Game 31 - 5 Men & 3 Kings

Time, as ever, has eaten into recent weeks, making for a quick game rather than the lavish extravaganzas that we actually had planned!

So a game of 'Five Men in Normandy', the precursor to the 5Core skirmish rules, was in the offing.

The setup was a five man US and German patrol, bumping into each other in a semi built up area.

HIghlights included:

• There's a real feel for losing control of individuals as they are forced back due to fire.
• Although there were three 'out of action' results, the amount of cover cut down on kill dice and made shock dice and suppression very important. If you can suppress a sniper position say, and prevent his firing during your next turn with reaction fire, you can move freely (duhh ...obvious I guess)
• Real world tactics work. If you don't use your assets to the max (Garands withsuppressive fire), you get punished by accurate and timely fire. If your NCO with SMG gets taken out soon in the game, you'll suffer from close range SMG fire when the opponent gets a flank.
• VERY quick and VERY decisive.
• Worth taking a look at a larger game with the same mechanisms.

Germans have advantageous position, in the surrounding woods...

...and in the buildings.

 Although the US left threatens to be a game-changer, the loss of the US NCO early changes the emphasis of the subsequent firefight.

It proves difficult to get enough rifles to bear in cover at the hedgerow.

As the US rifleman suffer under the weight of fire and 'bail' twice, taking them off the board.

 ...leaving a solitary soldier.

 ...who will ultimately withdraw himself, as the German NCO's SMG uses spray fire.

So in addition to tinkering with the 5Core rules, I’ve also been playing about with my 1689 / 9Years War forces.

Having recently been reading some of Henry Hyde’s pieces on his imagi-nations campaigns in his wonderful Wargames Compendium, I was intrigued by the idea of how the 1680s troops could fit in.

Then it hit me; Charles II’s death, James II’s accession to the throne. Monmouth’s attempt to take the throne in 1685, and William’s successful attempt in 1688 – with the Irish and European wars that followed.

So, if we compress some of the timeline, and just happen to have one king and two pretenders at the same time – there’s your campaign. All we have to do is reset the British Isles in a quasi-fantasy 1680s war of the kingdoms setting…and so we have ‘Three Kings in Albion’, with Alba (Scotland) and Danu (Ireland) on the sidelines…with ‘Avalon’ as the Albion capital of course. Hmmm, yet another project to think about.

The rebasing is based on 2” x 2” squares - somewhat after ‘Beneath the Lily Banners’ and Clarence Harrison’s excellent Victory Without Quarter.

 

I’ve split the centre base so that (1) I can have ‘pikes forward’ (2) I can form ‘hedgehog’ easily and (3) I can free up some single figures for playing ‘Donnybrook’ scenarios...with pirates (since everything is better with pirates apparently).

All good, bar the fact that I probably didn’t need another project!?!?

So - room for 18 figures - down from the 20-21 that I previously had.

 The new arrangement allows for pikes forward, and hedgehogs, and frees up some loose miniatures for Donnybrook scenarios. It would of course be an inspired decision, were it not for the fact that it gives me more work to do...

On the horizon:

Definite – Playtesting with the new ‘SabreSquadron’ modern rules – with the old West End Games ‘Fire Team’ boardgame scenarios

Definite – playtesting the Charles Grant WWII rules with Steve’s amendments to turn sequence – with Squad Leader scenarios in mind

Definte - more rules exploration with STEINAHHH!

Probable – AWI with Volley & Bayonet, Maurice and…something else

Likely…ish – ‘Three Kings in Albion’…when I get time. (It’s the latest ‘shiny’ after all).

Game 30 - 5 Core...Contracting Trouble

A small interlude between holiday weekends allowed for a quick game.

We'd recently found Ivan Sorenson's '5 Core' rules, so we thought we'd give them a quick go, as time was limited.

The scenario? A couple of contractor teams trying to get back to their 4x4. (Of course the OPFOR didn't even consider sabotaging the engine...)

It was a nice introduction to the rules, which are simple yet subtle, and for me, throw the accepted conventions of skirmish (and otherwise) wargaming away...and start from scratch.

A full review would probably give most of the rules away...suffice to say that there are some key factors which underpin the design.

• Turns can happen in one of three ways: there will be standard fire and movement or vice versa - but only for a third of your force, OR a 'scurry' move where effectives advance for advantageous position OR a cinematic style 'firefight', where everyone engages.
• These different types of turn emerge randomly during play, so inevitably, a plan's chance of surviving contact are, as expected, somewhat diminished.
• Reaction fire can happen (as Force on Force and most other games at this scale), though we probably fluffed a few of the rules. (I could definitely feel shadows of FUBAR and FoF around gameplay, but these rules made it more fluid than those systems - more cinematic perhaps, but to be honest, we were making decisions which echoed what we read in PMC accounts.)
• Firers roll 'kill' and 'shock' dice, with chances of each putting figures down, or similary making them think twice about advancing.
• There are some nice RPG style skill systems which allow for 'characters' in the game to develop along a campaign arc (Ivan does this with all his games).

A great game, but what's really exciting is that Ivan has expanded the core concept into Normandy skirmish (really looking forward to this with my 54mm stuff - I think actually, '5 Men in Normandy' came first), Company level skirmish (for 'Fire Team' style scenarios), and even Brigade level modern command. These DO look interesting

See them here:
 http://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games

Rough view of the battlefield. Note that the teams will have dangerously open flanks combined with a ratnest of buildings and 'sniper corners'.

 

Moving teams to the right, and into cover...before Alpha was almost overwhelmed.

Nice mechanics in the game system here - an overall accurate simulation of firing from cover, combined with reaction fire and a turn sequence which meant that it was difficult to plan for all eventualities. As the OPFOR opened up during a firefight, it almost rendered Alpha immobile for two turns.

