PBEM / MBX Wargaming RSS Export http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:50:18 -0500 5 The Last Day: a proposed MBX http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8520 War in 2012, Spring Tiger, Mach 2 Vampires, and the upcoming Splash One Mudhen.

I have myself toyed with the idea of running an MBX ever since my involvement with that monster wargame Global Thunder. But the scale of those efforts have been truly massive, daunting, and while I have great respect for the folks who have taken on the job and pulled it off, I don't think I would like to take on something quite that large.

I have two efforts in mind, one a bit larger than the other. I also see the merit in running a smaller scale wargame prior to the larger effort, as HG member Silent Hunter has intended with Mach 2 Vampires and Splash One Mudhen. So I'm going to borrow from that concept and launch a smaller wargame first.

This one will not be based on any Harpoon version, computer or paper based, though it will borrow where necessary from the excellent information they provide about weapon systems and capabilities. Nor will it be based on any other commercial or military simulation. You won't need a copy of any game to play. And, I expect it will be quite different from anything you've probably ever done in the wargaming arena.

So, what will this MBX be about?

If you are over the age of 25, chances are you grew up with it.

Maybe it never weighed heavily on your mind except as a passing thought or something dramatized by a news report or a movie. Maybe you thought about it a lot, though I expect that would not have been healthy. tongue.gif

Maybe you or a family member were far closer to being involved in some aspect of it than you would have liked. But it was their (your) job. A duty. One that no one would never wish to have to carry out.

What the heck am I talking about?

Global thermonuclear war.

Yep, this MBX will be about global thermonuclear war. Scary? Yup. Too scary to contemplate? Maybe. You might not be comfortable entertaining the idea. No one would fault you for that.

Is it even possible to win a global thermonuclear war? Of course not. Not in any sense of reality. But this is a game. And we're going to give it a shot.

I need eight (8) players. The wargame will take place here at HarpGamer, in a dedicated forum not visible to others.

It will not be particularly demanding of your time, and everything you need will be supplied to you. A large element of the game will be about decision making. What course of action to take, or not to take, and how your decisions influence the decisions to be made by others.

Please ask questions and/or register your interest in this thread. Please don't take on the task of getting involved if you don't think you can follow through. Don't sign up if you're already heavily involved in another game, and your involvement here would risk your involvement there. That would not be fair to folks running other wargames.

This MBX is called The Last Day. It starts in the year 1975.]]> Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:54:39 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8520 Anyone small Harpoon4 scenarios starting? http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=10275
Anything like this starting up or anyone interested in moderating one?]]> Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:23:15 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=10275 NATO Division Commander - Leadership under Fire http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=10086
NATO Division Commander

The monster game of modern warfare, NATO Division Commander is a SPI classic that is probably more studied than played. Described in the rules as a "battalion level simulation of conflict in contemporary Europe", NATO Division Commander gradually introduces players to its complex mechanics through a series of scenarios of increasing difficulty. When mastered, the game is a War College-level education on the conduct of World War III small unit tactics between NATO and Soviet forces.

Adding to its uniqueness, NATO Division Commander contains two identical mapboards and rules for Controller play, producing a refereed, double-blind, fog-of-war effect that was lacking in many of the other wargames of the era. Since finding three people (or even two) in any geographic area patient enough to work through the rules is a challenge, the game includes solitaire scenarios as well. With 1200 counters, multiple rule books, and a pile of playing aids, NATO Division Commander was, and still is, the behemoth of World War III simulations.


C'mon you know you wanna... cool.gif]]> Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:04:51 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=10086 Midway: a proposed MBX http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8808 this thread), then I will put forward my other idea for consideration.

I am thinking of wargaming the June 1942 Battle of Midway, using the Command at Sea (CaS) rules and other MBX type umpiring efforts. It would also exploit the capabilities of the wonderfully useful CIC Warfare Plotter (shameless plug!).

Though I have been toying with this idea for the better part of a year now, it would take a while to get it worked up, and would not likely be available before mid or late 2010.

Right now, I'd just like to hear if there are folks interested in taking part in such a venture.]]> Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:48:14 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8808 The MBX/CPX List http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8774
Completed

One Morning in the Hof Gap (3 August 1996)

Ruleset: TacOps via IRC

Scenario: US battalion versus OPFOR battalion

Result: Ran out of time. Game inconclusive.

AAR: Here

Canadian Collision (11 August 1996)

Ruleset: TacOps via IRC

Scenario: OPFOR, two T-80U battalions, have to escort a convoy. Canadian forces, a tank regiment have to seize an airbase. Both are going to bump into each other. An interpretation of a scenario from c.1840- the Kriegsspiel days; the very early days of war gaming, where two forces have two entirely unrelated objectives and just happen to be in the same place.

Result: Canadian victory when the game was called. While losses were similar numbers, OPFOR was broken and now outnumbered 4 to 1.

Comments: The game was earlier played with Kriegsspiel-era units and was a manoeuvre battle. The modern version was a bloody tank duel. Which really says something about the nature of war and how it's changed. An interesting scenario as well.

AAR: Here.

Crisis in Khuruchabja (17 August 1997)

Ruleset: TacOps via IRC

Scenario: A reinforced BTR regiment versus a reinforced US LAI battalion. The USMC had to evacuate a CNN team and UN election observers, then retreat itself, to prevent their capture by a group of Islamic Communists (the USRFKP).

Result: The CNN team died via their own stupidity. The USRFKP vehicles got effectively wiped out by artillery. Their infantry largely survived. The US Marines got the UN observers out.

Comments: The largest CPX yet, although the scenario became unbalanced due to modifications in the OOBs. A lot of issues, but first goes tend to produce them.

Prokhorovka II

Scenario: So Germany wants its eastern territories back... A German armoured battalion is tasked with seizing road and rail junctions against a Soviet force of two tank battalions. With plenty of reinforcements for both sides.

This was based on the Battle of Prokhorovka in 1943, the biggest tank battle in history and a Soviet victory that ended the Nazi hopes of conquering the USSR.

Result: A very bloody battle that ended in Soviet victory.

Comments: An interesting analysis of tank warfare and the battle of numbers vs. technology.

Enforcing the Brezhnev Doctrine

Ruleset: TacOps

Scenario: A combined Soviet air and land assault against a capital of a "rebellious" state defended by numerous light forces. Based loosely on the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.

Result: The Soviets won, but took heavy losses (especially among their aircraft) and used artillery in a heavy manner. A definite PR loss.

Comments: Helicopters are powerful, but easily destroyed. A lesson both the US and Soviets learned to their cost.

"Chimera's TacOps MBX" (1997)

Ruleset: TacOps

Scenario: Two brigades from fictional countries, each picked by a side, fought against each other.

Result: Unclear, but very much a trend-setter including in reporting style.

Troubles in the Near Abroad (13 December 1997)

Ruleset: TacOps via IRC

Scenario: Three battalion Russian force and seven battalion Uzbek force (with US equipment) fight to remove a broken down SS-20 TEL (transporter erector launcher) from the middle of a town.

Result: Russian victory; they got the missile out of the town, although their forces still there were wiped out. Uzbeks also took heavy casualties in the assault; the TEL had already left.

Comments: An interesting example of something different. A demonstration of the problems with piecemeal assaults and using tanks in towns without infantry support.

AAR: Here

Battle of Brunei (1998)

Ruleset: Email-based, adjudicated by Harpoon 3 computer game and TacOps to a large extent.

Scenario: A combined arms affair based on a Tom Clancy short story, involving a 2008 Malaysian invasion of Brunei and the US Marines intervening. An MBX that concluded with a TacOps CPX on September 26, 1998. Involving international politics, a cast of lurkers playing other nations, espionage aplenty and MRBMs.

Much of the raw data (which I'd like to read) is no longer available on the Internet.

Result: US Major Victory; they would have liberated Brunei within 48 hours of the Marine landing, but due to the death of the Crown Prince, would have faced a lengthy stay in the country.

Comments: A truly epic game, exceeded in scope only by Global Thunder, but with a better narrative. A game that generated several megabytes of emails and some truly audacious tactics; including sailing Malaysian frigates near merchant ships knowing that US Harpoons would probably hit the larger merchies (they did and it caused a nasty PR incident with the US commanders getting charged with war crimes); ripping bandages off a wounded person's face and threatening a nuclear strike to a conventional ballistic missile attack.

AARs: Full exercise official AAR; CPX; Several players

Global Thunder (January 2001 to October 2003)

Ruleset: Very similar to Battle of Brunei, although using Harpoon 4 paper rules.

Scenario: A three-stage (only two completed) combined-arms scenario on a global scale set in 2009/2010 where the US had to deal with 11 potential threats and figure out who was REDFOR. It turned out to be a resurgent Russia. A World Leaders game involving the other threats created some interesting side-pieces, including a Second Falklands War.

Result: REDFOR victory for Stage 1. It appears that BLUFOR were winning Stage 2.

Comments: A pity we don't have an AAR for the second stage.

AAR: Stage 1

Team Trackless (19 February 2000)

Ruleset: TacOps

Scenario: Two CPXs on a scenario loosely based on the events in Mogadishu, Somalia depicted in Black Hawk Down. In the first, BLUFOR (the US) had a tracked mechanised force. In the second, they had a wheeled APC force. This was at a time there was a lot of debate about a new wheeled APC that eventually became the Stryker. OPFOR was the same both times, a light infantry force with three AA guns.

Result: In the first scenario, OPFOR mauled the US forces despite very heavy casualties (85%) and got lots of footage of them doing it, although their CO got killed by his own stupidity. In the second, BLUFOR won hands down.

Comments: BLUFOR learned from its mistakes in the first go, skewing the result somewhat. However, the conclusion was clear that LAVs need to avoid close combat. Useful for lessons learned from Somalia, although I'm not sure how this ran in Iraq and Afghanistan.

AAR: Umpire, Players


TF 1-64 CPX (7 October 2006)

Ruleset: TacOps

Scenario: US Army Heavy Brigade Combat Team conducts delaying action against a BMP regiment.

Result: Game terminated at turn 18 due to ongoing problems with server.

SadrCity MBX

Scenario: Iran is smuggling a suitcase nuke through Sadr City, Baghdad.

Result: Terminated early.

AAR: Here

Surge Into The Barents (2009)

Ruleset: Forum-based Harpoon 4

Scenario: Adaptation of a scenario from the High Tide book, where four NATO SSNs have to get through a Soviet anti-submarine force and a minefield to attack two boomers.

Result: The Umpire ultimately had to end the game for real-life reasons, but before that two NATO submarines were sunk, resulting in a loss for NATO. Soviet victory conditions required both boomers to survive and it is unclear if this would have occurred.

