In looking at warfare in the cold war period (and even in WW2). I have noticed many many battles where one side has no way to win in a conventional sense. In American history the Alamo comes to mind.
I have seen many battles where one side knows they will be destroyed or forced off of an objective but chooses or is forced to fight anyway. These types of battles are becoming the norm rather than set piece battles between 2 formally organized and capable military units.
Outside of solitare play how do you game these types of engagements? How do you get someone to be the "whipping boy"? For example who would ever want to play the Iraqis? or the Cubans at Grenada? Or the PDF in Panama?
I understand in the real world these battles can have adverse effects politically but when yoru world is condensed to a 5x5 or 6x12 table how do ou judge victory or defeat?
Gaming a "no win" situation
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
Gaming a "no win" situation
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
8ball
- E5
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:52 am
- Contact:
I created a PanzerBliz modern variant that covers the wars in Iraq. Of course the Iraqis have no chance whatsoever of going toe-to-toe with the Americans. So, I created victory conditions that reflected asymetrical warfare. Basically, American units have much higher victory point values than do the Iraqi units. Essentially, all the Iraqi player has to do is destroy two or three key American units, and he wins, regardless of how many units he loses. The American player also suffers VP loss if he uses heavy weapons in built up areas, to reflect the the collateral damage these weapons cause in urban areas, and the political consequences that result.
Tom
Toshach Miniatures
Toshach Miniatures
-
Gompel
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:21 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
It matters a lot the way you play a game. Do you play the game to win? Are you afraid to loose? Or do you play the game to see the possible outcome?
On lots of forums for many different types of games there's always a lot to do about equal chances to win (sometimes to the extreme). There are many options to do that even with a great difference in strenghts of forces: give the lesser force the advantage to defend or give it the best part of the terrain, set a number of turns/time, tweak victory points or conditions, have different reinforcements, tweak moral or other ingame systems, do better/worse than the historical counterpart, turn sides and see who does best etc.
Personally I don't care too much about winning the game anymore and I think tweaking games to have the win chance exactely equal is too artificial. I just have a great time doing the tactical manouvres or lure the enemy into an ambush. So I generally don't mind to play the weak side, unless there's absolutely nothing to do and your choices/possibilities are so limited that it is actually boring to play.
I think it matters a lot which rulesystem you play as well. I play CrossFire and even when outnumbered 3 to 1 and without armor, it's still fun to play for me. Although you then quite certainly know you will not be able to hold ground, it's still the challenge to try to kill that first incomming tank with your well setup anti-tank ambush and then withdraw in time to minimize your losses and prepare for another small counterattack while holding your second defence line and minimize the gaps.
Though, I understand that the weak side when there's no ability to do any attacking manouvre and only to stay dug in and just throw dices while the enemy is running over you, is not much fun. Then I would say: change your scenario. I mean; I think nobody plays games in which civilians just get slaughtered by a military dictatorship, because it's simply boring.
Then again, if you take it seriously, ask yourself: why do I play games?
On lots of forums for many different types of games there's always a lot to do about equal chances to win (sometimes to the extreme). There are many options to do that even with a great difference in strenghts of forces: give the lesser force the advantage to defend or give it the best part of the terrain, set a number of turns/time, tweak victory points or conditions, have different reinforcements, tweak moral or other ingame systems, do better/worse than the historical counterpart, turn sides and see who does best etc.
Personally I don't care too much about winning the game anymore and I think tweaking games to have the win chance exactely equal is too artificial. I just have a great time doing the tactical manouvres or lure the enemy into an ambush. So I generally don't mind to play the weak side, unless there's absolutely nothing to do and your choices/possibilities are so limited that it is actually boring to play.
I think it matters a lot which rulesystem you play as well. I play CrossFire and even when outnumbered 3 to 1 and without armor, it's still fun to play for me. Although you then quite certainly know you will not be able to hold ground, it's still the challenge to try to kill that first incomming tank with your well setup anti-tank ambush and then withdraw in time to minimize your losses and prepare for another small counterattack while holding your second defence line and minimize the gaps.
Though, I understand that the weak side when there's no ability to do any attacking manouvre and only to stay dug in and just throw dices while the enemy is running over you, is not much fun. Then I would say: change your scenario. I mean; I think nobody plays games in which civilians just get slaughtered by a military dictatorship, because it's simply boring.
Then again, if you take it seriously, ask yourself: why do I play games?
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
My views exactly.Gompel wrote:It matters a lot the way you play a game. ... do you play the game to see the possible outcome?
