Hexes, we got hexes!

 

This is a great photo from oldSarges Wargame and Model blog. Old Sarge has done a great job creating a 3D hex grid for a 1/285 scale game of Squad leader. This is for a Pegasus bridge scenario. There are loads more pics on his blog and I recommend you take a look.

Not to be outdone (it goes without saying that Old Sarge has massively out done me!), I have got some hexes as well!

Just as an example, these are 80mm side to side. They are 2mm deep so I'm painting using undiluted acrylics which unfortunately leaves brush marks. Not a problem from three feet away but just irritating.

This will be my 3D battlescape for 2, 6 and 10mm OHW battles. Looking forward to getting this finished. Really, how long does it take to paint this stuff? The answer is far too long. I shall persevere. 

Cleared Hot!

Ground Zero: Helicopters

JTAC: “Deuce 31, Broadsword 11, 5-line, Type 2 control, BOT, rockets and guns, my position is checkpoint 295 marked by IR strobe, northwest 200, single technical vehicle marked by IR SPARKLE, make all attacks over my right shoulder, left pull, keep all effects of fires west of MSR Clovis.”

A/C: “Deuce 31 copies over your right shoulder, left pull, keep all effects of fires west of MSR Clovis, pushing.”

JTAC: “Deuce 31, CONTINUE.”

A/C: “Deuce 31 and flight, VISUAL, TALLY, IN.”

JTAC: “Deuce 31 and flight, CLEARED HOT.”

Today I have mainly been thinking about rotary wing close air support (RW CAS). To you and me that's choppers! Here are the first thoughts.....

Helicopters: Helicopters have special capabilities and vulnerabilities. These rules modify all relevant sections above. Helicopters have three activation dice. On an odd d6 result they may only move (they cannot rally, go into Overwatch). A helicopter may not discard an odd d6 result.

A helicopter may be subject to anti-aircraft fire as opportunity fire from enemy units in Overwatch in any hex that it starts in, passes through or ends its move action in. A helicopter that does not move at least three hexes in a move action becomes a sitting target and enemy units firing receive a fire bonus when firing at it.

Helicopters ignore terrain restrictions. They may only land in clear hexes that contain no vehicles (or wrecks).

Unlike other units, helicopters may fire at more than one target if they have more than one even d6 result. They may also make an intense attack on a single target if they have more than one even d6 result.

Special actions available to helicopters include: Landing, taking off, embarking or disembarking passengers (this includes allowing passengers to disembark by rappelling) and lasing targets for air strikes.

And, yes, I'm nicking ideas off Peter again!

Next problem to solve is that helicopters don't roam around shooting stuff up for fun. The air response must be proportionate and avoid collateral damage (as well as friendly fire) and enemy anti-air assets. That's the job of the JTAC who must have eyes on target, at least for a type 1 weapons delivery (visual contact with both target and A/C). How do we represent the JTAC and their interaction with the CAS? I have a few thoughts, they make for good scenarios! 

Ground Zero.......

work in progress!

I suppose it says something if I have gone to the trouble of designing a logo for this game. My enforced absence from blogging and game related activities has spurred my enthusiasm.  

As usual, I blame Norm and Peter for ideas which have lurked for many months. This game represents, at long last, my attempt to model squad level modern combat in a simple way and in a way that I actually want to play.

I even have a blurb (of sorts!):

A nameless small town somewhere in the war zone. This game is played on a six by nine hex grid, there is no scale but each hex represents an area sufficient for the footprint of a small house, back yard or street.

There is no timeframe other than that each battle is concluded in a day. Each turn may represent anything from a few minutes of violent combat to several hours of desultory gunfire. Units are activated by random card draw and unit actions are dice driven. 

The troop types reflect what you see on You Tube videos, small groups of men, of varying commitment and training, largely fighting in built up areas. Weapons are light small arms with heavier weapons in support, with the ever present HMMWVs and improvised armoured vehicles. 

