--- 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

Hi Ken,
your observations are correct, and your desires are precisly
what the rules intend to stop. Many wargames rules allow an
incredible amount of coordination, which is completely unrealistic.
They also allow units to carry on with an order when enduring all
kinds of difficulties. In reality, private soldiers will "go to
ground" as soon as they are fired on, unless there is an officer to
spur them on. Think Col H Jones and the elite British paras at Goose
Green- in these rules you have to get the officers to motivate the
men once combat is joined, in many traditional wargames rules H Jones
would not have had to lift a finger. Hope that explains some of the
motivations.

Cheers,
Daz

We had a Napoleonic game last night, and the issue of units, who have
routed as part of a combat lost by a friendly unit, being able to
rally and return to the offensive without problem played a
detrimental part in the game.

So, how about these mechanisms:

1. Units, in the first turn they rout, lose 1 hit (deserters, general
morale loss).
2. Introduce a Brigade morale rule: if >50% of the units in a brigade
are in rout, or at half strength, no unit in the brigade may initiate
attacks, unless personally led by a Divisional officer/CinC. (This
would also force people to try and stop routing units, which was
general practice!).

Daz

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

Dazza

1. Why only the first time they rout? Surely if a unit routs twice
they should loose more, or perhaps never come back?

2. Probably be right. Certainly it would give them a "Big Man"
factor, which would suit the Neys of this world.

3. The cards worked excellently, as mentioned. Do you want my card
master document so you can do some pretty cards rather than those
moth eaten bits of crap you wheel out? I vote for Marshal Aubergine!

Rich

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "therugdoctor2003"
<greens@o...> wrote:

We had a Napoleonic game last night, and the issue of units, who

have

routed as part of a combat lost by a friendly unit, being able to
rally and return to the offensive without problem played a
detrimental part in the game.

So, how about these mechanisms:

1. Units, in the first turn they rout, lose 1 hit (deserters,

general

morale loss).
2. Introduce a Brigade morale rule: if >50% of the units in a

brigade

are in rout, or at half strength, no unit in the brigade may

initiate

attacks, unless personally led by a Divisional officer/CinC. (This
would also force people to try and stop routing units, which was
general practice!).

Daz

Hi Rich,
I thought that losing 1 hit per move in rout would be a
little excessive, but it would certainly give you an incentive to
stop them! We just need to try it out and see.

Yes, I guess the cards work well enough for me to invest in some
pretty ones, so thanks, that would be appreciated!

Cheers,
Daz

Dazza

I think I misunderstood your initial mailing. I agree one point in
the first turn of EACH rout. So the Frogs on Tuesday would have lost
two point each for their two routs(?). Had that been the case then
the not only would not have won, but COULD not. which would be
rather more historically correct than what happened, i.e. the cherry
picking of which units to save at the expense of the rest.

Cardmaster document sent. I use text box for the text and pictures,
hoth with no wrapping, therefore the box stays the right size. Sid
didn't bother with that initally and got a load of variably sized
cards. However he is a twat.

Ricardo

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "therugdoctor2003"
<greens@o...> wrote:

Hi Rich,
I thought that losing 1 hit per move in rout would be a
little excessive, but it would certainly give you an incentive to
stop them! We just need to try it out and see.

Yes, I guess the cards work well enough for me to invest in some
pretty ones, so thanks, that would be appreciated!

Cheers,
Daz

开云体育

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

I have a niece who works in general practice, but I didn't think she spent her time stopping routing units. Maybe my sister should send her to Karbala!

therugdoctor2003 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:

Before Nikkos gets overexcited with his lusty young lads (?), I have
painted up some Jock officers and pipers this weekend, Camerons and
Black Watch if you're interested, for my 1940 bash. Regulations
restricted the kilt to home service, but in reality a few men tended
to be equipped with them in the field. Therefore, take your average
British Company, add some red haired officer and a bloke playing the
pipes, both in skirts of course, and we have a Scots Company.

But what effect should the "Peeps" have? On refelection their main
impact seems to have been three fold. Firstly they acted as a device
for co-ordinating an attack (lots of people could hear them).
Secondly they got the blood up of the blokes advancing with them.
Thirdly they scared the shit out of the Germans (Eyeties etc.).

So, I thought, how about the following.

