Should I consider the checkerboard defense gamey?

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Aditia
Yeah, if your panzer divisions are fresh =P

If they aren't fresh then you won't see this. If you do see this, that means you might have been resting your groups, and in that case, the soviets are in trouble.

Caveat - if you do see this and your tanks aren't fresh, then you have run them around chasing the wrong things. Focus is also key here.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: alfonso
That means that for the Germans the checkerboard is OK?

Haven't seen many Germans use it, but I guess it could be useful to them in 1943-44; in any event, I would say it is more realistic for the Germans, maybe even for the Russians after 1941.

And the problem isn't necessarily when you've got parts of the front using a checkerboard, but when, for instance, the whole front south of Kiev goes into a checkerboard, I just don't think it represents anything close to what the Germans faced, or even could have faced. Maybe its what the Sovs should have done to avoid the massive encirclements, but given their lack of mobility, initiative, and flexibility, this seems like more of a fantasy-strategy to me.

But again, in the game use of the checkerboard is unavoidable, so it is kind of pointless to argue whether it is gamey or not.

[alfonso]

The Germans use it already in 1941 to create encirclements using the ZOCs...

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The Germans use it already in 1941 to create encirclements using the ZOCs...

Good point there the impenetrable ZOC that the 1-1 Soviet ant just cant seem to enter, cos he's got the morale of a penal battalion. Plus all the movement calculation penalties...etc.etc

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Hagleboz

I think that many people are looking at this issue waaayyyy too literally when they poo-poo checkerboards.  In the game, divisions and corps sit neatly within a single hex and people are looking at it like that unit occupies only that single, solitary space.  Players then look at all the open hexes in a checkerboard and say, "That's ridiculous, there's no way anybody would setup their defense with 10 mile holes in it in real life!  A real life attacker would wind his way past that type of defense in his sleep.  That tactic is so gamey!" 

But in real life there are no hexes, and units are spread across the countryside in varying frontage lengths depending on the situation at hand.  When I look at a checkerboard defense I don't see it as one division here, another one sitting over there by itself 10 miles distant.  I see it as two divisions linked together continuously along a thinner line, with longer frontages, using real life tactics to extend the division's reach to cover more ground. Units arranged this way have the primary focus of a flexible defense to slow down an opposing offensive, using real world tactics such as hedgehogs, fallbacks, minefields and the like rather than holding fast.  ZOC's in this respect simulate that division's influence, in this case not just how far they can shoot, but actually spreading the division out on a wider frontage than the single, solitary hex it appears to occupy. 

In real life, on certain areas of the front, single divisions sometimes covered lengths of 30 or 40 miles because manpower was in such short supply.  Therefore it is absolutely not gamey to replicate this by checkerboarding based on the limitations of a hex-based map to accomplish the same exact thing.  The same effect can also be replicated by breaking a division down into 3 brigades, which themselves exert no ZOC, but which could linearly cover the same 3 hexes as a single unit would with it's hex and ZOC.  Checkerboarding is a lot more user friendly in terms of time, book keeping, and the hex stacking limit, than having to manually split up all the divisions you need to achieve the same effect.  If you need a frontage beyond 30 miles or so per division then you do split up into brigades and you really do suffer real holes in your lines when you spread them out.  I think its an excellent simulation of real life based on the limitations needed for a playable and enjoyable hex-based game.

Long story short, checkerboarding is not at all gamey! It is a very realistic "simulation" of very real world tactics, shoehorned into an unrealistic hex-based game world.

+1 Agreed!

[Farfarer61]

OMG I HAVE to try this

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Gamey is finding that you can airdrop the 10th Panzer to Moscow on turn 1, using the game mechanics properly is creating an interlocking series of ZOCs that slow down the enemy.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The Germans use it already in 1941 to create encirclements using the ZOCs...

Dunno, seems its the same game mechanic replicating a very different situation--mobile advancing German units vs static non-mobile Sov units...

[Hagleboz]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: When I look at a checkerboard defense I don't see it as one division here, another one sitting over there by itself 10 miles distant.  I see it as two divisions linked together continuously along a thinner line, with longer frontages, using real life tactics to extend the division's reach to cover more ground. Units arranged this way have the primary focus of a flexible defense to slow down an opposing offensive, using real world tactics such as hedgehogs, fallbacks, minefields and the like rather than holding fast.  ZOC's in this respect simulate that division's influence, in this case not just how far they can shoot, but actually spreading the division out on a wider frontage than the single, solitary hex it appears to occupy. 

