29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe

gbaylis1957
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:56 am

29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by gbaylis1957 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:15 pm

Hi all.

We have had great fun playing this campaign, but are concerned that we have misunderstood the rules on hedges and LOS.

We thought that the scenario stated that all the hedges DID NOT block LOS (just gave soft cover. In other games we have said that such 'low hedges'' do block LOS (unless within 2" as we think is normal), but not as I say in this campaign.

Can you let me know how you handle LOS and hedges of the following types:-

Low - say 4ft
Medium - say 6ft
High - over 6ft

MANY Thanks

Graham

Archie Bacon
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 5:37 pm
Location: Sitting with the forest mice

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by Archie Bacon » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:26 am

Stick to the ruling on page 31 8.1 and you won't go wrong. Up against the hedges or firing from it then you can be seen. These pictures are of the hedgerows around Cardonville and St. Germain du pert, part of the 29 campaign. Seeing the actual terrain helps you decide which type of cover is which ;)

Image

Image

Image

Archdukek
Posts: 4060
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by Archdukek » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:35 pm

As Archie says, the definition in section 8.1 divides linear obstacles, including hedges, into two types, either "High" which block line of sight unless troops are adjacent to it and adopted a firing position or "Low" which don't block LOS but which do give cover. A dense hedge of reasonable height, say chest high, would be a High terrain feature in my view.

You need to agree with your opponent beforehand which kind your model terrain represents in your scenario. As a broad rule of thumb most garden hedges will be low minor obstacles, while farm hedges around fields are usually assumed to be major obstacles and high. In reality of course there is much more variety and there are plenty of examples of the opposite with spindly hedges around fields and tall, dense hedges surrounding gardens so some common sense needs to be applied.

For "29th Lets Go", the hedges are farm hedges defined on page 22 as Medium obstacles which would make them High hedges in terms of 8.1 in my view. So troops lining a hedge on one side of a field can see troops lining the hedge on the other side, but you won't be able to see beyond the far hedge.

Hope that helps.
John

gcoops
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:12 pm

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by gcoops » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:47 pm

Recently been playing 29 Let's Go. We decided behind one hedge, you get light cover, behind 2 hedges, heavy cover and beyond that unseen unless being viewed from a higher level (hill, building, etc) which would then negate one level of cover.

gbaylis1957
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:56 am

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by gbaylis1957 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:47 am

Hi chaps

MANY THANKS for the great advice and the lovely pictures too.

I reckon we will stick with the 2" rule from now on.

This gives a battered unit somewhere to hide, as well as allowing you to sneak up on a position, from now on.

All the very best

Graham

:D

gbaylis1957
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:56 am

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by gbaylis1957 » Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:24 pm

Update on this one.

We tried the 'proper' rules (2" visibility margin) in the last scenario of the 29 Let's Go and found that it really 'slowed' things down, the ability to hide units resulting in little firing and some micro management of sight lines. All in all it made the game less enjoyable we thought.

The biggest issue was that in this scenario, time was pressing as the Yanks had to break the Germans within 3 hours. With the little bit of firing possible (as both sides could make themselves 'invisible' so easily) this gave the advantage to the Germans, this being because of all the hedges that were about.

It could be that we were playing it too safe, but either way, it seemed that the lack of shooting seemed to 'take something away' from the game, it after all partly being all about 'throwing them there dice'.

At the moment, we reckon that gcoops (see above) might have the right idea here?

Any comments thoughts?

Graham

User avatar
7dot62mm
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:17 am

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by 7dot62mm » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:58 pm

gbaylis1957 wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 5:24 pm

Any comments thoughts?
One thing to avoid with CoC seems to be making the whole/most of the table to be within LOS. That creates a situation where there is no need to move at all and the one with the most firepower will win. Our group decided to stop playing the Kursk 2 campaign because the scenarios degenerated into static shooting exercises.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 5445
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:31 pm

Interesting we decided not to start it for the same reason.
Again if I saw PSC for El Alemain I would probavly pass on it but Stalingrad I would be all over it :roll: 8-)

Munin
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by Munin » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:40 pm

I've been working on a PSC-like game for some of the actions of Operation Crusader in North Africa, and many of these have extremely sparse terrain. For one of these, the only terrain features are smoke, dust, and burning vehicles. But in all cases, both sides have objectives that can only be met by moving, so the end result is a chaotic mad dash rather than a slug-fest. If the scenario is set up properly, an open table can be pretty interesting.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 5445
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: 29th Lets Go campaign and LOS

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:56 pm

I agree if both sides need to move but if one side is dug in behind the wire with the MMG it is pretty hard going - as even my Commandos found out in Operation Aubery :oops:

Post Reply