Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
Pre-battle reconnaissance
|
Gents
A pre-battle reconnaissance system has just struck me, that would allow for an attacker to have some prior knowledge of what he is coming up against. At the start of a game there is a facility for each force to dice for how many blinds it has. This could also be used to allocate an attacker a certain number of pre-deployment spotting attempts. This would reflect how much prior knowledge they have of their opponent. For example as this chart currently stands good regulars have 1D6 number blinds. Equally this could also reflect how many spotting attempts they get before deciding on where to attack. This would need to be adjusted for circumstances. For example….. The force is strong in dedicated recce troops +2 The force has dedicated aerial recce to mission +1 The force has faced this enemy in relatively static positions for a week or more. +2 The contact is relatively unexpected -2 The contact is entirely unexpected -4 Let us presume we have an element of 7 Panzer post the Meuse crossing, so driving like hell through northern France. The force in question may or may not benefit from aerial recce, depending on its mission. Let's assume it doesn't as this would apply in most circumstances. It does, however, have a good recce troops so gets a +2 there. Whilst contact is expected somewhere, this may come at any point, so becomes "relatively unexpected", a +2, giving us a net result of 1D6. On the tabletop the defender allocates troops as usual. The attacker would sketch out a general plan at this stage, however, before finally allocating his troops the attacker then rolls his D6. He rolls a 4. He now has four "spots" on the table before deciding on his plan. For every spot the attacker rolls one dice. If the target area, which would be 1 foot square (?) is within a foot of the point (or any point if multiple) of attackers table entry the spot is automatic. If it is between 1 and 2 feet a 2 or more is needed on a D6; between 2 and 3 feet, a 3 or more is required, up to between 5 and 6 feet where a 6 is required. For each unit "spotted" a blind is put down on the table. The attacker then rolls a D6 for each of these blinds, and on a 6 the actual defending figures are put down. This reflects that the recce forces will more generally identify where an enemy is, rather than what he is. The attacker, with his fresh knowledge, may have five minute to then finalise his plans (after all contact has now been made, the enemy are alerted). For every minute over this five taken the defender may remove one of the spotted blinds and deploy elsewhere. A rather nasty device to get the game started on time. Any thoughts? |
|
Alan Reynolds
开云体育Richard
?
What
sparked the thought?
?
Was it
the fact that we have seen examples of attackers being thrown off balance by
some "unexpected" forces/dispositions, if so I might argue that better use of
existing spotting/reconnaissance rules would have served to eliminate the
unknown.
Equally tactical reconnaissance could be provided by an increase in this
type of force on the table, as you said last week providing the Germans with a
couple of 222's could have "tripped" the defensive line of the
Brits.
If you
are thinking "strategic" reconnaissance then it may well apply to both the
defender and attacker, depending on the situation.
Normally this is taken care of in the briefing notes but if you want to
add an additional phase of reconnaissance, should both defender and attacker
have the chance to benefit?
?
Alan
|
|
I would agree with Big Al. The spotting rules we have are pretty good.
What you have suggested would be interesting but I would worry that it
will slow the game up and may mean that it may not be possible to both
brief and play the game in one evening and may mean that games would need
advance briefing and dispositions. This is not necessarily a bad thing
but seeing as some very inconsiderate people often say they will be there
next week and then aren't (perhaps beacuse their wife is going out or some
other poor excuse) then we may be left with a problem.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The counter aspect to this though, as touched on by Big Al, is that forces on table need more of a reconnaissance make up to them. Mororcycle combinations, a/cars, that kind of thing. Good fun but the problem here is that you end up fighting the same, initial recon game each week, which would not be much fun. IABSM put much of the emphasis on the Umpire, and perhaps the umpire
also needs to play a more proactive role here, either by producing more
detailed briefs to the attacker of enemy positions (which does of course
mean that the defender gets very little option to dictate his own dispositions,
or by raising the profile of spotting for the attacker, perhaps with the
introduction of extra spotting cards for advancing troops (perhaps one
per big man?). This would at least make the attacker think about spotting
a little more. This is much more in keeping with the Lardy philosophy than
the seemingly convoluted system you are proposing. Trevor would never understand
it.
