Oct 10th game

[Jon Pickens]

Some notes on the Jadgpanzer II scenario design:

Looks like we might have as many as 8 players. I will be a non-playing ref, regardless.

     The force pool being HO scale requires some changes from the usual JPII game format.

     Those who need access to the rules, see our Google Group archive.

Game starts at 11:00 am. Please be prompt.

This will be a 1944 American attack in the St. Lo area at the beginning of Operation Cobra. Starting forces will be on the board, with no hidden units. The German forces set up first, the US has the initiative Turn 1.  (I'm thinking the US will have a 12" set-on from board edge, the Germans a 36" set-on from their board edge, but this isn't finalized. Expect the terrain to be congested.)

First, the HO-scale adaptations are in effect. This doubles all movement, all infantry fire ranges, uses enlarged templates, and affects some game measurements..

Second, the battle will be fought across the width of the board (each player having 2 feet of baseline for set-up and reinforcement). Players will be starting with platoon commands and are assumed to be company commanders overall, as replacements feed in behind them. Each side has a CiC who will operate as a battalion commander for chain-of-command purposes.

.

If fewer players show up, I'll let the CiCs activate the baseline zones, one per player. Someone shows late, they can be assigned an inactive zone with appropriate forces. An odd player will be American, so if we get seven, the spit is 3 German, 4 US commanders. CiCs will have a tactical command in addition to their force-commitment role.

Players will start with a platoon that will be basic infantry, basic armor, or basic recon. Additional forces will be fed in by the CiCs with an eye toward keeping people in play. I expect to set up a continuous-feed situation, and destroyed elements may be recycled. Reinforcements will be assigned in the Command Phase, and placed adjacent to the appropriate baseline at the end of the Game Turn.

The aircraft and indirect artillery rules will not be used--if these influences are present, they will be quick-and-dirty house rule effects to prevent the game from bogging down.

The game will use Phase Lines. As the US pushes forward, their baseline will advance, and US reinforcements will start at the baseline, rather than at the table edge. I'll adjudicate shifts, but the basic concept is the US baseline will stay about 24" from the German main line of resistance.

We will use standard disc marking. One green for movement (or equivalent), two green for double-move, one red for suppression. I will create other markers to use as needed.

Terrain will include paved and unpaved roads, fields and brush, light woods, bocage/stone walls/hedges/fences, hills, crest-lines, and individual buildings.

Right now, I'm looking for two volunteer CiCs. Also, any players with a side preference (US/German), please reply to this thread this week.

[Donald Knaus]

I will not be there this weekend.

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: fire-fo...@googlegroups.com <fire-fo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jon Pickens <jonpic...@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 8:55:59 AM
To: fire-for-effect <fire-fo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Oct 10th game

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fire for Effect" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fire-for-effe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/1607856918.78768.1601902559510%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Zakath04]

As is standard, I shall not be there. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/DM6PR02MB604217B61447726898A5EC7FFC0C0%40DM6PR02MB6042.namprd02.prod.outlook.com.

[Reid Bollman]

I will most likely not be able to make it its right before my moms surgery and have to finish wraping up things outside, but I should now be able to make the 17th.

---

From: fire-fo...@googlegroups.com <fire-fo...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Zakath04 <zaka...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:20 AM
To: fire-fo...@googlegroups.com <fire-fo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Oct 10th game

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/CAOferiEFyF%2B97WS43ky7x8RQYJ%2BiAse3G5%2BzEZ65NsebmLP0ag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fullmetal]

All im saying Jon is that using different scale other than micro or 6mm i think you will run into issues.  One thing is the game is faster paced and things can die quickly, along with morale effects. also do you have all the stuff needed i no longer have 1/72 scale stuff.  I was under the impression that we was using 1/285th or micro scale.

Kevn 

[Jon Pickens]

The game remains a go.

As it's configured for those who haven't played for awhile and those new to the rules, being a few commanders short of max load shouldn't hurt all that much.

This scenario is a potential convention design, and draws from the same forces I use for the GaryCon Remagen Bridge game. If I pack along some extra terrain, I would be able to run both the same weekend.

[Nieves Catano]

I'll be there!

