Category Archives: Boardgames

Pursuit of Glory AAR- Part 2

Quick Comment:  This game was played using the First Edition, not the recently published Second Edition which, from what I gather, contains some significant rules modifications.

And now….Wargame Forensics.  Why?  I forgot to include the cards played in my map photo.  So, here’s a stab at what happened during the Summer 1915.

The major development was the Allied invasion at Gallipoli and accompanying Central Powers response.  It was business as usual in Caucasia – with more attrition – and a lack of activity on other fronts.  At this point, the Ottoman replacement pool is dangerously shallow.

During the Fall 1915 turn, the Allies shifted focus to  Mesopotamia, eyeing an undefended Baghdad.   The Marsh Arabs tribe frustrated the Allied advance, buying time for the Central Powers to deploy forces to the threatened city.

The Romania Enters The War card was played in error.  Tim noticed that the pre-conditions had not been met (Allies in Salonika), so the forces involved were taken off the table and Tim used the card for operations.

The Central Powers were in reaction mode, trying to cobble defenses together in Mesopotamia and Caucasia, attempting to build up the replacement pool, as well as maintaining some momentum in their effort to “Set The East Ablaze” using dissident tribes.

Our final turn was Winter 1916.

The Allies played the Russian Winter Offensive card, reducing the negative effects on winter attacks, and so maintaining the momentum of  their  push towards Anatolia.  The Asquith-Lloyd George card allowed an increase in British aid to Russia in the form of replacement points.  These positive developments would help Russia delay the beginning of the revolution.

The Central powers gained Bulgaria as an ally  (forces cannot be set up until the end of the turn), and the Ottomans were able to stabilize both the Mesopotamian and Caucasian fronts.   For how long is anybody’s guess.

As usual, just when things were getting good, or dicey depending on one’s perspective, it was time to pack it up.

One overarching observation is how both of us shied away from any significant effort(s) outside of the Caucasian front.  Yes, Tim did invade both Mesopotamia and Gallipoli, but with limited assets.  Neither of us showed any interest in the Sinai or Egypt.  The historical Allied invasion at Salonika did not occur in this game.

My other impressions from the Central Powers’ perspective are:

  1.  Is it worth pursuing a peripheral strategy focusing on Jihad and tribal actions?
  2. How quickly Ottoman forces are reduced.
  3. Given this attrition, is there a more defensible series of positions in Caucasia that will not provide the Russian player with the ability to further delay the revolution?
  4. Outside of Bulgaria (and perhaps the peripheral strategy) what are the opportunities for the Central Powers to be pro-active?

My head is starting to throb.  Time to play something less taxing.

Pursuit Of Glory AAR – Part 1

The first rule of Blogging an After Action Report (AAR) is to blog right after the game.  The second rule of Blogging an AAR is to……you know the rest

I’ve let two weeks pass since Tim and I sat down for a session with the game that gives both of us headaches.  So many situations, so many theaters,  and so few cards

We managed to get through the Winter 1916 turn, and left it with Bulgaria entering the game.  Tim had a definite advantage at that point, as my Ottomans were badly attrited, and barely hanging on in Caucasia.  But, that situation had stabilized to some degree and his Commonwealth forces had bogged down in Gallipoli.  On the other hand, my situation in Mesopotamia was not the best, with only a corps between him and Baghdad.  Still, I now had the Plucky Bulgarians along with their powerful German friends ready to go.

Here’s a shot of the situation at the end of the (first) Fall 1914 Turn.  Plot Spoiler:  These photos are up to my usual (sub) standard.

I failed to capture the cards played in this photo and, as you will see, it happened again in the Summer 1915 turn.  Lack of attention to detail.

My strategy from the outset was to increase the Jihad level as quickly as possible by playing  event cards and capturing Jihad cities.  Of course, starting the time track towards the Russian Revolution was a priority.  I needed  the “Parvus To Berlin” card on the table as quickly as possible.  From an operational standpoint, I wanted to actively defend my victory point cities in Caucasia.  Any loses would delay the revolution. I kept a relatively strong force in Western  Anatolia to act as a reserve, especially to counter an Allied amphibious invasion of Gallipoli.  One challenge for the Ottomans if reserves are kept there is their rudimentary rail system, limiting their ability to shift troops from one theater to another.