An advance led by bagpipes means that the leading Big Man may, on the
turn of his card, move the entire Platoon he is heading, and not just
one or more sections. This only applies to the force if it is
advancing at full speed, and would not be applicable to firing,
spotting etc.

Scots troops led by the pipes will gain an additional three dice in
any melee they are led into. Axis troops attacked by pipe led Jocks
will lose three dice.

Rich

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.

Rich
Not "The Devils in Skirts"!! Where's Terry Scott!?

My initial feeling is that you've given too big a bonus for the pipes. Insted of enabling the CO to move every section, which does give him excellent command and control - better than elite troops like german paras etc, how about having a "peeps" card, which acts as a bonus platoon card? Alternatively, issue the jocks with an extra dice for firing and movement when under the effect of the wee dreaded windy things.

As for the hun, perhaps the sound of the pipes would make them less crafty, making them more edgy and more prone to opening fire at longer ranges (a la French 1940) rather than holding their fire. Perhaps some wehrmacht units will not advance when confronted with swirling pipes UNLESS an officer tells them to grow up and get on with it?

+3 dice? for attacker against -3 dice for defender is a big difference in melee, but I'd happily play it to see how it goes (on the basis that everybody buggers off before you ever get to melee anyway so who cares what the rule is!). It may need toning down.

Food for thought....
?
?
?
?

richardclarkerli wrote:

Nick

The movement thing reflects the fact that while the piper pipes
people will keep moving, in the same way that troops did in previous
centuries. It does NOT make people shoot better, and, indeed, only
applies when the entire Platoon is moving its full distance. As
such, whilst it is a bonus in a certain context, it is no universal
panacea.

Three dice is half a hit (6's killing), so the pipes will average out
making a difference of 1 hit in a melee, not a lot, but enough to
make it worth undertaking, or at least being considered.

I think we get to melee about as often as it happened in real life.
It's really only close terrain that would see that sort of fisticuffs
anyway.

Rich


--- In Toofatlardies@..., nick.skinner@w... wrote:

Rich
Not "The Devils in Skirts"!! Where's Terry Scott!?

My initial feeling is that you've given too big a bonus for the

pipes.

Insted of enabling the CO to move every section, which does give him
excellent command and control - better than elite troops like german
paras etc, how about having a "peeps" card, which acts as a bonus
platoon card? Alternatively, issue the jocks with an extra dice for
firing and movement when under the effect of the wee dreaded windy
things.

As for the hun, perhaps the sound of the pipes would make them less
crafty, making them more edgy and more prone to opening fire at

longer

ranges (a la French 1940) rather than holding their fire. Perhaps

some

wehrmacht units will not advance when confronted with swirling pipes
UNLESS an officer tells them to grow up and get on with it?

+3 dice for attacker against -3 dice for defender is a big

difference

in melee, but I'd happily play it to see how it goes (on the basis

that

everybody buggers off before you ever get to melee anyway so who

cares

what the rule is!). It may need toning down.

Food for thought....





richardclarkerli wrote:

Before Nikkos gets overexcited with his lusty young lads (?), I

have

painted up some Jock officers and pipers this weekend, Camerons

and

Black Watch if you're interested, for my 1940 bash. Regulations
restricted the kilt to home service, but in reality a few men

tended

to be equipped with them in the field. Therefore, take your

average

British Company, add some red haired officer and a bloke playing

the

pipes, both in skirts of course, and we have a Scots Company.

But what effect should the "Peeps" have? On refelection their

main

impact seems to have been three fold. Firstly they acted as a

device

for co-ordinating an attack (lots of people could hear them).
Secondly they got the blood up of the blokes advancing with them.
Thirdly they scared the shit out of the Germans (Eyeties etc.).

So, I thought, how about the following.

An advance led by bagpipes means that the leading Big Man may, on

the

turn of his card, move the entire Platoon he is heading, and not

just

one or more sections. This only applies to the force if it is
advancing at full speed, and would not be applicable to firing,
spotting etc.

Scots troops led by the pipes will gain an additional three dice

in

any melee they are led into. Axis troops attacked by pipe led

Jocks

will lose three dice.

