Bob Cordery's latest publication contains two sets of rules. One of the rules included is a version of his The Portable Wargame adapted for use in the Spanish Civil War. While I have The Portable Wargame, The Portable Spanish Civil War Wargame is new to me.
Graham wanted to give the rules a run-through during this week's remote gaming session. That is what we did. For Graham's post-game battle reports, please visit, Portable Spanish Civil Wargaming. Since Graham's battle reports are comprehensive and offer a good summary of the action in both play-throughs, I focus on the Republican strategies for Scenario 1 for which I was placed in command.
Scenario 1 Attack of the Columns (1936)
In scenario 1, the Republicans set up their forces first. The Nationalists enter the table at E on Turn 1. The victory conditions seem unclear but we assumed that the Nationalists must get at least one unit to the top of the map to win.
 |
Scenario Map |
Given the force compositions and victory conditions, I chose the initial deployments illustrated below.
 |
| Republican deployment |
What is the plan after initial deployment and the enemy arrives on board? Will this plan survive contact with the enemy? This deployment provides a number of options as seen in the diagram below.
 |
| Covering all of the bases |
In Game 1, the Nationalists opted for a flanking plan on the Republican right. One twist to the game was that the Republicans won the initiative on Turn 1. With no Nationalists on table, this meant that initiative actually passed over to the Nationalists as there was nothing the Republicans could do. In effect, winning the initiative gives the initiative to your opponent. To compound this oddity, winning the initiative opens up the chance that the enemy will get a double move by winning the initiative on Turn 2. Yep. This is exactly what happened!
How did this plan work in practice?
 |
| Nationalists begin a left hook |
 |
| Republicans call in an airstrike. |
 |
| Transport destroyed and commander pinned. |
 |
| With a double turn, the trucks race for the map edge. |
 |
| Not so fast! Another airstrike. |
 |
| With transports blown-up and enemy pinned, the Asaltos attack. |
In Game 2, the Republicans only altered one unit's position. That change was to move the Asaltos one hex to the NW to thwart a left hook drive off map. The Nationalists countered with a right hook attack. Same result. The Nationalists reached their Exhaustion Point before any units could approach the top map edge. Of course, the Nationalist defeat was aided by the elimination of its commander as he rallied his troops.
With few units, the Republicans have few viable options as to where to place their troops initially. This deployment takes into account all enemy avenues of approach and allows a good chance to defeat the enemy before it can race off map.
Maybe next time we examine optimal play for checkers?
Interesting, my rulebook just arrived and will have to give them a try
ReplyDeleteGood luck!
DeleteNeil - Join the io group if you are not already a member. There's some samples of QRS' and some rule clarifications you might find helpful.
DeleteSeems like despite your misgivings about the area to cover with few defenders, it was the Nationalists who had a hard task in this scenario Jon. Was the arrival of air support random or was it a given ie was there luck involved in having the air power turn up when it did and play such a significant role?
ReplyDeleteThe Nationalists may have a hard time but they are not without options. Rushing to the other end of the board seems quite a likely outcome to me especially if a hole in the defenses can be opened up.
DeleteAir support is determined randomly before play begins. Once air superiority is determined, the side having air superiority knows when play begins exactly how many missions are available.
In Game 1, the Republicans had three air missions. In Game 2, the Nationalists had two air missions.
Air power can have a significant role in deciding the victor. It can be a game-changer, really.
Seems like it was a very quick game, and with few options for the Republicans in terms of deployment. Did the airstrikes make the difference as Keith has asked?
ReplyDeleteBoth games were quick and fought to a definite conclusion. Very quick, I recall. No more than one hour each, I think.
DeleteThe airstrikes made a big difference in Game 1 by knocking out the Nationalist artillery. In Game 2, one airstrike damaged the Republican artillery while the second airstrike missed.
BTW - my error. Commanders cannot be pinned.
ReplyDeleteNo foul. You adjudicated it the same in both games for both sides.
DeleteInteresting, if rapid, games!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Very rapid games, Iain! The battles were over almost before they began.
DeleteI know this is very silly …. But I can’t read off-set squares in the same easy way that I can with hexes!
ReplyDeleteI can never really make my mind up about back-to-back activations. I quite like the way that Pickett’s Charge handles it, the winner of initiative goes first in each sub-phase, so in the movement phase the initiative player goes first and then the same for fire etc, this dampens things down compared to getting two full back-to-back turns before the enemy can do anything pro-active.
