Rules

Friday, 4 June 2021

WW2 Western Desert Campaign Wrap Up

Well, the WW2 Western Desert campaign finally finished last week with an AXIS victory.  Possibly not the result I was looking for but an enjoyable campaign nonetheless. I did a quick count back on the campaign turns and games played. In all there were 11 campaign turns and 27 tabletop games played. This all occurred over a period of 15 months between March 2020 and May 2021.

Campaign Map

Campaign Diary

Keeping a campaign going over a long period of time can be problematic, even with a solo campaign where the only dependency is upon myself and my motivation. The linear campaign approach, based upon the KISS Rommel campaign rules, allowed me to easily pick up the campaign after a few weeks break. I would just have to look at the photos of the last blog posting to quickly set up the campaign map and get going. My blogging was essentially my campaign diary and key to tracking progress and for referring back to any rule amendments.

Campaign Rules

The campaign rules were adjusted a couple of times as the campaign progressed, and finally settled down halfway through the campaign. For those interested they can be found here. There are a couple of areas I would revisit if running the campaign again:

  • The supply rules were applied evenly for both sides. I would tweek this if running the campaign again. I would use a set of chance cards for each side with the number of supplies and a brief description explaining why the supplies were lower or higher than expected to help with the campaign narrative. By using cards it would be easier to reflect the AXIS difficulty in obtaining and delivering supplies. Additionally, there could be conditions on the cards such as - “If Tobruk is not held, reduce supplies by 1”.
  • Another area I would modify would be in the use of minefields. They were widely used and it was a rare occurrence in my tabletop games. I would allow two of the defending infantry divisions to deploy mines at no supply cost. The divisions would have to be selected prior to placing the defensive division counters face down on the campaign map.

Tabletop Game Set Up

The terrain cards worked well, a carry over from my English Civil War campaign, with additional rules that allowed:

  1. Defenders to swap two adjacent cards on the first game to make the terrain set up more advantageous for defence.
  2. In the second game both players had to accept the cards as they were laid out.
  3. In the third game the attacker was allowed to swap two adjacent cards to their advantage.

Example of the terrain cards.

The type of game to be fought (frontal assault, flank attack, or escalating encounter) was influenced by whether it was the first, second, or third game. This worked well and I would have liked to introduce some more types of attack or variations of the existing types of games. The tabletop game setup rules are here.

Tabletop Rules

One of the reasons I like to run campaigns is to test out some new home-brew rules or test variations I have concocted for an existing ruleset. The campaigns force me to work away at the rules (or variations). This can be rewarding, if you get it right, or frustrating when things don’t work out to one’s own expectations. However, the campaign encourages me to be persistent.

The rules used and only slightly modified by the end of the campaign.

Tabletop rules started as the Tank on Tank rules (living rules which are downloadable from Lock ‘n’ Load games). I really like these rules and their games, East Front and West Front, which are available as online games through the Steam gaming platform. Both games are geared towards the latter part of WW2. So I began the campaign using these rules with minor modifications to the unit defence and range values. 

Gradually as the games progressed I tried out using D10 rather than the 2D6 dice from the rules. This then morphed into using opposing dice mainly because I don't like the way D10 dice roll (a personal quirk). I also tried having units taking two hits before elimination. Eventually, it was a big circle where towards the end of the campaign I returned to the original rules using 2D6, but with a rule that moving units do not get the +1 to their dice score, whereas stationary units do get the +1. 

For those who have not come across Tank on Tank rules, to make an attack add all shooting units in range to the 2D6 score and if equal or higher than the target defence value the unit is eliminated. So wonderfully simple, but there was one area of the rules that bothered me. It allowed units to rush up and attack without penalty, the change meant an attack could still be made, but not a coordinated attack with multiple moving units.

Dust and burn wreck markers in use.

Other rule modifications which stuck included: having dust from moving units block line of sight, and burning wrecks which were treated as difficult terrain costing an extra movement point to be consumed when moving through.

Settling on the home-brew rules changes was one of the objectives for the campaign, so regardless of the result I was happy with the campaign. Yes, I was hoping the Allies would have a comeback from behind win in the campaign. Anyway I will be writing up the rules either fully or as a quick reference sheet over the next few weeks and will post them.

