AAR 8

From: Kutuzov, Commander of Russian Army Group West (Charley Elsden)

Introduction

"I've been in many games where the players on both sides feel that they won, and that's fine. But if you ask me, I'll tell you why I think I won."
--Charley Elsden to Fred Hubig
Thursday morning during set up, before the game began

This AAR is a preliminary general strategic summary of my impressions of factors that need to be part of an evaluation of the scenario objectives, and who achieved what at JodieCon Borodino 2002. It also includes my methods of using the entire team for planning, which I think might be useful for future JodieCon side commanders. Most wargames only feature one or two levels of command. This game, featuring four, required skills and talents other than actually pushing lead--which came as a surprise to many. Some did a better job than others of being 'in command' of other players. While the divisional players moved troops, those on the higher levels often did not. One Russian player summed this up by saying "This was a totally different kind of experience at the command level." I agree with him. And that goes quadruple for a Side Commander!

I welcome an extended strategic discussion (see Appendix, notes # 1 and # 6). The tactical detail is voluminous and more familiar to others. Instead, I am more interested here with the JodieCon scenario victory conditions, and what each side achieved strategically. The rules used this time--Carnage & Glory--have their own tactical use documentation (see note # 2). A few individuals of many are noted by me also in the notes when I feel I want to let others know about their participation (see # 3 and # 4). In addition to playing Kutuzov, I also served as the Editor/Writer of the official online event newsletter, distributed monthly during the year previous to the event, itself held 9/5-9/8/02 (see note # 5).

At any rate, here are my thoughts on the strategic picture. The postgame strategic results as determined by the umpires, was that the strategic historical situation overall had been duplicated, although in a totally different tactical battle was fought. That is, that the French won the "Marginal Tactical Victory" required for a Game Win, but that enough of the Russian army had survived to prevent the French from being in a position to win the subsequent 1812 campaign--therefore giving the Russians a Strategic Victory. I hereby open the postgame discussion with a few thoughts on the glorious event, after briefly touching base with my favorite three 'N's: Nigel, Norbert, and Nate. However, the opinions here expressed are only my own.

1. Prebattle Planning

"After all, if you've defeated Rommel's plan, you've defeated Rommel."
--Colonel Codman to General Patton in the film Patton

As the Side Commander of what would turn out to be a team of about 25 players, I gave myself the task of using the prebattle Russian Command discussion site at yahoogroups.com provided by the Convention administrators as actively as possible. I therefore requested strategic input from ALL of the Russians, (although reserving final decisions to myself). It became clear that everyone expected the French to try some version of 'Plan Davout,' the southern outflanking maneuver that the historical Davout had suggested to Napoleon, but that had been rejected. After a good month of discussion which overlapped discussing the C&G rules and other game matters, we got suggestions from all levels of player--Division, Corps, Army, and Army Group General Staff.

Nate Barrick, who has walked the actual battlefield in Russia (wise and excellent Chief of Staff Benningson) offered five Courses of Action--including the historical one--for us to consider. I then went on record in the general discussion in favoring and extreme southern deployment option (Flechettes and Utitsa). But most of the others preferred a more central scheme (Flechettes and Redoubt), So I amalgamated the two. Along with Nate's ideas for reserve artillery deployment/attachments, this became our plan OPERATION FIREBIRD.

I then constituted the 'B6 Higher Command Group,' which included myself, the Chief of Staff, the Reserve Artillery Commander, the Chief Engineer, the Quartermaster General, and the two Army Commanders. The function of this group was to make a final review of the plan. Then the Army Commanders (Ralph Gero and AJ Wright) were to help implement it by discussion with the 15 Corps Commanders about the instructions their subordinates personally received from the Chief of Staff. These included their specific Corps missions and deployment areas. After this stage, the Division Commanders would make their own final set ups for their brigades when they saw the actual tabletop terrain at the event.

Besides a very detailed discussion of the C&G rules, I emphasized the critical need for personal reconnaissance and intelligence reporting on the part of all players. I also edited the operational order for OPERATION FIREBIRD, which had been drawn up in great detail by Nate. This included both the general order, given out only to the B6 Group, and the individual mission instructions distributed to the Corps. Nate sent in to the Con administrators (Pete and Nigel) the required information regarding our initial deployment, construction of light field works, intelligence recon patrols, etc.

