By the time I had played three games, I was noticing something that is actually rather typical to counter wargames: the scenarios were not ending with any clear, decisive result. Quite often in a counter wargame, in my experience, if one side is losing a battle, they can nevertheless still do serious damage to the opponent in order to prevent their enemy from achieving a clear (and perhaps well-deserved) win. The outcome of this is that things are pretty muddled by the end of the game, with both sides limping along and one or the other achieving the thinnest of possible technical victories.
In contrast, miniature wargames (again, in my experience) tend to have an avalanching effect, so that when something goes wrong for one side it tends to have knock-on effects so that things keep on going wrong and get worse and worse, thus increasing the gap between two sides. Now, it can be debated which gives a better or more satisfactory result (I would argue the mealy-mouthed result is often not satisfactory for either player), but when you mainly play solo-wargaming (as I do) then you may find a more decisive result to be more satisfactory overall (which I do).
Thus, I set about thinking up a house rule to get a clearer result from the scenarios and quickly decided to simply borrow a common miniature wargaming concept of modeling the gradual loss of force-wide morale. Since I am playing Panzer Grenadier 2nd Edition, which doesn't have a rule preventing negative initiative modifiers from combat losses, I decided simply to apply any negative initiative modifier as a penalty on all morale tests by that side. Thus the house rule was:
Force Morale: If the force's initiative modifier ever falls to negative numbers, apply this negative modifier to all morale tests for combat results and recovery checks for that side.
I tried this house rule out on my next game, Scenario #6 Grediakino, as described below. The result was fairly dramatic. Since both sides start with decent initiative in this scenario (3 each), and the attacking Soviets had a relatively high combat loss threshold (-1 initiative for every 4 step losses), the house rule did not actually kick in until the last half of the 12 turn scenario. When it did, however, things began to unravel. The Soviets were the first to drop to negative initiative, and held things together until they hit about -3, at which point they were having difficulty coordinating their troops. Some began to flee the field, which I counted as further step losses (the rules are not clear if routed troops count as combat losses, but I reasoned that they likely should). These routed troops (as well as several commander deaths) quickly propelled the Soviets to the -6 and beyond range, at which point no unit could rally and the Soviet attack crumbled away. They ended up with a total of -8 initiative (and morale) by the end of the scenario, with only a reduced HMG platoon hiding in the woods, disrupted (and thus unable to either recover or rout). The German, for their part, only hit negatives at the very end, when a final combat to push some disrupted Soviets in the town over the edge resulted in some last minute casualties. They ended with a total of -3. Here is the AAR:
Game 4, Scenario #6
Grediakino
- I played this scenario solo, using a house rule for force-wide morale loss (negative initiative modifiers are applied to all morale tests). The Soviets formed up a strong attack line centered on the Major. Stacks of units and leaders were carefully selected for movement rate, firepower and combat mission, with an HMG company on the western flank near the woods and the mortar company and ATG company anchoring the eastern flank in the open terrain. The Germans placed one infantry company to contest the western woods and dug-in an HMG platoon and the StuG IIIG in the open to the east of the village. The remaining German infantry and heavy weapons deployed in a familiar pattern on the edge of the village (and again, leaders were carefully matched with units to maximize firepower). The Soviets advanced along this broad front, seizing the initiative. Early fires included mortars and off-board artillery, with both sides focusing on a particular schwerpunkt (the Soviets chose the deadly stack of German units placed in the furthest northern extension of the village, while the Germans targeted the Soviet Major's stack to attempt to break up the chain of command). Thanks to the cover provided by the village, the Germans weathered this better than the Soviets, who quickly saw their advancing line split in half as each wing advanced while the Major's stack was pinned down by indirect fires. The western Soviet flank saw the HMG company suppressing the Germans in the woods and a full company of Soviet infantry move in for the assault (the Soviet companies were a full three platoons while the German companies were typically just two platoons in size). They would fight a back and forth close combat over the wood line for the rest of the battle, with the Soviets surprisingly having to feed in the nearby HMG company to reinforce their assault on the plucky German defenders. On the other side of the village, the dug-in HMG and StuG managed to weaken the eastern Soviet advance, despite receiving copious fire from Soviet heavy weapons. The result of all this was that the Soviets arrived rather piecemeal to the German village, exactly according to the defense plans. Nevertheless, by mid game, there were two or three full Soviet companies assaulting the outnumbered village defenders, with weakened troops from the Major's stack being fed in as poor-quality reinforcements. The Germans decided to roll out the StuG to blast away at these forces pointblank in order to stem the tide of Soviet reserves. The assault gun was joined by this time by a fresh platoon and German leader, reinforcements that had spent much of the battle marching across the snow to reach the village. Their combined assault scattered the Soviets loitering outside the village and left the only remaining Soviet company in the village completely alone. Nevertheless, a largely unsuccessful counterattack by the Soviet Major caused massive damage to both sides, with the StuG becoming demoralized and reduced and the Major losing his life. While the StuG rolled around the battlefield trying to flee the devastation, the German reinforcement platoon and leader led a mad rush into the panicked and disorganized Soviet remnant north of the town, killing another Soviet leader and causing Red Army infantry to scatter for their map edge. By the end of the game, the weakened Germans in the village were forced to launch a final assault to push out the now leaderless remnants of the Soviet attackers that were skulking in the northern hex of the village. The assault was successful, but shred the paper-thin German forces, resulting in the German CO scuppering off (recovery roll of "12") despite having effectively won the day, leaving the village in the hands of his trusty Lieutenant.
