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.
Play Sequence is Game clock; Indirect Fire; Combat; Move; Reorganisation/Rally
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.
Modern weapon systems can move and fire - ww2 can move or fire.
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!
Ages ago, I joined 'Steam', and discovered all of the old PC games that I wasted time on 20 years ago on the PC.
I also found 'Pike & Shot Campaigns' which I had first seen on Doug's excellent 'Cry Havoc' blog, and it included a lot of late C17th battles, so what's not to like?
So when I say this is a screenshot, Duc de 'Luddite' couldn't work out how to do a 'Prt Scrn' from here...these are actual screenshots...like with a camera.
I chose Walcourt 1689, which is great, as the scope of the battlefield encompasses all of the movement of incoming reinforcements from both sides, seizing built up areas and hanging onto them, and massive cavalry actions on the flank. It's a nice system, which is obviously built upon the mechanisms of wargaming rules, so all makes sense.
Great action, great dynamic gameplay ...I lost!
Say what you like about video games 'addiction': I was up until 3am ....uhhhh....and I lost! Great game, and lots of scenario detail.
Point the second: More thoughts after the last GDW Team Yankee / First Battle game. I'll be graduating to 'Battlefield Europe' next - the follow on variation, which used D10 instead of D6, and added some more developmental rules for modern warfare.
I have a few sizes of hexagon, though the 4.5" variants are the ones that I have most of, and that are finished/flocked. I had contemplated using the 1/200 and 1/300 stuff on hexes and so had a few tests.
1) I can mimic the rules exactly in terms of smaller hexes- though I can't fit enough vehicles on board to mimic the stacking limits (3 or 4)
Too Small
2) I can use the ultra large hex, but it allows too many vehicles, and I don't really have enough of them - plus increases the footprint of the map - even if this represents two map hexes.
Too Big
3) I can use the 4.5" hexes - and model each of them on the basis of 'two' actual hexes on the GDW gameboards...AHA! Stacking to this extent is rare, but does allow Soviet platoon doctrine.
Just Riiiight!
So this represents 2 hexes on the actual game map.
Now, this also has the handy bonus of mimicking Soviet doctrine - in that, I can place a platoon in the hex and have it restricted to staying in 3 vehicle groupings.
As it's two hexes, I can have a platoon of tanks and BMPs in the same hex, if required.
I can further have a single platoon fire at a single target as per Soviet doctrine, and rule it perfectly with this system.
So, if two hexes in the boardgame, becomes one hex on my table, I re-do the counter information slightly, along these lines:
Now that I see these rules in action again, I'm wondering even if mimicking NATO training is simply done by virtue of granting them initiative each turn.
Also, I can use the scenarios from here:
to test the system
The more I see of this simple (but not simplistic) GDW/Chadwick system, the more I like its elegance. The advent of the D10 over the D6 actually fixes the obvious issue that the system had with decent armour, whereby if you fired enough shots at an M1, you could destroy it through disablement. That's harder on the D10 CRT.
Very happy to report today, that traditional style hex'n'chit games are very much alive, their precepts in fact, being used successfully during the pandemic to encourage 2 metre / 6 ft social distancing via hex management... I caught this pic on a news website (accidentally).
Example of Play
In the picture above, Student 2 has Student 1 and 3 in his Zone of Control - thereby putting him out of supply, before they make a 2:1 attack with column shift in their attack phase.
He nervously awaits a flank attack from Student 4 in the advancing fire phase.
Of course, 'over-stacking' is only permitted with members of the same household.
You'll note the absence of Attack / Defend / Move ratings. This issue will be resolved in the second edition reprint.
