Deadone | 21 Oct 2014 5:41 p.m. PST |
I've seen pics of some awesome looking games for moderns and WWII. But I've noticed a trend – the historical scenarios often have a completely stationary defender with the attacker simply barrelling forward. Personally I don't like having my tanks and infantry sitting around hull down/in cover plinking away the whole game. It's a bit turkey shoot like. I also don't like the concept of movement as a straight line charge. So how to get more maneouvre into a game, especially for the defnder 1. Give defender objectives that require movement. For example: – Defender needs to counter attack and claim objectives in "no mans land" or attackers deployment area after blunting attacker. 2. Have reserves arrive from an area where maneouvre is necessary for both attacker and defender to maximise/neutralise impact of reserves. 3. Maybe attacks could be in waves, whereby different waves arrive from different points thus forcing defender to redeploy troops and forcing attacker to move to optimise attempt concentration of force. Any other ideas?
|
JSchutt | 21 Oct 2014 5:56 p.m. PST |
I would not disagree. With the big rush to come into contact opposing units are arrayed within arm's reach….maneuver is often the first casualty. A battle is often won in maneuver. To ignore it is to ignore half the game. |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Oct 2014 6:55 p.m. PST |
I dunno, there's nothing wrong with starting a game after the first shots are fired or the IED goes off. I don't mind having maneuver before, the problem is that you often need much fewer troops on the table. |
Weasel | 21 Oct 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
A lot comes down to simple design. Personally, I prefer setting up "in the assault" with troops within a hundred yards or so, in dense terrain, but I do skirmish gaming. The solution otherwise?
Most players don't like this but: Put less stuff on the table. Leave enough open areas. If your table will barely fit a battalion, put a company. |
Deadone | 21 Oct 2014 7:24 p.m. PST |
Put less stuff on the table. I'm a fan of "less stuff." I'd much rather a game with a platoon and a couple of tanks aside on a 4x6 table than 20-30 tanks aside plus supporting infantry on a 4x6 table. So bigger games are fine but the table needs to be larger or the miniatures smaller. I dunno, there's nothing wrong with starting a game after the first shots are fired or the IED goes off. That's fine if there is still room for maneouvre. If there is no maneouvre, the game degenerates into a dice-a-thon. |
emckinney | 21 Oct 2014 7:29 p.m. PST |
1. A method for finding and using low-level cover for attackers to move forward, requiring defenders to reposition. 2.Having attackers become increasingly disorganized and needing time to reorganize so that they can defend successfully. This gives an incentive to counterattack with a reserve instead of just putting everyone in the front line. |
Mako11 | 21 Oct 2014 8:17 p.m. PST |
Smaller forces, and a larger table, and/or off-table tactical/operational level movement plotted on a separate board/sheet of paper, or a hexmat. Boardgames can be very useful for the latter, for plotting movement and relative positions, and then fight out the most interesting battle on the tabletop. |
Rich Bliss | 21 Oct 2014 8:21 p.m. PST |
Bigger table or more terrain to break up Line of Sight. |
Mark 1 | 21 Oct 2014 8:23 p.m. PST |
I am not much of a fan of the "parking lot full of tanks and a bucket of dice" approach to wargaming. I like a bit of a richer scenario, and I want the gamers to face real tactical challenges, not just which gun to fire at which target. I too am a fan of "less stuff". But that doesn't mean I have to use small forces. One of the great advantages of gaming at smaller scales is the opportunity to make bigger boards for the forces you use, so that both initial deployment an scheme of maneuver become meaningful tactical challenges. As an example, in one of my 1941 Barbarossa games ("On the road to Leningrad") I had a company of Red Army infantry, re-enforced with some battalion resources (HMGs), 2 AT guns, and a platoon of tanks (T-26s) with orders to protect their little piece of the Motherland (actually a piece of Estonia only seized by the Red Army 2 years earlier) from the invading fascists. But as was actually typical in that timeframe, regiment and battalion were unable to give much detail on the threat … what forces were expected, or even which way they might come from! I played the Russians. My opponent received orders to cross the board. He got to build a more powerful and far more mobile force. I gave him a number of points to buy his force using a pre-set list of mostly historic small unit TOEs. His very basic point values: infantry stands and support weapons were 1 point each, light panzers 3 points, medium panzers 5 points, trucks free. He built a Kampfgruppe with a company of truck-mounted panzer grenadiers supported by a battery of mortars, a battery of medium arty, a battery of StuGs, some light panzers (Pz 1s), and some panzer jaegers (PzJgr 1s and 2s). The German player was told to role 1d10 (in secret) at the start of the game. 1-4 meant he entered the map on the center of the west edge, 5 the NW corner, 6 the N center, 7 the NE corner, 8 the SE corner, 9 the S center, an 0 the SW corner. (No option to enter from due E … I wasn't encircled, but close to it!)
