aussiesta
14 Jan 04, 08:24
Scenario Title/version: Tannenberg 1914
Scenario Author: Todd Klemme
Era/Turns: WW I, 13 turns
Location/Map Scale: 10 km
Balance Notes: 55% chance of victory for Germans, 45% Russians
Entertainment Notes: If TOAW ever looked like chess, this has to be it. Those who don’t enjoy chess won’t probably like this scenario, where two fairly evenly matched armies on both sides of clearly defined boundaries face each other without a clearly defined objective, other than victory. I rate it 8 on 10, and not higher because turning it all into an ugly slugfest is one of the reasonable strategies that can be used. The scenario may also produce beautiful campaigns, and daring strategies are normally well rewarded.
Game Play Notes (Force 1): The Russian force stinks big time. It’s an enormous, unwieldy mass of the lowest proficiency, with terrible morale and a disastrous supply situation. Generals in seach of glory can apply here. Even worse is the fact that both halves of the force have limited cooperation due to the (very serious) rivalry of their commanders, and the point where they could naturally join their lines is a nearly impassable jumble of marsh, lakes and German fortresses. Still, there’s a serviceable railway line to transfer units from one half to the other, so critical mass can be achieved at the cost of lowered cooperation between units (and those scarce supplies). There’s little artillery, but it can be decisive to open breaches into the German lines, and the hordes of Cossack cavalry can perform many kinds of tasks (they will have a hard time killing enemies, though). Basically, the Russian player has 3 possible strategies to pick – Number 1, the one actually used by the Russian HQ in real life, will call for a pincer attack on the northeast (Rennenkampf) and the southwest (Samsonov) of the Masurian lakes, in search of a connection of both armies deep into German territory and south of Konigsberg. That will never work (unless against the useless PO). Number 2 would be a push on the northeast front only, achieving local superiority with the transfer of as many divisions from the south as possible. I’d say a minimum of 3-4 additional divisions would make victory a possibility. The risk here is a possible German advance on Warsaw and beyond, that could seriously limit the chances for victory. Number 3 would be a push on the southeast front only, with a similar transfer of troops from the north, with a double-whammy risk – the southeast front is the most favourable terrain for the Germans, because they have a narrow line of towns to defend and a wide Polish countryside to envelope any attacking army, and an underdefended northeast front is a serious temptation for a German counterattack that could go deep into Lithuania and pretty much ensure overwhelming victory. There’s also a catenaccio strategy open for the Russian player: hold Lyck, the German town to the south of the lakes, and its 30 VP, then defend the rest of the line like hell. You have reserves to do it, but all you can get, unless there’s the possiblity of a brilliant counterattack once the German breaks his teeth against your trenches, is a draw. Besides, this gameplan would concede strategic initiative to the better-quality force. I don’t like it.
Game Play Notes (Force 2): The Germans are fewer than the Russians, but a much better force overall, blessed as well by the excellent German rail network. That means that a concentration of punch, a piece of cake using all those trains, will likely be too much for the Russians to resist on any front, and that the southeast front along the Polish border, with the room for maneouver limited for the Russians by the German fortresses and the Masurian lakes, may easily turn into a German playground where the enemy can be crushed almost at will, as the limits on stacking deny its main advantage of size. The main disadvantage for the Germans, other than the scarcity of units, is the fact that the Russians have the initiative. Most likely, the German player will have much better recon throughout the campaign (the Russians can barely detect any troops out of sight) , and that should be the main weapon against a possible concentration of Russian mass on any front. Watch out for those Russian divisions away from the front where they should be - that means one of the two enemy armies is understrength. The German player should be careful with any deep thrust on the south, though, even if he detects a thinning defensive line there. The capture of Warsaw, surrounded by forts, can be much more difficult than it seems, and Poland is big. It may be too late when the enemy is actually engaged, and not pretty things may be happening somewhere else in the meantime. In an ideal world, Samsonov’s army would charge straight for Tannenberg, and facilitate its complete destruction, as it did happen, but one shouldn’t count on that. Most likely, Samsonov will be a looming threat in the south, taking advantage of the fact that his lines can be retreated almost at will, since there’s no VP to defend for the Russian up to Warsaw. The result? The German strategy depends on the Russian’s. His army will have to react swiftly. If he’s fooled, he’ll likely lose. If he’s not, he’ll likely win, since his army is better, or at least get a draw. Retaking Lyck or even breaking through to Suvalki, not an easy task in any case, may be a key for victory. All things equal, the control of any of these two towns may mean victory indeed, and with two good players it may come down to such a small difference. One of my opponents once used a bizarre strategy – he pulled his troops westwards in front of Rennenkampf, giving up the Prussian towns closest to the Lithuanian border (and its precious VP), and then concentrated all his strength in a deep push southwards. I stopped getting his turns about halfway, while he still had a chance of taking Warsaw, so I’ll never know his overall plan. Maybe he could have taken Warsaw, most likely not. With Warsaw, but without those Prussian towns there’s no way he’d ever get back, it still would have been a draw at most. Without Warsaw, an easy, bloodless victory for me. Looks like an unbalanced strategy may work in this game for the Russians, but I don’t think it can work for the Germans, unless it’s all about a matched unbalance – if, say, the Russians put most of their strength in the northeast, and the Germans respond in kind. With both sides ignoring one of the two fronts, the Germans may have an edge. Most likely, under these conditions it will all be a slugfest without victor.
Summary: This scenario (as all the rest) could benefit from better PO, or at least the use of all three AI tracks available. For PBEM, it’s great value, short and relatively quick. It provides just enough time and room for careful planning, but not too much of either one. The more experienced player should probably take the Russian side (hey, they lost in real life), in order to make for an even game, but in case he takes the German side the campaign could be more exciting. Two cautious players could end up moving the troops a lot, and not fighting quite as much. Two risk-takers could turn the campaign into a crazy chase around the map (but that can be said of every scenario really.) In any case, there’s always the chance that defensive tactics will prevail, given that this is WW I and defence is the rage here. VP are probably the weakest point of the design – the tiny village of Tannenberg, of no real military value until after the battle (when the campaign was named after the village by the enraptured German generals, in order to compensate for an earlier Slav victory there), gives more VP than the very important city of Konigsberg, and as many as Warsaw. I can’t imagine a German general being praised for taking Warsaw and losing Konigsberg in the process (that’s +10 VP for you). It’s extremely hard for the Russian to take Konigsberg (if it’s not defended by the PO), but that’s the very reason why this achivement should be properly rewarded. To compensate, more VP could be given for Warsaw, or any of the Russian-held towns with VP.
Scenario Author: Todd Klemme
Era/Turns: WW I, 13 turns
Location/Map Scale: 10 km
Balance Notes: 55% chance of victory for Germans, 45% Russians
Entertainment Notes: If TOAW ever looked like chess, this has to be it. Those who don’t enjoy chess won’t probably like this scenario, where two fairly evenly matched armies on both sides of clearly defined boundaries face each other without a clearly defined objective, other than victory. I rate it 8 on 10, and not higher because turning it all into an ugly slugfest is one of the reasonable strategies that can be used. The scenario may also produce beautiful campaigns, and daring strategies are normally well rewarded.
Game Play Notes (Force 1): The Russian force stinks big time. It’s an enormous, unwieldy mass of the lowest proficiency, with terrible morale and a disastrous supply situation. Generals in seach of glory can apply here. Even worse is the fact that both halves of the force have limited cooperation due to the (very serious) rivalry of their commanders, and the point where they could naturally join their lines is a nearly impassable jumble of marsh, lakes and German fortresses. Still, there’s a serviceable railway line to transfer units from one half to the other, so critical mass can be achieved at the cost of lowered cooperation between units (and those scarce supplies). There’s little artillery, but it can be decisive to open breaches into the German lines, and the hordes of Cossack cavalry can perform many kinds of tasks (they will have a hard time killing enemies, though). Basically, the Russian player has 3 possible strategies to pick – Number 1, the one actually used by the Russian HQ in real life, will call for a pincer attack on the northeast (Rennenkampf) and the southwest (Samsonov) of the Masurian lakes, in search of a connection of both armies deep into German territory and south of Konigsberg. That will never work (unless against the useless PO). Number 2 would be a push on the northeast front only, achieving local superiority with the transfer of as many divisions from the south as possible. I’d say a minimum of 3-4 additional divisions would make victory a possibility. The risk here is a possible German advance on Warsaw and beyond, that could seriously limit the chances for victory. Number 3 would be a push on the southeast front only, with a similar transfer of troops from the north, with a double-whammy risk – the southeast front is the most favourable terrain for the Germans, because they have a narrow line of towns to defend and a wide Polish countryside to envelope any attacking army, and an underdefended northeast front is a serious temptation for a German counterattack that could go deep into Lithuania and pretty much ensure overwhelming victory. There’s also a catenaccio strategy open for the Russian player: hold Lyck, the German town to the south of the lakes, and its 30 VP, then defend the rest of the line like hell. You have reserves to do it, but all you can get, unless there’s the possiblity of a brilliant counterattack once the German breaks his teeth against your trenches, is a draw. Besides, this gameplan would concede strategic initiative to the better-quality force. I don’t like it.
