No End in Sight Modern Game, US vs Warsaw Pact

[Just Jack]

All,

I got a game in the morning (Saturday), took about two hours. I hit the ‘gamer standard’ meeting engagement between equal forces, just to get another playtest in. There’s no real backstory: let’s call it US Army vs. Warsaw Pact equipped bad guys somewhere in Europe, and they don’t like each other.

The bad guys: three five man ‘squads’ with a Platoon Commander (PC). Two squads have a SAW and UGL, while the third has a SAW and an RPG.

The good guys:a PC and three five man squads, each with a UGL and a SAW.

For both good guys (GG) and bad guys (BG), each five-man squad has a squad leader, so I’ll be rolling up activations for them and each side’s PC.

The table, same as the last playtest, with GG on left and BG on right. GG start with two squads and PC on table (top left), with the third eligible to enter the table at any time on the left-hand board edge. The BGs have all three squads and the PC on the table, spread along the right side.

The Good Guys having a rough time. To see how it turned out, please check the blog at:

http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2014/11/one-last-playtest-of-no-end-in-sight.html

More to come.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Hey thanks Jack, I have had similar thoughts on group movement and movement more than 3 inch and sprint D-6 inches. Oh and your US dice seem to hate you…

[Guy Farrish]

Great stuff Just Jack!

I’d check those WP dice if I were you – I NEVER throw 6s like that! Must be the political officers behind them!

Interesting idea about the ‘group’ move. I haven’t had that many guys on the ground yet to get too bothered but it occurred to me I need a bigger playing area as the rules are definitely aiming at more than a couple of sections. I was expecting to be able to use a couple of fireteams in a section for some fire and manoeuvre but it didn’t seem to happen. Pretty realistic I guess but like you say – it’s a game. I need to try a few times more with more figures and a bigger space.

Good stuff though – many thanks.

Guy

 

[Just Jack]

Yeah, you’d think the bad guys wouldn’t have lost with activation rolls like that.  Part of it, I’m sure, was the fact the US started off with some very effective fire, so a lot of the enemy activation rolls were used up recovering from that (unpinning and moving back into the firing line).

For fall backs off of failed morale, I’ve been thinking about the idea of making them fall back behind a terrain feature (into cover/out of LOS) rather than distance tied to the die roll.  Maybe if the distance is greater than ‘x’ inches (say, 8″), the fall-back unit surrenders?  What do you guys think about that?

V/R,
Jack

[Guy Farrish]

I like that. If not surrender (depending on the opposition/circumstances) definitely withdraw permanently in game terms or go to ground in nearest cover and not get back into the action. If their position is later overrun then see if they surrender?

[Ivan Sorensen]

I don’t think anything would break if you made them fall back into terrain.

 

The reason it’s set up a certain way is to allow troops to be pushed out of positions so just be aware of how to handle that, and you’ll be beer and skittles.

[shelldrake]

Ivan Sorensen wrote:

The reason it’s set up a certain way is to allow troops to be pushed out of positions so just be aware of how to handle that, and you’ll be beer and skittles.

 

The other day I actually wanted to fail my shock check so that my troops would fall back in to cover so I could remove the pins and treat the wounds.  I rolled two 6s in a row

[Author]

Posts