Hip-Firing Brandenburgers - Playing the 1st edition of Panzer Grenadier

Today, I've got a, somewhat, quick AAR on my first game of Panzer Grenadier by Avalanche Press. Almost a decade ago, when I first started out with Advanced Squad Leader and was taken by other tactical-level game systems (like Combat Commander), I paid some close attention to the games produced by Avalanche Press that started with Panzer Grenadier. I recall quite vividly I was taken by both the cover of the Panzer Grenadier Box (pictured left) and the Opel Blitz counters. It probably had something to do with my soft spot for 80s and 90s era games; something about the tactical-level games back then struck a chord with me. Something about the combination of the art and aesthetic that paired well with the system complexity. I don't know, but suffice it to say I had some early titles burned into my memory, and while I went all-in on ASL back in those first years, I still had Panzer Grenadier on my mind.

Fast forward to perhaps three or four years ago, and I threw down some extra cash that I had for a copy of Eastern Front & the Airborne Introductory game to the series. I tried my best to get into the system with the scenarios and components I had on hand, but it was no use. The laminated paper map boards and especially the colors/art on the Eastern Front maps really left me wanting more. For want of something else, I shelved the games, forgetting my initial draw to the system. For whatever reason, two months ago, I was in the middle of something (can't remember what it was now) that recalled my fascination with the Opel Blitz counter art and the initial edition of Panzer Grenadier, so I put down a few dollars on a used copy and lo and behold, I've come back with a completely different take away on how I feel about this system and series of games published by Avalanche Press.

Opening to the very middle of the scenario booklet, I opted to try out scenario 31 (the Brandenburgers) using the 1st edition rules. Now the scenario I chose is arguably the most finicky of the ones in the scenario booklet, and perhaps the least (?) suited to solo play. The feedback on the Panzer Grenadier website would seem to concur. That being said though, it was also rewarding to try out something that could've gone horribly wrong in gameplay terms, especially since it let me shuttle around some Opel Blitzes. 

I've got nothing to say at this time about the later edition of the rules. I can't recall what's different, what's been changed since the original Panzer Grenadier, nor anything about the expansion of the scenarios. I do recall that Eastern Front (which reimplemented the 1st edition of Panzer Grenadier) does include the Romanian OOB into the "base" game, but beyond that, the differences escape me. I'm not here to focus on merits behind the system/its design; I only mention this so that this AAR isn't seen as a definitive review of Panzer Grenadier and the many games that came after it. This is, instead, just a long way of saying that I had a false start with this system, if you will.

-----

Anyway, onto the AAR. Scenario 31 depicts the actions of the German 8th Panzer Division and a detachment of the Brandenburger commandos with Army Group North during the summer of 1941 advancing into the Baltics. This scenario depicts what is arguably the Brandenburgers most famous action: capture of the Daugava river bridge in Daugavpils (located in present-day Latvia). 

Now, I think as far as literature on the subject goes, the image of Russian-speaking Brandenburgers dressed like Russians and (you guessed it) fighting their Russian enemies is pretty common. This thumbnail of one of the books published by Osprey Publishing gives a pretty good idea of what the attack on the Daugavpils bridge probably looked like and actually, as far as visual representations of the Brandenburgers go, I'd bet that most anyone who is familiar with the Brandenburgers likely has this particular image in their head when it comes to actions like that over the Daugava. (I'll have more to say about the quality of history that generally gets written in the field of military history because as far as opinions go, I have something significant to say on the Osprey Publishing model in particular, but that's for another blog post.) Not to get it twisted though, or even too far off track for that matter, the Brandenburgers dressed up like their Russian enemies to slip through the lines for a surprise attack more than once. And while it happened in the Maikop oilfields in 1942, as pictured conveniently to your right, the Brandenburgers succeeded in the drive on Leningrad securing a bridge in the same manner the year before and its that action that concerns this AAR today.

