olicana | 28 Jan 2017 8:11 a.m. PST |
Of course, it's largely my fault that they haven't played for a while. Whilst getting things together for a convention game a three years ago, we played the same battle at least half a dozen times every week for about two months, using a home grown set of rules based on Piquet. At the end they were both completely shell shocked. You only had to say "Sidi Rezegh" and they went to pieces. Anyway, last year, Leon over at Pendraken Miniatures kindly gave me a gratis copy of Blitzkrieg Commander 2 and I've been itching for a Western Desert game using them for ages. I've been gently suggesting to the lads that sandy is restful on the eye, and without saying the 'SR' words, that tanks might be fun. This week, Peter cracked! So on Wednesday night we'll be playing a game (a small one) set in the Western Desert c. 1941 and we'll be using Blitzkrieg Commander 2. Here's a link to what I think should make for an interesting first game – I'm really looking forward to it: link |
Rich Bliss | 28 Jan 2017 8:19 a.m. PST |
Looks good. What scale are your figures? |
Condotta | 28 Jan 2017 8:31 a.m. PST |
olicana, I can see why the lads cracked at last. The board and forces look great and it will be a cracking game : > ) AAR, please. |
olicana | 28 Jan 2017 8:38 a.m. PST |
15mm, mostly FoW with some Skytrex A13s. I think it's a pretty nice scale to do 'tank games' in. There is enough detail on the models, even on the smaller stuff, to get a good effect with my painting style, and they are small enough to make ground scales acceptable. |
Frederick | 28 Jan 2017 9:06 a.m. PST |
|
Big Red | 28 Jan 2017 9:17 a.m. PST |
Your desert games are brilliant! How do you feel about the Warmaster style of all or nothing activation system? |
olicana | 28 Jan 2017 10:02 a.m. PST |
How do you feel about the Warmaster style of all or nothing activation system? In some respects these systems are always going to throw up the odd terrible game – that's just the nature of chance. Classic Piquet (my favourite rule set of all time) is also prone to this happening once in while. However, on the whole, the 'all or nothing' adds a great deal of tension to games. I prefer the highs and lows of multiple activation systems to the predictability of standard movement rate, fire once a go, you-go-I-go games. Some people hate not being able to accurately predict where something can be 'next turn' but I'm in the Clauswitz school of thought – 'friction' in war means you can't tell how long anything will take to accomplish. The film "A Bridge Too Far" exemplifies this aspect of war better than I could ever explain here. How many times did the Brits fail to 'activate' in that game! |
ColCampbell | 28 Jan 2017 10:34 a.m. PST |
Looking forward to your report. Our group is just getting re-started in WW2 micro-armor and are exploring rule sets. One will be BKC2 using GHQ 1:285 microarmor in the western desert. Jim |
Big Red | 28 Jan 2017 10:35 a.m. PST |
Have to agree with you about predictability leading to sometimes dull games. Some friction is not only desirable from an historic viewpoint but it is fun. My concern in the Warmaster/Black Powder/Hail Caesar activation system is the not odd terrible game – heck I can do that all by myself with a bad scenario – but with a bad roll or two (or three!) leaving one side with little or nothing to do for extended periods of game time. While it might be "realistic", what ever that means, it can make the game less interesting for one side. It can also make players reluctant to try it again if they've been playing on the side of the "rock garden". I love Piquet but I can't get any locals to play after experiencing just such a game or two. |
olicana | 28 Jan 2017 10:47 a.m. PST |
Agreed. I think that these games are not ideally suited to multi-player scenarios. One on one, you are always doing something, even if it's just moving your routers or taking your casualties off the table. I'm planning to use the combat system in Warlord's Pike and Shotte for a big multi-player Italian Wars bash in November (The League of Gentlemen Wargamers plan about 18 months ahead) but I'll be leaving the activation system out of it. I'll just use a variable move distance mechanism – you know the kind of thing, infantry move 8" + 1d6", on a road add another d6" – to get some variability but where everyone gets to do stuff all the time. With 12 plus players, command activation sucks. |
sausagesca | 03 Mar 2017 7:53 p.m. PST |
Interesting. I rather liked BKC and tried to get my group to play it. I persisted for a couple of years ultimately making lots of house rules to allow certain free actions that seemed to make sense. It worked well, but like all games that have significant house rules, guys stopped trying to learn the rules and it died. Shame. I generally do not like the Priestly command game design and agree that is is not for multi player games. But the simplicity of BKC and the level of abstraction were appealing to me. |
FlyXwire | 04 Mar 2017 6:43 a.m. PST |
Great points being made here! I think the movement to random activations was one of the worse rabbit holes rules writers went down with a vengeance this past decade or so. I often tell my buds [as we inevitably try out the latest set of rules – again], that there's got to be a "game" somewhere in the rules that players can embrace – and, I think random activations is the first thing that impedes players being able to match their own wits. To me – and this question is often asked on the forum here of what feature should be in a set of rules – one of those mechanism that I feel should be included more often, are interrupt mechanisms. Especially since this is a mechanic where the scenario designer can interject those superior attributes to one command side or another for battle-size games, or some advantage reflecting superior experience down at the tactical/skirmish level of gaming. As these interrupts can/could/should be limited in scope and number, they become valued for using at important moments within a game's evolution (literally – they begin to reflect those "command decision" points where players attempt to match their wits with the best they've got, and attempt to turn the decision to their favor). Using interrupt mechanisms is a method for allowing the sequence of a game to be changed through player decision making, rather than by a codified scheme of luck-based, random unit activation that likely has no connection to what's actually transpiring on the battlefield at any moment of time. |