It is too scripted.
I would be lovely if it all looked as exciting as on CoD, but it wont.
How do you do the odds of hitting? Commanders role dice secretly and then shout on a six?
It adds to the feel as much as anything blowing up in a reenactment event, a farce with lots of noise.
Yup... the trick with vehicles is always KISS.
Make them invulnerable, but unable to proceed beyond certain barriers... That's about all you really need.
I don't think we really want anything too complex going on.
Plus we can't even be sure we're going to get any!
In the end... we do this for the players. Most of the players are infantry. All they can really use a vehicle for is as a transport.
The troops must be the centre of the battle... not the vehicles. Spend time getting stuff right for them.
Personally I'm not at all bothered about pyro usage or vehicles. (and the two don't really go together safely) There really was none of either at ALSOS and it was good.
Now something really worth looking at that would work well at LAC is mortars. But there are a couple of things that need to be checked.
- availability of mortar rounds from TLSFX.
- correctly making a mortar safely and legally. Again see TLSFX or someone who already has one, i.e. CiA. Whose was the mortar at ALSOS?
- is LAC okay with one being used at their site?
I'd actually prefer to borrow someone elses mortar.
However again... the standard infantryman MUST have priority as far as scenario design goes. The mortar crew is secondary to them.
Oh... and we can't really mix mortars and vehicles in the same area. We have little control over where the pyro goes and it landing in the vehicle could be disastrous with quite a bit more pyrotechnics than we'd want being the result.
Absolutely.
The mortar(s) would be great, but just a weapon. No objective written for or around them, just another tool that can be used - like at Alsos.
As far as myself and Lipton (who still can't get on here yet) are concerned pyro and vehicles are a distinct secondary consideration (if even secondary) too.
It needs a set of clearly defined and varied roles for the infantry players. Before we look at props we need to sort out scenario.
Agreed, I think people would get far more out of a mortar engagement than trying to put a sticky bomb on Dave barratts 222 if it was there.
Plan for it not being there, we can use the same rules for blockading a route for infantry as for vehicles if they come. Dustbin lid mines, that have to be disposed of in order to proceed etc.
The mortar at Alsos was Gunman's one, steel tube with a working breech and an A frame.
A few resin or wood mines would be an excellent set of props to make.
Relatively small for storage/transport and they can be used whether vehicles are present or not.
About 4 or 5 should be enough.
I fully agree that the players are the most important factor, I just think we should consider our options with vehicles as well. We have plenty of time to discusss things so there is no need to worry about getting scenarios nailed just yet, although obviously the sooner the better. You chaps seem to be thinking like Americans with infantry and vehicles as seperate enterties, not in terms of combined arms like ze germans. 
If we have them I see them operating as part of a unit rather than acting as 'props' most of the time.
Make them invulnerable, but unable to proceed beyond certain barriers... That's about all you really need.
I'm not kean on making vehicles invulunerable, I can see people getting frustrated if one is sat there firing away and they can do nothing about it.
The mortar(s) would be great, but just a weapon. No objective written for or around them, just another tool that can be used - like at Alsos.
Thats how they have nearly always been used in the past and it has worked well. I see no reason why one couldn't be a a target to find on a recce mission game though.
Anyway enough about vehicles & prop for now. Back to scenario ideas.
That's why I am swinging to being against the use of vehicles. Using them in a combined arms role is a safety nightmare, and there is no way to balance out their true capabilities/vulnerabilities in any realistic way.
I think you're thinking too in depth. The way I see it; unarmoured vehicle will be transport only no matter what. If the owner doesn't mind them being shot at then if fired upon they're disabled. If they do mind them being shot at then we can only use them to ferry people about really and I wouldn't bother having them unless the owner really wants them involved (unlikley I know).
Armoured vehicles Capabilites- invulnerable to small arms so can be used as cover, are essential mobile MG posts. Vulnerabilites- mines in vehicle path imobilise until clear. Bazooka destroys- if its fired at the vehicle thats it gone no questions asked but can only be used on stationary vehicle. Simple (well it is to me).
Using them in a combined arms role is a safety nightmare
There is a risk yes but its done all the time in reenactment. Each vehicle has a commander who has a clear field of view to make sure no one is in the way. No reversing in battle and people are instructed to only be behind the vehicle unless it is stationary.
OK, we have been going over the scenario ideas today and are posting up what we have (Lipton still isn't part of sandbox apparently).
Scenario 1.