I’ll ask Tim to provide some comments on his strategy and operational intent.  From my perspective, he was aggressive in Caucasia, and did an excellent job of wearing down the Ottomans.  This is important as the Turks have limited and dwindling replacement opportunities as the game wears on.

During the turn I played the “Goeben”, “Persian Push” and “Pan-Turkism” cards.  I was able to destroy the fort at Batum, and the latter two cards started jacking up the Jihad level, and my ability to place dissident tribal units on the map.  These tribes can take isolated victory point cities and delay/defend Allied moves in Persia and Mesopotamia.

Tim enjoyed playing the “Enver Goes East” card, forcing me to undertake mandatory attacks at time I wasn’t quite ready for them.  He also opened up the Mesopotamia theater by playing the “Russo-British Assault” event.  Surprisingly, he played the “Churchill Prevails” (more on this later) event for replacements.

Here’s the situation at the end of the Winter 1915 turn.

The Allies began the turn by playing the “Kitchener” card.  This allows the British player to provide the Russians with replacement points.  The “Project Alexandria” initiated a build-up of forces in the Aegean.   And,  it got worse for the Central Powers.  The “Royal Naval Blockade” event was played.  It “caps” the Ottoman replacement pool at 25 points, with each point taken reducing those available and with a -1 Victory Point (VP) adjustment each winter.

The Central Powers used their cards for operation points to undertake less than successful mandatory offensives and taking advantage of victory point opportunities in Persia.

The situation at the end of the Spring 1915 turn is shown below:

 

During this turn the Allies played the “Churchill Prevails” card, bombarding  forts guarding the entry to the Bosphorus.  Fortunately, for me, only two forts were destroyed.  The “Murray Takes Command” card was also played.  This card initiates the construction of the Sinai Railway,  required for an Allied corps size unit to participate in any regional offense/defense.

Again, the Central Powers concentrated on operations in Caucasia and Persia, launching a corps eastward into Persia, while playing the “Enver To Constantinople” to reduce the havoc that rascal plays on operational planning.

I’ll leave this fragmented account for now, with a follow-up post later this week.

Fifth Corps

I have each of the four games comprising SPI’s Central Front Series covering a hypothetical Warsaw Pact versus NATO conflict in the 1980s.

The system has a following, and has evolved.  Here’s a link to some downloads.

Finally set this up after some 40 years of procrastination.  And then, procrastinated another two months before I sat down to actually do more than stare.  Plenty of rules reading during the interim – isn’t that a good substitute for action? – but no pushing of cardboard.

I would characterize the game as operational, but a far, far more granular approach then, let’s say, The Third World War.  So, Grand Tactical?

This thread at BGG does a great job of describing the game’s characteristics, warts (with that emphasized) and all.  Each of the perspectives is valid.

The thought that really resonated with me is Jason Cawley’s comments about “Analysis Paralysis”.

On a macro level, my entire involvement with this game reflects this.  I intended to use the updated and comprehensive rules.  Too much of a slog.  My compromise was to use the rules as updated after the publication of BAOR.  Too much of slog, especially given my manic habit of having about three games set up at any one time (yes, any vacant horizontal space is at risk at The Pine Cone Lodge).  Finally decided “Just use the original rules and play the damn game.  It’s a helluva lot easier to flip through five pages of rules than thirty.”

Sage Self Advice.

After getting on it, I discovered  I couldn’t manage all of the map and so focused on one section and its units. This reduced scope allowed me to play out the initial turn and grasp the rules.

Yes, the friction points mechanic is a bitch.  Yes, the Combat Results Table (CRT) is a bitch.  Yes, the stacking limits and pesky NATO “Ants” are a bitch.

The turns do seem endless. There are any number of courses of action for the Soviets.

But that’s all part of the system’s charm.

