This weeks podcast from 3MA is about JT's Sqaud Battles WWI
https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/john-tillers-squad-battles-first-world-war
Quote"April 8, 2015 The Winter of Wargaming plods forward, inch by inch, straining through the rain and grime amidst a hail of enemy artillery and rifle fire. The trenches never end, a maze of mud and blank-faced soldiers so far beyond rational thought that their only solace lies inward toward thoughts of home and hearth. But wait, who's that ahead going over the top? It's Rob, Bruce, and Troy "Who Took My Cheese Rations?" Goodfellow here to talk about John Tiller's Squad Battles - First World War. Is this entry into the venerable series the volume that finally makes trench warfare fun?"
It's fairly unique in tracing the huge changes in infantry combat between 1914-1918. Apart from massive depth and some excellent scenarios, it is an educational experience. Ed Williams research on his game is a labour of love. 8)
I listen to 3MA religiously, consider myself a fan, and had the pleasure of interviewing Troy Goodfellow for this very website (can't seem to locate what I wrote though, I'm told it's lost in the aether on something called the full frontal page...sounds nasty).
A fair measure of this episode was unfettered, free-swinging bollocks.
I leave aside very small inaccuracies (HPS didn't release and never had available SB: WWI nor is the Ancient Battles series a Tiller joint) or the cavil over the question of whether there were "enough" changes to the base engine to warrant saying there are some. As Boggit correctly points out, there are fairly substantial mechanical changes made that are particularly noticeable as the war grinds on. During the podcast, Rob Zacny specifically asks whether Bruce or Troy noticed any and they demur. I'll also leave aside my inquiry as to why they wouldn't take up the far more recent and truly excellent (Grogheads Digital Game of the Year for 2014) East Front '14.
What gets me nuts is the notion that there's some other game out there that SB or PzC can credibly compared to that do what they do "better". This puts me in the particularly awkward position of seeming to criticize games I really like such as "Decisive Campaigns", "Heroes of Stalingrad", "Conflict of Heroes", &c., but, frankly, when you're building a game that's, at root, a digital implementation of a boardgame, there's going to be a certain kludge factor. You're moving pieces over a map and indicating which of your pieces you want to attack the other side's pieces. Of course the interface to "Ultimate General" is more elegant, but that's to confuse categories. I was in the gym listening to this podcast and that may have affected my responses, but, between reps, I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...which I suppose is the definition of imaginary". There may have been swear words used as adjectives.
I thought Bruce got the closest when he said that there's a real wonder to firing up PzC Stalingrad for the first time and realizing that you've not got a map that's MUCH bigger than anything you've ever played on a tabletop, with the thousands of pieces all pre-set for you, with a rule set that the computer won't let you forget -- even if you do, and that you can leave "up" for as long as you like as you slog through it stack by stack. He then said he no longer has the patience to play games of this type on the PC which, by the process of substitution, implies he no longer cares to play them on the tabletop. This is, of course, his prerogative, but, heavens, it neither makes SB or PzC bad or good, just something he no longer desires.
I number the SB, DC and PzC games I've played -- including quite a few with the denizens of this joint -- as some of my best gaming experiences ever. I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on April 14, 2015, 12:50:14 PM
I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...". I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.
Completely OT, but this is what always winds me up with a lot of the criticism directed at Battle of Stalingrad. Before this goes too far, bear in mind that I'm only talking about its perceived technical limitations.
On topic, perhaps I'd better check this out as I bought SB: WW1 a while back but have only fired it up once...
QuoteWhat gets me nuts is the notion that there's some other game out there that SB or PzC can credibly compared to that do what they do "better". This puts me in the particularly awkward position of seeming to criticize games I really like such as "Decisive Campaigns", "Heroes of Stalingrad", "Conflict of Heroes", &c., but, frankly, when you're building a game that's, at root, a digital implementation of a boardgame, there's going to be a certain kludge factor. You're moving pieces over a map and indicating which of your pieces you want to attack the other side's pieces. Of course the interface to "Ultimate General" is more elegant, but that's to confuse categories. I was in the gym listening to this podcast and that may have affected my responses, but, between reps, I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...which I suppose is the definition of imaginary".
