KAISERSCHLACHT 1918 (MINI) AAR

[Curtis Lemay]

Turn 13 end:

The game ending check was passed and there was a turn 13. Only 1 hex was gained this turn. Yet the Amiens defenders were bombarded to destruction. An artillery unit has been moved adjacent to the hex to occupy it the following turn if it were to remain unoccupied for some reason. And it has!! The lack of major ferry in anything except artillery units bites the Allies too! They can’t occupy the hex with anything, since no artillery unit started their turn adjacent to the hex. One now has been, but the Germans will win the race, if there is another turn. Unfortunately, the victory requirement hasn’t been met for turn 14, so there is a 46% chance that the game will end after this turn.

[Curtis Lemay]

Turn 14 end:

Ok, the game ending check actually failed and the game ended (in a draw). But, since I was curious about how the game would proceed around Amiens, I re-ran the check and got a pass. The turn was then played. Only 2 hexes were gained, but one was Amiens. The artillery unit was able to enter the hex, then provided ferry for an infantry unit to follow behind. The drive for Arras has halted and only bombardments are being conducted there.
In their turn, the Allies had no choice but to launch a futile, overstacked, attack against Amiens that blew off huge forces on both sides but failed to take the hex. With the capture of Amiens, the victory requirement for turn 15 has been met and so there will be a turn 15. The Germans have now met the requirements for a marginal victory.

[Curtis Lemay]

Game end:

Another 3 hexes were gained this turn for a total of 161 hexes gained over the course of the game. The Allies seriously weakened their position making the futile attack against Amiens last turn and so were vulnerable to having the offensive continued against them. I’m thinking I will give a few infantry units secondary amphibious icons, so there will be no need to use artillery to take or retake Super River hexes that have had their bridges blown. The final result was a German Marginal Victory, although a more realistic result was the draw achieved after turn 13.

[Curtis Lemay]

Infantry Chart:

Now let’s do some analysis. The first chart is the infantry chart. Solid lines are the assigned levels. Dashed lines are the losses. Blue is German. Red is Allied. Column marks are 5,000 squads. The Germans start out with a significant edge but their losses are only fractionally replaced while the Allies get huge reinforcements and replacements. So the margin progressively shrinks.

[Curtis Lemay]

Light Weapons Chart:

These are machine guns, mortars, etc. The German margin shrinks a bit, while the Allied replacements about equal their losses. Columns marks are 2,000 pieces.

[Curtis Lemay]

Artillery Chart:

With the exception of the one instance when an artillery unit was rushed into Amiens, and the resulting Allied attack against it, the Germans didn’t lose any artillery due to their never having to expose it. The Allies often found artillery in their front lines due to things getting too desperate. As a result, the German margin never really shrank. They maintained a huge edge in artillery. Column marks are 1,000 pieces.

[Curtis Lemay]

Transport Chart:

This looks very similar to the artillery chart – which makes sense, because all the transport (horse teams) was used to tow artillery. Column marks are 1,000 teams.

[Curtis Lemay]

Armored Vehicles Chart:

The German armor was negligible. But even the Allied armor was a minor factor. Column marks are 50 vehicles.

[Curtis Lemay]

Aircraft Chart:

Here the Allies overtake the Germans by the end of the game. That’s because the Germans suffer both AS and AAA losses since they were used in ground support mode. But it was worth the cost, since the large shell weights of aircraft make good de-trenchers – vital in this scenario. Column marks are 200 planes.

[Curtis Lemay]

Total Chart:

This looks similar to the infantry chart, since it is mostly infantry. Column marks are 10,000 items.

[Curtis Lemay]

Victory Chart:

There is a small German VP award (16 points) and they have an edge in the loss penalty. But most of the margin comes from their capture of objectives. The green line shows the margin swinging from a loss to a win over the course of the game.

