Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantBattle of Jarama as a three game campaign on/around the 80th anniversary in Feb 2017.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantI use Irregular 6mm so…three infantry, two cavalry and one artillery piece on each base.
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantWhat I’d like to do is run one of my own campaigns on the Eastern front to a conclusion. Barbarossa – Kicking in the Door is a sixteen turn campaign for eight players with four Pz Divs (one from each PzGr) as representatives of progress across the front. It is derived from Martin Rapier’s excellent Race to Leningrad campaign from the 90s. I have played a single division’s progress for 6-8 weeks several times but don’t have the equipment or players to field four divisions simultanously.
Alternatively ‘Kharkov – the Last Disaster’ (May 42 – 10 days) was written during lockdown and I was unable to playtest it effectively at all. The mechanisms have been ‘thought tested’ but it would be interesting to see if the attack/counterattack mechanisms hang together. And it’s more manageable (3/4 players, a couple of divisions and ten turns).
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participant<p style=”text-align: left;”>Yes, one base as a company with 6mm figures. One infantry corps and one cavalry division each for the British, French, Russians, Germans and Austro-Hungarians. Not yet played with any entire corps but a Division plus cavalry is fairly standard.</p>
CheersAndrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantKonstantinos and Chris – Thx very much to both of you. The numbers there would appear to suggest a ratio along the lines of 1 base to an infantry or artillery battalion or to a cavalry regt? Anyway I can take closer look and put together a plan.
Regarding figures, I’m interested in the substitutions you’re making, Chris. I presume the Greeks are largely Irregular’s WW1 BEF and the Evzones are French – maybe the Chasseurs Alpins? But I’m intrigued by the Montinegrins. What figures are they?
I believe Russians will do for Bulgarians and then, perhaps, 1914 Austro-Hungarians for Romanians, if the completist in me takes over.
Anyway, thanks again to both. I’ll take further queries/advice requests to the io group.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantHmmm…you ‘re-piqued my interest in the rules and the Balkan wars. I think I’ll have to move into the project costings stage. Theoretically I can still abort. In practice, starting this stage is usually the point of no return, leading inexorably to several hundred figures and another big painting project.😊
Anyway, perhaps you would be kind enough to help me scope out the size of the thing. Broadly I understand BBB to operate with flexible scales, but usually sthg like 1 base=1 brigade/1500 men and 1 artillery base= 36 guns. This would make a division in the BW around 4 infantry and 1 or 2 artillery stands. As I recall the entire Bulgarian army was around ten divisions, the Serbian similar and the Greek about four. I presume then, you changed the scaling in your scenarios? Would you give me a brief rundown of the bases per infantry regiment/brigade, cavalry division, artillery regiment, which you adopt in the book and the range of sizes of the scenarios (e.g. from one division per side in scenario X to five divisions each in scenario Y).
Do any of the scenarios involve the late arriving Romanians? And, finally, are there, routinely, any special HQ or leader stands necessary (i.e every division has twelve rifle stands, three artillery stands and an HQ stand).
Just trying to get an idea of how many divisions I’ll need to represent for each army and how many stands are likely to make up each division, so I can calculate an Irregular or Baccus order.
Thx for your help
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participant…as I really don’t look forward to painting a lot of 6mm horses, just something that I don’t enjoy…
Quite right. Awful chore.
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantAdler do French Cavalry which might be slightly closer than most (the Adrian helmet is shaped slightly more like the Romanian/Dutch one).
Alternatively I reflect on the likelihood that, as soon as they were in battle range, they dismounted. So, use GHQ infantry and let them move faster than foot infantry. Though I do recall reading about the Romanian officer who led a cavalry charge in 42? (another contender for the ‘last ever’ such charge).
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantI would have commented on the blog directly but for some reason Google won’t let me.
