Ken,
It'd be interesting to know what size are the actions you are fighting.
I hate to say anything in their favour but both the illustrious doctor
(Dazza) and my fellow lardy are right. I'd be interested to see how you
get on turning it into an alternate move system - will you attempt to retain
the 'tea break' philosophy that keeps the commander on edge. The USP of
the reules is that you as commander say "First platoon will encircle the
farm from the left whilst third platoon assaults from the right".Sounds
great. In most rle sets you can even measure exactly how many turns you
will have ceased the position and exactly how many casualties you will
take and inflict in doing so. The confusion and frustration that follows
in IABSM however when first platoon are nowhere near in position when third
platoon is ready to? go in gives real command decisions to junior
commanders 'on the ground' (just as it seems our boys are doing in Basra
this weekend). As commander of third platoon what do you do? Do you wait
for first platoon to come up? Why are they so slow? Should you attack now
while surprise is still on your side? What if the enemy hold the area in
strength? Will you still be able to get in if first platoon are not in
position. Where the hell are they?
Sounds pretty realistic to me. Don't know how you could do that with
an all units move alternate movement system. I think that what IABSM gives
is an advanced scheme for variable bound command and control gaming. I
can understand that young lusty lads with their minds on other things may
struggle with it. As for great fire effect, that only ever seems to happen
when my troops are being targeted too!
Enjoy the rules!
Nick
philips107s2003 wrote:
?Thank you for your comprehensive answer.?
I appreciate what you are
saying, I think perhaps the youngsters at school are probably not
quite so keen on the simulation aspect as they are on the game.?
They
alsoe have something of a problem with the firing table, always
wanting to use the Good column for their shooting, and poor for
their
opponents.? Human nature I guess.
We shall persevere, maybe trying alternate movement with the rules.
Ken
--- In Toofatlardies@..., "richardclarkerli"
wrote:
> 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"
> 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
?
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Toofatlardies-unsubscribe@...
?
?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .
?