[Curtis Lemay]

Conclusions:

The main purpose of this test was to see if the fix for the Ignore Losses Fortified Deployment problem was successful. Obviously, the German side was successful against fortified deployments many times in this game. However, I think a lot of that was more due to the massed artillery rather than the new feature. The extreme over-density situation prevented the achievement of very high odds in most situations. I really need a test in a less dense topic (maybe from the East Front?) to know for sure. But there weren’t any obvious problems that stood out. I think we can be encouraged about it.

But the test also serves to check out the scenario in a formal AAR for the first time (and I do hope to get this thread switched over to the main board when the time is right). I certainly liked the result, and I had forgotten how much fun this game is during all my testing duties. But there are a couple of issues. First, I need to address the Super River in Amiens. As I said during the game, I think I will give one corps out of each army an amphibious secondary icon. The players will have to keep track of which units have that feature in case they end up needing it. Next, I just have to continue to wait till TOAW applies density penalties to unstacked units. Hopefully, that’s not too far away, because this scenario really needs it (and it’s not alone).

[Cfant]

Thanks for this interesting AAR. I played the scenario years ago against the AI, but you know... the AI never achieved a good frontline. So it's interesting to see a hotseat-game, seems to be a realistic process of the game.
Two questions:

1. Artillery counter have strong values - is there infantry included, or will they RBC?
2. Turn one - would it have been an alternativa to march into the gap south of St. Quentin?

Bye the way: 8 combat turns on turn 1 - that's amazing! Is there a major shock bonus?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

Thanks for this interesting AAR. I played the scenario years ago against the AI, but you know... the AI never achieved a good frontline. So it's interesting to see a hotseat-game, seems to be a realistic process of the game.
Two questions:

1. Artillery counter have strong values - is there infantry included, or will they RBC?
2. Turn one - would it have been an alternativa to march into the gap south of St. Quentin?

Bye the way: 8 combat turns on turn 1 - that's amazing! Is there a major shock bonus?

Artillery do have some infantry and are unlikely to RBC. There is a small shock bonus on turn one, but note that I only got 6 combat phases in that turn. One phase consumed three rounds.

I'm not sure what you mean about a gap south of St. Quentin. Can you clarify?

[Cfant]

Speaking of this two gaps:



I don't know the movement rates of the german counters, but given the overcrowded hexes, it might be valuable to send some into the holes of the allied defense. If they have enough movement points of course.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

Speaking of this two gaps:



I don't know the movement rates of the german counters, but given the overcrowded hexes, it might be valuable to send some into the holes of the allied defense. If they have enough movement points of course.

OK, now I understand. That would be an option, but the only ones available that could do it would be the units that start adjacent. And if you use them for that purpose then they won't be available for attack purposes. I thought that was more important. But there is room for other command decisions - that's wargaming.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

(4. The Forces: The composition of the forces is very similar. However, the Germans, thanks to their tactics, have a significant edge in movement allowances, and enjoy the benefit of the Special Forces icon on all their Stosstruppen units. Their squads tend to be a step above the Allied squads. They have a proficiency advantage as well (all of these factors are to model the Germany’s improved tactics). And the Germans are a homogeneous force, while the Allies must combine British with French – sometimes giving an edge in cooperation. The Allies, however, have a smattering of tanks and armored cars that may stiffen their resistance. Both sides have huge artillery concentrations – this was World War I, after all.

That's not really true tho - by 1918 the western allies were fully conversant with infiltration tactics and using them almost exclusively - and the British especially combined them with the pre-eminent artillery of the war to great effect.

for these German offensives many allied units were not well trained to be sure, and infiltration tactics are not much use of the defence, and the appropriate defensive tactics of defence in depth with multiple zones was particularly not much used by the 5th army.

successful allied implementation of surprise and infiltration was demonstrated by Australians at Hamel in July. Certainly such tactics could only be successfully implemented by well trained troops - which the Germans had in their initial offensives, and the allies were able to additionally use massed armour and superb artillery tactics that the Germans did not have.

it was the allied attacks from Hamel onward that are really the first "modern warfare" - the infantry-only infiltration the Germans used was but a stepping stone that lacked an all-arms approach because the Germans didn't have all arms available.

