Monthly Archives: December 2017

Finnish Civil War

Boardgames, Review

Set up and have started playing another Brian Train post-WW1 game, Finnish Civil War.  Good game.

It’s a smaller scale game, focusing on companies and battalions. There is a separate set of rules for regiments/brigades, but the former best fits the conflict. While it follows the rules template used in Konarmiya and Freikorps, there is conflict-specific chrome.

The Events Phase not only has a die roll for random events, but also a determination for peace talk progress between the Soviets and Germans. The progress of these talks can trigger German intervention, or Russian withdrawl.

The Operations Phase uses chit pulls, rather than I-Go, U-Go based on highest morale initiative. Each side gets three operations segments. Units may either move overland, use rail movement, or conduct combat. Overland movement is very, very slow given weather and terrain.  Zones of control only effect rail movement.

As with the other games, Political Rules effect morale which, in turn, effects operations and combat.

The companies have low combat strengths. So far, developing high odds attacks has been difficult. The Finns can use replacement points to build battalions. This should be a real advantage, and one I am looking forward to seeing in action.

Victory is determined by which side controls the most cities and towns.

Here’s a picture depicting the start of Turn 3.

Time Won’t Let Me

Boardgames, Sessions,

Great song……where is the horn section?

My attempt to combine Konarmiya and Freikorps can now be considered a failure. But, not from a lack of trying, no matter how misguided my obstinance was. In Freikorps, the game begins on the August 1 weekly turn and assumes Warsaw has fallen, with only scattered remnants of the Polish national army still fighting

The problem was Warsaw. Never captured it. The Poles held out, and with only four turns to take Germany, it was just too much. I did advance the Konarmiya Cavalry to the German border, but it wasn’t going to be enough.

There were Spartacist uprisings, and the French forces were withdrawn by a skittish government. A German advance into Poland was forbidden as a condition of Entente involvement. Despite these favorable outcomes, the Soviets just didn’t have the time.

Too many Soviet units were still falling back from the North, and also trying to hold off desperate bypassed Poles trying to get to Warsaw, or just west of it.

Their one excuse is that the Polish units, though out of supply, retained their full defensive factors. There offensive strength was halved. As long as they didn’t attack, remained stacked and were able to skirt Soviet units, the Poles had a good chance of making their way west. With the bulk of the Soviet army surrounding Moscow, the outliers just didn’t have the strength for attacks greater than 2:1, and lacked the number of units to surround and prevent retreats.

Still, an interesting exercise and one that I will try again.

Freikorps Map is the “inset” bottom left. Used Warsaw as common point of entry, along with hexes to the North. Konarmiya units advancing to Posen. Warsaw holds out, and stragglers head West.

Warfighter vs. Ranger

Boardgames, Review,

Title reminds me of…….

Enjoying another session with Warfighter.

Started thinking about one of its modern tactical mission predecessors, Ranger.

What a difference, and not just the programmed text aspect of Ranger, but in the treatment of mission planning and execution.

Warfighter focuses on team selection. Sure, Ranger has that planning aspect also, but it goes into greater depth as the soldiers literally “acquire” skills during their pre-mission refresher training. In Warfighter, they come with their skills.

Ranger’s planning phase also involves route selection, and not simply blind movement to contact. Warfighter’s card allocation and flow allows little in the way of route planning. You can avoid a certain piece of terrain or place, but at the cost of time loss. That’s an acceptable abstraction, but Ranger focuses more on avoiding contact. After all its subtitle is “Modern Patrolling Operations.”

Warfighter is all about combat. As one reviewer over at Boardgame Geek put it, and I quote rather loosely, it’s “the analog version of Call To Duty”. Ranger’s combat is not as involved or relentless.

The tension in Ranger is “what might I run into next”. The tension in Warfighter is “how many of these bastards am I going to have to shoot next”.

Apples and Oranges. But, wouldn’t it be nice to combine the two?

Grinding Again

Boardgames, Review, World War II

Have also set up Bloody Buna. This treatment of the New Guinea Campaign appeared in The Wargamer Magazine way back in 1979. The game has a primary map covering the main area of operations, and then a secondary map covering the Milne Bay area. Units can move between the two utilizing Transit Boxes.

The rules address the salient characteristics of the campaign: horrendous terrain and weather. Supply and movement are defined by both.

Each time a unit attempts to move more than one-half of its allowance, it must take an Attrition Check. On a die roll of 1-4, everthing is fine. However, roll a D5, the unit loses a strength (or “hit” according to the rules), but can proceed. Roll a D6, lose a “hit” and no more movement. In addition, during rain turns, units add a +1 modifier. Only jungle qualified units receive a -1 modifier when attempting an Attrition Check.

Supply is also limited by terrain and weather. Supply line length varies by type of supply unit, and whether at full or half strength. Supply units can provide support for a limited number of turns. Units operate at full strength for three turns, supporting a maximum of 5 combat units per turn, and then at half strength for another three turns, with, again, a maximum of 5 combat units supported.

Artillery can attack alone using indirect fire, that strength varying by range but limited by line-of-sight.

There are also rules for air support, airlift and amphibious landings. Haven’t dug into those yet.

There are three scenarios, as well as a full campaign game. I’m trying the smallest, which focuses solely on the Japanese advance on Milne Bay.

More Russo-Polish

Boardgames, Sessions

Finished up Konarmiya.  Was playing for an intended outcome, because I want to play Freikorps, Konarmiya’s sequel.  Decided to focus on attacking from south, with forces in the northern portion of the map tying down Polish units around Minsk.  Result was a marginal Soviet victory.

Freikorps assumes Warsaw has fallen, and the Soviets invade Germany.  Well, Warsaw didn’t fall, but it is under siege, and that’s a good enough place to start.

The rationale for continuing play is a situation so dire the victorious Entente Powers will ask for German help in stopping the Godless Red Hordes,  and the Soviets have enough troops and material to mount an invasion while besieging Warsaw.  Why Not?

Basic rules are the same for both games, with slightly different chrome.

I have to pay more attention to the reinforcement rules.  I allowed Polish National Army brigades to arrive next to a headquarters.  Wrong, only Polish Legion units can do that.  The former must arrive in cities/towns.  This helped the Poles recover from continuous Soviet attacks.

Also messed up the retreat rules.  Had periodic lapses where retreating units were not disrupted.  Disruption is nasty (cannot attack or move and defend at 1/2 strength), and hard to  shrug off (die roll of 6 with minimal mods).  Again, this oversight benefited the Poles.

Here’s two afterthought photos.

Soviet Offensive Develops Turn 6
Warsaw Besieged. Polish Units In North Pull Back. Northern Soviets Stare Slack-Jawed.

Russo-Polish

Boardgames, Review

Have been playing Konarmiya (Kon). Russo-Polish War game on a smaller scale than Red Star, White Eagle (RSWE).

Same topic, but different games. RSWE is classic GDW using a basic Europa-Type-System. You can read about Tim and My adventures playing this fun game here.

Kon starts the action somewhat (chronologically) later than RSWE, and interjects generic aircraft, armor and artillery units, random political events, as well as variable reinforcements and replacements into the game mix.

However, at the heart of Brian Train’s system is the interaction of a lack of ZOCs, voluntary combat, a limited radius for command and control, defensive counterattacks, as well as the ability of “shock” units to continue successful attacks.

Quite a mix.

While RSWE allowed special units the ability to exploit attacks, the rest of Kon’s – can I use the term “Fundamental Chrome” – makes this a game with different feel and approach.

Part of the feel is the smaller scale and accompanying higher counter density. Movement rates are not as dramatic, especially after successful combat, but still significant. The lack of ZOCs allows operational mobility, but that mobility is restrained by the limited command radius of the headquarters units, and, by extension, supply effects.

The generic artillery and armor units provide combat die modifiers and in no way detract from game-play due to a lack of historical designation.

I’m enjoying this game. While RSWE is an old, old friend; this game seems like a new friend.