Wargaming | History
The Weekend Wargamer, Volume I — Playing Both Sides of the Russian Civil War
This is the first part in a series of treatises and vignettes, detailed in uncomplicated terms, exploring the solo wargaming experience in the digital age.
In our first volume we will explore the solitaire approach to GMT Games’ “Reds!” (2nd Edition — 2012).
There is a quaint elegance to the board wargame; especially in the digital age. While computer and video games of the 21st century can and do provide its participants with an immediate, visceral adventure for the senses and reflexes, gaming of the cardboard and paper variety offer a more cerebral, studied enjoyment; rewarding the patience of rules learning and strategic-minded play with delayed gratification. And while wargames represent only a fractional niche slice of tabletop gaming in general, board games overall have undergone a massively successful resurgence lately. As with the rebirth of vinyl record collecting, some of today’s consumers are clearly itching for an older school means of appreciating their hobbies.
I have been playing board war games for almost five years — mostly titles that lend themselves favorably to single player experiences. Some war games are designed specifically to be played alone…with the enemy/main antagonistic forces broadly abstracted into the game as a heavily rule-bound “AI” you compete against in stratified sequences and phases. Some of the best true single player wargames I have experienced, such as David Thompson’s phenomenal Stalingrad set piece “Pavlov’s House”, Ross Mortell’s “Combat! Vol 1” and Gregory M. Smith’s Uboat-themed “The Hunters”, expertly place the solo player in a carefully researched historical war scenario and gives them the rules and tools required to accomplish goals against an artificial enemy. Since the rules for these types of pure solitaire wargames are often strictly coded by necessity, victorious or failed outcomes are usually decided by not just the player’s acumen at field command but his/her understanding of the game’s rulebook.
Recently, thanks to current world events that have gifted me with more free time at home, I have decided to dust off a few wargames in my personal collection that were frankly overdue for some time and consideration. But instead of opting for another “meant to be played solo” wargame I instead chose a wargame that solitaire hobbyists like to dub as “play both sides the best you can”.
GMT Games’ “Reds!” (2nd Ed) is a critically lauded 2 player wargame set during the events of the Russian Civil War (1918–1921). Players choose either the Soviet revolutionaries attempting to paint the Motherland Bolshevik red or the Whites, a loosely affiliated coalition of the anti-communist/pro-Tsarist armies, nationalist separatist factions, anarchist mobs and intervening foreign forces that fought the Reds for several years following the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917. It’s a game that has lounged on the bookshelf, taunting me to give it a good solid unearthing for a while — so let’s revisit, on cardboard and paper, one of the 20th Century’s bloodiest conflicts.
Truth be told — this article pertains to my second play through of “Reds!”. My previous session was akin to what hobbyists have christened “the introductory game” — a shortened play through intended to cement the rules and mechanics of a new game to the user’s memory. So the challenge as a solitaire player, now that I understood how this representation of the conflict was permitted to transpire — presented itself thusly: could I reasonably and enjoyably fight for both sides? Would I be able to make tactically sound decisions for both the Reds and the Whites? Is it possible to play a 2 player wargame solo without subconscious bias influencing strategic decisions?
Luckily “Reds!” was designed with a “chit-pull activation” mechanic for its operational turns. “Chits” are synonymous with the (usually 5/8" or 1/2") cardboard counters that represent everything imaginable in a wargame, from a single soldier, a battalion, a division or an army front; sometimes they depict a general, a faction or even the last line of the Romanov dynasty himself . With chit pulling, the player(s) randomly select who and what goes next in order of action — thereby preserving the element of surprise. When the unexpected happens, plans can and do go awry. This mechanism, where both the Red and White player are in the dark as to who moves his troops first, helps keeps the player(s)…even the soloist one…on his/her toes.
To give a modicum of honesty and validity to the play I decided on establishing a gameplan for both sides of the war — spelling out in concrete bullet points what each combatant was instructed to achieve in the given time frames. Since “Reds!” separates the Russian Civil War into divided fronts (for the Reds) and factions (for the Whites) this made my idea for outlining strategic goals that much easier. I reasoned that, if each belligerent possessed challenging but obtainable goals that would enable their side to satisfy the game’s Victory threshhold, my time with “Reds!” would feel more like an organic simulation of armed conflict and less a haphazard and spontaneous choreograph of mindless counter pushing and dice rolling.
