Multi Table Games

[voltigeur]

I was doing some research reading USAREUR. The good news is I figured out where one of the first battles between the Soviet Union and the 11th ACR was, expected to be fought. A friend, who was a Military intelligence and also spent his command time as a troop commander in the 11th ACR,. I figured out the lead elements of the first regiment to cross the IGB would have met the 11th at Eckwiesbach. In the 80’s there was a 2km pass across the Ulster between Hilders and Aura. That is where a pinning attack was supposed to be launched.

The main Thrust was expected to be north in the area of Neuschamback and Unterrruckersbach. This gives a 4 to 6KM frontage and a 6 to 8 KM depth to Rodergrund. If the Soviets break that line with out being fully deployed there is a good chance they will make the Fulda River crossings before 8th ID or 3AD can engage them.

The size of the battle when it is played will have to be played on 2 tables. Does anyone have any experience doing this? How did you keep the 2 games in sync with each other?

[BattlerBritain]

Volti,

One way to keep 2 games in sync is to join the games based on time.

Either that or play it as 1 game but with multiple players. This has the advantage that the players will play their turns in the correct sequence (and hopefully together).

Interesting stuff on 11th ACR though. I've played this through using SPI's Central Front Series many times, as well as with HPS Simulations Fulda Gap.

As the Soviet player I'd send a Div from 8GA down the road to Bad Hersfeld as well as one down towards Hunfeld. The 11th ACR would hold them up for a few hours, but then numbers would tell and 8GA would be on their way.

Also dropping a Soviet Para Rgt at Alsfeld would block any 5th Pz reinforcements coming up from north Nurnberg as well as any 8th Mech units coming up that way.

If you dropped another Soviet Para Rgt between Fulda and Nurnberg that effectively sealed both the main roads out of Nurnberg. It worked a bit like a 2-pronged Market-Garden.

Greatest danger to the Soviets was 2nd Pz coming down from the North and hitting the Soviet right flank.

Great scenario though.

[jb]

The size of the battle when it is played will have to be played on 2 tables. Does anyone have any experience doing this? How did you keep the 2 games in sync with each other?

Very interesting. What I have done in battles requiring sevral tables is this.Let the seperate battles play out,disregarding keeping turns in sync,when one of them wins they may go onto the other table or possibly out maneuver by continuing on with their mission. I've tried to keep th turns in sync,but you will always get those "Dawdlers" that hold up the other table for an hour.Using the first prescribed idea amazingly cures the "dawdler" ("Dawdler"-slow poke,takes all day, indecisive player,etc.etc.). This first method truly gives initiative in a realistic manner,try it.
JB

[Harlan]

If you are playing a multi-table game make sure you have a strong referee. It will make all the difference in the world.

Is far as slow-pokes go, you will always have them. We have another term for them, but this is a civilized forum. I find by putting time limits on moving units helps. We have used two different time limits systems. First method was your basic "X" number of minutes. The second method is a little more advanced, but a little more fun, "X" minutes per commands and your time will be reduced as you lose commands. This really helps speeds things up. Also, this replicates the fact that the commander will not be able to "issue" orders to each unit. Some units will get missed, so you move them next turn. Another reason that some people play very slowly is they do not understand or are not familiar with the rule system.

We have also found giving slower people the smaller units tend to help.

I have also played double blind games. This requires three tables in separate rooms. Team A, Team B, and Referee each have their own tables. The referee monitors both tables and tracks all units on his table. The referee decides which Team A units are visible to Team B and places them on Team B’s table. The referee decides which Team B units are visible to Team A and places them on Team A’s table. These games play very differently from your standard one table games.

[voltigeur]

As the Soviet player I'd send a Div from 8GA down the road to Bad Hersfeld as well as one down towards Hunfeld. The 11th ACR would hold them up for a few hours, but then numbers would tell and 8GA would be on their way.

Also dropping a Soviet Para Rgt at Alsfeld would block any 5th Pz reinforcements coming up from north Nurnberg as well as any 8th Mech units coming up that way.

That is going to be one of the controlling factors the mission of the Tank Regiment is to get through to a helo dropped company of troops holding bridges over the Fulda River.

Very interesting. What I have done in battles requiring sevral tables is this.Let the seperate battles play out,disregarding keeping turns in sync,when one of them wins they may go onto the other table or possibly out maneuver by continuing on with their mission.

