We've finished - for now - the RtL campaign. Mark did some stirling work on pulling this togehter and was generally an enjoyable romp. We never made it into Leningrads suburbs though!
We did slip over time (we were supposed to have a campign a month but RtL managed to get 7 weeks in) and so next week starts 4 (5)? week bash at Victory at Sea where my new Italian fleet will rush out to confont the British at Matapan (and no doubt lose heavily).
My personal feeling is that the RtL campaign is unbalanced. Not Mark's fault as the scenario wasn't his. But it took 4 weeks of trial and error to get the balance right. The battles last night were both close affairs as the Russians had 3 divsions and the Germans 5. One of the Russian divisions is dug-in in the woods and therefore virtually immune from artillery, rifle fire and close assault (unless you go around the back). This means that if you are crafty and arrange your troops in a semi circle then there is no 'back' and the assualting battalion usually dies. But as a consequence the battle was very evenly balanced and could have gone either way. I managed to rout Russ' tanks (KV1's, BT5's and BT7's) using a combination of massed tanks (almost Kursk in reverse), infantry attacks (better than the tanks in killing the enemy) and judicious artillery use. But in turn one of my infantry battalions was close to a morale check and one of the Panzer brigades was perilous close to defeat.
In previous runs, the Russians had 3 other Russian divisions available (including a hefty tank brigade which is better armed and armoured than the typical panzer brigade) as well as the 'dug ins' so we found that the Germans were getting pounded each round.
Air attacks were random (so you could have between 1 and 6) but the rule was that for tanks you only had 1 'bomb' (but 3 for infantry) - so masses of KV1's are relatively safe to roam around the battlefield killing Germans.
Ian learned that the only way to have real impact is to get the big guns (105 and 152 howitzers) actually on the table with direct fire. The tricky bit for the Russians is they need a '6' to change orders so you can stick your guns in front of them and blast away with impunity. Otherwise indirect fire on tanks and dug-in troops is ineffectual to say the least.
In terms of 'lessons learned' I'd say that the campaign needs to have the following:
- Definitive 'result by' date. The mistake we made was not putting a timed 'finish date' on the campaign (i.e. who'd done the most by week 4).
- Balance. I found the initial drive to the suburbs either easy (for the Germans) or very hard (for the Russians). The reverse occurred in the suburbs. For me, it would have been better as having similar number of divisions between both sides (so if the Germans field four, then so can the Russians) to make the battles more balanced.
- Smaller numbers. The other potential problem was that the large numbers of battalions meant that it was hard to get a result in the time allotted. Maybe allowing a maxium of 3 battalions per side would mean faster battles to get a result?
- Relieve the siege! At Phalanx, myself and Ian talked about campaign structures. One he mentioned that played well is a 'relieve the siege' campaign. One player is the beseiger, one the reliever. The objective is a town / fortress that will fall within 1 month. The reliever has that period of time (30 days) to relieve the siege. The terrain is pre-set and the beseiger places his troops so the reliever turns up at each 'square' and decides whether to fight the battle there or choose another 'square' to attack. Refusing battle eats up a day - but means that you don't fight in unsuitable terrain. So the more you move looking for an opening, the more time you eat up. This may force the reliever at some stage to attack regardless as the siege needs to be lifted.
There are therefore 4-5 'steps' to take (meaning 4-5 battles) to relieve. Winning a battle means you move to the next step. Losing means you drop back and have to try again or find another easier battle to fight. I'm not sure how the defender allocates forces but the general concept would work well for Leningrad - the Germans looking stop relieving Russian forces lifting the seige and other German forces trying to find a way to get to Leningrad.
I think this would also be ideal for a Japanese Samurai campaign as castle seiges were a key element of any battle. I'll get more info from Ian.
- More German aircraft! Certainly early Eastern Front battles were dominated by the Luftwaffe. For rme, the Germans should have guaranteed air support of between 3-4 bombing sorties. Similarly the Russian artillery numbers needed to be balanced. Initially they had 9 lots of 152 and bigger calibre guns which would obliterate any infantry and most panzers in the open - so battalions were devastated before they could attack. We knocked this back to just 3 'shots' which seemed fairer.
