Command Decision - Test of Battle

CD-TOB - WWI :: RE: Cavalry Battle at Haelen - Cold Wars 2010

Author: Jack Radey
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:21 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 3

I have found that unfordable rivers and limited bridges is an excellent way of taking a 10'x6' table and reducing it to one or two 2" playing spaces. Cavalry vs cavalry? A lot of interesting possibilities. Cavalry vs BUAs? Uh... besides the old cowboy trick of riding the horse into the saloon... kind of like playing rock/scissors/paper and being restricted to scissors only, while your opponent can choose which of the three to go with. I think his game is going to rock...

And of course the German cavalry had morale troubles! Cavalry? With no horses? Come on, pony up and get some mounts for these guys!

CD-TOB - WWI :: RE: Cavalry Battle at Haelen - Cold Wars 2010

Author: Jake Strangeway
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:27 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 3

Jessee,

The decision to make the rivers fordable is a GREAT one. Terrain does channel attacks, and historically, dealing with that terrain can be very problematic. That being said, it doesn't always make for a good game.

For those of you who weren't there, the first picture shows the bridge that all the German troops have to cross. You can see that it is within 12 inches of the 4 BUA sector town on yet another impassable river. The only other way across that river is the one bridge located to the left of the photo (it has a walled field on the other side shown in photo 4)

I got there on turn 2, in time to bring on the 3rd regiment and the 4th regiment on turn 3.

On Turn 1, the deployed regiment went across the river, and with the added bonus of the +1 to hit mounted cavalry (along with some good die rolling), the 2 Belgian stands in the lead town shot up the lead regiment, and as Jessee said, caused 3 of 4 squadrons go pinned. (There were more than just those two stands of Belgians - I think there were a total of 4, but two were in the BUA to the right)

On Turn 2, the Belgian players had used travel march (very smartly, I might add) to reach both the 4 BUA town and the other bridge basically at regimental strength.

At that point, the game was effectively over.

Charging with cavalry at troops in the BUA's is a rather interesting form of suicide. Given the positioning of the German Cavalry, even if we had charged on Turn 1, they could only have contacted the Belgians with 2-3 stands at most, and the Belgians would have had 4 dice hitting on 8's or less - I doubt any of the cavalry would have survived the initial charge. After that, even if on turn 2 we got into the town, the Belgians were there as well, and now it is a slog through the 4 BUA section rather than a free-wheeling game.

At the end of the day, even if somehow the above attack were to succeed, if the only way the Germans have a chance to win is an immediate headlong charge at the town, you have a slight problem in that your scenario is screwed if they choose not to do that.

Making the river fordable is a HUGE improvement. Now the Belgians cannot just travel march and plug both gaps (effectively immediately) - but have to guard the whole river line - makes it much more likely that there will be more maneuver, which, in my opinion, makes for a much better game.

Thank you for running the game Jessee - I appreciate getting to play in a game instead of run one for a change

P.S. For the love of God, take that picture of me down - I look TERRIBLE.

TO & E :: RE: SPW in PzGr.Rgt during Kursk 1943

Author: Bob_Mackenzie
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:24 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

My notes on this

quote:
10) Most divisions were still using the 41 organisations for their panzer grenadiers in July 43. Only 1, 14 and 24 Panzer Divisions had 43 organised regiments. The panzer divisions had one regiment each. Most divisions each had a single 41 organisation armoured panzer grenadier battalion: 17, 23 & 25, were lacking any armoured panzer grenadier battalions. 5, 8, 12, 17, 19 & 20 have no armoured battalion but do have a single armoured company (41 organisation) in one of their non-armoured battalions. 4, 13 and 24 panzer divisions were the only units with 43 organisation armoured panzer grenadiers. 3 & 11 divisions have an armoured battalion (41 organisation) with one armoured company replaced by a motorised company. This leaves 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 25 with standard 41 organised full strength armoured battalions.

