Cracking Chadwick's Battle for Moscow

Apr 24 2015

Tags

This is my seventh play of this little classic, and my second win with the Germans playing solo. This took me about an hour to crank out, much faster than it used to. End result, Germans control Moscow and every other city except for Ryazan. This is similar to Battle for Moscow (game 6) I played a couple of months ago.

Germans occupy Moscow

This picture is immediately prior to the last attack of the game, where 2 Russian armies attack German panzer in Ryanzan. The roll is 3 as shown on the die, which is an EX for 2:1, so the step loss and retreat through the EZOCs eliminates the Germans and the Russians advance back into Ryazan.

The Russian can only muster 18 to 12 for an attack on Moscow, which would be 1-1 except major cities shift left, and there is no 1-2 odds column on the CRT. So, they lost.

In past games, I seem to have been under the impression I needed to control all the cities on the map, not just Moscow. Makes me wonder about the last solo game I played.

One thing I believe I've gotten wrong in the past is allowing Russian units which out of communication to flip into full strength. That's not correct, they have to be in communication with the eastern edge of the map to go from 4 to 8 for combat. This really makes a difference, as the Russians can be worn down more effectively after surrounding, rather than fighting the same battle over and over again.

Another thing I don't think I have been doing correctly is assessing step losses. This would affect the Russians more than the Germans. The idea is that the attacker has to take as much strength from a step loss as the defender. So if three 8-4 Russians attack one 12-6 panzer, and there is an EX result, the Russians have to lose at least 6 points of strength. In this case, it would require two step losses for the Russians.

I have two other games in this series, Objective Kiev for which I've not yet won as the Germans and Target: Leningrad which I haven't yet played.

What to play next?

Deciding what to play next is always a tough call when faced with a closet full of games, all of which were purchased with intent to play. Here's one I'm dealing with the decision.

Something New: this means both something new to me and a game which has been published recently, within the last two or three years.
Something Classic: I've acquired a number of games properly considered "classic" which haven't yet been played. The current example would be PanzerGruppe Guderian.
Something Again: mastery requires constant practice, which means playing games many, many times to allow nuance to appear.
Something Vietnam: as I'm on a Vietnam binge. I don't have all the Vietnam games ever published, but I can say that I have a lot of them, and probably more than most people.
Something Obscure: as it's fun to poke around in the dustier corners of game design.
Something Different: break away from the same old publishers and try a game from one of the new kids on the block. Or, conversely, dip into legacy with a classic tried and true.
Something Light: once in a while it's nice to actually finish a game all the way through in one sitting, in an hour or two.
Something Heavy: if possible, it's nice to set up something big and complicated which can be left out for days or weeks or even months, for a leisurely stroll through a very large or long game.

There are surely many more ways to choose, but the above method keeps me busy enough, helps me get both breadth and depth into my play, and provides me with a sense of progress.

The odd man out

When there is an odd man out:

Have a solo game ready to play.
Keep score or advise on a game in progress.
Referee a game in progress.