Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 2,001 through 2,040 (of 2,085 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Just Jack
    Participant

    “For the record, I am deeply offended, Jack.”
    Well, you’d better be!  I think we’re on a roll here, and so now I’m off to the ‘other’ thread to see what Ivan’s up to now.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Thad and Ivan – You guys are absolutely right, and I apologize as I swear I actually meant to address the “eye of the beholder, call it whatever you want issue.”  I wrote “I need to really ponder your second idea.  At first is strikes me…” and I bloviated for awhile, but never came back to the second point, which was it’s purely a semantic issue, the stands represent whatever you want them to represent.  For me they will be companies 😉

    Sorry, I just lost my train of thought and never got back around to where I wanted to end up (that’s what happens with a baby around!), hope I didn’t seem to frumpy, though I guess it makes me a T/OE fetishist 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 5 #15250
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Thanks Rod.  Yeah, I’m slowing down a bit, but I got a good bit of gaming in during the holidays.  I’ve played eight games so far, should have number 6 posted tomorrow.  I’m hoping to get two or three games in this weekend, but writing is the problem.  You guys better appreciate all this writing!!!! 😉

    I suppose I probably have another 10 fights or so until I’m ready to fast forward to France.  I just received Skirmish Campaigns Ghost Division in the mail, so that will serve as the backbone for my France 1940 campaign.  I like the book, but there’s not much in there for armor.  I’ll have to improvise…

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. Game 2 #15249
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Rev – “(please imagine what word goes here)”
    I can’t, that’s why I need pictures!!!

    “Remember one man’s carpet is another man’s hill.”
    Now that was just uncalled for.

    “Can’t we just all get along?”
    Welcome to the family; this is us getting along 😉

    Ivan – “Photography, like the internet, is a fad anyways.”
    Yeah, they’ll never last.

    Kyote – And I expect that Colonel Suckerlove gets his butt kicked.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 5 #15195
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Hell, I won!  Nobody said it was gonna be easy 😉

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. Game 2 #15194
    Just Jack
    Participant

    But the real cool kids have cameras, and know how to use them 😉

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #15193
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Oh, and the next one of you @#$%ers that fails to capitalize Marines is gonna get a visit soon.

    See, it’s easy to be a tough guy on the internet; it’s all I got left 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #15191
    Just Jack
    Participant

    “With all the sheep, I’m confident it’ll have country music.”
    Now that is downright hilarious!

    “What do marines listen to?”
    I suppose I’m supposed to say something like, “the soothing sounds of spent brass on the street, and the gurgling of intestines on my bayonet,” but I’m pretty mellow now.  How ’bout some Toadies, Black Keys, and Jack Johnson?

    “Do marines listen to music?  I suppose if some orders them to do so, I guess they would…”
    If God wanted to you to be @#$%ing musical he’d a formed a @#$%ing banjo on your @#$%ing @#$%!!!  That’s what a real Marine would say 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Thad,

    I think your first idea is fantastic, I love the idea of having vehicles and infantry based together for mechanized/motorized infantry.  However, I think you could actually play it either way and not have a major effect.  I say this only because a lot of folks (myself included) like basing that’s as universal as possible, and having vehicles and infantry together is not how most rules do it.  Not to mention all the re-basing I’d have to do.  I think the rules are flexible enough to support both options.

    I need to really ponder your second idea.  At first is strikes me as not so hot, and the reason I say that is because commander’s think in terms of force structure, and that force structure is companies, not half companies, etc…  It’s like the classic conundrum of 1 tank=3 in real life, where you have three 3-tank platoons.  I’d say represent that with three tanks, as the commander is thinking in terms of platoons as maneuver elements, but a strict reading would give you four tanks for your nine ‘real-life’ vehicles.

    I really don’t like creating force structures that don’t exist, but maybe that’s just a mental hang-up I have that not everyone has, and maybe we’re saying the same thing but using different rationale.  I don’t have a problem with ‘odd-shaped’ formations, i.e., five rifle companies on the table, where a lot of guys would look at that and say, ‘how the hell did you get five?  One battalion is three, two battalions is six, how’d you get five?”  I don’t have a problem rationalizing that we have five because one was destroyed/is on flank security/is regimental reserve.  My mental hangup is saying that five is the T/O strength, when I know that five can’t be the T/O strength.  Five is two battalions minus one, or it’s one 1st Battalion (+), having been ‘plussed up’ with two rifle companies from 2nd Battalion.  I’m not sure I’m making sense, but I guess it’s just what’s locked in my head.  When you’re planning, what are my maneuver elements, what are my attachments, detachments, and supporting fires?  Those T/O line companies are the building blocks of any plan.