Personally I don't care too much about winning the game anymore and I think tweaking games to have the win chance exactely equal is too artificial. I just have a great time doing the tactical manouvres or lure the enemy into an ambush. So I generally don't mind to play the weak side, unless there's absolutely nothing to do and your choices/possibilities are so limited that it is actually boring to play.
(Oy, now I REALLY want to go play at Gompel's house!
)Well said!(E)ven when outnumbered 3 to 1 and without armor, it's still fun to play for me. Although you then quite certainly know you will not be able to hold ground, it's still the challenge to try to kill that first incomming tank with your well setup anti-tank ambush and then withdraw in time to minimize your losses and prepare for another small counterattack while holding your second defence line and minimize the gaps.
Quite agree.Though, I understand that the weak side when there's no ability to do any attacking manouvre and only to stay dug in and just throw dices while the enemy is running over you, is not much fun. Then I would say: change your scenario.
So here is an approach to a scenario that might help those who don't quite "get it" to explore this concept.
You got a gaming buddy? You play cold-war era?
Take the NATO force -- Americans, or Brits, or Germans, or even (GULP!) French. Give your opponent the Soviets.
You get 1 infantry-heavy company combat team, with a section or two of battalion ATGMs and battalion-level mortars in support. That's ALL.
Your opponent gets 2 (or 3 if he's got 'em) battalions. Could be motor rifles, could be tanks. Toss the dice to decide. He gets a platoon of combat engineers and an off-board battery of 122mm guns in support. The batts have to come on the board one at a time -- second and third batts come in only on making a 33% chance die role.
Set up your board to be fairly complex. Give at least 5km of depth, and at least two or three towns with cross-roads, maybe a highway interchange, two or three bridges, one industrial park or shopping mall or something, and one or two hills. Altogether about 8 or 9 potential geographical objectives.
The Soviet's orders are to advance. Your orders are to delay from successive positions.
Victory Conditions:
Soviet player has five of the possible objectives on the map listed in his orders (have him toss the dice to figure out which ones). He gets 10 victory points for each objective taken. He looses 2 points for each tank, and 1 point for each other vehicle or infantry squad lost.
As NATO player you get 4 points for each tank killed, 2 points for each other vehicle killed, and 1 point for each infantry squad killed. You loose 5 points for each tank lost, 3 points for each other AFV lost (APCs, etc.), 2 points for each other vehicle (log, etc) or infantry squad lost. You have an ambulance and a recovery vehicle. You can "save" any killed squads you can get to for 1 turn to "rescue the wounded" with the ambulance, and "save" one tank or other AFV you can tow off the board with the ARV.
Now look at the balance. No way you can possibly hold the Soviets off. So you will be backing up the whole time, shooting and scooting, shooting and scooting. But even if he takes all 5 of his objectives (for 50 points), if he looses 10 of his tanks doing it (oops, he's down to 30 points) then YOU get 40 points, and you win! Provided, of course, that you've managed to keep your own casualties down. Thing is, you don't actually know which objectives he's after, so it is entirely possible you'll defend the wrong places. If he gets his objectives without paying a toll, you're gonna loose! But maybe you're clever enough to put out a screen to report his movements to you, so you can set your fire-traps.
See how it worked? A completely unbalanced battle -- no doubt who was gonna prevail on the board. But the victory conditions make it a complicated game with real potential for a NATO player to do well, and it will give a real feel for the kinds of challenges some commanders face.
I'm not urging anyone to play this exact scenario. It is only an example of how to make an interesting game from an unbalanced battle. Similar can be done by putting the 1940 or 41 Wehrmact in the Soviet seat, and the 1940 French or Brits, or 1941 Soviets, in the NATO seat. Or putting the 1944 Soviets or Americans in the Soviet seat, and the 1944 Germans in the NATO seat.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
Gompel
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:21 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
-
piersyf
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I've played games where I was the whipping boy, but not for good reasons. The reason my first micro armour force was US was that everyone wanted the cool german stuff, so I was faced by whole regiments of Tiger II's and trying to stop them with equal numbers of shermans. I got pretty good, but they were never 'neat' fights.
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
-
piersyf
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I've played games where I was the whipping boy, but not for good reasons. The reason my first micro armour force was US was that everyone wanted the cool german stuff, so I was faced by whole regiments of Tiger II's and trying to stop them with equal numbers of shermans. I got pretty good, but they were never 'neat' fights.
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
-
piersyf
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I've played games where I was the whipping boy, but not for good reasons. The reason my first micro armour force was US was that everyone wanted the cool german stuff, so I was faced by whole regiments of Tiger II's and trying to stop them with equal numbers of shermans. I got pretty good, but they were never 'neat' fights.
