Thanks to Peter Schweighofer and our brief conversation in the comments on my previous post, I changed how the status check works at the start of the turn, and also added an option to fall back rather than eliminate a good order unit.
I also added an option for the side that loses the card draw to move units at the end of the turn provided they haven't fired.and are in good order. This is to keep things moving (no pun intended) in case of long runs of cards which happened to me far too often in testing tonight.
Finally, I changed the artillery arrival chances so that it arrives 50% of the time on the side's next won card draw.
And because people like pictures with their words - here are some Germans awaiting priming. I finished scraping off mold-lines tonight and only stabbed myself once (in my stomach which was a new one. It wasn't deep or terribly painful, but I reprimanded myself for poor knife handling).
The dark blue figures are proper Airfix from a few years ago, the dark grey are Classic Toy Soldier, and the light grey are Chinese knock-offs of Airfix, available from CTS.
Excellent. The rules look very good. The card draw turn sequence determinant (in both games)is a wonderful idea.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking at using a set of strategic/grand tactical level rules for Market Garden on an 8x5, and parts of your turn sequence would work admirably I think.
Thank you for taking a look at them. I'm happy you found something in it that you might be able to use.
DeleteYour Market Garden idea has me quite intrigued!
Having a go at them this morning, great fun.
ReplyDeleteThank you! As I noted on your blog - I updated the close combat rules and also fixed a wording error that Peter S. noted in the comment below.
DeleteThe revisions look good, especially regarding the choice to retreat or eliminate a good order unit when hit and the modification to the status check.
ReplyDeleteI did notice one possible mistake in "Turn Sequence" point 5, side A fire phase: should it read "on a move card" and then "on a fire/face card"?
I like the option for side B to move: it forces a player choice to fire when it can or save actions to move later (assuming they're not disorganized...). Like you said, it's crucial when one player keeps drawing initiative and the other player has an objective requiring him to hustle across the battlefield.
Overall some really great gameplay going on here in the rules.
Thanks again for the shout-out. I'm really enjoying the discussion and hope to field a game soon.
Thank you, Peter! And thank you for catching that error in point 5. I've corrected it.
DeleteI've also modified the close combat section to make it more decisive by using that same "less than 5" idea but this time making it removal. Good order units would still be able to fall back to take a disorder instead. I found that close combats were ending in stalemates more often than not and there was little advantage to engaging in close combat as a result.
How do CTS figures compare to Tamiya 1/35 figures in size? I am rewriting Nordic Weasel's Price of a Mile for WW2 skirmish and am using Tamiya figures for it.
ReplyDeleteHi Reese,
DeleteThat's a good question. I don't have any Tamiya figures at the moment. I sometimes mix in some Dragon 1/35 figures (a kneeling MG-42 team which is noticeably more slender and slightly shorter than the CTS 1/32 or 54mm MG team from an earlier CTS set which is all over the place scale-wise) and they seem to look OK on a base by themselves mixed in among bases of Airfix (Matchbox figures are a little heftier but they work well enough together. TSSD however absolutely dwarf 1/35 figures, and most other 1/32 figures for that matter but are still not 1/30). If you check out Tim Gow's Megablitz and More, he often mixes 1/32 and 1/35 of different manufacturers together in the same army for the same game and to my eyes, they work fine.
I hope that helps. If you want, let me know and I can post some comparison pictures.
Thank you! I have recently ventured in to Dragon figures and they are almost identical in scale. I am no stickler as far as scales go so I am sure they would meet my needs. I realized after I posted that I own a set of CTS North Koreans. Momentary lapse of brain power there. Thanks again for your time and happy gaming!
DeleteHey John,
ReplyDeleteCouple of thoughts...
I think a free reaction for the period is best represented as a fire action, not a movement action. Maneuver takes more training and discipline than returning fire.
If the run of cards is a concern, you could have two decks of cards - one black, one red, and let the values determine how much activity a side can have, similar to OHSW.
I think it is realistic to have units react automatically to certain types of events. So for example, non-phasing Units that are fired upon - and not pinned - might fire at the enemy at the end of the turn. Perhaps special units might be allowed to move as a reaction, perhaps those with the platoon leader?
This would allow the squad leaders to do what they are supposed to do - shoot back to achieve fire superiority - and encourage players to keep a reserve with their PL. The tension may be that the PL has other things he is needed to do, like call in indirect fire, etc.
I hope to try out your rules when I return from 1:1 fun at Camp Dodge, IA, altho I may play them with Star Wars figs like my OHSW playtests.
Best, Alex
Hi Alex,
DeleteThank you so much for your comments!
In Company Fire, where each card represents a phase in a variable length turn, I went the route you suggest (I think you mentioned something along these lines in another post that inspired that decision): the non-phasing side gets to fire at the end of the sequence as a free action with a fraction of their force (because otherwise they aren't doing much of anything), but not to move.
In G Company I moved to treat each card as a complete turn, in a more traditional sense, but where one side has an advantage due to luck/fortunes of war/etc. So movement is an option for the side that didn't win the draw, but there are decisions to be made as to whether to fire when opportunity presents itself or to maneuver (perhaps this reflects the greater discipline required? That might be a stretch on my part).
You've given me some food for thought here regarding the PL. I feel like perhaps they need more to do in order to merit moving them around and to force interesting decisions about which unit to keep them with (in both games). I can see somehow tying it to the movement at the end of the turn in Company G - such as only units within 2 spaces of the PL can move, or something similar.
If you get a chance to give them a try, please let me know what issues you encounter. Both sets of rules are undergoing some tweaking and revision at the moment, as well as fleshing out some areas where there is ambiguity (which in many cases is identical in both sets and represents an assumption I make when playing!).
Cheers!
- John
p.s. I may now have to raid my son's Star Wars collection. I think that would be a pleasant change even with the same rules.