    Having said all that, when you look at the force structure for Company Command (it’s based on your overall situation and a die roll, and I can’t imagine Ivan’s newest set of rules would be any different 😉 ) you’ll see that you end up with (I can’t remember exactly, but let’s say) 5-10 core infantry units, so I think you may end up with the same dynamic as you’re discussing above, but that’s how you get from  a real-life T/O unit to a ‘non-standard’ force on the tabletop.

    Please forgive the ramble, hopefully it makes sense.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    My vote is for company stands.  Or battalion stands 😉  But not platoon stands (that is what Command Decision does, but they have a veritable boatload of stands on the table), we need to go big here but not lose our sweet spot of 7-12 stands.  And yes, I’m in agreement with Ivan that TO/E doesn’t belong on the tabletop.  At higher echelon I tend to think of it not due to combat losses, but due to other issues (assuming company stands):

    -This company or battalion is out of the line for refitting, retraining, or R&R.
    -That battalion is out of the line as it is the local tactical reserve.
    -This company is not available as it is flank security for the brigade (off table).

    But I think we’re okay here.  I’d say you go with units (stands) that are line companies, i.e., rifle companies and tank companies (not including the command stand), and everything else is a ‘capability.’  When you talk about the others, I think you can use specialty figures:

    -the arty battalion gets broke up into, essentially, fire missions allotted to line companies, the CO, or recon elements (?).  The only issue I see here is when the enemy wants to use his air/arty for counterbattery.

    -the recon company gets broken up into specialty figures, but this is the tricky one, as they won’t be attached to line companies, but will operate ahead of them.  I haven’t thought this all the way through, but obviously one aspect of their mission is to call in supporting fires, and another would be screening, which could be modeled by delaying the enemy.  I.e., they’re not strong enough to defeat an enemy line company, but they would engage, force the enemy to deploy, then fall back, just like real life.  Of course, all that would be abstracted, but with the same effect on the tabletop.

    -engineers are a specialty figure that provide a capability, such as bridging, building/removing obstacles, etc…  Now, I have given thought to the ‘outliers,’ such as WWII German use of armored reconnaissance and engineer units as the centerpiece for mechanized battlegroup.  First, I there will always be outliers, but I think the rules are flexible enough to handle this.  Second, as an example of this flexibility, I would submit that, in terms of capability, that armored reconnaissance simply becomes a mech infantry stand with an added shock dice (for extra automatic weapons), and the armored engineers simply become a mech infantry stand with an added kill dice at very short range (for the flamethrowers and explosives).

    -air defense units are specialty figures attached directly to line units (maybe the CO, too, but only if you allow the CO to be targeted, maybe by supporting fires only?), and operate in ‘reactive fire’ situations to protect their parent unit when attacked by air assets.

    -I could see treating AT companies both ways, i.e., as stands for countries who’s doctrine was for them to fight as companies, but, more likely, as specialty figures again attached out to line units.

    -I’ll leave you guys to figure out what to do with the band.  In my experience, their combat role in high intensity operations was CASEVAC, and low intensity operations they were perimeter defense, convoy protection, and EPW handling (i.e., rear area security issues, and not to say they didn’t do that in high intensity ops as well).

    On a side note, I’d recommend mech/motor companies are represented by vehicles when mounted, by infantry when dismounted, removing the vehicles when the infantry dismount.  This will help keep the number of units on the table down, and it will also keep players from doing something that drives me insane, which is having an infantry company in trucks advance, dismount, then use the trucks as some sort of combat element…

    I know folks on the modern side may counter regarding AFVs supporting their dismounts; I’m not trying to deny this, I’m just saying include any AFV combat capability (such as ATGM) into the dismounts’ combat capability (as opposed to having the vehicles running around as a separate combat unit, which is not, so far as I know, any nation’s doctrine).  Here’s what I mean: you have a Bradley company; the Brad company has organic TOW ATGMs on their vehicles.  The company reaches close terrain, the infantry dismount and take up positions with the vehicles in support.  So, in the case of the game, while the company is moving up, have our Bradley Fighting Vehicle(s) present on the table.  It has certain stats for taking on tanks (let’s say 1K 1S at ‘x’ range).  When the Bradley’s reach their dismount point, take the vehicles off the table and replace with an infantry stand.  Now, our ‘normal’ infantry stand has an AT rating of 0k 1s at ‘y’ (short) range (to model its LAW/RPG-type weapons), but our mech infantry have a 1k 1s at ‘x’ (long) range to simulate the Brads in support (or even dismounting their ATGMs?).

    Again, I don’t know of any country that practices sending its Brads, Marders, BMPs, BTRs, etc…, off on their own mission once the infantry have been dropped off (though, as always, I could be wrong).