Here is the battle-board, looking from E (my baseline) to W. The battleboard in scale was about 4km long by a bit more than 2km wide. So as the Russian commander, what would you have done? That's a LOT of board to cover! Defend the bridges? The hill/ridgelines? My set-up was critical, as I didn't have the luxury of much mobility. But I couldn't set up a linear defense, as I didn't know which way the fascist dogs would be going. I chose to set up a defense of the village, as that seemed to me to be the best place for my infantry to fight, and controlled most of the road network. I figured he needed the road net to cross the board.
Here is my deployment of forces at the start of the game, looking from the N to the S. Using my hidden unit rules, all game pieces are represented by paper "chits" until they are spotted under whatever ruleset we are using (in this case ODGW's Mein Panzer). I was about 60% weighted to defend from the whole W (SW to W to NW), with enough mobility to maybe (MAYBE!) re-orient if he came at me from another direction. 2 companies of infantry with AT guns in the village. 1 company of infantry with HMGs in the woods on the hill N of the village. The T-26s were set in a hedge-in field on the road E of the village. Some dummy positions (blank chits) were set in a woodline further E, and along the river bank.
And then the rumble of engines and tracks … all coming from the W. I was pretty well deployed … only my T-26s would need to be brought up.
His scheme of maneuver was to attack up the center with 2 platoon of grenadiers supported by his StuGs an PzJgrs, with 1 platoon of grenadiers advancing in parallel across the stream.
While his light panzers made a wide left hook around the ridge to come at the village from the NW.
Fortunately for me, my counter maneuver had foreseen just such a possibility, and my T-26s were in perfect position to welcome the charging light panzers. See that? Actual maneuver! I mean, we still throw the dice and all, but first there's all that delicious tactical decision making and maneuvering. Your mileage may vary… -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Deadone | 21 Oct 2014 9:19 p.m. PST |
Very cool Mark. It's the "delicious tactical decision making" that maneouvre affords. I used to play WH40K and played horde Soviets in FOW. Due to scenarios and numbers of models, even offensive maneouvre was straightline charge forward – basically point and click.
There was no room for attacker to maneouvre and no incentive for defender to maneouvre. Dice-roll-a-thon ensues. |
UshCha | 21 Oct 2014 11:38 p.m. PST |
There are threes things that control maneouver in a game:- The imagination of the player setting the scenario. The scale of the terrain/models. To get maneouver you idealy need to be able to get out of range attacker or defender. The rules themselves. If its going to take ten bounds to get across the bord at flat out then that is proably an evenings gameing. To get maneouver you have to be able to move considerable distances fast, although at potential risk. Even in Holbarts day skimishuing with tanks, moving from one hull down position to another was statndard practice particularly for the defender. However he should be able to do this much faster than an attacker who has not surveyed the ground. In addition there needs to be gains for hull down and turret down If you are struggeling with these concepts read this and ignore the bit about the rules. If yor ruled do not account for the visibility limits of the tanks unbuttoned vs buttoned up than you are againlimiting the scope for the need to maneouver from both the defenders and attackers standpoint by limiting the need for formations. Hull dowwn turret down etc are , hopefull delt with in manageable detail in the link below. Its free just ignore the rules bit. link Or go to the US manual it references. Admittedly this is a modern US maual but the tactics have not changed sing WWII The terrain needs to be complex enough so that the defender cannot defend all avenues of attack well with available forces. However the defender must be able to credibly re-deploy in adequate timeframes. For instance a sharp bend in a road in difficult terrain would represent a bottle neck down a road that can not avoid slowing an attacker by forceing him to slow down for the bend or risk a slow move across country possibly with ditches to slow/bog him down. Therfore the defender would only need to keep this section under observation and re-deploy to potentialy prepared positions before the situation gets out of hand. Or of course you can fight a campain on a 6 by 8 baord with 1:144 minatures, we are on bound 90 and loving it but it is a real brain bender done over 8 evenigs so far with no end in sight (thank goodness its too much fun). |
steamingdave47 | 22 Oct 2014 2:33 a.m. PST |
Classic way to get manoeuvre is to use a campaign, much manoeuvring than done " on the map". The reason why most WW2 games featured here and on other forums seem to be lacking is the scale they are played at- on a 6 x4 board with a company sized force in 20mm there is little room for manoeuvre, no open flanks etc. much as I like playing Battlegroup , that tends to be the case. Chain of Command is, I think, an exception, as the rules include the predeployment phase, where each side is scouting out the terrain. I think it gives a more enjoyable game, but it is, if course, normally played at platoon level with very little in the way of support assets- perhaps a couple of tanks or other AFVs, a few company assets, such as HMG or mortars added etc. The other set of rules I have played which allows manoeuvre is Spearhead played with 6mm figs, but it does need time to play. |
Andy ONeill | 22 Oct 2014 2:44 a.m. PST |
I'll play devil's advocate then. I'm not too sure why there's a problem with defenders being static. Or relatively static. Manoeuvre is difficult to justify for the less numerous defender. What with a nice hole in the ground offering such a great way to avoid being seen or shot. We routinely map deploy hidden defenders. This ads enormously since the attacker doesn't know what the defender has or where it is. You can add hidden move markers and whatnot but it's not as effective. That counter attack is usually pretty much one attack-defence game then another defence-attack game as those reserves come on. Complicated scenarios are very difficult to balance. It's a lark to randomise stuff but you can all too easy end up with one side which never has a chance. Encounter scenarios work way better on double blind in my experience. If you can afford the time energy and set up required then you retain all the suspense of map deployment and have as much manoeuvre as players will risk. By far the best way to play ww2 skirmish. |
