This is the sort of game that I'd usually play with my own "For Whom The Dice rolls" rules. However I'm on a mission to play SCW games at all the levels of resolution allowed by NQM, and this week I wanted to have a look at the Regimental level game (so called RSO). Over the last year or so we've been playing Corps (CSO) and Front (FSO) level games. When we started out on this journey a few decades ago we were mainly playing RSO, so this was sort of a blast from the past.
I went for the early period of the war, August 1936 to be more or less precise. I took my inspiration from the Legion's drive north to capture Madrid by way of Badajoz and so on. On the 6th, some books say, a Bandera and a Tabor encountered their first real resistance. Whilst they captured the villages and the bridges they were tasked with, they took heavy casualties from workers' militias, supported by Asaltos and Civil Guards.
Terrain details were sparse, so I improvised the above layout. As I don't have any hex hills, I put some foam under the cloth and hoped the players could sort it out as we went along. For the game I was joined by Chris K, Phil & Steve.
Chris played the Republicans and deployed first. The Asaltos occupied the Convent on the hill top. There's always a convent on a hilltop. But not using the Anarchists to defend it Chris saved it from being burnt down.
The bridge and village at the foot of Convent Hill was held by some Regular Army companies and the Anarchist militia.
At the other end of the table the village was held by Civil Guards and Communists. And Chris brought along a propaganda truck too.
The Nationalists were fully motorised. The Moroccans were sent on ahead. My newly painted motor cycle recce teams have hared up the road out of sight (they do not feature in any of the pictures, which is a shame).
Steve had the SFL and was tasked with capturing Propaganda Village. Taking control of the artillery he started to shell the buildings.
Phil disembarked and mounted an attack.
He was repulsed bloodlessly due to some really poor dice rolling.
Steve went in with one company of Legionnaires, and met the same outcome, more or less.
Steve tried another all out assault and was bounced with losses.
Convent village was hotly contested.
Steve got a foothold at the other end of the table too. The fighting was fierce as indicated by the yellow "out of ammo" markers.
Steve brought up his Med & Log to reorganise so he could press home his attack.
The fighting at the far end of the table really sea-sawed as Phil was unable to gain a decisive advantage. This was despite the Moroccans being afforded a number of advantages, like being able to sustain attacks without reinforcements and re-org on the go.
Steve finally got control of the part of the village on his side of the river, as Chris voluntarily withdrew to conserve his forces.
With the Anarchists still holding on grimly to the bridge, the artillery trained its fire on them.
The Asaltos finally came down from their lofty perch, and counter attacked against Phil's Moroccans.
Phil's Moroccans forced their way across the bridge through their own barrage...(note Red Cross on building, denoting a casualty clearing station).
We had a number of problems whilst playing the game. The bases represent one strength point (1SP) more or less, and Chris announced that one die is rolled in Combat per 3SPs. I wasn't sure, but they're his rules and he was certain. That gave some odd results. We weren't rolling a lot of dice, and there were some points when we had to work out what bases belonged to what company, as a company still fights if it only has 1SP left. i.e you always round up. This could be used in a gamey fashion, which struck me as not quite right. Chris was distracted by the idea that my bases should be representing 3SPs, as that's what I usually use them for, and was convinced I had a real estate problem on the table. He thinks 1SP platoons should be represented by figures on 2ps. I like NQM as I think the same base can be used for a platoon, company, battalion etc as the area represented by the hex changes as you go up a scale.
A subsequent check of the rules this morning reveals we were playing it wrong. You roll a combat die per base. You can only roll it in attack if the base is undamaged, otherwise when it effectively has 0SPs it can only defend. So we should have been rolling three times as many dice. ALSO bases with a hit - i.e. platoons at 0SPs - are removed if the unit loses the Post Combat Outcome roll and are forced to retreat.
Now that would have been a very different game. This one will be refought.
Excellent! If you cannot trust the author, who can you trust?
ReplyDeleteWell, to be fair, I forget stuff too. As you have reminded me on numerous occasions.
DeleteI've been thinking of trying out SCW at regimental scale as my 15mm is organised for CD with platoon stands (2 figures).
ReplyDeleteLook forward to the replay.
Neil
A stand doesn't have to be anything in particular. No reason a 2 figure stand can't be a battalion.
DeleteGraham, yes I'm aware of that. What I was trying to say was that my battalion would be typically made up of an HQ and companies of HQ and 2+ platoon stands; companies per battalion vary and often include MG companies, so mimics the RSO with minimal adaptations.
DeleteNeil
There is an advantage in modelling at the lowest level, then you can use them for bigger formations. It doesn't really work the other way round.
