A fabulous afternoon/evening yesterday at Julian's combining plenty of discussion and chatter about a range of topics, a delicious meal and a playtest game using the Wargames Research Group 1925–1950 rules.
 |
| Germany late '44-early '45: a Russian advance in force. |
Julian had wanted to do a test-game using the rules; a set that he had used in his teens and early 20s and suspected would be a 'viable' set for the sort of level of Second World War games that he'd like to do. Back in August, we had a go using Blitzkrieg Commander, but soon decided that they were not for us. For me the main negatives were biggies: the way the rules handle command and control with command rolls and completely random blunders as well as the combat system of hits and saves. Julian was not enamoured by these mechanics either, but the key blocker for him was the scale/organisation of the game into 'units'. He wants a tank to be a tank, with different effects if fired on from front, side or rear. He previously had this using the Wargames Research Group 1925–1950 rules. These had 'failed' previously due to the inability to replicate attacks by less-good armour against superior types—more on this later.
The Wargames Research Group 1925–1950 rules; an oldie, fondly remembered by Julian, never played by myself—would they still be 'in play' after this game?
Julian's scenario of the game was the same as we had used for the game using Blitzkrieg Commander, a fictitious encounter set in late '44-early '45. A large, advancing Soviet force of infantry and several T-34 85s against (basically unlimited numbers of each, but coming on a few at a time) against a smaller, but reasonably well-equipped German defensive force of a Panther, a Panzer IV, a 28 mm sPzB 41, a panzerfaust & crew and around a half-company of infantry. I had a vivid image of the scenario as it was reminiscent to me of the wonderful series of games played recently by Jon on his Grymauch's Solo Wargaming Blog (final part here, work backwards to see the others). Interestingly, Jon had used Blitzkrieg Commander.
 |
| The Russians advanced, initially down the road, then diverting two tanks to their left. |
 |
| Seeing that enticing bit of side armour, I 'unveiled' my ace, the Panther, hull down in the wooded area (as well as some of the accompanying panzergrenadiers. Unfortunately it failed to hit. |
 |
| More Russians enter the battle area, as the former lead tanks head around the buildings... |
 |
| ... straight into the spider's web! |
 |
| Scratch one T-34. In my excitement at this single 'victory', I made my first and biggest mistake, but more on that later. |
 |
| More good news, if you are the German defenders, as the new lead T-34, no. 47 as it happens, is knocked out by the Panther. |
 |
| "But still, they come" (apologies to Jeff Wayne). |
 |
| 'Sneaking' around the hill, a shot at the Pz.Kpfw IV fails to strike home. |
 |
| Despite numerous targets and selecting those that were stationary, the Panther could not repeat the dose. Mind you, the Russians too missed several times—we were both rolling 1s and 2s, using the same die and were beginning to think that it was 'broken'! |
 |
| Time to bring some of the infantry into action. They missed and were knocked out by the right-most T-34. |
 |
| As was the Pz.Kpfw IV! The crew paid dearly for my mistake. I should have retired/retreated after the initial success, rather than getting excited about taking out more of the Russian armour. |
 |
| Not gonna make the same mistake twice though. 'Saddle up!'. Time to move to another position while we could. |
 |
| End of the game. A Soviet strategic victory, clearing the defenders with losses near even: two T-34s against a Pz.Kpfw IV and some infantry. I think we all know which side could handle even that kind of trade-off for longer! |
A really enjoyable game. Enough interest and challenge for both players and a plausible result. We could have rolled on to another table (as Jon did over ten tables in his excellent series), but it was enough for us to be content with the rules in playability and realism.
The added detail of individual tanks, specific classes for armament, two levels of armour and small groups of infantry had not added a great deal of complexity, but had boosted enjoyment and scale of approximation. We used the nominal, base scale of 1:1000 (1 mm representing 1 m), so there was a large degree of 'suspension of disbelief' regarding the size, especially the depth of the vehicles. This did not cause any problems at all. Julian had the fine notion of considering the depth to represent an area which the target occupies in a particular 'bound', a concept that appealed to me. Adapting thinking from naval wargaming, now that I think of it.
What was different between this game and the experience in his late teens-20s?
We suspect it was 'youthful exuberance': a lack of historical perspective and excitement at building numerous of the 'sexy' German tanks and then having them all on the table. An attack by T-34s against equal numbers of well positioned and equipped Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers and Jagdpanthers didn't work. The latter simply stood back and cleaned up the T-34s. In our game I coulda destroyed four T-34s (shoulda, oughta according to me!) for the loss of the one Panzer IV. It was looking a bit concerning for the Russians at 2-0 and should have remained as such or better if I had got the Pz.Kpfw IV out of harm's way when I had the chance. Mind you, there was that hit on the Panther that failed to penetrate, but that is another story...!
Might-have-beens aside, it was success and an initial tick of approval for an oldie but a goodie!
Rules
Wargames Research Group 1925–1950, 1973 with amendments of a 2nd Edition Prototype (1975).
Scales
Tanks and vehicles 1:1 (although the latter were a bit under-represented due to limited availability at this stage).
Infantry 'elements' of four figures (men) representing part of a section.
Figures
Russian
T-34s: Airfix ready-made HO-OO T-34 Tank
Infantry: Airfix Russian Infantry (1964)
German
Panther: Airfix 1/76 Panther kit
Panzer IV: Airfix 1/76 Panzer IV kit
Tractor: 1/72 Airfix kit
Half-track: Matchbox 1/76 PK-83 Sd.Kfz 251/1 Hanomag
Infantry: Airfix German Infantry (1961)
Ah those models kits and figures are a real blast from the past:).
ReplyDeleteI have to confess to being a big BKCII fan, but have tweaked the rules to suit my sort of game. So hits stay on and artillery or mortar hits cause automatic suppression for example. The Blunders table many people don't use but I like it, especially when playing solo as I often do. I find the armour save reductions for flan or rear attacks are fine, but again that's just me.
The main thing is finding a set of rules you enjoy, which you appear to be on the way to doing:).
Yeah Steve, it's great to use things in a wargame that I played with as a kid (or even just built and put on the shelf). Not that any of these used to be mine, but Julian does have a couple of others that were.
DeleteI could not agree more about finding rules that suit. You are not alone in using/liking Blitzkrieg Commander, that is for sure!
For some reason most of the more popular sets are less popular with me. It's not a case of 'taking a contrary position' or 'trying to be different', just that mechanics that make them appeal to most seem to be those that appeal less to me? :)
There are plenty available and always scope to tweak anything as you have done yourself.
Interesting to see those old rules used again along with those Airfix models. From memory the rules used written orders.
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping by and commenting Peter.
DeleteBy rights they do, but they are 'of a general nature only', so we just assumed them in this case: Russians attack on a broad front and Germans defend/delay. We could have introduced some rolls to order troops to debouch to the German right and for the Germans to get outa there, but just let it happen. We may be more prescriptive in later scenarios... or not!
An interesting, dynamic game!
ReplyDeleteThank you Valentine. It was a really enjoyable game and a positive play-test.
DeleteVeru interesting battle! Can you say that this rules still actual and interesting in 2021 (for examplein comparison with Forceon Force)?
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting the blog and commenting.
DeleteThe rules are interesting for us, but I think most people prefer mechanics that I do not.
As they only extend to 1950 they have no direct applicability for trying to represent modern warfare.