I can’t say I know anything of this war. However I do read rules closely and I was struck by the following four items quoted (in bold) from the rules, and their interaction…
“Roll 10 x D10’s….(edit). Pick the 6 highest D10’s. Assign them with the highest first to the following attributes: Marksmanship: Fatigue; Defence/Attack…(edit)”
So the Fatigue score is very likely to be 6+ and probably 7 or 8 or more.
“Roll x3 more D10’s. Each one (your choice) is the number of officers, musicians, and flag bearers you have available…You must then split your forces, evenly or un-evenly, your choice, between each officer. So if you have a group of 60 Murids, and 6 officers, you will end up with 6 command groups… (edit)”
The chances are that there will be more than one Murid group and four or more is quite likely.
“Murid infantry move their Fatigue rating in inches. So a Fatigue rating of 9 means a movement of 9”. At the end of each turn, for each murid group that moved, they lose 1 point from their fatigue rating. This then applies in the following new turn.” (my italics)
“If the Fatigue rating reaches 0 – no units can move except to withdraw/flee.”
Given Fatigue of 6+ and multiple groups, each reducing that fatigue score by one, each time they move in a turn, then Fatigue will be reduced to zero within a turn or two. Best case – 10 Fatigue and one unit – ten turns before Fatigue reduced to zero. Worst case – 10 units and 1 Fatigue. Fatigue reduced to zero at the end of the first turn. Quite likely – 5 or 6 units and fatigue of 7 or 8. Fatigue reduced to zero by the end of the second turn.
Additionally the rate of movement will drop very rapidly between turns. For example 3 Murid Groups and 8 Fatigue and assuming every group moves every turn. First turn 8 inches movement, second turn 5 inches movement, third turn 2 inches movement. No further movement thereafter. Total movement for each group over the game 15 inches.
Coupled with the likely numbers, all this reduces Murid movement to a likely one, two or three turns.
I don’t know whether this was your intention, but it seems to be very limiting. However there may be a very good reason for it in a simulation of this particular conflict.
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantIf I need a hit location in an RPG I use one of Koplow’s Hit Location D12’s but frankly I’m rarely sure it matters where the hit is unless you need to factor in armour. I tend to assume armour is much the same all over
This.
Depends on granularity, again? If the system distinguishes minor cuts from wounds causing loss of function from proper limb/head severing mighty blows (and all stages between) then whether your head/chest is no longer functional is of more interest than whether your leg or arm is giving you a bit of gip. Also, non functional left arm might allow a right handed character to continue to hit or defend himself?
Obviously there’s pain, shock and blood pressure crash from (otherwise) non killing blows to critical body systems, not to mention magical healing and what its effects are (anaesthetic, analgesic, complete repair, blood loss recuperation). However those factors are broadly ‘simulatable’ – functional loss in non limb – do nothing til you die or somebody heals you; functional loss of limb – don’t use limb (fall over if leg) and halve chances at doing anything (it smarts a bit) until healed; severing blow to non limb – dead, severing blow to limb – in shock, do nothing til dead or someone else heals you.
Personally, those sorts of consequences of hit locations and severity of wound are considerably more satisfying than a whole body HP total where lost hp have no, or limited, special consequences e.g fight normally until half up then fight at half, die on zero.
Having said all that, I am hopelessly out of touch with any rpg from this century. I may be missing a brilliant general system. YMMV
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantTaking account of the above (I particularly appreciate the real world archers’ input) and stealing flagrantly from my preferred RPG, RuneQuest, might I suggest
1-4 left leg
5-8 right leg
9-11 – abdomen (squishy bits of torso and, for amusement, 9 – genitals)
12 – chest (vital bits of torso – heart and lungs)
13-15 – left arm
16-18 – right arm
19-20 – head
Roll 1D20 for melee and shooting at 60/80/100 yards plus (or whatever range you want to define as ‘close’ for different weapons) and 2D10 for shooting within close range.
