KG Klink, France, Game 2

[Just Jack]

All,

It’s 0730 on 14 May 1940, and the German 7th Infantry Regiment quickly poured across the Meuse in the wee hours of the morning, followed by the 7th Motorcycle Battalion, which streamed forth, KG Klink’s Schutzen Company in trail. First Platoon had only reached the village of Haut le-Wastia when French forces appeared in the area, keen on pushing through the ville in order to stem and, hopefully, pinch out the German bridgehead.

The opposing forces, with a relatively large French force on the left, looking to force a rather modest German force (right) from the village.

The German force is a Command stand, five rifle squads, an MG34, an 80mm mortar, and a Pz Mk IV. The French had their Command stand, twelve rifle squads, a .30 cal MG, and a 25mm anti-tank gun with prime mover.

The initial setup, north is up. The French have platoons in the N, NW, and SW corners (MG is in SW, ATG is in N), while the Germans are in the ville and vineyard at center right.

Spoiler alert: things didn’t go well for the French, and they made a classic tactical error, reinforcing failure (with two H39 light tanks).

For the whole fight, please visit the blog at:
http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2015/04/kg-klink-france-game-2.html

Another fun fight, at least for the Germans. From my readings, the French, in those cases where the Germans were forced to go straight at them, were extraordinarily dogged in the defense, but when the Germans were able to outmaneuver the defense, and when on the attack, the French were often ill-coordinated and sluggish. I think we saw that today.

I still have another batrep to get written up.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Wowzer the Germans can fight !!!!

[Rod Robertson]

Just Jack:

I really enjoyed this Bat. Rep. and I was very impressed with KG Klink’s spirited and aggressive defense. That MG-34 in the second story ruin was devastating! The French suffered from weak leadership (die rolls). Not even the addition of the two Frenh tanks could budge the static inertia which was paralyzing the French attack and Spelled doom for the ill-fated attack.

I also noticed you used terms like “wee” and “C’est la vie”  in your report. Clearly the Franco-Scottish propaganda campaign is beginning to take root in your head!  Moo-ha-ha!

Cheers and good gaming.

Rod Robertson.

[Just Jack]

Thanks guys, and yes, finally I don’t have to hear the two of you frantically crying about me not getting the support weapons into the fight.  That one actually worked like it’s supposed to.  Sometimes you get lucky I s’pose 😉

Franco-Scottish, eh?  You should be ashamed of yourself 😉

Next fight is almost ready to be posted, but I need to hit the rack.  Not sure if I’ll be able to post it tomorrow night, I’m supposed to be meeting up with some old hippie weirdo 😉

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Oh Scotland was often allied with France back in the day……Wish I had some hills for ya Just Jack.

[War Panda]

Nice one Jack. I know I’ve mentioned this already but I can’t get over how well the 10mm minis look…have you improved the German’s stands…are the bushes new?

As per usual, I conduct an ‘even up’ die roll to see which side will activate first, and the Germans win.

I know a lot of Attacker Defender scenarios automatically allow the attackers go first but I think usually just  give them a modifier bonus especially  if they’re meant to have some element of surprise.

Seems harsh too that the newly arrived troop’s retreat would probably effectively remove them from the battle but perhaps this is not altogether unrealistic for the French  🙂

Then the French roll up a firefight…  Not good, they really need to get things moving, and any French units in the open that fire are going to make very juicy targets for the German tank, mortar, and machine gun.

Okay don’t take this the wrong way; the truth is I’m really looking forward to trying out these rules myself but while that 1-6 roll really intrigues me and I’m really looking forward to trying it out this is another example of my main reservation towards the rules. And again I admit I haven’t had time to test them out at all but I’d like to see your own reasoning on this.

Ok from a historical gamers point of view what is the aim of a wargame?

Well apart from the aesthetically pleasing perspective of a tiny miniature world dotted here and there with impressively painted toy solders 🙂  it gives us an opportunity to immerse our imaginations into a historically believable narrative  that can challenge our strategic abilities or our tactical appreciation of that period.

