ItinerantHobbyist | 03 Sep 2011 9:08 p.m. PST |
The adventure begins – I'm GMing a BKCII game in November at CommandCon, in St Louis. I will be paying in 6mm and will hopefully get 2-4 players. Started tracking my progress on my blog: link |
mghFond | 03 Sep 2011 10:13 p.m. PST |
Hey good luck on that! It can be a lot of fun but it can also be very exhausting and sometimes hard on the voice too. Been there, done that! |
Jay Arnold | 04 Sep 2011 6:01 a.m. PST |
When and where is Command Con this year? The Big Muddy website shows dates from 2010. |
tuscaloosa | 04 Sep 2011 8:39 a.m. PST |
Things to do as a ref: - issue, in written form, a clear written OB for each player showing what forces they have. - issue unambiguous victory conditions. - include on your handout any special comments regarding terrain or special rules, so you don't have to repeatedly answer the same question (players will still continually ask, but you can refer them to the handout). - have plenty of the appropriate dice handy. If a player insists on using his own dice (I immediately suspect something), clear your dice out from his end of the table so yours don't walk home with his by "mistake". - Be willing to listen to the players if/when they moan or gripe, but also be willing to politely or firmly cut them off with "that's an interesting observation, but for this game we are doing it this way", so that whiners don't derail the experience for everyone. - Have your reference charts/stats tables prepared ahead of time, so you aren't frantically doing them at the last minute when you should be explaining the game to the players. Ensure these are not internally contradictory. - Resolve issues like reinforcements, effects of aircraft, etc in your mind ahead of time, so you aren't trying to wing a decision in the middle of the game. That said, if you do decide to modify reinforcements or arty or airpower in order to give one side a better chance in the middle of the game, do this decisively and without letting on if possible, so the players will accept it as part of the game and not start whining about mid-course changes. - Have play aids like artillery templates handy, so they don't need to be searched for in the middle of the game. - You will be (or should be) proud of your terrain and figures. Take praise graciously, and ignore those chunderheads who walk by and make snide comments (I personally always make a point about finding something nice to say about each game I see, no matter what I think of the terrain or figures). - Don't start taking off your clothes in the middle of the game (there was a ref for many WS&IM games who used to do this a lot, don't know why). - Make sure that your scenario has been playtested (it's not fair to players at a con, in most cases, to use them as playtesters unless they know it ahead of time). Don't have major forces lurking off-board for many turns delay, no one wants to sit around and wait. Try to balance forces so everyone is playing throughout the game. Test the victory conditions so they're realistic (yeah, I've played a game where infantry had to exit off the far edge to win, and according to the rules, the infantry couldn't even move far enough to make it if they were unopposed!) - Have fun! |
47Ronin | 04 Sep 2011 1:18 p.m. PST |
Todd, Welcome to the GM ranks. Stick with it. You're in for years of fun. As far as advice goes, I second everything that Tuscaloosa said, with the following additions: you don't have to use everything you have for your first game, whether it's figures, terrain, special rules, etc. Most new GMs feel that they have to use every figure they ever painted in their first game. Save something for the second game. On a similar note, when hosting a game based on a historical battle or campaign, you don't have to put in every unit that was there. A game that is "inspired by" a particular battle can be easier to run compared to a game that includes the exact historical OB. It's easier to put your effort into getting the terrain and other features correct for your first time out. Nobody should complain if you "only" have 14 Tiger tanks on the board when there were 15 in the real battle. Lastly, remember that the players don't know that it's your first game as a GM, unless you tell them before it starts. My advice is not to tell them until after the game is over and then ask for their comments on what you could do to improve the next game. Have fun. Ronin |
CorpCommander | 04 Sep 2011 2:30 p.m. PST |
