Category Archives: Boardgames

Groza….Amateur Hour

My previous post covered the scenario’s basics.  Now to the gameplay.

Here are shots of the initial dispositions (after the Soviet Jun II Special Turn) from North to South.  I discovered it takes four (4), not three (3) screen shots to cover all fronts.  This group is missing the southern tip of Romania.

For some reason, I never “captured” an image with Tim’s Soviets dispositions in Romania.  But this is pic of mine is damning enough.  Just wait……

The following show Tim’s Soviet onslaught.  Not much going on in the northern and central pictures, but in Romania……whoaaa!!!

They say we create our own Hells.  Yes, my Romanian Hell was a product of failing to comprehend the interactions of two  Special Rules.

For the first turn, Zones of Control (ZOCs) are reduced.  And,  Axis units must be placed so as to either occupy border hexes or have them in a zone of control.  Too much of the latter, and not enough of the former.  I needed a solid front in Romania, with reduced border strength, but without gaps that, literally and figuratively, could (and would) be exploited.

To compound this error, I did not recognize the implications of the enhanced exploitation capabilities of Soviet units.  Here’s Romania after the Jul II Soviet Exploitation phase.

Gruesome.  Enough!  I’ll cover the rest of our game after my return from W.C. Fields’ (not so) favorite city.

Groza (Finally)…The Basics

Quick note:  If you are viewing this on an IPad or IPhone, scroll down to the bottom of your page.  This is where you will find the tags for Operation Groza and Europa.

Yes, it’s been a year since I  posted up about Operation Groza.  Why?  Sheer indolence.  But recent announcements about Europa provide new motivation.

To recap:  The Groza scenario was published in The Europa Magazine #23, with many special rules and modifications to the Orders of Battle (OBs) found in the Scorched Earth module.   Tim and I wanted to play Europa, were intrigued by the scenario, and anxious to try out the Barbarossa Unleashed draft rules published by John Astell.  Tim took on the herculean task of adapting the elderly, but still very serviceable (let’s just leave it there), JET Scorched Earth module for Groza.  This involved merging maps and creating supplementary counters.  We started play in late Winter 2025.

Might all of this involve confusion, numerous operator errors, and low levels of frustration?  Not to mention the usual screwing up?  Yes! So, here we go, starting with a summary of special rules with subsequent posts describing game play, observations about the rules, and lessons learned.

BTW…..We have reset, and are in the process of starting a new game.  But, back to old business.

The game begins with the Jun II 41 (Soviet) turn.  There are several significant factors affecting each side’s initial deployments.

Axis Player –

Deploys air and ground units first, with each Army having designated zones of deployment.  Units deployed include reinforcements for the Jun II and Jul I turns.  This placement simulates their movement during those turns the Axis player cannot move units.

Every hex along the Greater Germany (including occupied Poland) and Romanian borders must be either occupied by, or in the zone of control of, an Axis unit.

Note:  Hungary is neutral.  However, Axis units can overfly Hungary and use that country’s rail lines.

Soviet Player –

Deploys initial air and ground forces, with special modifications for each Military District (MD).  Again, each Army has deployment zones.

Can change four (4) combat/motorized (c/m) cadre units to full strength, and all 3-4 infantry cadre units to their full strength sides.

Places Jun II reinforcements on the map reflecting mobilization.

Game Play –

The Soviet player conducts a special Jun II turn limited to movement and exploitation phases (no combat).  For those  unfamiliar with Europa, c/m units may move during the exploitation phase. Movement is limited to within the Soviet Union (not occupied Poland).  Air units may move in either, but not both, phases.

The Soviet may designate NKVD units as Spetsnaz.  Ahhhh….Chrome!

After all Jun II movement/exploitation is finished, the Soviet Player begins a “normal” Jul I turn.  But, “normal” applies only to turn sequence as their are several special, and very significant, “benefits” ( per scenario designer) to be used during this turn, only.