I agree with what you're saying here. After listening to the podcast I went to the forums to see what others thought. Criticism seem to revolve around the UI - so much so that some felt the need to say it several times. ::) This is why I get my reviews here.
I am not really a big SB player, however Cyrano has piqued my interest and now I will have to find an hour to hear this, it sounds like an interesting show.
I am not really sure how anyone, after the Ancients series has been out for years and years now could blow who the designer/developer of that series but I guess the comment serves a purpose to basically set the bar of expectations.
One thing I would add though, is that the Tiller series ( the non real time ones at least) share a lot of traits with miniatures as well -sometimes I think they might share more with miniatures than they do with boardgames ... but anyway I have to hear this. :)
But I guess I might put a time stamp to my expectations: I haven't gotten any now.
I've logged a lot more hours in Tiller games than I have with Paradox games, to the point that I've stopped buying them. Does that mean they're bad? Absolutely not, it just means they don't really work for me.
And yet this is the same group that waxed lyrical a year ago about the wonders of the old SSG games like Korsun Pocket. I don't mean a little bit, either, they went on about it for over an hour. While I like those games, they are nowhere near as detailed or as playable as SB: WWI.
Ah well, I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds or some such.
Quote from: Father Ted on April 14, 2015, 01:17:35 PM
Quote from: Cyrano on April 14, 2015, 12:50:14 PM
I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...". I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.
Completely OT, but this is what always winds me up with a lot of the criticism directed at Battle of Stalingrad. Before this goes too far, bear in mind that I'm only talking about its perceived technical limitations.
On topic, perhaps I'd better check this out as I bought SB: WW1 a while back but have only fired it up once...
Great game - and phenomenally bloody in the early war battles where they fight like Napoleonic units with "modern weapons". Let me know if you fancy a pbem game sometime.
OK, I thought I knew, but I clearly don't which is profoundly discomfiting...
Which "Battle of Stalingrad" game is being referred to?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
So far I have listened to about maybe 40% of this. Of course a lot of focus is on the interface (which ... well, it hasn't been the first time that has been said, so in one sense I understand it -although I guess from a broadcasting sense, maybe a little too much time was spent on that - but hey ... that's their deal ;).
Ok I can say, though, that as far as feedback goes, I would much rather get constructive, critical feedback, as much as anything else, so some parts were pretty good.
I don't necessarily know if the helicopters thing was - but it does point out that maybe some things might be greyed out or something - but that all is dependent upon how much time there is to edit a given set of documents. Fwiw, you can find helicopter references in the Naval Campaigns series user guide (leastwise I am pretty sure that I did.)...
There is a Notes.pdf file that is more specific for a title -and SB:FWW has one of those - now whether a user agrees that something stated in the notes, is happening or not ... well, that is for the user to determine -but the statement that, 'essentially this is the same title as all of the rest' - that isn't correct according to the design notes. In fact it shouldn't even be correct for scenarios set in 1914 when compared to scenarios in 1918 (or any other year) -as there is supposed to be a structural evolution thing going on there if I read things right (caveat: it has been awhile since I skimmed the notes.).
The line referring to the 'moving hex by hex' (paraphrased to use standard wargaming terminology) -that soldiers '... pretty much only shoot and move ... so am not clear about why the extra activity.' Technically, there is also a third thing that they do (and maybe a 4th thing too) - they take fire ( opportunity fire, if you will), and react to it. Ok, I do think I can maybe translate that - why can't you point to a hex and move there and have whatever is happening on the way automatically happen? I don't have an answer; -it doesn't just like the gui, you either accept it or you don't... my point being I don't think it is invalid insofar as criticism goes although I think it has probably been covered by others before.
