We intend to offer up our design notes regarding our simulation of the 2^nd Russo-Ukrainian War, Defiance, beginning with Volume 1: Miracle on Dnipro: Kyiv & Chernihiv Campaign, from time to time. Given that we are designing a simulation regarding an ongoing conflict, it’s a first draft of history. Consequently, at least you’ll get some insight into why we got some items wrong 🙂

In our fourth article in this series, our developer, Bob Heinzmann, pipes up. As always, feel free to break out a beverage of your choice. We always include a recipe for a cocktail, mocktail, or appetizer at the end of each of our Defiance Design Happy Hour articles. This time, we go with a mean RED RAZ Martini.

A crazy request…

Greetings from the developers fighting position.  Rather than discuss a game mechanic as David has done, I wanted to share some thoughts as the developer.  I have known David and Mark for over twenty years.  When they approached me about this game 14 months ago, I thought they were, in a word, crazy!  How could you possibly model what happened on the ground with all the preconceived ideas of the Russian army? 

To digress a bit, let me introduce myself.  I have been playing games since 1966 with AH’s Midway and Guadalcanal; so, approaching 6 decades in this fantastic hobby. I am also a retired Army officer who spent seven years as an infantry officer, three of those in special operations, and 15 years as an aviator.  My entire adult life from 1975 to 1997 was focused on defeating the Soviet (Russian) Army and their client states.

Prewar thoughts regarding this conflict…

I was convinced in February 2022 that the Ukrainian military would be no match for the Russian onslaught. I also did not think that the Russian army could win a “hearts and minds” campaign.  Given this prejudice on my part, what could Putin hope to achieve in this “Special Military Operation”?  Imagine my surprise when the Russian army attacked and completely ignored their own doctrine on how to fight!  They attacked in winter with horrible field conditions that restricted movement to rail lines and roadway.  They had absolutely no off-road mobility.  The cornerstone of Russian doctrine is mobility.  They abandoned this at the outset of the war.  Then their elite airborne troops were tasked with the take-down of two key airfields.  Their inability to open the airheads and the stiff resistance by the Ukrainian army shocked the world! 

The challenge of modeling a ongoing conflict radically different from what we thought may unfold…

Back to game design.  So, again how to model this and make it interesting for both sides? 

Mark and David have taken a bold leap here to tackle this subject as it unfolds.  It is very important to understand they are not trying to predict an outcome or even judge the moral and legal implications of Putin’s actions.  This is an attempt to model the first 6 weeks of the conflict and educate and perhaps even illuminate what went right and what went wrong on both sides.  Of course, new data is CONSTANTLY emerging, which tests our hypothesis of combat dynamics, OOB, logistics etc. This frequently causes a tweak and sometimes redesign of a mechanic. At some point, the music will stop and the publish button will be pushed. Until then, part of my job is to help distill designer intent into something playable, understandable and engaging.

Taking a combat system and developing it…

Regarding just one design aspect, a completely new & different combat system was required; at least that was our collective read.  Dockter covered this in his third Defiance Design Happy Hour article and I’ll add further perspective. A simple ratio table would not work.  (You know, get 30 factors; attack 10 factors on the 3:1 column and pray for a 6 to wipe out the defender).  3:1 odds tables were not explaining what was happening on the muddy battlefields in early 2022.  Two or three guys with a Javlin ATGM system were able to salvo off a round or two and disrupt an entire columns movement.  Plus, toss in things like the Ukrainian1^st Tank Brigade holding off two combined armies.  So, a combat system was needed with a wide range of possibilities not dependent upon combat odds; a tough break with accepted norms for some of us schooled on the early Avalon Hill classics.

The result was three different ways combat can be conducted and resolved.  The “Wolves” (irregular troops/SoF/partisans) use a different table than the regular forces. This can be a minor annoyance or a major interruption in combat operations for the Russian army.  (Very near and dear to my heart).  The regular forces use one of two methods, the meeting engagement or set piece battle. These model the time and coordination required for modern combat operations; do I keep up the momentum and use the forces at hand (Meeting Engagement) or take the time necessary to marshal more combat power to smash a set force (Set Piece Battle). 

As a developer, I’ve helped distill designer intent and complexity (both these designers like A LOT of dials & nobs to spin and push) into something that reflects intent without needless rules/mechanic overhang. How? Playtesting with the designers and constantly asking is there a cleaner way to accomplish what the designers are attempting. And, does it ring true with my military career experience in this space? When I recently playtested the opening turn, it became clear one die roll could handle what previously a few did and still produce the required effect. Below is the original combat table for a meeting engagement (and set piece battle) and what emerged.

The early version of Battle/Combat Resolution

…and where we are at now for meeting engagements and set piece battles…a system where 1 die roll rolled for each side and a narrative is produced…reflective of what we think are combat dynamics in this conflict.

Herding cats constantly chasing catnip (new data!)…

In the 14 months that this process has been going on, we are on the 9^th edition of the rules, 6^th set of counters, and 3^rd map.  With the ever-expanding availability of new material in the public domain since the start of the war, we continue to grab new data, distill insights and then reflect with the game sub-systems in Defiance.  Mark and Dave note this in the title of the game as “A First Draft of History”.  Undoubtably, as more time passes and more data hits open sources some of the assumptions we made will need to change.  As we push forward with the design of the first six weeks of the conflict surrounding Kyiv and Chernihv, we will keep a weather eye on these developments.  Besides, Dave loves making new counters with every new bit of hard data! 

I want to keep this article short & sweet, but still give the reader, and potential buyer, a glimpse at how the sausage is made.  I think it is particularly interesting as we work on a conflict that is, unfortunately, far from over.  In the immortal words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky:

I need ammunition, not a ride.”

26-FEB-2022-

In keeping the Happy Hour theme and the total raspberry that the Russian Army blew in the first 6 weeks I offer the RED RAZ Martini. Shake one up and breakout a copy of GMT’s outstanding new game, Downfall (I’m biased, I was the lead playtester). Grab a die, push a few counters and swill that RED RAZ.

---

Previous Defiance InsideGMT Articles:

First Draft of History: Designing a Military Simulation of the Russo-Ukraine War 2022-2023

Defiance Design Happy Hour: Partisan/SOF Operations vs. Regular Russian Forces

Defiance Design Happy Hour: Modeling the Political Dimension of 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War

Defiance Design Happy Hour: Modeling the Combat of 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War