Old Friend – Up Front

Boardgames, Skirmish, World War II

Tired, frayed, torn and stained……took out Up Front to get reacquainted before my annual sojourn to The Sunfish Capital Of The World.

I hadn’t opened the battered box for quite a while.  Everything was there, including the rules and cards for the Desert War variant.  I’m starting a serious hunt for Banzai later today.

I bought the core game and variants back in the 80’s and from the look of the components, I must have either  a messy pig, or just played the hell out of them.  I want to think it’s the latter.

The reason for the reunion is  I need some quick set-up and play games during my stay.  Gaming space is limited, and there will be visitors.  The dining room table will be for eating, not for board gaming.

Up Front fills that requirement.  It plays in about an hour, with soldier card deployment, action deck shuffling, and marker setup taking about ten minutes maximum.

One problem…..the rules.  They are more involved than I remembered.  But, the time spent reacquainting myself with them, as well as discovering how much I do not remember, has been enjoyable.  After all of these years it’s still a unique system.

Started a quick play of the first scenario, and rediscovered how you don’t learn the rules by reading them, but by playing.

The game is not particularly solitaire friendly.  Solo systems are out there, but I just keep it simple.  Two reasons…. because my memory is shot, and I never look at a discard draw (last action of a player turn) at the time of draw, but wait until it is that side’s turn again.  I’ll call it “limited intelligence”.

Once Again

Boardgames, Sessions, World War I

Back after another long hiatus involving travel and toil.

Drove over to Tim’s for another grind through Pursuit of Glory.  Grind?  Yes.  As posted before, the game is a brain twister, but very enjoyable.

As always, too much fun chatter and perhaps not enough serious gaming.  But, we were able to get into 1916, with Tim’s Allies having a decided advantage.

We agreed this session was different than the others.  Fewer casualties, with more activity in Sinai/Palestine/Syria than usual, with less in Persia and “The Back of Beyond”.

Here’s a breakdown of action by region.

Sinai/Palestine/Syria:  The Turks actually made it across the Suez Canal,  but were quickly forced back by British/ANZAC/Indian units.  Tim continued placing pressure on the Turks, taking Jerusalem and Damascus.  He correctly pointed out that I should have built a corps in Damascus.  Corps building is a real challenge for the Ottomans.  They do not receive corps as reinforcements, just divisions.  So, corps (which have increased fighting and staying power) must be assembled from two (for reduced corps) or three (full strength) divisions.  This means using operations points move them to a common location and/or to assemble them.

Mesopotamia:  The Allies steadily advanced from Basra towards Baghdad.  Here, I was able to assemble two corps, which stopped the Allies just short of the city.  The Central Powers had difficulties generating tribal resistance, which can be very effective  stopping/delaying an Allied advance.

Caucasus:  Not the usual bloodbath.  I attribute this to the few mandated offensives for either side, as well as no dreaded “Enver” offensives that can be devastating to the Turks, especially in the Winter when combat odds are very unfavorable for the attacker.

The Balkans:  This theater developed rather late in the game with first Romania (Allies) and then Bulgaria (Central Powers) entering the war.  The Serbs (Allies) were in an unfavorable position when the game ended.

Other:  Tim opened up the possibility of a landing in Gallipoli, which achieved its purpose of drawing valuable Ottoman units West, instead of East – where most of the action took place.  He did land at Salonika, but had not advanced by game’s end.

Tim did an excellent job of maintaining pressure on the Turks, forcing me to spend Operation Points on reacting as opposed to proactive uses such as corps building and strategic movement.  The latter is very important for the Ottomans, given the distances to be traveled and poor infrastructure.  Their “interior lines” are more of a handicap than advantage.

At game’s end, Tim had a decided advantage, with the Ottomans just five victory points from defeat.

Here’s a quick pic of the board at session’s end.

 

Set-Up!…..Play?

Boardgames, Sessions, World War II,

Here’s a pic of the set-up for Empire Reborn.

The blank counters are divisions that may or may not remain loyal to the government.  My thoughts are whatever units do not remain loyal will have another die roll to determine if their opposition is active or passive.

I also need to work through the readiness/mobilization process.  The current set-up has the Yugoslavians and Bulgarians already mobilized as divisions (except for aforementioned “blank” counters), the Romanians as cadres and Hungarians without divisional units, just brigades etc.    My instinct for my first play thru (and path of least resistance) is to allow everyone to mobilize as well as form divisional units.   Just focus on the operational aspects.

I’ll have time to ponder these weighty questions.  Another road trip looms…….