I do understand that reviewing series titles (of any type) can be a tough ask -fwiw, I once was supposed to review Campaign: Peninsula for a magazine that recently ceased printed publication, about a million years ago (actually I think it was 10) -and despite having a transcontinental flight to consider how to go about writing it, I never did do it. I sort of hit upon a sort of Cliff's Notes sort of way to do things, in that I added a series page (which is supposed to be updated with documentation) that supplements a title page ... well, that was the theory at the time I created it - but really the changes are in the documentation ... the series user manual (in this case the one that the guys got fixated on helicopter references :D ), the notes, and then any read me files from updates.
I'll keep listening to it, because I would rather have the entire picture... that being said, I thought there were some interesting comments that got me thinking on how I might do things -in this case it won't be happening because I am not on any SB teams ... but that is not to say that some of the material might not have been general enough to take on board.
One thing is clear, though, and that is that good designer notes are a must (well for me they are at least). I wonder if maybe separating them into a historical background, and then other more technical areas - like say, separate pdf files might be a way of handling this -but at the same time, if no one reads them, then the information stays where it was.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 17, 2015, 02:19:49 PM
OK, I thought I knew, but I clearly don't which is profoundly discomfiting...
Which "Battle of Stalingrad" game is being referred to?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
...the flightsim one which seems to get a few people round here somewhat wound up.
@Boggit thanks for the offer, but unfortunately the game is pretty far down my list of games to learn, so it'll be a while...
Ah, yes, THAT BoS...gotcha. Not much of a flight sim feller myself...although I did love the heck out of IL-2 Sturmovik...
@Boggit: Anytime you care to play through the Gallipoli sequence, just let me know ;).
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
@Jim
I'll PM you my email. Returns won't be too fast as I usually have a couple of MP games on the go, plus writing, plus a young family that eat up time, but if you can deal with that, we're good. :)
Absolutely...hear from you soon...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
And for those of you that are interested - :o
Jim is off to a good start, pinning the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Wallaby Fanciers (the "Manley Pals") down on the beach. We're looking for rocks to hide behind, but Johnny Turk has the advantage of the heights, and Major CR O'Dyle (OC) has mislaid one of his platoons straight onto the wire. Pasha Jim is laughing his socks off, and I've left the boomerang and the blueies back in the boat. Crikey! What's a cobber to do?
...grabs some popcorn and pulls up a chair...
Well, if we're doing THIS then...
Here's the scenario (it's the first of 11 dedicated to Gallipoli which, as we all know started just over 100 years ago):
1915 Apr 25, Gallipoli Front. 0430 hours.
Size: small (company +)
On an unforgettable Sunday morning, the planned invasion of the Dardanelles was executed in the early morning light. As the ships steamed silently and slowly towards the peninsula, the wind calmed and the Aegean Sea became as smooth as glass; it was as if the heavens themselves held their breath at the horrible drama that was about to unfold in the next fateful eight months.
--Would the Turks be waiting for them at the beaches with machine guns?
No one knew the answer. Allied soldiers were instructed to lay motionless on the open boats, packed in together like sardines, as they were towed towards the unknown.
In the early morning darkness it was so difficult for the steamboats to see each other that they bunched together and got into wrong positions and, at 0425, the troop boats rowed ashore one mile north of the planned landing place at Z Beach.
There was yet no sign of life from the shore when, suddenly, a warning flare lit up the sky and scattered Turkish fire rang out from Ari Burnu. The Australians had come ashore, all three covering force battalions were badly mixed up and in the wrong place, and the terrain presented to them when they jumped out of their boats was both unknown, treacherous, and nothing like what they were told to expect in their intended landing areas. There was no time to reorganize nor to figure out where they actually were, all they could do is push inland as quickly as possible and establish a foothold.
MISSION:
(Allied Powers) Gather your forces together after the landing and move inland to expand the foothold.
(Central Powers) Hold your ground if possible and oppose the landings to delay the enemy. If need be, fall back to Plugge's Plateau and keep the enemy from moving further inland.
