Sunday, August 18, 2019

Testing Some Rules Changes

I incorporated some changes into Company Fire that came up in my own games and in discussions in the comments on some previous posts, but with the unexpected recent painting motivation, I hadn't had a chance to try them out until Friday.

The major changes this time were:

  • Allowing a unit to ignore a single hit from non-opportunity small arms fire by falling back two spaces.
  • Limiting stacking to three units per space: two "regular" bases (including vehicles) and one single mounted figure - this is to make group fire less ridiculous and limit bonuses on close combat.
I played the the farm scenario from the 2x2 Small Crossfire Scenarios. The Germans were the attackers, the Soviets the defenders. Whoever occupies the farm at the end of the game is the winner.

The setup converted to a square grid (This is the botched cloth mentioned several posts back. I haven't had time to redo the grid and I really just like this color better so I decided to use it as is and it worked a treat. The varying sized grid spaces were of little consequence in play. FYI only the vertices are marked so it's near invisible in the pictures):
The green squares are Soviet blinds.About half the blinds are blank.
The German 2nd platoon advance on the right was immediately met with MG fire from the farm:

2nd platoon advances on the right but their flank is exposed to MG fire.
The Germans returned fire and suppressed the MG (which later rallied) which allowed both platoons to advance, although not without revealing another Soviet rifle squad and mortar. German accuracy kept those units from being effective.

So many pinned Soviet units! 
The German Forward Observer moved up and called in an artillery strike on the farm - in a run of terrible luck, he would repeat this effort three times and the fire mission would not arrive even once).

With the Soviet rifle unit pinned, the German 2nd platoon leader coordinated a close assault. The Soviet's gave a good accounting of themselves but they were out numbered and at a disadvantage and forced to fall back.

Close assault!

The Soviet rifle unit falls back - the rules require a unit that loses close combat with a suppression result to fall back. The winner has the option to claim any vacated ground.
Meanwhile on the German left, with the MG suppressed yet again, first platoon's leader coordinated a close assault on that flank as well and stormed the farm.

Close combat again!
The lone MG and the Soviet PL were no match for the Germans. However the Germans opted not to advance - concerned over possible Soviet forces behind the farm waiting to counter-attack.

The German 2nd platoon continued to press the Soviet rifle squad they had beaten back previously via a second close combat(which they could not resist this time), while two other Soviet squads and the mortar attempted to reclaim the farm.

Things are not going well for this Soviet rifle section.
2nd platoon swung around, while squads from the first platoon - who had held up advancing when they defeated the MG - came under fire from the Soviets.

The fight around the farm heats up.
With victory in sight, the steam roller that was the German 2nd platoon moved on to tackle the Soviet mortar position - who, in a small miracle, gave as good as it got and took one of the German squads with it to Hell.

A stunning stand by the mortar team. When the sides tie, they each lose a stand on a 1 for 1 basis.
One of the rifle squads from 2nd platoon had a clear shot at the farm house and suppressed the Soviets within. The Soviets weren't able to rally nor put together any kind of concerted effort, and so when the German first platoon rallied, they stormed and captured the farm:

Yes, another close combat.
The overview of the end of the fight - only the Soviet Forward Observer and a rifle squad hidden in the woods survived:
End of the fight.
As a game it feels more serious than I perhaps intended - maybe a little more simulation (fire and pint/suppress to maneuver then close assault to capture ground) than my original goal but I found it engaging and fun, so I'm not complaining.

The stacking change worked to prevent the dice rolling absurdity of 3 units+PL in a single space close assaulting a lone unit.  Assuming a tweak to the orderly retreat option (allow a unit to fall back one space to  ignore one hit - but only one space - from small arms fire instead of requiring two for one) works during play and updating the QRS and I will probably call these done for now, as they let me fight the 2x2 Small Crossfire scenarios and other platoon to company engagements on a grid.

8 comments:

  1. Great looking game. Do you have a set organisation for platoons or do different nationalities have different organisations? What is the smallest number of figures for a game? I wonder if you are considering using bicycle troops ( there is a very good film about Danish cyclist troops in early in ww2) or mounted units ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, tradgardmastare!