The scenario starts with the Soviet units deactivated. German actions have to prompt or precede the Soviet player's activation. On the far western edge of the map board, elements of the 8th Panzer Division await entry. The first unit to move is a detachment of Brandenburgers on the opposite end of the board and on the far (Russian) side of the river, led by a Lieutenant, and transported in an Open Blitz counter (woohoo!) that's supposed to represent several captured Russian vehicles. The Germans win if they can secure the bridge over the river. The Russians (of the 188th Rifle Division) can prevent this if 1) after six turns the Germans have not managed to secure and control the bridge or 2) if they can blow it up. The savvy Russian player would do well to place their infantry in such a way to give every opportunity to race to the bridge and then blow it sky high before the 8th Panzer Division can secure it. The Russians are only activated if 1) they catch the Brandenburgers moving through their units on the way to the Bridge from the east side of the map or 2) elements of the 8th Panzer Division begin to move. With the Brandenburgers moving first, the Russians can get the jump on the Germans if they discover the Brandenburgers before they reach the bridge. 

Scenario set up.

Now, according to the scenario details, the Brandenburgers were indeed discovered shortly before they were able to reach the bridge, springing the German trap early. The result was death for most of the Brandenburgers, but a pyrrhic victory nonetheless, with the bridge captured intact when the German panzers arrived. The scenario details themselves paint a picture to suggest that the bridge's capture was a near-run thing, but a cursory google search for this engagement didn't seem to mention the need to spring the trap early for the Brandenburgers or comparable details about the possible knife-edge results of the action. Seems like we'll need more background on this some day (but again, I'm not going to launch into a lengthy tirade on the historical accuracy of scenario design; that I leave to another post). At any rate, according to the scenarios, the Russians seem to get the drop on the Brandenburgers.

In this scenario playthrough, no such fate befell the Brandenburgers. Passing through the town on map board 3 (representing Daugavpils), the Germans went undiscovered by the Russian SMG platoon, HMG section, or the infantry manning the town's outskirts. Setting up on the bridge adjacent to the Russian AT section and the 188th's vanguard across the river, the turn opened with the Germans successfully evading the Russians. They secured the bridge without tripping the alarm. 

The Brandenburgers secure the bridge.

Then I sent in the 8th Panzer Division. Spearheaded by their armored cars and a platoon of panzer IIs, The German armor raced to link up with the Brandenburgers. The first armored cars sustained fire from the AT gun on the far bank of the river in opportunity fire. Driving past their burning hulks, the armored cars moved off the main road to make way for the rest of the column, including the assault elements: a company of infantry supported by Stug IIIb assault guns.

The 8th Panzer Division arrives.

By the end of the first turn, the Russian heavy weapons and AT were activated, firing away at what they could see and aim at from their side of the river. Their infantry raced to encircle the Brandenburgers and detonate the bridge. Initiative activations needed to favor the Russians to succeed in time for turn 2. 

The Russian ordnance -- well emplaced, but bouncing shells don't do much to deter an attacker. (Ignore the fact that this photo is famously not of a 45mm AT gun. It is period-accurate to the time of this scenario, though, so it counts for something).

The initiative rolls did not, however, favor the Russians. The Germans won six action segments before the Russians could make one move. This is about where the Russians lost the scenario. (Cursed be the dice gods; can't the Nazis lose, please?)

Link-up achieved.

The panzer's assault elements took out the Russian vanguard, dug in but not quite to their ultimate benefit, and managed to link up with the Brandenburgers, the latter who began to sustain small arms fire from the Russians. The mortars in the woods overlooking the bridge in particular put the bridge defenders under significant pressure. 

Assaulting infantry make or break the tide of battle in Panzer Grenadier. (This photo is also neither of Brandenburgers nor infantry assaulting the Daugava river, but it too is period accurate to the lime and location).

The Germans and Brandenburgers held the line, though, and as the German armor and support units positioned themselves along the German side of the river, the assault elements pushed across the river and held the line. Dwindling in number by the end of turn 3, the Russians lost all chance of blowing the bridge and with that, the Germans claimed their victory.

