9 replies to this topic

[Kenny Noe]

All,

 

A quick report on a scenario that was prepared for the HMGS game convention FALL-IN! 2024.

 

I don't have a play by play accounting like Peter does this time (apologies).  

 

So in my reading about the Six Day War, I was intrigued about a battle that pitted western equipment against western equipment.  Specifically M48 Pattons vs Magach 2 (M48A2C).  I was also interested in knowing the outcome of fighting Centurions vs the upgraded Israeli Shermans with the French 75 and 105 low recoil guns.

 

 

The table top

The game table was 10x6 foot in size.  North / South was the short sides and West / East was down the long sides.  There was a road dividing the center of the table with a small oasis and village on the Jordanian side.

 

I didn't have the time to create an elaborate entrance to a valley and the topographical maps showed a bigger area than I had table space.  So I winged it.   The "V" road shows the entrance to the valley (maybe it should be waddie?) with the road continuing down to the oasis.  (Pictures are available here)  I made all hills the same size and had all hills blocking lines of sight. (see game one, ugh!) 

 

I also restricted the players from using about 6 inches down either short side of the table.  I have learned over time it's best to leave space for players and the GM (me!) space to put paper / ruler / dice down.  So the available terrain (hills) was practically non existent  in the edges.  Also I wanted to force the players to stay in the hilly part of the table (center) and not try a sweeping flank move.

 

 

Game objective

Jordan

This was to be a running retreat by the Jordanian forces thru the valley to a small village just inside their border.  The Brigade had suffered many casualties earlier from constant Israeli air support missions and were leaving the West Bank to return to Jordan.

 

Israel

Finish what the IAF started an crush the remaining Jordan forces and capture the small village thus securing the valley crossing between Israel and Jordan.

 

 

Games

I ran the scenario two (2) times at the convention.  Each was very different in play and outcomes.  While the players all reported having a fun time, (my first and foremost goal), game one is the reason a game master should test his games first.  I didn't and it bit me in the buttox!!

 

Game One 

I made three fatal mistakes with this game.

1) Allowed the Jordanian commanders to convince me that they should be allowed to see through  "rough terrain" areas (the ones with rocks).

2) Allowed the Jordanians to set up in overwatch positions.

3) Believed the Jordanian players would fight historically "like the Jordanian forces did!!"

 

So the Jordanian tanks setup within 4 inches of the opening of the "valley" [west side of the table] while the Israeli force had to "drive on the table".  This included Israeli artillery which took a round to setup. 

 

This is where everything almost went to hell.   The Jordanians had practically 2 full rounds to take shots at the oncoming Israelis.  It was almost a turkey shoot with heavy Israeli losses.  Additionally, the Jordanians fought like US Marines!!!  They even began to charge out of the valley toward the Israelis!!!  Talk about battle-field initiative!  WOW!  

 

The Israeli players took the initial onslaught with heads held high!  Although, I did loose one player.  He simply thought the rules were "too complicated".  I have played and taught MP for 30+ years and never have had that comment.  Yes, it's more involved with a "To Hit" roll and a "To Kill" roll vs other game systems that combine them.  I truly suspect he didn't want to say that my scenario "was from the bottom level of hell"!!  And I honestly couldn't blame him.  I was at a loss as to how things got so out of hand.  (recall statement above about getting bit in the buttox!)

 

So doom and gloom persisted and I was truly apologetic to the remaining players.  However, not all was lost

 

The remaining Israeli player divided the abandon forces and wanted to continue.  I was ok with this as it gave me time to rethink the scenario setup.  By this time the players were comfortable with running the game pressed the attack.

 

Four (4) hrs later, the game was a draw!

 

The Jordanians had advance close enough that the Israelis didn't have to chase them intro the valley.  The resulting tank battle was messy for both sides.  The Jordanians failed to retreat their forces back to the village and the Israelis didn't have enough vehicles to continue on mission to the  village.

 

Players on both sides reported having a blast!!

 

 

Game Two

So I had been re-assessing the scenario during the first game.  I liked the initial deployment of both sides.  I also like forcing the two sides through the "valley".  And this time I was blessed with 4 out of the 6 players who had previous played Mein Panzer and were somewhat familiar with the rules.  (One of those was myself to round out both sides).  Even though I was pushing tanks, one of the other players was the "battlefield commander" and I told him I was reporting as a fresh "butter bar" Lieutenant and I'm only taking his orders.

 

The pictures in the gallery are mostly from this second game.

 

What changes did I make you ask??  Well, even though convention gamers like to charge and kill with little regard to the objective I had to reign in the US Marine mentality with the Jordanian players.  To do this I imposed a couple impediments on them.