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
P
On a more serious note, I often played a weak force against new players; this so that I could fight hard, but they'd still win. No sense pounding the puppies with a bat.
Against an experienced player I have fought delaying actions, infantry and a handful of TD's against a proper combined arms attack with 3 times the number of elements. The victory conditions were simple; the attacker had to exit the board with 75% of his elements intact. Simple delaying scenario. Makes for some hair raising combat in the last few turns, especially if the attacker is close to 75% of his force. Also plenty of asymmetrical fights in campaigns, which I love! When a sherman unit actually gets through the lines and gets into the rear elements like transport and artillery (like they were intended to do) the whole nature of the game changes!
P
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
I find very few Cold War scenarios as "no win". In Tulsa WarPac vs Nato was about 40% win for each side and 20% draw.You play cold-war era?
If the table is big enough you can fall back absord the first echelon and counter attack to force the second echelon to start at the origional FEBA. (this kinda depends on how big the table is.)
I think I may be the wierd on in this reagard. In Cold War I usually just want to accomplish the missions that the FM's say my unit should perform. The soviet first echelon should advance about 1.5 to 3 Klicks. My Cav depending on mission may give the table away but how I judge my performance based on accoplishment of mission and perservation of force. In my best days gaming it was more an after game discussion rather than a win / lose issue. For me it is more important to handle my units well.It matters a lot the way you play a game. Do you play the game to win? Are you afraid to loose? Or do you play the game to see the possible outcome?
I brought the question up due more to how other players speak of the game.
I never use points (either cost of unit or victory points) to "balance a game" I have found in most hobby shops it doesn't change much. I have seen lots of players that will gladly take a loss in points to crush an opponent.
The issue has come up with a local gaming friend about the cold war out side of Europe. I'm contemplating building a USMC BLT for many of the more interesting situations around the world.
In these scenarios the banana republics and other 3rd world troops will have almost no chance against this force and all of the aircraft and naval gunfire support that Marines show up with. As the American you commander you will be in a position that the President will be watching your Battalion very closely.
I guess part of the question that I didn't convey is how to show the political effects of the battlefield. An example was the Mogadishu battle. The US lost 18 troops while killing at least 1800 but some how it has gone down as a defeat!
With my old group we could discuss all the possible outcomes in an after action forum. But the political aspect is so far beyond the table that I'm not sure how to factor it in.
Keep the comments coming I like the discussion.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
Gompel
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:21 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
Ah right, now I understand your question/situation a little bit better.
I'm not totally sure, but do you see the missions you do as a game? As I have the notion you take it quite seriously. No problem of course, but then the discussion might be a bit different.
I can imagine that facing US Marines with your 3rd world troops is quite a challenge.
Because you mention something about political effects, I take it that I have to see your first question about victory or defeat in some other light. I mean; I have the idea that you don't want to change anything in the actual unbalanced military situation to even the chances for both sides.
I think there are two different kinds of success in you game: political and military. In my game I only count for military victory (maybe because I only play WWII). Military success is much more simple to discribe; you can express that in numbers of losses or gained ground and in some cases special objectives (capturing sombody etc). In general I would say a 18 to 1800 troop loss is a military virctory for the US.
Political success is much more complicated and it changes in time and place. Why would a 18 to 1800 loss be a defeat? Probably the political goals were not met. Another very big factor is the media. But, I think the political goals were different in WWII than in the Cold War or nowadays. The place matters to: do you defend your 'home country' or are you expanding?
I'm not sure what exactely the 'big thing' in the Cold War was, but wars in general have to do with the idea of freedom and nation/group. Nowadays I think they fight over the same idea, but it has been translated into the word 'democracy'. But, that's the western view. Not entirely sure, but I don't think the 'other side' fights for democracy too. Most likely they fight for freedom, but that might be even being 'not democratic'. Since I'm not from Russia, Afghanistan, Irak or a third world country I can only guess what they fight for. But if I place myself into their position and some Americans think to simply invade, turnover their system and make things the way they see is best, I would probably resist and most likely it would end up in a fight (please don't take any offence or whatever, it's just the way I can imagine and discribe it here for game purpose). Then, the American side is expanding and the other side is defending. The defending side has some different 'victory conditions' than the US. For the US a big factor will be human casualties (of their own soldiers and civilians!) and the rate of achievement to convert to democracy or remove people who don't fit the idea. That (actual facts) together with rumours and the media will make it a political success or not. For the defending/opposing weaker side, casualties seem to be a much lesser factor (people might even think it's an honour to die (no offence here again)) and probably their victory has to do with whether their nation/group gives in as a whole or not. But as you can imagine, they might be much more furious in the fighting than the US (Not sure whether gamesystems take that into acount. Actually -for a gamesystem- I think their morale is higher than that of the average US soldier, but their discipline and training is less. Most gamesystems put that all together in one factor though.).
