Saturday, November 9, 2019

Old Man River (Crossing)

Nov. 8th, 1941, two platoons of Company G prepared to cross the Volvo, near Village K, where the river is both bridged and fordable. Recon had indicated prepared Soviet defenses North of the river, including a pill box overlooking the bridge. Company G was ordered to take the building and woods East of the road.

Soviets scanning for enemy activity.
2nd platoon, to the East of the road, came under fire upon arrival, and one squad suffered heavy casualties from Soviet fire from the woods north of the river. The German 1st platoon in the buildings West of the road, was pinned by MG fire from the pillbox.

The German force arrives on table.
Soviet fire wreaked havoc on the attackers and it was with great effort that the German 2nd platoon aided by the engineer made the first of repeated efforts to ford the river.

Engineers and a squad from second platoon under fire from Soviet defenses.
Although smoke had been called, it failed to arrive (and eventually the request was outright denied) and with the German attempts to ford the river via the woods on their right faltering, first and second squad from 1st Platoon attempted to cross the bridge to take out the enemy MG.

Soviets in the house opposite the bunker have clear sites to the oncoming Germans.
Soviet MG fire was ineffectual but the rifle squad  in the house opposite the bunker managed to push back the German advance.
At close range, with a target in the open this should have been a slam dunk for the MG. Instead they rolled a 1 and a 2. Disciplinary action will not doubt follow this loathsome performance.
Meanwhile, German 2nd platoon managed to get a squad across the Volvo, but the engineers were held up by Soviet mortar fire which forced them back into the woods south of the river.

What would have been a two vs two now doesn't look like it's going to go so well for the Germans.

The bridge assault ended in disaster - smoke was called again and again, and NEVER arrived -  with one squad force to retreat to the building south of the river and the other decimated in the open on the bridge by the Soviet rifle squad in the building to the north..

Disordered in the open,  and targeted by Soviet heavy mortars, it was just a matter of time before the German squad was eliminated.
A brutal encounter played out in the woods on the East of the battle - the German squad managed to eliminate their opposite number, but the Soviet mortar crew proved a more tenacious lot and were left in control of the woods.

The Germans were outnumbered, but all units were disordered (I removed the dice for the photo op) so there was still hope that they could eliminate both Soviet units. It was not to be.

With 2nd platoon eliminated, the engineers held up in the river, and the remaining squad from 1st platoon forced back south of the river, the Germans abandoned their assault.

An indisputable Soviet victory.
Some thoughts:

Rules were my own G Company.

The scenario is The River from Crossfire Small 2x2 Scenarios. I set  it up on a 3' x 3' square, with 6" grid paces (so, 6 x 6). Game time was an hour and a total of 10 turns. I could have called it at 7 or 8 but I wanted to see if the Germans couldn't swing some kind of miracle.

This was the first game I've played in awhile where the objective was just to play a game and not test rules mechanisms. It was most enjoyable that way. I had almost forgotten what that's like! I also got to field the Soviet MG, the German engineers, and the German FO in their first games (although none did anything worth bragging about - indeed all seemed to function like new recruits, despite being "regular" troops in game terms).

Of course, I still found some things with the rules that need tweaking or clarification.

First and foremost, the artillery rules, which use a mechanism I came up with early on in the process and was rather enamored with, aren't really fun, given the way turns work. Between the uncertainty of when a side's card will come up with and then a dice roll to verify arrival, off-table fire is hamstrung beyond use. I have already changed them to something more fun from a game perspective (meaning it will actually arrive eventually) and will try them out the next time I play - hopefully they'll be ready for the next rules update.

The green chits all over the board are potential minefield markers. I have been at various times satisfied and dissatisfied with this method. Mostly, the aesthetics bother me. I have decided a more toy-like / game-like approach, where the minefield is clearly visible to all from the start is a better approach for G Company which is intended to be a "lite" game. Once played with a few times, I'll add them to the rules proper.

I really need rules for fording a river. - not because I can't make them up on the spot, I did, but because I don't want to have to reinvent the wheel every time I play this scenario.