Then the French roll up a firefight…  Not good, they really need to get things moving, and any French units in the open that fire

When I read this it kind of sounds like one of those pivotal decisions of the battle (moving the attacking troops into some cover)  is being removed from the decision making locker of the gamer. While I can understand the removal of options caused by morale issues as a consequence of battlefield circumstances or a tactical situation (unit under heavy MG fire etc) something that provides an explanation to the narrative .ie. the  firefight result was not as a consequence of the German’s fire but rather the result of a random die roll…it could as easily happened if the Germans hadn’t even fired on them yet.

It reminded me a little of an episode of Band of Brothers during their attack on Foy when their CC hesitates during the assault. If the game is intended to enable the gamer to utilize his own tactical knowledge (ie making sure his units reach cover before they enter into a firefight) is this mechanism severely restricting the options available without the narrative providing the necessary explanation. I know Ivan explained the various types of game models but once again I find myself struggling to see the gamers actual tactical input being made available to him at the most crucial moment of the battle.

My problem isn’t the fact that the rules intend to help shape and direct the narrative unexpectedly but there doesn’t seem to be any provision for the commander (gamer) to enforce his own determined plan. ie within the context of the game here was there anyway the French commander could have given his most experienced NCO to lead that particular vulnerable unit to the safety of cover?

I believe you mention this yourself in the report but it seems highly probable that coupled with the German defenders acting first and then this “firefight roll” it seemed already like an uphill task for the French to put any sort of serious attack together at that point?

A morale check brought on by intense fire would seem a more rational explanation for a unit to remain in the open and start shooting…it just doesn’t seem reasonable to me…

I do love the potential of this activation mechanism but I personally would like to take a look at leaders quality having greater influence…maybe even a quick command roll available to nullify the result of an unwanted die roll. In other words perhaps a leader has a value between 1 and 4. A highly motivated leader might be a 4 and if the unit under his command receives an unwanted but enforced action he can rol against his command skill (1-4 result means the unit can act as he wants) Perhaps this roll could only be made by each leader once a game …so you need to use it wisely.

Anyway that might seem to fiddly to you Jack but I’m struggling to make sense of some of the results that might happen 🙂

Really enjoying these AAR’s and again thanks for all the effort you’re putting into them 🙂

And I’m going to make an effort to play some kind of test run for these rules…

I’d be really interested in others views on this too. Am I been too narrow minded about this? Is there something I just don’t get?

 

 

 

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Ivan Sorensen]

Here’s the easiest way to test it out for yourself:

Volunteer at your local school.
Give an entire class of first graders 2 tasks to complete, and once they are done, walk them all across the school.

Let us know how many times the entire group is essentially doing nothing, because 2 of them got distracted with something 🙂

(now yes, first graders are not a fair comparison to soldiers, given that they tend to be much better behaved than the army guys 😉 )

* * * * *

If you are really fussy, give each leader one result at the beginning of the game that they can substitute (normal turn, firefight, scurry depending on temperament of the leader).
One use, you can use the “saved” result instead of the rolled one.

* * * * *

Lastly though, I wonder if some of the heartburn is just a different view of what a turn is.
To me, a turn is a brief glimpse. The camera jump-cuts to the squads on the right flank and we see them pushing forward, then it jumps somewhere else.

A minute maybe? Less than that, if the game is pretty intense.

So bogging down doesn’t necessarily represent the entire force abandoning an attack, it represents them slowing down while waiting for orders or trying to get their bearings.
Nobody wants to die so soldiers tend to spend a lot of their time on their bellies.

* * * * *

From a player perspective, you can’t control when the 1 or 6 happens (similar to how you can’t control the cards in IABSM or the initiative roll in 5150/nuts) but you CAN control if you’re ready to take advantage of it.

If I roll a fire fight and miss out on a chance to move, that’s not my fault, but it IS my fault if I only have 1 squad in line of sight when I roll it.
You should always be aggressively pushing up squads so no matter what you roll, you can take advantage of it.
Getting a firefight when you have half a company in hte firing line against 2 enemy squads will tear them up.

My 54 Danish Kroner for what it’s worth 🙂

[War Panda]

now yes, first graders are not a fair comparison to soldiers, given that they tend to be much better behaved than the army guys )

I’ll struggle imaging first graders but I tried to insert a bunch of Rod Roy clones into your example and that worked   🙂

Thanks for the explanation Ivan 🙂 it’s helped a lot….and my apologies for banging on about this…I’m going to try it out this evening.

when the 1 or 6 happens (similar to how you can’t control the cards in IABSM or the initiative roll in 5150/nuts) but you CAN control if you’re ready to take advantage of it.

