News and Updates
The Gamebase Collection
The C64 FrontEnd
C64 Game QuickLaunch Utility
gamebase64 and Quick64!
Discussion Forum
C64 related Websites
Email the Gamebase64 Team
Who is involved

Please sign our

Can you help us?
missing games
games with bugs

Please Vote for us at

Please Rate this Site at

Click Here!

Website design &
(c) 2000 James Burrows

Review by
Philippa Irving


Welcome to Game of the Week! Each week there will be a new featured game on this page. The game may be good, average or diabolically bad, it really doesn't matter! Just look at the pics, read the text and enjoy the nostalgia! :-) Game of the Week! is open to contributions so if you would like to contribute a game article for this page you're more than welcome to! Every article we receive will be considered!
1987 Strategic Studies Group (SSG)
Programmed by Roger Keating & Ian Trout
Most text of the present article comes from the review published in the thirty second issue of the British C64 magazine ZZAP!64 (street date: November 12th, 1987).


I was at the PCW show for only one trade day, so I didn't get a chance to meet any readers of the column. But, I did do the rounds of the strategy-producing software houses to see if anything exciting was in the offing, and one thing that struck me was that the Americans were there in force. That's not surprising when we're told that strategy games enjoy far more popular support and rake in much more money in America, and I hesitate to condemn it as a bad thing as American strategy games are usually pretty good. The voluble and enthusiastic presence of the American strategy promoters certainly contrasted with the invisibility of British based companies. There are, of course, a few dedicated British strategy publishers whose commitment I don't doubt, but what worried me was the fact that software houses who have been known to offer the odd strategically orientated game really didn't seem to be interested in promoting anything for the future. The Commodore disk owner is probably assured of a steady supply of high-quality American games, but these are notoriously expensive and those who can't afford them, or a disk drive, are left to pick up the crumbs.

We use the word 'strategic' in a loose way when it's a label to distinguish games in the genre, but applied to the theory of warfare it's a technical term which means only one level of action in a pyramid of five.

Wargames tend to operate on one or two of these levels. 'Politics' is defined as the determination of a country's foreign policy. There are few wargames which actually give the player a choice about whether the country is going to war, presumably because if he decided not to, there would be no game to play! But there are games which attempt to simulate world management, like Armageddon Man.

'Grand Strategy' is the formulation of war aims and policy, and the creation and maintenance of alliances. Alliances tend not to come into solitaire computer games, but board games which simulate entire wars and involve more than two players certainly do. 'Strategy' itself is the planning of the campaign economically and effectively to achieve the grand strategic aims. This is often simulated by the resource-spending screens in wargames, when the player is asked to dish out so many supply points and so many points of air support.

'Grand tactics' brings us to the actual deployment and movement of forces on the field of battle, and it is on this level where most war-games find their main area of play. The level of most detail is 'tactics', and this is simulated in games which recreate a single battle. 'Tactics' is the management of small forces in the field, down to the handling of weapons by individual soldiers. Thus, 'machine simulation' wargames can be said to be almost purely tactical.

In real welfare the responsibility for taking decisions on each of the five levels would rest with different people. Politicians, on the whole, decide what foreign policy will be and whether or not to go to war; generals take the strategic decisions in obedience to the grand strategic objections worked out by the politicians, lower-ranking officers make on-the-spot decisions about the deployment of troops on the field, and the soldier with the gun in his hand makes the ultimate decision to fire. Computer wargames can and do put the player in all these positions except the last, which might in the end be the most important and the most problematic. I wonder if there's a moral in this?


SSG, 14.95 disk

It was Tsar Nicholai I who passed judgement on Napoleon's failed attempt to invade Russia 'Russia has two generals in whom she can confide -- General Janrier and Fevrier'. It was a lesson of history which Hitler notoriously chose to ignore when he mounted his own invasion in World War II, and the Axis armies suffered heavy losses in the futile struggle against the Russian winter. Over four years, 60 million men fought on the Russian front. According to the introduction in the rulebook of this simulation of the campaign, 20 million of them were casualties.

Looking at the glossy package of this very traditional wargame from the Australian company SSG, the purchaser is given the immediate impression that this is a quality product of some solidity. There's a 72 page rulebook, two shiny full-colour card maps showing the entire area of play with detailed terrain marking, four cards with tree diagrams of the menus that drive the game, a strip of printed labels to make your save game disk look neat, and a form which entitles the first-time buyer to a complimentary copy of the house magazine 'Run 5'. All of this naturally made me expect that when I loaded the game itself I would find something that looked like it had been programmed in somebody's lunch break and took twenty minutes to process the computer's turn. I was pleasantly surprised. On-screen, Russia looks like a traditional wargame, which tries to convince the player that army divisions are rectangular and the speed of computer movement is wonderous.

The map for Russia is displayed in all its glory

These are the aesthetics. The game itself aims to recreate the entire four-year Axis campaign against. the Russians, starting in 1941 and lasting for 48 month-long turns. To ease the baffled player into this feat of wargaming endurance, there are three shorter scenarios which, in the usual nature of these games, concentrate on smaller, specific battles. The three smaller scenarios allow you to take control of a particular army 'group', North, Centre or South, fighting over a small portion of the map. In the campaign scenario you have control of the whole army and the freedom of much of eastern Europe.