And now, turn three --
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbB7JLMj.png&hash=c791e23adfe7190507efede6f8ca257cdec00802)
Nossir...if you can't tell, we've got neither jack nor squat for machine guns...just a bunch of rifles and a few grenades spread out over just over 72 men. My favorite bit is that the company commander is armed solely with a flare gun and a sword (the squiddy-looking thing near the beach is where I've last fired a flare to illuminate some of my shots).
Allah or Ataturk be praised, we've got good terrain...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
And, inspired by Arizona Tank, Ari Burnu looking down from Plugge's Plateau in 2010:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG5qgv8V.jpg&hash=440329469ddd98fea29300e54251c05dc6c743e5)
Well, doesn't that just look like all sorts of fun to assault on foot...
Fwiw I always manage to screw this one up when playing the campaign game ... but maybe I need to change my approach a bit.
Ok -the other thing... and this is the part that hurts -as I have read the intro to the campaign game -- these blokes are all from Queensland: therefore would be Banana-Benders.
I'll have to give this another go again soon -as I have to work it out better than I have.
Winning or losing doesn't matter in Campaigns. Just keep your character alive.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 26, 2015, 10:07:32 PM
And, inspired by Arizona Tank, Ari Burnu looking down from Plugge's Plateau in 2010:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG5qgv8V.jpg&hash=440329469ddd98fea29300e54251c05dc6c743e5)
I walked up to Plugge's Plateau in '99, it's damned steep. I remember grabbing onto bushes at some stages. I was just wearing a t-shirt and shorts and I was puffing hard when I got to the top. Doing it under fire, with full kit and ammo, would have been tough.
Quote from: jomni on April 27, 2015, 06:33:17 AM
Winning or losing doesn't matter in Campaigns. Just keep your character alive.
I managed not to do that too - but 2 scenarios down the track and one that I was about to win. :tickedoff: :) Otoh reminds me of a Steel Panthers campaign I was in a long time ago ... I had a custom OOB or whatever and made it to early 1945 -was finally commanding a King Tiger and got killed by an air attack -and my character had a Michal Wittmann-like victory total. :poor me:
I must say, Jim does do a nice AAR. O0 I'd better do my turn then.
Basic plan is to take the battle to Johnny Turk with typical Aussie pluck and determination. I just hope he doesn't deploy sheep - I don't want any of the sheep farmers among my guys distracted from the fight with unplanned R&R! :o Launching beer barrels at us we can handle! ^-^
Well, turn 4 is done. A few more guys bite the dust as we pick our way up that hill.
The worst issue at the start was the landing - all bunched up with nowhere to go, except up that damn hill.
I do have numbers on my side, but it is wrong to think it helps yet. By the time I've moved one hex - I'm hugging the ground - as Jim was able to pin the more ambitious runners - and by the time you've moved that hex you have no time to fire. Not that the one shot I got off this turn made any difference... disrupted, firing uphill, enemy in improved positions... what was I expecting? Anyway, slowly slowly, catchee monkey! Well, not too slow - I've only got 9 turns! ::)
Apologies for the map attachment, I have no idea how I embed the picture into the post. Anyone?
Sounds relatively accurate - check out this painting by George Lambert, called: 'The Landing'
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmuseumvictoria.com.au%2Fedu_ww1%2Fimages%2Fpainting-lambert-full.jpg&hash=167c62e099e4def995d91ff812d9efe60f43d96d)
Nice pic Southern Cross! O0
Jim has got a problem - half his force are surrounded by infiltrating Aussies. The rest are in a good strong position, well placed to inflict casualties without taking many themselves. However, he has the dilemma - if the Wallabies drive in the centre they may get precious objectives, but to move off his present position means we are fighting on more even terms. My numbers will start to count for something, and there is no certainty he will stop me getting to the objectives without risking getting wiped out by superior numbers as well. Waltzing Matilda... ;) :coolsmiley:
Boggit's take on affairs is a good one. I've chosen to temporize which, I fear, will have the usually disastrous result.
My company commander and his inspirational sword (yes, that's a thing) couldn't bear to leave the trenches with his men, so he's rallied them no less than four times, only to have them shot back into a "Pinned" status. Still, they're still in the trench and keeping their heads down as the banana-benders (yeah, I like that a lot) scurry around them.
