The attached screenshot charts the victory level. The yellow line is the victory level. Grid lines are 200 VPs. Other lines show how it is formed. Blue lines are Axis; red are Soviets; black dashed lines show the level points. There are three Soviet lines showing awards, loss penalty, and objectives. The three Axis lines show the same things for them. The three level points are at 200, 400, and 600. Note that the two objective lines are mirror images of each other (a gain for the Axis was a loss for the Soviets). The Soviets have a 250 VP award on turn one, while the Axis received VP awards by event for Soviet exercise of factory release TOs and factory destruction. The loss penalties are the same as on the earlier chart.
The victory level began as Soviet Overwhelming, then gradually fell into the Soviet Marginal Victory level. The Axis capture of Leningrad finally pushed the value into the Draw category. The final level was slightly in favor of the Axis.
The attached screenshot shows the final statistics for both sides. Notable was the Soviets’ 2-to-1 edge in total equipment that was somewhat blunted by the Axis’ nearly 3-to-1 edge in losses. The important exception was the loss ratio in squads, where the Axis edge was just over 2-to-1.
As the scenario designer, when a test ends in a draw it’s a good thing. Furthermore, all the myriad, complicated event sequences worked as designed. But, there is some disquiet due to the fact that I made so many errors on both sides. Clearly, the Soviet defense of Lagoda could have been better. And, without question, the Leningrad Factory 2 should have not been forgotten and left in Leningrad to be destroyed. That would have made the Axis capture of Leningrad more of a contest and somewhat less of a bonanza, though it might have still fallen, eventually. The same is true for the Soviet defense of Kerch. On the other hand, I now feel that the Axis sent too much force into the Crimea, which probably fatally weakened the Ukrainian offensive, resulting in Rostov and nearby targets never falling.
Also, note that several strategic decisions by both sides were not entirely the same as historically done. The Axis didn’t dawdle a month before sending the Panzers to Kiev. The Soviets didn’t launch ill-advised attacks on the Germans left to cover that move, either – making any Operation Typhoon unlikely. I think that if the mistakes and different strategic decisions are factored in, the scenario performed quite close to historical.
Furthermore, the draw result indicates that the scenario is probably in good balance (best play may have given the Soviets a marginal victory, though, if it meant that Leningrad didn’t fall). Players taking a conservative historical approach should find that the game turns on the battle for Lagoda. But the neat thing about Barbarossa scenarios is that the players are not restricted to such conservative approaches. There are riskier options that could reshuffle the possibilities a lot.
One obvious one is for the Soviets to forgo establishing a secondary defense line along the Dnieper and retreating much further before setting up a defense. This preserves more of the initial force and avoids any Kiev pocket. But it will, obviously, lose more production sooner, and may allow the Germans to slam into the most valuable Soviet territory before the defense is ready. And the Dnieper is a good defense line.
The other obvious one is for the Germans to not redirect the panzers to Kiev, but to strike straight for Moscow. This is probably the only real chance the Germans will have to take Moscow, given best play by the Soviets, and success would garner a bunch of VPs and a serious strategic dislocation of the Soviet position. But a failure would likely leave the Soviets much stronger and in possession of most of the Ukraine. But if the Axis player wants a victory instead of a draw, capture of Moscow is vital.
I only had one thing that I thought the test revealed a need for adjustment to. The Mud Phase shock penalties have some unintended consequences. They just about halt rail repair and they slash force supply levels. Some of the decrease in force supply levels might be reasonable (due to the mud), but not all. I may try to adjust the supply levels upward for that period. And rail repair shouldn’t have been affected by the mud, so I will try to add some auto-rail repair for that period. Of course, I first have to find the event slots to do so. If the number of slots is ever increased again, I’ll also auto-disband the rest of the manpower levy units.
Like its companion scenario, Germany 1945, the scenario is fun and not that difficult to play. The test was started on July 12th and ended on August 17th with only a few interruptions. The actual total days gaming was only 31 (for 29 turns, playing both sides). Plus, like with Germany 1945, the absence of ant-unit tactics allowed me to focus on realistic deployments – Leningrad, for instance, was impregnable until rendered unsupplied. Finally, the game scale allowed strategic factors to be concentrated on: How far to fall back? Go for Moscow or Kiev? What targets to concentrate on? Etc.