That’s a really good point. I guess I’m obsessively focused on the “cause and effect” aspect of the rule. The effect of the the “card” dealt in IABSM means the unit can act within the limits of its abilities and its morale status. The roll of the dice causes (well potentially) and determines the unit to fire or move…but the problem I am struggling with is that in IABSM if a unit is caught in the open by MG fire it represents that while they’re moving across the field they’re spotted and shot at before they reach a cover position. But in this case I’m imaging the unit moving across the open field in view of a MG and then stopping in the open and then begin shooting at the MG position even if the MG hasn’t fired at them yet…I’m struggling to imagine this situation effectively in my imagination 🙁  If the enemy has already fired on them the believability increases and I can accept the unit hunkering down and returning fire

I honestly think I need to insert a house rule into these situations.

I know in the rules if a “Firefight” result is rolled for a unit that has no enemy in their line of sight then obviously this result can be exchanged.

I think I need to do something similar for a situation where a unit is activated but are in the open and are required to fire at an enemy position that hasn’t fired at them…

I definitely need to test these ideas out and see what makes sense to me …and this is what happens when the narrative is being told by the individuals imagination : if its not making sense to that person the whole story begins to collapse …

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Rod Robertson]

To all:

Aside from his crack about Rod Roy clones being reasonable surrogates for ‘unherdable’ and unruly Grade 2 students, I share many of War Panda’s questions about the tension between the narrative approach and the cause and effect approach in game mechanics. I can understand the desire to model the tendency of troops under fire to go to ground and hunker down because they are concerned with their own self preservation. However, the officers’ and NCOs’ job is to overcome that static inertia and keep the troops operational and attacking either by fire or by maneuver. Having never played these rules (yet) it seems from an outsider’s perspective that the units’ commands are capitulating to this inertia rather than acting as a countervailing force against it. Shouldn’t commanders be out there risking life and limb to overcome these problematic tendencies in their troops rather than sharing in them? And should not training, combat experience and élan make troops less prone to such tendencies towards inaction?

It seems to me that command is in large part about counteracting the very real friction and entropy which dominate the battlefield. So it would make more sense to me if the player had more control in the opening stages of a battle and then watched that control erode away as both sides get stuck into it. Then it becomes the job of the commander to use his diminishing control over his preoccupied troops to force action against the friction in order to make a difference in the battle. For at least one side that friction should finally trigger command near-paralysis, which in turn should trigger morale checks until a break in the morale of one side leads to a withdrawal, a rout, or a surrender.

Please don’t interpret what I am saying as criticism, but rather as an appeal for explanation born out of my ignorance of the rules. Am I missing something here, because it seems to me that in these games, ‘ command’ is just about rallying troops after they have suffered vicissitudes at the hands of random misfortune. Conversely, it seems that ‘command’ is taking advantage of opportunities which the commander did not create but which randomly appeared before before him. The player seems to be more of a tourist than a participant in the decision process.

Cheers and good gaming.

Rod Roy Clone#231593.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I did write a game that works like that. It’s called “No End in Sight” and it’s even pretty good 😉
Stress building up under combat, deciding how far you can push your men, watching their performance degrade over time (and just how much it can suck to try and do anything under fire).

On the topic however:

FiveCore assumes that your leaders are doing what they are supposed to, all the time.
Note that unlike some systems in the same scale, you cannot receive a turn where you cannot act.

I want to repeat that for emphasis: There is NEVER an instance in FiveCore where you are unable to take actions.

You are always doing something, usually several things. That represents your squad leaders, senior NCO’s etc. running about, doing their thing.
To me, the function of the company leadership at all levels is to ensure that units are acting in accordance to the overall plan.

I play a normal turn, I need your machine gun suppressed and I need some troops in that farm house. Those actions take place, because the low level leadership makes them take place.

Okay, with me so far?

Just once more for emphasis: You are never ever, under any circumstances, unable to act on your turn.
Repeat it with me 🙂

* * * * *

Okay, so what does happen?

The second maxim of the game: You are never ever able to do everything you’d like to do.
Most of the time (two thirds, in fact), you get a limited number of actions each turn, with the remainder of the force providing covering fire.