This will be hard to do since the Cav commander and the Soviet Regimental commander will have their units spread over both tables. This one of the times I miss my buddies 6 by 14 table.

Thanks for the ideas!

[tstockton]

Harlan,

I have also played double blind games. This requires three tables in separate rooms. Team A, Team B, and Referee each have their own tables. The referee monitors both tables and tracks all units on his table. The referee decides which Team A units are visible to Team B and places them on Team B’s table. The referee decides which Team B units are visible to Team A and places them on Team A’s table. These games play very differently from your standard one table games.

That brings to mind a version of chess we played in our chess club in high school... we called it "Blitzkrieg", and it took three people and three chessboards -- a referee sat in the middle with a chessboard with all of the pieces, then the opponents sat on opposite sides, with their backs to the center board, with only their pieces on the board. Each player would play their turn, having to "guess" where the opponent's pieces were. If you made a "legal" move on your board, the referee would move the corresponding piece on the "center" board, then the other player would move, and so on. The referee had an index card with "no" printed on it, which he would show to the player who made an "illegal" move (moving "through" an opposing piece). This would allow you to "probe" the enemy's disposition without the opponent knowing how many "probes" you'd made... but it also exposed your pieces to detection -- when one of your pieces "disappeared" (was removed by the referee due to that piece's capture), you knew something was there -- you just didn't know what, nor how (or if) it was supported.

It lead to some unorthodox tactics... but it sure was fun to play!

Thanks for bringing those memories back to mind!

Regards,
Tom Stockton

[bobbarnetson]

Last week, a buddy and I ran a two-table game (my table in 6mm and his in 10mm).

It was a WW2 late russian front game where events on the main table and side table were related but the the players were not clear that there was a relationship--they just got their marching orders.

Basically, the main table was a straight on assault by the Russians. We made it slightly under powered so it would be slow andt he defenders were hidden (on a digital picture). The side table was a flank march that ran into opposition. The Russians on the side table had to get off the end and then, at the beginning of the next Russian turn on the main table, those troops showed up in the German rear area.

We didn't worry about keep in the tables in sync. The games played independently. When troops crossed from the side table to the main tabe, I put them in a box and pulled them out at the beginning of the next Russian turn. The only major snafu was the reinforcements got sent across without a CO so sat on the side oft he main board for a couple of turns before that was remedied .

The scenario more or less worked out as out playtest suggested (we're tweaking before sending to Wargames Journal). The reinforcements for the main table basically turned the tide. Different tactics by the Germans might have changed things--the main table germans (despite being hidden) got chewed up piecemeal--letting the Russians advance and spring on their falnk might have been a better plan.

Our main interest in a two-table game was to accommodate a variabl;e number of guys at club night. If numbers were low, we'd just run the main table and bring on the reinforcemenst at a die-driven time. If numbers were high, we'd play both tables.

Bob in Edmonton

[voltigeur]

Thanks for all the ideas! I like the exchange of ideas has saved a lot of figuring things out on my own.

It sounds like this scenario will have to wait till I have he right kind of teams. I'm working on what is right now a set of house rules. The frustrating thing is that I need to have several games to play test this rule set and teach some knowlege of Modern Armor. It will be esential for the Soviets to play like Soviets. ABOLUTLEY NO MR NICE GUY!

I was hoping to have a former Cav Commander in charge ofthe americans but since I got laid off and we no longer work together that may be problematic.

The division of labor will be the overall commander of each team will actually push lead on the reserves and do the die rolls for supporting arms. I hope to have 3 players for the Americans (4 Platoons plus the CO) and 3 Soviets (Each with a battalion).

I so want to do this scenario but I'm starting to realise it may be a while now.

The players will have to have special qualities for this game. The first have to be disiplined enought to do it, couragous enough to do it and most importantly stupid enough to do it.

Anyway you'll know I'm totally whacked in my next thread. I need pictures of trees.

[jb]

...
I was hoping to have a former Cav Commander in charge ofthe americans but since I got laid off and we no longer work together that may be problematic...

Anyway you'll know I'm totally whacked in my next thread. I need pictures of trees.

We once had an Arm CAV officer gaming with us for a few months. 09/11/2001 ,he disappeared
We learned so much from that guy! Espsecially the ones who used to be militarily challenged.
As for trees check out the beginning of the Vietnam thread I've got some trees there you might be interested in.
JB