Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

The thread got far without me, and I'm not going to go back for once and comment on everything. Besides, other people have already said what I would have said.

BTW, Gronan, that story tells of an impressive win. I assume the German tanks had at least some stat advantage against US tanks under the rules?

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I wanted to revisit this, if that's all right. I think there's a very, very good point made here about learning from books and texts. Back when I first started playing pike-and-shot games, I got a facsimile copy of "Pallas armata, Military essayes of the ancient Grecian, Roman, and modern art of war vvritten in the years 1670 and 1671" by Sir James Turner, Knight. I learned from that volume how to handle troops in period - and it also was my guidebook for being the Glorious General's staff officer. Likewise all of the other periods I've played in - and for Tekumel, too. I built up my library to provide the best possible information I could, and I think paid off over the years.

Great point - thank you!!!

Heh, congratulations on that!

(In the spirit of sharing sources, I'll note that my own tactics have always been based on what little I've been able to understand and apply by the treaties of Sir Basil Liddle-Hart, Sun Tzu, Wu Tzu, Sun Bing, Von Klausewitz, and whatever I've been able to find translated from Bansenshukai. I don't think I have nearly as impressive wins, though).

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Well, all right, if you say so. It's very kind of you to say all this, Glorious General; I think I just do what needs to be done.

You gave me a pretty clear mission and objective for this game, and I set my forces up to carry out that mission. I fought my battle with what I had; I think that this has always been my gift, whether in a miniatures game or keeping Tekumel afloat for so many years. I take what resources we have available, assemble them into a useable format, and then just get on with it. I don't sit on my hands, moaning about how somebody should do it for me.

I have to say you are probably right; I am pretty good at what I do, I guess.

If only more players could learn that!


Me, I want to ask you something about climate. What would "winter" be in Tekumel? Is there a non-active part of the year? (I'd expect people not working in the hottest months, instead, and only going out at night, unless it can't be helped).

Originally Posted by AsenRG

The thread got far without me, and I'm not going to go back for once and comment on everything. Besides, other people have already said what I would have said.

BTW, Gronan, that story tells of an impressive win. I assume the German tanks had at least some stat advantage against US tanks under the rules?

Good question, Eager Young Space Cadet.

First, as a general rule of thumb, the defense has approximately a 3:1 advantage in most circumstances in most periods.

Secondly, yes, the German tanks had a substantial technical advantage. By this time even Mark IVs had a long 75 mm gun; though they weren't heavily armored by any means, this means that they could knock out a Sherman with a 75mm gun at a range farther away than the Sherman could counter, and they were pretty much even-up with Sherman with the improved 76mm gun.

The Panther is just plain nasty; sloped armor makes it tough to kill from the front even for the Sherman 76mm, and the Panther's 75/L70 actually had better penetration than the Tiger I's 88; the Panther will open a Sherman up like a can of sardines at any range it can see it, and even a 76mm gun Sherman needs to get fairly close to have a chance from the front. A 75mm Sherman ain't doing squat from the front and needs to be within 500 yards or so from the flank, which is getting pretty darn close.

One on one the German tanks were better, and when you add in the advantage of prepared defensive positions the usual kill ratio is about 2:1 or 3:1.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/405605510169170013/

And Chirine's point about "stop whining and fight the battle" is dead on too.

EDIT: To clarify, the rules reflect this. ANY historical war game should reflect the capabilities of the units involved. Treating the Sherman and the Panther identically would be like treating a guy in leather armor and hand axe the same as a guy in plate armor and bastard sword.

Originally Posted by Hermes Serpent

Another thing that helps if you are doing a lot of miniatures gaming is the equivalent to the Staff Ride of the German Staff. Visit and walk over all the battlefields you can with a description of the battle in hand. That way you can usually understand why decision were made from the options available. Through the 70's I did most of the English Civil War battles that happened in the south of England on that basis plus Waterloo. Going further back is not necessarily useful as fields and woods can have changed over the years very easily. The Enclosure Acts after 1604 did much to put previously Common Land into private ownership thus changing some aspects of the battlefields of England. When I lived in Virginia I tried to do as many of the ACW battlefields on the same basis as I could. I didn't manage very many of the Revolutionary War battlefields as I would have liked but dragging the wife around fields was not always appreciated by her.