      The OOBs I have used with these rules have all been dependent on the what the scenario designers suggested, although the rules are intended to work with roughly historical organizations as well as the common generic '3 sections/squads and a platoon leader is a platoon'. So, if a platoon has 4 sections vs 3 sections of infantry, that wouldn't be a problem. Now, if you want to account for section differences - such as late war Panzergrenadiers having two LMG teams - that would be an issue as the rules treat squads/sections as an amorphous lump. You could in that case start playing with different 'To Hit' values or number of dice rolled.

      The rules were originally intended to be infantry only, as are most Crossfire scenarios which is what set me off on this adventure, but that isn't always an option or fun, so the vehicle rules were added to address those points.

      As such, I think the biggest area for organization issues are with anti-tank weapon distribution. Single anti-tank weapons being attached to platoon hq teams or to company command pose a problem since the PL and CC have no combat abilility in my rules. It's easier for the game if they are attached to a squad - then I can just use a figure to indicate that on the section's base or next to it - but if not, they could be fielded as SMFs, like snipers are, or separately based weapons teams like a mortar or MMG. In the case of panzerfaust - where there are many in a single infantry squad, I tracked those on a roster, the same way I do artillery fire missions. I should probably add this to the rules.

      I have played a fairly small scenario, https://www.iandrea.co.uk/wargames/xfire/xfsc/df/df.html, twice now and had enjoyable games both times. Using my 2-figures-per-base, the defender needs 7 figures (4 for the squads, 2 for the MG team, and 1 for the PL) whereas the more typical 3-figures-per-section (2 for the MG) would use just 9. The attacker needs 9 with 2 figures, 12 with 3 figures. I have played with as little as a single rifle squad and platoon leader on one side - although they were supported by an independent LMG team, an MMG team, and an ATG with crew. Of course, they faced an entire platoon, with mortar, MG support and a tank (https://54mmorfight.blogspot.com/2019/06/skirmish-campaigns-grandcamp-bloody.html).

      I would LOVE to field Danish bicycle troops - the movie I think you are referring to is April 9th (which I rate as my favorite war movie even after just one viewing). I do not however have any. There was some discussion on a post about the movie about converting Soviets to the job perhaps. However, I have not made any effort on that front for now. That said, I should think bicycles, motorcycles, and horses could all fit into the rules fairly easily (and given I'm currently looking at the Eastern front, horses may be a necessary inclusion on my table) depending on how much detail you like (I consider the vehicle rules light beer + pretzels for sure).

      For bicycles, I'm inclined to have them move at 2 spaces off road, 3 on road - which puts them about the same as a heavy tank in that regard. Dismounting would be a movement action. Troops in carriers need a move to dismount as well - I'm pretty sure that's not anywhere in the rules either since I haven't played them with vehicle mounted troops on the table. Another addition I need to make!

      I hope those answers are helpful, but please let me know if you have any further questions or if I muddied things up.

      Delete
  2. It certainly looked/read as a good and engaging game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ross! Hopefully my prose, such as it is, isn't overselling it, but I found it enjoyable.

      Delete
  3. John,

    The table in the picture appears larger than the one you usually use. Is this just camera perspective? If not, how large is your largest?

    Best regards,

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chris,

      This is the same size I usually use. The playing area is 3' x 3', divided into 6x6 squares. There is about half a square extra on the one side, due to the way I folded the cloth. That plus the lack of visibility of the vertices helps to contribute to the larger look as well, I think.

      The biggest I can field is 4' x 4' (two plywood boards on the kitchen table), followed by 3' x 5' (the entire kitchen table with no plywood). However, I tend to play on 3' x 3' the most.

      Cheers,

      John

      Delete
  4. Looking good, John. Has nice balance of old and new school thinking. To me that means big figs on green bases / toy soldiers, and simple rules without a ton of unnecessary plodding details to wade thru.
    Cheers, Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Alex! I'm doing what I can to keep the unnecessary details out - but I keep finding new things that seem necessary (even when I think "I'm done." :D ).

      Cheers!

      - John

      Delete