Barbarossa PBEM campaing

[Imp]

I like Narwaans suggestion that the oucome of the battles should just shape the next game slightly & feel this is very workable.

Rather than reducing the quality of Russian forces reduce the quantity from those realy available.
The rational for this

The smaller force has one big advantage when you consider the size of the front shrink it to a raid 100 men vs 1000
The small force can hit & relocate causing more damage than it should for its size as the big force never manages to engage it with everything it has. It is easier for the small force to be & maintain organisation & thats if both sides have the same level of C&C
Sounds something like blitzkreig to me, if the big force has poor C&C they can be dealt with in "pockets" as the terms of the engagement are being controled by the smaller force.

The main problem is command & control both sides commanders will play there army in a way that simulates most closely the German force structure. The Soviets were abismal at C&C have a plan & stick with it & the men themselves did not know the plan & reacted very poorly to local events generaly just sticking to the plan.

This uncordinated attack & the use of waves could easily mean a large portion of troops play little part in the battle. You would then have to remove more units to allow for the superior Russian commander in the human player.

Artillery was much the same hence the massing of it to totaly hit an area. Generaly they would not select specific targets adjust plots etc for new threats but follow a pre definned pattern.

Also getting men to the front to actualy fight both had huge problems but Russians must have been harder. More stuff to pull forward plus pulling back & rebuilding your economic base (factories etc) to allow you to continue. No mean feat in the 40s
The problem is not so much the fighting men but the logistics of supply as the people that fight make up less than half of the army.

[Von Bismarck]

Hello felloow commanders!

We are reading all your comments and thinking about all aspects you all mentioned here.
I agree that the time for such Monster will be too long to keep players commited with the tourney and of course all of us have real life out of Blitz..well not sure about Jad
As I said before the idea of reduce the scope as one the WAW MEGA CAMPAINGS by Matrix team is already in study but some other considerations regarding Strategical aspects of the campaing also must be taken in consideration.
we will keep you all informed about which direction this idea will follow and hope that at the end we can please much of you all
Keep the ideas comming

Cheers

VB

[Model]

I´m generally interested on that kind of tourney and would like to play as an axis commander. If there no place on the axis-side I switched the side.
But I feel like some other fellows when this tourney will be a monster perhaps I´m not able to handle it.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

That's why I mentioned about maybe breaking it down and doing a specific campaign broken down into areas and phases. Do phase one in every area before moving to phase two. I guess I am thinking of a mixe between a couple games. I keep using Market Garden as an example because it was the first thing that popped to mind about being easy to breakdown. A strategic map broken down to 4 major areas with each major area then broken down into several smaller areas

The 4 major areas - XXX Corps, 101 AB, 82 AB, Brit 1 AB. And along with the smaller areas within, it could be utilized as a strategic movement similar to Close Combat Bulge.

It would still be a major undertaking, but not as ambitious as Barbarossa. You could also make it on a 1:1 scale. Replacements would be negligible due to being a short campaign as compared to others.

You might want to talk to Von Earlman. He designed some rather large scenarios in that series and ran some team games. If I remember correctly they had a system to request to blow bridges and stuff like that so he could edit the map, so you had to plan ahead for different things. There were no VP hexes on the map, each side deciding on thier own objectives. I don't know much about, but talking to him or somebody else that was involved sure can't hurt.

[klanx171]

Hi players

I just got through a test battle with Jadpanther.

It was a tough fight but I will post about what it was like so players might get an idea of what will come.

Firstly i like the idea and really enjoyed the battle. Of course if your not up for big scale battles then this isnt for you but if you want to see if you can do it a bit more realistic than we usually play (ie sacrifice men like its WW1 rather than keep it within limits) then this is for you.

I found that the hardest part was organiszing who went where as there was not a lot of transport and moving men around was hard to do.

Using realistic settings means that the Germans have an advantage in troop quality which means they can fight longer and tougher and the russians have trouble spotting them but a dug in Ruskie is as hard to kill as always.

The reds have some good tanks and if your a tiger or Panther specialist then you will have to make do with lesser breeds (i took the PZ 38(t)s and found them accurate but unable to crack the armor of the KVs and T-34s I faced, but I found that the tanks couldnt see the infantry coming so once the infantry hit they still killed tanks just as well (barring when the refused to assault the dam things).

Art was very important in the battles as dug in reds are hard to remove.

I didnt have planes but i will be taking them for the next game.

The maps were a bit to big in length but not depth, so if they are shortended things will be easier.

turns did take over an hour but again if you dont like long games then this is not for you.

I found playing with well organized coys and divisions made all the difference and support weapons were absolutely crucial in this respect, heavy MGs and AT guns provided the support fire for the attack while infantry guns and mortars provided the support fire and the all important smoke. Plenty of ammo trucks will be needed.

I hope the maps are not random as that lessened the fun a bit as its was just another random map, something custom made would be great.

If all the maps are wide open then tanks are vital if not and they are close in or woods then infantry will be very important. Tanks in clsoe without support die very fast.

Counter battery was important as your only arty was on map, I lost a lot early to jads CB fire.

I won the battle but the costs were high enough that both of us would have sufferd in the next round. Oncentration will be very important here as I set myself an upper limit of 25% casualties or bust. 2 of my infantry coys were chewed up in the fight and without support fire they suffered.

Overall I found it a much more realistic battle than I often play and my tactics were more small scale and realistic accordingly. If you want to play closer to what it migt have been like in an average battle and less on hack and slash slaughterfests then i suggest you try this. The long term of battles will much more important than a one off sweeping victory.

That siad I think there will need to be a fine balance of how the outcome of a battle is judges to prevent some of the problems that have been mentioned from coming up, for example not setting the VHs as the only way to victory and preventing a russian Opp from playing unrealisticly (or the german for that matter).

For example the objective for any battle should not exceed a certain limit of losses. So if the GM's figure that it will take less then 25% losses to take the VHs then thats what the VHs shoul be set. Much of our old style SP doesnt take this into account so being able to get a maneuver victory (by breaking the line Blitzkrieg style) or making sure the russians are dug in in approximate positions, not all prepped to flee and such will make all the difference.

I will be signing up for sure.:)

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Of course I think it will make a big difference for the amount of turns also. Don't want something this large with only 10-15 turns. Need time to work things out. I recently finished one with GUNSLNGR with a large buy your own with the large map and 64 turns. It was pretty good and sounds similar to this one except I would like to see more of the actual compnants rather than buy your own all the time.

[Imp]

klanx171
You mentioned the map was to tall assume it was full size 200x160
Perhaps set up could be based on the outcome of the previous battle
So normaly the attacker can only set up in 120 hexes of the front then adjust it by 20-30 hex steps so if did very well could use 180 hexes of the front so has a better choice of setup. It could also be used for ammo resupply fast attack no ammo dumps defenders fortifications unfinnished etc.
Another possibility for the designers as they must be doing a lot of background work is to use another game like Operational Art of War to help manage the strategic level

Your game sounds much to me like a typical engagement in SP for the time. If you are Germans & draw the short straw with armour its all about getting the right units in place. Your armour can deal with T-34s just but these & the KVs are your troops main targets with tanks keeping them safe. If the Russians don't get the good tanks then the reverse is pretty much true.
The terrain therefore plays a big part open vs restricted LOS & big maps allow jockeying for position as its no good trading shots if you need a flank to kill him.
I understand what people are saying about time & with a mainly mechanised force the jockeying is not to bad but when mainly a foot force takes a while to relocate. Makes for a good game but does take time as people often end up in the wrong place as the picture unfolds & you cant just hitch a ride.