27/08/2018 at 20:48 #97844
We played Rommel today in 3mm, the scenario was the southern sector of the Kursk assault on 5th July 1943. The Germans were attempting to break through the Soviet defence line and capture objectives. It was a vicious fight, but to find out who won, have a read of the AAR here on my blog:
http://www.stormofsteelwargaming.com28/08/2018 at 08:56 #97861
Thanks for posting this. Having said in another topic that I’m not reallly interested in other people’s games I thought I’d take a look at this because I’ve played and enjoyed Mustafa’s ‘Blucher’ and ‘Longstreet’, and I find Kursk a fascinating battle to read about and play.
Visually your game looks very attractive but for me it doesn’t have the appearance of Kursk. The table is completely flat and I don’t see any of the massive defensive works that the Soviets prepared. I haven’t got ‘Rommel’ and likely never will, so maybe it handles terrain in a very abstract way? Or maybe your battle is set once the Germans had penetrated the defences to some degree? Could you explain a little about how ‘Rommel’ deals with terrain?
Before I joined Facebook I thought that a) most people were reasonable and intelligent, and b) they could spell words correctly. Guess what ......28/08/2018 at 17:52 #97939
Thanks for reading the report! I did mention in the write up that it was loosely based on Kursk, so it’s not an exact recreation.
Rommel is based on each square being 1km square ground scale, so most terrain features under a kilometre are abstracted. Only mountains are depicted and hills are not really represented on the board. I didn’t have an accurate enough map of the area, so I also took some liberties with the terrain to make an enjoyable game.
http://www.stormofsteelwargaming.com29/08/2018 at 10:17 #97995
Thanks for that. I’ve played Waterloo with ‘Blucher’ and several parts of Gettysburg with ‘Longstreet’, and we spent some time beforehand mulling over the terrain, how to represent it, and considering its effect in the games. Could ‘Rommel’ handle defensive positions such as the ones at Kursk?
Before I joined Facebook I thought that a) most people were reasonable and intelligent, and b) they could spell words correctly. Guess what ......29/08/2018 at 16:25 #98032
I’ve been working towards playing Waterloo for Blucher. It’s taking a while to get the figures together though.
In Rommel you have ‘prepared positions’ each of which will absorb a hit, IIRC you can have a maximum of two per square (I’m working away and don’t have the rules to hand), so if you put three units in the square your opponent would need to cause eleven hits to take it. With attacks causing a maximum of six hits per attack, you’d need a minimum of two attacks that both caused the maximum damage to destroy the position. That’s obviously a best case scenario which rarely happens, so you can see how strong it can be in defence.
http://www.stormofsteelwargaming.com29/08/2018 at 20:47 #98057
Thanks, that explains it nicely.
Before I joined Facebook I thought that a) most people were reasonable and intelligent, and b) they could spell words correctly. Guess what ......
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.