Additionally, if you wish to, you could allow aiming within the round. Have a calculation based on Dexterity which generates a number no greater than 5 or 6 (DEX divided by three?). The shooter specifies he is aiming at a location and his shot is delayed by that calc’s number of seconds (or whatever fits your system). If he rolls half his chance to hit then he rolls the location die or dice as normal but may modify the result by that DEX based calc towards his aiming location. If he rolls over half his hit chance then he just rolls his hit location die or dice.
So Mr Shooty the archer has a DEX of 15 and shoots at 70%. He declares he is aiming at his opponent’s chest. His shot is delayed by 5 seconds. If he rolls below 35% he rolls 1D20/2D10 (according to range) and adds or subtracts up to 5 to move the result closer to 12 (chest). If he rolls 36-70% he rolls the D20/2D10 and just uses the result rolled. If he rolls 71%+, he’d better be quick getting another arrow.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantTony – you’re welcome. Thanks for buying it. If you try the ultra quick battle resolution I’d be interested in how you find it. I can’t claim to have playtested it extensively so it would be good to see if it’s fundamentally flawed, because I missed sthg.
The Successors seemed like an obvious potential campaign to me as well, but the changing allegiances were a bit head spinning (and there were too many people called Antigonas). It didn’t seem to me like there were two main rivals separated by lesser kingdoms who might be swayed one way or the other, but, as I say in the article, I’m no specialist in Ancients. At its most basic level it seems possible to pick the two most geographically separated (Macedonia and the Seleucids?) and have everyone in between as the minor states, equivalent to the Greeks, in the original campaign. But that could easily be an historical travesty – I don’t know enough. It might work quite nicely as a three player game with Egypt added as a major power.
Anyway thx again. If you feel so inclined, I’d welcome a review on WV.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantDeephorse
Thanks for the purchase. Hope you enjoy it. Brody’s my preferred one as well but it keeps rebounding off obstacles as it rattles around my head!
The link I followed was safe; ie didn’t put anything into my cart. …I’m also quite curious about your quick and dirty DBA style campaign….Thanks for letting us know about all your hard work.
Good to know about the link. I think they used to jump straight into your cart.
As for the DBA thing, it’s done and I’m just checking the interest/balance of the campaign mechanisms with campaigns with simulated DBA battles. I might need to rejig the presentation a bit for clarity but I think I’ll put it out there in a the next month. It’s a specific era but the mechanisms are portable, as long as you can create a point to point map.
And as for the thanks regarding my hard work, you’re too kind. The thanks are due to the people who buy my stuff and, particularly, those who comment, because that more than the sales and any profit is what makes me think it’s worthwhile. Enjoy the book.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantVery kind of you to say so Jack. I much enjoy your blog.
Not sure about what might come next. I have been thinking about Brody 1941 but keep going around in circles trying to resolve some scaleability issues – five or so giant Soviet Mechanised Corps versus a panzer division or two – and the need to hamstring the Soviets (partly because of the preponderence of stuff they have) and still keep it interesting for him. Or another scenario book keeps skipping around in my head for five or six mini three game linked battles over the same terrain based on battles like Soltsy 1941, Romanians and/or the Hungarian Fast corps in 41, Voronezh 42, Don Bend/Chir 42, post Kursk/Dnepr 43 and some other bits an pieces.
However, very likely to be quite soon will be a quick and dirty DBA Campaign framework – probably $1 for a ten page PDF. Playtesting that now.
Thanks for buying – hope you enjoy the book.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantAah memories! The one that started me off in the hobby. I learned of it from my cousin on a camping holiday when I was around thirteen. His friend had ordered it and I played it a few months later. I was looking to play figures games but a crippling lack of modelling skills and patience put paid to that for a further twelve or fifteen years, so I took to the instant fix of board wargames instead. And here we are hundreds of boardgames later.
Unfortunately, to say I was imperfectly taught the rules would be a gross understatement. Imagine the game with practically no spotting rules, weapons effectiveness distinctions, few terrain effects on movement and no restrictions on targeting the same unit multiple times in a turn. Essentially it was a case of add up all the attack factors in range of a target until you achieve four to one. Oh and only ever play Prokorovka – tanks were the point of the game. And the Wespes and Hummels were terrifying – long range tank (and everything else) killers.
