
both on-line and on paper. The Squad
Leader Mailing List run by myself has a
current membership of 145 individuals.
Included under the SL Mailing List
umbrella are the Squad Leader Ladder
run by Alan Yngve for play-by-Email
games (over 90 players) and the Squad
Leader Record of Scenarios listing over
350 Pre-ASL scenarios and their win-
loss records run by Alain Chabot.
Evolving independently but now
affiliated with the SL Mailing List is the
Squad Leader Academy, a newsletter
with a stated objective of "training the
next generation of squad leaders."
Details of all of these resources are
listed in the Appendix below.
This new generation of potential gamers
is out there ready to take the small leap
of complexity from Axis & Allies and
Squad Leader
by Eric Pass (epass@nyx.net)
other introductory games to Squad
Leader. However for a number of
reasons, Scenario 1 in the basic SL set
does not adequately prepare the new
SL player for the tactical decisions they
will be required to make.
A NEW INTRODUCTORY SCENARIO
And so to the purpose of this article,
Alan Yngve, a long-standing Pre-ASL
player who returned to the earlier game
system after participating in the
playtesting of ASL has designed
Scenario Alpha, “Forced March”, to
introduce new players to the SL system
in a series of quick-playing scenarios
that will let the novice practice the
tactical elements of Squad Leader but
which also have enough depth to keep
the interest of more experienced
players. With just a few playings, the
pl ayer wi ll devel op a bet t er
understanding of tactical issues and
how they are handled within the SL
system, leading to a solid foundation for
future SL play.
The Alpha scenario is playable in one to
two hours solitaire or FTF (face-to-face),
three hours by IRC (Internet Relay
Chat), or two to three weeks by PBEM
(Play By E-mail). There are four
different flavors; Alpha-0, Alpha-1;
Alpha-2; Alpha-3. Each one builds on
the previous scenario level, adding new
units or support weapons, thus altering
the tactical situation. The core victory
conditions and entry/exit locations
remain fixed throughout the series.
The Alpha scenario comes with a
comprehensive set of player's notes to
guide the new player in understanding
some of the problems they might be
presented with. Some of the issues
Alpha-0 players will have to consider are
the relative merits of concentration and
dispersion, judicious use of movement
during the Advance Phase (even more
important in Alpha-1 where MGs are
introduced) and use of leaders for firing
DRMs and movement bonuses.
Alan is currently developing further
scenarios to introduce more features of
the SL system (see the Tactical Training
Series [TTS] section of the following
article).

APPENDIX: LIST OF SQUAD LEADER RESOURCES

Pre-ASL
Squad Leader WWW Resources: (SL, COI, COD, GIAV)
http://www.nyx.net/~epass/home.html# 42 Active Players November 1, 1997

SLMAIL 1. Kevin Welsh 1931 DE-E7

Squad Leader Mailing List: 2. Eric Stranger 1789 FG-G7
contact Eric Pass (epass@nyx.net) 3. Pete Pollard 1713 EFDF7
4. Fred Wexler 1711 ECJA5
Squad Leader Academy: 5. Alan Yngve 1620 CHDA7
contact Bill Thomson (Bill_Thomson@bigfoot.com) 6. Mark Manitzas 1600 ABDA7
7. Joel Robinson 1600 AB—6
8. Brent Robinson 1596 AB—6
Squad Leader PBEM Ladder (should be SL Mailing List member):
9. Tim Goff 1570 BC-B7
contact Alan Yngve (a-yngve@nwu.edu) 10. Richard Prast 1567 AB—6
11. Bill Thomson 1566 MPQG7
Squad Leader Record of Scenarios: 12. Allen Kaplan 1555 BD—7
http://ustanne-59.ustanne.ednet.ns.ca/usr/achabot/gaming/sl/record/rec1.html 13. Jay Yanek 1547 BBEA7
contact Alain Chabot (achabot@auracom.com) 14. Steve Williams 1545 AB-A6
15. Alain Chabot 1540 AAA-7
Squad Leader Scenario Record Report 97-11 (November): 16. David Hooten 1540 AAA-5
17. Stefan Eriksson 1533 ACDA6
AL0 Alpha-0 Forced March German 25 Russian 24 18. Scott Nedza 1533 AA—6
AL1 Alpha-1 Forced March German 11 Russian 9 19. Patrick Barker 1529 BCEA7
AL2 Alpha-2 Forced March German 5 Russian 10 20. Andrew Cowdery 1519 ABBA7
AL3 Alpha-3 Forced March German 1 Russian 2 21. Eric Pass 1514 AB-A7
22. Michael Handiboe 1510 BB-B6
23. Russ Woods 1504 AAA-6
 6 The Boardgamer
Learning Squad Leader By Playing
by Alan Yngve (a-yngve@nwu.edu)
with Lars Clausen (elascurn@daimi.aau.dk)
Squad Leader (TAHGC) will appear to
most people as a fairly complex game,
and this will not be an erroneous
impression. However, initial play of
Squad Leader can be relatively easy,
deferring much of the inevitable
complexities of squad-level tactical
combat to an incremental introduction
method.
The original Squad Leader
"programmed instruction" method is
i d e a l f o r h el p i n g t h e "s q u a d
leader" (actually company commander)
learn the ropes as he/she advances into
this system. However, the original SL
scenarios do not actually do a very good
job of helping a player learn tactical
c o m b a t im pl em en t a t i o n . Th i s
circumstance is undoubtedly due to
initial game design decisions, choices
that were made well before it was
known how popular the game would
become. The two biggest problems with
the original scenario set are: (1) city
combat tends to be an exception to
normal tactical maneuver and decisions,
which makes it harder to translate the
lessons out of the city and (2) the
original system does a terrible job of
properly easing the player into vehicle
use.
It is these difficulties that are meant to
be dealt with through this alternative
"programmed instruction" sequence of
scenarios. There is an effort to
introduce tactical issues of maneuver,
firepower, mass, leadership, vehicles,
special weapons (among others) as the
pl ay er proc eed s thr oug h th es e
scenarios. Of course, the original 12
scenarios from the SL game are always
available for additional play, and all
players are urged to consider their use
as well, particularly once all of the
relevant rules sections have been
introduced through this alternate
system.
A considerable effort has been made to
discuss (through side commentary)
issues that are often the subject of
controversy am ong SL players.
Surprisingly enough, the SL rules are
pretty well drafted, as they leave only a
few areas that could be called rules
"grey areas." By discussing these areas
as they are initially encountered through
Volume 3, Issue 1
Scenario Alpha
their scenario introduction it is hoped
that all players will be provided with the
tools that they may need to play this
great game among a wide variety of
gamers worldwide. Note that these
areas of confusion often come and go,
so additions may be introduced into
future versions of this scenario series.
Although these scenarios have been
designed as an aid to learning the
Squad Leader system, take this as a
warning. Any scenario in Squad Leader
will present both players with many
decisions to be made. These scenarios
are not an exception, execute your
tactics poorly and you are much more
likely to find failure than success on
these battlefields! As others have
introduced into the wargaming world,
many scenarios may be simple but this
does not mean that they will be
simplistic!
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS: This
alternate "programmed instruction"
scenario series is sequentially identified
by Greek alphabet, starting with ALPHA.
Each scenario is provided with varying
complexity levels, usually from zero to
three. Recommendations for play
sequence through these scenarios is
outlined below.
Although it would be possible to create a
fictional "story" behind each scenario,
this has been avoided as it might
distract from the real goal of the series,
namely "how can one apply the rules
presented on the battlefield to achieve
the desired result?" Note that in Squad
Leader a player will ALWAYS be
presented with a Victory Condition. This
states what your higher command has
asked you ( as t he com pany
commander) to attain on the tactical
battlefield. Normally there are few
restrictions placed on your options (how
to achieve them). The only thing that
matters is achieving your specified
objective. Pay attention to it, get it
done, and you will be a WINNER at this
challenging game of tactical combat!
Once one learns the how of tactical
combat it is relatively easy to proceed to
any and all other scenarios, as you will
have the tools to succeed! But perhaps
I should add a word of caution: SL is
January 1998
very much about the probabilities of
success. Every action that you will
attempt is likely to have a chance of
failure, bear this in mind because there
will always be times when you fail in
your efforts. The recommended
approach is to try to figure out how to do
your best to increase the probability of
your success.
So good luck and good SL'ing!
RULES SPECIFICATIONS: Care has
been applied to specifying exactly which
rules within the rulebook are needed for
the play of each scenario. In all cases
these will differ somewhat from the rules
ordering of the basic 12 SL scenarios.
This procedure should help segregate
the rules sections into more contiguous
sections, permitting more time for the
examination of battlefield tactics as the
rules are gradually expanded.
SUGGESTIONS FOR PLAY: All of the
scenarios in this series are designed to
be relatively quick play with tactical
chal l eng es f or begi nn er and
experienced, alike. In face-to-face (ftf)
play it ought to be possible to complete
any one of these scenarios in less than
two hours. It is actually hoped that in a
typical ftf session there should be time
to play any of the scenarios at least
twice. Are there shortcuts? Yes, if a
player wants to charge ahead real fast
some of the presented levels can be
skipped. However, doing so will tend to
remove some of the valuable tactical
experiences that these scenarios
attempt to demonstrate. Those who
have been through the SL learning
process know that there is no better
teacher than painful experience!
CHOOSING SIDES: Between an
EXPERI ENC ED pl ayer and a
BEGINNER, the beginner ought to
always be given the choice of side. It
often is also helpful if the experienced
player is willing to answer any tactical
and/or game procedure question that
the beginner may have during play.
Needless to say, it is also polite to wait
for a beginner to ask! Remember that
the goal should be to introduce the
game system and to help develop
successful tactics, not necessarily to
use these scenarios to blow a beginner
 The Boardgamer
Scenario Alpha - Learning By Playing (Cont.)
away! Between TWO BEGINNERS the
"zero" level should always be played
first. Sides might also be exchanged at
each play, so that both players can
experience the tactical issues of both
combatants. Once the players are
comfortable with a level, it is
Tactical Training Series (TTS)
(Squad Leader)
THE EARLY SCENARIOS
All of the "early" scenarios of this series
start with unit set up specified, at least
at the "zero" level. This is to encourage
each "Squad Leader" to examine what
can be done from a specified
deployment rather than mandating
flexible deployment before a player has
been given the chance to explore some
of the elements of deployment choice
through scenario play. As one learns
the system it will become apparent that
these initial specified deployments are
specifically designed to be sub-optimal,
so that players will be encouraged to
"find better ways" once variable
deployment is added. It is hoped that
this will "train" better SL tacticians, since
many SL scenarios are, in effect, quick
tests of effective deployment. Learning
these why's and where's will always pay
great dividends during subsequent
scenario play!
BATTLEFIELD TACTICS
These scenarios will reference tactical
topics that are likely to become
concerns as players proceed through
the series. In most cases the players
will not be provided with more than a
one or two word statement of a possible
issue. This is intended to be an alert to
issues that may be key to the scenario
or the added "level" augmentations. At
some point there may be specific
reviews of these tactical issues,
perhaps inspired by these scenarios.
Do you have the inspiration to write
some commentary? Please forward
them <preferably to the SL MAILING
LIST> for eventual linking to the
scenarios for future players!
SCENARIO ALPHA "Forced March"
Level Zero:
[Introducing: SEQUENCE OF PLAY (of
course), BASIC TERRAIN (woods,
Volume 3, Issue 1
encouraged that the next level be tried.
This process can easily be repeated
until the last scenario level has been
reached or the players decide that they
would like to move onto the next
scenario in the sequence. SOLITAIRE
experimentation with these scenarios
buildings, walls and hedges, roads,
shellholes), INFANTRY MOVEMENT
(maneuver), INFANTRY FIREPOWER
(interdiction), EFFECTS OF RANGE,
LEADERSHIP, ROUTING, RALLYING,
BOARD ENTRY, BOARD EXIT]
RULES: 1-2.6, 3.2-3.5, 3.7-5.6, 6-7.3,
7.8, 8-15.2, 15.4-16.6, 18.3-20.4, 20.6-
20.83, 20.9-21.3, 44.3-44.32.
Level One:
Russians: [OFFENSIVE MASS]
Germans: [MG's and penetration]
RULES: 2.7, 2.8, 5.7, 17, 18.1, 18.2,
20.5, 20.84.
Level Two:
Russians: [MG's (range/firebases)]
Germans: [VARIABLE DEPLOYMENT]
Level Three:
Russians: [SEASONAL TERRAIN]
Germans: [TEMPO and INITIATIVE]
RULES: 44.2-44.24.
SCENARIOS IN PREPARATION
SCENARIO BETA "Hasty Assault" (in
playtest). Half of Board 3, 5 turns,
Germans attacking Russians.
SCENARIO GAMMA "Through the
Gauntlet" (in playtest). Other half of
Board 3, 4 turns, Russian reinforcement
column; Vehicle movement, trucks
and halftracks.
SCENARIO DELTA "Back to the
Sea" (in development). Half of Boards
2 and 4, 5 turns, Germans attacking
Americans; Armor support, OBA,
and combined arms.
SCENARIO EPSILON "Tank er
Delight" (pending playtest). Boards 2
and 4, 4 turns, Americans/Russians
attacking Germans; AFV versus AFV,
AT guns.
January 1998 7
should also be a viable approach,
although learning in this manner will
tend to limit one's introduction to enemy
tactics that you might not consider, if
using this method it is recommended
that you proceed as two beginners
would.
SCENARIO BALANCE: It is expected
that each "numbered" level of these
scenarios should be roughly balanced.
Thus play with each side having their
"zero" level, or their "one" level, etc.
should generate game play with
approximately equal chances of a
victory for either side (hopefully within
the 60% - 40% range). However, many
games by many players will be required
to verify this balance. IMPORTANT:
Levels are usually meant to be played
with all the prior level's forces, e.g. a
straight level "one" is played with all the
level one forces plus all the level "zero"
forces. For ease of reference, the level
should be specified along with the
sc enario (Alpha- zero, Beta-two,
Gamma-one, etc.).
AN AUGMENTATION LEVEL NOTE:
As each scenario's augmentation levels
add a certain amount of complexity to
s c en a r i o p l a y , s o m e s c en a r i o
characteristics are never changed.
These constants will always include: the
board configuration, the victory
conditions, and the number of scenario
turns. These characteristics tend to be
the most basic attributes of any
scenario.
SQUAD LEADER PLAYING TIPS #1:
Desperation Morale (rule 14.6),
The SL rule, "Desperation Morale" is
both a very important rule and one that
is sometimes misunderstood by first-
time SL'ers. This is an attempt to add
some meaning and understanding of
this rule.
In practice, every time a unit breaks due
to fire, one places a "DM" marker on the
unit. This marker remains until after the
next rally phase. If a rally attempt is
made when the unit has a "DM" marker
on it, it is subject to the +4 drm.
The wording of the rule is a little
complex, but in essence it says that any
firepower directed at a unit "since the
prior rally phase" causes the application
of this drm on any rally attempts. Of
course, good order units don't need to
be rallied, but any broken unit could
 8 The Boardgamer
Scenario Alpha - Learning By Playing (Cont.)
attempt to rally (if a leader is present)
and this is where the rule applies. It is a
little unusual in the SL-system in that it
only affects the rally attempt roll. If no
rally attempt is made, the marker will be
removed without having had an effect.
What does desperation morale attempt
to reflect? Two things: One is the
shock of being disorganized/broken/
routed by enemy fire and the command
disorganization reflected by such a state
(refusal to obey "orders"). Second, it
makes it harder to "rally" when in a
LINES OF SIGHT (LOS)
comment by Alan Yngve
A number of precautionary notes are
worthwhile on the issues that often
arise over line of sight (LOS) in Squad
Leader. Squad Leader was one of the
earliest hex-based games that used
terrain features to determine the
blockage of vision, rather than always
defining the entire area of a hex as
entirely containing a terrain feature.
There are a number of useful
guidelines within the rules that are
helpful to bring to special attention.
(Rule 7.1): LOS follows a straight line
measured between the center marks of
the firing and the target hexes. Two
o p ti on s f or m ea su r em ent ar e
mentioned; (1) rubber band or string,
or (2) transparent straight edge (or
thread). Finally note the last sentence:
DISAGREEMENTS ARE TO BE
RESOLVED WITH A FRIENDLY ROLL
OF THE DIE! With face-to-face (ftf)
play, usually both players will use the
device of the owner of the game, and
the LOS is determined upon the board
in use. Be prepared for both different
devices AND differently printed boards
if playing a scenario by play-by-mail
(PBM) or play-by-email (PBeM).
(Rule 7.2): LOS is present if
unobstructed by a building or woods
SYMBOL. And for the LOS to be
obstructed the obstruction must be
visible on both sides of the
measurement device in use.
(Rule 19.3): Neither side may make
LOS checks before declaring an
intention of firing along a specified
LOS. This has expanded implications
when playing via PBeM. Clarify a
"house rule" if you wish to play
differently with your opponent!
Volume 3, Issue 1
location that is under continued fire. A
type of suppression, of sorts, that
encourages the player to "rout" his
broken squads back out of the line of
fire.
SQUAD LEADER PLAYING TIPS #2:
What? Geometry is useful in Squad
Leader?
Lines of Sight, hints for improving your
battlefield vision.
This discussion is presented as an
assist to all Squad Leader (SL) players.
The concepts here are far from original,
but not all players look at the SL boards
in this manner so a description of these
methods may be helpful to a broad
audience. This is a demonstration of
Lines of Sight (LOS) and how you can
use the regular geometry of the hex grid
on the boards to help you estimate clear
and/or blocked LOS. Using this
technique can be quite valuable, since
rule 19.3 says that you are not permitted
to check a potential LOS before
declaring a shot.
From this game system starting point, a
general approach for looking at LOS can
be invaluable as a basic assist to our
movement and deployment decisions.
As we always search for those LOS that
might "skirt" one of the many terrain
obstructions that we see.
Most SL'ers understand how statistics
can sometimes help us understand the
SL combat system, but here is how
another type of mathematics can be
helpful. Regardless of your skill at
geometry, please read on, you should
find that this is not at all difficult! For
ease of presentation, lets pull out our
Board 4 and start with a relatively
central hex, like o5 (or hex 4o5). Let’s
assume an intrepid squad has deployed
in this hex and one wonders what they
can see? We will approach this
question by applying a basic "geometry"
LOS review. Lets start by examining the
easier potential LOS at ranges 1, 2, and
4 hexes.
RANGE OF 1 HEX: Per rule 7.8, units
always have an LOS to every adjacent
hex (note: some weapons will be
prohibited from some types of adjacent
fire, but the lack of an LOS will never be
the cause of the restriction). So in our
case here, all of the hexes at a range of
1 (n4, n5, o4, o6, p4, and p5) are in
LOS.
January 1998
RANGE OF 2 HEXES: The 12 hexes at
a range of 2 represent the twelve
primary (and also easiest) LOS lines of
any hex. LOS determination is fairly
simple at a range of 2 and can be
divided into two different types of sight-
line. The first type of LOS is along the
six hex-grain directions that are a
continuation of the LOS into the six
adjacent hexes. These hex-grain LOS
would (in this case) trace clear LOS to
m4, o3, q4, and q6. The other two hex-
grains have clearly blocked LOS: the
LOS to o7 is blocked by the building in
o6 and the LOS to m6 is blocked by the
woods in n5.
The other six directions are traced
through the six hexspines of the
occupied hex. This hexspine concept
will be important in later rules, and is
well defined in the small chart on page 9
and in rule 29.4. Each of these
hexspine LOS are exactly between two
hex-grains and are demonstrated by the
fairly obvious clear LOS to m5, n3, p3,
q5, and p6. Here we see the first
interesting (although fairly obvious) LOS
through a "terrain gap," the LOS to n6
that is traced between the woods in n5
and the building in o6. From this
particular (o5) location, this is the first
demonstration of a terrain gap and just
the tip of the iceberg!
SHELLHOLES
comment by Alan Yngve
Movement through shellhole hexes
(example, 4s3) that are also road
hexes is a source of contention among
Squa d L ead er play ers. Two
interpretations exist; that road
movement is unhindered by shellholes
due to rule 44.3 "Shellholes have no
speci al eff ect upon inf antr y
movement ..." and rule 5.52 "... moving
into a road hex is 1/2 MF only if the
hex is entered through a hexside
crossed by the road" OR that entering
a shellhole hex, even if along a road,
costs 1 MF, an interpretation derived
primarily from the inclusion of shellhole
hexes with "open ground and
wheatfields" on the movement chart
(rule 5.5). If, after examining these
rules, you are looking for a
recommendation, I would encourage
you to use the later 1 MF in all cases
definition.
 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998 9