Martin Rapier | 22 Oct 2014 3:37 a.m. PST |
I think this stuff partly depends on the level of game and what you are trying to model. tanks 'jockeying' into alternate firing positions might be something you do in a 1:1 tactical game, but in a grand tactical one it is subsumed into the posture of the platoon base and its table footprint. similarly, in a static defence, defending battalions sit in their defences, any defensive manouvering is conducted by reserves. Having said all that, as UshCha says, to encourage defensive manouver you need complex enough terrain that the defender can't simply park on a hill and cover everything, and you need long enough movement distances to make moving an attractive prospect. One of the reasons I always liked the chess like nature of Panzerblitz, and something I have rarely managed to recapture on the tabletop. Some excellent mobile scenarios in there (so some real duffers too). |
OSchmidt | 22 Oct 2014 5:56 a.m. PST |
Real Simple Want more manever? Simple. 1. Cut down the troops on the table top by 1/3 so they can't stretch from edge to edge. 2. Increase movement rates by a factor of three. 3. Don't make the table top the edge of the world. Allow off the board movement with simple die rolls determining the success or failure. |
Gaz0045 | 22 Oct 2014 6:07 a.m. PST |
@ Mark, a great set up there-inspirational stuff! |
Legion 4 | 22 Oct 2014 7:59 a.m. PST |
IMO, it not only is a function of the rules to make manuever more applicable, but the players' tactical "expertise" … However, for some gaming companies it is all about selling more models. So hence, we saw the abortion of rules systems like GW Epic Space Marine 2. Literally the gaming table was set up with troops, AFVs, etc., shoulder to shoulder, like the ACW, , etc. … GaH !!!!! Madness !! Another reason among a plethora of reasons, companies like GW that produces rule systems like that have lost my biz long ago. That being said, as some have mentioned here, you need to reduce troops densities to allow manuever … When ever we play, we have the historical knowledge, tactical savvy, etc., etc., to see that wall to wall formations is not for most games of the mid-20th Century and beyond. As far as defender not being more mobile (aggressive ?), etc. … That again comes down to the players' ability and of course the scenario objectives … As to counter attack, you start in a defensive situation, generally. |
UshCha | 22 Oct 2014 9:00 a.m. PST |
One of the reasons we use Hexon II terrain and our stylised buildings as you can map accurately the position of hidden units. That couples with high movement rates makes exploration and flexible re-positioning possible even on a 6 by 4 table. Remeber in the real world a platoon can defend beteen about 500 and 1500 yds and the attacer is its a well dug in platoon with supports may take more tan a supported company to take the position if its well prepaied with mines, bubt traps and possibly the odd enplacement., |
Bravo Two Zero | 22 Oct 2014 9:01 a.m. PST |
I like where this is going. I have used where each tanker, be it the gunner, loader, driver, or the commander each have a card. They perform on the card draw. Many a time has seen a gunner with a target in sights but the loader is a step behind and gun loader with HE not AP. This way we do maybe 2 tanks a side. actually 2 for the Germans and 5 T-34s. Big board with infantry moving about. Takes a day to run but you get the feel that you played something pretty realistic. Game is by Meramac out of Canada-can'think of the name now. Burkhard knows. even bailed my Hetzer commander to peak around a corner so as to not get hit by 2 T-34s. |
Skarper | 22 Oct 2014 9:14 a.m. PST |
Less can definitely be more…realistic. Players often jump in at a high level of command and could not in real life even command a single tank or squad. Better to start as a platoon commander and then work up to company or battalion over time. Some theatres of operations saw fairly dense defense in depth and attacks in echelons with heavy support – Italy and the ETO. Others saw more maneuver with genuine breakthroughs and exploitation – like in the East or North Africa. Years ago when I played games on the tabletop with a bunch of players I found the most fun to be had by imagining a chaotic situation behind the German lines as assorted groups of Soviets and Germans milled about. It made for more fun – but was hit and miss. SOme players had a busy game while others were left out by pure chance. With experience I could have honed my game management skills alleviated some of these downsides. But at least it wasn't phalanxes of tanks charging each other. Mark 1's game looks like a similar idea more thoroughly thought through. |
donlowry | 22 Oct 2014 9:55 a.m. PST |
All very interesting! I'm currently running an online game in which I'm trying the "less is more" concept. Not sure it's working, so far as maneuvering is concerned, but makes my job as GM easier (fewer players, fewer units, etc.). The problem, of course, is: once you've accumulated a lot of models and minis, you want to USE them! |
hagenthedwarf | 22 Oct 2014 12:32 p.m. PST |
… wall to wall formations is not for most games of the mid-20th Century and beyond Depends on the rules and what tactics are rewarded and punished. Many rules reward massing troops together to get maximum fire effect; thus wheel to wheel phalanxes of tanks are/were to be seen. |
Legion 4 | 22 Oct 2014 12:49 p.m. PST |
That is always the bottomline … as I said … IMO, it not only is a function of the rules to make manuever more applicable … Rules as much or more so, dictates much … Then the player's ability. That it why they are called "Rules". The savvy player learns/knows how to accomplish his mission, within the constraints of the rules. If the rules are anywhere useful and well written, thought out, etc. … Many rule systems are not. Also, Great looking board Mark ! |
Mark 1 | 22 Oct 2014 1:09 p.m. PST |
