An online community for Command Decision

Command Decision - Test of Battle Forum Index -> Scenarios

Bathtubbed Campaigns
Goto page 1, 2  Next
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Soca, Uruguay
Bathtubbed Campaigns  Reply with quote  

I am curious about how gamers "bathtub" games impact other game elements like time, ground scale or rule adjustments. Is everything the same and so you are just playing a "slice" or is time or ground 3 or 9 x also?

And what about rule adjustments or additions? Reserves, supply etc.

Finally, what's the advantage over playing a purpose-built rule system where each stand was a company or battalion and trade-off's with "warped" aspects as SMG's fire a kilometer.

What's the practical maximum of rescaling?

Thanks!

*To clarify, bathtub games are those that are rescaled, so perhaps 1 stand equals 3 so a battalion might represent a regiment or if 9x, a division.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids currently at: www.g-design.us/cd ...eventually all aids will be found at https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Sun May 26, 2013 6:15 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5413
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  

Can't answer all the qu's but a point on ground scale. you need to scale area not distance.

So if you scale forces 5 times (ie 1 tank = 25 real ones) then the area of the map should be five time less. That means the distances are only reduces by the square root of 5 (2 ish). If you divide distances by 5 everything will be too cramped
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Sun May 26, 2013 7:05 am   View user's profile Send private message
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

Thanks Bob. I appreciate the caution about the measurement distinction. So you feel that the stands are more about the area and not their maximum potential frontage. So if your 5 to 1 were used, instead of 20%, your ruler units would be 45% of size (the square root of 5 being 2.24 and 1/2.24=.45). If a typical formation is 2 platoons and 1 back, then indeed the area would seem to be more important.

It just hit me: since a centimeter is 39% of an inch, are gamers who play Centimeter Scale CD actually playing with 5 (or with smaller stand size, 3)-platoons per stand instead of single platoon stands that their Inch Scale brethren are?!

Instead of another scale down of 5 to 1, I'd prefer each stand as a company since most units are in multiples of 3. Square root of 3 being 1.73, then that implies ruler units be 58% of size.

Hmmm.

*Not that CD's stand sizes represent a maximum unit "footprint" so one could adjust the unit areas via a simpler equalizer: blast areas. Meaning one could have the companies use the same-sized stands as ordinary platoon/stand CD but increase or decrease the blast areas' sizes.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids currently at: www.g-design.us/cd ...eventually all aids will be found at https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Mon May 27, 2013 12:33 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jack Radey
Major General


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 2829
Location: Eugene, OR
 Reply with quote  

I have played in one or two of Dave Chappel's Bathub Barbies, taken from Frank's Barbarossa 25. I also played in one ran by Darly Nichols, and ran one myself (Northwest Front/Army Group North only). Bob's comment is interesting. As player, and especially as referee, I began to develop double vision and a headache trying to handle the bathtubbing. First, a caveat. I was in it for the CAMPAIGN, the miniatures battles to resolve combat were definitely secondary. All the campaigns were done with players all over the globe, and some of the games were resolved using different game systems (TOB, CD III, and whatever that weird system Mark Serafin's gang played). This was far less a problem than the problems with time and space in the campaign.

Dave's standard was Barbarossa 20, rather than 25. Instead of having full sized CD divisions, the divisions etc were all scaled down, essentially two divisions translating into one battalion sized unit, which was played in the campaign as a "division". A turn was two weeks on the calendar, and 12 hours on the board. The hexes were 16 miles across, and 1200 CD yards (24") on the table. To put it mildly, it was disorienting.

Just for openers, CD III was the "home" system for the campaign. But lets just take a simple question like movement. On the map, 12 hours or one strategic game turn, allowed foot mobile units to move x amount of hexes. But when the action moved to the table top, the effective movement rate doubled. Usually the action on the table top would slow this, but it produced some problems. And of course it only was worse when a battle was resolved in TOB with half hour rathter than 15 minute turns. Or Kampfgruppe Kommander which uses 20 minute turns! Aaagh.

Then there was the question of artillery. At 1200 yards a hex, it was theoretically possible to bring heavy mortar fire on Helsinki from across the Gulf of Finland! We essentially dodged this bullet by not having any map artillery fire, it only happened on the table top. But from how far off map could this happen? I declared adjacent hexes to the table top, and this seemed to work OK.