Scenario Alpha - Learning By Playing (Cont.)

RANGE OF 4 HEXES: There are 24 Check it out for yourself, this is a clear range to 4, looking at the 18 hexes at a
hexes that are at a range of 4. The LOS! Next is p1, also a clear LOS as it range of 3 will help when doubling the
continuation of the 12 LOS directions just skirts the other side of the woods in range to 6. At a range of 3, the hex
that we identified through the hexes at a o3. The LOS to r2 is and looks clear, grain hexes have already been covered,
range of 2 are the easiest to examine. although fire from o5 to r2 would get the but the other 12 are completely new!
Starting with those LOS directions that +1 hedge drm on the IFT. The LOS to There are few surprises at a range of 3,
were clear at a range of 2, we have s4 is "clearly clear," but maybe not if but at a range of 6 things again can be
clear LOS to k5, k3, m2, (but o1 is wheatfields are present due to that quite surprising. The LOS from o5 to r4
blocked by the o3 woods), q2, s3, s5 wheatfield edge in hex o5, remembering is easily clear, but how about from o5 to
(skirting the r5 woods), and s7. The that this LOS would bisect the o4/o5 u4 (a range of 6 and the same direction
LOS to q8 is blocked by the building in hexside! Hex s6 is an exception to the as r4)? And as the ranges are slowly
p6, the LOS to o9 is blocked by the common situation that if there is a clear increased, how about o5 to v3? As the
building in o6, the LOS to k7 is blocked LOS on the hexgrain and the hexspine list of possible hexes grows long it is not
by the woods in n5, but the LOS through at range 4, the intervening hex at range reasonable to try to include them here,
the terrain gap to n6 is also clear to m8! 4 is also likely to be clear, here the LOS but how about something like an LOS
But what about those 12 hexes we to s6 is quite clearly blocked by the from o5 to b2 (a range of 13)? Yes,
skipped over? This starts to get woods in hex r5. Again, one can eyeball admitting that no squad could fire its
interesting! Starting with the LOS to k4, this by observing that this LOS would inher ent firepower that far ....
if one measures this LOS on the board bisect the o5/o6 hexside. What about Understanding that many more LOS
you will notice that the LOS exactly r7? This LOS bisects the p6/q6 hexside than expected will actually exist and
bisects the m4/m5 hexside, the two and is clear, as long as there are no having access to a tool to help you
hexes that are equi-distant between o5 wheatfields, that is. Finishing the circle evaluate whether the LOS might be
and k4. Observing this geometric fact around o5, the LOS to hexes p8 and n8 clear or blocked can be an important
will help you immensely in many other are blocked by the intervening building ingredient for being both cautious and
situations. The clear LOS to k4 and L2 and the LOS to hexes L7 and k6 are prudent on our SL battlefields!
are pretty easy to see, but what about blocked by the adjacent woods in n5.
n1? This LOS will bisect the n3/o3
hexside and even though it looks like EXPANDING THE SYSTEM: Just like
the o3 woods will be in the way, it is not. looking at the LOS to hexes/hexsides at
a range of 2 helped when doubling the
Pay For Authors!
First of all, my thanks go out to those
WALLS / HEDGES and LOS / DRM who have recently contributed articles.
comment by Alan Yngve Thanks to these individuals, the
BOARDGAMER had material for this
Rule 11.5 introduces Walls and Hedges, but is often a source of confusion among issue and the next one looks good as
Squad Leader players. Perhaps because these rules are not actually used in the well. However, more material is
original scenarios until #4, a considerable time after their introduction. Two always desired and needed.
interpretations exist: that the wall or hedge SYMBOL dictates LOS presence or
blockage (consistent with rule 7.2) or the alternative, that the Wall or Hedge Pay for authors is one free issue of the
HEXSIDE dictates LOS presence or blockage (consistent with rules 5.51, 11.5, BOARDGAMER for each half page the
and 11.51). Please be aware of this disagreement and be prepared to agree with article occupies. In addition, those who
your opponent on an interpretation prior to play. If, after examining the rules, you have built up a number of issues can
are looking for a recommendation, I would encourage you to use the HEXSIDE instead cash them in at the rate of
definition. $3.00 each.
The LOS course (page 24): This course is quite helpful but incomplete due to its The BOARDGAMER is always in need
limited sample of hexes. One of the Wall/Hedge difficulties is that L4<->N7 is of authors to pen quality articles on the
listed as blocked while L2<->N5 is listed as clear. Even using the symbol play of Avalon Hill/Victory Games
definition, I have never seen a Board 3 that did not have the wall extend past the board, sports and card games. Thus
M3/M4/L3 intersection. strategy articles, series replays and
variants for these games are always
(Rule 11.53): Wall/Hedge confusion arises between LOS determination and terrain good material for submission.
effects modifier application. In Appendix rule 11.5 (page 22), the LOS course on
page 24, and Q&A all indicate that an LOS exists if the firing or target hex has a Articles submitted will not be printed
Wall or Hedge along one of its hexspines (see page 9 for hexspine definition). with any significant changes without
However, rule 11.53 states that the target unit only receives a terrain modifier if the first receiving the approval of the
LOS is traced "across a ... hexside into the hex formed by that hexside ..." original author. It is requested that
Examining the 11.5 example on page 22, it states that fire from A (3t4) to B (3u3) a rticl es su bm itt ed t o th e
would be modified by a +2 drm due to the wall, as is consistent with this rule BOARDGAMER not also be submitted
because there is a wall along the hexside of 3u3. What the example fails to elsewhere without first informing the
mention, however, is that fire from B (3u3) to A (3t4) would only receive the +3 drm BOARDGAMER. Permission will
for the stone building, since no wall extends along the target hex in this reverse almost always be granted for articles to
case. Note that not all players will agree with this interpretation. be subsequently pubished elsewhere.
10 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998
 The Boardgamer
Once in a while a game comes along
that offers a new system (or a new spin
on an old one) to challenge the thought
processes of gaming fans. Avalon Hill’s
We the People is such a game. This
particular game system is reminiscent of
a number of different games thrown
together, but the wealth of decisions
available to the players, along with the
simplicity of play makes We the People
a constant first choice whenever a quick
game is desired.
The great thing about this game is the
amount of decision-making that both the
British and American player have to
make. We the People never seems to
play the same way twice, it can’t, there
are too many dynamics at work.
Movement and combat of generals and
their armies, political control, and the
playing of strategy cards keep players
constantly adjusting priorities between
initiating their own strategies and
reacting to the play of their opponent.
The problem for the gamer that is new
to We the People (or gaming in general,
since this is an entry level game) is
exactly that which makes the game so
interesting: all the decisions. I don’t
know how many times I’ve found myself
saying “What do I do now?” once the
game is underway. Only after the game
has been experienced a few times can a
player begin to see some strategic ideas
arise. Hopefully the following basic
ideas will help players who are new to
We the People. Keep them in mind
whenever the desire to fight for liberty
(or not) becomes overwhelming.
BRITISH STRATEGIES:
1. Go for the kill early.
Remember your victory conditions. If
George Washington is captured the
game is over. Washington starts the
game in Lexington/Concord, close
enough to attack first turn. If the British
player gets the right cards in his hand in
the strategy phase of turn one, reinforce
Howe and march on Washington’s army
from Boston. If you’re lucky with the
battle cards you can continue to
pressure and harass him as his army
weakens. This will hopefully keep the
Volume 3, Issue 1
We The People
Some Basic Strategies
by Jim Cavallari
American player off balance and unable
to concentrate on the big picture.
2. Keep ports open.
There’s not much to say here, it’s pretty
obvious. One of the advantages unique
to the British player is the naval
movement ability. This is an important
option; the strategy ratings of most
British generals limits the strategy cards
that can be used to move an army, so
when you get a chance to move, make
that move count. Also remember,
British reinforcements can only come
into the game on a port space, so keep
as many ports open as you can and
broaden your options.
3. Continue to place PC markers each
strategy phase.
Depending on the strategy cards you
get dealt, this may be your only option.
It’s a good idea to continually place PC
markers in strategic locations to create
political isolation for the American player
(or to keep your hard earned influence
from being lost). If you place British PC
markers while simultaneously playing
strategy cards allowing you to remove
American PC markers, you can
continually change the balance of
political influence in a colony.
4. Engage the enemy early whenever
possible.
This is usually the strong point for the
British. The key is to pound the
American player early. Attack from port
spaces and take advantage of the
British line regulars to gain the
maximum amount of battle cards.
Remember, the American player can
usually move more often each strategy
phase, so eliminate as many colonial
troops as possible. This forces the
American player to keep burning
strategy cards in an effort to replace lost
units, while his remaining armies
stagnate.
5. Build control from the shores inland.
Ports are the British army’s lifeline. As
long as he continues to keep ports free
from American influence the British
player can use naval movement and
January 1998 11
reinforce his existing forces. British PC
markers usually can’t be isolated in
ports either (the exception would be a
French naval blockade).
AMERICAN STRATEGY
1. Control ports.
During the initial setup, the American
player places one PC in a space in each
of the thirteen colonies (this represents
the Committees of Correspondence).
Place your PC markers in port spaces
wh en ev er p os si bl e. Thi s wi ll
immediately limit the placement of any
British reinforcements due that turn (and
hopefully in turns to follow).
2. Make British victory objectives harder
to achieve:
a) Move George Washington out of
Massachusetts to a safer place that
offers a variety of movement options
(upper New York is usually a good
choice).
b) Reinforce Philadelphia and the
Continental Congress. The British
player will usually attempt to disperse it
early.
3. Clear New England and the
Northeast.
a) Bring reinforcements and Benedict
Arnold into Falmouth. From there attack
Carleton in Quebec. From there solidify
control of Canada by taking Montreal.
b) Set Howe up for defeat. Reinforce
Greene in Newport, place PC markers
around Boston, and attack Howe if he
hasn’t gone after Washington. This is a
good tactic if The American player
controls the militia in Massachusetts and
the British line regulars are gone. This
guarantees the American player more
battle cards in his hand. Boston is not a
port space, so Howe will have to
surrender if surrounded. Once the initial
British generals are removed from the
Northeast the American player can
concentrate on placing PC markers in
New Hampshire, Connecticut, New
York, and New Jersey, hopefully
est abli shing cont r ol over t he
Northeastern colonies.
 12 The Boardgamer
We The People - Some Basic Strategies (Cont.)
4. Use the mapboard to your
advantage.
If the strategy in New England is going
well the American player may want to
consider conceding the deep South.
This strategy could be most effective
against an inexperienced British player.
The size of the southern colonies gives
the illusion of a great deal of control
(almost half of the board). In actuality,
the control only covers three colonies.
Optional Rules For Britannia
T h is a r t ic le f ir s t a p p e a r e d in
DECLINATION magazine, a now
defunct ‘zine covering History Of The
World and selected other Avalon Hill
multi-player games. Copyright 1994,
1995 by Charles Bahl. Reprinted by
permission
Hadrian’s Wall was built between 122
and 126 A.D. by the Roman Emperor
Hadrian and was extended a century
later by Emperor Severus. It stretched
the breadth of England from the Irish to
the North Seas and served as the
northern boundary and first defense line
of Latin Britain. Fragments of Hadrian’s
Wall still stand today, a silent testimony
to the enduring skill of Roman
engineering.
Upon mutual agreement before the start
of the game, players of Britannia may
optionally add the following rules to
simulate the construction and defense
capabilities of Hadrian’s Wall.
1. General
1.1 USE OF STANDARD RULES:
Except as specified in the following
rules, the standard Britannia rules apply.
2. Construction of Walls
2.1 LOCATION: The player controlling
the Romans may build Walls astride the
following 3 borders only: (1) between
Bernica and Lothian; (2) between
Pennines and Lothian; (3) between
Galloway and Cumbria.
Volume 3, Issue 1
5. Solidify your control from Canada to
Virginia.
Place generals in positions to defend
(by interception) British probes into the
Northeast. Garrison your colonies near
the shore. The British player can use
certain strategy cards to remove
American PC markers, and when he
does he’ll go right for a port space in an
attempt to regain a foothold in New
England. Garrison ports with an army in
spaces that are winter quarters and use
Hadrian’s Wall
by Charles Bahl
2.2 BUILDING: When a Roman army is
the sole occupant of Bernica, Lothian,
Pennines, Galloway or Cumbria for the
first time, even if only moving through, a
Wall is built on the appropriate border(s)
as listed in 2.1 above.
Examples: When a Roman army
occupies Galloway, a Wall is built
between Galloway and Cumbria. When
a Roman army occupies Lothian, two
Walls are built — one between Lothian
and Bernica and the other between
Lothian and Pennines.
2.3 WALLS AND FORTS: Walls are
built in addition to any fort(s) that can be
built. For Walls, players may use forts
or any other convenient counters.
2.4 PLACEMENT: Wall counters are
placed on top of the appropriate border.
They are not placed within the land
area.
2.5 RESTRICTIONS: A Wall is built
only the first time the area is captured
by the Romans, not each time. Only
one Wall counter may be placed on
each of the three borders.
Example: When occupying Cumbria for
the first time, the Roman player builds a
Wall on the border between Cumbria
and Galloway. Later, if he occupies
Galloway or reoccupies Cumbria, he
does not place an additional counter on
the border.
Walls may be built only during Turns 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5. All Wall counters are
permanently removed from the board at
the beginning of Turn 6.
January 1998
the French navy to block the ones that
aren’t.
Constant play of We the People will
ensure a comfortable understanding of
strategy and tactics. As stated earlier,
the game rarely plays the same way
twice. You can only do so much with
the strategy cards dealt to you, so
concentrate on what needs to be done
and stick with it. Don’t spend the entire
game reacting to your opponent’s
moves; you’ll find yourself out of time
with no colonies in your control to
show for it.
3. Effects Of Walls
3.1 CROSSING WALLS: Each non-
Roman army that tries to cross a Wall
into a Roman-occupied area must roll
one die. On a roll of 1, 2, 3 or 4, the
army successfully moves into the area.
On a roll of 5 or 6, the army is
eliminated.
3.2 RETREATS: Rule 3.1 above
applies only during the Movement
Phase. Armies may freely retreat
across Walls subject to normal retreat
rules.
3.3 NON-ROMAN AREAS: Note that
rule 3.1 above does not apply when
moving across a Wall into a non-Roman
occupied area. An area is considered
Roman occupied for the purpose of this
rule if it contains at least one Roman
counter (forts included) even if occupied
by other non-Roman counters (as can
happen during the Movement Phase).
3.4 DIE ROLLS: The moving player
moves and rolls separately for each
army crossing a Wall. He may observe
the result of each die roll before
deciding to move another army.
3.5 DIRECTION: Rule 3.1 above
applies even if the army is traveling
north across a Wall (for example, from
Bernica to Lothian) as long as the area
moved into is Roman occupied.
3.6 ROMAN ARMIES: Walls have no
effect on the movement or retreat of
Roman armies.
 The Boardgamer
Late Reports From The National Championships
GANGSTERS
(GM: John Pack)
A new format featuring four heats and
two semi-final rounds drew 49
participants to the streets of Chicago for
extortion, seduction, and all-out mob
war.
When Jason Wagner opened his
purchases with Martin & Son Carriage
Repair, he set the stage for the North
Shore’s monopoly. Meanwhile Michael
Anchors acquired the Downtown Bus
Station, Brizelli’s Riverside and Taylor’s
Machine Shop which allowed his East
Side Gang to upgrade the Bus Station to
level three on his first two moves
(setting up the public money making
machine that won his semi-final match
in a record 20 minutes). John Pack set
up a similar cash cow with Brzkowski’s
Imports and the Ambassador’s Club.
Christopher Bodkin wasn’t focused on
one strategy which, he said, eventually
doomed the West Side Association.
Though Jason says he was aiming to
buy ten joints, when the Caravan Club
and the Astoria Hotel became available
(with good rolls) he threatened
monopoly. Ultimately, Jason bought the
Caravan Club and Hawthorne Hotel
twice each as Chris and John’s Thugs
attempted to crash that party.
Meanwhile, the public visited Michael’s
Bus Station often and John collected all
but one blue joint. John’s chances
came to an end when his six Racketeers
raided Jaeger’s Clothier and were
promptly eliminated by cop #10!
Michael, on the other hand, was just
$200 shy of 10 G’s when Jason
reacquired the Hawthorne Hotel and
brought in the reinforcements needed to
thwart John’s Thug which was at the
scene. Congratulations to Jason.
Michael finished in 2nd, John in 3rd and
Chistopher in 4th.
Douglas Broud took home top honors
among Gangsters giving their heaters a
first try!
I am starting an email gaming group for
Gangsters too. Contact me at
JPACK@sisna.com.
Volume 3, Issue 1
Avaloncon 1997
by Avaloncon GM’s
HISTORY OF THE WORLD
(GM: Andy Maly)
The 1997 History of the W orld
tournament must be considered one of
the most successful tournaments at
Avaloncon. To the events credit, it
continually draws in excess of 100
contestants, placing it among the
“premier” events at Avaloncon.
Entering the event, defending champ
Keith Levy would have been considered
the “favorite”, that is, if he had bothered
to show. Rumor has it the old, “I just got
a new job” excuse kept him from the
festivities. His presence was missed.
So, with Keith “New Job Bone” Levy
missing, the odds on favorite entering
the tournament was Blue. No, not a
player, but a color. Could Blue defend
its championship? The other concern
that weighed heavily on the minds of the
contestants was the criticality of
receiving Britain during Epoch VII. Just
how dominant was Britain during the
tournament? Well, read on....
The contestants eagerly filled Maryland
4, and most of Maryland 3 of the Hunt
Valley Inn on Friday night for the first
round. Entrants may have been
confused by the GM, who obviously
thought that he and his loyal henchmen
were at a NASCAR event. True, the
game is a race to be the dominant
civilization, but any relationship to auto
racing ends there.
A perfect 108 contestants showed for
the first round. That meant 18 tables of
6 players, and the top two from each
table would advance. Action was fierce
but friendly at all the tables. The tightest
first round game was overseen at the
kiosk. Also known as “The Table of
1,000 Bones”, the Chinese dominated
the early epochs. Mike “Alphabet Bone”
Stachowski, playing Purple, reigned
supreme on that table.
Mark “King Bone” Guttag outshined the
rest of the field with a 225-point
performance as Green. Other notable
performances included George Young
with a 198-point performance as
Orange. Mike Backstrom scored 190
points as Black. Stephan Magnifico
January 1998 13
lead the Blue factions with 218 points.
Andrew Kutzy showed the way as
Purple, scoring 194, and Allen Kaplan
dominated the Red empire with a 192
point showing.
First round “Head Bones” were also
scored by Phil Thomas, Kathy Stroh,