A final view of the field: Brandenburgers alive and firing at the hip as they go.

Three short turns and that was scenario 31 in on the books. I made disappointing die rolls all around for the Russians (both on morale and AT opportunity fire rolls). But, that's living in the life of dice for you. 

No panzers floundering in the water this week, but we can only hope that maybe we'll achieve something like that next week. Anyway, I'm off to run some errands now and work on another, lengthier post to go up later this week.

'Til then, game on.

What's that saying about oil and water not mixing well?

The Battle of Suomussalmi -- Motti Tactics in TSWW Hakkaa Päälle

In my last post on TSWW, I discussed in brief (and somehow still at length?) the combat system in the series developed by Diffraction Entertainment/TKC Games, but I did so in a way and manner that seemed to suggest I'd never before punched out the counters in a TSWW game before. That was an oversight on my part. A couple of years ago, I opened up the introductory game on the invasion of Crete published by Diffraction Entertainment and made a run at playing the game and learning the system. (You can find that post here.) I was so in over my head at the time, though, that I neither thought to take notes on the system, nor did I give myself much in the way of knowledge retention with such a short introduction. So, TSWW Hakkaa Päälle this time around feels like a fresh (re)introduction.

After working my way through some of the introductory learning scenarios (one on land combat on the Karelian isthmus and two on air-to-air combat over Helsinki), I punched out the counters for the first, substantive scenario (dealing with Finland) in TSWW Hakkaa Päälle: the Battle of Suomussalmi. 

If I had the energy in me right now, Id replay this utilizing the 5 Day variant rules provided for by TSWW game system. I chose to stay with half month turns, however, since that's primarily what the system was designed for. Given the limitations facing the Russian player, if there's much in the way of options afforded that side in this scenario, the 5 Day variant would likely bring more fluidity and flexibility to the strategy either side can take.

So, just what is the Battle of Suomussalmi? Suomussalmi is a town/municipality in east-central Finland. At the start of the Winter War, it lied in the path of advance for the Russian 9th Army in December 1939. It was in and around Suomussalmi in December and January 1940 that the Finns first employed and perfected their use of motti tactics: the isolation, encirclement, and destruction in detail of diffuse, enemy forces. In the Battle of Suomussalmi scenario, the Finns have one month (the Dec I 1939 and Dec II 1939 turns) to halt and repulse the western advance of the Russians as they cross the Finnish border, led by the 163rd Rifle Division and followed up by the 44th Rifle Division.

Before we take a quick look at the field, it bears mentioning that the weather conditions are less than ideal for any sort of Russian advance. 

Getting cold yet?

The weather is rated as severe and freezing for the month of December. That means snow, lots of snow. Infantry movement in this part of Finland, which is not supported by dirt tracks or gravel roads, effectively limits the advance of infantry to one hex per movement phase; advancing in wooded terrain, not to mention in the presence of hills or other terrain features, with a movement point value of 6, does not provide much in the way of flexibility when you're paying 4 movement points to huff it through the snow. (Hold this in the back of your mind for a moment).

Initial Russian set up and arrival of Finnish reinforcements on the Dec I 1939 turn.

Pictured above, we have the initial set up of forces in the Battle of Suomussalmi. The Finnish reinforcements that arrive on turn one already arrived three hexes west of the town (located at hex 4529). By scenario design, in compliance with the general rules, the Russians of the 163rd Rifle Division start the game overextended (out of supply), but not isolated. The 9th Army HQ is pictured mostly off camera on the bottom right of the screen. The 9th Army HQ stayed where it was located on the far extent of the low capacity railhead; with only two turns to advance the HQ west, I decided to leave it where it was. It wouldn't get far enough in the snow (oh ... even though it would use cavalry movement, which I had forgotten) in only two turns to have as positive an impact on the supply situation of the 163rd in exchange for the danger it would be put in advancing that far near the Finnish forces unsupported and in range of their skiers. As such, while the army HQ could have maybe alleviated the Russian supply difficulties in this game, especially if I was using the five-day variant rules, it remained of trivial importance this time around. So, the focus is solely on the 163rd.