Which units act, is up to you as a player, reflecting where you are directing your leadership. Sending two squads up to take that house? Platoon sergeant is probably tagging along, making that happen.
Unit on the far flank fires their Bazooka at the Nazi tank? Local corporal taking some initiative.
I can coordinate units at disparate points of the battlefield, because I have that implied level of leadership carrying out orders at all times.
If one of those leaders happens to be exceptionally good, he’ll be represented as a specialist, and give a small bonus somewhere.

* * * * *

Now, what about those special turns?

If a firefight happens, your men are on the ground but everybody is firing.
If a scurry happens, your men are redeploying and nobody is firing.

I think the part that gets missed here is that during those turns EVERYONE is acting, which cannot happen in a normal turn.

So on a normal turn, I activate 3 units of my choice, they move and fire.

On a firefight, I don’t move, but I may well have 4 or 5 units firing. (if I don’t, I’ve deployed poorly, and that’s on me)
On a scurry, the entire company surges forward (or runs away, redeploys, whichever).
Being able to move an entire force, when normally you move 3 squads? That’s a potential game winner on the right turn.

I want to repeat that, again for emphasis: The special turns are not periods of inaction. They are periods of intense, specific action.

* * * * *

Hopefully that helps clarify matters more.
Rather than just me talking, let me turn the question over to you instead:

What SHOULD the chance be for a unit to not do what you expected, in the middle of a running battle?

[Ivan Sorensen]

War Panda wrote:

I honestly think I need to insert a house rule into these situations.</p>
know in the rules if a “Firefight” result is rolled for a unit that has no enemy in their line of sight then obviously this result can be exchanged.

I think I need to do something similar for a situation where a unit is activated but are in the open and are required to fire at an enemy position that hasn’t fired at them…
I definitely need to test these ideas out and see what makes sense to me …and this is what happens when the narrative is being told by the individuals imagination : if its not making sense to that person the whole story begins to collapse …

I play with two assumptions that colour the rules:

1: If the miniatures are on the table, the opposing force knows they are there too.
(Players are pretty bad about “forgetting” that a unit is there, when they know its on the table)
2: Ground is never really “open”. (rocks, pits etc.)
So in your example, if the MG team is in firing positions, they’re spotted and a potential target.
When you moved into that field, you took reaction fire. Assuming you didn’t get hit, I imagine those men feel pretty bad about their corporals decision making skills.
As with Rod, I’ll turn the question around to you as well:
In the same scenario (my MG42 stationed covering a field, you intending to move your troops across that field), what SHOULD be happening?

How does that same scenario play out in another game? Nuts, IABSM, Crossfire, Chain of command?

What is it that cannot happen, that’s bugging you? I feel like there is something obvious, I am missing 🙂

[Rod Robertson]

Ivan:

I was thinking of NEIS as I was writing that!

“What SHOULD the chance be for a unit to not do what you expected, in the middle of a running battle?”

I would say quite high for very small units and diminishing as unit size increases. A squad is more prone to stop advancing and to go to ground at first contact than a full platoon. A full company less so, a battalion less….. Also, training, experience and élan would effect the probability. My point is that it is the command structures job to try and stop that from happening and to keep troops following orders to reach objectives.

Imagine it is WWII and Major Sorensen pulls out his whistle and revolver and orders the troops to prepare to go over the top and to advance across no-man’s-land to attack the enemy trenches. The troops of his battalion have all been fully briefed on the importance of taking the enemy trench. The arty fire finally stops, Major Sorensen climbs the first few rungs of the ladder, blows his whistle and waves the attack to start. But much to his amazement his troops decide to stay put and loose a fusillade of rifle fire at the enemy rather than scurrying over the top! In disbelief and enraged by the troops’ refusal to follow orders, Sorensen steps up higher and starts screaming over the gun fire to get his men moving but alas he takes a bullet in the neck and tumbles into his trench. The attack never happens. Seems to me that a battalion would not decide to start a firefight when the plan calls for a scurry.

Cheers.