DeleteI have read many, many iterations of NQM over the years, and for RSO I think you are confusing two differerent things. At RSO you have elements which represent companies, so a typical battalion will have three rifle elements and a command/support element. Those elements may be made up of a single base (with 3SP) OR a bunch of 1SP platoon bases grouped in threes. You still only roll 1 dice per element (company). In very early iterations of NQM you had to keep track of which platoon base on the company element was hit, so eg if the HQ pln base was hit the whole battalion was out of command., but the entire element was only overloaded when all three platoon bases were carrying a hit and another hit was inflicted on the whole element. Those were the days when close combat was conducted using the Risk dice and not Table 12, in which case the individual Platoons did roll an assault dice, but not in the more modern streamlined version.
ReplyDeleteFor the SCW I think there is a strong case for adding in unit quality to the combat outcome roll rather than losses (or both?). It would make it far more likely that the SFL and Regulares would roll over Militia easily then, and the lack of artillery support etc would be a lot less noticeable.
You may have read a lot of NQM, but I've played an awful lot over the last 30 or 40 years, of both NQM and its predecessor Panzerblitz. A lot of what was written never made it to the table, and a lot on the table never made it to the written version. The general rule has always been that you roll at least one d6 per base in combat at whatever level you play at. You are also differentiating between elements and bases, which we've never done in practice, regardless of what may have been written. You are right that Close Assault has been done in a variety of ways before it was abolished and we go straight to the current "Post Combat Outcome" roll. Table 12 has never been used for Close Assault. The fact is that the current RAW is specific and clear: every shooting or combat base rolls a d6. I am not confusing two things, just reading what's in the published rule book.
DeleteThere's a case for specific SCW rules without a doubt. I think there's a good case for adding Unit Quality to the Post Combat Outcome regardless even in base NQM. One of the issues we had with such a low level game without a lot of kit on the table was that the main advantage the SFL/Regulares had was in unit quality, and that only plays out if you can force units to re-organise under pressure from casualties. The latter never really happened, so the advantage never arose.
I think the confusion lies in the way Chris has phrased it; each shooting or attacking BASE gets 1D6. In the RSO he states three small platoon (P1) strength infantry BASES.....make up a company, with usually 3SP per BASE and later each (RSO) battalion....into a C3 BASE and three F3 BASES.
DeleteSo as written, both 1D6 per platoon OR company are correct.
I'd agree there needs to be some SCW "gloss", troop quality among them.
Neil
There is an issue with the drafting of the rules, and the whole idea of 3 x 1SP platoons = to 1 3SP company is pointless as the game is played. It would have been better if Chris had not included any reference to platoon bases at all in the rules. If I'd been more switched on when I was proof reading I'd have said so.
DeleteTrebian -
ReplyDeleteIt must be your effective narrative style, but I formed the impression that the battle game 'worked' as played - it was just a different game from what you thought you were playing. I think when designing rule sets, as one tries this, that and the other tweaks to get the outcome right, one is apt to misremember just where one it at with the 'beta' design of the moment.
I've been off-and-on reading Antony Beevor's book on the SCW. A pretty bloody affair even before the shooting war started, by the look of things!
Cheers,
Ion
Ion,
DeleteIt gave us a good enough game, but it didn't play out as it should have done. Of course, when we try it with the Rules As Written it may end up being a complete shambles! Beevor's book on the SCW is good, and very readable. He has a soft spot for the Anarchists, but otherwise it is mostly fair (although I worked with a Spaniard who hated it as being very biased). The SCW was a very nasty conflict. Read Paul Preston's "Spanish Holocaust" if you really want to depress yourself.
Trebian
It was a fun game and, I thought, a pretty good representation of the action that you described to us on the night. Martin Rapier's explanation is correct. The confusion is over the fact that the Rules As Written have an SP3 company e.g. (F3, Raw,Lad) as the standard discrete element, but we used to make it up from three SP1 platoons together rolling one die, which is what the illustration in Rule 2.3.1 shows. So when the rules refer to one combat die per base, at RSO it is one company base. It doesn't help that there is an errata at rule 2.3.1 that should read "with, usually, 1 Strength point (1SP) per base". The caption underneath is correct.
DeleteNowadays, we can play RSO with a single SP3 Company base as the smallest discrete element rather than splitting it into three SP1 platoons as we used to. You can still put the MMG platoon there as an SP1 base, or if it is a company, an SP3 base as needed or required.
Looking forward to the next game,
Chris.
Thanks for the clarification. I stand by my statement that in all the games I've played with you the general rule has always been that if a Fighting base/stand/element is represented on the table then it rolls at least one d6. I don't ever recall having to roll one die for every three stands. However, I did duck out of a number of games when the campaign got bogged down around Moscow, so I may have missed that happening. If I do RSO in future I'll probably just roll the MG company up into the C3 base as per usual. However as all we overlooked was the loss of bases on Post Combat push backs, which would only have been significant in the last turn, giving Steve complete victory on his flank, I don't think we need to revisit it.
DeleteHola a todos.
