Konigsberg: The Soviet Attack
on East Prussia, 1945
by Stefan Ekstrom, Revolution Games
Wargames, Good Guys, and Bad Guys
I have two modes of
engaging with the moral history of a wargame when playing. Competitively, I can
play whichever side, and play to win – whilst me and my buddy discuss the
history, consider the moral dimensions of the scenario, and so forth.
But playing solo
leaves me in a dilemma. In anything involving British armies, anything from
about the 19th century on – it’s not just I’ve made some general
judgement about “good guys” and “bad guys”, but I know it’ll sometimes affect
my play. In some scenarios I don’t want one side to win. Do I want the French
to win Waterloo? Some scenarios, indeed, I wouldn’t consider playing – I’ve
never owned or played a Sealion game, and I doubt I will. I’ll just take the
win of Britain not being invaded historically, thankyou very much.
As you can imagine,
the Nazis are usually the bad guys in World War 2, even when facing the
Soviets. My favourite Wehrmacht general officer is Henning von Tresckow, to
give you a measure of my views. But Konigsberg:
The Soviet Attack on East Prussia, 1945 changes the dilemma.
In historical terms,
the German counterattack at Pillau on the 19th February (just after
this game ends) is not only a militarily impressive one, but also in my view an
undoubtedly moral achievement. The reopening of the sole route of
evacuation for the hundreds of thousands of civilians – otherwise doomed to
starvation, rape, and butchery, as happened at the hands of Soviet troops
across East Prussia – may have been accomplished by Nazis, but it is undeniably
stirring. Could you or I, if we had been Germans dissenters then, desired any
other outcome than a German victory?
This game of that campaign
also touches on the horror of the campaign in a way that many similar games do
not (I know of no Barbarossa game with Einzatsgruppen counters). The objectives
for the Soviet player include effectively cutting off Konigsberg, if it cannot
be captured; one entry on the random event table represents Soviet massacres,
and provides the German player with Volkssturm units.
As a chit-pull game
(you draw counters from a cup to determine which group of units moves/fights
next), this is ripe for solo play, and the moral dynamics of the campaign make
it a particularly pointed example of the tension in solo play. The questions I
had in mind before playing it were: (1) was it a good game? and (2) does it effectively
engage the moral questions it touches upon?
Under The Hood
There’s not much
surprising about Konigsberg. It’s
advertised as sharing a system with A
Victory Lost and similar games, and it does. Units have the traditional
attack-defence-move stats, combat is calculated on an Odds/Ratio basis, and the
order in which groups of units move and fight is determined by chit pull. A
given formation being activated by chit can usually also move extra independent
units, which otherwise have no chit in the cup. Units from the activated
formation have to be within the command range of their formation HQ unit to
activate themselves. The activation order is strictly on the order of chits
here, limited only by each side’s “limit” – i.e. the Germans and the two Soviet
Fronts can each have a certain number of activations, after which any
additional pulls are null. There are also special chits, which if drawn cause
special effects to occur – e.g. “bombardment” attacks, which are basically just
a free chance to damage enemy units with no risk to your own guys. One special chit
triggers a roll on the Random Events Table, of which a little more later.
That all works
perfectly well (as it ought). The statistical design of units seems to me to be
historically plausible, combat is fine, the chit pull works well. There are
also air units, which each side gets and can use to influence the combat odds –
cleverly, one can either fully commit an air unit (for a bigger effect) and
lose the use of it for a couple of turns, or partially commit it and get it
back sooner. In fact, there’s even a naval unit for the Germans, the Hipper, which sits in the Frische Haff
and can add its attack strength to combats within 2 hexes of that lake. These
are lovely touches, and work well in the dynamic of the game. Good wargame mechanics
can often be identified as those that efficiently model something “in the world”
– not simply good mechanics per se,
nor mechanics that exhaustively model something, but that crossover of
efficiency and modelling. Both air and naval units in this game are efficiently
modelled.
One fair critique at
a purely mechanical level is the balance of chits in the chit draw. The Soviet
player draws plenty more chits each turn than the German player. The German
player draws between 3 and 5 chits per turn depending on the turn-specific
limit; the Soviet draws between 6 and 10. Formations are of similar sizes, with
the German corps tending to be a little larger than the Soviet armies. On most
turns, then, the Soviet player will move several more units than German. By the
final turn, with the Soviet drawing 10 chits and the German drawing 3, the
Soviet player may be moving a good clip over three times as many units,
depending on German attrition.