Patrol
Game length 45 min
The US forces are sent out on a forward patrol to establish German strength before a renewed Allied offensive. The German forces must maintain the secrecy of their concentrated forces, to enable maximum surprise when the launch their own attack shortly.
Both sides start from distant (either side of the site) HQs and must send out patrols to accomplish their objectives.
The game uses three ‘objectives’
1. The German HQ
2. A second objective chosen by the German commander (represented by either a parked vehicle, a simple German flag at the objective, or anything in between)
3. The US HQ
The primary objective of the Germans is to stop the allies locating points 1 and 2, their secondary objective is to locate point 3. The US objective is to locate point 1 and 2.
Outcomes
German Victory – US troops have not located point 1 +2 and they have located point 3*
Draw – US troops have not located point 1 + 2 or have located point 1 or 2
US victory – US troops have located point 1 + 2
*if US forces locate either point 1 or 2, then point three counts for nothing.
Scenario points
‘Locating’ is not a simple matter of seeing. You have to get close enough to find something out – The simple way at the moment is to have a piece of card/wood attached to the objective (at/above head height) with a series of numbers on it – say a 2 digit grid reference. The players must get close enough to be able to record this number, and relay it to their commanding officer. He can then check that is the correct number. (Dean tells me this is what was meant to have happened at Mist? If so I think it is a nice simple way to represent it).
Scenario 2.
Hold the Line
Game length 45 min
The German’s launch their offensive against this section of the line. They must break US resistance to move forward and capture their vulnerable forward supply dumps as quickly a possible. The Us must hold their position to buy time to begin a strategic withdrawal.
Both sides start from a HQ that is less distant than the whole site. There is an objective point between the two HQs (known to both commanders) that the defenders must hold along with their own HQ for half an hour.
Effects of last game
Draw - The US troops are in position at either objective (as ordered by commanders) in prepared positions. The German forces have two dedicated medics. These medics can remove the bandage from a dead comrade to bring them ‘back in the game’. Dedicated medics must ‘help’ those they are medic-ing out of the line of fire before spending one minute ‘reviving’ them. Medics are invulnerable to being shot to keep the game flowing and should ‘act up’ to the role they are playing. As they are invulnerable the obviously cannot shoot themselves. (note – from all they players I have met I am certain that each side can find two players who would enjoy this role for ½ and hour).
US Victory - As above but the Germans do not get dedicated medics, as the slight warning of the US troops enable them to post troops in support and limit the concentration of German forces. They must attempt to take the position with more ‘unconventional’ and imaginative tactics.
German Victory - As a minor victory, except that the US troops are caught completely off guard. The US forces start at their HQ, not both objectives, and must dash forward to occupy the forward objective point in a ‘race’ with the German blitzkrieg (or else abandon it and hope to hold the rear objective, thus conceding at least a slight defeat to the Germans). To add to the ‘atmosphere’ it would be nice for US command to not brief their men until the game scenario has started – suitable swearwords down the radio to an imaginary command followed by a hasty ‘move move!’ To a group of players still sat drinking water would be fun.
The game uses two objective points
1. US HQ
2. Another point between US and German HQs
Outcomes
German Victory – German forces capture both objective points
Draw – German forces capture one objective point
US victory – US forces hold both objective points
Scenario Points
Both commanders must decide how to distribute their forces, forward assaults, flanking moves to the rear, a wide front or strong points. The Germans are likely to have the numerical advantage of the dedicated medics, but must still employ a variation of tactics to succeed.
The objectives are points that must be taken and held. For a position to be taken the commander of that side must be called up and he will determine if the position is taken – Two guys sneaking round in the last 5 minutes and claiming a victory is not so, the position must be taken in force.
Scenario 3
Tactical Withdrawal
Game length 45 min
The US forces must retreat in the face of the German offensive. Whether they held their line or not, other forces nearby have routed and they must withdraw. Before they withdraw they must destroy their forward supply dump, to stop the supplies falling into German hands. The Germans must force the Americans back, braking through their defences to capture what supplies they can and continue their push on the main US supplies at XXXXX.
The German forces start at their HQ, which is reasonably close to the Supply dump objective point and close to one end of the site. The US forces start at the supply dump objective point and the ‘retreat point’ is on the other side of the site to the German HQ.
Effects of the last game
German Victory – The demolition of boxes takes 10 minutes and the Germans have two dedicated medics in their attack.