If you have to explain the rules, create an outline and put each major section on an index card with bullet points for all the things you want to mention. Make sure the players have the handouts they will be playing the game with and have them go along with you as you describe the rules. Practice your speech a few times! I find this really helps get the games going! |
Marc33594 | 05 Sep 2011 4:15 a.m. PST |
Indeed welcome to the GM ranks. Highly endorse all that has been said but of course have to add my 2 cents. Almost all new GMs make their first scenarios either too large to too ambitious! Playtesting is usually done with a group who have played together and also know the rules fairly well. Things like clarifications or understandings about specific rules have already been worked out. Nothing worse then getting to the meat of a battle only to have to pack things up. Extra GMs, as long as you have worked it all out in advance, helps the game move along smartly, dont try and do it all by yourself. Lastly I run my games modeled after battle problems with all players on one side! Can't tell you how much easier it made the actual job of running the games at a convention. It might mean a bit more work up front, especially with my fellow GMs, but means the game moves along smartly. |
7dot62mm | 05 Sep 2011 4:50 a.m. PST |
Bring pencils and scrap paper for the players. Often con players don't carry any. |
Martin Rapier | 05 Sep 2011 4:57 a.m. PST |
"Almost all new GMs make their first scenarios either too large to too ambitious!" Yes, keep it small and simple. There will be plenty of other stuff going on to keep you occupied. Good luck and have fun. |
cwbuff | 05 Sep 2011 10:37 a.m. PST |
Command Con – 11-13 November 2011, location same as last year. Will be running two JRIII games, one on Friday and one on Sunday. And even better playing in one on Saturday. And maybe playing in a couple of more non-JRIII games. Really great con. KISS should always apply in scenerio design. Good luck. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 06 Sep 2011 10:53 a.m. PST |
Tuscaloosa – no mid-game stripping? Blast! There goes my strategy for keeping it exciting. Perhaps I'll start naked and get dressed as the game progresses. How many clothes did the Gm get off before they stopped? Marc33594 – I'm not sure what you mean by "all players on one side." so you, as GM played one side against all the other players? If so, then I do like that and thought about that for a second. However, for my first one I think I would rather ref it. I'm also moving toward a representation of the battle and not an exact "simulation" as 47ronin stated. A more exact replica may be more appropriate for a home game. Or, if I knew I was going to have a lot of experienced players, some of whom wouldn't mind the historical imbalances. I really wanted this to be a battle where both sides get to be proactive – I started with this goal in mind, but have instead become focused on a portion where the US is attacking and Germans waiting. The Germans begin an attack later in the day
It just hit me to move the beginning of the game to later in the day. It'll mean some of the troops will begin right in battle. More planning ahead. As I mentioned on my blog I'm way over on points for what the BkC players recommend, which comes down to the "too ambitious" side o things. Thank you all for your advice, great stuff. Thank you also cwbuff for sharing the info – I may participate in one of those JRIII games. |
tuscaloosa | 06 Sep 2011 5:33 p.m. PST |
And by all means give us an AAR. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 06 Sep 2011 10:38 p.m. PST |
Here's the list I came up with for the US: CO (CV9) 2x FAO (CV8) 2x Recon (Not sure where these will go.) 1 M8 Scott (Not sure where yet.) 3 Batteries of Priests (105mm) (off board) HQ (CV8) – 17th AIB A and C Companies 6x Green troops with Bazookas 2x MMG Support Units 2x 57mm ATG 8x M3 Half Tracks HQ (CV8) – 43rd AB Remnants after a terrible prior day and morning) 2x M5 Stuarts 3x M4, 75mm 2x M4, 76mm HQ (CV8) – C Company/119th Engineers fighting as infantry 3x Engineer Units with Bazookas 3x M3 Halftracks (or should they be trucks) or (tanks riders)? HQ (CV8) – 23rd AB Remnants after rough morning attack – actual orders called for them to go through Herrilsheim but they ended up fighting with the 43rd and 17th in the town. 2x M5 Stuarts 3x M4, 75mm 2x m4, 76mm 4,150 points. I feel pretty good about this. Probably 2 too many HQs, but I want both players to have control of two just in case of blunders. Also on my blog – link |
Marc33594 | 07 Sep 2011 3:59 a.m. PST |
