A few thoughts
Little Wars did a video where each side was given the "secret" that they could deploy on a 1? or 2' strip off one edge of the table. So actually the table was 2 or 4' wider than originally thought. This gives one option for hanging flanks
The off table MG is a well made point and (I think it's in Blitzkrieg) perhaps it needs adding to many more support lists? Its effectiveness will decrease the further you are from a table edge.
Cracking thought provoking stuff this year. Hopefully my answer to the Night Fighting rules that both Rich and Sid have mused on (in the mag, I'm told) will please at least some!
Tom
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 21:41, Michael Reese
<mrtank688@...> wrote:
I have experienced three types of expanded tables.
1. The first is where if your unit gets within X distance (6" or 12" I think) of a table edge it can come under fire from a HMG (MMG in modern terms - a rifle caliber machinegun mounted on a tripod) off table (which is set at X range to determine hits). Since the rules used 10xd10 for a MMG firing this could be "disturbing". The idea was there are units to either flank off table and if you are running a table scrap offensive (i.e. down a table side so you have only one flank) this rule was there to discourage that. Note you could apply this using an anti-tank gun as well, or:
2. I have run games where the table is part of a map and there were enemy units off table that could fire on table. In my case it was two or three Mark IV/H tanks sitting hull down in the edge of woods on high ground under 1500 meters off the table. Due to the terrain they could engage units they could spot on roughly half of the table the game was on. If spotted (after firing as there was no other way) the units on the table could fire back and call in supporting artillery on the off-table tanks.
3. Playing a company sized set of rules (yes, Flames of War) in Normandy the head judge used Google Maps to outline the forward edge of the battlefield and assigned our units (semi-historical) parts of the lines to defend (we were German and could choose the Regiment or Division our forces were part of. In my case July 1944 and the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion.) Depending on the outcome of the engagement the head judge would move our lines forward or backwards. We were determining our opponents. In my case (for some reason I don't remember) a US Infantry Division. It wasn't completely realistic but you had leeway to manage how you played. I tried to determine point values of my forces in contact and multiply it by roughly 50% to 100% when determining the US forces attacking.
How realistic?
Well, determined the 15th Luftwaffe Infantry Division was defending my sector and the 503rd detrained outside Paris. I then set up each company to march to the front and my Tigers started to fall out with maintenance problems. First company arrived. Then second company. Third company never made it as we were transferred to the Eastern Front. The two companies arrived piecemeal.?
?
Using a map campaign with a judge determining the movement of the front depending on the outcome of the games is one way to have open flanks (and rear). He provides you only the information you have in your part of the battle and any that realistically could be known.
Enemy forces can be run by another player including making up the task forces attacking or defending against you.
Weather and day/night should be included.
I always gave the US Forces full air superiority.
I tried to give the US forces a battalion of 105mm in support with a 155mm battalion possibly in support. My players had difficulty using that much artillery.
P.S. For those of you still using FOW V.3. note the rule for a British MIKE target is wrong. When the battalion instead of your battery fires a MIKE mission that is 24 25 pdr guns, not 12. British artillery Regiments (USA Battalion) have three batteries of 8 guns, not 4 guns.
