Game: Defiant Russia: Operation Barbarossa, 1941

Thread: 1943 varient posted

starkeyboy — 2008-06-06T23:46:02+00:00

http://www.avalanchepress.com/defiant_russia_1943.php

Just saw this. With the anniversary of this titanic struggle (meaning Barbarosa) coming up, I just bet some people have their minds on this theater/ period.

Anybody played this recently?

Thread: Re: Russia Defiant

Comrade_Sarayev — 2008-04-05T04:21:10+00:00

normsmith wrote:
Patch1413 (#72977),

Some good designer notes would have been helpful. I hope you give the game another go.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/DefRusNotes.php

Thread: Re: Map Question

Comrade_Sarayev — 2008-04-05T04:15:12+00:00

Patch1413 wrote:
korangar (#66862),
Not to my knowledge - nor have they explained how movement alnog the Gulf of Finland works either. A strict reading of the rules allows you to move across despite there being an ocean in the way.

Sorry lad, no can do. Soviets have limited sea movement ability in the Black Sea, but nobody can walk on water.

Image

CXed — 2008-03-07T05:59:52+00:00

Bottlenecked at Riga

Thread: Barbarossa in a Wide Angle Lens

Basilius — 2007-10-30T22:29:48+00:00

Brief Overview

Defiant Russia is a high-level treatment of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia in June of 1941. It is designed to be playable in an evening. (Box says 2 hours.) There are seven turns of one month each, 140 counters representing the involved armies and corps, and each hex is 45 miles. The map is a “half size” 17x22 inches, and there are VERY few tables to consult. In fact, the only tables are for terrain effects and random weather determination. The size of the game is reminiscent of the old SPI 120 series games that some of you older than me might remember.

Each unit has a combat strength which determines the number of dice the unit rolls in combat. Roll a six, get a hit. The first hit suffered in a combat must be taken as a step loss by one of the defenders (nearly all units have two steps) but any further losses can be taken as step losses OR retreats unless the number of hits suffered is larger than the total steps available. Then the stack is toast. Terrain and Leaders add or subtract dice, and there are air power points available in varying quantities that can add up to three dice into a specific combat. Yes, this is a “buckets of dice” game. Right up Mike's alley.

Play sequence is standard IGO-UGO, and the sequence is Weather Determination, Organization, Movement, Combat, Exploitation Movement, Exploitation Combat. Then the Soviets repeat all but the first step. After the first couple turns, we were rarely referring to the rulebook except for situations we hadn't yet encountered. That's a good sign. We missed a couple things (I'm specifically thinking of Russian stacking restrictions and Partizans) but that's natural for a first play.

There are 11 VPs available. 2 for controlling Moscow, 1 each for seven other cities, 1 for causing most casualties, and 1 for Stalin surviving or not. It's impossible for there to be a tie.

Our Session

In the interest of time, we used the historical setup published on Avalanche's website. This eliminated the “how do I best setup Army Group Center?” questions for a game we've never played. (The standard setup allows you to set up each army group or military district however you'd like within certain boundaries.)

So... how did we fare? I took the Russians, which is a bit of a challenge for me as my typical play style is more suited to attack. (Except in chess. Go figure.) Mike attacked hard in the first turn (the Germans really need to push early before the weather worsens) and, as usual, his dice failed him. We had rather equal hits scored, but he probably rolled twice as many dice. The second turn was a little better from his perspective, but now my replacements and reinforcements were to start arriving. Good thing, too, as my northern flank had nearly disappeared.

Turn three brought light mud, making exploitation nearly impossible. That slowed him down a bit. I was able to set up a defensive line in the south on the eastern bank of the Dnieper river. I was going to try to do the same thing on the Dvina in the north, but Mike was able to cross it during turn 3 before I could get reinforcements there.

At this point, Mike was thinking he didn't have a chance. I had loads of new units coming, and he didn't think he was going to have the time to make much headway. Turn 4 being mud didn't help. That cut movement rates in half.

From my perspective, though, I was severely beat down. I had nearly no defense in the north, and my southern flank was intact but thin. Reinforcements were steadily arriving, but it takes time to get them into place, and the weather wasn't helping me either. Mike had taken three VP cities by this point, and was definitely going to win the casualty VP. That meant I could only lose one more city, as a counter attack was unlikely.

Turn 5 (October) brought clear weather, much to my dismay. Mike charged hard. He was fortunate to take Leningrad with his Finns, and he actually even took Moscow. Kharkov was the last VP city he was likely to reach, and it was behind my thin defensive wall in the south. My wall broke during exploitation in turn 5, and Kharkov was looking doomed.

I managed to retake Moscow on my half of turn 5, but Leningrad wasn't coming back. I threw what I could in front of the remaining units charging hard on Moscow and the ones reaching Kharkov. My biggest hope was mud in turn 6. Snow was definite in turn 7, so I needed him slowed now. At this point, I was leading 6-5, but barely hanging on by a thread.