Alan Reynolds wrote: ?RichardWhat sparked the thought?Was it the fact that we have seen examples of attackers being thrown off balance by some "unexpected" forces/dispositions, if so I might argue that better use of existing spotting/reconnaissance rules would have served to eliminate the unknown.Equally tactical reconnaissance could be provided by an increase in this type of force on the table, as you said last week providing the Germans with a couple of 222's could have "tripped" the defensive line of the Brits.If you are thinking "strategic" reconnaissance then it may well apply to both the defender and attacker, depending on the situation.Normally this is taken care of in the briefing notes but if you want to add an additional phase of reconnaissance, should both defender and attacker have the chance to benefit?Alan? |
|
Nick and Al
To reply to you both. I thought about spotting idea when contemplating the French and German motorcycle troops that I have to paint. I thought "Rather than paint these bloody figures, I'll just make up some daft rule". In fact recce troops do get benefits in the rules, extra spotting, extra fast, perhaps a slightly longer automatic spot range would be an easier idea. However as Nikkos says we could end up playing "where's the enemy" game every game. On reflection I think that the umpire should probably be a bit more decisive at the start of the game, letting the attackers have a bit more information if they have been able to recce the area effectively. I think that there is an issue that players are too keen to get all of their stuff on the table immediately, when perhaps they would be better off chucking a few light tanks or armoured cars around for a couple of turns to see what they pick up. In a recent game had the sherrif done just that with his Panzer Is, even just whipping up to the bridge, he would have picked up the 2 pounder in the pill box, as ell as the carrier platoon near the windmill - may be not knowing exactly was there, but at least knowing that that was where the enemy was. So we probably have a classic opportunity for over-engineering that I love so much. Perhaps an old chestnut like the "out scouted" rule in the old WRG ancients could be more effective. With the umpire getting the defender to put down his blin nearest the enemy. Cheers Rich Cheers --- nick.skinner@... wrote: > I would agree with Big Al. The spotting rules we have are pretty good.=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience |
|
therugdoctor2003
Well, you've stolen my thunder. I thought "I'll just read the latest
reply from Rich" before bringing up those fond memories of WRG "lose a dice roll and lose the game"! I agree with the umpire bits, and the fact that players need to discover why those recce units existed in the first place. A worry I have is that but giving too much away to the attacker doesn't allow for a mobile defense around strong points, in that if one part of the mobile force was deemed spotted in the original recon, then it stays in place- not realistic. It would be realistic to allow the identification of static strong points, and then to declare "a strong/small detatchment of tanks/Pzr IVs/amoured vehicles" is known to be present. Or something like that. The other way of doing this is to use the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units in the organisation, don't represent them (saves Rich all that painting) but give the units that would directly benefit from the recce arm some extra spotting factors or dummy blinds. Thus, an amoured unit with recce, supporting some PBI, would get the benefit of the recce unit, but the infantry wouldn't. Daz |
|
The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is to use
the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units
in the organisation, don't represent them".
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Sadly though Dr D we are doing a skirmish game where single figures
and vehicles are important.
Lardus therugdoctor2003 wrote: ?Well, you've stolen my thunder. I thought "I'll just read the latest? |
|
therugdoctor2003
--- In Toofatlardies@..., nick.skinner@w... wrote:
The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is touse the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would berecce units in the organisation, don't represent them".and vehicles are important.Well, yes and no. We are not wanting to game the initial recon. of every engagement. So, we need someway of feeding the results of that recon. into the engagement we do want to game. So, to my logically trained scientific mind (:-)), the fact that we want to represent the results of the recon., but do not want to game it, leads us to a mechanism by which the figures we want to play with derive some benefit from the actions of the figures we don't want to represent. Otherwise, we are reliant on the umpire to do so, and we all know where that leads us! Daz |