This AAR follows four turns (of sixteen). The game is in abeyance due to the summer vacation of my playing partner. Still, the battle now seems likely to be determined.

Fundamental Objective: Germans attempt to hold a bridgehead against Soviet combined arms attack.

Soviet force: four infantry companies; a strong on-board AT/Art component; and eight tank platoons (mixed: BT-7; T-28; T-34; and KV-1).

German: A reinforced motorized rifle battalion. The reinforcing armored elements are 2xStugIIIB and 1xPz38t.

Germans have three victory areas: a bridge hex in the center of the western board; a four-hex town in the north-east of the western board; and a seven-hex town in the center of the middle board. The eastern board has not (yet) been used in our action.

Scenario "Broke?": The VP conditions stipulate a 13 point change from German to Russian control of the bridge hex. Each town hex, however, effects a 5-point change from German to Russian control. Put another way, each of the towns is more valuable in itself than the bridge hex. To my mind this VP schedule "breaks" the scenario since it would actually encourage the German player to defend the towns preferentially compared to the bridge itself: this is not what (I think) would be the case "for real." I believe that the VP schedule should reflect what a real German commander would do: use the towns to advantage to slow the Soviet attack (and wear down his forces), but fall back to hold the bridge at all costs. For that matter, what a Soviet commander would do: possibly by-pass the towns with some holding infantry, but make every effort to capture the bridge. Put another way, if the Soviet player takes only the seven-hex town (21 VPs) leaving the bridge and four hex town to the German player (13 VPs), then the Soviet player wins (caveat: each player also gets the usual 1 VP per opponent step loss). My point here is not that this is necessarily bad in and of itself, but as the scenario description so emphasizes the "guarding (of) major bridgeheads," I felt the VP schedule, by undervaluing the bridge hex, did not convey this tactical situation. Hence, my giving this scenario a '1'.

The play itself was fairly dramatic, however. The Russian player sent two attack groups: Inf;HMGs; and the light armor & the KV-1 to attack the four-hex town: nine Rifle platoons and the 3xT-34's to attack the seven-hex town: mortars and artillery drove for the large field to set up.

German set-up: essentially one company (3xINF + 1xHMG) in each of the towns & the bridge area. One Stug in each town; the Pz38t guarding the road to the bridge.

Four-hex town battle. Soviet infantry took a pounding upon approach via opportunity fire and the Stug & 75mmIG took out several steps of light Soviet armor (also, on turn one, the Stug from the other town was brought along the road to a firing position to cover the east of this town (fire on turns 2 & 3; then returned back on turn 4: this was not as easy as it sounds here, this Stug dodged three T-34 shots and an adjacent 45mm AT gun shot!). One Stug step lost, but the other remained in good order. Soviet assault (turn four) went well, with a roll of 6 on the 18 Col (Germans lost a full RIF platoon) vs a roll of 2 on the 13 col for German defender. Germans reinforced this hex with 2 INF. So situation here is one hex contested by assault; two other town hexes with half a Stug and the other with a lone (now) 75 mm IG. The Soviets still have a full strength RIF, HMG, and the KV-1 (along with some demoralized half-steps on the board edge trying to recover). So whilst the Soviets will pay some more blood here, the Germans will likely be unable to hold this town.

Seven-hex town battle: perhaps because of trying to rush the game, the Soviet Rifle companies tried a "charge of the light brigade" vs. the German company holding the seven-hex town. The German player prior to this had five consecutive '6' or '7' rolls on various decent DF or IF attacks - perhaps this display of poor shooting emboldened the Soviet commander. But, here, an '11' on the 22-col and a '3' on the 45 col (16 col attack + 2 for adj + 1 for three units in a hex - I deferred OF), lead to four step losses total and a rash of demoralizations/disruptions. Three Russian rifle companies are in taters before the town, at the mercy of initiative for turn five. So at this stage, the Soviet attack here seems stymied; the 3x T-34s here will be taking shots at the lone Stug.

At the end of turn four:

Soviets: four VPs (all due to Ger step losses). One town hex contested by assault. Germans: forty-eight VPs (twenty-three VPs for Soviet step losses (tanks x2); twenty for ten town hexes currently under control; and five for the brige).

Projection:

As the Germans do not actually have units in all seven of the large town hexes, I'd posit the Soviets eventually having six town hexes (total) under their control by game end for a total of 18 VPs there; the Germans will hold the bridge; the Germans would thus have five town hexes (10 VPs) + bridge (5 VPs) = 15 VPs. Thus, ultimate victory will eventually then depend upon the step loss differential which currently is in favor of the Germans by 23 to 4). How this projects out will be interesting: the Soviet infantry is largely in tatters: can the Germans pound them with compound morale failures before they recover? Armor wise, the Germans have killed off the Soviet light armor; the T-34s and KV-1 will not be so easy and the Stugs may have had their time in the sun.

Will finish in about six weeks.