Rod Robertson

[Ivan Sorensen]

Rod Robertson wrote:

<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>Ivan:</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>I was thinking of NEIS as I was writing that!</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>“What SHOULD the chance be for a unit to not do what you expected, in the middle of a running battle?”</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>I would say quite high for very small units and diminishing as unit size increases. A squad is more prone to stop advancing and to go to ground at first contact than a full platoon. A full company less so, a battalion less….. Also, training, experience and élan would effect the probability. My point is that it is the command structures job to try and stop that from happening and to keep troops following orders to reach objectives.</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>Imagine it is WWII and Major Sorensen pulls out his whistle and revolver and orders the troops to prepare to go over the top and to advance across no-man’s-land to attack the enemy trenches. The troops of his battalion have all been fully briefed on the importance of taking the enemy trench. The arty fire finally stops, Major Sorensen climbs the first few rungs of the ladder, blows his whistle and waves the attack to start. But much to his amazement his troops decide to stay put and loose a fusillade of rifle fire at the enemy rather than scurrying over the top! In disbelief and enraged by the troops’ refusal to follow orders, Sorensen steps up higher and starts screaming over the gun fire to get his men moving but alas he takes a bullet in the neck and tumbles into his trench. The attack never happens. Seems to me that a battalion would not decide to start a firefight when the plan calls for a scurry.</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>Cheers.</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>Rod Robertson

</p>

Sure.
So let’s examine the situation in detail:
Am my men in firing positions, with the vile fascists in their own firing positions, a few hundred yards away (the typical gaming table).
Odds then are we’re already in a gun battle, and there’s a chance my boys will not respond immediately. (or maybe battalion demands extensive preparation fire before we go over the top?)
The first couple of men over the top get shredded by machine gun fire and the rest of the company takes a few moments to check their helmets and make sure their bayonets are really attached properly. Maybe the commander does need to go kick someone in the rear, represented by me having to attempt the attack again next turn.
See all the gripes of British WW2 soldiers being “Sticky” for an example.
Are the fascists hiding in their trenches and thus nobody in sight?
My boys are good to go, since they will now all rush forward on a 1 or a 6 (as the fire fight would convert to a scurry when no enemies are in sight).
Am my boys hiding in their own trenches, like the dogs they are?
I still have nobody in sight of the enemy, so same result as above.
* * * * *
The outcome is that if my company (for example) is currently engaged, friction kicks in, while if there is no contact between our forces, the activation roll slants heavily towards movement.
As I hinted at above, setting yourself up for the right moment is a big part of the tactical play.
It’s worth noting that in Brigade Commander, fire fights become a lot less common, because troops are not in range as much of the game.  So your expectation that as the scale goes up, friction decreases somewhat is already baked in. How’s that for customer service? 😉
I should note as well, that bogging down on one turn doesn’t mean the company is stuck for an hour. A turn is the time it takes to move 6″ in 10/15mm scale. So a minute or so? Maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.<
If anything, our little toy soldiers are reacting far too quickly to what we want them to do 🙂 (but the only game I’ve ever played with realistic order times was Striker and interesting as that is, it’s not exactly a casual game)

[Ivan Sorensen]

For some reason, my replies keep being cluttered by broken HTML code. No idea why, Hope it’s readable!

I should add as well, that for Brigade Commander, I added the option to always start with a Scurry in turn one. I could have sworn I had put it in Company Commander as well but now I see I did not. Easily fixed though.

[Rod Robertson]

Ivan:

Great service and good explanations too; we’re spoiled. I really have to buy and play the rules to understand the dynamics (or static!) at play. Yes, I know  that there is never a time when you don’t have something to do! I am going to think more about this and then get back to you. Thanks for putting up with an old-school, cause-and-effects gamer. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Cheers and good game design.

Rod Robertson.

[Just Jack]

Commissar – Thanks so much for doing all the heavy lifting here.  I didn’t mean to leave you on your own, but I’ve been out on travel and just saw this abortion 😉

My issue is with Mr. Panda, who has asked these exact questions of me previously on TMP, and I spent quite a bit of time writing pages worth of text in response, but apparently he didn’t read them.  But we discussed this exact issue.

There’s so much to get into, but I just don’t have time.  I’m with Ivan, it all makes sense to me.  If it doesn’t to you, try one of Ivan’s other sets 😉

I would kindly advise Panda and Rod to stop stalling/quibbling on TWW and play the damn game!  I think I’ve told my story: I read the rules and thought Ivan must be a bit… slow (I won’t write the word I actually used).  I kept looking at them, played a game, hated it and Ivan.  I kept looking at them and decided to try it again, but I changed a bunch of stuff.  I played a couple games, and they were okay, but not great.  Then I was looking at the table and the rules and it finally just clicked, and I finally grasped how the rules interacted with each other.

