Hi all,
do any of you have any experience with playing large games like batallion
level and up. I ask because we might try someting this large in my wargaming
club. I t will probably not be a tank heavy setup, but mainly grunts and set
in WW2. Is it possible?? Does it take too long to complete a turn(I know it'll
take longe r of course), does the command level rules function at theese high
levels??
What are your experience with this??
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Paludan
E-mail [privat] : cpaludan@worldonline.dk
W-site [privat] : http://www.krigsspil.dk
Tlf.nr. [privat] : +45 36309581
ICQ Nr [privat] : 15328534 ( http://www.icq.com )
----- Oprindelig meddelelse -----
Fra: Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net>
Til: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sendt: 8. november 2000 02:18 Emne: Re: [SG2] vehicle weapons vs. infantry
> At 2000-11-07 -0500 17:51, you wrote:
> class 2 or better, ther can be NO EFFECT other than the
> On Wed, 08 November 2000, "Claus Paludan" wrote:
> do any of you have any experience with playing large games like
It will probably not be a tank heavy setup, but mainly grunts and set in WW2.
Is it possible?? Does it take too long to complete a turn(I know it'll take
lon ger of course), does the command level rules function at theese high
levels??
The largest I've heard is company level. At conventions I try to keep the
sizes down to about a platoon a side. 30 to 40 figures usually comes up with
scenari os that are over in 3 to 4 hours. I'd hesitate to guess how much time
a battali on based game would take. That would be what, two to four companies
aside? If y ou assume 3 companies per battalion and 3 platoons per company and
30 figures p er platoon, you're looking 270 figures a side. Woah. You'd better
have an entir e weekend planned. At least.
Another problem with a battalion based game is that you'd need a LOT of space.
In platoon based games, 6' by 4' is usually the minimum I use, with a wider
tab le preferred. To do a battalion game justice you'd have to have a lot of
room t o maneouvre. I'd say 12' by 6' minimum and probably even longer than
that.
I wouldn't go much over a company. The "monster" games I've heard of for SG2
we re company level. I have enough figures for a company level based game in
15mm, but haven't bothered to get that many for 25mm.
> do any of you have any experience with playing large games like
Hello Claus,
I've played in a couple of large Stargrunt games - but the largest was
about two companies on one side (appx 10+ platoons, plus vehicles)
versus a single company in a defensive position. This was on a 4' x 12' table,
and took a single evening to play out (was a *long* evening).
You *could* play a battalion scale game, but honestly the Stargrunt rules are
designed around platoon level combat.
A few suggestions for you. Keep the "extra rules" use (like artillery, EW,
snipers, etc) to a minimum. That extra stuff adds "realism", but also adds
a lot of time, particularly in a big game. Same with vehicles - keep
their use to a minimum.
There has always been some debate as to exactly how the re-activation
system works in Stargrunt. The rules seem to suggest that you could reactivate
a single squad many times in each turn (and this is a much argued point, but
nowhere in the book does it place a limit on the number of times a unit can be
reactivated, if you have multiple command levels). I would recommend using a
limit on this, or you'll have "super squads" who can act disproportionately...
The limit we use is that a single squad can
be re-activated only once per turn by it's command element, UNLESS that
command element is itself reactivated. So in a platoon size game, a platoon
commander could transfer his actions and reactivate any given squad only once
per turn. In a company size game, if the platoon commander was reactivated, he
could then reactivate AGAIN one of his squads, even if it
had been reactivated before - but with this new set of actions, he can
re-activate any given squad only once. You probably already use some
type of limits (just about every Stargrunt player does) but this is *really*
important in a very large game with multiple command levels - or else as
I said, particularly strong units (like a tank, for example) could rampage.
Some people love using mines and decoy counters. I don't, in large games,
again because of the "slow-down" effect. In a game that big, you want
the fighting units to "get stuck in" as soon as possible, otherwise the game
will drag on and on, and it gets dull.
Use a referee, who is not one of the players. The referee has the authority to
decide any disputed points and everyone else agrees not to argue, and the
referee has to keep the game moving along. Not that the ref has to be pushy
about it, but it keeps the game going smoothly. We have had a *lot* of success
using an "independant" referee in large games.
Set mission parameters that make sense - victory conditions. Certainly
not "last man standing" unless you're recreating Stalingrad or something
equiv. I would suggest that you don't use a battalion on each side. Have a
battalion on one side, and a smaller size unit (couple of companies, maybe...
perhaps a single reinforced company in a defensive position) on the other
side, and give them each mission parameters and victory conditions that make
sense.
Keep lots of water handy. :)
People get thirsty after that much gaming, talking, etc.
Good luck,
> At 2:13 PM +0100 11/8/00, Claus Paludan wrote:
I've played small pieces of Command Decision (GDW's ww2 rules). That
achieves battalion-plus scales by making one stand of infantry or
vehicles represent a platoon. The timescale and balance in the rules also
serves to make a regimental or division scale game feasable. Trying to do a
battalio