My own approach to encouraging maneuver has a few components (as illustrated in my long-winded example above): 1 ) Less is more. Doesn't mean less troops. Means less density. So if you want more troops, up your table size. If you don't have a bigger table, up the density of visibility-breaking terrain, or drop your ground scale. If you are at the limits of reasonableness for terrain density given your ground-scale, drop your unit scale. Then you can up your ground scale again, and add more terrain to keep the same terrain density. To my experience, if a re-enforced company is defending more than 1km of width in reasonably close terrain, or 1.5km of width in reasonably open terrain, the attacker has the opportunity to strongly influence the game through maneuver. If the defender does not account for that, he will lose rather quickly and decisively! 2 ) Put several potential focal points into your terrain. Don't tell the players which ones they must play for or set-up on. Let them decide. 3 ) Only occasionally are the focal points of the terrain the victory conditions. I usually provide each player with a few ways to earn victory points. I have a preference for dis-similar victory conditions -- meaning each side (or even each player on one side!) may be trying to achieve different things. Usually attackers have more points available to be won -- more ways to win. With one or two games' experience defenders learn that you not only need to keep an eye towards your own victory points, but you also need to disrupt your opponent, even though you don't know what he's trying to achieve. So for example in one game I gave one side victory points for every unit they exited on a road that left the center of the south edge of the board (they entered on roads on the west and northwest edges). But I didn't tell the other side these victory points. This STRONGLY encouraged one side to seek maneuver, while the other side could only wonder where the heck they were trying to go… and whether something needed to be done to stop them. 4 ) Disrupt God's eye. The biggest "realism" problem with miniatures gaming is the "God's Eye View" of the players. So disrupt that. Hidden units are key to my experience. But hidden units for BOTH the defender AND the attacker, please! Otherwise the attacker's maneuvers will all be countered before he can complete them, and so he will have little incentive to flank or seek an under-defended route. I've played full double-blind games and I like them, but they are a real burden for the referee and some players just don't respond well. My approach of chits has served me very well for years. It is simple, highly playable (you know what your own chits are -- you play them just like the miniatures). In the game I described above the blank chits did not figure prominently, but sometimes they do. When you don't know what's under all those chits, it really affects your thinking, your planning, and your game play. 5 ) In addition to disrupting "God's Eye", I also like to disrupt "God's Accountant". By this I mean that I don't let the players know what force they will be facing. There are several ways to achieve this … I described one above. One poster lamented the potential for having un-balanced forces as a result. I embrace that possibility enthusiastically. So to most of the gamers who have played my way more than 1 or 2 times. If you can't SEE what enemy units are where, not even KNOWING what those units might be is a small but significant enhancement. Suddenly it's not just a matter of who gets the better die roles … when you don't know if you have an adequate force to attack up the middle… then you need to think tactically, and try to figure out how to maneuver for an advantage. As a quick illustration of how these two work together … in the game I described above, there was one chit that moved in such a way that my opponent became obsessed with it. In the first two pictures you can see this lone chit, far to the east, alone in the middle of the road. He noted this isolated and un-supported initial position, and then watched it come slowly up the road and into town, ending behind some buildings. He was convinced I had at least one KV (I mean really, what Red Army gamer doing a Barbarossa battle doesn't take at least ONE KV?!?!), and that he had figured out where it was! So he split his infantry and armor, sending the infantry around to face it frontally while he tried to get his armor in behind it. You can see this maneuver in the fourth picture. Except … when he finally spotted it he found it wasn't a KV, but an old stubborn farmer and his one-horse wagon! But by now his StuGs were too far from his grenadiers, and were being close-assaulted by Red Army infantry. So that's my formula: lower troop densities, several focal points, not knowing your opponent's victory conditions, hidden units and little idea of what your opponent has fielded. Put those together and you are unlikely to get two armies lining up to exchange shots. Somebody is going to try to sneak around to an advantageous position. Your mileage may vary. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Milites | 22 Oct 2014 1:56 p.m. PST |
Try playing NATO versus a realistic Warpac deployment and remain static, good luck! One of the main problems is the coordination of attacks is too precise and their recovery too quick. |
Deadone | 22 Oct 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
Even in Holbarts day skimishuing with tanks, moving from one hull down position to another was statndard practice particularly for the defender. This inspired me: Perhaps there could be a rule if a unit remains in the one position for X number of turns, they are easier to hit as the enemy figures out where they are and focuses fire on that area. You'd still get cover for defender so in some ways the "stayed too long" rule would be an offset. However the attacker would be subject to same rules. Perhaps you could have it that it's only for units engaged in combat. New units joining in the firefight don't get the bonus. |
Deadone | 22 Oct 2014 3:12 p.m. PST |
I'm not too sure why there's a problem with defenders being static. Or relatively static. Manoeuvre is difficult to justify for the less numerous defender. What with a nice hole in the ground offering such a great way to avoid being seen or shot. The problem is static gameplay offers no tactical challenges for defender. It can result in very boring gameplay. Infantry just clump around objective. The defender basically just rolls dice for shooting and saves. In some systems they don't even shoot, as shooting removes cover advantage and the only time they fire is defensive fire to stop assaults. Or tanks just line up behind cover and roll dice. As the Iraqis found out so very often against US armour, using tanks as stationary pillboxes doesn't work too well. |
