Category Archives: World War I

From Set-Piece To Re-Set

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

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.

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

Boardgames, Review + Session Report, World War I

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.

 

Once Again

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Back after another long hiatus involving travel and toil.

Drove over to Tim’s for another grind through Pursuit of Glory.  Grind?  Yes.  As posted before, the game is a brain twister, but very enjoyable.

As always, too much fun chatter and perhaps not enough serious gaming.  But, we were able to get into 1916, with Tim’s Allies having a decided advantage.

We agreed this session was different than the others.  Fewer casualties, with more activity in Sinai/Palestine/Syria than usual, with less in Persia and “The Back of Beyond”.

Here’s a breakdown of action by region.

Sinai/Palestine/Syria:  The Turks actually made it across the Suez Canal,  but were quickly forced back by British/ANZAC/Indian units.  Tim continued placing pressure on the Turks, taking Jerusalem and Damascus.  He correctly pointed out that I should have built a corps in Damascus.  Corps building is a real challenge for the Ottomans.  They do not receive corps as reinforcements, just divisions.  So, corps (which have increased fighting and staying power) must be assembled from two (for reduced corps) or three (full strength) divisions.  This means using operations points move them to a common location and/or to assemble them.

Mesopotamia:  The Allies steadily advanced from Basra towards Baghdad.  Here, I was able to assemble two corps, which stopped the Allies just short of the city.  The Central Powers had difficulties generating tribal resistance, which can be very effective  stopping/delaying an Allied advance.

Caucasus:  Not the usual bloodbath.  I attribute this to the few mandated offensives for either side, as well as no dreaded “Enver” offensives that can be devastating to the Turks, especially in the Winter when combat odds are very unfavorable for the attacker.

The Balkans:  This theater developed rather late in the game with first Romania (Allies) and then Bulgaria (Central Powers) entering the war.  The Serbs (Allies) were in an unfavorable position when the game ended.

Other:  Tim opened up the possibility of a landing in Gallipoli, which achieved its purpose of drawing valuable Ottoman units West, instead of East – where most of the action took place.  He did land at Salonika, but had not advanced by game’s end.

Tim did an excellent job of maintaining pressure on the Turks, forcing me to spend Operation Points on reacting as opposed to proactive uses such as corps building and strategic movement.  The latter is very important for the Ottomans, given the distances to be traveled and poor infrastructure.  Their “interior lines” are more of a handicap than advantage.

At game’s end, Tim had a decided advantage, with the Ottomans just five victory points from defeat.

Here’s a quick pic of the board at session’s end.

 

No Nuance

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Grinding away at Galacia: The Forgotten Cauldron.

Taking a “historical” approach, with both sides aggressively attacking, with little finesse.  At this point, the Russians are the most successful aggressors.  Their successes were helped by the requirement that Austro-Hungarian units must attack early in the game.  These attacks had limited success, but with heavy loss.

One tactic has emerged in this session.  The Der Weltkrieg rule set calls for mandatory retreats if losses represent one-half of a combat force.  In this particular scenario, the threshold is reduced to one-third.

The operational area has a wide frontage, so most stacks are in the 12-16 (3-4 divisions) factor range, with 8 factor stacks often used to plug gaps.  A two hex attack can typically generate a 3-4 factor loss, which not only attrits the defenders, but also forces a retreat.  The Russians have been very successful at this, albeit aided by some favorable d6 rolls.

In attempt to avoid the odd angle/glare influenced photo in my recent game report, I tried shooting these in half-light.  Further explanation is senseless.

This is the  Austro-Hungarian (white counters, with some Germans in gray) left flank.  Russian progress is limited.

Not so on the center/ right flank, where the A-H right  (bottom right of photo) is under some real pressure.

Interesting game, and I’m now fairly fluent with the rules.

Let Me Count The Ways

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Started play on Galacia: The Forgotten Cauldron.

Turn One featured both sides maneuvering towards their scenario objectives.  There was even a bit of screening cavalry skirmishes.

Thought I had finally figured things out.  No.

While flipping through the scenario booklet anticipating reinforcements, I found that each Army had a specific mobilization turn, and that very few units could move initially.

Massive reset and just another in a seemingly endless number of ways of fouling up the rules.

New game is now (literally) moving forward.  There will be Army level contact next turn.

And yes, the perspective for the picture is strange, to say the least.  Map is covered with a plexiglass advertised as “non-glare”.  No.  Well, unless the garage fluorescent fixtures have superpowers.  Best I could do.  And, I can’t just turn the lights off.  Motion activated.

Austro-Hungarians in white, Russians brown.

Where was I? Why worry? – Part II

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Reached a stopping point at Serbia The Defiant.   And yes, I made a hash the rules.

The new combat results table (CRT) worked just fine. Once again, operator error. Well, the new CRT is based on column shifts, as opposed to die roll modifiers.  But, the die roll modifier for attacking across  rivers still holds. Well, I didn’t grasp that pesky detail, and since the Austrian avenues of approach to Belgrade cross rivers, their attritional successes are now suspect.