Structure…..However Flimsy

Boardgames, Sessions,

The hypothetical 1938 Balkan conflict (Empire Reborn) now has some parameters.  Maybe not the best, but at least some structure.

My latest efforts focused on victory conditions that, in turn, involved identifying the regions and ethnicities involved.

Balkan Front addresses the latter consideration with a  map outlining the area’s regions.

Unfortunately, I cannot find Map 14A (as well as all my War In The Desert counters – a collateral discovery while searching for maps).  But, I did find a scan of 14A which helped me work with my old Marita-Merker maps.

Decided to simplify matters by using control of a city or cities (shown below in parentheses) as objectives for each country.

Bulgaria’s  territorial objectives are  Northern Macedonia (Skopje) and Southern Dobruja (Varna and Pleven).  The Hungarian objectives are Transylvania (Cluj and Timpsora) and the Backa region (Novi Sad). Both Romania and Yugoslavia must  maintain their current borders.

Late in this process I recognized the maps reflect 1941 national boundaries.  In 1940’s  Treaty of Craiova, Romania’s ceded Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria.  The initial placement of each nation’s forces has to be adjusted accordingly.

The initial placement of units, like the order of battle (OB), is speculative and uses multiple less-than-reliable sources.  The composition and size of each country’s military changed significantly from 1938 to the opening of Barbarossa campaign in 1941 -where reliable OB information can be found.  “Educated Guess Work” is giving the OB process the benefit of the doubt.

Since the whole project is hypothetical and speculative, I decided to flesh out each country’s forces with some specialized units.  The inclusion of limited air, anti-aircraft, armor and engineer assets provides an opportunity to work with a wider variety of the Barbarossa  Unleashed rules. These rules will also be used in the Operation Groza game with Tim.

Additional scenario considerations now include guerilla warfare by disaffected minorities, the use of Balkan Front’s Yugoslavian mobilization guidelines in which certain regions – and the units based there – openly oppose Yugoslavia, and a variable game length  based on the Macedonia War (which helped inspire this entire twisted process) scenario published in Europa Magazine.

Need to get this moving so I can start pushing cardboard.

Hypothetical Trend Continues – Empire Reborn

Boardgames, Sessions,

I’ve dredged up another hypothetical scenario, this time using the Europa system and New  Europa components.

I first started thrashing with this Central European/Balkan scenario several years ago.  Here’s a link to the post explaining this recurring bout of madness.

As emphasized in my earlier post, Europa purists should disregard anything with the “Empire Reborn” tag.

Over the past week I’ve revisited old resources, found (after a hunk and peck household search) the appropriate Europa maps,  and downloaded additional information including limited orders of battle.

Given what I have, it’s safe to say this is not going to be a simulation.

Regardless, it will be fun to push counters for countries that are either victims and/or after-thought cannon fodder allies of the major WW2 powers.

“Red” is the working name for a Bulgaria-Hungary alliance, aided and abetted by Germany, Italy, Albania and the Croat minority in Yugoslavia.

The “Blue” alliance will be Yugoslavia and Romania, with assistance (in some form) from France, Greece, Turkey, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Where the Soviet Union fits into all of this is a damn good question.

The time frame is early 1938, with the assumption(s) that Germany, France, and Poland focused on Czechoslovakia , with German and Italian resources tied up in Spain.  The Austrian Anschluss has occurred, but the incorporation of Austrian forces into the Wehrmacht is still in progress.

One (and there are many) aspect that needs immediate attention is the victory conditions.  Each alliance had specific territorial ambitions.  The problem is to translate these regions/areas from sources and identify them on Europa maps.  Like the rest of this project, “vague” is an operating principle.

Prolonged Absence

Boardgames, Naval

Yes, another one.  Function of lassitude (February) as well as South American cruise (March).

The cruise started in Valparaiso, Chile, then along the coast of Chile, around Cape Horn, ending in Buenos Aires.  It was a lot of fun.  The only exception was the badly executed tour of the Falkland battlefields.

The itinerary included cruising the fiords of Patagonia as well as the Beagle Channel and Straits of Magellan.

Our on-land adventures left me with the impression that there is no love lost between Argentina and Chile.

This got me thinking about the South American naval rivalries/races of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Right after returning home, I dug out my copy of Avalanche Press’ “Cone of Fire” module for their Great War At Sea series.  A quick glance at the scenario booklet seemed to indicate there were no scenarios covering a turn-of-the-twentieth century hypothetical encounter.

So, I consulted some sources I have here at home, as well as searching on-line.  Lots of information to process.  This article provided  a helpful summary.  This article provides a wider perspective.