I’m not saying you guys are dumb or aren’t grasping, I”m just saying it took me awhile to grasp, but when I did I realized I had something cool: great activation system, fire combat, close combat, morale, and movement.  Lots of options to tweak to get exactly what I’m looking for.  So, I’ve got what I want, maybe it’s for you, maybe it’s not.  You’ll never know until you stop surfing the internet for memes to post on TWW and actually play a game.

“The attack never happens. Seems to me that a battalion would not decide to start a firefight when the plan calls for a scurry.”
Of course the battalion planned for a ‘scurry,’ but the enemy planned for a ‘firefight,’ and they get a say in what happens.  Regarding what you described, that’s happened countless times throughout history, so I’m not sure where you’re going with that.

These games are quick and decisive, which is what I want because that’s how I view things.  Of all the games I’ve played of Company Command (24 I believe), in my mind only one of them even went beyond 10 minutes of ‘real’ time (the one in Poland where the Germans split into two groups to attack opposite ends of a bridge), so a single turn in my games is probably less than a minute.  Which is enough time for the French to step out of cover, see the Germans and hit the deck, then the Germans take them under fire and rough them up pretty good.  In the next turn none of the French move but can all fire, still under German fire.  Then the French CO starts rallying teams (the ones remaining, as a couple ran off the map).  All in a maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes of ‘real’ time would be my guess.  What’s the problem?

Again, we’ve been through this and I don’t know what you guys want me to say (that I haven’t already said).  Ivan has most graciously laid it out in terms even Panda can understand 😉

If I can help I will, but conceptually it sounds like you guys need an IGO-UGO system where you get to move everyone each turn.  To each his own, knock yourselves out.  Just play a game and post a batrep 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Shaun Travers]

I have them but not played the rules but I seem to be able to inwardly justify what is happening in the games.  I think it is as Panda mentioned a while ago, something happens – e.g. units running across open ground and MG reacts or doesn’t – and it is possible to create a justification in your mind about what it is representing.   I thing that 5core is definitely an outcome focused game and time (game turns) is not purely linear.

I have a game about to post an AAR for, another game in hand I am playing, and then I will play 5Core Company Command.  Looking forward to it.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Linear time is bourgeois decadence.

[War Panda]

My issue is with Mr. Panda, who has asked these exact questions of me previously on TMP, and I spent quite a bit of time writing…

You funny boy Jack 🙂  And while it might take you along time to write it that doesn’t necessarily translate into meaningful communication

You’re right Jack I did ask similar questions but I didn’t get any real answers oh enlightened one 🙂

No Jack I’ve read your post on Kink Poland #11 (see I know the title even) but this essay (you’ve referred to it as an essay more than once which makes me wonder how long your essays were in school 🙂  ) I didn’t see any explanation for the for the “cause and effect problems” that I mentioned. Just a lot of “its simple and straight forward” I’ve quoted the entire thesis below for reference.

What do you mean ‘predetermined actions’? Are you talking about the 1/Scurry, 6/Firefights? I suppose I don’t look at it as ‘making’ me do something, it’s usually limiting me from doing something else I want to do, which is just a twist in the game for me, which is great for solo play.

Twist in the game…great for solo play…ok

“I can say that the rules are very simple and straightforward”

Sure…

 

“If not, I was wondering if these special activation rolls could be reserved for when the situation seemed more stressed…”
That’s not in the rules, but we’re nothing if not rules tinkerers, right? I can say that the rules are very simple and straightforward, which, aside from being a good thing for its own sake, is good for tinkerer’s as it means the mechanisms are robust and it’s easy to see the relationships between them, so means tinkering is easier as you can pretty easily forecast what will happen, and they’re hard to break.

On a side note, I had someone on another forum bring up something similar, i.e., not reserving, but changing the activation roll based on the force’s tactical situation. For example, for a force in static defense, make it more likely they roll a firefight, for an aggressive attacker make it more likely they roll a firefight. I think it’s a cool idea, but I don’t think I’ll be changing it as I think it works just fine as it is. But that’s just me, to each his own.”