So, what weather do we get in November? Clear. Ugh. Mike took Kharkov with MANY supports, and cut off the rail net isolating Moscow from the south. After looking at the situation in my half of turn 6, there was no realistic way I was going to recover any more VP spaces. It was getting late, as well, so we called the game at this point with a 6-5 German victory. It might have gotten worse if Mike had decided to try to take Moscow instead of isolating it and sealing his position.

Summary

I was pleasantly surprised by the game. It isn't more than it pretends to be, but it's very playable. I expect that with experience the play time will settle in around two hours. (we took a little over three, but we both struggled with the number of options available early on.) Effectively playing the Russians requires a good sense of timing. You need to know when to pull back and conserve your troops vs. foolish counter attacks early on. I know I hung on a turn too long in the north and paid for it. The fact that Mike has already emailed me wanting to give it another go after swapping sides says a lot.

It's not a definitive treatment of anything, and the scale intentionally leaves out loads of detail, but for a decent overview of Barbarossa in a $20 package, Defiant Russia is worth a look. I know I'll be looking a little closer at the other games in this series, specifically Red Vengeance. It's the same system, but set in 1944 so the roles are reversed and Russia is attacking trying to drive the Germans out of Russia.

Image

Comrade_Sarayev — 2007-09-28T09:16:22+00:00

close up of leader counter in Defiant Russia

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Jim Allen — 2007-07-12T13:00:25+00:00

I haven't yet had a chance to play this game through solitaire, chiefly because I have been enjoying myself tinkering with the game with a view to bringing it into line with the historical course of events of Barbarossa. I think there is much potential for a very satisfying and manageable game.

And one other feature I like is that the game doesn't take up much space. (Bummer about my sausage fingers). It can be left setup provided it's barricaded from the blasted cat.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Osprey — 2007-05-28T14:31:02+00:00

Yes Tim,
That was the one I was referring to. The way you define the situation is the way it should be played, just like almost every other hex and counter game, as you mention. Thanks.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

lead_and_brush — 2007-05-27T23:27:20+00:00

Is this the one you were talking about?

Q. But what if a attacking hex (with two stacked attackers) has three adjacent enemies. Can it make a single attack against TWO of the adjacent enemies (assuming another stack will attack the third)?

A. No.

The rules nowhere state that *each* active unit must attack *every* enemy unit adjacent to it. As long as every active unit that is adjacent to an enemy attacks, and every enemy unit that is adjacent to an active unit gets attacked, Rule 7.0 is satisfied. Plus, this is the way soak-offs have worked since time immemorial. So as long as that third stack gets attacked by somebody on the active side, this should be legal.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

swandive78 — 2007-04-29T22:17:18+00:00

My feelings were much like yours regarding this game. The game system itself is not that difficult, but it has a nice mix of a lot of chrome that has been cribbed from a lot of other games over the last twenty years, and as a result, would not be one I'd use as an introduction to wargaming for a newbie.

It takes longer to play than the manufacturer claims, and the sequencing in a single turn is rather convoluted, but it's pretty intense right off the bat. The counters are good, that map is actually nicely designed, but it would be nice if it were not on paper that will shred at the corners of intersecting folds after a few plays. The rulebook needs some editing and rewriting after being read by a blind tester who is not an accomplished wargamer.

That being said, I really liked the game. It's already sold me on two more of the "Games you can play" games, and will probably sell me on a couple more. They are fun games, but I really wish Avalanche would complete their games before putting them into production. We need more wargames playable in a few hours that have at least an interesting mix of mechanics, if not some new ones.

Yeah, I know it sounds like I'm blowing hot and cold, but my final recommendation: get this and play it; struggle through the rules until you have it figured out (won't take too long), and you'll consider it worth the time and effort, and the twenty bucks you shelled out.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Osprey — 2007-04-18T15:27:29+00:00

Thanks Chaos for that update. Too bad the rules don't cover that by examples. I'm just thinking about the mechanics of that. Since every unit must attack when adjacent, if they have a combined total of "0" esentially that means that they can't (they get no die roll). I think in that situation they should be automatically eliminated. I still see two options that could be worded as such: 1) If a unit is forced to attack but cannot (meaning all units have a modified value of "0"), then the units are eliminated instead. Option 2) If a unit is forced to attack but cannot (meaning all units have a modified value of "0"), then the defender must still roll and attempt to get enough 6s to destroy the attackers. If he doesn't roll any sixes, play continues as normal. I like the first option better myself. Which one do you use?

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Comrade_Sarayev — 2007-04-18T13:44:18+00:00

A unit forced to attack, at "0" value due to any given situation, is quite valid. A common situation is an Axis stack attacking across a river that includes Division Azul (the Spanish Blue Division). The Spanish unit accounts for ZERO die in the Axis attack, due to the modifier. It can be still be used to satisfy a loss, however. Hope this helps, Comrade Wade.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Osprey — 2007-04-17T16:44:06+00:00

Thanks for your replies Charles and Scott. First off, I want to apologize for the double listings of this thread. When I tried to post it last night my browser just sat there and spun with no apparent results and I hit "submit" once more. That didn't seem to work either so I just shut off my computer thinking that the post didn't even get listed.

