tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post1790466562828172354..comments2024-03-18T13:26:35.800-07:00Comments on Archduke Piccolo: Sittangbad Revisited (3)Archduke Piccolohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-90259403938048655422017-10-25T15:32:08.956-07:002017-10-25T15:32:08.956-07:00Thanks for you comment, Jonathan. I think you are...Thanks for you comment, Jonathan. I think you are right about scale being a consideration, but, oddly enough, it seems to me that can go two ways, and all. I know of relatively small scale missions along those lines, but Division level, or higher? But of course in an operations level game 'close assault' means something different from that of a platoon level game.<br /><br />I may end up allowing it, but with a 'collateral damage' risk.<br /><br />On the matter of 'permissive' vs 'prohibitive' rule sets, the underlying principle of the former is "if it doesn't say you CAN do THAT, then you can't". The principle of the latter is, "if it doesn't say you CAN'T do THAT, then you CAN". <br /><br />This risk in the former case is probably that you might permit things you don't want to permit, a much higher risk than if adopting a more prohibitive approach. Of course, they really amount to the same thing: it's just the way they are worded. I'm thinking just now how one would express the rule of castling in chess. There are several conditions that apply, and they are probably best expressed in negative (prohibitive) terms: the king and the particular rook not previously having been moved, the king being not in check at that point, nor ending in check {which would make it an illegal move anyhow}, nor the king passing through a square under attack, and the absence of intervening pieces... <br /><br />So although I prefer the 'what you can do' approach, I am aware that now and then one might have to choose the alternate approach for the sake, if nothing else, of clarity.Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-16349228904938758722017-10-25T15:15:17.117-07:002017-10-25T15:15:17.117-07:00Cheers, Ross -
I agree that a 'close assault&#...Cheers, Ross -<br />I agree that a 'close assault' as we call it might take place at ranges of tens or more of yards. But they can also be pretty close - zero yards - or even less!<br /><br />To explain. In an account of the last days' fighting in Tunisia, a German survivor mentions an occasion in which a local commander called down supporting artillery fire on top of his own position as a last ditch effort to repel the British attackers. The position was a dug in fortified one, and was in the process of being overrun by British infantry. He figured that as his own men were'below ground' in trenches and bunkers, and the enemy were still 'above ground', his own men's chances of survival were that much better.<br /><br />Although that is not the only instance I know of (and I think the Anglo-US 'Uncle Target' and 'Victor Target' doctrines might be of a piece), can we justify allowing indirect shooting into a close combat?<br /><br />Scale will probably be the deciding consideration - but, perhaps paradoxically, that might decide me against indirect artillery fire in support of close combats. An alternative might be that such fires are allowed, but with a chance of collateral damage - hitting your own guys on a '6', say, with all the usual consequences. <br /><br />Well, it's a thought!Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-49503781626961022472017-10-24T07:32:13.718-07:002017-10-24T07:32:13.718-07:00Good stuff and a riveting account of the battle. ...Good stuff and a riveting account of the battle. Ground scale and unit scale, to me, is a determining factor in whether or not a unit may fire into CC.<br /><br />As for your mention of preferring rules that tell you what can be done vs what cannot be done, I think this notion could be a lengthy treatise in and of itself. It's got me to thinking about the topic anyway. Jonathan Freitaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07862373894196924886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-25727687506159918852017-10-24T05:08:09.963-07:002017-10-24T05:08:09.963-07:00Certainly looks like an attractive and engaging (n...Certainly looks like an attractive and engaging (no pun intended) game. <br /><br />My thought on firing at an enemy adjacent to a friend is that unlike with ancients bopping each other with swords, the units would normally still be some distance apart, say 50 or 100 yards so flanking fire from a friend should be on the the LoS is clear. During the few minutes of an assault elements of one unit might attempt to move forward but if they don't drive the enemy back they would likely be driven back a short distance (less than 1 grid).<br /><br />As an aside, I was very reluctant to use the card draw as described for fear of a run but having tried it in 3 games it actually worked well as long as there was only 1 joker in the deck. I note though that only having 1 deck of cards to hand, I increased the range of results slightly. <br />Since there were no turns per se using the card draw, I remember now that I only allowed the active player to shoot during the artillery phase and charged them an activation to do so. Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-87025464494235098012017-10-24T03:08:07.731-07:002017-10-24T03:08:07.731-07:00Thanks for your kind comments, Bob. Sometimes I t...Thanks for your kind comments, Bob. Sometimes I think arriving at a satisfactory game mechanism is an iterative process: try this, try that, try something in between. The adapted card activation system has yet to be tried in action, but seems to me promising.<br /><br />On the matter of a unit not in close combat shooting at targets that are engaged in close combat, I was in several minds, and what I came up with was simply a compromise. Maybe it will do. But I do know of instances in which hard pressed infantry called down indirect fire even on their own positions to relieve the pressure. That these appear to have been acts of desperation might be sufficient grounds for prohibition - I'm not sure.<br /><br />On the matter of of the presence or lack of prohibitions, I tend towards rule sets that tell you what you can do rather than what you can't. I get the impression that is your preferred approach as well. <br /><br />An example might be 'Indirect fire may be directed at any target not in close combat in line of sight to an observer (friendly unit) also not in close combat' say. Leaving aside whether this rule as stated would be satisfactory, by defining what indirect fire is allowed to do, it prohibits by implication what is not allowed.<br /><br />The next instalment is in draft and I hope to publish it in the next couple of days,<br />Cheers.<br />IonArchduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-41673642033131845512017-10-24T00:47:04.169-07:002017-10-24T00:47:04.169-07:00Archduke Piccolo,
An absorbing battle report to r...Archduke Piccolo,<br /><br />An absorbing battle report to read ... and one that I will mention on my blog once it has been completed.<br /><br />I think that the way you have adapted the card-driven activation system for solo games looks like a winner, especially for this era. I may well 'nick' your idea (with suitable attribution) for any future PW books I might write.<br /><br />As to firing at an enemy unit that is is Close Combat ... well in the circumstances I think that your solution makes complete sense. If the unit that is firing is not engaged in Close Combat and their fire is direct and there is nothing blocking the line-of-sight, then I'd certainly think that it was allowable.<br /><br />Interestingly one criticism that has been made of my rules is their general lack of prohibitions. A certain type of wargamer wants every possibility and eventuality included in the rules ... and if they aren't then the rules are 'unrealistic'. My reply is always based on Janes' First Rule of Wargaming: ‘Nothing can be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war.' I may be remiss, but I sort of expect wargamers to know a bit about the period they are gaming, and thus to know what is or is not reasonably accurate. In the case you cite, a tempting target like the flank of an armoured unit would probably be too much for an anti-tank gun unit to resist.<br /><br />I am looking forward to the next installment with great interest.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.com