After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But, it isn’t love and I don’t know if I will finish the game much less play the other ones in the series.  Who knows, maybe I’ll put them up for sale, or consign them to even more time in Box Purgatory.

But, the process has not been a waste of time.

Another Try

Back to Portland for a long-awaited replay of the new version of Red Star/White Eagle (RSWE).  This  Deluxe Edition  is published by Compass Games.

Tim and I played the old GDW version several times (follow the tag) and always enjoyed it, despite some serious rules screw ups.  We started playing the  new version back in early February, but ran afoul of the Super Bowl and some accompanying wackiness.

The Compass edition of this classic Polish-Soviet War game is improved in every way, with a better map, thicker and larger counters (too large for our tweezers), as well as very functional set-up and reinforcement displays.  These displays, combined with  counters that include campaign set up designations, really help the set-up.

One aspect that hasn’t changed is the very bloody Combat Results Table (CRT).  The CRT also allows the attacker to advance multiple hexes after combat.  With good die rolls, an aggressive attacker can generate plenty of operational movement with opportunities for deep and wide envelopments.

But, these envelopments  must be judiciously evaluated, since they also provide an opponent with opportunities to sever exposed supply lines or cutoff extended units.

Another game element that hasn’t changed, and one that significantly effects (maybe “shapes” would be a better term) play is how zones of control (ZOC) are treated.  In RSWE, passing through the ZOCs costs additional movement points. The exact costs are shown on the unit’s counter.  Also, enemy ZOCs cut supply lines, and the presence of friendly units doesn’t offset the effects of enemy ZOCs.

The attractive and functional map is divided into Soviet South and Southwest Fronts.  The central area is heavily wooded, while the  topography to each side is  both sides is open, but with river barriers, especially in the South Front.   Soviet units must remain in their respective fronts, and cannot be transferred from one front to another.

The game abstracts concurrent Soviet operations against White Russian forces.  The primary tool for this is a mandatory  “stand down” for the South Front units.  During this stand down, these units cannot attack Polish forces unless Polish attacks occur, and then, only on a one-for-one basis.  There are also mandatory unit withdrawals representing other developments during the Russian Civil War.

April IV (1920) the first of the weekly campaign turns.  The Soviet player conducts his reinforcement/replacements, movement and combat first (except for the April IV turn!).

The Polish player has the initiative for the first few turns.  The Soviet player must initially cover each hex along both fronts with either a unit or a ZOC;  a very real  Thin Red Line.  The Poles set up last and can pick and choose where to attack.  This creates several opportunities, especially around Kiev in the Southwest.  Taking Kiev produces victory points as well as Ukrainian reinforcements.  But any advance beyond Kiev faces  a flood of Soviet replacements and reinforcements.

The management and placement of these replacements (within their assigned Front) is a critical aspect of the game, allowing the Soviet player to not only stabilize the Southwest Front, but also counterattack, especially after the arrival of the First Cavalry Army (Konarmia).

Replacements arrive as generic units placed either on the map, to rebuild reduced (divisions and some brigades have full strength and reduced combat values) units, or held off map to recreate eliminated units during the next turn.

Here is a quick visual summary of our game.

End May 3 Turn

The Poles are in Kiev (lower right hand corner), with the Soviets cobbling together a cordon defense.

End May 3 Turn – Southwest Front Only

Armored trains cannot be rebuilt and are kept out of harm’s way until they can be productively used.

End June 1 Turn

The Poles have pulled back from Kiev, anticipating the arrival of the First Cavalry Army.

End June 3 Soviet Turn

Fighting now taking place along the river lines.  The Soviet player now has the First Cavalry Army on the map.

A big meal and a tendency to bullshit led to an early end of play.  A rematch is scheduled for the second week in June.

A New Mess

Getting close to covering all household horizontal surfaces with wargame related items.

Europa Purists may not want to read any further.

The  is the resource hodge podge assembled for my latest foray into out of kilter Europa scenarios, following in the steps of Fall Gertrude and the “Switzerland Must Be Swallowed” scenario pre-dating this blog.

