Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

This is something that I witnessed first hand back in the 80's and early 90's when I was zealously playing Hex and Chit war games such as ASL, Panzerblitz/Panzer Leader, Rise and Decline of the Third Reich and the Europa series by GDW. Most "typical" players don't consider the "big picture." They try and annihilate their foes and throw their units or armies in there willy-nilly hoping to achieve their aims. I can't tell you how many scenarios over the years I have won by simply reading the victory conditions which, surprise surprise, rarely call for destroying all of ones troops, or by considering what I want to do in two or three turns in the future. One of my "best wins" was in Panzerblitz where the victory conditions simply stated that I had to get as many troops off the north edge of the board as possible within, I believe, 10 turns. I sent a unit of armour to distract my opponent and streamed the rest of my forces off the board unscathed. I was accused of "cowardice" and "cheating." My only reply to the idiot was "read what my victory conditions are." He couldn't fathom that I wouldn't duke it out with him.

Honestly, this has been going on for ever. Most people are booger-eating morons, so therefore most gamers are booger-eating morons. And you're right; they won't read victory conditions.

Way back in the 70s in the Twin Cities, William Crolley (By the way, Chirine, Bill passed away a couple of summers ago, I don't know if you knew. He was only 60. )

Anyway, William ran an ASL game where the Russians were to delay the Germans for a certain number of turns, and as he put it "Delay the Germans turned into die to the last man." Wargamers do that kind of crap, and always have.

Just last August at GenCon while running "Battle on the Ice" I heard a German player say "We've destroyed three of their units and they've only destroyed two of ours."

I broke my rule of not commenting and said, "You'd better reread your victory coniditions."

Their victory conditions were "Kill or capture Prince Alexander". They never even asked which unit had his banner.

Also, there are a lot more Novgorod units than Teutonic ones.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Honestly, this has been going on for ever. Most people are booger-eating morons, so therefore most gamers are booger-eating morons. And you're right; they won't read victory conditions.

Way back in the 70s in the Twin Cities, William Crolley (By the way, Chirine, Bill passed away a couple of summers ago, I don't know if you knew. He was only 60. )

Anyway, William ran an ASL game where the Russians were to delay the Germans for a certain number of turns, and as he put it "Delay the Germans turned into die to the last man." Wargamers do that kind of crap, and always have.

Just last August at GenCon while running "Battle on the Ice" I heard a German player say "We've destroyed three of their units and they've only destroyed two of ours."

I broke my rule of not commenting and said, "You'd better reread your victory coniditions."

Their victory conditions were "Kill or capture Prince Alexander". They never even asked which unit had his banner.

Also, there are a lot more Novgorod units than Teutonic ones.

Exactly this Glorious General. It's funny how important something as trivial as basic comprehension is. You are bang on with your booger-eating morons observation. As I said in my response to estar I play computer wargames, I don't think that they are great, but sometimes when there are really no options you do have to settle for the "lesser of two weevils"

Shemek

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

In your opinion what would you say is the most popular historical miniature wargame these days? What about fantasy miniature wargame? I think that WH is no more, at least in the form that it was when at the height of its popularity?

Shemek

I'm not Ester but it's clearly Flames of War by a long shot. The new edition might kill the company, it's certainly nearly killed my store, though from a long term perspective FoW needs new customers and a game that's cleaner, easier to get into, and less expensive is the way to go. I would guess that Rick Priestly's trilogy Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte, and Black Powder are the most popular in their fields mainly because Warlord is a solid company with plastics and decent market penetration. Even then I'd bet that Bolt Action is more popular than the other three put together but is a distant second to FoW. Fast paced and fun has long since displaced nitpicky and accurate in the marketplace.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Agreed! I play my miniatures games the same way, which has elicited the same reactions from my opponents over the years...

Reading lord Shemek's account makes me sorry that there isn't a game of WWII in town. I am reading Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart's book now, and I feel a kind of itch which I believe is familiar to you all.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Watching Mike Reese run Tractics at GaryCon has been very educational. He runs platoon level stuff, and Tractics works a treat for that. Using all the data in von Sanger und Etterlin to resolve a regimental level battle ... um... takes a while.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Honestly, this has been going on for ever. Most people are booger-eating morons, so therefore most gamers are booger-eating morons. And you're right; they won't read victory conditions.

Personally, I believe reading Sun Tzu and Sun Bin is the best way to learn reading the victory conditions.

Originally Posted by David Johansen

I'm not Ester but it's clearly Flames of War by a long shot. The new edition might kill the company, it's certainly nearly killed my store,

Say more about this, please. ( I know nothing about FoW)

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Personally, I believe reading Sun Tzu and Sun Bin is the best way to learn reading the victory conditions.

Absolutely. See Chirine's account of the 3rd battle of Mar.

Originally Posted by David Johansen

I'm not Ester but it's clearly Flames of War by a long shot. The new edition might kill the company, it's certainly nearly killed my store, though from a long term perspective FoW needs new customers and a game that's cleaner, easier to get into, and less expensive is the way to go. I would guess that Rick Priestly's trilogy Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte, and Black Powder are the most popular in their fields mainly because Warlord is a solid company with plastics and decent market penetration. Even then I'd bet that Bolt Action is more popular than the other three put together but is a distant second to FoW. Fast paced and fun has long since displaced nitpicky and accurate in the marketplace.