Meanwhile, the other half of the platoon is running around the edge of the plateau -- still in good order, and should be able to grab the VPLOC shortly and await the rest of the assault.
The scene at the end of turn 5:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7VF1lru.png&hash=ba42c3877c202516ae5848e5993f7d08c8994b35)
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Here we are at turn 6. The Wallabies have now flanked Johnny Turk and can proceed to the victory point hexes. Jim might be able to hold up proceedings for a bit with his free unit, but that will be under pressure fairly soon. My wide flanker in the bottom left needn't worry out going prone now so Jim's demise may be sooner than later. I also shot at his pinned unit with my disrupts - not so much to kill him, but to prompt opfire, so reducing his ammo level, which in turn inhibits his ability to pin my advance. Muahahaha! >:D ;)
If Philippe is looking for a mod project to hone his already wonderful artistic skill look no further than the 3-d unit icons on FWW - they are tiny, and could do with some love! See attached pic.
Turn 7, and I think Jim is now on the run, as the Wallabies go for a home run on the objectives. "Hurrah for Oz!", I think. ;D
I expect things will get much harder as the campaign progresses.... :o
One more turn to go, and I think the Wallabies are going to win big. I'm not anywhere near so sure that subsequent battles will go so well, as Jim is likely to have more men, trenches, barbed wire and machine guns, not to mention artillery. So we are enjoying it whilst we can. A runner has been sent back to the ships with orders to bring up the booze. We'll enjoy ripping the scabs off a few bluies on top of Plugge's plateau!
We, the servants of the Pasha, believe in moral victories...therefore, we are very pleased to have plunged, headlong though it may have been, into the trenches at the tip of Plugge's Plateau.
A Major Victory is a near-certainty for the ANZAC, but we've got troops in the biggest of the VPLOCs that will prove challenging to dislodge!!
*ululating is heard*
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FF8omhkz.png&hash=edac7fe5782d148865b8fd37e808a325efa34eca)
You go, Pasha Jim! Looks to have been well fought and much fun on both sides.
This and the two WWI Campaigns games certainly are superb systems for learning about this period. I really enjoy not just playing these but reading the really extensive Designer's Notes with all three games. I'm hoping for the next one in the series to cover Serbia/Galicia.
Quote from: panzerde on May 03, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
You go, Pasha Jim! Looks to have been well fought and much fun on both sides.
This and the two WWI Campaigns games certainly are superb systems for learning about this period. I really enjoy not just playing these but reading the really extensive Designer's Notes with all three games. I'm hoping for the next one in the series to cover Serbia/Galicia.
I think he has gone! Back to camp for a large raki and kebab! ;)
I can't remember if we had random last turn on or not. Either way I have a major victory. Jim had very few options, and holding the last big victory point hex is something to be clawed out of this scenario. Now where are those beers? ;) I don't expect our next encounter will go so well, as he'll have more troops, dug in, MG's and other toys to play with.
And it'll be his turn to post the pics, and give commentary on the battle. LOL! He'll probably do a better job anyway! ;D
Nice job, Boggit! Definitely not an easy fight for Jim, but your Aussies didn't exactly have a cakewalk, either. That's some rough terrain to assault and without much of a pre-invasion bombardment either.
It's astonishing when you read about both Gallipoli and the US landings in Cuba during the Spanish American War how they really didn't seem to do any serious planning for how they were going to get the troops ashore. Fortunately for the Americans there was no resistance, but had the Spanish managed to get just few guns in place it would have been a nightmare. They were literally doing stuff like shoving the horses off the decks of the ships to let them swim ashore - and of course, a bunch of them didn't make it. When I read that the entire planning for the Gallipoli invasion was six weeks...well, you can tell pretty quickly why things went the way they did.
Quote from: panzerde on May 03, 2015, 01:05:48 PM
Nice job, Boggit! Definitely not an easy fight for Jim, but your Aussies didn't exactly have a cakewalk, either. That's some rough terrain to assault and without much of a pre-invasion bombardment either.
