In my last post I posed an idea for a platoon level game that would feature a team of players remotely directing individual squads in a platoon while an umpire managed the opposition. I used WW2 as the default setting, although also suggested Vietnam as a possible ready alternative, particularly as RAFM has published Charlie Company, a set of platoon level rules which does exactly this.
However, I've also brainstormed some other ideas for games which should fit into a similar format, namely:
The Raid scenario - in this scenario, the Blue forces (the players) have an assigned objective which has been reconnoitred in detail in advance. A good example is Operation Deadstick. There would be a pre-game sequence in which the players would review intelligence on the target prior to the game itself and make their plans accordingly. This would include information on the assets at their disposal and any rules of engagement in force. Rather than each player having a brief assigned by the umpire, the mission commander briefs the players in advance prior to the game going into effect.
The Siege scenario - this is even easier for the umpire, and I think works well with only one or two players. Take a look at the game Zulus on the Ramparts by Victory Point. It is relatively easy to program the Zulu attacks and reactions, and it is up to the players to co-ordinate their available resources in terms of men, firepower, ammo and water. In this scenario, the players are likely to be operating in a much more restricted area, while under attack by Red force. There is less of an issue with communications.
The Convoy scenario - Blue force is escorting vital supplies from A to B. It is up to the players to decide on the marching order and any variations in the route as well as how armed forces defending the convoy are to be deployed. There is a broader geographical element here, which reverts to tactical play as and when enemy forces are encountered. The players know where they are going but have no idea what they will meet on the way. A good example is a WW2 convoy across the North Atlantic. Another example would be Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem with plenty of pilgrims to protect.
Team Yankee, and the armoured missions outlined therein, plus also own Steven Zaloga's Red Thrust, and The Bear Went Over The Mountain (Soviets in Afghanistan). All offer plenty of food for thought.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Monday, 3 June 2013
|A grunt's eye view of the Pacific war.|
However, the Warhammer for Adults blog has inspired me to try an experiment, and it goes something like this: war gamers have constantly striven to deliver a more realistic experience to commanders - the average tabletop general enjoys a 1000 foot view of the battlefield coupled with a high degree of information on and responsiveness from his units. He has information and capabilities at his fingertips which historical commanders could only dream of. How then, to provide a player with that ground level experience that eludes them in a conventional war game?
Having played a lot of RPGs, it then struck me that an interesting format might be one in which each player controls one unit or command on the same side, while the umpire manages the opposition. I once read a starter set of miniature rules in the late Paddy Griffiths' Sandhurst Wargames volume which suggested a one sided scenario with players controlling US Marines attacking Japanese positions in the Pacific. The umpire ran the Japanese. This scenario works quite well because the Japanese were often on the defensive in the island battles, waiting for the Americans to come to them. They were in dug in, static positions, making them easier for an umpire to control.
Some of the scenarios I already own would, I felt, work quite well as one-sided games, with the umpire programming the enemy. I was thinking initially here of WW2, with each player taking on the role of a single squad. One player would take the HQ section and be responsible for the overall direction of the platoon. Enemy units would only appear if they were spotted or fired on the players. Even when shooting at the players, they might not necessarily appear on the table - in the Vietnam War rules Charlie Company (RAFM), only muzzle flashes appear on the table until soldiers can get 'eyes on' an enemy. Vietnam is, in fact, an excellent conflict for such an approach, as the opposition was frequently hidden and adopted a hit-and-run strategy to fighting.
Take this a step further. I enjoy the luxury of having a dedicated gaming space where a table could be permanently set up. Here I can remove the 1000 foot general element. By having the players not in fact present at all, I can provide the platoon commander and squad leaders only with the information that they could see - three or four digital photos per turn taken from the eye level of their miniature should be sufficient. This would limit a squad leader to a ground zero view point. Players would base their orders to their men on what they could see and hear and nothing else. Similarly, the platoon commander will have to rely on runners bringing in reports from other squads out of ear shot to get an idea of what is really going on.
Players will not even need to know the rules of the game, as all this will be managed by the umpire. They will just need to email their squad orders to the umpire every turn, and dispatch written orders by runner to their CO. Similarly, a radio or runner to company HQ becomes vital if the platoon is to tap into off-table artillery support (and those who have seen the excellent Russian film 9th Company will know about the sort of disasters that can happen when radios get hit). This whole approach injects that critical element of fog of war into the exercise which is missing from a conventional table top game, and delivers a much more 'ground zero' experience of modern infantry combat than Warhammer 40,000.
I'm going to mull this over some more, including looking at some possible rules and scenarios. The other item that occurs to me is that players probably ought not to be able to communicate with each other during the game, as this would undermine that vital 'fog of war' ingredient, hence requiring a team of players who may not see each other regularly. Ideally, players would not even email each other, as in WW2 communications would be via runner and runners can get hit / pinned down.
One final word on this: I may inject more of a roleplaying element into the game by using Platoon Forward from Too Fat Lardies to help populate our fictional platoon with personalities other than the players themselves, particularly if I don't manage to recruit the full complement of three or four players to the project. More on this as it develops and if it gains traction.