Anyway Scott, as far as your question on combat goes, I didn't see any problem with the rule you mentioned. I read that as standard combat rules for most Zone of Control hex wargames. I DID see a wrong answer in the Consimworld Q&As to a question about multi hex battles. That could have been due to the wording of the question and they didn't understand it and gave the wrong answer.

Basically, at the end of the MOVEMENT phase (not the exploitation phase), any units that are adjacent to enemy units must attack and all defending units must be attacked. You may divide the combat up anyway you want as long as the conditions mentioned above are met. The attacker may divide any stacked units to attack different hexes, but any defending hex containing stacked units must be attacked as a whole. You may not attack one defending unit in a stack from one hex and then attack the other unit in the stack from another hex. There is also the exception of the fortress rule.

Here's another thing we ran into that's NOT covered in the rules: Suppose the attacker has one or two (it doesn't really matter) flipped units that both have values of "1" in a single hex. The units are surrounded and therefore cannot move and are out of supply as well. They must attack all adjacent units in their combat phase. Some of the defending units are across river hexsides giving the attacking units a "-1" modifier. That makes each attacking unit in that situation a "0" value. The rules do not cover this instance at all. Do you say they do not get a die roll? Or, should units always get a minimum of a "1" value no matter what modifiers are applied? Since I was the German, it was always my opponent that found himself in this situation. Just to be kind I allowed for a minimum value of "1" for his units just so he would have a die roll. In reality, in the example I mentioned above, this should probably be an automatic victory for the defender. There is one other option though: The attacking units get no die roll but the defending units still must roll. This could have the effect of tying up units if they don't roll a "6" to destroy the surrounded unit(s). This option wouldn't be very realistic either (but does that really matter?). This situation came up many times in our first time playing. There were times when I had at least 20 or more combat factors surrounding his little out of supply, across the river units. He was attacking me and I wasn't rolling any "6s" and he was! I think it should be an automatic victory for the defender. It's hard to believe the playtesters didn't also encounter this. What did they do? It's not covered in the rules.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

starkeyboy — 2007-04-17T13:32:47+00:00

Wade and Charles,

Hi. What did you think of the Regular Combat rules? Specifically, "Every active unit adjacent to an enemy unit must attack and every enemy unit which is adjacent to an active unit must be attacked". I've never encountered this mechanic before. Is it common?
I only have limited solo experience with Defiant Russia and found it difficult to remember this rule (as I only had myself to remind myself).
Also, the rules weren't exactly clear about the application of this rule. I too had to search Consimworld for some answers.

Seems like a fun game, though.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

stampdog316 — 2007-04-17T09:26:24+00:00

Wade,
Thanks for the review. We had similar first time experiences with Defiant Russia. Once I read the errata and rules clarifications from consimworld, the game became one of my favorites from the Avalanche small games line. I enjoyed Bitter Victory and am about to purchase They Shall Not Pass next month. I really wish Avalanche would improve their rules editing and proofreading process. It doesn't seem a problem with their established lines such as Panzer Grenadier or their Naval games, but any other game is a crapshoot. Initial reports from Tiger of Malaya and They Shall Not Pass both sound positive so hopefully they have made some progress in that area.

Thread: Re: Defiant Russia-First Impression

sherron — 2007-04-17T07:40:09+00:00

After I had played Fire in the East DR just didn't make sense to me. I felt the same way about making what would be big odds in favor of the attacker, the defender does a lot of damage. The reinforcement schedule didn't jive. I played DR once and it has been sitting on the shelf. I think the german player should be able to attack again on the first turn. Good review

Thread: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Osprey — 2007-04-17T05:26:26+00:00

An old wargaming buddy of mine and I finally had some time to sit down and play a wargame for the first time in quite a while. We wanted to try something new, simple and something we could probably finish in an evening. I went to my massive collection and pulled out Defiant Russia after reading the box description. We completed the game but with much critique. Here's my take on the game:

One of my biggest gripes about a wargame is a poorly written, hard to understand, incomplete rule set, or rules that don't cover situations that you ultimately find yourself in during the game, and after searching through the rulebook several times, realize that the situation just isn't covered there. I always wonder to myself: If I can find all of these things in a first playing, how the heck did this rulebook get printed after playtesting? I found myself searching the web for Q&As, reviews and errata, which some proved to be helpful, but for the most part, my friend and I had to determine what to do on our own. The rules need a totally re-written overhaul.

Some tout the game as being ideal for a beginner, or a great way to introduce wargaming to a first timer. But I'm afraid that if an experienced gamer wasn't around to help that newcomer with this game as an introduction to the hobby, he may never pick up a wargame again.

The game covers the first year (1941) of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II.

German Army Group Starting areas are not labeled on the map, Minor Axis counters are not identified in the rules but are referred to there, nor are they clearly marked on the counters themselves. These types of things and a host of other issues were discovered very early on in play.

That being said, I still found the game to be fun to play and pretty well balanced. I played the Germans and lost by one victory point due to the unit loss system of scoring.