Note: the opposing side to the US often take prisoners and put them on TV or whatever. Why? Because 'one man', is much more important (political succes?) for the US than for them.
I'm not totally sure, but do you see the missions you do as a game? As I have the notion you take it quite seriously. No problem of course, but then the discussion might be a bit different.
I can imagine that facing US Marines with your 3rd world troops is quite a challenge.
Because you mention something about political effects, I take it that I have to see your first question about victory or defeat in some other light. I mean; I have the idea that you don't want to change anything in the actual unbalanced military situation to even the chances for both sides.
I think there are two different kinds of success in you game: political and military. In my game I only count for military victory (maybe because I only play WWII). Military success is much more simple to discribe; you can express that in numbers of losses or gained ground and in some cases special objectives (capturing sombody etc). In general I would say a 18 to 1800 troop loss is a military virctory for the US.
Political success is much more complicated and it changes in time and place. Why would a 18 to 1800 loss be a defeat? Probably the political goals were not met. Another very big factor is the media. But, I think the political goals were different in WWII than in the Cold War or nowadays. The place matters to: do you defend your 'home country' or are you expanding?
I'm not sure what exactely the 'big thing' in the Cold War was, but wars in general have to do with the idea of freedom and nation/group. Nowadays I think they fight over the same idea, but it has been translated into the word 'democracy'. But, that's the western view. Not entirely sure, but I don't think the 'other side' fights for democracy too. Most likely they fight for freedom, but that might be even being 'not democratic'. Since I'm not from Russia, Afghanistan, Irak or a third world country I can only guess what they fight for. But if I place myself into their position and some Americans think to simply invade, turnover their system and make things the way they see is best, I would probably resist and most likely it would end up in a fight (please don't take any offence or whatever, it's just the way I can imagine and discribe it here for game purpose). Then, the American side is expanding and the other side is defending. The defending side has some different 'victory conditions' than the US. For the US a big factor will be human casualties (of their own soldiers and civilians!) and the rate of achievement to convert to democracy or remove people who don't fit the idea. That (actual facts) together with rumours and the media will make it a political success or not. For the defending/opposing weaker side, casualties seem to be a much lesser factor (people might even think it's an honour to die (no offence here again)) and probably their victory has to do with whether their nation/group gives in as a whole or not. But as you can imagine, they might be much more furious in the fighting than the US (Not sure whether gamesystems take that into acount. Actually -for a gamesystem- I think their morale is higher than that of the average US soldier, but their discipline and training is less. Most gamesystems put that all together in one factor though.).
Note: the opposing side to the US often take prisoners and put them on TV or whatever. Why? Because 'one man', is much more important (political succes?) for the US than for them.
-
Gompel
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:21 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
(hmm, I had some errors while posting, so here's the second part. Sorry for the big text 
)
So, how to use that ingame... euh, I think unless you want to play the 'political game' too, you can only translate that into victory conditions. For recent conflicts I think you then can't do without civilians (as I've seen pictures on this site or just imaginative). So according to the writing above, I think it's plausible to integrate a victory condition that is based on casualty difference. The rate of freedom is harder to get into a game, but I think you can translate that in possessed ground and casualties.
On the game table you would then have:
US
-fighting for: gaining ground, opposing force casualties
-try not to: make civilian as well as US casualties, take too much time, (make damage?)
Opposing force
-fighting for: holding ground, US casualties, US material damage
-try not to: loose ground, have too much own casualties
But with the above the game might still be a bit 'traditional'. Then try to use your imagination and put some extra 'juice' into the game. That probably means adjusting the rules you use too.
For example:
- opposing force can use civilians as protection
- opposing force can act like civilians (for example use a detection chance)
- opposing force can capture US soldiers (wounded too!) and count as twice or even more for the casualty victory condition
- opposing force can take US casualties on the battle field with them and get some bonus on the casualty victory condition
- opposing force can capture US equipment
- opposing force can put boobytraps or other nasty stuff around to delay the US advance (for example: designate zones or objects where the US needs engineers without LOS to enemy to clear)
- opposing force gets extra bonus for capturing/destroying high-tech US equipment (like helis)
- opposing force can use suicide tactics (high morale?)
- opposing force has support/supply from civilians
I don't know what kind of rulesystem you use, but probably it's western and does reflect them rather well. Otherwise you could have some new ideas for them too like above.
