A report from the front lines for any that may be interested...
I ran a modified version of my Nova Moravia/Battle of Jaros Brod using
Dirtside II earlier today--it was about 12 platoons of Eurasian Solar
Union (and Dutch mercenaries) against 10 platoons of Romanov Hegemony troops
(including patrol boats). This was my first Dirtside II scenario and every
player was new to the system. This coupled with the fact that the scenario was
kind of large conspired to make the game last about 7 hours.
Here's how it went--
Initially, the ESU push was stalled as units piled up behind each other trying
to batter their way across the major bridge (one of the main objectives of the
battle). Romanov artillery fire was especially vicious at this point, catching
many units before they were able to disperse. The combined artillery, tank,
and AT fire caused considerable casualties among the attackers, though a
couple of the defending AT vehicles were destroyed as well.
Next, the ESU laid smoke in front of one of the Romanov AT units, and the ESU
grav vehicles sprinted across the river (bypassing the bridge) and made
directly for the major urban area. This advance was also hit, this time by
flanking fire from the naval elements. In return, the ESU managed to maul the
AT unit defending the bridge AND the tanks providing overwatch
support--this allowed a flanking move by heavy grav tanks around the
Romanov right flank.
Finally, the ESU assault on the city went in--and the close assualts
caused heavy casualties on both sides, though at first the combat appeared to
be going in the ESU's favor, Romanov infantry reinforcements brought in by
truck (and others landed by the patrol boats) turned the tide somewhat.
We called it a game at this point having played out about 6
turns--basically
it was a draw as the ESU controlled both bridges and had a foothold in the
city, but the Romanov's still held most of the city and all of the port
facility.
Anyway, all participants expressed satisfaction with the rules (though, like
me, they also aren't thrilled with the various-sided dice system).
Anyway, it was fun and I'll be playing Dirtside again.
My thanks to those that came.
Rob
Great battle report - a great game, from the sounds of it.
Just one question: Why didn't you and your group like the
multiple-die-types idea? (Using d4 thru d12 depending on qualities...)
It's not a perfect system, but I really, really like being able, in most
rolls, to just look at the numbers rolled and know instantly who's higher. If
you have a fixed die, you usually wind up with "Roll dX, then add all these
factors as appropriate, then subtract all those other factors, etc etc..."
(Having played Car Wars, I wanted to get far away from this
system...)
There's a bit of that in the GZG system, but all the actual opposed rolls
(the combat rolls) are straight-out rolls, no adding & subtracting.
Given that I'm frankly lousy at mental math, I'm glad to give that type of
system a miss, even if it means I have loads of funny-looking dice
around the place.:> The only problem with that is finding the right die type
in the heat of battle, on a 6x8 table covered in scenery and miniatures. I get
around that by just buying even more die, so I can usually find at least one
of whatever type I need...
> Just one question: Why didn't you and your group like the
St^3 Jon has secretly cornered the UK Polyhedral market, that's why he insists
on writing his games this way. After all, saints need an income source too.
In a message dated 11/21/99 2:25:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> yh728@victoria.tc.ca writes:
> Just one question: Why didn't you and your group like the
I can't speak for the others, but mine boils down to the following:
1. Basic non-familiarity with the system, which includes figuring the
odds, especially with secondary die rolls involved.
2. Such a system makes it difficult, if not impossible, to factor in two
modifiers (FMA gets "around" this by just saying you use the worst).
3. Limitations of the system--you can't really go past d4 and d12--in
other
words, a four-die shift is the most you can ever have. And if your unit
didn't start out with a d12, this gets shortened to whatever brings you down
to d4.
> It's not a perfect system, but I really, really like being able, in
I
> get around that by just buying even more die, so I can usually find
And then there's the item you mention above...I only have two complete sets
of polyhedral dice! And those two sets I have are brown and green--very
easily "lost" amid the usual clutter on the table! On the other hand, I do
have plenty of d6 and d10/20 lying around.
I think my preferred die rolling convention would be percentile or d10,
followed by d6, but I can live with FMA, I suppose.
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
SNIP
> I can't speak for the others, but mine boils down to the following:
Ah, the beauty of this game system is that you apply a little more "real life"
approach to the game! Rather than calculating the odds based on matematical
considerations try considering Troops to Task and relevant weapons etc. I
think you'll find a more enjoyable game too.
