pmaidhof

Today was the first TacOps Multiplayer Command Post Exercise held in some time. The current TacOps v4.0.6[AH] was used in addition to communications over the IRC. Ralf Pichocki put together the relatively small scale exercise on his very own Map150c using a Custom US Army Scenario. This report comes from the perspective of the BluFor company commander. BluFor consisted of a single company of Jager Battalion 815. While Ralf presented us with an order, graphic etc, I had only skimmed prior to joining the IRC channel about 30min early – opting for a self-imposed cold start. Higher’s mission was: •JgBtl 815 defends with three coys side by side west of NATENDORF. •secures own preparations by several Feldposten in strength of one coy(-) Our Mission was: SichKp(-), secures defense preparation by several Feldposten both sides of SEEDORF •destroys RED reconnaissance up to section strength •engages pltn strong RED on long range and repulses them •evades on order behind defense positions, and becomes new BtlRes As it turned out Paul Csokay and I made up BluFor, with Ralf acting as the battalion HQ on a BluHigher channel. Paul was assigned two sections [3x Boxer, 3x InfPzGrp, 1x ReconTeam, 2x FSV, and 1x FSCV] and the northern 3km of the map. I took a section [1x Boxer, 1xInfPzGrp, 1x ReconTeam, 2xFSV, and 1xFSCV] and handled the air and artillery assets [2xAirSpt at 4min, 2xAirSpt at 20min, 2xAirSpt at 30min, and 1x MLRS salvo and 2x 155mm batteries with limited ammunition, along with a Ground Surveillance Radar and two ambulances] while being responsible for the southern 2km of the map. The game was scheduled for 60min, I believe we ultimately agreed to a 20min extension. The first half saw pressure grow against the single section in the south. When we did see the enemy, they quickly darted into the concealment of Lohn Woods. When they finally appeared at the edge of the woods, we were able to destroy a few vehicles. Unfortunately for Blue, they destroyed the single Boxer which provided the mobility to the southern section. This forced the southern section to try not get decisively engaged while attempting to maneuver on foot. Some TacOps recon by airpower did unveil the enemy build-up in Lohn Woods so both indirect fires were massed on the enemy. A handful of relatively weak mechanized units did ultimately emerge from the woods and had their way with the now foot-mobile infantry. At that time we did not know how effective one of the air strikes had been. In the second half, Paul and I “watched the clock” and debated transferring some of his combat strength down to the lower 2km frontage, battalion came back reiterating to me the need to “screen” the entire assigned battalion frontage. Apparently he knew more that we did about the big picture. In the last few minutes what vehicles were up in the northern second suddenly began exploding, and emerging from the Riessel Woods where again relatively weak enemy mech units…single T72s and BMPs charged Seedorf-Addenstorf, shooting that gap toward the highground at Beckelberg when the game was called. By the game requirements laid out by Ralf, he award blue the technical win despite the fact that we did not follow the order in that since we could not effectively move, we could not engage enemy forces at long range…for very long that is, nor could we reconstitute ourselves as an effective battalion reserve as we were subsequently decisively engaged and essentially destroyed. Observations and Lessons Learned: Losing your mobility six minutes into a game where mobility is life is not starting out well. How tough it is to move, shoot, and communicate in this game when on-foot. Intentionally separating dismounts from their vehicles seems to work well in the game but not too sure how that reflects the real world employment of mobile units. I understand the battle taxi concept, but it is very tempting to set up the dismounts and then use those vehicles to another assigned mission. How important it to take advantage of any information provided by an umpire and ask questions before the game is ready to go. While problematic, having a CO and team established beforehand is definitely a plus. I did not have a good grasp of the terms Feldposten and SicherKompanie. Ambulances and other support type assets while definitely interesting, unless there is a role or some victory condition established they don’t really have a TacOps role. Maybe if establishing a Casualty Collection Point is subjectively judged, or if logpacks are employed, these units just seem to try to stay out of the way. Ground Surveillance Radar – both sides apparently had a GSR. Employing it was a challenge since its capabilities are not in the game itself so rule and conditions for its use need to be disseminated prior to the game. When I finally got ours successfully employed, it spotted a previously-spotted dismounted infantry unit and took a tank round in the same turn. Counter Battery Radar has also been attempted externally in past CPX’s long ago, and are of interest to me. All in all, a good time. Well prepared, well conducted, minimal network issues. Even a 1.5 hour break mid game for an unexpected player obligation. Everyone showed back up and continued like we never paused. I look forward to more CPX’s as whenever they can be pulled off.