13 comments:

  1. Nice play report and after-action analysis.

    I think scenario-specific rules like fording rivers can sometimes best occupy "special rules" sections of a scenario text and don't necessarily require listing in a main rulebook.

    I prefer having minefields clearly marked with a chance for units passing through to set them off and take damage...or the option for engineers to neutralize the mines. Offers some clear player choices: to charge ahead and take the risk, to avoid them altogether (in which the minefield accomplishes its goal), or send engineers to clear them.

    I'm enjoying watching G Company evolve. Looking forward to the next update!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Peter!

      If I didn't find myself needing something to consistently use (this is my 3rd or 4th time playing this one scenario) I probably wouldn't have worried about rules for fording rivers. Maybe I'll just add one of those old school disclaimers, "If it's not in the rules, decide on the spot. If the players can't agree, dice between them and agree to move on", to handle other situations.

      I see your point about the minefield marker offering player choice. I definitely feel like I'm headed down the right road with a change away from blinds / map marking. With the blinds and a percentage chance method that I tried, I found it complicated things with little gained from my perspective.

      Cheers!

      - John

      Delete
  2. Looked like a tough job going in.

    Sounded like a good game though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Each time I've played this it's been a rough go for the attackers. In part, I think, my conversion of the map to a grid (and a small number of grid spaces at that) actually expands some of the dead ground - and given my own rules' limits on stacking, some units are therefore forced to start completely exposed.

      I think next time, I'll have to move this to an 8x8 grid, or add an extra space of cover for the attacker

      Delete
  3. I really like the look of your games John - the bombed out buildings are great

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Maudlin Jack! I'm finally getting to a point where I'm also happy with the look of my games. I can't take credit for those buildings - they were a download I acquired years ago and used for my 1/72 figures. They are rather effective even with the larger figures and even better, they fold and take up very little space.

      Delete
  4. Another beautiful looking game. I like the buildings especially. Stupid question but are they ‘homemade’ or based on an online template. I want some buildings and need a quick but pretty solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! They were a download - I think free - but it was years ago and I cannot figure out where I got them. I am going to dig around though.

      At first I thought it was this set: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/81967/Low-Ruins-Paper-Models-Set (which I have, and for the current price of $1 USD it's a good deal - it includes multiple layers so you can decide which size, 4" or 6", windows and doors, and different building materials. His buildings are quite nice. If you're not sold on trying out the walls he has a freebie ) but it's not the same.

      Dave Graffam does a lot of great buildings. If you're not sold on the idea, he offers two pay what you want (they were free downloads when I got them years ago):

      The coach house: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/84421/Coach-House-Paper-Model?manufacturers_id=2985 Lovely model I had for years, until it finally got crushed (if I recall, the chimney was a quite a struggle to make).

      and the hovel: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/82128/Hovel-Paper-Model?manufacturers_id=2985 (The hovel is pretty tiny but it has its uses. Another one that lasted me for years.)

      I used fairly flimsy cardstock (60lb) and it worked well enough in both cases but 100lb would be better and some people mount the paper on foam board instead for robust buildings that can really take abuse.

      I will take a look at my files and see if I can find the ones I used in this game.

      Cheers!

      - John

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the information. I myself used a template from some 40k website to create foam ore facades but using thinner card would work better with the grid I use. One fun part of limiting our palette, is that we are forced to be creative. My little men are waiting though for another battle, hopefully his week I can finally get the time, enthusiasm (and energy) for it!

      Delete
    3. Thinner card definitely is a space saver. I hope you manage to get the armies out! Even if I don't have time/energy for a game, I like to set them out on my game cloth and just look at them (I don't think I'm alone in this. I hope!)

      Delete
  5. Great looking game and always good to give rules a solid testing. Being open to making necessary tweaks and adjustments is important, I reckon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, James. I think the important skill, and one I lack, is knowing when to stop adjusting and tweaking the rules!

      Delete
    2. Laugh and nod of agreement here!
      (Then again, nothing wrong with continual improvement, part of which is throwing out previous 'improvements'!)

      Delete