The Finns move to contact.

The Finns opened the battle moving to isolate the 662nd regiment from its sister regiments to the north and south. The two regiments of newly arrived ski troops, led by General Siilasvuo, approached from the west while the light infantry brigade (equivalent) moves into Oltava in support.  (I placed General Siilasvuo wrong in the first image, so ignore the fact that he more or less teleports to north of Oltava on turn one). With the lake and the river (both frozen) between the Russians in Suomussalmi and the Räsänan light infantry, I was perfectly set up to bring all of my forces to bear on the first Russian rifle regiment while dealing a backhand blow to the second (still in Suomussalmi) when the Russian move turn came. 

On the north edge of the lake adjacent to Suomussalmi, the Finns went to work against the unsupported Russians. The Ski troopers (benefitting from their treatment as Cav for determining their CEV as well as the light infantry attack bonus) rack up several benefits in the odds calculation against the Russians. Ski Troopers plus (attack value of 3 x 1.5 Cav bonus to CEV x 1.6 CEV x 1.35 woods in poor weather) Light Infantry brigade (attack value of 1 x 1.4 CEV x 1 woods in poor weather) = 11.12 / 4 (for the Russians with 1 CEV and defending at 1 in the woods). DRM shakes out to net -1 (-1 for woods, - 2 for freezing weather, +2 for the light infantry bonus). The die roll differential shakes out on the Finnish favor resulting in a 3:1 combat odds. With the combat die roll, I rolled a 7 and at -1, landed an exchange result. 

The belligerents trade blows (and the Finns come out on top).

At the cost of the 25th regiment of ski troopers, the Finns under General Siilasvuo managed to wipe out the entire regiment.

Next up, the Russian response. Spurred on by their fanatic political officers, the Russians must advance west every game turn and make for the exit of the scenario edge. Beset by terrible road conditions and little to no supplies, the Russians can't expect to make it far. Consuming the GSPs that they have on hand to make temporary, general supply, the two regiments advance one hex west apiece. Entering the frozen lakes hex adjacent to the Finnish light infantry brigade, the Russian 759th regiment undertakes a mandatory attack against the defenders across the frozen river. To support the attack, the Russians send their only bombers in the vicinity, two wings. In response, the Finnish air force send a squadron of Gladiator biplanes to intercept them.

The Gloster Gladiator: tiny but mighty.

The squadron managed to intercept one of the two Russian wings. In an exchange of fire over the Finnish countryside, the Finnish pilots managed to turn back some of the attackers, but not all of them. The Tupolev SBs passed through the interceptors unharmed to make their bombing run on the defending Finnish infantry. Their bombs landed, but doing little more than damaging a few trucks and putting a machine gun out of action. The bombers returned back to base unmolested, but also without a credible contribution to claim in the battle's favor. 

A Tupolev SB bomber pictured during the Winter War

Not to be deterred when fanatical doctrine is there to guide you, the Russian officers immediately made their crossing to get at the Finnish defenders before they could be reinforced. The result, was near run, yet still a disaster. The Finns defended at a strength of 1.4. The Russians, with a combat factor of 4, were set back by their lack of supplies. The resulting .75 CEV bumped them down to 3, which divided by 1.4, did not leave good chance for getting beyond 2:1 combat odds. Losing the differential die roll, the Russians went in at 2:1 odds. The die roll modifiers are what really killed them though: -1 for the woods, -1 for the river, and -2 for attacking in the frozen snow. A die roll of 7, knocked down to 3, yielded a quartered result. The regiment was lost outright. 

With the 759th out of action, Suomussalmi is open for the taking.

