Chain of Command in New Guinea

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby Len Tracey » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:15 am

Congratulations on the scenario, the board looks fantastic. Sounds like a great game as well.
With regard to the Japanese platoon's Force rating, I am now also of the opinion that +1 is too low. Four squads and a tough Force Morale to break makes them a strong force. I went with the original for the Malaya campaign, but further gaming since then has made me think it should be higher (around +4). Personally, I'm adjusting my Japanese early war platoons to +4 for future games to see how it balances out.
Happy to hear any other thoughts on this issue.
Len Tracey
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:33 am

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby mluther » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:07 pm

If you're running a historical scenario, you have a set group of supports and a definite amount of troops and equipment at any rate. I have enjoyed both the Malaya 42 and Burma 45 mini campaigns and like putting together scenarios based on actions in the SW Pacific.
Sometimes when I see debates on CoC here I think that this is the same silliness that goes on with Bolt Action (and FoW). Everyone wants to have a fun game, but that doesn't mean that have to be 'fair'. What kind of war is that? When the Japanese are winning consistently they are playing with a decisive advantage. When the Allies are winning later in the war, most Japanese units are at half strength.
Less discussion -more gaming.
Great looking fun games are what I am interested in playing and reading about.
Mark
mluther
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:40 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby Truscott Trotter » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:30 pm

What i was saying in my round about way Mark was either the authour of tje list made a misclaculation or the author of the rules did. If you dont want to have a rule set with a force strength balancing mechanisim fine you can drop that bit or any other bit you like out of the rules.
Real battles were seldom balanced affairs but we are playing toy soldiers for fun. Part if that fun is despite disparate numbers that each side has a fairly equal chance to win.
YMMV
User avatar
Truscott Trotter
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby MLB » Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:49 pm

I get Mark's point and I think in a campaign you can work through a lack of balance in an individual scenario. Our scenario reflected one action and I restricted the Australian support to what was available historically. As it happened our result was fairly historical and of course a little later in the battle the Japanese ran into an Australian force with considerable support that turned the tide. I guess the issue for me and others is that in a one-off scenario we'd like to think, for enjoyment's sake, both players should feel they have a reasonable chance of achieving their objective for the scenario. That doesn't necessarily mean 'fair' and balanced forces, just a sense for each player to feel that if they play this right they have a decent shot at beating their opponent.

What that means for scenario design is not just the units and supports but also terrain and victory conditions. If one side has an overwhelming force then the bar for victory for that scenario should be set quite high, or the terrain should present considerable challenges etc. In that sense perhaps we should think of including more in the support lists along the lines of 'Ruse' and other more abstract elements to include a level of balance that ensures both players enter a game believing it is 'winnable' without the need to feel both forces are 'balanced'.
The Tactical Painter
Painting little soldiers for tactical battles on the table top
MLB
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby mluther » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:09 am

Yep. Nothing wrong with playing in a fair/balanced game-especially for one offs. I just don't expect that balance when you are modeling historical situations.
I see a lot of nonTFL players get slightly anxious when confronted with something that doesn't have a points listing that they can meta game.
I just explain that its a game based on a recorded event and refrain from saying read a friggin book!
Most folks that are into TFL style gaming like the whole friction, variable move distances, historical scenario thing.
And I really like seeing campaigns that go into seemingly unbalanced areas. 'Points' should be adjusted and applied accordingly.
Mark
mluther
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:40 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Chain of Command in New Guinea

Postby Truscott Trotter » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:09 am

Point taken - I am just not sure this was a deliberate balancing act.....and judging by the authors response I don't think he was either :lol:

Personally I think having unbalanced forces and counterbalancing conditions - like terrain, night or victory conditions is great - but not easy to do when creating your own scenarios, as I found when doing them for F&IW .

However, I still intend to have a go at a couple of plat/Co sized Para/Commando historical raids to see if I can make them a fun for both sides scenario in CoC
User avatar
Truscott Trotter
 
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Previous

Return to After Action Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

User Menu

Login Form

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 114 on Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:33 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © 2009 Afterburner - Free GPL Template. All Rights Reserved.