The Russian Front 41 - 45 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

cerosenberg -> The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 9:14:32 PM)

I know that you are creating a game based on WW2 and not trying to completely reproduce the true situation. Hence, all atrocities such as Gulugs and Camps are (and should be) ommitted. Yet, my readings about the Russian Front indicate a ferocity and ruthlessness which not mirrored anywhere else (except the Japenese in China perhaps). The battlefield consequences were prfound: no surrenders, fanatical attacks and defense and a significant effect by partisans on German logistics. The question is whether a combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe can work for the Russian Front and visa-versa?



composer99 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 10:03:37 PM)

Well, you'd have to ask all the WiF players who have been happily playing World in Flames since 1985 (or at least the Final Edition since it came out) whether or not they think the combat & supply rules fit both theatres.

In fact, you could probably also ask if the supply & combat rules modelled the historical flavour of the Pacific Theatre, which had its own unique challenges and characteristics, in addition to the two European fronts.

The honest answer is probably not very; others on this list may feel free to chime in with their own thoughts. The scale of the game makes it difficult to accurately model the unique nature of each major theatre, however, so on the whole the mechanics do a good job of giving the game its global reach and feel.



warspite1 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 10:24:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cerosenberg

I know that you are creating a game based on WW2 and not trying to completely reproduce the true situation. Hence, all atrocities such as Gulugs and Camps are (and should be) ommitted. Yet, my readings about the Russian Front indicate a ferocity and ruthlessness which not mirrored anywhere else (except the Japenese in China perhaps). The battlefield consequences were prfound: no surrenders, fanatical attacks and defense and a significant effect by partisans on German logistics. The question is whether a combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe can work for the Russian Front and visa-versa?
Warspite1

Probably a simplistic answer coming up, but I don`t think it makes any difference. For example a German stack attacks a French stack in Lille - Germany rolls a six - French counter eliminated. German stack attacks a Russian stack at Stalingrad - Germany rolls a six - Russian stack eliminated.

In real life the French may end up in a prisoner of war camp and the Russians worked/starved/beaten to death. But in game terms the result is the same. Fortunately thanks to those that stood up to Hitler and co, we are free to play this game without dwelling on the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, Tito and Mussolini et al - but it does not detract from the realism that a game like this conveys.




WarHunter -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 10:44:49 PM)

cerosenberg,

quote:

I know that you are creating a game based on WW2 and not trying to completely reproduce the true situation.


MWiF is not a creation from scratch, but a translation from a boardgame created in 1985 by Australian Design Group.
What the "true situation" of WW2 was in game terms? Maybe you could elaborate some?. Just remember there are just about as many truths as there are people living and able to communicate a truth.

quote:

Yet, my readings about the Russian Front indicate a ferocity and ruthlessness which not mirrored anywhere else (except the Japenese in China perhaps). The battlefield consequences were prfound: no surrenders, fanatical attacks and defense and a significant effect by partisans on German logistics.


As with books, there are many games that simulate combat going back to Avalon Hill's, Stalingrad created in 1963. Games are another way to understand history from a more interactive point of view. All games have 1 common thread, they use mathematics as the core. Combat results tables, unit strenghts and weaknesses, political and economic factors, i'm sure you get the point. All games use numbers to define something going on in a game.

Not the least is the Random number generation. Be it dice, computer program, chits drawn, ect. It is there where you will find the answer to your question.

Will the 1st Guards Army in woods behind a river in supply, with no air support be able to "win" versus the XLVII Panzer corp, Stuka air support, and Guderian supporting? Roll the dice and deal with the results. Maybe it holds on fanatically while all other units in the surrounding area are mopped up. Maybe it retreats putting a stop to the attack, maybe it just dies in place, another defeat to be dealt with.
Each result brings about a new true situation, which in turn is countered by an opponent seeking an answer to the puzzle layed out.

quote:

The question is whether a combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe can work for the Russian Front and visa-versa?


The combat and supply system is a global system. It affects all nations equally. It is accurate for what it does, simulate on a strategic level many of the military situations faced by the nations of that time period. It is also abstract in that Mathematics is the core with which games have there foundation planted on. Games give the person a chance to exprience, within the mind, many what-ifs of history. To share that expirence with others of the same hobby.

