Situational Awareness on the Wargaming Table

Photo courtesy http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/

Graham, our Master of Ceremonies for a continuing series of 15mm Spanish Civil War games featuring his recently published For Whom the Dice Rolls rules, has been very diligent in providing Game Briefings before the Tuesday night Zoom battles.  This extra effort has been quite useful in preparing for the task at hand.

MC Graham as puppet master moving our troops

This week's offering was no different.  In the battle packet were map, Orders of Battle, and a briefing.

Since one never knows which side will be assigned for play, I typically look over both OBs and briefings beforehand.  Approaching each battle as a puzzle to be solved, I mentally make notes of time/space considerations, relative strengths and weaknesses of each combatant, and potential avenues of attack and lines of defense.  The rules receive a quick skim too.  These pre-game exercises help to focus my attention toward improving my situational awareness on whichever side I land.

Battle map

Pre-Battle Notes:

• The Nationalists hold a numerical advantage in infantry, armor, and heavier artillery.  Republicans hold an advantage in field guns. Nothing more.  There are no Off-Table Assets in this game.  Wait.  The Nationalists have brought their Off-Table heavy artillery asset on-table!
• Nationalist terrain objectives are nearer to the Nationalist baseline than are the Republican objectives to the Republican baseline as shown in the two diagrams below:

  

  Nationalist entries and objectives (yellow)

  

  Republican entries and objectives (blue)

• One Nationalist objective is to 'control' the railway.  Does that mean simply to cut the rail line or possess all or parts of it?
• With numerical superiority and objectives within easier reach, I expect the Nationalists to attack.
• With inferior numbers, lacking armor, and objectives much farther away, I expect the Republicans will fight a defensive battle. 

Game Night:
On game night, the game was much more well-attended than expected so commands were shuffled around a bit to accommodate seven players.  I think four players were expected.  No matter, Graham quickly allocated commands.

Phil, Will, and the two Richards were promoted to commands within the Nationalist army.  Steve, Ian, and I were plopped into the role of Republicans.  Since I had a copy of the rules, Graham appointed me as CiC for the Republicans with Ian and Steve taking on the role of brigadiers.

Now with only a few minutes to formulate a battle plan, I made some quick time/space calculations.

--------------------- Begin Digression --------------------

OK. Has anyone ever been in a participation game at a convention (or anywhere else) in which the victory conditions are such that units must reach a certain point on the table within a certain number of turns (typically exiting the opposite side of the board) to claim victory?  On occasion, the post-mortem shows that the unit(s) could not have reached the objective under the most favorable conditions.  Well, I have witnessed this situation as well as suffered it. 

Show of hands?   

--------------------- End Digression ----------------------

My quick calculations showed that Republicans moving in the fastest combat-ready posture (skirmish order) would take about eight impulses (three turns) to reach the hills on the opposite board edge.  That is not reckoning on any active resistance from a superior force or having the correct mix of activations to actually perform these required impulses.  With enemy resistance, I figured one enemy battalion could add a delay of three impulses to the timetable.  Given that these games rarely last longer than three turns in the typical three-hour gaming session, I deemed the Republicans unlikely to reach their objective within the given time constraints.  Is that enough to shift the Republican battle plan firmly to a defensive posture?

Perhaps, but there is yet another piece of information to consider.  What about the players, themselves?  While I have only gamed with the Monday Night Gamers for about six months, that is enough time to identify a few, general player profiles tendencies.

Will and Phil seem to be tenacious and aggressive attackers.  I have witnessed both tearing up any opposition standing between them and their objectives.  Ian and Steve, on the other hand, appear more suited to defensive postures.  Calm and capable, these traits I want for commanders in the trenches willing to hold a line.  Of course, I could be very well wrong but this is how I placed today's wager.  With the Nationalists holding the cards in numbers, attainable objectives, and aggression, there was little question in mind that the Nationalists would attack.  The Republicans seemed better suited to take the defense and counterattack if the opportunity presented itself.  

Now, with Graham orchestrating scenario development and player assignments, were these same considerations in play for him too?  Hmm.

How did these quick plans pan out?  Please visit Graham's battle report at The Sunken Road Conundrum to find out.

The gaming session ended at the beginning of Turn 3 with the Nationalists holding initiative but the Republicans poised for counterattack.  Even unopposed, a Republican attack from the start could not have reached the Nationalist baseline before game ended.

Know thy self, know thy enemy, and know thy situation.