$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 59.82

4,300 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
27.1% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

World at War: Eisenbach Gap» Forums » Strategy

Subject: The Soviets...they are really invading europe?? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So, i purchased this game 3+ years ago and now i was willing to play it again.

The first thing that came in my mind was...the mighty Soviet Union is invading europe with at least 10 or more years old weaponry. They must be crazy or re******.

And then i played the first couple of scenarios...it was hell on heart...for the Reds.

Of all the matches that we played the Soviets were completely, and i mean completely eliminated from the board or unable to make a final push due to reducted platoons.

I played with a friend and i have more experience that him in boardgames, so i told him to let me play as the Soviets because the Americans are a little bit more forgiving in the game. Loosing an Abrams platoon may be bad, but you still

have a chance on doing something.

But he was so fierce and fanatic for the Reds ( the Red Army, the Soviet steamroll, ecc..) that i give up and let him play as the Soviets.

So in conclusion he was using units with lower quality, hard to control bacause of short range so little flexibility, against a far better army, with an experienced player controlling it.

He whine all the times he lost, but he still want to play as the Reds, how can i help him? Change game or change friend?

Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Zurunkel
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You could reduce the number of units you have, alter the reinforcement schedule, etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Schulte
United States
Washington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Allow him a number of artillery markers as a sort of handicap.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The keys to Soviet success are numbers, speed, terrain, short ranges, and assault. They cannot win a shootout (even with more numbers, even at medium ranges (except ATGM's)). They must use EVERY bit of terrain to close and assault NATO. That does not mean the Soviets can afford wasteful loses. This game is Soviet wolves vs NATO lions.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Westie wrote:
You could reduce the number of units you have, alter the reinforcement schedule, etc.


I will try it, maybe giving more reinforcements avaible or even the possibility to refill some of the step losses. What do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Schulte wrote:
Allow him a number of artillery markers as a sort of handicap.


That sounds fair. Also because Soviets artillery disrupt only American AFV's.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ZombieMark wrote:
The keys to Soviet success are numbers, speed, terrain, short ranges, and assault. They cannot win a shootout (even with more numbers, even at medium ranges (except ATGM's)). They must use EVERY bit of terrain to close and assault NATO. That does not mean the Soviets can afford wasteful loses. This game is Soviet wolves vs NATO lions.


Totally agree. What makes this game great and entertaining is that when you start the game as the Reds you think "ohoho i have so much forces that i'll overwhelm the NATO ones", then the game begin and you see Red counters disappearing from the board and before you can react...you lost your army. But yes, playing as both is difficult and every move must be played carefully.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Kovacs
United States
Elyria
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rydo wrote:
So, I purchased this game 3+ years ago and now I was willing to play it again.

The first thing that came in my mind was...the mighty Soviet Union is invading Europe with at least 10 or more years old weaponry. They must be crazy or re******.

And then I played the first couple of scenarios...it was hell on heart...for the Reds.

Of all the matches that we played the Soviets were completely, and I mean completely eliminated from the board or unable to make a final push due to reduced platoons.

I played with a friend and I have more experience that him in boardgames, so I told him to let me play as the Soviets because the Americans are a little bit more forgiving in the game. Loosing an Abrams platoon may be bad, but you still have a chance on doing something.

But he was so fierce and fanatic for the Reds (the Red Army, the Soviet steamroll, etc..) that I gave up and let him play as the Soviets.

So in conclusion he was using units with lower quality, hard to control because of short range, so little flexibility, against a far better army, with an experienced player controlling it.

He whined all the times he lost, but he still wants to play as the Reds, how can I help him? Change game or change friend?

Thanks!


Keep in mind the time frame for this game is the mid-1980s. All of the equipment is technically out-of-date from today.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kev.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Read & Watch at www.bigboardgaming.com
Infomanohio wrote:
Rydo wrote:
So, I purchased this game 3+ years ago and now I was willing to play it again.

The first thing that came in my mind was...the mighty Soviet Union is invading Europe with at least 10 or more years old weaponry. They must be crazy or re******.

And then I played the first couple of scenarios...it was hell on heart...for the Reds.

Of all the matches that we played the Soviets were completely, and I mean completely eliminated from the board or unable to make a final push due to reduced platoons.

I played with a friend and I have more experience that him in boardgames, so I told him to let me play as the Soviets because the Americans are a little bit more forgiving in the game. Loosing an Abrams platoon may be bad, but you still have a chance on doing something.