Draw - The demolition of each supply box takes 10 minutes
US Victory - The demolition of each supply box takes 5 minutes
The game uses two objective points
1. Supply dump
2. Retreat point
Outcomes
The German attack must balance the need to secure the supply dump as quickly as possible, and stop as many US troops retreating as possible. The result of the scenario is a mathematical calculation of how many supply boxes the Germans capture (i.e. how quickly they take the position) and how many US players make it to the retreat point. Thus it can incorporate many elements of infiltration, ambush, assault and patrol for the players.
The actual ‘value’ of supply boxes and players needs to be worked out on the morning of the game, when the numbers of US players are known. The total value of the boxes needs to be the same as the value of US players or slightly higher – i.e. 20 US players is 1 ‘point’ per escaped US soldier and the 5 boxes worth 4 ‘points’ each. If the Germans capture 2 boxes (those un-destroyed when the Germans capture the supply dump) then they get 8 points. If 7 Americans make it back to the retreat point then they score 7 points, i.e. German victory.
As with all scenarios the commanders’ orders are to make a fun game, not cheat out to score a phyric victory. The US commander will not abandon all supplies to run for the retreat point and the draw because that would be stupid and as organisers they are there to make a good game.
German Victory – Score more points than the US forces
Draw – The points are equal
US victory – Score more points than the German forces
LUNCH
How about a radio frequency, something like that, something which is important..
Also just to note, that the 1st scenario could be done over a whole morning, using opposite ends of the site is going to knacker people out, and forces may end up missing and crossing each other completely. I think the idea of the game is great, but the distances involved for a game of less than an hour needs to be shorter. Or lengthen the game. In which case it becomes less combat mission stylie, and more of a regen sorta thing.
Yes, radio frequencies are interesting.
Using a smaller section of the site for the first scenario is a good point. I only experienced a bit of it so such things are useful. The next phase is to put the scenarios to a part of the site where such issues can be ironed out. 
nail on the head craig, its easy to veer away from KISS when you get excited about what we can do. I'm one of the biggest culprits of that! 
Webby has a point about opposing patrols missing each other entirely. Even if they're meant to avoid a firefight you'd still hope they might come across one another at some point. Thats why I chose to have the germans in static positions, that gives the US a point to aim for and work around. The Germans can still send out defensive patrols but their main objective would be to deny the intel to the enemy rather than obtain it. Its also the reason I included the minefields, it give the patrols something else to think about an limits their movement.
Scenario 2 looks sound enough. I like the idea of having the US caught unawares and having to rush troops to their positions. There could be a an out post of a few troops holding the line who must report the enemy attack before the US are able to become aware of it and respond. They could delay the Germans enough to allow the US troops to get into position if they do their job well or get over run before reporting the attack if they don't, leaving the US little time to react.
Scenario 3 again is good but I would prefer seperate supply dumps rather than using boxes. This allows them to be seperated so that the US forces can withdraw through them and its not just an empty space between the start and finish. It also makes it clearer what has and hasn't been destroyed. It will also give both sides more options in terms of objectives and means the US can't just concentrate on one spot but are spread out as they would be in a retreat.
I would again question the use of the whole site within the time frame and we don't want to go over the same ground too often. I think ideally we would go up the site one way and then back again throughout the course of the day. This would limit reusing the same terrain and help cut down the turn around between scenarios. This may of course not be practical to suit the scenarios but is something to consider.
About victory points; personally I think we should avoid them. I understand with your wargaming background so you may like them but to me they're unneccessarily complex. Having to work out who did what will just slow thing down and confuse people (mainly me). E.g. In the true KISS either the german captured a supply dump or they didn't. How many results in a win, a lose or a draw.
Medics- I think this was discussed between Yith, Webby and myself and it was decided dedicated medics are often more of a hinderence than help. Maybe we should stick with normal PBI style medic rules for most scenarios.
One thing I did suggest to Webby for all out assualts in the style of PBI rolling regen games is self medicing. When trying to simulate a larger force involved in a major attack, rather than have regen like PBI we allow people to heal themselves under certain circumstances. For excample if someone is hit but cannot be reached by a team mate they can heal themselves IF they are not under fire or within a certain distance of the enemy. This gives them one additional life until hit again. After that they must wait to be mediced by a team mate. This medicing restores them to full health were they can heal themselves again. This cuts out regening and allows an attack to maintain its momentum but woould only be used in circumstances where we want to make it very tough for the defenders.