My early experiences with PW games involved a card driven activation system. That could and did lead to strings of several activations to one side whilst the other had to stand around and take it. It got embarrassing (because I can't shuffle a card deck for nuts). So I adopted my own dice system. The randomness of the occasional back to back activation gives enough unpredictability for solo games, bearing in mind that if one side gets a back-to-back, then the other side will get the next one.
DeleteAlthough my system doesn't seem to have 'caught on' with others, I've played quite a lot of games with that system, and have been satisfied with the results.
Norm, I am a hexman, myself. While I have played on squares; never before with offset squares. Hexes, to me, are much easier to contend with especially in counting distances and LOS.
DeleteBack-to-Back (B2B) activations I can live with in most situations as long as a B2B does not produce a game-ending turn-around. If a B2B mechanism turns the tide completely, the mechanism is too powerful.
AP, as long as your activation system works for you and provides everything you seek then no reason it must catch-on. Especially true if you play solo.
DeleteI don't like the look of hexes for table top wargaming. When I use squares, whether offset or not, my mind looks at them as a gird on a map, so they look more "natural" (yes, I am aware hexes appear in nature. I've been to the Giants Causeway). Practically they are the same, and as long as you keep in mind you move from square to square, not through a square side it works the same. The main issue is that the grain runs differently to hexes when you look at them, and there's a bit of counter intuitiveness about the way they line up. Use them enough - like I have with the MNG for quite a few years now - and they aren't a problem.
DeleteHaving both feet firmly planted in the two worlds of hex-and-counter board wargaming and free-form miniatures wargaming, I have no difficulty playing in both settings. Playing miniatures on a grid overlay seems natural too. Having begun in board-wargaming, playing with the constraints of hexes is natural and without issue. To my eye and gaming experience, hexes offer the ideal polygon shape for map overlays. Playing on hexes does provide a grain that can be troublesome to some. With so many choices, each can pick and choose what suits playing style and preferences.
DeleteA fun game, and yes, very similar to chess, how you describe it. Did a dice random impact othre results significantly, except initiative?
ReplyDeleteDice randomness likely caused the Nationalists to lose Game 2 when their commander chose to lead from the front and was killed. That move generated a Huge Exhaustion Point swing against the Fascists.
DeleteBut then, that seems quite reasonable, particularly in the inter war conflicts where a lot depended on inspirational leadership to motivate the troops involved. In such circumstances, if your inspirational leader is killed, it's likely to have a very significant impact on the morale of the led.....
DeleteI have clarified the Commander loss issue. He's a straight 6 SP loss to the army, which is the equivalent of losing both an infantry and artillery unit. It is a high risk option exposing your CinC to enemy action.
DeleteCommiting your commander is a high risk venture, for sure. Unless the "pot-odds" are favorable, it seems that commitment rarely makes the risk tolerable.
DeleteI suppose if the save not attempted pushes the army over the Exhaustion Point and loses the game then the risk of losing the commander is a risk worth taking. Otherwise, perhaps not.
On reflection there appear to be a number of issues with the design of the scenario, which might not be apparent when it is played solo or if the force compositions and air power work out differently in the play test. If both sides have air strikes, and if the attackers have slightly better quality troops than the defenders - which they should get from the random quality rolls but didn't in our game - then the play would probably be much closer. That's why I would not use the random generation in a scenario game as it looks to me it can break any form of balance. I would also say that I would write into the scenario that the Nationalists go first to avoid the Republicans wasting a turn. I would also give a +1 on the initiative dice roll to the initiative winning side for the next turn or simply just alternate play. The double turn can give a big advantage for no player skill, and it makes a difference with so few units on the table.
ReplyDeleteThe victory conditions need tightening up as well, as I mentioned in my write up that JF linked to. I don't propose to spend much more time on the intro scenario, but the main tactic for the Nationalists seems to be to keep out of range and dash a truck round the flank and off the table. What should be encouraged is for the Nationalists to dismount and drive the defenders off, before remounting up and continuing on their way.
Trebian,
DeleteThe standard Nationalist tactic was to use some troops to pin the defenders in place, then outflank with mobile troops to cut the defender off, causing them to surrender or retreat.
All the best,
Bob
Well summed up, Graham. Even though the Republicans won both of our contests by exhausting the attacking Nationalists, stopping the Nationalists from a race across the table to victory seems a tough one for the Republicans.
DeleteA mad dash across the table may be the situation Bob is expecting in this scenario.
Looks a challenging scenario. Very chess like as you say.
ReplyDeleteWith both sides figuring they had a tough row to hoe, the scenario is challenging.
Delete