I just wanted to drop by and say I really enjoyed your article on Divided Ground Tom! Though when I was doing the review for it I encountered many MANY more problems than you mentioned in your review! My review at Games Domain(http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/aug01/divided.html,http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/aug01/divided.html) goes into a lot on the problems I encountered. I got a kick out of the divergence of our writing styles, while you focused more on the historical considerations of the game I tended to go more for the throat with the problems I was having.

As mentioned in my review, I really missed the biblography in the end of the Divided Ground maunal (normally a trademark of the Campaign Series). This area of conflict was nearly impossible to find interesting reading material on, from a militaristic standpoint. I've only found one book on the subject worth mentioning, The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East (also mentioned in my review). Does anyone have any other sources they could recommend for learning more about this period of conflict?

Hey David,

I've only done general reading on the Arab/Israeli wars, so I can't recommend anything specific to the military actions. I imagine you'd basically be reading about how superior Israeli military training and equipment triumphed over ill-prepared Arabs in outdated Soviet equipment. To its credit, Divided Ground did a good job of showing that Israel's most formidible opponents were the Syrians dug into the Golan Heights.

Your amphibious tanks comment on GDR reminded me of a scenario in which commandos in their rafts floated up on shore and then proceeded to cross the desert sands without getting out of their boats. Sheesh. Seems there was very little playtesting done in these scenarios.

There was a recent patch for DG, but it wasn't released until after I'd turned in my review. I'm guessing a lot of the blatant errors were fixed.

-Tom

David,

For an excellent history of the 1948 war, try Genesis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War by Dan Kurzman. My other stuff is packed up in boxes due to my roommate's recent arrival so I don't have it handy -- I can post it later in the week or just email you.

I agree with Tom about the scenarios: I think these are just about the worst ones I've seen in any game in this series. The biggest problem is with the weapon ranges: if you're designing a scenario with T-62s on a map without a lot of obstacles, you'd better use some pretty big maps. Instead, a lot of these scenarios are shooting galleries. The bottom line for me is if you can't design an interesting Chinese Farm scenario, you really aren't trying too hard. I don't mean a tough one, either: a lot of these scenarios are made "tough" by just unbalancing them towards one side and suggesting that the human take the other against the computer. But interesting? Forget it. I couldn't even find a good one for PBEM. This whole game feels like a rush job. Scenario playtesting is one of the most important things in wargame design. I hope the user community comes up with some better ones.

The interesting thing is that Avalon Hill's Arab-Israeli Wars was at exactly the same scale, yet was a fun game to play despite the fact that many of the scenarios (as I recall) pitted mobile forces against a lot of fortifications (the 1973 Bar-Lev scenario, for example). The diference is that in a boardgame, dealing with specific game mechanics directly becomes part of the game experience, to some extent, so it feels like there is more to do. In a computer game, if you're the guy in the Improved Positions with mortars and light machine guns, things can get boring very quickly. Divided Ground doesn't deal with this very well.

Hey Bruce! Thanks for the feedback. While I agree with certain scenarios just not being playbalance/tested (i.e. I played that night mission after I submitted my review or I would have scorched that one too) I actually thought they did a pretty good job with gameplay in a modern setting.

Like Tom mentioned in his review, I always figured that the modern setting would be less about ranges. Since modern warfare tends to result in anything spotted... being obliterated. So I actually thought the shift of play feel was a good indication of a more modern setting. Though having artillery in night missions that has a active valid range of one three squares out due to visibility restrictions is just plain silly.

I also thought they should have allowed players to change the command groups on the fly, at least for the Israeli's. This would have been historically accurate (at least that was implied from what little I read) and been an element to solidify the superior training and structure of the Israeli forces. As is. playing with the Command structure hampers the Israeli fluidity, at least from my historical understanding.

So did anyone else find that the Israeli Sherman�s in the Six day war campaign were cannon fodder to the Arab M47's? Played as the Arab campaign and I was flaming enemy tanks as easy as pie, likewise playing as Israeli resulted in my Sherman�s littering roadways as debris. I know the Sherman�s were considered inferior, but shouldn't the Israeli training and the fact that the M47's had external fuel tanks equalized the playing field a bit???

---

Quote:

Like Tom mentioned in his review, I always figured that the modern setting would be less about ranges. Since modern warfare tends to result in anything spotted... being obliterated.

---

---

Quote:

So did anyone else find that the Israeli Sherman�s in the Six day war campaign were cannon fodder to the Arab M47's? [...] shouldn't the Israeli training and the fact that the M47's had external fuel tanks equalized the playing field a bit???

---

Israeli Shermans survived because usually their opponents didn't stick around long enough to fire the 100mm guns on their T-54s. Just like German tank crews in PzKw II and IIIs in 1940 versus often better Allied tanks--tactics and aggressive action overcame inertia, tactical ineptitude, and poor training.

That's one reason why in 1973 the Israelis took such heavy losses in the Sinai--at first they charged the Egyptians like it was 1967, only to find that Sadat's army wasn't running, and was pretty decently prepared and trained. That, and the shock of running into Saggers in well-prepared positions with good gunners and lanes of fire. Tank charges didn't work, and they paid the price.

Of course, over time (a few days) the Israelis "learned" (or relearned) combined arms tactics and their tactical flexibility and overall higher quality of solider showed through and the Egyptians were eventually routed. But for a time, an Arab army stopped the Israelis cold (in addition to mounting one of the most impressive military engineering feats in history, the crossing of the Canal). Which, in turn, made the Camp David accords possible four years later--the Israelis actually had respect for an opponent for once.