Warning Order e-magazine No 62 available

[T13A]

Hi

There is a new edition of 'Warning Order' No.62 available.

Cheers Paul

[Steve J]

Not wishing to appear to blow my own trumpet, but there is an article in there on scenario creation for BKCIV by yours truly...

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hello

Link for the baffled https://www.wfhgs.com/wrngorder.html   

GrumpyOldMan

[paulr]

Not wishing to appear to blow my own trumpet, but there is an article in there on scenario creation for BKCIV by yours truly...

An interesting article that covers the key points of scenario design well

Do you use Points or Historical OOB? I tend to use a mix of both.

This is a question I see a lot and find odd. I don't see it as being either or, I always use both.

I use historic OOBs to create the forces for the scenario and Points to ensure that the balance of forces is appropriate for the scenario. If you need to shave points a company or platoon can be 'assigned to another mission' or left out of battle. If you need to add points a suitable company or platoon can be attached or cooperating...

[Raider4]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Well done to Steve - or is it Steven? - J for the article.

[Steve J]

@ Paul: Over they years I've seen plenty wargamers migrating over from say WH40K and somewhat flumoxed by the idea of OOB rather than points to create a scenario. I tend to use historical OOB as a starting point, roughly work out the points for either side and then tweak slightly depending upon the scenario being played.

@ Raider 4: Steve (only a few members of my family call me Steven!).

[Big Insect]

@ Paul: Over they years I've seen plenty wargamers migrating over from say WH40K and somewhat flumoxed by the idea of OOB rather than points to create a scenario. I tend to use historical OOB as a starting point, roughly work out the points for either side and then tweak slightly depending upon the scenario being played.

The whole question of OOBs (& how to use/convert them) came up again and again at Salute from various gamers who were looking to potentially 'migrate' to BKC or CWC from other sets. As did questions around 'creating' your own formations - especially from Flames of War players. I think that the way that GW & Battlefront (in particular) create their army-list booklets does helps new players to a period to create forces quickly and 'legally' - mainly for competition play. But it can stifle creativity and your own research.
The idea that you need to research a formation or army was for some a bit off-putting (which I can understand but found a bit odd, as for me it is half the fun of gaming).
 
However, as an 'ex' FoW player - I now have a host of army-list booklets that are vaguely interesting (& represented a not inconsiderable investment) but which are now mostly not used and out of date, as they refer to v3 of the rules not a more recent set (v.4 I think). Same goes for a horde of Field of Glory (FoG) army list books, that languish on my book-shelves taking up space, but nobody wants to buy them from me (unfortunately).

I was introduced to OOBs playing CWC with the Cold War Commanders and it did take me a while to adjust to the idea that 1 model on the table might represent something larger ... (hence I have more Dutch Leopard tanks than anybody could probably every game with at one time!). So it can be an odd concept to grasp, if you are a gamer introduced to the world of table-top mechanized warfare gaming via these, or other rules sets.

[Steve J]

The idea that you need to research a formation or army was for some a bit off-putting (which I can understand but found a bit odd, as for me it is half the fun of gaming).

The research is part and parcel of the hobby for me these days and has been for many a year. I too struggled for a while when moving over from FoW to BKC, but once I got the hang of things, it was very easy work out.

[fsn]

The research is part and parcel of the hobby for me these days and has been for many a year.

Absolutely!

For modern stuff (i.e. post 1900) I use a 1:1 scale, so one vehicle is one model; one figure is one person. I tend to start with an organisation level - usually company or platoon. Then it's easy. A platoon is usually accompanied by a troop of tanks, maybe some mortars or mgs. A company may have on-table artillery support, HQ unit etc. Whatever side A gets, side B gets the same, each according to the real life OOB. So if side A has troops of 5 tanks, and side B has troops of 4 tanks, then 5 and 4 it is.

[sultanbev]

For WW2/moderns we use 1 model to 1 tank or gun, 1 base to an infantry squad.
To balance forces, we use what you might call a levelling up system. For an evening's game, we'd start with 5 units each, typically platoons, with appropriate CHQs and BHQ in addition.

Then the side with lower CV morale and training values, gets an extra unit per 1 difference.
But the units are what they are historically, so if one side's platoons has 5 elements, and the other 3 elements, it's tough.

So for an extreme example an SS Panzer Division list in late 1944 at CV10 AT2 would have say 3 platoons of 5x Panzer IVH, 1 battery of 6x Wespe with OP in PzBeob.III, and 1 platoon of panzergrenadiers in 3x Sdkfz 251/1 and 1x Sdkfz 251/17, and a tank CHQ of 2x Panzer IVH.
Or they could replace the Panzer IVs with Panthers just to be mean.

An opposing American force at CV8 CT3 would get a tank company of 3 platoons each of 3x Sherman 75mm, 2x Sherman 76mm, plus 2 CHQ tanks; 2 batteries of 6x M7 Priest with OP Teams in Shermans with dummy guns: For the difference in troop quality,{CV10 cf CV8 = 2 units, morale A cf C = 2 units, Training T2 cf T3 = 1 unit} they would get 5 extra units, so that could be a whole armoured infantry company of 4 platoons, and perhaps an M10 or M36 tank destroyer platoon. Fielding two companies would give them a Battalion HQ as well.

And that would be an equal game in our rules, where the Americans lose most of their tanks, and the force shudders to a halt, the US infantry never quite get to grips with whats left of the Germans, and the US artillery prevents the Germans from acheiving total victory. Maybe 

Not that we tend to play such armour heavy games for WW2, it's more infantry with attached tanks rather than the other way round.

Mark

[Ithoriel]

To those who use historical OOB, do you take into account likely actual numbers or just what the TOE says they should have?

For example, German unit's, especially late war seem to have an awful lot of tanks being repaired unless it's zero hour of day one of a major action.

Do you take into account the 3D* effect?

Seems to me that most establishments are akin to my grandfather's view on bus timetables .... only there to show how badly they've failed to meet their target.

Enquiring minds want to know.



*3D Effect - Disease, Desertion and Detachments

[fsn]

I usually use OOB. I recognise that a 5 tank troop may have only 3 available, but what the hey, it's a game.

Having said that, sometimes I randomise, and very rarely field more than one Tiger.

[sultanbev]

We use the blunder rule in activations to affect breakdowns, so unit may start the game at full TOE but soon end up with understrength units. You'd be amazed how often a 2.8% chance event occurs. And sometimes tanks breakdown before they enter table.

We now have a quota - 6 double-sixes per side per game is the norm. If you've not reached that quota something unusual is going on 

And it's interesting how breakdowns fit the game narrative. One example of a desert game, a Stuart bounced a shell off the turret front of an M13/40 - the next activation that unit of M13/40s blundered, and the tank that broke down was that very same one, and the breakdown turned out to be a gun malfunction - so the shell did some damage afterall.

Having said that, some OOBs are now so detailed that field strengths after maintenance are often available, for tanks at least.

[John Cook]

The research is part and parcel of the hobby for me these days and has been for many a year. I too struggled for a while when moving over from FoW to BKC, but once I got the hang of things, it was very easy work out.

I agree, the background research is a fundamentally important part of the hobby for me too.  I've always built my armies using historical OOBs, for the 19th Century and earlier usually entire armies.  It never occurred to me not to.  I've never been interested in points systems to create balance forces, I don't even want forces to be balanced necessarily.