But he was so fierce and fanatic for the Reds (the Red Army, the Soviet steamroll, etc..) that I gave up and let him play as the Soviets.

So in conclusion he was using units with lower quality, hard to control because of short range, so little flexibility, against a far better army, with an experienced player controlling it.

He whined all the times he lost, but he still wants to play as the Reds, how can I help him? Change game or change friend?

Thanks!


Keep in mind the time frame for this game is the mid-1980s. All of the equipment is technically out-of-date from today.

You said he is not an experienced wargamer?
Walk him thru the rules that help the Soviets. Help him understand how the US will fight (shoot and scoot etc). There are very few scenarios where the Soviets cannot win that I recall. Most are usually pretty tight affairs. This system usually pitches well balanced scenarios .

- Unless you are HQ hunting and knocking out his HQ's ( an experienced players hack to fuck the enemy on either side and pretty gamey but allowed via RAW).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vance Strickland
Canada
Nepean
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hipshot wrote:

...
- Unless you are HQ hunting and knocking out his HQ's ( an experienced players hack to fuck the enemy on either side and pretty gamey but allowed via RAW).


Why is that gamey? In real life you want to hunt the enemy HQs to disrupt his C&C...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kev.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Read & Watch at www.bigboardgaming.com
OK.. the HQ Tank has a different antenna. Other than that how are you identifying it?
Is it really going to be THAT crippling an effect?
I prefer that the HQ stays on board reduced or something similar. Otherwise the game ends up being about killing the HQ's not playing the game.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Smith
United States
West Nyack
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hipshot wrote:
Walk him thru the rules that help the Soviets. Help him understand how the US will fight (shoot and scoot etc). There are very few scenarios where the Soviets cannot win that I recall. Most are usually pretty tight affairs. This system usually pitches well balanced scenarios .


I think the "well balanced" comment is subject to debate. That said, both the "bucket of dice" combat resolution and the initiative chit draw can lead to huge swings in the balance of the scenario. Just had a "useless" T-55 take out a full Abrams platoon on a hill because the T-55 rolled 5-6-6 and the Abrams couldn't roll a 5-6 on 4 defense dice to save it's life. Normally, a T-55 would have no chance against an Abrams. Add on top of that the variable activation and that sometimes your units won't even get to activate, a scenario can certainly look impossible to win. It probably all balances out over time but you can play the same scenario back to back and get wildly opposite outcomes.

At first, this really bugged me about the game. But, now, I've stopped worrying about whether I'm going to win or lose and just enjoy the ride and see the crazy things that happen ... such as the aforementioned T-55 blowing away half the US formation. BTW, that scenario was 4 and I won as the Russians. I'm playing through all the EB scenarios via email as the Russian side and so far the Russians have won all but scenario 2 ... which seems pretty improbable for them to win if you ask me. Anyway, it's possible for them to win. It's a fun game, but I wouldn't play it for money given the high luck element.

... which probably doesn't help much with the OP initial question.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Keep in mind the time frame for this game is the mid-1980s. All of the equipment is technically out-of-date from today.


From today i know. I was talking about the game time.

Game start in 1985 and the main Soviet tank battallion use T-72 ( 1971 ), then the use T-62 ( around 1962 ) and even T-55!!

Hinds ( 1972 ) and other old stuff, that what i was talking about, but it's not to say the game is poor written, just that is fun to see Soviets thinking they could breach the NATO lines with out-to-date military.

Probably they used their better tanks in more important parts of europe, the other modules will tell!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
You said he is not an experienced wargamer?
Walk him thru the rules that help the Soviets. Help him understand how the US will fight (shoot and scoot etc). There are very few scenarios where the Soviets cannot win that I recall. Most are usually pretty tight affairs. This system usually pitches well balanced scenarios .

- Unless you are HQ hunting and knocking out his HQ's ( an experienced players hack to fuck the enemy on either side and pretty gamey but allowed via RAW).


The real game change is the better comunications and preparations of NATO formations. That is the main thing that can turn the tide from a blitzkrieg style attack from a war of attrition that the Reds cannot afford.

In some cases, the US activate twice, and your first line units could maybe survive an Abrams shot once, but twice...ehm...

And yes, as soon as i see an HQ i tend to eliminate it. And in some scenarios, when the HQ cannot come back, well, out of command + open terrain = US happyness!