More detail can be obtained for leo Neihorsters German WW2 Organisational series vol 5/I

http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/002_vols/002vols.htm
_________________
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/

CD-TOB - non WW2 :: RE: Playtest downunder number one

Author: Bob_Mackenzie
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:19 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 24

Hi David

good to see you back
_________________
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/

CD-TOB - WWI :: RE: Cavalry Battle at Haelen - Cold Wars 2010

Author: David Makin
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:58 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 3

Looked good,

very concentrated forces...
_________________
All the Best

David Makin
Sydney, Australia
Visit http://www.southernbattlegamers.org/

CD-TOB - WWI :: RE: France 1914 � French Attack the Ourcq Line

Author: David Makin
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:53 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

Sounds like a great game!

Well done!
_________________
All the Best

David Makin
Sydney, Australia
Visit http://www.southernbattlegamers.org/

CD-TOB - non WW2 :: RE: Playtest downunder number one

Author: David Makin
Subject: Re: Playtest downunder number one
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:46 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 24

quote:
Originally posted by collins355:
Hi there,

we had our first run through today. I've written it up at my blog here
http://collins355.blogspot.com/2010/03/north-german-plain-88.html

I've written a few questions at the end for Bob or others to have a go at...

Very nice!
now what was that cheap airfare to NZ....
and would work & wife notice if I went AWOL...
_________________
All the Best

David Makin
Sydney, Australia
Visit http://www.southernbattlegamers.org/

TO & E :: SPW in PzGr.Rgt during Kursk 1943

Author: aercastro82
Subject: SPW in PzGr.Rgt during Kursk 1943
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:41 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone can help me answer these questions,

Did 2.Panzer.Division carried two battalions equipped with SPW in Zitadelle, 1943.
Also, I am looking for other Panzer.Divisions in Zitadelle that were equipped with SPW in
to which battalion and from which Pz.Gre.Rgt?
9.Armee - 4.Pz.Div., 9.Pz.Div., 18.Pz.Div., 20.Pz.Div.
4.PanzerArmee - 3.Pz.Div, 6.Pz.Div., 7.Pz.Div., 11.Pz.Div, 19.Pz.Div

Thanks in advance,
Apollo

General Discussion - Test of Battle :: RE: Question of buildings in BUA

Author: Bill Owen
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:11 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 2

And if it is multiple BUA's, don't forget that they need not be the same size or adjacent. They could have open ground between the templates. (As in the fields that the model includes.)
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

Rules Questions :: RE: Self ordering recce - again

Author: Jake Strangeway
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 26

Erif,

"game wise ( per army of the second world war ): a tank corp tank brigade has 3 tank battalions each of one command T34-43 and 3 T34-43's ; that is one HQ company and 3 line companies"

Ok, I see the page you are referring to. It is the same as the new one in Red Steel on page 23:

Medium Tank Battalion
1 Composite Company
1 command T34
3 T34's

So it has one order, and tests as a single company.

Yes, having a larger company does allow more morale modifiers to pile up. It also makes it less likely for a company to be eliminated and cause a morale check for everything in LOS.

I also don't entirely agree with your other statement:

" 2 company's that is still a max -8 to moral check ( -2 for a dead tank, -1 for a fall back, -2 proximity, -1 proximity, -2 air craft) ."

Ok, a company of 2 tanks, -8 is in fact the maximum penalty, we agree so far.

"In fact, a mod over -3 would be rare."

Here, I'm not so sure I agree. Simple proximity to enemy armor and infantry (a common occurence in most games I play) gives you the -3. I would say that -2 or -3 would be about average once combat was joined, with the realistic maximum being -6 (airpower not being that common).

"If you call the whole thing one company the max neg to moral is -12 with a -7 easy to see in game... "

Again, -12 is the correct maximum - but if you think that modifier of over -3 would be rare against the smaller company, how is -7 easy to see against the larger one? Mind you, I think the -7 is definitely possible for the larger company - I just think the -3 is too low an estimate for the small company.