AARs:

In Progress

The War in 2012 (2006 to present)

Ruleset: Harpoon 4

Scenario: A two-part MBX involving conflicts in the Middle East (Iran and Islamic Alliance v US and Gulf Cooperation Council)

Status: Ongoing, currently in first part. Subject to a lot of delays due to RL reasons.

Mach Two Vampires: David & Goliath

Ruleset: Forum-based Harpoon 4

Scenario: An adaptation of the High Tide scenario, where a small force of NATO frigates must defend a SOSUS station against a Soviet attack.

Status: Ongoing

Spring Tiger

Ruleset: Harpoon 3.9.4 computer game

Scenario: China vs. Taiwan.

Status: Currently on hold due to lack to activity.

VISTULA Training MBX

Ruleset: TacOps

Scenario:


Operation Triton (2009 to present)

Ruleset: Harpoon 4 and GCS + GCS home rules + Combat Flight Simulators

Scenario: A today one-side MBX involving conflicts in Morocco North Coast (Pro Western Republic Old Spanish Morocco Protectorate v Muslim Ayatola Alliance (Algeria + Libya + Tunisia)

Status: Ongoing, currently in first part. Subject to a delays due to Umpire computer problems.

Website: OpTriton

Upcoming

Cakes from heaven (2010)
Language: Spanish and English

Type: Harpoon introductory AAR scenery MOD based forum

Ruleset: Harpoon 4

Scenario: A contemporary-set one-side CPX involving European naval convoy vs Muslim Ayatollah Alliance (Algeria + Libya + Tunisia)

Status: In Early/Recruit Stages

Website: Recruiting post

Frontier Protectors (2010)

Languaje: Spanish and English

Type: Strategic and Naval component of Operation Triton MBX

Ruleset: Harpoon 4

Scenario: Addition for Strategic side of OpTr and boosting of naval component in H4

Status: In Early/Recruit Stages

Website: Recruit post

For forum registraction contact administrator via email to info@4thperrus.com
[/quote]

Mach Two Vampires: Splash One Mudhen (ETA late 2010/early 2011)

Ruleset: Harpoon 4 or 5

Scenario: 1993. Nelson Mandela is dead, killed when an explosives-laden plane was crashed by remote control into the South African Parliament building. With the peace process dead, the neighbouring states backed by the new Eurasian Union launch a military assault. Determined to protect South Africa's mineral wealth, the US intervenes. The only carrier group currently in the area is that of Langley, which must fight against superior enemy numbers.

This scenario is a re-creation of the attack on the Novorossiysk and Varyag groups by Langley's air wing in the Barrett Tillman classic The Sixth Battle

Status: In very early planning stages

We Dive at Dawn (late 2011/2012)

Ruleset: Combat at Sea

Scenario: An adaptation of a 1943 British submarine movie called We Dive at Dawn, in which a British submarine must sneak into the Baltic to sink a German battleship undergoing sea trials.

Status: In extremely early planning]]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:36:16 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8774 Triton Operation MBX http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9455 here:]]> Mon, 03 May 2010 16:33:29 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9455 TacOps CPX Opportunity April 24 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9049

As there is seemingly some interest to do even a small CPX, I'd like to
open recruiting fir Saturday, 24th of April 1600 UTC.



I will prepare a small company sized scenario for a maximum of three active
players per side. Minimum is one player per side, but if there are more
applicants than places, we could have a non playing CO on each side. So, all
in all, two to eight players are needed.



Planning before the game is useful, but not absolutely mandatory. I will try
to define more or less "fair" winning conditions beforehand.



Any one interested? Which side?

]]> Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:52:43 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9049 Aegean Strike Scenario 2 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8806
I will try to provide more consistent and timely updates on this one.]]> Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:08:25 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8806 Naval Thunder - Battleship Row http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9219
A Naval Thunder turn is about 4 minutes and each inch represents 500 yards.

A quick step through this afternoon pitted IJN battleship Nagato vs USS Nevada (BB-36). Nagato's 16.1"/45's out range Nevada's 14"/45's so that at an arbitrary 35" (17,500yds) Nagato is firing at Medium Range (a +1 to hit) whereas Nevada is firing at Long Range (no mod). Nagato also has eight single tube 5"/40's that although can come to bear in this engagement were ineffective due to distance.

I'll fill you all in later, but after needless to say Nevada took it on the chin in this 1:1 face off.]]> Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:38:17 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9219 TacOps Live Scenario Test http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8943 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:38:33 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8943 Frointer Protectors http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9152
Devido a que estoy disponible para nuevas campañas aeronavales, he decidido crear un nuevo escenario que sera integrado en la campaña en la operacion triton, dicho escenario es un escenario AAW/ASW/ASuW, en dicho caso, se permitira cualquier unidad tipo FFGs, LCSs, FACs o SSKs de cualquier marina de la OTAN, en un numero de 1 unidad en caso de los FFGs, LCSs o SSKs 2x en el caso de las FACs, Hay un maximo de 2 SSKs en este escenario.

Todos los buques tendran unos sistemas de armas genericos, exectuando SSMs y torpedos, que seran de un solo tipo, tambien hay que tener en cuenta los helicopteros seran tambien de un solo tipo.

Si alguien desea participar, puede ponerse en contacto conmigo por este post, o por mensaje de correo a mi direccion de e-mail, indicando lo siguiente:
-Tipo de unidad bajo su mando, incluyendo en la marina en la que serve
-un e-mail de contacto

Devido a que este escenario sera de caracter internacional, las comunicaciones podran ser tanto en ingles, como en español, en el caso de los hispanohablantes, pero debera darse en ingles, aunque sea traducido, aunque se lleve a cabo por el google translator.

El escenario tendra lugar en la costa norte africana, en el mar de alboran. La campaña solo tendra un bando. Podeis iros apuntando a partir de hoy. El dia limite es el 30 de abril.

Mas noticias pronto.
---------------
Greetings Knights

Due to that I am available for new campaigns aeronaval, I decided to create a new scenario that will be integrated into the campaign in the operation triton, this scenario is a scenario AAW / ASW / ASuW, in this case, we allow FFGs any unit type, LCSS, FACs or SSKs of any marine NATO in a number of 1
unit in case of FFGs, LCSS or 2x in SSKs case of FACs, there is a maximum of 2 SSKs in this stage.

All ships will have few weapons systems generic, exectuando SSMs and torpedoes, which will of a single type, we must also take into account the helicopters will also be of a single type.

If someone wants to participate, please contact me via this post, or message mail to my e-mail address, indicating what following:
-Type unit under his command, including the which serve marine
-An e-mail contact

Due to this scenario will be in character international communications can be both in English and Spanish, in the case of speaking, but must be in English,
even translated, even if carried out by the google translator.

The scenario will take place on the north coast Africa, in the Alboran Sea. The campaign only will have a side. You can go away from pointing today. The deadline is April 30. More news soon.]]> Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:05:24 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=9152 Guaging interest in MBX style wargames http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8857 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:08:17 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8857 Gulf Strike - Scenario 2 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=7568
After close to 30 years (1983), I have finally had an opportunity to set this up and play through a couple of turns with live opponents. We have completed five turns before pausing last night about midnight. The Soviets are advancing, from both sides of the Caspian Sea, toward Tehran agains slowly deteriorating Iranian resistance.

US Special Forces have made some effective raids and strike coordination operations against soviet support units in northern Iran.

After a couple of turns, the critical vulnerability of Soviet supply lines it becomes so clearly obvious to all involved. The trick now is getting sufficent effects on those targets. For the soviet player, how much force do you take from your vanguard to defend your transportation and supply units. If you lose the ability to supply your forces, then overwehlming forces at the front will amount for naught. I've co-opted the shoot the archer not the arrows to become shoot the trucks not the supply depots. The number of truck units are finite while supply depots are not.

Soviet air and naval forces are taking every opportunity to mine various allied friendly points and the Strait of Hormuz. CV-63 Kittyhawk was able to shake the tattletale soviet cruiser at the start of the game, but goes down in Turn 5 to combined submarine and multiple backfire raids. The sub was sunk, one "regiment" of Backfires took hits and aborted by Tomcats on CAP, one aborted when intercepted by USAF F-15's out of UAE/Oman. The third regiment got though and a horrible ECM roll caused the loss of any US carrier (Enterprise) for at least two more turns. This puts serious concern for the US's precarious supply line from Diego Garcia to the Gulf. There is a handful of Soviet naval units, including a CVH, loitering of the coast of Yemen, only a US sub and DD, and a UK sub are screening them from the SLOC from Diego Garcia to the Gulf. For now they appear to be staying put.

B-52 strikes are "the bomb".


]]> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:33:26 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=7568 Rough Wake Up http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8621

Rough Wake Up

This scenario is another written by Arrigio Velicogna found in an earlier Line of Fire, and again within the Compendium. It can play linked to another of his scenarios – The Bridge at Passau - and possibly a third scenario, depending upon the outcomes of the first two.

The West Germans set up with 3/1 Aufk forward, using the wooded hills to screen the width of the map with the HQ and LeoII in the center, and the two Luchs platoons on the wings. The Infantry of 4/1 Aufk set up as the backstop, nestled into the towns of Hugelsdorf and Grunental, with the TPZ1’s toward the rear in hide positions.

As mentioned earlier today, the special set up rule, on a d6+5 result of 11, put the lead BRDM platoon 11 hexes forward of the entry point. The T-72’s of 2nd Tank Battalion (identical to 1st Tanks) are strung out along the road behind the lead element. HQ 2nd Tanks is about center of the formation where is struggles to control the long column.

The random initial placement leaves roughly a company of T-72 adjacent to HQ and LeoII of 3/1 Aufk in (G7)! Some start.

4/1 Aufk is the designated unit to begin the ambush reducing a T-72 platoon at close range while a Luchs fails to put any effects on the lead BRDM2.

2nd Tanks is the second formation activated so they charge past 3/1 Aufk and end up with the lead elements taking effective infantry, and Milan ATGM opfire from elements of 4/1 Aufk in Hugelsdorf. So many Milans were expended in those initial exchanges that resupply had to be rushed forward by grenadiers through the narrow streets of Hugelsdorf.

Favorable chit pulls by the Germans allowed for a quick and orderly resupply before the Soviets could pile on. In the meantime, while the Luchs of 3/1 Aufk attempted to break contact and infiltrate back toward friedly lines, and the HQ/Leo II stack covered them with effective AP fires taking out another T-72 platoon, the forward elements of 2nd Tanks pounded the defenders of Hugelsdorf with HE fire. The second 3/1 Aufk activation had the Luchs platoons back to the southern edges of the map, the HQ/LeoII slashed into the rear of the 2nd Tanks formation where it eventually in Turn 3 went down guns blazing.

When the bulk of 2nd Tanks reached the road intersection at G11, and in a barrage of Milan missiles, they bolted to the western approaches to the objective of the A17 exit point – settling in to a wooded assault position vicinity C12/C13.