It's astonishing when you read about both Gallipoli and the US landings in Cuba during the Spanish American War how they really didn't seem to do any serious planning for how they were going to get the troops ashore. Fortunately for the Americans there was no resistance, but had the Spanish managed to get just few guns in place it would have been a nightmare. They were literally doing stuff like shoving the horses off the decks of the ships to let them swim ashore - and of course, a bunch of them didn't make it. When I read that the entire planning for the Gallipoli invasion was six weeks...well, you can tell pretty quickly why things went the way they did.
Thanks Panzerde. Jim did give me a run for his money. O0 I mentioned to Jim over the weekend the Domasin battle from Red Victory - very similar in many respects. As with the Gallipoli map, it is hard to get a sense of the elevations involved, and just how hard it must have been to get up those hills. I had a look using google street view, and in both scenarios the terrain is formidable.
Churchill did an appalling job. Like you say the operation just wasn't thought out properly, with little intelligent thought, nor communication between the units.
Mind you it seems to be the case with a lot of invasions - take for example the airborne drops over Sicily in 1943 - nightmare! Even getting shot up by their own fleet! They didn't spend much time planning for that either. (Check out D'Este Sicily - Bitter Victory - which is good. It mentions a lot of other balls ups too!)
Churchill did an appalling job. Like you say the operation just wasn't thought out properly, with little intelligent thought, nor communication between the units.
Mind you it seems to be the case with a lot of invasions - take for example the airborne drops over Sicily in 1943 - nightmare! Even getting shot up by their own fleet! They didn't spend much time planning for that either. (Check out D'Este Sicily - Bitter Victory - which is good. It mentions a lot of other balls ups too!)
The degree of infighting and other squirreliness described in Bitter Victory is astounding. Having said that, the Sicily campaign has been a favorite gaming topic of mine since I read it. In fact, Jim, Vance and I have a three-sided game going on using Tiller's Sicily '43 right now.
Well, Boggit's Allies did a fine job last round getting his lads ashore, but this one promises to be a big uglier...
The scenario description:
After the botched landings at Ari Burnu, north of the planned "Z Beach", the Australians quickly reorganized what they could and tried to salvage the situation by advancing to their planned objectives for the day. One such objective was Gabe Tepe, an elevated point that jutted out into the Aegean Sea, which was known to house a Turkish battery of 12.2cm and 15cm howitzers. These guns had to be taken out, but morning landings had added an additional mile to the distance that had to be covered.
As the Australians advanced south to their destination, the first sounds of machine gun fire announced that the Turks were now well awake and alert to the situation. Even though it was becoming apparent to the Australians that Gape Tepe was now out of reach, the infantry still had to try!
MISSION:
(Allied Powers) Advance south from "400 Plateau" towards Gabe Tepe in order to overrun the Ottoman artillery located there.
(Central Powers) Hold your positions and prevent any Australian breakout to the south.
NOTES:
*Historically the advance did not make it past "Bolton's Ridge", however, the Australians did take the Turkish outposts on that ridge and used them to help anchor the southern flank of the landings. This result could be considered a Draw or Allied Minor Victory here.
*Turkish 15cm howitzers are sporadically firing on this area from Gabe Tepe.
I am, first, very pleased to actually have a machine gun. I am also pleased that it overlooks an area of steep incline making its way down to the beech. That said, there's a lot of fellows in bendy hats crawling around down there and I think they mean to do me harm. One of the things I keep forgetting about the SB series -- to my loss -- is that the game models both ammo depletion and the fatigue of combat by gradually reducing a unit's effectiveness each time it fires. This is controversial to some -- there's even a mod to make it go away completely -- but I rather like it for what it does. All that by way of pointing out I'll keep my powder dry and wait for his lads to get a bit closer before beginning to hose them down.
