14/01/2022 at 12:19 #167095
Please see here for the next action in the Too Fat Lardies’ pint-sized campaign of Kampfgruppe von Luck’s attack on 12 Para on D-Day, refought with WRG rules, Baccus 6mm figures and Heroics & Ros vehicles. Here the Panzer Grenadiers are trying to push through the defences outside of Le Bas de Ranville…14/01/2022 at 15:08 #167117Tony SParticipant
You bring up a good observation; that lopsided actions are fascinating and interesting, unless you’re playing the wrong side! But solo games obviously avoid that bit!
Again, nice job on cleverly modifying the solo random deployment. Table looked great by the way.14/01/2022 at 15:18 #167118
This campaign looks really interesting.
I confess I am surprised!
The June 1988 WRG All Arms Land Warfare 1925-50 rules drove me crazy. The method of deciding if you could fire at a target went from a probably oversimplified one table cross referencing of target type and action/terrain, to two pages of closely typed explanations and adjustments to a much expanded table of dice scores to detect a target depending on their MODE (I hated the modes) .
I suspect the 2nd ed tidied up some gaps/poorly explained sections of rules in 1st ed but frankly I never found out because wading through how to define my company and what artillery support I could use drained me of the will to live, never mind play the game.
I’m glad to see someone can make them work.
I dragged them off the shelf after reading this latest (interesting and entertaining) battle report of yours with the idea that I must have simply been in a bad place when I first tried them. A minute of trying to work out the interaction of force posture, modes and permitted actions under the various modes made me realise why I don’t revisit these except on sunny days with family about and all sharp implements hidden away.
Please excuse my mini rant – I had to externalise the horror!
Your games are, as ever, excellent reading and your thoughts on why this type of game works solo but perhaps not with live opposition thought provoking. I think you can make it work with an opponent but they have to want to play a game where a ‘win’ in the traditional sense is replaced with a satisfaction from having played through a realistic scenario to the best of their ability. I confess I quite like that sort of game myself, whichever side I am on.
Thanks for posting and again my compliments for making the rules work.14/01/2022 at 16:28 #167121Darkest Star GamesParticipant
“a plausible train of events that had lots of tension and decision-making but were nevertheless not even remotely balanced.”
I like this sort of thing as war in general is not “fair”: if you’re fighting a balanced engagement you’ve gone and done something seriously wrong. Often a battle is just about surviving, which can be winning without even having to take ground or an objective. Sometimes it’s just surviving to fight on more favorable terms another day. A lot of gamers do not take those sorts of things into account like you do with this sort of campaign, and instead of fostering their forces they grind them to a pulp in an attempt to gain their single victory.
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."14/01/2022 at 20:52 #167127
Tony S – thanks very much, appreciated.
Darkest Star Games – thanks – and wise words which I think definitely have a timeless application, but the application becomes stronger as the combats become more recent in history and smaller in scope (or conversely, at the largest scale). This campaign is quite interesting in that perspective in that resources really are quite limited. More on this in later games I think, but there will be some more interesting command decisions on both sides ahead on how fast and hard to push against the likelihood of losses.
Guy – thanks very much, both good points you raise.
On the second, I definitely think you can make such games work with an opponent but there has to be the right relationship between the players. I have been reading a lot of Jim Storr’s Battlegroup! recently and his wargames ‘against’ his brother were as much collaborative explorations of doctrine, tactics, organization and equipment as a competitive game. Two players similarly invested in narrative could achieve similar things, I think. The distinctive feature of this particular system of solo play is that I, the solo player, don’t really have much idea of whether any given battle is going to be a turkey shoot, a knife fight or an absolute kicking; and that doubt can remain until well into the battle. All I know is what the absolute worst case would be (if all of the unit cards were activated, and generated in unhelpful places).
On the first point – rant excused (and appreciated). You will have spotted that I did say these were a variant of those WRG rules…rather than explain here, I think I will explain in the next battle report, it will make things clearer.15/01/2022 at 13:28 #167141
I have tried in the past modifying the 1973 ed location table with a dice throw at various ranges – as in the 1950-85 Target Acquisition table, which gave targets a chance of being overlooked if particularly well dug in/hidden/obscured. That seemed to work with minimal additional work or stress.
Looking forward to reading what you’ve been doing to the 88 ed.15/01/2022 at 16:23 #167147John D SaltParticipant
Looking forward to reading what you’ve been doing to the 88 ed.
This is not based on the 88 edition.
All the best,
John.15/01/2022 at 17:13 #167153
Nice to know – however you will forgive for thinking otherwise as the link on Whirlwind’s blog goes to Boardgamegeek’s page for the rules illustrated which says:
“In June 1988, the set of wargames rules for all-arms land warfare from Platoon to Battalion level during the period from 1925-1950, written by Phil Barker were published.
They proved very popular and were widely used but have been out-of-print for many years.
They were followed by sets, initially for the period from 1950-1975 and later extended to cover the period 1950-2000. These too have been out-of-print for many years.
Now both sets have been gathered together into a single book and published here.
—description from the publisher”15/01/2022 at 17:52 #167160
Yes, that’s my fault Guy – explanations inbound!15/01/2022 at 18:19 #167161
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.