Scenarios reflect the reality of modern combat, often mundane tasks fraught with risk and unexpected dangers.

Nuff said at this stage but progress has been excellent. This time I will blog test games to show the mechanics in development.

Glorious Morning......

a new AWI hex grid conversion!

I have had this on my list of things to do for a while. Here is the link to my first shot at converting Peter's excellent AWI rules to a hex grid format.

More grid stuff.....

and even more scum than I was expecting!

A couple of interesting things have come-up....

Nice hat!

Rommel: A new set of rules from Sam Mustafa. The two best things about this are that the game covers more than just N. Africa and that it is an operational game using a grid! The squares are 6", representing 1km across. On a 6 by 4 table this gives 12km by 8km and allows one to two divisions a side in battalion sized units. Teaser material is now available on Sam's website and he has gone into some detail about the game in a recent podcast.

Scum of the Earth: I have mentioned the beta version of this before. The beta version was badged as an AWI/Napoleonic small battles game on a 2 by 2 board. The final version has now been published. What is great is that it contains period specific rules for:

English Civil War, Seven Years War, American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, First Schleswig War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Second Schleswig War, Austro-Prussian War, Colonial battles, Franco-Prussian War, Spanish American War, Russo-Japanese War and 1914. 

That is quite a bit more than I was expecting and is most welcome. All for $12.99. There are some really interesting mechanisms in these rules and I'm keen to give them a go. 

How can anyone say this is not a golden age!

New stuff.....

its quite nice!

Sci-Fi stuff......A game on a 6 by 8 square grid board with homemade tanks and infantry!

You can see more about this on Vicky's Crazy Wargames World, a very neat blog. I think there is a Japanese name for these cartoon type models (and it's not bonzai). Vicky uses a modified version of Lock n Load's Tank on Tank rules, recently reviewed in detail by Norm. 

Here is a link to Peter's Sci-FI Company Action rules, also derived from Tank on Tank. I don't know if they are the same as the ones Vicky is using but they are pretty cool.

Weasel stuff.......

Two interesting things:

Trench warfare is a campaign game for any FiveCore product, for only $2.99!

Scum of the Earth is for 3-5 six figure units on a 2 foot by 2 foot table. This is a Beta version and is available on a "pay what you want" basis. All I can say about this is that it looks very very interesting.

Both are available from Wargames Vault. 

Professional grid game...

best game ever?

Ha, that's a loaded question! However, let's start at the beginning......

RAND Baltic game, hex grid overlay

I read with great interest the recent RAND organisation report on their Baltic wargame. Using lots of military types and what, to me, looks like a fairly standard NATO/Next War type game with 10km hexes, they have concluded that the Russians can overrun the Baltic states in 60 hours. Recommendation? Put in 7 brigades of additional troops including 3 armoured brigades as a deterrent. You can find the report here.

I mention the RAND game first because they have used a mix of a standard boardgame with little cardboard units that we are all familiar with in a combination with current military experience. The report is good, the concepts are great and the recommendations are probably very sound. Also, if you are interested in current developments in the east, their report is a great basis for some Cold War Commander battles.

According to Paxsims (one of my favourite sites): 

“full documentation of the gaming platform will be forth-coming in a subsequent report.” 

That will be very cool, can't wait.

The reason for mentioning this first is that RAND have been doing military analytics for at least 50 years, if not more, and they know what they are doing. The Baltic stuff is top notch. However, I have now found something that looks and feels like a major step forward. This is C-WAM!

Turkish M60s on the Iraqi border

The US Army have developed their own wargame, it is a map based game using a grid and counters. I don't have any pictures but General Dynamics IT have used the Freedom of Information Act in the US to get a copy of the rules. I have read them and, in my opinion, they are brilliant.

"Oh, alright, I surrender then!"