Show me to a game of in-depth, re-playability, historical flavor and accuracy in representing Armies, Navies and Air forces of the WW2. With a combat and supply model that simulates what-if situations of WW2. I'll show you a boardgame called World in Flames. Someday soon there will be a computer version MWiF.



cockney -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 10:49:23 PM)

IMO because of the scale of the game, some units cannot be represented. An example would be penal battalions, where troops would advance with maybe one weapon per 12 or more soldiers, these troops would be executed if they retreated so advanced to deplete the defenders logistics and soften up the defence before the better equiped main force attacked.
because of the vast amounts manpower the SU and China had it was a tactic that could be employed to defeat the enemy by attrition.
I think that most WIf players understand that the horror of the war can't be represented but stratigic strength and weakness can, and that I think is what makes the game so interesting on grand scale level.

just for the sake of interest I've added these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika-Brigade_999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_batalion



SLAAKMAN -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 10:58:17 PM)

cerosenberg-
quote:

I know that you are creating a game based on WW2 and not trying to completely reproduce the true situation. Hence, all atrocities such as Gulugs and Camps are (and should be) ommitted. Yet, my readings about the Russian Front indicate a ferocity and ruthlessness which not mirrored anywhere else (except the Japenese in China perhaps). The battlefield consequences were prfound: no surrenders, fanatical attacks and defense and a significant effect by partisans on German logistics. The question is whether a combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe can work for the Russian Front and visa-versa?

The supply rules & game mechanics for WiF are absolutely superb. The only issue I have is merely with the WiFFE Global Campaign scenario's unhistorical Order of Battle sequence of availability (and a few unit values). This however wont be an issue in the future since Im modifying those figures now along with a dozen new modifications. No doubt ADG will be banging my door down to have it when completed and the ultimate WWII wargame-to-end-all-wargames is ultimately fulfilled! [:D][:'(]



WarHunter -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 11:24:25 PM)

SLAAKMAN,  I'd like to see Turtledove's Worldwar series. Alien Lizards invading 1942 would be sweet.  I'm sure you have all the books for "historical" documention to get just the right feel. [&o] Maybe call it "Lizards in Flames".



wosung -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/18/2008 11:32:16 PM)

Well, in the end I think WIF adequately represents the settings of WW2. It is a grand strategic game lots of sophisticated abstractions and with quite a few operational leveled features.

Esp. moral, technical and logistical aspects of the war are abstracted by the use of mainly corps sized counters.
That leaves out exact orders of battle and tables of equipment, no T34s and Pzs VI (which all is on top of my personal wish list) no detailed supply model (well, this could be royal pain).

That leaves also out the saddest aspacts of the war ranging from the Shoa, the slave labours in Germany and the terror air attacks, to bacteriological warfare in China and cannibalism in New Guinea etc. Arguably wargaming is not the medium to deal with those.

OTOH it does contain operational-tactical features: the choices between
blitzkrieg and assault combat choices, producing different kinds of losses,
different forms of artillery/air support
different types of (carrier) air war
different HQ/leader characteristics

As to the characteristics of the different theatres of war, esp. the Russian front:

Spacial-geographical-climatic characterisics are mostly adequately represented, not the least important factors.
So in Russia maintaining supply can cause problems for the Germans (even modelling the importance of railways an the range of non-rail supply), getting the Luftwaffe up front as well, both are minor problems in the West.
Also German and Russian players are confronted with high attrition rates.

So all in all: Yes, I think it does quite well for a grand strategic game.


BTW: What exactly is typical for the various theatres of war, or how important they were for the global war quite a bit depends of retrospective national narratives of WW2. From time to time this international populated forum itself proves this. Very intresting!

Regards



SLAAKMAN -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/19/2008 12:29:12 AM)

quote:

SLAAKMAN, I'd like to see Turtledove's Worldwar series. Alien Lizards invading 1942 would be sweet. I'm sure you have all the books for "historical" documention to get just the right feel. Maybe call it "Lizards in Flames".