In solo play this
isn’t a great issue, of course, and chit pull is geared well to solo play.
Moreover, at both a “tempo” level and in terms of historicity, this all makes
sense. But this imbalance, exacerbated as it is by the necessarily desperate
situation of the German defenders, does make this a game that will suit solo
players much better than face-to-face gaming.
On the other hand,
the desperate situation mentioned there does make this very compelling for the
solo player. The red tide, activating in ever-increasing numbers (but having to
make up room over an increasingly large amount of map), swarms against ever-thinner
ad hoc lines of German defence. The German player will be desperately seeking
to hold an overland route open from Konigsberg to Brandenburg, and will be
constantly worried in the last couple of turns that he won’t succeed; the
Soviet player, on the other hand, has every resource on his side but time.
With the one caveat
about competitive play in place – and easily solved by most wargamers being
solitary birds – it’s fair to say that this is a very respectable game. The
mechanics work, the chrome is generally efficiently flavourful, and the
situation is very tense. As a relatively inexpensive game ($45 from Revolution,
£45.95 from Second Chance Games) with a modicum of replayability, this is worth
looking into.
The Morality of Dierolls
When we play an
Operation Typhoon game and play out the fall of Moscow, or when we see British
troops surrender at Singapore in Empire
of the Sun, we probably don’t overthink things. Bad things will result from
those events, whether historical or counterfactual, but the paper map and
cardboard counters give us the distance required to engage with the history as
an intellectual and even ludic exercise. I’m quite comfortable with that, on
the whole; I don’t think I’m dodging serious reflection on the morality of historical
events if I don’t constantly torment myself.
But Konigsberg presses the question further.
The Soviet Sudden Death Victory condition gives a hint to the historical
situation – if the Soviets hold Konigsberg or Elbing at the end of a turn, they
win immediately. That’s par for the course, but the Random Events Table isn’t –
it includes “Soviet Atrocity” and “Refugees”. The former provides the Germans
with more Volkssturm (representing, presumably, motivated troops), the latter
slows down the next activation due to clogged roads.
I appreciate the
frankness – both were serious considerations in the campaign. I don’t believe there
is any flippancy intended by Stefan Ekstrom, the designer. They are
mechanically efficient. But I can’t help but come away feeling a little –
strange. I didn’t, when playing, feel emotionally affected by these direct
references to tragedy, but nor did I glide past it. Those results brought me up
slightly – not quite to the point of reflection, but slight unease.
I don’t mind that,
and I don’t consider it as an unfair ruining of my fun. I mean, I don’t want to
play The Train Game, but we wargamers can sometimes have the mindset of the
squeamish carnivore, can’t we? Serve me the steak, don’t show me the cow. The
designer has decided these are historically important matters to simulate; he
wouldn’t have sinned if he hadn’t, but he has. So my complaint is not at that
level. I’m just not sure it “comes off”.
What I mean is this:
It’s fine if wargames don’t simulate the grimmest aspects of their subject. It’s
fine if they do. But the simulation has to land well. Black Orchestra is a compelling game which also translates some of
the weight of the matter, of the conspiracies to kill Hitler; it’s a sober
subject but works well both ludically and emotionally. It does make it an
emotionally heavier game to play than Carcassonne,
but that’s no complaint! On the other hand, the minimal and slightly
reductionistic references to the horrors of the East Prussian campaign we find
on the Konigsberg Random Events Table
feel slightly tacked on. They neither preserve intellectual distance nor land
an emotional punch. They are adequate at a game level but hardly exciting.
There is a lesson
here, I suspect; cardboard does well as an intellectual time machine, but
emotional resonance requires real skill, and building it into a traditional
hex-and-counter frame is often going to struggle. The technology is maladapted
to the task.
Conclusion
With all that said,
this is a good game. It’s nicely produced, with a clean Joe Youst map and
decent counters. There’s plenty of nice chrome, the mechanics are smooth, and
the situation is compelling and tight. It’s ideal for solo play (if likely to
be less impressive in competitive play). The willingness to address the harder
parts of the history is admirable. It’s largely a success; its failures are
qualified. It’s worth a look.
