RFCM

That went well  :)



martin :)

That's good to hear, Martin.

Hopefully someone else turned up too?

Simon

Indeed. It threw up a few issues.
The use or perhaps overuse of smoke. Perhaps it should deviate side to side as well as back and front, or instead of back and front. Perhaps smoke dispersal rolls should be at the start of each players turn for all the smoke on the board.
Should the AP for distant units be automatically rerolled if 4,5,6, rather than at the request of the opponent. (The rationale being that the opponent would ask for it anyway so why waste time asking.)
Are assaults too difficult? I had 4 or 5 assaults, I think, and none of them succeeded. I know I rolled some rotten dice, but a lot of the time the damage was done from firing on the way in. I felt I had to crowd a square to have any chance of success, so that meant that the defender got to fire 3 more times than me before the assault went in (1 opportunity, 2 here they come). The attacker can only count 6 bases in the assault but the defender can have more than 6 bases, not for the assault but to absorb casualties.
I throw these ideas out there. What did others think?
John

I haven't explained the assault bit very well.
If I want to avoid overcrowding I must rely on 3 bases to assault. The defender can crowd the the assaulted square with 6 bases that can fight (and more that can't) in the assault. If I use more than 3 bases I suffer penalties from shooting (at least 3 times). The defenders bases will die on a 1 usually, as assaults are mainly against objectives and buildings. The attackers will usually die on 1 or 2. Is this too demanding on the attacker or not?
John

Very enjoyable day.  Couple of thoughts from me.  Firstly, to support John's idea that ALL smoke should be tested for dispersal at the start of each turn; and, as discussed, distinguish between "light" smoke from smaller support mortars and heavy smoke from artillery.

Secondly,  two things that didn't feel quite right to me - first, and I think in a similar vein to John's comments, the games I was in seemed to have a lot of packing of squares.  My gut feeling is that doctrinally, it might have been what the Russians or Japanese did, but not sure other nations would have done that.  Not sure how you stop that or punish it.  Second, the punishment for failing morale i.e. five dice rather than four, seems to lead to more chance of wholesale collapse.  Seems brutal to me and not sure how or if that varies between say veteran and raw troops.

Richard

First of all. Thank you for All turning up.
A quick game or two to catch up on a day off turned out to be a good day out.
Smoke. I think there should be a distinction between light Mortar smoke and heavier "Artillery" smoke ?
Mortar especially 2in/50mm should last one enemy turn ? Fired in your turn. Blocks off one of the 3 squares it may or may not intended to hit. Enemy turn. Then clears automatically when you clear other smoke in your next turn. This then uncovers that blocked square, and obviously the enemy get opportunity shots firsts so this then might occur. But if it allowed you to "sneak" up to within one square without being seen then the smoke has done its job !
Now Assaults and this now as "Standard Pratice" of overcrowding of the Squares.
We never use to do this until a year or two ago, only if you ever had Japs or Russians?
Now it's standard practice to put everything in the square, before you assault, 6/7/8 even 9 bases or more even !  to absorb the fire taken then hopefully have 6 bases to assault with. Even now if you fail with these, as you have so many bases in the square, you can absorb the damage and ready to assume the assault again.
When you use to failed you were "pinned" so you couldn't just go again ?
So as John says something has changed or is the assault to brutal ? 2/3/4 years ago we would never "overcrowd" a square so consistently !
You might put in an extra base or two to either/or take the hit or  give a bigger punch ?
But now unless you have 6 or more bases in a square then you are seemingly "not with it" and your going to loose that square !
Or is this just how the game has Evolved?
The scenery set up is a lot better. I didn't feel like a "castle"  or a "direct path way" was made to any of the objectives. As a defender in both games I had to mix up my templates so got both Defensive pieces and open pieces rather than all defensive! Not berthing made it easier to do this, as pieces do have a staggered feel (more realistic look)and better placing rather than making lines of defence.
Because of this people seemed to be using more different "types"  of terrain pieces, we had 5/6 types rather than all woods/ all buildings with an odd hill and open piece; so a lot better.
Miles
But still seems to be a limited choice of where you place the objectives? Is this intended?

I've been reflecting overnight on what I posted last night and wanted to expand more, conscious that I am speaking more about the design philosophy rather than specifics, though I have a specific point as well!  I've seen Miles' thoughts as well, with which I entirely agree.

To get over the specific point first: yesterday, I had a tank "immobilised " which I interpreted as lost a track.  So, why couldn't I still use my armaments?  But that may just reflect my ignorance of the rules.