Nieves

--

[Jon Pickens]

Set Up:

The scenario was post-St.-Lo, 1944 Europe, with the US just starting Operation Cobra. In the event, we had three participating players: Kevin, Josh, and new player Nieves Catano. The German forces (Kevin) started with two weak platoons of infantry and two PIVs, mounting a hasty defense against a US infantry company (Nieves-CiC) of three platoons, supported by a platoon of four Shermans (Josh). Reid stopped by late in the game and did not play.

The Play:

The German forces set up an exceptionally good defense for this scenario, hunkering into a small town, setting up crossfires, and using the tanks to keep US armor at bay, then moving in to break the US infantry when the US tanks were neutralized.

The US armor moved up to a bocage line and got a Sherman sniped, then tried the main road to the town, which got another Sherman wrecked. The armor broke on morale. A second Sherman platoon arrived to reinforce the attack.

In the meantime, the US infantry (a large command for a new player at 3 platoons) was doubling through light woods under fire and taking casualties, but holding on morale. The tank losses made the infantry more cautious, which increased their casualties under fire.

By the time they got going, lack of US pressure down the main road allowed the German tanks to emerge and add their machine guns to the defense against the US infantry. The small US AT capability made a huge difference, and by the end of turn 5, the company was shattered as the new US armor support was still moving up. (Another US Infantry co. was moving up as well.)

Although more US forces were available, we decided to call the game at that point. The dice luck was largely German (total kill rolls outnumbered total suppression rolls about 2.5:1), which contributed to a massively lopsided German victory. The US force came in with a 2:1 initial numerical advantage and was essentially destroyed. The German forces suffered no losses.

Things that worked/Improvements:

* The platoon status sheet worked OK. Suggestions for improvement from the players is solicited.

* Plastic effect templates for infantry FP fire worked. Adoption for micro-play is suggested. Discussion point--measure from stand center (what I did in this game) or measure from closest stand point? The first gives a circle effect, the latter a rectangle with rounded corners.

* Special counters for morale states and "unobserved status" worked reasonably well.

* We discovered we've been playing infantry FP wrong all this time, so we can start playing it right, starting next game (thanks, Josh!).

((Things Jon got wrong:

* Due to low turnout, I cut the board in half. The section I selected for play funneled the US forces down two exposed avenues and gave the Germans an excessively powerful point of defense, creating a frontal attack on a strongpoint. Not the intended scenario. I should have taken five calm minutes to evaluate the remaining terrain and made balance adjustments. I did not.

* I did not insist one of the experienced players take the US CiC. I should have. It put unfair pressure on the new player, who volunteered. ((The commander set-up that might have worked best for the game was: German (Josh, CiC); US Armor (Kevin , CiC); US Infantry, less two platoons at start (Nieves); reinforcements for all later--my Monday morning quarterback call.))

* The data sheets had some errors that I missed or didn't have opportunity to fix before the game (don't have a printer and had to use library services). These caused undue confusion and stress.

* Playtested an experimental "embedded AT" rule for infantry (from "Battletech", actually), but did not give nearly enough rounds to the players, which created an issue late in the game.

* I underestimated the defensive value of the building modifier. Never again. ((Seems to me a -4 building modifier is excessive outside heavy industrial or governmental structures like some of the Stalingrad factories or the German Reichstag building. Personally, I will use scenario conditions in future for urban balance. Adobe, light civil construction, and medium civil construction deserve their own generally agreed modifier, less than -4.))
* When Reid stopped in, I should have offered him a US command immediately, and did not--apologies for that. I was a bit frazzled by that time.))

Notes:

Since I have close to battalion strength for US/German Armor and US infantry, an understrength German Infantry battalion, and can put together a few odd recon and support platoons, there are enough game pieces for a series of small actions for 4-6 players.

I expect to add platoon mortar assets to my next JPII scenario.

* Have already fixed the flawed Data Sheets.
* Have already adjusted a general Player Notes page.

* With a few adjustments, the general map for this scenario can be modularized  into two viable half-boards, and future scenarios might allow entry from any side of the field (this from one of Kevin's suggestions, thanks).

As a future project, I'm thinking about resurrecting the Clarke rules, with an eye toward continuing development. Any group interest in this?