Game: Battle for Germany

Thread: Re: German replacments in 3-player

ronglass — 2008-11-17T14:15:46+00:00

We've played this a lot, ever since the original SPI version days, and even more now that the 12-turn variant is being used.

3-player is our favorite version though we do the 4-player almost as much as it's easier for the Germans to "win" (hold on to Berlin) in the 3-player game.

May want to reread the rukle carefully. You are still restricted in your replacement options in the 3-player version. You must pick from the appropriate east or west pool as per the replacement chart and must still pick the weakest units.

Challenge in the 3-player is deciding how to use the front replacements with the 1-unit per turn east/west boundary crossing. Often the replacement must be used to be the boundary crossing unit. Starting from it's placement hex next to Berlin on 1 side of the boundary, then crossing and using the mevement bonus to get to the other front in time to plug a gap.

Enjoy the game as its one of the greatest ever.

Ron

Thread: German replacments in 3-player

MattDP — 2008-11-17T13:48:29+00:00

Hi,

This is a very small issue, but I'd be curious to know the answer.

In the three player game the spirit of the rules would seem to indicate that the divisions between East and West German forces should be ignored. In most cases the rules cover this explicitly - stating that they are free to cross the German boundary line and so forth.

The one thing that isn't covered is German replacements. The rules indicate that replacements for East and West Germany are handled separately and from separate pools: but does this still apply in the 3-player game, or all are replacements drawn from a central German pool? We've been playing it as a central pool.

It can make quite a difference because of the weakest-units-have priority rule. In the opening turns weak German units die in droves on the eastern front, but those in the west are higher quality and harder to kill. So if we play as a split pool the western allies might have nothing to draw, or they might have some good units to use as replacements. If you play the central pool then the replacements are almost always rubbishy eastern-front units - but you nearly always get to replace your full quota. So if cuts both ways

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

ronglass — 2008-07-14T18:54:22+00:00

Check out the other posts on this site that have added the 2nd edition rules. And some of the posts commenting on them. We've played 3 games now and the 12 turn games have all been very very tight. Old argument that Berlin never falls has gone away as it usually does on turn 11 or 12. Simplified Courland still works best. Great game made awesome.
Ron

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

ronglass — 2008-07-01T20:06:42+00:00

Yep, thats it. We used our long time Courland home rule, which is far easier and simpler. Still trying the other rule changes to get them consistent. Our version (1 allied West Front combined attack AND 1 Italian Front combined attack works well), but still discussing when do the Italian Front units become West Front units for both this rule and replacement rule. Biggest issue is still the attacker retreating the defenders. Good attack sequence and results again led to several German defenders being "retreated" forward then cut off by later attacks same turn. Russian capture of Berlin on Turn 11 this time (not turn 12), so we might go back to defenders retreat their own units and see if Germans can prevent Berlin capture by t12.
Enjoy

Image

MattDP — 2008-07-01T20:04:39+00:00

Setup for Red Star White Star scenario

Thread: DG's Battle for Germany - Full Campaign AAR - Intro & Turn 1 - June 2008

Shad — 2008-06-18T08:48:00+00:00

DG's Battle for Germany, Full Campaign PBEM AAR

Shad - Soviets & West Germans
Bestbandis - Western Allies & East Germans

Opening Strategy & Notes

This will be only my 3rd try at the Battle for Germany full campaign, one of those 2 previous matches was solitaire, and neither went past Turn 4. This will be Bestbandis' first play. We've played 2 or 3 games of AVL together over VASSAL, all of which he won, so inexperienced or not he's a fearsome strategist (or I'm awful!)...

As the Soviet & West German player I will try to stall as long as possible with the Germans and surge quickly towards Berlin as the Soviets. I'm an aggressive player by nature and will try to play an opportunistic defense in the West, not hesitating to strike back at the Allies whenever possible. In the East I'll try to collapse the center of his front in onto itself while prying open a wide corridor from Warsaw to Berlin. In the South I will head straight for Vienna and try to keep as many of his units engaged and away from the main Warsaw-Berlin thrust as possible.

]]>

Turn 1 Narrative

Late December
Turn 1A - Soviets

The opening attack northeast of Konigsberg results in an exchange, sweeping away 2 strong Germans and 2 strong Soviets, including the 1st Baltic Front - ouch. East of Konigsberg the 39th Panzers & 26th Infantry get pushed off the high ground and into open terrain. Northeast of Warsaw the 41st Panzers & 55th Infantry are also pushed back - this time to the NE - and the beginnings of a pocket are forming between Konigsberg & Warsaw. Southeast of Warsaw the 23rd & 20th Infantry are driven SW and the first Soviet unit crosses the Vistula. Currently only the 4th Motorized Infantry stand between the Soviets and Berlin and the Warsaw corridor is almost open. Along the rest of the front attacks proceed largely as planned, with Soviet units crossing the Vistula river in several places with only minor losses. Southwest of Budapest on the shores of Lake Balaton near the Yugoslav border the Soviet 4th Guards and 3rd Ukranian Front score a major victory and completely destroy the 3rd Hungarian Infantry - that'll teach those capitalist pigdogs.

Turn 1A - West Germans

The Furher demands we attack the advancing forces, despite the security of our comfy fortifications, so the Generals draw up a plan to cutoff two careless Allied spearheads. West of Cologne the U.S. 19th Motorized & 13th Infantry have gotten too greedy and are easily encircled and eliminated. To the south the U.S. 15th Infantry, upon "liberating" the city of Strasbourg, headed straight for the whorehouses and our forces catch them - literally - with their pants down. The victory is as complete as it is entertaining. Our lines have been strengthened without a single loss, perhaps the Furher can still lead us to victory after all?

Turn 1B - Western Allies (Bestbandis)

Stung by the loss of three large American units, the British & Canadien forces move quickly to engage the Luftwaffe paratroops securing the northern flank in the marshes northeast of Antwerp. A combined assault sees the Luftwaffe pushed out of the marshes and into open ground. Without reinforcement the German northern flank is in serious danger of collapsing. At the southern extreme of the front along the Swiss border the Free French & Americans combine to destroy the 63rd Infantry, although the French 2nd Infantry also falls in the battle. Nevertheless, the German southern flank has been turned, if only just.

Along the Italian front the 1st Canadian & 5th British infantry launch a daring assault against superior numbers and uproot the German defenders. To make matters worse, with the ensuing British advance the German garrison in Bologna is now isolated and another undermanned but ferocious Polish, British, & American assault slaughters the defenders to the last man. After only 2 weeks of fighting the Italian front has had its flank irrevocably turned and is in shambles.

Turn 1B - East Germans (Bestbandis)

Desperate to close the Warsaw corridor, the High Command pulls forces from the extreme north flank and moves to encircle the 2nd Bulgarian Front on the NE outskirts of Warsaw. Fate is not with the Forces of Evil, however, and the Front scatters the Nazis in all directions.

]]>

Unfortunately, east of Krakow the 1st Ukranian Front is also encircled, and by more capable foes. The Sons of the Revolution do not retreat, and fight bitterly until the end. If those goose-stepping clowns were half as brave they would not be driven before us like cattle as they now are.

]]>

The last Nazi actions of Late December see the East Germans collapse onto the tip of the Soviet spear led by the 3rd Ukrainian Front and the 4th Infantry Guards. Despite fighting fiercely the 4th is surrounded and overrun, leaving the 3rd Ukranian to fend for itself on the frozen shores of Lake Balaton come January...

]]>

Turn 1 Final Summary

]]>

Turn 1 Notes

Soviet Attacks
[c]CRT DR Result
1-1 1 Exchange
1-1 4 Defender Retreats
2-1 6 Defender Retreats
1-1 2 Defender Retreats
4-1 3 Exchange
4-1 6 Defender Retreats (elim)
1-1 5 Defender Retreats (elim)
1-1 1 Exchange
3-1 1 Eliminated
1-1 5 Defender Retreats
[/c]
West German Attacks
[c]CRT DR Result
1-1 2 Defender Retreats (elim)
1-1 2 Defender Retreats (elim)
[/c]
Turn 1 Soviet & West German Dice Roll Average - 3.16

Western Allied Attacks
[c]CRT DR Result
1-1 4 Defender Retreats
1-1 1 Exchange
1-2 1 Defender Retreats
1-2 2 Defender Retreats (elim)
[/c]
East German Attacks
[c]CRT DR Result
1-1 6 Attacker Retreats
1-1 3 Defender Retreats (elim)
1-1 2 Defender Retreats (elim)
[/c]
Turn 1 Western Allies & East German Dice Roll Average - 2.71

The 1-1 column of the Battle for Germany CRT is, in both our opinions, cruel and unusual punishment. Low rolls are best in this game, and the 1-1 CRT breaks down as:

1 - Exchange
2 - Defender Retreats
3 - Defender Retreats
4 - Defender Retreats
5 - Defender Retreats
6 - Attacker Retreats

On first look this would seem to seriously favor the attacker, and it does, UNLESS you roll an Exchange and then you've just created a massive hole in your line and lost some (or all) of your attack power in that sector... There are very few situations where an Exchange is the desirable result for either side, so in reality the 1-1 CRT column is almost always only 2/3 in your favor, not 5/6ths.

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

riks — 2008-06-13T19:43:37+00:00

Perhaps some clarification...

I believe Ron is referring to the Rules Errata and Clarifications to the DG edition available at the Web Grognards site:

http://www.grognard.com/errata1/batger.doc

and he was referring to the DG vs SPI thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/609244

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

ronglass — 2008-06-13T17:47:54+00:00

Sorry, its the last post on the 2nd page under the heading DG vs SPI, then his comment is 2-3 down.
Ron

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

ronglass — 2008-06-13T17:45:50+00:00

The 2nd edition rules are posted on the second page of this thread in the post by Jeff Meyer. Click the arrow at the top to go to page 2 and hes 2-3 posts down. The new rules, with our "Courland Release" super simple home rule was a great game and a lot of my group, which had faded away over the years due to the almost certain German win in the 10 turn game, are now playing it again. Still working out the West Front (and Italian Front) replacment and combind attack details. Also still getting mixed opinions on attacker doing all retreats. Would appreciate other comments.
Thanks
Ron Glass

Image

MattDP — 2008-06-11T21:04:25+00:00

My God. What have I started?

Image

MattDP — 2008-06-10T21:11:46+00:00

Battle for Germany straight out of shrinkwrap

Image

Shad — 2008-06-10T00:06:42+00:00

End of Turn 1, Soviet Plans for Turn 2 - Shad vs Bestbandis - PBEM 6/08

Image

Shad — 2008-06-09T10:17:15+00:00

Soviet Player's Opening Strategy - Shad vs Bestbandis - PBEM 6/08

Image

Shad — 2008-06-08T00:47:26+00:00

End Soviet Phase, Turn 2, a series of 1-1 attacks fail, the front holds...

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

GROGnads — 2008-06-07T02:34:53+00:00

This is the 1st that I've even 'heard' of it at all! "Kudos" are in 'order', were YOU to divulge the whereabouts for that, Sirrah!

Thread: Re: 2nd edition game

Darksan — 2008-06-07T01:20:51+00:00

You did not mention where you found these rules.

Thread: 2nd edition game

ronglass — 2008-06-06T15:06:37+00:00

I downloaded the updated rules to the new 2nd edition game and played the 3-player verison of the extended 12-turn game this week, except used our simplified Courland release home rule (when # German units drop to 1, 1 Russian released, when drop to 0, other released).

What a game!!! Russians actually occupied Berlin on turn 12 move only because Western Allied attacks destroyed 2 blocking German units in turn 11. Berlin would have held out if I only had 1 more unit.

Some observations:

1) The Western Allied player used the West Front (WF) replacment restrictions, except we modified it so that 1 non-US unit could be replaced in each front (Italian Front (IF) and WF).

2) Once north of the Alp passes, and connected to the west map edge by a path not blocked by German ZOCs, Italian Front unit losses COULD be placed in the WF loss box and brought back on the west map edge (Western Allied player choice).

3) Combined force battle restriction also applied to both fronts (WF & IF), though modified so that 1 combined attack allowed in each front. In this case, we decided that once north of the Alp passes, even if NOT connected by path to west map edge, those units did count toward WF 1 combined force attack per turn limit. Much discussion on this one, mostly that it should not be applied until same connected-path rule used for losses was established, as it held up the IF Allied units in the Alps a turn longer. Held firm since Alp passes always used as FRONT boundaries, but this will be discussed more.

4) Soviet minor ally replacement rule worked well.

5) Jury still out on attacker doing all retreats. There were some strange attack sequences with retreats that trapped some Germans, and not sure that should be.

Excellent changes to an already excellent game. I will play again soon as now some players who avoided it since the Germans always won are wanting to play.

Anyone else played the new version with any comments?
Thanks
Ron

Thread: Re: Various Rules Q

MattDP — 2008-06-06T13:52:06+00:00

Lovely, thanks! That's the way I'd read the Ex rule - thanks for confirming.

Thread: Re: Various Rules Q

Shad — 2008-06-06T13:19:24+00:00

Courland:

3rd SS 7-5-8
2nd INF 3-5-4
10th INF 2-4-4
16th INF 3-5-4

Thread: Re: Various Rules Q

Shad — 2008-06-06T13:13:41+00:00

MattDP wrote:
the "Ex" result on the CRT. My reading of the rules suggests that in this situation the attack must eliminate whole units with attack strength to the at least the value of the defense strength and if he can't make an exact match he has to loose units worth more. However it's also possible to read the rules as meaning that if he can't make an exact match he can loose less (maybe even nothing) or that he can make change from units in the destroyed box.

He must match or exceed in attack power the defender's power. If the defender had 7 and you have 2 units with 6 attack each, you must remove both of them. And no making change.

The rules state that four German units start in Courland, but the setup chart only seems to list three. Should there be four, and if so what other unit goes in the box?

I don't have the setup listings handy so I can't answer this one for you at the moment, sorry.

In the unlikely event that the Soviet player is unable to fulfill the conditions of the garrison rule, what happens?

You just garrison as many as you can. So in other words, nothing happens. The real point is there should NEVER be Soviet Fronts moving freely if one of the 2VP cities has been captured but ungarrisoned. You need to garrison them as quickly as possible.

Thread: Various Rules Q

MattDP — 2008-06-06T10:44:45+00:00

Hi,

Just got this, looking forward to trying it out solo over the weekend. But there's a couple of rules issues I'd like to clear up first, if possible.

The biggest is the "Ex" result on the CRT. My reading of the rules suggests that in this situation the attack must eliminate whole units with attack strength to the at least the value of the defense strength and if he can't make an exact match he has to loose units worth more. However it's also possible to read the rules as meaning that if he can't make an exact match he can loose less (maybe even nothing) or that he can make change from units in the destroyed box. Which is correct?

The rules state that four German units start in Courland, but the setup chart only seems to list three. Should there be four, and if so what other unit goes in the box?

In the unlikely event that the Soviet player is unable to fulfill the conditions of the garrison rule, what happens?

Thread: Re: DG vs. SPI

ronglass — 2008-06-05T14:51:05+00:00

Played the 3-player verison of the extended 12-turn game last night, except used our simplified Courland release home rule (when # German units drop to 1, 1 Russian released, when drop to 0, other released).

What a game!!! Russians actually occupied Berlin on turn 12 move only because Western Allied attacks destroyed 2 blocking German units in turn 11. Berlin would have held out if I only had 1 more unit.

Some observations:

1) The Western Allied player used the West Front (WF) replacment restrictions, except we modified it so that 1 non-US unit could be replaced in each front (Italian Front (IF) and WF).

2) Once north of the Alp passes, and connected to the west map edge by a path not blocked by German ZOCs, Italian Front unit losses COULD be placed in the WF loss box and brought back on the west map edge (Western Allied player choice).

3) Combined force battle restriction also applied to both fronts (WF & IF), though modified so that 1 combined attack allowed in each front. In this case, we decided that once north of the Alp passes, even if NOT connected by path to west map edge, those units did count toward WF 1 combined force attack per turn limit. Much discussion on this one, mostly that it should not be applied until same connected-path rule used for losses was established, as it held up the IF Allied units in the Alps a turn longer. Held firm since Alp passes always used as FRONT boundaries, but this will be discussed more.

4) Soviet minor ally replacement rule worked well.

5) Jury still out on attacker doing all retreats. There were some strange attack sequences with retreats that trapped some Germans, and not sure that should be.

Excellent changes to an already excellent game. I will play again soon as now some players who avoided it since the Germans always won are wanting to play.

Thread: Re: DG vs. SPI

ronglass — 2008-06-04T19:45:49+00:00

I agree about Courland, especially considering the size difference of the units and the collapsing front in the pocket. So we discussed it and have been using a "house rule" for it for a while.

When the Germans drop to only 1 remaining unit (3rd unit evacuated), 1 Soviet unit is released. The other is released when the last German unit is evacuated.

Means the Germans have to hold 2 back to keep both Soviet units there which seems more reasonable.

Thread: Re: Garrisons

ronglass — 2008-06-04T19:32:52+00:00

Only issue we see a lot is actually occupying the garrison cities thus triggering the garrison requirement. Most of us who ever play the Soviets will NOT occupy the garrison city, and avoid the garrison requirment, for as long as possible. Means a Front Army can move 2-3 hexes beyond the city, still participating in attacks, before it must "back-up" to fulfill its garrison requirment. I never found anything in the rules triggering the garrison when there was no longer a valid "path" to the city from the German lines, and even had a game where the German troops in a garrison city were bypassed and prevented from moving by ZOC to ZOC rules. Soviet replacemnts shuttled past them for several turns before they were finally eliminated and the garrison Front Army moved in. Good German play will still prevent Soviet victory in the east, but this makes it really close.
Ron

Image

Xookliba — 2008-05-28T17:27:56+00:00

cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: Questions About Retreats and Attacks?

Theo27 — 2008-05-23T16:09:23+00:00

Hope all that helped!

Very much so. Thank you Shad.

Thread: Re: Questions About Retreats and Attacks?

Shad — 2008-05-23T05:15:41+00:00

Theo27 wrote:
I have the DG version and find it unclear what the limits are of a retreat. Are retreating units limited to a movement of only one adjacent hex or can they retreat further to satisfy the conditions listed in the rules?

No, one hex only and if they can't retreat they're eliminated, just like defenders.

I just bought this game and in my first session had a number of 1:1 battles in which the attacker had an Ar result forcing three stacks of attackers to retreat. Some had friendly stacks blocking their retreat route clear of enemy ZOCs. If they can retreat their movement allowance they could pull back in a line beyond the blocking frindly to their rear and satisfy the retreat conditions. If the retreat limit is a single hex then such stacks should be eliminated?

Yes.

A related question is rule 6.24. Does this mean if it's possible to a retreating stack should be divided but if not the stack can be retreated together?

It's the retreater's choice. Sometimes you want to split-up to plug a hole in your lines after the failed advance. Other times you want to remain massed.

It also appears that 6.5 and 6.7 are at odds. I'm guessing that each unit can attack a given enemy unit or stack once that phase, but that same attacking unit can attack each enemy formation one after another. So an attacking unit could attack every neighboring foe their hex borders then?

The situation mentioned in 6.7 doesn't happen often, and would almost never be to the attacker's benefit. Basically, if you're adjacent to enemies in multiple hexes you could attack ALL of them at the same time. Of course, you'd then have to factor all of their defensive values together against your puny attack. 6.7 does not require you to divide your strength because you're totaling the defensive values of ALL units you're attacking and rolling it as one attack - they just happen to be in different hexes. Therefore it doesn't conflict with 6.5

One situation where this would be plausible would be if your units were surrounded and you attacked everyone hoping to get a lucky result and a pushback.

Seriously though, 6.7 is only there to cover *really* obscure situations.

Thanks for any clarity you can share with me.

Hope all that helped!

Thread: Questions About Retreats and Attacks?

Theo27 — 2008-05-23T02:48:06+00:00

I have the DG version and find it unclear what the limits are of a retreat. Are retreating units limited to a movement of only one adjacent hex or can they retreat further to satisfy the conditions listed in the rules?

I just bought this game and in my first session had a number of 1:1 battles in which the attacker had an Ar result forcing three stacks of attackers to retreat. Some had friendly stacks blocking their retreat route clear of enemy ZOCs. If they can retreat their movement allowance they could pull back in a line beyond the blocking frindly to their rear and satisfy the retreat conditions. If the retreat limit is a single hex then such stacks should be eliminated?

A related question is rule 6.24. Does this mean if it's possible to a retreating stack should be divided but if not the stack can be retreated together?

It also appears that 6.5 and 6.7 are at odds. I'm guessing that each unit can attack a given enemy unit or stack once that phase, but that same attacking unit can attack each enemy formation one after another. So an attacking unit could attack every neighboring foe their hex borders then?

Thanks for any clarity you can share with me.

Image

jstalica — 2008-05-20T00:24:20+00:00

June (GT 12) - The Canadians take Berlin!

Image

jstalica — 2008-05-20T00:21:36+00:00

Game End - Hitler is still in the bunker...

Thread: Re: Some thoughts of Russian strategy in the Red Star / White Star scenario

wargamer55 — 2008-05-15T01:57:16+00:00

I'm basing my remarks on the 2nd edition, but I don't think there are any changes between the editions that affect that scenario.

Thread: Re: Some thoughts of Russian strategy in the Red Star / White Star scenario

GROGnads — 2008-05-15T00:52:30+00:00

Could you specify if you based this 'article' upon the original or 2nd edition versions? I'm just curious as whether or not there are discernible differences between the 2 due to additions with the latter, that aren't available with the former.

Thread: Some thoughts of Russian strategy in the Red Star / White Star scenario

wargamer55 — 2008-05-14T22:59:56+00:00

The Red Star/ White Star: Patton's fantasy scenario in Battle for Germany is quick compared to the base scenario, easily playable in an hour. There are only 5 and a half or six turns and no Germans, so there are less than half as many units and phases compared to the standard situation.

It's a very challenging situation for the Russians, however, and the Allies should win more often than not.

While both sides appear evenly matched at first glance, a closer look shows that the Westerners have some important advantages.

Numerically there are 28 Communist unit and only 22 Allied units, so it appears that the Communists have the edge. But three of those Communist units are the Yugoslavs, who can't leave Yugoslavia, so engaging those units is optional for the West. One Soviet Front is stuck being the garrison for Warsaw, so the Westerners don't need to worry about that unit either. Finally, the Communists get no replacements, so every loss is permanent, while the Westerners will get 5 or 6 over the course over the game. The last one of those can be discounted because it won't make it to the front in time to make a difference, but that still leaves 4 or 5 additional units for the West, so the total effective count is 26 or 27 Allies units fighting 24 Communist pieces.

In combat factors there's a bigger Communist advantage, with a total of 156 attack factors and 223 defense factors (not counting Warsaw and the Yugoslavs) facing 112 attacks factors and 148 defense factors of Allied units at start. Replacment factors will depend on Allied losses, but the Allies will prefer to replace 6-6-7 and 7-4-8 corps so assuming a 50-50 split there may be another 39 AF and 30 DF more or less on the Allied side over the game.

The attacker-friendly nature of the combat results table makes this strength differential must less important than usual. This is not the usual 3-1 d-elim style CRT. The first "AE" (attacker eliminated) result doesn't appear until the 1-3 odds table, which will be rarely used because attacking is never required. (One might try it in an emergency --last turn against Berlin -- because there's also a 1/6 chance of "DR" (defender retreat one hex)!

There's a 1/3 chance of a DR at 1-2 and no chance of any really bad result for the attackers, just 'AR" (attacker retreats one hex). Even this isn't as bad as it often is in other wargames because the attacker conducts all retreats. These 1-2 attacks play a big role in the standard scenario, being the main way the Allies fight their way through the fortified zones of the West Wall and Italy, but it's unlikely any fortified hexes will be fought over in RS/WS.

At 1-1 odds the attacker will win 5 out of 6 times, making any kind of surrounded situation extremely dangerous for defenders. At 1-1 there's a 1/6 chance of an "EX" (Exchange) which elimiates all defenders and an equal number of attacking factors.

From 2-1 odds all the way to 6-1 odds the only difference is the ratio between DR results and DE (defender elimnated) results, ranging from 0 chance of a DE at 2-1 to 4/6 chance at 6-1. In every case the chances for an EX is the same -- one third. At a 7-1 odds or more there's one EX and 5 DE results.

The bottom line is that attacking is heavily favored by the CRT, with the main risk to attacking forces coming from the plentiful EX results. There's little chance of holding a specific hex against any kind of attack. This means that the Soviets can't count on their beefy 8-20-3 fronts to hold the line.

This dynamic means that the most important attribute of a unit is its movement factor, and here the Allies have a decisive edge. The slowest Allied corps -- a "6"-- is as fast as the speediest Soviet tank army, also a "6."

The victory conditions are also friendly to the Allies. Holding Berlin is necessary, but not sufficient, for a Communist victory. Even if they can't take Berlin the Allies can eke out a victory by holding every city on the west side of the German theater boundary plus two victory points worth of cities to the East. Likely target pairs include Stettin and Rostok north of Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden to Berlin's south or even Graz and Trieste in the far south (although this last means taking on the Yugoslavs). Taking either Prague or Vienna also serves just as well, as they are 2 VPs each.

The best bet for the Communists is to try for a decisive battle around Berlin. The Yugoslavs can be left to fend for themselves. Whatever forces the Allies commit against Tito are that many less to face the Soviets elsewhere.

The rough terrain in the central portion of the map reduces the Allied mobility advantage somewhat and all the doubling terrain helps the Soviets. They should take and hold Prague and Vienna (and Graz if possible) with the three fronts, three guards armies, two tank armies and the Bulgarians that start in the vicinity, springing the tank armies for operations up north if at all possible.

The Soviet forces up north start with three tank armies and six guards armies against nine Allied corps, so it's a very even fight. The Soviet front in Berlin must remain there, but there are two Polish units, two Soviet fronts and one more army that can reinforce this zone, so the Russians may be able to win an early edge.

IF the Soviets move first (50% chance) they should take advantage of an early vulnerability in the far north by setting up a 1-1 against the Britsh 8th Corps in hex 2810 and a 1-1 or 2-1 against the two Allied corps in 2911. 5/6 of the time the 1-1 will result in a tank army advancing into 2810 surrounding the Allies in 2911. Depending on how lucky the Communist player feels he can go for a 1-1 which may fail 1/6 of the time or he can guarantee destroying the two allied units at the risk of an additional EX result. Leipzig should be hit with a 3-1 by three guards armies as well. While there's a chance for disaster with exchanges all around (and EX is almost always bad for the Soviets) there's a better chance that two to four Allied corps will will be eliminated at the cost of one or two Soviet units. This can create a very favorable situation for the Russians.

If the Allied move first, the Communists will have to react to their approach, although it should still be possible to take Prague, Trieste and Liepzig. The diffuclty will be holding all of them. The most important thing is still to fight for some breathing room around Berlin. All the Allies have to do is get a 1-1 surround on Berlin at any point and they will put them game away. The Soviets can't grab enough cities elsewhere to make up for losing Berlin.

If the Soviets move first I think they have a reasonable shot at winning, much less if the Allies move first. For a more competitive game I suggest always giving the Soviets the first move, instead of trusting to a die roll.

From my gaming blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

Shad — 2008-05-02T23:06:58+00:00

It's a great game and the rules make sense if you've played it. I just chose to portray that aspect of my session report as a narrative from a skeptical observer. Those of us who've played BfG will smile when they read it.

Everyone else? Yeah, a bit confused I guess...

Thread: Re: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

wargamer55 — 2008-05-02T22:37:56+00:00

joe1013 wrote:
Logistics...logistics...logistics....where on earth would a German army obtain supplies for extended motion East??

The question isn't whether the Germans could move East (they couldn't) but whether the Soviets could keep moving West. The rule provides a penalty that will reward more historical play without recourse to detailed supply rules.

Thread: Re: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

joe1013 — 2008-05-02T18:22:27+00:00

Logistics...logistics...logistics....where on earth would a German army obtain supplies for extended motion East??

Thread: Re: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

wargamer55 — 2008-05-02T17:21:55+00:00

jaugusto72 wrote:

well...i think a run for the east for german units a lot of unreal...can it be allowed in the rules. if yes can be a winner strategy, but if any player use this strategy i think i can loss all interest in play again this game...

The idea is to force the Soviets to maintain a broad front advance and dilute their offensive power. Without some sever penalty the Soviets can mass overwhelming force and drive directly on Berlin.

While the game effect may seem a little "gamey," if taken too literally, it achieves the right objective for a simple game that doesn't have supply rules like Battle for Germany. A more involved game might have a supply penalty rule for the Russians if the Germans are able to get a similar breakthrough. In reality, a major German breakthrough wasn't going to result in the Germans getting to Moscow -- or even Smolensk -- but it would probably disrupt the Soviet schedule enough that the Western Allies would reach Berlin first.

Thread: Re: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

jaugusto72 — 2008-05-02T14:40:54+00:00

well...i think a run for the east for german units a lot of unreal...can it be allowed in the rules. if yes can be a winner strategy, but if any player use this strategy i think i can loss all interest in play again this game...

Thread: Collapse in the East - Soviet Nightmare

Shad — 2008-05-02T13:25:23+00:00

I dug Battle for Germany out of the closet today to burn off some stress after an intensely frustrating session of Field Commander: Rommel.

You see, since this time I'd be playing against myself I was assured of victory!

Anyhow, I setup the Collapse in the East scenario, which is identical to the main scenario save that you only play the Eastern Front and it ends after 6 turns with a City VP count.

Previously I'd only ever played the full game, so focusing expressly on the Eastern Front portion was going to give me due time to try and come up with some killer strategies.

The Soviets opened efficiently, but attack after attack kept earning Exchange on the CRT rather than the desired Defender Retreat (right into my ZOCs for a forced elimination). After two turns of this "progress" the German defensive line was in shambles but the Soviet side was equally swiss-cheesed.

At this point the German high command ordered all available units to make a break for the Pacific, and thousands of troops began breaking loose of their Soviet friends and dashing madly for the forests of central and eastern Russia. Why this seemed like a good idea to anyone, or what such reckless desertion was expected to achieve, I have no idea.

Rather than let fiendish Nazis wander around the heart of the Motherland, though, numerous Soviet units were forced to pull away from the front lines to pursue them - wasting valuable time and manpower hunting down the gallivanting idiots.

In the end one full brigade of panzer tanks did eventually manage to break free and disappear over the horizon. Two brigades of crack Soviet mechanized infantry were sent racing after it, but none of the 3 were ever heard from again.

When the arbitrarily appointed day arrived, both sides agreed to a cease fire and while Nazi bodies lay in vast piles along the Northern end of the front, their comrades in the South had hardly yielded an inch. Budapest, in fact, still lay in Hitler's hands.

**********

Collapse in the East takes about an hour to play, less if you're not interested in maximizing your shenanigans as the Nazis. Any Nazi breaks eastward will force Soviet units to double back after them and this temporary loss of manpower cripples the Soviet advance. The Soviets need to move ahead at maximum speed on all areas of the front OR drive solely for Berlin to have a chance of winning the VP race.

The outcome of my game saw the Nazis stubbornly holding the hills in the South whilst almost completely destroyed in the North by the end of Turn 6, the scenario's conclusion. Turn 7 would have seen Soviets on the Reichstag without a doubt... but Turn 7 is one turn too damn slow.

Thread: Re: A gem of a wargame!

joe1013 — 2008-05-02T03:53:21+00:00

capnq wrote:
joe1013 wrote:
Does anyone recall the SPI hypothetical games that simulated a War between Russia and China, an Invasion of the U.S. by a combined Russian/Chinese horde, or the American Civil war set in the 1970's?Those were respectively East is Red - The Sino Soviet War, Invasion: America, and Minuteman: The Second American Revolution. There was also Dixie, an alternate history title where the USA and CSA fight a "war of reunification" in the 1930s.

THANK YOU!!

Thread: Re: A gem of a wargame!

capnq — 2008-05-02T02:59:00+00:00

joe1013 wrote:
Does anyone recall the SPI hypothetical games that simulated a War between Russia and China, an Invasion of the U.S. by a combined Russian/Chinese horde, or the American Civil war set in the 1970's?Those were respectively East is Red - The Sino Soviet War, Invasion: America, and Minuteman: The Second American Revolution. There was also Dixie, an alternate history title where the USA and CSA fight a "war of reunification" in the 1930s.

Thread: Re: Western Front '2'-player version VARIANT

racerjah — 2008-04-16T16:25:43+00:00

I am playing the game right now. I will try the variant later. Looks fun and interesting . You are right they should have had it in the game in the first place. Thanks Racerjah.

Thread: Re: A gem of a wargame!

joe1013 — 2008-04-08T21:14:40+00:00

I received this game as an SPI $5 zip-lock bag, maybe 25 years ago or so. I agree that it is an excellent game and a perfect intro game to hex based military simulations. I particularly liked the "what-if" scenario wherein the Western Allies let the Axis join them in a titanic struggle to drive back the red tide. Given that the game came out while the Cold War was still very much alive, we particularly liked this hypothetical. Does anyone recall the SPI hypothetical games that simulated a War between Russia and China, an Invasion of the U.S. by a combined Russian/Chinese horde, or the American Civil war set in the 1970's?

Thread: Re: Where to buy?

rafial — 2008-03-24T19:32:04+00:00

Well, American Eagle has quite a few titles from Decision Games, but not that one. *sigh*

Thread: Re: Where to buy?

cratex — 2008-03-13T22:18:36+00:00

There are a few differences between the two editions - most notably the Corland reinforcements in the DG version. I don't care for that rule as it really doesn't work.

Thread: Re: Where to buy?

dunne — 2008-03-13T21:53:19+00:00

rafial wrote:
Any suggestions on where to buy this where the shipping doesn't cost nearly as much as the game itself?

Well, the game originally appeared in S&T 50, and magazines are cheaper to ship than boxed games, so perhaps your best bet is to look on eBay for the magazine -- it comes up quite often (that's where I got mine). I'm presuming you don't specifically want the DG edition, of course.

Thread: Re: Where to buy?

GROGnads — 2008-03-13T04:45:22+00:00

rafial wrote:
Any suggestions on where to buy this where the shipping doesn't cost nearly as much as the game itself? Try that "American Eagles" Hobby Shop on Lake City Way, right across the street from the "Value Village" in the Northend there. While you're at it, then stop by the "Dick's" burger joint just down the street from there as well, and good luck on that.

Thread: Re: Where to buy?

Darksan — 2008-03-13T01:44:43+00:00

Buy it new so it is more expensive from Deciasion Games.

Thread: Where to buy?

rafial — 2008-03-12T19:28:52+00:00

Any suggestions on where to buy this where the shipping doesn't cost nearly as much as the game itself?

Thread: Re: A gem of a wargame!

Imperious leader — 2008-03-09T20:01:49+00:00

This IS clearly one of the best. Simple and fun.

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

_Kael_ — 2008-03-09T07:28:40+00:00

Jim Marshall wrote:
Yup, you make a good point [..]
Your review makes me want to get this old warhorse out again!If that's the effect of my review, then my goals are more then met.

Thanks!

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2008-03-09T02:43:06+00:00

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

Jim Marshall — 2008-03-08T15:04:35+00:00

Yup, you make a good point - it boils down the classic hex'n'couter mechanics to their bare essence, and fits them into a neat package with an interesting twist. While I'm more than happy to play the best of them, for my money a lot of h'n'c games are way too fiddly, time consuming (in terms of time to both learn and play) and boring to be anything other than shelf clutter.

Your review makes me want to get this old warhorse out again!

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

GROGnads — 2008-03-08T06:21:54+00:00

pete belli wrote:

I agree! This title needs a fresh look... perhaps a new map and OOB or perhaps it could be given the block format treatment. heh! There have been several others based upon the "era" of this, but just NOT exactly using the SAME "system": Smithereens

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

sherron — 2008-03-08T04:43:17+00:00

I would add a plus for the game due to it makes an excellent 3 or 4 player game. One of the best to come from S&T magazine.

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

pete belli — 2008-03-07T21:50:42+00:00

I agree! This title needs a fresh look... perhaps a new map and OOB or perhaps it could be given the block format treatment.

Thread: Re: THE basic hex&counter wargame

Istvanffy — 2008-03-07T20:47:59+00:00

Battle for Germany is an excellent game and perfect to introduce someone new to this type of game. It is not too complicated but still has real meat to work on It has a great method of requiring players to play both offensively (as the Western Allies and Soviets) and defensively (as the Germans both in east and west). I highly recommend this game.

Thread: THE basic hex&counter wargame

_Kael_ — 2008-03-07T17:36:33+00:00

With only one review for this game I thought it would be a good idea to give a slightly different angle.

Let me begin by asking
What is a “hex-and-counter-wargame”? Close your eyes. Picture it. Open your eyes. What do you see? Yes. This game.

I’ve played a number of hex-wargames, like for example EastFront, Squad Leader, A Victory Lost, Target Arnhem: Across 6 Bridges , Boots & Saddles. What striked me after playing Battle for Germany, was that’s all basics and almost nothing more. If you pile all those hex(&counter)-wargames on top of each other, and you see which mechanics are used in most of them, then that’s the mechanics used in Battle for Germany. And nothing more.

But Battle for Germany adds one twist
which sets it apart from almost any other wargame: you play two sides.
One player plays the Russians +other east-allies and the West-Germans.
One player plays the Americans, Brits +other west-allies and the East-Germans.
For this, a red line runs across the map, which divides the map in an Eastern Front and a Western+Italy front. No unit may cross the line and both sides start with fixed forced (meaning there’s a Russian army, a East German army, a W-Allied army and a West-German army)

It’s December 1944. The stage is set. The question isn’t “is Germany going to lose?” but “when is Germany going to lose?”. Or, be more precise for this game goals: how much of Germany can the Allies grab before Germany collapses? Both sides try to conquer as much big cities (either 1 or 2 victory points) as possible before the game ends, with Berlin (10 victory points) as the big prize. While doing this, both players command the Germans on the other side, trying to prevent the other Ally from getting VPs as much and as long as possible.

This makes for a diverse play: the Soviet player has to cross the open plains of Eastern Europe while the East Germans try to make a fighting withdrawal: like A Victory Lost the Germans have to retreat - but not too fast! On the West Front the game more resembles Paths of Glory: the Germans are entrenched in the Siegfried line and the W-Allies have to fight a battle of attrition: little movement but trying to inflict losses even at the cost of more own losses, because the W-Allies can replace theirs easily, while the W-Germans nearly can’t.

The standard game starts the second half of December and ends the first half of May, and as you’ll have guessed by now, it’s played in 10 turns, each ½ month.

Unit sizes vary from corps (XXX) till entire Russian fronts (XXXXX)! In most games about WW2 I know, on this scale units are normally either corps or army size, so by introducing a Front (multiple armies) as an unit type in this game, counter density is really kept in check.

As for the “what most wargames have” part
Units have 3 stats: attack, defense, movement.
Turn order is replacements – move – combat
Units have ZOCs (Zone of Control) :if you enter a ZOC you have to stop moving, if you are in a ZOC you can only move out. Ergo: by placing two units on each side of an opponent, you prevent him from moving altogether.
Combat is done by the attacker by calculating the ratio of his attack numbers versus the defense numbers of his opponent. The ratio (rounded in favour of the defender) corresponds to a column on the CRT (Combat Results Table). Column shifts for terrain (rivers, hills) and fortifications. Roll one dice. Cross index the rolled row with the column and the result varies from “All Attackers must retreat” till “All defenders killed”.
Units are mostly killed by forcing them to withdraw in your ZOCs.
There is a TEC (Terrain Effect Chart), with the effects of the terrain types on both movement and combat.

Cons of this game
No rules regarding supply or command -which is in general an invitation for surrealistic situations to occur- might make this game to light for the grognards.
The combat exchange result (defender killed, attacker loses units which attack factors match or exceed the killed defense points) means you’ll add units as some sort of ‘small change’, making this a gamey calculating exercise.
The map looks pretty basic and so do the units. Nothing flashy like the new wargames released now (see: Devil's Cauldron: The Battles for Arnhem and Nijmegen for instance) but for any wargamer with his heart in the right place it’s not the looks that count.

Pros of this game
The rules are short&simple:
Short: There only are a few special rules to consider (“I know the Russians can’t enter Yugoslavia, but can they combine their factors with an Yugoslavian units to attack a German unit in Yugoslavia?” “What were those cities again which have to be garrisoned by Russian fronts after conquering?”) but on the whole I’m amazed how much of a ‘standard hex&counter wargame' you get for so little pages of rules. [BGCOLOR=#FFFF33]That makes this game also a great gateway to lure new members into the wargame hobby[/BGCOLOR].
Simple: more is less. Although there are no supply rules, there’s a good incentive to build a continues front line. First because holes in your line are an invitation to surround your troops (easy kill) and second, for the Allies, because if a German units slips of the map edge, it’s leaving will automatically remove the two closest Allied units!
For the easily bored there are more scenarios - Patton’s wet dream.
It plays fast. Our first games lasted one/ two short evenings (and we’re not the fastest players) meaning it’s possible with some practice to finish the entire game in an evening.
Basic warfare is shown in a really inviting (=playable) way: [attacking] try to encircle your opponent so he can’t retreat and then attack him, while watching out you do this without overextending or offering an open flank. [defending] use terrain.
Basic history is shown: although Russians and Americans are fighting for the same cause (beating Germany) it is, at that point, really a race to get as much Germany as you can, hence Battle for Germany

Thread: Re: Solo?

Zilver — 2007-12-20T13:41:24+00:00

It plays as well solo as any other classic SPI game. No hidden units and no hidden agendas. Since the focus for the Western allies and Soviet is to attack, and the Germans mostly try to defend, it is a pretty straightforward solo experience.

Thread: Re: Solo?

GROGnads — 2007-11-27T23:46:48+00:00

Oh, it will depend on YOUR particular outlook for that, as I at one 'time' for this, had taken the approach of "All Out Offensives" for everybody on the 1st TURN! The resulting "losses" on each 'side' in that "Game", would have made WWI 'trench warfare' look "tame" in comparisons. Check this out, were you to have the "Decision Games" version for that:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/77689

Also, if you'd like to try yet another all inclusive "Front" on it all, then here you go:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/97730

That last 'one' concerns ONLY the "Western Allies" and "Germans", with the BATTLES confined to the "West Front" 'Units' then. Have some fun as well.