)So, how to use that ingame... euh, I think unless you want to play the 'political game' too, you can only translate that into victory conditions. For recent conflicts I think you then can't do without civilians (as I've seen pictures on this site or just imaginative). So according to the writing above, I think it's plausible to integrate a victory condition that is based on casualty difference. The rate of freedom is harder to get into a game, but I think you can translate that in possessed ground and casualties.
On the game table you would then have:
US
-fighting for: gaining ground, opposing force casualties
-try not to: make civilian as well as US casualties, take too much time, (make damage?)
Opposing force
-fighting for: holding ground, US casualties, US material damage
-try not to: loose ground, have too much own casualties
But with the above the game might still be a bit 'traditional'. Then try to use your imagination and put some extra 'juice' into the game. That probably means adjusting the rules you use too.
For example:
- opposing force can use civilians as protection
- opposing force can act like civilians (for example use a detection chance)
- opposing force can capture US soldiers (wounded too!) and count as twice or even more for the casualty victory condition
- opposing force can take US casualties on the battle field with them and get some bonus on the casualty victory condition
- opposing force can capture US equipment
- opposing force can put boobytraps or other nasty stuff around to delay the US advance (for example: designate zones or objects where the US needs engineers without LOS to enemy to clear)
- opposing force gets extra bonus for capturing/destroying high-tech US equipment (like helis)
- opposing force can use suicide tactics (high morale?)
- opposing force has support/supply from civilians
I don't know what kind of rulesystem you use, but probably it's western and does reflect them rather well. Otherwise you could have some new ideas for them too like above.
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
That is how I Usually set up my games. For me the game and my mission are the same thing. My victory conditions are to accomplish the mission that the scenario tasks me with. Same goes for my opponent.I'm not totally sure, but do you see the missions you do as a game? As I have the notion you take it quite seriously.
So a typical scenario brief will read some thing like:
Situation:
Observation post on the border reported Soviet recon and vanguard formations. You are the commander of A troop 11th ACR. Your unit has been activated from a liberty recall and are being sent to intercept these formations.
Mission:
You have been assigned a screening mission and are ordered to secure the intersection of Highways L3176 & K128. Conduct a fighting withdraw. Do not allow the soviets to advance beyond Hofbieber till after turn 6. You are also charged with the preservation of your force.
Execution:
At the start of the game your unit will march to per battle positions expect Soviets to advance on your positions out of the forest along highway K128.
Administration:
You will have one battery of 155mm Artillery support in General Support. You will have one FO team and one FAC assigned with your formation. You will have A10 support on station from turns 2 to 4 (direct support ) After turn 4 will be down graded to General support.
Command and control:
You are part of 11th ACR and no troops are in reserve. Once you fall back to Hofbieber you will receive your next mission. Rules of engagement are as follows: Upon contact with Soviet forces report first before firing. If Soviet forces are identified your weapons are free. Do not fire on Churches, Cemeteries, Schools or Govt. buildings unless you receive fire from those positions.
If I was this player I would judge my performance by how well I accomplish this mission vs the casualties suffered. The goal is to hold the Soviets off but at the same time still be an effective force to receive and new mission in Hofbieber. If after this engagement I cannot conduct another fighting withdrawal (The NATO plan historically is for 3rd Armored and 8th Infantry to set up a main defense line on the Fulda River.) I would considered to have lost this battle. It might be that I chose to only hold the Soviets for 5 turns instead of 6 if it means I can get out of the fight with my command in tact.
For Cold War since I have many FM’s from that period I assign missions based on real world expectations. With my old group we would critique each players performance based on what they knew and what they were tasked to do. For me war gaming is a way to learn what is behind military decision making.
This works great for set piece battles for either WW2 or Cold War.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!
-
voltigeur
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
Yeah I have a case of the long winded post as well.(hmm, I had some errors while posting, so here's the second part. Sorry for the big text )
Anyway my Marines will be given missions like:
Evacuating US citizens and State Department personnel from Embassies or Consulates evacuations during conflict.
Rescuing UN forces after being attacked by Govt. or insurgent troops.
I this is the realm that the “no win†scenarios will show up. In a war game sense a rag tag insurgency or banana republic troops cannot stand up to the firepower and support that a Marine BLT can bring to the table. If I’m playing solitaire or with my old group the how well I do in the game is judged b how well I handle the BLT and accomplish the mission. Rules of engagement must be adhered to. (Like the Marines will come ashore with a “do not fire unless fired up onâ€.)
I’m just not sure that other players will look at games like this. I do take my games seriously mainly because I only do 2 or 3 a year now. I’m trying to figure out a way to still get this brain candy aspect but put the game in terms that other players will enjoy more.
I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!