For some reason I'd been thinking about this series in the last week, so I came back to it and played a couple solo games. I posted about it on some other discussion forums (F:AT) but I love to bring attention to the FAB series so I thought I'd write it up on BGG. Moreover, I realized I hadn't reviewed this game, so I thought I'd contribute some additional thoughts about the game's strengths. In particular, if you want my original, very general, thoughts, read my review of FAB: The Bulge here. This review will instead be specific about some parts of the system Sicily highlights.
I finished up the tournament game today solo, +4VP Axis, which is a German/Italian win. Win was secured by a nasty counterattack by panzer divisions on a US beachhead in turn 1 and dogged defense after. Sicily is a bit of slugfest/drag but the game provides enough decisions to the Germans/Italians about how long to hold on and when to deploy their assets that I think it works. That's a strength of the system, giving you big picture operational decisions without making you micromanage a bunch of shit you would not have micromanaged as the high echelon commander. The asset chits and special actions make it resemble a slick procedural wargame overlaid with a resource allocation system, which I love. It also lets you probe and pull back when you hit resistance and encourages retreats, which works quite nicely.
Stymied Plans
To praise the system generally, I think what I'm most impressed with is its ability to create incredibly frustrating situations that mirror real life. I read the Liberation Trilogy by <PERSON> a couple years ago (amazing series, amongst the best history I've ever read) and this captures a lot of the parts of WWII that lighter wargames typically don't get very well. It also means that at times you run up against situations (especially as the attacker) that are Not Fun but are extremely realistic. I'll give a couple examples---
First, the game creates stalemates extremely well. If you are in difficult terrain (-2 or -3) and two sides of high quality (2 blocks each, veteran or elite units perhaps with armor), you can fight each other to a standstill for turn after turn after turn unless one side applies an EXTREME level of assets---artillery, air support, lots of battle assets. Even then it's hardly assured. One thing that especially lighter wargames do not do well is give you a sense that if two reasonably equal sides meet each other with any defensible terrain, what often happened in World War II is that no one won and each side absent anything else could fight for weeks. 449
Even MONTHS. Though it isn't obvious, FAB is one of the only lighter systems I've played that create this kind of friction. It's super frustrating but creates surprising verisimilitude. Often the only way to get someone out of, say, a -2 city space, is to keep trying to flank and cut off supply. To try this out, try sending the 2 best British units into Catania and having them opposed by a 3 step elite Panzer unit and a strong italian veteran unit. Without a lot of luck or concentrated resources that fight could go on for the whole game of probing and cancelled attacks.
Second, the game captures the frustration of frontage---and lack thereof. When you land as the allies in Sicily, or try to punch through with the Germans in Bulge, the traffic jam type rules make it incredibly difficult and frustrating to make the most of your units. Units are stuck behind front lines, waiting for units ahead of them to finish off stubborn weak enemy units. You may find yourself making elaborate trips down side roads just to get around a bogged down front line. The game does provide you with a timing mechanism to get around this, the reserve chit, which lets you move after the initial round of combat for a few select units. When you make this work, you feel like a genius as you jet through the hole in the line with armor and blow the mfer open. The game illustrates why the preferred plan of attack in WWII was not to blob all your best units together and push the front lines. It behooves you to keep very powerful units in reserve.
Finally, the game definitely gives you the sense that some asshole back home who planned this fucking campaign had no idea what he was doing. He's sending you the wrong assets at all the wrong times. Here, have a bunch of artillery, what do you mean you need replacements instead? He's sending reinforcements in places you don't need them and no reinforcements where you do need them. Finally, <PERSON> or whatever planned the army zones. You can't cross them lest you get into your allies way and potentially have friendly fire catastrophes at the operational level. 449