And once imperfectly learned, when I had my own copy and gave it dozens of solo outings, those mistakes proved spectacularly resilient, regardless of multiple rereadings of the rules (which rapidly fell apart). I can safely say I never played a single game properly, it thereby losing all subtlety. However, perhaps such subtlety would have been lost on my teenage self anyway – the game was still a lot of (spectacularly unrealistic) fun. But I still can’t play it against anyone else.
Nevertheless it was the key that unlocked the door I’d been banging my head against for years.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantWith a six inch overhang all around this should be quite stable. However…
…beware of elbows (when sitting) and a splayed hand (when standing) supporting your reach across the table. Too close to the edge will create quite a realistic earth quake.
I speak from experience of a game of Shogun and a table with fundamentally the same design whilst on holiday. Though thematically appropriate the multiple tremors during the game were not conducive to a relaxation.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participant“…a reaction (chosen from a baseline to increasingly rash/cautious, depending on the colonel) is compulsory – despite the fact that the approaching troops are friendly reinforcements…” Does this mean that a unit that fails command control roll has to react to anything in its zone of control?
Any unit which is not under command (by whatever sub-system the rules mandate – out of range; no command pips allocated; fails a die roll etc.) must roll to check if it reacts to any troops which approach within a rules specified distance of it (a zone of control, if you like). The unit will either pass or fail that roll. If it fails it will do nothing for the remainder of the turn – even if shot at by the unit which caused it to test its reaction.
If it passes, it rolls a second die and adds the colonel’s rating. The resultant modified die roll is the least aggressive thing a bold colonel’s regiment will do (so a modified roll of 3 compels the regiment to stand and fire, advance and fire, advance or charge – player’s choice). The roll represents the most aggressive thing a cautious colonel’s unit will do – because the numbers run the other way. A 3 would compel a cautious colonel’s unit to advance and fire, stand and fire, withdraw or retreat (see tables in my original message).
There are other bits (poorer colonels require greater effort on the CiC’s behalf to put them under command; artillery batteries are always cautious; once shot at, a unit not under command is more likely to react; units not under command can move but not enter other units’ zones of control; units react to the closest of multiple units in their zones etc.) but that’s a broad outline of how it works.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantI can’t speak to Warmaster – no experience of it. Is it the one from which Black Powder/Hail Caesar was derived? If so then, as I recall, the initiative move was more an opportunity response to a command control failure – sthg to get yourself out of a hole.
The emphasis I was looking to achieve was pretty much the opposite – sthg to get you into a hole at least as often as it gets you out. So the CiC’s attention is elsewhere and a subordinate does sthg stupid to wreck the plan
Any/all reaction is either prohibited (a failure on the first die roll) despite the fact that it may be an enemy unit coming into close range (which subsequently shoots large holes in you). Or a reaction (chosen from a baseline to increasingly rash/cautious, depending on the colonel) is compulsory – despite the fact that the approaching troops are friendly reinforcements, and it’s possible the CiC would prefer you not to fire a full volley at them or charge them.
They’re amongst the first set of rules I wrote, about 30-35 years ago. I was always trying to wrest perfect control from the player.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantMy own ACW rules distinguish between bold and cautious colonels, all of them rated 0 (best) to 4 (worst). This has little effect as long as no troops (enemy or friendly) approach their regiment or as long as they are in command control (another PIP based subsystem).
