开云体育

I'm enjoying another Advent Calendar and hope you are.

I found Rich's thoughts on table edges really interesting and thought I'd add three comments to the conversation we're invited to have.

1. There have been a few wargames with a "rolling table" where one edge - usually the one behind the defender/in front of the attacker is added to the table as that behind the attacker becomes redundant. A great idea but not easy to do and the table only rolls 'one way'. If it started to roll off to the flank I'd get seasick!

2. Nearly all tables are oblong and games are either across the table or down the length of it. Three houses ago I had a square [6'x6'] table and that really posed a challenge to some players thinking. It also allowed corner to corner deployment with the middle of the table being the widest point when flanks could be in the air.
Square tables seem to be the norm for smaller games. Does anyone use a round dining table without pretending it's square? What about a triangular table where you're the persians and the Spartans are just defending the pointy bit. Christmas star shape anyone? Probably not.

3. Smaller games-tables [or rather game areas], for those with the space, tend to provide room for all the clutter of the rules, dice, coffee etc. What if instead we use it as an opportunity on a small scale to see what happens when the table edges disappear. Take Sid's proposed 18" square table. If the gaming space is the central 18" but the town is modelled on something much larger -say 4' square - the action can spill off grid and we can work out "so how does that work?". This experiment of course works with skirmishes but I think Rich had in mind -what happens to a whole army with open flanks and large rear areas etc? {What if in Sharp Practice you had a water cart but it was two tables away?]

4. Sorry I know I said three. When I envisioned what Rich was talking about I thought of the areas off table as being devoid of troops. What if that's not the case. Imagine playing Chain off Command and when you get pushed left or right of your assigned sector you find yourself in an ajoining unit's sector and they are even busier than you were because they are under a full scale tank attack. Suddenly getting back onto your own 'table' seems a lot more inviting than staying off table in that sector.

Thanks for the Calendar thoughts.

Merry Christmas to all here

Stephen [Duke of Baylen]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 21:41, Michael Reese

<mrtank688@...> wrote:

I have experienced three types of expanded tables.

1. The first is where if your unit gets within X distance (6" or 12" I think) of a table edge it can come under fire from a HMG (MMG in modern terms - a rifle caliber machinegun mounted on a tripod) off table (which is set at X range to determine hits). Since the rules used 10xd10 for a MMG firing this could be "disturbing". The idea was there are units to either flank off table and if you are running a table scrap offensive (i.e. down a table side so you have only one flank) this rule was there to discourage that. Note you could apply this using an anti-tank gun as well, or:

2. I have run games where the table is part of a map and there were enemy units off table that could fire on table. In my case it was two or three Mark IV/H tanks sitting hull down in the edge of woods on high ground under 1500 meters off the table. Due to the terrain they could engage units they could spot on roughly half of the table the game was on. If spotted (after firing as there was no other way) the units on the table could fire back and call in supporting artillery on the off-table tanks.

3. Playing a company sized set of rules (yes, Flames of War) in Normandy the head judge used Google Maps to outline the forward edge of the battlefield and assigned our units (semi-historical) parts of the lines to defend (we were German and could choose the Regiment or Division our forces were part of. In my case July 1944 and the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion.) Depending on the outcome of the engagement the head judge would move our lines forward or backwards. We were determining our opponents. In my case (for some reason I don't remember) a US Infantry Division. It wasn't completely realistic but you had leeway to manage how you played. I tried to determine point values of my forces in contact and multiply it by roughly 50% to 100% when determining the US forces attacking.

How realistic?

Well, determined the 15th Luftwaffe Infantry Division was defending my sector and the 503rd detrained outside Paris. I then set up each company to march to the front and my Tigers started to fall out with maintenance problems. First company arrived. Then second company. Third company never made it as we were transferred to the Eastern Front. The two companies arrived piecemeal.?

?

Using a map campaign with a judge determining the movement of the front depending on the outcome of the games is one way to have open flanks (and rear). He provides you only the information you have in your part of the battle and any that realistically could be known.

Enemy forces can be run by another player including making up the task forces attacking or defending against you.

Weather and day/night should be included.

I always gave the US Forces full air superiority.

I tried to give the US forces a battalion of 105mm in support with a 155mm battalion possibly in support. My players had difficulty using that much artillery.

P.S. For those of you still using FOW V.3. note the rule for a British MIKE target is wrong. When the battalion instead of your battery fires a MIKE mission that is 24 25 pdr guns, not 12. British artillery Regiments (USA Battalion) have three batteries of 8 guns, not 4 guns.

Michael Reese

?