> 2. Such a system makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
How so? I think I must misunderstand your meaning here. Can you give an
example of two modifiers?
> 3. Limitations of the system--you can't really go past d4
In the game system some die shifts are Open ie when you get up to D12 you then
start shifting the opponents die DOWN.
Cheers,
> On Nov 20, 9:55pm, RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
As one of the defending Romanovs, I can say that it was difficult to be facing
so many other units. Wayne and I seemed to be outnumbered pretty
heavily, and I got the impression Marshall Hoferkamp was saving our bacon with
some good die rolling on several occasions. I expect Robert followed
conventional wisdom and gave the attacking forces at least a 2:1 advantage in
unit costs. We inflicted pretty heavy losses on the deploying ESU contingents.
I thought the artillery rules were somewhat strange; we didn't play artillery
barrages correctly at first and elected to continue with the method we were
using. I'm not sure if it's permissable to lay down an
artillery barrage inline - the rules seemed to be that a barrage
placement had to be either parallel to your starting board edge or clumped
into a larger diameter circle of effect. Marching an artillery barrage up the
map (say, to lay smoke, or hit someone in column) didn't seem to be an option.
Question to Rob: can infantry be organized as a separate unit but still
carried about in a personnel carrier? Wayne's bridge defense was very strange,
and partly due to the way we did that; but those infantry basically did
nothing for 3 to 4 turns while their attached vehicles got
hammered.
It was different and I'd be willing to play it again. Next time I'll have more
time to do so, and get there earlier too.
In a message dated 11/21/99 8:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> oglover@museum.vic.gov.au writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
Actually, because of the wide range of weapon systems available, if I could
figure the odds a little better, then I could actually decide what the
"correct" weapons were for the task at hand (for example, my IFV designs
generally have a GMS and a direct fire weapon--deciding which to use can
be a pain sometimes, especially when the gun is a DFFG and the range is
medium).
> >
When firing at a target, you only use the largest of the secondary
dice--a
vehicle target in soft cover that is also hull down, for example, only gets
the benefit of hull down (d10 secondary die vs a d6 secondary die). This is
detailed on page 29 of Dirtside II. I think that most people will agree that a
vehicle that is in cover AND hull down should be just a little harder to hit
than one that is just hull down. Oncew again, I want to make sure everyone
understands that I don't see this as a really big deal, just one of the
reasons I'm not thrilled with this particular method of doing random
event generation.
Anyway, I just re-read the rules and found out that we had run the
morale
rules wrong in our game--we should have had more broken units by the
end. Oh
well--C'est la guerre (or some such--I'm not good at frog).
Rob
In a message dated 11/22/99 9:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> fhelvey@pop.wilmington.net writes:
> As one of the defending Romanovs, I can say that it was difficult to
> 2:1 advantage in unit costs. We inflicted pretty heavy losses on the
> deploying ESU contingents.
Actually, the force costs were not that far apart--the attackers did get
more
points, but it was more in the nature of 1.5-to-1. Then again, I really
didn't point-cost the scenario, as there were a lot of "useless" systems
included on some of the vehicles and the point values for the area defense
systems were exaggerated (they are also supposed to be able to shoot down
aircraft, but since we weren't using any airpower, they could only be used to
destroy guided missiles).
> I thought the artillery rules were somewhat strange; we didn't play
We did this part completely wrong--the area of effect is either a single
2"
radius (we were using diameter) circle for concentrated fire or a sort of
rectangle with rounded ends and 4" wide but 4 x number of tubes firing in
inches long for an open sheaf. This rectangle could be placed either parallel
to or perpendicular to own sides starting edge.
> Marching an artillery
didn't
> seem to be an option.
It was definitely an option--you lay fire on turn one, then adjust on
turn
two and so on--just like they did it in WW1--the only problem is that
you (neither side, actually) didn't really have the ammunition to pull this
off.
> Question to Rob: can infantry be organized as a separate unit but
And yes, infantry can be organized as a separate unit than their
carriers--the rules state that this is up to the owning player and
occurs if
the transports/infantry are seperated by more than 10".
> It was different and I'd be willing to play it again. Next time I'll
> have more time to do so, and get there earlier too.
And next time I'll design the scenario to play a little faster! Of course,
being more familiar with the rules now helps as well.
