Wednesday, October 25, 2017

"One Hour Wargames" - Scenario 14 - "Static Defence" - Setup

For reasons many and varied, and not altogether happy to be honest, DG is down currently, and contacted me last week to ask for the possibility of a game..  needless to say I was more than happy to bit his arm off...

Conversation then changed to the delightful subject of "what to play?" - casting my mind back over previous games I offered him Marlburian or 15mm WWII skirmish (DG is not fond of Blitzkrieg Commander so a big battle WWII was not an option) neither of which we'd played before..

So DG went and surprised me slightly by going for the WWII Skirmish option - now I say surprised because DG plays a fair amount of Chain of Command for this scale of gaming, and, errr... I don't... I use a fairly unknown set published by Crusader a number of years ago called "Rate of Fire" [clicky] and still marketed by them (I also note you can get a PDF of the rules for a mere six squids - that's less than the price of a pint and a half!). Either way, it looks like the forces of France will yet again attempt to stall the Wehrmacht in it's tracks, somewhere near the Belgian border in May 1940..

For the scenario I have turned yet again to "One Hour Wargames" and we are playing the next scenario in the book - #14 "Static Defence". The scenario calls for 6 "units" per side which translates quite nicely into the sub-platoon size elements that Rate of Fire deals in - so I envisage Platoon HQ, two rifle squads (each with Rifle section and MG section) and then each side can choose a support - either another MG section, mortar section, or another rifle section - no need for anti-tank.

French will defend, and deploy as per the scenario requirements - they will be allowed to deploy concealed if they wish (Germans have to spot them, or they are automatically revealed should they move or fire). The Germans then will attack; in order to balance the game, and because they are attacking, I will give the Germans improved training and or command factors.

Table is as follows - French deployment area is top third of table and as per the scenario, Germans arrive at the bottom edge... the victory conditions are as per the scenario, objectives are the "town" (which in this instance constitutes the terrace), and the hill top left...

On y va, mes enfants!

19 comments:

  1. Really looking forward to this report.

    I know Neil Thomas suggests using a 1/72 vehicle for a tank unit in his WWII rules, but the accumulation of hits (15) per unit does not give the flavour of a knock out that one expects with armour fighting and individual vehicles, so I have always thought of his tank units as representing platoons and that visually they would be better represented by say 3 tanks. Anyway - who cares, looking forward to a fun replay.

    I have always found it curious that Rate of Fire did not gain more traction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm - well I'll be the first to say that I quite like them for the fact they are not as complicated (to me) as "Chain of Command".. having said that we struggled with this game but I have a feeling more than 50% of the struggle was due to the fact that we just don't play them enough...

      Delete
  2. I, like Norm, do also believe Rate of fire is an underrated set that did deserve a little more visibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaun - I think they lose out to "Chain of Command" which seems to have a far greater following, and better product support....

      Delete
  3. A nice looking table setup. I have not as yet played any scenariosfrom Neil Thomas' book. Speaking of scenarios, is there something wrong with your Table Top Teasers, or is it me? Whenever I try to click and view them I get a "not available" error message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - phewwww - thought I'd lost them all.. :o)) I host the files externally on Box and it looks like I need to set myself a reminder to log on more often - I THINK they're accessible now - if you can try again and confirm one way or the other here that would be appreciated...

      Delete
  4. I tried again but still can't read them. The exact message I get is "The requested page does not exist". Has anyone else experienced my problem?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes. I get the teaser blog page, but the links that then go to the 'box' are giving me a 'not exist' message.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Norm. Glad to hear it's not just me.

      Delete
    2. Cheers guys - try now - looks like I fell foul of a migration from http:\\ to https:\\ .. should be working again (as of 27th 10:00 Zulu) but please advise if not....

      Delete
  6. I have exactly the same problem - I have used my re-set button for the page and that has not helped. I am on a PC. will go now and try on an iPad with Safari - will only report back (within 5 minutes) if I get the page normally.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It works fine with the iPad (using safari), I reach your box.com and the links work.

    I have gone back to the PC (using Microsoft Edge), rebooted the computer and still have the problem with the PC, looks like it can't find your Box dot com.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the PC, this is the address that I am getting when I click on your first column of first item (Battle '78) https://app.box.com/shared/g2bb4eu80s

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction...I see now that only the Feb. and March '78 links are working. Others still show "The requested page does not exist" So, the mystery continues.

      Delete
  10. Cheers guys - looks like something changed on Box as I have had to break and remake the URL for the file link to get them working... I'll put a post up here when they're all done .. 110 links! :o)

    ReplyDelete
  11. David/Norm - fixed... just need to find the JPG's for May '79... would appreciate you having a check and letting me know of anything amiss...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everything is working fine now. Sorry to have put you through so much trouble, but it's good to have the Teasers available again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, should be me thanking you and Norm.. thanks for letting me know..

      Delete