The infantry element of 4/1 Aufk was able to move to alternate positions to cover the exit point before the Soviets began running the final gauntlet between that covered position and the exit hex. A lucking Milan shot cause a wreck marker in what became an effective choke point vicinity A14/A15. This caused a number of the 2nd Tanks units to not make it to the exit hex in one turn, thus allowing for additional victims to the Milan nest in Hugelsdorf.

The final turn (5) saw the elements of 4/1 Aufk pack up their trash and successfully exit the southern edge of the map. One disrupted T-72 platoon was unable to exit within the time allotted and was eliminated.

As it turned out, HQ and support weapons not being counted, the West German reconnaissance forces won this battle 12VP to 5. Of the West German units the 3/1 HQ (reduced) and 2x Luchs platoons, as well as the 4/1 HQ, 2x infantry, 2x TPZ1 and 1x Milan will appear in The Bridge at Passau.
]]> Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:25:03 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8621 High Tide: Kola Strike http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4790 Anyone interested in playing the Kola strike scenario from High Tide? Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:40:32 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4790 <![CDATA[Defender's of the Fatherland - Scenario 1 WaW Compendium]]> http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8556

This is a solitaire battle report of Arrigo Velicogna's scenario Defenders of the Fatherland from the Battles Within Battles expansion.

The scenario takes place in the upper right most corner of the Blood & Bridges map. A West German reserve M-48 tank company, and a light infantry grunts with milan ATGM, company are tasked with buying time for reqard units to prepare to halt the Soviets at the Rhine. The T-80's, BMP-2's and assorted cats and dogs of the Soviet 93rd Reconaissance Battalion is tasked with getting to the Rhine by exiting at least 6 units of the west map edge with six turns and control a cross road at Hex AA7. Both the West Germans and Russians both have two artillary barrages, while the WG also have an attached 81mm mortar platoon.

The specific play area is B&B Map east of Column X and north of Row 11.

I chose to try to meet the Soviet advance with the tank company forward, concealed in Faulbach, while the light infantry would be further back amongst the wooded areas north and south of the MSR leading from Faulbach to the western map edge with longer fields of fire for their potent milan anti-tank missiles. It was about here that the WG plan was fatally flawed for this run through.

Turn 1: The light vehicles of the recon battalion enter the board on a relatively broad front. The BRDM2 platoon on the road to Faulbach are is engaged by a tank platoon in Faulbach which causes reduction. The other BRDM2 and BRDM2-AT platoons took a covered approach in an attempt a bypass of Faulbach to the southern wooded hills.

The T-80 Tank company comes on board using moving-fire in order to support the two platoons of mechanized infantry as they moved up in an attempt to conduct a dismounted assault on Faulbach.

After a short and violent exchange with the T-80's, the M48's decide they have had enough and began a fighting withdrawal that lasted the next four turns.

Turn 2: While the two platoons of dismounts secure Faulbach with their inherent BMP2 providing support, the company of empty BMP2s skirt south of Faulbach. The T-80 company also now attempts to flank Faulbach to the south. The Soviet main effort is now determined by the grenadiers to be along the southern map edge, threating to bypass the light infantry company weighted to defend the high speed avenue of approach.

Turns 3-4: It is here where the poor movement capability of the M48 tanks, and the black cadillac's of the light infantry leave them relatively exposed. A northenmost Milan team does account well for itself with essentially enfilade fire at the maneuvering Soviets. One infantry platoon with their inherent Anti-tank capabilities took a toll of some lighter Soviet units as they past south of the southernmost woods.

By Turn 5, the WG positions were bypassed. The crossroads was taken and held as more than enough Soviet units cross the tributary river/canal and exits the map edge at Hex Column X.

Losses: 1x T-80, 1x BMP-2, 1x BRDM-AT, 1x M48.

Reduced: 1x BRDM-2, 1x Sov Infantry, 2x BMP-2, 1x M48, and 93rd Recon Bn HQ.

Lessons Learned: M48 Tank platoons, as has been pointed out previously are extremely slow.

Leg infantry can quickly be bypassed if there is enough room for maneuver.

Good note that the counters are "scuff-proof" as at the start of one turn I tossed all the formation chits in a drink cup, luckily there was very little seltzer left in the bottom, all dried quickly and well.

One note, it has been a couple of months since I broke out B&B and in some areas the map graphic is separating from the actual map board along some of the edges. I'll have to find a way to re-attach it without causing anymore damage.]]> Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:31:41 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8556 Splash One Mudhen http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=7373 Myth-Weavers.

The scenario I intend to do- after a quick one from "High Tide"- will be an epic recreation of the assault on the Varyag and Novorossiysk groups from Barrett Tillman's The Sixth Battle.

Anyone interested?]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:42 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=7373 My current gaming plate http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8522
Gulf Strike Scenario 2 will be winding down over the next few weeks with my weeking gaming gang.

Stephen's Mach2 Vampires is beginning to get interesting.

Currently leading a flight of IDF Phantom II on an October 1973 airfield bombing run, being escorted by a pair of Mirage III's in a pbem involving 4-5 guys and the Clash of Arms Airpower rules. The defense is a handful of MiG-21's (I believe - haven't spotted the enemy yet and I'm only at 1000') and some hidden AAA assets.

Not to mention, my personal gaming interests, currently a homebrewed quick modern land rules set, and LocknLoad's World at War.]]> Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:37:56 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=8522 GDW Assault - Thorpe Bridge http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2311
For those not familiar, the overall scenario was derived from a USMC Tacical Decision Game "problem found in the Marine Corps Gazette. The actual problem can still be found on the MCA's website. MCA TDG 99-4. Thorpe Bridge can be located on the center right of the TDG map.

My hand drawn map of the environs around Thorpe Bridge is here. Hexes are 250m each. The bridge is centermass but partially obscured by flash on scotch tape..., damn scotch. smile.gif


Since Assault was US Army-NATO centric Marines never made an appearance if you discount the Royal Dutch Marines in a module called Chieftan. I homebrewed my LAV-25's and AAV's after comparing like vehicles from the rule's author's later game called Sands of War, TacOps, and other sources. I came up with a frontal armor of 5, Flank armor of 4, and Movement Allowance of 4, so 5-4-4. The gun perfomance was that of the M2 Bradley's 25mm chain gun which appears in the game.

The opposing force is an OPFOR Regimental Reconnaissance Company of two platoons of BMP-2 and two platoons of BRDM-2. They approach in combat formation along Highway 9, from the north. The USMC LAR Company consists of three LAV-25 platoons and a section of LAV-25 (Company HQ), and enters along Highway 9 from the south.

Turns are 5 minutes long and are essentially Move - Spot - Fire - Move - Spot. During the phasing players movement turns, the non-phasing may conduct opportunity fire provided they have assumed a "Cover"ed position their last movement turn.

The first turn saw both forces enter the map, each proceding toward Thorpe Bridge.

Turn 2 had the USMC move in its first movement phase and then spot one stack of OPFOR consisting of single platoons of both BMP's and BRDM-2 at a range of 2,750m. OPFOR has not yet spotted the LAVs. The second Movement Phase had two platoons enter into cover, while the third platoon and HQ moved to the west, up onto the lip of the high ground on Leon Ridge.

During OPFOR's first movement, it gets to a range of 1,750m when the two platoons in cover open up, destroying the two steps of both the BMP and BRDM-2 platoons (each platoon consists of 2 steps, HQ or sections have only one step). The remainng OPFOR recon spot the firing LAV's, and in the ensuing Fire Phase the BMP platoon fires ATGMs and Small Caliber AP (SCAP) rounds missing with both (targets were in cover). The BRDM-2 fires wildly with its pea shooter, also missing.

Since the Fire Phase is for both sides and considered simultaneous, the LAVs that moved to the hill now see the firing OPFOR and fires up the two platoons of BMPs and BRDMs respectively, at a range of 2,250m.

I look forward to finding the time to now have the remainder of the OPFOR Regiment arrive, pushing south along with some Marines from the south. Who knows. All in all, rated enjoyable.]]> Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:02:26 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2311 PBeM games http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=6156 Been playing H4 for 3 months now...solo. Absolutely love the game, but would like to have a live opponent. Does anybody know if there are any PBeM games to join?

thanks]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:19:25 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=6156 GDW Air Strike http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5862
It was a rough dipiction of the first mission flown by the author of Angles of Attack as a part of VA-145 on the first night of Desert Storm.

I prepared 2x A-6E TRAM to attack the docks in Umm Qasr. They were both armed with a BAP-100 x6 Cluster Bomb under stations 1,5. An AGM-88 HARM and an AJM-C under stations 2,4. Here the weather was pleasant as opposed to the IR defeating nighttime mist/precipitation thesy faced. For this run through, the port facility was protected by a FCR directed KS-19 battery. There was an EWR-A further back inland.

The 2x A-6E came in at T-Level preventing detection until very late "in the game". In the last three turns before bombs away, the air defense battery sharted firing away with Plotted "Area Fire" to no avail. Plotted Area Fire must be secretly plotted early in the turn, disclosed late in the turn and then effect aircraft which fly through that hex and the six hex around it, and one altitude level above and below. The A/C were able to evade this attack, but since AAA pre-empts AtG attacks, the KS-19 battery fired "Plotted Point Fire" causing critical damage to one of the Intruders. Since the critically damaged A/C may not attack and must drop it ordnance, the lone A-6 conducted its laydown attack with 12x high drag CBU's causing 8pts of damage, a 2D. I did not game the egress.

It was a pretty simple run through. I was surprised at the KS-19's success. The combination of a straight-in attack and being linked to an FCR cancelled out the defensive benefit of Deceptive Decoy System-B so no modifiers, and it had to roll a zero on a d10...and did.

Relatively quick, and fun game.]]> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:27:18 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5862 Surge Into the Barents Fourms are open http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5503
Hmm, one of our heroes here was sunk? biggrin.gif]]> Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:07:15 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5503 GDW Air Superiority http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5669
Always a good feeling getting your first "kill". wink.gif]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:15:25 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5669 Georgian Airstrike http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3097
Georgian Su-25 responding to ground units observing a Russian armored column advancing on their defensive positions.

Russian armored column of 2x tank platoons and a mechanized infantry platoon. At a rearward position, covering a bridge crossing, is a solitary SA-11 launch vehicle.

Su-25 enters the south edge of the map at T Level and moves up along the eastern side of the map. Turns 3-4, Su-25 effectively jams the SA-11 TTR with its AJM-A EW Pod.

Turn 5 it is not jammed and the SA-11 locks onto the Su-25. The Su-25 comes over a wooded area and spots the armored column. Unfortunately, at 1 hex it is now too close to effectively dive bomb the target so the pilot lets loose with his Rocket Pod, securing a suppression result rolling on the 1:2 column of the Air-To-Ground Attack Table on Turn 6.