The game utilizes a "double impulse" movement and combat system called "exploitation". After the initial movement and combat phase, the moving player may make a second restricted movement with certain types of units (like armor) and initiate a second round of combat in his turn. This is not allowed on the first turn however and this seems to impede the Germans (unlike in the historical invasion when this was the point it was most successful).

In combat, the attacker adds up all of his combat factors and the defender does the same with his units. Terrain, supply, weather and leader modifiers are added in and both players throw the total adjusted amount of dice corresponding to their combat factors to determine hits. Any roll of a "6" is a hit. This can turn into a MAJOR dice rolling contest and it's amazing how hard it was for me to throw sixes... another feature that sacrifices probability to luck. Several times in the game I had a single Russian unit surrounded, out of supply, and outnumbered him (after modifiers) by 20 or more combat factors. Automatic victory right? Nope. Throughout the game I found myself throwing anywhere from 15 to up to 24 dice and couldn't even get a six for a hit! My opponent would throw 2 or 3 dice and would get one or two sixes. Once he had 3 dice to my 22. He threw three sixes and I threw zippy! Frustrating..but that's the way the dice roll sometimes. I've never been a good dice roller anyway.

Despite all of this pessimistic sounding stuff, we both found the game to be fun and agreed that we'd play it again after we had come to terms on what our rules should be for many of the situations that weren't covered by the rules in the game. You can't beat the price of $20.

With an updated edition of the rules, some updating of the game map, and perhaps a bit of tweaking of the "first turn" rule that doesn't allow any exploitation movement, this game could easily realize its true potential as well as being the ideal game for the newbie and have him hooked for life to the world of board wargaming.

Thread: Defiant Russia-First Impression

Osprey — 2007-04-17T05:15:46+00:00

Image

Viriato — 2007-04-01T21:51:27+00:00

Box Contents

Image

Viriato — 2007-04-01T21:45:40+00:00

Box Front

Image

Viriato — 2007-04-01T21:40:27+00:00

Box Back

Thread: Collection of 'official' Avalance Press Q&A

moonglum01 — 2007-03-24T22:45:27+00:00

A collection of Q&A replies from Avalance Press at Consimworld and from the Avalanche Press website.

AVALANCE PRESS REPLIES AT CONSIMWORLD

Q. German set-up?

A. Sample hex from each: North: 3504, Center: 3302, South: 2802

Q. I am using the rule that each enemy unit that is adjacent to an enemy unit must be attacked by someone.. at some point.Am I wrong?

A. That's correct.

Q. The two unit maximum stacking (6.2) combined with maximum one infantry or shock army per hex (6.21) means either two corps can stack or one army and one corps. At least that what it means to me.

A. That's correct. Or put another way, the restriction is that you can't stack two armies together.

Q. Let's say a couple of full strength German units attack a full strength Russian unit. The Russian unit takes a one step loss.

The way I read the rule is that the Russian "flipped" unit must counter attack and is not able to pull back even one hex.

This doesn't make sense for the Russian "flipped" unit to be forced to take on two full strength German units.

A. The unit counter attacks at full strength before it is flipped as combat is simultaneous see rule 7.11.. It states that each player rolls a number of dice equal to it's attack strength.

Q. 7.12 says "The single terrain type least favorable to the attacker is used", which contradicts 9.1 "All terrain and weather effects are cumulative." I'm assuming 9.1 is the correct statement.

A. 9.1 is correct.

Q. Under the Supply rules it states that units eliminated while out of supply cannot be replaced. However, under the replacement rules this statement is only present under the Axis Replacement rules and does not appear under the Soviet Replacement rules. So .... is this a general rule for both sides or just a rule that applies to the Axis side?

A. "Death knows no politics. The rule applies to all."

Q. 1. An infantry unit can only move enemy ZOC to enemy ZOC if the hex they are leaving AND the one they are moving to, both already contain friendly unit.

2. Armour is not reliant on other friendly units in order to move from enemy ZOC to enemy ZOC but they pay an extra +1 MP if friends are absent.

A. "Both of these are exactly correct."

Q. and A. Got an official answer from William Sariego on the ZOC issue. As we suspected, all that matters (for ZOC-to-ZOC and RR movement) is that the hex was friendly occupied at the start of the movement phase. The unit need not remain in the hex to allow ZOC and RR movement.

Q. Is Sevastopol a mountain hex? If you look closely it appears to be so.

A. No. It is a fortress hex. Tiny slivers don't count.

Q. Can attackers combine firepower from attacking hexes that are adjacent to each other and obviously adjacent to the defender ?

A. yes

Q. Is combat handled strictly one attacking hex at a time, or can you combine to form multihex attack groups ?

A. see above

Q. How is attacking and defending handled in the following situation: Attacking units are in hex a, b, and c, none of which is adjacent to each other, but all of them are surrounding, adjacent to, and attacking an enemy unit in hex d. Do the attackers get to combine firepower even though they are not adjacent to friendly attackers ?

