Sunday 7 April 2024

1941 - the Barbarossa Campaign



Coming straight off the back of the 1940 game (France) that I played last week, another game from the WWII Campaigns box goes onto the table for a face-to-face game. This time we are on the Russian front.

To remind the reader, Compass Games have just re-printed three of the old Games Designer Workshop titles that were part of their 120 Series. These were stand alone designs, related by the fact that they never had more than 120 counters and didn't take longer than 120 minutes to play.

The three re-prints have been combined into a single package. The previous post gave a close look at the France 1940 game and discussed such things as production and presentation values etc (link below).

Today, we are just going to look at the Barbarossa game for its own sake, which seems on a first reading, a bit slicker than the France game and I think this may be the title that may be useful to break into the package as a first game. EDIT we ended up playing twice due to the way the first game played out - observations of both playings are covered here.

For the rest of this post, please use the 'read more' tab.

Our map is the largest of the three at 26" x 33" and gives the full gamut of the offensive axis of German Army Groups North, Centre and South.

There are broad similarities with the 1940 (France) rules, but also plenty of variations, that make 1941 very much its own game (a different designer - John Astel).



Above - The German attack is coming in from the left. Moscow is located at 5-O’Clock to the Brown patch of terrain at the top of the map.

Very much like 1940, the Sequence of Play will see the active player moving and attacking twice before the other player does likewise in their part of the turn - but here, the Movement Phases and their function are rather cleverly weather dependent and so more dynamic than in the Battle of France game.

In rain, Armour has its second movement phase halved. In mud all units in both movement phases have movement rates halved and for armour, open ground costs are increased.

In snow, armour has its movement halved and Axis forces have their attack value halved!

Stacking is limited to two corps sized formations for the Germans - but they have four notably powerful units. These are armour groups and their respective combat values are 23, 16, 15 and 14 .... with most Soviet units valued at 3 and 4, I doubt that much will get in their way, except for that mud and snow :-).

The Soviet counters represent armies and generally don’t stack, though they do have a sprinkling of Corps sized units that can be added to an army.

Unlike the 1940 game, this game does not have units flipping onto their rear sides and so we don't have the issues here that the other game gave us.

Also there isn't a rule to restrict 'ganging up', so there is less mental juggling when putting attacks in.

The Combat Table has the capability of being brutal. There are some No Effect results, but mostly we are looking at Retreats, Exchanges and Eliminations, so quite decisive. 

Each hex is representing 41 miles and a turn covers a full month, with the campaign lasting 7 turns, into December. 

So the game scale and scope is close to the 'Defiant Russia' game by Avalanche Press that I covered last year (link in the Resource section below) and think the reader may enjoy a return to that as it examines a design V's the boundaries of the campaign and also includes a story line about a soldier who writes home to his sweet heart in ever despairing tones.

There is a useful Optional Rule that allows the game to be extended by 3 months to cover the Soviet winter counter offensive. This helps players choose the game that best suits the available time and if the extended game is used, it allows the Soviets to do something with the shock armies that they receive in December.

In effect, there are really only 8 pages of rules, plus a page of optionals if you want them, so taking this and everything else into account, as I type this intro section, it looks to be a 'players game'.

Let's see if real world play matches up to that instinct.

Playing.

I set the game up ready for Mike coming over, it is a fixed set-up, so I placed out both sides and that took me 25 minutes.

Our game ran into some problems. We are both familiar with the campaign and the various games on the subject. The Germans had a very unlucky turn 1, with four consecutive die rolls giving a ‘1’ (bad) and so in our game, the Germans did not get off to a good start in the north / centre. enemy losses were few and and the Germans didn’t get any break throughs.



Above - turn 3 and the German attack just starts to get going, with a gap opening in the enemy line.

What we did find was that the Soviet reinforcement and replacement (units recovering from the dead pile) rate was enough that the Soviet player never really felt fear or threat, which is very un-Barbarossa like.

Further, the German rate of loss was very high, due to the high number of Exchange results that occurred during the game and by the September turn, it was pretty obvious that with the forces that the Germans had left, they could not prosecute the offensive. They had stalled!

The immediate response is to thinking that the game is just not functioning against historical gains or progress and that the player emotional balance is all wrong, the Russians feel good about the campaign rather than desperate and the Germans feel grim earlier than they should - there is no sense of a great victory being achievable for them.

HOWEVER! We discussed whether this just needs a different style of play by the German player. There are rules that give tank forces a lot of flexibility against enemy Zones of Control and the net rail is critical to supply …. So perhaps the designer envisaged a more Blitzkrieg style approach for the German player, with the armour cutting deeper into enemy territory and hitting rail hubs to get the effect of those pocketing style battles that were so typical of this campaign.

There is a surrender rule, which states that out of supply troops that do not have an in-supply friendly unit within 5 hexes, will surrender. This tends to further the design notion that the German player is expected to ‘Pocket’ the enemy.  

Plus the Germans get quite good air support, so this can be used to really concentrate on a breakthrough point or used across several attacks to keep the Germans off the 3:1 attack ratio, where two Exchange results exist out of the the six possible results. Going to a 4:1 attack only has one Exchange result and instead, an extra Defender Eliminated result sits in that attack column.