I decided to build a scenario using “Operation Soberania” as a guide.  This is the 1978 Argentinian plan to occupy contested islands in Patagonia.  Same operational situation, just later in the 20th century.

Of course, after all of this,  a second reading of the booklet revealed specific scenarios including  force compositions.  My excuse for missing these is the scenarios are not presented in chronological sequence.  Weak.

Still, the “unnecessary” research was time well spent.  I have a better overall knowledge of the topic.

I’m tempted to link the naval action with  ground combat on the contested islands using the old “Rifle and Sabre” rules for late 19th century.  Counters represent 100+/- soldiers and artillery batteries. Might be fun.

Well, as always,  the trick is to get it on the table.

Kvetching

Boardgames, General

Starting to bog down (pun semi-intended) with Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit (ASLSK) armor rules.

Twenty-five or so modifiers for fire combat?  Ugh.

I don’t like House Rules.  If you have to change the game there is something wrong – “Sandbox Games” excepted.

The Designer spent a lot of time figuring things out.  The Playtesters spent a lot of time figuring things out.  The Developer spent a lot of time figuring things out.

Play the game once, then start changing things?  Now you are playing a different game.

Sometimes I think one should just sell it and move on to another game, same period/situation.

Kvetch!

Talked myself into staying with it.

Wilson’s Creek – Opening Mess

Boardgames, Sessions

Started Wilson’s Creek, one of the earliest in the Great Battles Of The American Civil War Series (GBACW), which appeared in Strategy & Tactics Magazine way back in 1981.

What is really scary is that my first and only previous play of the game was way back in 1981.

The exclusive game rules are mercifully short.  However, they significantly shape the course of play.

The Confederates start the game “encamped”, activated either individually by  “spotting” an advancing Union unit when it comes within three hexes, or by a  2xD-6 roll for the entire force beginning Turn 3.  In either case, the spotting unit(s) or entire Confederate force must then take individual morale checks.

Given the relatively low morale of many Confederate units, the result can only be characterized by-the-now-over-used word, “Mayhem”.  Routing units retreat the usual three hexes.  Given the density of the Confederate bivouac, the army becomes a  rabble.  To compound matters, brigade commanders must also make morale checks (morale level four), and can also rout.  From my reading of the rules, they cannot self rally.  This puts a real burden on the division commanders.

To make things even more interesting, the battlefield terrain is hilly and covered with brush, which limits fields of fire (units can fire through two hexes of brush into a target) and movement (two movement points per hex – for both column and line formations – with six movement point maximum).

Here’s a depiction of the entire game map.

And now a close-up of the opposing forces during Turn 4 (the Confederates had a very low die roll) after contact/rout and before rallying.  The units with a “Rout” marker are mounted, and unlike infantry, do not have a reverse side designating rout.  By the way, these routed mounted units must remain dismounted for the rest of the battle since it is assumed their horses have scattered in the confusion.

The darker the hex, the higher the elevation.  Wilson’s Creek runs left-to right and is in the lowest terrain.  It can only be crossed at fords, which is going to effect how/where the Confederates (eventually) form up.  The north-south water feature is a tributary which can be crossed at any point.

I’m curious as how all of this confusion develops…..

SOPAC – Finished

Boardgames, Naval, Sessions, World War II

Yes, wrapped up…….with an unanticipated and very abrupt ending.

As usual, it was as function of (another) rules/scenario comprehension (or lack of) gaffe.

I forgot that in this scenario, neither side is affected by “Interservice Rivalry”.  This status has a significant impact on gameplay as these rivalries preclude activating both Army and Naval units in the same turn/offensive.  In SOPAC, the bulk of the respective naval forces are located in the New Hebrides and Solomons, while army units are in New Guinea/Australia.

Given card draws, the relatively weak strength of US naval forces during the first few turns, and this apparent operational limitation, the Allies had focused on New Guinea, with positive results.

Here are the card draws for Turn 5.  Note that starting with Turn 5, the Allies have the first card play.  The Japanese can override that by playing a Future Offensives Card – which they do have (that might have been a good play…dunno).

The Japanese Navy started the action off by activating their Solomon air assets for another pounding of Henderson Field.  The Allies refused to react with their carriers, so the only opposition was two Marine air units (in EOTS any units in the Battle Hex have to participate in combat, but  do not have to be activated to do so – which is a bonus because more “outside”  units can be activated to participate).