As the pilot crosses the target making his way to the west map edge, he employs his internal DDS-A dropping a single chaff unit each FP, while a volley of two SA-11 Gadfly missiles launch and track the Frogfoot.

Chaff effectively decoys one of the SAMs, but the second tracks home and secures a “direct hit”, causing a “crippled” result on the Aircraft Damage Table. As the Su-25 left the west map edge I rolled for progressive damage – there was none, so the scenario was declared over with the Russian attack somewhat disrupted and the crippled aircraft making it home.]]> Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:56:26 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3097 PBEM sites http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2925 Does anyone know any good PBEM sites? Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:32:18 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2925 <![CDATA[PBEM "Surge into the Barents"]]> http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3687 An Umpired PBEM Harpoon game is being offered to anyone that is interested. The scenario being played is a slightly modified version of Surge into the Barents published in High Tide page 59. If you’ve had enough with the computer stuff, tired of a burning retina, and bug fixes, and want a real mental exercise than playing Harpoon4 in way it’s designed to be played is for you.
The requirements to play is: one must have a copy of either Harpoon4 or 4.1 Rules, graph paper – that’s right, I said graph paper, you’re going to do your own plotting men. Protractor, ruler, calculator, and pencil with an eraser are also required. No, there is no fancy graphics, but if you want a naval combat experience then be prepared to do a little work. Also, Larry Bond has taken interest in this PBEM contest and has asked me if I could write up an article regarding this scenario in a future Naval SITREP. I would appreciate your help with this project by contributing AARs after this contest is over. Boys, if you’ve been thinking, when will I every play those High Tide scenarios? Well here’s one for you.
If you think you have the right stuff then check out the command opportunities below and pick three command choices, in order of priority. I’ll do my best to match your choice, but be aware its first come first serve basis. If there is anyone that has an ASW expertise I would encourage you to come along side me as an Umpire Assistance. Scenario details, procedures, respective platform form(s) will be sent to your email once all positions are filled. Command choices must be sent to my email. Don’t send your choice through the forum. Thanks.

Contact information:
Ross Jefferson, Scenario Umpire
Jeffro2000@gmail.com

12 Positions needed for:

NATO Forces:
q USS Providence SSN-719 (Los Angeles Class Flight II/VLS) commander
q USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 (Los Angeles Class Flight II/VLS) commander
q USS Boston SSN-703 (Los Angeles Class) commander
q HMS Turbulent S110 (Trafalgar Class) commander

Soviet Forces:
q ASW Surface Action Group commander:
SAG consists of: Kronstadt (Kresta II class CG), Dostoynyy,and Leningradski (Krivak I class FFG)

q Grisha Squadron commander:
Squadron consists of: MPK-113, 114, 127, 133 (Grisha III class FFL)

q B-471 (Kilo Class SS) commander
q B-319 (Tango Class SS) commander
q K-247 (Victor III Class SSN) commander
q K-51 (Delta IV class SSBN) commander
q TK-208 (Typhoon class SSBN) commander
q Air Group Commander
Consisting of: 2 Tu-142M Bear F, 4 Mi-14PL Haze A, 6 IL-38 May]]> Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:22:05 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3687 Decisive Action v2.7 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=1650
New life may have been blown into the languishing gem with the very recent release of v2.7. The sim is available from HPS Sims.

I have had an on again off again love affair with this sim. The civilian version is a deviation from a product used at the US Army Command and Staff College. It suffers from sporatic support, but once again the recent patch release will cause me to spend more hours with this program.

Recent (clipped) changes include:

1) Logistics: Truck convoys are set from the outset; no more making
them on the fly. There's no (zippo, nada, none) automated logistics;
you must transfer everything by hand. New special button for that
function. I don't remember if consuming different quantities of
points for movement and combat is new in this version; though the
points themselves are all one big heap.

2) UAVs only operate at a designated movement node, but can have a
much bigger radius.

3) ATO tool for airpower - no longer through the Fires popup. In
theory, you can now put in 24 hours' worth of strikes and let them
unfold. Guess what the Air Force element here never does? (With good
reason in some cases.)

4) Multiplayer completely revamped - can take a large number of
workstations, but requires access to a shared drive.

5) Attack By Fire position for helicopters - fly out, shoot from this
movement node. Note that they won't shoot *without* one. (Or having
their range ring cross a TAI.)

6) Counterfire radars: Optional! If Counterfire is set to Detailed,
then a CFZ or CFFZ must be in the forward arc of an active friendly
radar in order to produce triggers for counterfire.

7) Loads of power for the Host in multiplayer. But less than 2.5
(free access to the editor) which caused... major issues.

8) Assuming you guys got 2.71, it will run for 400 turns.

N) A hell of a lot of bug fixes.]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:12:42 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=1650 Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=1252
AAR Scenario Z (TRAP) Scenario and Map by Nadir Elfarra.

The game is a relatively old Avalon Hill wargame called MBT (Main Battle Tank). The was a follow on game called IDF which had the same rule set. A vassal mod has recently been released and the designer has been entertaining a re-release in the near future. Ground scale is 100m per hex. Time is the nebulous 1-5min per turn. Counters depict are individual vehicles/helicopters/aircraft/squads/half squads/weapons teams

Scenario here.

First Clash Map

Modifications: The USMC ground force was changed to 3x Rifle Squad, 1x MG Team, and 1x Team (Assault – SMAW) Opfor Anti Aircraft Platoons were mix. End product was 2x BRDM/AAA vehicles and 1x Lt Truck with 2x SA-7 Teams.

Opfor Anti-Air Platoons arrived onboard in the North and in the West.

The game opened up with each Opfor Lt Truck and single rifle squad punching out ahead of the platoon main bodies to arrive at the spot where the chute was reported (Hex V20). The pilot did have a chance to E&E across the bridge and into an orchard vic hex R22. I feel that the fact that the pilot was able to end up south of the bridge, help greatly as the Opfor fixated on the chute hex and was intent to search outward from there.

The Anti-Air Platoons also entered the board and headed toward center map as to hopefully have an impact in chasing away the expected American aircraft. This notion was quickly wiped away in Turn 2 when the 2x AH-1W and 1x AV-8B arrived on scene and made their presence felt early and often.

The anti aircraft platoon arriving from the west map edge was annihilated by the two cobras Snake-Eye and Psycho. The lead squad, on a truck, headed south from Blickheim, and a truck loaded with 2x SA-7 Teams were caught by a cluster-bomb unit dropped by the AV-8B (Ratso).

The lead truck-mounted unit from the platoon in Kuppenheim made it to the area where the chute was sighted and quickly began searching the wooded area in the immediate area, vicinity of hexes V21-W21-X21, while the 2x BRDM/AAA combos were attrited in their movement south. One of the AAA pieces finally made it to the search area where it was subsequently killed by a hellfire strike, leaving behind his partner to a mobility kill in W12.

Forces arriving in the area from Niederbuehl in the east never made an impact in the battle, basically too far to move within the time of the game. Had the final pilot position end up toward them it may have been different. Same can be said for the dismounted element of the northern platoon.

In the final crescendo, the pucker factor increased markedly as Ratso the AV-8B who was planned to make a devastating strike on a number of enemy grunt units moving too close to the hidden pilot – immediately before the ground force insertion in the next air phase, entered the board, turned to line up on the “U” hex “column” and was subsequently engaged and shot down by the BRDM/AAA hybrid during its ingress.

Snake-Eye and Psycho did there best to pick up the slack firing rockets and 20mm bursts into the gaggle getting some hits and suppressions on a number of them.

The next Air Phase, Elvis and Stinky, the CH-53E’s inserted to hexes P23 and Q24. This alerted the remaining enemy in the immediate area south of the bridge to focus on the insert site and orchard to their west. One enemy got within 2 hexes causing the pilot to panic move right into the advancing USMC platoon reinforced.

The Cobras provided continuous suppressive fires while the dismounts accounted for themselves and their cargo, before loading the pigs for their extract flight off the south edge of the map.

Opfor losses were 4x Squads, 4x SA-7 Teams, 3x Trucks (0 pts), and 3 AAA Vehicles. Opfor did down the Harrier for 20pts. The pilot was worth 50pts.

Per Nadir’s scoring model, it ended 89:20 in favor of the US.

Suggestions to possibly make it more interesting:

1. Have an AA platoon already establishing in the area, hey they already downed the first pilot.

2. Possible give opfor a motorized look giving them the ability to get into the fight.

3. Alter the US gunship/aircraft enter turn to 3. The Cobras and Harrier really rocked the world of those AAA assets, both the BRDM hybrids and the truck transported SA-7’s most all caught on the move. This would make for a much-much tighter game.

This scenario is relatively short, and bloody. This run-through ended either in the 2nd Air Phase of the 7th or 1st Air Phase of the 8th Turn. It would be a lot of fun as a quick infantry/air dominant MBT scenario for two players or maybe even an umpired one.]]> Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:25 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=1252 Two Players Required http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5040
Two players are required for a small PBEM game using the CIC warfare plotter.

Cheers Jon.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:40:08 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=5040 About retreat in Decisive Action http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4986 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:10:55 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4986 A small request http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4953
My name is Angel "Silver_Dragon" Francisco, I live in Spain, Barcelona. I was one of the Dual Luckers in the former Global Thunder MBX campaign, and a participant in the campaign no begun by Bill Jennings War in 2012, I would like to contact the creators of MBX, to advise me in the creation of Small MBX or MBX participation in other ongoing projects as a referee or assistant of the management team to increase my experience and support the Communities. I have about five years of experience in the construction of scenarios and battles Harpoon 4.1 and subsequent extensions. I do not usually participate much in the English-speaking forums, but I can ojeo the official forums. It would be very interesting to be able to contact, and thus pose new ideas and future projects. I always had in my head of my own creation MBX, albeit on a small scale. You can contact me at angel_francisco_v@hotmail.com

Sincerely]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:17:24 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4953 GCS Scenarios http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4791 Anyone interested in trying some of the GCS scenarios from the Falklands War? Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:41:52 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4791 VG 3rd Fleet http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4408
Day 1 (three distinct turns), weather rolled as heavy storms right through, horizontally, the center of the map. Worse yet, that encompassed 95% of our collective surface and air assets. Surface ships limited to one hex movement in the wx zone, no planes can launch from airbases or carrier in wx zone, subs uneffected (planes launched elsewehre could fly over wx effected zones.

Turn 2, weather clears but random event rolled caused a soviet (us) command failure. Zones randlomly effected encompass all of our coastal areas, thus again our airfields. CAP was permitted although restricted from reating to anything other than to attacks on the base they were launched from.