You can find the whole story here but, essentially, C-WAM (Centre for Army Analytics- Wargame Analysis Model) is a paper and dice based game. While its outputs are fed into a major IT system (Joint Integrated Contingency Model - big campaign management system), it is a battle simulation system that can be used in a very simple way (although you don't seem to be allowed just to do stuff unsupervised in the US Army!).

TOW: Great BBQ starter!

You can find a link to the rules here. I highly recommend reading them, Any experienced board or figure wargamer will feel very comfortable with the concepts. Just to convey some of these:

• They use a square grid on a map;
• Squares are 1 by 1 inch;
• All units that take up space are represented on the map;
• A grid square represents the area a brigade would occupy when deployed defensively;
• Time scale is one or three day turns;
• Squares may represent different sized areas depending on predominant terrain in the combat area e.g. 5km in rolling terrain;
• Units are brigades;
• Weather effects are very important, this is the first phase in a turn;
• Cyber/Space/EW effects are included, you might be successful in dealing in a turn with information attacks and attacks on your space assets (satellites) but you may suffer degradation of in electronic warfare terms;
• Intel/Surveillance/Recce effects are merged into a targeting value, if you are moving in a J-STARs area you are detected! Otherwise you are detected it there is a targeting value success. Special forces are primarily an information gathering/targeting device!
• Deep strike bombardments (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air packages), atmosphere penetrators (oooer missus);
• Integrated air defense system "gates" and air to air combat;
• Forward Area Logistical Supportability: supply to you and me;
• A major naval warfare sub-system (not useful in the desert but...);
• Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration (RSOI) Operations: reinforcements anyone?
• Manoeuvre and stacking (that would be "battlespace limitations"!);
• Force Multiplier Combat Values: artillery support;
• Ground force combat with tables and die rolls!

Syrian forces exposing themselves to ISR detection

It says in the rules that they are not to be used without appropriate support. I agree. They are not a complete set on their own but, rather, a tool kit that needs to be carefully managed.

Are they the best game ever? No, but they are such a major insight into real-world wargaming and current US doctrine that they are extremely important. if you don't wear green pyjamas, reading these rules is the closest you will get to the smell of gunpowder. Oh, by the way, they use a square grid, how interesting is that! 

Desert Eagle Rampant...

you what?

I wasn't sure what I should call my current work in progress. As the original conversion of Lion Rampant to Napoleonics in WI was entitled Eagle Rampant, my modern version is entitled Desert Eagle Rampant (DER). I'm afraid that Operation Breaking Terrorism Rampant doesn't feel quite right but Desert Eagle flows from Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Hey ho!

Moody shot of ISF approaching Fallujah

The proposition here is that Lion Rampant, a medieval semi-skirmish game, can be converted into a modern era squad level combat game. That may be quite a stretch. However, I think the LR engine is excellent. I felt very happy with the modifications that produced Dragoon Rampant. If I had any spare time I would be playing that tonight!  

The initial DER work is going really well so I thought I would post the rules as they are developing and invite some comments. Here they are. Unless I have to step in as leader of the Labour Party, I'll post the interesting bits (unit details) at the weekend.

Song of...

with extra theme!

My one page rule adaptation "Song of...Bullets and Bombs" has got slightly out of hand. It started off as three bullet points on a post-it and now its nine pages long.

6pdr in Normandy

The Bullets and Bombs page now has v2 of the adaptation. I have spent some time trying to theme the units to be used in the game, this has been really interesting. What I wanted to do was to make it easier to use the scenarios to describe a narrative. That is, after all, what we seek to create in a game, a great story to tell afterwards! Although this sounds bit FoW or Bolt Action, I think it also makes things more “realistic”.

I’m using these rules to play some British/German scenarios in Normandy in the period June/July 1944. So let’s look at what a German 6 unit force from One-Hour Wargames might look like if we model it on a real life prototype like a static division such as the 716th. Please excuse the artistic licence!

