"Skirmish Action Rules -- In Depth Ovewview" Topic

Author Lee Sowers was asked to create an in-depth look at his Skirmish Action WWII skirmish rules. So, he starts with building up a force and then turning it loose on the tabletop. Text only.

link

JJ actually answered your questions on Sunday under the original topic Additional Info Skirmish Actions (like the 2nd or 3rd topic below this thread on my screen) Just checked and they are actually still there! Unlike other posts which have disappeared. Can you see them? Please let me know if you have any Followup questions. Thanks! Lee

looking forward to meeting you and playing your game at cold wars :)

JJ et al. Yes! It's not your eyes it's the Bug at work! Sorry about that. And any confusion it's caused. Hopefully this thread is good now. Cheers!

Re. See You at Cold Wars. At Fall In we had over 40 play and had to add extra sessions as many came by and said the games were full but asked if they could play anyway. If you try and sign up on HMGS when you pre-Reg and the sessions are FULL please let me know and I will start working with the Staff to add sessions NOW which is easier than doing it at the Con.

Thanks! Lee

As a player/fan/umpire of Michael Korns SUTC Small Unit Tactical Combat, and a follower of Paddy Griffith, John Keegan and S L A Marshall, I will have to pass on SA.
TMI, the battlefield isnt empty, too much control by the players.

Not familiar with SUTC but will have to check it out. Not sure exactly what you mean by "the battlefield is not empty". Whether that refers to the presence of terrain or the enemy or both and their influence on the battle. BTW I'm also a fan of Keegan and SLA Marshall. We should all be so gifted and eloquent! Cheers! Lee

SUTC is long out of print, from 1973. It may be accessed from More Wargame Pioneers, Early Wargames, V 4, ed John Curry
It is double blind with umpire.
Empty battlefield, a phrase of Griffiths, refers to the lack of seen troops or vehicles on the modern battlefield. By the word seen, this does not mean the traditional wargame where the figures are on the table but not "spotted"
The emptt battlefield means all figures, and in more advanced SUTC, the terrain as well, aee not placed on the table unless spotted, and taken off if they pass from view, to include the incomplete information about fire effects. The players do not see the charrs or dice roll, indeed, they are given their forces and missions. No building of forcez. The players in SA have far too much say

Thanks for the insight on SUTC! Sounds like a really unique system. You are correct that players have a lot of "say" in SA when playing the tournament scenarios. Did a lot of research prior to writing them and the majority of players seem to like building armies, creating lists and playing in competitive tournaments. So SA was designed to allow playing historical battles, like Pegasus Bridge, or "what if" where players can build their own lists. When playing history players are limited to realistic lists but when playing tournaments or "pick up" scenarios they do have a lot of latitude (aka say) in list design. War gaming is a very diverse hobby and no one system will appeal to all. Being able to accommodate both historical and competitive play in one system at least allows satisfying more gamers. Lee

I read this and thought it could not be an in depth review on the basis that :-

I did not appear to address:-
Command and control- How upper level intent was passed down in some form.

Planning of artillery support for FDF's and Barrages for attacks.

Terrain types Oe wherher this was left to the players (in which case it would not be workable with a points system.

Defensive positions – Most battles are attack defence so allocation of trencges etc must be in there.

Most of this has been in since Phil Barker in 1988 so I assume its in newer stuff.

If its missing an in depth review should say so.

I had to modify SUTC, not the system as such, but what was omitted or overlooked, such as animals and trucks. I had to add charts to address the non player figures and redo the Assault Accuracy Chart, which combined grenade accuracy with hand held AT rocket accuracy. The original Wound Chart did not distinguush between left and right, and I had to add a modifier to determine damage to hand carried weapons or equipment.. And a modufier for sure shots, and another for hits and wounds when behind cover. Leg wounds cannot always be attributed to ricochets.
It is that kind of game, where a lot of individual shells, bullers and shcrapnel are traced.
As these tracings can be controversial, there is need of the umpire. Did the bulleet pierce the right tire or the left, as the jeep is moving and the firer at a distance? Arguments from both sides are valid. Did the soldier see the mine ior not, arguments from supposed troop quality as no elite misses a mine. I have heard most of these. Elites dont trip on ricks or untied shoelaces, sure.
In Band of Brothers, when Sgt Bull was evading the burning but still moving Sherman, then hides in a culvert, we SUTC can handle this, indeed, can handle his not being seen by the Germans, even as a non player figure, but I know of no other skirmish game that does.
TMI.
SUTC is not a typical social player driven game. It isnt Doctoral or Masters in Combat studies. It is not a simulation as I do not regard any published or played game using figures or counters as simulations, indeed the real life training, the live fire field exercises fall short. Only the real thing is the simulation