A. yes

Q. Can multiple units attacking from the same hex attack into different adjacent hexes i.e if there are two friendly units in hex a, which is adjacent to enemy units in hex b and other adjacent enemy units in hex c. Can one unit in hex a attack hex b and the other unit in hex a attack hex c ?

A. "Not only can they, sometimes they'll have to."

Q. Based upon adjacency to enemy units at time of combat, can a given unit attack more than once or defend more than once in a given combat round ? The rules dont seem to state anything explicit on this although I believe the INTENT would somehow be that every unit only attacks or defends once in a given combat round.

A. Only once.

Q. 1. Supply is determined at the beginning of the organization phase and then again at the beginning of the combat phase. Is it once again determined before exploitation Movement and then again before exploitation Combat?

A. "The rule reads "at the instant of combat" and that's what it means: check it each time you're about to roll dice for combat, whatever the phase."

Q. The way 6.6 reads there seems to be an Italian armor unit. Which unit is that? 6.61 seens to say that only German armor have 3 mps. How many mps would the Italian armor have?

A. "The rule reads "German and Italian armor, mountain and infantry." There is no Italian armor or mountain but there is an Italian infantry, the CSIR. As an infantry unit, it has one movement point."

Q. I assume that you can enter Hungary after the first turn?

A. "That's correct; the only restriction is under 6.7 Turn One Special Rules."

Q. Are board edge half hexes playable?

A. "Yes, but if this ever becomes an issue the game is as good as over."

Q. Fortress gets city effect also-does that mean armor -1 and then -1 again for the 'each attacking unit gets -1 to their combat strength'?

A. "Per 9.1, "All terrain and weather effects are cumulative." Armor suffers -2 against Leningrad."

Q. Do reinforcements get free rail movement?

A. "Per 6.5, "The Axis player is limited to moving three units (two during Snow turns) per turn by rail, and the Soviet player six units." Reinforcements are units like any other."

Q. I assume that if Zukov moves by rail it would count against the Soviet rail limit?

A. "As J.V. Stalin himself said, "Comrade Zhukov is worth an entire tank corps."

Q. Can Zukov add 1 to a Stalin stack (which will get +3 for an attack) if he is adjacent to the Stalin stack?

A. "See above. They are a powerful team. J.V. Stalin said, "That which is not expressly allowed is forbidden," but he was a murderous commie bastard, therefore in our rules sets that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed."

Q. Doesn't this mean that ONLY armor units can move from ZoC to ZoC?

A. "No. As 6.3 states, armor units can move from a ZOC to another ZOC and do not have to stop, depending on the weather. Their special power is not needing another unit present in the hex. Infantry units can move from a ZOC to a ZOC, but only if both hexes are already occupied by friendly units."

Q. But what if a attacking hex (with two stacked attackers) has three adjacent enemies. Can it make a single attack against TWO of the adjacent enemies (assuming another stack will attack the third)?

A. No.

Q. Rule 7.2 says, "If no other choice is available, retreat the minimum number of units to another hex until stacking limits are met, retreating the fewest number of hexes." Does this mean, retreat the fewest ADDITIONAL number of hexes beyond the number of hexes required to account of the hits suffered?

A. Yes.

Q. It would be good to get a definitive answer on the oozing infantry / ZOC question.

A. "Infantry units in a ZOC may make their minimum one hex of movement into another ZOC if (and only if) it's into a hex already occupied by another friendly unit."

Q. Compute combat factors?

A. Deal with terrain first then snow then leaders.

Q. There being no rule that states "regardless of modifiers, no unit is ever reduced below 1", should I accept the fact that in some situations there might arise a time when one side's units cannot fire at all?

A. Correct.

Q. As I read the rules, I cannot find anything to indicate that the Baltic Fleet does not count against stacking. The stacking rules are pretty clear

A. "Don't be too literal. The two fleet pieces also represent naval infantry under fleet command and coastal flotillas. They do count against stacking, but of course are not armies."

Q. If a non-shock army is present, it must absorb the first hit. OK. But in that case, what happens with the second hit? Is it ignored?

A. "No. In the situation you describe, there are two hits. Both must be applied. So, either the shock army takes both of them and takes one step loss, or the non-shock army takes both of them and takes two step losses."

Q. If there are two hits and shock and non-shock armies are present, Can a Shock army stacked with non-shock units take a step loss and count it as two hits?

A. "Yes - the owning player decides how to allocate all hits."

Q. 1. Should one always retreat as straight as possible towards the map edge, or can one choose the retreat hex, as long as it's towards the edge ?

A. "As long as each hex retreated-into is closer to the friendly map edge than the hex exited, then you're fine."

Q. Should a player always retreat to an empty hex towards the map edge or can a player choose to retreat to an hex behind him where he already has units (maybe to reinforce a future battle) even if a clear and empty retreat hex is also possible ?

A. "There is nothing in the rules saying you must retreat into empty hexes. The only requirement is that you not violate stacking limits

FROM AVALANCE PRESS WEBSITE

Q: For those of us not quite as familiar with the Axis Minors, who is who?