    And Ivan, of course you’d use a Soviet unit as the example 😉  But using what I’ve outlined above, we’re okay with units on the table.  From your MRR:
    -three MR battalions automatically become two (six stands) as the third is the regiment’s (off table) reserve.
    -the tank battalion is three stands, for a total of nine ‘line’ units and a CO (who doesn’t count for these purposes).
    -Arty, air defense, recon, engineers, and the band are specialty figures that provide additional capabilities as attachments to the line units.

    So, even if you didn’t have an MR Bn off table as the reserve, you’re still only at the ‘max’ of 12 stands.  Then, if this side is at full strength, you’ve got to figure they’re the attacker, and the defender has fewer units (that’s why the attacker chose this location for the attack).  Where this system could struggle is with incredible combat capability AND numerical differences, with the prime example being the NATO vs Warsaw Pact games.  To be honest, I’ve yet to see a game pull this off satisfactorily; some are better than others, but it’s hard to pull off.  Maybe you have a small NATO force (five units) with a significant combat advantage (2k 2s vs 1k 1s) against a huge WARPAC force (15 units); this could work, as 15 units would be very unwieldy, which is kind of what is expected, right?  The only issue is the counter that WARPAC trained to all do the same thing, so maybe you up their chances for a ‘different’ activation roll: instead of 1 and 6, on 1-2 the whole force moves but doesn’t shoot, and on 5-6 the whole force stops and shoots; in between they still get the normal 1 per 3 unit activation?  Maybe give NATO 1 per 2 unit activation on ‘normal’ rolls?

    I dunno, but the basic rules mechanisms are solid enough, and there are enough internal options to make this a lot of fun to play with.  Oh, and apologies to Mr. Wasburg, we’ve totally derailed this thread, and I didn’t mean to distract from his great battle report.

    V/R,
    Jack

     

     

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #15169
    Just Jack
    Participant

    “A hippie, a sheep-botherer, a communist and a marine walks into a bar..”

    It’s TWO sheep-botherers, you forgot about Shaun 😉

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #15154
    Just Jack
    Participant

    So, I hope the three of you are proud of yourselves, coming out to hate on my beautiful tabletop games.  The gall of you, with one that doesn’t own a camera (it’s 2015 John!!!), one that doesn’t do proper wargaming (ancients???), and one that doesn’t wargame at all (sure builds pretty dioramas though, and I’ll leave out the animal molestation, for now).

    In any case, I hope you @#$%ers are doing alright, and I look forward to two of you posting some games, and one of you posting some photos or sketches.

    And happy birthday, Kyote-John!

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Interesting about naval/space flight games.  But don’t forget we still need WWII and beyond air combat rules (or at least I do 😉 )

    I like your suggestion for fixed wing, and I think coming up with ranges isn’t that big a deal.  Company bases = Brigade Commander, four infantry companies or 3-4 armor companies is a battalion, three ‘same’ battalions is a regiment, a mix of 2-4 battalions (armor, mech, inf) is a brigade.  The only issue I’ve ever come across that was problematic with company stands is weapons companies, in which you have MGs and maybe recoiless rifles (direct fire weapons) and mortars (indirect fire weapons).  But maybe you just treat them as ‘specialty figures’ which get attached to the rifle companies, which isn’t real far off from what happens in real life, though not as granular.

    Also interesting about SF (in irregular warfare role) and insurgents; you could also make it a random event (“ambush”).  Paratroops and helo assault would be fantastic.  See how fun and easy this is!?

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 4 #15086
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Yeah, they’re ugly but they work for me.

    And re-basing will be the death of me (I’m too cheap to just buy new figures).

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Jim – No sweat, I’m always getting carried away, but that don’t mean it won’t work! 😉  I think it definitely has merit.  I have Triumph of the Will also; I loved the idea of it (and the time period as well), but it just didn’t seem to work for me either.

    Ivan – I’m telling ya, platoon, company, even battalion bases will work using the same basic mechanisms.  Just a little tinkering to tighten thing up is all it needs.  For example, I was thinking (at least for company or battalion bases) having arty on board, basically treat like the current light mortars, and re-do the random events, and make one of them air support.  At least fixed wing; I’ve been toying in my head with having rotary attack on table and treat essentially like a flying tank.

    I know that’s going to make some folks’ head explode, and I hope it doesn’t lead anyone to think the rules unserious.  My point is simply that (I believe) gamers too often focus on ‘flavor’ and not enough on capability.  It’s like the constant debates on special forces you see on the internet, about how unit ‘x’ is the baddest of the bad, then inevitably someone asks something along the lines of “why doesn’t ‘y’ military train all its soldiers to ‘x’ unit’s standards?”

    They entirely miss the point of why special forces and regular forces exist: capability, i.e., the fact that this unit gives commander a, b, and c capabilities, while that unit gives the commander d, e, and f capabilities.  You wouldn’t send the SF guys to hold a ridgeline against an armored battalion attack, and you wouldn’t send an ATGM unit to conduct an in-extremis hostage rescue; different capabilities, both needed (depending on the mission profile).