I consider this a victory--yet another miniatures game that Frank is
willing
to play...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (evil-souding laugh) Soon I shall turn you
completely to the Dark Side...
Rob, the (KIA) Commissar of the 41st Border Guards Rifle Company
Artillery barrages can be N-S or E-W compared to your own baseline or
concentrate on the one point for multiple hits; you're not allowed to arrange
diagonal barrages.
You can split off the transport vehicles from the infantry, although you don't
want them more than 1 turn's movement away, so you can shift them fast if
required.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
> -----Original Message-----
> method we were using. I'm not sure if it's permissable to lay down an
> artillery barrage inline - the rules seemed to be that a barrage
didn't
> seem to be an option.
> strange, and partly due to the way we did that; but those infantry
hey Rob,
I think one of us is doing something wrong here....
I'm talking Stargrunt and you're talking Dirtside.......I guess I missed the
original post....I'll retire now......
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/99 8:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> "correct" weapons were for the task at hand (for example, my IFV
So you stop the game, whip out your pen/paper/laptop/whatever, calculate
a bunch of odds, THEN announce who you're shooting at, and what weapon you're
using?
And your gaming partners haven't yet gotten tired of this? No calls of "Just
take the shot, for crying out loud!"???
We don't 'enforce' fast play as such, but anyone who spends an inordinate
amount of time measuring rangebands, muttering to themselves and fiddling is
likely to be growled at. And if someone actually started figuring actual odds
on us...
Pardon me... "Playing the odds" like this is a major, major pet peeve (can
you tell?). On-the-fly estimations are grand, but the nitpicking,
numbercrunching gamers drive me nuts. It's one of the reasons I dislike
traditional board wargames - all those CRTs ENCOURAGE this sort of
gaming style!
> > > 2. Such a system makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
This is
> detailed on page 29 of Dirtside II. I think that most people will
> everyone understands that I don't see this as a really big deal, just
Well, if someone is in a hull-down position, they're basically in Hard
Cover. It makes sense to me that this would be more important that mere Soft
Cover... think of soft cover as 'just a bit of cover', and Hard as
'lots and lots and lots of cover' - you obviously can't really be in
both at the same time...
> Anyway, I just re-read the rules and found out that we had run the
Ribbit...:> All the various detail bits of DS2 can be a fair bit to
remember...
Actually, we found that the stock D2/SG2 morale rules weren't tough
enough
- we had an inordinate number of units being wiped out to the last man,
while still at very high morale levels... no one was running away! We
house-ruled Cascading Morale - basically, if you blow a test, test again
at one Threat level lower, and repeat until you actually pass a test or you
have dropped three morale levels. (or you've dropped below Routed, in
which case remove the unit from the board...) For ex: Test at TL+3. Blow
it, drop from CO to ST. Test again at TL+2. Blow it, very badly, so you
drop two levels, from ST to BR. Stop rolling, because you've just dropped
three Morale levels...
Full details can be found at <http://warbard.iwarp.com/ds2rules.html>,
our DS2 Houserules page. (lots of other houserules, too)
> On 22-Nov-99 at 21:46, RWHofrich@aol.com (RWHofrich@aol.com) wrote:
Your playing the rules not the game. Pretend you are the commander of that
force in RL. You aren't a Vulcan, you do the human thing and make your best
guess based on experience.
Remember the good old days when you didn't have a clue about the mechanics?
You went to the table, were given a rough, these are what weapons each group
has, and, when you used them told you what dice to roll? I don't know about
you but I like wargaming not playing statistics.
> > I thought the artillery rules were somewhat strange; we didn't play
didn't
> > seem to be an option.
There is a set of house-rules somewhere which (from my perspective)
makes MUCH more sense than the current DS artillery rules. In it, for an open
sheaf, you essentially can do the standard rectangle, or an
L-shape, or a box, or anything else (essentially, an open sheaf gives
you N 2"-radius circles which must be adjacent to each other). Whoever
came up with that house rule, please let me know (I've been looking for
it).
In a message dated 11/22/99 9:57:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> oglover@museum.vic.gov.au writes:
> hey Rob,
No problem--my original post referred to a game of DS2 that I set up and
ran with others that had no previous experience playing the system.