In the meantime American B-52 and F-15E's destroyed on Soviet airbase way up north, and a carrier alpha strike damaged one of our island (can't remember the spelling although I could not even pronounce it last night) airbases after forcing our CAP down in exchange for three separate unsuccessful soviet sub launched SSM attacks on the american carrier, USS America IIRC.

Uggh!]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 11:08:21 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=4408 Board Wargames...an obsession? http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3704
ATO
Into the Bear Trap

Avalanche Press
Battle of the Bulge
Afrika Korps Desert War
East Front (2nd Ed.)
Heroes of the Soviet Union

Avalon Hill
Tactics II
MBT/IDF (could not put my hands on IDF but I know its here somewhere)
B-17
Flight Leader
Blitzkrieg
The Guns of August
TacAir
Fortress Europe
Russian Front
Panzer Blitz (couldn't put my hands on it but I know that Arab Israeli Wars is here somewhere)
Squad Leader
SL Creshendo of Doom
SL Cross of Iron
ASL (couldn't put hands on the binder or eastern front module)
ASL Tarawa Historical Module

Clash of Arms
Harpoon 4.1
High Tide
South Atlantic War II
White Ensign
Sea of Dragons
Airpower/The Speed of Heat
Rising Sun
Super Marina I

GMT
Twilight In The East

The Gamers
OCS Case Blue
OCS Enemy at the Gates
OCS Guderians Blitzkrieg II
OCS Hubes Pocket
OCS Tunisia
OCS Korea
OCS DAK I
TCS Gross Deutschland 40
TCS Gross Deutschland 41

GDW
Combined Arms
Command Decision 2
Third World War TWW
TWW Arctic Front
TWW Southern Front
TWW Persian Gulf
Sands of War
Sands of War Expansion Kit
Air Superiority
Air Support
Assault
Bundeswehr (Assault)
Boots & Saddles (Assault)
Chieftan (Assault)
Phase Line Smash
Battle of Basra

Lock & Load Games
World At War Eisenbach Gap
World At War Death of First Panzer
World At War Blood & Bridges
Forgotten Heroes
Band of Heroes
Day of Heroes

Omega Games
Solo Ranger (2nd Ed.)
Main Balle Area
Desert Victory
AirLand Battle

One Small Step
Millenium Wars: Iraq
Millenium Wars: Kashmir
Millenium Wars: America
Millenium Wars: Korea
Millenium Wars: Air War

TSR
Red Storm Rising
A Line In The Sand
Firefight

Victoy Games
Flash Point Golan
Gulf Strike 3rd Ed.
Aegean Strike
2nd Fleet
5th Fleet
6th Fleet
Nato The Next War in Europe
Panzer Command

West End Games
Air & Armor

Firefight Games
Zulqfars Blow

Dan Veressen Games
Hornet Leader II

Command Magazine
Inchon
Centcom
Hell Before Night

Operational Studies Group
Panzer Krieg

3W
Light Division

SPI/S&T
Modern Battles Quad (Chinese Farm, Golan, Wurzburg, Mukden)
City Fight
Division Commander
MechWar 77
5th Corps
Panzer Battles
Berlin 85
Red Dragon Rising

Various Miniatures
Shipweck
Ambush Alley
Spearhead
Fox Two Reheat
Airwar C21

Maybe a few more escaping my search...and memory today.]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:44:04 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3704 Solo Ranger http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3539
My first and only game so far was a squad reconnaissance patrol to scope out a enemy rocket site. You plan various aspects of the mission, how much ammo, what other ordnance or gee-whiz gear is carried and by who. Amongst personal weapons, we carried an AT-4, bino's, AN-PVS-7's, extra 5.56mm, extra 7.62mm, safety rope, a camera. We left behind a javelin launcher and its missiles, SPIE gear, claymores, and soe other things. You establish your route, (objective) rally points, etc. Movement is can be effected by how(over) loaded your people are.

As it turned out, only one UH-60 blackhawk showed up in the pick up zone, so I had to implement the bump plan, and the squad entered the AO in two deparate serials.

As it turned out, we snooped and pooped to the ORP, scoped out the rocket site undetected, and then egressed to the extract point. , crossing a linear danger area on the way out.

It's a pretty cool, and unigue kind of game. It does have some semblance to John Antal's programmed tactical decision novels like Armor Attacks, and Combat Team, although to be honest Ranger pre-dates both of those books.


From the site:
Ranger was compared to Special Forces by Fire and Movement Magazine:

Ranger is billed as the game of modern patrolling. You would expect it to capture these operations well. Actually it does. The emphasis is getting to the target and getting home again. Most of the actions are handled with an abstract combat system.

Ranger is not a traditional board game. It is a solitaire game that is played on a laminated map. There is no hexgrid, or counters. Play starts by selecting a mission. Then you have to plan and organize the mission. Factors under the player's control are the size of patrol (squad or platoon), the weapons carried, the composition of the squad, the infiltration and exfiltration routes, what areas of the planned mission will be rehearsed, and so on. Just about everything is under the player's control except the mission, the method of insertion, and availability of certain support...

Once the mission is planned and rehearsed, it...is resolved using a paragraph system. Since the situations are more generic and abstract, the system leads to more variability with replays. Many paragraphs can only be played once, and then you know the contents of the paragraphs and any replay is not very interesting...

The actions at the target are abstracted so it is difficult to investigate various tactics for actually accomplishing a mission. This action is resolved by a die roll. So if you are trying to destroy some target, it is simply a die roll, modified by your preparations. In this regard, Ranger is not very exciting. It is also why the game works best as a solitaire system. If you want the excitement of stalking through a building looking for the hostages, then you need another game.

Ranger was similar to Ambush! in that it was paragraph driven; however the latter game included counters and did have the "excitement of stalking through a building looking for the hostages" (in fact, quite literally, since one of the missions in Move Out, an Ambush! add-on module, was to track down and rescue half the player's squad, who started the mission captured.) Ranger had a much more serious approach to the subject, and Rooker felt the game could even be considered a training aid for actual military patrolling due to its realism.

Ranger]]> Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:00:19 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3539 War at Sea (second edition) http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3405
See: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1431 for background

Here we go...
CODE
Turn 1
  Ships left in port
    Italy
      Giulio Cesare, Andrea Doria, Pola, Gorizia
  Unit Positions
    Barents Sea
      Germany
        U-Boat, Blucher
    North Atlantic
      England
        Nelson, Rodney, Eagle, Revenge, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, Hood, Ark Royal, Suffolk, Sussex
    North Sea
      England
        Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Royal Oak, Kent, Norfolk
      Germany
        U-Boat, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Lutzoh, Admiral Scheer, Admiral Hipper
    Baltic
      Germany
        Graf Spee
    South Atlantic
      England
        Barham, Malaya, Royal Sovereign, Cumberland, Exeter
    Mediterranean
      England
        Warspite, Resolution, Ramilies, Renown, Respulse, Courageous, Glorious
      Germany
        U-Boat
      Italy
        Littorio, Vittorio Veneto, Caio Duilio, Conte di Cavour, Zara, Fiume
  ASW
    North Sea
      England gets 5 rolls (one for each ship), U-Boat disabled by a roll of 5, returns to Germany
    Mediterranean
      U-Boat disabled, then sunk
  Air
    England strikes from Malta to Giulio Cesare
      rolled 3, 2, 4 all misses
    Germany strikes from Italy to Courageous
      rolled 6 (hit) then 4 (damage) so Courageous sinks at end of turn
    Germany strikes from Italy to Glorious
      rolled 3, 2 both misses
    England strikes from Carriers in Med
      Littorio - rolled 3, 5-disabled, return to Italy at end of round
      Vittorio Veneto - rolled 6 (hit) then 4 (damage), sunk at end of turn

more to come...]]> Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:22:33 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3405 AirWar: C21 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3367 Wessex Games and some 1/600 scale mini's today there was an F-105F leading two F-105D's on a Vietnam-era strike on an enemy POL site consisting of three POL tanks. The site was within the envelope of a defending SA-2b battery.

The SAM site and wild weasel engaged each other the same turn/fire phase. The SAM battery volley fired three missiles at the WW, the WW let loose an AGM-45A Shrike.

The next fire phase the Wild Weasel was able to evade, while the Shrike scored a hit on the SAM radar set, effectively suppressing and blinding them.

Over the next two turn/phases the two F-105D's scored a single DP with an AGM-12B, and them dropped a gaggle of M-117 750lb bombs scoring 12DP effectively destroying the entire target. I had assigned each tank 3DP defense/armor.

I had two MiG-21 "on call" rolling a d10 each Prep Segment to see if they would arrive on the table. Success if they rolled the turn number or less. They did not make an appearance this afternoon.

Pete]]> Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:01:57 -0600 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3367 Speed Bumps - Death of 1st Panzer Scenario #2 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3160
Elements of West Germany’s 1/172 PzG attempts to delay elements of the attacking Soviet 33rd MRD.

8 Turns, to win Soviets must control both towns of Wittburg and Talen by end of game or NATO wins.

Due to massive Soviet electronic jamming, only one of 1/172 PzG’s formation marker is used for the first couple of turns, limiting their ability to engage. Also, Soviets get an automatic move at the start of the game, possibly permitting a second activation in Turn 1.

The West German defense had PzG platoons with Milan ATGM’s in both towns. Centrally located was the Leo II HQ and Leo II platoon in a wooded area. The Soviets entered the east edge of the map, using the terrain to mask themselves as they approached the high ground before Wittburg. The plan was to overwhelm Wittburg, before turning on Talen.

As activations turned played out early on, the 33rd MRB was able to consolidate just east of the high ground with minimum enemy contact before launching their assault into Wittburg.

Once the BMP’s climbed onto the high ground they entered the engagement area of the panzer grenadiers and their Milans hunkered down on the eastern edge of Wittburg. The grenadiers gave out as good as they received, even repulsing the first dismounted assault into the town, before succumbing to repeated suppressive fire attacks and dismounted assaults.

It was at this point as the Soviet platoon leaders rallied their men back onto their BMP’s for the attack on Talen that disaster struck. The slow movement of the unit’s T-62’s ensured they played no part in Wittburg, but in trying to get the HQ into position to bring supporting arms to bare, the Leo II’s opened up crushing the Soviet tanks over the course of two back to back activations.

Unsupported, the BMP’s rushed into a kill zone of 120mm main gun rounds and Milan ATGM’s just short of Talen.

12 to 116 for a final score of -104 = a NATO Tactical Victory.


Questions and Comments:
Special Scenario Rule #3 mentions “either HQ”, but there is only one WG Leo II HQ in the scenario.

Is Marder included as a unit capable of “Moving Fire”?

The Leo II HQ-Leo II platoon combination was the “death star” equivalent in this scenario. 1.3.3.2 HQ Combat indicates that a co-located HQ can add its leadership to the fire power, or assault, of any one attacking unit in its hex. Rolling 9 Firepower die with a 4 “To Hit” made short work of any unit in its LOS.