Just like that, the Russians were down to just one effective regiment of infantry. And then on came four additional regiments of Ski troops to reinforce the Finnish counterattack. The 64th and 65th regiments, linking up with the 27th, swung around the flank of the remnants of the 163rd Rifle Division east of Taivalkoski. Again in support of General Siilasvuo, the Räsänan light infantry helped to finally pull of a concentric attack against the last of the Russians in the vicinity. The remaining regiments of skiers meanwhile took up positions inside of and south of Suomussalmi to ward off any immediate counter-moves by the 44th Rifle Division and the other units in support of the Russian 9th Army. No such answers were possible, though.

The Finns reconsolidate the line around Suomussalmi and reestablish the integrity of their borders with the USSR.

Finnish Blenheims, in support of the last Finnish attack, appeared over the battlefield uncontested but failed to make any meaningful contribution. They were simply few too in number, but not that Siilasvuo needed the support at this point. The Finns launched their concentric attack at 3:1 odds with a +1 die roll modifier (having cut off the Russians out in the open) and rolled a natural 10 on the combat results table. Modified to an eleven, the Russians were cut down where they stood. Flight or no flight, the last of the 163rd didn't stand a chance against the fast moving and hard hitting Finns.

And with that, it was effectively game over. With no let up to the weather conditions and the Russian reinforcements making terrible time to reach the Suomussalmi sector, I called it a game. Had I run this on the 5-day variant, maybe the Russians would have had better options. But, again, this is why the majority of the scenarios in TSWW amount to something more like a simulation than a game, because even though it can play out differently, even though the details are different, the rules of the game simulate prior realities. With three victory points to the Russian one VP, the Finns claim a minor, but still deserved, victory. 

Doing The Math - TSWW's Ground Combat Resolution Procedure

Today, I've decided to enroll myself in something of a wargamer's boot camp to help make sense of the combat system in The Second World War game series produced by Diffraction Entertainment/TKC Games. 

This will probably amount to a drawn out self reference guide, but it's helpful to have a discussion about the system as a whole since TSWW game series amounts to something more like a simulation of Second World War combat than it does a game in some respects.

As I take to learning the system while playing through TSWW Hakkaa Päälle, I've taken note of a few difficulties that are somewhat of a challenge to grapple with, at least for someone who is new to this system. So, let's treat this like an exercise in learning like everything else, piece by piece and bit by bit. 

The inspiration for the combat system in TSWW comes to more than an abstraction of combat ratios between two or more fighting forces. Instead, prior to establishing combat ratios, there's a bit more of a science to approximate, or simulate, a more realistic version of that abstraction. On the TKC Games (Digital) webpage, there's a short blurb about the inspiration behind their system. It comes from "Trevor Dupuy’s 'Numbers Prediction and War' methodology, using calculated lethality indices," which "gives a unique opportunity to develop an accurate and exciting conflict simulation that, from its inception, was created with computer gaming in mind." 

Three points in this quote give a pretty obvious indication then as to why we need a different mind and perspective to breakdown, learn, and (hopefully) appreciate the combat system described in the game rules. First, the objective is to "simulate" combat; whereas combat is I would say typically gameified in the vast majority of wargames out there in our current age, this system aims at simulation, which is more involved - more calculated. 

Second, it's created with computer gaming in mind. The formulas and scripts involved with computer gaming certainly lend themselves much more to making complexity playable than a wargame simulation in print form (especially when you're looking for table space, let alone brain power). Computers are just simply better aimed at simplifying realism into leisurely, playable terms. I would say that the video game series Steel Panthers (the best around nowadays being winSPWW2) is most likely the best in-between example where the world of complex wargames from the days of SPI and Avalon Hill met with computerization of complex wargame mechanics. In Steel Panthers, you get a sense of the formulaic representation of tactical combined arms combat through the values attributed to small arms, HEAT weapons, armor ratings, and the influence of terrain, distance, and training on combat results. While I have no experience yet playing around with the digital versions of TSWW game series (partly because I believe they're still in development), I'd at least go so far as to say that the print games released by Diffraction Entertainment/TKC Games arrives somewhere near the system of complexity represented in games like winSPWW2, and it's precisely because what we're dealing with here isn't a game, but rather a simulation that not only takes account into far more variables, but it also relies on the treatment of those variables in a system based, at least in part, on statistical modeling. 

Third, and perhaps most related to point two, the fact that this system is based on Dupuy's methodology clearly indicates that the use of indices and a methodology at all lends itself to a combat system that is based on a model of combat that attempts to approach a more real-to-life statistical simulation of tactical combat than most wargames, which lend themselves more to a relative abstraction of the same thing. 

So, why does this matter? If nothing else, it helps us wargamers think in terms of variables and their relationship to each other. In my opinion, it'd be more helpful if there was an alarm-blaring indicator by way of a preface in the rulebook so that players are aware, but like a "buyer beware" notice, but at least I've come to this realization by my own devices. 

Anyway, onto the combat resolution sequence. Reading from the rulebook, we have a pretty simple explanation of this procedure (I'm quoting from the Hakkaa Päälle Game Rules booklet, version 1.6hp, dated 2021): Rule 10.B.1 states "The attack (combat) strengths of all the forces attacking are modified for terrain, supply, national contingent (see 10.C.5 below), special unit types (see 10.L on page 62), Going (if used, see 10.O on page 66) and CEV (including BAI), then totaled."

Ok ... so this is complex as it is. Discounting that we do the same thing for the defender and then play around with odds ratios, there's some serious mental math we have to do just to find out the final value of the attacking force and any die roll modifiers that we work with when resolving the combat. Not only are some of these modifiers variables that change the attack strength, some components play into the die roll modifiers (and to be sure, the die roll modifiers are also partly dependent on the units we're attacking). 

Is it making sense yet? No, Ok, moving on.

Now, for ease of walking through this without having to back track, I'm also going to note several other rules that modify or correct these modifications. While the base rules address, in general, how these modifiers influence and change our attack strengths, they are superseded by several other rule sections. Before modifying attack strengths, consult the following sections: the Political & Economic Rules in the main Game Rules, consult scenario specific modifiers in the At Starts rulebook, and for good measure, also consult the country-specific Orders of Battle.

So, let's do some mental math and work through an example. (DISCLAIMER: I'm still learning this system. Mistakes will happen ... that's the whole frigging point of this post. Not that anyone else but me reads this, but if you do, don't get pissy with me. I'm making mistakes as a part of the learning process). 

Let's pretend for a moment that these tanks look like they're in clear ground during good weather.

I'm going to take the example of the Russian 1st L(ight) Tank Brigade (X), with a base attack value of 5, under the best of all possible combat conditions attacking let's say into clear terrain with no hexside obstructions. For ease of calculation, because it's too much to crunch at the moment, let's set aside air superiority, interdiction, and other air-related combat modifiers. I'll also skip the optional Going rules. Then, I'm going to do the same modification for the 1st L Tank Brigade under the worst possible combat conditions. Modified by terrain (in the defender hex), which is weather dependent, the attack value of our armor (5) is modified by 1.25 in good weather (no DRM): 6.25 (no DRM). Next, modify for supply. We want Offensive Supply, so 6.25 modified by 1.5 and we get: 9.375 (no DRM). Next, modify for national contingent (2+ nations attacking together). Since we have only one national contingent attacking, we need not worry about this. Moving on, modify for special unit types. We have armor at play, so we're modifying according to the Armor Shock Effects (ASE). Clear terrain permits full ASE, so with our light armor equating their Armor Points to 75% of the SP total (which is 2), we have 1.5 Armor Points (which themselves are also modified by supply and not just terrain ... this is why combined arms attacks are tricky). With 1.5 Armor Points, we get a +1 DRM. So, we have 9.375 (with +1 DRM) and no other special unit type modifications. We're not using the optional Going rules, so we move finally onto the CEV. Consulting the CEV table, 1939 Soviet Union is listed at 1, so our final modification brings us to an attack value of 9.375 with a +1 DRM. Not bad. 

