**UPDATE on details. See end of post.

I wanted to have a chat about this scenario as within the context of the rules it presents some interesting tactical issues and potential ‘work arounds’, that I have not fully noodled out, but I suspect it could use a bit of tweaking to force ‘the action’ the designer is seeking. Then again, I could be wrong and Lord knows Im wrong often enough to have zero hubris about that shit.

Situation.

The Russians are ostensibly tasked with capturing two bridges. They have 10 turns to do it and a lot of assets to bring to bear.

Three companies of Infantry mounted on BMP’s, 3 companies of T62b’s, and some ATGM enabled T 62s as well as a few other bits and bobs, including two Bridge layers [I’m unclear why they are in the scenario so far, but lets see more down the page].

OPFOR–

Opposing them is a mixed bag of US assets:

Bradleys, Sheridan’s a few platoons of Abrams and two companies of infantry [recon & regular] plus miscellaneous assets including an arty delivered mine strike.

Map :

Layout and location of bridges and allowed bridging locations:

As you can see in the image the Soviet effort will be hampered by refugees clogging the roads. OR will they?

These refugee/civilian units stay static for three turns. Then the revert to the Refugee/Civilian table where each turn they are rolled for and may move, turn into an armed mob or do nothing etc. Note if they do attack its the closest unit. NATO/US or Warsaw Pact/Soviet.

What are the Soviet options?

In order to avoid the Refugees and make haste to the Western most bridge its 4 moves to end adjacent to the bridge via vehicle. Leaving six turns to clear and hold.

That route also avoids the Line of Sight Event A, which no doubt has nothing good going down for the Soviet player. That event releases turn 8 in any case.

It is also 4 turns to the central bridge from row H, using vehicles, then dismounting infantry. Ending up adjacent to the Refugee is going to end up cost VPs for the Soviet as he may or likely will need to cap their asses in order to secure both sides of the bridge. Which will cost them VP’s.

Can the Soviet player capture the two bridges pick up a total of 16VP and avoid -Vps per refugee casualties? They also gain VPs for US killed.

[EDIT] See that circle on the right. The terrain in front of it is rolling terrain…ugh. My placement is not FUBAR. The Yanks will have to scramble.

Can the Soviet player afford to split forces and run two routes of advance?

In fact as we look at it the Soviets have to either split, or at the very least move as a concentrated force, then leave a holding set of units.

What would a concentrated advance look like?

Clearly, we could do the same sort of thing from the Southern side also. With a number of options line itemed below.

Options 1.12 and 1.2 both require laying the bridging units. This takes time and is a lead magnet. But might be a nice ruse to use to lead the enemy to the wrong location.

This is a straight VP fight, but the US only receives 1 VP for each Soviet unit destroyed vs 2 for the Soviets killing US platoons.

Ok, you say. But earlier Kev you mentioned the scenario needed tweaking? Why?

Well for one thing, as the Soviet player, if I can capture the first bridge and only have to kill/murder 1 or 2 civvies and kill more US units than the they kill of mine, why do I need to capture the 2^nd bridge?

For example, the US keeps its 4VP, Soviets get theirs. If they kill 2 more units than the US and happen to have to kill two civvies it’s a draw. If they kill 1 or greater units more than the US they can sit back and play defense with 3 companies of infantry holding the bridge 9 units. The US is not really armed or prepped to conduct a city assault. Similarly the US could withdraw upon approach, avoid civilians’, give up 1 bridge and make the Soviet player come looking for the extra VPs, all the while hoping a refugee ‘has ‘ to be eliminated.

It’s a very interesting wrinkle in the game these refugees. Let’s go find out how it all comes together.

Stay tuned, #rolldice

 

**UPDATE

FROM Mark Waker:

Hi Kev,
Thanks for playing and writing about this. My thoughts.
“Well for one thing, as the Soviet player, if I can capture the first bridge and only have to kill/murder 1 or 2 civvies and kill more US units than the they kill of mine, why do I need to capture the 2nd bridge?”

You wouldn’t. As I remember, when Greg and I tested this, the Americans were able to get a better that 2-1 kill ratio, and the Sovs often have to kill some refugees. Your mileage might vary.

“Similarly the US could withdraw upon approach, avoid civilians’, give up 1 bridge and make the Soviet player come looking for the extra VPs, all the while hoping a refugee ‘has ‘ to be eliminated.”
Again, true, but even more difficult to accomplish. Mainly because the Soviets have 2 bridges that they can place and get 8 VPs for each.

ok, that last one, its a doozie. So back to the evaluation board to look at option! GOSH I love this sort of stuff.

 Great catch Mark!