r to capture Bardia and Tobruk from the Italians in a 45 turn limit covering the period from 9th December 1940 to 22nd January 1941. The objective of the Italians is to hold position in Egypt and keep the British out of Derna. Beda Fomm presents the British with the objective of capturing Benghazi and devastating the Italian Tenth Army while the Italians themselves must attempt to prevent this and control as much territory as possible. This scenario is the shorter of the two, lasting only 15 turns from 24th January to 7th February 1941. The scenarios accurately give the player a taste of the Allies' better days in the North African Campaign, presenting the much more fluid nature of desert warfare that then prevailed. In Desert Bats, the pace of battle is set to reflect this. How much it contrasts with the far more stable days of Montgomery and his 'safety in numbers' philosophy! In play, this works very well and provides the less experienced or able player with a large scale but simple backdrop as an introduction to the game. All of the scenarios from the first game are present but the main campaign game has been altered. The Desert War previously covered the period from Rommel's first attack in the Spring of 1941 to his withdrawal in December 1942. It was played over 624 turns. In this new version of the game, the scenario begins with the first British offensive in December 1940 and is now played over 736 turns. There are several other modifications to the rules and presentation. The first that becomes noticable is a joystick option for those with Kempston, Protek or Sinclair interface owners. The obvious ease that this brings to the movement of units across the screen, greatly Waiting for the big one. Australian south ofGazata.
enhances payability. There is also a demonstration mode available from the main menu, which is entered by holding down the 0 key when selecting the number of players. The demo mode may be left by holding down the M key at the end of a turn. Mass mobilisations are made somewhat more difficult to organise with the stacking rules now only allowing ten points per square as opposed to thirteen in the earlier version of the game. However, logistical problems should be less severe with the supply range now increased from seven to ten squares and from five to seven squares diagonally. Lybian and Blackshirt units are treated as brigades in the game (despite the fact that they are organised as divisions) because they are disproportionally weak and need to be supplied from an HQ unit. For those who were looking for a more competent computer opponent, this game doesn't come up with the goods. However, it offers so much in terms of variety of play and improved presentation and structuring that it has to be seen as a milestone in Spectrum wargaming. If more software houses follow the lead so clearly set by CCS, those people who are considering buying the Spectrum 128 will find themselves spoiled for choice when it comes to challenging quality software.
options, a beginner should find this game easily approachable
GRAPHICS 70%
Though these have not been modified and, in my opinion, are still poor compared to the rest of the game, I think this is a more accurate rating
AUTHENTICITY 91 %
The campaign game still requires too much of the Allied player but modifications to order and supply rules are well devised
VALUE FOR MONEY 96%
Even if you do not have a Spectrum 128, the improvements to the game are most welcome and make the product worth every penny, especially considering the fact that the old price has been kept
OVERALL 95%
Whilst some of my original reservations still apply, this game has been so well executed and provides players with so much, to give it anything less than this would be a crime
\H\m NE i i
PRESENTATION 91%
The best feature is the joystick option which speeds up play quite considerably. The demo mode is attractive as well
FORUM
RULES 97%
The same high quality as the original — not changed significantly
PLAY ABILITY 92%
With the new scenarios and units take up
There's very little space this month, so let's get straight to the business at hand, which starts off with...
positions
R HoaPMl Dear Sean R
REPi
rt H
MOUE PSSHULT
D
D I U I D E
ENTER
TO
One thing I have missed in your otherwise informative reviews is discussion of the quality of computer opponents. Surely this is what matters most in a good game. The interest of graphics, multiple scenarios etc. soon wears off. Your reader C Francombe (April 86) is surely right to complain that usually computer opponents are just too easy to beat. Designers are not going to bother to ao better if their 'opponent' is not analysed. I have played CCS's Arnhem and Desert Rats and Lothlorien's Waterloo and Austerliti. There is obviously an enormous difference in the computer opponents. In the CCS games the computer's play is either reasonable but predictable (Arnhem) or unpredictable but inept. (To be fair, these games look as if they were designed as
7
I
two player games with a computer opponent added later). The Lothlorien games have an opponent that requires a lot of careful thought to outmanoeuvre (especially Austerfttz which is superior because both sides have greater variety of play). They are a challenge — ie they give a good game and who then gives a damn about a few historical omissions! Obviously they are far from ideal, but at least the programmer set himself a difficult problem — coordinated land movement over a broad terrain — and solved it tolerably well. Let's have reviews that tell us how intelligent the opponent is! AM Wright, Halifax A good argument. As of next issue, I'll include an OPPONENT rating in all the reviews. That way readers will ha ve more over which to disagree with me. SM
CRASH June 1986 1
109