Then there were aircraft. The rules on aircraft kept evolving through the campaigns. In Dave's original 100 real machines = 1 game machine (20-1, scale reduction, so 1 model=5 aircraft). This didn't work out too well. Army Group North had the support of one (1) Bf-109. God help the Germans if he got hit. I shifted to 100 real aircraft gave you 3 models, and then had to allow multiple sorties, and then had to allow a fighter that engaged (if German) to stay on station until hit or the end of the "hour" it was airborne. In general, more aircraft, more sorties (three per turn from a built up airbase or city, two from towns or temporary field strips, which could be any clear terrain or wooded hex), plus being able to scramble against enemy aircraft flying into adjacent hexes. In general, the more aircraft were allowed to do, the more historical the results got so I knew I was on the right track. Both sides were screaming like banshees about how unfair it was to them, which confirmed my feelings that I was doing the right thing.

One weakness in the air was some conventions to keep things simple. All flights were assumed to take one hour, with two hours to turn around the machines after they landed. Didn't matter how far they flew, it was always an hour per mission. Likewise the planes were presumed to be EVERYWHERE along their line of flight during all parts of that hour for purposes of spotting targets, being intercepted, etc. One thing that needed further development was Interdiction. There was lots of this flown in the real campaign, especially by the Germans, while in games there was a tendency to focus all air assets on the critical battle for direct support. The Soviets took to calling ARC LIGHT strikes using their entire DBA assets and sometimes everything else they could call in, to obliterate one hex. Sometimes this got disrupted by the referee randomly dicing for delays, so instead of one huge cluster of planes you would get them staggering in over a whole turn. Sometimes this was more helpful to the person with the planes, as you would be causing morale checks every turn or so. Sometimes it led to wholesale butchery in the air if they ran into enemy fighters.

A big problem was ammunition. Both sides were hampered significantly by shortages of ammunition, and the Germans by fuel shortages as well. I failed in my attempts to model Soviet ammo production (I had national figures, and took 20% as the northwest's share). I kept reducing the amount coming in, but it was always too much. My next step would have been cutting it by two thirds but the game ended before I got to it.

One thing that worked well was a system, based on CD III times to build field works etc, which featured me setting up a large Excel spreadsheet showing every hex where work was underway, indicating what was being built, who by, and with what orientation, so I could calculate exactly when it would be ready (critical if it was in the path of enemy movement - the Soviets were doing the digging for the most part). This worked real well, but was more than the players wanted to do. So they gave me rudimentary instructions and I filled in the table and applied it to the scenarios generated.

Then there's naval and lake/riverine movement... all tricky concerning time and space.

Post Mon May 27, 2013 2:18 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

Thanks Jack! I appreciate the trouble you took to write at length about the difficulties and successes of the giant campaign. I will avoid some of this because as a campaign it may not go any longer than the average multi-session game i.e. an average of 1.02 sessions Sad

But my goal is to at least make it possible to play more than 1 "day" of the campaign. Great Battles of WWII has multi-day rule elements so i may graft on some of that. But because GBoWWII's core combat system is underdeveloped, my first goal is to see whether I can use CD for the core.

Your Gulf of Finland example indicated that the ranges were not scaled down but were (apparently) 20x the actual. I wanted to avoid that because of how small arms would otherwise be firing across multi-mile-wide fjords.

Fortunately, I think that the air impacts will be limited in Narvik.

I want to work through the "fluid" movement/time/range scales to see if I can avoid glitches.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids currently at: www.g-design.us/cd ...eventually all aids will be found at https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Mon May 27, 2013 3:39 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

Here's my current thinking:

1. All units fire at normal CD ranges but centimeters. Normal movement rates (again, in cm's).

2. Considering having time scale expand somewhat.Why? Intuition as opposed to having some justification.

3. Stands will mostly be companies derived by combining 3 CD stands of the same type. My normal 3/4" wide stands to be magnetically adhered to 1.5" wide stands. Allow regrouping.

4. Cases of 1-2 stands that are thus fractional either become like "Bn Guns" or disappear... or might consider a savings throw situation that negates 1/3 or 2/3rds of hits. Will be normal sized stands to make it clear that they are smaller units.

5. Naval range/move stick (currently each-knot/100 yards/cm) will need to be resized (increased to 200%) to work with the 50 yard/cm ground scale. Fortunately bad visibility of 7 miles or 4’ on the table …makes the theoretical maximum sightline of 24 miles (14’ long table!) or the maximum range with air spotting for Warspite is 18.8 miles (11’ table) unnecessary.