First you roll on the OHW table to get your unit types. I'm substituting HMG units for Mortars (for various reasons) in this particular adaptation. Once you know how many you have of each, you roll for each unit to see what it is and what characteristics it has. 

Cool. There are six German themed units and five British/Canadian. I think these deserve a good play testing so I have dusted off some PSC German Grenadiers and will get some painting done this week among the usual chores. It is quite exciting!

Song of...

Bullets and Bombs!

Have Firefly...will travel!

I'm a real fan of simple systems. The "Song of..." series of rules from Ganesha Games was very attractive, especially the Song of Drums and Shakos, featuring as they do specific rules for Wurttemburgers!

Ganesha brought out Flying Lead, a version for modern warfare, with a really interesting adaptation for Afghanistan called "Hearts and Minds". As far as I know, they have not produced a WW2 source book. This was one of my projects before I got caught up with the FiveCore view of the world. As a minor diversion over the bank holiday I have finally written up my notes on using "Song of..." for WW2. And here it is in all of its unfinished glory.

This uses hexes (no surprise there then!) and the Neil Thomas One-Hour Wargames scenarios (another nil surprise!). 

What I found really interesting is that the system is very very amenable to tweaking. Also, I have had a great idea for theming the Neil Thomas army lists which I'm still working on. Perhaps tomorrow!

And if that wasn't enough, Bob Cordery has come up with a great hex grid Napoleonic game. Check it out on his blog here.

I have been thinking about.....

what stuff looks like!

In fact, what do I want my stuff to look like? The cause of this unusual navel gazing is the quantity of unfinished things on my desk. Do I really have a clear vision of the appearance of the toys that I want to play with? Fortunately, the answer is yes, its just that I have not expressed it nor codified it. 

So, over the past couple of weeks I have been collecting examples of things that I like the look of so that I can get a better feel for the direction I want to go in. What do I really like then.....

I like shiny

Here are some great pictures of shiny troops on a hex grid. Not any just any old troops but Bavarians!

These are from the Douglas Miniatures blog which features lots of old figures. These are Minifigs and Garrison. I especially like the simple bases. The pictures show a hex grid conversion of the Neil Thomas Napoleonic rules, how cool is that.

I like grids

Here is a nice square grid conversion of the CnC Napoleonics game with nice toys.

I really like the way this looks, very picturesque from the air!

And equally nice at ground level. These are from the blog by Epicetus.

I also like this irregular grid, just used as scenery, from the Toy Soldiers and Dining Room Battles blog.

I like non-shiny bases

More from Douglas Miniatures.....

Shiny troops and non-shiny bases. The latter issue is one of my current problems. I quite like these!

Dragoon Rampant....

First go!

Where's that Sharpe bloke when you need him!

Here it is, my first attempt at a Peninsular specific interpretation of Lion Rampant with hexes. I really enjoyed putting this together and have now bought some Hat Guerillas to paint up for it.

Let me know what you think!

Hats, Horses and Hexes.....

the photos!

Paul's Prince Rupert with Boye!

Paul Leeson has been giving these rules a spin:

I have had a quick go with these rules using my 6mm H&R armies which have not been used for, gulp, about 28 years !!!! I used my 75mm hex board but still kept within the 6x6 hex limit and it worked fine. No problems with the rules, I will certainly use them again in place of my 52 page ‘Wargames Research Group – 2nd Edition 1979’ set. I think I will create a simple record card for future games to keep track of troop types and hits etc.

I'm really pleased to get some feedback on these rules and its also great that someone is playing them and enjoying them! 

What is more, Paul has sent me some photos.There are 2 sets of photos from 2 games. One a vanguard clash at a cross roads and the other the attack on a convoy based on that at Haford Bridge 3rd March 1645. My favourite is the one above featuring a 6mm poodle, cut down I believe from a 2mm Cuirassier!

Here is the cross roads clash......

And here is the convoy ambush....

I love the way these games are presented, very nice houses and cool forests. I'll have to get mine finished properly now!