    I’ve rambled quite a bit, but my point is that commanders (and in terms of company bases and battalion bases, we would be brigade or division commanders, respectively) think in terms of capabilities and operational considerations.  If you’re a WarPac commander, you have T-72s and Mi-24s; they have the same operational capabilities, but different operational considerations (ATGM vs SAM/AAA threat, terrain, weather, etc…, but a FARP is a FARP, whether for tanks or helos, in the overall scheme of things).  So, when you get to a high enough echelon in gaming, I’d submit there’s not a lot of difference between a company of main battle tanks and an aviation company of attack helicopters.  The first will be less lethal but have more endurance, the latter the opposite, and they face different threat environments, which, from the commander’s standpoint, would probably be the big decision point, i.e., “I really want to use my helos, but since we can’t mitigate the enemy’s AA threat, I’m going to have to go with the heavy package (assuming helos were part of the ‘light’ package, i.e., less troops in that particular battlespace).”

    And I know I haven’t sent you the naval stuff I was supposed to, but that’s no reason you shouldn’t have been working on some aircraft rules (I know you like sci-fi better than historical, so write some spaceship stuff and I’ll tinker backwards from there) 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 4 #15010
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Ivan – Actually, I may not even need the T-26s I have as the KG will be in North Africa for the opening of Barbarossa, which really aggravates me…  And now you’re gonna make fun of my bases, eh?

    Yeah, they’re ugly.  They came about because my Old Man used to be my gaming partner (before he passed a couple years ago); I didn’t have many troops, but what I did have were on thin bases, and so he was constantly picking them up by head and rifles, and pulling them off the bases.  So I got these ugly things from Home Depot (they’re bathroom tiles); they’re plentiful, cheap, and easy to get whenever I need some, but they are about 3mm thick.  Several times I’ve thought of switching to thinner bases, but that would mean re-basing everything I already have.  If you haven’t noticed, I’ve made a few 10mm purchases over the years 😉

    Kyote – Excellent, I look forward to your next installment.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Jim,

    We’re on the same page buddy!  I was even just pondering company/battery-sized stands.  Nine ‘line’ companies and three support (arty batteries, recon, etc…) would be a pretty much full-strength brigade.  For me, playing in 6mm on a 3′ x 3′ with multi-based units, might just be all-right.

    I agree with you on the point of moving up in echelon requiring a decrease in weapons ranges.  I haven’t put it on the table yet, but maybe arty range is 18″, tanks 8″, infantry weapons 6″ (maybe make them the same to keep life simple?).  Treat ATGMs just like the special troops they are in the rules currently, mortars and HMGs too, I think.

    I’ve long been looking for a simple game to play divison-sized actions; maybe battalion-sized stands?  The rules are perfect for adaptation; the mind boggles.  Definitely more to come on this.

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    See what I mean about not liking the author?  He’s always popping in to correct me when I screw up the rules 😉

    Sorry, I admit to still confusing myself sometimes between 5MIN and Company Commander; I’ll be damned if I’m going to admit my reading comprehension problems to you guys…

    Alex – “The beauty of 3mm gaming is that you can afford it even if you don’t need it, that’s how I got started..”
    The bad news is that I don’t need to; I just put out a 2nd mortgage on my house AND a year’s pay, but I’ve got about 180 MBTs, 100 APCs, and various recon, air defense, helos, etcc…, in 6mm, winging its way to me as we speak.  My willpower didn’t even hold a full 24 hours…

    Ivan – “I do it by rolling the dice all at once, then just assigning results to the stands nearest to the centre of the blast. So if you roll a Bail and nothing else, the stand closest to centre Bails.”  Amen brother, more beauty in the rules.  Simple, quick, common sense.

    All the 6mm stuff I already have, plus what I just bought, now I’m thinking about putting them on platoon bases (3 vehicles per).  Hello, Battalion (or brigade) Commander, anyone?

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    See what I mean about not liking the author?  He’s always popping in to correct me when I screw up the rules 😉

    Sorry, I admit to still confusing myself sometimes between 5MIN and Company Commander; I’ll be damned if I’m going to admit my reading comprehension problems to you guys…

    Alex – “The beauty of 3mm gaming is that you can afford it even if you don’t need it, that’s how I got started..”
    The bad news is that I don’t need to; I just put out a 2nd mortgage on my house AND a year’s pay, but I’ve got about 180 MBTs, 100 APCs, and various recon, air defense, helos, etcc…, in 6mm, winging its way to me as we speak.  My willpower didn’t even hold a full 24 hours…

    Ivan – “I do it by rolling the dice all at once, then just assigning results to the stands nearest to the centre of the blast. So if you roll a Bail and nothing else, the stand closest to centre Bails.”  Amen brother, more beauty in the rules.  Simple, quick, common sense.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #14871
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Tim – Thanks, I appreciate it!  Yeah, I know what you mean, but as I’m playing small portion of the battlefield, I’m finding it easier to do ‘pure’ scenarios, in this case mech attack vs inf w/guns, with armored counterattack coming up as a separate tabletop battle (which hopefully I’ll get to post today).

