Home Forums Ambush Alley Games Force on Force Demo scenario?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81305
    sith1144
    Participant

    Hello,

    I’m planning to play my first game of Force on Force against an opponent this Thursday, set in the Soviet-Afghan war. I was planning to play the ‘Contracting trouble!’ scenario from the game book. replacing the marine fireteams with VDV squads seem to heavily balance the scenario in favor of the Soviets however (tried it just now, the insurgents rolled pretty well on reinforcement checks but didnt cause a single casualty in 4 rounds, and at the end there were maybe two or three insurgents left). Itll work as a quick demonstration of the rules, but how would I go about assembling a perhaps more interesting, ‘balanced’ demo scenario?

    I am currently considering setting up a mission in which a platoon (3 5-man squads, without vehicles to keep it a bit simpler) of VDV approaches a small town (roughly 3’x5′ table)). The insurgents have three hotspots on buildings and two to be placed freely, and the insurgent in secret picks one of the three buildings to be a weapons cache. the regular force needs to neutralize that hostspot. the insurgents would start with maybe five squads and a weapons team (AGS/HMG) on the table and use the ‘contracting trouble’ reinforcement table.

    Would this scenario work? And would it show off the strength of the system pretty well? I haven’t really played the game enough to judge this myself, and I dont have enough time before thursday to give it a practice run. if you happen to know another scenario that works well, Ill be eager to find out!

    #81547
    maggico
    Participant

    It’s a matter of play. I played “Contracting trouble” with insurgents and I win many times.

    It’s difficult for the first times play insurgent well. Many think like are a regular army, but it’s not. Use “hidden”, sometimes it’s better to sacrifice one team, to down the level of dice of a regular team and respond with another better insurgent team, ecc.
    You can try some of these schenarios

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c30bdce4b080b39b0c329f/t/53f24e10e4b0f3e26e35c083/1408388624163/Force+on+Force+Primer.pdf

     

    #82099
    sith1144
    Participant

    Okay so, Ive played the game a couple times now and I’ve definitely had something click at some point because contracting trouble now seems to swing hard either way. Anyway I do have a question (that has probably been asked a million times but I still couldn’t find it) regarding initiative units returning fire – do they? lets say VDV unit A announces it is going to cross the street and engage Mujahideen unit B. Muj units B and C announce they will react to the movement by firing. They all roll a single reaction die. Mujahideen unit C gets a 6, VDV A gets a 5, and Muj B gets a 4. In this case, does Muj C shoot at the VDV unit without taking return fire? or do they resolve a full round of fire, with the VDV unit losing one firepower when engaging Muj B later?

    Another question, about suppression, what exactly are ‘LMGs (not SAWS)’? I assume the L86 would be an example of a SAW in this case, but what about the minimi? or the RPK? is there a list somewhere I missed? Additionally, confident troops must make a ‘morale check’ when fired on by a support/vehicle weapon with 3D+ firepower. So if a unit is shot at by a heavy machine gun, do they take both a morale AND a suppression check? Then there are intimidating weapons, does this bonus stack? to continue the example of the HMG, does the target unit make 2 checks for suppression and 1 general morale check? (on a less important note, automatic grenade launchers vs HMGs, now, I can see why a HMG would be more effective, but surely an AGL would be intimidating? it seems like for game purposes the automatic grenade launcher is strictly worse to a GPMG (cant be fired from vehicles but has the same effect))

    Thank you in advance for answering!

    #82129
    Jörgen Andreasson
    Participant

    I can answer your first question.

     

    The order you solve the fighting between the units are the following…

     

    Initiative unit roll 5 for reaction die

    Reacting unit A roll 6 for reaction die

    Reacting unit B roll 4 for reaction die

     

    Step 1

    Resolve one round of fire between Initiative unit and Unit B (the loosing reaction unit)

    Initiative unit fire (-1 die for moving)

    Reacting unit B fire

     

    Step 2

    Resolve one round of fire between Initiative unit and Reacting unit A

    Reacting unit A fire

    Initiative unit fire with (-1 die for moving, -1 die for second round  of fire this turn)

     

    It might seem odd but that is how you solve it. This give the winning reactive unit the greatest chance to inflict damage and survive. Actual rounds of fire is resolve from bottom up in this case, over-watch fire function a bit differently.

