The Commander Series Forum

Following Nik's banter we also played this one out.

http://anyonenotfinished.pbworks.com/1985+-+Exp...

Points to note:
Defenders set up first, then the attacker does mobile deployment which makes it very hard.
The Attacker needs to get 3 inf units per 1000 within 20 of a HQ on the objective which in this case was impossible to do after the loss of 1 BMP. Result ? not too sure. The WG lost all the armour. The soviets lost 1 BMP and 2 Inf stands. Not up to the smoking armour that we are used to with Nik, but very enjoyable.

Si

Looks good Si - good question re armour /infantry - and one that deserves a re-match to check I think. Certainly, in my solo battle, the armour was used to screen the BMP-mounted infantry to good effect...

I think you can bring on your FAO / FAC using mobile deployment once you've rolled for all commands who have units attached in formations: SteveJ & I were unsure about this last week, but I found this: http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com/Content/For...

I think I'd be tempted to drop down to 3 arty batteries, certainly ditch the AA and use the points to snatch some more grunts...

Not that *anyone*, quite frankly, should take tactical advice from me

Nice pics BTW

Nice looking table

Use the reserves rule for delivering infantry to the objectives. I did this in a FWC game at the weekend. Worked a treat as my opponent wasn't expecting it and when it happened it forced him to make a huge change in his strategy.

Assuming that the mobile deployment rule applies to them, the FAO/FAC should have been on the table at star.

We also used recce deployment which for the Soviets didn't give them the advantage due to inexperience with the rules. The WG recce was used nearly every turn to take the HQ upto CV10. Pity I failed most of the command rolls!!.

Reserves rule means that it would have taken 3 turns to deploy the necessary infantry onto the objective the RAW says 3 units may be deployed a turn (or does this mean per HQ ?)

The objective rules means that you need shed loads of infantry to win this scenario as the attacker.

With this one sentence "The WG lost all the armour", I bet I can guess what side Nik was commanding.

Ah - but no, Joe - I wasn't even there I know that might be hard to believe, but it's true...

Perhaps not bodily, but you must of been there in spirit
Paul

poor english on my part. The WG lost 2 out of 4 MBT (one Leopard II and one Leopard 1A1A1.

Si

"The problem with this force is that it cannot afford any losses to infantry in order to meet the victory conditions of the scenario."

Simple, I ignore the 3 infantry per 1000pts rule. Three infantry units (ie a full company) are enough to hold an objective, though this number may need to be re-enforced depending on local resistance.

Looks like a good game. Very nice terrain, really liked the realistic street signs.

Barrie Lovell at time cast was the idea behind that. Actually he was the reason I got back into 6mm modern in the first place.

I downloaded the german roadsign font for free (roadsigngeek IIRC). I made all sorts of signs up for games and can make almost anything it is out of scale slightly but TLAR principle applies.

The names on the signs are all from campaign game ideas etc. A bit compulsive obsessive. I even did some from the First Clash book about the canadians. Problem with that is the terrain doesn't exist for real (the places do but they are in different places).

Back to objectives. If the defender holds it as well how do you resolve that. You both can't hold the same piece with the same Victory conditions otherwise the defender wins at the end of turn 1..

Si
b

"Back to objectives. If the defender holds it as well how do you resolve that. You both can't hold the same piece with the same Victory conditions otherwise the defender wins at the end of turn 1.. "

Not sure if I fully understand the question. But, I will take a shot at it. If both the Attacker and Defender have Objective "A" as a victory condition, and for some reason both arrive at the objective at the same time, then it is contested point (neither side has advantage), and one hell of a punch-up is around the corner. Whoever is left standing controls the objective, or who ever can re-enforce it the fastest. Once the point is cleared of enemy units, then as long as you have 3 infantry units on the objective, then you control it.

Is that what you meant?

Maybe determine it on the turn where it will be a major victory, and on each turn thereafter.

Sort of.

Might be a pointy stick thing but the RAW don't appear to have "contested" as an option (AFAIK).
I agree that if you both meet the VC then it makes sense for it to be contested but this particular scenario has the whole middle section counting as a terrain objective. If you go across wise then you a 6 foot wide piece which is more than enough for both sides to hold the piece without a short range gun fight.

For more conventional games I would go with your suggestion. KD 's idea also has merit.

I just re read the VCs for the scenario, and they are a little ambiguous. Again by my read a minor victory is if the attacker is "sole" holder of the nearest half of the middle 1/3 of the table, and has a major victory if he is "sole" holder of the whole mid sector of the table (ie none of your "combat" units are in the sector,) and vice versa. All other situations I would call a draw.