Historic games and Objectives

[Smiley Miley 66]

After playing the Germans on the Sunday afternoon, I did notice something missing from the games ?
With the change of the rules, like the Objectives, how they are placed, the scenery is now placed by both sides. You now can make a last stand with 2 bases on an objective etc.
So realised there were something's missing from these historical based games ?
Purpose for the defenders and possibly the attackers as well ?
So, with this in mind, do we just run a game bringing in what ever needs to be on the table and look like a well run game ? Everything being as it should etc...
Or do we make a game, yes something like Gold beach, spoiler alert ‼️ the Germans lose ! But they can make the British pay for every move ?
So with Gold beach, other than the initial defences once they are displaced all they could be lost ! But we know this isn't always the case ? So could they retreat to a more defensive position ? Dig in ? Then maybe make a platoon stand around that position?
The reason I say this, is with the prospect of doing this Monte Casino game, the outcome is sort of written in the history books ? Or is it ?
So the prospected game, the allies need to take the Abbey ? End of game ?
So what I am proposing is to have the usual objectives on the board?
But the Germans also have "secondary objectives" that they must defend ?
Some things that might be key to the attacking force isn't always naturally a key point for the defenders ?
Quick example. Cross roads, to the attackers is a main point of access. But the defenders might be better off defender the nearest building square to this, as it can deny the attacker the cross roads but is a much better place to actually defend ?
If it makes something more of the game from a defenders point of view ? Then they will part of the game !
But remember we have to make these things simple, no complications !
So what do others think ?
Miles

[martin goddard]

I think you are suggesting secondary objectives for historical re-fights such as D day games.
That should work fine Miles.
Each scenario can have a varied amount of objectives.
The skill will be putting them where you want the fighting to be.
This means identifying each square that you want the two forces to fight over and giving them a value.
On a more complex level you might pair objectives so that they are worth more than double as  a pair than each on their own.
e.g If a player hlds A = 2D6  B= 3D6  but A+B= 6D6


Good luck with the idea Miles.

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

The alternative (e.g. as we did with the Crete mountain pass rearguard game) is to give victory points for how many turns you hold out at certain positions / prevent the enemy getting there. As you may not be able to hold onto Objectives as such for the whole game when you on the "destined to lose" side

Simon

[John Watson]

I think the existing objective rules in PBI works for one off, non-historical games. However for scenarios such as Gold beach or Monte Cassino or whatever, it would be best to look at the history. What were the British objectives at Gold Beach on 6th June? To get off the beach (in a forward direction) as quickly as possible? For the Germans it was probably to keep the Tommies on the beach until the much vaunted counter attack could be launched. So perhaps the scenario rules should be written with that in mind. Rather than take this crossroads or that bunker, it could be to get so many tanks or infantry bases beyond row X or off such and such a road. To achieve this it may be expedient to capture the crossroads and/or destroy the bunker, but these become the secondary objective.

Much as I am not a fan of SPI and Avalon Hill games they did usually reflect well the primary objective in their games. Often it would be get so many units off the eastern edge of the board before turn X for the attacker and for the defender simply to stop that happening.
John

[Colonel Kilgore]

I think I'm agreeing with you, John i.e. state the overall objectives (small "o") and let the player work out how best to achieve them.

Simon

[Smiley Miley 66]

Thank you John and Simon, this is why I thought I d put it up as a subject to discuss ? Keep them coming ?
Miles