Should troops approach to a given distance and the regiment not be in command control then the regiment may react, regardless of the player’s wishes. I can’t remember the details but it’s sthg like 3+ on a D6 with one of two modifiers. Should they react then the player is constrained to have them do sthg according to a roll on a table. This is sthg like this for bold commanders
6 – charge, 5 – advance 1 move, 4 – advance half move and fire, 3 – stand and fire, 2 – retire half a move facing the enemy and 1 – retreat one move
For cautious commanders the numbers run the other way (so 6 is retreat, 5 retire etc)
Roll 1D6 and add the colonel’s rating (0 to +4). The result is the minimum action the regiment must take. A roll of 3 for example with a level 2 bold colonel compels the unit to at least advance a move with the option to charge – the unit may not do less than advance. A cautious colonel would at least retire but the player could choose to retreat.
This occurs regardless of whether the troops causing the reaction are friendly or not.
The system requires command and control to be limited (say half to two thirds of the units being controlled at any one time) and can reproduce such events as
units not reacting at all to any enemy advance; units running away from good positions upon sighting the enemy a way away; units abandoning good positions when sighting friendly units close by (their CiC, presumably, having failed to advise the relevant colonel of the proximity of friendlies i.e. he should have had them in command control) and, finally, charging or shooting at friends.
At the time of writing the rules all these possibilities seemed to be a feature worth representing in the ACW.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantFor the French machine-guns, you could use ‘SdM’ or ‘CdM’, depending on the scale of the unit. ‘SdM’ is short-hand for ‘section de mitrailleuse’; ‘CdM’ is ‘compagnie de mitrailleuse’.
…However the French “section” normally translates as “platoon” in English. “Groupe” would be the ususal term for a section (British) or squad (American)…All the best, John.
Thanks Patrice. That’s an interesting site which completely evaded my searches. It also seems to suggest that ‘section’ rather than ‘groupe’ was the official term. Perhaps ‘groupe’ was a later adoption?
“Le 20 août 1916 sont créés les compagnies de mitrailleuses à 4 sections” What do you call a component of a company, a section or a platoon? All the best, John.
Indeed section (fr) translates as platoon (eng). I was thrown by your earlier message which suggested section (eng) translating to groupe (fr) in response to Robert’s suggesting Section de Mitrailleuses/SdM as a (French) abbreviation (and, not therefore proffering, or requiring, any translation to English of section (fr)). I (mistakenly) took this to mean you were suggesting GdM as a better abbreviation and, in my last post, was simply pointing out that they were called sections (fr), whilst getting misled by groupe (fr).
So section=platoon, groupe=section, these are platoons so the appropriate term is section! Straightforward, really.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantOne more info (I’m not a specialist of the WW1 period… but your question raised my interest…) this web page: http://www.mitrailleuse.fr/France/Section/section.htm
Thanks Patrice. That’s an interesting site which completely evaded my searches. It also seems to suggest that ‘section’ rather than ‘groupe’ was the official term. Perhaps ‘groupe’ was a later adoption?
…the (almost official) abbreviation for it was “la 12,7”.
Presumably said as ‘la douze-sept’?
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantThanks for the responses. I had done a fairly thorough check of the interweb and was reasonably convinced there was no standard abbreviation but I thought it worth checking here. I will be going with Robert’s/John’s GdM and CdM, which, as noted by John, avoids the curt abbreviation to simply M.
<Joad mode> It all depends on what you mean by “machine gun”. </Joad mode> All the best, John.
John, I’m cut to the quick that you thought I hadn’t considered the more subtle naming conventions surrounding automatic weapons!
These will be St Etienne 1907s and Hotchkiss 1914s
Thanks again to all
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantWell that’s rather excellent, John. Thank you. Thx too for the contribution on my query on WWI specialists, which you posted minutes prior to my own acknowledgement of contributions.
Please continue with the sniblets, gobbets and dribbles.
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantThanks to both Robert and Tony for additional info.
I think for the various cyclists I’ll roll them up with the divisional cavalry for the pre-game abstract reconnaissance game I am planning for each scenario.
…engineer companies were usually spread out over the division…had a series of roles (demolition, road repair, minor bridging etc.)
…and I think the engineer company will be tied to the divisional HQ unless there’s some scenario specific engineering type of work required in the area of a given btn. I don’t think anyone will put their divisional HQ in the front line.