Lizards in Flames; "The Race" Invasion![&o] Now that would be sweet indeed! [sm=00000289.gif] (Of course an option for Vulcan intervention with Vulcan Patriarch Mr. Spock at the helm will also be available.)



composer99 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/19/2008 5:40:20 PM)

I think once we get to the point where we have "Lizards in Flames" we might as well have "Wizards in Flames". [:'(]

Oh, wait, we already had that - it's a (now-discontinued) official ADG kit called "Leaders in Flames". [:D]



meisterchow -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/19/2008 6:48:31 PM)

I think cerosenberg's original point would be very valid in a combat game at a much smaller scale.  At the grand strategic global scale of WiF (regardless of incarnation) such distinctions are lost in the abstraction necessary.  As was mentioned before, the difference in what happens to those captured when a WiF unit is removed from the map is not really important.  What is important is that that power no longer has the use of that unit.

East Front partisans are already part of the game, and the German player who does not guard his supply lines will definitely pay the price as the rules already stand in the game.  Additional die-roll modifiers to reflect a supposed increase in "ferocity" are not appropriate given that the units involved are generally entire corps-level formations.  Besides, I bet if you ask any combat veteran he'd say that any situation where someone else is trying to inflict harm on you is plenty ferocious. ;)

If WiF was even at a battalion level, such modifiers might, and I do mean might, be appropriate.  In WiF, I think that would place an over-emphasis on any tactical differences in combat.



cerosenberg -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/19/2008 9:18:51 PM)

I want to thank everyone who responded although I humbly suggest that lizards and wisards do not address the question.  Indeed, I only posed a question.  I did not intend to make any criticism of any game (I look forward to purchasing and playing this one).  Again, I am delighted with the thoughtfull replies and look forward to reading more.



Zorachus99 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/19/2008 9:59:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerosenberg

I know that you are creating a game based on WW2 and not trying to completely reproduce the true situation. Hence, all atrocities such as Gulugs and Camps are (and should be) ommitted. Yet, my readings about the Russian Front indicate a ferocity and ruthlessness which not mirrored anywhere else (except the Japenese in China perhaps). The battlefield consequences were prfound: no surrenders, fanatical attacks and defense and a significant effect by partisans on German logistics. The question is whether a combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe can work for the Russian Front and visa-versa?


My personal answer to this question is yes, we can have a consistent combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe.

To address the points within the question, consider this, and I'll get to the greatest flaw last:

1) Because the combat system is corps based and not divisional based, a lot of historical suprises exist only abstractly. Guderians blitz into France is quite rare indeed, because we all have the forethought to see the issue coming.
2) Judicious use of an offensive chit during the attack on France can well quickly reveal the light-blue house of cards. The effect can be very similar.
3) Luck. If you roll 20 on with ten sided dice. Well, it can turn a push into a shocking victory. To do well, IMO the Axis is required to take chances.
4) The bloodiness of the Russian front can easily duplicated if the player decides as Hitler did, to not retreat when faced with tactical disaster.
5) Combat on the Russian front is indeed much more ferocious than France.
6) Partisans are a big deal in 42-45.

The greatest error in the game is the supply along Rail rule. Thankfully the rule is a consistent one when tracing supply in the game, and any exception to it is a grand headache.

However, during WWII the Germans had to change the gauge of the entire Russian rail system to the European gauge. The effect on the front line troops was that supply could not be maintained in even a reasonable fashion. The entire beginning of Barbarsossa was what I would say, "On emergency supply".
The German army was incredibly interlinked with a well developed rail system which had propelled them to victories in Europe by rushing troops by rail to areas where fronts could develop from nothing. Supply in Europe was far easier than Russia. When winter of 41 settled around Moscow the troops primarily froze because they could not get supplies to the front. All rail traffic was devoted to most emergency supply, and the basic logistical flow of supplies halted in a very large degree, because the one saving grace for supply that the Germans had been using, was the Luftwaffe. Without bombers, and air transports due to extreme cold, and a lack of rail support, supplies were completely cut off, and the troops could only attempt to live off the land; with disastrous results.

A lot could be said about many more factors, but I've always very strongly thought that there should be:
#1 the ability to bomb a rail hex to disable it.
#2 buildable non-combat rail engineers which could repair a single broken line by sitting in it for the entire impulse (not turn).
#3 all russian rail (with the exception of parts of estonia, lithuania, and latvia) hexes should all have to be repaired if a german unit takes control of the hex. I don't recall clearly if Finland used European gauge rail, but I believe they did.

Ahh well, just put it in a wish list somewhere. *sigh* [>:]







sajbalk -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 1:10:41 AM)


[/quote]

My personal answer to this question is yes, we can have a consistent combat and supply system which is accurate for western Europe.