6. Rugged fjord terrain will be made of foam rubber scraps from a nearby mattress factory!
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids currently at: www.g-design.us/cd ...eventually all aids will be found at https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Mon May 27, 2013 6:23 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5413
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  


quote:
So you feel that the stands are more about the area and not their maximum potential frontage.


Nothing so sophisticated - Ive seen examples where the ranges were multiplied instead of the area and the the battles became much too crowded
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Mon May 27, 2013 6:58 am   View user's profile Send private message
tmharris
Sergeant Major


Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 266
Location: Naperville, Il, USA
 Reply with quote  

Here are my observations from two Barbarossa 25 games. The time oddity is the most confusing to players. When players looked at where the Germans were 3 months into Barbarossa they weren't there yet. They were as far as the Germans were after 3 days. The bathtubbing had not altered the troop density on the border and it took the same amount of time to eat through that crust as it did to break the border defenses historicially. So players have to understand that when you bathtub you won't see that one to one historical correspondence.

Post Tue May 28, 2013 4:51 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jack Radey
Major General


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 2829
Location: Eugene, OR
 Reply with quote  

In our last Baltic campaign, the Germans were more or less on schedule, if you kept clear that campaign time (two week turns) and tabletop time (12 hour "turns") were the same. It would mess with your head, though. Historically while there was definitely a hard crust at the border, it was far from continuous. The Germans overestimated the Soviet forces on the border by a factor of three historically.

In general in our campaigns the Germans were unable to match the historic schedule. There are several reasons for this. One was there were some anamolies in the way Dave's bathtubbing worked - in general two divisions = 1 campaign battalion-sized "division". A "division" could cover, with no depth, a one hex frontage. With the number of division's halved, this meant the Soviet defenses were stretched thin, and the Germans had no trouble making holes. But for reasons I never quite understood, Soviet Mech Corps were not represented 2=1 bn sized unit, but rather were all represented, albeit with appropriate number of tanks. Part of my pregame ref duties was to beat the snot out of the Soviet motor pool, leaving them woefully short of trucks, prime movers, etc, and requiring a lot of reshuffling by the Soviet player. Since many motorized rifle divisions (all present, since each was part of an MC) lacked trucks, this gave the Soviets a lot of weak rifle divisions, I think out of proportion to the game scale. In some early versions of the DC campaign the Soviet heavy mortars were grouped in two battery brigades, complete with an HQ. All of these were disbanded, the mortars distributed to rifle divisions, and the surplus HQs came in very handy for things like building NKVD border guard detachments into divisions. Again, too much of a good thing. Also in the early games Soviet artillery was by brigades. When I broke this down to regiments (take away radio staff trucks, and ability to mass fires) it helped a LOT.

A bigger problem was due to command turbulence, and players who were fairly casual about planning and who suffered in some cases from timidity, the Germans seldom pushed as hard as their historic counterparts. As I see it, the Germans caught all the breaks in 1941, and were very lucky to have done as well as they did. Given far better "communications" that the game allows means the Soviet player can react faster, and more intelligently (having a better idea of what is going on and knowing what it is the Germans have to do to win). While as ref I did hit the Germans with some problems (in August they started suffereing from transport attrition), the evolution of the game system was all in the direction of weakening the Soviets. In the early game they looked a great deal like 1944 Red Army. We were heading for 1941 by the end of the last one.

Using DC's bathtubbing scheme - battalion sized units representing divisions - you get the following problem. A panzer "division" has two or three tanks. Run into some well placed Soviet field guns and/or AA guns, and you are likely to lose one or two. I was generous in repair points for the Germans, but losing most of a panzer division's armor in a few "hours" usually sufficed to make the table top players and their campaign commanders a bit gunshy. In the face of Soviet buildup and fortification efforts, any delay meant greater stability of their defenses. The Germans did best when they could catch the Soviets on the move, worst when they had to assault built up positions.

One thing that we took directly from Bathtub Barby that made me wonder was the troop quality advancement rules. The way we ran it was by creating "Experience Points". A unit picked up one every time it was in significant combat. Green = 0, Trained = 1, Regular = 2, Experienced = 4, Veteran = 8. If replacements were added to a unit, German repls = 2, Soviet repls = 1. When they were added, the unit's combat unit's experience points were averaged, so repls tended to bring the quality of a unit down. On the other hand, consolidating damaged units was done the same, averaging the new quality, and the Red Army contained a few divisions which were Regular or Experienced to start (had fought in Finland or Mongolia). Let them see a bit of combat, and consolidate with other units that had picked up some experience, (NKVD border guards were Reg to start for example) and way too fast you were finding Soviet divisions that had been in the front for several turns were trending towards Regular and Experienced. Morale varied according to circumstances, some going down, some up for successes, with it tending towards the unit's original rating. Well, get one or two divisions now up to Experienced 9s occupying trenches, bunkers, weapons pits, behind abatis, wire, or mines, and even with lots of enemy air, it is going to be expensive to root these boys out.