Only ideas - and happy to discuss with the guys. As I say, I think Mark did a great job in pulling it together but the balance issue (for me) was the main problem.
We did slip over time (we were supposed to have a campign a month but RtL managed to get 7 weeks in) and so next week starts 4 (5)? week bash at Victory at Sea where my new Italian fleet will rush out to confont the British at Matapan (and no doubt lose heavily).
My personal feeling is that the RtL campaign is unbalanced. Not Mark's fault as the scenario wasn't his. But it took 4 weeks of trial and error to get the balance right. The battles last night were both close affairs as the Russians had 3 divsions and the Germans 5. One of the Russian divisions is dug-in in the woods and therefore virtually immune from artillery, rifle fire and close assault (unless you go around the back). This means that if you are crafty and arrange your troops in a semi circle then there is no 'back' and the assualting battalion usually dies. But as a consequence the battle was very evenly balanced and could have gone either way. I managed to rout Russ' tanks (KV1's, BT5's and BT7's) using a combination of massed tanks (almost Kursk in reverse), infantry attacks (better than the tanks in killing the enemy) and judicious artillery use. But in turn one of my infantry battalions was close to a morale check and one of the Panzer brigades was perilous close to defeat.
In previous runs, the Russians had 3 other Russian divisions available (including a hefty tank brigade which is better armed and armoured than the typical panzer brigade) as well as the 'dug ins' so we found that the Germans were getting pounded each round.
Air attacks were random (so you could have between 1 and 6) but the rule was that for tanks you only had 1 'bomb' (but 3 for infantry) - so masses of KV1's are relatively safe to roam around the battlefield killing Germans.
Ian learned that the only way to have real impact is to get the big guns (105 and 152 howitzers) actually on the table with direct fire. The tricky bit for the Russians is they need a '6' to change orders so you can stick your guns in front of them and blast away with impunity. Otherwise indirect fire on tanks and dug-in troops is ineffectual to say the least.
In terms of 'lessons learned' I'd say that the campaign needs to have the following:
- Definitive 'result by' date. The mistake we made was not putting a timed 'finish date' on the campaign (i.e. who'd done the most by week 4).
- Balance. I found the initial drive to the suburbs either easy (for the Germans) or very hard (for the Russians). The reverse occurred in the suburbs. For me, it would have been better as having similar number of divisions between both sides (so if the Germans field four, then so can the Russians) to make the battles more balanced.
- Smaller numbers. The other potential problem was that the large numbers of battalions meant that it was hard to get a result in the time allotted. Maybe allowing a maxium of 3 battalions per side would mean faster battles to get a result?
- Relieve the siege! At Phalanx, myself and Ian talked about campaign structures. One he mentioned that played well is a 'relieve the siege' campaign. One player is the beseiger, one the reliever. The objective is a town / fortress that will fall within 1 month. The reliever has that period of time (30 days) to relieve the siege. The terrain is pre-set and the beseiger places his troops so the reliever turns up at each 'square' and decides whether to fight the battle there or choose another 'square' to attack. Refusing battle eats up a day - but means that you don't fight in unsuitable terrain. So the more you move looking for an opening, the more time you eat up. This may force the reliever at some stage to attack regardless as the siege needs to be lifted.
There are therefore 4-5 'steps' to take (meaning 4-5 battles) to relieve. Winning a battle means you move to the next step. Losing means you drop back and have to try again or find another easier battle to fight. I'm not sure how the defender allocates forces but the general concept would work well for Leningrad - the Germans looking stop relieving Russian forces lifting the seige and other German forces trying to find a way to get to Leningrad.
I think this would also be ideal for a Japanese Samurai campaign as castle seiges were a key element of any battle. I'll get more info from Ian.
- More German aircraft! Certainly early Eastern Front battles were dominated by the Luftwaffe. For rme, the Germans should have guaranteed air support of between 3-4 bombing sorties. Similarly the Russian artillery numbers needed to be balanced. Initially they had 9 lots of 152 and bigger calibre guns which would obliterate any infantry and most panzers in the open - so battalions were devastated before they could attack. We knocked this back to just 3 'shots' which seemed fairer.
Only ideas - and happy to discuss with the guys. As I say, I think Mark did a great job in pulling it together but the balance issue (for me) was the main problem.