Sunday 17 March 2024

The Joy of Hex

Steve over at Sound Officers' Call has been using and hacking Peter's ww2 hex rules for a while now, and we have really got excited over the potential of these to use old Command Decision/GDW First Battle scenarios at multiple tactical levels - a solution to problems at Battalion right through to Brigade/Division level, that we have been looking for, for a long time.

Existing rules of course solve this issue to a large extent, although with caveats - not least of which is (1) ease of disagreement - not only between players, but on the basis of design decisions made - such that experts hack the systems because there are so many variables - and (2) players rarely focus on one system, UNLESS said system offers a multiplicity of outcomes at different levels and within different C20th periods/locales, and thereby encourages familiarity, without simplicity.

These hex based rules (assuming we have access to hexes of course - which I have luckily had at 60mm wide for decades, machined onto MDF and also at 100mm loose) offer a beautifully simple means of doing the following:

  • I can do a very large scale ww3 group game in the Fulda gap - movement is controlled and 'un-cheatable' as we use hexes to delineate. 
  • I zoom in or out in terms of scale, and add rules/ranges/capabilities to reflect same. This means i can do 73 Easting at one tank/unit, OR I can do Market Garden on multiple 4x3 boards at company or battalion/unit level.
  • Does it seem like a hex board wargame? Yep...i don't care.
  • The rules are kept deliberately simple. but not simplistic - what they do however , is zoom in on the differences between the opponent's weapon systems on the day - so no, I don't have lists of factors which outline the difference between a T34 and an M1 Abrams - I don't need that. What I do need to know is do systems / command make a difference for one side over the other, then design accordingly. 
  • Thereby, what I can do in a single scenario environment is (1) work out how differences in command - or equipment - may allow one side to fire/move while another can fire or move; (2) outline the differences between relative weapon systems on the same battlefield.
  • Recon units are harder to hit.
  • 1 hit requires a quality check (I took this out to make it simple in the trial game below - but it would work in a longer game); a 2nd means disruption which limits disruption and can be removed with reorganise roll; a 3rd denotes destroyed.

  1. Play Sequence is Game clock; Indirect Fire; Combat; Move; Reorganisation/Rally
  2. Steve has adapted the original to hit with a very flexible system involving (1) no. of dice and (2) then to hit numbers for said dice.
  3. Modern weapon systems can move and fire - ww2 can move or fire.
  4. I adjusted command in the game below based on flexibility, so though Syrian systems were using T72s in the Bekkaa, they would fire or move, whilst Israeli M60s could fire and move. we could translate same to Fulda Gap, whilst changing the number of units that can activate in an earlier ww2 situation. All of this is easily hacked.
As movement and range is hex based - this all remains very flexible.

A setup whereby units are platoons, Syrian armoured and BMP companies moving against Israeli M60s and ATGWs


1/300 Heroics and Ros M60s

Israeli units move to take high ground, and pour fire on advancing Arab units


On the Israeli right, armour moves to take high ground - utilising command flexibility, plus advantages of high ground and falling shot, to increase probabilities of first shot hate and kill. This would blunt the Arab advance on that flank quite quickly.


M60 company takes hits from ATGW fire (min range applies)



This system remains very flexible, time-friendly and critically easy to teach to younger gamers and conversely to groups drinking beer!


Saturday 2 March 2024

Dune Part Deux

 After my views on the recent Napoleon movie, I did consider that modern movies might not be for me…until Dune Part 2 came along.


I read the Frank Herbert books many times as a kid, saw the 1980s David Lynch version (one of the 4 people that liked it) , and though Part 1 of this current Denis Villeneuve iteration was visually stunning, I found it a little dry toward the end.

I was however, absolutely delighted with how enjoyable and (still) absolutely visually stunning, with added appeal of great performances for the most part, Part 2 was.

Thoroughly recommended if a Dune fan, and even if not. Really good parallels with the message, if not the ethos of the book, with very few changes made for dramatic effect – and those that have been made, seem very effective (unlike Lord of the Rings Franchise…Battle of Pelannor Fields, ah’m lookin’ at you!).

Though of course the narrative is canted to appeal a little more to modern audiences, but whether Denis Villeneuve meant it or not, he has kept the core message of the novels re. ideology, true/false Messiah narratives (be they spiritual, corporate or philosophical), and the inevitable corruption attributable to both. 

Look for:

  • Ornithopters
  • Paul's speech to the southern Fremen (wow - and no powerpoint)
  • A wee bit of Krav Maga ;)
  • Geidi Prime effectively Black & White - stunningly done 
  • Great performances from the younger actors - and the old hands were being shown up I thought...
  • Raban's unique set of leadership skills...
  • Rebecca Ferguson :)
  • Stunning shots and close ups - the look of this film resonates

It is therefore admirable that Villeneuve managed to stick to the Dune narrative, without trying to be  contextual with the modern world (the politics of Dune are very much not ours - no matter how some reviewers would like to think they are); of course, indirectly there are always parallels, but too many modern directors, or their production companies try to push an ideological narrative in order to make money – not so here. If anything, much of the 1960s era spiritual details have been blurred vs the context and meaning of the original book, as to dwell on same would have strangled the narrative.

