Vimy Ridge: Replaying the Battle: The Games

Having read and blogged a little about the battle for Vimy Ridge, I was curious to experiment with some simulations of the battle. Thanks to my short-term savings program (a.k.a., selecting the maximum income tax withholding level from my paycheck, so I always get money back at tax time), I had some funds to engage in a short spurt of WWI wargame buying. Two of the first subjects of that were the two existing simulations of the battle for Vimy Ridge, that by Kerry Anderson of Pacific Rim/Microgame Design Group and that by Eric Harvey of Decision Games.

I'm more excited by the Anderson design. For one thing, it's purpose-designed; Anderson set out to research and simulate this specific battle with his game, whereas Harvey's is an adaptation of an existing (Second World War) system to the battle. This difference

seems borne out by the way each author uses the notes section of the rules. In Harvey's version, the notes serve simply to give the players a quick historical overview of the game; no insights into the design process are supplied. Anderson's notes, on the other hand, provide a brief look at the evolution of the game design and an explanation of many of the choices he made in putting the game together, trying to give it both historical fidelity and at least a modicum of fun playability.


Looking (briefly, so far) at the rules for the two games deepens this impression (that the Anderson game is more historically based, or at least more purpose-designed). In the Harvey game, the Allied player may set up his troops anywhere in the Allied trenches or behind. In the Anderson game, Allied divisions are restricted to setting up in their historical division areas of operation (though they are not restricted to operating there once the game begins).

a portion of Harvey's Vimy map

In the Harvey game, artillery and mortar fire are represented by a supply of counters that the Allied (or German) player can place on enemy units adjacent to or in line of sight of friendly units. No representation of the Allied initial bombardment or the methodical, highly detailed creeping barrage takes place, and Allied artillery are allowed the ability to directly target specific enemy defenses. In the Anderson game, the creeping barrage is an important element of the game, moving forward relentlessly as it pounds the German defenses and screen the Canadian advance. It cannot be slowed, speeded up, or abandoned.

Anderson's Vimy map

That said, the Harvey game specifically represents two things that are abstracted in the Anderson game: air observation and gas warfare. Both of these modify the effectiveness of Allied bombardments; a special "Red Baron" (or, more appropriately, Jasta 11) rule reduces Allied air unit supply over time (though accounts suggest that the casualties that Jasta 11 inflicted, though heavy, did not prevent the RFC from carrying out its missions).


The Harvey game also includes the limitation that the Bois la Folie is not subject to bombardment due to its reverse-slope position. This seems unlikely to be accurate, however, as it was specifically targeted by the Allied artillery fire plan, which included mortars and howitzers which would not have necessarily fired at a shallow trajectory.


So I still can't help feeling that, overall, the Anderson game hews closer to history. It also includes provisions for the tunnels that both sides used to bring troops forward without fear of shelling, the mines that Canadian forces exploded at the beginning of the attack, the (fairly ineffectual) tank support that the Canadians received

Imaginative Strategist's replacement counters

I should also mention, in reference to the games themselves, these handsome replacement counters for the Anderson game, designed and shared on the Web by Ward McBurney of the Imaginative Strategist website. It's nice to see all of the Canadians' fabled regiments called out by name.


Next: Playing the battle out on the gameboard.