Bruce “Boardgamer Bone” Monnin,
Karsten “The Lost Bone” Engelmann,
Tim Hitchings, Gordon Bliss, Greg
Berry, Steve Caler, Ross Edwards,
Clifford Smith, John Ferguson, and Mark
“Last but not Least Bone” Giddings.
The average score for the first round
was 167.8, and the high to low score
differential was an average of 45.5.
So, who reigned supreme? Orange.
Dr. Sigmund “Psychological Bone”
Freud was overheard stating, “It’s a less
threatening color.” The aggressive
colors, Red and Black, only managed a
total of first round win. Green, Purple,
and Blue all made respectable
showings. More interesting, however,
was the fact that all seven Epoch VII
empires had either 2 or 3 victories. The
score sheets bear out superhuman
performances, such as a 60-point
performance as the Netherlands that led
to victory. The “Britain in Epoch VII
Bone” theory had been disproved, at
least for round one.
Saturday night saw 32 of the 36
qualifiers showing for the second round.
Four eager alternates quickly took the
Bone thrown their way, appreciative for
another chance. As would be expected,
the games were a bit tighter, and the
scoring a bit higher.
As with any tournament, not all of the
noteworthy performances belong to the
winners. Ray Stakenas Sr. appeared to
have the best position at his table early
in the second round. However, his
Empire seemed to get distracted in the
middle game, and was lifeless by the
end.
Steve Caler endured seemingly
unrelenting attacks, but came up short
in his effort to put together a winning
effort. Sean Vessey took the short end
of the stick in stride, never being given
 14 The Boardgamer
Avaloncon 1997 - Late Reports (Cont.)
an opening by is opponents, who always
found him the shortest distance between
two points.
Round one dominator, George Young,
again lead his game to take a spot in the
finals. Unfortunately, for George
“Frequent Flyer Bone” Young, a flight
scheduling conflict prevented him from
participating in the finals. The
beneficiary of his misfortune was Bruce
“Your Loyal Editor Bone” Monnin.
Dewayne Curry, Paul McCarthy, Gordon
Bliss, Mark Giddings, and Ross
Edwards prevailed at their respective
tables to earn a spot competing for top
honors.
While no trends can be established by
analyzing the six second-round games,
Blue seemed ready to defend its title as
dominant color winning two second
round matches. Orange matched that
total, and Purple and Black also
contributed contestants to the finals.
Britain placed two of the final six
contestants, as did the USA.
Scoring was nearly a full seven points
higher, and the high to low differential
reduced to 37 points. This is fully
indicative of the greater rewards which
were on the line in the second round.
Sunday morning seemed to come too
soon, at least to the GM and some of
the contestants. Game faces on, the six
finalists, prepared to do battle. Little did
the contestants know they would be
facing more than just the trials of each
other. Flying pretzels, a Battle Royale,
and an unhappy baby would all take part
in the finals.
Although stuck with the Aryans,
Dewayne Curry managed to lead after
Epoch I with a little bit of help from the
Hittites. Mark Giddings, leading the
Assyrians, was the front runner after
Epoch II, and even being passed the
Hsing-Nu could not keep him out of the
lead after Epoch III. Yet, the difference
between first and third at this time was
only 13 points, so it was still anyone’s
game.
Still, Mark played the Huns in Epoch IV,
and retained the lead. However, Mark
couldn’t maintain the lead as Gordon
Bliss vaulted to the lead with the Sung
Dynasty after Epoch V. Mark quickly
rebounded as the Mings, giving himself
a ten-point cushion after Epoch VI.
Volume 3, Issue 1
Entering Epoch VII, Mark led the
Russian empire. With a 194 point
score, it appeared the day was his.
Gordon Bliss was next with the Manchu
Dynasty, and fell short of the target.
Paul McCarthy valiantly tried with the
Netherlands, but missed the mark as
well. Next up was the Bruce Monnin led
French. Surprisingly, up to this point,
Bruce had not led an empire with more
than ten strength points. Yet, his board
position was such that he amassed 58
points in the final epoch to claim the
lead with 197 points. Dewayne Curry
was next to go with the British. Starting
with a slightly less advantageous
position, Britain had at least a presence
on all Areas except Nippon. Dewayne
was able to amass 59 points from this
effort, yet this placed him only third.
The final contestant, Ross Edwards,
was dealt the United States. His land
locked forces managed a respectable
36-point performance, but this fell short
of the target. Thus it was Bruce Monnin,
carrying his three-month old daughter,
who led his empire from the cradle of
civilization to ultimate victory.
Thus, Blue was not only denied a repeat
of its top status, it was actually relegated
to last place this year. Will Blue be able
to rebound at Avaloncon 98? Will
Purple become the target of the other
empires? In only a few months these
issues will be resolved.
A special thanks from the GM to all the
contestants, who were all part of the
process. Each and every contestant
turned in the requested score sheets, so
that a detailed event report and AREA
report could be submitted. A full record
of the scores and statistics is probably
available, as is the recap of the final
game. Hey, Bruce won the whole
enchilada, so expect him to include a lot
of detail about this tournament. If it’s
not included, put it down as editorial
discretion.
MACHIAVELLI
(GM: Stephen Koehler)
In 1997, attendance was down from the
Inaugural Tournament, but the more
experienced Medieval Diplomats
returned for this year's Machiavelli
tournament. There were two hard-fought
games in the play-in round on Thursday
night, wher e the "Struggl e for
Dominance" scenario was used.
January 1998
All optional and advanced rules were in
play and players bid to determine which
power they played. The players secretly
prepared a Bid Sheet, indicating how
many points they bid on each power.
The GM reviewed them and announced
the assignment of powers. Ties were
resolved using a random method.
At the conclusion of the game each
Power's Final Score were computed and
the players with the eight best scores
advanced to the Final Round. A Power's
Final Score was based on the Power's
income at the end of the game
multiplied by a factor based on winning
or participation in a draw minus the
amount bid by that player to get that
Power.
On Board One, Hudson Dufoe
(Florence), Steve Chilcote (Austria),
Bryan Jackson (France), Andrew Kutzy
(Papacy), Stephen Squibb (Turks) and
Ken Mathias (Venice) squared off.
Hudson dominated and took 18 cities by
the end of the game. This got him the
plaque for Best Florence and was the
most impressive performance of the
Tournament. Andrew also did well as
the Papacy, ending the game with 12
cities, giving him the Best Papacy
award. Ken Mathias and Stephen
Squibb (Best Turk) rounded out the two
others to advance to the finals from this
Board.
On Board Two, Doug Faust (Austria),
Bob Olivere (Florence), George Ponzoni
(France), Brian Ecton (Papacy), Scott
Bowling (Turks) and Dan Mathias
(Venice) squared off. Sadly, constant
bickering over rules caused many
delays, and slowed the progress of the
game. I did my best to answer the
questions, but there was one player who
wanted to argue about everything, to the
detriment of the game. Unfortunately, he
was one of the people to advance to the
Final game and caused many delays
there as well. Dan was well on his way
to winning this game with 15 cities by
the end of the game and garnered the
Best Venice award for his performance.
Scott, George and Doug (Best Austria)
also advanced to the Final Game.
On Saturday night, the top eight scorers
advanced to the Final Game. Andrew
Kutzy had a conflict and so Brian Ecton
took his place in the Final. Bids were
taken and Brian Ecton took Venice,
George Ponzoni took Milan, Stephen
Squibb took Austria, Hudson Dufoe took
 The Boardgamer
Avaloncon 1997 - Late Reports (Cont.)
Florence, Dan Mathias took Naples,
Doug Faust took France, Scott Bowling
took Papacy and Ken Mathias took the
Turks.
From the start, Natural Disasters played
a major role in this game. In Summer
1454, a major Plague struck, wiping out
six player units and three Autonomous
Garrisons. The Papacy and Venice each
lost two units and never fully recover.
The Money Lenders also played a major
role in the Final Game, as six of the
players had taken out major loans by
the end of the first year of play. Florence
(Hudson) was able to grab Genoa by
buying off the Autonomous Garrison
there, and took an early lead. The
Papacy (Scott) weakened by Plague,
was hounded by Naples (Dan), who
bought off one of the Pope's units and
took Rome.
For some, this extravagant spending
ultimately spelled their doom. In Spring
of 1456, Guido, the Money Lender
Assassin, paid a visit on the Turk ruler
(Ken) for failure to repay a debt. Many of
his provinces took the opportunity to
rebel, and the other players, like
vultures, descended on the carcass and
Ken ended the game with only two
cities.
Guido next visited Venice (Brian) and
the Papacy (Scott), both still struggling
after their initial Plague setbacks, in the
Summer of 1456. Both were almost out
of the game anyway, and both ended
with one city a piece.
France (Doug) made a bold stab of
Florence (Hudson) at the end of the
game, buying Hudson's unit in Genoa
and striking on several fronts. The game
ended shortly thereafter, and this bold
move gave Doug Faust the game and
the Championship, with 13 cities. Dan
Mathias as Naples came in Second with
ten cities, Stephen Squibb came in third
with eight cities, and Hudson was left
with six cities for fourth place.
PANZERBLITZ
(GM: Dave Giordano)
This year’s Swiss elimination format with
games being played from Wednesday to
Sunday attributed to the strongest
participation ever at Avaloncon. There
were 20 players, with 5 of the 6 top
rated players, all going after the guts
and the glory!
Volume 3, Issue 1
When the preliminaries ended on
Friday, eight advanced to the single
elimination rounds. From past
experience I could tell this was a strong
field. For the single elimination rounds
we selected five balanced scenarios by
drawing slips of paper from a box.
In the quarterfinals newcomer Alan
Arvold took out Chuck Leonard in
Situation #14 by hitting Bednost hard,
scoring many kills and keeping Chuck in
hot pursuit for the remainder of the
game. Johnny Hasay, a 2-time
champion, outlasted Kenneth Oates in a
grueling and hard fought Situation #25.
Johnny is a tactical wizard and always
finds that one move you’re not
expecting. He created an opening along
the North edge of the board and was
able to exit the necessary units for his
victory. This game lasted 9-1/2 hours
and taught the GM a lesson about
including very large scen arios,
especially since both players looked like
they had been through a 15 round
heavyweight fight! Kurt Kurtz won a
technical fall over John Gibson in
Scenario #1A, a scenario provided by
Chris Harris and Dave Giordano which
proved very balanced very balanced,
due to the GM having to call the game.
This was done because John is such an
outstanding, diversified player, he had
earned himself a trip to the finals in two
other events. Sorry we couldn’t have
witnessed his exp ertise at our
tournament, but had to wish him luck
and adjudicate the game. Dave
Giordano, a past champion, fought a
tense and down to the wire Situation
#1A with Chris Harris. Chris was very
crafty with his attacks, and had the win
within sight when Dave pulled off a huge
overrun on the last turn, killing three
units to steal the victory. This game
ended a close 13-11 as it should for the
co-creators of this situation and
prompted one to say “It doesn’t get any
better than this”.
The semifinals matched Alan against
Kurt in Situation #25 with Alan prevailing
by utilizing a feint to get across the
board and then eliminating anything that
tried to block his path. This tactic
worked well and provided him with
enough kill points to advance to the
finals. To Kurt’s credit, he did not allow
any units off the board, but was unable
to maneuver away from the powerful
Russian artillery.
January 1998 15
The other semifinal pitted Johnny Hasay
against Dave Giordano in Situation #23.
For the past three years these two have
met in either the semifinals or the finals,
with each earning a plaque over that
period. This was a very tight game, with
Johnny having a terrific setup which
maximized his forces to create a
southerly battlefield. Johnny was
playing very aggressively, keeping Dave
pinned in on board 1. He was
outstanding in his use of the three
Wespes, and showed how a great
player can utilize the German superiority
in range of weapons. Dave broke out of
board 2 and proceeded into board 3 as
battle raged on around Uschas. At this
point John turned to Dave and said,
“How did we both know the battle would
be here?” Dave wasn’t sure, but
somehow they both knew. The game
was postponed at 4:47 am and was to
be continued the next morning. At
dawn, John succumbed to illness and
was unable to continue, which was
unfortunate for him because he was
likely to win due to superior position of
forces across all three boards. This
combination would have proved very
difficult for Dave to overcome.
The Sunday morning final had Alan
playing Dave in Situation #14. Dave
had the same excellent results in
assaulting Bednost that Alan enjoyed in
the quarterfinals. After wiping out the
CP and the recons, Dave had a 28 point
lead. Alan pursued the fleeing Germans
and was able to accumulate 14 points
before losing 30-14. It was a good
game but the German results on turn
1made it next to impossible for the
Russian to catch him. Alan is the author
of the Volue 28, #3 of the GENERAL
scenarios for Panzerblitz, but this was
his first Panzerblitz tournament. I found
his knowledge of the game and skill in
tactical maneuvers quite impressive. I
hope to have him back next year as I
not only found a quality competitor but a
friend.
I would like to thank a few of the people
who made my first GM duty at
Avaloncon a pleasurable one, starting
with my assistant GMs, Alan Arvold and
Ken Oates. Also, Johnny Hasay, this
plaque coulda, woulda, shoulda been
yours if it weren’t for illness; Chris
Harris, my predecessor as GM; and Bill
Scott, the Panzer Leader GM. I never
 16 The Boardgamer
Avaloncon 1997 - Late Reports (Cont.)
would have wanted to be the GM if Don
Greenwood hadn’t allowed me to be in
the same room with Bill all week.
TYRANNO EX
(GM: Tom DeMarco)
This was the third year that I ran the
Tyranno Ex tournament at Avaloncon.
Due to feedback from last year's
entrants, some changes were made in
the tournament format.
In previous years, to make the final an
entrant had to get the most wins in three
heats, with the highest single game
point total used to break ties. But this
format meant that entrants needed to try
to play in all three heats, and even when
they won one game, they still might not
make the final. So the first change was
to allow every winner in each heat to
advance. This forced the second
change - the addition of a semi-final
round to handle all of the entrants who
would now advance.
Next, I decided to change the
tournament to a "B" event (meaning
that, one hour before the start of each
heat, the game would be taught to
anyone who needed it) in the hope of
drawing in more entrants than the 25 in
the 1996 tournament.
This year's Avaloncon added another
day to the schedule, so I tried to
schedule the heats earlier in the con,
hoping to avoid conflicts for finalists with
other finals in which to play. And since
Tyranno Ex plays best with four players,
I planned to limit the tournament to four
player games, allowing latecomers only
to fill up a board of four.
I thought I had allowed enough time on
Wednesday morning to arrive at the con
by 9 am, but a traffic jam on the
Baltimore beltway delayed us until just
15 minutes before the first heat. My
thanks to those who ran a quick tutorial
for the entrants who didn't know the
rules or needed a refresher.
For the first heat we had 16 entrants,
filling four boards. My game started out
very well, with good environment disk
draws leading to higher strength
creatures. These were parleyed into a
point lead that I was able to hold on to
through the five game turns. Marilyn
Koleszar made a strong showing,
Volume 3, Issue 1
finishing just one point back with 51 to
my 52 points. The other three winners
were Jeff Finkeldey with 90 points,
Christina Hancock with 70 points, and
Katherine Hitchings with 57 points.
Katherine's game was the shortest in
the tournament when on turn 4 no
environment types were left face up (an
asteroid strike?) and all the remaining
creatures became extinct.
The second heat, on Thursday morning,
drew three new and five repeat entrants,
making two full boards. I was set to play
when Kaarin Englemann arrived a little
late. Since I had already qualified for
the semi-final, I relinquished my seat to
her. The two winners in that heat were
Verity Hitchings with 122 points (the
hi ghest scor e f or t he ent i r e
tournament!), and Marilyn Koleszar with
76 points.
With the small turnout for the second
heat, I became concerned that the
tournament would end up smaller than
last year's. I needn't have worried.
Seventeen new and seven repeat
entrants showed up, making six full
boards and a total for the tournament of
36 entrants. At my table I was tied for
the lead after the first turn, dropped to
fourth on the second, and had clawed
my way up to third place at the finish.
The winner at my table was Rodney
Robinson (who had been taught the
game before the heat began) with 54
points. The other winners were
Courtney Foster with 70 points, Jeff
Miller with 75 points, Will Wible with 81
points, Carolyn DeMarco with 86 points,
and Matt Evinger with 62 points.
The semi-final round was held Friday at
3 PM. Ten of the twelve first round
winners (Courtney, Katherine, Verity,
Marilyn, Carolyn, Christina, Jeff
Finkledey, Will, and myself) were
present. The round was increased to
twelve with the inclusion of two second
place finishers, Eric Amick and Bill
Romaniecki. I was pitted against
Courtney, Christina and Jeff. On the
first turn I was able to increase the
strength of one of my creatures,
Archeopteryx, from one to four, but
scored less points than Courtney and
Jeff. Archeopteryx increased to the
maximum possible strength of six on
turn two, and helped me jump into the
lead. That tough old bird was able to
hang on throughout most of the game
and I won with 69 points. Will won a
January 1998
closer game over Verity, Marilyn, and
Eric, scoring 85 points. In the third
game Carolyn and Bill leapt from fourth
and third on the next to last turn to tie for
the victory with 56 points over Katherine
and Matt.
The prizes for fifth through eighth places
were won by Verity Hitchings - fifth (third
last year), Christina Hancock - sixth,
Matt Evinger - seventh, and Marilyn
Koleszar - eighth.
The final round was scheduled to be run
immediately after the semi-final, but the
finalists agreed to play Saturday at 3
PM. At the end of the first turn I held the
lead with 12 points over Carolyn and
Bill's score of 7 points. On the second
turn, Bill used his "5" marker to give him
an extra chance to change the
environments, while Carolyn earned 15
points to take the lead with 22 points to
my 20 points. Will used his "5" marker
for the same purpose on turn 3. Bill was
the high scorer on turn 3 with 18 points
and took over the lead with 40 points.
Will was the big scorer on the fourth turn
with 27 points for a total of 49 points.
But while Carolyn didn't score as much
as Will, she scored just enough to
regain the lead with 50 points. Bill was
hanging onto third with 46 points and I
trailed with 33 points.
By the end of the environment change
phase of turn 5 we knew that we were in
the last turn because Bill's last creature
had expired due to incompatible
environments. It didn't look good for
me. I needed to score a lot more points
than the others. When the battle phase
ended, Will and I each had two
creatures left and Carolyn had one; so I
used my "5" marker to give me an extra
battle and eliminate one of Will's
creatures. I was able to outscore the
others with 15 points to Will's 10 and
Carolyn's 8 points, but it wasn't enough.
Adding in 5 points for saving her "5"
marker until the game's end, Carolyn
won the game and the tournament with
a total of 63 points. Will finished
second, scoring 59 points. I ended up in
third with 48 points, edging out Bill's
score of 46 points.
This was Carolyn's fourth appearance in
the tournament finals in the last five
years. After finishing in third place in
both 1993 and 1994, she won the
tournament in 1995. She chose not to
defend her title last year. Will was the
 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998 17

