Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- TooFatLardies
- Messages
Search
|
En Avant Pour Le Lard!
Regards "Le Lard Sacre"
In view of the length of a bound, would it be appropriate rather than stopping a shite commander acting at all if the magic card comes up, how about letting him roll a dice for his initiative points and then rolling another D6 and subtracting this from the first result. In that way one would have degrees of hesitation rather than a carte blanche nothing. Definitely agree to the French strategic card, perhaps the same for any independent cossack command? Rich |
|
Re: A few more IABSM ideas
Hmmmm, yes. I am quite unsure how, entirely sober, I
wrote "increase" insteas of "decrease". Clearly this is what I meant. As to Sid's comments, the reduction in initiative dice would reflect a slowing down in rate of fire due to all the reasons you suggest and more. At full strength, and as long as three chaps remain alive, the AT gun can fire two aimed shots at the same target in a turn. With two crew this drops to one aimed shot and a snap shot, with one dice to only one aimed shot. What I do not want is a "fire every other turn" situation where I have to remember which guns fired last turn and which didn't. I agree entirely about the women driver bit, but surely this would be restricted to Russian forces. Equally I agree with Harpers about stationary units waiting to jump off, the rule only applies to moving vehicles. Also agree with Sid on POWs, they were generally topped en masse in a suitable barn after the punch up was concluded. However I have documents relating to D-Day which state that certain Allied units had a definite "No prisoners policy", presumably as on the beaches there was no facility for dealing with them. In that situation they were dispatched on an ad hoc basis. This would fit in with Harpers' suggestion that it should be scenario driven. As a generality, however, I do feel strongly that it is much easier for a gamer to say "top the lot" when he is talking about small metal figures than it was for a real commander with real people to deal with. It is also very convenient for the gamer not to have to worry about such issues. I did consider a carte blanche ruling that no prisoners could be killed ever, but shyed away from that in the final analysis. However it should be very rare indeed. What is more the issue of dealing with prisoners on a "live" battlefield presents commanders with another interesting challenge. Which to me is FAR more important than any moral aspect. I leave that to Sid, our communal bleeding heart conscious. Rich --- In Toofatlardies@..., "Adam Blakemore" <adam.blakemore1@b...> wrote: Gun Casualties: With Harpers' amendment ("decrease in ability")this would work. I think that the decrease in ability rule would represent, as you say, the stress of comrades killed and wounded and the loss of key personnel - i.e. the gun-layer, team leader. As an alternative suggestion, though, how about trying the following: for each casualty, decrease the frequency of fir for the gun in question. If the crew is initially three gunners, once one is killed, the gun fires every other turn, and once two gunners are killed, the gun fires every third turn. The actual effectiveness of the fire would remain the same (subject to usual adjustments) - this would represent the fact that the physical attributes of the gun are not affected but that some of the gunners are doing tasks with which they may not be familiar. This is the approach I take with my Horse&Musket rules, but in that period very few of the "gunners" were technically proficient - although if the Master Gunner for the battery is killed the effectiveness is reduced. Translate "Master Gunner" for artillery commander or spotter and you could reduce the guns fire if the latter is killed crashing into the preceding vehicle. Extra chance if the following vehicle is driven by a woman combatant. bit of realism. After all, how many times were significant numbers of troops routinely massacred in the Low Countries and France in 1940 or 1944? I'm far from being an expert but from what I have read it seems like the front rank combatants generally treated prisoners reasonably ("For you the war is over Tommy/ Fritz/ Froggy. Have some chocolate..."). But the problems really started once the prisoners were taken to the rear with the Feldgendarmerie/ NKVD waiting in the wings. So if there are massacres of prisoners, perhaps there should be more chance of this once the figures are escorted off-table (counting towards or against victory points - or should we have "morality points" as well - OK, only joking), or at least until the unlucky prisoners are escorted into somewhere shady and secluded away from prying eyes and potential witnesses (barn/ church/ town hall, etc). to hit thier target. This was meant to reflect the stress caused bypropse is that AT gun crews will still suffer as above, but only onwounds. Killed crew members will reduce the initiative of the unit. ATguns have crews of either 4 or 5 men, depending on nationality. Theyhave three initiative dice as standard. What I propose is that whendice, when one crew man to one initiative dice. This will reflect themore snap shots, which again reflects pressure as above.bumper along a road.will always keep a gap between themselves and the vehicle in frontequal to or greater than their own length. Fast and wheeled vehicleswill keep double their length distance .firing themselves. Perhaps we need to consider the likelyhood of trucksa quick dice throw may be better used there.has spent many a long evening soul searching consolated only by abottle of cheap cooking sherry, a prisoners rule. That is, everyonemust take prisoners, and guard them at a ratio of 1 guard to 5 POWs.The exception here is known nasty troops, such as SS, Japs, Russiansroll against a target on a D6.Service. |
|
Re: A few more IABSM ideas
开云体育Gun Casualties:? With Harpers'
amendment ("decrease in ability") this would work.?I think that the
decrease in ability rule would represent, as you say, the stress of comrades
killed and wounded and the loss of key personnel - i.e. the gun-layer, team
leader.?As an alternative suggestion, though, how about trying the
following:? for each casualty, decrease the frequency of fir for the gun in
question.? If the crew is initially three gunners, once one is killed, the
gun fires every other turn, and once two gunners are killed, the gun fires every
third turn.? The actual effectiveness of the fire would remain the same
(subject to usual adjustments)?- this would represent the fact that the
physical attributes of the gun are not affected?but that some of the
gunners are doing tasks with which they may not be familiar.? This is the
approach I take with my Horse&Musket rules, but in that period very few of
the "gunners" were technically proficient - although if the Master Gunner for
the battery is killed the effectiveness is reduced.? Translate "Master
Gunner" for artillery commander or spotter and you could reduce the guns fire if
the latter is killed
?