Webby has a point about opposing patrols missing each other entirely. Even if they're meant to avoid a firefight you'd still hope they might come across one another at some point. Thats why I chose to have the germans in static positions, that gives the US a point to aim for and work around. The Germans can still send out defensive patrols but their main objective would be to deny the intel to the enemy rather than obtain it. Its also the reason I included the minefields, it give the patrols something else to think about an limits their movement.
Neither side can afford to allow the patrols to wander aimlessly as it would result in serious problems for their side. If the Germans are in a static position then the scenario is effectively an attack, with little difference to the second scenario. the main objective of the Germans IS to deny the US access to their points.
Scenario 2 looks sound enough. I like the idea of having the US caught unawares and having to rush troops to their positions. There could be a an out post of a few troops holding the line who must report the enemy attack before the US are able to become aware of it and respond. They could delay the Germans enough to allow the US troops to get into position if they do their job well or get over run before reporting the attack if they don't, leaving the US little time to react.
Players have to report to the same point after the first scenario. a couple could be sent out but it adds an element of inevitability, and a forced inaction during the game. Sending people out to report back if an attack comes, which is definitely coming, whilst forcing inaction from the others lends itself to staged action a little. also given the nature of the site is that you can see a far way, the sudden NOW!ness would be more atmospheric.
Scenario 3 again is good but I would prefer separate supply dumps rather than using boxes. This allows them to be separated so that the US forces can withdraw through them and its not just an empty space between the start and finish. It also makes it clearer what has and hasn't been destroyed. It will also give both sides more options in terms of objectives and means the US can't just concentrate on one spot but are spread out as they would be in a retreat.
Supply dumps are generally concentrated, not spread out. Having a series of dumps lends to the 'two guys with pistols sneaking round an snaffling the supplies' which is daft. Having a single point, and then a withdrawal means the US have to maintain not just a strong point, but a line to prevent the German forces from encircling them, whilst defending the supply dump itself.
I would again question the use of the whole site within the time frame and we don't want to go over the same ground too often. I think ideally we would go up the site one way and then back again throughout the course of the day. This would limit reusing the same terrain and help cut down the turn around between scenarios. This may of course not be practical to suit the scenarios but is something to consider.
Yes, sections of the site should be used, just large enough to give variations in movement and a reasonable withdrawal distance.
About victory points; personally I think we should avoid them. I understand with your wargaming background so you may like them but to me they're unneccessarily complex. Having to work out who did what will just slow thing down and confuse people (mainly me). E.g. In the true KISS either the german captured a supply dump or they didn't. How many results in a win, a lose or a draw.
Holding a supply dump for long enough to destroy the supplies is a sliding scale of success. The Germans ARE going to capture it, it is a case of how long you can hold of the advance before withdrawing, and how well you can withdraw. Otherwise it is another defend/attack mission, just with added supplies. If anyone can come up with a simpler way of comparing the two - than counting - then I would be happy to hear it. It is not victory points, there is a standard win/lose, and it is very simple to work out. Otherwise having a series of supply dumps means that either
a) the Germans are sneaking round and grabbing supplies, which is wrong - two men cannot carry enough supplies to make a difference, supply points must be 'held in force'.
b) there is a linear attack on the retreating Americans, in which case if the Germans get to a supply point it is because the Americans are all dead. removing the fun of a withdrawal and being a bit of a standard shooty-shooty.
Medics- I think this was discussed between Yith, Webby and myself and it was decided dedicated medics are often more of a hinderence than help. Maybe we should stick with normal PBI style medic rules for most scenarios.
One thing I did suggest to Webby for all out assualts in the style of PBI rolling regen games is self medicing. When trying to simulate a larger force involved in a major attack, rather than have regen like PBI we allow people to heal themselves under certain circumstances. For example if someone is hit but cannot be reached by a team mate they can heal themselves IF they are not under fire or within a certain distance of the enemy. This gives them one additional life until hit again. After that they must wait to be mediced by a team mate. This medicing restores them to full health were they can heal themselves again. This cuts out regening and allows an attack to maintain its momentum but would only be used in circumstances where we want to make it very tough for the defenders.
Most would stick with the normal PBI medic rule, it is only on the assaulting mission where the attacker gets (a chance) to have an advanced medic rule. If dedicated medics get in the way, and the attacker needs a numbers advantage then I would suggest a regen being the only way forward, though having people walking around does spoil the feel.
Neither side can afford to allow the patrols to wander aimlessly as it would result in serious problems for their side. If the Germans are in a static position then the scenario is effectively an attack, with little difference to the second scenario. the main objective of the Germans IS to deny the US access to their points.