    Jim – I’m glad you’re enjoying them, I’m having a great time, and there’s plenty more to come.  I really enjoy the aspect of following a single unit and monitoring their progress, the ‘human’ element (please note, this has nothing to do with politics/morals, just an overgrow child playing with his toys), i.e., watching guys turn into heroes and cowards over the course of the war.

    The fields are felt from Hotzmats, and I love them.  I keep telling myself I’m going to buy some more but just haven’t gotten around to it (and with these smaller games I’m playing now, I don’t really need them).

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Alex,

    Indeed, another aspect of the beauty of the rules is their flexibility; I hear Ivan’s even working on a naval adaptation 😉

    And I know what you mean: I can’t be unbiased about the rules, I like them too much.  Now the author…

    Too many toys, so little time.  I’m currently torturing myself over a tremendous amount of lead on e-bay that I really don’t need but really would like to have, for way too much money.  Can I hold off?  History says probably not…

    And I’m with you, I use the same trees and buildings (mostly) for 3 and 6mm, and it works great for me.

    I think 90 minutes is still pretty good in the overall scheme of things.  I’ve become a master of playing a turn, snapping a photo, then scribbling some notes I won’t be able to read later, then rolling my next activation.  The “panzer-quick-kill” approach does help with time, it makes the fast-play rules even faster.  And I’ve (once again) modified the rules a bit for tank-vs tank:

    This is just based on my own perception of tank fights, but I think it’s very quick, the first shot wins, the won with the initiative gets the first shot, and if that first shot misses, the return fire probably does the job.  So, first thing is, I’m not too concerned with Guard Fire in tank-vs tank engagements, as I want the side with initiative to do what they do in real life, dictate the pace and course of battle.  So I have no problem with a tank sitting there taking a minute to spot and figure things out while an enemy tank (with the initiative) dashes into its arc of view, halts, and fires.  If the sitting tank survives that round (in good morale order or pinned, but not ‘man down’ or ‘hunker’), I let him return fire for free, and then fire (or move/fire, fire/move) in his own turn (if activated).

    Now, as always, it’s not that cut and dry; if I have a tactical situation in which the activated unit is moving up and not aware of enemy armor on the field, then I’ll probably let the ‘sitting’ tank (and certainly ATGs) Guard Fire.  But that brings up one more change to the rules I’m playing: when conducting anti-tank fire in Guard Fire, I allow kill dice AND shock dice to be thrown, not just shock dice.  I play the rules as written for infantry (shock dice only for Guard, kill dice only for Snap), but for anti-tank fire I believe there should be a chance to knock the tank out.

    And I keep visiting Pico Armor’s site; “oh, but I don’t really need that…”

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 3 #14786
    Just Jack
    Participant

    T’is true, Old Man, but the difference is that I wanted my Germans to win, and they didn’t lose to communists.

    They will never lose to communists!!! 😉

    Did you play tonight?  I’m looking to play again tomorrow, didn’t get any in today.  I need to slow down the gaming and write these up.  I also have a bunch of painting and re-basing to do.  But I want to keep playing.  I’m loving these rules, they’re perfect for me, I just need more time to game 😉

    Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help you figure out your set of the rules (I saw you said you were having a hard time downloading them).

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. #14778
    Just Jack
    Participant

    “Mother Russia prevails except when the capitalists cheat”

    How dare you, Sir!

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Alex,

    Sci-Fi is not really my thing, but I love seeing someone else playing 5Core CC, as well as the 3mm stuff.  I think you gave a fantastic review of the rules, and I totally agree with all your points.  I’ve got quite a bit of 3mm stuff lying around, but never seem to get to it (buying a boatload of 6mm stuff didn’t help that cause), but it always looks so charming, and I find myself perusing PicoArmor’s website, almost purchasing something then realizing I already have it in 6 or 10mm…  How long did your fight take?  I’ve played 12 games so far, and the average has been an hour, longest an hour and  a half, shortest 40 minutes.  For me, that’s a another on the plus side for the rules.

    Regarding Ivan’s: “The one possible quirk is that I may have made anti-tank fire a tad too weak. If you get cranky the tanks aren’t blowing up, add another Kill die and watch them go!”

