"I just Love the Game" Topic

Last night was great fun. One of the great interests is to understand at least in part, how all these things come together. After a failed attempt the week before, neither of us reall unerstanding how to fight a big mobile battle, last night we got a good ways there. The table was 12 ft by 4 ft, so 4.8km by 1,3km. with a choke point in the middle. The terrain was relatively dence.

What was interesting is at least for the first and second attampt, you need the space just to get your head round how to deploy that much kit.

In the end with a rolling nbarrage of massive proportions we got finished a battle with 3 companies on the Russian side, 2 tank and 1 BMP against two German companies, 1 Tank heavy one Infantry heavy and supporting Artillery.

What was intereting was not what the artillery killed but what it obscured and suppressed. Giving the Russians a sporting chance. The Germans (Me never really had a decent Artillery plan and is showed).

What I love is, after more than 10 years of play and we are still learning and the facination is still there. We managed to get to a sensible conclusion (6 bounds in 1 1/2 hrs(late start and too much chatting). Fun even with that much stuff.

1 army, 10 years and its still hugely facinating and challengeing, what a hobby!

what rule set did you use?

Erm… yeah. What game?

I think they play their own rule system about the Cold War going hot. And in 10mm, IIRC ?

Love the enthusiasm!

We play our own rules:-

link

Be warned the rules are simple (like chess) the game is not a Featherstone clone. It works a different way so its not for 4 games a year men as is. Load the free stuff first to see if its what you want.

It has dummy markers and tanks have to turn turrets like you did as a kid. I have been told this is "complicated" so maybe I was a comlicated kid.

Its just Wargaming for gives insight into the accounts you read, which to me is what its all about.

Minaly nowdays we play 12mm but we do play 25mm (becaus some friends don't like 12mm). Something like "how can you take a simple set of rules and make it a 2 paracetamol game". 25 mm means smaller games and less decisions. ;_) (NAW I can dream up evil scenarios even for 25mm).

Too bad about the tank turrets. Mine are all glued on. Why would you have this minor detail in what appears to be a large battle rules set?

Realism

That is why you need to wait until the Turret turns.

Or you could just have a great drive who gets the Tank turned so that you can fire the Turret.

coopman,
The real world has to addopt formations,one of the reasons is you can't see well out of a buttoned up tank. It's vital to button up when being subject to a Russian artillery barrage. Turning the turret both adds realism and helps the palyer understand the situation he is in. The two comapnies a side are represented at 1:1 so not to my mind a big battle when its mainly armour not infantry, for us, we have the advantage of knowing the rules so the biggest time is taken by working out what the hell to do in a complex situation. I am never a believer in more die equals better games. Complex games allow human error far better than rolling die.

I have a copy of the rules UshCha is using. I think the reason for the details on turret turning and direction is to realistically portray tactical formations that units used to cover their flanks and improve situational awareness especially when moving.

Here is an example: link

I also use turret traverse time to determine the first shot in an engagement. Of course, you can be bore-sighted on a spot or maneuver to have the gun on the target with a minimum of time but if you were observing in the wrong direction you most likely will not be shooting first.

Wolfhag

wolfhag, interesting a link to a computer game that at least understands the issues and is well described. Really cant add to that.

It does show the weakness of the professed 1 tank = 1 platoon or company as it totally ignores both the space taken up by a unit or the possibilities for distribution of firepower. Interestingly our namesakes in say the Napoleonic wars care more for such things than many "modern games". As an aside the platoon in colum must be AT LEAST 130m long as 40m spacing is recognized as the minimum to stop an enmey ranging on the first vehicle and correcting with almost 100% accuracy on the next one That make a company in column at least 500yds and more like 600m in practice something like 1/3 of typical long battle range for a modern tank and closer to full tank range (for armor penetration) for early WW2 tanks.

On of the great things about the game that started this off was that we needed the huge board just to get our head round what an attack formation really looked like, and what the defense looked like. Both needed surprising depth. The defenders so that not all of them were covered in one barrage, that would be disastrous as the enemy could pass though and get behind the defenses with a minimal number of shots fired as the barrage limits visibility. Nothing like laying it out to scale to get a handle on the basis.

UshCha,
Platoon units represented by a single figure and high unit density are two factors that can really prevent the use of real 1:1 tactics in a game.

If you are using 1 tank = 1 platoon you should use something to define the formation they are in. That's a player's decision and rewards the right decision and penalizes the wrong decision.

I have a "Ranged In" rule too. Once you hit a target and want to switch if the new one is within 100m and +/-15 degrees (in gunner view through sight) the gun is going to use the same elevation so same chance to hit the new target. Under the right conditions, a tank with a high-velocity gun can take out 4-5 opponents in 60 seconds and eliminating the need to fire ranging shot and take additional time estimating the range.

When a smart player has 4x anti-tank guns concealed and not spotted until they shoot will have only one open up at long range. When that one hits he transmits the range by field phone to the others. That's going to almost guarantee a first-round hit for the other three as they are not under fire and had already acquired the targets and were tracking them. It's just a matter of the gunner making a small (maybe only 1/4 to 1/2 of a turn) elevation adjustment and then open fire.

In my experience, if you don't have a lot of space and the right scale the game normally breaks down to a 1:1 frontal assault attrition. But some players don't mind the higher level of abstraction.

Wolfhag

wolfhag I don't disagree with what is said. However little if any of this is in typical 1 stand=1 platoon game. Typicaly an infantry a platoon will be spresd over about 200m in defence and cover about 300m rifle frontage. Thus a platoon should have a base of about 2/3 rifle range. few if any games come close to that. Similarly if you look at WW2 or modern games tank spoacing is very wide upto perhaps 100 yds. A US Study noted spacings of 50yds or greater for alternative positions was an advantage so a pltoon in defebce with 1 alternate position each would take up a very significant area, Again the base does not reflect this hence the dredafully unrealistiv "tank parks". To be honest we have never found a credible solution hemece oure rules are 1:1. You could use 6mm models and change groundscale but we found issues with smaller vehicles as the turrets were too small to turn and then marking facing becomes a real pain and the losses outweigh the gains for us.

Don't even get me started on the fantasy of non linear ranges.

We haven't experienced any real problems with 6mm models and 1" = 25m (no tank park problem), the players just need to be more careful. For tanks with a small turret we glue them on and use a marker to show the direction pointed. Most of the time players are spending time maneuvering their vehicle to face the target so turning the turret is not always an issue. However, it is important for a units overall Situational Awareness.

I think that games that use platoon or company stands need more abstracted engagement and gunnery rules as detailed 1:1 rules are going to be difficult to realistically use as you've pointed out.

Wolfhag

Having now read the posts here & the description of the game at wargamevault, I have a much better understanding of the scale of the game and what you're trying to accomplish. I withdraw my earlier criticism regarding the aiming of the turrets.

I think I can begin to understand the popularity for "fantasy" tank rules, not that it would have any attraction for me.

We set up a selection of the big battle using 1/72 models on an 8ft by 4ft board. Typical sane ground scale 1" represents 10m i.e. infantry about 5 times bigger than ground scale. With that you get about 1 platoon of Marders deployed with their Milan teams and a few Carl Gustavs.

Not many models if you were really a modeler not a war gamer. You would have to stray well into fantasy to get much more on the defenders side, so fantasy with lots of models may be a preferred option. Compressing the ground scale makes it look daft, real fields sizes look laughable and without that infantry lose there abilities in unrealistic terrain, few battles take place on flat salt lakes.

No criticism intended, its just perhaps I can see why other folk don't like the simulation approach, its not model friendly it can't be.