Rob
In a message dated 11/23/99 8:26:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
> > Actually, because of the wide range of weapon systems available, if
Actually, modern armies have something called "doctrine" that is basically
based upon experience and statistics for the weapon systems in hand or under
development (as well as other factors). This helps commanders in the field
make their decisions on what weapons to employ. In DS2 we don't have that
done for us and just have to figure it out for ourselves--and that is
not "playing the rules!"
Furthermore, you mention "...best guess based on experience." And that's
just the POINT! This was my first game of DS2--therefore, there was no
experience to go on!
Sheesh! :-)
And in regards to anothers "pet peeve" about figuring odds--get a life!
I don't figure the odds to the tenth degree, nor do I hold up the
game--though
I have known a few folks that do just that and so can understand what you're
saying. Getting a feel for the rough chances to hit a target will just come
with experience with the system. But it doesn't mean that I have to like it,
since there are systems out there where the odds calculation is a bit more
intuitive.
Ahhh, now that I've got that off my chest--time to paint a few more
starships...
Rob
Rob
Rob
There is a set of house-rules somewhere which (from my perspective)
> makes MUCH more sense than the current DS artillery rules. In it, for
Whoever
> came up with that house rule, please let me know (I've been looking
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ds2/ (Bri's DS2 site)
or another one of the FT Ring sites...Andrew Martin's would be my second
guess.
> On Nov 22, 10:03pm, RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
Hmm. The patrol boats were rather expensive I guess? Some of Wayne's tanks
were pretty good too.
> We did this part completely wrong--the area of effect is either a
Better!
I'd thought that being able to plot the center point then provide some info on
angle and shape of the planned barrage would be good. Probably something like
the center line of the barrage is specified by a number of degrees from North,
with the length given by the rules, and the center point is where it pivots.
> > Marching an artillery barrage up the map (say, to lay smoke, or
That also took two turns and wouldn't have been as effective either. A unit
had to do a spot action to call in the artillery, so a unit wouldn't also had
to have sat out the combat for two turns. Didn't seem
to be an option for Wayne and I.
> >
Or it could be done with a reorganize action, but nothing else would happen
that round for that unit as I recall. Still, being able to set them up that
way right off would be better I think.
> I consider this a victory--yet another miniatures game that Frank is
Not hardly. I'll never paint anything. (If you saw how I paint you'd
understand why). The minatures were a bit of a pain - they kept wanting
to slide down the hills. Now, a nice FLAT map would have worked nicely.
With nice FLAT COUNTERs to go on it.:)
> Brian wrote:
makes MUCH more sense than the current DS artillery rules. In it, for an open
sheaf, you essentially can do the standard rectangle, or an
L-shape, or a box, or anything else (essentially, an open sheaf gives
you N 2"-radius circles which must be adjacent to each other). Whoever
came up with that house rule, please let me know (I've been looking for
it).
It's mine. Here:
http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
In the artillery section.
As the Romanov commander, I thought the battle went pretty well. We certainly
inflicted a lot of casualties on the enemy, in particular the four tanks
defending the bridge did a lot of damage and held out for quite a long time
considering the attention they were receiving from the other side. There were
times when it seemed pretty desperate for our side when it seemed like an
unending flow of tanks and infantry were advancing on us, but I think we held
out pretty well.
And Frank, your infantry and trucks made it into the main city without taking
any loses and actually participated in several close combats, faring pretty
well, much better than my marines who lost 75% of their elements and ran away.
> > Actually, the force costs were not that far apart--the attackers did
As I recall the larger patrol boat itself was some 600 points, making it worth
3 or 4 tanks. The two smaller boats were probably worth 2 tanks (in points,
not in firepower). I probably mismanaged the navy somewhat in the early game.
For one, I didn't notice the boat's rockets were area affect weapons until the
last turn or two.
> > >
It certainly would have helped the infantry attached to the tanks holding our
side of the bridge to be a separate unit (how's that for a poorly constructed
sentence). Once the tanks moved to just behind the hill leading to the bridge
and parked, they tended to use all of their actions on opportunity fire on
units trying the cross the bridge, meaning they lost their regular action and
couldn't spend an action breaking the infantry into a separate unit (or for
that matter just moving the infantry to the hill where they could shoot in
support of the tanks).
> > I consider this a victory--yet another miniatures game that Frank is
And with hexes you never have to worry about exact measurements to determine
whether something is in range or not. On the other hand I like the freedom of
movement and not having to face in fixed 60 degree angles of miniatures, plus
the miniatures look better than counters.