The battlefield at the start of the nine-turn scenario:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqdb8yAg.png&hash=0f50f518c296fb1fe9c81560a36601bf9ae7ee6b)
Wikipedia has a good account of the whole battle (this is the earlier bit referenced in part of the article):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lone_Pine
And the battlefield cemetery near the top of the titular Lone Pine feature:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJtXVLmF.jpg&hash=93f0a6ebdcd1a300008f3e8f3d1a43bfddf873a8)
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
My early observations are this...
Jim is in a strong position in the centre with twice the troops he had at our last encounter approximating a company, plus an MG setup to annihilate anyone coming in its arc. He also has some random 150cm artillery support. Hopefully, it will scatter, but it is big and nasty enough to hurt. The exit points are a long way from my start positions, and with all the rotten terrain before me I'll be going some to get there within the 9 turns available. I probably don't need that many units to exit to get a win, but it really is a big ask, as I will be asking my guys to run exposed all the way when a pin or disrupt (not to mention) troop death will mess up a very tight schedule. Attacking the ridge directly involves covering a lot of open ground, and with Pasha Jim's boys being dug in will also be difficult as an number of adequate LOS positions are mainly at the extreme edge of my rifle range, which creates a problem for any sizeable base of fire in effective range to support an attack. I really do wish I had some mortars!
So what to do? Flanking the position is a must, since Jim needs to guard against being flanked, so must commit at least some of his force to stop me. If he doesn't I have a whisker of a chance to exit some units, which will make the difference for victory. Let's see what happens...
Quote from: panzerde on May 03, 2015, 04:54:31 PM
Churchill did an appalling job. Like you say the operation just wasn't thought out properly, with little intelligent thought, nor communication between the units.
Mind you it seems to be the case with a lot of invasions - take for example the airborne drops over Sicily in 1943 - nightmare! Even getting shot up by their own fleet! They didn't spend much time planning for that either. (Check out D'Este Sicily - Bitter Victory - which is good. It mentions a lot of other balls ups too!)
The degree of infighting and other squirreliness described in Bitter Victory is astounding. Having said that, the Sicily campaign has been a favorite gaming topic of mine since I read it. In fact, Jim, Vance and I have a three-sided game going on using Tiller's Sicily '43 right now.
If you get another going let me know. I have Sicily '43, and really like it. It is the sort of game system that would work really well multi-multi player. With say half a dozen players a side it would be really interesting. (Then again, that is probably true for any Tiller PzC game). How are you handling higher command directives in the game?
I bought d'Este's book after reading the game notes, and it describes a woeful state of affairs with the Allied planners. The one good thing is that they seem to have learnt a lot from the experience re Normandy. It's a pity they couldn't engage their brains a bit better, rather than learn from the dead bodies of what were rather predictable outcomes.
Sicily '43 has a scenario that's specifically billed as a race between Monty and Patton for Messina -- it even has a mountain range dividing line to keep the two no-goodniks apart -- and is intended to be played 3-player.
All the PzC games -- frankly all the Tiller games -- are brilliant MP. A bunch of years ago, some friends and I got together for an 8-player Midway. We broke down the commands too much -- one fellow wound up commanding just the submarines (which he actually enjoyed) -- but there was real elation in the other room when the IJN found us before we found them...
I used to play Tiller games a lot at the Blitz Wargaming Club http://www.theblitz.org/index.php O0 but stopped after we moved house, various personal issues etc. I found them a lot of fun. It looks like they've repainted their website too - very nice. :) I've only really been getting back into MP fairly recently - largely Sauron's fault and a few others - over the last year or so, but I am enjoying it a lot. I should perhaps revisit the Blitz, but I'm quite glad we Grogs are getting our games together too.
Well here is my turn. I traded a few shots with Pasha Jim from the heights, and have a platoon or two making the long trip down to those exit hexes - good luck boys... you'll need it. Crikey, those exit hexes are a long way away, and moving 1-2 hexes in rough terrain, the only way I have a chance is to go sprinting over the open ground... :o I've shown the bottom half of the map so you can see where they are - 9 turns in this scenario - I hope Jim has the variable ending option selected in the optional rules!