1) Turn one and turn two - Jordanian forces "must" use their bonus move to retreat back toward the village.

2) Jordanian forces cannot start turn one on overwatch.  The explanation given was that they had been retreating all day and didn't have time or the orders to take overwatch positions.

3) Stressed the game objective and re-stressed the game objective to both sides stating that failure to reach and take their objective would be cause for a loss.

 

The last bit was really in hopes that I could get a more historical outcome to the battle vs a convention slugfest.  After all there was some effort in putting the scenario together.  Really!
 

This time 4hrs later the game and outcome was much much better.  The Israelis failed to reach the village but  they did get over half way thru the valley.  The Jordanians lost all their M47s and 90% of the M48s only the Centurions were still combat effective.  So we called it a draw again.

 

Feedback and discussion about both games has given great insight and additional plans for the next running.

 

 

Thanks for the read.

 

 

 

The OOB Play sheets are uploaded and can be found here:

https://www.odgw.com...eli-player-oob/

 

Pictures are here:

https://www.odgw.com...5-fall-in-2024/

[healey36]

Thanks for the write-up and the pics, Kenny. You're struggling with the age-old game-master dilemma, just how much to script a scenario. You gotta give the players options, but you want to keep it within the bounds of reality and playability. I try to avoid falling into the trap of seeking to replicate historical results, as that often yields a game that's not much fun, which of course is the point of the entire exercise for a convention.

[Kenny Noe]

Thanks Healey,

 

I agree that scripting a game to produce the historical outcome is bad for all.   However, in this particular scenario is wanted to force the Jordanian players to follow "orders" given by command with the hopes that facing something that you rarely see on a convention (a retreat from the start) would produce a livelier game.

 

Forcing the "retreat" for only two rounds gave both sides the "feeling" of what was going on.  Short of imposing the Command and Morale chapters on this scenario this would not occur.  (This is something I loath even in regular games.)  But after the two rounds the players were able to put their "John Wayne" 10 gallon hat on and do what they wanted (especially advance).  So the convention "kill them all" mentality eventually won out.

 

The game was much more enjoyable giving both sides room and time to see and adjust to the other movements and tactics.

 

Historically, The Jordanians gave as well as they got head to head with the Israelis but with fuel and ammo running short only 8 tanks made it back across the river.

 

My biggest problem with this lustful attitude is that I don't see gamers adhering to the scenario objectives.  I too am guilty of this failing.  However there are only so many "meeting engagements" one can run and then you'll be pigeon holed as a non creative GM.  I've had both types of gamers tells me their sides of this coin.  You are correct it is a dilemma or yet better a trap that one can fall into.  Creating challenging scenarios is my way to avoid this.  After all "No plan survives first contact!"  <grin>

 

My only condolence is the first question I ask when a game is finally called.  "Did you have fun?"  The answer has been a 99.99% yes.  Then discussions on the scenario and game begin and that's all fodder.   First question is the best feedback I take!

 

I appreciate yours.

[healey36]

Some football teams script the first 10-15 offensive plays for a game, i,e, before the game starts they have a set program of plays they run. Once through those, they see what's up and start winging it. I think this can be a good strategy for scenario development. Have scripted objectives/conditions for the first few turns and a games-end objective/victory condition in place. Once the scripted turn limit is exceeded, cut the players loose.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Thanks for the AARs, Kenny.  Both games seemed very interesting and setting the parameters for the second one certainly helped.  It was great that the players decided to play through even though you lost a player in the first scenario.

There is the way we intend or think the way the scenario may go vs. the way the players decide to play.  I never set out to create a bad scenario, the same way that Hollywood does not set out to make a bad movie.  But some games, and movies, definitely do turn out better than others.  I ran a Kharkov 1942 scenario once that definitely did not turn out the way I had planned it to go.  I had visions of the Russians rushing the German AT defenses and the Panzers coming in as the cavalry later.  The Russians played a much more conservative game but still lost a lot of tanks and did not achieve their objectives.  After the game, the 3 Russian players let me know that they thought it was unbalanced.  I still think it was fine if they had played the way I thought they might or were "supposed to".  This example just illustrates the point of a Game Master - what we intend vs what happens when the players are turned loose.

[Kenny Noe]

Peter,

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I hear you about the conundrum unbalance vs player in-game tactics and perceptions.  I submit there is a third angle to this.  Wrong tactics used with available OOB forces.

 

I have a scenario that was primarily an Infantry assault on a police fort in 1948 Israel.   There were armored cars and 20mm towed cannons included as infantry support.  I play tested the scenario and it seemed well.   However, the several convention games using the scenario never jelled.  They weren't bad games but not successful either.  The players concentrated on the support elements while not using the infantry.