Weasel | 22 Oct 2014 4:08 p.m. PST |
Come to think of it, most games don't really penalize you for bunching up. Make infantry squad fire cover an area of effect and you get to roll against everything in that area? |
Mark 1 | 22 Oct 2014 6:46 p.m. PST |
Perhaps there could be a rule if a unit remains in the one position for X number of turns, they are easier to hit as the enemy figures out where they are and focuses fire on that area. An interesting comment. Interesting to me, at least, because it got me thinking. I guess this is why I like 1-to-1 unit scales. Why would you want a rule to achieve this result? Shouldn't it be built in to the game mechanics? In ODGWs Mein Panzer, and almost any 1-to-1 game I've played in the past umpteen years, you get a bonus modifier for your second shot at a given target. Also you get to hand-off spotted targets from one unit to another, or at least get a generous modifier on subsequent spotters if one of your units has already spotted. So anyone who sits still, once under fire, is almost assured of receiving a virtual hailstorm of fire in time. Unless, of course, the shooting side player decides he has more pressing targets to engage. Which seems entirely reasonable. So why would you want some kind of special (or not "special" but just specific) rule? X number of turns doesn't make you easier to spot or hit, it just means there are more guys who have spotted you and dialed in your range. That's already taken care of in the mechanics of spotting and shooting. But I understand in a 1-to-several unit scale that we are talking about quantums of fire. So "second shot" may or may not be a listed modifier. And 2, and then 3, and then all of the tanks in a platoon may have shifted onto one target. So it has to be abstracted into "after X turns fire is more effective against the stationary target" kind of stuff. It just seems so much less interesting to me when the simple real events (like improving your range estimate on subsequent shots) and the tactical decision of which target you address are replaced with abstractions like "that unit is easy to see after 3 turns". I just greatly prefer when the game pushes you to make a decision with realistic pressures and opportunities. No? Am I missing something? -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Deadone | 22 Oct 2014 9:12 p.m. PST |
Why would you want a rule to achieve this result? Shouldn't it be built in to the game mechanics? Actually I totally agree with you. In ODGWs Mein Panzer, and almost any 1-to-1 game I've played in the past umpteen years, you get a bonus modifier for your second shot at a given target. Also you get to hand-off spotted targets from one unit to another, or at least get a generous modifier on subsequent spotters if one of your units has already spotted. I've never actually come across this rule but I really like it! |
UshCha | 22 Oct 2014 11:49 p.m. PST |
Now this thread started by reference to tanks. Infantry games should never be static if they are well set up. My rule of thumb for an infantry urban game is the defenders buildings should outnumber his elements by at least 2. That is, if you use fire teams then you should have 2 buildings (not big ones) per team. Troops in buildings have there occupaton and facing hidden. This means you need a MINIMUM of 10 buildings for a platoon. Crossfire before it got spoilt (never did tanks or artierllery properly) used even more per element. The buildings have to be relatiely closeley spaced (like the real world) so Tanks etc have to enter the area to shoot and the game becomes a real cat and mouse game of maneouvre. If it does not, then get a better set of rules! Never liked 1 tank = 1 platoon. Most such rules fail utterly to understand the geound scale of deployed units. A tank company depoyed with its standard 2 alternate positions takes up an enormous space. With regard to maneouver most rules really do not want to understand that unhinderd road moves are really quick but deploying (or re-deploying to a road) takes a long time. If you deploy in fighting positions in the wrong place as a defender it should take ages to re-deploy, moving back to the road, road move and re,deploy. However if you are in the forming up point deployed for an immediate road move then you move out fast. The defenders job is then to force deployment of the attacker off road to gain time to position you troops optimaly to defend. That way you have time if the enemy wants to outflank you as he may need a bridge layer to cover some ditches etc which takes time. He may send engineers out to set up a route as a divesion again perfectly acceptable. |
warhawkwind | 23 Oct 2014 8:05 a.m. PST |
This is the biggest reason I have for playing in Micro Armor (6mm) scale. A 6x5 table is 1 1/2 miles wide and allows for lots of maneuver. But then I like multi-company sized games, that's my preference. I see 20mm scale as a skirmish sized battle. In a defend/attack game the defender needs more objectives to hold than troops to hold them with, and the attacker needs too many objectives for his force to capture them all. Add hidden movement into that mix and watch things get interesting! "Is that a squad holding that farm, or a platoon?" "Oh, it was a tank." "Sigh" ;) |
Phrodon | 23 Oct 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
like where this is going. I have used where each tanker, be it the gunner, loader, driver, or the commander each have a card. They perform on the card draw. Many a time has seen a gunner with a target in sights but the loader is a step behind and gun loader with HE not AP. This way we do maybe 2 tanks a side. actually 2 for the Germans and 5 T-34s. Big board with infantry moving about. Takes a day to run but you get the feel that you played something pretty realistic. Game is by Meramac out of Canada-can'think of the name now. Burkhard knows. even bailed my Hetzer commander to peak around a corner so as to not get hit by 2 T-34s. Bravo, the game is called The Face of Battle. Mike |
Bravo Two Zero | 23 Oct 2014 4:58 p.m. PST |
Phrodon--Yep that is it. dug it out today after work. I even used a Card design template to take pictures of the miniature--use a random name generator. Print and laminate and stack them and play. great fun. We used these to make 40K more fun and made Marines in 40K Marines that they should be. Thanx.
