Michael Welsh - Mar 10, 2004 7:32 pm (#2115 Total: 2120) Cowards die many times before their deaths (roll 2d6) Stalingrad, raising my hand, tentatively Played it all the way through solitare this past Sunday, and had the wife take the Soviets Monday night, got to turn 6 before calling it.... Let me start out with the good news: I like the system. I like fog of war, even if it's somewhat watered down by face-up units and obvious starting strenghs, after a few turns you probably won't know how strong the unit you're attacking is. I particularly like the AT guns, which can pop up in your way at any time, but... (see below) The counters are fine. The rules are pretty well written, I think. I like the hidden victory conditions a lot. The movement rules and the unbalance sequence of play (the Soviets get their replacements and reinforcements before they move, the Axis have to wait until after). Now for the bad news: I would expect some to decry the absence of weather or air rules, but I can live without them. However.... For starters, the whole Caucasus thing doesn't work. In neither game was the Germans able to exit to the Caucasus box, the Soviets merely stacked five armies or so in 1210 and engaged the Germans in a stalemate. Looking at the CRT, if you can keep the combat at 1-1, the attacker (assuming over 26 strength) only has a 1 in 6 chance of dislodging the Soviets so they can exit. And if they do, they'll be back next turn, attacking at 1-2 is no big deal. The Soviets in 1210 are automatically in supply, too, since they're on a TCF board edge, even if the Germans were to exit some units along the edge to the east. The whole area east of Voronezh is a problem. In the Monday game, my Soviet player completely abandoned it to shorten her line on the Volga, but I was afraid if I pursued, units could enter behind me from the Southwest and Voronezh fronts. In fact, neither Voronezh nor Rostov was even defended, as they were of no value to the Soviet player to hold, actually being a detriment as they're in the ALZ and the Germans would get Don VP for killing the defenders. So there was a vast no-mans land north of the Don, which didn't feel right. As both sides can, if supplied, pump replacements into battle hexes, and since retreats can be ignored in major cities, the I submit that it is highly unlikely that the Axis can take Stalingrad, and impossible to take Astrakhan, as it is on a board edge that the Soviets can draw supply from. Somehow or other the Germans must isolate Stalingrad by crossing the Volga and putting out of supply, and, from what I've seen, it looks impossible to me. Maintain a line of units back to Voronezh (while the Soviets don't) to guard the north flank, get 5 armies (good ones, too) off hex 1210 plus enough strength to hold the Reds from attacking west and isolating them, have enough in Stalingrad itself to pound 62nd Army and anybody else in there, and able to advance on one or both flanks over the Volga? By giving the Soviets first move, it is virtually guaranteed that they will only be able to kill around 3 units in the ALZ against a Soviet player who falls back as historically was the case. And since that is what happens, the early German replacements, at least in the games I played, did not get used much. It was only when the fighting started for the lower Don at Rostov got started on turn 4-5 or so did the Germans get hit much, and of course that's when their rate starts to fall. But you can't stockpile..... Though I haven't done the research yet, I'm willing to bet that the historical Operation Uranus can't be done either. The really big reinforcements that the Soviets get on turns 9-11 can't get to the front in time for the historical jump-off time (turn 10). Perhaps the time it takes to get from the board edge to the front wasn't taken into account? I have other problems with the CRT, the jump from one line to the next makes the player get "gamey" with his deployment, particularly the difference between 5 and 6 SPs. A player can take losses, shuffle units and assets and replacements to keep units and stacks at 6, 13, or 27 points, which is as bad as the proverbial looking around for one more factor to make a 29-10 into a 3-1 in an odds-based game. Now all that said, I *like* this game, at least the underlying system. I confess that I think the game as is is unwinnable as the Germans (and perhaps that's the author's point?) But since I don't want to gripe without offering suggestions, here goes: Make use of Mr Gerber's method of determining beginning strength in Across the Piave, assign x number of factors to each side, divided up as the players see fit, hidden of course. The unit tracks would have to be reprinted to allow up to 8-10 points per unit, but this would be preferable to knowing that they all start at 5 or 6. Widen the map, especially to the south, to get around the 'exit to the Caucasus' problem. At least come up with a mechanic to allow the Germans to outflank 1210 so that the Soviets just can't stack up there. Address the north front problem by making it worthwhile for the Soviets to at least make an attempt to hold Voronezh (and Rostov, too). And perhaps give the Germans points for each hex of the north edge he holds, and not allow the Soviets to come on behind him. Make the CRT more granular, or come up with some scheme to make the "6-13-27" setup not so appealing. Give some reason for the Soviets to try to hold the line between Voronezh and Rostov so that the Germans may have a chance of getting some VP for killing units, which would also alleviate the wastage of German replacements early in the game. I do think if some of these are solved you have a winning system here and one that could be applied to other games on similar