Basically I felt units were advancing their troop quality too quickly, which totally favored the Soviets, the Germans mostly starting at Vet 9s.

Post Tue May 28, 2013 6:38 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave
Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 708
Location: UK/France - St Omer
 Reply with quote  

Coming in a bit late on this one, and hijacking Bills thread, here are my thoughts on the bathtub scale.

Bathtub scaling the distance does not work well unless the scale down factor is small.

This linear association between the troops and the ground scale creates the appropriate troop densities if the defenders were historically deployed in a single echelon, but what it does when they were not (such as at the beginning of Barbarossa) is to bring closer the second line of defences, sometimes to the point of making them too mutually supporting, and increases troop density by the bathtub scale.


Jack’s description of the ammunition supply situation and how the bathtubbing of this doesn’t work well is something I grappled with in Barbie back in the 90’s. Whilst at first it does not seem too significant, the same issue affects the replacement and reinforcement rates.

Say we have 1/20th of the historical troops defending 1/20th of the historical front line, the troop densities are historical, fairly easy, yes?

Now once you move from a linear situation to one with depth you have a problem.

Say the German troops break through and advance into the depths of Russia, they advance X km per day, but as the ground scale is reduced by a factor of 20, they advance 20 times too fast over the game map, (if there is anything to advance into as the second line may well be just behind ie 20 times too close to the first.)

Easy solution, reduce the timescale by 20 as well then they can cover the right distance in the correct amount of time.

So all is OK? No. The troop densities are still 20 times too great, and in a long campaign, each side gets reinforcements and replacements….

And these are now arriving too quickly, by the same factor as the time scale and that is where your ammo equation goes wrong… you will have too much ammunition, by a factor of 20

So you can now reduce the ammunition supply (by a factor of 20).

But replacements are coming in 20 times too quickly as well, so you need to be able to eliminate them more quickly, but using 1/20th of the ammunition.

Most wargames rules do have excessive casualty rates so this issue may not be immediately apparent, but as the campaign goes on, this can become a problem, with replacements too plentiful, and with these excessive replacements, and a troop density 20 times what is should be, the balance swings quickly to the defence.

You could reduce the replacement rate to 1/20 of what it historically, but what is the difference between a replacement and a newly formed reinforcement? You would need to reduce the number of new divisions by the same amount, and if you do this you break the link to the historical orders of battle, and that is the whole raison d’etre in the first place….

So how much more bloody is CD than history?

This is pretty much the upper limit on the bathtub TIME scale unless you put a hatchet through the rules to increase casualties…
_________________
Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled

Post Tue May 28, 2013 10:24 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Bob_Mackenzie
General of the Army


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 5413
Location: UK
 Reply with quote  


quote:
So how much more bloody is CD than history?


Anecdotally - based on a many games and much reading

Tank casualties (assuming regroup) are about correct as long as the range is >6". Once stands get within 6" the casualty rate become much too high. This is exacerbated in that when players close with the enemy they tend to close with everything they have so its more lethal and more stuff is firing, and they is less chance of intervening LOS blockers blocking fire

Inf casualties tend to be always much higher than historical, often tending towards 100% in hard fought games. If defenders are dug in the only really good way of killing them is to close assault (which removes the cover mod) and gives both sides an excellent chance of killing the other.

I suspect if close assaults were banned casualties would be about right. it would be mighty frustrating to play as the attacker tho'

Cheers

Bob
_________________
http://www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/

Post Wed May 29, 2013 4:55 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Peter Kamp/Denmark
Brigadier


Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1131
Location: Denmark
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Mackenzie:

quote:
So how much more bloody is CD than history?


