Home Forums Modern Game 2 of my Brigade Commander Campaign

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20141
    JozisTinMan
    Participant

    Busy with family in this weekend, so will probably not get game 3 in yet, but here is game 2 from last weekend:

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/2015/03/centag-august-1985-bc-campaign-game-2.html

    Took exactly an hour, should be interesting to see what happens next game!

     

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

    #20142
    Rod Robertson
    Participant

    TinMan:

    A short and sharp engagement which because of your excellent photography and clear narrative was easy to follow. Good report and thanks for posting. Your table looks so clean and well landscaped as if war had broken out on a well managed country estate. It seems almost a shame that the opponents are shooting at each other!

    I am thinking about un-moth-balling my micro-armour this summer and getting back into some games on battle group and regiment scales. I used to use WRG Modern Warfare or OMG by Tabletop Games but I am thinking about buying Nordic Weasels Coy Commander and Brig Commander rules, What in your opinion are the selling-points of these FiveCore rules and what needs to be revised or changed? The other option for me might be Fist Full of Tows III which I have heard good things about too. Have you ever played using those rules and if so do you have an opinion about which rules produce a better game. Incidentally, I would be running games at my local wargames club so solo-play-ability is a low priority for me.

    Cheers and good gaming

    Rod Robertson.

    #20146
    JozisTinMan
    Participant

    Thank you!   I built the table and terraing for 6mm Napoleonics, where it, for some strange reason did not look so odd.  West Germany, it appears, is one large putting green!  If you look carefully in the photos, though, you can see scratch marks where the cats have gotten at it…

    I am in the midst of upgrading my forest bases, though, as 2 inch hexes, so I can actually fit the units inside them.  Also considering experimenting with covering the table with a felt cloth with the wooden hills underneath.

    As for rules…

    I am biased, but I am rather enjoying Brigade Commander.  The nice thing about the two sets of Nordic Weasel rules are, they are exactly what they say on the tin.  Brigade Commander puts you in charge a of a Brigade and Company Commander a company.

    When I was in high school in the 80’s, I used to game the cold war quit a lot, SI’s BAOR and a home grown board game fondly recalled as “Combat Commander” and printed on a dot matrix printer.  As for current rules, I have not tried FFT3.  I was originally planning to do Cold War Commander, but Brigade Commander has caught my fancy.

    I believe Brigade Commander would be great for a club game, the rules are straightforward and the basic mechanics easy to remember after the first couple of turns. It moved fast, the results feel right based on what I know, and at Brigade level, I do not feel silly having the full range of support options available. Also, the stats for units are relative, so it is easy to put your own interpretation on how powerful an M1 should be, etc. If you buy Brigade Commander you get a set of sample late cold war TOE’s (by yours truly) that are easily fiddled with you want to modify them.

    Let us know how you get on with your project and post updates here!

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

    #20151
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    If I may interject, I’d say the big difference between BC and FFoT, from what I have seen is that Fistful is a very “simulation” oriented game. TOns of data charts for pretty much every armoured fighting vehicle that’s taken a field of battle. (that’s a big draw of the current version)

    I’ve only played a much older version but that was still pretty quick, and from what I understand the current version is even faster.

    Compared to that, with Brigade Commander, it’s more of a “this bunch of tanks fire at that bunch of tanks and the aggregate outcome of all that is going on is that you’re now falling back”.

    It’s still a simulation of sorts, but it’s a simulation of the guy sitting in the headquarters managing his units, rather than the guy sitting in a tank at the front, if that makes sense.

    F.X. if your T72 are taking on some imperialists in M60, in FFT, you’ll know exactly what range that particular gun can engage at and how it correlates with the armour of the M60.
    In BC, you’ll know that you sent a tank company to engage an enemy tank company of equivalent technology.

    BC is also more unpredictable than FFT, which can be good or bad, depending on what you feel.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20166
    CAG 19
    Participant

    Cracking game reports.  I have played a lot of simulation style systems (MSH, FFOT, WRG and even computer sims such as BCT Commander) but wanted something new. My best mate who is a another gamer and I sat down one night and discussed how our gaming as adults had changed. 10 years ago I was a “that looks fine from 2 feet away” sort of person, now I like to spend time adding detail but from a gaming perspective we don’t have anywhere as much time as we used to, or space for that matter.  We both wanted something we could get on the table, looks attractive and get a result in an evening.  So having smaller well painted forces seemed  to meet what we wanted.