I had to modify SUTC, not the system as such, but what was omitted or overlooked, such as animals and trucks. I had to add charts to address the non player figures and redo the Assault Accuracy Chart, which combined grenade accuracy with hand held AT rocket accuracy. The original Wound Chart did not distinguush between left and right, and I had to add a modifier to determine damage to hand carried weapons or equipment.. And a modufier for sure shots, and another for hits and wounds when behind cover. Leg wounds cannot always be attributed to ricochets.
It is that kind of game, where a lot of individual shells, bullers and shcrapnel are traced.
As these tracings can be controversial, there is need of the umpire. Did the bulleet pierce the right tire or the left, as the jeep is moving and the firer at a distance? Arguments from both sides are valid. Did the soldier see the mine ior not, arguments from supposed troop quality as no elite misses a mine. I have heard most of these. Elites dont trip on ricks or untied shoelaces, sure.
In Band of Brothers, when Sgt Bull was evading the burning but still moving Sherman, then hides in a culvert, we SUTC can handle this, indeed, can handle his not being seen by the Germans, even as a non player figure, but I know of no other skirmish game that does.
TMI.
SUTC is not a typical social player driven game. It isnt Doctoral or Masters in Combat studies. It is not a simulation as I do not regard any published or played game using figures or counters as simulations, indeed the real life training, the live fire field exercises fall short. Only the real thing is the simulation

Obviously Skirmish Action aka SA is a much different game than SUTC. Although SUTC sounds very interesting. All rules have a particular niche their author wanted to fill. There is no such thing as a perfect set of rules. In my experience opinions vary widely on what the perfect sets of rules should be. That's probably why there are so many different sets of rules on the market. In the case of Skirmish Action I wasn't after perfection. I wanted a simple set of rules that provided a realistic recreation of WWII battles at the squad and platoon level. So what is realistic? Well I was never in WWII and neither were probably 95% of gamers today. Thus we are left with our "vision" of what it was like from reading books by Keegan or Marshall or by watching some of the more well done movies on the topic. In particular some of the scenes in Saving Private Ryan (as attested to by many veterans who were there) or Band of Brothers which while still Hollywood was based on accounts of actual participants. Perfect no. As close to what was real that those of us under 80 will ever get probably yes. So I designed Skirmish Action to play like the battles in SPR and BoB. In fact I'll be playing SPR at Cold Wars. And the highest compliment I got at Fall In was "it plays just like the movies". Since I can't go watch a new movie every weekend (they only make them like every ten years) I can at least play Skirmish Action. So if you liked the battles in SPR and BoB you'll probably like playing SA. Then again if you didn't … Cheers! Lee

In an interview I saw on YouTube, Antony Beevor had something to say about war as depicted by the movies. Suffice to say that "it plays just like the movies" would not be complimentary. Indeed one of my major problems, regarding what might be called public relations, is that while technically SUTC is a miniarures game, there are few miniatures on the table as the troops are not sighted. On the box cover for Flames of War Jungle Terrain appears a couple of Sherman tanks and some Communist troops seperated by a line of the jungle terrain. ,This portrait isnt SUTC, and SUTC makes for poor pictures. In addition, as many gamers use the presence of the enemy fugures as a crutch, they are unnerved when that crutch is taken away. The gamer really doesnt like Real ambushes, instead of the faux ambushes from troops on the table, but noy spotted. Because gamers know nothing about the basics of security, ancient, Napoleonic or 20th century, they dont understand recon, surprise or intel. Thus they immediately proceed to what Frank Chadwick, in his Command Decision games, as the "middle game". I dissagree. There is no middle game in war or battle. Keegans Face of Battle is instructive in this. The movies would have you think that battle has some order. I suggest not as much as we would think.

I disagree rather completely. The movies I quoted depict battle as confused, chaotic, numbingly loud and disgustingly bloody. SUTC sounds like a role playing game which frankly is a different genre than games like SA or FoW or CD. It's like comparing Dungeons & Dragons to Axis & Allies. Not sure what such a comparison accomplishes. And it certainly serves no purpose to try and convince an avid D&D player why they should try A&A.

Cheers! Lee

As to platoon games, by which I mean each stand represents a platoon, more or less, a modicum of thekind of uncertainty found in SUTC can be done in anon umpired two player game. Theres a long out of print Napoleonic miniatures game, Vive L'Emperuer, by Ned Zuparko, that uses hidden dice rolls and roster sheets kept by the player which masks the true state of the formations. Stands or figures are not removed asthe formation takes losses. In order to market the set, the figures could not be painted some generic French blue or Russian green, but had to be more traditionally painted.
Yet this need not be the case, especially regarding more modern war. All the cats are grey, even up close. Introduce dummy markers and "intermediate" fugures, by which I mean a set of figures or models painted grey representing units that may or may not exist.