A: The 3-5 CSIR is Italian. The 4-4 Mob is Hungarian. The Azul 1-4 is Spanish. The hordes of yellow dudes are Romanian and the white guys are Finns.

Q: The “2” on the Hungarian unit is not encircled in white like other reinforcements. Is this significant?

A: Yes. The Hungarian unit must appear in Hungary.

Q: Where does the Black Sea Fleet begin?

A: Sevastopol.

Q: Can the Black Sea Fleet move into the Sea of Azov?

A: Yes. The “cannot leave the Black Sea” sentence is to keep novice players from trying to teleport to the Baltic!

Q: What do you mean by attacking “selective” hexes in the Exploitation Combat Phase?

A: Attacking in the Exploitation Combat Phase is optional. You do not have to attack every adjacent enemy unit. As long as a unit was capable of movement in the Exploitation Movement Phase (whether it moved or not) it can attack adjacent enemy units. Proper use of this phase is how you win the game. . . .

Q: The Terrain Effects chart and Terrain Key on the map use the word “Mountain.” The rules on page 10 say “rough.” Are they one and the same?

A: Yes.

Q: For an Out of Supply unit, how do you round its movement factor (page 5)?

A: Round fractions down.

Q: If the Axis capture Leningrad, but are subsequently isolated from tracing a rail line off the West map edge, are they out of supply or can they draw supply from Helsinki as per Finnish units in the Soviet Union?

A: Good question! In this case, they can draw supply from Helsinki.

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-02-17T20:46:51+00:00

Origins, Game in Progress

Thread: Re: stacking clarification needed.

Comrade_Sarayev — 2006-12-03T15:40:12+00:00

Don't overlook 11.62, which states two Soviet units of any size can stack in Moscow, under Stalin.

Image

Neffchiro — 2006-11-06T23:28:08+00:00

Defiant Russia Counter Sheet (Back)

Image

Neffchiro — 2006-11-06T23:19:08+00:00

Defiant Russia Rules Table of Contents

Image

Neffchiro — 2006-11-06T23:14:29+00:00

Defiant Russia Countersheet (Front)

Image

Lt_Meyer — 2006-10-06T11:05:41+00:00

Army Group South and Romanian Front

Thread: Re: Combat Question!

Lt_Meyer — 2006-07-31T18:27:00+00:00

Yes, now I understand these "this-game-resembles-WW1" complainings! :-D
Perhaps a house-rule can change a bit in gameplay here!

Thank you for your answer!

Thread: Re: Combat Question!

Herr Niemand — 2006-07-31T18:06:08+00:00

PS wrote:
For example, a german unit stack facing three adjacent soviet unit stacks; Do I really have to attack (as the german player) all these three enemy units?? If yes... gosh! :-D

That's the way I've always played it. And you're correct in your assessment, although I'd say "Wow!"

This is why some claim that this game seems more like WW1 than WW2 -- since you're not able to choose a Schwerpunkt until the Exploitation phase. What this actually means is that you must choose where to manifest your major efforts and place your best units there, leaving other units (weak infantry) to perform what used to be known as "low-odds attacks" or "soak-off attacks." So concentration of force in this game's combat phase is still possible, but often comes with a heavy price tag!

Hope this helps and that you enjoy this nifty little game!

TT

Thread: Combat Question!

Lt_Meyer — 2006-07-31T09:30:20+00:00

Hello everybody!

While playing this game right now for the first time, a first rule question came up.

The rules say that in the combat phase (not exploitation), "every active unit adjacent to an enemy unit must attack and every unit which is adjacent to an active unit must be attacked." So far so good!

For example, a german unit stack facing three adjacent soviet unit stacks; Do I really have to attack (as the german player) all these three enemy units?? If yes... gosh! :-D

Thus there aren`t any limitations on attacking a single unit, are there?

I see, if I take the rules verbatim, it`s quite simple.. But it`s so strange for me, because so I can`t only attack on a small section of the enemy front line!

I hope, I`m not confusing and you`ll state me the correct interpretation!

Thread: Re: Map Question

Lt_Meyer — 2006-07-25T22:48:46+00:00

The answer to your question can be found on consimworld:

Liz says there:

Army Group North (AGN): Hex row 3404, 3503 and upwards

AGC: inside the dotted lines including hex 3202

AGS: 2901, 2902 and downwards

Thread: Re: Russia Defiant

sherron — 2006-06-22T05:03:11+00:00

I have played various Barbarossa campaign games. The last one was War Without Mercy and the biggie Fire in the East with a friend in which we played it for over ten years. I use FITE as a measuring stick. There were things that I didn't like about Russia Defiant, the times the replacements starting times did not match to Fire, in RD the historical gains by the German were more like the old Avalon Hill Stalingrad game, there seemed to be a better chance to inflict damage by the russians than in Fire. I played the Soviets in Fire and any time I tryed to mount an attack, I got squashed. I changed my tactics and started picking on the Fins and Romanians. I believe there are better games on the subject and design intent.

Thread: Re: Russia Defiant

swandive78 — 2006-06-22T03:00:47+00:00

We just got finished playing a partial game of Defiant Russia, and it was a bit slow-starting. About two-and-a-half hours got us three turns in (yes, this was the first run-through), and the Germans were just starting to develop a breakthrough, and the Russians were about to fall back and try to envelop the advancing column.

We're a little on the fence on this one. The tempo starts slow, with a powerfully progressing grinding forward by the Germans (assisted by good air support), and as the game progresses, the Russians begin to get some meaningful reinforcements and replacements as they bounce back from the initial charge.

This game is kind of small format, but there's a lot of chrome to the rules, and quite a few finesses that are not immediately obvious. I think this game will speed up and shine after a play or two, but I can't see it being played in two hours.

In our partial game, we both enjoyed the play, although it was just "gettin' to the good part."

Thread: Re: stacking clarification needed.

Herr Niemand — 2006-05-11T17:42:19+00:00

No responses yet, so I contacted Avalanche Press. Here's the reply:

Mike Bennighof wrote:
It's the second.

Mike Bennighof
Avalanche Press

So a Soviet army and a corps can stack together.

TT

Thread: stacking clarification needed.

Herr Niemand — 2006-05-11T01:11:43+00:00

This odd little question came up last game due to a differing reading of the rules. The rules for stacking say that up to two units may occupy the same hex, with some exceptions. Later, it states "No more than one Soviet infantry or shock army may occupy a hex."

We both agree that two Soviet Tank corps may occupy the same hex. OK, so here are the differing opinions:

1- Stacking limit is only one Soviet unit if it is an army. Period.

2- Two Soviet armies may not stack together in the same hex. However, a Soviet infantry army and a tank corps could still stack together as two units (i.e., one Soviet army and a smaller formation).

Any advice would be much appreciated!

TT

Thread: Re: Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

bentlarsen — 2005-11-24T00:22:40+00:00

abimilech wrote:
I also am a teacher, and Avalanche was a bit slow to respond to my request for a copy of Soldier Emperor. I emailed Liz and one arrived several days later. I recommend you contact Liz Fulda about the teacher's pay shipping project.

David "the preacher" Wilson

David, good for you. But I've e-mailed Liz at least six times in the past 12 months and received only promises that were never backed-up. I'm willing to try again, but I don't have any hope.

Thread: Re: Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

abimilech — 2005-11-20T01:56:35+00:00

I also am a teacher, and Avalanche was a bit slow to respond to my request for a copy of Soldier Emperor. I emailed Liz and one arrived several days later. I recommend you contact Liz Fulda about the teacher's pay shipping project.

David "the preacher" Wilson

Thread: Re: Russia Defiant

abimilech — 2005-11-20T01:53:50+00:00

I've played this game once and the Russians did quite well. I played the Germans and found that though I could kill lots of units, the Russians had lots of units to kill. I could have used air power better, but the game has a lot of flavor in it. The optional weather rules could increase the chance of a snow turn earlier, giving the Russians a real chance to do more than just defend the homeland.

The game gives aggressive players a chance to play the Axis and push, while it offers a player who likes defensive positions a chance to hold the line. I look forward to Red Vengeance, a sequel in the series.

David "the preacher" Wilson

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

Patch1413 — 2005-01-05T03:10:46+00:00

normsmith (#73387),

Well, since it's only an 8 turn game, the Russians are only going to get two turns to attack - assuming they aren't madly scrambling to keep from losing more cities to the German juggernaut.

While I don't have any problem, per se, with the combat system, the games feels more like "Third Reich Lite" than a complete game. The only introducing it's doing is to the new Third Reich system.

There are too many better introductory games out there to risk losing a potential convert over this game. I'm sorry, but the next "go" this game gets is to the local game auction.

Thread: Re:Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

bentlarsen — 2004-12-30T22:34:00+00:00

normsmith (#73835),
Hello, Norman. I will certainly give it a try. Russian front games are among my favourite. My students certainly enjoy the Columbia block game, War of 1812. My main concern in writing my "snarky" piece is that I do not want anyone to be overcharged for postage. It is a small game.

Thread: Re:Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

normsmith — 2004-12-30T20:11:29+00:00

bentlarsen (#73750),
Joe, Thanks for getting back.

I think you will like the game, it does offer value for money and probably more important, it signals a series of similar games, which from a teacher / student point of view must be promising.

norm

Thread: Re:Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

bentlarsen — 2004-12-30T14:08:50+00:00

normsmith (#73588),
Hello, Norman.
I'll attempt to answer the question in as wordy a manner as possible.

1) Many people like Avalanche Press games; look at how popular "Panzer Grenadier" and its variants are on BGG. I have not played these games, but I bought one of AP's Civil War games. I looked over the components, map & rules and sold it the next day. I did not think it was worth the money and I am picky about what games I keep.