    That’s what I do, and it’s I’ve got burning tanks as far as the eye can see!  Makes the game play faster 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. #14772
    Just Jack
    Participant

    You just let the Russians win to impress Ivan, buncha commies 😉

    I guess it turned out about as expected as the Germans had no infantry.  The Russian tanks did better than I expected, but their arty really seemed to clean up.

    I still don’t know much about FoW, and have nothing against them, but you need to get with the program: we’re playing 5Core Company Command now, Sir. 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Your best game of 2014? #14714
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Gentlemen,

    I’ll throw in on this: it was not a single game, but a series of games, actually a campaign which I did not finish, but played through 19 games.  I was fortunate to playtest a set of rules, which became the now-published “Some Corner of a Foreign Field.”  I played a total of 22 games with the rules, but 19 in my “In Country” campaign, in which I set out to follow a single US Army squad through a 13-month tour of duty in Vietnam during 1967.

    The games were a tremendous amount of fun, and the rules and campaign setting really lent themselves to becoming immersed in the storyline and attached to the characters (part of what ended the campaign was all my favorites becoming casualties).  The whole campaign starts here if anyone is interested:
    http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2014/05/in-country-game-1-25-sept-1967.html

    There was a tremendous amount of drama: village sweeps, village evacuations, bomb damage assessment patrols, chance encounters during combat patrols, downed helo recovery, QRF for trapped recon team, firebase overrun, enemy attack on NDP, multiple attempts at busting a bunker line, urban combat in a provincial capital, chasing a tax collector, cutting off an enemy retreat, etc…

    My favorite was Game 8:

    When an NVA bunker line had the squad in a bad way.  Several men down, so couldn’t pull back, and too close to the enemy to call in supporting fires.

    So Sgt Banaszak went to work, sprinting and dodging his way forward, creeping up to the first bunker to drop a grenade (blue bead) inside…


    Then sprinting left and hopping in the second bunker with the NVA officer, and quickly dispatching him.

    Before moving to the third and final NVA bunker, and dropping a grenade in there too.

    That was the funnest fight of a group of fun fights.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: KG Klink, Poland, Game 1 #14693
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Sparker – Thank you Sir, I appreciate it, standby for (many) more.

    Rod – You’re absolutely right regarding Schwerepunkt, but please keep in mind that the tabletop is only showing one small portion of a larger battle, following only portions of a single unit.  So, as an attachment to 4th Panzer Division, KG Klink was responsible for one small portion of 4th Panzer’s fight at the frontier, which was only a part of 10th Army’s fight to breakthrough at the border.  In this manner I can use the KG to carry out any of the varying types of missions as parts of larger battles.

    And you’re right, the Poles put up a fair amount of resistance, but mostly that was due to the amount of forces and their structures on the tabletop; I gave the Poles a pretty good chance of doing well as I didn’t simply want a pushover.  In terms of how I’m running the campaign, even if the first fight failed, the overall breakthrough by 4th Panzer would still have occurred (just off table), and so I’d still have moved on to Mokra.  Only with a severe reprimand for the Schutzen Company Commander for embarrassing the Kampfgruppe 😉

    And Happy New Year to you as well, hope you’re getting some gaming in!

    Kyote-John – Hey Old Man, glad to see you, hope you’re having a great holiday season.  I apologize, I’ve been playing so much I haven’t really been reading up on the forum here, but I just read through your Barbarossa thread, good stuff, just need pics 😉  You get a camera, then you can call me and I’ll walk you through how to 1) set up a blog (which you don’t need to use as a blog like I do, just as a means to store your photos on the net), and 2) how to post them here!  Take care.

    So far I’ve finished 7 games, and the table is set for number 8.  I’ll try to get another one written up and posted today, so stay tuned fellas.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. #14304
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Kyote,

    Have you got a scanner?  If you do, we’re gonna need you to sketch the fights at certain key points in the action, then scan them in, to accompany your batreps 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Phil,

    9th Pz Division is as good as any, and certainly saw their share of fighting, but it doesn’t get me everywhere I want to go (I can’t find any real unit that hits everywhere I want to go).  Here’s my overall plan:

    Poland – 1 Sep-6 Oct 39
    France – 10 May-22 Jun 40
    N Africa – Mar 41-July 42
    Stalingrad (W) – Oct – Dec 42
    Kharkov (W) – 19 Feb- 15 Mar 43
    Kursk – 5 Jul- 23 Aug 43
    S Italy – 17 Sep – Dec 43
    Ukraine (W) – Jan- Mar 44
    Normandy – 25 Jun- Aug 44
    Holland – 17 Sep – Oct 44
    Hungary – Oct – Dec 44
    Ardennes – Dec-Jan 45
    Silesia/Pomerania – Feb- Mar 45

