23 Aug 2016

Underfire miniatures: 28mm West Germans


Hi guys,

while it might look different from my posting time frame, the hobby mojo is really high lately.

I've managed to paint  another of Underfire's pack, this time West Germans for the change.

There are 4 riflemen in a pack, armed with G3 rifles. Equipment wise, they are almost identical to the East Germans, but not that this came as a surprise.




As with the first East German pack that I painted, it took me quite some time to figure out the paints I want. Consulting photos (there aren't all that many, honestly), I figured it should all be done in a very pale green grey. EVERYTHING. So to gain some contrast, I cheated a bit and painted the equipment slightly khaki.

Other than that they are rather simple to paint and to save me further trouble, this is what I came up with. Mind, some steps could be avoided.

1. Uniform was base coated with Feldgrau, followed by Green grey highlights. This was too striking, so I washed it in Feldgrau and for a moment felt impressed with my painting skill.
Note, this step is way unnecessary and a straight go for Green Grey would probably suffice. I found it advised to mix Feldgrau and Green grey in 60/40 mix, but I think that'd still be too dark.

2.  Helmets, plastic rifle parts (stock and grip), gas mask bag and canteen were all painted violet brown. Mind, gas mask could be of another colour, I just could not find any reference.

3. Pouches, webbing and any other bag were painted in Green Grey mixed with Khaki. Finding what I wanted here was a nightmare as anything that felt right simply became too similar to the uniform.

4. I washed it all with black, I ALWAYS try something  different (see point 1) and I always settle for base coat - black wash - highlights. I find that sufficient for my painting skills (and indeed expectations) and the wash really helps bringing tiny details out.
This sculptor has a very subtle (= realistic) style and a lot of details simply disappear with a bad paint job.

5. Pretty regular highlighting, so now that I think of it I could simply tell you I used Green grey and shorten this "tutorial" for quite a few lines.

Lastly, a few comparison photos. The miniatures in this range are rather tall, I am not sure if that's the latest trends or intentional, but I suppose that makes them a better fit for 1/48 kits.

East German - West German - Empress "Slovene". Technically, they are all around the same height to the eye, with the Germans being bulkier - but not at all grotesque in proportions. This really seems to be a new standard for the miniatures.

East German - Hasslefree Ken (I think?) - West German.


Other than that, the WW1 project is in full swing. The rules are giving me a bit of a headache. I am very satisfied with them, but now I am having trouble cleaning them up. Evidently I can't say things on the short way!

I've also tried myself at modelling a mountain gun (felt in despair at the wheels stage and yes, I started with the wheels); I'm drawing up a plan for sculpting a whole range - didn't have plans like that since the modern Slovenes project; I'm preparing a campaign for the rules that haven't even been written yet; I am thinking about tackling a WW1 battlefield board AND I am finishing some sculpting projects I started the magical 2 years ago when things were moving with speed.

After almost a year of a lack of enthusiasm, it's really astonishing what a fresh project can do for the motivation!

Thanks for looking,
Mathyoo

5 Aug 2016

WW1 Skirmish Rules: playtest 3

Hi guys,

I have to thank everyone for every little bit of input on the rules. After giving it quite a lot of thought and debating them over with Zabadak, I gave them another try now.

I am now at a stage where I am afraid I am overthinking the rules and I am holding myself way back to try and find the optimal stance between too complicated and too simple. As this is a rather new experience for me (and a quite entertaining one), I searched for any tips and tricks and I found all sorts of "what makes a successful game" kind of "suggestions" that I found absurd to be frank. It is a lot like searching for medical advice online and it's horrible. From several blog posts and pages that took game design as a serious business (offences punished by severe talk down), the  only reliable advice I came upon was that game has to be playtested a lot.

Should you wonder, I do get overwhelmed by all the things I have to do, mostly because there's a huge gap to be bridge between "keep it simple" and "making it realistic". The easiest solution to that, and something I should probably use in everyday life more often is to break the load in smaller pieces. So instead of doing everything at once, I just have to fix the movement, fix the shooting, fix the melee and add stuff that looks cool.

UNIT SIZE
Units have to roll for activation and can be useless given bad rolls. To fix that, I considered breaking squads in halves. In previous games I had up to 10 miniatures per unit, portraying squads, because 'reasons'. Now I broke them in half-squad sizes, so there would be 2-4 (1+D3) miniatures per unit. Most squads were 8 men strong by mid war, so with the added simulation of bombardment effect, half would be anywhere from 2 (barely playable) to 4 (full half-squad).
There was an instant fear present, that this might be too small, but as you will see I think it worked just fine.

Having smaller elements means in a game with 20 miniatures per side, you can have 4 and more units, while before you could only have 2-3. More units means more flexibility and a failed activation roll doesn't render 1/3 of your army useless. An unfortunate roll for morale making whole unit surrender doesn't affect you as much, if that's 1 in 6 units. The surrender rules I think are very elegant and I feel they are a nice addition and I would like the players to try and force as many 'surrender' checks as possible on  the enemy, which can only be done by suppressing them and assaulting them, so by combining the units with some thought behind it, rather than simply throw some dice hoping to hit something.

The problem here comes with the support weapons. I love the idea of large HMG teams, where spare men take over the casualties positions. In one of the period manuals, Vickers HMG was described as being "invincible", because only 2 man were needed to man it, and even 1 could do in desperate times. So by cutting teams to 2-4, that lowers their survivablity a lot, but also displays the danger of having a machine gun this close to front line.

Likewise, this would mean each unit would have 1 bomber (the rest being carriers, spare men), so grenades would not fly all over the place anymore.
Rifle grenades are a bit more problematic as surely they would be firing as batteries, all together. So a mechanism to allow two teams of same type (ie a full squad) in a certain distance of one another was devised. This, I figured later, could also be used to have a separate infantry unit serve to help crew a machine gun whose unit was depleted. This is another thing I found very great (at least on paper), as obviously anything that would keep the machine gun going was a good plan.

Should a player wish to keep the spirit of the squads, teams made into a single squad could be forced to stay within a distance to one another - but why restrict it? Everything happens in the chaos of battle, so the more flexibility the better. It is not as if a 3-4 feet wide board represents any large area.

Not to make this post text only, I decided to give small units a try in a game of trench fighting, to see how Actions work. If you remember me being bothered by weapons in last game - I decided I will rework them completely. Instead of making stuff up, I will find a weapon (ie a Rifle) and then build others around it (more or less bullets fired; more or less mobile; more or less accurate; more or less destructive). I plan on making all sorts of weapons profiles,  as nothing I hate more than buying and painting a fantastic artillery piece and not being able to use it, because "it would be far away". I've read several memoirs where guns were very close, for better or worse, and even an instance where on the Balkans front, late in 1918 civilians would fire grape shots at Austrians soldiers from Austrian guns during the latter's retreat. So, while manuals are great, anything can happen in the war and should player wish to have a force made of nothing but machine-guns, why not - as long as weapons are balanced there should be a counter to every thing but a diverse fighting force.

To cut the already long intro a bit shorter - the game:

The attack is well under way and the attackers are advancing both from the front and the flank.

Bombers Unit - 2 men - activation 3+; 4+ expertise
Bombers Unit - 4 men

Riflemen -  4 men - activation and expertise 4+
Riflemen - 3 men
Riflemen - 3 men

This equals to 16 miniatures, which should be enough as I am playing on 2x3 this time.