As with any catastrophe, this one has several causes.  They are, in no particular order, an email exchange with Tim Davis, the publisher of Fall Grun and Empire Reborn, a chance encounter with The Europa Magazine (TEM) #57, and glance at my copy of East Central Europe Between The Two World Wars.

Empire Reborn posits a Romanian-Hungarian conflict in the wake of the Munich Pact.  TEM #57 contains a Macedonian War scenario developed by Frank Watson, portraying a 1940 Bulgarian invasion of Yugoslavia.

Both scenarios are based on ethnic/cultural/geographic grievances which (although centuries old) were the immediate products of the Balkan Wars and World War I.   It is a long and twisted story resulting – as best I can figure – in the following.

Hungary wanted to regain Transylvania from Roumania, and the Backa and Prekmurje regions from newly created Yugoslavia.  Bulgaria wanted much,if not all, of Macedonia from Yugoslavia, and to regain Dobruja from Roumania.

Hungarian revanchism was a result of the Treaty of Trianon (1920), which stripped the country of  land, ethnic Hungarians and resources.  This desire to regain what was lost led  to the creation of the Little Entente between Czechoslovakia, Yugoslovia and Roumania.

Greece, Turkey, Roumania and Yugoslavia reacted to Bulgaria’s territorial grievances by signing the Balkan Pact (1934).  The Pact was intended to maintain the region’s territorial status quo and peacefully solve any differences.

So, I am now ready to begin what Mr. Watson characterized  as “wandering in the Balkan darkness….” in explaining why he limited the scope of his Macedonian scenario.

I will, however, take his guidance and set my scenario in 1940, as “(it) provides a convenient way to do away with great power meddling.”

The shortest distance between two points is to assume a Hungarian and Bulgarian alliance (whatever form that might take) aimed at Yugoslavia and Roumania, all that was left of the Little Entente.

Most available order of battle information begins in 1941, but there are enough  fragmentary sources to take a pretty good guess at 1940.  In each case, the combatants were modernizing and reorganizing their armed forces.

What the hell….it’s worth a try.

Pea Ridge

Set this one up a few days ago.

A meeting engagement, regiments arrive piecemeal, with the Confederates having to negotiate constricted roadways in order to attack and reach their victory objectives.

I always tussle with whether or not to read about a battle before I play it.  I tend to not consult a reference so to avoid any pre-conceived notions about my approach for my first play-through.  After that, I’ll take a look, especially since I am fortunate enough to have the original two volume West Point History of American Wars.

Here’s a bad shot of the situation after five turns.  Top of picture is North.  The Confederate victory objectives are, for all intents and purposes, at the south end of the board.  Union victory objective is to hold in-place at their present position (Elk Tavern) to the East.

The game’s characteristics are interesting.

Union forces are outnumbered, but most Confederate units are armed with short ranged (one hex) muskets.  But, using fire and melee tactics is complicated by the need for Confederate units to be stacked with a leader in order to melee.  This rule is intended  to reflect the high historical casualties among Confederate brigadiers.  It also makes a two hex melee attack very difficult.

Many regiments’ morale is unknown.  A die roll the first time a check is necessary determines their rating.  Units keep that rating for the rest of the game.  This differs from TSS, which calls for a new roll for each check.   There is also a night turn, when both sides have an opportunity to regroup.

Managing the movement to contact is difficult.  Command radii are limited, there are lots of artillery units to clog roads, with very little room to deploy from column – necessary for movement at any pace through the heavily wooded areas – to line.  This makes coordinating attacks difficult, especially when time is of the essence for the Confederates.

All-in-all, an interesting challenge.  Here are close ups of the west and east flank’s action.  Notice at east flank (2nd photo), that the Confederates have to move through heavy woods (which effectively limit movement to one hex per turn) in order to envelope the Union blocking force at Elk Tavern.

         

 

Terminally Serious

Our Fall of France game ended during  the recent posting hiatus.  Here’s a screen shot of situation when I conceded.  Ugly.