The difference shows in the strategic effects - the German offensives suffered massive casualties, especially among the highly trained stosstruppen, and eventually failed. teh allied combined arms attacks tore the German front line "a new one" from which it never recovered.

I don't think it matters too much in eth context of this game tho - since it is concerned just with the German offensives

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

That's not really true tho - by 1918 the western allies were fully conversant with infiltration tactics and using them almost exclusively - and the British especially combined them with the pre-eminent artillery of the war to great effect.

for these German offensives many allied units were not well trained to be sure, and infiltration tactics are not much use of the defence, and the appropriate defensive tactics of defence in depth with multiple zones was particularly not much used by the 5th army.

successful allied implementation of surprise and infiltration was demonstrated by Australians at Hamel in July. Certainly such tactics could only be successfully implemented by well trained troops - which the Germans had in their initial offensives, and the allies were able to additionally use massed armour and superb artillery tactics that the Germans did not have.

it was the allied attacks from Hamel onward that are really the first "modern warfare" - the infantry-only infiltration the Germans used was but a stepping stone that lacked an all-arms approach because the Germans didn't have all arms available.

The difference shows in the strategic effects - the German offensives suffered massive casualties, especially among the highly trained stosstruppen, and eventually failed. teh allied combined arms attacks tore the German front line "a new one" from which it never recovered.

I don't think it matters too much in eth context of this game tho - since it is concerned just with the German offensives

For sure the last major British offensive prior to the Kaiserschlacht - Passchendaele - did not use infiltration tactics. It lasted over three months and gained only 6 miles at a cost of over 240,000 casualties. That's the same script as the Somme. They did have some success at Cambrai - due to massed tanks. If they had actually been using infiltration tactics, they should have had successes similar to Caporetto or Kaiserschlacht.

If there is evidence of infiltration post Kaiserschlacht (and even then, how can we know if it was due to infiltration and not tanks?) we can't know if it was not the result of the lessons taught during the Kaiserschlacht. I don't see any evidence that the Allies were employing infiltration at the time of the Kaiserschlacht.

[SMK-at-work]

Here you go - actually back up to page 261 for the bit about bypassing defences that can't be overcome - and this was for the Canadians at Passchendaele.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Here you go - actually back up to page 261 for the bit about bypassing defences that can't be overcome - and this was for the Canadians at Passchendaele.

Perhaps the Canadians had made some changes in their tactical doctrine. But where are the results? Passchendaele? How can those results be compared to Caporetto or Kaiserschlacht? What did Passchendaele achieve that the Somme didn't? It's one thing to change a doctrine on paper. It's another to successfully carry it out in the field.

I did like the book's description of linear (pre-infiltration) tactics:

"Still, advancing in long straight lines fifty to one hundred yards apart laden with up to a hundred pounds of kit, “a load-to-weight ratio greater than that of a mule”, Canadian infantry suffered heavy casualties in a series of grinding battles from September to November 1916. The operations of 2nd Infantry Brigade were typical. Attacking from Courcelette towards several German trench lines on 26 September, the brigade initially found its supporting artillery and machine-gun barrage “very effective” and the forward battalions reached their first objective in less than ten minutes, seizing it from stunned and badly shot up defenders. The Canadians moved in “successive waves as orderly and calmly if not even better than they ever did on the parade ground”, noted a 5th Battalion observer with evident pride; by nightfall the following day such tactics had cost the battalion 465 men killed, wounded, and missing from its pre-battle strength of roughly 700."

One can easily see how infiltration tactics were a revolution compared to that. And that shows how far the Canadians had to go before they would achieve full modern tactics that the Germans had achieved. It was more than just bypassing strong-points.