The preceding paragraph only tells part of the story.  The initial Allied response  was to react.  Not a good idea.  The Japanese had roughly 60 attack factors, with the Allies only able to muster 40.  The would have probably been a big BLAMMO, with crippling comparative losses for the Allies.  I love the “Undo” icon.

Meanwhile, the Allies continued their aggressive attacks in New Guinea, destroying the understrength corps that had arrived in New Guinea during the Replacement Phase of Turn 5.  Note the participating Japanese naval unit.  Another rules gaffe.  While I now recognized  interservice rivalries were not in effect, I forgot naval gunfire support applied only to the offensives player, not the reaction (defensive) side (if the offensive player has the only naval unit in the Battle Hex during ground combat, he/she enjoys a +2 combat die roll modifier).

The ensuing combat destroyed the 9-12 Japanese Army unit, ending any effective ground resistance (there still is a weak Japanese Naval Infantry unit just off the photo to the west (left)).

The Japanese response was to launch an all-out attack on the Allied naval units in the New Hebrides.  The Allies had no choice but to  react.

The VASSAL die-bot rolled high for the Allies and low for the Japanese.  The Japanese sailed back to Truk without the  Yamato and with damaged surface units.

Again, the preceding paragraph is just part of the story.  I initially used the Allied Central Pacific Headquarters to activate naval units.  This HQ can add three units to the activation force, but……..and this is important……it can only activate units in the New Hebrides.  This meant the The Wasp, now situated in New Guinea as part of the dispersion of naval assets to prevent catastrophic loss early in the game, could not join the reaction force.  Neither could the Army’s long-range bomber units.

However, Genius Boy had forgotten that the Halsey Card had been put in play earlier in the game.  Halsey’s South Pacific HQ can also add three units to the reaction force, and is not limited to the New Hebrides.  Add the Wasp and Army air, and the Allies strength was increased by 16.  Significant.

I shut the game down for the night, and returned to it the next day.  Mulling the options there seemed to be no way the Japanese could win.  The Allies now controlled three additional ports, and any Japanese counteroffensive would have to wait until they received replacements (a 9-12 reduced corp) for Turn 6.  While theoretically feasible, this attack would face strong ground units and a significantly reinforced US fleet.

Now it’s on to the Burma Scenario.

SOPAC – Turns 3 & 4

Boardgames, Sessions, World War II

Getting into a good rhythm with Empire of the Sun’s SOPAC scenario.  And well I should since this is about my fifth playthrough.

This is situation at the end of the first card play round of Turn 3.  Yes, I whiffed on getting a screen shot before Turn 3 began as well as the Strategy Cards drawn.

The key to tempo is not thinking too much, and just playing.  Especially since VASSAL let’s you “Undo” any number of stupid/misguided offensives.  Here’s an example:

The above is an Allied misadventure during Turn 4.  The Japanese played their Future Offensives card “Battle of Santa Cruz” as an event and set Guadalcanal as the Battle Hex.  They could  activate a total of six units; the four naval bomber units highlighted in red, along with a carrier and accompanying battleship (to absorb damage).  The Allies were able to pass their Reaction die roll (d10 – “7”), and activated two carrier task forces.  The  two air units at Henderson Field are in the Battle Hex and do not have to be activated in order to participate.  Sounds OK….NOOOOOOOO!!!  The Japanese have sixty (60) attack factors, while the Allies had a paltry thirty-four (34).  That is not going to work.  UNDO!  I let the Marine air units take a pounding.  Save the fleet for their Turn 5 reinforcements.

Outside of this abortive effort, the real action during Turns 3 and 4 took place in New Guinea.

During Turn 3, the reinforced Australians successfully attacked Buna, taking the airfield.

During Turn 4, the Australians decisively defeated the reinforced Japanese ground units, eliminating two Armies.  The attack was made at a negative strength differential hoping to attrit  the Japanese forces.  The Australian air unit (noted with the “A”) was used to offset the Japanese air unit in the Battle Hex.  If not activated, the Japanese would have enjoyed air superiority and a +2 modification to their combat die roll.    The Allied die roll of “8” allowed them to inflict 1.5 times their attack strength as Japanese casualties.  For once my tactic of using a card with low Operations value (rather than Event value) did result in a surprise attack, with the Japanese strength reduction taking place before being able to strike back at the Allies.  In this case, there was nothing left to strike with.

I had decided to reinforce the Japanese, so the ground units would not be eliminated piecemeal.  Instead they were eliminated en-masse.  Not good.

What IS good is that Turn 4 is finished and I can move on to Turn 5.  Hopefully I’ll wrap this iteration up by mid-week.  That will free up the computer for “Groza’s” opening moves.