Both the Crossfire minefield rule and the Hit The Dirt bogging rule are special mechanisms using 1d6 and special outcomes. I think it is possible to align these with the normal infantry to hit dice, and without unduly affecting play. Since I’m revising the anti-tank rules to use the normal infantry to hit dice, this is a good time to tweak the bogging and anti-tank mine rules.
Adam remains keen on ‘O’ Group, and has put together an Eastern Front scenario called “Collective Farm 643”. Chris took the attacking Soviets and I had the defending Germans. Adam was umpire and provide all the kit.
Summary: Over quick. The Soviets took the direct route to the objectives and got hammered.
I was reading David Cole’s account of his time in the 2nd Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers in Sicily and Italy and got kind of fascinated by the Battle at Lemon Bridge (18-19 July 1943). Part of the reason for my fascination is that, for a long time, I couldn’t find the bridge, at least it isn’t on modern maps.
While I mull over the feedback I got about my previous post to revise Crossfire’s tank rules (Anti-tank Rating – Revising Crossfire Anti-tank Rules 5), I thought I’d share my thinking on infantry anti-tank weapons. Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks, PIATs, and their poor relation, the anti-tank rifle.
Recently we play tested my S12 Fighting Across the River scenario for Tilly’s Very Bad Day (which I’ll post about soon). After the game Adam and I got to talking about the premise of the scenario and Adam encouraged me to take a closer look at some 17th century battles that feature a river crossing. In this post I look at four such battles and look for patterns in four factors: (1) crossing points; (2) forces present; (3) forces engaged; and (4) the battle result. The nature of the river crossings includes whether the river was fordable and how many crossings there were. A lot of men might have been nearby but only a minority were actively engaged, which suggests whether these battles were ‘nasty fights’ or ‘grand battles’. The result of battle is on the list because the defenders of a river crossings had a habit of ‘retreating once things get serious’.
Brett Simpson sent through a report for his recent Crossfire mini-campaign set in the Pacific. The campaign is a series of three games, each using Mac’s Missions. The report features his 20mm Australian Imperial Force (AIF), Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and Special Naval Landing Forces (SNLF) (i.e. Naval Marines). All words and photos are Brett’s.
My big history book case is in the living area and not surprisingly my wife gets annoyed when the books get messy. Recently I tidied it up. Aside from the fact it took hours – which I didn’t enjoy – I found it interesting what this filing task highlighted about my interests. Aside from my enduring interest in all things Spanish and Portuguese, it turns out I have quite a big interest in World War II (okay, not so surprising), and a huge interest in Colonial Empires with a side order of Cold War.
Ilya asked me about Vallejo Triads which combine a base, mid tone, and highlight paint. Foundry made this triad painting style famous amongst wargamers with sets including a shade, main colour, and highlight. Reaper now do the same and probably others.
Unfortunately there is no official source of Vallejo triads and Google didn’t reveal a comprehensive Vallejo triad system. So I pulled a set together from what I could find. These triads use only the Vallejo Model Color range of paints – I think that makes life simpler, certainly for me since I don’t use other paints.
The triads are listed in Vallejo sequence order for the mid tone. Choose your desired mid tone then look up suitable base and high light colours.
I was looking at the tokens I designed in for Using Political Tokens for Military-Political Climate in an Insurgency Campaign and realised they weren’t very easy to make. They are round and double sided. Doh! So I decided to redesign them as square. And that led to doing the entire Campaign on an A4 sheet of paper. This campaign can be for any insurgency but I have the Portuguese Colonial War in mind. This is the third iteration on Simulating Politics in a Wargaming Campaign with Political Tokens – an idea I borrowed from Kapitan Kobold
The wargaming community is full of myths that seem to perpetuate through the generations. Previously I poked at the the unconvincing myth about Visigothic Gardingi being unarmoured skirmishing cavalry, today I look at the ‘coffin’ shaped shield of the Goths. Early Gothic, specifically Visigothic, warriors are believed by some to have carried an odd ‘coffin’ shaped shield. It isn’t true. Germanic warriors only carried round, oval and hexagonal shields. Shapes that were used from the 1st century through the Fall of Rome. Round and oval shields continued in use into the dark ages.
Aidan Boustred has been running a Normandy Campaign using Crossfire. My wargaming group are not involved because we couldn’t sign up to the commitment of regular games, but as a one off Aidan asked us to play Game 7. The 5th Duke of Cornwall’s attack towards Feugret and Orbois with 2nd Battalion, 2nd Panzer Grenadier Regiment defending.
Summary: Big game but fun. Being part of a campaign gave the game features that were not possible in a one shot. I’d say it was a bloody draw.
I’ve been using flags as my terrain objective markers for a long time. And recently I made some more for New Zealand, UK/GB, India, USA, Germany (replacement), Japan, China and Australia.