On the more general thrust of my thoughts.  I realise I am new to the group, rules and game.  And, I realise it is a game and one I am enjoying very much.  But I am conscious that I have been guilty myself of overly gaming the rules as we reach the conclusion, specifically yesterday, I just kept throwing troops in, regardless of casualties.  Fine in the game context, but are we tipping the balance too far that way and ignoring reality?  Whilst some armies would willingly sacrifice troops in that way, it is not feasible in others; and where you would be fighting again the next day and the day after.

My comments also reflect a very British way of war where it was drummed into us to look after our mens lives ( which I accept is divorced from the reality of WW2 where platoons were being constantly reconstituted); but also we have lost that second principle of fire and manoeuvre- with LMG gun groups putting down suppressing fire whilst the flanking attack goes in.  Have we gone too far from a degree of small tactics "finesse"?   In that sense, as a company based game, are we reflected other higher level games that point out that you are the Army / Corps / Division commander, so what do you care about battalion tactics.  Are we saying the same thing about platoon / section handling? 

Sorry if this is not helpful - it is meant to be.   And, I have no ready to offer solutions.  But, perhaps we need to punish crowding more somehow - a 5 and 6 kills on the same rather than more dice ( not sure what the differing dice probability of that is!).  More, weighting to preservation of platoons as well as destruction of them?  Fewer objectives, so we are not trying to do too much and losing the lower level tactics and trying to put together all arms support to achieve the objective?

Just my thoughts.  It is difficult to throw these out in a few sentences rather than discussion. Discuss or discard as you see fit.  And to reiterate, I do enjoy the game!

Richard

I like the way you are leading this Richard. I remember my introduction to PBI about 20+ years ago. I think it was the 2nd edition (the last perfect bound set). It was the gazette, which is still on the website somewhere. The scenario was a Normandy hamlet of 6 or 8 buildings around a square and an out lying farmhouse on one flank. The Germans defended with one platoon (rifles and LMGs) and the British attacked with two platoons (rifles and LMGs). The terrain was broken being made up of hedgerows, woods and the aforementioned buildings.
The game was stripped down PBI but it promoted good infantry tactics to produce a win and it worked very well. The terrain was more open than the current games and so you had to make good use of cover and of fire and manoeuvre tactics.
One of the problems/dangers with the current game is that if the defender is well dug in is that you either end up with a protracted fire fight which the defender usually wins or you throw the kitchen sink at the objectives which often leads to wholesale slaughter. Perhaps objectives are receiving to much attention in the VPs and perhaps there should be some reward for ground occupied. This would encourage the defender to consider tactics other than filling up the objectives with troops.
John

Reflecting on my recent games, I'm with you chaps on this.

You have to stack up in one square (as you can't launch a single assault simultaneously from multiple squares, or have people join the staging square and then assault from there if they started off in different squares) and that can be suicidal if the target has automatic weapons.

I also get that the "fire and movement" and leap-frogging by squad may be too granular to work in PBI at the level of the game's ground scale...

So, what do we do with a problem like Assaults...?

Simon

Excellent input.

Thank you.
I will pursue each on a separate  input topic; for clarity.

martin :)
WARNING.  There will now be a blizzard of new topics. ???

Now you have the full attention of us "Proper" PBI players not be sub divided by other projects. So hopefully we can now sort/iron out some of the sticking points. Hopefully get a "full" and "proper" 15mm WW2 game system out there to the public, (even if it uses squares- a mathematical nightmare as someone quoted to me on AK47 Facebook the other day) one that works and hopefully a bit more simplistic for some to use.
Miles

That's hilarious, Miles - what could be simpler than a square? Much easier than working out movements and sight lines without a grid...

Simon

It might be a religious problem with  anything with 4 faces?
The Four horsemen, the four compass directions. Maybe coincidence maybe more?
Also a  square has 1 less face than a pentagon. Pentagon = pentagram = devil worship.  Easily overlooked I think. 
Facebook also says it will cause your D6 to roll zeroes.
Additionally if you mix up the letters in the word "Putin" you have 1 more letter than the number of faces on a square. Just being observational.
Don't forget that using squares makes the game a board game (yawn).

Possibly not though?


Sorted.

martin :)

Did anyone take any pictures yesterday ?
Miles

Right 2 things.
First thing is to show the cost of a Matilda MBT and and the apparent "War Winning" Matilda CS. This is using the up to date rules. V55.