I gave defenders exactly the same number of units:

Bombers - 4 - same as attackers.
Bombers - 2

Riflemen - 4 - same as attackers.
Riflemen - 4
Riflemen - 3

Rolls were slightly better for them, so they have 1 man extra.

Weapons note: Bombers are equipped with pistols, close combat weapons (daggers, clubs etc) and grenades, where a dedicated thrower (1 miniature per unit) can throw grenades all the time. Once per game, a whole unit can throw a salvo.

Riflemen are armed with rifles, bayonets and grenades, where grenades can only be thrown once per game. For now, this means once per game, one miniature can throw a grenade once. This sounds a little, but it saves us from book keeping and it keeps grenade salvo unique to bombers.

Set up:

Ouch! The small table really shows. For defenders, I've put two riflemen units (3 and 4.1) in front trenches. Behind them in a purpose built bomber's pit (I know!) are 2 bombers. In trenches, desperately trying to delay the flanking bombers are riflemen 4 at the end of parallel communication trench and bombers 4 in a reserve trench. First thing I noticed was my parallel trench is WAY too straight and bombers advancing down that trench would need a lot of luck. It's more of a not for future, but when designing terrain it shouldn't be straight in any direction for too long.

Attackers were positioned off the table (because I decided to use half size table), 4 bombers rushing in from flank down the aforementioned comm trench, 2 bombers will roll up the fire trench from shell holes and 3 riflemen units will push from the front.

Attackers have first turn, because there's nothing useful defenders can do with no enemies on board.
I am trying to avoid counters, but lest I forget who tried activating, green beads represent units that can still be activated.


Turn 1:

Attackers bombers 2 activate and move in a shell hole towards defenders in firing trench.

[THE PROBLEM: Yup, right at start. Can they assault the defenders right away? I think they could - why wouldn't they? Game started in middle of the battle, so there's no reason to delay. Enemy is within 8" of the table edge. To compromise this, I decided the bombers can't throw grenades before the assault as they were not on board at the point prior to move.

The defenders do not get reactive fire on the assault move (I justify this by defenders bracing to meet the melee. Option here would be to decide if defenders fire as a reaction (if they were 'On Guard'), but then hit second (after attacker's hits are resolved) or meet the attack and fight as per melee rules. The problem is, assault troops armed with pistols pretty much always hit first anyway. I will look into it, but at this moment, I would prefer it not being an option as whole game portrays one large assault.]

The bombers rushed into the defenders, who were then repositioned to fight (get as many as possible in base-to-base contact).

[THE PROBLEM: I decided only miniatures in btb contact can fight - trenches are narrow, so this means a unit with more troops would still only be able to use only a few. As defenders left enough space in between them, I've put bombers in those spaces, to make a sandwich: bomber-defender-bomber-defender-defender. Last defender can not hit anyone. I am not sure about moving pass miniatures, but it makes sense that an engaged miniature can be moved forward to engage with someone unengaged.]

Bombers have an option of using pistols (no bonus to hit, but resolved before the rest), to try and avoid being hit by defenders. Their other option are daggers, giving them +1 to hit, but would be thrown simultaneously with the enemy. Pistols can only be used for the first round of combat.
Defender's only option is bayonet, giving no bonuses, but having no drawbacks either.

Bombers missed both their hits, while defenders got a hit. Melee will continue next turn.

Larger attacking bomber unit activated next. Risking enfilade fire from defenders down the trench, they rushed towards defending bombers and assaulted. Again, no pre-assault grenading was allowed to make up for the instant rush. Again, because they're fighting in trenches, a melee of two units came down to being a duel where both sides suffered a casualty!
[Both have an option of pistols and clubs, which is something I can not playtest myself. As long as both use pistols or both use daggers and clubs - there is no difference. They both either hit on +3 or +4. The problem is, one of the sides can opt to use clubs (easier hitting), but has to hope the side using pistols does not score a hit.
Ie. If attackers fire with pistols and hit the only defender in contact, he won't get to hit. This is a great chance for players to decide, but I will simply use pistols as solo gaming can not solve this.]

One of the attacking units didn't activate, so initiative passed to defender.

I was not sure whom to try and activate here, rifles far back could try to rush in melee against larger attacking bombers, but that can also wait. So I decided to try and activate rifles in the fire trench.
They passed and went 'On guard' - orange bead.

Defender's 2 bombers did the same, while larger unit in the supervision trench ran towards attackers engaged in a melee against defender's bombers.

Only troops left to activate were two of the attacker's rifles. 4 man unit activated and moved towards the barbed wire.

[THE PROBLEM: The wire being really close, the attackers could choose among these actons:
- Walk (and fire or throw grenades)
- Run (harder to hit, no other bonus)
-Take Cover (3" move for extra concealment and cover). In this instance this move represent rolling in/out of a trench hole and so it has to be renamed (Joe's idea and I love it). "Take Cover" indicated miniature could not advance).

If they'd 'Walk', they would suffer reaction fire by two defending units and whoever survives would be able to toss a grenade or fire against well entrenched enemies. Run is pointless  and 'Take cover' would mean they up their survivability chances quite some.]

I decided to have them 'Take cover' (I've renamed the action to "crawl" after the game) towards the wire. This means they enjoy +1 concealment and 6+ cover. On top of that, they get another +1 concealment and cover from wire. Concealment is always cumulative and cover only adds up because they try really hard not to get hit with this kind of move.

[THE PROBLEM: This looks like an action that could be abused, moving 3" infront of enemy for an abundance of cover. After the game, I made a "Take Cover" action with 0" move, extra concealment and cumulative cover (as it is now). And another action (currently named "crawl") that would enable a 3" move, have extra concealment and cover, but where cover would not add up (so a player would choose this 6+ or whatever terrain would grant him if it's better)]

Defending rifles in a fire trench ahead can now react to this crawl move with one of these:
Fire 4D6 of rifles at basic 4+, and additional +1 for wire and +1 for crawling, so a roll of 6 would hit. Or they can throw one grenade (3D6) which ignores concealment (as blast radius negates the need for a really careful aim).

[THE PROBLEM: Grenades will be played as they are written atm, but I have to consider if they would not only negate some part of concealment (-1 or -2 as opposed to all of it) and if they would negate any cover (my guess is no, so larger calibers, like trench guns can be useful). Also, I need to consider if grenades would give extra "hits" towards suppression (1 grenade hit could count for 2 hits suppression wise, so hitting with all 3 grenades would suppress an enemy). Grenading will demand a game of its own for testing.]

Riflemen's grenade did absolutely nothing, because dice rolled were 1, 1, 2. So much for the overpowered grenades!
Defender's bombers in a bomber pit are too far to react to this group, but will react to middle group, if it activates.

Same story here, attackers crawled to the wire and bombers throw their grenades, hitting twice (4,4,1). The wire and crawling grants attackers a 5+ save (none basic -> 6+ crawl -> 5+ wire, so cumulative covers seem to be okay. They failed both. [Mind, this would now be changed, so there would only be a 6+ save from either crawling or the wire].

Everyone had their chance at activating and everyone but one attacking rifles did so. First turn left 4 attackers and one defender dead. Not the best of the starts for the attacker!

TURN 2:

At start of turn 2, there were 2 unresolved melees to fight.