Each time I’ve asked for your analysis you’ve directed me to this “essay” and well I’m afraid to say there’s not a lot of real direct explanation to my question. But there is real evidence that you’d make an excellent politician methinks.

But Ivan has made some excellent points here and I will try out the rules and I’d expect a little bit of tinkering will follow but as you mentioned in the essay they are rules that allow for changes…

Jack I thank you for the efforts you’ve made trying to “enlighten me”

I’m not saying you guys are dumb or aren’t grasping,

Well you’re probably calling Rod those things but I’m willing to let that go…

I”m just saying it took me awhile to grasp, but when I did I realized I had something cool: great activation system, fire combat, close combat, morale, and movement.

Sounds like a epiphany, an almost religious moment…but it’s hard to rationalise these kind of comments. What was it that clicked for you. You didn’t enjoy or understand the rules and then …what missing piece of the puzzle did you find?

Anyway good to see you enjoying them. I’m going to give them a go because there are real areas where I like them and areas as mentioned that still cause me to believe I’ll need some house rules

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Ivan Sorensen]

Play nice, kids.

[War Panda]

“Play nice kids”

But he started it

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Ivan Sorensen]

Don’t make me stop the car! 🙂

[War Panda]

Shaun makes an excellent point about the non linearity of the rules…many people had these problems with Crossfire and just didn’t get it!

It took me a while to “get it” and once I did really could appreciate them…

And my tone in the response above could be interpreted as being snotty :0 but I was joking …of course

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[War Panda]

Daddy Ivan…Jack is being mean and called me dumb…

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Ivan Sorensen]

Ironically, Crossfire was easier for me to teach people who hadn’t played wargames before. They always got it right away, while the hardcore gamers got mad when they lost initiative or left a flank open and got rolled up 🙂

[Rod Robertson]

War Panda wrote:

“No Jack I’ve read your post on Kink Poland #11″

Was that the famous “Goats at Gdansk” post?

Just Jack wrote:

“I read the rules and thought Ivan must be a bit… slow (I won’t write the word I actually used).  I kept looking at them, played a game, hated it and Ivan.  I kept looking at them and decided to try it again, but I changed a bunch of stuff.  I played a couple games, and they were okay, but not great.  Then I was looking at the table and the rules and it finally just clicked, and I finally grasped how the rules interacted with each other.”

Not everyone who walks the road to Damascus has a conversion on the way. Consider me a Saul, stuck in the old-school thinking that wargames should be about the decisions you make (and I have no problem with limited power to make decisions) and not about managing all sorts of random events (especially before engagement begins). When I have time this summer, I will buy the Company Commander and Brigade Commander rules and try them out, but until then I remain firmly in the Saul camp and am very suspicious of all things “Paul”.

Cheers and good gaming.

Rod Robertson.

[kyoteblue]

You know this is helping me understand the rules. Er other than the moaning and all.

[War Panda]

Ivan wrote:

“How does that same scenario play out in another game? Nuts, IABSM, Crossfire, Chain of command?

What is it that cannot happen, that’s bugging you? I feel like there is something obvious, I am missing “

Really good question and something that you mentioned earlier helps me accept things in the rules that I’ve been struggling with:

You mentioned the consideration of time…just reflect on just how much (or little ) time is passing during the respective activations…

The other element touched on by Shaun is to consider the abstraction of events…(as in Crossfire perhaps)

Let me articulate this as best I can:

We have two British platoon’s A and B advancing through two separate but adjacent open fields. The fields are typical of Normandy…flat grass field without any cover (similar to most Irish fields that I hunted for years)

Both platoons have moved full distance across these fields …they’re approx 80% across, almost at the cover of the hedgerows.

Hidden from both British platoons in an adjacent field a MG42 is located on the second story of a farm building which overlooks both fields.

The unsuspecting British are in open sight of the German MG team. Its the German turn. The MG aims.

It rolls a “scurry” ….Is this possible in the rules? I think it is. While this might be frustrating for the Germans I can imagine a situation where this might happen… the German team havent been paying attention …or at the last minute they spot the British but their gun jams or in terms of abstraction their fire in ineffectual .. I can live with this result…especially considering as the British make their move in their own turn the MG can reactive fire.

