A new company on the scene the last few years is VUCA Simulations and they are coming out with some really great looking games. We have covered some of their recent new release games over the past year with interviews including Donnerschlag: Escape from Stalingrad, The Chase of the Bismarck – Operation Rheinübung 1941 and 1914 – Nach Paris and they just seem to have good looking game after good looking game in the pipeline. Next up is a great looking Cold War Gone Hot game called Red Strike – 1989 designed by Yves Rettel. We reached out to Yves and he was more than willing to discuss the game with us.

Grant: First off Yves please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?

Yves: I was born and live in Luxembourg, a small country in the heart of Europe. My parents sparked my interest in the second World War when they told me stories about their adventures with the Germans and Americans. My hobbies are travelling the world, taking pictures, nature, and animals. My main hobby is of course wargaming, playing since 1978. Although I prefer hex & counter operational games, I also enjoy other mechanics, scales, and times.

Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?

Yves: I got my first wargame when I was around 9. The rules were in French and Dutch, both languages I did not speak. Nobody could explain the rules to me. So, I made the best out of it with the little French I already knew at that time. The game stayed the only one I played for the next 10 years, over which I made my own paper counters and modified the only hex map I had. At some point I drew hexes on large white paper boards to make my own maps. Red Strike was born out of my love for the games Aegean Strike and Gulf Strike. After waiting for decades hoping Mr. Herman would do a strike game on the Central Front, I decided in 2008 to do it on my own. For me, as my personal project! Over time the investment in time and research material made me think that I could share the game with the wargame community. The design and development process are quite different parts of a new wargame project, and I love both. I have fond memories of a trip to an airshow in Kleine Brogel, Belgium, where I bought a bunch of out-of-print books on the air forces of the Cold War. Research was enlightening and frustrating. I remember how I tried to decipher google translations of Russian and Czech websites.

Grant: What designers would you say have influenced your style?

Yves: I have no specific style, yet. I am a new designer and am still finding my way to my style. But, Red Strike is 90% a fusion of existing rules and systems, to name a few: G-SOF-G (S&T 220), NATO: The Next War in Europe (VG), 3rd Fleet (VG), The Next War (SPI), Next War Series from GMT and above all the Strike games of Mark Herman. My favorite designers are Dean Essig, Vance Van Borries, Frank Chadwick, Mark Simonitch, Chad Jensen, Mark Herman and John Butterfield…and more 😉 My experience with their games have definitely formed my opinions on what works in wargames.

Grant: What historical period does Red Strike cover? 

Yves: Red Strike depicts ground, air, and naval warfare throughout Central Europe and the North Atlantic in August/September of 1989. The Warsaw Pact vs, NATO forces in a hypothetical 3rd World War.

Grant: What was the inspiration for the title?

Yves: As I already mentioned my game fits in the lineage of the Strike games published by Victory Games and designed by Mark Herman Aegean Strike and Gulf Strike released in the 1980’s. Because of that inspiration, and due to my fondness for those games, the title Red Strike seemed appropriate for that lineage and fit with the focus of the design.

Grant: What research did you do to get the details correct? What one must read source would you recommend?

Yves: When I started the research for the game the internet was not offering the level or amount of information it does now and finding information was a bit more difficult. So, my main sources were books. Books that I purchased online but also specialized publications only found in museums, flea markets or while attending air shows. Of course, I spent hundreds of hours on the internet, fetching info, even from foreign language websites translated by google. This was always a great challenge but my persistence paid off when I found that small piece of information that changed my idea on a concept.

Most of the books that I chose to read on the subject were of course non-fiction books but the most inspiring books were The Third World War by Gen. Sir Becket, Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, Team Yankee by Harold Coyle and Red Army by Ralph Peters. I also bought and played a large number of games on the subject…from any number of different publishers.

Grant: What differs about your game from the many others on the Cold War Gone Hot set in 1989?

Yves: Interaction. Detailed air and naval systems on top of the ground combat. The naval war in the North Atlantic around the convoys is an integral part of the advanced game and played on a separate strategic map, really a game within the game. Some things like tactical nuclear war not ending in an automatic end of game. Cards (optional) for developments around the world impacting the battlefield in Germany and adding a narrative to the game.

Grant: What is the scale of the game? The force structure of units?

Yves: Unit scale is Brigade and Division with the occasional Battalion and HQ units. Air unit counters represent Squadrons and Regiments, between 12-48 aircraft. Naval forces are grouped in Wolfpack or Surface Action Groups, with some capital ships represented with their own counter. The operational map is covering Germany, Denmark, the Benelux countries, and North-East France on a scale of 28km/hex. The strategic map spans from Canada to the Kola Peninsula and the scale is 280km/hex. HQ’s and formations are crucial factors in the game. Both players should keep their forces well organized to get the most profit out of them.

Grant: How did you build the Order of Battle? Any risks you took with the information available?