Driving in convoy:? Sounds
good.? I especially like the idea of crashing into the preceding
vehicle.? Extra chance if the following vehicle is driven by a woman
combatant.
?
Prisoners:? a good rule.? Apart
from the moral aspects, it adds a bit of realism.? After all, how many
times were significant numbers of troops routinely massacred in the Low
Countries and France in 1940 or 1944?? I'm far from being an expert but
from what I have read it seems like the front rank combatants generally treated
prisoners reasonably ("For you the war is over Tommy/ Fritz/ Froggy.? Have
some chocolate...").? But the problems really started once the prisoners
were taken to the rear with the Feldgendarmerie/ NKVD waiting in the
wings.? ? So if there are massacres of prisoners, perhaps there should
be more chance of this once the figures are escorted off-table (counting towards
or against victory points - or should we have "morality points" as well - OK,
only joking), or at least until the unlucky prisoners are escorted into
somewhere shady and secluded away from prying eyes and potential witnesses
(barn/ church/ town hall, etc).?
?
See you all tomorrow
Sid ? --- Original Message -----
|
|
Re: A few more IABSM ideas
开云体育AT Gun Crew Casualties
?
Presumably casualties decrease
the gunners ability.
?
I think this is a good change.
?
Braking Distance
?
Probably a good idea on the basis that we are using
one to one in these rules and spacing would certainly be more realistic in the
close proximity to the front line that we are dealing with. In certain scenarios
it could be a requirement for the vehicles to be bunched - I'm thinking of those
pictures of allied vehicles waiting to move up/out after the Normandy landings.
Might depend on the air superiority position.
?
Prisoners
?
Do we need to legislate for this? At different
times troops of all nations have been reluctant to take or?mistreat
prisoners - victors justice and all that. This should be scenario driven and
rely on the commander "role-playing" the situation.
?
You could put in the ratio of guards
required.
?
Harpers
?
?
|
|
Re: How do I get hold of them?
Ken
The rules are not yet available on general release, although the WWII rules will be mentioned in a Wargames Illustrated article in months to come. I must say that they are probably not particularly a novice set, although you are welcome to a copy on a "play test" basis. "Kiss Me Hardy", the Napoleonic Naval rules are logged with my chum Nick, Darth Larder, who, if we all call his name loud enough may come out and let you have a set. It may cost you several buns. C'est la vie! Richard --- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003 <philips107s2003@y...>" <philips107s2003@y...> wrote: Where can I purchase these rules? I would be interested in WWIIand Napoleonic Naval for starters. |
|
A few more IABSM ideas
AT GUN CREW CASUALTIES
AT Crew loses are currently reflected in an increase in ability to hit thier target. This was meant to reflect the stress caused by losing comrades, and the fact that aimed fire when under foire themselves was less likely. HOWEVER. I have been thinking of revising that. What I now propse is that AT gun crews will still suffer as above, but only on wounds. Killed crew members will reduce the initiative of the unit. AT guns have crews of either 4 or 5 men, depending on nationality. They have three initiative dice as standard. What I propose is that when reduced to two cremen alive this will fall to two initiative dice, when one crew man to one initiative dice. This will reflect the extra time needed to laod and lay the gun, and will result in more snap shots, which again reflects pressure as above. BRAKING DISTANCE Essentially designed to stop us cramming vehicles bumper to bumper along a road. While in convoy along a roiad slow and average speed vehicles will always keep a gap between themselves and the vehicle in front equal to or greater than their own length. Fast and wheeled vehicles will keep double their length distance . This would be ignored once in combat, i.e. being fire on or firing themselves. Perhaps we need to consider the likelyhood of trucks that come under fire crashing itno each other? However I think a quick dice throw may be better used there. PRISONERS After much wailing and nashing of teeth from Sid, who apparently has spent many a long evening soul searching consolated only by a bottle of cheap cooking sherry, a prisoners rule. That is, everyone must take prisoners, and guard them at a ratio of 1 guard to 5 POWs. The exception here is known nasty troops, such as SS, Japs, Russians etc. and then the player may request to do so, but will have to roll against a target on a D6. Rich |
|
Re: Sumo Rules
Ken
Several sets each covering WWII at Company level; Vietnam again at Company level; Russian/Spanish Civil War (or any early 20thC political conflict) at Division/Corps level; Napoleonic naval are all finished. WWII aerial warfare is at play test stage, simplistic Medieval skirmish is finished in escence, but is not very polished. All rules are developed and tested at St Albans Draft Dodgers club. Too Fat Lardies is because me and the other chap who do most of the hard work on rules development (while the other parasites bask in our reflected glory) are both overweight, me ever so slightly, him hugely. Richard --- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003 <philips107s2003@y...>" <philips107s2003@y...> wrote: Shame, I played the Sumo game recently at a show in York, it wasorcs!
|
|
KMH Issues
Greetings Grapple Fans!