Rich




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Toofatlardies-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

开云体育

Sidney

That is an issue. I would be keen not to overlegislate in the rules
for every occurence. Losing the aforementioned advantages would seem
sufficient for me. For a start the co-ordination of the attack,
previously well shaped due to the pipes, would start to fall off.
The Big Man would only be able to move one section if they were under
fire so only the Platoon card would be useful in keeping things
rolling, i.e. half the chance than when the pipes were in use. What
originally looked like a good bet has now had its odds halved, and,
to extend the analogy, may well be a non-runner.

Anyway, surely all Scotsmen can play the pipes, another would emerge
from the ranks to fill his skirt and boots;-)

How are things near Sonmou?

Cheers

Rich

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "Adam Blakemore"
<adam.blakemore1@b...> wrote:

Given that the Scots would be inspired by the sound of the peeps,

should not the morale effect of the piper being a casualty also be
considered.....? To hear only the first few bars of "Cock of the
North" before the piper is killed would no doubt send many a Scottish
soldier into a gloomy introspection, muttering "We're Doooomed" to
any who'll listen....

I can't remember how you deal with morale in IABSM - but in the

event of the piper being shot, perhaps an instant morale test would
be appropriate, with an appropriate reduction for the loss of the
piper?

Sid
----- Original Message -----
From: richardclarkerli
To: Toofatlardies@...
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: [Toofatlardies] Re: The skirl of the pipes


Nick

The movement thing reflects the fact that while the piper pipes
people will keep moving, in the same way that troops did in

previous

centuries. It does NOT make people shoot better, and, indeed,

only

applies when the entire Platoon is moving its full distance. As
such, whilst it is a bonus in a certain context, it is no

universal

panacea.

Three dice is half a hit (6's killing), so the pipes will average

out

making a difference of 1 hit in a melee, not a lot, but enough to
make it worth undertaking, or at least being considered.

I think we get to melee about as often as it happened in real

life.

It's really only close terrain that would see that sort of

fisticuffs

anyway.

Rich


--- In Toofatlardies@..., nick.skinner@w... wrote:
> Rich
> Not "The Devils in Skirts"!! Where's Terry Scott!?
>
> My initial feeling is that you've given too big a bonus for the
pipes.
> Insted of enabling the CO to move every section, which does

give him

> excellent command and control - better than elite troops like

german

> paras etc, how about having a "peeps" card, which acts as a

bonus

> platoon card? Alternatively, issue the jocks with an extra dice

for

> firing and movement when under the effect of the wee dreaded

windy

> things.
>
> As for the hun, perhaps the sound of the pipes would make them

less

> crafty, making them more edgy and more prone to opening fire at
longer
> ranges (a la French 1940) rather than holding their fire.

Perhaps

some
> wehrmacht units will not advance when confronted with swirling

pipes

> UNLESS an officer tells them to grow up and get on with it?
>
> +3 dice for attacker against -3 dice for defender is a big
difference
> in melee, but I'd happily play it to see how it goes (on the

basis

that
> everybody buggers off before you ever get to melee anyway so

who

cares
> what the rule is!). It may need toning down.
>
> Food for thought....
>
>
>
>
>
> richardclarkerli wrote:
>
> > Before Nikkos gets overexcited with his lusty young lads

(?), I

have
> > painted up some Jock officers and pipers this weekend,

Camerons

and
> > Black Watch if you're interested, for my 1940 bash.

Regulations

> > restricted the kilt to home service, but in reality a few men
tended
> > to be equipped with them in the field. Therefore, take your
average
> > British Company, add some red haired officer and a bloke

playing

the
> > pipes, both in skirts of course, and we have a Scots Company.
> >
> > But what effect should the "Peeps" have? On refelection

their

main
> > impact seems to have been three fold. Firstly they acted as

a

device
> > for co-ordinating an attack (lots of people could hear them).
> > Secondly they got the blood up of the blokes advancing with

them.

> > Thirdly they scared the shit out of the Germans (Eyeties

etc.).

> >
> > So, I thought, how about the following.
> >
> > An advance led by bagpipes means that the leading Big Man

may, on

the
> > turn of his card, move the entire Platoon he is heading, and

not

just
> > one or more sections. This only applies to the force if it is
> > advancing at full speed, and would not be applicable to

firing,

> > spotting etc.
> >
> > Scots troops led by the pipes will gain an additional three

dice

in
> > any melee they are led into. Axis troops attacked by pipe

led

Jocks
> > will lose three dice.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Toofatlardies-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Toofatlardies-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

"How are things near Sonmou?"