More stuff...

than you can shake a stick at!

1. FiveCore hex grid conversion 

Norm was quick off the mark last night to worry with me his comments on whether the frontal arc is too generous. 

Where is our frontal arc?

What concerns me about this design decision is the point that Norm made a lot earlier around most tactical gamers thinking of "front" as a vertex not a hex side. In fact, when I was playing with photos to illustrate the conversion rules I found myself in some trouble as my mental map is firmly vertex orientated. Also, my hexes don't fit the table if I turn them round (and that's the clincher). Rather than faff about it over the next couple of days I'll have a calm think and get back to it later.

2. Paper soldiers etc

A new book from Peter Dennis and Andy Callan with paper soldiers. Helion & Co £11.65. I understand this is a series, hurrah!

3. Hold the Line: Remastered!!!!

The big one, HTL revisited plus PSC miniatures!

With the FiW expansion as well. I understand that all of the HTL games will be redone in this format. It looks very good. Kickstartering now.  

FiveCore hex grid conversion.......

the next version!

Well, I have had another go and here it is. 

Successful flanking shot on a Tiger, well done!

So far, the Duc has most influenced my thinking on facing. Let's see what people think. I'm still a little uncomfortable and may have to think again.

Face front.....

Pointing in the right direction!

Shoot that way boys....USMC in Afghanistan

Further feedback on the FiveCore hex grid conversion has raised an interesting point about facing. Ivan's view is that:

On facing, I'd be inclined to use the Battletech method: Vehicles face a hex side (which as mentioned fits many hex map roads). The two facings on either side of the front are also (front), the one opposite the front is rear and the two adjacent to the rear is left and right (if that makes sense?)

Norm's view is a little more traditional:

The only thing about using hexsides rather than a vertex to establish the front facing is that flat edges create a forward arc of 3 hexes, which in turn on a small board makes flanking shots and positions harder to achieve.

At the moment, my view is that facing is important for tanks because they have different armoured strengths depending on which part of the tank you may be firing at. This is really important for Panthers because of their relatively weak side armour. Also, tanks with turrets have a 360 degree field of fire for their main armament, but assault guns and similar vehicles have a very limited arc of fire. Use of facing helps to differentiate these capabilities. Therefore, I like the idea of facing but it is not yet in the hex grid conversion.

In the base Company Command rules: 

• Infantry squads do not have a fixed facing and may turn to face any desired target.
• For speed of play, we are not concerned with exact vehicle facing. Players who prefer a more detailed game may upgrade weapons one step when firing at the rear of a vehicle (for example a kill shot becomes overkill when targeted against the rear of the vehicle).

So, including facing is a good thing for vehicles but not, so far, for any other units. I may worry about anti-tank guns at a later date however!

Hex side or vertex? I am going for hex side at the moment as suggested by Ivan. I'm not a Battletech player so I don't have any practical experience in this approach. Like Norm, I usually prefer the vertex solution. My decision here is based on the practicalities of managing more than one tank per hex (max two in the current draft). 

Looking at this picture you can see that a vertex solution with two tanks looks a bit odd. Turn the picture round (in your own mind is ok!) a hex side solution looks a little more usable. I think I can cover off Norm's point about giving a chance to get in flank shots by deciding on how to play LoS. 

Facing and LoS are critical factors in small unit fighting. I don't think civilians appreciate the complexities. As a civvie myself I often turn to US manuals for insight. I have just been reading MCRP 3-11.2 Marine Rifle Squad because I'm interested in what facing looks like for a squad. Looking at direct fire issues:

1. A sector of fire is an area that is required to be covered by fire by an individual, a fire unit (squad or fire team), or a crew-served weapon. It is a pie-shaped area enclosed by two lateral limits and a forward limit (i.e. a vertex solution).