German Jaegers with cavalry divisions (I think they were technically Corps troops but not sure)…I use some signaller bases to indicate observer links back to artillery and divisional command.
Tony of TTT
Curiously in the specific units I am modelling there is also a complete jaeger btn in one of the infantry divisions (20th Infantry Division, 39. Infanterie-Brigade, Hannoversches Jäger-Bataillon Nr. 10 (alongside the Hannoverian 79th and 164th regiments)).
As for the remaining specialists (signallers etc) I think I’ll wrap them up into the Divisional HQ functions.
Thanks for the input.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantOkay Martin, thanks for that. Largely as I expected. I’ll model the engineer/cyclist stands (and indeed the cycling engineers in the French (cavalry, I think)) but probably not use them much.
The jaegers are indeed a useful addition – an infantry btn with three times the mgs and bonus cyclists!
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantYou like a challenge! And actually it’s not bad. I’ll list the other 21 regiments/brigades for you!
Thanks
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantMartin
Thanks for the kind remarks and information. I’ve been remarkably short sighted since I was 10 but I now believe I am developing (fairly) early onset macular degeneration, which is distinctly unhelpful. As for the arthritis, well that just confirms my aversion to doctors – as soon as I see one (about every fifteen years or so) to ask about a problem it immediately becomes dramatically worse. If I don’t acknowledge them the problems stay peripheral. Obviously this isn’t a remotely logical proposition but, for me, (basically) doctors create health issues!
I suppose I’ll have to invent my own idiosyncratic abbreviation system to account for “Infanterie-Regiment Herzog Friedrich Wilhelm von Braunschweig (Ostfriesisches) Nr. 78” in 12 characters!
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantA plus one for Mike.
Also it depends who is interested…
- with other wargamers I am making bits of terrain/playing wargames
- with family I do the same (but I sense the pity and lack of comprehension)
- with shopkeepers from whom I might wish to buy sticks or felt or cloth or any number of other bits and pieces I am working on a craft project (because I guarantee they won’t understand ‘making terrain for a wargame’)
- with my wife I am wasting my time (when I should be (insert useful household task here))
I just built a dice tower (I don’t even need one – I just thought it would be fun). I expect I was crafting then. Mind you the finished project looks like a chimp with a chisel was responsible.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantNo reason to believe these won’t serve as well as your previous ones. A very practical solution to the space/force ratio issue – ignore it!
The scales of these maps vary within and between them. The first couple are in the region of 25 miles per grid square. The third is a little larger and the fourth about half that. These are clearly larger areas than those over which a brigade sized unit would be spread. Yet, naming the places, putting the rivers in and maintaining the topology should give the right feel to the campaign. It’s a really good, practical compromise solution to the difficulty of KG Klink disappearing into a mass of divisions. I would have been wrestling inconclusively with the time/space scale for months!
Two thoughts occur to me –
The easternmost three columns of Smolensk represent roughly the same ground as the westernmost six columns of Vyazma. Perhaps matching the terrain up a little more might help the sense of continuity of the campaigns?
Operation Typhoon moved the frontline quite a way eastward beyond Vyazma before the Soviet counteroffensive started. Perhaps it’s worthwhile matching the scale of the Vyazma map more to the others and extending it to the east, to a line north/south approximating Volokolamsk/Kaluga, whilst maintaining pretty much the same number of columns? If so the westernmost three columns could directly match the three corresponding ones on Smolensk and the Vyazma map would serve double duty as both Typhoon and Winter Counteroffensive terrain.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantI’ve had broos that big in my adventures! Interesting to see it against a 20/25mm (?) figure as I thought it looked big in the initial photos, but wondered if was a perspective trick.
Oliver Dickinson was the British author, I believe. Griselda et al stories. I didn’t appreciate much of the RQ fiction myself.
As for the world beyond RQ, CoP and CoT…well it was extensive, labyrinthine and constantly re written. Immensely frustrating to try to follow, I eventually stopped trying. After buying every RQII supplement…obviously!
