Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger)

[toawfan]

I'll try to post an AAR in the morning, but I must say that I'm feeling much better after switching sides and becoming the Russian commandante. I'm not as incompetent as I was beginning to feel as the rookie against veteran Larry.

Larry has evaporated in more than a half-dozen locations in turn 2 and it's like shooting fish in a barrel on any of my other moves anywhere else on the map. I may even take Warsaw faster than he did and he'll lose those Polish units.

No offense to Mark, but the game feels so wildly unbalanced in favor of Russia, no matter which side you play. However, I think he has recognized that by giving the VP advantage to NATO and allowing you to hold out through attrition and possibly get a draw.

There might be a number of players who like the NATO challenge, seeing how many turns you can survive and trying to end with a draw. I personally like having a 50/50 shot from either side to pull out the win and having this swing back and forth from turn to turn where you're just not sure which side that will be.

The solution might be to have NATO in a more fortified line in Europe so that Russia can't open by slicing butter with a hot knife. Or that NATO reinforcements come onto the map at positions closer to the front line instead of from England. It takes too long to get them in position and they enter in lower numbers than Russia's reinforcements. Or maybe even protect the NATO capitals a little more so that Russia has to slow or plan a stronger offense.

Russia seems to have more ground troops and a greater number of replacements than NATO, making the imbalance worse as the game progresses.

On the other hand, because Elmer is not nearly as strong of an opponent as Larry, the game might be just fine as it is if you tackle NATO as the human and go against Elmer as Russia. You've actually got a shot of winning as NATO, not just a draw, because I've tried and have much different results.

I'm sure that's exactly the challenge for Mark when he designed the scenario. He had to test against Elmer and could probably beat Elmer from either side so it felt balanced.

I hope this is helpful. I certainly have not earned the right to speak with any authority on this since I am so new to the game. And I cannot even begin to imagine the amount of work that went into designing this.

I really like the concept and a scenario that tries to project a future and realistic possibility in warfare. I am amazed that this game can allow for such variables as the Civil War, Vietnam and the future.

[toawfan]

My losses as Russia are very modest. NATO is losing 100 percent and evaporating in many positions -- just as I experienced in Game 1.

Here's what Russia looks like in key casualties after three turns:

[toawfan]

Couple of questions about why I cannot use ships from anchorage to anchorage that I control and then the other question where the green arrow shows an attempt to transport special forces by helicopter from an airport to a secure spot even when I am within the range of hexes.

[Odenathus]

Thanks for the continuing input, I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities, and I only had time for a few turns against Bob. I'm reluctant to change the actual number of units, even if some of them are only potential reserves as they're sort of accurateish, so I'm inclined to reduce the length of the Russian's air and land shock bonuses, and maybe lower still further the proficiencies of the aforementioned reserves, so that the Russians have to rely more on their starting regular forces for the initial penetrations. I can also tweak the VPs to make it so that the Russians need to cut really deeply into western Europe, or maybe take on a major neutral or two, rather than just nibble at the edges of NATO to achieve a victory.

I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems: so I've fixed the Balts not surrendering and the DoWing some neutrals not working, and making a note in the 'Reasons for Editing' box. I need to separate out the US fighters and bombers mentioned in one of the posts above and,evidently, have a good tinker with the play balance. I don't think it can ever be a straight 50/50 fight from the start, since even without the potential Russian reserves, there's no way in reality that the Baltic States, Georgia, and probably even Poland can survive a massive Russian assault. It would be like having the first few months of 'Barbarossa' in Spring 1941 as a straight fight between Germany and the USSR: just wouldn't be right. And all commentaries that I've read on high-intensity modern war stress that neither side has the reserve stockpiles and industrial and economic capacity to fight for more than a few months at the absolute most - some say only 30 days would exhaust both sides' supplies, or it goes nuclear, with all that that implies.

I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

Re the sea movement above, maybe the Briefing isn't clear, but you CAN move any units by normal sea transport from friendly anchorage to friendly anchorage: the limitation on using special forces/marines/amphibious units, etc, only applies to the turn in which the latter are used to seize an enemy port. If you mean why can't you helicopter the air assault unit over, it's because the game engine limits heliborne movement, too much so in my opinion.

Regards

Mark

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities....

Curt Chambers and I playtested his Campaign for South Vietnam 1965 by both of us playing each side several times before Curt declared it okie dokie as a finished scenario. I think something like this might be in order with Armageddon.

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems:

THAT's where they are. Okie dokie. Now I'll know where to get the very latest version(s). Thanks for clearing that up.

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

No problemo. I've got more than enough to do while these changes are made. Roger is showing me what he's learned so far and I must say I'm impressed with him. He's a quick learner and shows great potential already.

[larryfulkerson]

And another thing....why does this unit have two crop circles? I tried re-painting the screen and it didn't go away.

EDIT: I suppose I need to tell you which unit it is and a little about what's in it.