Avaloncon 1997 - Late Reports (Cont.)

Tyranno Ex Game Master in 1994 and GM RATINGS AVALONCON 1998 INFORMATION
constructed really nifty extra plaques for
the four finalists that year. I was The top six GMs for Avaloncon 1997 A few notes on Avaloncon 1998:
pleased to meet and play with Bill. I were:
discovered that he is an old friend of my Both the admission price of $40 and the
father-in-law (and former Acquire 1. Will Wible (Republic Of Rome) Hunt Valley Inn rate of $69 per night will
champion) Bernie Norton. And me? 2. Dave Terry (B-17) hold steady for 1998. However, the free
Well I was the champion in 1994, 3. Jeff Slater (Empires In Arms) credit for pre-registration is actually
finished fourth in 1995, and regained the 4. Russ Gifford (Adv. Squad Leader) rising to $15 in 1998, which actually
crown last year (perhaps because 5. John Sharp (Naval War) means that the overall cost of the
Carolyn chose not to play?). I plan to be 6. Greg Mayer (Merchant Of Venus) convention is dropping slightly in 1998.
running the tournament again next year,
and look forward to meeting both The next ten were the GM’s for the On the prize front, a few games are
tournament returnees and first timers in following events: having their prize levels reduced next
the field of battle. I have a couple of year. These reductions will take place
ideas to make the 1998 Avaloncon Storm Over Arnhem in some of the “quick play” events (those
Tyranno Ex tournament better and Titan The Arena events which require less than four
wo u l d w el c o m e a n y i d ea s o r Rail Baron hours to complete). Potentially, this will
suggestions from any past or future Panzerblitz affect the following events:
tournament players. Panzer Leader
Up Front Acquire
Tom DeMarco Titan Air Force/Dauntless
609 Cleveland Avenue Attack Sub Assassin
Riverside, NJ 08075-3709 Britannia Atlantic Storm
Breakout Normandy Auction
E-Mail: Decathlon
TDeMarco@motown.LMCO.com Facts In Five
Greed
Mustangs Furball
BOARDGAMER Back Issues Origins of World War II
Pro Golf
Each back issue is available at a cost of $3.50 apiece. If ordering in quantities Slapshot
greater than one, the extra issues are $3.00 each. Extra charges apply for delivery Stock Market Guru
outside of the United States. Titan The Arena
Wrasslin Battle Royal
Preview Issue - Circus Maximus (V), Candidate (S), War At Sea (R, S), 1830 (V),
Up Front (R), AREA News & Ratings (N)
Volume 1, Issue 1 - Avaloncon 1995 (N), Assassin (S), Panzer Leader (Sc),
AREA News & Ratings (N)
AHIKS
Volume 1, Issue 2 - Avaloncon 1995 (N), History Of The World (SR), International Wargamer’s
Panzerblitz/Leader (Sc, V), 1776 (Sc), AREA News & Ratings (N) Society
Volume 1, Issue 3 - Battle Of The Bulge ‘91 (S), Auction (S), War At Sea (S ), The AHIKS International Wargamer’s
Victory In The Pacific (N), Machiavelli (S), Starship Troopers (N), Society is a great resource for those
Fortress Europa (SR), AREA News & Ratings (N) who do not have a good supply of FTF
Volume 1, Issue 4 - Fortress Europa (SR), PBEM (N), Panzerblitz (N), opponents and desire quality PBM
Attack Sub (S), Avaloncon 1996 (R & N), AREA News & Ratings (N) competition.

Volume 2, Issue 1 - Air Baron (SR), 1776 (V), Circus Maximus (S), TV Wars (S), AHIKS is an organization in transition.
History of the World (N & S), Gettysburg ‘88 (S), Avaloncon 1996 (N), It is still the best way to find reliable
AREA News & Ratings (N) opponents for Play-By-Mail. However,
it also is becoming an increasingly
Volume 2, Issue 2 - 1776 (S), Candidate (V), History of the World (V), better way to find quality, reliable
War At Sea (SR), AREA News & Ratings (N) opponents for Play-By-Email.
Volume 2, Issue 3 - War At Sea (SR), Ceasar Alesia (S),
Victory In The Pacific (N), AREA News & Ratings (N) For more information on AHIKS,
contact the BOARDGAMER. Or,
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Victory In The Pacific (S), History Of The World (V), contact the AHIKS PBEM Coordinator
Avaloncon 1996 (N), Pro Golf (SR), AREA News & Ratings (N) for the United States, Hank Burkhalter,
at the following email address:
Key: (H) = History; (N) = Narrative; (R) = Rules Clarifications; (S) = Strategy; (Sc) = Scenario;
(SR) = Series Replay; (V) = Variant ROLL_TIDE@mindspring.com
 18 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998
Advanced Squad Leader 2-Player Game
AREA Victory Claim Chit AREA Victory Claim Chit
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
(winner’s name) (winner’s name)

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
(AREA ID number) (AREA ID number)

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
(signature) (signature)
HAS DEFEATED HAS DEFEATED

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
(defeated player’s name) (defeated player’s name)

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
(AREA ID number) (AREA ID number)

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
(signature) (signature)

in a rated live pbm game of Advanced Squad Leader: in a rated live pbm game of:

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
(Scenario Name and/or Number) (Name of Game)

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
(Side of Winner) (Date) (Game Publishing Company)

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
(Play Balance Used - If Any) (Date)

Return this chit to: 1st Subsequent

Russ Gifford game vs. this opponent
Return this chit to: 1st Subsequent

320 E. 27th Street Glenn Petroski game vs. this opponent

South Sioux, NE 68776-3205 6829 23rd Avenue

SHANGRI@pionet.net Kenosha, WI 53143-1233
GELP@juno.com

Multi-Player Game AREA Victory Claim Chit

______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________
(Name of Winner #1) (AREA ID number) (Name of Defeated Player #1) (AREA ID Number) (Name of Defeated Player #4) (AREA ID Number)

______________________________________ ____________________________________ _______________________________________

(Number of opponents faced for first time) (Number of opponents faced for first time) (Number of opponents faced for first time)

______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________

(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)

______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________

(Name of Winner #2) (AREA ID number) (Name of Defeated Player #2) (AREA ID Number) (Name of Defeated Player #5) (AREA ID Number)

______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________

(Number of opponents faced for first time) (Number of opponents faced for first time) (Number of opponents faced for first time)

______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________

(Signature) (Signature) (Signature)

in a rated live pbm game of:

______________________________________
(Name of Game)
______________________________________
(Game Publishing Company)
______________________________________
(Date)
If more than 2 winners or 6 defeated
players, continue listing on another chit
and mark box in lower right corner.
______________________________________
(Name of Defeated Player #3) (AREA ID Number)
______________________________________
(Number of opponents faced for first time)
______________________________________
(Signature)
Return this chit to:
Glenn Petroski
6829 23rd Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53143-1233 (GELP@juno.com)
_______________________________________
(Name of Defeated Player #6) (AREA ID Number)
_______________________________________
(Number of opponents faced for first time)
_______________________________________
(Signature)
Check here if continued
on another chit.
 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express
Optional Rules and New Scenarios For Tokyo Express
On a dark night in late 1942, in the
contested waters of Ironbottom Sound
near the island of Guadalcanal, another
run of the Tokyo Express is taking
place. A large group of Japanese
destroyers in a single column is making
its way towards Tassafarunga Point
where the ships will drop off the supply
barrels into the water near shore before
they turn about and head for home. Air
reconnaissance has detected no
American ships in the area so tonight's
run should be a cakewalk. As the
destroyers near the shore, their crews
prepare to cut loose the supply barrels
as they swing around and depart from
the area. Suddenly the lookouts spot
two groups of small PT Boats
converging on them from both sides of
the column. General quarters is
sounded and crewmen quickly man both
the main guns and the AA guns on the
ships as machine gun fire from the PT
Boats starts hitting the destroyers. The
lookouts spot torpedoes coming towards
the ships and the column quickly breaks
up as the destroyers violently maneuver
to avoid them. The engagement quickly
degenerates into a bunch of small
individual battles between individual PT
Boats and destroyers. Within a half
hour several destroyers have taken
casualties among their exposed crews
which are on deck manning the guns
and pushing off the supply barrels from
the ship. A couple of destroyers even
have fires among the supply barrels on
rear deck caused by the machine gun
fire from the boats. Although no ship
has been hit by a torpedo yet, the
Japanese commander does not want to
push his luck and orders the general
withdraw of his ships from the area.
Although the Japanese did unloaded the
supply barrels into the water, the battle
with the PT Boats caused them to dump
them too far from shore. In the following
morning the PT Boats, assisted by
aircraft, sink the supply barrels that
haven't floated ashore yet by machine
gun fire thus insuring that these supplies
do not reach the Japanese forces on
Guadalcanal.
The previous paragraph described a
typical surface action in the waters
around Guadalcanal during the last two
months of the campaign. The major
surface actions that characterized the
Volume 3, Issue 1
by Alan Arvold
first four months became a thing of the
past as the US Navy decided not to risk
major combat ships in any more
attempts to stop the Tokyo Express's
supply runs. Instead they used PT
Boats to harass and disrupt the Express
during their regular deliveries. Although
PT Boats had been around in the US
Navy for a few years and even saw
some limited action in the Philippines in
early 1942, the Navy was still
d ev el o p i n g o p er a t i o n a l c om b a t
techniques for them. The Guadalcanal
campaign became the testing ground
during this developmental period where
the crews of the PT Boats developed
the techniques through the hard school
of combat. In the solitaire game
TOKYO EXPRESS, a game about night
surface combat during the Guadalcanal
campaign, PT Boats are notably absent
except as a random event against the
Japanese. I feel that this is wrong as the
PT Boats have just as much a place in
the American order of battle as the big
ships do. In this article I will present a
general description of the PT Boats and
how they operated, a short history of
their role in the Guadalcanal campaign,
rules for their use in the game TOKYO
EXPRESS, and two historical scenarios.
General Description: PT (Patrol
Torpedo) Boats were small boats about
80 feet long and weighed about 38 tons.
They were usually powered by gasoline
engines which gave these boats a top
speed of 40+ knots. They carried a crew
of 12-15 men and had plywood hulls.
There were two classes of PT Boats that
the US Navy used in the war, the Elco
class which was the class that most of
the boats used in the Guadalcanal
campaign were, and the Higgins class
which followed it. These boats were
armed with four torpedo tubes which
were fired forward of the boat, four .50
cal machine guns in two two-gun open
top turrets, and one 20mm AA gun on
the stern of the boat. In the latter part of
the campaign, the crews usually
upgunned their boats by adding
additional 20mm, 37mm, and/or 40mm
AA guns on the bows of their boats.
(One industrious crew mounted a 37mm
AT gun on the bow of their boat.) A
small search light was also mounted on
the boat but this was used for signalling
January 1998 19
as it was not powerful enough to
illuminate a target ship.
The main weapon on the PT boat was of
course its torpedoes. These were the
same type as those carried on
destroyers and submarines. PT Boats
had to aim and fire their torpedoes
individually as they did not have the
sophisticated sights and fire control
computers that the larger vessels had.
This meant the PT Boats had to get
closer to their targets in order to fire,
usually at ranges under four thousand
meters and sometimes as close as five
hundred meters. Being the same type
of torpedoes as those carried by other
vessels they frequently malfunctioned
either by running too deep or because of
the faulty detonators installed on the
torpedoes. Yet the PT Boats were the
only surface units in the US Navy who
scored torpedo hits on enemy ships
during the entire campaign.
The secondary weapons on the PT Boat
were the machine guns and AA guns.
Their primary purpose was anti-aircraft,
but they were also used against ground
targets on shore and against ships as
well. While the fire from these
automatic weapons never sunk a ship,
they did cause damage to exposed
machinery and equipment on deck,
cause casualties among exposed
crewmen on the target ship, and put
holes in the supply barrels which would
cause them to fill with water and sink
when they were pushed overboard.
Sometimes more spectacular results
occurred. On one occasion the machine
gun fire detonated the depth charges on
the rear depth charge rack causing
great damage to the stern of a
Japanese destroyer. On another
occasion machine gun fire killed the
entire bridge crew, including the captain
and first officer of a Japanese destroyer.
As most of the battles happened at
night, the PT Boats used tracer rounds
for their guns which made it easy for the
crews to adjust their fire and get it on
target. (These tracer rounds also on
occasion started fires on the decks of
their targets.)
Operations: The PT Boats, which
operated out of a base on the island of
Tulagi, performed a variety of missions.
 20 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
They escorted ships between the
islands of Guadalcanal and Tulagi, they
picked up downed American pilots in the
local waters around Guadalcanal, and
they performed patrol duties in the
waters between Guadalcanal and Savo
Islands. Although they never directly
participated in the major naval battles
around Guadalcanal (coordination
between the PT Boats and the larger
naval warships was still a thing of the
future) they did pick up survivors from
the sunken vessels in the battles. But
their most important mission was the
harassment of the Tokyo Express.
The PT Boats made contact with the
Express in one of two ways. The more
common way was when the boats were
p a t r o ll i n g t h e wat er s b et we en
Guadalcanal and Savo Islands. The
Express would blunder into the boats
and the battle was on. The other way
wa s wh en th e Am eric an s ha d
knowledge that the Express would be
arriving on a particular night, usually
from air reconnaissance. In this case the
boats would hide in the shallow waters
and coves around Savo Island, let the
Japanese ships pass on by, and then
attack them from the rear, a maneuver
which caught the Japanese by surprise
on more than one occasion.
Although the PT Boats used formations
when they patrolled their search areas,
in combat the boats were maneuvered
individually under the command of their
own skippers. This was necessary in
order to allow each boat the freedom to
line up their torpedo attacks in response
to the maneuvering of their intended
targets. Regardless whether they fired
torpedoes or not on attack runs the PT
Boats always fired at their targets with
their machine guns and AA guns,
sometimes from as short a range as 100
meters.
The PT Boats main opponent and target
during this time were the Japanese
destroyers. When the destroyers were
attacked, they would fire back with their
main armament, their AA guns, and in
some cases machine gun and rifle fire
using weapons from the small arms
lockers on their ships. The main guns
almost always engaged the PT boats at
short range due to the difficulty of hitting
a small highly maneuverable target at
longer ranges. The Japanese never
fired torpedoes at PT Boats because
they considered PT Boats to be poor
Volume 3, Issue 1
targets for such a valuable weapon.
(Another reason was that PT Boats
were so maneuverable they could easily
evade torpedoes.) If larger class
vessels such as cruisers and battleships
were attacked (which only happened
once in this campaign) these vessels
would respond with their secondary
armaments and AA guns only, saving
their main armaments and torpedoes for
more worthwhile targets. Japanese
ships usually stayed in formations when
fighting PT Boats though sometimes a
formation would break up when avoiding
multiple torpedo attacks and the battle
would break down into a series of
combats between individual boats and
ships.
While PT Boats were small, they were a
tough target to sink. Since the hull was
made of wood many of the large caliber
rounds that hit went right through the
hull without exploding. Those that did
explode did not automatically cause the
boat to sink. Several boats returned to
base with many holes in their hulls,
some even had chunks of the hull blown
off yet still remained afloat.
History: The PT Boats first arrived in
the Guadalcanal area on 12 October
1942 when four boats arrived at their
still uncompleted base on the island of
Tulagi. These boats were the First
Division of the US Third PT Squadron.
Their first action was two nights later
when the Japanese sent a battleship
task force to bombard Henderson Field.
The boats met the task force as it was
leaving the area after completing its
mission. Although the boats pressed
their attacks against the Japanese, the
destroyer screen drove off the PT boats
with concentrated fire and no hits were
scored on Japanese ships. All of the
boats were hit by light AA fire from the
destroyers but none were put out of
action. After the action the Americans
examined their PT doctrine to see why
the boats were so easily brushed aside
by the Japanese. They found that when
the PT Boats attacked in formation,
some boats had difficult if not impossible
torpedo shots yet these boats had to fire
when ordered by the squadron
commander. Also with the boats
coming from one direction the Japanese
could concentrate their fire in that
direction and could more easily avoid
the torpedoes as they were only coming
from one direction. Hence forth from
that time forward PT Boats were allowed
January 1998
to attack their targets individually from
different directions. However due to the
other missions required of the boats and
their few numbers, the PT Boats did not
engage the Tokyo Express for the rest
of the month of October.
On 25 October 1942 four more boats
arrived bringing the Third PT Squadron
up to strength and thus allowing for
some more anti-Express patrols. But it
was not until the night of the 6th of
November that the boats met up with
the Express. On that night four boats
engaged two Japanese destroyers
whic h wer e lan din g tro ops o n
Guadalcanal, driving them away. On
the next night the PT Boats scored their
first success when four boats while on
patrol found the Japanese destroyer
Mochizuki. The boats made multiple
torpedo attacks and one of them (PT-
48) scored a hit on the ship. The ship
escaped however suffering minor hull
flooding and losing half of its fuel.
Alt hough the PT squadr on's
performance was improving, the wear
and tear on the boats and men was
reducing the number of boats available
for duty. On the night of the 8th of
November three boats engaged five
Japanese destroyers but were beaten
off with heavy damage to two of the
boats. On the 10th of November five
more Japanese destroyers were
attacked by three boats and again the
boats were driven off with damage on all
of them. The PT Boats did not return to
action until the night of the 13th when a
large Japanese cruiser/destroyer task
force arrived off Guadalcanal and
proceeded to bombard Henderson Field.
Only two boats were sent out to
intercept as the rest were laid up for
repairs. The two boats performed
valiant attacks against the task force
with such ferocity that the Japanese
commander, Admiral Mikawa, ordered a
general withdraw cutting short the
bombardment, as he was convinced that
he was being attacked by the whole PT
squadron. After this action the PT
squadron had to stand down from all
operations as all boats were in bad need
of repair.
Through out the rest of November as
the American supply situation improved
the PT squadron was able to repair all of
its boats and bring them back into
service. In addition the US Second PT
Squadron was transferred to the
Guadalcanal at the end of the month
 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
where it doubled the number of boats
available to sixteen. Up to this time the
PT Boats were only reacting to the
Tokyo Express, usually intercepting it
after it had completed its missions. Now
there were enough boats to actively
p atr ol t h e a ppr oa ch ro ut es t o
Guadalcanal around Savo Island so
they could intercept the Express before
it could complete its missions. In early
December the Americans started using
this strategy and it almost immediately
brought results.
On the night of 7 December a convoy of
eight Japanese destroyers passed by
Savo Island on a supply run. There they
were ambushed by eight PT Boats
which converged on the convoy from
several directions. Although over twenty
torpedoes were fired at the destroyers,
not one of them hit. But they did cause
the convoy to break up and this allowed
the boats to gang up on individual ships
with their fire. Soon several destroyers
were suffering casualties to their
exposed crewman on deck and other
ships had raging deck fires burning.
Concerned with the increasing number
of damage and casualty reports he was
receiving the Japanese commander,
Captain Torajiro Sato, ordered a general
withdraw and abandoned the supply
mission without dropping off any
supplies. Although several boats were
damaged, the damage was not serious
and no boats were lost. Two nights later
the Japanese submarine I-3 was caught
by a PT patrol as it surfaced near
Guadalcanal and one boat (PT-59) put a
torpedo into to it which blew it up.
On the night of 11 December an eleven-
vessel Express under the command of
Rear Admiral Raizo Tanaka arrived in
the waters around Guadalcanal.
Because many of the damaged boats
from the battle four nights before were
still under repair, only five boats were
out on patrol. Again the Express was
ambushed near Savo Island and this
time the boats scored big. Two
torpedoes hit Tanaka's flagship, the
destroyer Teruzuki, and left her burning
and sinking in the water. Tanaka, who
was injured, was transferred to another
destroyer. Shortly thereafter the fires on
the Teruzaki reached her aft magazines
and the ship blew up. The Americans
lost their first PT Boat in the campaign
that night. The PT-44 was enveloped
from three sides by gunfire from nearby
destroyers and promptly sank. The
Volume 3, Issue 1
Japanese did drop off their supply
barrels and then left but at daybreak the
four surviving PT boats conducted target
practice on the floating barrels with their
guns and sank about three quarters of
them. Unable to effectively deal with the
new PT Boat tactics, the Japanese
suspended all remaining supply runs for
the remainder of December. Admiral
Tanaka who recovered from his injuries
was transferred (for medical reasons) to
a desk job at the naval base at
Singapore.
During the rest of the month of
December the Americans again used
the time to repair their boats and to
replace losses. With the ever improving
supply situation the Americans could
now send the boats out on patrol about
four times a week. The Japanese on
the other hand were developing new
anti-PT boat tactics due to the boats
becoming a real threat to the Express
instead of the nuisance that they
originally were. The boats did not meet
the Express again until into the new
year. On the night of 10 January 1943,
an eight vessel Express was spotted
approaching Guadalcanal. Eight PT
Boats awaited them near Savo Island.
In the ensuing battle two PT boats (PT-
112 and PT-43) were sunk or destroyed,
but the Americans put a torpedo into the
Japanese destroyer Hatsukaze which
crippled it and several ships suffered
deck fires. Although the Japanese did
manage to drop off the supply barrels,
most of these barrels were sunk by
gunfire from the boats the next morning.
The Americans met the Express again
four nights later with thirteen boats. The
nine Japanese destroyers in the column
were supported by night flying dive
bombers which attacked the boats as
they made their attacks against the
Express. While the planes kept the
boats from making effective attacks on
the destroyers, a number of planes were
shot down in the process. The
destroyers were able to drop off their
supply barrels in peace and escape but
the next morning the Americans again
sent most of the barrels to the bottom
with gunfire.
Another lull occurred as the Japanese
conserved their ships for the evacuation
thus allowing the Americans to repair
their boats and replace losses. The
next, and as it turned out, the last battle
between the PT boats and the Express
occurred on the night of 1 February
January 1998 21
1943. The Japanese sent a convoy of
twenty destroyers towards Guadalcanal
on what would be the first of three
evacuation runs to the island. The
Americans ambushed them with eleven
PT Boats near Savo Island. The
Japanese were again assisted by night
flying dive bombers which attacked the
boats as they made their attacks. One
dive bomber planted a bomb on PT-123
which blew it to bits. The Americans
pressed on with their attacks launching
more then thirty torpedoes. None of
these hit but they did cause the
Japanese to turn away in the direction of
a minefield which the Americans had
laid the day before. One Japanese
destroyer, the Makigumo, hit a mine and
went down. Several destroyers suffered
crew casualties from the exchange of
fire with the boats but two PT boats (PT-
111 and PT-37) were sunk in the
process. Another boat, (PT-48) was
beached near Savo Island but was
recovered the next day. The Japanese
turned away, pretending to retire, which
led the Americans to believe the battle
was over and they also retired.
However the Japanese reversed course
again and came back to Guadalcanal to
make their pick up of troops. Once this
was accomplished the destroyers got
away with no further contact with the
boats.
The Japanese m ade two m ore
evacuation runs after this, one on the
night of 4 February and one on the night
of 7 February. Although the PT Boats
were out in force on the night of the 4th,
an incorrect intelligence report led the
Americans to believe that the Japanese
would be coming into the area northeast
of Savo Island and this was where the
PT Boats were deployed. The
Japanese however came into the area
west of Savo Island, thus no contact
was made between the Express and the
boats that night. On the night of the 7th
the boats were not out due to a
maintenance stand down so the
Japanese were able to make their last
pick up in peace. Thus ended the
American PT Boat participation in the
Guadalcanal campaign.
Rules: The following rules apply to the
use of PT Boats in the game TOKYO
EXPRESS. Except for the rule changes
in this article all other rules in the normal
game apply. The number sequence of
the rules below places them after the
optional rules of the game.
 22 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
23.0 PT Boats
23.1 Game Equipment
Ship Log Roster: A ship log roster has
been included with this article. The
numbers of the boats listed are the
actual numbers of the boats which
participated in the Guadalcanal
campaign. Note that the torpedo salvos
all have bow arcs and that none of the
boats have radar. The different parts on
each individual ship log will be explained
in rules sections further on.
Counters: Players can either craft their
own counters or use the American
Hidden Forces counters. (Since I only
play this game solitaire I have had no
use for the American Hidden Forces
counters until now.) The speed factor is
8, the gunnery factor (360 degree) is 8
(12), the ship type is PT. The counter
does have a backside indicating a fired
side. Again the different factors on the
counter with be explained in the rules
section further on.
23.2 Movement and Formations
PT Formations: Groups of PT Boats
may be formed into formations. Each
boat in the formation must be within one
hex of at least one other boat in the
formation. Each boat need not be
adjacent to every other boat in the
formation, just one other boat. It is not
mandatory to group all PT Boats within
one hex of each into the same
formation. Indeed you can form any
number of formations from PT Boats
within one hex of each other. PT Boats
may not be grouped in formations with
other types of ships. PT Boats may not