Rather than the classic re-do,  I’ll pick it up and continue playing the series.  This is a topic I’ve brought  in the past:  Play a game/system and then move on to another game/system, or focus on getting better at one particular series of games.

In this case I’m not going to be an omnivore, but focus on Der Weltkrieg.  So, it’s time to set-up Galicia:  The Forgotten Cauldron.

Where Was I? Why Worry…

Boardgames, World War I

Sat down with the “Serbia The Defiant” module of Der Weltkrieg last night.

Hadn’t played for quite some time.  In fact, the chits for the turn/phase record appeared to have no connection with the positions of the counters.  Reset?  Synapses started firing off in hyper-mode.

Hell No!  Just start playing.  I’ll make a hash of it anyway since my rules knowledge is shaky, at best.

It worked out fine.  Had an enjoyable hour or so pushing counters and listening to the perpetually offensively challenged Seattle Mariners.

I started using an alternate Combat Results Table (CRT) advertised as being better for lower counter density/fewer attack factor games/scenarios.

While many gamers take issue with the system’s unique depiction of terrain, I have no problems.  However, I do take exception to the very faint lines used to outline hexes.

As to the game, I’m being very aggressive with the Austro-Hungarian units and attempting to attrit the Serbs.   However, I’m not going to go “All Conrad“.

Modeling Realities

Aircraft & Vehicles, World War I

Proceeding with the DH-2 kit, and it is turning into the same old story.

In the beginning it all seems so easy.  Read the instructions, snip the pieces off the sprues, remove flash,  and start assembling the kit.  It’s so easy to imagine the  process proceeding smoothly.

Then, pieces go astray, glue goes where it shouldn’t,  and what you thought attached to one piece should really go somewhere else.

Not that I’m making things easier by trying to do some “basic” rigging with 3.5 pound test monofilament leader, hole drilling, and super glue.   Infinite possibilities for foul-ups.

Taking a short break before girding up my loins to attach the top wing (with monofilament glued in) and thread the lines through the bottom wing.

I need to zen my way through it.

Almost

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Was going to title this post “Abject Failure”, but decided that was a little harsh and I need to cling to some shreds of self-respect.

I didn’t finish the game.  In fact, I couldn’t even finish the Central Powers’ turn.  I just had to role for the attacks.  I could use guests as an excuse, but it was probably  the prospect of failure, as the outcomes were grim, and I was hoping for an (more fun) ahistorical outcome.

Here’s where I’m at.

Despite my malingering, I am intrigued by this game.  Lots of options for the Central Powers.

The intriguing peripheral strategy is constrained by a limited ability to move reinforcements to Salonika much less the Middle East.  Yes,  Allied resources can be diverted from the Western Front, but the chances for the Central Powers to force game altering outcomes outside of the West seem very limited.

Maybe their chances are improved using the optional East Front rules, creating additional victory point possibilities, or by playing the 1919 scenario, putting the onus on the Allies to conduct attacks, with the possibility of losing victory points due to losses, and allowing additional time to develop strategies in the east.

Well, to be continued (sure, easy to say) in September when I return to the Sunfish Capital of the World.

The Kaiser’s War – Allies Turn 2 and Central Powers Turn 3

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

The Allies added three (3) Italian and one (1) US Army during their mobilization phase.  The Italians will arrive at the beginning of Turn 3, with the US Army not arriving until Turn 4.

Arriving Allied units were fed into gaps on the Western Front and Italy.  A French army sailed to and arrived in Salonika. The Allies did not mount any attacks, content to remain on the defensive this turn.

At the end of the turn, the Victory Point count was Central Powers @ 132 and Allies @ 60.  This would be a significant Allied victory if the game ended.

The calculation of victory points is a little different.  Each country has a basic victory point production of 43 points.  I had to figure that out myself.  These points are for Major Capitals, Resource Centers and Political Cities occupied at the beginning of the game.  My understanding is that these points (+/- points for enemy capitals, resources, political cities taken) are added at the beginning of the turn to the net victory points calculated at the end of the preceeding turn.

Here are the three major theaters and the end of the game turn.

The Central Powers started Turn 3 by mobilizing one shock army and deploying the few units they had (or could) mobilize at the beginning of Turn 2.  Another series of shock army attacks on the Western Front drove back the newly arrived US Army.  They managed to avoid elimination by a fortunate die roll.
To the East, continued attacks drove Allied units back into Rome and Genoa.  These will be tough cities to capture, but are needed for victory points.
German, Austrian and Bulgarian armies continued to advance in Salonika, eliminating the original French Army.
One aspect of the rules that takes some getting used to are Zones of Control (ZOC).  Unlike many other games,  friendly units (except those representing fortified zones, or trench lines) do not negate enemy zones.  So, a unit can be eliminated if retreating through a friendly hex in a enemy ZOC, or if a supply line runs through a friendly unit, but that unit is in an enemy ZOC.