Slow Going

Boardgames, Sessions, World War II,

Taking my time with the  1938 Balkans/Central Europe scenario.  I’m using both regional names as they overlap – just ask Google.

Decided to start things off  with a Bulgarian invasion of Romania, with Hungary and Yugoslavia content to wait and watch.

While Bulgaria can commit almost all their assets to the invasion, Romania has to keep several units on their borders with Hungary.  In this battle of “Ants” (where 4-4s and 3-4s are few and far between), a handful of units can make a big difference.

The Bulgarians have already seized both of their territorial objectives, but are bogged down in front of Bucharest.  On the other hand, the Romanians are hard-pressed to defend their capital, much less launch any kind of offensive to retake their occupied cities. Here’s a quick snap.  Bucharest lies below the blue Romanian air units.

Despite the low counter density, it’s just not an infantry and artillery fight.

Both countries do have limited air assets.  The Bulgarians have a mixed bombing unit (one tactical and two strategic bombing factors), while the Romanians have a fighter unit and two bombing (one tactical and one strategic bombing factor) units.  The Romanian fighters returned the first sorties by the Bulgarian bombers and destroyed it in a subsequent attack. The bomber units have supplemented Bucharest’s defense.

Each country has only one engineer unit, but each is active. The Bulgarian engineers constructed an airfield within range of Bucharest, while the Romanians have built a fort to buttress the capital’s defenses.

Armored battalions have also been involved in the combats around Bucharest.

This is a pretty vanilla scenario so far.  I need to spend some time working on the mechanics for triggering Yugoslavian and Hungarian involvement.

Another Hiatus Ends

Boardgames, Sessions, World War II

As usual, lots of plans to game at the Sunfish Capital Of The World, but little accomplished.

Back home digging out from a prolonged absence, but I have had time to get ASLSK back on the small table (as well as my 1938 Europa Scenario on the large table).

Impetus is my receipt of the “Basic Training” publication from MMP.  Mark Pitcavage provides his usual excellent coverage over at Desperation Morale.

I’m working my way through the War Of The Rats scenario replay.  This replay provides an opportunity to review the rules as well as see how experts play the game.  I’ve never played face-to-face, so this type of replay is very welcome despite, as Mark points out, the number of pages devoted to it.  A bit of a slog, but worthwhile.

For extras, “Basic” comes with handy charts, and a counter sheet with German and Minor units, plus a few tanks and guns.

Still having my on-going conflicted thoughts about ASL/ASLSK.  I really like the system, but after ordnance, the increased level of complexity for tanks and the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO-ASLSK #4) gives me The Willies.

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…..