The game is driven by a series of branching menus, which differ slightly between the scenarios and the campaign. The designers were clearly worried that some players might get lost amid the trees, and so diagrams are provided for startup, game designing, and playing. To give some idea of the system's complexity, there are eighteen menus associated with playing a scenario. This is a headache to get to grips with at first, but I found that I familiarised myself with the order of play surprisingly quickly. One chapter of the extensive rulebook takes the player through the first turn of the Leningrad scenario step-by-step, and although this took me about three quarters of an hour to work through, I was able to enter subsequent turns in no time.

After the usual preliminaries of choosing a difficulty level -- you can opt for a minor, moderate or major advantage to either side, which is worked out in terms of troop numbers -- the player is launched straight into the chosen scenario. The map in its entirety is divided up into twelve sectors, and the scenario takes place on three or four of them (one sector corresponds to what fills a screen). Terrain is represented in an unobjectionable sort of way, but the display is enhanced by the printed map which comes with the package. It is useful too for identifying cities. My one complaint about the screen display -- and it's a fairly strong one -- is that cities are not shown clearly enough. The whole of the gameplay is centred around the pursuit and capture of cities, and. it's very difficult to see them properly on the screen. For some reason they have been drawn as a collection of neutral grey blotches and blend into the scenery. I would like to see large, solid red beacons!

The units are shown as rectangles occupying a single hex. There's a degree of limited intelligence, and you can see more or less what type of troops your opponent has -- whether they're tanks or infantry -- but only the controlling player can see the specific classification.

One of the menus allows access to a number of information screens, and you can call up displays onto the map showing the communication value for the hexes, railways lines, the controlling side of each hex, and what the map would look like if it wasn't cluttered up with units. The amount of information available for inspection is formidable and, at first, rather alarming.

The Axis army is divided into three army groups, which can consist of up to six 'armees'. The armees can in turn control six korps. There's a kind of command hierarchy because this can be confusing at first, and the player has to give orders at two different levels. An unusual feature is that you don't actually tell units to go to particular hexes, so you can't fight the enemy by arranging your units in pretty patterns of your own choosing. Each armee is given a general 'doctrine', which determines what its aim will be. 'Main Effort' is the signal for an offensive, and when this is chosen the armee is targeted on a vicinity within seven hexes -- less, in adverse weather conditions -- for the armee headquarters. Thereafter, until the city is captured or the armee's doctrine is changed, the korps units attached to that armee move forward in an attempt to reach and capture their objective. If enemy units get in the way, they fight them. Their exact course is determined by the computer and is not under the player's control at all.

The armee doctrine can be 'normal', in which case it does little, but is still able to fight well, or it can be ordered to rest, which enable the troops to recover their strength quickly, but puts the korps at a disadvantage if they're attacked.

Once the armee doctrine has been selected, the player gives orders to each individual unit or 'korps'. The range of options open to the korps is determined by what the armee doctrine is, and whether or not the unit is next to an enemy unit. Next to the enemy, a korps whose armee is on 'main effort' can assault, probe, defend or retreat, and the player allocates ground support and air support in points.

The condition of each korps is given in a general way. Surprisingly, there is no indication of exact numbers of men: the state of the unit is described in terms of the troops' combat experience and their fitness. Casualties are given in the battle reports, but there seems to be no way of referring back to this.

Each armee has an individual supply of ground support units which can be distributed to the korps, and the air supply units come out of a general army group pool. If the supply lines of a korps get cut off, they can't replenish their OSPs, but their supply of ASPs is unaffected. The provision of basic supply points is affected by supply lines, too, and a novel statistic is the 'administration' factor. This is an indication of how organised and ready for combat a korps is. According to the instructions, the maximum value of seven means that 'all the forms are filled out and the army camp barber has sharpened his razor'! When the fighting starts, things gradually become more disorganised. An armee can't launch into 'main effort' unless its administrations and supply points are high enough, and low values make them vulnerable.

After adjusting armee doctrines and giving individual korps orders, the player wades back through the menus and hits 'Run 5'. This command seems to be the SSG buzzword, and executes the turn. Battles are resolved, and the player's and the computer units move instantaneously and simultaneously. No staring at the wallpaper -- it's over in seconds!


The program provides full facilities to create your own scenarios. Because you can alter almost every single variable, including the point values of cities, with enough patience and interest you can set up for any Russian Front battle. Although I haven't seen a copy, the company magazine 'Run 5' prints statistics for further scenarios.

Everything the full-blooded wargamer could want has been provided in this game, and moreover it's easy to handle once you've learned the system. Nothing interrupts or irritates -- except perhaps the choo-choo noise of units travelling by rail -- and I found it completely absorbing. Definitely a worthwhile investment.


Presentation 91%

Beautiful physical components, smooth operation and thoughtful touches.

Graphics 75%
Pleasant enough, although the cities are unclear on the map screen.

Rules 90%
A lack of extensive historical information is made up for by the extremely thorough descriptions of the game mechanics.

Playability 89%
The branching menu system, once learned, makes play fast and compelling.

Overall 91%
One of the best traditional wargames I've seen -- thoroughly recommended.



Htmlized by Dimitris Kiminas (29 Jan 2006)
Only the first from the above screenshots existed in the original review.

Other "Games of the Week!"





The C64 Banner Exchange