The Soviet Player 1) ignores border river hexsides for purposes of combat and overruns (not movement).  2)  increases the attack strength of his artillery units by 50 percent.  3)  c/m units at full strength have full,  not limited, exploitation capabilities.  4)  conducts movement as though each Axis unit has a reduced zone of control (ZOC).  5)  Spetsnaz units are treated like commando units, and have an attack strength of “1” when used in conjunction with other units. Ahhhh…..Chrome!

The special Jun II move combined with the Jul I rules and inability of Axis forces to react simulates Groza’s surprise attack.

Next up…the game.

From Set-Piece To Re-Set

Set up another Gaza scenario.  This one covers Allenby’s 1918 campaign.

Yes, more set-piece battle action, but with the enhanced possibility of a decisive  Allied breakthrough.

Why?  A special rule for one turn.  The Allies can ignore the effect of enemy entrenchments, and add a +2 to their D6 roll if supported by two factors of artillery,  to an attack using at least 20 factors.  Also, any cavalry not involved in the attack can “exploit” (after combat is completed) up to their full movement allowance and launch an attack (no special modifiers) of their own.

Later That Same Day

Reread the scenario rules.  The special rules cited above hold for any attack (with at least 20 factors) during one turn, just not “an” attack.

How typical.  An error of omission.  I will avoid descending into a public display of self-castigation.

So, here’s the result of my misguided efforts.

The breakthrough took place along the coast, with two cavalry units exploiting.  An opportunity, but probably not as good as one generated by two attacks with these favorable modifiers.

Also, an additional cavalry unit is hiding under a headquarters situated along the coast.  Jeez! Sloppy staff work!

I may play this one out for another turn or two, but will set it up again to take full advantage scenario rules to see if I can completely “unhinge” the Ottoman defenses.

GWAS – The Wheel Had Been Built

Can’t rationalize my way past this one.

Digging around various Great War At Sea (GWAS) archives, I came across this 1898 Naval Campaign over at Web Grognards.   An excellent effort  covering a lot of bases.  I would really like to find out where he discovered the specifics.

BTW, I hadn’t visited Web Grognards lately.  Boardgamegeek has surpassed it as an overall resource, but WG still is an excellent source of information, especially older games.

Underrated!

GWAS – Re-inventing The Wheel?

I’ve come up with three basic scenarios.

The first assumes Admiral Cervera’s fleet runs the U.S.blockade and makes it to Havana.  From there, he can threaten the Florida Straits, U.S. East Coast and/or Puerto Rico.

The second anticipates Spain commits to reinforcing the Philippines,  with a U.S. counter move sending the Eastern Squadron to the Mediterranean, protected by the Covering Force.

Finally, that Spain purchases ships from Chile.  This possibility affected U.S. dispositions.  The Chilean ships were the O’Higgins, weeks away from completion in a British shipyard, as well as two ships already in service, the Esmeralda and Ministro Zenteno.  The latter two were situated in the Pacific, where they could sail to the Philippines, with the O’Higgins close to Spanish territorial waters.

While working my way through all of this, I came to realize this is really a series of Red vs.  Blue operational problems, with the Spanish-American War providing historical context.  The scenarios are more than counterfactual, as the underlying assumptions are so very significant, anticipating Spanish domestic and foreign policies resulting in a trained and maintained fleet, without the ambivalence and defeatism.

After scratching all of this out,  I took a detailed look at the scenarios accompanying the game.  They are good, well explained, and cover what happened several might-have-been.  There’s even a campaign game linking the scenarios with die-driven variables!

So, my afterthought is “Why Did I Do All Of This?”  Well, I guess it would be depth of knowledge and the ability to view the historical events not as a series of separate scenarios, but within a  broader scope.

At times, it’s good to rationalize.

GWAS – Attention Now Focused

Well, the seemingly indispensable 3×3 blue hexagonal grid never arrived.  Some Amazonian problem with delivery.  Very vague.  Frantic Google activity revealed no viable substitutes without paying too much.