ReplyDeleteMe llamo Manuel y soy Español. Mis abuelos, y los de otros amigos míos, combatieron en la Guerra Civil Española.
Dos de mis abuelos cayeron en combate, uno en Paracuellos y otro en Jarama, y pude oír de las bocas de familiares supervivientes historias aterradoras de la guerra y de los años posteriores, que para muchos fueron peores que la propia guerra.
Recuerdo las historias, siendo un crío y escuchar aterrado lo sangriento, duro y cruel que fue para ambos bandos. El abuelo de un cuñado mío fue prisionero de guerra en Zaragoza y el trato a los presos no era humano ni decente.
En España es aún un tema muy delicado que todavía causa dolor y resentimiento. Fuera de España se dijo que era sólo una guerra entre el socialismo y el fascismo, pero fue mucho más. Fue realmente un capítulo triste y sanguinario de la historia de España.
No obstante, el juego parece divertido y la mesa de juego se ve genial. Un artículo muy bueno, muchas gracias por compartirlo.
Un saludo desde España.
Manuel
DeleteThank you for taking the time to comment at length, and sharing your family's experiences. I hope our attempts to wargame the war in no way imply that we want to trivialise it or simply turn it into "fun". My wargaming research has lead me to read a lot of books on the conflict, both from historians and survivors, and they have sometimes moved me to tears. It was truly horrifying at times.
All the best
Graham
Hola de nuevo.
DeleteMuchas gracias por tu respuesta, sólo añadir que en ningún momento he pensado que se está trivializando este o cualquier conflicto, siempre he visto en el blog mucha educación y respeto, además de que juego wargames y entiendo lo que siente cualquier jugador.
Aunque casi nunca escribo, sigo el blog desde hace un tiempo y realmente disfruto de las batallas de la Guerra Civil Española (como las que leí de Guadalajara por ejemplo) y jamás me he sentido mal por ningún artículo de este magnífico blog.
Desgraciadamente para los wargamers españoles, cuando un juego de la Guerra Civil Española se publica, siempre hay alguien quejándose de si el juego muestra un bando mejor que otro, que si se quiere mostrar algo más suave/ duro de lo que fue, etc...
Por eso es una alegría ver que desde fuera de España se juegan wargames sobre la Guerra Civil, ya que considero que es un conflicto interesante para los wargames, aunque yo soy más de antiguos, medievales (tus carros husitas me gustaron, y no dije lo de carros de circo en los comentarios por ofender) y fantasía.
Muchas gracias por este magnífico blog. Un saludo desde España.
MM
Hola de nuevo.
DeleteMuchas gracias por tu respuesta, sólo añadir que en ningún momento he pensado que se está trivializando este o cualquier conflicto, siempre he visto en el blog mucha educación y respeto, además de que juego wargames y entiendo lo que siente cualquier jugador.
Aunque casi nunca escribo, sigo el blog desde hace un tiempo y realmente disfruto de las batallas de la Guerra Civil Española (como las que leí de Guadalajara por ejemplo) y jamás me he sentido mal por ningún artículo de este magnífico blog.
Desgraciadamente para los wargamers españoles, cuando un juego de la Guerra Civil Española se publica, siempre hay alguien quejándose de si el juego muestra un bando mejor que otro, que si se quiere mostrar algo más suave/ duro de lo que fue, etc...
Por eso es una alegría ver que desde fuera de España se juegan wargames sobre la Guerra Civil, ya que considero que es un conflicto interesante para los wargames, aunque yo soy más de antiguos, medievales (tus carros husitas me gustaron, y no dije lo de carros de circo en los comentarios por ofender) y fantasía.
Muchas gracias por este magnífico blog. Un saludo desde España.
MM
[I have translated MM's comment from the original Spanish. I didn't realise that Google/Blogger would let me do that on the page]
DeleteThat is good to hear. An external perspective on your own history is often good to have. If you have been around here for a while you will know I worked with a Spaniard in the last couple of years who was producing a Wars of the Roses game for GMT. Your comments are much appreciated.
Courtesy Google translate:
ReplyDeleteHello everyone. My name is Manuel and I am Spanish. My grandparents, and those of other friends of mine, fought in the Spanish Civil War. Two of my grandparents fell in combat, one in Paracuellos and the other in Jarama, and I was able to hear from the mouths of surviving relatives terrifying stories of the war and the years that followed, which for many were worse than the war itself. I remember the stories, being a child and hearing in horror how bloody, hard and cruel it was for both sides. The grandfather of a brother-in-law of mine was a prisoner of war in Zaragoza and the treatment of the prisoners was neither humane nor decent. In Spain it is still a very delicate issue that still causes pain and resentment. Outside Spain it was said that it was just a war between socialism and fascism, but it was much more. It was truly a sad and bloody chapter in the history of Spain. However, the game looks fun and the gaming table looks great. A very good article, thank you very much for sharing it. Greetings from Spain.