I first resolved melee in fire trench. There, both sides activated. Gap, opened by a dead attacker was closed (2" move for miniatures not in btb). As pistols can only be used in first turn of combat, bomber enjoys +1 to hit on his truncheon (hitting +3), while defender needs a roll of 4+. Both are thrown simultaneously and bomber scored a hit.

The melee is not over, but there's a large gap between the fighting sides, so I think gaps should be closed at end of previous turn instead of at start of this one. If this is not done and another unit jumps in that gap, unit that was in fight all of the sudden loses contact. (After the game, I decided gaps should be close right after the casualties are removed, so the units keep contact).

[THE PROBLEM: Resolving melee does not count as activation, so if it would have been concluded, surviving unit could give activation a try. As it was not resolved, I suppose this means they both activated now, as they are still brawling.]

In the other unresolved melee, both teams activated as well, gaps were closed and each team rolled a single die, looking for a +3, owed to their daggers. In this case, the defender was the only one that hit and now both units are activated.

The initiative was rolled to see how the rest of the turn would play out and attackers have won it.

I tried to activate sole survivor of middle rifles unit, so he could at least throw grenades before he dies. He activated, scored one hit, but failed to kill any of the defenders, well protected by their trenches.

The other attacker's rifle team, standing by the wire failed to activate and was put on guard.

[THE PROBLEM: The problem here is, what happens with extra cover, the unit did not move, but I want to keep away from book keeping, so now only the terrain will count. It also opens another option: Should a unit that fails activation be given a choice to be on guard (scan the horizon to fire at enemy) or take cover (gain extra concealment and cover). Units caught inactivated in the open would surely prefer extra cover than a lousy try at hitting well entrenched enemy.
After the game I introduced a "take cover" action as discussed above, while "crawl" action is the same, but has 3" movement and non-cumulative cover.]

Defender's rifles in fire trench were put on Guard as they failed their activation.

Attacker's unit that still didnt move on the board activated. I was not sure what to do with them. There's an opening, so I wanted to assault and had to consider how to tackle difficult terrain. I decided it would take 1" of movement every time they crossed a difficult terrain. As they start in a shell hole, that is -1" for climbing out of it. Possibly -1 for jumping in trench, but I think not - climbing OUT is the problem, not jumping in. So, as they were 7" from the enemy, they could assault.
One made it in trench, 2 are on the lip. Given these are miniatures on bases, I think its fair that those on the edge of trench count as in b-t-b for purpose of melee.

This means that attackers get 3 dice and defenders only one. If attackers would attack head on (assuming there was no wire), each side would get at least 3 dice (both units would be parallel). To simplify, the melee counts as being fought in the trench, so there is no pros or cons for any of the sides in this regard.

They both use bayonets, attackers scoring 2 hits and defenders none. As defenders now engaged in melee, they are not considered to be on guard anymore.

Defender's 2 bombers fail to activate and are put on guard. Defenders rifles in supervision trench activate and assault into melee between two bombers units.

[THE PROBLEM: Defender's rifles just assaulted across 2 corners, as did bombers before. This sounds pretty bad, as assault move is long and table is quickly covered.
It would be worth wondering why isn't assault same as running action (6"), justified that second part of action is done by fighting (and in walk action, by firing). This is another of Joe's suggestions that I might quite like and I changed it after this game.
Another thing that I did was introduce a LOS as a necessity to the assault. This means attacker's can't just run around trenches, but have to move carefully around the corners, which slows game on small tables down a bit, making it more playable. This opens another set of problems, like assaulting into deep trenches from above ground (which is bad for those in trenches), but that can be fixed by proper wording.]

Anyway, I decided to let them assault into an engaged melee, which is something I have not yet tackled. I have not prepared anything for this instances, so this is what I did:

As assaulted unit is already fighting, it does not expect to be hit by another unit, so it counts as "suppressed" - it has to throw an activation (=morale) die right away to see if overwhelming melee forces them to surrender.
The assaulted bombers passed, so another round of melee is fought. Bombers can't use pistols, but they have +1 to hit on their close combat weapons, which isn't enough and defenders rifles score the only hit.
[After the game, the rules were written a lot like played in this game, as it seems to be quite logical]

All units have now activated and the turn ended.

TURN 3:

Again, the melees were resolved before the turn started.

I went through multiple unit combat first, as it was the most complicated.

[THE PROBLEM:
This is what usually happens:
Units throw for morale, if both activate they fight; if none does, you reroll until one does. The one that fails to activate surrenders.

But now I have one unit fighting two (not to mention the one unit only has one survivor left!). The attacker has 1 unit that activates on 3+, the defender has two, activating on 3+ and 4+. I was thinking about having the defender roll 1 die for both of his units (but which one then, and why so?) and add +1 to the roll for any unit he has more than the attacking player.
Second option, each unit rolls its own (3 for bombers, 4 for rifles) but unless both fail, they do not surrender. This sounds good and viable and I've put it in the rules.
The problem is now, the one that fails - does it still fight (even if it failed) or it simply stands there, but it does not surrender, because friendly unit continues the fight.
At the moment, I believe it can not just stand there watching, so as long as one passes, both fight. While this is an 'Activation' role, it's actually a role for morale.]

So, I rolled for activation and defenders both passed, while attacker didn't and thus surrendered. I really need to sit down through this however, but I think the general idea is good, as to avoid any unnecessary complication.

As melee was not fought, both defender's unit can give it a try at activation this turn.

Second melee I resolved was between attacker's bombers (started as 2 man) and defending rifles. Both units activated and only the bomber scored the hit.

Lastly, the fight between two rifle units ended with a casualty on each side.

The initiative was then rolled for and attackers won.

[THE PROBLEM: Similar to an earlier case - does being "On Guard" move to the next turn? That is worth thinking about, it and "take cover" actions (that can also be a result of failed activation) should persist until next try at activation - or until 'on guard' is activated by reacting fire. This sounds viable, so a unit that failed to activate on turn 1 can enjoy the bonus defence from 'take cover' until it tries to activate on turn 2 and can be tactically left to be activated last.]

Larger attacker's rifles unit cut some passages in the wire, that were then taken advantage of by the smaller (sole survivor) rifleman.

Defender's bombers in the bomb pit failed to activate and were put on guard - after the attacker has already moved, which shows why initiative is very important.

On the north, defender's bombers activated and sprinted towards the front line and rifles failed to activate. Turn ended.

At this point, I decided to stop playing as I ran out of time and I pretty much got the idea of how game could work with smaller miniatures and found some more grey areas.
In 3 turns, Defenders managed to get one prisoner and 7 kills (50% of Attacker's starting force), while attackers managed to kill 5 of the defenders, less than a third.

POST GAME THOUGHTS:


There is not much to say, I think the smaller units are the way to go. Trenches are really narrow and should be numerous, so having more smaller units is better than one long snake. If we assume miniatures in melee would never fail their activations, a fight between 2 equally strong 4 man units could last up to 4 turns, while 8 man units would be fighting for 8 turns.

Even now melee is almost tediously slow if both units activate, so I might wish to enable fighters to hit anything in 1" (so first two in line), to speed it up a bit. But I am not sure if I want melee to be fast, as the longer it takes, more chance there is for other troops to do their objectives or come to aid. Another option would be the melee is fought over and over again in a single action until someone wins, but that would leave players with not chance to tip odds in their favour by having another unit join the fight.