To address the points within the question, consider this, and I'll get to the greatest flaw last:

1) Because the combat system is corps based and not divisional based, a lot of historical suprises exist only abstractly. Guderians blitz into France is quite rare indeed, because we all have the forethought to see the issue coming. [/quote]

>> Similarly, the Russians will not mass on the border, nor will the US not use a convoy system at the war's beginning.
[/quote]

2) Judicious use of an offensive chit during the attack on France can well quickly reveal the light-blue house of cards. The effect can be very similar.
3) Luck. If you roll 20 on with ten sided dice. Well, it can turn a push into a shocking victory. To do well, IMO the Axis is required to take chances.
[/quote]

>> In my opinion, the Axis rolled well in history, especially in the attacks in France.

[/quote]
4) The bloodiness of the Russian front can easily duplicated if the player decides as Hitler did, to not retreat when faced with tactical disaster.
5) Combat on the Russian front is indeed much more ferocious than France.
6) Partisans are a big deal in 42-45[/quote].

>> This depends a little on what kits you are using. In my experience, it is rare for Germany not to have the important countries garrisoned enough to prevent patisans. Exception: Russia. Also, Japan will not normally have China, Indochina, NEI or the Philippines fully covered.

[/quote]The greatest error in the game is the supply along Rail rule. Thankfully the rule is a consistent one when tracing supply in the game, and any exception to it is a grand headache.

However, during WWII the Germans had to change the gauge of the entire Russian rail system to the European gauge. The effect on the front line troops was that supply could not be maintained in even a reasonable fashion. The entire beginning of Barbarsossa was what I would say, "On emergency supply".
The German army was incredibly interlinked with a well developed rail system which had propelled them to victories in Europe by rushing troops by rail to areas where fronts could develop from nothing. Supply in Europe was far easier than Russia. When winter of 41 settled around Moscow the troops primarily froze because they could not get supplies to the front. All rail traffic was devoted to most emergency supply, and the basic logistical flow of supplies halted in a very large degree, because the one saving grace for supply that the Germans had been using, was the Luftwaffe. Without bombers, and air transports due to extreme cold, and a lack of rail support, supplies were completely cut off, and the troops could only attempt to live off the land; with disastrous results.

A lot could be said about many more factors, but I've always very strongly thought that there should be:
#1 the ability to bomb a rail hex to disable it.
#2 buildable non-combat rail engineers which could repair a single broken line by sitting in it for the entire impulse (not turn).
#3 all russian rail (with the exception of parts of estonia, lithuania, and latvia) hexes should all have to be repaired if a german unit takes control of the hex. I don't recall clearly if Finland used European gauge rail, but I believe they did.[/quote]

>> The game Europa uses a similar system. There are a lot of compromises one adds in a game of this strategic level. My personal request would be step losses, especially in the East. Interestling enough, the most recent WiFFE Annual has kits that address my concern and yours as to disabling rail and repairing rail.









[/quote]



Ohio Jones -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 4:13:55 AM)

I think your specific question has been responded to appropriately: when dealing with conflict at a global strategic level, the nuances of one theatre over another tend to get evened out by the underlying mathematical abstractions, but there are a number of rules that help convey some of the flavour of each situation. Which is probably for the bst, since it would be exceedingly difficult to come up with a purely objective opinion about what conflicts in the war were the most ruthless...

I'd like to look to the broader question for a moment, if I may: can wargames provide a relevent historical representation of the human factors involved in mass conflict? It's been said that war brings out the best and the worst in humanity, and I'm inclined to believe it.

On one level I feel games that are - if we're being honest - primarily intended for entertainment purposes may not be the best context in which to examine the horrible cost of war. Having said that, a good friend teaches history to High School students, and frequently uses games to get his students engaged in the issues they are studying.

Most relevent to this discussion is his use of World In Flames' WWI variant, "Fatal Alliances", when teaching his students about the Great War. They take weeks with it: students are assigned roles in the different nations - Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Minister of Propaganda, and the Chiefs of the various armed services. They learn most of the basic rules of the game, and have to prepare their strategies collectively based on national and individual objectives. (They also study the political background, life on the home front, the consequences of colonialism and other significant topics during the module).

It's fascinating to observe these grade 9 and 10 kids playing the game: the bargaining between nations trying to enlist support for one action or another, the quarreling between the chiefs as they lobby the Finance Minister to fund their service, the newspapers they publish trying to put a positive spin on the latest defeat... it's truly the world at war, in microcosm.