FoW is the only historical wargame that I really see being played hereabouts, at least in the local game stores. From what I've seen of it and understand of its mechanics I'm not a fan. It looked to be platoon and company based, and having watched it being played it seemed to be reminiscent of Warhammer with army point values and such, although Bolt Action may be a better comparison given the pedigrees of its designers. I haven't read either rules, but having seen Flames of War being played in person, and a Bolt Action battle report on Youtube neither really interest me.
Anyway, my preferred era these days is SYW/18th Century and many gamers seem to like the Black Powder rules which you mentioned.
BTW, what is so bad with the new edition FoW?

Shemek

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Reading lord Shemek's account makes me sorry that there isn't a game of WWII in town. I am reading Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart's book now, and I feel a kind of itch which I believe is familiar to you all.

Yes indeed my friend. I'd love to dust off me well worn Panzerblitz box and play out a few secenarios.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Personally, I believe reading Sun Tzu and Sun Bin is the best way to learn reading the victory conditions.

This ties in to my earlier response to estar regarding personal accounts, and looking at maps. Anyone who can read a map and sees the topography where the Chickamauga Campaign will take place will instantly deploy and use their troops accordingly.

Shemek

Okay so, Flames of War fundamentals. Armies are bought from points costs lists organized by specific forces such as Desert Rats or Afrika Corps. You have a mandatory command element and then a number of mandatory units like 2 panzer III squadrons. Each list has limited access to divisional support units which aren't properly part of the unit but are available for the mission. Deployment is by scenario but the defender normally deploys first. In most scenarios tank companies attack before motor infantry companies which attack before infantry companies.

The I go you go turn sequence is broken into three phases: Movement, Shooting, and Assault. At the start of your turn you make motivation tests to shake off pinning and get bailed out crews back in their tanks. You also make skill tests to unbog stuck vehicles. In general Tanks move 12" and Infantry moves 6". Moving cuts your rate of fire in half unless your tanks have stabilized turrets. Moving at the double means you can't shoot at all. Vehicles that move through difficult terrain must make a skill test or become bogged down and stop moving. Aircraft are deployed during the movement phase and must be more than 18" from friendly units or buildings.

Infantry has a 360 degree fire arc. A vehicle or gun's front arc is drawn straight across its front everything else is in the side arc. The target number to hit a unit is based on its experience level: Recruit 2+, Regular 3+, Veteran 4+. Shooting beyond 16" (maximum rifle range) is at -1 to hit (it's written as +1 but -1 is generally a clearer indication of a penalty so we'll be flipping the modifier signs for this discussion), a target concealed in terrain is also good for a -1 to hit. You roll a number of d6 equal to your rate of fire to find how many hits are inflicted. The target then rolls a save, guns are 3+, tanks are Anti-Tank - Armour, infantry is 3+ (they're like SPACE MARINES!). If a vehicle's armor is tied the attacker rolls the gun's Fire Power to bail them out. If the save fails, attacker rolls the gun's firepower to destroy and if that test fails the crew bails out (or the vehicle is otherwise disabled.) Motivation tests are by unit motivation 3+ for Fearless, 4+ for Confident, 5+ for Reluctant (my Rommanians often have Reluctant Veteran units) If a unit has more units fighting than destroyed it's fine. If it has fewer units fighting than destroyed it has to make a Motivation test or run off and be removed from the table.

Artillery needs a spotter with line of sight to fire. You get three chances to range in based on the unit's quality. If you range in you roll to hit against every target under the template, with -1 if you ranged in on the second attempt and -2 if you ranged in on the third. Sometimes if your target stays still you can order "All Guns Repeat" and don't have to range in. If you have one or two guns in the battery you have to re-roll hits and if you have five or six guns you get to re-roll misses. Batteries of eight guns get a double width template. The British artillery doctrine lets them combine multiple batteries. Artillery penetrates saving throws the same way direct fire does but attacks top armour.

Aircraft fire much like artillery.

The assault phase allows a 6 inch move to come into contact with enemy units. The defender gets to take a round of defensive fire if they're more than 2" away. Infantry has to take a tank terror motivation test. The attacker gets one attack per stand and then the defender must make a motivation test or fall back. If successful, the defender can fight back and the attacker has to make a motivation test or be pushed back. If either fails motivation the other has the option of following up to take their position and can attack again if the enemy is in reach.

When an army falls to fewer platoons or vehicle squadrons fighting than destroyed they must make a company morale test or the entire company routes and the game ends. Many scenarios end when one side controls two objectives.

The edition changes are numerous and fiddly, personally the game was drowning under the weight of special case rules and needed cleaned up. The old books had several army lists for $50 while the new ones have one for $30. But as the old players have most of what they want already Battle Front needs to bring in new players to keep going. Slimmer rulebooks and cards that summarize unit statistics and special rules are the way to achieve that.

Thanks for the explanation.

How has it nearly killed your store?