I am really trying hard not to have the game too complicated, with as little to consider as possible, but making it too simple would essentially water it down to a generic set, while I want it to portray the WW1 trench fighting.

One other thing I find bad is my table - I made way too many deep trenches that should not be as numerous and I might find myself planning a game that is far more confined that an ordinary game would be. I will try playing on the other half of the board next time, that's mostly covered in shell holes to see how it would fare if everyone could see everyone else.

Thanks for looking,
Mathyoo

26 Jul 2016

Underfire Miniatures: 28mm East Germans team 5

Hi guys,

To begin with, I noticed my blog has now reached over 100,000 hits, so thank you for that. While blog is more a way to fill my must-type quota, I always try to post what someone else might find useful. I really like seeing how other people tackle their hobby, so I have to say I am quite surprised to learn how many people dislike posting WIP posts.

Anyhow, I have yet another team of East Germans from the Underfire miniatures. This is a duplicate set, so I was reluctant to simply paint it. For any new readers, I have grown very reluctant to painting miniatures as they come in the past years. Not that they're done badly (or that I could honestly improve them), it's more that the conversions are the part of hobby I enjoy the most.

So, the problem with East Germans is that they are rather unique as it is - except for their weapons. I can not tell you how annoyed I am at being able to play 70 years of conflicts with one constant - bloody soviet weapons. That is, of course, not the problem or miniature makers.

That being said, I still wanted to do *something*, so I started researching East German special forces and I found a fitting unit, whose gear differs from the ordinary rifles: Fallschrimjaegers of NVA.

They was only one paratroopers unit in the NVA and you can enjoy their superior skills on the video below:

Basically, what I did was quite simple. Firstly, I dropped my expectations way low. I've decided to give them paratroopers helmet, AKs with some kind of folding stock (not being too picky!), sort-of sculpt their signature vest and keep any gear that would not go off easily.

Firstly, I chopped the helmets. Ruthlessly. Really, without any mercy.

Then I chopped them some more. And more. And filled them. And then I sanded them as well.

At some point, very early while doing so, I was left wondering why am I destroying these nice miniatures, but well, alea iacta est, so I carried on. I also made a decision that as opposed to my original plan of having several teams (at least 2!), these 4 will have to do.

Next were the blanket rolls. Gone. Then entrenching tools handles - all gone. Any large remains of any straps that would go across the body (i.e. NBC suit bag) - gone.

Rifle butts were carved into something resembling a wire frame.

As you can see, I kept the large haversacks (where gasmask would be stored) - surely being a paratrooper does not give you any sort of protection from chemical attacks. I decided to cut away the straps, thinking it could be attached to the vest "somehow". That was a mistake, but nobody really notices.
Below you can see how I destroyed fantastic mesh on the helmets (that I would actually need on mine, but there was honestly no other way). Also notice the rifle butt being very simply carved.
After a few days of relaxation, I started slightly resculpting the helmets' shape with milliput. In the end, I opted for clean finish and did not try to reproduce the mesh in any way.

Furthermore, deciding I have enough of the pointing-there miniatures, I resculpted the hand of the team-leader (third from left, with binoculars).
 The painting was pretty uneventful, I am not quite satisfied with the pattern. I mean, the idea is great, but I would much prefer smaller strips with less mistakes. I tried really hard to subtly indicate the vest around the shoulders, but I can't say I succeeded with every man.

One thing I did notice while painting the miniatures was all the extra details (like flag!) on their shoulders that I sadly ignored on the first batches, and didn't really think to fix with this one!
 Talking of the pointy-man, here is a side-by-side comparison of the original miniature and the paratrooper conversion. I have to say I was really glad how it turned out, it's barely noticeable that it is the same miniature!
 And the back shot. The miniatures look very different, but paratrooper only lacks the bedroll and entrenching tool handle! Okay, and the helmet is different. But that's it!

Looking at them all done, it makes me want to do another four (a RPG would be useful!), but I hope my sanity prevails!

As usual, thanks for looking!
Mathyoo

PS I really, REALLY wanted to paint their faces with camouflage black stripes, but I couldn't see how this could be done without messing the faces completely.

16 Jul 2016

WW1 Skirmish Rules: Playtest 2

Hi guys,

I'm really fired up about this project (could be the speed with which I set up my board he he), so there's little reason not to play another test game! It was actually played a few days ago, right after I've implemented changes from the last game.

This time, I decided to make things a bit different, a combined arms assault force is to raid the enemy trenches, destroy the defender's machine gun and then make a hasty retreat!

The size of forces was rolled with same idea (D6+4 for infantry, D3+2 for support weapons) and I decided to include some new weapons to see how they would fare.

Attackers:
Assault squad - 8 bombers (SAF)
Assault squad - 8 bombers (SAF)

*They can not use rifles, but are armed with pistols and truncheons/knives. Last game I played it wrongly, these are the only troops that can throw grenades before the assault!

LMG Squad - 5 crew (East German)
Rifle Grenade Squad - 4 crew (East German)

THE PROBLEM: LMG I have to work on. Instead of being an "automatic rifle", it is same as HMG, except it has 3/4 ROF and does not have minimum range. That is not good and when writing the rules I imagined it more as of another rifleman. That would either mean I need to greatly cut its power, or put them in their own teams, where - again - only the LMG could fire, while the rest of the team is there to feed the machine gun. That might look like an awful lot of spare figures for "no" gain, but I kind of like where this is going.

THE PROBLEM: Same goes for Rifle grenades, how many per squad? Largest squad size for them would be 6 (using support weapons roll), so maybe limit them to every second person. But that's a lot of book keeping all of the sudden. I played it this time that only 2 can have them, the rest are spare men.
In general, I think I started the game too simple - with most of teams having same weapons. This should change (in modern fire teams, for example, each miniature has its own kind of weapon!), so even asassault teams would perhaps only have 2 bombers, as opposed to everyone throwing all the time etc.

Defenders:

HMG Squad (also objective) - 5 crew (Rebels)
Infantry Squad - 5 rifles
Infantry Squad - 10 rifles
Infantry Squad - 7 rifles











SET UP:

Defender's HMG Squad starts in its emplacement, 10 rifles are reserve, 7 and 5 in dug-outs.

Attackers I deployed up to 12" from their table edge. Rifle grenades are pretty much in place, while LMG squad will move up shell holes to support the advance of the bombers.

GAME:

Turn 1:

Attackers won the initiative.

Att Bombers1 (in sap) activate and sprint down the sap.
Att Bomber2 (with rifle-grenades) activate and sprint towards defender's D outpost.

Def MG reacted on their movement with fire. From last game, I decided all the fire is done against the end position of the unit that moved. MG can only fire at the bombers that didn't make it to the sap and took cover in a shell hole. They scored 2 hits, but didn't kill anyone.

Att Rifle Grenades fail to activate.

Def MG fails to activate.
Def 7 rifles activate and sprint out of dug-out to offer the MG some protection.

Att Rifle Grenades react and fire their rifles at Def 7, killing one.

Def 5 rifles activate and run towards fire trenches.

Att LMG team fails to activate.

Turn 2:

Defender's reserves aren't coming yet.

Defenders win the initiative (with a roll of 2!)

Def MG activates and opens fire on bombers, killing one.
Def 7 rifles activate and open fire on the same bombers, with little effect.
Def 5 rifles fail to activate.