Tim did a great job of applying unrelenting pressure on a broad front.  He might argue this pressure was too dispersed, but, in the end, his operational approach worked.  Yes, I held out longer than my historical counterpart(s), but the end result was still the same; a French defeat.

This broad, sustained pressure precluded any  concentration for a decisive counterattack, given the Allies’  slender armor and tactical air resources.  Every unit was needed to plug the recurring holes in a shallow defensive line.  The combination of tactical air, armor and strong infantry divisions capable of absorbing punishment was just too great.

A strategic withdrawal in the south would have been an option.  But, a passive surrender of French territory would be politically unthinkable, even though not a real game consideration in terms of victory points lost.

On second thought, maybe the end result wasn’t “the same”.  The British Army is still on the Continent.  No Dunkirk, no evacuation to fight another day.  With this outcome, the entire course of the war changes.  Negotiated settlement?   An interesting “what if” that has started a soft and gentle Siren’s Call to start up a session of A World At War or Blitz.

Now is a good time to replace those entryway lights…………

 

Return To Kernstown

The post’s title evokes images of a Hallmark special movie.

Not really.  This return was a slasher movie bloodbath, attributable for the most part to my ham fisted re-entry into the Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) system.

This is/was my first home board game after the re-organization and re-direction of collection.  The upshot of all that summertime thrashing was to establish a focus on several series of games, rather than any number of one-offs.  The emphasis now is on play, not reading a new set of rules, stumbling through a couple of plays, and then moving on to something else.  Sure, there are several magazine and specific games that I want to and will play, but this new emphasis increases time spent moving counters.

These GBACW games are part of the first series as published by SPI and others, before the revamping rolled out  by GMT. The new rules  seemed far more involved, without a commensurate increase in enjoyment.

So, the decision was made to fill out my collection, and start in on the cycle, using the last iteration of the SPI rules but ignoring, for now,  options and artillery overshoot (ugh).  I relied not only on that set of rules, but also the wonderful GBACW resources developed and published by Russell Gifford over at Boardgamegeek.

Just like Hollywood, my sequel unfolded much like its predecessor.  The Confederates used their cavalry to pin the Union 2nd Brigade, while their three infantry brigades with attached artillery attempted to skirt the Union positions either to flank them and attack, or exit the map.  If successful, either of these approaches would result in a decisive Confederate victory.

This flanking maneuver soon became a fire fight that degenerated into a nobody is moving an inch brawl.

I enjoy the chaos of this game system.  Probably the real Loki of the system is the Ammunition Depletion rule.  If a firing unit roles a “1”, it must check for ammunition depletion.  If that subsequent roll is a “1” or “2”, the unit cannot fire during either the defensive or offensive fire phase until resupplied.  In Kernstown, the Confederates cannot be resupplied.

Here’s an example of the fun.

With four turns left, the Union has five units ready to vaporized Brigadier Fulkerson and the remnants of his brigade,  and then fall on the exposed Confederate flank.  What happened?  Three of the five offensive fire rolls were “1”, with each of the succeeding rolls being either a “1” or “2”.  No “Blammo!!!”***

Despite the general mutual slaughter, the Confederates were able to grab critical Victory Points (VIPs) through Federal sloppiness in dealing with exiting cavalry units, and the Union garnered VIPs by maintaining morale and holding their initial positions.  The result was a draw.

I’m looking forward to playing Volume II, Pea Ridge!

*** The Word Tim B (Friend and Wargaming Opponent Extraordinaire) blurts out when an an enemy stack or unit is eliminated.  Adorable.

It Gets Serious: May II Turn

These screenshots summarize the May II Turn.

 

German armor sweeps past the weak ad-hoc French defenses and advances towards the Marne.  Also, the German commander turns loose “Ants” to disrupt the Allied rear areas.  To the north, German forces grind up the Dutch and Belgians,  advancing to the Dyle Line.

The Allies rush armored/mechanized units to contain the Ardennes penetration, while withdrawing from the Dyle line, using Belgian forces in support.  The Dutch attempt to consolidate their defense in order to tie down German forces for as long as possible.