Now, let's say we're working with the full Political & Economic rules, which do serve to nerf the Soviet attackers quite a bit. On page 117 of the game rules, the full ASE value for light armored brigades is limited to "0.5 Full Level". Now here's where I run into a question. Is the terrain modification to ASE the number of Armor Points once calculated? Or is it a modification of the % based on the armor type? Hmm, questions, questions. I'm probably over thinking and it's a modification of the number of total armor points after calculation. Light armor modifies at 75% of the SP total attacking. An armor brigade at 2SPs comes down to 1.5 Armor Points in clear terrain, modified at 0.5 of the full level brings it down to 0.75 Armor Points. But, since the final calculation is rounded up "if less than 1" (per rule 10.L.1.b on page 63), we retain our net +1 DRM for 1 Armor Point at a 9.375 attack value. Phew. 

Okay, now let's make these combat conditions suffer for the 1st L Tank Brigade. Attack value is at a cool 5. Terrain, let's say we're attacking into wooded hills in severe, freezing weather. The terrain modifies our attack value by 0.5 with a -1 DRM: 2.5 attack value (-1 DRM). The freezing weather brings the - DRM up to -3: 2.5 attack value (-3 DRM). Next up, supply. We have only general supply (say we're not stacked with a Corps HQ per the Soviet's Political & Economic Rules that modify the standard supply requirements), so we modify by 0.75: 1.875 (-3 DRM). Next up, special unit types (so ASE calculation). In wooded hills, only half of the SPs may claim armor effects ... ah, OK, that's how that works. So 1SP. It's down to half again for Soviet limitations per the Political and Economic Rules. So 0.5 SPs. General supply reduces combat effects by 50%, so that's a modification on the 75% for Light Armor: .75 x .5 x .5 = 0.1875 Armor Points. Pretty pitiful. Normally, we'd bump this up to 1 (and snag a +1 DRM) per 10.L.1.b, but, following scenario rules for the intro Land Combat scenario (which I'm currently scratching my head through), Soviet armor doesn't benefit from ASE effects, so scrap that whole tangential math problem. We're still at 1.875 attack value at -3 DRM. Yikes. Next up, skipping the optional Going rules, we have CEV, valued at 0.75 in general supply. So that's 1.40625 attack strength (with a -3 DRM). That's ... pretty terrible. Thank goodness there's no rivers or defense fortifications in the way. 

So, by comparison, even beset by the Soviet player's coordination limitations per the Political & Economic Rules in both cases, when attacking clear terrain in good weather, the 1st L Armor Brigade's attack strength comes in at 9.375 with a +1 DRM. In wooded hills and severe, freezing weather without the benefit of Armor Shock Effects (pitiful as those effects would be anyway), we're looking at an attack strength of 1.40625 with a -3 DRM. That's a significant spread between the two. Divide 9.375 by 1.40625 and we get 6 and 2/3, discounting difference achieved by our DRMs. 

To make this go full circle, let's say the brigade attacks an enemy with 1 defense strength and no modification to DRMs beyond what we've calculated, rolling a 5 on the Combat Resolution Table. At 9:1 odds and a +1 DRM, we get a Defender Eliminated result. And trundling blindly into the woods at 1:1 and a -3 DRM, we get an Attacker Quartered result. Telling, isn't it? 

Well, this certainly served as a help to yours truly, and hopefully if any curious minds read this, it'll be a help to them too. I'm off now to see if I can replicate this in real game terms and run a few more trial and errors, but it certainly for one puts things into perspective and gives a good sense of how to run with the system. For good measure, I'll probably run through another "Doing the Math" boot camp some time, seeing as it could probably be a good series for the more complex games out there. When I run up against the air combat procedure most likely, I'll see if I can put another one of these together.

Any way, until next time.