The battle was certainly dramatic. I had not expected the StuG to take damage from the Major's surprise counter-assault, which effectively negated the ace up the German's sleeve as the vehicle became demoralized and useless. The German defenders in the woods were also surprisingly resistant... two full platoons had been reduced to a single reduced platoon, which had at least one time been abandoned by their leader (he came back in the end... "I was just going to get more ammo, I swear!"). This German company had outlasted a larger Soviet infantry company with an HMG company in support. Iron Crosses, all around! The Soviets suffered greatly from the bisection of their attack line. After accounting for the forces committed to clearing out the woods, the western flank only had one infantry company to attack the village. The eastern flank was better off with nearly three full companies, but two of these were delayed by the StuG/HMG nest. As a result, only two Soviet companies arrived at the village edge and on different rounds, allowing the Germans to concentrate their fire and severely weaken them. The second company was mainly used to filter in much-needed reinforcements for the first's assault hex and the attrition in the open ground east of the village meant that the Soviets were never able to open more than a single assault hex in the village. The Germans fed what little troops they had to hold this hex, but also tried to maintain some troops on the outskirts to discourage flanking attacks into the village. Rolling up the StuG for close-ranged fire was an act of desperation to try and break the flow of Red Army men into the village... a gamble that worked but cost the Germans their most effective unit. By the last four turns of the game, the Soviet morale (using the house rules) had deteriorated to the point of no return... it was simply a matter of mustering any capable German remnant to mop up the Soviets hunkering down in the vicinity of the village. This was a stretch which ultimately cost the Germans precious men and morale, so that many of their units were wavering by the end. The Soviets, on the other hand, completely melted away with this final counter-attack, leaving scant few living Red Army men on the field by turn 12.
This was my longest game, both in terms of turn count and time required. Each turn represented 15 minutes of real time and actually ended up taking about 15 minutes on average as well, resulting in a 3 hour game session. I think the house rule accomplished what it set out to do... after all, the Germans still had many units on the board at the end and the Soviets only had a single reduced HMG platoon and some wagons. Although they looked much more ragged than this, in reality the Germans still had three of their five leaders remaining by the end of the game (the Captain having quit the field on the very last turn, due to a "12" on his recovery roll) and eight of their ten combat units, although four of these were reduced. The Soviets probably had a little more than a third of their forces flee the table in the last few turns of the game, with the rest having been destroyed before that. That seems like very heavy casualties, but the Soviets did start with around a third of their units reduced and thus they effectively had more troops on paper than in actual practice.
I would have to think carefully about whether the house rule should be implemented in other scenarios. I do not think it would work well in a large scenario that has multiple different fronts across a large play area (like some of the Kursk scenarios), as one should rightfully expect an attack could theoretically go well on one flank and poorly on another. With this house rule, a disaster on one flank would likely demoralize the entire operation regardless of relative success on other flanks, which seems to me to be undesirable. Then again, the larger scenarios have necessarily higher combat loss thresholds, which means a wise commander would do well to pull back a faltering flank to save overall operational initiative and morale, instead of simply committing troops to a hopeless meat grinder simply to buy time for other, more auspicious attacks elsewhere on the battlefield.
The house rule is also quite dramatic, which is at odds with the general feel of Panzer Grenadier's rules (which are often quite subtle in their effects). This is an aesthetic clash more than anything, of course, but it is worth keeping in mind that games are designed around a specific feel as much as anything else and introducing discordant house rules might trample on that intentional game design.
