Adding a bit of balance to Tannenberg

[Siberian HEAT]

I recently contacted Todd Klemme about his Serbia-Galacia 14 scenario as well as a bit of talk about his Tannenberg 14 scenario. Unfortunately for us, Todd doesn't even own TOAW anymore and has exited from scenario design altogether. However, he has given the greenlight to modify his existing scenario of Tannenberg to give it more play balance should it be necessary.

Since we have many reports in for this scenario, and I have played it myself several times, I think it is safe to say it favors the Germans fairly heavily. Out of 33 reports at WHQ, 40% were German Victories, 40% were draws, and 20% were Russian victories.

I am open to ideas on how to tweak the scenario ever so slightly so we get just a few more Russian victories.

Some ideas:

Link the rail line between Kovno and Warsaw so the Russians have greater freedom of movement between north and south. This can be done off-map...but large scale mixing of the two Russian armies is probably very ahistorical.

Rearrange the VP hex values slightly to give the Russians less of a handicap at the beginning of the game.

Shorten the scenario by a turn or two to give the Russians a better chance of hanging on to more VP hexes.

Some other internal design tweaks (force proficiency, supply, etc.) which might be harder to quantify.


Thoughts?

 

[viridomaros]

my oppinion:

100% agree about the railway connection it's a big problem on the russian side.

regarding vp hexes i thought to this but i'm affraid this would change the scenario, aka russian camping. facing a good defender the scenario would most likely end in a draw 80% of the time

In this scenario russian have just all against them
supply
profeciency
movement rate
artillery range

it's true they have a bit more troops but not that much and even their replacement rate is not significantly better than the germans.

problem is that changing any of the value above in favor on the russians would change the histroical aspect.

what about putting the armies face to face? so that the russians when striking first can do some damage

 

[Siberian HEAT]

my oppinion:


what about putting the armies face to face? so that the russians when striking first can do some damage

This would remove what I consider the most important aspect of this battle. The art of maneuver. The Russians do have considerable lattitude in how they conduct their offensive...and putting them closer to the Germans would take that element away. Of course when they reach the Germans...that is a different story. :laugh:

 

[Eric Weider]

I like the idea of one turn shorter best...

 

[Saber]

Tannenberg and S-G are two great scenarios but they could do with a face lift. S-G is rarely played / reported and that's too bad. A start to T. would be to add the rail lines, not just to Kovno but also through NW Poland. Supply, really lack of Rail lines, cripples the 2nd Army. Rail lines on the Russian side of the border, are historic and would help mitigate the play balance. The actual rail line, Kovno to Warsaw, is just off the play map, so adding it here isn't unrealistic.
Map changes are the easiest.

 

[Siberian HEAT]

Tannenberg and S-G are two great scenarios but they could do with a face lift. S-G is rarely played / reported and that's too bad. A start to T. would be to add the rail lines, not just to Kovno but also through NW Poland. Supply, really lack of Rail lines, cripples the 2nd Army. Rail lines on the Russian side of the border, are historic and would help mitigate the play balance. The actual rail line, Kovno to Warsaw, is just off the play map, so adding it here isn't unrealistic.
Map changes are the easiest.

You sound like you have some resources in this area. Do you have anything showing rail lines in 1914? Rail movement would save on burning supply for the Russians...

 

[JoeBob]

If the current scenario we are playing is relatively historic, I wouldn't mess with it. Adding rail lines to benefit the Russians (which would be pretty helpful), is fine if they were there in 1914.

Remember, the games are mirrored, so in a sense, play balance it essentially achieved.

I say keep it as historic as possible...

 

[CyberRanger]

I say keep it as historic as possible...

I agree and feel if the Russian player fights the battle along historical lines the result will be historical - a huge German victory.

I do not believe Russian defeat is inevitable in this scenario and a draw is very possible. The biggest mistake I think Russian players make is pushing the 2nd Army too far forward and letting it get defeated before the 1st Army joins the fray. The Russian player should never even consider holding Tannenberg; if he tries, he will be destroyed.

If we want to make it more "winnable" for the Russians, I'd say shorten the scenario by one turn (making the Germans push a little harder for Warsaw) and shift some of the VP allocations from 2nd Army's theater more towards the 1st Army's theater.

 

[rasmus]

How about increasing Gumbinnen and Insterburg to 30 VPs?

That way thos three cioties alone would ensure a rusiian marginal.

 

[CyberRanger]

How about increasing Gumbinnen and Insterburg to 30 VPs?

That way thos three cioties alone would ensure a rusiian marginal.