Still run and play RQII in Glorantha – it’s the only way to get my daughter to visit.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantWould work very well as a RuneQuest broo. Nice work.
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantUntil the current situation came about, 95%+ of my miniatures gaming was ftf at the club. No one there does anything other than provide both sides and all the terrain for a game. We have never given any group project more than a moment’s consideration. I think its to do with maintaining a consistent style. Perhaps 1% of the painting for any/all of our convention display games over 40 years has been done by someone other than the main contributor for that year. None of us has ever managed to enthuse anyone else to share a project. In fact, frequently, we make new projects known by presenting them complete and unannounced (having never previously mentioned them over the months of their preparation) for their first run out on games night.
In fact, have I unknowingly joined some sort of secret society?
Curiously the percentages of ftf/solo board wargaming are probably exactly reversed – 95% solo.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participant…I really wish there was an electronic version of Crossfire, anyone know Arty Conliffe?…
…I think Arty Conliffe gave up wargaming and never published again these and his other rules after they were sold out…
I had the briefest of email exchanges with him a couple of years ago when I wanted to put together an SCW variant for Spearhead, his WWII brigade/divisional rules. He has not dropped out of the industry altogether and sometime last year saw the long awaited (20+ years) publication of Tactica II (ancients rules).
However, I get the feeling that he was a victim of his own success following SH’s publication and became burnt out answering questions about them – not so much just rules clarifications but design philosophy; queries why such a tank was rated x when it should clearly be y; discussions over what SH II might look like and when would it be published etc. I believe he felt it was relentless and it wore him down.
He seemed like a nice chap in my correspondence but quite old school. For whatever reasons, electronic versions of his work and pdfs (or indeed the use of any dice other than D6s) are not something he readily supports. I do note that Great War SH is available on a memory stick though.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantJust curious. How many ‘older’ folks have adult children still gaming and did they do any particular introduction as this thread illustrates?
I introduced both my children to RuneQuest very early (around 7 and 11). They both still play, with my son (now 30) having taken on the GM role from his decrepit father (I’m burned out on inspiration). We play games when we get together but neither has shown any interest in wargaming.
Introduced grandson and granddaughter (12 and 6) to Heroquest (boardgame) on holiday this year and granddaughter got First Catan for Christmas. She seems to be keener than him.
No special introductory measures really other than a simplified intro RQ scenario for my son all those years ago. Oh and my brother in law’s RQ character secretly bought my daughter’s character a suit of armour and weapons which disposed her to his preferred cult – predominantly to spite his wife’s character. So that worked as a sort of special, secret storyline for my daughter.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participantinterested to see how this develops – very much in accord with my next project, which has been on the back boiler since my own rules became a monster. And that was before I even playtested them! I originally wanted to avoid grids but my recent musings are beginning to convince me that they may be a necessary evil.
As far as your outline goes I might suggest a deterministic spotting regime rather than a probabilistic one. I think that would relieve pressure on the umpire a little and speed things up – simply due to fewer dice being rolled. The framework can still be quite sophisticated e.g..
A spotting number of zero means a target can be wholly identified
One means its broad type and size can be determined
Two means its type but not size
Three – there’s sthg there – put a blind out.
Determine a target’s spotting number as the number of hexes’ range from the spotter minus three for vehicles, two for large artillery and one for infantry. Add one for cover. Minus one if the spotting unit is recon.
These numbers are just ones which immediately come to mind – some calibration is likely to be needed.
Personally I’d like to see some planning in advance as well – particularly for the Soviets. Something like zones of operations within which regiments/brigades and divisions are required to operate – cxceptions permitted for nominated reserves. Also, perhaps, simple regimental objectives – attack ‘x’ (geographical location, which can be off table) or hold ‘x’ would probably do. Attacking sthg makes movement obligatory for all/a significant proportion of the regiment until fired upon directly. Holding sthg precludes movement by the regiment until enemy spotted whereafter some proportion of the regiment must nevertheless remain located in/on ‘x’.