Att Rifle Grenades activate and open fire at the machine-gun. So, that means 2 grenades (3 dice each), that ignore concealment (blast radious), but not cover (trenches are dug too well for grenades to have impact on cover, but larger field artillery would be destroying cover). They scored 3 hits, killing the gunner (but a spare man gets removed, as he would simply take gunner's place).

Att LMG fails to activate.
Att Bombers2 activate and push forward down the trench. As they moved down a very deep communication trench, their grenading was not accurate (I decided throwing grenade out of LOS is at -2 penalty).
Att Bombers1 activate and push out of the sap towards enemy trench, while bombing the enemy. Here, I wasn't sure how to establish LOS, Bombers are on ground, but defenders are deep in trenches. As Bombers aren't just next to trench, I played it as if they can't see anyone (I think that's fair and very simple, too). They threw bucket load of grenades, managed to get one hit but didn't kill anyone (because of -2 to hit when blindly throwing grenades!).
Bombers1 rushing the trench


THE PROBLEM: I think I really need some sort of penalty for climbing out of 2+ meters deep trenches. The simplest way I can think of is a restriction to "Walk" (so can't run out of trench), but I would not restrict firing, as to keep things very simple. Defenders sprinted out of their deep dug outs into the land, but I won't be doing that anymore I think.

Turn 3:
Defender's reserves are still nowhere to be found.

Defenders win initiative (again with a roll of 2!)

Def MG activates and unleashes fury at Bombers2, scoring 5 hits and suppressing them. Guys had no chance in the shallow hole and lost 4 of their men.
Def 5 rifles failed to activate, which is really unfortunate, seeing they could destroy the Bombers.



THE PROBLEM: MG fired across the barbed wire (granting +1 concealment) and into shell hole (granting +1 concealment). Should this be cumulative? I am not sure on this one. It could quickly get out of hand, but  it could also help in crossing the no-mans-land. I did not add it this time, but will probably do so next time.

Att Rifle Grenades activated, fired at the MG but again done little because of the safety the MG emplacement provides.
Att LMG Squad activates, moves into position and the crew fires its rifles at Def 7 rifles, killing one.




THE PROBLEM: The LMG in this instance is a support weapon, so can't fire on the go. That's really unfortunate, but given its firepower, probably quite fair. I will sit down and think about having 2 separate classes for MG08/15 and Lewis guns and alike. They are very, very different, but I also enjoy the simplicity of having them all treated the same.
Another reason for two classes is that this would then give at least a slight flavour to fielding different nations.

Att Bombers2 activate, but can not charge the MG, because there's an intact wire infront of the emplacement (What a great idea it was, putting that there!), so they move down the trench, still throwing grenades in general direction of the MG crew.
That is 7 grenades (21 dice, there's a lot of dice in my game!), that managed to score 4 hits, but failed to kill anyone!
Att Bombers1 were activated when they were suppressed.
Bombers2 advance towards the machine gun

Turn 4:

At this point, I remembered I have a rule that failed activation within 6" of an Enemy makes unit Surrender. This is now changed to 6" AND in LOS, because trenches are very close to each other and it would be sad to lose a whole unit of bombers to MG crew just because they'd fail to activate!

Still no reserves for the defending side.

After two ties, Defending team wins the initiative again!


Def MG fails to activate.


Att Bombers2 activate, but to try out their fancy CCB equipment, they assault the MG without prior bombing.

THE PROBLEM: The assault was a bit of a moot-point, some parts of Bombers assaulted the crew from out of LOS (thus putting them at a distinct advantage), but some did not, so I ignored that. I believe the bonus should only count when whole units are jumped like that, even if one man stands in the open, he could warn the rest of the incoming assault.

THE PROBLEM: MG failed to activate and was so on guard. This means, it would be able to fire its pistol (gunner) and rifles (the rest) as a reaction to the movement. I threw the dice and it would wipe out three bombers. I don't think that is quite fair, and two things can be done: Reaction only counts for movement (not assaults) or - preferred reaction - the fire is done at -2 because of the surprise and urgency of the Assault. This is how I played it.

The reaction fire of MG crew failed to achieve anything (but keep in mind any hit would result in a dead man now!) and the close combat began.
Small fire arms (pistols, revolvers, but also shotguns and SMGs) give no bonus to hit in melee, but they roll to hit first (opposed to simultaneously as knives, bayonets etc). The drawback is, they only do that on first round (this is justified with brawlers being too entangled for fire arms to give any distinct advantage afterwards). This wiped out MG crew, destroying it.

THE PROBLEM: Melee was very successful for bombers, but would leave them in the open, where they attacked from the ground down. This is unjustified, so after melee is done, winners will be given 1" of free move to consolidate their position - jump in the trench or cover.

Att Bombers1 activated and decided to assault Def 5 rifles. (that's an unnecessary move, as MG was destroyed, but hey - can test melee again!). Their grenade salvo was uneffective, but the scored 2 hits with their pistols. This left only one defender to fight back (because the rest are not in contact!), who scored a hit.

THE PROBLEM:
Melee will need much, much more testing to decide when do fighters move in contact, who all can hit (just those in base-to base?) and so on. I will probably be doing that next, without playing a game.

Att LMG crew opens fire at Def 7 rifles, but does nothing.
Att Rifle Grenades do the same, scoring a kill.

Def 7 rifles fail to activate.

Turn 5:

Melee that was not resolved before is fought again as both sides activated. This time, bombers are using their knives and truncheons, giving them some advantage over bayonet armed defenders. Bombers scored one hit, while the defenders were unable to hit anyone.


Defender's reserves arrive (counts as activation, too) and move to the back-line fire trench. They opened fire at Att LMG, killing one of the crewmen!

Attackers won the initiative.

THE PROBLEM: Reserves arrived and could open fire before attackers could react, even if they won the initiative. This should perhaps be changed so that reserves are rolled for as an activation. But that, I am afraid, would lead to forgetting about reserves, plus when battle is raging the arriving reinforcements surely enjoy some degree of surprise.

Att Bombers2 activate and instead of retreating (as per scenario idea), they go assault some more (for the sake of testing, of course!). They must have been really tired, as they scored no hits with their pistols! The defenders were better at this game and scored two hits on the attackers.
Bombers apparently fired their pistols with their eyes closed!

Att  LMG failed to activate.
Att Rifle Grenades did activate, also scored 3 hits but failed to kill any of Def 10 rifles!

Turn 6:

The fight between Def 5 rifles and Bombers1 continued as both units activated again. Also, Defenders were again better in the fight (there must be some martial arts in these units!), killing 2 and losing 1 of their own.

A never ending street fight in the front line trench!
Fight between Bombers2 and Def7 was less eventful, as the former failed to activate and gave up!

Defenders then won the initiative again and victorious Def 7 rifles activated, just to fail to do any damage to the att LMG.
Def 10 rifles failed to activate.

Att Rifle grenades activated again, killing one in Def 7's team, but Att LMG failed to activate again.


At this point I quit playing, but I gave the melee between sole survivors of Bombers1 and Def5 another try. They both activated again, but neither scored a hit!

It did show that 'elite' Assault troops are still just men and can be beaten, which I am very satisfied with, so there are no super heroes here.

