Sunday, 14 October 2012

The Portable Wargame: Modern wargames rules: first draft now available for download!

I have now completed the first draft of my 'new' PORTABLE WARGAME: MODERN wargames rules (PW:M for short), and they are available here.

Please bear in mind that they are still a draft, and may be subject to change (drastic or otherwise!) as they are play-tested and developed.

16 comments:

  1. Any plans to make a hex version Bob?

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim Duncan,

    In the fullness of time I hope to. It would not be too difficult a task as most of the mechanisms will work with both squares and hexes. But first I want to get the draft PW:M rules into good working order.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, Bob !
    I'm very happy with what I see here. I must return to work tonight, so won't get to give them a "shake-down" until tomorrow. I plan to try out another "bocage" game with combined arms, and a 1940 Western Desert tank-fest. I will send you a report tomorrow night. Are there any areas that you especially want critiqued?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steven Page,

    I have not made a great many changes, but I have tried to make the rules simpler and easier to understand (especially the Close Combat mechanism).

    I would appreciate any feedback, especially where there are typos or something is not worded very well. I can't promise that every suggestion will be included in the next draft, but any play-test feedback helps improve the end result.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  5. Phil Broeders,

    I hope you enjoy using them.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  6. I moved a few figures around last night, after a read-through. Here are a few questions/comments.

    Movement: Should Artillery be immobile unless limbered?...Art has a move of one, as does horse-drawn transport. There seems to be no incentive to "limber-up" at this time.

    Movement: Rule "h" clarification: This situation is a unit attacked in Close combat, in which neither side took a hit, now breaking off the assault. That is how i played it.

    Movement/Close combat: Movement rule "g" says both units must turn and face. CC rule "a" only states the attacker must. My read is if flanked, the defender would NOT turn to face unless surviving for a second round on their on turn.

    Minefields: Hit process: If an infantry unit moves into a minefield, rolls for the hit, and survives, it must retreat. Should it not just stay in the minefield until the next move? The same thinking with two or three move units, if not destroyed, keep moving forward.

    Comments: I think you have produced both a good game, as is, and a wonderful "toolkit" for those of us who love to tinker with everything.

    I was using the Unit status for hit resolution to reflect good and bad armor. Heavy tanks are elite, 21st Panzer's home-made spg's were poor, and all other tanks were average. It worked very well. I count all trucks and wagons as poor.

    I used the river crossing rule to reflect the hard going in hedgerow country with good results as well.

    I'll try to play a few more tonight, and give you more feedback.
    -Steve

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steven Page,

    Thanks for the very prompt feedback … and here are my answers to your questions and comments.

    Artillery can move on its own without limbering up. The reason why I gave Transport the option to act as towing vehicles for Artillery was to encourage players to use their Transport – particularly their motorised Transport – to move their Artillery if they felt the need to. Limbering up to horse-drawn Transport brings no advantage to the Artillery, but using motorised Transport does … if there is any available.

    Movement: Rule ‘h clarification: What you describe is what I expect might happen, and it is why that rule is included.

    The Movement and Close Combat rules are at variance, and I will need to remove the requirement that both Units must turn and face (i.e. Movement rule ‘g’ should read A Unit must stop as soon as it enters a square that is adjacent to the front, flank or rear of enemy Unit, and must turn to face the enemy Unit at once).

    Minefields are intended to hinder, block, and channel an advancing enemy, and by making Units retreat they are achieving the first two and encouraging the third. I don’t think that I will consider changing the rules regarding minefield for the moment … but I will bear your suggestions in mind.

    Your have grasped the essential fact that these rules are a toolkit that can be adapted to meet specific needs and requirements. Your use of the Units status to reflect the quality of ‘kit’ a Unit might be using is an example of this, as is your use of the river crossing rules for movement through bocage.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds good! Minefields become essentially a "no-go" zone without your engineers. (I already see a house rule for flail tanks on the way!)

    Tonight is going to see a 1941 Soviet tank attack on a German static artillery position. I'll send a follow up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steven Page,

    I look forward to hearing how your game pans out ... and I like the idea of house rules for things like flail tanks and other 'funnies'.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read the Geoff Futter's series on the "funnies" in Military Modeller back in '71, and never lost my fascination for them. Hobart ranks right up with Jack Fisher among my heroes.

    Early flail idea: Flail is "elite". move into minefield. Roll for hit. 1,2, tank blows up. 3,4,5,6 field is cleared. Next turn move on. No firing while flailing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steven Page,

    It sounds good to me ... and very much in keeping with the rest of the rules.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is a run-down on the 1941 East Front game. There were no questions that came up during play. It was a fun "tank charge".

    The Germans, defending the western end of an 8x12 square grid, had a force of 1 command unit, 1 machine gun, 4 infantry, 2 anti-tank guns, 2 infantry guns, and 2 Flak 88's(Heavy Artillery), all were rated "average", except the 88s, at "poor", to represent their size and vulnerability. Several of the German units were entrenched.

    The attacking Soviets had 3 T-34s (average tank), 7 T-26s (poor light tank) a KV-!(elite tank) and a KV-2(elite Heavy Artillery SPG).

    The first artillery phase saw the 88s force the KV-1 back, and destroy a T-34. The KV-2 retaliated by knocking out the southernmost 88. The Russians began their advance, while the Germans shifted units to cover the gaping hole left by the smoking flak gun.

    Turn two saw the artillery continue to do damage, as the 88 smoked a T-26,( no better target in range) and the KV-2 took out an anti tank gun, again on the southern flank. The light tanks now closed the range to the German line with the T-34s and lumbering KV right behind. Again the Germans shifted units to the right flank.

    Turn three saw the artillery of the Germans cut a swath through the Russians, with the 88, both infantry guns and the remaining anti tank gun destroying Russian tanks. The KV-2 knocked out the southern infantry gun, leaving the right flank held by infantry only. The T-26s and T-34s now fired on the entrenched infantry, forcing some of the troops to fall back. The northern infantry gun was also taken out. German grenadiers began the difficult task of moving into position to Close assault the Russian armor.

    The KV-2 had now closed the range to duel with the remaining 88, and destroyed it, while taking a hit that forced the monster back. The last anti tank gun wrecked another T-26 before being knocked out by a T-34. The German infantry now launched a series of assaults that saw the turn end with three grenadiers remaining against the KV-2 and a T-34.

    The Kv-2 began a progression of "fire and fall back" either destroying the enemy, or forcing him out of assault range. The T-34 kept the other Germans at bay. The surviving German units, facing the unstoppable, fell back to their start-line.
    Here are a couple of pictures of the game.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/87915280@N07/sets/72157631786503426/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steven Page,

    What an interesting battle report! I hope that it will appear on your blog somewhere (with the pictures). It is exactly the sort of battle that will make people realise that you can fight interesting battles that have not obvious forgone conclusion on a relatively small area with small forces in an hour or so ... and it did not take hours to set up or take down afterwards.

    I wonder how the battle would have gone had the Russians had some infantry support (tank riders?) and the Germans a Stug or SPAT gun.

    A very enjoyable read ... and it sounds like the rules did not throw up any problems as well.

    All the best,

    Bob

    PS. If you don’t want to put it on your blog, could I publish it on mine (along with the pictures)?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob, feel free to publish it. I am thinking of starting an "Adventures in Portable Wargaming" blog, with your approval. I want to post at least one battle per week, with suggested rosters and objectives. I am having so much fun with this, using all the Flames of War stuff I painted, but never had time to use.

    Next up: An Arnhem scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steven Page,

    I would be more than a little pleased to feature your battle report on my blog ... and will be delighted to mention your new blog about any battles that you fight using the PORTABLE WARGAME rules, when you start it.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete