Gaming a "no win" situation

[Gompel]

Right... I do not play this kind of games, but I'm trying to understand. Somehow I have the idea that there is another question you have on a deeper level. I mean, it looks like you're one of a kind, but can't find players who have the same gaming style as you have.

A question Voltigeur: do you ever play the weaker as well as the stronger side? Just a question since you only describe the goals of one side. If yes, what are those goals?
How strictly do you take your rulesystem? I mean, adding things like I described in my earlier post can really boost game-interest without being 'unrealistic'.

[Mk 1]

A question Voltigeur: do you ever play the weaker as well as the stronger side?

Gopel:

Regarding this scenario:

Situation:
Observation post on the border reported Soviet recon and vanguard formations. You are the commander of A troop 11th ACR. ...

Mission:
You have been assigned a screening mission ...

Execution:
At the start of the game your unit will march to per battle positions ...

Command and control:
You are part of 11th ACR and no troops are in reserve. Once you fall back to Hofbieber you will receive your next mission. ...

If I was this player I would judge my performance by how well I accomplish this mission vs the casualties suffered. The goal is to hold the Soviets off but at the same time still be an effective force to receive and new mission in Hofbieber.

I assure you Voltigeur will be the weaker side. This is very much like the scenario I imagined in my first post in this thread. He will have a single armored cavalry troop, and will face the recon followed by the advanced guard of a Soviet Operational Maneuver Group (probably a multi-division formation, with a recon company followed by an armored battalion in the lead).

There is almost no path by which he can hold his ground. He can delay, inflict some attrition to dull the point of the enemy's spear, and hope to escape with his command intact.

The main difference is that I proposed an infantry or armored division company-sized unit, vs. an armored cavalry troop. And I proposed explicit victory conditions to encourage the "amature" gamer opposite me to understand what he was trying to achieve.

Of course, in most many of the games I have posted here (in the AAR thread) my opponent is actualy a captain in the 11th Cav (now deployed in Afghanistan, so not available to game for a while). Maybe worth a pause for reflection, that. And I suppose he could work out the victory conditions on his own.

[voltigeur]

I assure you Voltigeur will be the weaker side. This is very much like the scenario I imagined in my first post in this thread. He will have a single armored cavalry troop, and will face the recon followed by the advanced guard of a Soviet Operational Maneuver Group (probably a multi-division formation, with a recon company followed by an armored battalion in the lead).

There is almost no path by which he can hold his ground. He can delay, inflict some attrition to dull the point of the enemy's spear, and hope to escape with his command intact.

All of that is true I will be the weaker side, but if you look at the terrain and satellite photos this area this by no means a "no win" situation. Doesn't matter if I'm facing tanks or Mech Infantry. I can easily stack the Soviets up in the woods and hold them for an hour or so. On the second axis all I have to do is force the Soviets to shake out in attack formation and I have delayed thier advance by hours.

The way I play games my job is to give 3rd Armored time to get to the River Fulda and stablish a defensive line. If I do that then I win. On a screening mission I don't have to hold ground East of the Fulda River it is not my mission.

Mk1 - What victory conditions would you give to the American player in this scenario? Would it be just a point system? I would have given the American player 4 to 6 turns to hold the Soviet player on the front 1/2 of the table. If I can do that and get away I would consider myself as doing very well.

The Soviet player's victory conditions so not need to be exclusive to the Americans. The Soviet studies from that period indicate that the Vanguard only has to establish a position that the main body can manuver around and expoloit. Even with heavy casualties all the vanguard has to do is advance and drive the cav back. If the follow on forces can break in the open and deploy and advance 1 to 3 klicks then they have done what they are suppose to do. That player can be considered to have done his job as well calling the game a draw.

Anyway I hope this gives an idea of how I see the WARPAC vs Nato type battles.

Mk1 I do appreciate your perspective.

[dnichols]

I played several early Barbarossa games with Soviet Infantry being attacked by Panzers. Very one sided scenarios that at first I was VERY frustrated with playing as the Soviets. However when I began to understand that my frustrations were a minute fraction of what the historical Soviet commanders must have felt it became a very interesting educational experience.

I also play colonials, Zulu Wars, and ran a game once of Isandhlwana. I told British players at the start, you WILL lose and be wiped out, but your victory conditions are to take more of the Zulus with you than were killed by the British historically. Both sides had a grand time.

---Daryl

[voltigeur]

My idea of a “no winâ€￾ situation is as follows:

After overthrowing the government of a small island country rebels decide to take a US Embassy by force to find evidence that CIA operatives assisted government death squads. 600 rebels and ½ dozen technicals are dispatched to overrun the Marine garrison.

As soon as Government troops abandoned their post around the Embassy the US dispatched a Battalion Landing Team (BLT). This force is backed by the Phibron ships that can launch 8 Harrier strikes and Cobra gun ships. A Surface Action Group (SAP) centered on an Iowa class battleship. Behind that a Nimitz carrier battle group can put 3 squadrons over the table in one turn.

If the 2 forces lock into full combat and the Marines are not held up with unreasonable rules of engagement the rebels will be turned into a routed rabble in less than 3 turns.