Yves: While playing WW3 games for my research I was astonished to find huge differences in the OOB. At first, I thought the designers/developers had not done a good job but I soon had to find out the hard way. Ok, some guys were not putting much effort into a correct OOB but others had to fill in the gaps where information was missing or unclear. I vowed to make it better and did. If it is perfect? Nope! But I believe it is one of the most detailed and correct ones out there.

Grant: What do the maps look like?

Yves There are 4 different map sheet, with 2 being full size and 1 half size.

Grant: What is the purpose of the Operational Map versus the Strategic Map? Why are each important?

Yves: The game portrays WW3 on an operational scale but the geographic expanse of the battlefields is totally different. While the heart of the game is played on the operational map (Germany, Denmark, Benelux, and North-Eastern France), the strategic map offers players the opportunity to expand the game to encompass the Northern Atlantic and have a direct impact on supply and reinforcements destined for Europe by attacking/protecting the convoys from North America to Europe.

Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters? 

Yves: The counters represent air, ground, and naval units at different scales. Ground units may represent HQ, missile units, Divisions, Brigades or the occasional Battalion. Air units represent squadrons or regiments, about 12-48 aircraft per counter. Naval counters represent fleets or task forces with a few capital ships having their own counter. The counter is a tool of information that should give the player the most information possible while staying attractive to the eye. Aesthetics are always very subjective.

Grant: There are 2,000 counters. How do you manage to keep them unique enough to tell apart?

Yves: The substantial number of counters is a challenge. Therefore, we tried to keep it as simple as possible to manage them. First, there are three families of counters: NATO, Warsaw Pact, and markers. Markers are neutral grey-black, NATO units have a preponderant blue color while the WP forces are red. It is the classic blue vs. red color scheme. I deliberately broke with the classical color coding of counters by nation, replacing it with the nation’s flags, roundels, and navy ensigns.

Grant: What different type of units are included? What special units are there for each side?

Yves: Most of the units are assault units representing the armed forces of both sides. Most support units are incorporated into the HQ counters. For example, artillery is not coming with counters, but each HQ unit dispatches artillery support to units of its own formation. Missile units are detailed on the battlefield with their specifications: range, warheads and hit probability different by type of target. Airborne and amphibious units have their own counters. Air forces in the game represent combat aircraft mainly; EWDA/AWACS and Wild Weasel too. Reconnaissance aircraft are abstracted and handled with Recce points. Special units? Well, all air and naval units have specifications according to the ship class or aircraft model. For example, an air unit equipped with MiG-29 will have different combat values and range than a Su-25. Players will need to learn about the differing capabilities of their arsenal. I strongly believe wargamers attracted by the theme have interest in these details and will appreciate it.

Grant: What are the various tracks included on the maps? 

Yves: Some game relevant bookkeeping must be done. And as I dislike bookkeeping it is restricted to the strict minimum. The most used and important one is the Supply Track. For many actions you must pay Supply Points, for example an interception air mission costs a Supply Point, a ground unit spends four Supply Points to enter deliberate assault combat formation. The Supply Point level is adjusted for each such action. The other tracked information concerns the number of reconnaissance and special forces missions, transport missions, Victory Points, World Opinion. The Defcon Track shows the escalation towards global nuclear war possibly ending the game.

Grant: What is World Opinion used for? How does it effect the game?

Yves: Everything in life comes at a price. That’s also the case in warfare. Using chemical or nuclear weapons, missile strikes on cities and some card events are not seen well by the non-belligerent countries around the world and diminishes your reputation. Game wise this is reflected in Victory Points awarded to the opponent.

Grant: How does Battles Won effect initiative? Why is this important?

Yves: The heart of the game system is the initiative-based Sequence of Play. The initiative player has a huge advantage. This advantage must be earned and not by a lucky die roll. Like in the real world the side winning more battles takes the initiative. This mechanic has consequently increased the dynamic nature of game play and rewards the “better” player.

Grant: This game appears to have it all including chemical weapons, close air defense, airmobile/paratroop. Are there specific rules included for all these aspects? How do you help players remember them?

Yves: Naval and air combat (even ground-air) work exactly the same way. The number of die roll modifiers is low compared to other WW3 games. Those needed are all found on the “Player Aid“ charts. Flow charts, examples, and summaries are provided in the printed manuals and on the game specific website.

Grant: How are cards used in the design?

Yves: The cards are replacing the Random Political Events table. Instead of rolling on a table I thought it would be nice to give players choices. The (optional) use of cards in the game adds a narrative to the game as events all around the world influence the war in Europe. Players must choose between an event or getting supplies.

Grant: How does combat work?

