Red Actions Game at Texicon

[bollix]

I hosted a RCW game using the Red Actions! rule set at Texicon - a new game convention in Fort Worth, Texas - on Saturday. Unfortunately the convention wasn't promoted too well and was very poorly attended. I only had a single player sign up for my game and a second walk up. But lots of people came by after other events ended and seemed interested. Other historical games were similarly poorly subscribed as well.

This was my first game using Red Actions! It was fun, although the somewhat vague writing of the rules will call for some house rules to be developed as an amendment.

I had a kind of complex scenario set up for six players - Ukrainian Nationalists and Red Partisans fighting over a Ukrainian village, with Red and White armies entering on turn one as well. Since there were so few players, we just set up a simple two sided scenario of Reds vs. Whites. The White force was a little larger (and with generally better troops) than the opposing Reds. Here is the table setup:

The village:

The village looking across river:


We played the game as a meeting engagement, with the Reds moving to occupy the village while the the Whites occupied the hills and Cossacks prepared to cross the river. Early on, White and Red MGs began a duel on the Red left flank (at the ford), resulting in both the elimination of the Red MG detachment and the routing of the Don Cossack tachanka:


On the Red right flank, the Garford-Putilov armored car began to shell the White infantry companies moving up on that flank. It rolled snake eyes (bad) two turns a row as the Whites advance to the river's edge:


White Infantry moved into the rocky hills across the river from the village, as the reds moved up to occupy the village buildings. After this they exchanged several turns of fire:


On the Red right flank, the Garford-Putilov finally succeeded in placing enough effective fire on the White infantry across the river to send them into rout:


At this point, a Don Cossack cavalry squadron succeeded in fording the river and charged a Red Guard company as it moved into the village buildings. It was an easy rout for the Red Guards, the Don Cossacks sending them reeling down the village street:


Later in the same turn, the Red Guard company exchanging fire across the river routed from the combined effects of two white infantry companies and a MG detachment, and routed through the previously routed company, resulting in a massive jumble of routed Red Guard stands in village crossroads:


Then the Kuban Cossacks across the river seized on the moment and charged across the bridge, charging into the midst of the routed troops in the village:


By this point the Red army had obviously reached it's breaking point and it was every man for himself. It was a fun game, and hopefully will be followed by a game at another local convention later this summer.

The full photo album, with bigger photos may be viewed here: http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee25/cary_hocker/Texicon%20Red%20Actions%20Game/

Cary

[Wirelizard]

Great looking table, pity you couldn't get more people interested in playing on it!

I was looking at the "Actions" series of rules a while ago - more for ECW than anything else, but what do you think of the system? Under the vaguely written part, is there a solid and fun set of rules?

[DFlynSqrl]

Sorry you didn't much participation.  I'd have given it a shot but I was in on the dinosaur hunt... watching my askari and my pack bearers being eaten.   

Was kind of a small turnout, but not bad for the first year of the Con.

You mentioned running it at a later con.  Are you going to run it at Skirmish?  If so, I'll try to hop in and try it out.

[bollix]

Thanks for the compliment on the table.

I was looking at the "Actions" series of rules a while ago - more for ECW than anything else, but what do you think of the system? Under the vaguely written part, is there a solid and fun set of rules?

There are a number of rules open to interpretation. The retire, rout and pursuit rules raised a number of questions - and the rulebooks provides no answers. So house rules/interpretations will be necessary.

The biggest flaw in the rules is that it is an "I go/You go" type of system, and units are allowed to move and fire. This, combined with the lack of "overwatch" type rules, will allow units to advance, and fire on previously obscured defenders before they have an opportunity to return fire. Since some stands, like MG detachments, are brittle, this means that they are particularly vulnerable to this problem.

[bollix]

You mentioned running it at a later con.  Are you going to run it at Skirmish?  If so, I'll try to hop in and try it out.

I do hope to run it at Skirmish. I've asked for a slot, but haven't heard back from the organizers yet. Fingers crossed.

[DFlynSqrl]

I'll definitely put it on my list to play if you get in.

[Mark Plant]

Thanks for the compliment on the table.

There are a number of rules open to interpretation. The retire, rout and pursuit rules raised a number of questions - and the rulebooks provides no answers. So house rules/interpretations will be necessary.

The biggest flaw in the rules is that it is an "I go/You go" type of system, and units are allowed to move and fire. This, combined with the lack of "overwatch" type rules, will allow units to advance, and fire on previously obscured defenders before they have an opportunity to return fire. Since some stands, like MG detachments, are brittle, this means that they are particularly vulnerable to this problem.

I wrote out the rules entirely in a standard format with clarifications because of the similar issues I had with them. In the format published I find them very difficult.

The problem about moving up to obscured enemy and firing is a major weakness. (I stopped it when I found cavalry riding up to guns and shooting the crew off.) I changed by only allowing firing before movement.

I also made the results tables more finely gradated.

They play pretty much the same way, in feel, despite that. I really like them, and think they give really good results for the RCW.

[bollix]

I wrote out the rules entirely in a standard format with clarifications because of the similar issues I had with them. In the format published I find them very difficult.

The problem about moving up to obscured enemy and firing is a major weakness. (I stopped it when I found cavalry riding up to guns and shooting the crew off.) I changed by only allowing firing before movement.

I also made the results tables more finely gradated.

They play pretty much the same way, in feel, despite that. I really like them, and think they give really good results for the RCW.

Moving before firing sounds like an excellent solution. I don't recall seeing your clarified version of the rules published anywhere - is it?

I planned on posting the question on The Perfect Captain's Yahoo! Group, but since you've played - how do you interpret this situation: If a unit is forced to rout before they have had an opportunity to perform their own action, is their own action "pre-empted", or can they still take their action (and attempt an immediate rally)? This is one of those vague situations I've encountered. I've played it as the unit's action was pre-empted (their action was to rout and move away from the enemy), but I'm not completely happy with this interpretation.

Thanks for your reply, and Thanks for the unit card for the Garford-Putilov I got from your site. 

[Mark Plant]

Moving before firing sounds like an excellent solution. I don't recall seeing your clarified version of the rules published anywhere - is it?

I planned on posting the question on The Perfect Captain's Yahoo! Group, but since you've played - how do you interpret this situation: If a unit is forced to rout before they have had an opportunity to perform their own action, is their own action "pre-empted", or can they still take their action (and attempt an immediate rally)? This is one of those vague situations I've encountered. I've played it as the unit's action was pre-empted (their action was to rout and move away from the enemy), but I'm not completely happy with this interpretation.

Thanks for your reply, and Thanks for the unit card for the Garford-Putilov I got from your site. 

I've never published my version of the rules openly. I felt it was a bit rude to the writers. People should at least get their version first. However they know of my version and are happy that I distribute it quietly. Send me a PM if you are interested.

I take a rout as pre-empting any other action for that whole move. Same with all forced actions.