Ken
Dazza is correct, and his example of Colonel H is a classic
illsutration of both the behaviour of a "Big Man" and the reaction of
troops, even elite ones, to a firefight. Reading accounts of Goose
Green (which I did specifically with a view to these rules) an elite
unit had become bogged down on the battlefield. Attempts by junior
officers and NCOs had failed to get things moving. Enter the "Big
Man". He immediately animates his force and inertia ends. There are
many such examples throughout warfare of larger than life individuals
shaping the battlefield aroud them, Rommel's personal intervention at
Arras being another classic example.
The rules are designed to reflect the natural instinct of men towards
survival. Your troops WILL move without a Big Man with them,
sometimes doing exactly what you want, other times not. However they
will move more efficiently with a Big Man. In a static defensive
position this is not an issue, if an enenmy comes close enough all of
your troops will shoot at them (as in real life). However when
attacking you need to consider how you allocate your resources (as in
real life).
When devising his battle plan a commander should decide where his
main point of attack will be. One has to presueme here that we are
conducting our game in a sensible fashion, where part of your force
will be allocated to pin, while another part concentrates on what the
Germans call the "Schwerpunkt", the main point of attack.
Considering this "critical point" the commander will (as in real
life) allocate sufficient resources to hopefully ensure the success
of the venture. This will, of course, include the raw material of
war, i.e. artillery support, armour, heavy weapons, in fact anything
that is available in that field, but will also include "management
resources". In other words he will give this important job to his
best officers and NCOs (as in real life).
It is, as Darren says, very much the case that wargames rules
generally (and actually with very few exceptions) give the commander
too much flexibility when controlling the actions of his troops.
Even systems such as DBM which use pips to limit the number of action
that a commander may make, still give him the choice of which units
he does move. In "IABSM" the cards are used to represent what
Clausewitz calls "friction" on the battlefield. Whilst you may plan
for a unit to do something you cannot guarantee that it will.
HOWEVER.....by allocating Big Men to a unit the commander increases
his chances of having the job done properly.
As such you may perceive that IABSM is designed very much with the
purpose of simulating the realities of warfare rather than a "bang
bang you're dead" game. However it attmpts to do this using what are
very much traditional game mechanics so that as well as being a
simulation it is fun to play. The answer to your question,
therefore, is "No, I have not considered using alternate movement"
nor would I, as it would cease to reflect the realities of conflict
in the Second World War. I guess it's the old story, we all like
different things. If you want to use alternate movement then feel
free to do so, the rules are certainly not scribed in a tablet of
stone!
Cheers
Richard
--- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003"
<philips107s2003@y...> wrote:
I have used your wwii rules several times with the school wargame
club. I and the boys have a problem with them as it is difficult
to
co-ordinate troops on the table top. Some units stop for no
reason,
others run ahead, meaning that forces are essentially not doing
what
they are ordered! This seems silly to us. Have you considered
dropping the system of cards and using alternative movement? This
would seem to me to be a better option, and allow the game to flow
more readily.
I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Ken