Matilda tanks. Average. 2pdr gun.
Armour 7.  AP 7.  HE 1.
Gun Value: 7 x 3 =21
Armour V:  7 x 2 = 14
Total:                   35
Minus 4 points for HE of 1
Total:                    31 points

Matilda CS. 3 inc Howitzer ( 13pdr )yes the same gun the BEF replaced with the better 18pdr !
Armour 7.  AP 4.  HE 2.
Gun Value:  4 x 3 = 12
Armour V:  7 x 2. = 14
Total:                     26
No adjustments on HE of 2.

The other thing is a 2 gun tank. For the next PBI battleday I would like to field Grant/Lee tanks so we can test how the rules deal with there use ?
But I am still a bit confused on how to point up this type of tank ?
I do see that the American 37mm has an HE of 0. But we need to change that to a 1. As there was a Canister shell,for this gun which was used a lot in the Jungle especially. As the British tanks in Burma were more used in the role as Infantry Support, which is in the vain of PBI.
Factors for the Grant/Lee.
Armour 6.  AP 7/6. HE 1/2
Gun Value: ?
Armour V:  6 x 2 = 12
Total:
Adjustments:
Hopefully Martin can help fill in the gaps ?
Miles

I thought you used the bigger gun for the points value for tanks like the Grant (2 guns) on the basis that you could only fire one main gun or the other each turn. i.e. you can't use both the 37mm and the 75mm in the same turn.
Not having played in your games Miles, what was the issue with the game winning Matilda?
John

Hello John. It says you point up the turreted gun then add 5 points for the other ?
I was hoping to try and clarify that first.
Not sure about the CS version, it's when I said that that particular tank was the CS version( I put the disposable fuel tank on the rear and give it 2 Ariel's so it's different to the MBT's ) Martin said I had a Quote " war winning" tank what next a flame thrower ?  But with the same AP performance of a Boys A/T gun or A/car and the same HE as an early war Pz IV or Sherman ? I did sit there and wonder ?
As I have made the same for the 3 A13's 2 x 2pdr and 1 x CS I have, plus a Crusader CS that supports the "King Force" Churchill's and what combines the 2 bits together. The MK 1 Churchill which was used as a CS support for the MK 111 Churchills with its limited Hull bound 3 inch Howitzer, and a turreted 2pdr in Tunisia.
Must admit if we can get this smoke rule to work better then maybe I/we can use the CS to do it's other job and provide some smoke, as long as it doesn't linger on the table all game ?
I think to have "on table" smoke only available for a short time would be realistic and have "off table" smoke possibly linger a while longer would feel more realistic?
To be able to use " on table" smoke as a "Pin that square" effectively for 1 move ? Or a least nullified for one turn ? Allowing for possible deviation on that square etc. So allowing you hopefully to either manoeuvre past to go forward, get within assault distance or retreat ? Would work for me ? But of course it might not land where you exactly wanted it too ? As you have the 1 -2/3/4/5- 6 landing options. So that again would be realistic to me ?
This is my personal opinion on how smoke should be used ? Wether others think the same ? Or can suggest a better way of using smoke ?
Miles

Hi again,

Not sure what thread I should be posting on now but here goes. And, again, apologies if I am teaching you to suck eggs and for being a Johnny comes lately.

More thoughts on overall philosophy and design.  If everyone wants to keep the three objectives as now designed could we regard that as an "elastic " defence / encounter better. 

As an added option the defender might be able to choose a deliberate defence. In which case the objectives are reduced to two - one main one in row 2 and one forward or on a flank ( say in rows 5 or 6).  I suggest that might have several other consequences for assets and reinforcements. 

Initial thoughts are that the defender must have a single use artillery stonck that does not require a dice throw ( or more favourable odds than 6 to achieve).  That would be propositioned by the defender at the start of the game but not declared and still subject to the under/ over throws.  Second,  the defender also has a single use counter attack asset, again with no need to throw a six (or better probability). Thought can be given to whether this comes from an original unit that is kept off table or a new unit (here we might have a dice role to designate what type of unit the defenders have been able to rustle together - 1/2 recce unit; 3/4 infantry platoon; 5/6/armour).

On the attackers side, again some single use guaranteed assets to reflect the reality of a deliberate attack conducted in bounds. I suggest a guaranteed artillery barrage (perhaps with more squares covered?) and again secretly designated in advance ( so tough if you've picked the wrong area) and subject to under overs.  And also, the deliberate attack would have a single use guaranteed consolidation force if an objective is taken; but I'm not sure whether that comes on at the attackers baseline or can immediately consolidate on position. 

As a final thought, in this scenario we re balance the victory points to reflect winning or defending these objectives.

Thoughts?

Richard

Interesting thoughts, Richard.

I'm not sure about the idea of "guaranteeing" anything, though - that's not really in the spirit of most RFCM games!