At the Con itself I catalogued/reboxed the entire Russian army stand by stand (with direct help from French player Cooper, with one or two of our own preparing last moment adjustments to unit IDs, missing leaders, etc.), as originally prepared by Fred Hubig and other staff. Nate placed the index cards on the tables face down with our hidden deployments and bluff cards. I then ran a 1 1/2 hour staff meeting with the Russian team. This was the first time most of us were present together, although I had run a staff meeting for about half of us at the previous Historicon.

The staff meeting included: welcoming a constant stream of arriving players, inspiration, a round robin of individual introductions, further briefing by the Chief of Staff, and then small group Corps level meetings for both players original assignments and last moment front line secondary divisional assignments (often two groups per player). One player, Bob Spencer, even volunteered to take two Corps temporarily until a latecomer arrived (you got my vote for MVP Russian Bob--congrats on winning not that award but instead Best Table Player; 3 out of 4 I believe went to Russians).

2. The Southern Sector (Tables C1 and R1)

"Only make the right wing strong."
--Count von Schlieffen on his death bed

The brilliant French strategic opening by Norbert Brunhuber (Napoleon) saw the Grand Armee initially advanced on both flanks, but not putting pressure in the center (Flechettes, Redoubt). This kept us guessing and watching the entire board for the longest possible period, in doubt as to where Davout would actually appear. Eventually in the south we would identify regular army units plus the Young Guard, the Guard Artillery, and Davout's huge corps, all totaling --according to Norbert later on--a staggering 30% of the entire enemy force! Despite spectacular defensive fighting by several of our corps (Korff, Baggavout, Sievers) we couldn't hold them. Then again, we never intended to do so. Since the main French strategic objective was our Line of Communications on the Moscow Road to the north, they were in effect conquering worthless territory. I eventually told them 'If you can hold just the last two inches of Table R1, we'll still win--see the green shirted players at the F2 Table over there?"

The spectacular flanking movement, well executed by our opponents, exceeded our expectation in the depth of its penetration. We had not wanted any of our corps to hold to the last figure, but to fire and fall back when necessary, to preserve their integrity, eventually passing on the main defensive mission to a second echelon of units. However, due to being caught in the far flank and unable to disengage, in the event some units were caught flatfooted and the morale of this wing of the army destroyed. The forming of a solid second line of defense was never quite accomplished, although several successive gun lines were made, and tough cavalry counterattacks went in. As an example of how little players know other than their own sector, some players on the southern tables themselves still do not know how much initial fighting went on off the table on the far southern flank--I now thank General Korff for his excellent reconnaissance and tough fighting both off and on the table as well!

3. Final Evaluation of Southern Sector

"We should have gone around to the right."
--Hood to Longstreet in the film Gettysburg

How shall we evaluate the great flanking movement of the French? There are several major relevant factors:

1. The presence of the fresh Russian Guard infantry on the road between the French flanking force and the Moscow Road at the conclusion of the game
2. The final morale and fatigue condition of the French flanking force
3. The game play ending at only 2PM when the battle clearly would have gone on for the rest of the afternoon
4. Simultaneous events on other table sectors

Here are my own observations about these factors:

1. While the Russian Guard could not have held off the French flanking force by itself, it could have delayed it until the army retreated down the Moscow Road or reinforced it to make a final stand. The guard was never committed as the French Old Guard never appeared. Unknown to us, Napoleon would have sacrificed an entire level of victory had he done so, according to his scenario instructions!
2. The French seemed to have enough fresh forces to keep up their movement, even though slowed by the heat of the day. However, many of the French had started the game with tired horses, according to the historical conditions of the scenario. More information on the condition of this force would be good to have.
3. Nate (Bennigson) calculated that the expected and developing flanking maneuver would run out of time before it could prove decisive. Although more effective than expected, this is why the original plan aimed at slowing, not stopping this movement around Utitsa. Like the Confederates at Gettysburg, there simply wasn't time to circle the Round Tops and come upon the enemy rear!
4. See the following discussions on the other game sectors. We had expected therefore that the main French drive would be at the Flechettes, which would leave successful French spearheads closer to victory terrain than any in the far south. As Nigel later discussed with me, the southern flanking plan,while flashy and exciting tactically, was strategically flawed in concept if it was to be the main effort, due to the time/distance factor.