BTW we tried a few hours ago a new Noob rule: the Reds can activate twice, and this make everyone happy, i've still won but with a challenge.

Thanks for all the suggestions!!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Soviets have two "cheats." First, despite only one activation, the T-72's speed is almost as fast as NATO tanks with two activations. This makes the game work. Scenarios with slower Soviet tanks are more problematic. Secondly, ATGM's are the Soviet long range weapon of choice. A third "cheat" even though it cuts both ways is Smoke (I've always thought wargames give smoke WAY to much power to influence games).

As for timeframe...The designer of the game was a Navy officer during the 1980's (so was I). This was during the Reagan buildup. At the time, the Soviets fielded 10 to 20 year old equipment (even older in 3rd line divisions). NATO and the USA were rearming with the sexy new (for the time) stuff we all know and love (M-1's, Leo2's, Bradley's, Apache's, etc.). 1985 was probably a conscience choice. 1985 was the sweet spot where new and superior NATO/US equipment could match Soviet numbers tactically (the strategic situation is probably another story, too many variables). If the game were set in 1975, it would probably lean towards the Soviets. The October War showed superior Western firepower could wreck havoc in open terrain, but the closer terrain of Europe would favor the Soviets.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ZombieMark wrote:
The Soviets have two "cheats." First, despite only one activation, the T-72's speed is almost as fast as NATO tanks with two activations. This makes the game work. Scenarios with slower Soviet tanks are more problematic. Secondly, ATGM's are the Soviet long range weapon of choice. A third "cheat" even though it cuts both ways is Smoke (I've always thought wargames give smoke WAY to much power to influence games).

As for timeframe...The designer of the game was a Navy officer during the 1980's (so was I). This was during the Reagan buildup. At the time, the Soviets fielded 10 to 20 year old equipment (even older in 3rd line divisions). NATO and the USA were rearming with the sexy new (for the time) stuff we all know and love (M-1's, Leo2's, Bradley's, Apache's, etc.). 1985 was probably a conscience choice. 1985 was the sweet spot where new and superior NATO/US equipment could match Soviet numbers tactically (the strategic situation is probably another story, too many variables). If the game were set in 1975, it would probably lean towards the Soviets. The October War showed superior Western firepower could wreck havoc in open terrain, but the closer terrain of Europe would favor the Soviets.


Wow, thank you for all the informations, very interesting really.

I know the Reds have lots of advantages but i was forced to use some other cheats to let my friend stand a chance, when he learn the game better we will turn back with normal rules.

For you, what was the best time for Soviets to actually win an immaginary war like this in europe?

They were able to attack in 1962?

If during the max US commitment in vietnam ( 500.000 men ) a Soviet-chinese counter-attack, isolating and destroying all US units in vietnam then attack europe? ( ok sorry for that, it was quite stupid but i think about it for a while ).

Too kind if you'll answer and give me time.

Regards!!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Notme
United States
Odenton
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
OK.. the HQ Tank has a different antenna. Other than that how are you identifying it?


A company HQ is not just a tank with a different antenna. It's the command and control element for 3-4 platoons. It has to issue orders, receive and deliver beans and bullets, stay in communications with elements up and down the chain of command.

It has a huge electronic signature. It's communicating up and down the chain of command. Even if they are using encrypted comms, the traffic alone will give away their position fairly quickly.

And, as a command and control element, it tends to be much more active than other units. Lots of movement in the HQ AO. In a company, the 1SG is delivering chow, ammo, and other supplies. Figure 2-3 logistics runs a day. Platoon leaders are showing up for briefings, supplies are being delivered regularly (hopefully ... otherwise it's going to be a short fight). You've got generators running all the time.

Add that it's easier to hide a combat element. They can go to radio silence (receive mode only) and stay close enough to make things work with flags and hand signals. They still have a logistical tail, but it's in receive mode only.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rydo wrote:
For you, what was the best time for Soviets to actually win an imaginary war like this in europe?


When T-34/85's faced Shermans. Not only because the Soviet tank was superior (as shown in Korea). But, because the immediate post war era was pre-nukes, and the US and allies had really drawn down their armies. And a sort of garrison malaise had set in for the Allies (again as evidenced in the first weeks of the Korean Conflict). Once the US fielded numerous nukes (before the Soviets did), then the advantage would have shifted, assuming the US would use nukes on a Western European battlefield. Maybe the conventional war became more even with the electronic revolution and updated Western equipment.