Todd; Exactly. Came up with the idea while researching various scenarios and finding many were pretty good for one side but boring for the other (for example one side in fixed defenses). Our system is modeled after the battle problem idea we used in the military. Myself and my two co-GMs run one side and the players the other. GREATLY speeds up the game for a multitude of reasons and has proven extremely popular at our two conventions RECON and HURRICON (www.hmgs-south.com). Drop me a line if you want more info or like to discuss. marc33594ATyahooDOTcom |
ItinerantHobbyist | 13 Sep 2011 9:08 p.m. PST |
And here's the German list: Click here to go see the links and picture of captured Shermans. link CO (CV9) FAO (CV7) 1 Recce Infantry 1 Recce (Sdkfz 250/9) Elements of the Regimental Guns (placed in the outskirts of The Stainwald forest and on a railroad embankment) HQ (Cv8) 1x IG, 75mm, IG-18 (Gun Pit) 1x ATG, 75mm, Pak-40 (Gun Pit) 1x ATG, 88mm, Flak-36 (Gun Pit) 1x Heer Conscript Platoon w Panzerfaust (Trench) (Attached from 3Co/553) 1x MG-34/42 (Trench) 1x 81mm Mortar 2x Trucks 1x JagPanther (Assault Gun Platoon attached from Jagdpanzer-Abteilung von Luttichau) In Herrilsheim (1st and 2nd Cos V/Regiemtn Oberrhein/553 VG Division) 2x HQ(Cv8) 6x Heer Conscript Platoons w Panzerfaust 2x MG-34/42 2x 81mm Mortar 1x IG, 75mm, IG-18 1x ATG, 75mm, Pak-40 HQ (CV8) (2 platoons from Jagdpanzer-Abteilung von Luttichau) 1x Stug-III 1x Hetzer Beginning offboard from Offendorf elements of 10SS Panzer Division 1st Company HQ (Cv8) 3x Pzkpfw V 3 Company HQ (Cv8) 3x Pzkpfw IV Now here's a crazy thing I've added because of the following story and I thought it would be fun for the German player: there was a Wittman like figure that emerged for the Germans. Erwin Bachmann basically lead a couple of Panthers into Herrilsheim from a motorcycle (carrying a panzerfaust) and ended up destroying 7 Shermans and capturing 12 more. They would later be used in Russia. To represent this, I thought I would throw an HQ (CV9) and 1 Panther in Herrisheim in some turn to see what kind of damage they could do. Just a thought. |
WarpSpeed | 13 Sep 2011 10:28 p.m. PST |
Wing it ,let friends and relatives win. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 14 Sep 2011 8:23 p.m. PST |
Another question for those reading this: How do you decide the time of battle to join? I'm not sure that makes sense. I suppose it could be framed also as, what place on the map to place the battle. I've struggled a bit on that with the scenario I'm working on. I'm not sure at what point to begin the scenario. Or, at what point to allow the players to deviate from history. For example, I keep Herrilsheim the objective (like history). However, do I let the players decide if they are going to commit to their right and left flank, or all on their left or all on their right? That was a major strategic decision that was made by Combat Command commanders that decided the fate of the battle. Or, do I force the players to work with the hand their dealt and put them in more historic positions. I'm rambling a bit here, but I've been wanting to ask this question for awhile. |
Bowman | 15 Sep 2011 4:13 a.m. PST |
Do explain what happened historically, but allow your players to deviate from that. It is their game, let them do what they want (within reality and reason). If they try to do something silly, gently explain why, what they are doing, is impossible and suggest an alternative. Also make sure that you are having fun. If the GM enjoys himself, it will rub off on the rest of the players. Best of luck and invest in some soothing throat lozenges for later |
Marc33594 | 15 Sep 2011 6:08 a.m. PST |
If you force events too much you are giving a lecture or demonstration, not a game. Part of the enjoyment of the game is to let the players explore alternate strategies. Ask yourself this. As a player you are given the overall objectives as were assigned historically. Now the GM tells you you must only advance on the left and only use such and such a road and must take this objective first. At what point do you say "what exactly is my role in this game?" You put things in an historical context as a GM by setting up the board, the OB, and the objectives. Further you might restrict certain items that were clearly not in keeping with historical usage. You might, as an example, limit how much units may be cross attached in various groups as historically the Army you are modeling didnt have doctrine to operate that way. Given the tools it is then up to the players how to accomplish the mission. And yes, take a deep breath and have fun! There is a certain satisfaction GMs know at the end of the game as a few of the players stick around to help you pack up and discuss how things went. Makes it worth all the effort. |