A brief overview of my game start strategies follows below.
For the Whites on the Northwest front, there is not much action awaiting them for the first several turns. The Allied Intervention Forces, (brown and blue counters above) currently in Murmansk and Archangel, have been tasked with securing the supply sources in both cities. These units, while hindered by not having the ability to go on the offensive at will, possess strong defensive modifiers — resilient enough to withstand any sustained Bolshevik attacks. Cutting the opponent’s supply lines can be as destructive to their operations as a well-executed attack; should these AIF units find themselves with the initiative, their secondary objective is to sever the Red supply lines between Moscow and Petrograd.
The Reds, alternatively, consider this area of the Motherland the front of least concern. Should success in other areas of the map provide additional resources, the main strategy for the Bolsheviks in the Northwest becomes: eliminate all AIF units and, failing this, prevent enemy incursions south of Onega.
Depicting the vast, sparsely populated areas southeast of the Ural Mountains the Central Asia Front presents both sides with simple but not easily executable agendas; the Islamic White forces here are represented by one army; their chances of capturing the crucial Red resource city of Tashkent in the northeast are minimal; until they are eventually reinforced in strategic turn B with an army of AIF they are forced to keep a low profile, shoring up the supply source in the southeast. Once they have the manpower, the Whites’ objective in this front is Tashkent, which might be prove more accessible if they can disorder the Turkestan Red army occupying the city.
Conversely the Reds in this front, until they can utilize strategic movement via rail to call more reinforcements, are also grounded in a war of attrition with the White forces in this sector. If the Whites take the first move and are forced to retreat from an attempted seige of Tashkent the Turkestan Red army will have an easier time of wiping all traces of White factions from the entire front.
Deep in southern Russia sits a wild mix of White factions gunning to remove the unwanted scourge of Bolshevism from the area. It is in this Southern Front that the Reds could face their biggest challenge; bolstered by several units of Cossack armies the AFSR (Armed Forces of Southern Russia) Whites have the means and manpower to surround their primary objective: Tsaritsyn. Their strategy should be to isolate the crucial Red city as much as possible until they eventually receive supporting tank auxiliary units — the only units capable of forcing a full Red retreat from the future Stalingrad/Volgograd. Securing the city would provide an enormous benefit to the White forces controlling the entire approach to the Southern side of the Volga.
The Red commander, already recognizing the strategic importance of holding Tsaritsyn, is tasked with moving the Red 8th and 9th armies to the city’s perimeters as quickly as possible. Upon the reinforcement of Tsaritsyn’s defences the Reds will then work on cutting off Cossack supply lines to the East and West. A third goal, upon successful completion of the above objectives, is to move Red units into an advantageous position for capturing the nearby resource city of Rostov once the impassable Central Powers Occupation Line is removed from the game on strategic turn B (reflecting the end of World War I).
The East Front might be the most crucial area of the war. It is here where the Siberian Whites MUST, at all costs, prevent not only the seizure of its two resource cities Izhevsk and Simbirsk, but seize the Imperial Gold (which counts as a resource point) before the Bolsheviks pilfer it out of Kazan. If the Siberian Whites can capture the Gold they should strategic move it by rail all the way back to Omsk, a relatively isolated Siberian stronghold. This tactic could stall any hope the Reds would entertain of neutralizing the entire front,
If the Reds can capture the Imperial Gold, move it to Moscow and seize both East Front resource cities, the chances of a White victory could prove unlikely. With little harassment from the bordering Northwest front the Reds can pool most of their units into this sector, creating a frightful onslaught for the Siberians to engage. If the Reds pass the Urals the odds of the Whites maintaining control of the of Omsk, the eventual Bolshevik target, are slim.
The missions for both sides of the conflict are relatively unambiguous; however much can change in the course of even one half of one game turn. Per the photo above, “Reds!” is a rather lengthy wargame; the Victory conditions for the shorter Reds vs White campaign are finally determined on Turn E; and the Victory condition endpoint for the Reds vs Polish campaign occurs at the end of Turn 24. And much like the real conflicts these games depict — anything and everything can and does happen. One of the marks of a great general is to notice the changes unfolding on the battlefield, recognize how those changes effect their strategy and to adapt one’s tactics to accurately re-maneuver ones’ resources.
Will the Civil War in Russia play out on cardboard as it did 100 years ago? Stay tuned for the next installment to find out.
Za Rodinu !
