Over the last week or so I have been playing a few WW2 games as I try out some different rule options. But this post is not about the rule themselves, its about the dilemma of putting too many units on the table. To the point where unit numbers limit manoeuvring and a game turns into a bit of a slogging match. Every now and again I seem to forget about this when deciding upon the forces to game with.
 |
| A tad over crowded perhaps? |
 |
| Not too crowded and a more enjoyable game |
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYes- certainly a good point on 'crowding' which rings home to me...many years ago I was invited to a WW2 Game (Normandy) and from the outset it was definitely over-crowded with heaps of 1/72nd Armour...in fact the roads were Parking Lots and the whole battle was stultified by no where to move or work out how to get into a fighting position. Possibly the worst type of game I've ever experienced. I guess, it is a case of 'less-is-more'. Possibly some players fall into the trap of adopting the attitude of trying to display everything they have painted - at the expense of a reasonably realistic battle. Cheers. KEV.
KEV - new purchases and old favourites always seem to slip into the forces. Cheers Peter
DeleteAgree, I tend to find that having just a few units seems to make the decision making more intense.
ReplyDeleteYes, the decisions and their implications are more immediate.
DeleteWhile we all (well, at least me!) enjoy putting all of our painted troops out onto the gaming table, the law of diminishing returns quickly sets in. A great slogging match between two large opponents may be fun to watch but I find more interesting games occur with fewer BMUs pere side.
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, I agree completely with both Kev and Norm.
The temptation to get new and old favourites onto the table is always there. While large force games are enjoyable once in a while, smaller games (as other have mentioned) often present more challenges.
DeleteI agree that the comes a point at which the quantity of materiel on the board diminishes the possibility of the more open type of action we all anjoy so much. But in my view what you get is simply a different type of action - the hard slog. Such actions might well be a different kind of test - less of the tactical flair and more of the patient endurance.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of Kursk, here, and F. W. von Mellinthin's account of it. Possibly a more illustrative example might be found in Borodino, 1812.
Marshal Davout was a very fine commander, possibly the most able of Napoleon's lieutenants. But at Borodino, he not only had two of his five Divisions taken away from him, he was expected, in the middle of the line, to storm the fleches and the great redoubt. For him there was never any question but of a frontal attack, straight up the guts. No sophistication here. His function was simply to lead and direct it.
I have also had recent (just last night) to consider problems of traffic control. In a priority driven game that I was using, I am considering allowing units to 'reserve' their move until their fromt is cleared, rather that having them lose their move altogether.
I also think that what you might end up with is an attack (say) in successive waves.
Where things get problematic is when BOTH sides have enormous quantities of kit. That's when you get Kursk.
Jacko's and my Operation Saturn project involves heaps of Russian stuff. Probably the Russians won't all fit onto the table to begin with. Never mind: they can wait off table. For those chappies in the front line, I am expecting a rapid attrition.
If I want rapid, sweeping moves, I have first to break through the Romanian line...
Agree larger unit games do present different types of actions. I suspect these larger games, and enjoyment of them, comes down to some planning with off-table reserves. More moving parts to a game and the more thought is required for a successful game. Whereas with smaller games you can get away with a less planning.
DeleteIn recent games I had drifted into larger games adding units without too much forethought.
...And thank you for such a detailed comment. Much appreciated :-)
DeleteI like the occasional big game with lots of troops on a big table, and lots of players and a GM with very simple rules. Once every 5 years or so seems to do it. :)
ReplyDeleteIts been a struggle for me to accept that fewer units and lower density often give a more intense and interesting game than a crowded battlefield and an all day or unfinished battle. Now my question is once I have more small armies than I can use, why do I keep adding figures?
The joy of model-making and painting! Once you have established a working force of units, it is so easy just to add one or two here and there and before you know it, there are twice as many units as you need.
DeleteAs I game ancients predominantly, masses of troops is a positive! But yes, too many units and things can come unstuck. Ideally you want to be scratching your head over deployment, then a turn of moving into position then few turns of ever-increasing tension as you slug it out and things reach breaking point. 20th century battles can be tough to get right in this regard. Our moderns games often have too many troops and not enough time or table space to do the scenario justice.
ReplyDeleteTrue, moderns do present more of a challenge to keep movement and the ability to flank in the game.
Delete