*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:08:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686585
  • Total Topics: 118108
  • Online Today: 857
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Cold War Rules Playtest  (Read 637 times)

Offline CapnJim

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3658
  • Gainfully unemployed and lovng it!
Cold War Rules Playtest
« on: August 05, 2021, 05:56:03 PM »
"Black 6, this is White 6, SitRep, over".
"Go ahead, White 6".
"Roger.  Contact with motor rifle platoon with recon element moving west at grid 567234.  Engaged enemy.  Estimate they have 25% casualties.  Enemy elements moved west of our position, over".
"Roger, White 6.  Status, over?".
"Black 6, White 6.  Holding position just west of 567234, oriented east.  Both victors Green, Class 3 yellow, Class 5 yellow, 4 WIA.  Request medevac, over."
"Roger, White 6.  Black 7 en route to your location.  Maintain position and orientation, over".
"Roger.  White 6 out".         

     I volunteered my wargame group to playtest a set of Cold War Gets Hot rules in development for Osprey Publishing.  See the "Cold War Gone Hot - Playtesters required" thread earlier in this section of the LAF).  We got a playtest in yesterday.  Here’s the set-up for it:

     We played a scenario from the draft rules.  We played it on the battlefield shown in the first attached pic.  It shows most of the battlefield (5'x4') – we had a small West German village taking up the center of the table (about half the space on the table).  There were a few small woodlots scattered around the Village.  I also attached a few pics from the fight.

     The Soviets ended up as the attacker, and they came in from the far board edge.  Their mission was to get as many of their units off the US player's board edge.  They had a platoon commander, and 3 7-man squads (each with an RPK and an RPG).  They all started mounted in their BTR80s (of which there were 3).  They also had a recon BRDM2.

     The US had a lone Platoon Leader, a 2-man M47 dragon team, and 2 small 4-man squads (one with an M203, and the other with an M60 MG).  The US also had 2 LAV25s (yeah - I know the US Army didn't have any LAVs... ;) ) .  Of course, then, they deployed on the near board edge.  Their mission was to try to prevent the Soviets from getting through their position.

     All of the troops were rated as relatively inexperienced, using the draft rules, and  none of the troops had any extra traits.

     The Soviets sent 2 BTRs down their right (one with the Plt Cdr) around the village.  The BRDM went straight down the road through town, while the last BTR did an end run around their left of the village.

     The US had both squads and the Plt Ldr on their left in a small woodlot, while the Dragon covered the road through the village.  The Dragon was backed up by an LAV, while the 2nd LAV covered the US right.  The US troops moved a bit trying to get better firing positions on the Soviets, and in reaction to their moves.  The Soviets dismounted 2 of their squads for a few turns, but ended up re-mounting 1 of them for a dash off the table.  The 3rd squad got left behind by their BTR, but exfilled on foot off the table.

     The US troops were able to inflict some damage on the Soviets, but took casualties of their own.  The game lasted 5 turns.  The Soviets took 5 (out of 22) casualties, 2 of their BTRs and the BRDM were damaged.  The US took 4 casualties, but neither LAV was damaged.  The Soviets got all 3 BTRs, the BRDM, and 17 troops off the US board edge, for a minor victory.

     While I can't mention any particulars about game mechanics, we liked the rules overall.  They felt right, except for a few things I've passed along to the author.  It was a small fight, and we played it as an unbalanced scenario to see how the rules dealt with that.  They did just fine especially considering we were using inexperienced troops, and gave what we thought was a fairly realistic result.  We are looking forward to more playtests using more experienced troops...

     My figures were a mix of 1/72 plastics and 20mm metal figures.  Vehicles were 1/72 diecast.  Buildings were mostly Battlefront pre-painted - they are nominally 15mm, but work just fine for our 20mm stuff.

     

     
"Remember - Incoming Fire Has the Right-of-Way"

Offline Mako

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 779
Re: Cold War Rules Playtest
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2021, 12:07:30 AM »
Sounds interesting and looks really great!

Thanks for sharing your photos.

Are the rules set up for man-to-man combat, or combat by fire teams, or squads?

Given your mention of "individual traits" for them, I suspect perhaps combat is resolved on a man-to-man basis.

Offline Ultravanillasmurf

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9305
    • Ultravanillasmurf
Re: Cold War Rules Playtest
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2021, 03:42:19 PM »
Interesting report and the table looks good.

Interesting table size.

Now looking forward to hearing more about this set of rules.

Offline CapnJim

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3658
  • Gainfully unemployed and lovng it!
Re: Cold War Rules Playtest
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2021, 01:52:13 PM »
@mako:  Thanks!  I can't remark on any specifics, but the rules are set up for platoon-level combat (a Platoon HQ, with squads/teams/vehicles as maneuver units).  But (in my opinion) they could conceivably be used for squad-based games or even individual man-to-man games.  The traits I mentioned were unit traits, but I don't see why they couldn't be used for individual traits on a smaller scale game.  But as I said, the game as written is platoon-level.

@Ultravanillasmurf:  Thanks!  Stay tuned.  My group will likely do more playtests as time goes by.  As I feed our feedback to the author, I'll post AARs as well.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4531 Views
Last post June 17, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
by Spectre Miniatures
7 Replies
2170 Views
Last post August 06, 2014, 11:58:58 PM
by Operator5
3 Replies
1318 Views
Last post January 22, 2015, 09:54:58 PM
by guitarheroandy
1 Replies
996 Views
Last post August 25, 2015, 10:39:46 AM
by Morgan
6 Replies
1605 Views
Last post November 06, 2022, 05:49:31 PM
by Rogerc