Its not an attack if the US forces have the space to move around the German positions. Provided of course they don't just blunder into them.
Players have to report to the same point after the first scenario. a couple could be sent out but it adds an element of inevitability, and a forced inaction during the game. Sending people out to report back if an attack comes, which is definitely coming, whilst forcing inaction from the others lends itself to staged action a little. also given the nature of the site is that you can see a far way, the sudden NOW!ness would be more atmospheric.
That all depends upon how you orchestrate it. People will get equally suspicous if they're sat around doing nothing for a period of time. Sending a small group forward like its their turn on the line whilst you keep the others busy shifting supplies about in preparation for your attack will seem far more natural. You can see far on the site, if you're in the right spot. If you're not you can easily get bumped.
Supply dumps are generally concentrated, not spread out. Having a series of dumps lends to the 'two guys with pistols sneaking round an snaffling the supplies' which is daft. Having a single point, and then a withdrawal means the US have to maintain not just a strong point, but a line to prevent the German forces from encircling them, whilst defending the supply dump itself.
Supply dumps in forward areas are not concentrated, especially in open terrain where the enemy has aerial superiority like in Tunisia. The German objective as you've said yourself is to take the dumps, not steal the supplies within them. 2 Guys sneaking into a dump is of no use if a whole US squad turns up. Having one long withdrawl just means the Germans are going to go chasing after the Americans with no hope of capturing them unless they run out of breath. Having a 2 or 3 dumps means the US can break contact and gain breathing space but then have to stop and hold position allowing the Germans to catch up. The US forces are meant to be in flight so having them hold out in one position for an extended period of time also seems unrealistic to me.
Holding a supply dump for long enough to destroy the supplies is a sliding scale of success. The Germans ARE going to capture it, it is a case of how long you can hold of the advance before withdrawing, and how well you can withdraw. Otherwise it is another defend/attack mission, just with added supplies. If anyone can come up with a simpler way of comparing the two - than counting - then I would be happy to hear it. It is not victory points, there is a standard win/lose, and it is very simple to work out. Otherwise having a series of supply dumps means that either
a) the Germans are sneaking round and grabbing supplies, which is wrong - two men cannot carry enough supplies to make a difference, supply points must be 'held in force'.
b) there is a linear attack on the retreating Americans, in which case if the Germans get to a supply point it is because the Americans are all dead. removing the fun of a withdrawal and being a bit of a standard shooty-shooty.
Its not really a sliding scale when it comes to demolition. One explosion in a dump full of fuel and ammo is enough to start a chain reaction to send the whole lot up. In my view it's either blown or it isn't. If the Germans capture it intact= success, on fire = failure.
We are in essence thinking of the same thing here, but I see your plan being the one that is more likely to involve it being more of an attack/defend game than mine. Its broken down into just two stages. Defend supply dump - withdraw. I just that I think extra elements need to be added to ensure it has more to keep each side guessing and doesn't just end up with the Germans watching the US disappear into the sunset. If the US have stop a second time they need to mount a rearguard to slow the German follow up and can't just charge on through any German blocking position. Which will be weaker than they are as the German commander will need to commit most of his force to the main push on the dump to get the supplies needed. Attackers always require greater numbers than defenders in order to carry any attack and will take more casualties too. Having more than one supply dump means the Germans have more options when it comes to choosing how best to achieve their objectives.
Most would stick with the normal PBI medic rule, it is only on the assaulting mission where the attacker gets (a chance) to have an advanced medic rule. If dedicated medics get in the way, and the attacker needs a numbers advantage then I would suggest a regen being the only way forward, though having people walking around does spoil the feel.
Yes thats what I was suggesting, but with the self medicing rule taking the place of any regening in assault games to eliminate the need for 'dead men walking'.
Yes, the supply dumps along the retreat lines works. So long as they are not 'a jerry can that can be taken' then that sounds good. They are positions that should be held either long enough for demolition, or else till end game.
Forcing the retreating forces to occupy a new defensive line is good, the German player still has the option to throw a flanking movement to try and scupper the US retreat but there is more direction for the US forces.
The casualties still wants to be compared to the supplies captured, as a last man standing defence should be avoided, the US forces have to also get back as intact as possible. But the basics are the same.
Yup I like that.
No it was never about moving the supplies etc. Maybe I should have explained that in the first place. 
Yep casualties would still be a factor; a case of finding the right balance between how much the lives of your men are worth compared to the supplies.
