Nick
A very quick reply as I am doing assembly in quarter of an hour!
I have given consideration to Richard's comments the other day, and
you confirm these with your remarks. Actually the news of fighting
in Iraq, and its apparently confused nature, is helpful in that it
allows me to put together a presentation for our next club meeting
that will explain the concepts within the rules. Equally I have got
Clausewitz on order at the library in the hope that I can get some of
his comments in there as well.
I have looked at the card system again, and the Tea Break card (which
caused the biggest stir "I didn't get a go")and realise that with ten
boys we were probably being over enthusiastic. It may well be that a
smaller demonstration game would work better, and then split into two
or three groups, getting the boys to run their own games while I
oversee.
Thanks for your help
Ken
--- In Toofatlardies@..., nick.skinner@w... wrote:
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"
<richardclarkerli@y...> 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"
<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
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Toofatlardies-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
