AFGHANISTAN

Playings; 10, Communist wins = 1, rebel wins = 9.

At first sight Afghanistan is like so many S&T games, the rules are

peppered with holes and do not match up with the tables (I have been

sticking to the tables). The rebels stick together just like they

really didn't and the government will be lucky to hold on for 2 years

regardless of how many troops the Ruskies pour in. Despite all this

the basic system is sound and easily adapted to fit your view of

reality, I have included a few ideas to balance the game. Taken as a

game this really works, having lost badly to the rebels in about 1 1/2

hours it is hard to resist setting the thing up and trying again

straight away, instead of just throwing it back in its bag. This is a

little like those computer games where the monster stomps on you in

seconds but you must have one more go, like them Afghanistan is best

played solo or as a pair of games in a single sitting with the players

swapping roles. The last S&T I played this often was Manchu (116),

which is a real free for all but alter those recruiting tables before

you play.

The game has a swift set up (always popular), there are few set hexes

both sides set up, government 1st but after the rebel has finished the

government rolls for all unreliable troops (about 3/4's of all his

units), these have a 50% chance of deserting (off to the dead pile).

There will not be enough troops left to garrison everywhere even with

Russian help so the rebel can walk right into some towns. The

communist has to work hard from turn 1 turfing this lot out and trying

to garrison every town (it is likely that he will still not have

enough units to do this, allowing for some new units and a lot of

casualties). The rebel builds up new units faster than the

government so clearing the rebels out of one area just means they turn

up somewhere else later on. The game has a definite feel of trying to

catch an elusive enemy while garrisoning all population centres

against his attacks.

Chits are a major part of the game but are only counter sized,

Decision have not included an inventory of the counters so don't lose

any. If you look closely 6 of the counters have the wrong back on

them, they should be the same unit type on each side, if you do not

play this way it gives the rebel another advantage. Ideally we

should have a deck of cards, each card could include the rules of the

chit instead of having to look them up in the rules summary. Of

course cards are almost unknown in the cut every corner world of

magazine games, the last I remember was in a Wargamer game of the 30

years war.

The military game system is not going to shock anyone, the game sees

the return of the chit, tested in Trajan these guys are back with us

in a big way. There are no ZOC's and stacking depends on terrain,

combat is from adjacent hexes and voluntary. Chits are spent to

influence recruiting, control of population centres (this affects

combat), to initiate random events and sometimes to cancel the effect

of other chits.

The game is won and lost by the accumulation of political points if

the total drops below 0 the communist has won, usually the total

shoots above 100 for a crushing rebel win. If neither happens the

game continues to the historical end date and victory is judged by the

amount of populated area controlled and the PP status. The rebel is

aiming for above 75 but the government needs below 25.

Control is not just sitting on a hex, it must be subverted to give

political control (hearts and minds), just about everywhere backs the

rebel so the poor commie has a hard time here. The commie has all

the work, stamp on all the rebels and they just come back somewhere

else (lots of replacement chits). It makes a change for the commie to

be the government. Call in the USSR, lose political points (less

chits next go), go for the hearts and minds (Socialist Revolution)

lose even more PP`s. Chits are the heart of the game, it can pay to

hold onto chits without playing them in the hope that a really useful

chit will turn up. The more chits that are held, the less in the bag

and the greater chance of a specific chit being pulled. Most are

Agitprop chits usually used to help subversion combat but both sides

have a few show stoppers, if the rebel pulls either of the 2

intervention chits early on the government is in trouble. Some chits

are harmful to the drawing side, notably resistance disunity, a big

boost for the commie, but the gains outweigh the risks. There are

not enough good units (the bad ones tend to desert to the rebels) to

hold the towns and knock out the rebels (needed to increase PP`s and

gain chits). Plenty to think about for the solo gamer, the rebel just

needs to play by the book and not make mistakes, let the cat play this

side.

The weakest link in the game are the control of hexes rules, most of

the map supports the rebel (fair enough) but it is unclear what is

being simulated when the government subverts a hex to his control.

Back in Nicaragua (S&T 120) various social groups could be soaped to

support either side, workers, peasants and the like. In Afghanistan

the communist will be lucky to politically control Kabul and a few

other towns and cities, others with similar people in them will stick

with the rebels. So why does a political campaign work in 1 town but

not another and what exactly is happening when a hex is subverted? I

guess that 1 side must be putting up bill hordings, arresting

suspects, bribing public officials and the like. Oddly a unit cannot

subvert a hex it is in, change this rule. Hexes can be terrorised

instead (this I can relate to), giving neither side control, everyone

has run away.

The rebels should win the invasion scenario before game end due to

government collapse, Najibulla will be lucky to last as long as he

really did in the after Russia scenario. The campaign is pretty even

though. The game is eminently bodgeable so I am including a few

changes to help old Najibulla (purists should leave the room now).

The commie need some help so here goes, units in cities may ignore

retreats (if you reds keep 2 units in all cities they should be safe,

historically the rebels never got a city until the recent coup when

several units changed sides and all hell broke loose). Change victory

conditions to government only needing to occupy 3 cities and half

towns not control them, it is very hard for the commie to politically

control much of the board in this game. Overall the game is fairly

close to history the good government units are pretty shooty when they

can catch the rebs, the others desert to make more rebels. The game is

too short, a common fault in simulations, the designer knows that we

do not want to spend weeks playing but if turns are too long (game

time not playing time) all his lovely combat mechanisms fall apart.

The communists usually collapse due to high PP's long before the game

end. The reason why it took the rebels so long to get their act

together was that they hated each other more than the communists. In

the game there are 3 basic flavours of rebel but apart from recruiting

in different areas and occasionally falling out they are all much the

same, I played 1 game using markers to show which faction stacks

belonged to and forbade cooperation between groups. I can safely say

it was not worth the trouble, I went back to the standard rules.

The beginning of the supply rules has a note saying that players can

ignore them, I have to agree. They prevent tracing of supply through

enemy controlled hexes because the rebel controls most of the board,

the government cannot move far and remain in supply. I only use the

supply rules for placing rebel mechanised and armour units, this

forces them to realistically start in or near Pakistan.

Anti USSR bias? Certainly the rebel seems to get all the breaks, the

penalty for Socialist Revolution is 10PP's, USSR help up to 6.

Compare this to western help to the rebs being free unless the RDF is

called in for a paltry 5PP's (all these values are paid every turn).

This means that the world is shocked by Russian adventurism and the

government loses support but American backed intervention forces can

walk all over the place with no sympathy going to the government.

Once those PP's top 100 the communist is out of office so the game

does him no favours. The full intervention chit always turns up and

is a big rebel boost even if he does not call in the optional extra

troops. In the real war there never was armed intervention by the

west on a Kuwait scale so it would not be unreasonable to play without

this chit and give the government a big boost. Basically, the

American disregard for socialism shines through but things can be

bodged around to suit your own views. The weakest parts are the rules

for the effect of control of hexes on combat and the effect of

subversion on combat units. The communist has a hard time in the

invasion scenario but is better off in the, longer, campaign game.

Here are a few tips for struggling governments, call the Socialist

revolution near the beginning of the game but not until more political

subversion units have been raised. Leave it too long and many of the

rebels will be on their reliable sides and less susceptible to

subversion. The PP penalty for the revolution is so high that it

should not be used for above 2 or 3 turns, similarly the Russian

presence should be kept to a minimum after the initial invasion to

keep PP levels low.

This game must be fun or I would not have played it so often, I even

came back to it months after my initial playings and several S&T's

later. Most of my playings were of the invasion scenario only 2 were

of the campaign, 1 being the government win, this takes about 4 hours

or 3 to 4 game years, much shorter than the real thing. In conclusion

a better game than simulation (only 1 rebel player indeed) but the

campaign game is best balanced especially if the supply rules and full

intervention chit are scrapped.