Post by Theaetetus on Jan 25, 2021 22:48:10 GMT
The scenario I played was an attempt to capture some thoughts I have had about wargames and war in general. The scenario in particular ran like this:
Japanese Objective: Destroy the ABDA Forward Airbase and defeat ABDA naval forces.
ABDA Objective: Protect the airbase.
OOB
Japanese:
ABDA:
Set-up: Back row respectively for each side of the map. The Japanese airbase was fifteen hexes away from the map.
Each ship also had a number of "supplies" allocated to it, 5 for each American ship, 21 supplies split among Dutch, Australian, and British ships, and 5 for each Japanese ship, except the Haguros, who had six supplies, since I assumed they would be scoring most of the hits on the FAB. Each airbase had too supplies (5 Allied and 15 Japanese).
How supplies worked was this: whenever a ship made attack or a smoke screen, they had to pay one supply. Whenever a plane was launched (I was using Forumini speeds) one supply was payed from the airbase. At the beginning of every sixth turn, all Japanese units had to lose 1 supply.
How the game went:
Pics:
Set up:
Japanese fleet without supplies on the cards because everyone was out:
Allied Fleet (San Deigo and Fletcher still had a great many supplies):
Overwatch of the last turn:
Thoughts that lead to the supply rules, and further ideas
What do y'all think? Have y'all done things like this before?
Japanese Objective: Destroy the ABDA Forward Airbase and defeat ABDA naval forces.
ABDA Objective: Protect the airbase.
OOB
Japanese:
Haguro x2, Naka, Shigure x2, Yukikaze x2, Akitsuki, Terutsuki, Matsu, Elite Zero, G4M Betty x2
[/span]ABDA:
Montpelier, Sydney, San Diego, Phelps, Sumner, Taylor, Nizam x2, Saumerez, Fletcher, Witte de With x2, Martlett, Forward Air Base
[/span]Set-up: Back row respectively for each side of the map. The Japanese airbase was fifteen hexes away from the map.
Each ship also had a number of "supplies" allocated to it, 5 for each American ship, 21 supplies split among Dutch, Australian, and British ships, and 5 for each Japanese ship, except the Haguros, who had six supplies, since I assumed they would be scoring most of the hits on the FAB. Each airbase had too supplies (5 Allied and 15 Japanese).
How supplies worked was this: whenever a ship made attack or a smoke screen, they had to pay one supply. Whenever a plane was launched (I was using Forumini speeds) one supply was payed from the airbase. At the beginning of every sixth turn, all Japanese units had to lose 1 supply.
How the game went:
Turn 1: Both sides moved up their ships as much as possible, with the Haguros in the centre of a line of Japanese DDs and Naka and the Allies keeping their smokers near the airbase with their heavier cruisers, San Diego and Phelps crept up the bottom of the map, waiting to pick at the edges of the Japanese surface force. Both Betty's attacked the airbase, one was destroyed, and the other scored a bomb hit. The aircraft were rearming the rest of the game and didn't do much.
Turn 2: The Japanese assumed a trapezoid formation (Haguros in the centre) at range-5 from the airbase. This part was very awkward, as the allies stayed back to avoid the long lances, except for the obligatory smoker who was covering the airbase.
Turn 3: The Japanese then charged, since the allies had forgot to smoke and won the initiative, which left the airbase exposed to the Haguros main guns. The Allies charged everything in as well, except the Nizams, who stayed to cover the airbase. In the careful melee torpedoes and gunfire were exchanged. The Allies had a nice advantage knowing which ships were sunk, and could therefore fire with abandon, and which needed to preserve their supplies. Sydney and Montpelier were sunk with long Lances, and one Haguro was damaged by Sydney and then vitalled by Montpelier. The Allies had sort looped around half of the trapezoid by now, and on the edge closest to the centre, Phelps was sunk, and Naka damaged. There was a lot of smoke too, enough that the airbase (crippled by the mains of both Haguros) was well concealed.
Turn 4: The Japanese, retreated and regrouped. The allies did the same, and this time kept the smoke going in front of the airbase.
Turn 5: The Japanese feinted another retreated, and the Allies pursued with San Diego in the lead. Axis supplies were rather low now, and after a brief melee Shigure, Yukikaze, Nizam, and Kidd were sunk. Sumner, Naka, and the surviving Yukikaze were out of supply, and only San Diego and Fletcher had more than 3 supplies.
Turn 6: Akitsuki dashed up and shot the airbase, destroying it, before being sunk herself by the last shots of the crippled Nizam and both Witts. Haguro fired a spread of torpedoes with it's last supply, but they missed. The game ended as the Japanese exited the map.
Turn 2: The Japanese assumed a trapezoid formation (Haguros in the centre) at range-5 from the airbase. This part was very awkward, as the allies stayed back to avoid the long lances, except for the obligatory smoker who was covering the airbase.