|
chrisswim | 29 Jul 2015 12:04 p.m. PST |
Depending upon the rules you may use… one idea we did years ago with Combined Arms was to move in inches and shoot in centimeters. So an Abrams may then shoot 60 centimeters (30-35 inches) and if it moves 40 inches, then each turn a vehicle could out run its shot. Not all vehicles will be affected the same way. It was enjoyable and we have done that several more times. |
Wolfhag | 29 Jul 2015 1:26 p.m. PST |
I'm not big fan of micro armor but last year I played a game on an 8x16 foot table. It was a 1942 Russian front scenario with about 30-40 tanks on each side. We were able to do things like engage an enemy platoon while another platoon made an end run around them using terrain masking. The game was spread out enough the Russians could not cover then entire table with fields of fire and we were able to exploit a gap in their defenses. Infantry did not play much of a role and was dropped off in small villages and woods. The Russians sent in a company of BT-7's they had in reserve to plug the gap but I was able to intercept and hit them in their flank with my Panzer 38's forcing him to engage me. I took some losses but we were able to have a strategic exploitation to win the game. The Russian player did a great job but mobility and being outnumbered overwhelmed him. While playing the game the table with the smaller miniatures gave a more realistic battlefield feel and you could look it over and plan moves many turns in advance. There were no special rules needed. At conventions it's all about the eye candy and hordes of tanks, besides, most of the people playing have no idea of maneuver or tactics. It's all about rolling the dice and blowing things up and pontificating about how much you know about tank warfare because the Sherman was called the "Ronson" and the Panther was the best tank in WWII. I just bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut and play. Wolfhag |
bishnak | 29 Jul 2015 2:36 p.m. PST |
Use a bigger table, or the same sized table with smaller scale miniatures. IMHO the reason that your common FOW game looks like a carpark and usually involves frontal assaults is that the miniatures scale is too big for the table. Using the same rules and same table size, but with 6mm or 3mm minis and centimetre measurements used in lieu of inches, effectively more than doubles the size of the tabletop in gaming terms. It's amazing how much more importnat manouever becomes when you can avoid weapon ranges that don't reach clear across the table (by driving around them through gaps). Conversely, it forces better tactics for defenders too, by requiring players to keep reserves, have mutually supporting positions and inter-locking fire arcs. |
UshCha | 30 Jul 2015 2:01 a.m. PST |
I think it's not the scale of the minis it too much, but ground scale. I use 6 mm fig ground scale 1 mm is 1 m but use 12mm figs and models. Dead done, perhaps Maneuover Group rules would inspire you (shameless plug). Also you need realistic ranges and terrain. If you have shoulder to shoulder panzer it's you own fault. Put some linear obstacles like ditched hedges that class as difficult and they will soon be in column when they find a suitable crossing point. Plus close targets like that put artillery down. They will close up, lose aerials (still an issue now), damage external weapons all of which is well worth it on a bunched target. Even Marks excellent board has too few roads ,hedges and tracks for parts of northern Europe. These give cover for grunts and obstacles for tanks. |
chrisswim | 30 Jul 2015 11:45 a.m. PST |
Wofhag, Why bite your tongue on the Sherman & Panther. One guy like to move in inches, shoot in centimeters. I would prefer shooting in inches for a sense of reasonableness. But the time frame of a turn also makes a difference. If a movement turn is 15 minutes, then one can move some distance, further than one can shoot. Movement become more important. If shooting in inches and moving in centimeters, then armor, accuracy and penetration is more important. 'C.P.' If there is a parking lot, call for arty or air support. If dispersed too thin, attack! |
Thomas Thomas | 05 Aug 2015 2:26 p.m. PST |
I've found moving to a higher level of command helps restore manuver to the table top. If playing 1:1 with say 1 minute turns its quite reasonable that troops get bogged down for many turns. Command control and enemy fire will limit manuver. But at the platoon level using say 15 minute turns and a reasonable ground scale you can get a lot of manuver. The long turns allow command control to function and large movement esp on roads – which unless covered by enemy fire can allow really large moves. Using 20mm miniatures allows a big enough foot print to cover (at least roughly) a platoon area (bunching up can be ignored as you assume platoon commanders maintain spacing). I've never found hidden troops to promote manuver. On the contrary with less intelligence about enemy everyone moves very cautiously – fearing every woodline may conceal an ambush. Large tables can help but reaching becomes a problem on anything much bigger than 6X8 (not to mention basement space). Limiting effective range of small arms to not more than 12" and "heavy weapons" to not more than 36" helps. Even with these ranges you still need some range bands and drop offs in accuracy. Using these techniques we've been able to have reasonable levels of manuver in most of our WWII era games. TomT |
UshCha | 08 Aug 2015 10:03 a.m. PST |
