That was a 8-month marathon of playing all 12 scenarios in Combat Commander: Europe Base Game. Wonderful time during which I had possibility to introduce Dave to that fantastic game. Today I will look at all those sessions from statistical perspective – I love such summaries and could not stop myself from creating one. So, without further delay let us start!
Session reports
First and foremost, let me provide links to all our games. By clicking on the scenario name or picture (which shows the final stage of the game) you will be redirected to new window with detailed session report. I just went through all of them and it was such a great and nostalgic experience. You know now why my blog is called The Boardgames Chronicle – I love coming back to previous sessions and spent time recollecting them.
Nationalities analysis
My analysis will start with the nationalities. In Combat Commander Europe we can play with Germans (Axis) as well as USSR and US (Allies). They differ not only in the quality of troops, morale, equipment but also the deck composition. The Player’s Aid did a great analysis and you can check it under this link.
| Nationality | Games played | Games won | Games lost | % won | % lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | 12 | 5 | 7 | 42% | 58% |
| USSR | 6 | 3 | 3 | 50% | 50% |
| US | 6 | 4 | 2 | 67% | 33% |
The data which based on 12 games shows interesting results. It seems you have highest chances to win when playing with US forces! Germans are definitely at the disadvantage while Soviets just land in the middle. Of course, Germans have much larger statistical pool (12 scenarios) in comparison to other two (6 each).
Defender vs Attacker analysis
There are like three postures in Combat Commander Europe which define what each side can do and how many cards they have:
- Attacker Posture – A player assigned the Posture of “Attacker” has a hand size of 6.
- Recon Posture – A player assigned the Posture of “Recon” has a hand size of 5.
- Defender Posture – A player assigned the Posture of “Defender” has a hand size of 4; is able to play several actions unavailable to other Postures – like wire, mines, hidden entrenchments/pillbox, etc.; gains 1 VP during each Time Marker
| Posture Type | Victories | Victories % |
|---|---|---|
| Attacker | 9 | 90% |
| Defender | 1 | 10% |
The data which I gathered is quite surprising – it seems that both me and Dave are really good in attacking but terrible on defense. Only 1 in 10 games with above two postures was successful for Defender (last scenario, won by Dave). It shows that even with all those special actions and VPs, it is very hard to repeal a determined enemy.
Game length
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Average | 28 turns |
| Shortest | 18 turns |
| Longest | 34 turns |
Another interesting aspect of our games. When we started, the sessions lasted pretty long, with two reaching 34 turns. The more we knew the title, the quicker the play went, with the shortest scenario lasting only 18 turns. On average it was 28, which should translate to around 2.5 hours of live play.
Victories
There are like two main ways to win in Combat Commander Europe – the other are much less possible and happen rarely:
- Sudden Death / Victory Points – A Sudden Death roll is made that is less than the number in the space currently occupied by the time marker. Simply, you run out of time and the game ends.
- Surrender – The player is forced to place one of his eliminated units in the space of the Casualty Track occupied by the surrender marker. Simply, your losses were too high and you lost.
| Victory Type | # | % |
|---|---|---|
| VPs | 9 | 75% |
| Surrender | 3 | 25% |
Looking at those two types, I was surprised (my memory simply failed me) that we finished as many as 3 (25%) of our games with Surrender! This is not so easy and requires complete obliteration of opponent.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Highest VP disparity | 25 VPs |
| Lowest VP disparity | 2 VPs |
| Average VP disparity | 13 VPs |
Now, when the Sudden Death / Victory Points type is concerned, the difference was usually at 13 VPs. Still, there was like couple of nail-bitters, with only 2-3 VPs variation. On the other end of the spectrum, there were also huge victories of 20 VPs advantage.
Michal vs Dave analysis
Yes, we also need to analyse how it went as far as mine and Dave’s scores are concerned. Here is detailed summary:
I won 7 out of 12 games while Dave 5 out of 12. Very balanced results, very close campaign!
Summary
That was fantastic time and wonderful experience – great opponent, flexible times to play – asynchronously via Discord / VASSAL and sometimes live. Very replayable game, very close scenarios and all this battle confusion / events / unpredictable turns of events making it such wonderfully spent time. Of course, thanks to Dave for playing together!
PS. More to come – we just started CC Pacific!
The Boardgames Chronicle 
This was so fun! And thanks for doing the analysis. I thought I lost far more than I did 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was really good and balanced campaign 🙂 Let us see how Pacific goes 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well done. A well written and interesting article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! Love the game!
LikeLike
Fascinating insights! Let’s see if the Pacific is more suitable for defense 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! Pacific is indeed pretty different but still a lot of fun!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really interesting stats. Thanks for doing this. I have a question on your turn data. Since most scenarios go for around seven or so turns, where do your numbers of 18 to 34 turns come from, i.e., how are you counting turns?
LikeLiked by 1 person
By turn I understand 1 full card play by Allies (turn) and 1 full cards play by Axis (turn). This is not play till time / decks reshuffle.
LikeLike
Ok, so those numbers represent the numbers of full card plays by each side per actual game turn (deck reshuffle), correct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, exactly. Please check rulebook and Glossary: “Turn—One player performing one or more Orders or discarding zero or more Fate cards. “
LikeLike