Heroes of the Soviet Union Playthrough

[Grumm]

I don't expect to update this regularly, but I thought I'd give a few short descriptions from my playthrough of Heroes of the Soviet Union. These games are played with the 2nd Edition ruleset that comes in the box. By my fourth game (Scenario #6, Grediakino), I had introduced a house rule regarding force-wide morale, which altered the late game results considerably (still undecided whether I like the house rule, but I will keep playtesting it). I would like to submit these as AAR's on the main website, but I am not really sure how to do it!

Game 1, Scenario #16
Red Parachutes: Grigorovka

• I played this scenario solo. This was my very first full scenario that I have ever played with the rules (I've owned the box set for 20 odd years but never given it a proper play until recently, you can read about that experience elsewhere). I used Map #4 as I didn't have Map #2 yet. In the ensuing battle, the German motorcycle troops raced ahead into the small village, taking up defensive positions before the Soviets could reach them. The T-34's roared their engines and swooped around the north and south of the village. To the north, the German 75mm PaK40 (which I had hoped to tow into the village) was forced to unlimber in the open when a company of T-34's came into sight. For the rest of the battle, three platoons of T-34's would fight a protracted gun battle with this lone ATG platoon, which caused two of the T-34 platoons to retreat demoralized and reduced. In the south, a lone T-34 platoon advanced on the Panzer IV F2 in the woodline below the village. Initially, the Panzer platoon caused the southern T-34 to recoil with damage, but the Soviet tank soon returned the favour and the Panzers were retreated deeper into the woods to lick their wounds. Meanwhile, the Soviet infantry attempted a direct assault on the German Kradschützen in the village, but it was to no avail... the Germans had simply gotten the upper hand by taking the village first, and the similar numbers of attackers and defenders decided the outcome of the assault before it had even gotten underway. The Soviet infantry ended up fleeing on foot, alongside several shocked and damaged T-34 platoons. German victory.
  

Game 2, Scenario #9
Gauntlet

• I played this scenario with my daughter. The German infantry battalion deployed around the village with heavier weapons on the hill and the southern edge of the forest, back behind the village. The Soviet cavalry made a concerted push south of the village, causing the Germans to hastily redeploy to catch the cavalry in their net. The 2cm Flak 38 gun rattled from the forest edge along with mortars and HMGs, slowing the enemy cavalry, but even with the heavy snow the Soviets slowly but surely pushed their way closer and closer to their exit on the Western map edge. The scenario ended with five Red Cavalry sneaking off the map edge, with an entire squadron (3 units) stuck by the closing German infantry. Interestingly, the scenario stipulated 5 Soviet Cavalry units escaping as a victory condition, but did not mention steps. Thus there were several reduced cavalry units that propelled the Soviets to victory when they escaped. Despite the death of one of the Soviet leaders, there was no way to stop the Cavalry once they were at the edge of the board, since even troops without leaders could legally move off the board as this was "away from" enemy units. Soviet victory.
  

Game 3, Scenario #5
Kaeter's Counterattack

• I played this scenario solo. I tried to make every use of the Germans mobility (with four trucks) and the diminished visibility in the early morning darkness to get the German infantry into position for an all out assault on the town. The Soviets had deployed infantry in the village and woods with the 45mm ATG in the village and the 76.2mm divisional gun on the road west of the village. The Germans ignored the forest entirely and flanked to the west, despite the danger of the divisional gun. A mobile combat team made up of the Panzer IV F2, the motorcycle platoon and a lorried infantry platoon assaulted the divisional gun position while the remaining German infantry pushed towards the village. A vicious battle in the village ensued, with the German infantry rather miraculously avoiding casualties or demoralization. The Soviets fed forest-based infantry into the village fight and there was a back and forth running assault for several turns. Eventually, an entire Soviet infantry company with HMG platoon and wagon-drawn 45mm ATG arrived and made their way across the snowy ground towards the village (I counted the wagon as a foot unit for the snow movement factor, reasoning that a horse is not really a motorized or mechanized thing). By the end of the battle, the Germans had been finally starting to wear down from considerable casualties and the influx of a stack of fresh Soviet infantry into the village meant that the attack was untenable. Soviet victory.
  

[Grumm]

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.

[plloyd1010]

I'm not sure what you mean by "force morale". I think perhaps you mean initiative. That is more of a command cohesion thing.