Nikkos, what bonuses would a British 74 currently get when firing at close range? As an aside the fleets we used last night would make for an interesting fight if the British were having to tack up the table to get to the French, entering from the opposite corner to the one where they actually arrived, namely the corner to Alan's right and your fat left. Rich |
|
Re: Blinds in IABSM and CDS
The issue of ambushes is dependent on card sequence. If Panzerfaust
armed Hans is hiding in a bush covering the road he must hope that his card comes out early so that he can reserve it. If that is the case he would be able to stop any armoured force coming up the road at the point at which he choses to open fire. HOWEVER....If the armour is still on a blind then he will not be able to open fire, but the vehicles will be put on the table once the Tea Break card is turned, as they have come within what has to be considered automatic spotting range. In this situation it is assumed that poor old Hans has been caught on the hop and is unable to spring his trap. What the above also does is ensure that the ambush is not always second perfect. For example if at the end of a turn some allied tanks are 7" away from Hans he may well decide to start shooting then, earlier that he would ideally have liked, rather than have the enemy whiz past him next turn if their card comes out first. If the allied card comes out first and they do whiz past then in that situation it is assumed that Hans does not shoot because, possibly a) he is scared b) he suffers a misfire c) he is a tosser Once again this mechanism allows the commander, id est the player, to place his troops in the hope that they will do the right thing, but unsure whether they actually will or not. Ici la coeur de IABSM! Ricardo --- In Toofatlardies@..., "Alan Reynolds" <gfy07@d...> wrote: Richardthat increases the likelyhood of an engagement. I am thinking of theclassic defensive ambush, we might find that with 4xD6 that the blind hasdiappeared around the corner without being spotted and engaged. Perhaps whenclosing with a suspected enemy position the movement would slow down? Maybewe limit the faster movement to a limited number of turns at the start ofthe game, before the sounds of battle are heard?obstacles or moving through difficult terrain of any sort. I wasconsidering increasing this to four dice, three in terrain, to reflect thefaster movement of an unspotted/unengaged unit. This would speed up anythoughts? Service. |
|
Re: Blinds in IABSM and CDS
Alan Reynolds
开云体育Richard
?
We
might want to link speed of blinds move with proximity to enemy units/positions,
some sort of modification to automatic spotting that increases the likelyhood of
an engagement. I am thinking of the classic defensive ambush, we might find that
with 4xD6 that the blind has diappeared around the corner without being spotted
and engaged. Perhaps when closing with a suspected enemy position the movement
would slow down? Maybe we limit the faster movement to a limited number of turns
at the start of the game, before the sounds of battle are
heard?
?
Alan
|
|
Blinds in IABSM and CDS
Gents
Currently all blinds move with three d6, or two if crossing obstacles or moving through difficult terrain of any sort. I was considering increasing this to four dice, three in terrain, to reflect the faster movement of an unspotted/unengaged unit. This would speed up any early "strategic" movement at the start, and allow us to play on slightly larger tables without dragging the game out. Any thoughts? Lardo One Actual |
|
Re: And another thing....
Alan Reynolds
开云体育Richard
?
I will
bring the book, it contains some examples, size, position and colour information
for vehicle symbols and a lot of examples of unit organisation etc using the
tactical symbols. It also appears that the tactical symbols were re-issued in
1942?to accommodate the increase in equipment types etc. but it does have a
few examples of pre-war symbols as well. I will let you decide on whether anyone
else is such an expert that they could spot the differences.
?
Alan
|
|
Re: And another thing....
Sir Alan
No I haven't got that, and would be glad of the opportunity to see it. The issue with the tactical symbols is that the Germans used a set for map use, which I have, and a simplified version of this for use on vehicles. It is the latter that I cannot find, exvepting a tiny bit about GrossDeutschland vehicles, this gives a few hints at how the main set were varied, but nothing definite. Rich --- In Toofatlardies@..., "Alan Reynolds" <gfy07@d...> wrote: Richardespecially if you include having to change the barrel when it got too hot!)Handbook" by W.J.K. Davies, which includes a section on tactical symbols,shall I bring it on Tuesday or do you already have It?can find the tactical symbols that they used on their vehicles,Service. |
|
Re: And another thing....
Alan Reynolds
开云体育Richard
?
I
agree with your thoughts on both the MG 34 and the Bren ( especially if you
include having to change the barrel when it got too hot!)
?
With
regard to tactical symbols, I have a copy of the "German Army Handbook" by
W.J.K. Davies, which includes a section on tactical symbols, shall I bring it on
Tuesday or do you already have It?
?
Alan
|
to navigate to use esc to dismiss