Simon

Miles,

I like the idea of on-table smoke lasting for just one turn, and off-table smoke (maybe using bigger markers) having the potential to hang around longer (but no guarantees).

If, as has been suggested earlier, smoke can move once placed, we'd likely need to keep track of wind direction, which might be a complexity too far?

Simon

You chaps are certainly putting the work in.
Thank you.
Richard , you bring a lot of sound military thinking to the discussion. Good.

PBI represents an encounter. Neither side has been given much notice. You have been given 2 hours notice that either A. You must launch an attack  or B.You must conduct a defence. It represents a general chaos front line situation.

"I need someone to slow the enemy ."
"How about we send Captain Wills up the North road and see what he can achieve"
"What will he be facing"
"Don't know"
"What force is coming down the road?"
"Don't know"
"What do we now?"
"Not much"
"Can we allocate artillery and support?"
"To a mobile company?  Probably not. We will do what we can but there are bigger issues we need to concentrate on. Might send in a couple of tanks though?"
"Why don't we wait to see what the enemy are doing?"
"Can't do. We need to slow the enemy moving forward."

There can of course be specific defence or assault scenarios with prepared positions, artillery support etc.

Let's keep playing.

martin :)

If not "guarantee " make that one asset easier to achieve as I said i.e. by a 4,5,6 throw.  The rationale is that is most cases you wouldn't contemplate an attack without support from mortars / artillery. Equally, it is a basic concept of defence that you seek to counter attack when the attacker is most vulnerable after a successful assault.

There is a whole separate debate about the fact that we don't seem to use company heavy weapons very much.  I've yet to see HMGs or medium mortars deployed and used and limited use even of 2" mortars. Miles did use his armoured cars very effectively for HMG support on Wednesday.

Richard

Thanks.  Martin.  Like the scenario idea.  I'm not trying to throw a spanner in the works as I'm conscious of literally being late to the table.  Just trying to be constructive and make an excellent product even better!

Richard

Please carry on Richard. That what play testing is.
On table medium mortars are usually not that effective because getting set up and getting a good field of fire is difficult. The off table HE represents mortars properly set up at distance. The on table mortars are a panic measure.
MMG are quite popular in PBI. Trouble is, in attack they are too slow to keep up.  That means a player needs to know he is going to defend in order to get the most from them. Tricky.


martin :)

Following up Richard's thoughts on assets, how about adding 2d6 to the roll for the 1st turn asset, and 1d6 to the 2nd turn asset. Also make all assets available on a residual 1d6. This would make your favoured assets more likely to succeed, but still not guaranteed. The residual asset use would reflect the "what the f***. We've tried everything else so we may as well try this, however daft it seems" attitude.
John

John we already have a residue 1 D6 for assets when you have used up your allotted D6 per asset, as after playing MexRev it was a very good idea to carry over, that's been in play for the past 3 months ?
Just not on Crete.
Miles

I know Miles, but my suggestion is that you should be able to use the residual 1d6 on ANY asset, not just one of the 3 you chose at the start of the game.
John

Talking of smoke markers. I wonder if Martin could make up a Resin version of my smaller markers, as a lot of people seem to like the size of them ?
Martin would that be possible Please ?
Miles

Here's a (possibly unwelcome  ;)) thought, following on from Richard's counter-attack comments.

Would it be appropriate to allow troops in a "backing up" square behind an assaulted square to launch their own counter-attack in the assaulting player's turn? This would avoid the situation whereby an assaulter can win the objective with one square's assault and then pack it full of troops from another before the defender has a chance to react?

There would have to be some limitations on the "backing up" square e.g. it would have had not to have moved - but we already have the "taking cover" marker to denote that.

Thoughts, chaps?

Simon

I quite like that idea Simon. Would need a bit of work ? Me thinks but would stop a lot of people piling on loads of men to take an objective or at least think twice if the "defender" has a chance to Launch a sudden Counter Attack ASAP.
John I think Martin only wants the residue on the ones you choose in the first place otherwise your assets could become too powerful!
Miles

1d6 is hardly powerful. All it is doing is allowing you more choice in using the residual one. It doesn't give you any extra dice. It just means that having used your 3 chosen assets you can then say Oh well none of those worked so let's try something different.
John

Here are two pictures from the PBI Wednesday games.
I thought i had taken more pictures but maybe not :-[

Elbows belong to Richard. Hands belong to Miles.

martin :)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kR7q0MGd/Jungle-japanese-PBI.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/kR7q0MGd)

(https://i.postimg.cc/HcwTv8p2/Jungle-japanese-PBI-V2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HcwTv8p2)