GHQ Models Forums

We normally use the method 1 with some variety.

We wargame in many periods and scale from Ancient to Sci-Fi. Usually someone organise a scenario and asks who would like to play, on average four players. The sides are determined by the models you own.

For bigger games (6-8 players) the choice is by dice. The higher one choose first than the second and so on. The limit is obviously an equal numberf of players on each side.
Alternatively the two chiefs are chosen as above and the teams are then formed by dice.

We do not use a referee. If there is any problem during the play we usually solve it with a brief discussione or ask to other members of the club not involved in the game.

I do not know your method 2) so I cannot say if it may give better games. It may depends on the players of your club but it seems to me more like a military exercise than a game for fun.

I think we do method one. We have no need for method 2 because there are enough sociopaths in our group even the good guys act like bad guys.

Our little group is after simulation vs. a game. I spend a lot of intellectual energy devising ways to remove the God’s eye view of the table top while not creating a mountain of paperwork. Each side is briefed on their country’s doctrine and most are willing to work within those constraints. Our pre game planning does resemble a TOC (Tactical Operations Center).

After one game of modern armor we were eating at Arby’s and one of the players said it felt like he was in an all day fist fight rather than a war game. Maybe I’m just a sick puppy but that was what I was going for.

When I lived up north and had 4 seasons and played in the winter regularly I did have more room for beer and pretzel games. We played Medieval, Napoleonics, Civil War, WW2 and Modern. In our group it was Moderns and Napoleonics were always played seriously medieval was beer and pretzels.

Voltigeur wrote

[/quote]Our little group is after simulation vs. a game

One thing do not exclude the other. I mean you may always add details and limits to rules to make them more realistic or specific to the scenario but I usually play to win (game) not just to simulate.

We usually play "pure" simulation only when we are learning new rules. We find that in this way it is easier to learn them and find something to add for more historical realism generally relevant to applicable tactics to a specific army.

I say "to add" as I am very careful before modifing rules thinking that they should have their own logic. If I do not like the mechanics I chose another set of rules.

My group uses Method #2.

Along with adhering to tactical doctrine, this allows the referee to do lopsided fights such as ambushing a convoy and overwhelming opposition games.

What we do is usually fight an extended campaign. As a particular unit does well it is rewarded with feats such as better to hit/improved moment/ recon bonuses. All of a sudden, there is pucker factor when the player uses that unit now. When the unit comes around a corner and pulls first shot or staying put when facing overwhelming odds. Players start adjusting their play style which I find interesting.

Some units develop their own personalities. I had a M4A3 w/75 mm gun named Craiglow that was only so so vs. panzers, but could easily hit German 1/2 tracks at incredible distances. It was such a well known fact that the other side got to the point they wouldn't even risk it.

Sorry to ask, but where can I find details of the method 2, in particular the Mission Event List system?
50% preference, albeit on only four samples, means it may be interesting.

We fit into method 1, but not quite as described above.

voltigeur wrote: Our little group is after simulation vs. a game. I spend a lot of intellectual energy devising ways to remove the God’s eye view of the table top while not creating a mountain of paperwork. Each side is briefed on their country’s doctrine and most are willing to work within those constraints. Our pre game planning does resemble a TOC (Tactical Operations Center).

Can I go play at Volt's house? Sounds like my kind of gamer!

I too work hard to prevent the "God's Eye View". Simple, fast-playing hidden unit/movement rules is a big part of that. Hence my "chits" method (I won't go into details here -- it is described in my AARs). It is amazing how much of "the unknown" is injected into the game when you don't know what you are facing until the shooting starts.

Most of the games we play, particularly those at the homes of the various gamers in our little (and very loosely organized) group, are focussed on building a good simulation. That is not to say that we don't play to win -- we most certainly do. But I have the good fortune to have fallen in with some very friendly fellows who are genuinely interested in the history that we are gaming, and so can sublimate their egos for the sake of a what we come to agree feels "realistic".

That said, when you have a room full of alpha male types, it is very easy to "bend" the rules or the scenario to your favor, even if you don't do so deliberately. So we try to set-up structures to make that temptation less prominent.

We always have at least one game master (usually the guy who organized the game) who serves as a referee. Generally we like to have the GM playing a subordinate command, so that his "God's Eye" knowledge of the scenario will have minimal impact. But sometimes we set-up variables so that the GM won't actually know what the other side has -- for example having both sides choose key parts of their force based on die roles. This approach is often taken when we play a pick-up game, where no one person organizes the scenario. On those occasions we usually have one GM per side to keep things balanced, generally choosing the guys who best know the rules we happen to be playing.

When I am setting up games I almost always try to add something to the scenario -- perhaps some random events, or varying levels of information on the other side (pre-battle recon or intelligence reports), or extra victory conditions. I generally like the richness that results from a game that is more than just two dozen tanks and a bucket of dice.

This approach doesn't always work when I find myself in a game at a Con, or at the local gaming club. But it works well at home with my homies.

