"Not quite Market Garden" Topic

Our little group are well along in preparing our Brisbane EXPO show game:
"Operation Triple Route".
British Airborne troops hold the crossings while armoured columns race north along three exposed roads in 1944 Europe.

We're currently preparing our EXPO game for November—an original tabletop scenario inspired by the themes of WWII airborne/armoured operations, but not a recreation of any specific historical battle.

The game features:
A table 15 foot x 6 foot.
Three parallel road axes running the length of the table
Cross-country movement to allow flexibility (and chaos)
An airborne force holding key crossings
A relief force of British armour advancing under pressure
German kampfgruppen conducting blocking actions and counterattacks

Players are divided as follows:

2 × British armoured division commanders
2 × German commanders handling multiple kampfgruppen
1 × Airborne commander holding the line
1 × Umpire (me), keeping things moving and shaping events

The emphasis will be on a fast-moving, visually clear game with multiple points of tension rather than strict historical accuracy. We're aiming for something that captures the feel of a corridor battle—momentum, delay, and the race to link up—while remaining flexible and playable in a show environment. The rules will be 'Rapid Fire Reloaded'

Figures and vehicles are now being assembled and organised—the project is well underway.
theminiaturespage.com

‌"TMP link
theminiaturespage.com ‌"TMP link

More updates as we get closer to November.

There's lots to work out.
We're debating how powerful German counterattacks should be.Too strong and the road blocks completely, too weak and the British just steamroll. We think a staggered entry for the Germans?

And tactical air strikes by fighter-bombers if things get bogged down (umpire controlled as to when & where)?

Should the paras get limited resupply, or just hold until relieved?

Thoughts?

(BTW you are all invited to the Show).

That will be a cracking game, might be worth the drive over from Darwin to check it out :)

Have you seen the free download "Grave to Nijmegen" on the RF site. I know your game is standalone but they may have a few pointers regarding force sizes.

Sounds like a lot of fun, but a long bus ride from Indiana. Staggered German entry makes sense. I'd make para resupply uncertain. As with tac air, it give the umpires some options for game balance.

OR you can make the paras pay for it. I'm continually struck by the differences between Arnhem and Bastogne resupply. Drop a troop quality level on a para battalion and have a pathfinder team to improve chances of resupply?

Sounds great and the minis look fantastic

The whole balance thing is tricky – probably staggered entry for the Germans is the best way to prevent a walk-over either way

Thanks for the kind words gents and, yes, the distance from Darwin and Indiana might be a bit of a challenge!

Some very useful points raised, especially around staggered German entry and para resupply. Both are things we're actively thinking about from an umpire/game balance perspective.

A Show game takes some delicate balancing. It has to be a spectacle, that goes for the length of the Show (two days) and is still a wargame with both sides having a decent shot at victory.

Which begs the question: what will winning look like?

Obviously, relieving the paras or not should be a major event. But what about minor goals?

There's obvious ones for the Main force British -rewarding distance advanced and taking specific locations (the villages, bridges etc).

It seems a bit negative for the Germans – not losing specific locations. And the Red Devils seem to be sttuck on a static hold or die status.

Any ideas?

Monty to the contrary, I don't think there is "minor defeat" or "moderate victory" for this sort of thing. Either the British have cleared a supply line and hold a bridge and so win, or the Germans have prevented this and so they win. This has merit: any commander who hogs resources to attain "his" objective risks losing the game regardless. Want me to read the bit from "Patton" beginning "an army is a team?"

I can see the attraction of a clear-cut win/lose outcome—it certainly keeps things simple and focused. But your "binary win" idea, for a big multiplayer EXPO game, can actually reduce engagement.

Historically, outcomes are rarely that binary, The self-effacing Patton notwithstanding. WW2 actions show a range of results rather than simple success/failure—Dieppe Raid, Dunkirk evacuation, the Falaise Pocket, and Second Battle of El Alamein all had very different scales of success, failure and consequence.

From a wargaming point of view (especially with multiple players), a VP-based system seems to offer a bit more:

It keeps all players engaged right to the end. It discourages "all or nothing" play. It reflects the idea that delay, disruption, and partial success all matter

For example, we're considering things like:

Paras scoring per turn for holding crossings
British scoring for distance advanced / successful link-up
Germans scoring for delay and isolation

So even if a final link-up happens (or doesn't), there's still a question of how well each side performed overall.

For a show game, that ongoing tension and gradation of outcome feels like it might produce a better experience than a simple pass/fail result—but I can certainly see the appeal of both approaches.

What will work better in practice? We will see.

Do let us know how it goes. And good luck!

It's nearly 8 months away, so I'll ration announcements.
But I seriously mean there'll be a place at the table labelled RP in case you're passing by.

I always prefer scenarios where one not only takes an objective, but has to hold it as well, i.e. capture and retain.
Using your VP considerations:
Not only do the British score for advancing, they lose that score if the route is cut behind them and have to reopen it. No charging blindly down the table.
For the Germans, they get points for delay and isolation, but that could risk them staying put when they should retreat. Perhaps a loss of VP if units get destroyed, weakening the capability for achieving the aims.

So the Paras may hold the crossings, but the Germans cannot counterattack due to losses, or the relief column is brought to a halt due to the road(s) being cut.

Total Allied victory – all crossings held, full link up and no cuts to the relief route.
Total German victory – all crossings held, allied relief route cut at least 2 of 3. This stops the German simply massing against the crossings; they have to impact the relief column.
Draw – 2/3 crossings held by allies, 2/3 relief columns halted by Germans.
Minor victories could depend on crossings held/taken and relief routes open/cut.

cheers
Jon.

Not bad. I'm adding your ideas to my notes. TBH I hadn't considered the implication of cutting the roads behind the British Main Force.

I *do* think you can overcomplicate things. Points for units destroyed? where do you stop? A destroyed infantry company? A full battalion? A Squadron of tanks? A full regiment? etc.

There's a lot to think about.

I agree it could be overcomplicated, but maybe the threat could be there. I would limit it to things like loss of effective fighting capability/forced to retreat/a percentage destroyed or similar kampfgruppe level considerations. Simply a mechanism to prevent the wargamer "attack at all cost".

Cutting the road is the same reason; opening up a relief route means opening up a supply route, not becoming out of supplies yourself. It "guides" behaviour.