Of course that said, there was a scene where the Fremen are heard to retort ‘of course he is not going to admit to being the Messiah; only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah!’

…which reminded me of…


In fact...wait a minute...
Brian lives with his Mum...Paul Atreides lives with his Mum ...case proven !

Another classic, with strangely, a similar narrative ...no ...really!

Get back in the house Brian!...I mean Paul!

Friday 2 February 2024

GDW Team Yankee with Steve's hacks...

I've known Steve over at the excellent 'Sound Officers' Call' for many years, and in addition to the fact that we have played games online with Jon over at the equally excellent 'Palouse Wargaming',  we have a few gaming 'likes' in common, including a love for Frank Chadwick's 'Volley and Bayonet' and of course his 'First Battle' series from GDW.

Now amongst the First Battle series was the superb Team Yankee, based upon Harold Coyle's book and released in 1987. (Not the similarly named Flames of War variant with 'tank parks').

We have tinkered with converting this game to tabletop since 2014, and I know Steve has been hacking these rules for several more years, so when he sent me his latest iteration, I was of course all over it.

The original 1987 Team Yankee box. Now, the original was designed to have the box look worn after 24 hours. ALL boxes look like this, no matter what they tell you about quality on BoardgameGeek...if your box is pristine, or undamaged, you clearly have a cheap chinese copy of the game...

The design is mostly seamless, and has been upgraded and upscaled for other conflicts  (Sands of War, Blood & Thunder, Test of Battle et al); but, it is the tactical nuance of Team Yankee that gives it the edge, with units as single tanks and squads.

This is why it works:

  • The Turn Phases are '1st attacks' , 'move and reaction' and 'last attacks'. This is beautifully subtle, with some variation for missile technology, and unlike similar systems (like Rapid Fire for instance), where you can 'move fire' or 'fire move' - yet players rarely use this variation, the discipline of the sequence encourages you to manipulate it to your advantage - but in a tactical manner, which makes sense.
  • For instance, I might use one platoon to shield the move of another - hence 'overwatch' style play is intrinsically built into the rules, and 'reaction fire' can be easily handled too.
  • The stats are also beautifully done - in terms of attack / defence values, which are further manipulated to suit range modifiers. (There is a massive spreadsheet online which collates ALL the games' stats).
  • Steve's changes however, were mainly to the single biggest bugbear of the original system - that of the CRT or Combat Results Table; a holdover from more traditional 1970s hex'n'chit style games (we all know them). This in essence compared the attack/defence values - the issue being that an M1's attack value vs a T72's defence, invariably ended up at 1:1, or at the very least, was less than satisfying with the variability of a single d6 roll on a CRT.
  • Simply put, Steve's variant challenges this by using a number of dice based off the attack/defence differential (1, 2, 3 or more) - said dice achieving hits on a 6, 5-6, or 4-6 dependent on range and target. Hence the whole system is baked into a neater and dare I say, more modern appreciation of probabilities, which 'slays' said bugbear with 2d6 damage to the face!
  • 'Yes!' you will say, 'but doesn't a 2:1 attack end up with the same probability of a hit/kill?". Of course, but if the math still works, but with a system that is more satisfying and actually faster without the 'wayback machine' CRT, then that is what we want.
  • Now, the rolls to hit and kill/damage/pin (infantry), are subsumed into the number of dice rolled, and the results on said dice. (As Steve pointed out, there is a throwback to FFT, which developed its systems from TY, so clearly the world works in perfect balance...).
  • The game that made tactical WW3 work, is now a lot more elegant in terms of design, in my view.
  • We used 'inches' to match range stats in the game in this one, on a 6x4. As a slight upgrade, would probably double this for future games, and use 2" or 50mm gradations on a range stick, as WWIII always needs to have long range stuff happen at 'long' range.
Added to this was the fact that my eldest daughter always offers to play a wargame with Dad on his birthday (which somehow, she always wins), and my young nephew also joined us for the first half too - and now wants to ditch D&D for wargaming (yay). See how the stars aligned? Hence the short action below, which despite the depredations of a little red wine on my part, was hard fought...

The only slight issue with my daughter playing in the games room, is that any 20mm stuff from other games, sitting near the table, thereby seems to become 'doused with bling' ...

A badly mauled Soviet battalion, is ordered to over-run scattered US defensive positions in the small twin villages of 'HauenStadtBahnHoff' and 'BahnHoffHauenStadt'.