Agreed - very strongly! Wandering around Harlech Castle was one such moment; standing at the foot of that long, long slope and looking up at the Union position at The Angle was another - and it was a hot summer day, as well, so I got a very strong feeling of 'place'. Fort Ticonderoga, and the Castilio de San Marcos, too. Walking through Cirencester, in the footsteps of Prince Rupert, I got a real lesson in how much of a pain in the tush it must have been moving formed bodies of troops through those narrow streets.

[From AsenRG:]
BTW, Gronan, that story tells of an impressive win. I assume the German tanks had at least some stat advantage against US tanks under the rules?

The rules didn't enter into it, although "Tractics" is a very good set indeed. Historically, WWII German armor and weapons systems enjoyed a normal 5:1 advantage over Allied equipment; in Normandy, for example, it was considered 'normal wastage' for Allied tank formations to lose a platoon of four or five tanks for every one German tank destroyed. The infantry was just as good; see also Dupuy and Dupuy, where they came to the very unpleasant conclusion (based on the evidence) that each German soldier three times more combat-effective then one US or UK soldier - and almost 200 time more effective then a Soviet soldier.

So, yeah, I guess that was a pretty impressive win to that fight.

In the spirit of sharing sources, I'll note that my own tactics have always been based on what little I've been able to understand and apply by the treaties of Sir Basil Liddle-Hart, Sun Tzu, Wu Tzu, Sun Bing, Von Klausewitz, and whatever I've been able to find translated from Bansenshukai. I don't think I have nearly as impressive wins, though.

Try the Griffith translation and commentary of the Sun Tzu Ping Fa; he's a US Marine general, and has a fascinating perspective on the book.

Practice. Just practice. I've been at this for a while.

Me, I want to ask you something about climate. What would "winter" be in Tekumel? Is there a non-active part of the year? (I'd expect people not working in the hottest months, instead, and only going out at night, unless it can't be helped).

You have it quite well, actually. Summers are torrid, and nobody really tries to do much of anything - it's the dry season, in most areas. Winters are much nicer and cooler, and are also often the 'wet' or 'monsoon' season. Think India or Southeast Asia, and you can't go far wrong.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

And Chirine's point about "stop whining and fight the battle" is dead on too.

EDIT: To clarify, the rules reflect this. ANY historical war game should reflect the capabilities of the units involved. Treating the Sherman and the Panther identically would be like treating a guy in leather armor and hand axe the same as a guy in plate armor and bastard sword.

Yep. I fought the battle - not that I don;t say, 'played the game', at what at best was a 3:1 disadvantage, and at worst maybe a 9:1 to 15:1 disadvantage. It all depended on how you crunched the numbers.

I didn't crunch the numbers. I was a US armored regiment commander, given the task of getting help to the besieged paratroopers up the road. Give that mission, I fought the battle the bast way I knew how, with what I had to hand. I used my forces the way Lesey McNair had designed them to fight the Germans, and the enemy was kind enough to stand there with their mouths hanging open while I did what the American Army did best in WWII - smother them in massive amounts of firepower, and kill them.

Please read that second sentence again, if you would:

"I was a US armored regiment commander"

Yes, you guessed it. I was role-playing. I had 'immersion'; I was standing on a crummy little road in Belgium, freezing my butt off, and up to my ankles in cold wet mud. So, yes, I had 'immersion', all right; that's what we all did, back in those days - we got into our roles as the people we were playing, no matter what the game and setting might be. My two air commanders, who fought the air combat side of this game, were your typical swaggering 'fifty-mission crush' types and did their jobs with speed and dispatch; the Luftwaffe never know what hit them.

We did this out at Phil's too. After the Castle Tilketl campaign, Gronan mourned the loss of each and every one of his troopers that had gotten killed carrying out the mission he'd been given. The campaign had been a howling success, restoring strategic fluidity to the stalled Northwest Frontier campaign, and he got a medal and a promotion. He still felt terrible about the casualties he'd taken, and it took him several weeks - both in real time and in game time - to get over the losses.

That's what we thought was 'wargaming', and 'role-playing', back then.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I have to say you are probably right; I am pretty good at what I do, I guess.

Let me say that from what I've read of To Serve The Petal Throne really gave me insight into Chirine baKal. Those adventures really impressed me. I felt like I was reading a pulp era Sword and Sorcery tale. Ingenious solutions to problems. Sometimes so simple it blew me away. The humor and smoothness of Lord Chirine is classic. A true Hero of the Age worthy of having songs sung in his honor. Uncle a hundred thanks for an eye opening experience.