Anyway, this is worth exploring before putting this game to bed ….. so here we go again, solo this time.

I get a much better opening, with Army Groups Centre and North making progress and I wonder whether this is a game in which the timetable is so tight and unforgiving that a bad turn 1 for the German player is hard to recover from.


Above - German progress is promising, with the tank formations pressing on and allowing the following infantry to mop up.

Turn 2 (July) - Minsk and Smolensk both fall, but already there are 8 German units in the dead pile from Exchange results. When possible, I am using the powerful panzer groups to attack strength 4 units, as a special rule allows them to avoid their part of 'Exchange' result if they are at least three times stronger than the enemy. As a result the overall ratio of Soviet loss to German is higher than in our first game.



Above - Smolensk is in the white circle, German armour has really pushed ahead of the infantry. The white hex shape shows where Minsk is.

Turn 3 (August) - Riga falls. So far, the Germans are keeping within the boundaries of their historical progress.

Turn 4 (September) - Kiev falls (historical) and German lead units are just 4 hexes from Moscow (165 miles).

Turn 5 (October) - The dreadful mud!

Turn 6 (November) - The Germans get to within 3 hexes of Moscow (123 miles), but things are going disastrously wrong!

They lose a Panzer Group when putting in a failed attack against 8th Infantry army at Vyazma. This is one of those moments when an exchange result can bite the Panzer Groups as they attacked a strength 8 unit!

Then things got a whole lot worse. As the advancing groups pressed ahead, German campaign losses to date meant that the troops were not there in enough numbers to provide good flank security. The Soviets saw and opportunity to hit Army Group Centre in the right flank.

The limited offensive saw both Smolensk and Mogilev fall to the Soviets.



Above - The Soviet counter-offensive (white arrow).  The circle shows the furthest extent of the German advance, which is now threatened to the rear. Meanwhile the defences around Moscow thicken. The Germans have now passed their high point.

Turn 7 (December) - Snow falls. The German lead units, still 3 hexes away from Moscow, are forced to pull back. The Soviets increase their penetration at Smolensk, isolating German 8th Infantry Corps and destroying 40th Panzer Corps.

The game ends on turn 7, though there is an optional rue that allows the game to run for another 3 turns (3 months) to simulate the Soviet winter counter-offensive.

If we tot up the victory points, we get a ......... Soviet Major Victory. That feels about right and I think if we played the additional 3 turns, the Germans might consider themselves lucky if they can fall back onto and hold a Minsk / Kiev axis.

Well it must be said that felt much more Barbarossa like than my first playing. The attrition on the Germans combined with the bad weather will, I think, in most games, put Moscow beyond reach. 

Leningrad looks very difficult to take and I don't think Sevastopol is ever going to become a contender for German attention and when all is said and done, that is was the historical situation.

Comments at BoardGameGeek suggest that this is a tough game for the Germans and I think it is. I wouldn't mind that too much, but from my two games, I am getting a sense that it is also a tad too easy for the Soviet side - though I must admit, I did enjoy the November counter-offensive that recaptured Smolensk and basically killed of any German aspiration of reaching Moscow.

I think on balance, I enjoyed the Defiant Russia game by Avalanche Press more (see links below). It services the same campaign parameters, but I just think the pace and tempo is a little more stable, despite it being a 'bucket of dice' style game.

There is just one more game in the package to explore now - 1942, Manila / Philippines.


RESOURCE SECTION.

A look at the Defiant Russia game by Avalanche press. LINK

https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2023/01/campaign-game-defiant-russia-41.html

My COMMANDERS site, which covers my various projects and gaming in a more magazine style.

https://commanders.simdif.com/


22 comments:

  1. Thought I’d wait until you’d had a chance to explore Barbarossa again. Did you bring the four panzer groups into greater coordination for this more successful initial thrust? Certainly sounds a more dynamic opening, though I get the impression that there were still no major pockets.
    Seems like, as things stand a German victory remains a highly unlikely prospect (perhaps that should be the case, in view of history). Would you consider testing it out with a marginally reduced rate of Soviet unit return, especially say for the first three turns?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mike, no initial Panzer group co-operation, but as they pushed out, these faster moving powerful units by default grouped together for mutual support.

    The pockets had started, but before the surrender rule kicked in, the stragglers were mopped up.

    I think it remains tough for the German player and I don’t think the system is forgiving to too many hold ups. The Soviet replacement numbers would likely be the best area to do any tinkering, though I am naturally loathe to tinker with designs. In fact in the first 3 turns, the Germans were so effective, that the Soviets needed their allocation.

