No Prisoners is essentially two games, as it is split between eastern and western theaters, and there is no interaction between the two. The only possible interaction would be knowing you are doing poorly in one, and therefore redoubling your efforst in the other. Nothign can be sent between the two halves, and supply and ZOC do not cross either.
Both games have many of the same pros and cons, as they use the same basic system. That syetm is a failry standard hex and coutner system of movement and odds based attacks.
There are some twists though, and for the most part they work quite well:
-Stacking is terrain dependent and season dependent as well, which reinforces the importance of supply in the desert.
-There are two different CRT's one far more bloody than the other. It is the attackers choice to use the Raid or Major Offensive CRT. In order to use the Major Offensive table all attacking units must be in supply. Again reinforcing the importnace of supply. Supply itself is traced from occupied supply centers, along railroads, and then across a certain number of hexes.
-In the East, Lawrence is dependent on tribal units which come and go depending on the season.
-There is a random event table which, while I see it's importance to the system, is a bit too heavy handed. It mainly heelps bring into promininces the fact that there is a World War going on, and as such the other events in Europe impact the fighting represented by the game. It is such that a bad result (especailly early on, before reinforments have bolstered the numbers of both sides) can destroy the game.
An optional modification to the game involves a tweaking of the turn order, and a single player playing the Central Powers in one theater, and the Allies in the other. The game suggests using victory points to then determine which player has doen better. Due to the above mentioned randomness, I'm not sure how useful this is a abalance mechanism, but it does seem it would be interesting to play nonetheless.
I've given the game a 5, with a bit of tweaking to the randomness it would be a 6 or maybe even a 7.
Ryan, I share your view on looking at this wargame as a two-game-in-one. Are you considering to play this anytime soon?
I am playing this a second time to see if I can tweak it so that there is at least a random event that permit interaction between each side two fronts. However, I am not sure if it's historically true. I may need to read up on it.