[Mk 1]

All of that is true I will be the weaker side, but if you look at the terrain and satellite photos this area this by no means a "no win" situation. Doesn't matter if I'm facing tanks or Mech Infantry. I can easily stack the Soviets up in the woods and hold them for an hour or so. On the second axis all I have to do is force the Soviets to shake out in attack formation and I have delayed thier advance by hours.

It is certainly true that there is almost always a "win" possible in war, even when the odds are stacked very heavily against you. But ...

When the odds (the correlation of forces and mission requirements) are so far against you, there comes a point where, as a unit CO, there is little you can do to "win". You will either need some help from your opponent making mistakes, or you will at best "die well".

The way I play games my job is to give 3rd Armored time to get to the River Fulda and stablish a defensive line. If I do that then I win.

Well, if you do that AND preserve your command, you "win". If you do that and don't preserve your command, you have died well.

I would have given the American player 4 to 6 turns to hold the Soviet player on the front 1/2 of the table. If I can do that and get away I would consider myself as doing very well.

As would I. My victory conditions would only seek to quantify that a bit, so rather than saying you "did very well" we might be able to say you achieved X number of victory points.

The Soviet player's victory conditions so not need to be exclusive to the Americans.

I always like that kind of thinking.

The Soviet studies from that period indicate that the Vanguard only has to establish a position that the main body can manuver around and expoloit. Even with heavy casualties all the vanguard has to do is advance and drive the cav back. If the follow on forces can break in the open and deploy and advance 1 to 3 klicks then they have done what they are suppose to do. That player can be considered to have done his job as well calling the game a draw.

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Soviet era writings were of many minds on these topics. Yes, casualties among the vanguard were acceptable. However, and contrary to much written in the west, Soviet military writings decried wastage of forces beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the necessary gains. The advance guard might have a variety of potential missions, ranging from the engagement and destruction of the cavalry streening force (putting out the eyes of the enemy), to simply preserving the march-echelon formation of the follow-on forces (to maintain the tempo of the operation), to finding and identifying the main line of resistance.

The Soviet army was not quite so predictable that one should have expected it to simply drive up the road until the light units get all shot up, and then bring up heavier forces (in a fashion that is ponderous enought to allow the screening NATO units to withdraw).

Soviet doctrine emphasized many operational techniques. High op tempo is/was one. So also was infiltration tactics. So also multiple lanes of advance (the "expandng torrent"). And don't forget that any of these might be combined with sudden changes of the axis of advance to effect surprise and encirclements.

I have used the "expanding torrent" approach in wargaming Iraqi Recon against a US Cav screen (the scenario taken straight out of a US Army War College study of an action during Desert Storm).





It was pretty tough. Every way I went, I got poked in the eye.

(cont'd next post)

[Mk 1]

(cont'd from prior post -- had to break it up to get all the pics to show...)



Except that my opponent, in his haste to engage and destroy the forces he identified, forgot for just a couple turns that his mission was to screen the main body as it deployed further back. He was so busy killing my units he failed to roll back to his next positions.



Which allowed me to make a high-speed run right past him up a momentarily undefended road.

Now here was a battle that, by correlation of forces, looked like a no-win for me. I had BRDMs and a few BMPs, versus a US force of Bradleys (OK, I can handle Bradleys) and M1 Abrams tanks (Oh no, Mr. Bill!!). Oh, and it was a NIGHT ENGAGEMENT, so the Abrams had not only impenatrable front armor and phenominal shoot-on-the-move capability, but also had far better spotting at range.

But it was a large battle board, and a well-contructed blind play method, and while my position would have been "no-win" if my opponent played his role well ... he didn't. Probing on multiple axes, even at a high cost, and being ready to immediately exploit any identified weakness is, of course, just one more of the Soviet doctrines.

Mk1 I do appreciate your perspective.

As I appreciate yours. Can't think of much I'd rather do that talk about tactics and wargaming. Unless it is drinking heavily while talking about tactics and wargaming.

[av8rmongo]

Unless it is drinking heavily while talking about tactics and wargaming.

Just curious is micro armor considered heavy machinery?

Paul

[ferret701]

I ran a similar scenario to this in July. Essentially, a US cavalry troop screening a 5km front against an advancing Soviet division entering from the east. Platoon scale game, so NATO started with just 8 units on the board (2 M1, 3 M2, 3 scout teams). It was essentially a race for the Soviets -- crash the US lines, clear a pair of roads, and open the way for further advances.

For NATO, the game was all about buying time. I don't remember the exact numbers, but NATO would get the Squadron tank company from reserve on west edge of map D6 turns after spotting a regimental+ Soviet unit (essentially, confirming it was a significant thrust). The leading recce battalion (actually, a task force) for the Soviets did not count for this purpose. When a 2nd Regiment was spotted (significant elements of, not just one vehicle), NATO could roll to bring on the Cav troops on either flank, along with gunship support.