Now unable to throw a reasonable amount of money at the problem, I was forced to think.  Reluctantly, I started grinding the gears.  DIY options involved a lot of work…No interest in that.  Further grinding resulted in a question; “Why do I have to use hexes?”

The ship counters are one inch long.  The rules call for movement by number of hexes.  Convert hexes to inches – or ship lengths.  How about changes of course?  Changes are effected by stern or bow pivots of 60 degrees.  Why not use a protractor until you can eyeball the pivot without help?

Now I just needed a blue surface.  You MUST fight naval battles on a blue surface.  It cannot be done any other way.  Believe me.

The solution was to use either an ocean gaming mat, or the DBA “table”.   My ocean mat is an early version of the type with a fleece texture.  OK for miniatures, but counters are clunky to move and just don’t look right. The DBA table has a surface color of blue,  intended for just this sort of thing, but typically covered with GeoHex tiles for land battles.

Having taken care of the tactical infra-structure, it was time to get on with the strategic and operational aspects of the project.  So, back to Trask’s history, and this time really focus on the Navy’s organization and plans.

For my purposes, the naval campaign takes place from early April through July.  I’ve bookended the campaign with the U.S. decision to organize and  implement a blockade of Cuba and the return to Spain of Admiral Camara’s fleet which had intended to attack Admiral Dewey’s forces in the Philippines.

The historical naval campaign….what a cluster!  Orders  from the Secretary of the Navy  to Key West changing on a daily, and sometimes hourly, basis.  Ships being shunted between fleets and missions.  Order and counter-order.  The Navy’s mission was four-fold:  Defend coastal cities  from Spanish attack, blockade Cuba, escort the expeditionary force forming in Tampa, and stop any Spanish efforts to reinforce Cuba.  Later, two other missions were discussed and almost implemented.  One was  to raid  coastal cities on the Iberian Peninsula and outlying islands.  The other was to counter any Spanish attempt to regain control of the Philippines.

Rather than construct a time-oriented orders of battles, it seemed best to use the basic organization which called for – eventually – four US entities.  Initially these were the North Atlantic Fleet and Flying Squadron.  The  Eastern Squadron and Covering Force were created later in the campaign, and comprised of units from the  two basic organizations.  Ships were also  periodically detached for patrol duties.  Again, rather than go through an attach and detach process during the course (turns) of the campaign, it seemed best – and easiest – to “pool” (no pun intended)  these primarily Auxiliary Cruisers into a group available for scouting duties.

The basic organization is:

North Atlantic Fleet (Admiral Sampson), Key West – Iowa, Indiana, Oregon (maybe delayed reflecting its redeployment to Caribbean), New York, Amphrite, Terror, New Orleans, Montgomery.

Flying Squadron (Admiral Schlee), Hampton Roads – Texas, Massachusetts, Brooklyn, Columbia, Minneapolis.

Scouting Pool – Harvard, Yale, St. Louis, Minneapolis, St. Paul.

Reinforcements To Philippines – Monterey, Monachock.

One option discussed by leadership was to form an Eastern Squadron, with the mission of  countering Spain’s attempt dispatch ships to contest Admiral Dewey’s control of Manila Bay.

The Eastern Squadron included the following ships:  Oregon, Massachusetts, Newark, Yosemite, Yankee, Dixie.

The Eastern Squadron was to be assisted by a  Covering Force.  This force was to engage any Spanish effort to attack the Eastern Squadron as it passed by Spain until it was east of Gibraltar.

The Covering Force included: New York, Brooklyn, Iowa, Indiana, Texas, New Orleans, Badger, Yankee, Mayflower.

Putting together Spain’s fleet organization was simple.  Just go with the historical composition of Admirals Cervera’s and Camara’s fleets.  But, with the intriguing possibility  of Spain succeeding with their plans to purchase one if not three Chilean ships – O’Higgins, Esmerelda and Ministro Zenteno.  Spain’s conduct of the naval operations was marked by the same level of vacillation and indecision as U.S. operations.

