"Combat Action Command" Topic

Anybody try this new set of rules as offered by On Military Matters? The author, Lee Sowers, has an impressive background and experience for doing such a set. As always, I turn to all those in the know here on TMP!

Thanks in advance.

Tom

Yes, That is the rules set, but here was the link I saw this afternoon for the first time on the OMM site:

link

So have you tried them? How is it as a sim? As a game?

I thought I might ask before I pulled the itchy trigger finger on yet another rule book.With so many here finding new interest in modern warfare (cold war especially) I have never seen this set mentioned in discussions. One cannot assume they are not good because they are not mentioned here but rather, perhaps not really well known to recent posters?

In any case, the description meets what I would like to explore more in a set of modern rules.

Thanks, Tim!

v/r
Tom

They look to be more at the simulation end of rules as they are

"adapted his modern version that taught tactics to Delta Force, NY City SWAT, and various army units"

Thus they are aimed at teaching real life units how to fight actions rather than the "tuesday evening" gaming crowd.

Of course i have not played them so the might be a fun game too?

martin

Thanks, Martin. That is why I was hoping for! That is what I do for a living and am always on the lookout for something useful that could be introduced.

Looks like I better try it out.

Thanks again!

v.r
Tom

Tom, I hope to see a review from you after you get a game or two under your belt.

Have a good time Tom!

Vincent: I will.

Martin: Thanks!

Am going to have wait till payday as I just purchased "Prussian Muketeers of the War of Austrian Succession and SYW" by Dr. Steven Summerfield. Been searching for this March 15 re-release since last year! Seems the big guys (OMM- Who DOES have stock), Caliver and Amazon either do not have it listed or have not yet received their stock (assuming they even ordered it!)

Priorities, Priorities, Priorities!

I will pick this set up. I need a good set to review for moderns. I need to get my N scale back into action and maybe even move up to 15, since this is at a lower level. I have no desire to play Napoleonic looking Modern Armor battles but I do have a bug to do some moderns.

Again, Thanks, guys!

Tom

I now Lee Sowers very well and can put you in contact with him if you like. (email me at campagna @ utk dot edu)

I helped develop the rules with Lee in the early days and like them a lot. Once you get the basics down, the rules flow very well.

I also know that Lee has put a fair amount of effort into streamlining the rules since their initial release, but I don't know if he plans to try a second edition or not.

Tom,

I have played the CAC rules once, and that was enough. The game was at a convention with the author running it, so I know we were playing correctly. Also, it wasn't an issue of me wanting a game and the rules presenting a simulation, as I prefer the latter.

There were two problems with the rules: a lack of meaningful decisions and troop ratings that heavily favored one side, more so than I believe should have been the case. On the first point, the game is at its heart an igougo where one side moves and fires all its units and then the other side does likewise. The only deviation from this is once per turn (during either your own or your opponent's subturn, I believe, though possibly just during the latter) each unit can interupt the normal sequence of play to fire or move. The problem is that when to use this interrupt and what to do with it is obvious every turn so the game devolves into something akin to 40k in ww2. Perhaps not categorically bad, but not my cup of tea.

The second problem, and this is really a greater problem than the first, is that the designer has rated certain nations' troops so much better than others that it renders the game pointless. While this may be justified in some cases, I don't think it is to the extent it appears in CAC. In the game I played, the Japanese troops I had were so inferior to the US Marines they were facing that they had almost no chance of harming the Marines while the Marines had no trouble eliminating them. I know US Marines are good troops and I'm no expert on the Pacific War, but I don't recall the Marines having that easy a time of it. I spoke to one of the CAC playtesters about this problem; he indicated the biased ratings pervade the rules. Certainly yhis could be fixed by changing the ratings, but that's work that shouldn't have to be done for a commercial set of rules.

I only played one game, so take the foregoing with whatever you think appropriate, but that was enough to put me off CAC. To put that in perspective, I usually take 3-4 plays to make up my mind on a game. If you do get the rules, I'd like to hear your take on them.

From Lee CAC Author. Yes, I am alive and well and CAC is available thru On Military Matters. If you are looking for feedback a good source would be Dennis at OMM. He has played CAC quite a number of times, is an excellent and experienced gamer and is familiar with dozens of rule sets covering all eras.

To correct some entries in this thread, CAC is not I Go U Go. Although I suppose any set of rules where both sides get to move could be called I Go U Go. There are 3 Phases in CAC – Side A Moves – Both Sides Shoot – Side B Moves. What makes this different than I Go – We All Shoot – U Go … is the CAC (Combat Action Command) which allows either player to shoot while "I Go" and "U Go" and allows either player to move during "We Both Shoot". The result is a fluid turn with fire fights rippling across the table much like real combat flares and subsides across a battlefield. In any one game this can happen to a greater or lesser extent based on many factors, the scenario, the GM, experience and skill level of the players, etc.

As for unit ratings, they are always subjective, and in my 55 years of gaming they always engender a lot of debate and disagreement among gamers. Units in CAC ("Teams") can have five different levels of "accuracy" to hit an enemy, plus five different levels of Combat Quality (Morale and Training) and over 10 different Damage Charts to determine hit results. So instead of a handful of different permutations there are dozens. Thus "good" units can be really good and "bad" units really bad. An intentional part of the design to properly reflect units such as the First Special Service Force. The Guadalcanal scenario mentioned was Edson's Ridge where most sources will agree that the Japanese lost over ten times as many men killed as the Marines. The reason was that they were facing, among other units, a Marine Raider Battalion. IMO arguably the best troops in the Pacific Theater at the time (perhaps any time).

Which speaks to my third point, CAC is essentially a simulation so that Battles like Edson's Ridge, or Frost at Arnhem Bridge, can be recreated on the tabletop. With many rules they cannot. At least not accurately. During WWII all battles and armies were not created equal. That's why gaming it is fun.

Cheers!

All, I concur with Lee. Russ Lockwood and I play tested the Frost at Arnhem scenario which was covered in MW issues 350 and 351 several times. The rules allowed a small but superb force to hold out against a German force for many turns. In the end they won as much as they lost in the game limits set. I know of no other WWII set that simulates WWII combat action as well as CAC does.