Tabletop Games

The games themselves were played on a 4x4 foot tabletop with a homemade hexed gaming mat. I was pleased with how it all turned out, I even added a scenic backdrop. Originally my idea was to use a 6x4 foot tabletop with 17x13 hexes, but ended up playing small sized games, 11x11 hexes. These smaller games proved to be much more enjoyable and no less challenging. Smaller and quicker games can make a campaign less onerous to complete.

Tabletop set up for a game

As you can see my tabletop rule variations and campaign rules evolve as the campaign progress. As a solo gamer this adds to the enjoyment of a campaign as you work through ideas and refine the rules. (Although not a good approach if other wargamers are involved.)

Now it is time to start thinking about progressing the Ancients Campaign which will have both sea and land games to play.


20 comments:

  1. I suspect your supply rules were too generous; my reading suggests that the further each side got from their "base" - Egypt for the CW and Tripoli for the Axis, the supply position deteriorated significantly. The lack of rail lines or significant port (Tobruck being the only one and subject to air attack) meant transporting supplies over greater and greater distances the more successful you were (the reverse of a reward for winning). The Axis also suffered from attacks on shipping from Malta.
    Perhaps utilise one of the many boardgames on ME if you rerun it?
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking back at the campaign, I agree the supply rules were on the generous side, particularly when it came to operating away from the supply base.

      Delete
  2. Well done mate. Some interesting final observations on a campaign I’ve followed with interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. It is always interesting to look back and see what worked and what didn't.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for the insight to your Western Desert games Peter, I have tried out Tank on Tank rules in the past but was a bit lukewarm about them. Funny enough I downloaded them again a couple of weeks ago, after reading this post I will have another go with them.
    Regards,
    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like simple rules and I found these rules hit the mark for me, certainly for the 6mm scale. I don't use them for my 20mm preferring other rules. It is odd how and in what situations rules seem to fit. Thanks.

      Delete
  4. This has been fascinating to follow and stuffed full of interesting ideas, so thank you for taking the time to post it. One of my particular hobby horses is the use of AirPower in the desert: I remain to be convinced that ‘tankbusters’ and the like were of much value, more damage being done by the DAF on Axis supply lines than armour (and not as dangerous to pilots). That might be worth considering for your updated supply rules if you venture back to the sandy wastelands… ☀️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is an interesting point about air power. I did have air support on occasions in the campaign, but it was an add-on with supplies. Next time I would have one division with air support on each side not tied to supply. Thanks.

      Delete
  5. Well done, Peter! This was an enjoyable campaign to follow over the last 15 months. This long incubation period and numerous trials have allowed you to refine both your campaigning and tabletop rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jonathan. I was surprised it was 15 months as I had lost track of how long the campaign had run. The 2 to 3 week break between games gave me a chance to ponder and refine the rules changes.

      Delete
  6. The whole campaign was enjoyable to read about and to watch the progress of both sides from start to finish. The tabletop game set-up system is one I think I'll use for my ECW campaign when I get to start it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I will look forward to reading about your ECW campaign when you get the opportunity to begin it.

      Delete
  7. I've followed the Campaign with interest. Simple enough to finish but not so simple that it is bland. Excellent!

    Regards, Chris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Getting the balance right, or maybe the right campaign rule mechanisms, can be a bit tricky, it took me a good few campaign turns before I settled into something that worked for me. Cheers, Peter

      Delete
  8. Really interesting to read this background, ideas and thoughts. Having your blog as a campaign diary is a great idea. We blog chiefly as a reminder/repository for ourselves, the fact that other, like-minded people find it interesting and useful is a wonderful bonus!
    Regards, James
    By the way, I think that the link to campaign rules may be the wrong one as it took me to a blog editing window?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James. I will check out the link.

      Delete
  9. Thanks so much for sharing all this with us Peter, truly a labor of love and we are all richer for it! I look forward to seeing what else you get into.

    V/R,
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you kindly. The next campaign will be an ancients one with my recently painted Carthaginians and Romans. Regards, Peter

      Delete
  10. I really enjoyed following your campaign, though I was rooting for the Allies to win. Lots of cool concepts. Our local group tried a very similar sort of one using most of your rules barring a few modifications. We had fun but we did not finish. Like so many wargamers, like butterflies we flitted off to do other things. But your concepts are sound though, nice job!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. The attraction of something new is always a risk with a long campaign.

      Delete