Anyway, have you played with anyone more experienced in the game system? Are you familiar with Vassal? I don't have PG: The East Front, but I have nearly every other game, including Heroes of the Soviet Union.

If you don't want a full scenario, or need help with Vassal, we have the PG Über Mentoring scenarios.

[Grumm]

Oh no, sorry, I don't play online. I prefer solo, although I occasionally game with my kids.

The "force morale" thing is a house rule I was playtesting, not a mechanic in the rules as written. The idea would be that as casualties mount across the entire force (battalion, regiment or whatever), command and control breaks down and that chaos causes lower-level commanders and platoons to panic or withdraw, assuming the battle is lost or unable to operate effectively without a consistent line of communication to the headquarters. It could generally represent the loss of runners, the breaking of communication lines, the depletion of ammunition or simply command confusion as well.

[plloyd1010]

Oh no, sorry, I don't play online. I prefer solo, although I occasionally game with my kids.

Too bad.
Player quality and game understanding improve dramatically with shared play.

[triangular_cube]

Oh no, sorry, I don't play online. I prefer solo, although I occasionally game with my kids.

The "force morale" thing is a house rule I was playtesting, not a mechanic in the rules as written. The idea would be that as casualties mount across the entire force (battalion, regiment or whatever), command and control breaks down and that chaos causes lower-level commanders and platoons to panic or withdraw, assuming the battle is lost or unable to operate effectively without a consistent line of communication to the headquarters. It could generally represent the loss of runners, the breaking of communication lines, the depletion of ammunition or simply command confusion as well.

The system experimented with something similar to that in Beyond Normandy. It ultimately didnt get picked up in any other modules that I recall. My copies are buried right now or I'd dig up the details on it to compare.

[treadasaurusrex]

IMHO, shared play -- be it face-to-face or online -- is the very best way to learn how to play this fiddly, but interesting game. Peter's right about this matter and there are plenty of us out in cyberspace ready to help.

[goosebrown]

I agree with the folks above. Doing this via vassal is the only way to go. If you showed up here, I would get out another computer and put the screens side by side. 

Vassal means your cat cannot pull a neutron bomb on your game on the table.
You can play people anywhere in any time zone
You can blow up the counters and charts if you are blind like me. 

REALLY EASY CLEAN UP

If you ever decide to try, let me know and I will happily play

BTW, I like the experiment with the force morale and the initiative reduction. If you tweek it a little and you like it, let us know what you came up with. I would try it out

[Grumm]

Thanks. To be honest, I've become more anti-social in the COVID era and can't really imagine playing against real opponents anymore (outside of my family, that is). I'm not a competitive gamer and I like to play both sides, not to win, but just to see what happens and let the dice tell a story. I also like the quiet time solo gaming gives me, and the chance to play at my own pace or in weird corners of free time I have.

Luckily, I think I understand the rules fine. Panzer Grenadier really is quite a straightforward game... I had trouble with it over twenty years ago only because it was my very first hex-and-counter wargame and I wasn't used to the common conventions of such games. I read the rulebook now, with the benefit of decades of more experience, and am surprised I ever had any difficulty with it.

In any case, I think I've played through all of the small-ish scenarios in Heroes of the Soviet Union now (at least the ones that I can play with just that boxed set). I've got the original Panzer Grenadier coming in the mail, which should "unlock" the last 12 scenarios of HotSU as well as provide more fodder for gaming. When that arrives, I may continue these battle reports if there is any interest in them.

[Grumm]

Oh no, sorry, I don't play online. I prefer solo, although I occasionally game with my kids.

The "force morale" thing is a house rule I was playtesting, not a mechanic in the rules as written. The idea would be that as casualties mount across the entire force (battalion, regiment or whatever), command and control breaks down and that chaos causes lower-level commanders and platoons to panic or withdraw, assuming the battle is lost or unable to operate effectively without a consistent line of communication to the headquarters. It could generally represent the loss of runners, the breaking of communication lines, the depletion of ammunition or simply command confusion as well.

The system experimented with something similar to that in Beyond Normandy. It ultimately didnt get picked up in any other modules that I recall. My copies are buried right now or I'd dig up the details on it to compare.

I'd be really curious to know how Beyond Normandy handled it. Do you think you could post a reply here when you have a moment to look up the morale rules in that game?