Given that, it still requires proximity to enemy infantry and armor, and then either 4 tanks forced back, 2 forced back and one eliminated, or 2 eliminated - (again, air power aside). If you do lose 2 tanks, then if you had the smaller companies, you would now need to check morale for everyone in LOS - which could be catastrophic depending on your morale and how exposed the destroyed company was (i.e. how many of your other companies could see it killed.)

There are upsides for large companies, and downides for large ones - is it balanced out? I think it is fine myself - but that's just my opinion.

P.S. One other advantage that bigger companies have are the Fog of War cards. Many of these apply to an "entire company" - so if larger companies get more of a benefit from them.

Rules Questions :: RE: Self ordering recce - again

Author: Jake Strangeway
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:13 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 26

Dave,

I understand what you are saying now - and here, if I remember correctly, are some of the issues with making stands check separately, without the organization changes (which, btw, Bob's is perfectly reasonable)

First, how do you determine when a unit takes a morale check as part of a company, or whether or not a unit is "on its own"?

Does it have to be recon?

Does it have to be out of LOS?

Does it have to be a certain distance from any other member of its company?

Does it have to be operating under a separate order from the rest of the company?

All of these things have to be quantified when you write the rules, since the basic thrust of TOB was that the game should be able to be played without a GM.

Glenn mentioned it in his post, but the other thing that they wanted to prevent was so called "recon by death". If you make the recon unit its own entity, then you can run it up ahead, it will spot the enemy and blow up, and no one cares about it. This, btw, can still happen in the RAW, if you attach out everything in a company but a single recon stand - but it isn't as often as if you do it for every recon stand.

For instance, if I have a recon company consisting of a command 223, 2 recon 221's, and a recon 231, and allow them all to operate independantly, then if I do it right, I can use them to spot enemy AT guns that would knock out my tanks, and as long as the recon armored cars are out of LOS of the rest of my army, no one cares (remember, unlike previous versions of CD, in the current iterations stands that are killed can still spot at the end of the phase during which they are killed).

At the end of the day, it was easier said than done to codify all of the conditions, and then deal with all of the ramifications. If you would like, if you wanted to come up with a house rule, I can look at it try and illustrate some of the specific problems that came up.

General Discussion - Test of Battle :: RE: Question of buildings in BUA

Author: Jake Strangeway
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:17 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 2

Joe,

I think if the building is smaller than 6x6, you should simply make it a single large BUA. If it is larger, then split it into multiple BUA's - that is my 2 cents.

General Discussion - Test of Battle :: Question of buildings in BUA

Author: cabin4clw
Subject: Question of buildings in BUA
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:58 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 2

Hi Guys,

I have a question for this group. A number of years ago I bought some latex buildings at a convention. I think that they may be from a company in Australia. I have a church with fields and thngs around it, which is about 4'' x 6". I have a large building with a road and some fields and another that has a small house.

Well, I really like having them on my table but then I start to wonder how do I do the BUA with these? Do I consider the whole base as a BUA or do I try to break them down somehow into smaller BUA?

Any help would be great.

BTW I game in 6mm.

Thanks,

Joe

General Discussion - Off Topic :: RE: What's in your garage?

Author: ERIF NOGARD
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:48 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 19

As hard to believe as it may be, this all started over some poor guy not being allowed to decorate HIS garage door with a decal of a tank...

..."INCONCEIVABLE!" ....

LOL
_________________
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

Rules Questions :: RE: Self ordering recce - again

Author: Cheese
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:56 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 26

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
What do you do where multiple recon stands from a single company are operating together? Still multiple checks or a company check?

I'd probably still consider them separate companies and make any unit who sees them destroyed check morale.
_________________
"The basic difference between an ordinary man and a warrior is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge, while an ordinary man takes everything as a blessing or a curse." ~Don Juan