Forum Replies Created
> Though to be fair I suspect a great deal of that desire is just so I can quote bits from the film…
Nothing wrong with that.
There’s an action in Red Army by Ralph Peters, where a Soviet airborne unit is dropped to take a bridge. The expected ground forces never arrive, and in fact aren’t expected to by anyone outside the airborne unit – the drop was a diversion.
I think that makes an interesting scenario, especially if the Soviet player hasn’t read the book.
I haven’t played it, but Panzer Kids should be worth a look. The basic version is pay-what-you-want: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/174924/Panzer-Kids-Basic
I’ve played One Hour Wargames WWII with my son (now 10, but I think he was 8 when we first played). He was able to cope with the rules without any difficulty.
There is a difference to Wargames Vault purchases – each page has ‘Licensed to [name]. Email address: [purchase email address]’ at the bottom
(obviously substitute appropriate values)
TBH, I think this is a good difference
Wargame Vault has a similar thing. At the bottom left of every page, it has “[NAME] (order #[NUMBER])”. It’s optional, so only appears if the publisher has chosen to enable it.
Is there any reason you can’t offer both options? Personally I’d rather buy from Wargame Vault. Offering to email the PDF manually doesn’t inspire confidence.
Something else to consider is that Wargame Vault also give you the option of supplying paper copies via print-on-demand.
Memoir ’44 has a note in the rules about playing with younger children – basically, they suggest not using some of the cards. He can play that and One Hour Wargames without any difficulty. I’ve recently got some 20mm Napoleonic figures, so at some point we’ll find out if he enjoys Napoleonics as much as WWII 🙂
Gary, I’d also hoped it would be something I could play with my 10-year old son. He plays Memoir ’44 and WWII One Hour Wargames with me sometimes, but I think Airfix Battles would be too complex for him.
I think the other problem was that the rules weren’t always very clear. I suspect it’s going to gather dust on the shelf until I eventually get around to selling it 🙁
The rules. It was the first scenario in the book, and designed to be simple to enable you to learn the basic rules. Later scenarios introduce more rules.
For me, Airfix Battles competes with Memoir ’44. I’m not a fan of complex rules, and Airfix Battles isn’t complex per se. But it is more complex than Memoir ’44, without seeming to add anything.
I thought that the BEF’s tanks were a matter of record? <confused>
Possibly. I’m not at home, have limited time for internet searches, and no books on the subject. Arguably, I shouldn’t have asked in this thread, so feel free to ignore.
At Waterloo, why didn’t Napoleon just ignore Hougoumont?
At least some histories seem to think that the attack on Hougoumont was only intended as a diversion. That seems to be debated, though, and I’ve never seen a definitive answer.
Operations Research conducted in the 1980s demonstrated that dedicated AT weapons (even those identical to tank mounts) are at least twice as effective as tank mounted weapons in destroying enemy armour. Yet NATO was sold the myth that the most effective AT weapon was another tank,
I may be wrong, but I always thought the “best anti-tank weapon is another tank” thing was based on a more holistic view, rather than just the simple effectiveness against armour. A MILAN firing post might be more effective at killing T-64s than a Chieftain, but the Chieftain has other advantages: it’s more mobile, gives arguably better protection (I say arguably because it’s harder to hide a Chieftain 😉 ), and is generally useful, whereas the MILAN is only useful against armour.
As Tim says, if there is any disappointment, it was about US Tank Destroyer doctrine, largely as they were misused as tanks. Everybody else’s tank destroyers got on with destroying tanks. The doctrine is still in use today, albeit implemented by attack helicopters.
Same with battle cruisers, heavy cruisers misused as battleships. When used in their intended role (Armoured cruiser killers) as at The Falklands, they worked very well.
That was my understanding, although I was slightly confused for a moment as I couldn’t remember any battle cruisers being present at the Falklands in 1982 🙂 (It’s early, and I haven’t finished my first coffee yet).
the concept was to be able to outgun anything smaller, and run away from battleships
I seem to recall the German WWII pocket battleships had the same basic concept. They do say there is nothing new under the sun.
could you picture yourself being content living in the sustainatopia described above, specifically in a way that entails a greater involvement in the wargaming hobby and/or other comparable hobbies, in exchange for quite severely curtailed purchasing power?
I think I could, yes. My whole family (me, wife, two kids) play board games. We never seem to have enough time to play as many as we’d like, so more time to do so would be great. We have a collection of over 100 games, some of which we haven’t played yet, so I don’t think the reduction in money would be a huge issue, as long as we were still able to pay bills etc.
I am already a sponsoring member and I appreciate the trial…but it does seem to freeze the page for several seconds while it does its thing! Regardless of that hiccup, thank you!
Interesting. It seems ok on my laptop but does indeed freeze my phone a treat. What are you on?
It seems to take a while to do its thing on my work machine, too. Didn’t freeze it or anything, but it took several seconds to register the “like”.
I’ve been wondering if it’s possible to become a sponsoring member twice concurrently.
Mike, would it be possible to set up several types of membership, with different costs? Even if they all had the same benefits, it would make it easy for
idiotsnice people like Rhoderic to give you more money.
I was a teenager in the 1980s. The conventional wisdom at the time seemed to be that Soviet soldiers wouldn’t be willing to fight a war of aggression, and NATO technology would win out over Warsaw Pact numbers. I wasn’t convinced by either of these arguments.
For the first, I always assumed that if the Soviet Union did initiate a war, the Soviet people (and especially the soldiers) wouldn’t know that. Their media would be full of stories about how the Western Imperialists had attacked again, just as they had in 1941.
Secondly, I saw parallels with the later years of the Second World War. German equipment and vehicles are generally considered superior to Allied equivalents, but the Allies had numerical superiority. There were other reasons for the Allied victory, of course, but that parallel made me uneasy.
I still think the first point is one that many people don’t give enough consideration. My brother-in-law was convinced that the footage of the Tiananmen Square protests would lead to an uprising that would bring down the Chinese communist party. I pointed out that the Chinese would see very different news coverage. I don’t know why the uprising didn’t happen, but I’ll bet very few Chinese saw the iconic footage of the man that blocked tanks.