Must get artillery support into action. This play through it was problematic getting the HQ into position in order to spot.

An enjoyable scenario. I was able to get dismounted infantry in the attack, taking Wittburg after an initial repulse. I need to work on using the numbers of Soviets to get multiple, in this case, Saggers on line in order to at least disrupt the “death star Leo II’s in order to allow the attack on Talen to at least continue until the riflemen can assault.]]> Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:06:24 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3160 Blind Sided, Death of 1st Panzer Scenario 1 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3159
Initial impression was who was blind-siding who, and perhaps a scenario more aptly named “race for the bridges”.

Essentially 1st Tank Battalion, supported by a recon BRDM-AT unit and two salvoes of HE must advance across the map and seize the town of Walkerburg. Out of position and tasked with this mission to reinforce and hold Walkerburg are elements of the Bundeswehr’s 1/171st mechanized infantry/panzer grenadier company, reinforced with a Luchs recon platoon and Jaguar AT platoon.

A Scenario Special Rule provided the Soviet 1st Tank Battalion a surprise start. An HE fire mission is called in on the BW forces to their front, causing nothing bu confirmation that the enemy is near. The BRDM-AT and a couple of T-72 platoons lay down a base of fire, disrupting a BW mech platoon and reducing the Jaguar-AT platoon, while the Soviet main body advances along the line Eben-Wittburg-Walkerburg.

The first chit pulled is 1st Tanks as I quickly am reminded of the limitation of Soviet command and control as I now have units strung out along the route of advance. The BRDM-AT again makes its presence felt reducing another Marder/Mech platoon as the West Germans attempt to re-position themselves, covered by ATGM fire from the Jaguar unit.

Over the course of Turns 2-4, the German command structure comes to the fore, frustrating the Russians, and gain positions in Walkerburg, as Soviet artillery rains down in the town shattering buildings and grenadiers alike. A Milan team is lost and an infantry platoon reduced.

Hasty armored assaults on the local woods and edges of Walkerburg are repulsed as the Russian BN CO attempts to reconstitute his force for a massed armored assault on the town. Direct HE fire opens a whole in the defenses, as the the massed, -company minus-, assaults and is swallowed up completely by the engulfed town.

The final turns are units consolidating positions on both sides, with random pop shots at unlucky units. Game called after 6 of the 8 turns allowed.

As the battle hardened Grenadiers peer outward towards Wittburg, they can see the enemy reorganizing itself for a later push. They can only report in, request more support, and wait for what the bear has for them next.

Lessons learned the hard-way, armor assaulting infantry in towns, without their own support is war game unit suicide. Artillety prep can be very effective.

Using the victory points listed in The Death of 1st Panzer gives the West Germans a Limited Victory with a game tally of -78 points.]]> Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:09:47 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3159 World at War: Death of 1st Panzer, Scenario 1 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3158
Initial impression was who was blind-siding who, and perhaps a scenario more aptly named “race for the bridges”.

Essentially 1st Tank Battalion, supported by a recon BRDM-AT unit and two salvoes of HE must advance across the map and seize the town of Walkerburg. Out of position and tasked with this mission to reinforce and hold Walkerburg are elements of the Bundeswehr’s 1/171st mechanized infantry/panzer grenadier company, reinforced with a Luchs recon platoon and Jaguar AT platoon.

A Scenario Special Rule provided the Soviet 1st Tank Battalion a surprise start. An HE fire mission is called in on the BW forces to their front, causing nothing bu confirmation that the enemy is near. The BRDM-AT and a couple of T-72 platoons lay down a base of fire, disrupting a BW mech platoon and reducing the Jaguar-AT platoon, while the Soviet main body advances along the line Eben-Wittburg-Walkerburg.

The first chit pulled is 1st Tanks as I quickly am reminded of the limitation of Soviet command and control as I now have units strung out along the route of advance. The BRDM-AT again makes its presence felt reducing another Marder/Mech platoon as the West Germans attempt to re-position themselves, covered by ATGM fire from the Jaguar unit.

Over the course of Turns 2-4, the German command structure comes to the fore, frustrating the Russians, and gain positions in Walkerburg, as Soviet artillery rains down in the town shattering buildings and grenadiers alike. A Milan team is lost and an infantry platoon reduced.

Hasty armored assaults on the local woods and edges of Walkerburg are repulsed as the Russian BN CO attempts to reconstitute his force for a massed armored assault on the town. Direct HE fire opens a whole in the defenses, as the the massed, -company minus-, assaults and is swallowed up completely by the engulfed town.

The final turns are units consolidating positions on both sides, with random pop shots at unlucky units.

As the battle hardened Grenadiers peer outward towards Wittburg, they can see the enemy reorganizing itself for a later push. They can only report in, request more support, and wait for what the bear has for them next.

Lessons learned the hard-way, armor assaulting infantry in towns, without their own support is war game unit suicide. Artillety prep can be very effective.

Using the victory points listed in The Death of 1st Panzer gives the West Germans a Limited Victory with a game tally of -78 points.]]> Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:03:37 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3158 <![CDATA[ZOLFAQAR'S BLOW]]> http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3082
Zolfaqar's Blow]]> Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:13:09 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3082 Sands of War/First Battle/Battlefield Europe http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3125
Play two run throughs of a hypothetical engagement between Russia and a former member of the USSR. Both sides equipped with T-72M1. Russians task was to enter the map with a tank battalion and a 152mm battery in direct support. Opposing them and defending a road/rail junction was a company of now western leaning T-72M1's with the possibility of a reinforcing company, rolled for at the start of each turn, a roll of less than or equal to the turn number is successful. At 250m per hex, the map was a home brewed 6 1/2 x 7 1/4 km.

I used rule tweaks found here such as "X" damage results equalling DP except for natural "1" die rolls. petermc's activations, and I believe Steven B's unpin attempts at the start of each turn as well as revised sequence of play. Aslo all SOW movement ranges were halved and round down.

First try the reinforcing company never was able to deploy on board, and the defenders were overwhelmed.

The second try the reinforcing company arrived on T1. This tipped the balance to where the scenario was very bloody, but essentially the defenders held, but were in no position to put up much more defense should a follow on echelon arrived any time soon. The russian main effort basically expended itself in the center, while a company in a supporting effort broke through its opponent and flanked the main objective, controlling it by fire for a turn. The next turn however the reinforcing defender company rushed a platoon and its HQ to the objective hex to begin taking its lumps. Game ended in T6 or an hour and one half game time.

I really liked the activation system, gave some uncertainty to the russian advance. The X to DP rule worked well. I like to keep a natural 1 being an X where appropriate. The Russian 152mm Battery was essentially ineffective vs an armored target in woods. I/we still need to work on melding Steven's First Battle revised sequence of play with SAW, particularly with reference to artillery, when its fired vs when it strikes within a 15min turn, and 1/2 moving units, firing at 1/2 and then due to gun stabilization entering a reaction fire position.

Need to intergrate infantry and APC/IFV's. By the way I doumented many of the common tanks and APC/IFV's found in both Battlefield Europe and Sands of War, then guesstimated a number of units for the SOW platoon sized unit rules such as Leopard 1A3, Leopard 1A5, Leopard 2, Luchs, Marder, BTR-70/80, and BMP-2.]]> Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:27:07 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3125 Georgian OOB http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3103
I post it here in case someone would like to do some wargaming (like Pete smile.gif ) ...

QUOTE
ARMED FORCES OF GEORGIA - order of battle.

AUGUST 17 2008 :

Independent Tank Battalion HQ Gori

Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion HQ Kobuleti

-

1st Infantry Brigade HQ Gori

2nd Infantry Brigade HQ Senaki

3rd Infantry Brigade HQ Kutaisi

4th Infantry Brigade HQ Vaziani

5th Infantry Brigade HQ Khelvachauri (not fully operational)

with around 150 older light armoured Vehicles

Infantry weapons included some 800 Mortars, 150 SA-7 grail MANPAD Systems, several thousand RPG Anti-tank Rocket Launchers and a small number of Anti-tank missile systems. Reasonably well equipped with modern small arms

-

The 1st and 2nd Infantry Brigades along with the Independent Tank Battalion and most of the front line artillery units are no longer combat capable. There have been very significant losses in weapons, ammunition stocks and damage done to the military infrastructure

-

Artillery Brigade HQ Gori

Artillery Regiment HQ Gori

Artillery Regiment HQ Khoni

Equipment included around 150 towed 122mm & 152mm Artillery; 90 assorted self-propelled 122mm, 152mm & 203mm Artillery and 200 Mobile 122mm Multiple Rocket Launchers

-

Independent Air Defence Battalion HQ Kutaisi

Equipment included around 100 towed/static AA Artillery and some SAM including SA13 Gopher mobile missile systems

-

Significant quantities of new offensive military equipment; large stocks of ammunition and spare parts for a protracted campaign have been acquired since 2004 when preparations for a major military operation against South Ossetia, Georgia and were working closely with the Georgian Armed Forces. Since the signing of the 1999 GUAM agreement, Georgia has been the recipient of extensive US military aid.

Barely a few months ago, in early May 2008, the Russian Ministry of Defence accused Washington, "claiming that [US as well as NATO and Israeli] military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region."

The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms." (Interfax News Agency, Moscow)

US troops and civilian contractors, who he said were stationed in the area around Tblisi" (AFP, 9 August 2008).

In fact, US-NATO military presence in Georgia is on a larger scale to that acknowledged in official statements. The number of NATO personnel in Georgia, [text missing]

Tblisi announced the opening of a second military base at Gori which would also "comply with NATO regulations in terms of military requirements as well as social conditions." (Ria Novosti, 26 May 2006).

The Gori base has been used to train Georgian troops dispatched to fight under US command in the Iraq war theater.

It is worth noting that under a March 31, 2006, agreement between Tblisi and Moscow, Russia's two Soviet-era military bases in Georgia - Akhalkalaki and Batumi [text missing]

[Text missing] Israel, from the Czech Republic – six MLRS RM-70.

What is more, from Ukraine and the Czech Republic, Georgia has bought 86 T-72 tanks, 52 infantry combat vehicles BMP-2 and 30 armoured carriers BTR-80, as well as self-propelled howitzers 2S3 “Akacia”. A part of the tanks is modernized to level SIM1, i.e. is provided with navigation receivers, connection systems and termovisors to detect the target in complete darkness. Over 400 recently bought trucks KrAZ and Japanese pick-ups Toyota Hilux supply Bulgaria and licensed in the times of the Soviet Union.

-

Ukrainian Defense Ministry confirms weapons supplies Georgia

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has confirmed statements by the South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoyty that Ukraine supplied weapons to Georgia. Commenting on the issue, the Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta reminds its readers about an article that was published on the Russian Defense Ministry’s website in May. The article titled "On Foreign Military Aid to Georgia" unveils how many and what types of weapons Georgia received from Ukraine.

