I’ve been musing about Japanese HMG under Crossfire. The official rules make them expensive rifle squads. Personally I challenge both the reduced firepower and increased close combat ability of these heavy machine guns.
|
|||||
Category: World War II
In World War II the Japanese issued three 5cm Mortars to every Rifle Platoon. Standard Crossfire makes the Knee Mortar rather useless. John Moher reinstates them as an effective piece of combat kit. And I do the same, but in a much simpler fashion. 
The Spanish wargaming company escenografia epsilon make Stalingrad’s famous Barmaley fountain in 15mm. I purchased a pre-painted version and it has featured in some of my Crossfire games set on the Eastern Front. 
This post is long overdue. Roland painted the last of the Fallschirmjaeger in June 2011 and I got them based soon afterwards. Tragically I haven’t used them in a game of Crossfire. I guess I don’t often create Crossfire scenarios for German paratroopers. Perhaps when I have some Kiwis to fight them in the Italian Campaign; I should bump the New Zealanders up in the priority list. Anyway, here are my Fallschirmjaeger. 
Brett Simpson play tested Mac’s Crossfire Missions v3 using his Pacific War kit. So this was a pick up game for Crossfire with Japanese facing Australians. Summary: fun and exciting game. Brett’s Australians won, making a successful Withdrawal in the face of a Japanese Breakthrough attempt. All words are Brett’s. 
Artillery is essential in Crossfire, so to support my Russian Rifle Battalion I have forward observers for a variety of calibers of weapon. In addition I’ve got the artillery pieces as heavy weapons stands. This post covers field guns, howitzers, infantry guns, heavy mortars, Katyushas, anti-tank guns, and anti-aircraft guns. The Soviets were keen on firing direct so having the models makes sense. Admittedly I haven’t used many except the anti-tank guns. 
I’ve taken the liberty to update my previous post on Steven’s Russian Rifle Battalion for a number of reasons: They have done good service; I received them, from my mate Roland in New Zealand, on 15 November 2001. I rebased them using Sand, Flat Earth paint, and Dry Brushing I took the opportunity to give them the proper Battalion Code = “R” 
Chris Harrod and I played a game of Mac’s Crossfire Missions v3. So a pick up game for Crossfire with the option of reinforcements. Summary: Good tense game. I conducted a fighting withdrawal in the face of massive Soviet firepower and took the game. Reinforcements gave more options (good) and did not unbalance the game (also good). I wax lyrical about the game in the conclusions and observations section at the end. 
A frequent suggestion for Macs Missions v2 is to give the attackers more troops. In v2 both sides get the same order of battle. Attackers have to capture enemy territory and are likely to take losses in the attempt. In compensation they get bonus victory points for achieving their more challenging mission. In the new version of Mac Missions (v3) both sides get the option of reinforcements but taking reinforcements makes victory harder. Or, put another way, taking more troops offsets any victory point bonus. 
I’m planning on having railway lines and roads on table for games using my, as yet unwritten rules, Deep Battle rule set. But do I need them? This is basically what Richard asked in a comment about my post Operational Terrain 3: Experimenting on a 4 Inch Hex Grid. Richard asked “do your roads/railways have any game significance? If they don’t you could take the bold step of forgetting them.” I think they are essential. By coincidence I recently read “Thunder in the East” by Evan Mawdsley and if anything this reinforced my opinion that a set of Operational 
My Terrain Experiment on a 4 Inch Hex Grid convinced me that my existing hills were too big. I need some tiny hills to fit within 4 inch hexes. The context is that I want to try some operational level wargames on a mat with a 4 inch hex grid. This is for my, as yet unwritten, Deep Battle rule set. 
Logistics was one the criteria I used in my Review of Wargaming Rules I could use for the Operational Level of War. To be considered Operational the game includes rules to penalise troops that are out of supply. So Deep Battle, my as yet unwritten Operational Level wargaming rules, has to have a logistical system. The game systems I reviewed offer lots of inspiration for my own logistical system. 
Any long time reader of my blog will know I’m a fan of Crossfire. Crossfire’s initiative system makes it the most intense wargaming experience I’ve ever had. Even if you are the other guy, waiting to have your turn, you are actively involved and can’t afford to lose interest. And your turn comes around pretty quick. I want to bring some of that intensity into Deep Battle, my as yet unwritten Operational level wargame. I want intensity and I think that needs some kind of initiative or impulse system. 
Things are shaping up in my head for my proposed Deep Battle rule set. One of the key decisions is what game resolution to pitch the game at. Obviously Deep Battle has to be Operational – that is the whole point of the exercise. But, unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. In fact I think Deep Battle has to work at two game resolutions: Front Operations and Strategic Operations. 
What is this relatively recent thing with Steven and hexes? My mate Chris is the hex-meister of the universe but normally I prefer free form tables without a grid. So how come I’ve gone all-hexy e.g. my recent maps for the Battle of Kharkov (10km Hexes; 20km hexes) and operational terrain experiments (River Templates, MDF River, Experimenting, Felt Rivers, Felt Railways)? A grid offers a handful of advantages which I think are particularly apt for Operational level wargaming. I’m not the only one who thinks so. When I did my Review of Wargaming Rules I could use for the Operational |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2001-2019 Steven Thomas - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
|||||