More questions coming...Thanks.

H :0)

PS Thanks to The Glorious General and all who have helped make this thread a pleasure to read. So much to learn, so little time.

PSS Keep writing Uncle...

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

[From AsenRG:]
BTW, Gronan, that story tells of an impressive win. I assume the German tanks had at least some stat advantage against US tanks under the rules?

The rules didn't enter into it, although "Tractics" is a very good set indeed.

I think for Asen's sake, not being familiar with the game, I'd add that TRACTICS uses historical gun and armor data. Thus if the Sherman gun "using the M62 APC round, the 76mm gun penetrated 109 mm (4.3 in) of armor at 1,000 m (3,300 ft)," that was incorporated into Tractics. Cumbersome I admit; there were 5 range bands from Point Blank to Extreme, and three sub bands within each band, each with a penetration number. And EVERY tank had a full set of armor data. Suspension armor and hull flank armor were not necessarily the same, never mind the turret and which way is the turret facing! And is the tank angled to you so that there is some horizontal slope to the armor as well as the vertical?

That's why I was so busy during the game as referee. But the good news is it gives you a damn good simulation of what happens when the tungsten hits the steel.

It also shows why, at Gary Con, Tractics author Mike Reese runs a game where there are fewer than 10 vehicles total on the board. No dummy, he.

Originally Posted by Hrugga

Let me say that from what I've read of To Serve The Petal Throne really gave me insight into Chirine baKal. Those adventures really impressed me. I felt like I was reading a pulp era Sword and Sorcery tale. Ingenious solutions to problems. Sometimes so simple it blew me away. The humor and smoothness of Lord Chirine is classic. A true Hero of the Age worthy of having songs sung in his honor. Uncle a hundred thanks for an eye opening experience.

More questions coming...Thanks.

PS Thanks to The Glorious General and all who have helped make this thread a pleasure to read. So much to learn, so little time.

PSS Keep writing Uncle...

Thank you for your very kind words! What I'm trying to do with my book is take you to a time and place that we inhabited for a while, and what we did while we were there. Playing with those 'first generation guys' was a heck of an introduction to a style and method like nothing I'd ever seen before - you had to get really good really fast!

And thank you for the shout-out to the pulps. Phil grew up with them, and they really influenced his creation and the writing he did set in it. He did a lot of 'pulp stuff' in his games, and they were some of the very best adventures we ever had - I'm trying to capture that feel for you, and give you some sense of the sheer fun we had.

Chirine is, all things considered, a decent guy who's trying to do the best job he can in a difficult world. He's been a friend, for some forty years, and I'm very glad to have the chance to be able to tell you about him and the people he has in his life.

And yes, I have added some 4,000 words this past week, I am now up to something like 122,000...

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

I think for Asen's sake, not being familiar with the game, I'd add that TRACTICS uses historical gun and armor data. Thus if the Sherman gun "using the M62 APC round, the 76mm gun penetrated 109 mm (4.3 in) of armor at 1,000 m (3,300 ft)," that was incorporated into Tractics. Cumbersome I admit; there were 5 range bands from Point Blank to Extreme, and three sub bands within each band, each with a penetration number. And EVERY tank had a full set of armor data. Suspension armor and hull flank armor were not necessarily the same, never mind the turret and which way is the turret facing! And is the tank angled to you so that there is some horizontal slope to the armor as well as the vertical?

That's why I was so busy during the game as referee. But the good news is it gives you a damn good simulation of what happens when the tungsten hits the steel.

It also shows why, at Gary Con, Tractics author Mike Reese runs a game where there are fewer than 10 vehicles total on the board. No dummy, he.

This - what he said. "Tractics" is a very, very good simulation of WWII armored combat, and still holds up as well today as it did back then. For all I know, somebody has ported it over to a computer, which does all the number-crunching for the GM.

What I am hoping to be able to say is that all through this game, I never looked at the rules. After I got the movement rates off the reference sheet, I simply got on with the mission. That's why I think there's a difference between 'playing the game', which I was not doing, and 'fighting my battle', which I was.

We had, back then, a very different approach to our gaming, and I don't know if there's a good way to demonstrate or show that.