"Idea for multi-table game" Topic

I had an idea recently that might be worth considering. I was thinking about off-board artillery and the chances of it being diverted to support some other unit, and it occurred to me that this is one way to link games being played on different tables. These could be games at a convention or large club, or even games being played at different locations. The common "link" is the off-board battery (or battalion or whatever, depending on the level of the games).

For instance: Say there are 3 tables on each of which a platoon of Germans from the same company are defending various points. They all need/want artillery/mortar support. Who gets it? Or who gets how much? This could be decided by dice rolls, or there could even be an artillery player who only controls the artillery (and maybe some on-board FO's), who gets to allocate the artillery. The same could be true of the opposing forces too, of course.

Any thoughts?

Personally, I would use a table that is big enough to field a company;a platoon of guys doesn't take up a lot of real estate.

I imagine someone will have to act as the company commander and allocate mortar fire as information comes in from the platoon commanders. At this level you are going to have your company mortars and that is it. The company commander can assign the mortar observer to whatever platoon he wants.

Addition support may come from the battalion support company (more and heavier mortars, MG platoon), so determine in advance if addition support has been attached or if it needs to be requested (and rolled for?). Are you being supported by any arty from division? Is the CO calling in the fire or has the battery attached a FO to the battalion? Is that FO with your company? Do you already have pre plotted fire missions? At this level of play, depending on your figure and ground scale, your artillery is going to be firing a lot of "danger close" missions.

Depending on your time scale, you will have a varying degree of delay between your request for artillery fire and the arrival of the first spotting round, which must then be adjusted until the FO gives the "fire for effect" command. Also, if the FO screws up and/or the guy doing the fire mission calculations screws up, your spotting round could land 1,000 yards off target, in which case the entire fire mission starts over from scratch. A spotting round that lands within 400 meters of its intended target is close enough to start adjusting fire so, again, ground scale is important because a round that falls 400 meters short (towards your own troops) is still a "good" round.

In my experience, most people who game WWII don't have any idea how artillery actually works and how fire is adjusted, so you need to decide whether you want somewhat accurate artillery rules or whether you just want a game mechanic in which you pick a spot on the table and your fire for effect mission lands within 1d6 of the spot you picked.

For the US, there is enough artillery that each battalion can have it's own battery (4-gun for infantry, 6-gun for armor), plus the 6-gun regimental cannon platoon for infantry battalions.

So, depending on your battalion's formation, you could easily have 10-12 105mm guns and would probably have a pair of 2-gun sections available at the minimum. Plus the mortars from battalion, and maybe a platoon of 4.2" mortars (those were less common).

Artillery fire was not called for or fired by section.

79th PA: All that seems beside the point, as it would apply to a single table as well as multiple tables.

My idea could be applied at any level you like: platoon/company/battalion, or perhaps a battalion vs. a company or a company vs. a platoon.

In the example I gave, the allocation of artillery could be done by the German company commander, who could by off-table with the guns/mortars, or on one of the tables linked to the guns/mortars by land line or radio.

If the real life problems of calling for, getting and adjusting artillery fire are besides the point, I have no idea what to tell you.

We've done some big multi-table operational games here.

Resource allocation issues tend to be around air support, logistic support and reserves rather than artillery fire but the concept is similar.

It works fine, but you need a command structure and players willing to go along with that.

79th, I'm not saying don't use them in a game; I'm saying they don't effect the question that is the topic I started.

"Artillery fire was not called for or fired by section." How many guns were in a Jock Column?

This is a fun-sounding concept I'd like to try myself someday. I imagined it at a higher level (player-colonels pushing battalions or regiments on table, calling for reinforcements and support fire from a player-general in the rear), but the concept is the same. Let us know if you pull it off, and how.

Like you, my first idea was to use multiple tables, but I have since decided that multiple tables are unnecessary with the right set of rules. If you can keep each player so busy in his own sector that he doesn't notice what's going on beyond his flank, you can do everything on one table. Which way works better depends on the rules, the players, and the logistics.

- Ix

The Newquay/Falmouth mega-games have been doing this for many years, multi-division games with often 4 or 5 linked battles each featuring 1+ divisions in the same sector (there may be more games but not geographically connected), troops represented down to platoon level, assets are usualy allocated prior to the individual battle and depending on the timescale of the particular campaign be re-allocated during the week subject to particular doctrine rules/umpire whim.

As YA says, you don't need multiple tables to do this, if you have multiple 'front line' players they tend to focus on their own sectors anyway.

As a minimum you only need three players on a side to do it, a couple of subordinate commanders and a CO. We usually run all our games like this if we have enough people.

It works better with more players of course.

I came at it from the other direction: only so much room on 1 table, but can find room for more forces by using more tables -- but then how to link the various table (without moving forces from one table to another, which would be hard to do if the tables are not close to each other, like in different states, or countries)?

Ah, logistics! The sport of generals. :-)

I was imagining tables separated by a few feet, or perhaps in different rooms of the same building. Tables separated by geography is quite a different challenge.

- Ix

Well, I don't play FtF, only online, with players all over the world. Currently I, living in California, am running a game between a German player who lives in Ohio (I think) and a Soviet player who lives in England (or the UK, at least).

As YA and Martin have suggested, this concept is not necessarily a multi-table concept, but rather a multi-players concept.

That does not mean it can't be done on multiple tables. Just that the base requirement is multiple players, not tables.

When I set up games with multiple players per side, I generally put one player in the role of the battle group commander. He is the one that determines what happens to the support resources, be they MGs, mortars, AT guns, engineers, or artillery. Or even tanks (for an infantry formation) or infantry (for a tank unit). He decides if they are attached and to whom, and which requests for support get filled and when. He might (MIGHT) also get one of the actual combat units.

Only occasionally, when one side historically was poorly coordinated or organized, I will put multiple players on a side with no commander controlling support resources. In those cases you fight with what you brought, and you don't get to ask for more, since you are not in communications with anyone to ask.

As to multi-table gaming ideas … I have often considered (but never managed to put together or play) linking dissimilar game types into a multi-table event.

For example… a micro-armor 1944 engagement might be linked to an aerial combat game. Use whatever are your favorite rules for each (in my case Mein Panzer and Check Your 6). So you have a CY6 game going off in which Soviet players have a couple waves of ground attack planes (a flight of Shturmovics and a flight of Pe-2s, for example) and half a flight of fighters as escorts. The German player gets a somewhat reduced flight of German fighters. Have at! Fly 'em by, shoot 'em down, whatever.

But … the results of that game determine what air support is available in the MP game.

It could be done quite simply linking a prior air game or two to a subsequent ground game. Or it could be done more interactively, with a variety of waves of aircraft becoming available (or not!) to the ground game only as they exit the table in the air game.

The same could be done with a naval game and air game (Wildcats and Zeros, anyone?) or even a naval game and a ground game (you want NGS? Well they're BUSY, soldier-boy!).

Seems to me like it would be a fun way to set up a day at a gaming con ….

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)