    The bloat seems to come mid to late game, roughly at the same time that German losses through Exchange results start to bite.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting looking game Norm and a great review.
    I think for games at these levels, Corps and armies, exchange results have a much greater impact than for games that are played at a lower level - division or regiment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ben, the result does crop up a lot and taken together with the fact that these are single sided units, the German force is quite brittle …… but the again, they are monthly turns and the designer needs to show how the German army deteriorated by wear, tear and attrition over even just a few months of relentless fighting and advancing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seemed like the game worked quite well and gave quite a realistic result Norm, the lack of Soviet panic notwithstanding! I know the basic facts of the campaign - the Germans got to within spitting distance of Moscow but were then forced back by a counterattack mounted by fresh winter equipped troops from Siberia, and that they also failed to take Leningrad despite a siege that lasted 400 days or something similar - but was there any counterattack towards Smolensk in late 1941?

    ReplyDelete
  6. That pretty much sums it up - no to counter-attack towards Smolensk and it is here that I think the Soviets have a bit more capacity than is good for the game. They should be looking at an offensive November / december, helped by the weather ‘bad’ or rather, the Germans hampered by it, but earlier in the game, the lack of deep seated Soviet concern is missing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your review may change my mind on this one although Compass should have at least upgraded the map and counters. From your observations and conclusions on intended tactics, I can see elements of Astell’s Fire in the East Europa where breakthroughs, mobile penetrations, and encirclements were how the Germans ripped the heart out of the Soviets armies early on. Now, these techniques are applied to larger scale operations (at 41 miles per hex vs 25 miles per hex in FitE). Interesting. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Jonathan, it is a good example of how playing style needs to meet the designers intentions and expectations, I essentially had two different experiences with the game.

    It will be interesting to see how 1942 (Pacific) plays, I am not particularly well up on the campaign so risk playing it as a game rather than a simulation, we shall see!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did try to play 1942 back in the early '80s. I will be interested to see your thoughts on that game.

      Delete
  9. I remember playing this a few times when it first came out, and finding it hard going as the Germans. Like you, I kept feeling there was some approach I was missing. Having said that, the Germans could get stuck in The Russian Campaign, and it was only numerous articles in The General which came up with strategies like The Kaunus Stampede etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a straight reprint, so comparison with the original is bang on the money. Your observations are echoing other comments that I am reading about the original.

    ReplyDelete
  11. just off hand, I'd say that if the Russians never feel a sense of crisis even when the Germans play averagely then the scenario is off somehow. 🤷‍♂️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Stew - agreed ….. though another player may come along and show me how it should be done :-)

      Delete
  12. Haven't played the game but I wonder if having historical weather rather than die rolls would help the German player? They had good weather until the mud season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Vincent, in this particular game, the historical weather is baked into the turn track, probably because it is monthly turns and they couldn’t risk a randomiser giving two months of say mud. I think the only way to help the Germans here is to either reduce their rate of attrition or reduce the Soviet rate of unit replacements …… but they are both probably accurate anyway 🙂

      Delete
    2. Ah, I misread the start of the first game and thought the German rolled bad weather. No, just bad combat.

      Delete
  13. I am gonna be the devil's advocate here. I have played a bunch of 1941 invasion games over my wargaming career including the Avalanche game (several times - Germans only won once though a few were very near run).
    Historically the Germans did not win the campaign with the coming of winter. They then lost the war eventually. So perhaps games such as this should therefore be far more challenging for the Germans. If the Germans are winning a lot in games of this nature, then I believe the game might be more likely badly designed.
    Thanks for the AARs, I always enjoy them, Norm.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Joseph, I agree with all of that and would rather have an accurate simulation than a gamey game.To me, it is essential that the player gets an emotional connectional to how the real commanders felt. I think the German player does feel the campaign ebbing away from them, but I don’t feel that the Soviet player gets a strong enough feel of threat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A good review Norm as always. With this campaign and my understanding of it, I would wonder what you would class as a German win, given they were victoring themselves to death plus the 500 miles (km) trip wire in terms of logistics? Taking Moscow before Winter and preventing Stalin et al relocating Soviet industry? The oil fields? I think what is important is the the Soviets should feel uncertain as to when and where and if reinforcements might arrive and for the Germans, how to preserve their forces and yet achieve their strategic victory conditions. Tricky to do for sure and I'm not sure if any game could do this, without getting too bogged down in detail?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Steve (first time my spam thing has caught you!), for boardgames, this basic historical should always be possible and then results can hang from either side of that.

    The Germans did get within 30 miles of Moscow, which in strategic level games, normally means adjacent, so that should be possible, but I found the Soviets get enough replacements / reinforcements, to really thicken the defences around Moscow, but I shall try again and see if I get closer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. From Aaron (sorry, deleted your ‘in error’ post and the system took the good post with it! Here is in in full). Reposting to correct a typo) Thanks Norm, a good read. I tend to find Barbarossa games are generally better in the anticipation than the delivery. Something about that inevitable turn of the tide... I did still intend to get A Victory Awaits but COVID blew out shipping costs so much I have not so far been able to justify the purchase!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Aaron, I think that must be true when you think how many Barbarossa games and been published and how many we own, a new game is practically a yearly event.

    I don’t mind playing beyond tipping points and in fact, here it allowed the Soviet side to develop that flanking attack, which was good to witness.

    Shipping costs seem to be increasing to a point that now speculative buying of a game becomes much harder to justify.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for taking the time to comment