Home Forums Modern Eisenbach Gap

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70327
    Mick A
    Participant

    I’ve always had an interest in the idea of the Cold War going hot (thanks to books like Chieftains, Team Yankee and Red Storm Rising) but never got around to gaming it until now. Originally I was going to get into Team Yankee but in 6mm but then I found Lock ‘n Loads World at War series of games covering the same subject. It seemed a very good system that covers most things I want in this style of game and at company level which is my preferred game size these days. Gave it a go last night playing the first scenario that actually puts Team Yankee against the Russian 1st Tank Battalion. It played very well with only a few hunts through the rules to answer queries. I’m sorry to report though that the Russians have broken through…

    #70333
    Splod
    Participant

    I’ve been eyeing off some of these guy’s games for some time now. Are there any you’d particularly recommend?

    Would they translate to miniatures well?

    #70335
    Mick A
    Participant

    Eisenbach Gap and Blood and Bridges are the two box sets with the main rules so I’d go for either of them (Eisenbach is US vs Russia and Blood is Britain vs Russia, both have West German forces as well).

    As for conversion to miniatures gaming there’s an article in the first compendium about doing it but the guy who wrote it has used 1/600 scale miniatures and still using a hex based table. I would probably use 1/300 with normal gaming scenery but base the miniatures on hexes then either convert hex ranges into inches/cm or use individual blank hexes to measure ranges (I did this for Avalon Hills Richthoffens War so I could use Wings of Glory planes and it worked quite well).

    #70343
    Mr. Average
    Participant

    I’m a big fan of the Mark Walker games, but towards the end of the series he kind of got carried away with his own fiction and the games became a little silly.  He began adding werewolf and vampire fiction into the background, for example.  And the French scenarios in the box set “Paris is Burning” are to a large extent unplayable, although it was nice to have French units and a map of Paris.  The scenarios generally have a very heavy emphasis on the Soviet as an unstoppable killing machine, and the West as a weak and beleaguered paper tiger being thrown back, pushed back, or retreating in disarray.  There was one scenario pack, I recall, where the first thing it states directly (I paraphrase) “It’s not possible for the Americans to win this campaign.”  So it began to feel one-sided and got a little boring after a while.  And then there were some games where Texas was seceding from the union and Cuba and Nicaragua were attacking the remnants of the broken-up USA… At that point I was over it.

    That said the guts of the game are sound, and the pieces are all very nice.  If you get past the obsession with his own fictional universe and play the game as a game, it can be a lot of fun.  As a setting it was lacking.  As a game structure, if you were to put in the work to design your own scenarios that were more realistic, I think it would be an excellent place to start.

    #70355
    Mick A
    Participant

    Although I have his ‘fantasy’ expansion I’m sticking with the main rules and elements. There’s a nice article in the compendium (or possibly gamers guide) on creating your own scenarios which I plan to use.

    I agree his own scenarios are biased towards the Russians like the one we played last night, 12 T72 platoons vs 2 Abraham ones with one ITV and an infantry platoon in an M113, I can’t see how the Americans are meant to win. We’ll be trying it again with a bit more support for the Americans…

    #70398
    Mr. Average
    Participant

    I’ve seen nice sets of this game worked up with O8 minis and foam or Kallistra hexes, to the initial point above.

    #70423
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

    I agree his own scenarios are biased towards the Russians like the one we played last night, 12 T72 platoons vs 2 Abraham ones with one ITV and an infantry platoon in an M113, I can’t see how the Americans are meant to win. We’ll be trying it again with a bit more support for the Americans…

     

    I have to say it sounds like a realistic assessment of what might’ve happened, although I admit I’m one of those who believes NATO would’ve been steam rollered in a matter of days by Pact forces, so long as the Pact held together. Just too many of them.

     

    Doesn’t make for a great scenario though.

    #70893
    seneffe
    Participant

     

     

    Sovs advance

    Eisenbach board

    The miniature Eisenbach mentioned by Mr Average might have been us, the Berks and Bucks Occasionals. We play it on Kallistra terrain with the re-released Skytrex 1/200 (c8mm) vehicles and figures. We use two vehicles or figure bases to represent a full strength platoon, and just remove one to represent a flipped over reduced strength platoon.
    The game play is obviously just as quick as the board game version but it all looks prettier with miniatures. Having played it quite a bit, I think that the scenarios, although they look unbalanced in headline numbers, can all go either way. The US units are much smaller but more flexible, more effective at longer ranges and the tanks in particular are much better at shooting on the move. The Sovs have some serious dilemmas- they need to take ground quickly to capture objectives and/close with the Americans but that can be an expensive business. For the Americans, it’s a single static defence that often proves fatal, you need mutually supporting blocks which can cover each other’s moves. Tricky to do but given the Americans have a wider command radius and longer ranges- it is possible.
    I was also one of those who always thought that NATO ground forces would be rolled over in a few days, and that probably was true for much of the Cold War until the mid-80s. But all the research I have done in the last few years including conversations and correspondence with would-be hot war participants indicates that the balance of conventional capabilities on the central front equalised a lot quite quickly beginning from about 1982 onwards. The Sovs certainly felt their traditional conventional advantage was draining away during this period, for a whole number of reasons on both sides.
    Anyway, above are a few photos of the miniaturised Eisenbach. We’ll be demo-ing it at Colours in a couple of weeks and would love to chat with anyone who’s interested. Next project is the mighty Blood and Bridges.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by seneffe.
    #70895
    Mr. Average
    Participant

    8′

    That is amazing!

    Actually, I was referring to seeing it over here in the US, with 3mm O8 figures and recut GHQ hexes.  But that’s a pretty wild setup you have there!

    #70899
    seneffe
    Participant

    Thanks Mr A.

    Another thing worth mentioning is that the miniature bases don’t have quite enough room to accommodate all the factors on the original counter in easily readable form, so we made up some unit data cards to save our eyesight.  Also, we’ve made up some wreck markers. Could have used counters but what the heck…..

    #70901
    Just Jack
    Participant

    I’m with Mr Average, that setup is fantastic!

    V/R,
    Jack

    #70906
    Iain Fuller
    Participant

    That is a great set up you have there Seneffe, really inspiring. I’ll be at Colours too and will definitely come and have a look but as I will be taking part in our own Cold War game so might not get much time to chat.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.