Anecdotally - based on a many games and much reading
===SNIPPED===
I suspect if close assaults were banned casualties would be about right. it would be mighty frustrating to play as the attacker tho'

Cheers

Bob


Parhaps rules requiring a "Charge Test" may be right ?
_________________
Best regards
Peter Kamp Nielsen

Chakoten
Danish Military Historical Society

Post Thu May 30, 2013 1:57 am   View user's profile Send private message
Bill Owen
Brigadier


Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1887
Location: Soca, Uruguay
 Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Coming in a bit late on this one, and hijacking Bills thread,
SNIP


Actually I appreciate all the input by all of you on this even if I'm not changing the "scale" as much. It helps to see how many related issues there are and how a consistent adjustment may not hit the mark.

And Jack's point about how the players' interaction with the game's lessons may lead to weak game play ...or presumably could go the other way and encourage extreme aggression.

The direction I am going seems simplistic enough but I think there may be some subtle issues yet to be discovered.

I have also found that there is a boardgame on Narvik 1940 from Against the Odds magazine. This could be a help. If you have a copy, would you let me know?
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids currently at: www.g-design.us/cd ...eventually all aids will be found at https://wargamecampaign.wordpress.com/

Post Thu May 30, 2013 3:40 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave
Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 708
Location: UK/France - St Omer
 Reply with quote  

Gaming style is an interesting point. The first time we played Barbie, it ran through into summer 1942 and the initial Blau campaign before players got tired and I moved to France.

In the campaign, the winter months were quite quiet, Leningrad had fallen, Moscow nearly so but was saved by a timely counterattack from the Voronezh area forcing the retreat of the Panzers from Tula and the southern outskirts of Moscow.

The general lack of combat over the winter together with the issues noted above with the excessive replacement rate lead to both sides being stronger than was historically the case at the beginning of Blau.

The Germans were very aggressive in this campaign, having paid attention to Frank's design notes in the module, but given the calm period were able to rebuild significantly.

The second time we played it (the one Jack was involved in), some of the same players were on the Axis side and did pretty much the same thing.

I bathtubbed it differently so each battalion sized battlegroup represented a pair of real world divisions, so about a 1/20 bathtub scale. Having much better information by this point the TOEs were rather larger than before. Additional information shed more light on the actual composition of the Soviet forces, and the game reflected this.

What became apparent was that the troop densities were way too high, and this spoilt the primary purpose of the game, that of a scenario generator. Some of the battles became almost unplayable.

I recall one where Kiev MD had ordered a hasty counter attack against AGS not long after they crossed the border North of Lvov and Kowel. Unfortunately for the Soviets the Germans had seized the high ground, but instead of attacking from there they chose to dig in and hold it whilst other elements attacked out of the Carpathians in the South West, with the intent on creating a pocket in the Lvov area.

IIRC there must have been over a dozen battalions of Soviets attacking about half their number of Axis troops which were excessively supported by the Luftwaffe and all of AGS GHQ artillery. A massacre occurred. Awful game to play for both sides, a huge turkey shoot. But that is what you sometimes get in campaigns.

Manoeuvre makes for good games and for that to occur you need space.

Our on-going Barbie would be huge by comparison to the earlier ones, with a battalion representing a division, but we are not playing AGS, Bessarabia or the Arctic making it manageable.

With a 1/9th scale ratio we get 1/36 of the equipment holdings etc which works well. Aircraft sortie rates are boosted somewhat, and I have changed the regroup rules to discourage it during games. Time scale is 1/7.

Not sure I agree with Bob about bathtubbing the area rather than linear ground scale. Makes the frontages too long, so went in between the two,linear ground scale is about 1/6, ie about 50% larger than the troop bathtub scale, or twice the square root of it.

With historical initial deployments and a set of command and control rules in play there is chaos a plenty and loads of open spaces for motorised units to drive into and run out of fuel.....
Evil or Very Mad
_________________
Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled

Post Thu May 30, 2013 10:48 am   View user's profile Send private message
Jack Radey
Major General


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 2829
Location: Eugene, OR
 Reply with quote  

Ah, I remember that counterthrust in the Ukraine well. General Keijie (Gary Rhay) had Southwest Front, and is aggressive (retired Lt. Col. of cavalry) by nature, and we thought alike. We decided the best thing to do was to mess with the enemy, rather than sitting back waiting to be messed with. Dave's report at the time was that while the offensive failed, and was very costly, the looks on the German player's faces as line after line of Soviet forces emerged from the woods edge was worth the price of admission, and it was a closer run thing than he suggests above.