[toawfan]

Back to my screenshot above showing the green arrow from where my helicopter and airborne infantry is and the destination on the island less than 10 hexes away:

The destination is within the stated range of the transport helicopter. But it won't let me drag the unit that far. I have no means to get any more troops to the island that I have secured.

To the left of the green arrow, at the anchorage, I have many other units stationed, including infantry, tanks and more. At no time am I ever given the option to board them on ships. Why not?

I'm frustrated that I'm missing a hidden rule or something. I appear to have plenty of transport points. I don't know that anyone controls the seas around here since we both have ships patrolling the waters. Am I missing something obvious about how to make a normal sea transport?

Why can't I get units to the secured anchorage in enemy territory? It's not like I'm trying an amphibious assault on a totally enemy-controlled area. I already seized the port and now want to build on the attack and can't figure out how to do it.

Help!?

[toawfan]

ORIGINAL: Odenathus

Thanks for the continuing input, I fear that you're right about the play balance: a test against the AI (and I did try a lot) just doesn't give you a true idea of a human player's capabilities, and I only had time for a few turns against Bob. I'm reluctant to change the actual number of units, even if some of them are only potential reserves as they're sort of accurateish, so I'm inclined to reduce the length of the Russian's air and land shock bonuses, and maybe lower still further the proficiencies of the aforementioned reserves, so that the Russians have to rely more on their starting regular forces for the initial penetrations. I can also tweak the VPs to make it so that the Russians need to cut really deeply into western Europe, or maybe take on a major neutral or two, rather than just nibble at the edges of NATO to achieve a victory.

I've been updating the scenarios on my initial posting on Games Squad as you've spotted problems: so I've fixed the Balts not surrendering and the DoWing some neutrals not working, and making a note in the 'Reasons for Editing' box. I need to separate out the US fighters and bombers mentioned in one of the posts above and,evidently, have a good tinker with the play balance. I don't think it can ever be a straight 50/50 fight from the start, since even without the potential Russian reserves, there's no way in reality that the Baltic States, Georgia, and probably even Poland can survive a massive Russian assault. It would be like having the first few months of 'Barbarossa' in Spring 1941 as a straight fight between Germany and the USSR: just wouldn't be right. And all commentaries that I've read on high-intensity modern war stress that neither side has the reserve stockpiles and industrial and economic capacity to fight for more than a few months at the absolute most - some say only 30 days would exhaust both sides' supplies, or it goes nuclear, with all that that implies.

I'm supposed to be trying a playtest with Larry once I've upgraded to 3.4, and now I fear that I'll have to further delay it - sorry Larry - while I tinker with the play balance.

Re the sea movement above, maybe the Briefing isn't clear, but you CAN move any units by normal sea transport from friendly anchorage to friendly anchorage: the limitation on using special forces/marines/amphibious units, etc, only applies to the turn in which the latter are used to seize an enemy port. If you mean why can't you helicopter the air assault unit over, it's because the game engine limits heliborne movement, too much so in my opinion.

Regards

Mark

What would happen if Finland and Sweden were active territories and more of the NATO reinforcements came in that way? Would that spread Russia out a little more thinly?

I wouldn't make the distance that Russia has to cover in Europe that much farther. I would suggest making a stronger fortified front for NATO in Europe or at least make Russia have far heavier losses in trying to get Warsaw.

An equal reinforcement number also would make life tougher for Russia. Now, if I recall off the top of my head, Russia gets 500 infantry per turn and NATO 400. Why not even?

Or another minor tweak: Make Russia's reinforcements come from as far away as NATO's in Great Britain. Don't let them get to the front in Europe in less than two turns.

Just thoughts. I'm only a beginner.

I like your premise that NATO is spread thinly in the off-map world for other real events of 2015 -- still bogged down in Afghanistan and threatened in North Korea, etc. So Russia shouldn't have to push much farther to get its VP.

I think it has more to do with Russia gets way too strong of a push into Europe in the very first moves, especially Poland, and then gets an imbalance of reinforcements that are so close to the front in Europe that they can jump into play by the next turn.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: toawfan
Back to my screenshot above showing the green arrow from where my helicopter and airborne infantry is and the destination on the island less than 10 hexes away:

The destination is within the stated range of the transport helicopter. But it won't let me drag the unit that far. I have no means to get any more troops to the island that I have secured.

The four range of the heli-lifted unit doesn't come close to bridging the gap between where they are and where you're intending to go. The range of '4' starts *after* the unit gets loaded on the choppers. So you're going to need a ship somewhere between the mainland and the island so you can lift the unit part of the way then continue movement next turn. I guess.

ORIGINAL: toawfan
To the left of the green arrow, at the anchorage, I have many other units stationed, including infantry, tanks and more. At no time am I ever given the option to board them on ships. Why not?