Martin Rapier | 15 Sep 2011 12:52 p.m. PST |
In the interests of speed I would give them the objective and have the toys on table in the historical deployment. Then let them get on with it. Having a free setup can: a) take ages and ages to sort out b) involve a lot more handling of your toys than a pre-done setup. Depends how mnuch time you've got of course. I've run games with and without free setup, but I would much rather finish the session with a tied setup and run out of time halfway through. A compromise would be to start the US units offtable but with preset entry points. It looks like the German setup is fixed anyway. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 18 Sep 2011 6:44 p.m. PST |
Finished first draft of the map – click here to see the layout and some thoughts on it. link |
Marc33594 | 19 Sep 2011 3:46 a.m. PST |
Nicely done! On your comment on snow mat I have a 6 X 12 snow mat from The Terrain Guy. Mine indeed has some brown in it and the snow is done with some beach sand mixed in to give the sparkling effect you get from snow. You can specify what degree of brown/dirt you want from pure white to very dirty. Highly recommended though he does warn, due to using the beach sand in the mix, the snow mats are their heaviest. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 19 Sep 2011 8:13 a.m. PST |
Marc, Thanks – I could not remember where I'd seen that mat. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 19 Sep 2011 10:32 p.m. PST |
I decided, since i had the table in it's first set-up to try out the minis on the table and to see how it fares for the tank company coming from the South. Not good at all. I narrowed the vision at 50cm because it was foggy and hazy during the attack. Didn't matter. I simulated two turns, the result: The company moved away from their entry point, at about a 45 degree angle. No differnce, the Stug fired from the woods, adding 2 extra attack dice because of flank and half distance shot. 3 hits and suppressed from opp fire. The pak40 fired and had 1 hit, no suppression. The 88 hit 3 and suppressed. The Germans destroyed 2 tanks during their turn. North is Up The US failed their command roll – stuck in the field!!! The German turn, another tank destroyed, and one with a hit and no suppression. Turn over and 2 platoons left to make it to Herrilsheim to help root out the Germans
where there's a Jagnpanther and Hetzer waiting, with a pak40 and troops. And then a turn or two later a company of Panthers and a company of IVs. Of course, travelling with this group is going to be a company of Engineers. Thoughts on making this a fairer fight, make sure to bring in smoke. This group will have an FAO. Should I bring in aircraft? I was wanting to avoid it for simplicity sake. Other update – got those German and US tanks primed. And a date set for my first playtest. Also, worked on some paper terrain and realized that I don't have the patience for that and want to get more done before the con. I've contacted a paper/book artist to see if I could pay a bit to get these done for me. Ridiculous I know, but time, time, time. Still waiting my answer on the Hotz Mats. But I did hear from someone on Tmp that the company I was trying to think of was theterrainguy.com. See pic at right. Little pricier for the mat, but I don't know about the price Hotz might charge to make the mat white and brown. link |
Marc33594 | 20 Sep 2011 4:15 a.m. PST |
Terrain Guy is a bit pricier but I believe a far superior product. I have two of his mats and have seen others as well as several Hotz Mats. The canvas used for my mats was much more robust and the flocking seemed superior. After numerous games still in pristine shape. The mats are rolled up and stored in their shipping boxes. Unrolled I let sit for a bit,usually around 30 minutes or so, and no curling of edges as I have seen on some of the Hotz mats. I believe he will send a small sample swatch and you can judge the material for yourself. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 02 Oct 2011 6:28 p.m. PST |
2 things – finally got a playtest with guinea pigs see thoughts and brief report on my blog. 2nd, I went with some "chaffon" fabric to cover my green playmat for snow. It works for now. I'm spending my money on other things. Again, thank you all here for your help and suggestions: link |