I could be wrong, but I don't agree with this, mainly because I don't think that the Sovs had mastered what you call the "flexible defense" in 1941, and that your analysis implies a degree of operational sophistication that the Russians just didn't possess at this point. Sure, they could probably fall back from one tactical position to another, but to maintain a multidivision flexible defense against a mechanized opponent? I don't think so...

Well for the most part I was attempting to stress that checkerboarding simulates wider frontages more than anything else, and the Russians certainly had the ability to cover more than 10 miles per division, even in '41. They may have not been able to do it well, but I think that is simulated pretty well with their anemic CV values and limited ability to maneuver, especially through ZOC's and opposing territory.

It is clear that most players can setup a more viable defense in '41 than in real life but I don't really see that checkerboarding is the major culprit. Any Russian player who knows anything about history is simply not going to repeat the mistakes of allowing huge encirclements, attacking piecemeal, and trying to hold ground at all costs. Also the Russian player has way more understanding of what he's up against, more situational awareness of his overall position and has more cohesive control of his forces than the dire and confused situation afforded the Russians in real life.

Finally I don't see checkerboarding as the be-all, end-all defense that some people are complaining about. In the AAR's we have seen skilled and aggressive German players continuing to pull off large encirclements and keeping the Russian player off balance and unable to setup solid fortified lines, checkerboarded or no. It takes real skill, and detailed long term planning to do these things (as in real life) and I think a lot of players simply don't coordinate their turns and long term objectives well enough to do this. You have to do a lot more than say, "I'm going to try to take Leningrad or Moscow before the blizzard" to actually achieve it.

[Hagleboz]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: alfonso

The Germans use it already in 1941 to create encirclements using the ZOCs...

Dunno, seems its the same game mechanic replicating a very different situation--mobile advancing German units vs static non-mobile Sov units...

76mm, not trying to argue against you but I see the checkerboard mechanic as achieving the same thing in both situations. Covering more ground with the limited manpower available. The German has used his panzer forces in a schwerpunkt, blasted though the main defensive line along a small front, and then maneuvers to encircle the enemy by spreading out and forming a defensive shell to withstand counter attacks from outside and withdrawals from within. A checkerboarded panzer corp is in a defensive posture at turn's/week's end, same as the Russian who was doing so at the beginning.

[Redmarkus5]

I expect I'll be blasted with the usual cannon fire for daring to say this, but surely this entire discussion simply underscores that fact that WiTE is a game and not a military simulation of combat on the Eastern front?

If it was a simulation, a Soviet player should be able to deliberately employ 'historical' tactics (consecutive lines of defense, uncoordinated counter-attacks and lots of pocketed units) and expect to get an approximately historical outcome. In the long run, the Soviet player should be able to win the war in spite of the losses suffered in '41 and '42.

If the checkerboard is required to prevent Soviet collapse, then it's a 'game' tactic that is needed to address the way the game was designed. Whether that's a flaw or not depends on the stated goal of the designer and the marketing messages given out - game or simulation?

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I could be wrong, but I don't agree with this, mainly because I don't think that the Sovs had mastered what you call the "flexible defense" in 1941, and that your analysis implies a degree of operational sophistication that the Russians just didn't possess at this point. Sure, they could probably fall back from one tactical position to another, but to maintain a multidivision flexible defense against a mechanized opponent? I don't think so...

Yeah, they didn't but they could have. That's the point of the game, to try out different strategies. The player can try out his elastic defense that the Soviets couldn't in real life because with hindsight he knows it's more effective. Remember the Germans in real life had no idea at the beginning of the campaign that they would have exactly 17 weeks of good weather, 4 weeks of mud, 3 weeks of snow, and they had better be dug in and ready for the counterattack on week 25, with all panzer and mech units sitting in population level 4 towns.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: carnifex


Yeah, they didn't but they could have. That's the point of the game, to try out different strategies. The player can try out his elastic defense that the Soviets couldn't in real life because with hindsight he knows it's more effective.

That's what I'm saying--I don't think they could have, no way. This is not about trying out different strategies that the Sovs could have tried, but didn't, but giving the Sovs abilities that they just didn't have. Sure, I guess they could have if they had changed all of their training, doctrine, etc. beginning in the twenties.

Obviously the Sovs could and did create spread out defenses using strong-points, etc. I just think that such efforts weren't as effective as the checkboard is in the game when used across hundreds of miles of terrain.