subjects.... Well, Kerry, you had to ask...... and I haven't even shown it to Coatney yet! -Mike Hjalmar Gerber - Mar 15, 2004 12:40 pm (#2123 Total: 2130) The format is the designer-in-chief. Stalingrad: Pivot on the Volga (MDG) Kerry encouraged me to respond, especially since the eight pages of rules left no room for designer's notes Michael Welsh - Let me start out with the good news: I like the system. I like fog of war, even if it's somewhat watered down by face-up units and obvious starting strengths, after a few turns you probably won't know how strong the unit you're attacking is. I particularly like the AT guns, which can pop up in your way at any time, but... (see below) The counters are fine. The rules are pretty well written, I think. I like the hidden victory conditions a lot. The movement rules and the unbalance sequence of play (the Soviets get their replacements and reinforcements before they move, the Axis have to wait until after). Well, thanks. There is good news, and the game is not broken. Now for the bad news: I would expect some to decry the absence of weather or air rules, but I can live without them. However.... The air "rules" are there. The air forces on the Soviet front were predominantly tactical, short range support and interdiction forces. This is expressed through the ZOI (Zone of Influence) [Deliberately not called "ZOC" - that old, trite, piece of abuse that has bedeviled hex games for so long.] The weather affected both sides, but the difference comes through in the respective replacement points tracks. For starters, the whole Caucasus thing doesn't work. In neither game was the Germans able to exit to the Caucasus box, the Soviets merely stacked five armies or so in 1210 and engaged the Germans in a stalemate. Looking at the CRT, if you can keep the combat at 1-1, the attacker (assuming over 26 strength) only has a 1 in 6 chance of dislodging the Soviets so they can exit. And if they do, they'll be back next turn, attacking at 1-2 is no big deal. The Soviets in 1210 are automatically in supply, too, since they're on a TCF board edge, even if the Germans were to exit some units along the edge to the east. Was the drive to the Caucasus your primary objective? If the Soviets are putting in a supreme effort (as I gather from the above) keeping the Axis out of the Caucasus, then they are weak elsewhere. A flexible, imaginative Axis player will exploit this fact to the hilt; possibly securing a favourable sudden death victory. The whole area east of Voronezh is a problem. In the Monday game, my Soviet player completely abandoned it to shorten her line on the Volga, but I was afraid if I pursued, units could enter behind me from the Southwest and Voronezh fronts. In fact, neither Voronezh nor Rostov was even defended, as they were of no value to the Soviet player to hold, actually being a detriment as they're in the ALZ and the Germans would get Don VP for killing the defenders. So there was a vast no-mans land north of the Don, which didn't feel right. Why did this not "feel right". You're describing the historical situation here. The Soviets did abandon Rostov (not once, but twice: 1941 and 1942). The area north of the Don and east of Voronezh (actually due east of Rzhev) was pretty much a no-man's land, screened by small, roving patrols. This was definitely not the WW1 Western Front; and neither side had the resources or the inclination to fill this vacant "flank" with significant non-mobile (holding) forces. As Case Blue moved towards Stalingrad, this dangling flank did become an obvious concern (for the resource-strapped Axis) and an opportunity (for the Soviets). The Axis covered their flank with a thin screen of underequiped Axis minor units - and ultimately paid the price for their (actually, Hitler's) decision. You could go back to playing SPI's "War in the East", which, I gather, is what a lot of player's expect. In many years of playing that, I cannot recall one occasion when the Axis actually came within clear, unobstructed movement range of Stalingrad. How's that for a lack of historical accuracy. As both sides can, if supplied, pump replacements into battle hexes, and since retreats can be ignored in major cities, I submit that it is highly unlikely that the Axis can take Stalingrad, and impossible to take Astrakhan, as it is on a board edge that the Soviets can draw supply from. Somehow or other the Germans must isolate Stalingrad by crossing the Volga and putting out of supply, and, from what I've seen, it looks impossible to me. How do you think the German generals felt when they got the Fuehrer's orders? On the other hand, if the Soviet player is helping you by making a “desperate” stand for the Caucasus . . . Maintain a line of units back to Voronezh (while the Soviets don't) to guard the north flank, get 5 armies (good ones, too) off hex 1210 plus enough strength to hold the Reds from attacking west and isolating them, have enough in Stalingrad itself to pound 62nd Army and anybody else in there, and able to advance on one or both flanks over the Volga? So, is this game good history or what? As the Axis player you're faced with Hitler's orders and probably inadequate resources to accomplish them. On the other hand, it's no cake walk for the Soviet player either - as I found out when playing against an aggressive, skilful Axis player (Kerry Anderson) who is not blinded by old game system expectations. By giving the Soviets first move, it is virtually guaranteed that they will only be able to kill around 3 units in the ALZ against a Soviet player who falls back as historically was the case. And since that is what happens, the early German replacements, at least in the games I played, did not get used much. It was only when the