POST GAME CONSIDERATIONS:

This really took a turn for the worst as far as the attackers go! There were less problems than in the first game, so the progress is visible, but there is a lot to be done with the weapons and scenarios. In this particular scenario idea, the attackers ought to retreat as soon as their mission was done and defenders would have to somehow score points for prisoners taken and damage inflicted, to lessen the extent of victory of the attackers.

The main change that I see necessary is to slightly limit the dice used - I don't mind using buckets and I don't know why people do. I am awful with numbers and probabilities, so I do it all by the "feels", and I get a strange feeling of satisfaction when 20+ dice "burst" around the defenders for no effect!

The need for some sorts of unit organisation is apparent, so in bombers' group only two would throw at a time, except before the assault where everyone should be able to throw a salvo (it's what the Germans did and I'd expect everyone else as well).

While I'm glad the trenches offer extraordinary protection, it should be easier to suppress the enemy, I do not see this happening nearly often enough. I suppose explosives (grenades included) should count double (1 hit = 2 hits for suppression), which would also make rifle grenades actually useful. The strength of MG is clearly lower once the attackers are working down the trench, which is exactly what I'd want of it.

I will write up very generic teams (bombers, crew served weapons, ordinary rifles etc) that could be used for all the nations, and I would be looking up for differences at some later time, for now it really does not matter.

As usual, thanks for reading!
Mathyoo

10 Jul 2016

WW1 Skirmish rules: Playtest 1

Hi guys,

For a while now, I was thinking about yet another project (that is correct!) - World War I. I will not bore you with my life story, suffice to say the trenches are - for reasons unknown - my "thing".

At least 2 years or so ago, I started thinking about writing the rules of my own. That was mostly to give me something to do, but also the reports I've read for other games (and I even looked at the Warhammer Historical's rules, that are way too Warhammery - can't remember the name though) did not seem to offer what I wanted of them. All these rules seems to assume WW1 is interesting in its early stage or late stage.
On contrary, I find the most amusement in the time in between. While  the frontlines changed little, there were constant battles and activities all along the front-lines.

Slovene stormtroopers. The sign reads "Assault company - Slovene boys - To live or to die"
I want the game to be really period-representative, for machine-guns to be feared and for battles to be won by the bayonet charge.
So in the essence, the game would be melee-oriented. I had some ideas with dungeon crawl type, but in the end settled for a modification of FUBAR rules. I really like their system of activations and initiative. I stripped the system of everything Sci-fi, greatly changed the weapons and added few things I considered necessary.  This is the first time I actually gave game a try and had absolutely no idea of what to expect, so there is a lot of text as I made notes. So in the end, the post is more for me than for you, unfortunately, but I would love to hear any ideas on how to tackle some of the numerous problems that I've encountered.

So - what really drags me into WW1, among other things, is the terrain. It is very specific, which means a lot of work, but with that, also a unique game play. I decided to simply draw my board for the playtesting, its fast (meaning it will get done), cheap and offers a bit better insight. I would love to build a proper 3D board at one point, however.

That is a 4x3 board (two 2x3), left half has a by-the-book system of trenches, with some dug outs; MG emplacement; bombers pit; listening post extends to the right half of the board (D shaped bastion). Right side is less elaborate and has some communication trenches leading into consolidated shell holes and there's a sap down below.

I've added some barbed wire and simply wrote what kind of cover and concelment any of the parts offer. There are deep trenches, fire trenches, underground dugouts, various shell holes etc.

For my first game, I opted to give each side four infantry squads (randomised strength D6+4, I like the unpredictability of rolls) and one Machine-gun squad (randomised D3+3). Infantry are all armed with rifles and grenades to prevent me going too deep on my first game (I should probably limit myself to 2 squads as it is!)
They are all of equal level, that is they are all line infantry, the usual peeps, not the old reserve soldiers and not young elite assault troops.


Defenders:
Infantry squad 1, 9 rifles (East German miniatures)
Infantry squad 2, 5 rifles (East German miniatures)
Infantry squad 3, 8 rifles (SAF miniatures)
Machine-gun squad, 4 members (SAF miniatures)

Attackers:
Infantry squad 1, 7 rifles (Rebels miniatures)
Infantry squad 2, 5 rifles (Rebels)
Infantry squad 3, 10 rifles (Rebels)
Machine-gun squad, 5 members (Rebels)

Set up:

Defenders were put in their dug-outs, where they'd go to survive the preliminary bombardment. As I only have three, I've sheltered larger two infantry squads (9 and 8 rifles) and an MG squad.
The smallest squad (5 rifles) was put in a shell-hole trench, as if it was caught outside by the bombardment.

Attackers I had more problems with, as their side is not done too well, it needs more shellholes. I've put largest unit (10 rifles) in a communication trench with an intention to rush them down the sap.
Next larger squad (7 rifles) was put in a fire trench section. 5 man squad was put way upfront in shell holes (damaged by defender's artillery perhaps?), while the MG squad established itself in the shell holes, connected by trenches.

Defenders on the left, attackers on the right. Never mind the 3 defenders, there were 5 before game started.
THE PROBLEM: The first problem I encountered was the deployment. How far in or out can units be deployed? Why not put defenders in fire trenches etc etc. But this can be solved by scenarios. There's no reason not to play a quick game where attackers in fact start their first turn in enemy trenches already!

GAME:

Turn 1:

First turn, defenders won the initiative (game is based on FUBAR).

Defender's MG Squad fails to activate.

Attacker's 10 rifles activate and run down the sap.
Attacker's MG fails to activate.

Defender's 9 rifles fail to activate.

Attacker's 5 rifles fail to activate.

Defender's 7 rifles activate and run towards fire trenches.
Defender's 5 rifles activate and fire at Att MG. They get bonus for aimed fire, but also suffer penalty because their target unit is in purpose built fire trenches. They hit one, who then fails his save. I removed the miniature from play, but I am considering giving a miniature a chance to become light casualty, continuing to fight; heavy casualty (-1 to everything) or be removed from play. I am afraid that will greatly complicate everything, so I'm leaving it out for now.

THE PROBLEM: Att MG's troops were in two shellholes with different bonuses, which one is counted? Always the best (shooting player wise), always the worst or the fire only focuses the group in either of bonus areas?

Attacker's 7 rifles activate and run forward.

THE PROBLEM: They ran (long move) across shell holes, which seems unfair. I like the ability to run from cover to cover, but not over it. I will leave it for now, but that is something to think about to prevent rushes. On other hand, it might be desirable, too.

Turn 2:
Attackers win the initiative.

Attacker's MG activates and fires at Def 5 rifles. They scored 6 hits, but only managed to kill one. The weight of fire, however, suppressed Def 5 rifles.

THE  PROBLEM: MG is really powerful, so I think whole team can only fire either their rifles or the MG. It must be clear that it is not possible for the rest of the crew to also fire their rifles.
MG crew should not be able to move and then fire, which makes sense, but the question is - should they get the bonus for aiming (as rifles do) if they do not move? I think yes, so I avoid yet another exception and MG can't move and fire because it has to be set-up, once that is done, there is no reason why it wouldn't be able to benefit from careful aim.

Attacker's 10 Rifles activate, move closer to Def 5 rifles and throw grenades. Now, grenades ignore concealment provided by trenches (so always hit on unit's training level), which means the extra concealment Def 5 Rifles got by hunkering down when being suppressed, is useless!
They hit five times, but trenches proved very effective, as no defenders died!