2. A principal direction of fire is a specific direction within the sector of fire given to a flat trajectory weapon and which is designated as its primary fire mission. Within a rifle squad, a principal direction of fire is assigned to automatic rifles. Units are not assigned principal directions of fire.

The sector is assigned if possible but where it is not possible, weapons are assigned PDFs. Although this looks like a vertex solution, if we have multiple squads in a hex my feeling is that a hex side solution becomes easier.

At the end of the day we just need to make a decision now and test it out, so lets go.......

FiveCore Hex grid conversion.......

Even more feedback!

Guys, thanks for your contributions. It is really great to get so much informed feedback. As last time, I'll try to carefully pick through the comments and see where we need to go next. The full comments are at the foot of the last post on this subject so these are edited highlights. Once I have got things straight in my own head I'll have a go at revising the conversion guide. 

Conversion guide or new rules: Duc suggested the guide might be evolving into a new rule set. Longer term this might be a way forward. My concern at the moment is to build on what Ivan is doing already and not to repeat in the guide any of the main rules. I do wonder whether, in future, there might be scope for a "SixCore" version (five core principles and six hex sides!), effectively a simplified, hex based and more gamey version of the main rules. Worth a ponder I think and a discussion with Ivan.

Platoon orders: Ivan's view is that units near each other can activate on the same activation point "So on a hex-map, 3 squads strung out in adjacent hexes could move together, but if you start spreading them out (or they get pushed back), your command/control starts faltering."

Movement rates: Everyone seems cool with the proposed movement rates. Ivan says: "I agree with dropping "slow" tanks to 1 hex. Seems them crawling along at the same speed as the infantry would make sense. (and for things like the Valentine is probably about as fast as they'd go anyways)." Duc's view is: "Spot on with movement - tactical movement is the order of the day. Perhaps allow move x2 when outside enemy range." 

Peter has suggested: "1) all movement where the moving unit can be spotted by enemy units is one hex. This would represent caution forward movement or short stop start sprints between cover. Where unit cannot be spotted then infantry move one hex and tanks, etc move two hexes." I like this, it comes from Tigers at Minsk and relates also to the hesitation roll used in Minden's Retro rules (really obscure Squad Leader territory here). "2) slow units just move or fire, and faster units can move and fire. This way you differentiate between unit movement capabilities." Brilliant!

Obstacles: For obstacles, Ivan's view is that: "if they fail a "crawl' test to cross, leave the die next to them and next turn they cross automatically. Normally, I would be against tracking that but we only have 8-10 squads to deal with, so its not too bad. Alternatively, use the positioning inside the hex to signify it. Place the squad in the middle normally and at the edge when they are half way through." Norm's thoughts are: "I am glad we have had the discussion about rolling to enter a hex, with the issue of repeatedly failing to pass and in effect being stuck. the obvious solution is to automatically allow the movement on the following turn ......... I will now go and apply the 'obvious' rule to my own Tigers design, as my vehicles have to dice to enter woods." Duc suggests: "Perhaps roll for units to 'leave' terrain - meaning they can tend to 'hug' the cover if poorly commanded."

Facing: Not in the original rules but this has now come up. Norm, being very tactical, has told me: "I am just going through my Tigers at Minsk rules and having previously had all vehicles always facing a vertex, I am now dealing with the reality that roads cross hexsides, so a vehicle using the road will actually be facing a hexside and not a vertex. accepting this rather than by attempting to fudge it actually helps, because the new facings generated by hexside facing (only 1 front hex but now 4 flank hexes) makes the vehicle following a road more vulnerable to flank shot and less effective in their own front arc - this feels right." Norm's latest version of Tigers at Minsk can be found here. Duc thinks that: "I always thought facing a corner was simplest and could allow clear flank and rear facings."  For me, the jury is currently out since facing adds complexity but, on the other hand, allows nice side shots at Panthers.

Excellent. I have one more day of the Easter holidays tomorrow and may have time to have another crack at the guide, Further suggestions and feedback very welcome. Cheers.