Dashing from cover can work with better trained units - in this case the gamble worked as the OPFOR couldn't bring enough men to bear on the developing situation. Had they rolled a 'scurry' action, the weight of numbers would have been telling.

A sniper fires from the buildings during the last minutes.

One element pinned down. One of the strengths here, which we didn't use on the day, would be cause and effect relationship between having to cater for casualties. There's a nice 'plug in' nature to these rules, where adding detail is seamless.

 Most of Bravo get to the vehicle and move toward Alpha. Successful for the teams, but at some cost.


Nice game, nice rules, great potential.

More later...

Steiner & Le Duc Episode 5 - Panzer Grenadier Deluxe

The thickness of the PzG book and the 4 page Quick Ref Sheet do seem imposing at first, though the system is quite innovative.

Its a neat system and with the complexity of what it's trying to model, quite slick in terms of what it achieves. Catering for infantry, armour, HE, artillery, troop quality and command inWWII is never easy of course, and the rules do cater for every eventuality.

Highlights include:
Resource management approach in terms of unit activation - although this is easier for better quality troops.
Armoured combat which emphasises the inherent advantages of superior tanks
Particularly bloody repercussions for moving in the open.

A nice system, which in discussion with Sgt Steiner (and Steve's recent comments over at Sound Officers' Call) make me want to try the 'Battlegroup' system as a comparison...(especially so now that I've heard about Battlegroup Northag)

 Steiner's excellent 15mm kit, which looks even better with the tracks that the Mark IVs make...

 Panthers on the German left, ready to make a mess.

British armour firmly ensconced in the town.

 A hidden anti tank gun and entrenched British defenders slow the German advance.

 ...which slowed to a trickle across the high ground as they took considerable time to ensure that it was free of British defenders.

Steiner & le Duc...Episode 4 - Beneath the Lily Banners

Just finished a game of Beneath the Lily Banners with Sgt Seiner; an interesting set of rules indeed. 

Great to see real period flavour, though there were some real ‘old school’ mechanism and tables of modifiers, which slowed gameplay somewhat.

The period flavour that I liked (remember that this was a transitional period between pike and shot - plug & Mackay's ring bayonet - then socket bayonet etc.) was determined by the actions that pike infantry can carry out when attacked by cavalry – with options to delay fire or more succinctly, form ‘defence against horse’ (which I take to be an interpretation of fraising the battalion as per Nosworthy, or forming a protective pike screen). Also, doing anything complex in terms of manoeuvre was really difficult and thus suits the period well. (Granted, I should have had a few wing commanders in there too).

The game did get me thinking however, with regard to what I’ve seen in recent sets of rules that I liked (there’s an underlying theme here – not all of these elements appear in BtLB of course).

·        Unit characteristics are a pain that are difficult to remember in a 2 player game, and should feature more generically as part of troop quality.

·        All mechanisms should be intuitive, i.e. a complete system change shouldn’t appear for ‘charging’ or ‘routing’ simply because it’s been tacked on to the set of rules (wargame rules designers could take a leaf out of modern/indie RPG designs here, where mechanics/moves are based off a single dice mechanic – as opposed to the glut of multifunctional systems which appeared in 1st ed AD&D, which seems to be the way of old school wargames design – cue rose tinted spectacle soliloquy on the good old days etc.).

·        There should be no separate disorder mechanic or extra subtractive dice rolls due to movement prior to charge etc. (again, integrate this into troop quality).

·        Troops are easily disordered in the late C17th, and there are intuitive ways to handle this (have I mentioned troop quality?).

·        Morale checks should be driven by troop quality (actually Fistful of Tows 3 does this really well. The whole game hinges off troops' quality/training/experience.

 

So here’s what I’ve liked recently:

·        Homebrewed ‘Muskets & Mayhem’ rules focus on troop quality, and it drives everything else, with intrinsic effects on morale.

·        The Snappy Nappy order system works beautifully, allowing better troops to be more flexible with orders (a no brainer when you think about it).

·        The Black Powder/Pike & Shotte order system is also equally fluid, allowing player generalisation over what troops can do, in a free flowing manner.

·        Maurice combat and melee is seamless, and matches the great resource management system. If I would change anything, it would be the dependence on cards (though that’s a significant task).

Systems like Field of Battle handle the chaos, confusion and 'smokey friction' of the horse and musket battlefield exceptionally well.

·        Beneath the Lily Banners, brings in period flavour. I love the fact that infantry attacked by horse gets a chance to put pikes ‘forward’ as per primary sources. I’m considering rebasing all of my Nine Years War figures, to allow for this kind of thing more easily (and allow singles for playing Donnybrook). The emphasis is on historical accuracy and supporting the unit in melee as it would have happened (or as the limited primary sources would suggest it uhhh…might have happened ;) )

But…excessive modifiers for melee etc. are simply boring and add nothing to gameplay; in fact they turn a game into drudgery.

Order chits are ok, unless done excessively. They get forgotten and clutter up the table in larger games sometimes.

 "Oy! No pictures on the battlefield pal! Move along there."

 English troops move steadily toward the Jacobites.

Cavalry clashes defined Allied right.

 Bloody cannon decided to misfire...

An epic clash between an English cavalry squadron and James's guards, where the latter tried to form 'defence against horse', but failed, with devastating results...

They eventually rout, with additional pressure from Enniskillener and English musketry. With little but Raw Jacobite musketry to respond, the Irish troops were doomed.

All of this pushes me toward developing M&M for late seventeenth century, and developing my own rules, tentatively entitled 1689 (named after the Priestly 1644 rules from Foundry in the 90s). Of course, I might be joking ;)

Yeah, like I’ll ever get time to do that.