"SPECTRE: OPERATIONS Skirmish gaming Cold War Africa" Topic

We gave the new SPECTRE: OPERATIONS rules a try last weekend. They have an interesting way of handling I-Go/You-Go turns. I look forward to playing this again. More photos and explanation of the rules here link

Nice!
How do these rules compare to the previous edition?
Are they more or less complexes?
When are momentum chit's replenished?
I understand that you don't use bast templates how does this work is it better or worse?
Any other insights you have would be greatly appreciated, well by me at least.

QUARTERMASS, I wasn't running the game but as a player this edition played faster and cleaner

They seemed less complex, with fewer contradictions

Momentum chits are replaced at the end of each turn; two points for each functioning unit, one for a Pinned unit and none for routing/destroyed units. Rallying or lifting pins require expending a Momentum chit so you are left with he decision to attempting to recover them or pressing on with your units that are still in steady morale.

I have always been of two minds regarding blast templates. Using them rewards proper tactic (don't bunch up under fire!) but also leads to shenanigans in unit positioning and often slows the game down as the firing player wiggles the template around to try to capture the most minis under it. In this game the lack of templates didn't lead to any odd or tactically silly results so I would say that I view it favorably. Fire is from Unit to unit and the scale of the game (one man is one man, and ground scale and mini scale are identical) is such that ranges are of much less consequence than they would be at a higher level of resolution.

I think that the Momentum chits are the real core to the game. They make the player focus on getting the Important Things done and then trying to tidy up the rest of your issues. Not mentioned in the game report is the fact that troops that have higher levels of training are MUCH more capable (my troops were all raw militia) they can perform more functions and are FAR better at everything that they do. This would allow a tiny force of truly elite troops to engage and defeat much more numerous opponents.

There is a points system but I would be far more interested in playing historical scenarios (Raid on Entebbe, a Seal Team Operation) to get a real feel as to how well the system works with an extreme divergence in quality.

Situational awareness is critical, the units are on the table but you have to spot them to react and fire. During the game I thought my one squad was toast when the APC showed up right next to them but I was hiding in the brush and AFVs are nearly blind (as they really are).

I look forward to playing this game again, I found my position as Rebel leader challenging; trying to coax performance out of my poorly trained and equipped troops while not exposing them too much while managing the supply of Momentum chits kept me on my toes throughout the game.

Anton, would multiplayer teaming come easily to the system?

(there's a number of slick 1 vs 1 activation system that right from the get-go aren't group-play oriented)

What a fantastic looking game.

FlyXwire, I think it would.

Multi-player would add an additional dimension to command decision-making as each player clamored for Momentum chits to move his forces and the CinC had to manage them as well as the battle.

In fact this approach could be applied to a number of other game systems with very interesting outcomes.

79thPA, Rich Uncle Pat only does a game about once every six weeks but his table tops are a delight to behold! I will pass along your words.

Anton, thanks for forwarding these play insights, and -

"……once every six weeks……"

Shows the investment of time he puts into his tables/games (super nice)!

My son (R.U.P.) is a Police Officer so weekends are precious and limit his gaming time. But he certainly puts in the effort between games. You can check out some of his other games here: link

Hi Anton Ryzbak
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the new Spector ops rules.
When reading the 1st edition rules I found the mechanic exiting for the possibility's and the RPG lite feel, alas I never got the opportunity to play because I had no one to play with.
Thanks to your insight I think I will have to bite the bullet and get a copy of the 2nd edition even though I may not find anyone to play with.

RUP makes some lovely board's I'm aware of your site and have dreuled over them.
I particularly like the IDF Vs PLO board.

QUATERMASS, The Killdozer game was truly epic, as the PLO commander it went from frustrating to comical looking at how incredibly lucky that CAT D-9 was! And, yes, R.U.P. a LOT of work into his tabletops, his attention to detail is impressive. It really helps getting into the spirit of things.

If you are in a situation of playing solo you might want to try 02Hundred Hours. It is a two-player game but will readily adapt to solo play. It is a much higher level of granularity than SPECTRE but everything you need to play comes in the stater box

Anton Ryzbak
I do have 0200 hours and have kept up with the expansion's however it for many reasons ended up on my to do list/pile of shame.
I'm not keen on the idea of solo play so at the moment play ASOIAF which is a great rank & flank miniatures game,it has a high level of abstraction but this works in it favour.

I found the mechanic of spec-ops 1st edition one of the most existing rule sets I've come across and was my reason for joining this site however mentioning it was a tumble weed moment

I find ultra modern gaming as a concept unpopular and have heard people say it's wrong to play something which I find strange, people seem fine with watching films like black hawk down or generation kill ect but somehow wargameing it is wrong?

Thanks for the write up, a great looking game as well.

I normally use Force on Force which I really like for the way it handles reaction.
After reading your report, I an intrigued by some of the mechanics in Spectre. At some point I may just have to get myself a copy and give them a go.

I agree with Quatermass that there is a large segment of the community that are happy to play WW2 or Vietnam, but want nothing to do with modern games. However, when I put on a modern game at a show, they always fill up with players.

That os a great looking game and the others look great as well. I know a lot of time and effort went into making everything for these but the visual effects are well worth it.

Captain Pete;
R.U.P.'s tables are always a thing of beauty, I'm glad that you took the time to look at his other efforts

Martyn K/Quartermass,
I too find the aversion to games set in the 1960's to be odd. That is over a half century ago! And games set in more recent times I have found attract the attention of veterans of those conflicts who will often open up to relating their experiences via a game and following discussion than they would if simply asked.
It is odd to me that nobody had issues speaking with WW2 vets during the 1960/70s but some are unsettled about talking/gaming events that are thirty/forty years old. These same people have no difficulty playing an ancient battle wherein thousands were slaughtered with swords and spears or a Napoleonic battle where tens of thousands were smashed to bits by cannon balls.