PBI away day 25th May at Entoyment

[martin goddard]

That went well 



martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

That's good to hear, Martin.

Hopefully someone else turned up too?

Simon

[John Watson]

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

[John Watson]

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

[Richardwills]

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

[Smiley Miley 66]

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?

[Richardwills]

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

[John Watson]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

[martin goddard]

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.

[Smiley Miley 66]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

Simon

[martin goddard]

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

[Smiley Miley 66]

Did anyone take any pictures yesterday ?
Miles

[Smiley Miley 66]

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