Throughout the game, they keep track of where the borders started and where they finished. They also track their unit losses, which get translated into the number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, support staff and other personnel who were wounded, captured or killed. Civilian losses are extrapolated as well.

The absolute shock on the kids' faces when they realize that they have (in many cases, gleefully) killed millions of people, and rendered millions more homeless, all in pursuit of what often amounts to an exchange of 100 miles of relatively empty territory one way or the other (Fatal Alliances is a brilliantly balanced simulation)... it absolutely blows their minds.

These are students who have seen for themselves just how easy it is to get caught up in the pursuit of victory at all costs, and how terrible the costs can truly be. All thanks to a game.



wosung -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 11:28:19 AM)

Even "human factors" could be /are represented in grand strategical games, but mostly on a social and not on the indivdual level, because this would create an unplayable game.

-Hitlers sociopathic stubborness: A no retreat rule
-Japanese group forming habits: Jap. Command conflict

This could be extended, and I'm counting on the coming years of WIF annuals (and MWIF digitalization)

-Moral losses in Western democracies: due to high combat losses. forcing the players to plan more economically with "human ressources".
-different national army "cultures": different "standard" supply levels which are accepted as "normal" connected with unit moral, a rule for mandatory early war Japanese attacks.
-different national capabilities for "learning from failures" as (may be the historically most important) trigger for improvements in the field of technology, leadership and organization.

and so on

Regards





npilgaard -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 1:50:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
A lot could be said about many more factors, but I've always very strongly thought that there should be:
#1 the ability to bomb a rail hex to disable it.
#2 buildable non-combat rail engineers which could repair a single broken line by sitting in it for the entire impulse (not turn).
#3 all russian rail (with the exception of parts of estonia, lithuania, and latvia) hexes should all have to be repaired if a german unit takes control of the hex. I don't recall clearly if Finland used European gauge rail, but I believe they did.

Ahh well, just put it in a wish list somewhere. *sigh* [>:]

Iirc there are rules in the new Annual for destroying (strat bombing), rebuilding and building new railways. Think that maybe it is in the Factories in Flames set.



composer99 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 6:08:48 PM)

In the next Annual perhaps we can come up with something to correct the USSR rail gauge issue (since it is in fact a strategic/operational-scale problem and is hence 'big' enough to appear in WiF).



composer99 -> RE: The Russian Front 41 - 45 (6/20/2008 8:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

I'd like to look to the broader question for a moment, if I may: can wargames provide a relevent historical representation of the human factors involved in mass conflict? It's been said that war brings out the best and the worst in humanity, and I'm inclined to believe it.

On one level I feel games that are - if we're being honest - primarily intended for entertainment purposes may not be the best context in which to examine the horrible cost of war. Having said that, a good friend teaches history to High School students, and frequently uses games to get his students engaged in the issues they are studying.

Most relevent to this discussion is his use of World In Flames' WWI variant, "Fatal Alliances", when teaching his students about the Great War. They take weeks with it: students are assigned roles in the different nations - Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Minister of Propaganda, and the Chiefs of the various armed services. They learn most of the basic rules of the game, and have to prepare their strategies collectively based on national and individual objectives. (They also study the political background, life on the home front, the consequences of colonialism and other significant topics during the module).

It's fascinating to observe these grade 9 and 10 kids playing the game: the bargaining between nations trying to enlist support for one action or another, the quarreling between the chiefs as they lobby the Finance Minister to fund their service, the newspapers they publish trying to put a positive spin on the latest defeat... it's truly the world at war, in microcosm.

Throughout the game, they keep track of where the borders started and where they finished. They also track their unit losses, which get translated into the number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, support staff and other personnel who were wounded, captured or killed. Civilian losses are extrapolated as well.

The absolute shock on the kids' faces when they realize that they have (in many cases, gleefully) killed millions of people, and rendered millions more homeless, all in pursuit of what often amounts to an exchange of 100 miles of relatively empty territory one way or the other (Fatal Alliances is a brilliantly balanced simulation)... it absolutely blows their minds.

These are students who have seen for themselves just how easy it is to get caught up in the pursuit of victory at all costs, and how terrible the costs can truly be. All thanks to a game.


Simply brilliant.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375