Turn 3: The Japanese then charged, since the allies had forgot to smoke and won the initiative, which left the airbase exposed to the Haguros main guns. The Allies charged everything in as well, except the Nizams, who stayed to cover the airbase. In the careful melee torpedoes and gunfire were exchanged. The Allies had a nice advantage knowing which ships were sunk, and could therefore fire with abandon, and which needed to preserve their supplies. Sydney and Montpelier were sunk with long Lances, and one Haguro was damaged by Sydney and then vitalled by Montpelier. The Allies had sort looped around half of the trapezoid by now, and on the edge closest to the centre, Phelps was sunk, and Naka damaged. There was a lot of smoke too, enough that the airbase (crippled by the mains of both Haguros) was well concealed.
Turn 4: The Japanese, retreated and regrouped. The allies did the same, and this time kept the smoke going in front of the airbase.
Turn 5: The Japanese feinted another retreated, and the Allies pursued with San Diego in the lead. Axis supplies were rather low now, and after a brief melee Shigure, Yukikaze, Nizam, and Kidd were sunk. Sumner, Naka, and the surviving Yukikaze were out of supply, and only San Diego and Fletcher had more than 3 supplies.
Turn 6: Akitsuki dashed up and shot the airbase, destroying it, before being sunk herself by the last shots of the crippled Nizam and both Witts. Haguro fired a spread of torpedoes with it's last supply, but they missed. The game ended as the Japanese exited the map.
Pics:
Set up:
Japanese fleet without supplies on the cards because everyone was out:
Allied Fleet (San Deigo and Fletcher still had a great many supplies):
Overwatch of the last turn:
Thoughts that lead to the supply rules, and further ideas
I have been concerned with the material destructiveness of war games for a while, since most that I have played or read the rules for (which is not a large sample, but is somewhat indicative) have had unrealistically high casualty rates, including and even especially this game. While in most games this can be mitigated somewhat as destroying "combat effectiveness" rather than actually destroying the units in question, it got me to think about how a war game should be won.
Wars do not end because everyone on one side is dead, usually one side or both want to stop fighting. Therefore, a wargame, like War at Sea, should have its scoring system based around making the other side not want to fight. The way to do this that presented itself to me as most fun (a good game of Risk can definitely simulate the mental attrition of war in miniature of course, but while deciding to call a game for length is not the height of fun, in my opinion). Instead, I would propose that the victory system should be based around the other fleets potential to fight. People stop fighting when the can't fight anymore, usually because such fighting has become impossible to imagine.
War at Sea already does this in part; sinking enemy ships (the other players potential to win) contributes to your score, usually decisively, and its costing system is usually a measure of the ships potential to score points. My supply rules here are meant as a stepping stone to a game that deals fully with the potential, but for now, 1 supply per attack was simple, and definitely changed the way the game was played; I was more cautious and much readier to flee combat when things threatened to get dicey.
The scenario was not quite what I wanted, but I thought it was a good start. I wish I had had enough tokens to keep track of both sides expenditures, so that I could have used them as victory points.
The game that will come from this may have separate ammunition types, and will also have supplies affect speed. Supplies will also replace damage and interact more with both scoring points (probably proportional to cost in my next run of this scenario). I may also add a morale category, which will be -1 to die rolls, a weapon systems category (damage will reduce the number dice rolled) and a structural category (armour/vital armour/HP).
Wars do not end because everyone on one side is dead, usually one side or both want to stop fighting. Therefore, a wargame, like War at Sea, should have its scoring system based around making the other side not want to fight. The way to do this that presented itself to me as most fun (a good game of Risk can definitely simulate the mental attrition of war in miniature of course, but while deciding to call a game for length is not the height of fun, in my opinion). Instead, I would propose that the victory system should be based around the other fleets potential to fight. People stop fighting when the can't fight anymore, usually because such fighting has become impossible to imagine.
War at Sea already does this in part; sinking enemy ships (the other players potential to win) contributes to your score, usually decisively, and its costing system is usually a measure of the ships potential to score points. My supply rules here are meant as a stepping stone to a game that deals fully with the potential, but for now, 1 supply per attack was simple, and definitely changed the way the game was played; I was more cautious and much readier to flee combat when things threatened to get dicey.
The scenario was not quite what I wanted, but I thought it was a good start. I wish I had had enough tokens to keep track of both sides expenditures, so that I could have used them as victory points.
The game that will come from this may have separate ammunition types, and will also have supplies affect speed. Supplies will also replace damage and interact more with both scoring points (probably proportional to cost in my next run of this scenario). I may also add a morale category, which will be -1 to die rolls, a weapon systems category (damage will reduce the number dice rolled) and a structural category (armour/vital armour/HP).
What do y'all think? Have y'all done things like this before?