If the British roll a scurry it means they may or may not have fired back at the MG but the end result is they have made it across to the hedge in one piece and the MG hasn’t been effected by the British fire either.

If the British rolled a “firefight” and as a result of their fire the Germans are unaffected but in the resulting German “firefight” (For those unfamiliar to the rules: I believe when a firefight is rolled the enemy who has just received fire has then an opportunity to react with its own fire) and if the British are hit well then this just reflects within that period of momentary shock and shooting the British have come off worst…It’s helping me to imagine these things happening extremely quickly and in more abstract terms…not in an exact or definite chronological order but rather a means to calculate the end result of a very quick encounter! At least this is the way I’m trying to interpret it and gaining a real sense of satisfaction to the process. I believe this is what you were so patiently trying to get into my skull (not an easy thing to do)

I guess (and this is key to me accepting the rules) is that I’m not looking at the results of “firefight” or “scurry” necessarily as commanders orders or the units unwilling to obey their orders but a mechanism which calculates the end result of the encounter

Now I’ve realized that in that scenario described above I should have said that the rules would have determined that as the British entered those fields the MG42 would have made reactive fire to the newly seen targets movement? And so presumably the MG would have been visible to the British.

Anyway Ivan, I’m really sorry for all this but I really think these rules deserve attention and I really want to get my head around them. I appreciate your patience and all the effort and time you’ve spent educating me 🙂

Next on the agenda is a game using these…

But first off to the in-laws for wargames of a slightly different nature 🙂

 

 

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[Rod Robertson]

I bought the 5Core Comp. Comm. and Brig. Comm. rules and will give the Comp. Comm. rules a read. But play testing will not likely begin until late June do to a high workload.

Cheers and good gaming.

Rod Robertson.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Panda – it took 10 years for my father in law to tell me “You know, you’re okay”, so miracles do happen 🙂

Let me know how things go.  More gaming is good 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

Rod – appreciate it. Pop me a message if you have any questions.

I’ll recommend setting up something on your kitchen table and just moving a few units around, to get the hang of things.

[Just Jack]

Good Grief!  Calm down you buncha pansies, Big Daddy is still here.  I’ve been laid up (missing work right now), caught some sort of nasty virus.  I played a game Saturday morning, then coached a baseball game, but by Saturday afternoon I was down, and didn’t really move Sunday.
But you sissies are hilarious: (paraphrasing) “I was just trying to be funny Jack.  I know I’m not funny, but I was trying, so please come back Jack, please tell me you still love me.”  “See, I understand 5Core now Jack, it’s great, I really love it.  I’m a filthy little animal so I won’t acknowledge how you straightened me out (though I must give Commie props for breaking it down Kindergarten-style, which only barely cleared our already very-low intellectual bar), but now I finally see.”  “See, I bought all of Ivan’s, please come back Jack.  Please, please, please!”

This crap made me laugh so hard I almost soiled myself (’tis a nasty little bug I’ve got); my favorite (can’t find it now) was Panda’s line about Rod twisting me off about his sniping regarding the wrong color of the French infantrymen’s drawers; that part was true.  Funny, but true 😉

Oh, and regarding: “…father in law to tell me “You know, you’re okay,”…”
He didn’t mean it.

Anyway, bear with me as I attempt to nurse my feeble body through these trying times, and I’ll be back to normal soon.  Later fellas.

V/R,
Jack

[Ivan Sorensen]

In the words of apparently every corpsman ever: “Have you tried changing your socks and drinking more water?”

 

[War Panda]

Well Jack it’s good to hear you’re not felling well…

No seriously as mentioned… I’m very glad to have a fit and well Jack back …a speedy recovery bud…and must be nice to know how much you’re loved 🙂

Unfortunately it’s by a bunch of fat middle aged men which doesn’t really count…:)

And Blue I didn’t mean you. You are more from the middle ages than middle aged 😉

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”

[kyoteblue]

You damn kids get the hell off my lawn and NO I will not give you your damned ball back!!!!

[Rod Robertson]

Given Jacks latest outburst, I’m rooting for the virus. Go bug go! And given his ill health and poor hygiene, I think we can all imagine what color Jack’s CinC’s drawers are……Khaki!

Cheers and good aching.

Rod Robertson.

[Author]

Posts