I can say the 1980's Naval War would have not been easy for the good old USN. BTW, I was hunting a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean on the day the Eisenbach Gap's war starts.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rydo Dejan
Italy
Milan
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
BTW, I was hunting a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean on the day the Eisenbach Gap's war starts.


surprise

Quote:
When T-34/85's faced Shermans. Not only because the Soviet tank was superior (as shown in Korea). But, because the immediate post war era was pre-nukes, and the US and allies had really drawn down their armies. And a sort of garrison malaise had set in for the Allies (again as evidenced in the first weeks of the Korean Conflict). Once the US fielded numerous nukes (before the Soviets did), then the advantage would have shifted, assuming the US would use nukes on a Western European battlefield. Maybe the conventional war became more even with the electronic revolution and updated Western equipment.


Basically the best time for the Soviets was few years after the end of the second world war and maybe more. Thank god nothing happened, also because i see allies dropping nukes in europe if its survival depends on it.

Thanls for your time Mark, even if you never took in consideration the vietnam sack i told you above... just kidding, thanks!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Zurunkel
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ZombieMark wrote:
Rydo wrote:
For you, what was the best time for Soviets to actually win an imaginary war like this in europe?


When T-34/85's faced Shermans. Not only because the Soviet tank was superior (as shown in Korea). But, because the immediate post war era was pre-nukes, and the US and allies had really drawn down their armies. And a sort of garrison malaise had set in for the Allies (again as evidenced in the first weeks of the Korean Conflict). Once the US fielded numerous nukes (before the Soviets did), then the advantage would have shifted, assuming the US would use nukes on a Western European battlefield. Maybe the conventional war became more even with the electronic revolution and updated Western equipment.

I can say the 1980's Naval War would have not been easy for the good old USN. BTW, I was hunting a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean on the day the Eisenbach Gap's war starts.


T-34/85s fared rather poorly against Shermans (and Pershings) during the Korean War. They were successful in the early stages when the only tanks to oppose them were M-24 Chaffees. Once the heavier gunned American tanks arrived, they were dead meat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
That "Tanks" TV show credited the Pershing with whipping the T-34. NOT Shermans.

In any case, I was using as a marker for the post-war Soviets vs the post-war US, when the Army still used leftover equipment. (1945 to 1955-ish)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Kovacs
United States
Elyria
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Israelis also had no problem crushing T-34/85s with Shermans in the 1956 and 1967 wars. Of course, by 1967 the Israeli Shermans were equipped with 105mm guns and the Israelis also used superior tactics against their Arab counterparts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Kovacs
United States
Elyria
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Westie wrote:
ZombieMark wrote:
Rydo wrote:
For you, what was the best time for Soviets to actually win an imaginary war like this in europe?


When T-34/85's faced Shermans. Not only because the Soviet tank was superior (as shown in Korea). But, because the immediate post war era was pre-nukes, and the US and allies had really drawn down their armies. And a sort of garrison malaise had set in for the Allies (again as evidenced in the first weeks of the Korean Conflict). Once the US fielded numerous nukes (before the Soviets did), then the advantage would have shifted, assuming the US would use nukes on a Western European battlefield. Maybe the conventional war became more even with the electronic revolution and updated Western equipment.

I can say the 1980's Naval War would have not been easy for the good old USN. BTW, I was hunting a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean on the day the Eisenbach Gap's war starts.


T-34/85s fared rather poorly against Shermans (and Pershings) during the Korean War. They were successful in the early stages when the only tanks to oppose them were M-24 Chaffees. Once the heavier gunned American tanks arrived, they were dead meat.


M-24 Chaffees were equipped with an M6 75mm gun, which was almost as good as the 75mm on the Shermans; unusual for a light tank to be armed with such a large gun. The M-24 also had better sloped armor on the turret, but it was a light tank, not meant to go one-on-one with a T-34.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Zurunkel
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Most, I won't say all because I'm not certain, of the Shermans in Korea mounted the high velocity 76mm gun, not the 75mm that the M-24 carried.

Fun Fact - The French considered sending their Tiger tanks to fight in Korea (the French Army operated a large number of captured German vehicles in the post-war era). They decided not to because of concerns over obtaining spare parts, as the original manufacturer was no longer in the tank building business.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
During the Generals' putsch (1961), the French military protected the government grounds with captured German Panthers, still in use at the time.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.