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!

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...

It's all about the base...

 While most bloggers are using the first post of 2023 to display their early year paint jobs, I instead rebased my 15mm Seven Years War stuff for Volley and Bayonet.

Now, I don't have a lot of 15mm, but I remember buying the earliest figures here (Matchlock Miniatures) in the 1990s when 'Last of the Mohicans' came out, with a view to French & Indian War action.

Matchlock miniatures from the 90s (Green Howards of course)

More Matchlock French

To that end, they were only ever used for a Quebec 1763 game with WRG rules in mind but Canadian Wargames Group rules played.

There are also some Lancashire Games and Frei Korps figures in there for good measure, but here's the rub...

These figures were originally based in the nineties - on single and collective 3/8" per figure cardboard;

• then rebased for Volley & Bayonet around 2010
• then rebased on 30x30s to fit the groups' scheme around 2017
• now rebased once more for Volley and Bayonet...(on 3"x1.5" and 3"x3")

What the hell am I doing? ...

Well, as the kidz say this days, 'I like the aesthetic' of the chunky V&B base for one, and I'm trying to get back into it as a multi-player, multi-period standard when Field of Battle will not do. Granted, having a lot of 3mm MDF which I got cut to various sizes many years ago, most certainly helps too.

And dammit...I have to say, aside from task of leveraging PVA stuck figures off their old bases, without a risk assessment, and the chance of slicing a finger off or losing an eye - I actually enjoy rebasing?!?! The new flock always looks good, for a while...

The problem of course remains now, with regard to differentiating between attack column and line for cavalry...but I don't care, if a marker will suffice. Previously, with 3 bases, the frontage only differed by 30mm, or a third of base width, if using three bases, so mehh.

In other news, I recently sold this 1989 boardgame on boardgamegeek:

I bought this in 1989, and despite still being a fan of WW3 wargaming, I have never even punched the counters out (and the scenarios are a bit crap anyway). Then of course, complex rules seemed to be the best way to (1) simulate modern combat, (2) impress your friends. Of course, now that I can't be bothered, there are invariably better ways to (1) simulate both the quasi-realities AND required 'gamey' elements of modern warfare, as we're all a lot smarter now and (2) I scarcely read rules which require heavy investment, and have little interest in them.

Hence a renewed interest in systems like GDW's 'First Battle', which does the same thing as MBT in my view, and even more renewed interest in attributing operation points to systems like this (which Steve is doing with PanzerBlitzHack).

My youngest daughter has been playing this video game (Valkyria Chronicles below) over Christmas (it was about 4 quid on Steam), which incredibly uses a similar operational system - the video game element involves moving characters and/or tanks under restricted action points - but the map element reminds you of 'ops points' for unit actions and 'action points' for individuals as they move and how they might be used. You can move an element 2 or 3 points, but your command/ops points thereby dwindle for doing other things.

Yes, it's an Anime ww2 crossover (fictional Europa vs the Russian Empire; based on the Russo Finnish war I think - with mad manga) but even video game designers have been 'thinking outside the turn sequence'. Don't laugh, but this game has every single modern wargaming turn sequence mutation, that we have felt so proud about in recent years, and it came out in 2008. Granted, most of these companies have designers who are wargamers on staff, so it all works.

(There was now to follow the video for 'it's all about the Bass' (see what I did there?) This 'pastiche' version of the original song has been chosen as it is more 'aesthetically pleasing' (trust me...no really, trust me). I hope I'm proud of myself)...

Some 'Seven Days to the River Rhine' Modern Action

 Another post within 24 hours???

Yes - I have some catching up to do. :)

This game fell hard on the heels of the previous 1914 game, and though dealing with rules published by the same company, deals with the very different 'Seven Days' modern version, which, to be fair, is very well written and explained, and VERY playable.

As usual at Steve's bunker, the battlefield is superb

This was another Attack/Defence scenario 200 (ish) pointer for the Soviet attackers; played without the cards. 

The models were 3d printed editions from Butlers Printed Models and the Plastic Soldier Company Soviets that came out for the Battlegroup Northag rules last year.

Soviet Units begin to move, using cover as they can, knowing that the defending Leaopards will be where they least expect them

Ahh...here's one of them now

One lucky tanker makes it across the wheatfield

This platoon is a little more cautious

German defenders at the crossroads

Easy...easy...

Soviet dismounts

inching toward the high ground

Soviet dismounts dash across the road toward the chemical plant

If they can take this position, they can flank the crossroad objective

But Leopards love to do that old 'shoot and scoot' thing

The Soviets start to move on their left now

...as infantry assaults through the warehouse section of the chemical plant

NATO satellite footage

Small numbers of Germans...but they have MILANs

...just like that, as a BRDM pops from cover and is killed before it can shoot its Sagger load...

MILAN discipline is nothing if not effective

Soviet Sagger teams lose their wheels

A German Jaguar now shows itself and begins to take kills amongst the T-64s

...there are dangerous gaps in the cover...which the German MILANs exploit

But some accurate T-64 fire takes out the Jaguar

Soviet infantry desperately assaults the German infantry dug in, in the woods

bloody fighting ensues, but the Soviets carry the position

...with cover fire from the T-64s on the high ground

...even taking out a Leopard at long range

German defenders at the houses around the crossroads objective

bloody fighting at the woods

BTR covering fire

T-64s taking kills even now

Germans at the crossroads still

We didn't manage to get finished, though still a genuinely entertaining set of rules, with much to like. This set, in particular, does not appear to suffer from the degree of rules queries that we might see in 'Iron Cross' and '1916', though.