    I like the chaos that 5Core brings.  This has definitely reignited my cold war and micro armour.  As with nearly everything we all like to tinker new asset cards, attachment types etc to personalise our games and again I have enjoyed watching TinMan develop these themes which I am going to shamelessly copy.

    From a gaming perpective I like the level of granularity that the 5Core system brings.  A potential downside is the occurrence of catastrophic results that can happen without the right game density.  TinMan’s Campaign Game 1 for example could have gone horribly wrong had NATO lost a company early on.  I had that when playing with Israelis against Egyptians in the test game and Ivan and I had a conversation on the yahoo group about it.

    #20167
    JozisTinMan
    Participant

    Thanks!  Good to see you CAG19, I love your blog and am following your project with much interest. You are correct, the screening mission could have gone horribly wrong with slightly different die rolls.

    One thing I need to start doing with the Soviets is spread them out more, I am violating doctrine and they are vulnerable to airstrikes and artillery.

    Rod, when you start playing, you may initially feel that casualties are pretty low, while being driven back and off of terrain is more common.  I like that for this level and it feels more appropriate.  If you notice in my last game, on the 2/93 flank there were no NATO companies “killed” but they were consistently pushed back by eavt ATGM fire.

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

    #20168
    CAG 19
    Participant

    In terms of spreading out I think it should be the other way around.  We used to have a rule in BAOR that BGs were not to have their center of masses closer than 4km as a defensive measure against Nuclear strikes.  The 3′ x 3′ table means that NATO defences are a lot more concentrated than perhaps they should be a brigade frontage would be a lot wider between 10 – 20km depending on terrain.  I did consider changing the ground scale from 1″ : 100m to 1″:200m that would have meant changing all distances. Other alternative is to play it in cm which is the ground scale that the very old OMG rules used but that is for the future once I am happy that the game system as written gives me the sort of game I want.

    From an soviet perspective it depends on whether you consider if it is part of the advance to contact or a deliberate attack.  So more of having units sequencing from the line of march onto the table with an amount of delay rather than starting with the line battalions in an assault formation.

    If you take the Advanced Guard that is meant to be the mechanism by which the Regimental main body is pulled through the defences.  A lot of modern games end up in attritional fighting rather than simulating the aim to get through the defensive crust and into the rear areas.  The NTC AARs are quite graphic on that account.  Punch through, kill the trains and then turn and finish off any pockets of combat forces.   Easier when you play solo to keep forces aligned to doctrine and the scenario brief 🙂

     

    • This reply was modified 6 years ago by CAG 19.
    • This reply was modified 6 years ago by CAG 19.
    #20187
    JozisTinMan
    Participant

    I know what you mean, a battalion should be able to cover a 3-4km frontage.  So, I leave all the distances alone and “squint” and assume that the Brigade is actually covering a 8+ km Frontage. For gae 2, I assumed that the follow on battalions had time to form up while game 1 played out, and were able to launch a deliberate attack.

    I have been having great fun reading FM100-2-1 from 1984 and am trying to implement the Soviet tactics correctly. You are right, easier to do solo!

    With good planning and execution on the Soviet side (luck is for fascists) They might be able to punch through 2nd Brigade and release the Tank Regiment, we shall see!

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

    #20200
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Jozi,

    Sounds like you had another great fight, and I appreciate you posting this batrep.  Fun stuff, I loved the back and forth, though I’m depressed the Red’s didn’t suffer more.  It seemed like the pivotal moment was when 2-93 launched its counterattack, ans was in turn beaten back, with the Soviet AT-5 company deserving particular kudos as the unit that jumped into the breach and held firm while other units formed up to stop the counterattack cold.

    2nd Brigade needed air support, man! 😉

    I’ve been thinking about running even larger Soviet forces against NATO, but having NATO activate 1 per 2, vs USSR 1st line’s 1 per 3, and USSR 2nd line’s 1 per 4.  Has anyone tried that yet?