We have no need for method 2 because there are enough sociopaths in our group even the good guys act like bad guys.

I really wanna go play at Volt's house. Can I, huh, can I please?

Can I go play at Volt's house? Sounds like my kind of gamer!

Thanks

I really wanna go play at Volt's house. Can I, huh, can I please?

Any time you are going to be in the Dallas area let me know. If we don't have a game we will set one up. YOu are always welcome to our games.

One of the tricks we play tested last time was to make a grid of the table. the deffenders plotted their positions a transparency. The attackers plotted thier plan on another transparency. The game controller placed those over each other and then had us deploy just before we made contact.

In this game we had first rounds down range on turn one.

To continue with my earlier posting:

When I'm in a good group I actually enjoy the after action reports and discussion as much (sometimes more) as the game itself. It is interesting to see the different perspectives that you can get from the same table.

Our last home game the host and I allowed a big mistake in a Soviet vs British game. We teamed up 2 military veterans on the same team as 2 non veterans. I was in command of the Soviet Airborne tasked with flying ¾ of the way down a 12 foot table and take a bridge. My team mate was a former Major and Armor commander in the Army who like I, taught Soviet tactics in our younger days.

Long story short this former Major proceeds to mop the floor with the British player and I actually took both ends of the bridge dug in with only one stand suppressed. The armor made it to me in 3 turns!

What was cool about this was we coached the British player in how to choose positions that give his units mutual support, how to identify and stay away from those perfect positions that don’t have covered escape routes etc. During the pizza party we discussed with one of the younger guys who was like 7 in the 80’s what life was like in Germany and overseas in the Pacific facing a Soviet threat.

This is an example of what I call the total war game experience.

Like MK1 says we do play to win. But in our group we acknowledge the quality of play as well. If after each game the players are more knowledgeable and learn from their mistakes the games keep getting better and better.

voltigeur wrote:When I'm in a good group I actually enjoy the after action reports and discussion as much (sometimes more) as the game itself. It is interesting to see the different perspectives that you can get from the same table.

Like MK1 says we do play to win. But in our group we acknowledge the quality of play as well. If after each game the players are more knowledgeable and learn from their mistakes the games keep getting better and better.

I 100% agree on after action reports.

Beyond the scope of seeing the battlefield from another set of eyes, its a valuable tool for teaching those who are wlling to learn.

Say isn't that what after action reports are for ...

There seem to be two different aspects to setting up a game: first, creating a scenario and second, choosing sides.

For our naval games, the choosing of sides is done by die roll. The different commands are described, then people roll and the players choose commands in order of die roll.

For creating scenarios (most of which I put together), I create orders for each side, with hidden victory conditions and, if possible, optional forces that can be choosen on either spending a number of points with specific costs per ship, or at a cost in victory points. The latter is not as successful, as our crew will tend to select as many ships as possible to have as bloody a battle as possible.

I also like to allow players to choose their own formations within a general entry area. Particularly with scenarios involving a mix of different types of ships, it allows commanders to decide whether they want to lead with lighter ships for scouting, or save destroyers and cruisers with torpedoes for later action when there are some damaged ships around to pick off.

It is fun to stick in some unexpected conditions or limitations. A couple years ago, I put together a Mers el-Kebir based scenario that included intervention by the Italian Navy. They had the Vittorio Veneto, but as my instructions to the Italian commander stated, the ship was on its initial working up cruise and could only fire ranging salvos.

If there are a number of choices and situations that can be modified by die roll or player choice within the scenario, it allows replaying the scenario. If it is too fixed, it may not be interesting to replay unless the players can make significantly different tactical dispositions.

Mk1,

You would definitely enjoy gaming with Voltigeur!

Very knowledgeable gamer and very flexible to game with as well.

One of the strong points of our local group is that we play to win, but strongly emphasize the historical accuracy so that when you finish a game you have learned something useful!

Another thing I really like about our group is that we are reasonable and flexible and don't have the rules lawyers getting into arguments. If a situation comes up, we all discuss it and come to a reasonable compromise and move on...

Outstanding group to game with and I look forwad to our monthly games!

Frank

My games are done using Method 1 which might be described as the free for all method. I construct the scenario parameters and victory conditions and then let the players go at it. They may or may not use historical tactics for the side they are playing although most of them probablly won't. There may be certain restrictions on that side such as having green troops or requiring the Russian early war armored units to activate by company rather than platoon.

I do see the value in Method 2 as well. Method 2 requires that the "OPFOR" be run by someone not only knowledgeable with the game rules but also with the tactical doctrine of the enemy forces that he is manuevering. This method is great for learning and is one I was exposed to as a young armor officer. The classic confrontation was the Cold War scenarios where the referee ran the OPFOR and the rest of the group attempted to stop them.

AARs are great no matter which method you decide to use. If done properly, you can have each of the players describe what they did and why they did it - right or wrong. This will increase their participation and they will have learned something for the next game.

Pete - Binpicker, Out!