It was not my impression that troop density was too high. It WAS too high for good scenario generation - many of the scenarios produced would see more than a half dozen "divisions" (CD battalions) on a side, with air, tanks and artillery. Big tables, lining up lots of players, slow game play resulted. And mammoth battles. But while this was a logistics problem (finding a group that could handle the size, and play competently and report accurately) was a real problem. But this is the Great Patriotic War, guys, not some minor skirmishing in the North African desert, with less divisions per side than you can count on one hand. This is the bulk of WWII happening right here on your table.

My impression on density is because of the observation that both sides were desperate for units just to cover their fronts credibly. The initial Soviet forces in the border districts can't quite cover their frontage, and while the Germans faced bottlenecks in places, I would say players were more often concerned about a shortage of forces, not an excess.

The timidity factor needs to be addressed. Players HATE to be made to appear foolish. A campaign game gives many opportunities - because in a campaign all the "toys" are NOT on the table. Generally players were given information about any enemy within a hex or two of their forces. They had strategic intel assets (not a lot) that would improve their chances of getting random tips about forces in the enemy's depth (Vilno had a significant German intel op on the ground, and their odds of getting correct information in the area were better than some other places). Pre-campaign I diced red vs black dice for various places with the ratio and other factors determining what, if any, data came out of the place. Air recon sorties were also available (they were vulnerable to interception, but would regenerate after a turn or so). German panzer and motorized divisions had a built in air recon giving them good intel about nearby clear terrain hexes.

But most of what went on behind the enemy's front was hidden, and some of what was revealed was bogus, the Soviets put a lot of effort into disinformatsiia, including some dummy airfields, dummy ground positions, etc. Some of it the Germans correctly intuited as bogus, some was swallowed whole.

But the upshot was that players were VERY leery about advancing at maximum rate, fearing embarrassment. In fact, an ambush just means essentially one free shot by the defender, after that its "Hey Rube" and the fight is on. But this fear of surprise put a serious brake on exploitation and rapid advance. In one case the German initial attacks at the border, which should be "pedal to the metal", had as much as a third of forces peeled off covering flanks or held back against surprises.

And if the German doesn't plunge ahead at maximum speed when he has his greatest advantage, the first turn or two, he will never catch up the pace. He must be destroying or heavily damaging Soviet units at a serious rate or will be drowned by the Soviet buildup. This is as it should be historically.

In fact, the game system, by allowing full resupply if a supply line can be traced, gives the Germans the ability to conduct a continuous offensive that their historical counterparts would have envied. But in at least three playings of the campaign, using a lot of different players and a gradually evolving set of rules, it is my observation as player and ref that a fear of the unknown, and a failure to do serious planning, were the twin devils haunting the German advance and on occaision snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have to say, these campaigns were among the very best experiences I have ever had in gaming, despite their problems. The depth, and the complexity of the situations was a real and absorbing challenge. I felt that not infrequently, given the player decisions, the results were not terribly out of line with reality.

A big problem though is commitment. (And of course I'm sure some of our wives would argue that the campaign games were grounds for commitment). I was in, way over my ears. As Soviet commander I was planning production, training, organization of forces and strategy as far as a year in advance, with a focus on delaying the enemy back to THIS line by THAT point in the game, which would be when THOSE forces would be coming out of the training cycles and be massed HERE and HERE in order to launch a counteroffensive designed to destroy THAT army group and then THAT one.

Only to find ourselves facing players who weren't interested in the campaign game particularly, would issue casual orders, months after they were due, and that showed little or no thought beyond the next battle. We would try to figure out their strategy, planned route of advance, where reserves would likely appear, only to learn that they didn't have one, had no apparent plans, and seemed to commit reserves without regard to the overall situation. Sigh. I can't blame them, it was a minor game issue to them, to us it was a total absorbtion. Some day...

All that said, it was a joy to watch principles of strategy show themselves, and many historic occurrances, from Soviet overestimation of their own abilities (hey, that attack was supposed to break the enemy here and here and surround him, instead it broke down due to bad communications and our masses of T-26s getting shot to bits), to the importance of key terrain and the consequences of failing to grasp same.

Some day in my retirement, I may just be tempted to get into this again. Daryl Nichols, referee for our second campaign, worked up some dandy computer approaches to keeping track of the campaign data, we had a spread sheet for every unit on each side, with hyperlinks to an individual spreadsheet for each unit showing its current status for each frigging stand. The maps were also a treat to work with. (I found it useful to add a lot of features to the maps, primarily smaller towns which had no game significance but made it easier to discuss where stuff was happening by being able to refer to it by name rather than grid number.

Post Fri May 31, 2013 3:45 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

phpBB Template by Vereor