Hello all
Just a couple questions, my group here in South Bend IN, is looking to start a North African campaign of course in (1/285th). The rules we will be using is jagdpanzer 2. Question I have for you all is how big should we work with unit wise?
There will be roughly 4 to 6 players so on average 4 players per game session. I just don't want to have such a huge list of units it gets overwhelming for the players. I would like smooth running quick at times and other times longer battles. I do wish to incorporate Air, Artillery into the mix.
Thought also I would if need to be run air battles using CY6 for those battles. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
fullmetaljacket
North African Campaign
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
fullmetaljacket
- E5
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:18 am
- Location: Warsaw, Indiana
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Finally, a question on a ruleset I've actually played!
I've been in several battles with JP2 over recent (or not-too-recent) years. They are reasonably quick-play, at a 1:1 unit scale.
The armored combat is pretty reasonable. I particularly like the feel of kill of armored vehicles as a probabilistic result. It's not "can I kill him?" but rather "how likely is it that I can kill him?". The one criticism I have is that the kill mechanism is a bit too linear for my tastes -- as your gun's penetration value exceeds your targets armor value, the chance of a kill mounts rather slowly. Particularly in the early war (ie: when armor and penetration values were low), you can have penetration that exceeds the armor value by 2x or 3x, and still have less than 50% chance that a hit will produce a kill. Seems it could use some form of accelerating likelyhood as you exceed the armor value by a growing margin.
Still, particularly for the early war, it gives a nice feel to the gameplay. Those little guns (20mm, 37mm, ATRs, etc.) may need to get several good solid hits before you knock a tank out of action. I like of like that.
I've played a few reasonable combined arms games. The infantry seems to play pretty well so long as you don't neglect the morale rules. They are the core of infantry action.
How big your units should be depends in large part on your group's preferences. I like larger battles when using quick-play rules. Other folks might like smaller battles executed from start-to-finish in a few hours.
I've played in games with 6-8 players, where each player had multiple companies, up to maybe even a battalion per player. Even though the rules play pretty quickly, I think that is too big for JP2, particularly if many of your players are new to the rules.
My suggestion is to start smaller, and build up as familiarity improves. But even there, I would not go much above a re-enforced company per player if you plan to have more than 4 players in a given game.
JP2 uses modified I-go--u-go game mechanics. As you add players, if each player has a lot of pieces to move the turns get kind of long. Attention and focus (or even wakefulness) can become tenuous during the time it takes 3 of 4 guys to come up with the perfect move for each and every one of the 20 or 25 different models / stands they each control. Try to keep it down to fewer than 20 pieces per player, even after most of the players are familiar with the basics, if you want the "good time was had by all" ending to your AARs.
Not sure why, but photobucket has not yet shut off my image feeds. So for the moment at least, here is a pic from a JP2 game I posted in the AAR thread.
http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=480
My AAR is about half way down this page. In this game I ran a full battalion of tanks, with SPGs, arty, and attached infantry, all on my own. My opponent ran a somewhat smaller force, but with many different units. The action was almost entirely armor-v-armor, the infantry hardly getting into the fight. But the artillery at least was active, and was involved in pushing the infantry around a bit.
The whole game ran much of one day, including set-up, take down, and a break for lunch. Both of us were reasonably familiar with the rules (my opponent more than I). You can see from the pic above just how much combat and maneuver we managed. It was a very satisfying game. But other games I've played, with similar forces per player but with more players, seemed to bog down more.
So ... that's my input. Your mileage may vary.
-Mark
I've been in several battles with JP2 over recent (or not-too-recent) years. They are reasonably quick-play, at a 1:1 unit scale.
The armored combat is pretty reasonable. I particularly like the feel of kill of armored vehicles as a probabilistic result. It's not "can I kill him?" but rather "how likely is it that I can kill him?". The one criticism I have is that the kill mechanism is a bit too linear for my tastes -- as your gun's penetration value exceeds your targets armor value, the chance of a kill mounts rather slowly. Particularly in the early war (ie: when armor and penetration values were low), you can have penetration that exceeds the armor value by 2x or 3x, and still have less than 50% chance that a hit will produce a kill. Seems it could use some form of accelerating likelyhood as you exceed the armor value by a growing margin.
Still, particularly for the early war, it gives a nice feel to the gameplay. Those little guns (20mm, 37mm, ATRs, etc.) may need to get several good solid hits before you knock a tank out of action. I like of like that.
I've played a few reasonable combined arms games. The infantry seems to play pretty well so long as you don't neglect the morale rules. They are the core of infantry action.
How big your units should be depends in large part on your group's preferences. I like larger battles when using quick-play rules. Other folks might like smaller battles executed from start-to-finish in a few hours.
I've played in games with 6-8 players, where each player had multiple companies, up to maybe even a battalion per player. Even though the rules play pretty quickly, I think that is too big for JP2, particularly if many of your players are new to the rules.
My suggestion is to start smaller, and build up as familiarity improves. But even there, I would not go much above a re-enforced company per player if you plan to have more than 4 players in a given game.
JP2 uses modified I-go--u-go game mechanics. As you add players, if each player has a lot of pieces to move the turns get kind of long. Attention and focus (or even wakefulness) can become tenuous during the time it takes 3 of 4 guys to come up with the perfect move for each and every one of the 20 or 25 different models / stands they each control. Try to keep it down to fewer than 20 pieces per player, even after most of the players are familiar with the basics, if you want the "good time was had by all" ending to your AARs.
Not sure why, but photobucket has not yet shut off my image feeds. So for the moment at least, here is a pic from a JP2 game I posted in the AAR thread.
http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=480
My AAR is about half way down this page. In this game I ran a full battalion of tanks, with SPGs, arty, and attached infantry, all on my own. My opponent ran a somewhat smaller force, but with many different units. The action was almost entirely armor-v-armor, the infantry hardly getting into the fight. But the artillery at least was active, and was involved in pushing the infantry around a bit.
The whole game ran much of one day, including set-up, take down, and a break for lunch. Both of us were reasonably familiar with the rules (my opponent more than I). You can see from the pic above just how much combat and maneuver we managed. It was a very satisfying game. But other games I've played, with similar forces per player but with more players, seemed to bog down more.
So ... that's my input. Your mileage may vary.
-Mark
-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