fighting started for the lower Don at Rostov got started on turn 4-5 or so did the Germans get hit much, and of course that's when their rate starts to fall. But you can't stockpile..... Were you moving too cautiously? Did you grasp the ZOI rule? (See my response to Elias below.) The ALZ kill area should encourage the Soviet player to "evaporate" – as happened historically. He still has the choice of standing and taking his lumps. At this stage I must point out that it seems as if the critiques are written pretty much from Axis player perspectives. I'm sure there will be just as much griping by Soviet players - which will be most gratifying, as it will highlight the challenges that the game offers. Though I haven't done the research yet, I'm willing to bet that the historical Operation Uranus can't be done either. The really big reinforcements that the Soviets get on turns 9-11 can't get to the front in time for the historical jump-off time (turn 10). Perhaps the time it takes to get from the board edge to the front wasn't taken into account? The distance from the board edge to the action is the warning track for the Axis player. The units that appear there may be hollow, or they may be substantial threats. Is he going to ignore them? Is he going to curtail his drive for the major objectives? Ask Kerry what can happen when you choose to ignore them. It was worse than Uranus - which in the context of it's siblings (Saturn and Little Saturn) did not accomplish it's very ambitious objectives. I have other problems with the CRT, the jump from one line to the next makes the player get "gamey" with his deployment, particularly the difference between 5 and 6 SPs. A player can take losses, shuffle units and assets and replacements to keep units and stacks at 6, 13, or 27 points, which is as bad as the proverbial looking around for one more factor to make a 29-10 into a 3-1 in an odds-based game. . . . and how is this any worse than most games? Did you notice that size matters, and that a titanic 1:1 clash with large forces produces a rather different probable outcome than a 1:1 "skirmish" with small forces? Now all that said, I *like* this game, at least the underlying system. I confess that I think the game as is unwinnable as the Germans (and perhaps that's the author's point?) Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your review. You're correct in asuming that this will be a most disheartening experience for the closet neo-Nazis who love to see the grey wolves streaming over the steppes in pursuit of the godless commies. I designed it under the weight of the Hitler directive that finds expression in the victory conditions. To have done it any other way would be a disservice to history. The simulation value also appears in the Axis players emotional and cognitive [dissonant] state after the game. But since I don't want to gripe without offering suggestions, here goes: Make use of Mr Gerber's method of determining beginning strength in Across the Piave, assign x number of factors to each side, divided up as the players see fit, hidden of course. The unit tracks would have to be reprinted to allow up to 8-10 points per unit, but this would be preferable to knowing that they all start at 5 or 6. The thought crossed my mind, but simplification and speed of set-up won out. Widen the map, especially to the south, to get around the 'exit to the Caucasus' problem. This is not going to happen. At least come up with a mechanic to allow the Germans to outflank 1210 so that the Soviets just can't stack up there. I'd like to hear how others solve this "problem". Address the north front problem by making it worthwhile for the Soviets to at least make an attempt to hold Voronezh (and Rostov, too). And perhaps give the Germans points for each hex of the north edge he holds, and not allow the Soviets to come on behind him. No. Simply, no. This would make it ahistorical. Make the CRT more granular, or come up with some scheme to make the "6-13-27" setup not so appealing. Give some reason for the Soviets to try to hold the line between Voronezh and Rostov so that the Germans may have a chanceof getting some VP for killing units, which would also alleviate the wastage of German replacements early in the game. There is no "wastage". There is a message for the Axis player to haul maximum ass from the get go. I do think if some of these are solved you have a winning system here and one that could be applied to other games on similar subjects.... Thanks. I'd like to see some of these games . . . from others. -------------------------------------------------------- Elias Nordling: I had a similar experience with Stalingrad [probably as the Axis player], though there were several more points about the system that didn't work for me either. The combat resolution and the way the Russians could prevent the Germans (except the panzers) from either attack or move more than one hex by staying 2 hexes away. Were you playing ZOC or ZOI? . . . WW1 or WW2? When you get into a true Blitzkrieg frame of mind, try this: 1) The forward Panzerkorps slams into its Soviet prey, creating a battle hex, and negating the ZOI around the hex. A battle hex has no ZOI. All of it's resources, including air support, are turned towards the battle. 2) The next Panzerkorps, and possibly even a nearby Infanteriekorps, uses strategic movement past the battle hex, and cuts it off. 3) The rear infantry close up with strategic movement. 4) In the next Axis turn the infantry move into the battle hex to either pin the Soviet victim, or to mop up the remains. 5) The Panzerkorps disengages and advances tactically . . . it's a rolling, leap-frogging brawl; not a Haigesque, parade ground stroll at the Somme. Thanks for reading. Now go play!