TomT, no need to have unrealistic ranges, just have realistic terrain. Put hedges an ditches every 200 to 600m, lots of roads, a couple of 10 house villages (about 1 2 km spacing) and woods at about the same spacing or even a bit closer is still OK for northern Europe and is by no means the worst that has been fought over. A bit of undulating ground and you have it that troops cannot see all the table and you have to maneuver. |
soledad | 08 Aug 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
I advocate double blind. That makes it very realistic and difficult but like someone said very time-consuming. I played a double blind game as Soviets against a US force in WWIII in about 1985. The scale was 1:300, the table 180 x 240 cm. The defending US force had covered more or less the entire table with criss crossing fields of fire. My forces were being shot apart, but… A recon platoon found a undefended small road/track through the US line. I first fed a tank company through it that started to "go deep". Then a BMP 1 company filtered through and started to set up blocking positions to cover the flanks. Another tank coy went through. Lots of my other forces were being shot apart and my opponent was mostly chuckling and being very sure of himself and very smug. As more and more of my units started to "filter through" I got a better and better view of his (static) defensive positions. All hell broke loose as my first tank coy stumbled on to his heavy artillery… the artillery was blown away. My opponent almost refused to believe it. He tried to reposition a M60 coy to meet the threat. They ran into a a BRDM 2 Sagger company and was shot apart… Another M60 company was also stopped by some BMP coy in defensive positions. My opponent was in shambles, accusing me of cheating and being a bit obnoxious. Finally he tried to commit a M1 battalion, his ace in the hole ( he though). It fought well but was never a threat. Then he gave up… My units were well chewed up but I had completely disrupted his frontline and won a major strategic victory. All this because of a single undefended track through a forest… Double blind is difficult but can be very rewarding. In it maneuver is really important and can be well rewarded. Most of my games are ordinary wargames though. |
donlowry | 09 Aug 2015 9:38 a.m. PST |
soledad: could you define your double-blind procedure? I'm curious as to how your penetrating units managed to remain unnoticed so long. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 09 Aug 2015 10:07 a.m. PST |
1. DEPLOYMENT OPTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE PLAYERS As the OP notes too often a scenario limits one side's deployment options to a tiny patch of ground ("You get deploy anywhere as long as it's in this 6" x 4" box"). To paraphrase The Most Interesting Man in the World, "I don't always include defending positions but when I do I make them really big." 2. PAY ATTENTION TO FORCE SPACE RATIO If your AFVs are deployed hub to hub a la "Ben Hur" and your infantry looks like it's reenacting the battle scenes from "Braveheart" then your force to space ratio is all wrong. Show some restraint and don't overload the table with toys. This is probably the most important factor in returning maneuver to the tabletop…and the most violated principle of all. 3. FOCUS ON MEETING ENGAGEMENTS Combine with #2 above this almost guarantees lots of maneuver. If both forces are deployed in opposite CORNERS of the table you maximize the distance between them from the start. Suddenly the value of APCs becomes clear as mech infantry motor into contact. 4. PAY ATTENTION TO WEAPON RANGE TO TABLE SIZE RATIO This is crucial to WWII and modern gaming and related to #2 above. If you're playing on a typical 4x6 or 5x8 and tanks can pick off each other easily at 5' then you're not going to have a REASON to maneuver. Just deploy your troops and start blasting. 5. DESIGN INTERESTING TERRAIN Related to #2 and #4 above, this can mitigate the effects of justifiably long range weapons such as missiles (modern era) and truly heavy tank guns. This doesn't mean block off the entire table in urban terrain. Instead, provide an interesting mix of covered routes of approach and kill zones with long sight lines. This will provide opportunities for, and threats to, a variety of troop types. Leg infantry will avoid those wide open kill zones while the 88s will exploit them. Tanks will avoid dense urban terrain while bazooka-armed infantry will try to suck in the enemy armor. Taken all together, these factors provide reasons to maneuver and opportunities to maneuver. You gotta have both. |
UshCha | 09 Aug 2015 12:52 p.m. PST |
VIS, has got it, except even an attack defence game needs maneuover (assuming reasonable rules). The table/force ratio as VIS puts it should allow for possible outflanking movements, and the defender to be allows to have prepared suitable alternate positions for the infantry and AFV'S. The defensive deployment box should allow defence in depth. Ideally too much depth for the forces employed so that deployment is a tactical challenge and trading time for space is a relevant defensive tactic. Again if your rules give you no option to do other than go forward a couple of feet in an evening, and reserves are not possible as they take too long to get there, then no clever terrain or thought can compensate for poor rules. |
Dunfalach | 10 Aug 2015 9:55 a.m. PST |