He's nowhere near Sonmou! Probably could ne pas get to Sonmou if nous
came out avec un axi for him. Il est too busy blubbing dans his
bratwurst and regardez les nice 'oles notre brave char Francais avais
made in his big fat boche tanks. Blitzkreig mon pied.

Sid in Sonmou - PAS!! il est un fag!

By the way - dare you to look in the cellar!

With love

The Brave French Army (Pllllllllrrrrpppp!)

richardclarkerli wrote:

We tried the rules again at our school club yesterday evening. I
spoke to the boys first, as I mentioned, about how plans were one
thing but reality another. I used a couple of examples from the
current Iraq situation to illustrate this.

More importantly I then split the group up into several work groups
with a limited force on each table. In fact we used one Platoon of
infantry per side, with the attacker also having three tanks plus
artillery support. The defender had two anti-tank guns and some
light mortar support. In additon we used several different cards in
each pack to see how that affected the game. We were much more
successful. There was still the issue of their natural inclination
to overvalue their fire, but I acted as floating umpire and we spent
some time talking through their decisons. I think I got the message
through.

Anyway a much more successful outcome. I think that we were
attempting to run before we could walk.

Two questions. I note from a previous posting, I think it was
Richard, that the number of initiative dice that an anti-tank crew
has depends on their strength. Should I ammend my rules
accordingly? Also one of the boys has some 20mm Vietnam figures, I
think that some rules for that period were mentioned. Are these
available?

Ken

Ken

Good news. When we started writing the rules (actually the Charlie
Don't Surf set for Vietnam, more on that later) we used quite small
forces with once card per section in 20mm scale. Indeed, both IABSM
and CDS would work well doing that with 25/28mm figures. When
learning the rules I would reccomend a smaller force, with only a
conservative sprinkling of bonus cards. Indeed we have now got to
the point, where we can handle quite large games relatively quickly,
this was not always the case. Indeed I used to only roll them out
when there was a small group to cater for.

On the issue of the AT guns, I would say keep to the rules as wrote.
In theory that was a good idea, but in practice it was unnecessary.
The suppression effect of wounds does the job already.

Regarding Charlie Don't Surf, they are not really ready yet. The
level of technology we have written them for reflects our collections
rather than what was actually available. I guess that should be our
next project, however there are lots of "next projects" to choose
from at the moment!

Cheers

Richard

--- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003"
<philips107s2003@y...> wrote:

We tried the rules again at our school club yesterday evening. I
spoke to the boys first, as I mentioned, about how plans were one
thing but reality another. I used a couple of examples from the
current Iraq situation to illustrate this.

More importantly I then split the group up into several work groups
with a limited force on each table. In fact we used one Platoon of
infantry per side, with the attacker also having three tanks plus
artillery support. The defender had two anti-tank guns and some
light mortar support. In additon we used several different cards

in

each pack to see how that affected the game. We were much more
successful. There was still the issue of their natural inclination
to overvalue their fire, but I acted as floating umpire and we

spent

some time talking through their decisons. I think I got the

message

through.

Anyway a much more successful outcome. I think that we were
attempting to run before we could walk.

Two questions. I note from a previous posting, I think it was
Richard, that the number of initiative dice that an anti-tank crew
has depends on their strength. Should I ammend my rules
accordingly? Also one of the boys has some 20mm Vietnam figures, I
think that some rules for that period were mentioned. Are these
available?

Ken

Being a rabid Anglo-Saxon, I think you're overdoing the effect here.
With only a musket in hand, I can perceive the morale impact. With
automatic weapons, I'm not so sure.

And imagine how hard it is to hear "flower of Scotland" in the middle
of an artillery barrage.. The English fans manage to drown out every
visiting team's national anthem by simple whistles.

So, what about a pipes bonus card, whereby all sections within a
radius of the piper can move. Same as a German blitzkreig card, i.e.
they can't fire or spot, just go forward.

In terms of melee bonus, I would say that the Scots should be classed
as "agressive", as would other shock troops, as once in hand to hand
I'm not sure how much effect the pipes themselves would have. Perhaps
Germans of average and below fighting ability should have a
supression point inflicted if within a certain radius of the pipes?

Daz