The test reaffirmed the lesson of the Germany 1945 test about the importance of HQ support for defensive positions. It also affirmed my comments in the briefing about the Soviets being poor attackers. In fact, I really didn’t determine for sure just how good they may or may not be at defending, either, especially if unsupported. An early strike at Moscow by some enterprising Axis player might settle that.
Having played the game, I have a new appreciation for some of the decisions both sides made. It takes a very brave Axis player to forgo the envelopment of Kiev for a risky strike at Moscow. And those powerful looking Soviet armies sure appear to be ready for the offensive while that envelopment is going on. It takes a very disciplined Soviet player to not fall for that (probably false) offensive opportunity. And Leningrad’s defense is a really complicated problem for any Axis player to solve.
I think this is the only Barbarossa scenario I've seen where the Russian player is constantly facing disaster and yet still coming away undefeated at the end of it- which of course is exactly how the campaign played out. A very valuable lesson for the designers of monster scenarios (something to which both you and I have been at times).
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
I think this is the only Barbarossa scenario I've seen where the Russian player is constantly facing disaster and yet still coming away undefeated at the end of it- which of course is exactly how the campaign played out. A very valuable lesson for the designers of monster scenarios (something to which both you and I have been at times).
Thanks for the excellent AAR !
Now, could you please elaborate on the differences between this latest version and the one included with TOAW III ?
Cheers !
Thanks for the excellent AAR !
Now, could you please elaborate on the differences between this latest version and the one included with TOAW III ?
Cheers !
I discussed that a bit in post #1, but here is what I've written in the scenario document about version changes:
VERSION 2 CHANGES
1. Fixed refinery equipment back to “spare equipment” after TOAW III used the first “spare equipment” for the T-64A.
2. Increased the path routes from Siberia to the main map, for possible improved Soviet PO operation.
3. Used the additional 499 event slots to automatically disband the manpower units of the top ten population centers (270 of the 894 units). Axis capture of the center cancels the automatic disbanding. Soviet recapture will cause the manpower units to arrive on map for Soviet player manual disbanding. I’ll need about another 1300 event slots to automate the rest of the disbandments.
4. Set MRPB to 3.
5. Revised this document from an addition to the scenario briefing to a combined full briefing. Note that the scenario briefing that can be viewed in the game contains only a part of this document.
6. Revised House Rule 3, so that it is now applied to the German Brandenburg division just like the Finns. But, unlike the Finns, the Brandenburg division is released from the rule if the main force links up with the Finnish front.
7. Made an equipment edit to model the German 610mm guns and Soviet Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers. Stored that file in the scenario’s special graphics sub-folder.
8. Copied marsh tile files into badland tile files and stored in the above scenario folder – badlands now look like marsh on the map for this scenario.
9. All German tanks were given the recon flag (nod to Ben Turner for this idea).
10. Added the revised Numbers.bmp file to the scenario’s special graphics sub-folder. This is the same mod used in my “Germany 1945” scenario that has Army Group & Theater unit sizes. Edited all unit sizes to display correctly with this file.
11. Soviet elements around Minsk have been redeployed from “Entrenched” to “Local Reserve” mode. This will model Pavlov’s sending those forces into the Bialystok pocket, stripping the Minsk defenses.
But note that I said the test revealed a few items to adjust due to the mud phase. So there may be a few additional changes beyond these.
Very good table. Presents a great deal of information and must have been a bear to compile. Good job.
However, I suggest that you either delete the two “Totals” rows or redesign the table so that the totals are actually summing equivalent units. By this I mean that you need a common denominator for the various equipment type totals that are being summed. You’re good with math, so I’m sure you know what I mean.
If you want to make the summations meaningful, I suggest adjusting the data columns for common denominators such as:
1) Express equipment types in AP strength X totals
2) Express equipment types in AP+AT strength X totals
3) Express equipment types in the number of personnel lost X totals
As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.
Regards, RhinoBones
Colin Wright:
Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil
Post by broccolini » Sun Nov 06, 2022
. . . no-one needs apologize for douchebags acting like douchebags
As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.
I see what you're getting at- but counting AP strength would be time consuming and not exactly all that useful. A lot of aircraft have very low AP ratings compared to their value.
You could work out some formula to discover the total value of each item, but if you want a cheap and nasty calculation of the relative losses of the two sides, I'd suggest just coming up with a multiplier for each category. For example 1 for squads and light weapons, 2 for transport, 3 for artillery and tanks and 4 for aircraft. Or something like that.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Very good table. Presents a great deal of information and must have been a bear to compile. Good job.
