"1982 Campaign - Games #1 and #2" Topic

I'm just back from the second game in our new campaign. We're using the GHQ Modern rules, and the setting is a hypothetical Soviet/US confrontation in the aftermath of the Israeli intervention into Lebanon in 1982.

The first game was a learning game, as none of us had played this ruleset before. In fact, it wasn't until after the game that we realized we'd done movement entirely wrong!

The setting was a meeting engagement between a Soviet naval landing force, a US light infantry force, and some Syrian and PLO elements loosely allied with the Soviets. Two Soviet players, one Syrian/PLO player, and one US player, plus an umpire. Each side had some interesting rules of engagement, with unfortunately resulted in fighting only breaking out between the US and the Syrians/PLO. I was on the Russian side, and we did a lot of maneuvering, but by the time our rules of engagement allowed us to open fire, we realized that the Americans had skillfully put us into a terrible tactical position, so we decided to withdraw rather than fight. (Besides, time was up!)

There was a two-month gap until the next game. This time, there was a newly built airfield in Lebanon at stake, garrisoned by some Lebanese (Phalange?) forces. Both the Russians and Americans launched simultaneous airdrops, with both sides also bringing in some forces by helicopters (the Syrians had Hinds carrying commandos, allied with the Russians; the US 82nd Airborne had heli-borne troops as well as air-droppable troops.

As it turned out, both sides chose the same place to make their airdrop, which resulted in a giant melee as the different waves made their landings. Meanwhile, the Syrian commandos took the first steps to assault the Lebanese garrison. We had five players (2 Russians, 1 Syrian/PLO, 2 US) and an umpire. We were still learning the rules, and there were probably more forces than we could handle – we played almost two turns in an afternoon, with the Russians taking more damage but neither side near a morale failure, and with most of our forces still off-map. (My force never got into play!)

We'll gather together in another month for game #3, which will probably be something smaller in scope.

I was thinking of taking a look at these rules, but frankly your post here is putting me off. I hate to say it Bossman, but if I'd ever played two games and not gotten a single shot off, I'd have to figure A) I was the victim of a horrendous prank, B) I was the victim of an international conspiracy, or C) I had the wrong rules. Just my 2 cents.

Jack

Except that the reason I didn't get a shot off had little to do with the rules, and more to do with scenario design.

In the first game, I couldn't fire for most of the game due to "rules of engagement" (scenario rules), then chose not to fire because it was clear we'd be defeated (they'd taken the village, we would have to assault it!).

In the second game, we had too many troops, and couldn't unload them fast enough – mostly due to a scenario rule that limited how much air transport we could use at the same time, and that we had to land one 'force' entirely before we could start bringing in the next one (another scenario rule).

And I think the GM had the movement rules wrong, but I didn't want to argue with him during the game… he thinks there's a mechanism where if both sides pass during movement, the turn is over (which is why my troops couldn't land on turn one); but I don't see that in the rulebook at all.

The first scenario sounds well designed if it actually made sense to avoid combat. While it might not be everyone's cup of tea, such a situation certainly seems realistic.