Yves: Simply put, air and naval combat is composed of an attack die roll compared to the specific air-air combat value of the attacking unit and a defense die roll compared to the ECM rate of the defender. Missile attacks are resolved with a 1d10 and compared to that missile type’s probability to hit. Ground combat is resolved by taking into account classical factors like combat strength ratio, supply, terrain, artillery support, close air support and also more game specific the “combat formation” the combat units are in.

Grant: What is the makeup of the CRT?

Yves: The combat result is rolled for with a 1d10. Several DRM are applied. One of the DRM is determined by the combat strength ratio. The better the attacker to defender ratio, the higher the DRM will be favorable for the attacker.

Grant: What advanced game options are available? What qualifies them for advanced versus inclusion in the base game?

Yves: The advanced rules add detail, complexity, and realism to the game. In the beginning, all the chrome and each bit of detail was in one ruleset. I have sometimes been frustrated by games with a myriad of rules that were too often forgotten anyway. So, we built this ruleset on a straightforward standard ruleset. The advanced game is the game that should be played. For the die-hard add some optional rules. There are twenty-three at your disposal. Using the doctrine rule for example will raise the level of realism to the top.

Grant: What are the effects of nuclear attacks?

Yves: Well, nukes are just another type of weapon, with more punch. Immediate effects are of course damage and destruction, contamination and fallout will come after that. More than the impact on the battlefield; use of nukes will generate Victory Points for the attacked side, have a negative impact on World Opinion and might bring about total nuclear war.

Grant: How does the air war work?

Yves: Players manage the air forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact in detail. Indeed, the air units in the game represent 12 to 48 aircraft. You get the picture. The air units have the specifications of the actual aircraft the unit is equipped with. A US F-16C TFS has totally different ratings than a Soviet Su-25. Players must fit their strategy and plan accordingly to the air mission’s composition and targets. In practice this means moving the air units on the Operational Map to their targets, execute bombing runs, and return home. Should they get detected, the other play may send interceptors in. The air combat is simply a 1d10 vs the anti-air rating of the air unit shooting and a defensive DR vs the ECM rating of the defender.

Grant: What is the concept of sortie rate? How does it work?

Yves: Naval and ground units are allowed to move only once per GT. Their movement allowance is adapted to a game turn representing about 48 hours of real time. Aircraft movement is regulated by two factors: Range and sortie rate. The range is how far the unit may move (there and back) and the sortie rate is the number of times the air unit may move in 1 GT. NATO units may move/sortie three times p/ST W P units only two times. The difference reflects things like more efficient processes, better training and motivation.

Grant: Why is it important to highlight this aspect?

Yves: Well, you must somehow manage how often a unit is allowed to move. This wargame is set in reality and this type of detail enforces that vision on the players. Pilots get tired, stressed, killed and this represents that fact.

Grant: How do players achieve victory?

Yves: The player with the most Victory Points at the end of the game wins. That is a rather classical approach. But of course, there are some nuances; like auto victory conditions or end of the game due to nuclear escalation. Victory Points are gained for territorial gains (hex control), World Opinion, use of nukes, mining activities, sinking convoys, capturing strategic targets, hiding SSBN, and conquering Norway. Generally speaking the WP player hunts VP, and the NATO player tries to prevent him from getting them. How does the WP player gets their VP points? They have to fix themselves a reachable goal (level of victory) and plan accordingly the scope of military operations. They cannot go after everything at once.

Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?

Yves: There are many things. But the most pleased? Difficult. I think the variety. There are so many ways you can play with the system. For instance, you may choose to play a naval/air game only on the strategic map and not use the operational map and vice versa. If air war is your thing, you could play air forces only. Some subs hide & seek? Yes. Want to try out nukes? Go ahead but be gentle! The system is inherently interactive for the air/naval part, to a lesser degree for the ground war with units in reserve modes.

Grant: What has been the response of playtesters?

Yves: The little downtime is much appreciated. The game mechanic that pleases a lot is detection. Air and naval units must be detected to trigger an interception. Ground unit combat formations that give occasion to bluff. The presence of missile warfare. That said people also like that the air part of the game is highly detailed and renders the integrated battlefield very well. Component-wise they like the small exercise and scenario maps, which should please everybody with less space to play. Of course, the aesthetics of the map, and counters are very often cited as impressive.

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Yves: We are planning to build a series of Strike games. After all the time and effort put into the game it would be a shame not to use it for other conflicts. Which ones and in what order of appearance is not yet decided. At least one of them will treat a war that really happened. I have also ideas about non-strike games but time is a scarce resource, so I concentrate on the next two Strike games in the near future.

Thanks for the fantastic inside look at the game Yves. I think that this one looks really interesting and will appeal to many wargamers not just for the Cold War Gone Hot element but for the very detailed approach to the topic. I very much look forward to playing this one when it is complete.

If you are interested in Red Strike – 1989, you can pre-order a copy for $156.00 from the VUCA Simulations website at the following link: https://vucasims.com/products/red-strike

-Grant