2) Avalanche Press made a "promise" (at least that is how I understood it) that has not been kept. On its website, AP claimed that it would send "free" games to schools if you paid the postage. I am a teacher. I e-mailed the company and received responses that indicated Defiant Russia would be available in the fall, and a copy would be sent to me. I did not ask for copies of other games because I thought they would be too difficult for my students (at least in the time frame of lunch-recess for learning, playing, etc.). The game comes out, I, and some others e-mail AP and we hear nada from them.

Therefore, why do I have my doubts? Because you have a company that did not live up to its word. AP seems to be thinking short-term, rather than long-term commitment.

I went ahead and bought the game because I was able to swing a discount. I'm away from home and I will be back this weekend. At some point in the near future, I'll look inside the box.

Thread: Re:Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

normsmith — 2004-12-29T19:31:36+00:00

bentlarsen (#73576),
Joe,
What are your doubts about the game that you have not opened ?

Thread: Postage Costs: Buyer Beware!

bentlarsen — 2004-12-29T18:34:34+00:00

Be careful if you buy this game on-line. No doubt you are careful with the shipping details, but be extra-careful with this game. I bought mine in a store and had no idea how small it is. Do not allow yourself to be over-charged. One dealer wants more for shipping this little game in the States than Columbia Games charges for shipping their weighty block games to The Great White North. I have not oppened it but I have my doubts about the quality of this "game."

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

normsmith — 2004-12-28T23:29:42+00:00

Patch1413 (#72977),

Jayson,

I have played the game a few times and enjoyed it. The Russians do get a chance to go onto the offensive in the latter part of the game. They get 4 shock armies on turn 7 and on the first turn of snow, they score hits on 5's AND 6's, which makes their December offensive pretty effective. The chances are that they will recapture much of what the Germans gained in the mid-game.

It might not be the best game in the world to introduce a new player to because the rules of armour slipping past ZOCs and non-armour units slipping past ZOC's if the new hex is friendly occupied (and then how weather may change this etc) is probably a bit more than I would present to a newbie.

I have heard some views that the Germans do not make as much headway as they did historically. I have trouble as the Germans, getting beyond Kiev / Minsk but I think that I have more to learn on how to better use the Axis forces in the early part of the game.

By the way, I thought solitaire play was helped by the 'buckets of dice' combat system, because of the unpredictable results.

Some good designer notes would have been helpful. I hope you give the game another go.

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

Patch1413 — 2004-12-26T21:41:12+00:00

jormungandr (#64777),

About two hours, or a little longer. I played Solitaire and was thoroughly frustrated about halfway through. I'm aware of the general history of the war, but all that counter attacking the Germans gets you is out of position for the next turn when you will get surrounded and wiped out.

I suspect the time limit has much more to do with the counter mix limit than anything else. The new wave of Soviet 1942 armies would have required another countersheet, a higher price, more rules, etc.

Thread: Re:Map Question

Patch1413 — 2004-12-26T21:37:57+00:00

korangar (#66862),
Not to my knowledge - nor have they explained how movement alnog the Gulf of Finland works either. A strict reading of the rules allows you to move across despite there being an ocean in the way.

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

Patch1413 — 2004-12-26T21:35:44+00:00

bentlarsen (#64763),

I never it said it wasn't accurate - but the game is supposed to fun for both players, not just the Germans! Other games that have only done the early part of the war (GWD's 1941 comes to mind) always ran until late spring of 1942. If a game is introductory - that is, it introduces new players to the hobby, we are not going to be getting any repeat Russians after they play this!

Thread: Map Question

korangar — 2004-11-21T23:18:52+00:00

Has anyone else who has played this game noticed a misprint on the map? German Army Group areas are not labeled on the map. I can pretty much guess where "Army Group North" and "Army Group Center" are supposed to go, but I just wanted to make sure. Has Avalanche Press published any errata on this? Does anyone know for sure which hexes correspond to which army groups?

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

jormungandr — 2004-11-11T05:21:23+00:00

Jayson, what was your playing time like?

The Russians attacked more often in the first eight months than most might think, though not always with the best results - I take it to do so is a losing strategy here?

As for covering the whole war, there are few things more boring than playing the Germans in 1944-45 - if you hold on, the Reich is still going down - NOT that that's a bad thing...

Thread: Re:Russia Defiant

bentlarsen — 2004-11-11T02:35:58+00:00

Patch1413 (#64144),
Greetings. It sounds from you description that the game may accurately cover the historical situation of the Barbarossa campaign. Not every wargame that accurately portrays the situation can provide the kind of play "balance" that we might enjoy.

Thread: Russia Defiant

Patch1413 — 2004-11-07T23:04:56+00:00

I really wanted to like this game - a small fast play wargame is just the thing for a time-strapped gamer. While the physical quality is very nice, and the game play is workable, the situation is terrible. That may sound odd about WWII in Russia, but the game only covers the first eight months of a four year war. For the Germans it a race to grab victory cities. For the Russians it's one mad defensive scramble highlighted by one or two counter attacks. It's really fun for the Germans but only a masochist is going to enjoy playing the Russians. A good game gives both players a chance to attack and defend, and Defiant Russia fails to provide that.