    Since no real units did all that, I’ve made the decision to go with a fictional Kampfgruppe that is an independent formation, and will be assigned to the operational control of various units throughout its operational lifespan.  While not perfect, it’s plausible enough (to me, at least) to serve as the backbone of a set of games I want to play.  It’s also for that reason that I focused only on the maneuver elements, and did not include such necessary items as signals, medical, artillery, and supply units, etc…

    Not to throw anyone off the train, but I also will ‘proxy’ forces when necessary, most notably in the first campaign, in which I do not have Polish forces and will have to use early war Soviets.  Please rest assured that I do have the correct forces for every other campaign listed above, though I may have some ‘smaller’ things off, like (for some reason) my early war Brits have a few Stens thrown in, and I don’t have any Pz Is, not enough Pz IIs, and too many Pz III and Pz IVs for Poland.  But the Pz IIIs do have 37mm guns for Poland and France, and will have 50mm guns for North Africa and Soviet Union (in 1942-43), so I do try to get it right!  I don’t have any Churchills or Cromwells for Normandy and Holland, so Shermans will have to do, and Sherman 76s will have to stand in for Fireflies though… 

    So, if everyone can live through a few historical imperfections regarding kit, I promise I’ll do my best to entertain you with a boatload of battle reports from almost every theater the Germans fought in during WWII!

    Stay tuned, fights are coming!

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Rod,

    How dare you!  The photo on my blog of the good Colonel is much more distinguished:

    On a side note, you’re the first one to mention the distinguished German officer 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: An informal survey about new games #14268
    Just Jack
    Participant

    I’ll throw in here.  I like rules with simple, straightforward mechanisms, that:

    1) don’t have my limited mental capacity worried about math, modifiers, and outliers (i.e., “special rules”) so much that I can’t focus on my scheme of maneuver;
    2) don’t allow me to forecast what will happen next;
    3) don’t allow me to do everything I’d like to do.;
    4) and interact in such a way that provides me a constant string of tactical decisions to be made.
    I don’t like rules that take the “don’t allow me to know what happens next/do everything I want” so far that it feels like total chaos, like I’m totally removed from the decision-making process and I’m just a spectator.

    So, with regard to the original post, if #1 meets the requirements outlined above, and works across different periods and/or ‘scales’ (i.e., squad skirmish, platoon-level, company-level, battalion-level, etc…), then so be it.  But I’m not into forcing anything (squeezing a period/scale into the mechanics), so if it doesn’t work, then do #2.  But those rules better meet the above-listed requirements.

    I suppose that makes me a special snowflake 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: FOW Barbarossa. #14261
    Just Jack
    Participant

    I look forward to some proper battle reports, complete with *photographs* 😉

    And, to be honest, WWII is definitely great, but personally I want to see Sultan of Ifat with NEIS.  And yes, someday I need to get up there for a game (I actually haven’t been up your way in a few months).

    Take care Old Man.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: Early War Pendraken Germans, Soviets, and Brits #14200
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Rod – Hey man, it’s good to see you’re back!  I was hoping to kick off the invasion of Poland this weekend, but family issues kept me from getting all my homework done, so I’ll look to launch Fall Weiss next weekend.  Stay tuned as these games are quick (same rules by Ivan that I used for the recent ‘Somewhere in Italy’ games) and so they’ll come hot and heavy.

    I like your concept, but want to stick with a historical timeline for a fake unit.  I’m going Poland, France, North Africa, USSR (Winter Storm, AKA, attempted relief of Stalingrad), Kursk, Italy, USSR (Kharkov and Korsun/Cherkassy), Normandy-Caen, Holland-Market Garden, Ardennes-The Bulge, then Hungary and finish up in Silesia or Pomerania vs. the Soviets.  Should be a heck of a ride.

    Kyote – Sounds awesome man, but pics or it didn’t happen 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    All,

    I love the rules and mentioned heading back to my Legion campaign with them , but I need your help with two things:

    1. Any ideas how to represent a qualitative difference between troops, i.e., the difference between the highly competent Legionnaires and less competent 3rd world military/insurgents?

    All I’ve come up with is ‘better quality gets 1 activation per 2 units, worse quality gets 1 per 3,’ or maybe 1 per 3 (FFL) and 1 per 4 (worse).

    2. More ‘canned’ scenarios; not specific to the Legion, just more for general purpose. More tactical problems/situations with general force structures.

    Simple stuff like ‘mechanized attack,’ x infantry and x mobile support vs. x inf and x inf support, or ‘tank duel,’ x inf and x mobile support vs x inf and x mobile support. I’m looking at delaying action, envelopment, double envelopment, airborne envelopment, ambush/counter ambush, need more and to figure out the force structures.

    I’d love any help/thoughts on the subject.