We have T80s and T72s, with BTR borne infantry, vs two platoons of M1s reinforced with 3x platoons of infantry. Artillery is unavailable on this, day 6, of the third world war in 1985...(yes, even for the Soviets)...

(Forces below are 1/200 Skytrex, the poor efforts are my painting - the more photogenic vehicles are by 'DiceDemon Steven'):

US units for a hasty defence of the twin villages. They must stop Soviet units exiting the highway...

Soviet infantry on their right, will spend the day moving cautiously 

US units are outnumbered, but well dug in. Canny Soviets however would spring a trap...




M1s use the high ground where possible

Here they come. T80s have missile capability (Songsters down the gun tube) while the T72 does not. Firing said tac missile prohibits movement however. 

US also has ITVs which do a lot of damage early on at range

An M1 on a wooded hill does damage on the T80s, which rather than strike hard and fast, waste time deliberating about their missile technology

A stunning position, for M1 fire discipline...you would think ;)
...until it got swamped with Soviet infantry
On the Soviet left, armour uses cover to advance, using BRDMs to scout, and acquiring targets...



'BRDM2 800m...engage"

A little hot on the way in, on the Soviet left


...but...poor fire discipline in the centre, allows Soviet armour to make gains. A few kills and damaged vehicles littered the battlefield, but neither side was close to break point

Having overwhelmed the US left with infantry, the remnants of the Soviet BTRs launched themselves into town, dismounting into buildings, without US firepower being able to overwhelm them due to numbers

jazz hands...

The US centre held for a time, and armour started to pull back to form a second line ...this was my main mistake; I had not planned adequate second lines of defence and really should have pulled back after first shots. As usual, I kept ITVs in place for too long, and did not pull back at opportune moment...I should really know better. Soviet units were able to overwhelm with simple numbers...

The rules allow for US doctrine and Soviet doctrine to work seamlessly - simply put, the fire-move-fire - notation of the turn sequence builds in continuous advance under fire AND an element of fire and retreat to second line

The centre turned into a massive firefight. Interestingly, both sides left several units out on the flanks and forced the fight into the town, where Soviet numbers became rapid equalisers to US firepower




Soviet troops drink Heiniken in the beer garden  :(


All in all, Team Yankee never fails to deliver - made all the easier with Steve's CRT hacks. Certainly a more valid ruleset now - and it easily competes for attention with more complex sets. My sense was, that 'seven days to the river rhine' hangs off its activation system - without that unique 'token' placement in 7dttrr, it is a d10 based hit system, while Team Yankee is designed for ww3 action from the ground up - the nature of its turn sequence, its hit/armour values, and its variations in doctrine.   More to come, and can not wait to get my British on the table...even my Territorial Army elements ;)

...and in other news, future games, as discussed with Steve, will be using both modern and ww2 variants of Peter's excellent ww2 rules - now although these are company element based, we can also go with platoon variations on hexes. This enables larger scale 3 battle campaigns, Falklands, Fulda Gap, Desert war...watch this space...


Sunday 31 December 2023

Iron Cross #2 ...the last die roll...

 So finishing the game was always going to be tense, as the players were heavily invested in the result...BUT, in this case BOTH sides were close to break point and BOTH had last minute events which could have swung the battle either way - quite a game!

Testament to the Iron Cross rules to an extent, and these were well enjoyed...though again I salute the QRS mentioned previously, because although everything is in the book, it's not always as intuitive as the QRS makes it.

Very dangerous German armour moves on the British right

...although on their left, they capture the abbey

British armour, not quite disabled...there is a Firefly still very actively 'hunting'

German infantry makes a mechanised move in the centre, in a bid to capture the town...although we had Victory Points, so many areas were still being actively contested, it would come down to Break Points...

'Panzer! Panzer!...umm not one of ours Hans!!!'

German armour forced to react to the Firefly on the crest line...

...although the STGIII takes it out at range, allowing German thrust in the centre to continue...

...despite some long range fire from scout elements



The British left and centre; burning wrecks litter the road and approaches - Iron Cross is very unforgiving for armour 

In the last minutes of the game, British infantry assault the lonely Stug (now these rules do need checked - but it worked out alright, as the infantry were ineffectivethough...)

Despite the Stug's good response, effectively about to end the British assault...

A certain 'company morale' roll, managed to rally them on a '6', completely...

...and in the dying seconds, as each side was about to break, the British called in mortars on German infantry in the open...effectively breaking them, but it was down to the wire...

An excellent game, and despite the vagaries and weirdness of some of those rules elements (I appreciate these are mostly fixed in 'Seven Days to the River Rhine'), it all worked quite well.

"been busy today mate? ...yeah, we fired one shell mate...cup 'o' tea mate?"

"A close run thing Archie eh? Archie? Why you are made of 20mm plastic...damn your eyes! Cup 'o' tea?"

"Next time Tommy, vee vill hev a Tiger..."