Artillery support for NATO was also based on spotted enemy units, and included the regimental battalion and possible fires from a Corps MLRS battery. The Soviets had a full Regimental Artillery Group (4 SP 122mm bns), a BM-22 Bn from div, and the potential to pull some of the Divisional Artillery Group (3 SP 152mm bns), which I assumed would be leap-frogging forward while the RAG shot. Essentially, the Soviets had enough artillery to rough up anything they could spot.

As the game played out, NATO did reasonably well, despite never being at less than a 6-1 disadvantage on the table. They fell back a total of about 6kms, losing only a few units, and chewing up the advancing Soviets pretty good. At the end of the game, most of a cav squadron was deployed on the west edge of the board, forming a crust that would take a deliberate assault to crack (and which probably would have just fallen back in front of). The Soviets didn't move as fast as they should have (I should know, I commanded one of the regiments...) and NATO was able to slowly pull in reinforcements, sufficient to conduct a defense in depth. We decided it was a minor NATO victory, because while they had given up a significant chunk of terrain, they had kept the Soviets from simply racing through.

and damn, can M1s ever shoot up T-80s (or anything else...) in the open. And don't get me started on Apaches. Did get lucky, though, as an MRLS strike caught a BMP-2 battalion closing on a small town, but do to luck rolls, it caused almost no damage, despite dropping its pattern directly on the center of the battalion.

[quote]
All of that is true I will be the weaker side, but if you look at the terrain and satellite photos this area this by no means a "no win" situation. Doesn't matter if I'm facing tanks or Mech Infantry. I can easily stack the Soviets up in the woods and hold them for an hour or so. On the second axis all I have to do is force the Soviets to shake out in attack formation and I have delayed thier advance by hours.

The way I play games my job is to give 3rd Armored time to get to the River Fulda and stablish a defensive line. If I do that then I win. On a screening mission I don't have to hold ground East of the Fulda River it is not my mission.

Mk1 - What victory conditions would you give to the American player in this scenario? Would it be just a point system? I would have given the American player 4 to 6 turns to hold the Soviet player on the front 1/2 of the table. If I can do that and get away I would consider myself as doing very well.

The Soviet player's victory conditions so not need to be exclusive to the Americans. The Soviet studies from that period indicate that the Vanguard only has to establish a position that the main body can manuver around and expoloit. Even with heavy casualties all the vanguard has to do is advance and drive the cav back. If the follow on forces can break in the open and deploy and advance 1 to 3 klicks then they have done what they are suppose to do. That player can be considered to have done his job as well calling the game a draw.

Anyway I hope this gives an idea of how I see the WARPAC vs Nato type battles.

Mk1 I do appreciate your perspective.[/quote][/quote]

[BattlerBritain]

I've played some similar Modern delaying actions but using a boardgame called 'Blood & Bridges'.

I posted an AAR of a typical game over at Boardgamegeek:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/382165

These types of 'Against-the-odds' games are not only really challenging but are useful in answering the 'Well-could-Ivan-have-done-it' question.

Some pictures of other games with 'Blood & Bridges' using a posterised version of the 'Blood & Bridges' mapboard and GHQ figures are here:
Chieftains + Challys on a ridge


Recon + Hind approaching


Ivan Arty strikes


More Ivans


Brit Infantry use Milan


Ivan picks his way forward


You get the idea.

It's quite good fun and a real test of seeing what good tactics can do to stop a supposedly superior force.

[hauptgrate]

What about building scenarios in which neither side knows exactly what forces the other side has, nor exactly what their objectives are? My group uses a scenario generation system which permits this kind of "fog of war." It has provided us with very good battles over the years. The purpose of a battle is to achieve your objectives to the highest possible extent with the available forces while trying to determine enemy objectives from his actions and blocking them if possible. I have "won" battles when outnembered 3 to 1 and also lost them when I had a great numerical advantage. My group and myself invented this system many years ago because we were getting rather tired of "balanced" scenarios...

[Mk 1]

What about building scenarios in which neither side knows exactly what forces the other side has, nor exactly what their objectives are? ... The purpose of a battle is to achieve your objectives to the highest possible extent with the available forces while trying to determine enemy objectives from his actions and blocking them if possible....

This is EXACTLY what I seek to achieve when I set up scenarios. My preference is that neither side knows the other's forces or objectives. Makes the game much more interesting, at least for me.

[Donald M. Scheef]

My personal preference for unbalanced scenarios and partial intelligence is a sealed low-bid auction.
This requires at least three participants, a judge and two opposing players, but multi-player setups also work well. It also requires a set of rules that provide point values for design-your-own forces.
The judge sets up the basic scenario (era, location, circumstances) and establishes a point value for one of the two forces - typically the more defensive one. All of the players then submit sealed-bids for the point value they would want to play the other force. The low bid wins the honor of playing this side. The second-lowes bid leads the other side.
One advantage of this arrangement is that there can be no complaints about not having enough forces to do the job. Either a player has his own choice or is facing an opponent with less than he was willing to accept.
Sometimes this does result in balanced sides. In other cases you get to "no-win" conditions.
On one occasion, all five of the players thought that the terrain that I had established favored the defense too much and each submitted super-high bids so that they would be sure to be the defensive player. Perhaps they were right; even with an eight-to-one advantage the attackers barely achieved their objectives.

Don S.