be grouped into formations nor move
until released.
Formation Speed: There are no speed
markers for a Speed of 8, therefore a
formation moving at that speed will have
no speed marker on it. Formations and
boats with a Speed of 8 move two hexes
on the First Movement Phase and two
hexes on the Fourth Movement Phase.
PT Boat formations may not be
assigned speeds of more then 6 prior to
detecting the Japanese. After detection
they may move at their maximum
speeds.
PT Formation Movement Orders: PT
form ations m ay use th e sam e
movement orders as other ship
Volume 3, Issue 1
formations. However due to their
smaller size and their ability to make
smaller and tighter turns PT formations
may make the following maneuvers in
the following fashion:
Countermarch: PT Boats may reverse
heading in one movement phase by
doing a 180 degree turn in the hex they
are in but they may not move out of the
hex during that same movement phase.
A PT Boat may also reverse heading
doing a 60 degree turn in one
movement phase and a 120 degree turn
in a future movement phase in the same
turn (or vice versa). Thus a PT
formation may perform a Countermarch
maneuver at a Speed of 1 or 2. Of
course a PT formation may perform a
normal Countermarch maneuver using
three 60 degree turns during a Game
Turn.
S-Turns: PT formations may do 120
degree turns when doing an S- Turn
maneuver. PT formations may even do
a combination of 60 and 120 degree
turns in an S-Turn, for example a
formation may do a 120 degree turn in
one direction on one Movement Phase
then do two 60 degree turns in the other
direction in future Movement Phases in
the same Game Turn (or vice versa). A
PT formation may not perform this
maneuver when at a Speed of 1.
Column Maneuvers: PT Boats may use
Column Formations. If a PT column is
performing a Countermarch Maneuver
in a single hex, the boats which have
already turned may pass over the top of
the boats which have not turned yet
providing the stacking limitations are not
exceeded at the end of the Movement
Phase that this situation occurs.
Stacking: No more than four PT Boats
may occupy a hex at the end of a
Movement Phase. PT Boats may not
occupy the same hex with larger US
ships at the end of a Movement Phase
though they may pass through them
during a Movement Phase. PT Boats
may occupy a hex which contains
Japanese ships providing that the total
number of ships and boats do not
exceed four. (These restrictions reflect
the operational procedures of the PT
squadrons at that time.)
Collisions: The collision rules in Rules
Section 5.5 are not used when using PT
Boats in the game. (Due to their
maneuverability and speed PT Boats
easily avoided collisions. Historically all
PT Boats that were rammed and sunk
January 1998
by bigger vessels during the war were
motionless in the water at the time of the
collision.)
Freedom of Action: PT formations do
not use Freedom of Action Table. All
PT formations follow the Movement
Orders they are given. PT formations
do not use Admirals either.
Japanese Battle Movement: When
determining the Principle US Threat for
Japanese Battle Movement, PT Boats
are treated as destroyers.
Shoal Hexes: PT Boats may enter
Shoal Hexes. They may only enter and
exit Shoal Hexes through whole water
and partial water/land hexsides. They
may not move across a whole land
hexsides. If a PT Boat is about to enter
a whole land hexside by virtue of its
movement orders, it may perform an
Emergency Turn at no cost to its speed.
Each time a PT Boat enters a Shoal Hex
the player rolls the die; a result of 1
means that the PT Boat has run
aground and is considered to be sunk, a
result of 2-10 means no effect. Two
Shoal Hexes, one in hex 1226 and one
in hex 1327, each have two separate
shoal areas. For game purposes the
shoal areas which border the northwest
hexsides of those hexes are considered
shoal areas and the other shoal areas in
those hexes are considered to be land.
Unreleased PT Boats may begin the
game in Shoal Hexes if the scenario
instructions allow them to.
23.3 PT Boat Battle Movement
Design Note: PT Boats moved in
formations when conducting searches
through their patrol areas. However
when contact was made with the enemy
PT formations would break up with each
PT Boat conducting its own attacks as
its commander thought best. Indeed PT
Boat commanders conducted their
attacks on enemy ships much the same
way as fighter pilots handle their planes
in an aerial dogfight. These following
rules apply only for PT Boats.
Battle Movement Effect: PT Boats using
Battle Movement move at their
maximum speed (which may be reduced
due to damage). PT Boats are not
considered to be part of any formation
and those boats in a formation when
Battle Movement is initiated are
 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
released from that formation. PT Boats
using Battle Movement have no
Movement Orders to follow, instead on
every Movement Phase the player may
make any legal maneuver with each PT
Boat on the board as he wishes. This
may lead a boat to make more turns and
maneuvers in a Game Turn then a
larger ship can. (For Example: An
undamaged PT Boat is using Battle
Movement at the beginning of a game
Turn. On the First Movement it moves
ahead two hexes. On the Second
Movement Phase it makes a 120 degree
turn and moves forward. On the Third
Movement Phase it Countermarches in
the hex it is in meaning that it makes a
180 degree turn but does not move out
of the hex. On the Fourth Movement
Phase it moves ahead one hex, makes
a 60 degree turn, move ahead one hex.
On the Fifth Movement Phase it
Countermarches again in the hex its in.
On the Sixth Movement Phase it moves
ahead one hex, then makes a 120
degree turn. This example shows some
extreme maneuvering for a PT Boat but
it is all legal movement.)
Initiation of Battle Movement: Battle
Movement may be initiated by a PT
formation on the Movement Phase after
one of the two following conditions are
met; 1) the PT formation has detected a
Japanese force or 2) the PT formation
was fired upon by a Japanese force. A
PT formation does not have to go to
Battle Movement when one of these
conditions are met, it may continue on
as a formation. However such a
formation may not go to Battle
Movement in a future Movement Phase
until one of the conditions is met again.
In scenarios where the player has
multiple PT formations, assuming they
all meet one of the above conditions, the
player may put all, some, or none of
them in Battle Movement at his
discretion. PT Boats which go into
Battle Movement immediately move at
their maximum speed for the rest of the
turn regardless what their speed was
before going into Battle Movement.
(Example: A PT formation during the
first three Movement Phases of a turn
moves at a Speed of 5. On the Fourth
Movement Phase the formation initiates
Battle Movement. The formation breaks
up and each boat is moving at its
maximum speed for the duration of the
turn.)
Volume 3, Issue 1
Duration of Battle Movement: Battle
Movement once initiated continues on
even into future turns. However if
during the US Formation Phase of the
Preparation Stage of a Game Turn the
player has a group of PT Boats which
meet the criteria for a PT formation, the
player may at his option group these
boats into a formation, assign them a
speed and a Movement Order, and
place a formation marker on them. This
cancels the Battle Movement for these
boats and they then follow the rules for
formation movement until Battle
Movement is initiated again on a future
Movement Phase.
23.4 Detection
US Detection: PT Boats use visual
detection when trying to spot Japanese
formations. The PT Boats may not use
radar detection of any kind. (PT Boats
did not have any radar installed on them
during the Guadalcanal campaign. PT
Boats produced later on during the war
did have a small search radar installed
as standard equipment.)
Visual Detection Die Roll Modifiers: The
following modifiers are used when the
scenario includes PT Boats:
-2 The target formation is a PT
formation.
-2 All PT Boats of the target formation
are in Shoal Hexes.
(Due to their smaller size, PT Boats
were harder for the Japanese lookouts
to detect, especially at longer ranges.
Japanese lookouts found it next to
impossible to see PT Boats when the
boats were in shallow waters close to
the shoreline with the island mass
behind them from the lookouts' point of
view.)
23.5 Combat
J a p a n e s e T o r p e d o Al l o c a t i o n :
Japanese ships may not fire torpedoes
at PT Boats. (Their tactical doctrine
prohibited it.)
PT Boat Torpedo Salvos: Each PT Boat
has two torpedo salvos each with a
Torpedo Value of 2. These salvos may
only be fired at targets in the Bow Arc of
the firing PT Boat. In addition,
torpedoes fired from PT Boats have
shorter ranges. A range of 1 hex is
considered to be Short Range and a
range of 2 or 3 hexes is considered to
January 1998 23
be Medium Range. PT Boats may not
fire torpedoes at targets at ranges
greater than 3 hexes. (Although PT
Boats fired the same type of torpedoes
as larger ships did, the aiming devices
on the boats were rudimentary at best
compared to the more sophisticated
aiming devices on larger ships. This
required the PT Boats to get closer to
the target in order to fire. PT Torpedo
Salvos represent two torpedo tubes
each. While this is less then the number
of tubes represented by salvos on
bigger ships it should be remembered
that ships would fire a whole salvo at a
target at once where as PT Boats
individually aimed and fired each of their
torpedoes.)
J a p a n e s e G u n n e r y Al l o c a t i o n :
Japanese destroyers and light cruisers
may fire their main armament at PT
Boats. Japanese heavy cruisers and
battleships may only fire their secondary
armament at PT Boats. In both cases
PT Boats are treated as DD target types
on the gunnery cards. Ranges are
treated differently when firing at PT
Boats. Short Range is from 0 to 1
hexes, Medium Range is from 2 to 3
hexes, and Long Range is 4 hexes and
beyond. PT Boats are treated as DD's
in terms of target selection when
al l ocati ng Japanes e gunner y.
Destroyers and light cruisers may fire
their bow and stern gunnery values at
separate targets with the appropriate
gunnery row shift modifier. (As
mentioned before, Japanese ships
engaged PT Boats not only with Light
Guns but also with AA guns. This
combination of weapons is what the
Light Guns on small ships and the
secondary armament on large ships
actually represents and also accounts
for the changes in the ranges.
Japanese ships would never engage PT
Boats with heavy guns due to the
difficulty these guns have in hitting small
fast highly maneuverable targets.)
PT Boat Gunnery: PT Boats have a
normal gunnery value of 8 which can be
applied towards a target in any firing
arc. They have a special gunnery value
of 12 which represents the upgunning of
the boats done by the crew later in the
campaign. This special value is only
used by individual boats as their
gunnery value in a scenario if the
scenario special rules or the scenario
generation system (to be explained
later) indicates that they can. The PT
 24 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
gunnery value uses the Light Gun
Gunnery Card to determine combat
results. The PT gunnery value can only
be applied to one target during a combat
segment, it can not be split between
targets. As none of the PT Boats have
radar, PT gunnery attacks never suffer
the Down 1 Row Shift in gunnery
combat for using visual fire direction. All
special gunnery results on the gunnery
cards apply except for the radar out
result which can be ignored. Fires
which are caused on Japanese ships by
PT gunnery do not cause additional
damage, they are rolled for on the Fire
Effects Chart during the Terminal Stage
to see whether they go out or not.
(Fires started on Japanese ships by PT
gunnery were usually confined to the
main deck and did not spread to the vital
parts of the ship.)
Damage: All hits on PT Boats are
treated the same as with other vessels
in the game. Note that on the PT Ship
Log Roster the first hit on a PT Boat
puts the boat in Damage Level 2 status.
PT Boats who suffer a speed reduction
due to damage have that reduction
applied starting on the next Movement
Phase. All torpedo hits made on
Japanese ships by PT Boats are treated
normally. All gunnery hits made on
Japanese ships by PT Boats are treated
differently though. Gunnery hits made
by PT Boats are marked off on the
Japanese Ship Logs using a letter G for
each hit to differentiate them from
torpedo hits. Gunnery hits can raise the
damage level in terms of reduction of
gunnery shifts and loss of unfired
torpedo salvos but can not be counted
towards speed reduction nor may they
count towards the sinking of the target
ship. Torpedo hits do count towards the
sinking of a ship, thus when a ship
suffers a number of torpedo hits equal to
or more then the number of Damage
Boxes of that ship on the Ship Log, that
ship sinks.
Example 1: The Japanese destroyer
Kagero suffers one torpedo hit and two
gunnery hits from a PT Boat during a
Combat Segment. The Kagero thus
suffers a three row shift down on its
gunnery and has lost both of its torpedo
salvos (with reloads), but only has its
maximum speed reduced to 6.
Example 2: The Japanese destroyer
Fubuki has suffered three torpedo hits
and four gunnery hits from PT Boats.
The Fubuki suffers a three row shift
down on its gunnery, has lost two of its
Volume 3, Issue 1
torpedo salvos, and has its maximum
speed reduced to two. However it does
not sink due to the fact that it needs at
least one more torpedo hit to go down.
(PT gunnery reduces the gunnery
effectiveness and the torpedo salvos of
Japanese ships by causing casualties
among the exposed gun and torpedo
crews on the ships.)
Japanese Retirement: Japanese ships
retiring due to damage must meet one
of two criteria:
1) The ship has suffered enough
torpedo hits to warrant Damage Level 3.
Example: The Asagumo has suffered
three torpedo hits, thus it must retire.
The Yudachi has suffered one torpedo
hit and two gunnery hits, it may not
retire.
2) The ship has suffered enough
torpedo and gunnery hits to equal the
total number of Damage Boxes for that
ship on the Ship Log. Example: The
Uranami has suffered two torpedo and
two gunnery hits, thus it must retire.
(On several occasions when Japanese
ships suffered enough crew casualties
that they could not effectively perform
their missions, their captains would take
the ship out of action and retire.)
23.6 Advanced and Optional Rules
When using PT Boats in a scenario the
Random Events Rules (19.0) may not
be used. The rules on Secondary
Batteries (21.6) must be used. All other
rules may be used at the player's
discretion. If using the Illumination
Rules (21.5) only the Japanese may use
illumination and only when called for by
the Gunnery Cards.
23.7 Scenario Generation and Victory
Conditions
Scenario Generation Procedure: PT
Boats are used in scenarios when the
Japanese Strength Level is 3 or 4.
When generating scenarios or using the
Hypothetical Scenarios (17.0), if the
Japanese Strength Level is 4 or less the
US Player has a choice of either using
PT Boats or ships. If the Strength Level
is 5 or greater the US Player must use
ships. When generating a scenario the
following steps are carried out for PT
Boats:
1. Determine Japanese Strength Level
2. Determine Scenario Date
3. Determine Lighting Condition
4. Determine US Transports
January 1998
5. Generate PT Boats
6. Determine Gunnery Strength on PT
Boats
7. Deploy Forces
8. Determine Surprise
9. Prepare for Play
As Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are the
same as in the normal rules these shall
not be repeated here. The other steps
are described below.
Step 5. Generate PT Boats - Use the
following table to determine the number
of boats available.
Die Roll Early 42 Late 42 1943
1 2 3 6
2-3 2 4 6
4-5 3 6 8
6-7 3 8 10
8-9 4 10 12
10 4 12 14
There are no modifiers for this table.
Use the column corresponding to the
time of the scenario. The number rolled
for is the number of boats the US player
receives.
Step 6. Determine Gunnery Strength on
the PT Boats - Roll the die once for
each PT Boat in the scenario. If the
result is 1 in an Early 42 Scenario, 1 or
2 in a Late 42 Scenario, or 1, 2, or 3 in a
1943 Scenario, that boat has a gunnery
value of 12 in the scenario. Make a
note on that boat's ship log of that fact.
Any other result means that the PT
Boat's gunnery value is 8. (This
represents the irregular upgunning of
the PT Boats by their crews during the
campaign.)
Step 7. Deploy Forces - Besides the two
set up hexes, the US Player may deploy
up to half (fractions rounded up) of his
PT Boats in the Shoal Hexes around
Savo Island. In the Hypothetical
Scenarios the US Player may also
deploy up to half of his boats in the
Shoal Hexes around Savo Island.
Victory Conditions: There is no change
to the victory conditions when using PT
Boats. However there are a few
changes to the victory points received.
The Japanese receive 2 points for each
PT Boat sunk and 1 point for each boat
at Damage Level 3 at the and of the
scenario. The US Player receives
points for Damage Levels and sunken
Japanese ships only if they are caused
by torpedo hits.
 The Boardgamer
PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)
Example: The Japanese destroyer
Fubuki which suffered two torpedo hits
and two gunnery hits only scores 1 point
of the US Player. The US Player
receives 1 point for each PT Boat on the
board that is not sunk nor at Damage
Level 3. (These boats remain around
the area until dawn when they machine
gun the supply drums and sink them.)
Historical Scenarios: The following two
scenarios are based on actual battles
that occurred during the campaign.
15.6 Action Near Savo Island: 7-8
December 1942
The Situation: On 7 December 1942,
Allied air reconnaissance spots a
c o n v o y r u n of t en d es t r o y er s
approaching Guadalcanal. Air attacks
reduce this convoy to eight destroyers
by nightfall. The convoy's commander,
Captain Torajiro Sato, expects the
supply drop to go smoothly as Japanese
air reconnaissance reports no American
ships anywhere close to Guadalcanal.
As the convoy sails into Ironbottom
Sound it is ambushed from three sides
by eight PT Boats. Sato's convoy
breaks up as destroyers maneuver
violently to avoid torpedoes coming at
them form all directions. Although none
of Sato's ships are hit by torpedoes,
several of them are on fire and many
are reporting heavy crew casualties
from the machine gun fire from the PT
Boats. Sato, fearing more torpedo
attacks if he attempts to drop off the
supply drums, orders his ships to
withdraw without completing their
mission. With no losses to themselves,
the American PT Boats have succeeded
in driving off the Tokyo Express for the
first time in the campaign.
Deployment:
US Forces
The following boats are deployed at the
start of the game:
Boat Set-Up Hex
PT-40 1626, headed SW
PT-48 1626, headed SW
PT-43 2818, headed NW
PT-109 2818, headed NW
PT-36 1523, headed S
PT-37 1523, headed S
PT-44 1422, headed S
PT-59 1422, headed S
Volume 3, Issue 1
1. US Transports are not present.
2. The Lighting condition is Dark. The
US Visual Detection Range is 7 hexes,
the Visual Tracking Range is 7 hexes,
and the Visual Fire Direction Range is 7
hexes.
3. Surprise is in effect against the
Japanese. The US is considered
released and may begin moving and
detecting on Game Turn 2.
4. Roll the die once for each PT Boat to
determine which boats are upgunned for
this scenario. A 1 or 2 means a PT Boat
has a gunnery value of 12.
Japanese Forces
1. A total of 6 Hidden Force markers
start on the map. Place one Japanese
hidden force in each of the following
hexes: 1740, 1940, 2140, 2340, 2540,
and 2740.
2. All hidden forces are headed SE.
3. Place the following Force Size
markers in the container:
3 x 0, 2 x 1, 1 x 2.
4. The Japanese Strength Level is 3.
5. The Lighting Condition is Dark. The
Japanese Visual Detection Range is 10
hexes, the Visual Tracking Range is 9
hexes, and the Visual Fire Direction
Range is 9 hexes.
6. Surprise is in effect against the
Japanese.
7. Since US Transports are not present,
Japanese ships may perform only
supply missions.
Special Rules
1. The only action occurring in the first
Game Turn is that the Japanese hidden
forces move 6 hexes straight ahead to
the southeast during the Japanese
Hidden Forces Activity Stage. No
combat or detection occurs in this Game
Turn.
2. When determining VP's, there is no
modification to the US victory Point total.
January 1998 25
3. If you play this scenario using the
Advanced Rules, the Japanese receive
no Admiral.
15.7 Tanaka's Last Cruise: 11-12
December 1942
The Situation: Dissatisfied with the
results of the last Express run Rear
Admiral Raizo Tanaka, the bane of the
US Navy during the Guadalcanal
campaign, decides to lead the next run.
He leads an eleven destroyer convoy to
Guadalcanal which of course is spotted
by Allied air reconnaissance. Waiting to
meet him are five PT Boats deployed to
take his force from two sides. Tanaka's
plan for dealing with the PT Boats is for
half of his destroyers to go after the
boats while the other half drop off
supplies. However his plan starts to fall
apart when at the beginning of the
action two torpedoes slam into his
flagship the Teruzuki and leave it
burning and in a sinking condition.
Tanaka himself is injured and is
transferred to another destroyer. Three
destroyers gang up on one PT Boat PT-
44 and sink it with gunfire allowing the
other four boats to get away unscathed.
Although the Express does drop off its
supply drums this night, most of these
drums are sunk the next morning by the
boats. Although the Americans did not
stop the Tokyo Express this night, they
still considered it to be a victory as they
did knocked Tanaka out of the war who
upon recovery from his injuries is
banished to a desk job for the duration
of the conflict.
Deployment
US Forces
The following boats are deployed at the
start of the game:
Boat Set-Up Hex
PT-37 1527, headed SW
PT-40 1626, headed SW
PT-48 1626, headed SW
PT-44 3025, headed N
PT-114 3025, headed N
1. US Transports are not present.
2. The Lighting condition is dark, so the
US Visual Detection Range is 7 hexes,
the Visual Tracking Range is 7 hexes,
and the Visual Fire Direction Range is 7
hexes.
 26 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998