Have you already moved the units you want to embark on ships? If so they won't get to embark. You cannot have moved a unit for it to use all it's movement points embarking.

ORIGINAL: toawfan
I'm frustrated that I'm missing a hidden rule or something. I appear to have plenty of transport points. I don't know that anyone controls the seas around here since we both have ships patrolling the waters. Am I missing something obvious about how to make a normal sea transport?

It IS frustrating to get a handle on all the 'hidden' rules all at once. I went through the same thing myself.

ORIGINAL: toawfan
Why can't I get units to the secured anchorage in enemy territory? It's not like I'm trying an amphibious assault on a totally enemy-controlled area. I already seized the port and now want to build on the attack and can't figure out how to do it.

You gotta plan ahead on moves like this. First they have to use one turn just to get to the anchorage hex. Then next turn they can load the boats (assuming you have SEA transport points enough for all of them ). Then after they have loaded on the boats you can move them to just about anywhere they will go within their range. Once they get there sometimes they have movement points left to move away from the sea transport destination hex for a short distance. You might want to experiment with this kind of movement and practice it until it becomes your second hat.

[toawfan]

Thanks to Larry, he helped me figure out my rookie problems with transport. I needed to wait another turn. And sea transport is very limited so it's holding me back from a fully planned amphibious assault. But now I understand the rules.

I was confused with the helicopter as well. There's a difference between how far it can move and how far it can transport. If I stack transport helicopters, does not increase how far airborne units can move by helicopter?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: toawfan
If I stack transport helicopters, does not increase how far airborne units can move by helicopter?

I've never tried it so I have no proof but I'm leaning toward the side that says "I don't believe you can get an abnormal amount of range from your transport helicopters from stacking them." I suppose that it would work the same way, if it worked that way at all, if all the transport helicopters were within range of the unit that needed to be heli-lifted. Either way the range in Armageddon is just a measly 4 hexes after the unit is loaded on the choppers. It's confusing since the transport helicopter itself has a range of something like 25 or more, I know. I'd like to know if the scenario designer, in this case MARK, can set the range of the choppers or is it something in the equipment database that would need to be changed. Either way it's an easy fix and we could have some *real* transport choppers. Just kidding. I know nothing about why the range is set at four, I just believe it's artificially set too low is all.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's a movie showing turn 4's moves.  I (NATO) sank an aircraft carrier north of Norway.  The north coast of Africa is seeing some motion.  Serbia is down to a single hex.  I guess.  Roger qwashed my moves to capture Cairo.  Turkey is rapidly going down the drain.  I have my doubts about the strength of my front line in several places.  Roger is down a bit in the air war arena but he's still got a stinger.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's how the air war went:

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the NATO losses so far:

[larryfulkerson]

I finally cleared up the Serbia infection. I must have captured Belgrade last turn and they surrendered. Now to move all those assets to the places where Roger is making breakthroughs. I've got to back up a lot of units this turn before they get surrounded and destroyed. Roger is finding his second wind. Even though he is behind the power curve in airpower he's using his ground dudes with elan.

[larryfulkerson]

Somehow I managed to leave Bagdad without any land ground forces and Roger has done one of his heli-chopper moves with a SF unit and now Bagdad is threatened with seizure. Drat.

[larryfulkerson]

Roger has left an apparent hole in his front lines and I don't know why. I'm thinking he's trying to trap me into making an attempt to take advantage of his situation and get out of formation to attack and he attacks my attackers and voila`, instant disaster.

[larryfulkerson]

There's been a small war going on for Sicily for the last three turns or so. It looks like NATO has lost the battle and that Roger is going to march his dudes north to Rome. He'll be there in about 7 turns so I need to ship some land combat forces into the AO to help thwart his plans.

[toawfan]

I'm really starting to get into the fun of a big scenario, especially when I have an early edge. Maybe, Mark, this is not as unbalanced as I thought because Larry is fending me off well.

However, Larry is walking into a trap where I left a gap in the front lines southeast of Warsaw (as he noted above).

I want him to pull forces out of the South and possibly even weaken his defense east of Warsaw to feed into this gap. I have held reinforcements back at their entry points surrounding Moscow and am ready to pounce. (Oops, he just discovered my secret battle plans).

Larry is so good about using airborne troops that I wanted to try to dabble in this myself. Some of them evaporated with his air superiority so that didn't work. Then I finally found the gap to push into Baghdad. I was moving strength in the traditional way and dropped the special forces behind the lines to be surprised that the capital was virtually undefended.

I now have figured out the sea transport thing and am experimenting with whether I can harass Larry with amphibious assaults in surprise locations in the same way he surprises me with airborne. We'll see.

He did harass me in North Africa, but I think I'm going to make him pay for that with extreme prejudice.

His skill and expertise are obvious. Although Russia is so overly strong in these early turns, I am not making as much progress or as far as he did when he was Russia.

[toawfan]

Here are Turn 5 Russia loss reports: