The decision to use regimental-sized playing pieces stems from the fact the commanders of Russian Fronts or German Armies – the role I want each player to take in my new operational-level wargame – will need to know where their individual divisions are and what they are doing.
I could, therefore, represent each division as a single playing piece, but this would not allow me to model the particular strength, organisation, and posture (e.g. defending, attacking, moving) of each division very easily. Because I want to represent the component parts of each division on the tabletop, the obvious choice was, therefore, to use regimental-sized playing pieces.
I could, therefore, represent each division as a single playing piece, but this would not allow me to model the particular strength, organisation, and posture (e.g. defending, attacking, moving) of each division very easily. Because I want to represent the component parts of each division on the tabletop, the obvious choice was, therefore, to use regimental-sized playing pieces.
.jpg)
I also use regiment/brigade sized elements with 'Panzergruppe'. Were you thinking of representing divisional assets as well (like artillery) or just the infantry/armoured regiments? I tend to put the extra divisional elements in for smaller actions (like Operation Crusader) and take them out for bigger ones (like Goodwood).
ReplyDeleteMartin,
ReplyDeleteMy intention - at present - is to include them. However, I may follow your example if - as I test my design - it makes sense to remove them.
Because my rules are aimed for refighting the Eastern Front, I may want to field a Russian Artillery Division (or more) and this may also affect my decision as to whether or not I include separate artillery 'units' within each division.
Bob