Game Play Notes (Force 2): The Germans are fewer than the Russians, but a much better force overall, blessed as well by the excellent German rail network. That means that a concentration of punch, a piece of cake using all those trains, will likely be too much for the Russians to resist on any front, and that the southeast front along the Polish border, with the room for maneouver limited for the Russians by the German fortresses and the Masurian lakes, may easily turn into a German playground where the enemy can be crushed almost at will, as the limits on stacking deny its main advantage of size. The main disadvantage for the Germans, other than the scarcity of units, is the fact that the Russians have the initiative. Most likely, the German player will have much better recon throughout the campaign (the Russians can barely detect any troops out of sight) , and that should be the main weapon against a possible concentration of Russian mass on any front. Watch out for those Russian divisions away from the front where they should be - that means one of the two enemy armies is understrength. The German player should be careful with any deep thrust on the south, though, even if he detects a thinning defensive line there. The capture of Warsaw, surrounded by forts, can be much more difficult than it seems, and Poland is big. It may be too late when the enemy is actually engaged, and not pretty things may be happening somewhere else in the meantime. In an ideal world, Samsonov’s army would charge straight for Tannenberg, and facilitate its complete destruction, as it did happen, but one shouldn’t count on that. Most likely, Samsonov will be a looming threat in the south, taking advantage of the fact that his lines can be retreated almost at will, since there’s no VP to defend for the Russian up to Warsaw. The result? The German strategy depends on the Russian’s. His army will have to react swiftly. If he’s fooled, he’ll likely lose. If he’s not, he’ll likely win, since his army is better, or at least get a draw. Retaking Lyck or even breaking through to Suvalki, not an easy task in any case, may be a key for victory. All things equal, the control of any of these two towns may mean victory indeed, and with two good players it may come down to such a small difference. One of my opponents once used a bizarre strategy – he pulled his troops westwards in front of Rennenkampf, giving up the Prussian towns closest to the Lithuanian border (and its precious VP), and then concentrated all his strength in a deep push southwards. I stopped getting his turns about halfway, while he still had a chance of taking Warsaw, so I’ll never know his overall plan. Maybe he could have taken Warsaw, most likely not. With Warsaw, but without those Prussian towns there’s no way he’d ever get back, it still would have been a draw at most. Without Warsaw, an easy, bloodless victory for me. Looks like an unbalanced strategy may work in this game for the Russians, but I don’t think it can work for the Germans, unless it’s all about a matched unbalance – if, say, the Russians put most of their strength in the northeast, and the Germans respond in kind. With both sides ignoring one of the two fronts, the Germans may have an edge. Most likely, under these conditions it will all be a slugfest without victor.
Summary: This scenario (as all the rest) could benefit from better PO, or at least the use of all three AI tracks available. For PBEM, it’s great value, short and relatively quick. It provides just enough time and room for careful planning, but not too much of either one. The more experienced player should probably take the Russian side (hey, they lost in real life), in order to make for an even game, but in case he takes the German side the campaign could be more exciting. Two cautious players could end up moving the troops a lot, and not fighting quite as much. Two risk-takers could turn the campaign into a crazy chase around the map (but that can be said of every scenario really.) In any case, there’s always the chance that defensive tactics will prevail, given that this is WW I and defence is the rage here. VP are probably the weakest point of the design – the tiny village of Tannenberg, of no real military value until after the battle (when the campaign was named after the village by the enraptured German generals, in order to compensate for an earlier Slav victory there), gives more VP than the very important city of Konigsberg, and as many as Warsaw. I can’t imagine a German general being praised for taking Warsaw and losing Konigsberg in the process (that’s +10 VP for you). It’s extremely hard for the Russian to take Konigsberg (if it’s not defended by the PO), but that’s the very reason why this achivement should be properly rewarded. To compensate, more VP could be given for Warsaw, or any of the Russian-held towns with VP.