    Kyote – The RR tracks are kids toys from Target, and my hills are fine 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    Just Jack
    Participant

    Tim,

    I apologize for getting so many games in, but I must confess I don’t plan on stopping.  Not that I can keep up this pace, mind you, I’m pretty sure the wife is ready to kill me.  In any cause, your complaint was kind of the point 😉  I took Ivan’s “Five Men in Normandy” rules and basically swapped out individual figures for stands, and I’ve been playing decent-sized battles very quickly (probably averaged about an hour per game over 5 games).

    While I certainly can enjoy a large game, using lots of units on my full 8′ x 6′ table and taking five or six hours, it’s much more practical to play with a few units on a 3′ x 3′ in an hour.  As a matter of fact, I’ve really found that my sweetspot in wargaming is narrative campaigns, following a group of guys/units through a series of fights, and to do that I absolutely need to keep the games moving.  So, stay tuned, I’ve got big things planned!

    I’m perfectly happy with the way these rules are working for teams, and so I’m looking to get back to my Legionaires, and finish up their mission to eliminate the Sirellists in Estonia, before sending them to some other hotspot/hellhole.  I’ve also got a batch of 90’s USMC finished up that I want to get rolling with as well.  Then I have the massive 6mm project I’m still working on, and this messing around with 5MIN has got me thinking about two things:

    1) following a US or Brit squad through WWII, and

    2) following a German Kampgruppe all the way through WWII, from Poland to France to North Africa to Stalingrad to Kharkov to Kursk to Italy to Korsun to Normandy to Holland to the Ardennes to Hungary to Silesia.  How about that stuff!?  I have everything I need to do that (minus the Poles, but I’ll just use Soviets as proxies), I just need to finish painting some stuff up.  Who’s interested in seeing this, using the rules demo’ed here in these “Somewhere in Italy” reports?  I’m pretty excited about it, though I’m worried as I’m such a wargaming butterfly…

    Thanks Kyote!

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: French Foreign Legion in Estonia, Fight 3 #13549
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Rod,

    There’s no problem with what you’re saying, it’s simply a matter of how I was handling the terrain, and not explaining it!  I don’t suppose I’ve really given any thought to a proper ground scale, suffice to say my battlefield is quite compressed, so I’d say it’s probably only 250-300 yards from end to end, so very close range, which is partly why I’m such a fan of breaking up the battlefield, as every weapon present is easily capable of covering the entire table.

    The hills aren’t high at all (maybe 30 yards at most?), so they don’t offer much in elevation to aid observation, i.e., the ability to see over too much.  So all the trees are LOS blockers, to include the orchard (which is why I said the T-72s in the north were just as well off in the field next to the orchard as they would have been on the in the NE), and to put a T-72 in hull down on the hill in the NE would have had half the tank hanging off the edge of the map, very unsporting 😉

    And I don’t tend to mess around with measuring gaps etc…, that is, terrain is in ‘blocks,’ so, in this case, the hill in the south was impassable to vehicles due to the trees and otherwise rough ground.  Which is really the explanation as to how the French won: the bad guy armor was pretty restricted in its movement, and thus never really got a shot at any French vehicles (one T-72 destroyed the only French vehicle it ever saw, the .50 cal HMMWV as it crossed the bridge).  The French were able to use their 2 ATGMs (which wouldn’t have worked in real life due to minimum engagement ranges, but I rationalize this by way of ‘morphing’ them into/with AT4-type LAAWs, which I don’t bother to model on the table).

    As an aside, I’m not sure about the AMX-10P’s gun, but I know the LAV’s 25mm gun will open up a T-72 at 100m or less, even on its frontal armor.  And I’d imagine the Panhard’s 90mm gun would make life unpleasant at this range as well; maybe not penetrate, but do serious damage to tracks (immobilize), main gun, and optics.  Possibly enough to make bad guys decide to abandon ship even.

    My ‘Somewhere in Italy’ games are posted on this forum as well, over in the WWII section.  I hope you get through all that work stuff and are able to get back soon.  Take care man.

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: French Foreign Legion in Estonia, Fight 3 #13480
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Oh, you guys, you’re making me blush.

    And Kyote, unless you’re out buying a camera you need to head over to the WWII forum and check out the new batrep.
    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: No End In Sight…Oil Pumping Station Zebra. #13479
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Kyote,

    How much dough does Ivan owe you?  And you should use it to buy a camera 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

    in reply to: No End In Sight…Oil Pumping Station Zebra. #13475
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Hippy.

    in reply to: No End In Sight…Oil Pumping Station Zebra. #13470
    Just Jack
    Participant

    Get a camera, Old Man.  Without pics, how do I even know you’re an actual wargamer, and not just a voyeur? 😉

    V/R,
    Jack

Viewing 40 posts - 2,001 through 2,040 (of 2,085 total)