PT Boats versus The Tokyo Express (Cont.)

3. There is no surprise against either
side. The US is considered released,
starting with Game Turn 2.
4. Roll the die once for each PT Boat to
determine which boats are upgunned for
this scenario. A roll of 1 or 2 means a
PT Boat has a gunnery value of 12.
Japanese Forces
1. A total of 8 Hidden Force markers
start on the map. Place one Japanese
hidden force in each of the following
hexes: 1439, 1540, 1940, 2039, 2140,
2439, 2540, and 2639.
2. All hidden forces are headed SE.
3. Place the following Force Size
markers in the container:
4 x 0, 2 x 1, 2 x 2.
4. The Japanese Strength Level is 4.
5. The Lighting condition is Dark, so the
Japanese Visual Detection Range is 10
hexes, the Visual Tracking Range is 9
hexes, and the Visual Fire Direction
Range is 9 hexes.
6. There is no surprise against either
side.
7. Since US Transports are not present,
Japanese ships may only perform
supply missions.
Special Rules
1. The only action occurring in the first
Game Turn is that the Japanese hidden
forces move 6 hexes straight ahead to
the southeast during the Japanese
Hidden Force Activity Stage. No
combat or detection occurs in this Game
Turn.
2. When determining VP's, there is no
modification to the US Victory Point
total.
3. If you play this scenario using the
Advanced Rules, the Japanese receive
Admiral Tanaka.
Conclusion: PT Boats played a major
part in countering the Japanese
resupply efforts in the last two months of
the Guadalcanal campaign. Their
valiant actions warrant them a place in
the game. With these rules you can
now use them against the Tokyo
Express.

PT Boats - Ship Log Sheet

PT-36 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-60 2 3 (2) 2 O O B
SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-37 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-61 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-38 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-109 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-39 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-111 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-40 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-112 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-43 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-114 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-44 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-115 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-48 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-123 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______

PT-59 2 3 (2) 2 O O B PT-124 2 3 (2) 2 O O B

SPD: ______ SPD: _______
 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998 27

Preserving The Red Berets

Panzer Leader Scenario #10
Cornelius Ryan’s book and later movie
of the same title, “A Bridge Too Far”,
detailed the horrific fighting endured by
the 1st British Parachute Brigade (The
Red Berets) during the Battle of Arnhem
as part of Operation Market Garden.
Several games, such as Storm Over
Arnhem and Hell’s Highway allowed
the board wargamer to get a vicarious
“feel” for the harshness of this particular
World War II battle. This article
provides some thoughts on playing the
Allied side in yet another representation
of this famous battle, Situation 10 of
Panzer Leader. This article is the result
of several playings of the situation, not
to mention long discussions and
arguments with my friend and opponent,
John Laccone, of Rossville, Indiana.
This article does not claim to present a
perfect plan because I believe that, to
paraphrase General George S. Patton,
“plan for every contingency, but realize
that all plans go out the window when
the first shot is fired.” Instead this article
provides food for thought for the Allied
player in Situation 10 of Panzer Leader.
ABOUT THE TITLE
by Leslie Geraty w/John Laccone
make this point apparent. However,
there are things which the Allied player
can do to prolong the battle (preserving
the Red Berets).
STAY ON YOUR OWN SIDE OF THE
BRIDGE
The first thing the Allied player should
consider is exactly where he wants to
set up his forces. I strongly suggest that
the player stay north of the main stream
on PZL board A (Grancelles hexes V6
diagonally up to Z8) rather than setting
up within the southern part of the city as
well. This is experience speaking - I did
and got thoroughly skunked!). The
Allied player may want to consider the
completely ahistorical setup of having all
his units stacked south of the main
stream. This isn’t Arnhem but you may
last longer!
The Allied player may want to position
the two anti-tank guns in V6 and W7 or
stacked in W7 since the attack factor will
be doubled against any German tanks
crossing any of the bridges (V7, V8, W8
& X8) without giving your opponent the
+1 for being in a city terrain hex.
doubled to 30) Tigers. When the
German units are close enough for
close assault tactics (CAT attacks for
convenience) to be used, if they are
successful, the Allied unit is not spotted.
AVOID THE PARK
An article I read long ago about PZL
described Grancelles as a lovely city
surrounding the memorial park (hex X7)
where all the enemies that had died in
overrun attacks were buried. Since the
Allied player has no armor, don’t go into
the park. If the Axis player chooses to
go into the park, rejoice, since you can
CAT attack him again without the +1 die
roll which a city hex bestows on an
armored unit. X7 may be surrounded by
city hexes but it is a clear hex!
CONCLUSION
While Situation 10 is highly unbalanced
(as was the actual battle), I hope I have
provided some interesting ideas for the
Allied player. Maybe someone can do
better than a “marginal German victory”,
which is the best level of which I
have ever heard for this situation!

I specifically chose the title of this article The engineers should be stacked with
as “Preserving the Red Berets” for the something, both as protection against Panzer Leader
simple reason that the Allied side of early elimination and because they have 52 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
Situation 10 is definitely NOT for the to be according to the PZL rules to gain
gamer who believes he has to “out- the one column advantage in Close 1. James McAden 1864 FHM-6
Napoleon Napoleon” or is on any such Assaults. In my opinion, the engineers 2. Robert Beyma 1825 CE-C7
ego trip. The Allied player is NOT going should not be stacked with each other 3. Bruce Wright 1793 CCE-6
to destroy the Axis forces no matter how ever, as you do not get a second or 4. William Scott 1671 GH-C7
well he plays or how much the dice go in third-column shift for additional 5. Eduardo deNucci 1655 BE-A6
his favor. engineers; use this property for two or 6. Martin Musella 1618 BC-B7
three one column shifts. 7. Mark Murray-Brown 1615 BE-A7
A simple count of the respective attack 8. Kevin Kinsel 1601 CCD-6
factors (172 to 51, Axis to Allies) should HOW YOU ATTACK 9. Danny Price 1596 EEEB7
10. Eric Bonner 1593 FFM-6
11. Jeff Wise 1582 CDE-6
The Axis player in this situation
12. Jay Zollitsch 1573 BD-A6
has to come to you as his
13. Eric Redstone 1568 ABB-7
Victory Conditions require him 14. John Trotsky 1566 AAB-7
to clear and control all town 15. Todd Treadway 1542 AA-A6
hexes of Grancelles. Let him 16. Rod Coffey 1535 AAA-6
come as there is little which can 17. Larry Felton 1534 AC-A7
be done while the Axis player is 18. Donald Webster 1530 AA-A7
a p p r o a c h i n g G r a n c el l es . 19. Hans Frey 1525 ABA-6
Besides, direct fire attacks 20. Kurt Kurtz 1516 AB-A7
within LOS of a German unit 21. John Gibson 1512 BB-C7
allow the Allied unit to be 22. Michael Ellsworth 1510 AB-A6
spotted and targeted by the 23. David Chilcote 1510 AA-A7
88s, the 150 mm’s or those 24. Stephen Andriakos 1509 BB-C7
nasty 15 factor (probably 25. Bruno Sinigaglio 1508 BC-A6
26. Charles Leonard 1503 AB-A6
 28 The Boardgamer
Some general information this time. It
doesn't really put together a cohesive
article, but these are items which come
up continually. It is a rare month that
goes by that I don't repeat some of this
stuff to someone. Brief as they are, all
belong in the public forum.
Public Domain:
All A.R.E.A. information is now public
domain. Feel free to copy and pass
around any A.R.E.A. material or
information that you have. Indeed, you
are encouraged to do so. It is meant to
be shared. All that A.R.E.A. asks is that
nothing be presented in a way that
might be misleading, and that the date
be included.
All A.R.E.A. material is dated. All
A.R.E.A. material is continually evolving
and being updated. Not just the
changing ratings, but virtually all
material. As we all learn and grow, so
does A.R.E.A. In the search for ever
improvement, adjustment will continue.
Sponsors and Endorsements:
A.R.E.A. is now getting requests from
Tournament Directors, game stores,
hobby shops, and potential sponsors of
tournaments. There is a desire for
information about A.R.E.A. and how to
run “A.R.E.A. Sanctioned” events.
Another package of information that
must be put together.
Tournament GameMasters:
A.R.E.A. asks GMs of ALL tournaments
and competitions to send in their results,
so that the entire playing field can be
rated. To do this, an actual listing of
who played who is needed. A.R.E.A.
cannot rate games without knowing the
actual players by name or ID. This is
how past records develop into current
records.
Furthermore, by leaning on GMs, more
information is available. It is more
accurate. Would be shysters cannot
continually duck adverse results.
Players can, and should, turn in their
individual games for rating, but facing an
A.R.E.A. tournament means that there is
Volume 3, Issue 1
A.R.E.A. News
Thoughts
by Glenn E. L. Petroski
no avoiding it. This gives more
credibility to the whole system.
Conversely, the information, and related
services, are available to any GM who
wants it as an aid in setting up his
tournament or competition. A.R.E.A.
has potential well beyond the ratings,
which should be made use of.
Multi-Player GameMasters:
A.R.E.A. of the past was not well suited
to Multi-Player games. It is true that the
multi-player fraternity did not care much
for ratings. They have always been the
leading opposition to A.R.E.A. I must
admit that it was not at it's best in this
environment, but it did function well.
Since my tenure there have been
refinements and improvements that
have overcome most of the objections.
Some MP GMs have already discovered
this and become sincere supporters.
Tournament Submissions:
For tournaments, break down results by
rounds. List exactly who played whom.
Clearly state who won, who lost, and
who tied. Adjudications, forfeits, or
unusual circumstances, A.R.E.A. does
not need to hear about. The GM
decides those. Just inform A.R.E.A. of
the GM decision. If a game is not
actually played, do not report it, but
A.R.E.A. backs the GMs. What the GM
ultimately decides is what A.R.E.A.
rates.
On the tournament reports:
1) Indicate player ID numbers, if known.
If not, give the zip code followed by a
decimal point and 99.
2) Indicate if any two players have faced
each other at any time previously.
Again, if you know it. This is often
evasive information, but A.R.E.A. does
credit for it when received.
3) Put a date right on the report form.
4) As GM, sign the report form.
5) Have an assistant or other prominent
player sign the report form. Better yet,
two! (This makes the GM look good.)
January 1998
On another sheet send in names,
addresses, phone numbers, email.
Make it as legible as possible. If a
player has an ID, get that on there, if
not, the temporary one as above.
When notice is received 60-90 days in
advance, A.R.E.A. will send out current
ratings before the tournament. That
puts current ratings in the GM's hands to
aid in the pairings and setting up the
tournament over all.
Timeliness:
Get that information in! A.R.E.A.
requests individual submissions within
30 days. GMs with full event rosters are
given more leniency. PBM GMs have
until 30 days after the end of a round,
even if that means six months after
some players actually finish a game.
A.R.E.A. has only begun to preach this.
Enforcement will not be too strict until
things are running better on this end.
Still, it pays to make life easier on all by
getting your material to A.R.E.A. in a
timely fashion. Individual chits that age
begin to look suspect. Not good for the
image.
Game Titles:
A.R.E.A. will rate any game in which two
or more live human players control or
direct conflicting or competing forces.
Specifically excluded are solitaire
games, role playing games, and games
in which a computer controls any active
participant. (Games in which a
computer does accounting, score
keeping, or GameMastering, but not
actual play, are acceptable.) Game
t i t l es ar e NO T l im i t ed by
manufacturer, publisher, subject
matter, or type.
To clarify, it comes to three points:
1) Two or more players want it rated.
2) Live human beings are the actual
players.
3) There is conflict or competition
between the actual human players.
Should some game title be presented to
A.R.E.A. that does not clearly fit within
this criterion, it is possible that it may be
evaluated for further inclusion, but it is
 The Boardgamer
A.R.E.A. News - Thoughts (Cont.)
doubtful. In all cases, A.R.E.A. reserves
the right to make decisions as it
determines best, without further appeal.
Looking Ahead:
The idea is to get people to look past
the ratings and see what else A.R.E.A.
can do for all of us. That is a trick. Just
about everyone, pro or con, becomes
preoccupied with the ratings. We
overlook the fact that any other aspect
might exist. If that were true, I do not
think that I would be in this hobby, let
alone A.R.E.A. Administrator and
columnist for two magazines.
Definitions For The Cynical Gamer’s Dictionary
Recently, I sent out a few mailings to a
number of people looking to increase
both the subscribership of the
BOARDGAMER as well as the pool of
articles I have to draw upon. Here is the
response I received from Ray Freeman,
who seems to love to do nothing better
than to put me in my place in any way
he can.
Role Playing Gamers: People who
enjoy fantasizing and acting like they
are someone who they are not. If hobby
is persisted at long enough (usually 6-8
weeks), they begin to believe that they
in fact are someone other than
themselves and usually occupy their
non-gaming time trying to convince
various unsuspecting bystanders that
they are glamorous, mysterious figures
instead of self-delusional dweebs.
Miniatures Gamers: People who,
although they are now adults, still like to
play bang-bang you're dead with toy
soldiers. Alternatively; sculptors and
painters by nature who enjoy pretending
to be wargamers.
Board Wargamers: Three dimensionally
chall enged m i ni at ur e gam er s.
Alternatively; people who are so cheap
they can keep themselves amused for
decades with a few colored pieces of
cardboard.
Volume 3, Issue 1
The A.R.E.A. system itself tends to be
self correcting. I know that if I err in
someone's rating, 3 or 4 games will put
the player right in where he belongs.
Neither he nor I can do anything about
that. That is comforting.
Over all, Russ Gifford and I are working
hard on improving the system, not just
continuing it. The more cooperation that
we get, the better it will be for everyone.
What you have to offer is sincerely
appreciated.
Thank you, each of you, for your support
and assistance. Should there be any
way that I can be of further assistance to
you, please write. My only request is
I Asked For It
by Ray Freeman
Military Re-enactors: People who will
gladly spend their hard earned
vacations living under incredibly squalid
conditions, eating beans and stale bread
in exchange for the opportunity to be
killed by fake bullets.
Collectable Card Gamers: People
under the delusion that the player with
the biggest pocketbook is the best
player, and they are willing to blow their
life savings to prove it. Alternatively;
baseball card collectors in another life
who were sick and tired of just collecting
and trading...they wanted to actually DO
something with their cards.
Railroading Gamers: People who would
really like to be Cornelius Vanderbilt, but
who can generally only afford to eat at
restaurants whose top-of-the-line meal
is ordered with the phrase "super size
it".
Diplomacy Players: Socially adept
individuals who, despite their outward
charm and apparent sincerity, are really
lying, thieving, back stabbing scum at
heart. Alternatively; most lawyers.
Wargame Designers: A small, elite
group of people, at least 2/3 of which
don't actually play games, otherwise
their products would be much more
u s a b l e r i g h t o u t o f t h e b o x.
Alternatively, people with WAAAY too
much free time on their hands.
January 1998 29
that you have patience with my replies.
While my purpose here is to serve you, I
am buried in mail!
At your service,
Glenn E. L. Petroski
A.R.E.A. Administrator
6829 23rd Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53143.1233
Home Phone: 414-654-5044
Email: GELP@Juno.com
Wargame Developers: An even smaller
group of people who suffer from
s a d o m a s o c hi s ti c s c h i zo p h r en i a .
Som et i m es t hey b eh av e l i ke
overbearing egomaniacs who cannot
resist the urge to mutilate someone
else's creation, but just as often suffer
through nearly endless self-imposed
purgatory just for the reward of
occasionally getting their name on a
box.
Game Reviewers: A vast population of
self-proclaimed experts who believe that
a 45 minute rule skim and a three turn
play through constitutes serious
research, but who wouldn't hesitate to
demand the designer be boiled in oil for
failing to provide a 50 entry bibliography
of primary sources to back up the
historical veracity of the design.
Gaming Newsletter Editors: A small
population of desperate characters
willing to resort to a wide variety of
grovelling methods in order to obtain
enough material to continue to publish
their pathetic rags.
Gaming Article Authors: People so
cheap they are willing to put their
personal gaming biases down on paper
for all to see in exchange for not having
to pay the princely sum of $3.00 an
issue for their favorite gaming
magazines.
 30 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998