However, I suggest that you either delete the two “Totals” rows or redesign the table so that the totals are actually summing equivalent units. By this I mean that you need a common denominator for the various equipment type totals that are being summed. You’re good with math, so I’m sure you know what I mean.
If you want to make the summations meaningful, I suggest adjusting the data columns for common denominators such as:
1) Express equipment types in AP strength X totals
2) Express equipment types in AP+AT strength X totals
3) Express equipment types in the number of personnel lost X totals
As is, adding German “Squads 92,374” + “Aircraft 2,833” has absolutely no meaning, but adding “Squads 12K AP + “Aircraft 3K AP = 15K” AP has a common point of reference and expresses a relevant total.
I suspect that table deluged readers with more information than they really wanted as is. The totals express the total equipment figures. That seems meaningful to me. Since the breakdown of the totals is obviously right there in the table, readers can gauge for themselves what the significance of it is. What you're suggesting might be interesting, too - but that's far too much work. I guess I could just post a table with the figures for each individual equipment item. But that would definitely be information overload.
By the way, I'm posting this from Bintulu, Sarawak (island of Borneo).
I suspect that table deluged readers with more information than they really wanted as is. The totals express the total equipment figures. That seems meaningful to me. Since the breakdown of the totals is obviously right there in the table, readers can gauge for themselves what the significance of it is. What you're suggesting might be interesting, too - but that's far too much work. I guess I could just post a table with the figures for each individual equipment item. But that would definitely be information overload.
By the way, I'm posting this from Bintulu, Sarawak (island of Borneo).
I decided a bit more delineation might be useful for that table. The revised version is attached. Now, squads are broken down into frontline and rear-area parts. Light weapons are broken down into machineguns, AT rifles, AT guns, light guns, mortars, and AAA guns. Artillery is broken down into field, medium, and heavy. Transport is broken down into jeeps, and transport. AFVs are broken down into armored cars, tanks, and assault guns. Finally, aircraft are broken down into fighters and bombers.
This does reveal that the Germans' frontline squads got hit hard, as did their bombers (which had to deal with AAA as well as AS). Assault guns were more located in the infantry units, accounting for their lower loss rates.
Attachments
FinalStat..sGerman.gif (38.41 KiB) Viewed 286 times
And here are the new figures for the Soviets. It doesn't reveal much new about them. They were getting hit from every direction. (Note that the Soviets don't have light guns, jeeps, or assault guns.)
Attachments
FinalStat..sSoviet.gif (34.08 KiB) Viewed 287 times
Thanks for this after action report. I happened to browse through this one by chance yesterday. Since the units used in this scenario consist of corps and armies, I assume that the scale is at 50km/hex. I remember the Barbarossa scenario included in pre-TOAW III packages: A bit too much for me as it uses divisions and 20km/hex. I also remember another Barbarossa scenario from elsewhere which even go way down to regiment/brigade scale! As a test, I had AI vs. AI try that one out and it was taking soooooooooooo long! For the most part, Barbarossa type campaigns are huge to begin with, so anything at a lesser scale than corps/army feels a bit too much. Instead, more emphasis should be placed in theatre options. Since Barbarossa is operational-strategic in scale, how the Soviet player manages factory evacuations and wartime mobilization is far more crucial than worrying about individual divisions. You hit the nail on this one!
Thanks for this after action report. I happened to browse through this one by chance yesterday. Since the units used in this scenario consist of corps and armies, I assume that the scale is at 50km/hex. I remember the Barbarossa scenario included in pre-TOAW III packages: A bit too much for me as it uses divisions and 20km/hex. I also remember another Barbarossa scenario from elsewhere which even go way down to regiment/brigade scale! As a test, I had AI vs. AI try that one out and it was taking soooooooooooo long! For the most part, Barbarossa type campaigns are huge to begin with, so anything at a lesser scale than corps/army feels a bit too much. Instead, more emphasis should be placed in theatre options. Since Barbarossa is operational-strategic in scale, how the Soviet player manages factory evacuations and wartime mobilization is far more crucial than worrying about individual divisions. You hit the nail on this one!
Just a design curiosity: why did you use badlands for marsh and how does TOAW(4) now deal with having two different terrain types in the same hex? It's a useful option for making maps look smoother but how doe sit affect game play?