THE PROBLEM: Grenades that were thrown from shell-hole to damaged trench (visible to visible) ignore concealment. Grenades were also thrown from the sap (out of LOS), so some sort of penalty has to be put in place. I think not-ignoring concealment is fine, but could also punish it as far as having the worst concealment (+2) used. That is more than fair for blind lobbying of grenades!

Attacker's 7 rifles activate and advance in communications trench. Their leading soldier lobbed a grenade towards Def 8 Rifles, but missed (I gave him -2 penalty for them being out of LOS and I'm quite satisfied with that).
Attacker's 5 rifles fail to activate.

Defender's 8 rifles fail to activate.
Defender's 9 rifles activate and run out of their dug out to try and save the day. Or something.
Defender's MG fails to activate.
Defender's 5 rifles were suppressed, which made them activate by default.

Turn 3:
Defenders win the initiative that they so desperately need.

Defender's 5 rifles fail to activate -.-

Attacker's 7 rifles activate and Assault Def 8 rifles, but before going in, they throw a grenade (there's only one in range!). Def 8 sensing their approach, threw a grenade back, hit one but made no real damage.

THE PROBLEM: Being On Guard as they have not yet activated, Def 8 Rifles was able to react to the assaulting unit's movement by throwing a grenade (3 dice on 6) or shooting their rifles (1 shot on 4 as there's only one of them that can fire). The problem is, attackers moved from area with less cover into area with more cover - at which point does the defender throw grenade? If it was a normal move, I'd say when there's best chance of hitting (obviously!), but with the assault, it could be the same or at the enemy units as they are when assault hits (so very close and unprotected). I will go with "best chance" for both for now. Then again, when assaulting troops are close by, shooting them is the best option either way.

The melee resulted in only one miniature from each side fighting each other, and both scored a hit on one another.

Enemies meet in the trenches!
THE PROBLEM: What now, do miniatures close up before the activation is over or is that done when resolving melee at start of next turn? Does melee still continue, when they are not in base-to-base contact anymore, or it has to be restarted?
I have to give this more thought, but for now, I'll play when melee starts, it only ends when there is a winner. I doubt troops would charge into one another just to run away from one another mid-brawling.

THE PROBLEM: Is assaulted unit now automatically activated? I suppose yes, they are locked in melee anyway.

Attacker's 5 rifles fail to activate.

Defender's 9 rifles fail to activate.

Attacker's MG activates and fires at Def 5 rifles again. They only hit 3 times now, but score two kills.

Attacker's 10 rifles activate and attempt to assault Def 5 rifles, but killing them with grenades before they do so.

THE PROBLEM: A unit can fire or grenade their enemy before charging, with an attempt to suppress the defenders. What happens when targeted unit is wiped out? I played out as if they assault defender's position, there's no way of knowing everyone is dead!
PS: Grenades are perhaps too powerful with 3 Dice and ignoring concealment, plus some cover. I might reconsider if that is what I want, but then again, grenades were very effective.

Defender's MG fails to activate and will probably be useless for the rest of the game!

Turn 4:

Pre-turn events, resolving melee:
Att 7 Rifles activate, while Def 8 Rifles do not. Therefore, the defenders surrendered and are now prisoners.

THE PROBLEM: Attacking unit has taken prisoners, because the melee was resolved. They gave up and must be escorted to table edge, but this can only be done if the winner of the melee activates this turn.

Attacker's won the initiative.
Att 7 rifles (that just won melee) fails to activate.

Def 9 rifles fail to activate.

Att 10 rifles activate and assault Def 9 rifles, after throwing grenades. They did nothing, but attacked unit's close rifle fire killed two of the attackers.
Att 5 rifles fails to activate. I guess each side has a unit that doesn't do anything.

Def MG finally activates and runs down the trench to see what can be done.

Att MG fails to activate.

Turn 5:

Resolving melee: Def 9 rifles activate, but Att 10 rifles do not and thus surrender!

Defenders win the initiative.

Def MG climbs out the trench in an attempt to bomb  Att 7 rifles and save their mates. Their grenades obliterated the enemy squad, leaving sole survivor.

Defender's MG team bombed the attackers, but would be erased by attacker's MG in a next second!
THE PROBLEM: The problem with some parts of unit visible and others invisible appeared again. All grenades were thrown at best chance, but cover save was applied according to the position of the miniature (ie those in deep trench having better save).

Another problem is that Att MG and Att 5 rifles could open fire at any point when Def MG climbed out of trenches (and became visible). They were 24 inches from Att MG and 20ish from Att 5. I did not fire with any of them before grenades were thrown (as I forgot), but here, it would be really important to decide if Def MG can throw all grenades and then suffer responsive fire from the two units, or it suffers the wrath before it can throw grenades.
I threw the dice and Def MG would suffer 6 hits from Att MG response and 4 from Att 5 rifles, being caught in the open they would have no save and would be literally mowed down. Then, they would be unable to grenade Att 7 unit they destroyed.
Problems: Should there be a distance limit to responsive fire (there is no limit for rifles and MGs when firing normally); Should activated unit, subject to responsive fire get some kind of save (because they are technically running at the moment!).
I don't wish to limit responsive fire with distance, plus the whole point  of covering fire is to, well, cover. Perhaps the responsive fire should suffer (additional, where applicable) +1 penalty to hit, as the targets sprint, but that's it.
Another solution is that responsive fire activates the unit, so owning player must decide if he should react or hope to activate later on. That sounds like a good trade of.

Def 9 rifles activates. One member starts to herd the prisoners, others take position in the firing trench and open fire at Att MG. They could not hit well entrenched enemy.

At this point, I decided that responsive fire should certainly activate a unit, so it is not just a bonus shooting. So, as all units were activated, dead or surrendered, turn ended.
Defenders lead attacking side's prisoners to the rear.

PROBLEM:
Prisoners get in the way; standard 6" move for prisoners is way too slow. It just drags the game way too much. Perhaps prisoners should instantly move off board, and just count more end-game victory points or something. But then, they can not be saved, which sounds like fun. Perhaps make them move 8" as they just have to walk, but not quite run (this is how I'll play it out for this game as removing them from table would greatly change what Def MG team did etc etc).


Turn 6:

Defenders win the initiative.

Def 9 rifles fail to activate.

Att 5 rifles fail to activate.
Att MG fails to activate.

PROBLEM: Do troops, relegated to escorting prisoners of table activate automatically? I think yes, there is little reason not to wish to go towards back lines!

I have an awful situation with Att 7 Rifles lone survivor. He failed his activation, so he should fall back. But he is also the only surviving member of a unit that has SEVEN prisoners, so he should activate automatically. I can not see how surrendering concept could work, if prisoners are not removed from play instantly.
This time, I played it out as if he is escorting them, so he activated automatically. Then yet another problem arose - can he be fired upon by Def 9 that is on guard? I will be ignoring prisoners and just move them to the back. This means escorting soldiers are invincible, but also useless until they drop their prisoners with rear echelon units. So that's another positive side of what I think is overly complicated and very flawed concept.
Board at the end of turn 6

Turn 7:

Defenders win the initiative.

Def 9 rifles activates, but I'm not sure what to do, they can not move up to dislodge the MG because it's responsive fire will shred them. Thus, they fired their rifles, managed to hit once, but the hit was saved. Game really bogged down now.