That sort of follows my thoughts. I'd do this:

• Remove Danzig (30 German VP at the start) and Thorn (10 VP) as a VP location.
• Increase Suvalki and Stalluponen to 40 VP points instead of 30.
• Increase Grodno to 50 VP points instead of 30.

This would keep the total objective VP points at 430, starting the Germans with 230 points and the Russians with 200 - a draw slightly in the Germans favor. If the Russians can capture Stalluponen and Guminnen, that would give them 270 (110 differential). They loss Warsaw but capture Lyck, keeping a Russian MV. Tough ... but doable.

 

[Dicke Bertha]

How historical are the German fortifications? They have a pretty impressive interlocking range four artillery... Has anyone ever tried to assault them? They also limit Russian maneouvre in the centre a lot. If they're historical, then ok.

How are the victory locations chosen? Only towns? Maybe there should be more of them, along the main roads, (say bridges) or the fortification hexes, albeit with lesser values? The crux is defining what would be considered a Russian victory historically, as perceived by the Russians before engaging (or after)? And a draw, loss?

 

[Bdr.Mallette]

Change the scale, for arty purposes.
If scale changes, lessen transports.

iunno, create whole new scenario????

 

[Bdr.Mallette]

How historical are the German fortifications? They have a pretty impressive interlocking range four artillery... Has anyone ever tried to assault them? They also limit Russian maneouvre in the centre a lot. If they're historical, then ok.

How are the victory locations chosen? Only towns? Maybe there should be more of them, along the main roads, (say bridges) or the fortification hexes, albeit with lesser values? The crux is defining what would be considered a Russian victory historically, as perceived by the Russians before engaging (or after)? And a draw, loss?

I got rid of one but suffered too heavily to think about attacking others.

 

[Foggy]

In my game w/Keef - I got rid of one too - but losses were
really high - godamm Krauts

 

[Siberian HEAT]

Hmmm, I've never even thought about tangling with those forts. Nothing of interest is behind them. :laugh:

 

[Foggy]

Because they're there :laugh:

 

[Siberian HEAT]

The crux is defining what would be considered a Russian victory historically, as perceived by the Russians before engaging (or after)? And a draw, loss?

This is exactly true. Here is an excellent summary of the Battle.

Here are some excerpts:

In the real battle, the Germans essentially abandoned the area around Gumbinnen, so their forces could double up on Samsonov's Second Army (the one near to Warsaw).

Rennenkampf and Samsonov hated each other, at one point fighting each other. This suggests that any cooperation between the two armies would be highly unlikely.

The German victory was based on the complete destruction of the Second Army...not because of captured locations. At the start of the battle, the Russians were going on faulty intelligence that the Germans were retreating which is apparently why the VP locations in Willenberg and Tannenberg are there. These are designed to force the Russian player into the same trap as his counterparts.

At one point, the Germans intercepted messages between the two russian armies, essentially saying that 1st army was at X, and had no intention to help 2nd army at Y. This gave the Germans complete freedom of movement because they were no longer concerned about 1st Russian army.


To me, this would almost suggest that German victory should be based more on destroying 2nd army. This could be accomplished by giving Warsaw more value - to force the Germans to go all out for it. The question for 2nd army should be how far forward to deploy...so they give themselves enough depth to defend Warsaw. A Russian victory would be to save 2nd army...

As a counterweight, perhaps Gumbinnen, Insterberg, etc. should be INCREASED in value. The question for the German player should be how much can he afford to siphon off his northern flank to complete the destruction of 2nd Army? In my view, this is not happening in the current layout. It is more likely the German player is lashing out for Sulvaki or Lyck rather than turning south to Willenberg. He should not be heading east for Kovno either...

 

[Saber]

I have material relevent to the discussion but couldn't load a PDF to this message. The map I have comes from: Military History of The World War, Girard Lindsley McEntee, a one time instructor at the Point. Page 92

It clearly shows that the rail hd. at Mlava should be extended to Warsaw. The three fortresses, Ostorplenka, Rozen & Lomza should also be connected to the Russian Rail net but not to Germany.

This change would give the Russians a chance to keep the southern points. Historically, Samsonov wasn't starving when he put his head in the noose, he pushed north to support 1 Army and neglected his flanks.

 

[Siberian HEAT]

Thanks! Here is the map he sent. Looks like the Germans could use an extra rail or 10 too!

 

[Mantis]

If the current scenario we are playing is relatively historic, I wouldn't mess with it. Adding rail lines to benefit the Russians (which would be pretty helpful), is fine if they were there in 1914.

Remember, the games are mirrored, so in a sense, play balance it essentially achieved.

I say keep it as historic as possible...

The game is only mirrored in the tourney itself (to achieve perfect 'balance'). HEAT is more or less looking at making it a slightly more balanced affair for normal play.