I've just recently picked up the AK-47 Republic classic rules, so I haven't had a chance to test them out yet. Still waiting on figures and basing materials to arrive in the mail. But I've been reading over them and also reading after action reports of other gamers. They're focused on small local 20th century African skirmishes. They have an attacker and a defender every battle, and a victory point objective system, yet they seem to have several mechanisms that make maneuver an element: 1) In line with the less on the table frequently mentioned, there are only 5 units per army (with a special rule for a possible 6th). 2) Rather than a single objective, there are 3 on the table. The attacker chooses and marks the 3 objectives, and secretly decides which is worth 10, 20, and 30 (one of each) to him. Therefore the defender doesn't know which is most valuable to the attacker. However, the defender chooses which side of the table the attacker starts from after the objectives are placed, so the attacker needs to place them with the knowledge that the defender is going to try to put him as far away from them as possible. The other twist is that the defender does not get the secret point total, but rather a flat 5 victory points for each he holds. You only count as controlling the objective if there are no enemy troops within 3" of it at match end, only your own. 3) Before the game starts, both sides have to roll dice for whether each unit will get on the game board in the first turn, with increasingly high roll needed for each additional unit. So attacker and defender both have a decent chance of starting out with not enough troops to take/protect all three objectives. 4) Units that don't start the board on turn 1 can start dicing for each to arrive on each turn after turn 4. But the roll needed is high, so you can't count on them arriving at all. If they do arrive, the attacker may place his arriving reinforcement at any of the four corners of the table, the defender may place his arriving reinforcement at the center of any of the four sides. So both have to contend with the possible arrival of enemy reinforcements from any direction. 5) Killing or routing enemy troops also gains you victory points. You lose victory points when your own die or flee. So the potential chance of controlling an objective has to be balanced against your losses. 6) Terrain "templates" block firing at things on the other side of them, so what kind of terrain you set up determines the effective ranges of fire. 7) The game duration is unknown. You roll dice each turn and deduct the result from a starting counter, and when it reaches or goes below 0, the game is over. This removes or at least limits some of the "focus on one objective because he can't reach the other before the game ends" math that is possible in fixed length games, while still allowing a time pressure element for both sides. Some of these are mechanisms that might not work in a more formal time period. There's also a lot of randomness that won't be fun for people who like to make plans with a certain amount of predictableness. It's at heart a game of wading into chaos and trying to produce something you can call a victory from the midst of it. It works for a small-scale war mostly populated by undisciplined amateurs wandering around with guns, which is what it's aiming to simulate.
|
UshCha | 11 Aug 2015 9:14 a.m. PST |
Dunfalach, Must admit with that much randomness it looks like it could easily end up with games that are well out of the range of interesting games, massive out of proportion forces. Looks more like LUDO than a simulation. But in the end itswhatever floats your boat. Random movement is not to me tactical maneouver. |
Dunfalach | 11 Aug 2015 4:19 p.m. PST |
Setting aside the randomness, even just using the three objectives setup and the ability to choose which direction your reinforcements come onto the table could potentially add to some other games, paired with distances that mean that you can't simply have one force covering everything with fire. It essentially creates three separate battles simultaneously and forces each player to decide where to commit their forces as they arrive and potentially reposition to deal with new arrivals or retake a lost objective rather than just sitting stationary in their foxholes. And the fact that the objectives have different point values and only the attacker knows which keeps the defender from being able to be complacent about just holding two out of three. |
Martin Rapier | 12 Aug 2015 1:57 a.m. PST |
I have used AK47 very successfully for 'serious' games covering WW1, the SCW, RCW and WW2. I have even seen it used for Bibical era chariot warfare, but that was a bit 'out there'. Random movement is quite an effective way of modelling friction (within bounds), but does not suit people who like lots of control. |
soledad | 18 Aug 2015 3:40 a.m. PST |
A late answer. The umpire set the table with all the terrain and took a photo of it from above. This he printed as a "map" in 1:4 scale compared to the table. On the map we mapped all our companies and how they moved. On the table itself were only units that had LOS to enemy units or were in combat. It was a bit of a hassle and took time and needed a careful umpire so that he had control of all units on the table and two maps but it worked out pretty well. My units remained undetected as my opponent had almost all his units in a linear defense. So when I found a gap in his line he had very few units "behind" his fightingline that could spot my units. We also hade markers for support units (trucks, logistics and all that) but none (lucky for me) in my line of advance. As my reconplatoon snuck through first they advanced cautiously and when they spotted enemy logistics I tried to move around it. The follow on forces followed the same rout as the recon unit to avoid being detected. Fortunately I did not have an engagement until I had a fairly sizeable force througn his main line of defense. it was abit of Kriegspiel from the umpire. As my recon unit had orders to advance carefully and try to avoid detection at al cost the chance of the enemy spotting him was set as very low. |