Just an opportune attack in the north.
A much more serious attack to retake a VP location.
Not very significant, but it's a start.
(as in "watch this space")
(as in "watch this space")
Down south the Soviets decide to stay up close and personal.
Turn 24 and another opportune attack.
And a very serious, game winning attack.
That last attack won the game,
the loss of the Victory Point meant the Axis were more than six behind schedule.
However we were having so much fun we decided to play on.
Down south the Soviets start to retreat.
The Axis have shifted some extra Panzer Divisions to this front and they may/will cause problems.
Turn 25 and the Soviet winter offensive starts.
Is that a gap forming in the Axis line?
The Axis had punched a hole in the Soviet lines across the Don,
but the start of the Winter Offensive has given pause for the Soviets to recreate a front.
To call it the Winter Offensive is a bit of a misnomer as the weather has been exceptionally clear; no rain, no mud, just an occasional touch of cloud to make the skies overcast from time to time (which denies the Axis one of their two air units).
The Soviet attack in the north gets serious.
Only remnants of German Panzer division to contain the Soviets.
The Caucasus are safe.
At this stage we decided to end it. The Axis had lost, although it didn't feel like a Soviet victory.
I want to play it again!
Superb series. I like that you played on a bit further. We tend to that just for the pleasure of play itself, I have never been of the understanding of calling a game once you 'think' you can't win. One's opponent (and the game for it's own sake) deserves at least a little latitude in exploiting and exploring what a win looks like.
ReplyDeleteThank you. It would have been interesting to play on as I was not sure the Soviets could maintain their offensive. They needed troops to take losses and to deal with surrounded Axis as well as to continue to spearhead the attacks.
DeleteA second play is under consideration.
With the World in Flames game, the Axis can't call it quits, only the Allies.
Victory points tend to guide historical play, but can mean that alternative strategies, while not according with history, are somewhat distorted. It would be interesting to have different sets of VPs for this theatre and for the Axis to pick one secretly.
One feels as though there is a bit of hindsight in the victory conditions built into the design of these games. I am reminded of an American Civil War game (the whole war) played about 45 years or so back. As the Confederates, I had been on the back foot and defending for the entire game. I did 'get in' a few costly victories (it had a most peculiar combat system in which it was better to go in at shortish favourable odds than at long), but the whole game suggested that Confederates were never going to win.
ReplyDeleteBut there was the small matter of the 1864 election, and how that might go was somewhat dependent upon the state of the war. Although I had been going backwards for the whole duration, I had gone considerably less backwards than the CSA did historically (I think I still held Chattanooga - certainly Atlanta hadn't been menaced, let alone fallen). As a result the odds of Little Mac winning the presidential election were pretty good, and so it turned out. Peace resulted, and the CSA became an independent, very impoverished country. In short, I won. It sure lord didn't feel like it!
Now you've got me thinking as to how War Between The States handled victory conditions.
DeleteThe World in Flames game has a number of political aspects to it, some are highly detailed (US entry) and some rather trivial (minor country activation). There are also victory locations, although I haven't given them any thought.
I am planning to play SPI's The Punic Wars (an 1970s S&T game) and that seems to have some random political events that sound game changing, but I need to play it first (last played in the 1970s!)