    #82163
    Papasan
    Participant

    … I do have a question (that has probably been asked a million times but I still couldn’t find it) regarding initiative units returning fire – do they?

    Yes they do !

    …lets say VDV unit A announces it is going to cross the street and engage Mujahideen unit B. Muj units B and C announce they will react to the movement by firing. They all roll a single reaction die. Mujahideen unit C gets a 6, VDV A gets a 5, and Muj B gets a 4.

    This is not how it’s supposed to work – the initiative unit rolls reaction test against each non-initiative unit starting with the nearest. Once all reaction tests have been rolled resolve reactions in which non-initiative units lost the test, starting with the nearest & working out until all tests resolved. Finally resolve all reactions in which the non-initiative unit won in similar manner. See p.68-69 of the rule book.

    … In this case, does Muj C shoot at the VDV unit without taking return fire? or do they resolve a full round of fire, with the VDV unit losing one firepower when engaging Muj B later?

    No, the VDV will always get to shoot back. If you had rolled them correctly and got the results you got then, as Maggico said, the VDV would resolve the round of fire with the Muj B first, if it survives it would then resolve the round of fire with Muj A. If it is still able the initiative unit can then resolve any movement & fire (minus modifiers) to complete its turn.

    … Another question, about suppression, what exactly are ‘LMGs (not SAWS)’? I assume the L86 would be an example of a SAW in this case, but what about the minimi? or the RPK? is there a list somewhere I missed?

    Mimimi/RPK/RPD are SAWs & classed as Light support;  GPMG/PKM  are LMG & classed as medium support;  .50cal M2/Dshka are HMG & classed as Heavy support. (p.37-38) If you look at the scenarios they will give you the weapon class. eg RPK 74 (Lt.AP:1/AT:0)

    … Additionally, confident troops must make a ‘morale check’ when fired on by a support/vehicle weapon with 3D+ firepower. So if a unit is shot at by a heavy machine gun, do they take both a morale AND a suppression check?

    Possibly – if the unit takes a casualty it makes a morale check ; the suppression check is then an additional morale check ;

    … Then there are intimidating weapons, does this bonus stack?

    It’s not clear in the rules but it could – that would mean two- three rolls in the examples above

    … to continue the example of the HMG, does the target unit make 2 checks for suppression and 1 general morale check? (on a less important note, automatic grenade launchers vs HMGs, now, I can see why a HMG would be more effective, but surely an AGL would be intimidating? it seems like for game purposes the automatic grenade launcher is strictly worse to a GPMG (cant be fired from vehicles but has the same effect)) Thank you in advance for answering!

    Intimidating weapons are decided by their FP stats – unmodified 3D or higher – or by specific rules/scenarios, so an AGL should drop into that bracket as it’s a Heavy Support weapon.

    Hope this helps !

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by Papasan.
    #82187
    Jörgen Andreasson
    Participant

    Yeah… I forgot to make it clear in my example above that you always roll reaction dice on both parties during an exchange of fire or some kind of reaction like movement or whatever.

    #82213
    Papasan
    Participant

    I have played it as you wrote it in games myself Jörgen and it seemed to work for me – it was someone I game with that pulled me up on it.
    I found it more intuitive that everyone rolls once and matches their result. I may go back to it, that’s the nice thing about these rules, you can adjust it to what you think works for your own style of gaming.
    Have fun with it that’s the main thing, if it looks and feels right then it probably is right but in short – resolve the reactions the intitative unit won, then resolve the ones it lost, and then finish its planned turn…  !

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by Papasan.
    #82238
    Jörgen Andreasson
    Participant

    All in all I don’t think it matters all that much.

    Rolling one dice might produce a bit more extreme results while rolling reaction in each situation will tend to roll a lower median result. But the average over the long term would be the same.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.