Current Specific Game AREA Ratings

Gangsters Titan History Of The World
49 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 114 Active Players Nov. 20, 214 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
1997
1. Jason Wagner 1604 AE-A7 1. Bruce Monnin 1604 BKCD7
2. Stephenie Mayes 1562 BG-A7 1. Brian Sutton 1873 GL-E7 2. Gordon Bliss 1593 BF-B7
3. Dee Ann Gehring 1556 AE-A7 2. Dave Finberg 1738 BK-B7 3. George Young 1575 BIDB7
4. Christopher Bodkin 1556 AC-A7 3. Michael Pustilnik 1659 DG-E7 4. William Crenshaw 1571 AE-A7
5. John Pack 1554 BG-A7 4. Clifford Smith 1654 DG-E7 5. Jim Fardette 1569 AE-A6
6. Michael Anchors 1544 AE-A7 5. Christian Goetze 1633 DJ-D7 6. James Rush 1566 AA—6
7. Mike Metcalf 1535 AB-A7 6. Gerald Lientz 1631 CI-C7 7. Keith Levy 1563 AG-A6
8. Philip Thomas Sr. 1535 AB-A7 7. Akihisha Tabel 1630 CK-B7 8. Ross Edwards 1561 AG-A7
9. James Matt 1523 AC-A7 8. Cliff Ackman 1611 DI-D7 9. Mark Giddings 1555 AE-B7
10. Gordon Rodgers 1523 AC-A7 9. Bruno Wolff III 1606 CH-E7 10. Andrew Kutzy 1554 AG-B7
11. Scott Sirianna 1523 AD-A7 10. Justin Thompson 1605 BI-C7 11. Olin Hentz 1553 AH-B6
12. Douglas Broud 1511 AD-A7 11. Margaret Meachum 1604 DJ-D7 12. Thomas Scarborough 1547 AI-C7
13. Louis Gehring II 1511 AE-A7 12. Benjamin Foy 1600 BG-C7 13. Paul McCarthy 1543 BH-B7
14. Jack Jaeger 1508 AE-A7 13. Jason Ley 1595 BJ-B7 14. Lauren Hickok 1542 BJ-C7
14. Ed Rothenberger 1593 BG-C7 15. Kathy Stroh 1536 BJ-C7
Panzerblitz 15. John Koleszar 1589 DL-D7 16. Josh Johnson 1536 AD-A6
38 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 16. John Jacoby 1578 AG-A7 17. Joe Gunderson 1536 AC-A7
17. Aaron Fuegi 1575 CG-D7 18. Stefan Krzywicki 1535 BJ-C7
1. David Giordano 2148 IKND7 18. Larry Lingle 1575 BE-E7 19. Carl Wilson 1535 AC-A7
2. Stephen Andriakos 1660 BB-B7 19. David desJardins 1573 DK-C7 20. Greg Berry 1535 AC-A7
3. Oscar Kenneth Oates 1645 DEGA7 20. Marvin Birnbaum 1562 BG-B6 21. Karsten Englemann 1535 AC-A7
4. Johnny Hasay 1614 FF-C7 21. Kenneth Nied 1561 CF-C7 22. Laura Ehlers 1535 AC-A6
5. Charles Leonard 1607 FGDC7 22. Robin Barbehenn 1557 AE-B6 23. David Metzger 1535 AC-A6
6. James O’Donnell 1572 BBD-6 23. Robert Masso 1552 DJ-D7 24. Paul Bolduc 1535 AB—6
7. Eduardo deNucci 1564 AB-A6 24. Kurt Litscher 1545 EK-E7 25. Michael Hart 1529 BK-C7
8. Alan Arvold 1560 BD-A7 25. Justin Schultz 1536 AC—7 26. Mark McLaughlin 1529 AE-B7
9. Mark Romanow 1535 DCI-6 26. James Rush 1535 AA—6 27. Eric Jones 1529 ACB-7
10. Mark Murray-Brown 1535 AA-A7 27. Jeffrey Miller 1535 AA—6 28. Cliff Ackman 1528 AE-A6
11. William Scott 1517 BD-C7 28. David Platnick 1533 BG-C7 29. Michael Frey 1528 AE-A6
12. Bruce Wright 1514 CBE-6 29. Steven Koleszar 1525 BB-B7 30. Ivan Lawson 1528 AE-A6
13. Jay Zollitsch 1514 AA-A6 30. Wade Fowble 1524 AE-A6 31. Gary MacLellan 1528 AE-A6
14. John Gibson 1512 AC-A7 31. Derek Croxton 1522 AD-A7 32. Eric Kirchner 1528 ACB-7
15. John Laccone 1504 AAB-6 32. Charles Kreuger 1522 AD-A7 33. Michael Newman 1527 AEB-6
33. Lukas Kautzsch 1515 AG-B7 34. James Pei 1522 AGAA7
Third Reich - 4th Ed. 34. Thomas Mueller 1514 AC-B7 35. Kirk Harris 1522 AGBA7
6 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 35. Nick Watkins 1513 AF-A6 36. Patti Miller 1522 AGC-7
36. Marc Houde 1513 AE-B7 37. Michael Ehlers 1522 AG-A6
1. Charlie Corn 2017 DD—6 38. William Navolis 1521 AG-B6
37. James Garvey 1505 AG-A6
2. Bill Thomson 1600 ABB-6 39. Philip Thomas Sr. 1522 AD-B7
38. Barry Ehrlich 1503 AF-A7
3. Tony Haney 1561 BB—6 40. Richard Trockel 1521 AG-B6
4. Charles Synold 1535 AAA-7 41. Robert Destro 1521 AG-A7
Naval War 42. Keith Altizer 1521 AF-B7
Battle of the Bulge ‘81 91 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 43. James Allaire 1521 AE-B7
32 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 44. Timothy Hitchings 1521 AE-B7
1. Chris Covington 1719 DD—7
45. Stephan Magnifico 1521 AEAA7
1. Randy Heller 1900 GIFE7 2. Philip Petroski 1706 BD—6
46. William Edwards 1521 ADAB7
2. John Grant, Jr. 1758 BDEB7 3. David Large 1648 FF—7
47. Allen Kaplan 1521 AD-B7
3. Daniel Tierney 1745 BDE-7 4. William Todd 1616 GG—7
48. Eric Redstone 1520 AG-B7
4. Bruno Sinigaglio 1686 CFBC7 5. Lauren Hickok 1570 AF-A7
49. Christina Hancock 1520 AF-B7
5. Henry Lowood 1679 BDE-7 6. Todd Giles 1567 CE—7
50. Edward Wrobel 1519 AG-B7
6. Philip Evans 1613 CDDC7 7. Stephen Scott 1563 AI-B7
51. Jared Scarborough 1515 AH-C7
7. Forrest Pafenberg 1557 CECC7 8. Marty Bryant 1550 DE—7
52. Nicholas Pei 1515 AEAA7
8. Philip Prichard 1550 AB-A7 9. Bobby Johnson 1546 CE—7
53. Dennis Disney 1514 AH-B6
9. Mike Kosloski 1535 AA—7 10. Anesia Whitbourn 1544 AB—7
54. Stephanie Hayes 1514 AG-C7
10. Forrest Metz 1524 ABC-7 11. Keith Blackwell 1536 AB—6
55. Jonathan Lockwood 1514 AE-A7
11. John Koontz 1520 AB-A6 12. Jeff Boerger 1535 AF-A6
56. Dewayne Curry 1510 AF-B7
12. Steve Likevich 1518 AB-A7 13. Kenneth Good 1535 AC-A7
57. Chris Sasso 1508 AH-C7
13. Thomas Scharwark 1507 CEED7 14. Lind Pratt 1530 AF-A7
58. Steven Caler 1508 AGCA7
15. Jim Bell 1530 AF-A7
59. Clifford Smith 1508 AE-A7
16. Jason Levine 1530 AF-A7
Air Force - Dauntless 17. Bruce Bernard 1530 AF-A7
60. Kevin LeRow 1506 AI-C7
2 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 61. Michael Stachowski 1501 BIAD7
18. Michael Hart 1528 AG-B7
62. James Yerkey 1500 AC-A6
19. Jimmy Fleckenstein 1528 AG-B7
1. Marty Bryant 1566 AA—7 63. Mark Guttag 1499 BI-D7
 The Boardgamer Volume 3, Issue 1 January 1998 31

Current Specific Game AREA Ratings

The Russian Campaign Turning Point: Breakout: Normandy
55 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 93 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
Stalingrad
1. Robert Shurdut 2061 GHN-6 21 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 1. James Doughan 1925 FF-C7
2. Robert Beyma 2058 FFGD7 2. Don Greenwood 1768 DFAC7
3. Gary Dickson 2022 DFEC7 1. James Doughan 1996 DE-B6 3. William Edwards III 1746 CEDC7
4. Charles Sorbello 1991 CCHA6 2. Bryon Stingley 1866 CD-C7 4. Hank Burkhalter 1723 DEDB7
5. J Michael Noel 1946 EEK-6 3. Ron Fedin 1715 CC-C7 5. Marvin Birnbaum 1717 BD-C7
6. Larry Earhart, Jr. 1901 EFL-7 4. Christopher Bodkin 1648 BD-B7 6. Byron Stingley 1695 CD-C7
7. Timothy Greene 1888 HJLB6 5. Hank Burkhalter 1576 ACAA6 7. Ron Fedin 1694 DE-C7
8. Thomas Gregario 1872 GJIB6 6. Henry Jones 1566 BC-C7 8. Bryan Eshleman 1672 EGCC7
9. David Ketchum 1692 BCE-7 7. Michael Kaye 1551 BC-B7 9. Mark Gutfreund 1667 EFBC7
10. James Eliason 1689 DGGB6 8. Bill Thomson 1535 AA—6 10. Gene Padgett 1660 ACE-6
11. Ed Druckman 1677 BBB-6 9. Dennis Nicholson 1507 AB-A6 11. Robert O’Conner 1659 BEG-6
12. Henry Lowood 1666 ABCA6 10. David Yoon 1505 AB-A7 12. Alan Applebaum 1641 BD-C7
13. Jerry Cecchin 1632 AC-A6 11. Chris Sturzillo 1502 AB-A6 13. Herbert Gratz 1631 BC-B6
14. Allen Kaplan 1594 BD-C7 14. James Stanard 1596 BD-B6
15. Philip Evans 1590 AC-A7 Waterloo 15. Stephen Andriakos 1591 BD-C7
16. Martin Musella 1585 BC-B7 26 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 16. David Long 1590 BDEA6
17. Peter Pollard 1574 AC-B7 17. James Eliason 1589 AC-B7
1. Robert Beyma 1794 BC-A7
18. Forrest Pafenberg 1570 BC-C7 18. George Young 1572 BDDB7
2. Bruno Sinigaglio 1743 CE-B7
19. Steven Huskey 1570 ABAA7 19. Philip Barcafer 1563 CD-B7
3. Larry Lingle 1722 BD-C7
20. Thomas Scharwark 1569 BC-B7 20. Paul Fletcher 1558 DFDC7
4. Patrick McNevin 1715 FEH-6
21. Luigi Celada 1535 AAA-7 21. Dave Tianen 1558 AA-A7
5. Phillip Evans 1609 BC-C7
22. James Pei 1532 AA—7 22. John Grant, Jr. 1557 BDFA7
6. John Ellsworth 1600 PNZB7
23. Larry Hollern 1531 ABC-7 23. Jeffrey Miller 1556 ACE-6
7. Joseph Beard III 1595 CDED7
24. William Scott 1535 AB-B7 24. Paul Nied 1555 BCBB7
8. Eric Kirchner 1571 BC-B6
25. Chuck Stapp 1528 AB-B7 25. Matthew Ellison 1554 ABD-7
9. Robert Gosselin 1569 DGK-7
26. Murray Cowles 1505 ABAA6 26. Murray Cowles 1542 CE-C7
10. Martin Mussella 1565 AC0B7
27. Robert Powers 1503 AB-B7 27. Rodney Robinson 1540 DE-C7
11. James Penick 1551 BBF-6
28. Andrew Choptiany 1538 AC-A7
12. Clifford Smith 1535 AA-A7
29. Andrew Kondas 1537 BC-B7
Battle Of The Bulge ‘91 13. Jeffrey Miller 1535 AA—6
30. Anthony Giarrizzo 1535 AA-A7
9 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 31. Caleb Cousins 1534 AB-A6
1. Jack Morrell 1705 BC-B6 Stalingrad 32. Donald Stone 1533 AB-A7
6 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 33. Mark Greenman 1532 ABC-7
2. Randy Heller 1653 CEAC7
34. Jeffrey Thomason 1532 ABC-6
3. Kevin McCarthy 1616 AC-C7
1. Scott Goehring 2017 IJR-7 35. Michael Kaye 1531 AA-A7
4. John Metzger 1547 AB-A6
2. Bruno Sinigaglio 1817 CEBA7 36. Jeffrey Martin 1527 BD-B7
3. Johnny Hasay 1621 ABD-6 37. Peter Brunken 1516 BD-A7
Russian Front 38. Kenneth Nied 1514 AB-C7
6 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
Acquire 39. Eric Kirchner
40. Clyde Longest Jr.
1513
1509
BBAB7
BD-A7
1. Timothy Greene 1885 FGM-5 12 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 41. Tom Johnston 1504 AB-A6
2. James Falling 1851 CCA-5
1. James Campbell 1817 GG—7
3. Martin Roecker 1594 AA—7
2. Lori Mogren 1670 BB—6 Titan: The Arena
9 Active Players Dec. 5, 1997
Peloponnesian Wars 3. George Gorrell
4. Alan Camp
1602
1520
ED—7
AD—7
18 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 5. Ray Allen 1518 AC—7 1. James Campbell 1578 AC—7
6. Jeff Neas 1509 AE—7 2. John Greene 1567 AB—7
1. Frank Hamrick 1617 BD-B6 3. Brian Stevenson 1505 AC—7
2. Evan Davis 1607 AB-A6
3. Kevin McCarthy 1606 AC-B7 TV Wars
4. Roger Taylor 1572 AC-A6 16 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 Gettysburg
5. Mark Holley 1536 AB-A5 21 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997
6. Alan Arvold 1535 AA-A7 1. Eric Wrobel 1621 AG-C7
7. Stephen Magnifico 1535 AA-A7 2. Amanda Vessey 1571 AC-A7 1. Allen Kaplan 1781 CF-C6
8. David Lindsay 1502 AB-A6 3. Kimberly Mayes 1524 AD-A7 2. Vince Meconi 1759 DFCD7
9. Michael Spinella 1501 AB-A5 4. Joshua Dunn 1524 AC-B6 3. David Zimmerman 1718 FIBD6
5. Mike Mayes 1523 AC-A7 4. John Poniske Sr. 1708 CEBC6
Air Baron 6. Michael Destro 1508 AE-B6 5. Charles Hamm 1601 BDBB7
8 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 6. Robert Mull 1596 AC-A6
March Madness 7. Michael Sims 1553 AB-A6
1. Stu Basker 1536 AC—6 2 Active Players Nov. 20, 1997 8. Richard Haddaway 1535 AAA-6
2. Diana Hamel 1523 AB—7 9. Michael Ellsworth 1510 AB-A6
3. Matthew Hamel 1510 AB—7 1. Randy Cox 1535 AA—7 10. Randy Schilb 1508 AB-A6