Mikhail Pogrebisnky, the head of the Center for Political Studies and Conflictology in Kyiv, remarks in this connection that there is common international practice to refrain from arms supplies to regions fraught with potential military conflicts. In the analyst’s opinion, Ukraine sends weapons to Georgia in order to create problems for US.

A subsidiary of BAE Systems Ltd, will supply anti-tank weapons to the Georgian army. The weapons that will be supplied is Bill 2 ATGW, the NLAW light anti-tank weapon and the anti-tank artilly shells, Bonus and Excalibur. The anti tank weapons are to delivered to the Georgian army during the 4th quarter 2008.

The commander of the Georgian Land Forces, LTC Alexander Osepaishvili, says that "the new anti-tank weapons will significantly increase the capabilities of the Georgian army. The new weapons are for self defence only and are not to be regarded as offensive".

An obstacle has been that the weapons are developed and produced in Sweden by BAE Systems AB Bofors and Saab Systems AB, but by supplying the anti-tank weapons through BAE Inc in the US, the Swedish government approves to the sales.

-

Offensive military training with large numbers of armoured vehicles, artillery and ground attack aircraft has been carried out regularly since June 2005.

-

Several Battalions of Special Operations Forces have received significant training and large supplies of modern military equipment from the [text missing]

-

22 Su-25KM; 13 Su-25UB; 11 L-39 and 2 L-29 Ground Attack aircraft

-

(Unconfirmed presence of 5 Su-17, 4 Su-24, 12 MiG-25, 18 MiG-21 and numerous Su-25 airframes at the TAM Tbilisi Aerospace Manufacturing (Tbilaviamsheni” former Soviet GAZ-31 factory), though at least one MiG-21UM was in flying condition. However this facility which produces the upgraded Su-25 Ground Attack fighter with technical support from Israel was heavily bombed on several occasions during the conflict and significant damage resulted)

-

3 Operational Combat Helicopter Squadrons operate:

1 Mi-35 "Hind" ; 19 Mi-24-P "Hind" and 21 Mi-24-V "Hind" Attack helicopters

Other units operate:

18 Mil Mi-14 ; 16 Mi-8 "Hip"; 6 Bell-212; 40 UH-1H and 2 Mil Mi-2 Transport helicopters (many of which have now been armed)

-

Main Military Air Bases

Vaziani MAB (2-3 kilometers from Tbilisi), International Kopitnari AB (several kilometers from Kutaisi)

-

Air Defence Missile Units included around 10 old SA2 Guideline static, 38 SA3 Goa static, 40 SA4 Ganef mobile and SA5 Gammon static missile systems.

Air Defence Artillery Units included

35 ZSU-23-4,15 C-60 and 40 MT-LB with towed ZU-23

Some rather more modern Western missile systems are reportedly now available.

-

NAVY OF GEORGIA

Mobilized - around 900 Officers and Men

7 ex-French La Combattante II Fast Patrol Boats armed with 2 OTO-Melara 76 mm/L62 guns, modified anti-aircraft guns, and Exocet missiles

11-13 P 269 Lindos Fast Patrol Boats armed with 2 C802 anti-ship missile batteries and AK-630M guns

(Most vessels have been destroyed)

-

NATIONAL GUARD OF GEORGIA

(Mobilized - around 25,000 Officers and Men)
]]> Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:39:47 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3103 Air Strike/Airpower http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3088
The various targets were defended by one "A" and one "C" rated FCR assisted KS-19, one "A" and one "C" rated FCR assisted S-60 batteries, and four SA-14 MANPAD Teams.

The attackers were two Su-25's carrying a DDS-A (10 Flares and 10 Chaff) and a small "Medium" rocket pod on weapon stations 1, and 10; and four 1100 BB on stations 2,4,7,and 9.

Intially entering on one of the adjacent maps, the Frogfoots came in a T level, popping up to Alt 2 just before making their run on the randomly rolled target of two of the three runway hexes 0714, 0813,0914. The airfield was defended by an S-60 unit.

The attackers were initially engaged by a non-taget area KS-19 unit, but it missed. Then a barrage of SA-14, the lead Su-25 took light damage from one of the MANPADs, the rest being decoyed away.

One the attack run and over the target area, both aircraft dropped their BB loads, lead scoring 2D and Dash-1 getting a "Kill". Egressing from the target area, lead again took light damage from aimed S-60 fire, and Dash-2 took a proximity hit from an SA-14.

The Russians won this scenario against the former Soviet Republic 13-9.]]> Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:58:02 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3088 A Cold War PBP RP http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3035 Airwolf, MacGyver and The A-Team.

I'm planning to set it in 1981, so I need to know a bit about the military balance then.

* When precisely did PVO Strany change its name to Voyska PVO? Why?
* What type of MiG-21 were the East Germans using at that point? What missiles did it carry?
* How many strategic nukes did each side have?

You're welcome to join- please PM me.]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:13:49 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3035 Hornet Leader II North Atlantic 1986 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2902
Veteran F-14 HotRod (Fast)
Skilled F-14 Cash (Fast)
Average F-14 Feather (Slow)
Newbie F-14 Echo (Slow)
Veteran A-6 Nova (Fast)
Average A-6 Python (Slow)
Average A-6 Pepper (Slow)
Green A-6 Crabby (Slow)
Average F-18 Wraith (Fast)
Green F-18 Joker (Slow)
Average EA-6B Jazz (Slow)
Average E-2C Thunder (-)

1st Target randomly selected, Target 15 Fuel Depot midway along the Swedish-Finland border. Target causes -4 Weight Points and mission completion will cause +3 Stress Points. target consists of 2x Sites and 2x Bandits in each Approach Area, and 1x Site and 1x Bandit over the target area. Mission calls for 5 aircraft.

Intel Section describes the defenses as the following (Site Selection):
North1 SA-3 SAM Site
North2 SA-15 SAM Site
South1 SA-2 SAM Site
South2 SA-15 SAM Site
East1 SA-14 MANPAD position
East2 SA-15 SAM Site
West1 ZSU-23/4 air defense vehicle
West2 SA-7 MANPAD position
Target Area 37mm AAA Site

Mission Pilot Assignment, Revised Weight Points, and Mission Payload:
F-14 Cash 4 2x AIM-54 Phoenix, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder
F-14 Feather 4 2x AIM-54 Phoenix, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder
A-6 Pepper 8 3x Mk83, 2x Mk20 CBU
A-6 Python 8 3x Mk83, 2x Mk20 CBU
EA-6B x 4x AGM-88 HARM

Draw Target-bound Event Card:
Opportunity - Bridge. "If you expend 2 AtG counters, move the INFRA Counter 1 to the right. I opt to do this, dropping 1x Mk20 from both Pepper and Python.

Inital Aircraft positions: 2x A-6, 1x EA-6B in the SW Pre-Approach Area. F-14 (Feather) in West Pre-Approach, and F-14 (Cash) NW Pre-Approach.

Site Adjustment Event Card: Fog of War - Draw one random bandit counter for the target area each step during the "Jettison Decision".

Bandits Present: (drawn randomly)
North1: No Bandit
North2: No Bandit
South1: MiG-21
South2: MiG-25
East1: MiG-21
East2: No Bandit
West1: MiG-25
West2: No Bandit
Tgt Area: MiG-23

AIM-54 Pre-Strike:
Cash downs a MiG-23, and MiG-25. Feather downs a MiG-25 and a MiG-21.

Turn 1
Jettison Decision Random Bandit: No Bandit

Fast: None

Sites & Bandits:
SA-15(North) damages the evading Cash, while the northen SA-3 misses him. Cash drops all ordnance and collect +4 Stress.
SA-15(S) unsucessfully engages Jazz, whose EW suite defends the strike.

Slow: Jazz destroys the southern SA-15 site with an AGM-88.

Hornets Move: Python, Pepper at Low and Jazz at High enter the Southern Approach. Feather at Low in the SW Pre-Approach. Cash at Low is the Western Pre-Approach.

Single remaining bandit (MiG-21 moves to the Southern Approach.

Turn 2
Jettison Decision Random Bandit: No Bandit

Fast: None.

Sites & Bandits:
MiG-21 attacks the evading Python, while Feather sucessfully suppresses the MiG with an AIM-9.
SA-15(E) attacks evading Pepper. Missile misses while Pepper picks up +1 Stress.

Slow: Python takes down the SA-2 site with a Mk20 CBU.
Jazz launches an AGM-88 vs the eastern SA-16, destroying it.
Feather takes out the final MiG in the southern Approach Area.

Hornets Move: A-6's at Low and EA-6B at High enter the target area. Feather at Low in Southern Approach Area, while Cash holds.

Turn 3:
Jettison Decision Random Bandit: No Bandit

Fast: None.

Sites & Bandits:
Target Area 37mm AAA misses Jazz.
SA-15 targets Jazz who suppresses it with a HARM.
SA-3 fires at and misses Jazz.

Slow: Jazz destroys the SA-15 with an AGM-88.
Pepper takes out the 37mm AAA with a Mk20 CBU.
Python takes out the target with two sticks of Mk83 bombs securing 5 hits.

Strike and Feather, all at Low, are in Southern Approach Area.

Turn 4:
Jettison Decision Random Bandit: No Bandit

Home Bound Event Card: SAR - Save card, will adjust next SAR roll by 4.

Mission Complete

Cash (Cool 0) 4 Stress Points +3 -0 = 7 "Shaken"
Jazz (Cool 1) 2 Stress Points +3 -1 = 4 "Okay"
Pepper (Cool 1) 1 Stress Point +3 -1 = 3 "Okay"
Python (Cool 1) 1 Stress Points +3 -1= 3 "Okay"


This scenario demonstrated well the long legs and superior payload of the A-6 Intruders, the exceptional pre-strike AIM-54, as well as the defensive EW and SAM suppression performance of the EA-6B.]]> Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:53:13 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2902 Hornet Leader II Libya 1986 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2879
The target area is defended by randomly drawn ZSU-23/4 and an SA-14 MANPAD.

Pilots selected for the mission are:
Veteran "Wraith" flying air cover with 2x AIM-7 and 2x AIM-7 and an ALQ-119(v) EW pod;
Average "Griffen" flying air defense suppression with 2x AGM-65, 2x AIM-9, and an ALQ-119(v) EW pod;
Skilled "Fox" and average "Bullseye" flying as the strikers with 2x Mk83, 2x AIM-9, and an ALQ-119(v) EW pod

The Ingress Event Card drawn is "Bad Weather - Ground Clutter" which will require a -2 Air to Ground DRM from High Altitude.

Wraith and Griffen approach the target from the south while the strikers approach from the northeast.