Att MG fired it's shots at Def 9, killing one. This, however, also means next turn, Def 9 will be able to rush forward.

Att 5 Rifles failed to activate.

Prisoners on both sides were moved. That concept certainly doesn't work.


Situation at the end of turn 7. Not much going on now.

Turn 8:
Defenders win the initiative.

Deff 9 rifles rushes across the land into enemy sap. Att 5 rifles made a responsive fire and killed one (luckily just one!).

Last surviving defenders rush in the enemy sap.


PROBLEM: The responsive fire, gained by Attackers because they failed to activate is doing way too much damage. Perhaps the "overwatch" rule should only be done as a deliberate action. But this means, units that fail to activate just sit there being useless, which is also something I dislike.
I am not sure about Casualty roll anymore, who would wish to book keep about individual miniatures that are lightly or heavily wounded etc. That, like prisoners is another idea that sounds good but would just delay the game.

Maybe the responsive fire should be done in regard to active unit's last position. So if a unit makes in a deep trench in one bound, they are safe?

Deff 9's guard reached the table edge and is free of guard duty. Now what - does he become an invincible man again until he joins his unit? Can he only move when unit activates? The prisoners concept really doesn't work. I'll have him move independently 8" per turn until he reaches parent unit, but will greatly simplify the surrender.

Turn 9:Defenders win the initiative, but fail to activate.
Att MG then activated and moved closer to Def 9 rifles in order to grenade them. Throwing grenades blindly, they didn't hit anything.
Def 9's reaction bombing resulted in one Att MG soldier dead.

Attacker's MG squad moves in to seal the defender's fate.
THE PROBLEM: Should Def 9, positioned in a very deep trench even be given a chance to throw grenades as a reaction? At first, I thought not, but surely they would throw grenades back at the place where grenades are coming from. But this is another reason why reaction fire should be always done after active player's move.

Att 5 rifles failed to activate again.

Turn 10:

Attackers win the initiative, but Att MG do not activate.

Def 9 Rifles activate, bomb and assault Att MG. They threw bombs before leaving the sap, so they only managed to hit three times, which resulted in one MG crew man dead, but there were not enough hits to pin the MG.

The MG crew then fired a pistol and a rifle (too close for MG to be effective).

PROBLEM: I considered having MG crew use grenades, but that seemingly defeated the purpose of having different weapons (like pistols, whose range is same as grenade's, but with less dice). While using grenades often is fine, there has to be some sort of restriction for their use. Perhaps a 2"minimum range, plus no speculative fire (grenade lobbying out of LOS).

However, responsive fire from Att 5 rifle killed what MG crew failed to, at which point I ended the game.

In all fairness, I forgot to consider grenade's bonuses, so MG team would probably be wiped off, but that would change little when Att 5 Rifle would still erase the attacker.

End result:
Attackers:
Starting miniatures: 27
Miniatures lost: 20
Prisoners taken: 7

Defenders:
Starting miniatures: 26
Miniatures lost: 26
Prisoners taken: 7

There's loads and loads of things to be rethought; playing solo surely added to the problems; table is just awful (but I can imagine it be really nice if it was done in 3D!) etc etc. But overall, I think the game is very close to what I want it to be. A lot of ideas were ultimately shattered, but that's not to bad, at least I gave them a try.

POST GAME CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TESTED:
1. Not sure if it's fair to have units move 6" and fire, but assault 8" and fire/bomb is fair. But on another hand, this does make people want to get into close combat, which is the point of the game.

2. I had a (very short) melee taking place in the communications trench, where only 1 miniature can fight another one at a time. That I feel is fine, but will take ages. Perhaps additional rule should enable 2 miniatures to fight, but certainly not more.
The question that rises is, what happens if a unit in a deep trench (out of LOS) gets attacked from above? Do units count as fighting in trench, even if there's only place for one miniature? I think that is fair, but also the attacker coming from OUTSIDE the trench (as opposed to down the trench) should have some benefits. Bonus to hit might sound too good, as this equals attacking suppressed units - but maybe still?
As it stands now, melee is fought simultaneously. With assaulting suppressed units, it could be done that they hit second (thus having less dice when some of them are bound to die by the attacker hitting first). This makes suppressing units really important. At the same time, unit in trench, assaulted from above suffers -1 to hit, which is at the moment penalty for being suppressed.
3. I really like the idea of prisoners, but, can they be saved? And if - how? Must the unit that took them prisoner be destroyed, or just the soldiers escorting the prisoners? What about prisoners, do they get rifles automatically or would simply have to fight barehanded? Currently, I like the sound of a compromise, they count as having rifles, but when pooling dice to throw, the pool gets halved (if if 4 soldiers would normally fire 4 dice, as saved prisoners they would only get 2).
4. Reaction fire must be regulated somewhat, but should still have an impact on the game. While it's disappointing to see so many units get wiped out by units that even failed to activate, this really shows how deadly being above the ground would be.
5. The board HAS to have a lot of cover, shell hole by the shell hole, in order to give troops somewhere to hide. There also has to be a very good concept for providing artificial cover (smoke), that could and should be used a lot.


Congratulations if you made it to the end and even if you just looked at the photos - thanks for looking!

Mathyoo

19 May 2016

War Correspondent and Interpreter

Hi guys,

Hobby is still slow here, the solo gaming just does not seem to cut it for me. Bunker is progressing slowly after the initial enthusiasm, but an unforseen surge of modelling made me finish yet another two recycled projects.

The War Correspondent and Interpreter miniatures you are about to see both started years ago (literally) when I started working on Slovene soldiers for the first time. The latter have since been replaced with the fantastic Empress Americans, which I think was great choice as it let me finish a lot of them reasonably fast.

Still, I was left with 4 half done dollies and I used two of them to make the miniatures I wanted for a long time - interpreter and a journalist.

Below you can see them at the stage where I essentially gave up on trying to make them look any better:
 The 'terp on the left looks a lot like what my Slovenes would have looked like if they were ever finished, including the 'old' helmet cover with loads of camo stripes. He was given a walkie and a single pouch. I thought about giving him an AK and eventually settled for an unarmed version.

The correspondent was given a plain helmet (that would need slight beefing up, they both use same heads actually!), slightly different vest and a small one-hand camera. The first idea was to give him a large camera, because they 'look cool', but that would have involved a lot of work and I think someone embedded with a fighting unit would appreciate the flexibility of a lighter equipment. He was given a satchel and yet another camera, however.

The interpreter was painted in a mix of camo and plain greens to keep him interesting. I've hid his identity behind a ski-mask and gave him tacticool gloves.  While my painting efforts have lowered somehow in the past year, I think it looks quite fantastic.


 Here he is compared to an Empress US soldier, as you can see he is slightly smaller, as dollies are older, when 28mm was 28mm.
 The War Correspondent was given more civilian clothing. Green helmet was justified as a military surplus. I was not sure about vest colour, I vividly remember reading how blue vests were only good for snipers to shoot at the journalists in Bosnia. But apparently they are still in use, and if nothing else, it helps with a recognition of the miniature.

 There is not much to add, below is a size comparison photo. It was made using same E-bob dollies as the Interpreter, so there are next to no differences - keep in mind, however, that I 'grew' both of them for a milimeter or so by adding putty to their shoulders back when I started making Slovenes.

As usual,

Thanks for looking!

Mathyoo