This multiplayer cpx should be beginning in about 10 minutes...1500 UTC.

It it's inexhaustive march toward the ultimate big brother state, work has cought up and finally blocked harpgamer at the office. I do not feel that those those in power would find the humor in me submitting a form for excepting harpgamer from the internet acceptable usage "policy". So be that I will now be accessing from home alone.

Due to Nevada’s rudder damage induced turns, Turn 3 saw all of Nevada’s main guns unmasked again. Due to the combatant’s relative movement, range is now 39” (19,500yds) and considered to be Long Range for both combatants. To hit will now be the basic 6+, +3 for both. For the fires segment, Nevada has all twelve 14”/45 and Nagato has all eight 16.1”/45 guns available to fire. Nevada scores three hits while Nagato gets two. All hits turn out to be non-penetrating ½ damage hits. Nevada is down to 63 Hull Point left, while Nagato is down to 140. During the turns Damage Control segment, Nevada’s rudder is repaired, but the fire spreads causing the ready ammunition of a secondary gun mount, a 5”/38, cook off, eliminating that mount, randomly rolled on the starboard side, and causing 5 more Hull Damage Points bringing Nevada in at 58, very close if not 50% of its capacity. Nevada’s skipper decides to try to retire from the battle area. An escape roll is made d10+Cmd Rating-Crew Rating for each side. IJN gets a +3 for remaining in the battle area, declared the victor. The rolls are compared and Nevada loses. It is randomly rolled that Nevada is sunk the next day by Japanese naval air. The rules give any of these four possible reasons. I broke them down into randomly rolled results. 1 = Foundered 2-5 = Torpedoed 6-9 = Air Strike 10 = Scuttled

Desired start date? I'm ready when you all are.

The rudder damage required 90 degree starboard during Turn 3 will unmask all of Nevada's main batteries again, we'll see what happens at lunch today.

The rules provide for firing by platform type (battleships fire, then cruisers...usw). Within each of these "phases" fires are resolved simultaneously. this does mean that should, for example a destroyer take one for the team by a battleship, it would not have a chance to fire when its turn came around. That said, this was mano on mano BB vs BB. Range was an arbitrary 35" or 17,500yds. The ships were headed directly at each other, but each turned, one to port, the other to starboard and opened up on each other. Battleships have a base 6+ to hit. Nagato brings 8 barrels of 16.1"/45's at Medium Range (+1) while Nevada has 12 barrels of 14"/45's at Long Range (+3). No other mod's other than range play a roll. Nagato hits Nevada on 7+, Nevada hits Nagato with a 9+. Nagato strikes Nevada twice while Nagato is hit once by Nevada. The rules rate Nevada as having an armor value AV of 19 while Nagato has AV 17. The Nagato's 16.1/45's have a penetration value of 14 and a Damage Rating of 11 while Nevada's 14"/45 has a pen of 11 and a Damage Rating of 9. At Medium Range there is a +1 penetration modifier...there is 0 mod for long range. Pen+Mod+d10 determines if Full Damage (+critical), Half Damage, or No Hull Damage. Nagato's first hit causes half damage, rounded down = 5. The second hit penetrates, so full damage = 11 and rolls 2d10 on the critical table, in this case the result is Rudder Damage. 16 Damage Points are subtracted from Nevada's Hull "strength = 116-16=100. Two Rudder chits are to be placed beside Nevada. Nevada's one hit causes half damage or simply 4 damage points reducing Nagato's initial hull strength from 156 to 152. At the end of the turn, Nevada's Damage Control roll removes one Rudder chit. Nevada will be forced to turn 90 degrees halfway though its next movement phase until it solves its rudder damage. A roll on the damaged rudder chart determines a turn to starboard. This is both beneficial and deterimental to Nevada, positioning it as smaller, linear target, but limiting the firepower it can bring to bear. The second round of firing results in three more hits for Nagato and zero hits for Nevada's 6 unmasked guns...its two rearward main turrets. The Japanese shells slam into Nevada causing one half damage and two penetrations for a total of 27 Damage Points (100-27=73). The two criticals both result in Fire. Turn 2's damage control phase leaves Nevada still with a damaged rudder, and the fires 1/2 contained (one fire result was removed by the Damage Control Parties aboard Nevada. Looks like Nevada will need to attempt to break contact if it can. Quick moving and entertaining rules set. See about it at Naval Thunder.

The tried and trusted inter-library loan has now produced for me The Austro-Prussian War - Austria's War with Prussia and Italy in 1866 by Geoffrey Wawro. Looking forward to it providing me with more insight to use in upcoming games of kriegspiel.

I've mentioned in Shore Leave that I would be using Avalanche Press's USN Plan Orange to do the operational part of their scenarios and use Naval Thunder Battleship Row to game out the tactical parts with a little more granularity. 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.

In order to add some spice, I picked up a minis rules set Naval Thunder: Battleship Row to game out the tactical parts of USN War Plan Orange. So WPO for operational movement and scouting, NT-BR for the actual engagement. I'll need to break out my blue table sheet for the war table down in the cellar.

Pretty cool Larry. Thanks for the "continuing series".

I picked up this title yesterday and had a chance to inventory everything and read through the rules and scenarios. Looks like a fun game, nothing too detailed, but enough to give insight to the belligerents and period.

Please give a suggested start date that you and at least one other would like to begin. Wednesdays are out. All else do-able.

As a very interesting period, I think that I will secure it. Thanks BP.

As the Drill Instructor once bellowed, "...Well...I'm Waiting".

Before being pummelled This game uses the Great War at Sea rules game out War Plan Orange in the mid 1930's, postulating that the Washington Naval, or Five-Power Naval Treaty of 1922 was never implemented.

Is anyone familar with this series of games from Avalanche Press? While not at a point in my life to order directly from themm I was scoping a copy of (War) Plan Orange at my local shop. This title has always drawn me in. I wanted to see if any of you have an opinion on it and its series-mates. Thanks, Pete

If anyone would like some pre-holiday goodness, i.e. some live multiplayer TacOps today (I'm home) let me know.

The CPX will be run using Map150c, which is not on the TacOps CD. Find it here here in the Map Room on TacOpsHQ.com. You'll need to save the zip file and then unzip all of the files into a folder created by you and named Map150c in your TacOps Extras/More Maps directory.

[This is being run by Ralf Pichocki and was announced this morning on the TacOps mailing list. I post it here for information. I plan to participate. If interested I'll put you into contact with Ralf.] 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?

Now....pick a date. Anyone and everyone is invited.

ok, ginned this up rather quickly so I am open to others ideas There will be 9 random maps from the TacOps disk. The first battle will be a meeting engagement. First player will be blue, second will be red. A third player will be rolled, odd = red, even = blue. That third person will actually be assigned a different color but will be friendly toward either the red or blue, most likely the attacker, with the defender receiving some unexpected reinforcements. Each player will start with a four company battalion of three tank co and one mech co, and one battery of artillery in DS support. After the first scenario run though, each player will be allotted 3 Asset Points (we can add more if necessary). A player can buy a randomly rolled for additional unit. A second Asset Point may immediately be spent to upgrade that unit (ex. from a T-72 to a T-80 based unit or from a arty battery to a n MLRS battery) Forces will be determined by d6 1. Tank Co 2. Mech Co 3. UAV Support 4. Arty Battery 5. MLRS Battery 6. Attack Helicopter section Each scenario mission will be determined for each side by d6 roll. 1. Attack 2. Defend 3. Attack 4. Delay 5. Attack 6. Defend* * Roll again if both sides end up with a defend/delay mission. I will use literary license to provide a thumbnail sketch of the general situation and missions. If I really get fancy, I could provide an operational .bmp graphic or even ask the player for initial positions once a mission is determined.

If we do this for fun, which I am leaning toward, it could get started soon. If people are into counting remaining rounds of 5.56 ball for a particular squad on the map...it will take considerably longer.

I am thinking some series of Tacops scenarios that depict one small part of the the classic WWIII Soviet advance through West Germany, or maybe North Korea, whatever. The background does not particularly matter. The results in each scenario would carry over in some way to what happens in the next scenario. I'd probably prefer to see the live network type of game. I could use a board wargame to come up with a general situation, then find an applicable map, jerry-rig some OOB's and away we go. I also liked the network game approach. Keeping the game to a manageable 2-3 hours in an evening is nice. Maybe we can conduct another test with you, Tony, and perhaps Brains, in order to seemlessly integrate a third person, with that whether its a third, fourth or whatever should be fine. Pete [Edit] And keeping track of losses and applying them to the next "battle".

I'd be "game". I'll give it some thought, and I'd like to hear any of you all's ideas, your preferences, live network game, multi-player cpx, pbem - all tied into some type of campaign. Pete