    Great conversation going on here regarding the rules and doctrine, and welcome CAG-19!

    I didn’t get a game of Brigade Commander in this weekend, but I did get my Canadians ready, and I got in another dogfight game in, I’ll post as soon as I can.  Great stuff man, and I’m looking forward to more of your campaign.

    V/R,
    Jack

    #20202
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    I’ve added an optional rule for Inflexible units. They get one less activation unless every unit is within 6″ of each other. You can fiddle with the distance.

    My gut feeling is to stick with 1 per 3.
    Give the NATO boys +1 (for the top tier)
    Second tier NATO no changes unless fighting category 3 WARPAC
    WARPAC normal activations but Inflexible.
    WARPAC allies have 2 Despair points outside their own borders.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20205
    Just Jack
    Participant

    “My gut feeling is to stick with 1 per 3.”
    Of course you don’t want to see NATO at 1 per 2 and WarPac at 1 per 4, you’re the Commissar!

    But I’ll do it anyway, and have lot’s of fun too!  You’re not the boss of me 😉

    It is cool how ‘tweaks’ have taken this engine all over the place with Brigade Commander.  I’m still trying to wrap my head around all of them, sort out which ones I want to try.  It really seems endless, i.e., “what if I wanted to do ‘x’? ”  “Well, just chop the range to 6″ on the unit, but add 1S, and give the force an extra activation on a normal turn, but also give them one despair point, and tell the other side they have to keep their units within 5″ of each other, but they get one ECM asset per turn, and ignore fall backs if the CO is within 8″.”

    Not that I would do that, mind you, I’m a simple man.  But you could 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    #20207
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Yeah, since it’s all simple mechanics, its very easy to tweak things a bit here and there, get something neat out of it and not break the rest of the system in the process 🙂

    I think that’s part of what makes it work so well: It’s very easy to make it your own but in a pretty fun way.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20248
    CAG 19
    Participant

    All comes down the level of abstraction you want to have in your games.  Do you model engineer attachments or just agree that your company groups in the lead echeleon have the ability.  Extra ATGW in a company or do you treat it as a section weapon.  I think I would prefer to keep “extras” as asset cards that means then you only have to play the card and then keep the effect as shown as opposed to remembering extra rules or combinations.  That way you can have period and theatre specific cards if needed.

    I always like to tinker but at this level of game something to be wary of adding too much complexity in at the company level when we don’t have a Bn level of command to worry about

    #20277
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    For sure.
    The use of assets is a nice way to have an effect that isn’t overpowering because it’s limited in application.

    That also means you can get a bit more creative with it than with something that is on the table constantly, affecting the game in every turn.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20290
    JozisTinMan
    Participant

    But if we are not playing in exactly the same, chapter approved way, how can we have massive intercontinental Brigade Commander Tournaments?  I know Ivan is getting ready to start opening 5Core stores around the globe and require only 5Core approved miniatures to be used in all of his games!

    Just kidding!  I saw let a thousand flowers bloom, I really like hearing how everyone else is approaching the game and this scale of combat.

    @Jack: In my next game, I intend to give NATO “Coordination” as a persistent asset.  Also, I have not been using the take cover rule, and finally understand why it is useful!  Made a bunch of markers, will see how that goes. Also, there will be air, fixed ad rotary wing in support.

    As for 2-93, the commander threw in his tank companies piecemeal, and eventually there were 2 or 3 BMP companies and the AT-5’s shooting on that flank.  They kept getting 6’s on the shock die.  Looking back, the NATO commander tried to counter attack on both flanks at once, when it would have been better to concentrate effort on one or the other flank decisively.

    The AT-5’s being able to move and fire was good, they rolled up and held off the counterattack and let the BMP’s recover from the damaged status they had picked up in the first few turns of the game.

    http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

    #20302
    CAG 19
    Participant

    Possibly give asset cards a points value and then allow an attacker to have and advantage as the defender both sides picking assets in secret or write the cards into the scenario brief.  Very interested in how 2nd Brigade kept within its Brigade orders, Defend in Sector, Delay etc etc, and then keep victory points (if used at all) aligned to the missions.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.