This makes me think about what I am asking those platoons to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Ankn-AzC4 Only I won't ask them to go in with the bayonet - such stupidity. :(
Quote from: Boggit on May 09, 2015, 12:03:02 PM
I used to play Tiller games a lot at the Blitz Wargaming Club http://www.theblitz.org/index.php (http://www.theblitz.org/index.php) O0 but stopped after we moved house, various personal issues etc. I found them a lot of fun. It looks like they've repainted their website too - very nice. :) I've only really been getting back into MP fairly recently - largely Sauron's fault and a few others - over the last year or so, but I am enjoying it a lot. I should perhaps revisit the Blitz, but I'm quite glad we Grogs are getting our games together too.
Any time you want to try some Tiller, SoW or CM PBEM let me know. I'm honestly finding it tough to stay engaged playing SP anymore. Not that Pasha Jim doesn't keep me in games almost single handedly, but it's always nice to have different opponents to learn from. Like Jim, I have games from multiple Tiller series, so it doesn't just have to be WW2.
HA! I mock you saucy system warning that this has not been posted in for 120 days or more. It matters not! Boggit and I still play.
So, now on the fifth of the 10 Gallipoli scenarios (allowing for life events, my trip to Europe, &c.) Boggit has a 3-1 scenario lead. The Central powers must step up their game, I fear, lest this outcome become ahistorical!
Scenario 5 has my Turks defensing a hilltop prominence known from the battle onward as Russell's Top. As with so many other things Gallipoli, the folks at New Zealand heritage have done an amazing job of capturing this battlefield. Do not envy Boggit's brave men their task as they try to climb and conquer THIS:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/interactive/russells-top-panorama-gallipoli
This is easily the longest scenario so far and will certainly be a bloody one...
Very cool Cyrano. Can't wait for the AAR.
Well, there's been no AAR for Gal5 between Boggit and Cyrano, but, let it be said, it ended very, very badly for the Allies. The ANZACs pushed like devils to get into the trench system at the top of Russell's top, but, in the end, were pushed out of all but one VPLOC. Central Powers major and the CPs pull to 3-2.
And then I opened Gal6.
I'll let the scenario description speak for itself:
1915 May 19, Gallipoli Front. 0900 hours.
Size: large (battalion)
In the early morning hours of the 19th, ANZAC forces were awoken to the sight of a massive Turkish attack along the whole of their perimeter, an attack that the Turks intended to as a decisive blow that would drive the ANZAC into a the sea.
In the Pope's Hill sector, at the northeastern tip of the ANZAC line, the Turks advanced under the light of flares into an Australian force that was ready to meet them.
MISSION:
(Allied Powers) Hold our forward trench line at all costs! Fall back to the strong points (bunkers) if necessary, but do not let Turkish forces advance through our position to the west.
(Central Powers) Capture the enemy forward trench line and, if possible, break through to the west. Doing this will overrun their front line in this area and will cause their whole ANZAC position to collapse.
NOTES:
*Historically the Turks advanced bravely and were shot down en masse. In a couple of hours, the Ottoman attack along the whole front line had failed, with over 10,000 dead and nothing to show for it, although Pope's Hill came under serious threat of overrun.
*Allied forces in the campaign had no hand grenades because high command did not plan on any trench warfare occurring. The Turks on the other hand had a seemingly endless supply of hand grenades, which they constantly lobbed at allied lines. In the ANZAC sector, there was nothing to be done by to try to throw the grenade back before it exploded. Allied forces met this threat by making improvised hand grenades which they called "jam tin grenades". These improvised grenades were made from ration cans of jam, explosive filler and any steel fragments they could find.
I'm one turn in and my Turks are advancing bravely and getting mowed down like wheat. I've wondered what this system would be like in the larger scenarios and now I know -- it really shines. Because so much of the fiddle that comes with managing combat on a tabletop is managed by the game, you can do a much better job of sending firing flares to illuminate the night, firing into known enemy positions, and, yeah, sending the boys over the top.
Great stuff...