Finally command radii are a straightforward way to simulate doctrinal differences e.g. Soviet btns can occupy no more than three adjacent hexes whilst German ones can spread over five with no more than one clear hex between companies. Battalions cannot ‘stack’ together or otherwise intermingle (needs a definition).
All these numbers need calibrating, of course – these are just top of my head examples.
And, clearly, you may not want to do any of this and think it all superfluous/overly onerous to the multi commander, double blind approach to friction which is your main thrust. They’re just the sorts of thing I’d like to put into this level of rules.
Looking forward to seeing the mechanics of shooting and moving and hopefully reigniting my own stalled project.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantSpecifically wrt the start of Gazala I understand that there were 167 Grants available, 112 6 lbr ATGs and 19 long barrelled PzIIIjs – Gazala being the operational debut for all three. All info from a venerable old Avalon Hill game called Tobruk. Can’t remember the designer’s sources off hand. Could look them up but I’m reasonably sure they were the best available at the time and pretty reliable.
Whirlwind – StuGs available at the same time? Not come across that before. I thought that a handful made it to Tunisia (as indicated in an earlier post) but none before then?
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantNicely done. Reminded me very much of my eight or nine year old self excitedly recreating the art on Airfix boxes of soldiers with their contents.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantThanks for this. I’m curious about Rommel as I am considering ‘company as a stand’ level as my next project. Actually I have been for about 3 years…
Anyway, should you do any further rules reviews videos, I think you could do worse than using this as your template. Within its five or six minutes (which is a good length – doesn’t tax the attention overly) it very concisely hits all the key features. After watching it, I feel I have a good appreciation of how the main mechanics of the game work. Still don’t know whether I like it but that’s my problem/lack of decisiveness.
Specifically wrt Rommel a couple of things came to mind
- The Operations dice mechanism is odd inasmuch as, as far as I can see, the number you roll (unless it’s a one) is irrelevant. Any 2-6 simply becomes a chit – which strikes me as a strange use for a dedicated random number generator. A similar (though not identical) set of results could be obtained by rolling a number of dice and deducting a fixed number. Say, 3D6 minus 8 (results of -5 to 10 and treat the minus numbers as one or two or three) generating the chips.
- The cross referencing a die roll with a column of combat factors to calculate hits, is interesting and novel…but does it allow for anything different to be produced rather than by rolling a number of D6? I believe Phil Dutre (sorry can’t produce an acute accent) of this very forum did an analysis of this and showed that the table was a statistical equivalent of a bucket of dice (or some other more familiar mechanism). And if the new mechanism doesn’t do anything new what’s its value?
Anyway it still looks to be a sound system and I probably ought to try it.
Thanks again for the video.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
Participant…or Squad Leader, rather than ASL. Copies can be had in eBay for £10-15 and it’s complete as is, with options to tweak it down to a simpler game, if required.
I always found IABSM a distinctly different flavour from CoC, despite the same design team. I think the mechanics which are shared are peripheral and the distinct ones provide a very different experience with the two sets.
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Rolph
ParticipantThanks for the post.
I read the blog…then read the battle reports…and then the link to the A4 sized battle…and then the battle reports …and then the rules.
It was all rather good.
I recently acquired some cheap WWI 6mm from eBay and am inspired to try some sort of gridded, simple, operational (one stand = a battalion) game. I liked the simplicity of the rules coupled with the speed of play and (in the A4 blog) the limited number of spaces to be occupied. There’s a game in my mind’s eye that’s not yet quite in focus but which is something like
- a small playing area with a limited number of individual locations – perhaps 5 or 6 by 5 or 6?
- perhaps 12-24 units per side (i.e. a corps versus a division or so)
- playable in an hour
I’ll muse on it further and take your approach as an inspiration.
Cheers
Andrew
-
AuthorPosts