 

I really, really wanted that scenario to work there was a ton of research into OOB and the historical battle.  This scenario was based on the multiple attempts the Israelis tried to take a police station (a former Legion fort in a past life) that controlled the road from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.

 

So I ran the game with some US Army infantry officers  and ODGW Staff one Saturday.  The game was a success with the Israeli infantry actually able to take the fort abet with heavy casualties.  (Historically this never happened)

 

So what did I learn.  The scenario worked as designed.  It wasn't unbalanced at all.  So why did the convention games fail (IMHO)?  Failure to understand the OOB and the proper use of tactics.  I don't blame the players but also don't fault myself either.  The games were advertised as "Infantry Heavy".  So I "assumed" (and got bit) that folks signing up would know infantry tactics.  My mistake.

 

I also find this phenomena in modern scenarios where the players use WWII tactics with more technically advance weapon systems.  Players use IFVs with thin armor against heavier combat tanks then question why they had so many losses.  This also includes players that "believe" a particular weapon system should perform better than it is on the table top. 

 

Part of this is the roll of the dice the other part is the propaganda or "historical battle" accounts that are slanted to favor that system.  It's real hard to ferret out the truth from "My buddy was a tank commander and he said...".

 

I try and explain the factual aspects of a system as known and cite my references.  Fortunately, I'm still in an era where most of the information needed can be found in OSINT.  This mostly works with folks who have an open mind and understand it only a game.

 

Again I learned that the exotic scenarios are good but only with experienced players.  Convention games....  Folks show up to kill other tanks!!  LOL

 

I appreciate all the discussion.  Believe it'll make better scenario designs for future game.

[Peter M. Skaar]

Hi Kenny

This is a very good discussion, not just for Mein Panzer and other ODGW products but for any type of wargame that is run at a convention or just among a group of gaming friends.

One thing is to know your players and what they are looking for in a game.  Some people want loads of detail and are very process oriented to get to the result.  I presume that most are not as detail driven and want a good game that gives reasonable results in a reasonable amount of time.  Of course the definition of reasonable might vary a bit depending on to whom you are talking.

I am currently getting back into running Mein Panzer games in the Phoenix area on a fairly regular basis - every couple months or so.  I am getting a group together of guys that like historical games and are interested in WWII gaming.  Some of the guys have only played one or two times and one of the guys has more experience having played in several other games that I have run or participated in. 

My goal right now is to keep things fairly simple in terms of scenario design.  I have done this by keeping vehicles only so far and giving each player a reasonable amount to handle which is basically a company per player.

In my last game in October, I was able to get 4 players for the game which was nice in that I did not have to assume player duties and well as Gamemaster duties.  The game went well and I have 2 of the players at least will be returning for my game in December.  In addition, I have at least 3 other guys that say they will be there.  A couple of them live in Sierra Vista which is about 3 hours away from the store that we will be playing at in Glendale, AZ, in the greater Phoenix area.

About 8 years ago or more, we had a very decent group of folks that enjoyed the games that I set up.  Unfortunately, some of those guys have moved away or are into other things so I am getting this new group up and running.  Things look promising so far.

Eventually, I will introduce infantry and artillery into the games.  I will start by doing a primarily infantry engagement with some mortars and maybe even a few vehicles and maybe some off board artillery.  I may try this with a smaller group of 2 to 4 players to see how it goes.

In the past, we have had some games with several sessions at a friends house.  The main problem with longer games is that some players will not always be able to make it and some just sort of get lost or whatever.  Generally, I find that 3 or 4 hours of game time is what most people are willing to commit to - around here anyway.

And yes - Folds do show up to kill tanks!  LOL!

[W. Clark]

Personally, I like that your scenarios have an operational basis and are not just sand table exercises like a platoon instruction. To me it makes for a richer gaming experience, but each there own.

 

WMC

[Kenny Noe]

Personally, I like that your scenarios have an operational basis and are not just sand table exercises like a platoon instruction. To me it makes for a richer gaming experience, but each there own.

 

WMC

Thanks!  I also like scenarios that are challenging to tackle.

[W. Clark]

In Germany on rainy days in garrison when the motor stables were completed with time to spare, I would run my NCOs and the troops through sand table exercises to get them thinking about what to do in any given tactical situation, just section sized scenarios. But when there was more time, I liked to up the ante to whole platoon conducting route and area recon missions as well screens to protect the flank of the battalion so they could see the larger picture and visualize their role and the importance of getting it right. I thought it would help them to develop, and I know it had that effect on me.

 

WMC