tuscaloosa | 02 Oct 2011 6:38 p.m. PST |
Looks interesting, and I agree with the "make it smaller" school. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 24 Oct 2011 11:00 p.m. PST |
Posted more terrain progress for 6mm November Con Game, BKCII, WWII – bad iphone pics ahead – link Will set up the game again this weekend, probably solo it and try out a smaller set up I've been noodling around my brain. |
ItinerantHobbyist | 09 Nov 2011 10:38 p.m. PST |
Here's more info on my 6mm Blitzkrieg Commander game, based on Operation Nordwind. I'm running this on Saturday morning in the 9:00 slot. I'm excited to host a game and get feedback from my first ever GMing experience. 2 blog entries: 1 shows the final map link and another blog entry that has links to the mission summary with army lists, a link to the BKC quick reference sheet, and a link to a BKC summary (when you click on the BKC items they will automatically download
you could also right click and save them.) link |
ItinerantHobbyist | 11 Nov 2011 11:22 p.m. PST |
It's here: first day of the con, my game commences in 8.5 hours – must go to bed Crestwood Mall in St Louis, first day of 2011 Command Con link or on my blog link |
ItinerantHobbyist | 14 Nov 2011 10:41 a.m. PST |
Here are the only two pics I got from the game – too busy – and some of my thoughts on it. Thank you all for your help and insight in the run up to this. link Basically, the scenario was designed too historically accurate and I hadn't adjusted the victory conditions enough to help the US out a bit. The 43rd Armored Division was lost, just like in real life. 2 of those lost because I forgot the arty rule that it only hits full AFVs on 6. By the end the German players had a better grasp of the game than me. Which is odd, 'cause I thought I had it down. Also lack of clarity on spotting, LOS, how units are targeted, etc. Also, it took a looooong time to get through the turns because some of the commanders were getting multiple rolls, a lot to think about for all the players, a lot of maneuvering, ??? Will have to look into it. US player morale suffered greatly as game wore on and they just couldn't move beyond the town. We got 3 turns in out of 8. Unfortunately, it soured me on scenario design. Unfortunately, because I would like to design more for the 12th AD. Soured me just cause it's tons of work that needs more work. Basically, I'll get over it. Now, there were three games that I heard yelling (excited, cheerful, happy) coming from tables. In the past, I've played in two of the GMs games that were running these happy places. And, they're both good GMs. Says a lot. One ruleset is well tested and one is a major modified Rapid Fire. The other was Ambush Alley/Force on Force. Don't know the GM but both his games have generated shout and hollers. Now, I've heard grumbling about some other games either from the GMs or players. Not terrible, just that the games didn't go well, scenario wasn't up to snuff, benign. But still not excitement and hooting and hollering. So, I'm not alone. This leads me to a few quick thoughts – which I shouldn't be doing at this hour: Design a smaller scenario or use a smaller scenario Do like Jerry and Ed and design a small one and have two playings of the scenario happening at the same table. And the games last short enough that each player takes command of each commander in 3 playings of the game. For example, in their game there were 2 Unions Commanders and 1 Confederate. Basically, each player would play one command and then when the game was done, they would move to the next command. They had two playings just to get more players in. Really, it's supposed to be a big game. Take 4 hours. It appeared they had just a small part of a scenario or a well designed small one. People suggested letting everyone have at least one command every turn with one possibility of doing something. (I'm not sure this is a problem because I allowed mulligans, so there weren't many first time failures.) They also suggested I just let everyone have their turn and that's it. No friction – Hmmm. But it would limit the number of turns someone can do something. I could also limit the number of actions. Or, I believe Hail Caesar and Black Powder have changed the command structure. I should buy them just for this reason. I'll still have to think about this. One thing I do wish: that I could get out there and do another one quickly to keep up the momentum and to keep growing and improving what I'm learning. 'Cause I think I like GMing more than playing.
|