The Target Event Card dawn is "F-14 Tomcats" while provides for drawing one less bandit counter for the target area during the Determine Bandits Present step. [That was for you Tony...too bad there are no bandits called for over the target area - too bad it did not apply to the approach]

2x Bandit chits are drawn for each of the four approach areas. 3 "No Bandit" markers are drawn , two in the east and one in the north. That appears good for the strikers, providing them with a clear path to the target area.

During the four turns of the actual attack 4/7 AIM-9's and 1/2 AIM-7's hitting their targets destroying an Su-24, Su-25, MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-27. Griffin took out the ZSU-23/4 with a maverick, while the target is peppered with six Mk83 hits whereas only 4 hits were required to destroy the target. The MANPAD made one ineffectual SA-14 attack on the low-level strikers.

A quick and fun game that is available through vassal and .pdf from the designer at dvg.com and I understand as a PC product available from Matrixgames.]]> Sat, 24 May 2008 12:35:41 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2879 Kriegsspiel, a timeless classic http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2825
The multi-player game is umpired, and double blind. The scenario brief is extremely vague, and was played on the long fought over map centered on the City of Metz, along the Moselle River. We, RedFor, (consisting of me and the force commander, an army officer currently stationed in Hawaii) were told that we had cleared the enemy of our side of the river, and the river line was being held by cavalry forces. Our force had also cleared the city of Metz except for a few dead-enders in some outlying forts. The time was around 1905. Our mission was to clear the remaining enemy forces from Metz.

Our opponent commander was the third person hooked up by IRC, playing from Vermont. His subordinates, two others, and the umpire and two assistant umpires were colocated in MO, which was ok, because friendly commanders can only communicate with each other in the scope of the game. The units representing those commanders would have to either colocate or as in my case along the rail lines issue a 10 word message via the wire comms located at a railroad station. Aside from that, a player knows where his units begin, then provides orders and intent to the assistant umpires who pass that info on to the umpire who adjusts his map and adjudicates any combat per the rule set. This along with the delay in the effects of orders leads to some interesting situations.

The Red CO commanded those red forces already fighting in and around Metz. My 8x Bn, 4x Cavalry Squadrons, and an artillery battery were entrained and made its way on may along a rail line leading toward Metz. The Red CO made an assumtion that the enemy was holding Metz by a thread, and that made be holding on for a relief force. Red CO wanted to seize a bridge crossing to the SW from Metz called Ars sur Moselle, and rush my force across to intercept any such relief force.

As it turned out Red Forces were rebuffed by Blue Forces at Ars sur Moselle, however both sides initially withdrew. Then Blue Forces attack from the extreme north after crossing the river at a fording site. My forces are odered off train and to advance to contact to the north. With cavalry squadrons screening to the front, my battalions advanced in an echelon right formation hoping to meet the enemy the then flank him to his left.

At this time the initially checked souhtern Blue force makes itself known on our side of the river. Hey, this could be some type of little Stalingrad. Two battalions are stripped from me to move southwest to make a stand against the southern enemy force. It was about at this point the nature of 1905-ish communications and how the game replicates that takes its toll. The is a dictated 30min delay in having orders acted upon. Think an event causes the change in orders, the order is expressed, given to a runner/messenger, who then makes his way to the subordinant, probably under fire. The subordinant commander receives the order, and then has to act upon that order. No small feat in reality.

As for my advance/attack. My force's screen quickly made contact with what would turn out to be two squadrons of Blue cavalry, my forces further to my right continued to advance and eventually, yet ineffectively flanked the enemy. In the end, my main force was hung up on the enemy's flank screen. He did dilute his force somewhat by peeling two infantry battalions to hold off my two marauding cavalry squadrons in the extreme north. During all this, the nemy continued to push relatively unimpeded against Metz, just as in the south.

It was a fun game, interesting. In the end, the force ratio was 18 Blue inf BNs to 12 Red, 9 Blue cav squadrons to 6 Red, 2 arty batteries to 2 arty batteries.

Here is an image of the end of the battle as it appeared on the umpires map.

End photo]]> Sat, 03 May 2008 21:09:57 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2825 Training CPX to be run by Rattler http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2815
Could run a new players and new umpires training CPX tomorrow 1800
GMT, only newbies and new umpires should apply, max 3 players per
side.

Alternatively could do the same thing on SAT MAY 3rd

***Pls someone (Peter?) forward to appropriate other lists and forums
(like Harpooners et al where the new guys came from)***

Training will involve frequent game pauses and helpig players to
discover use of TacOps features, maybe sides changes (to keep the
tension up) and guidance through team planning etc.

Anyone?

Rattler
--
"We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein's soldiers
and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be
forgotten by history. Truly. On this occasion, I am not going to
mention the number of the infidels who were killed and the number of
destroyed vehicles. The operation continues."

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Ex-Iraqi Minister of Information, aka
"Baghdad Bob", 2003 (currently on administrative leave)]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:14:55 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2815 FRAGO CPX - Battle Along the Tziepov Umpire AAR http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2800
Map997c

This map is my interpretation of the map features in Tactical Decision Games #99-4 Battle Along the Tziepov, and 99-6 Battle Along the Tziepov Continued authored by then Major John F. Schmitt, USMCR. The TDGs can be found in the April 1999 and June 1999 editions of the Marine Corps Gazette respectively, published by the Marines Corps Association.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/PDF/9904.pdf
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/PDF/9906.pdf

Terrain is as follows:
E0 - Clear
E1 - R1
Towns - Town/R2
Woods - Woods/R2
Orchards - Woods/Clear.

Map997c will be submitted to Paul Csokay for posting on tacopshq.com for future use.

The RedFor Players:
Anthony Eischens - 1st Mech Bn (rein), Regt'l AT Battery, Regt'l Reconnaissance Company
Henk Stoffers - CO, 3rd Mech Battalion (rein), Fire Support Coordinator
TimA - T-72M Tank Battalion, Regt'l Anti-Air Battery

2nd Mech Battalion (rein) was planned but went unemployed.

The BluFor Players:
Frank 'Brains' Moody - 1st Battalion (Tank-heavy), Alpha Company 1st LAR (rein)
Bernard Cousin - CO, 2nd Battalion (Mech-heavy)
Brad Leyte - 4th Host Nation Battalion
Matt 'Rattler' Olmer - 5th Host Nation Battalion, Fire Support Coordinator

3rd Battalion (Motorized) was planned but went unemployed.

Neutral Observer: Paul Csokay

Both forces had a battalion of artillery in direct support, 152mm for RedFor and 155mm for BluForrespectively. RedFor also had a 122mm MLR system in DS. Air Support was essentially what comes automatically from the TacOps engine.

Friendly Fog of War was in effect

RedFor consisted mainly of the BMP-2 w/AT-5 Spandrel combo, T-72M tanks, BRDM2 recon, BRDM2-AT, and ZSU-23/4.

USMC BluFor consisted primarily of AAV-7P, M60A3, TOW HMMWV, 81mm Mortar HMMWV, LAV-25, and LAV-AT. The grunts anti-tank weapon was M47 Dragon. Host Nation BluFor consisted of Leo1 tanks, M113 APC, Milan ATGMs. The HN forces also had the only BluFor air defense assets, "Javelin" shoulder launched SAMs.

At the start, both forces start in the extreme eastern corners, RedFor in the NE and BluFor in the SE. For whatever reason BluFor seemed to more out of its assembly area somewhat quicker, although that may have been a function of RedFor be restricted somewhat by bridges to their close proximity west and south.

In what seemed like forever, the two forces advanced toward the two Tziepov crossings at Thorpe Bridge and Fouse Bridge. Red seemed to be feinting toward the closer Thorpe Bridge while sending what appeared to be their main body around through Emamiville and onto the Fouse Bridge. Blue seemed to have a somewhat balanced advance toward the two bridges although there was what appeared to be a slight weighting toward Thorpe Bridge.

Within the firt 8-10 turns as Blue's lead elements were closing on Thorpe a Red Recon-by-Air-Strike on the bridge actually took it, the Umpire Tools/Engineering Bridge, down. Most of us seemed surprised, I for one had not seen that before. An urgent request from Blue asked for bridging support, so I added two M60 AVLB's to the rear of their main force.

Despite my careful placement while viewing the map in terrain analysis mode, Red was experiencing some difficulty crossing some of my bridges, the so-called "pile up routine" taking its effect. In the spirit to keep things flowing I magic-moved some Red, and later some Blue, units that were hung up for what seemed to be inordinate amounts of time at bridge crossings.

In the end, time was our collective main enemy, and after 4+ hours we called it a game. Prior to ending, Blue's Alpha LAR, and 1st Battalion had effectively used artillery and mortar smoke to cover its crossing of a AVLB at the then destroyed Thorpe Bridge site, as well as "concealed" AAV-7 amphibious crossing, and had pushed 1-1.5km north of the crossing before entering in a sharp engagement with Red tanks and BMP's. 4th Host Nation occupied Leon Ridge while Blue 2nd Battalion held the Fouse Bridge site, and even crossed some AAV's across the river and up onto Lafferty Heights. Red units were somewhat non-descript in the scenario so I hope that individual red commander's chime in with who actually did what. It appeared to me that Tony went west-southwest while Tim and Henk went south.

In the shortened end, it appeared that both sides effectively contained each other, although given another hour or so blue may have punched through along Highway 9 toward the Clarkson and Heredia Bridges as Blue seemed to be beginning to take a toll on the Red units. Only time would have told.

Technical Issues:
This was only my second attempt at hosting a Tacops Multiplayer CPX. TacOps did crash three time in the course of the scenario which I'm sure amped up frustration on the part of the players. Despite the first time surprising me, all three I can trace back to using the umpire tools to add a player, change a PIN, Magic-Move a unit, or add something requested. I wanted to try to save each individual players orders that they had already input. It appeared that if I tried to use the tool that pulls in an individual player's orders, in the attempt not to lose them when I send the SitUpdate, if they had not yet "finished" their orders, a fatal error would occur and TacOps would have to close, causing me to have to restart with the last autosave and have everyone rejoin.

The question is that if a Host/Umpire does something that now causes the engine to require a SitUpdate to all players, how does the umpire send the SitUpdate without overwriting player orders, or causing this fatal error when selecting a player who had, according to the "Network Status" not finsished his orders?

One other point was the somewhat slowness of the combat turn. Realizing that the turn does not end at the same time for all computers, overall the turn does not end until everyone's computer completes the turn. Both sides and on the admin channel various people called out to others to ensure that "clicks" vice "animations" were selected for combat resolution, so without inspecting everyone's computer, I can only guess that everyone had selected "clicks".

All in all I enjoyed it. I enjoyed reading the communication and teamwork between players. It was also amazing to see how many unit markers were flowing across the map.]]> Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:36:52 -0500 http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=2800