4. The Flechettes (Table C2)

"The Russian Army was basically as good as the French by 1812."
--Frank Chadwick
JodieCon MagWeb speaker presentation

In the beginning of the game, there was a natural tendency for the frontline commanders to immediately eye our rear reserves. Many players were initially convinced that they were facing the entire French Army making its main attack. "Perhaps the French actually have four entire armies," I cracked to Nate at Army Group Headquarters, after getting several such early reports from lower level commanders. Reduced to using binoculars to see the tables, I was luckily well supported by intelligence reporting from the front, and we set about analyzing the main moves of our opponents, with Nate's great blown up Russian map. I was impressed with several upper echelon commanders, who said "there are a lot of French out there, but we're fine, and don't need help." Of course, the picture of the situation is different at different levels.

At the Flechettes, we had so many troops deployed, that we denied any reinforcement. Since the earthworks had a limited effect, and only worked one way anyhow, our goal again was not to fanatically hold the positions, but to bleed the enemy sufficiently to set him up for counterattack. When the French did eventually come on in this sector, the local commanders fought their own battle there quite well with what we had originally provided. There was no panic, little retreat, and the French had a tough time of it on this front.

5. The Great Redoubt

"Well, once again I see that diplomacy has failed us."
--Commander Rourke in the film Atlantis: The Lost Empire

By the end of the game, the French center here was smashed right through, and we had cavalry ready to advance into a gap in the lines with nothing in front of them. It would have required the commitment of the French Old Guard to stem the Mean Green Machine here! Again,the commitment of this Bearskin Guard would have lowered the French victory level and perhaps given us both tactical and strategic victory. This is what I meant when I suggested at the podium at the luncheon that the (French) players were in for a more of a surprise at the postgame analysis than at any previous JodieCon! Especially the French in the south, who were having the battle all their own way down there at the end. As usual, players were evaluating the entire battle by their local situation.

Surprise, mes amis: you lost big here--several French Corps were destroyed. Come back here to the center of the battle and I will taunt you a second time, you Silly Southern French Persons!

6. The Northern Flank

"What a mess--he's dead, I'm wounded, and you're lost."
"Yeah--I wonder who won?"
: ---Richard Burton and Richard Beymer in the film The Longest Day

When Nate Barrick suggested giving Ahmet the rest of the Cossacks from the Army Group Reserve, since he was doing so well with his first command of Cossacks, I went even further. I ordered all the triumphant cavalry on this right flank to advance. The ideas was to put some strategic pressure on the enemy, as well as to identify the rest of his units on the field. Drawing the French light cavalry into the battle was an extra dividend, since the French had to preserve some light cavalry assets in order to be able to pursue us after any strategic penetration. Like the Guard, they had to be preserved intact. Nigel informed me recently that the French could have handled our finally blown Cossacks without using up the lights--we had just made them mad enough to commit them, but they were not really needed here. On the other hand, we sure got their attention. Who isn't sensitive about their rear areas?

According to Nigel, our push here actually cost us a tactical victory, since the massive French cavalry forces added here would have pushed us back from our penetration on F2, the French back table. We'd stirred up a hornet's nest! Still, with our infantry forces advanced across the river, perhaps we could have made some trouble for the French in this sector too.

7. Final Thoughts

"Well, you called me... or YOU called me...hey, who called me?"
Richard, confused boyfriend confronting both Patty and Cathy for the first time,
First Episode: The Patty Duke Show

What happened at our Borodino? Only the computer knows for sure! So I'd love to hear more from Nigel,. who usually does such a good summary after all the C&G games. I hope some more information will be forthcoming from him and other strategic umpires of the Con. For if our southern army was breaking, how close were elements of the French up north from doing so, and how would this have affected the battle?