Enough for now.  Ole Miss vs Miss State coming on.  Can’t miss another episode of “Lane Kiffin’s Ego.”

Der Weltkrieg – Osmanli Harbi – The Ottoman War 1914-1918

Finally finished up Galacia after more than a year on the table.  Yes, that long.  Pathetic is too kind a description.

Shamed, I had no other option But to set up another Der Weltkrieg offering, Osmanli Harbi.  Much lower counter-count, but some very interesting scenarios and rules.

The module’s scenarios cover the Caucasus, Macedonia, Iraq, Sinai and Albania theaters.  Just the names bring back memories of these regions bedeviling me while playing Pursuit of Glory.

Each theater has separate battle scenarios, as well as a campaign, which the system refers to as “Duration Game Scenario(s).”

Decided to play a Sinai scenario involving the Third Battle of Gaza , and covering the period October through December 1917.

The game’s rules have some significant differences/additions from/to the Der Weltkrieg Standard Rules.

The overarching changes for  Osmanli Harbi address the differences between fighting in Europe and the game’s theaters.  These focus on the harsh environmentss, with its effects on operations as well as logistics.

Desert hexes have reduced stacking limits; roughly half of that allowed in the standard rules.  Units crossing desert hexes also lose one movement point.  An attacker suffers one additional loss when attacking into a desert hex.  Operations during Summer turns involve further reductions in movement allowances as well as increased mandatory combat loses.

Lines of Communications (LOC) and Supply Depots are introduced to reflect the lack of transportation networks in these remote theaters.

LOCs are required for a unit to remain in supply.  LOCs must be traced to a rail line, port, headquarters or depot, with a maximum length of two hexes in the desert.  The headquarters or depot must be within two hexes (in the desert) from a rail line or port.  You cannot “daisy chain” headquarters units.  So, in the desert, a unit risks out-of-supply effects if it is more than two hexes from a rail line, or four hexes with an intervening headquarters.    The effects are attritional, either losing one (1) strength point if moving more than half of its allowance – in any terrain, and/or having to roll for attrition during the Special (first) Phase of a monthly turn.

Other scenario-wide rules involve reduced rail construction and capacity.

The impact of these changes pale in comparison to the rule that allows  Ottomans to mount counter-attacks at maximum strength without infantry or cavalry units being supplied.  In the series rules, a unit can only counterattack at full strength with the expenditure of two (2) supply points per strength point.  If not supplied, the unit attacks at half-strength.  This is a significant factor, with the designer explaining  this rule reflects the Ottoman’s ability to put together scratch forces (much like German Kampfgruppes) to respond to Allied operational successes.

Each set of  scenarios also has its own special rules.  For Gaza, these include rail capacities, German and Austria-Hungary support units, the requirement(s) to maintain garrisons, and special attack rules for the 1918 Meggiddo scenario.

I am also using an alternate Combat Results Table (CRT).  This CRT is recommended for low counter density scenarios.

The 3rd Gaza scenario is a stand-up slugging match, with the British assaulting an entrenched Ottoman force.  It’s a good solo scenario since the Ottoman player simply using his limited reinforcements to plug gaps created by British attritional attacks.  Maneuver is limited by desert and mountain terrain.

Victory is determined by capturing/defending cities and combat losses – which are accounted for as “Demoralization Points”.

The first play-through resulted in a Central Powers (Ottoman) Decisive Victory, as the British (Entente) suffered significant casualties while seizing just one of three cities required for a Substantial Victory.

I’ve set the scenario up again, and am giving it another try.  Here’s shot of the game.

 

GWAS – Attention Diverted

Way back in March I posted about a Great War At Sea (GWAS) project involving Chile and Argentina.

That one is now on a backburner, with my new emphasis on the “what ifs” of the Spanish-American War.  As usual, the move from South America to the Caribbean did not involve a straight line.  Instead the initial detour was to “Plan Black”, a possible United States-Germany confrontation.  This, in turn, was an offshoot of a by-chance read about the international squabble(s) over Guam and the Philippines in which Germany was an active participant.

Plan Black was a bust, since the GWAS scenarios are set during the Dreadnought Era, and I wanted something turn-of-the-twentieth-century.  Looking for a path of least resistance, I dug into GWAS’s 1898, The Spanish-American War,  module.  This opened up some immediate possibilities.

Fortunately, I own a copy of David Trask’s “The War With Spain In 1898”.  This one volume history covers the naval aspects in some detail, going far beyond the usual coverage which is typically limited to the battles of Manila Bay and Santiago De Cuba.

The game’s scenarios cover some hypothetical situations, but I was interested in a campaign that assumed (and this is quite an assumption) that Spain had not neglected its fleet for ten years, and was a far better match for the United States “New Navy”.  This is where Trask’s book was so helpful.

But, things ground to a halt when I decided to use the alternate Dreadnought tactical rules.  These require a roughly 3 ft x 3 ft hexagonal grid sheet, and I don’t have one.

Amazon should be delivering a blue hexagonal grid sheet any day now.  Everything else is ready to go.

And, I will get to Chile vs. Argentina. Sometime.

Up Front – Filling the Gap

This Summer I played Up Front (UF) both solitaire and face-to-face.  It’s a comfortable game.  I keep coming back to it.

What I like about UF is that it isn’t too complex (like Advanced Squad Leader), isn’t too simple (like many miniature tactical/skirmish games), and is more accessible than Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit (ASLSK).  By “accessible”, I’m referring to a level of detail requiring numerous chart references, multiple plays for the requisite knowledge, or a savant-like memory.

Also….you don’t need the space required for a board.  ASLSK has a number of compact one- board scenarios…..but not that many.  UF doesn’t require  multiple boards to enjoy an involved experience,  but the number of scenarios provided are limited.  However, those scenarios can be tarted-up using different force mixes, different nationalities, or removing cards to create new terrain and obstacles.  Actually, if you could still buy the game (and why that is involves a strange and terrible saga that I am only vaguely familiar with), a case could be made getting a second box to add cards.

By the way, Chris Farrell has some very interesting observations about the game over at his blog.

To keep the game in its comfortable place, I add selected sections to enhance the  Basic Game which is limited to Sections 1-16.

17.  Flank Fire and Encirclement; Lateral Group Transfers

18.  Weapons Acquisitions

19.  Malfunction and Repair

20.  Infiltration and Close Combat

For Chrome, I will include – on a case-by-case basis –  the following sections.

21.  Demolition

22.  Flamethrowers

23.  Pillbox

24.  Minefield

39.  Troop Types

With these five additional rules, you can attack a pillbox; first without any additional weapons, then with demolitions and, finally, flamethrowers.  After that, assault the pillbox through a minefield.  Excellent for solo play.

Tanks? Artillery?   I’ll leave those for Advanced Squad Leader or the Starter Kit.  Tanks & Artillery rules make me uncomfortable.

Learning Curve Continues

Finished up ASLSK’s Scenario S2, War of the Rats.

I thought it would be an easy mopping up after the early punishments meted out by the Germans.  But, the Soviets were surprisingly resilient.  It all came down to a climatic melee in the last German turn, in the last hex, of the last building.

Given the weapon mix (demolition charges and flamethrowers), unit types (conscripts and elite) and urban terrain, the scenario is a great introduction/review of the system’s first infantry-oriented iteration.  As I’ve posted  before, ordnance and especially armored fighting vehicles slow things down.

Well, why not another play?  I’m curious if my “overload tactics” will work again.  And, if so, can I finish off the Soviets quickly?  As a teaching colleague used to say “Repetition is the key to knowledge.”  Then, perhaps, something with ordnance…..