Scenario design is one of my favorite parts of the hobby. So I'd like to hear more about how the final strategic and tactical victory level was determined. If the strategic victory is in fact impossible to obtain for the French in the south, then we must conclude that Napoleon was correct to forbid Davout's flanking plan. For it was just this result in real life as in the game--a French Tactical/Russian Strategic victory, that he feared historically, and that the French gamers found on the gaming table!

One last way to measure what happened is of course casualties inflicted. As opposed to the historical estimate of 28,000 French and 52,000 Russians, the JodieCon casualties announced on Sunday at the luncheon were 34,800 French to 34,000 Russians. Compared to the historical numbers, we did well also. One can argue that a disproportionate number would have been caused by the Russians breaking in the South, but then, it might have been about to happen to the French in another sector(s). I'd love to hear more about this from our esteemed umpires and administrators.

I've just read the Borodino coverage in the issue of "Napoleon" magazine given out at the Con. It seems that actual historical participants were unsure how to evaluate their battle as well. Kutuzov, for example, never understood how important Ouvarov's cavalry attack had been--not in actual effect, but in diverting the French from their main attacks for hours (p38). Hey, I'm proud to have ordered our own northern cavalry attack, and I'd do it again--despite the technical effect on the game victory level! As I said at HQ, "I don't want any units sitting around doing nothing." Unless of course, they need to rest during a game of Carnage & Glory!

What else don't we know about what happened? Start writing, O Honorable Players and Officials! For there is much to be learned about designing and playing a game of this scope (not to mention running one). I hope I made a gentle, yet firm Commander. It cost me four disposable razor blades to remove those muttonchops!

Of course, everyone who enjoyed themselves thought it a worthwhile event. Congratulations to everyone else I couldn't mention. So both sides won a "morale victory." Now personally, I thought the Russians, of course, actually won, both tactically and strategically. And I've got a nice new print of 'Napoleon Burning The Standards" to prove what we did to him, eh?

But I know not all players--French or Russian--would agree. I'll be interested in what everyone has to say.

Nastrovye!

Your Friend,
Mikhail Larionovich

AAR APPENDIX: MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. Most of the umpire summaries at the final luncheon at JodieCon Borodino 2002 were tactical in nature. The strategical context and results will hopefully be explored more fully at a later date, since they affect scenario design questions, and many interesting related issues based on what happened on the tables.
2. The following should be collected by CARNAGE AND GLORY players for future consideration:
   1. Russian "Standard Operating Procedures" player pamphlet by Ralph Gero (Prince Bagration).
   2. Two messages on the Russian planning net: "Introduction to C&G-- Lessons #1 and #2 by Charley Elsden (two pages each).
   3. FAQ from Russian player net.
3. MVP Russian Player Jim Meersand (Olsoufieff): due to the huge size of the game, most players only really knew what took place on their own playing table. Many Russian players deserved honor for their performance. However, since Jim is both modest and not on line, I'd like to mention him (he is the "unknown division commander" praised in Kutaisov's AAR). I did not vote for Jim since he is my cousin; he won anyway--that's him in the foreground of the article featured in the local Hampton, VA newspaper article. I hate to think that some folks don't even know what he did:
   1. At game end, he was still holding his original position with part of his division and the almost useless Smolensk Militia--the only Russian to do so on table C1, after receiving about twenty attacks!
   2. He sent part of his division to save Utitsa when another had abandoned it. His superior Bruce "Joshua Chamberlain" Fiolek (Baggavout) said of him as Suvarov once said of Kutuzov: most players would demand explanations and delay, perhaps until it was too late. When I said "do it," he did it, and did it well."
4. Thanks to Stuart Schoenberger, JodieCon Vet, unable to attend this event due to its overlap with the Jewish Holidays. Stuart helped me firm up the final strategic plan during the pregame planning phase. He also generously provided his Napoleonic library and knowledge during the previous year.
5. Pregame interviews with key JodieCon staff as well as historical, humorous, and other material are available free in the approximately 100 pages of my online newsletter THE GREAT REDOUBT (Issues # 1-10), available at JodieCon.org
6. My statement at the final banquet that "More players are going to be surprised by the umpire reports than at any previous JodieCon" was not fulfilled; I was talking about the strategic picture (see note ! above). It is true however, I still believe, for the strategic picture of what happened At the end of the event, many players did not have the Big Picture!