“Battle of Sydhavn” – a Flames of War Tournament

This year I reran a Flames of War tournament with 10 players in Copenhagen. Enjoy the pictures 🙂

FoW Battle Report: Push into Germany and Version 4

This week I got my 4th game of Flames of War version 4 in. I enjoyed it and I am starting to see the subtle differences to version 3. I will comment on these as the battle unfold between the US 3rd Armoured Division and the German 111th Panzer Brigade. I apologize for the poor picture quality. I forgot to bring a camera and my phone is bought to last not to take great pictures.

1775: Rebellion – Board Game

Can you refight 8 years of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) in just two hours while still maintaining enough details to keep the interest of a history buff? Academy Games believes, they got a formula with their Birth of America series, so read on as I explore the second game in the series 1775: Rebellion.

Overlord – MilSim

A couple of weekends ago I got together with a very special group of guys who do WWII military simulations with airsoft weapons. I admit I have always had a bit of hesitation towards joining hardball as I always felt it was too much run and gun and had “weird” scenarios such as capture the flag, VIP escort or simply to kill the entire opposing team which feels very artificial to me. It works very well for computer games which are meant to be fast and fun but less well for a realistic experience of war, which it what I would be looking for. So how do these guys do it differently?

Hosting a Flames of War Tournament

I know my posts recently have been fairly short compared to the usual. I have both been travelling and also preparing to host a Flames of War Tournament. On April 22nd I hosted a tournament. We had 20 spots although only 14 spots were filled. 20 spots is fairly big in Denmark, that is not to say the community is all that small but it is more to say that hosting a tournament takes up a lot of space and time and thus will often be combined with other miniature war games in order to make the most of the rented rooms thus the number of player spots are typically a bit limited.

This post is mainly about organizing the event and I hope it will help others who would like to host something or be inspired.

 

The Venue

The venue is the biggest headache. It sets a limit on the total number of players and spectators. I really wanted it to be a cozy event with more focus on friendly games than hardcore competition and as such I also wanted to serve dinner as well as having a small stand from where to sell a bit of candy, soda and food.

A standard tounament table is 180 cm by 120 cm and there must be room to move around all four sides of it. This should preferable be without having to move around players from the neighbouring tables. I have been to other miniature tournaments in the past where space has been an issue. It is not a great issue but it does take a bit away from the experience.

I was able to rent the common rooms of my appartment block. These rooms are a real treat although quite expensive. That means that the sign up fee was already a bit high so I decided to add a dinner to it which can be made fairly cheap with sufficient number of players (and a dedicated cooking team) to make the players feel they got some more out of their money. It would also help the social aspects of the event which is something I value highly.

Supporting Staff and Preparations

There is quite a bit of preparation involved. For the games themselves it must be decided which scenarios to play. I prefer these are announced ahead of the tournament for players to prepare their armies for it. I wanted to have one of each major type, so I wanted a free-for-all, hold the line and hasty attack. We used a Facebook event for all the announcements and it worked fine.

The setup of tables was done the day before, so players only had to gather an hour before the tournament for drawing the first matches. I had 3 helpers to help build the tables and drive around to gather gaming tables and terrain from the local gaming store that sponsored us.

I allocated an hour before the first game to draw the matches and also check player army lists (although in the end the check was not done). I trusted the players not to cheat or misconstruct their lists. I think for small groups it works well as we all know each others armies to a certain degree.

The preparations took apart from getting the venue 2 evenings, one to prep the tables and pre-cooking as much as possible and one for shopping. We had a small self-service snack stand. We trusted that people would pay themselves. With such a small community I felt there was not a huge risk of people cheating. The dinner was barbeque chicken breast, sausages with salads and flütes and took 2 dedicated staff on the day.

 

Number of Games

For a one-day tournament with somewhat experienced players I felt we could get 3 games in without exhausting the players. I wanted to tournament to be a series of friendly games. The time per game including setup was set to 3 hours, which does require somewhat experienced players to run smoothly. A number of the games did not manage to finish completely so I think I would go with 3½ hour per game next time. The reason for 3 hours was to allow players to take a good 1 hour lunch break and half an hour between game 2 and 3. We could probably have squeezed a 4th game if we really wanted to as that would have made for a much better competitive setting but I wanted to keep the day light.

The format was axis versus allies and the first match was picked at random, after that the top allies and axis players were matched and so on in order to find the best generals on each side.

We decided to go with 1515 points late war tournament with all lists available. It is this year’s standar number of points in late war and I was happy to keep the number of points down. While I do feel 1500 vs the normal format of 1750 points give me one platoon too little meaning I always lack one tool, typically either artillery or recon. It is farly fast with 4-6 platoons (although some extravagant lists will make it 8-9). The low number of platoons lower to number of command decisions making the games run at a good pace for a tournament.

The tournament was also kept in version 3 even though version 4 is out as not everyone have had time to adjust and so I felt more comfortable playing with a rule set we knew well.

 

Competitions and Prizes

For our competitions we wanted to have the tournament at least Axis vs Allies and also wanted to create a bit of incentive to get the army painted up I wanted to have a army painting competition.

For the painting competition, we had it after the tournament which was probably less effective as some players were very eager to pack up and get home. We should probably have done it over lunch. The players could nominate their own armies based on what they had seen and then it was popular vote between spectators and players. It was a good way of getting spectators involved too.

As we are a small group of players who know each other (and a few friends of the players) for the tournament, I wanted people to play rather than have dedicated judges. So most disputes were solved by the players themselves with players on neighbouring tables providing help.

 

It was discussed if we should have had a fair play prize. I have a bit of mixed feelings towards it as I would like it to encourage friendly games. I have been to tournaments where fair play points was awarded by the opponent and also counted towards the total score. But I feel that can too easily be exploited and can work as a way for very competitive players to pull down opponents. If having a fair play prize, I think it must be kept completely different from the main tournament.

 

Partners

A special thank has to go to Faraos Cigarer in Lyngby. It is not only my local gaming store, they were happy enough to borrow out terrain and tables for the tournament. Without them it would have been impossible to get enough terrain.

Also I tried to negotiate a deal with local pizza places in order to get an easy way to get lunch for the players. The idea was to make one big order and get a bit of discount. That did not materialize but it could probably have been done if I had started earlier.

 

The Tables

There were 6 very distinct tables and with a couple of fewer people showing up, we also managed to not have anyone play on the same table twice. I admit when I design a table, I go more for feel than balance and I like a lot of terrain (if it is fitting).

The 6 tables had strong themes, two rural tables (one with a rocket base), a heavily forested table, water-logged ground with plenty of rivers, city fight table and desert table. The terrain from Faraos amounted to a rural, river and forest table with some buildings.

The city fight table is a special creation of mine, I have for a couple of years been gathering enough buildings to have a proper city fight. It is a very difficult one to play on but I find it gives some unique challenges. Among my other tables are a D-Day setup which can double as a rural and a desert table.

Personal Experience

I had originally prepared a British rifle company list but a few days before we had a couple of drop outs meaning that we had an uneven number of axis and allies players so I ended up having to put together a German panzer list. In the end I did not bring my Axis list and we had another drop out on the day and I thought I would just take it slow and focus on hosting. But Helle had started the day playing American Tanks (3rd Armoured) but she got sick after game 1 so I ended up taking over her spot. So it was a lit I had not designed nor very used to. It consisted of HQ and 3 Sherman tank platoons tooled up with all kind of specialist tanks including 4 jumbos. The key to the list would be the use of the Jumbos as I found out the hard way.

In the end I ended up getting to fight 2 infantry lists. Game 2 For Hold the Line I was up against Erik’s Sturmkompanie on one of the rural tables. I was severely lacking in artillery and with veteran infantry I had to get into close range in order to be even able to hit them. My opponent chose to have a 2-gun PaK battery and another one in ambush.

The Sturmkompanie was well dug in

I had to come forward to close range in order to hit anything but I was very wary of the ambush. Even though the jumbos can take care of a great deal of incoming fire, clever placement can place the ambusher in short range of the other tanks and thus get around the jumbo. it ended out being a slugging match with my tanks being lured into the killing field of wheat fields in the centre of the map with Stug reserves and PaK ambushes as well as one sneaky Uthoff beating up my tanks. My only real success was when my tanks managed to charge down the left flank overrunning a PaK and a Nebelwerfer batttery buying me a 3-4 loss.

The 3rd game was on the desert table against Karl’s SS Westfalen infantry. It was Hasty Attack which is a scenario I have have never really figured out how to play well. I decided to refuse one flank and focus everything on one objective. Karl’s infantry was dug in around a small village and I really wished I had artillery. With the Germans having the Enjoy the War special rule they were almost unbreakable and had to be grinded down. In the end I did not have time and a King Tiger came on the table right on the flank I had been trying tot take together with a Panzer III platoon, I was being grinded down but managed to break a few platoons in a very close fought game. I ended up actually failing my company morale check with no platoons on the table. It was that kind of close and it still earned me another 3-4.

Almost broke through to the objective but those SS boys truly enjoyed the war and stayed on

I hope this post served as a bit of inspiration. I am always happy to discuss experiences or give advice for other who wish to start a league or run a tournament. I can be contacted on Djinovic @ hotmail  . com

Axis and Allies Boardgame – First Impressions

As a WWII enthusiast as I have been looking at Axis and Allies for years if not more than a decade, I am sure everyone else have as well but never actually played a game until March 11, 2017 so here is my first impressions of the game.

WWII Infantry Support Weapons

On April 22 I am going to host a Flames of War tournament. The format will be Red vs. Blue 1515 points late war. I will probably post more on that at a later stage. But as part of the preparation, I have committed myself to play 1 game per week on average and do more tactical posts on the blog.

So next in the journey, infantry support weapons. Infantry support weapons are important weapons because these allow the infantry to perform a number of tasks. Support weapons add to offensive and defensive capabilities.

In this post I will cover regimental and lower echelon attached and organic weapons; machine guns and mortars, as well as the infantry gun. I will discuss the roles of the weapons both from a historical and Flames of War perspective. I will try to cover use of weapons rather than organization.

Antitank weapons such as anti-tank guns and shoulder-fired AT weapons will be covered in a later post.

 

Origins of the Infantry Support Weapons

Many of the weapons have their origins in WWI, as machine guns drove the infantry to ground and created a No Man’s Land. The infantry had therefore need of specialized weapons who could follow them out into the death zone and help them shot their way forward. For this light machine guns were developed to be carried forward by one or two men. These would provide a lot of mobile firepower could help the infantry suppress enemy positions. often the infantry was held up by enemy heavy machine guns emplaced behind log or concrete positions. Heavy machine guns would be used for creating beaten (or death) zones. There would also be advanced fire plans with covered sectors and often including indirect fire with machine guns being fired up in the air in an angle. Where resistance was too tough the mortars or infantry guns could be brought forward and smash them with high explosives. If counter attacked by enemy tanks, anti-tank rifles or infantry guns could be brought in play.

 

Machine Guns

There are several classes of machine guns and several ways of classify them. As each country have their own ways of classification, I would like to divide them into 3 types: light, medium and heavy (please note that this my interpretation and not following any official standards). The light machine gun is a man portable machine gun, it is light enough to be brought forward by one man (and while several men may be needed to carry extra ammo, it is effectively operated by one man). These machine guns were often incorporated into infantry platoons. In the beginning of the war a typical infantry squad would consist of two teams, a fire and assault/manoeuver team. The idea was to use the fire team with the machine gun to provide a base of fire while the assault team would move on the enemy. These machine guns would typically be the British Bren gun, German MG34/42 (with a bipod configuration) and Soviet DP-27. In the US army an infantry squad carried either a M1919 light machine gun of this class although the standard rifle platoon more often used the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) supplemented by the fast firing semi-automatic M1 Garand infantry rifle. The machine guns are used predominately for suppressive fire when closing with the enemy.

The Medium Machine Gun is a crew served weapon, it is often a heavier weapon which can be broken down in parts and served by 2-3 men plus extra to carry spares. It is often mounted on a tripod to sustained fire from a stable position. It is used to create beaten zones. Often these are water-cooled or have advanced barrel change mechanisms to avoid overheating during sustained fired. British types were often Vickers (MMG), the Germans used the MG42 but with a tripod, Soviets the Maxim M1910 and the US M1917.

The heavy machine guns are similar to MMGs but are often of higher caliber and can be used in a more anti-material role. The US .50 cal machine guns and the Soviet DSHK were for instance used in a anti-aircraft role and could be used against lighter armoured vehicles.

Example of AA mount

 

Mortars

The pocket artillery of the infantry man, the humble yet readily available mortar. The mortar is much cheaper to produce and require fewer men operate than the artillery, it is lighter and thus can more easily keep up with front line units however it also have more limited range. When dislodging an enemy from an entrenched position is difficult, it will often require weapons that can suppress him before soldiers can move on the position. Smoke can be dropped to create concealment as the troops come forward and HE and WP rounds can pin him to his fox holes. Illumination at night and chemical rounds are also something the mortar excel in.

The mortar has often been a bit of a under-rated weapon, because of its ability to be stationed near the front line and being much more easy to operate, it was easier to fire at specific targets of opportunity and towards the end of the war almost 70% of casualties in the British army in NW Europe 1944/45 is estimated to be from mortar and rocket (nebelwerfer) artillery (with mortars making up the larger percentage of weapons, it is likely it also made up the larger part of casualties). One of the advantages of the mortar is is ability to be laid fast on the target, in a time where field radios were bulky or unreliable and forward observers still could be found laying telephone wire when moving forward, the ability to respond fast was truly appreciated with the mortar.

 

There are three classes of mortars which are associated with the caliber of the mortar.

The light mortar is developed in the interwar period to replace the rifle grenades, the emphasis was a light weapon that could come forward with the infantry and destroy machine guns or other specific targets holding up the infantry. The firing therefore had to be done with “direct” observation from the crew. The typical caliber was around 50 mm in order to pack enough explosives yet being light. It was however found that the 50/60 mm rounds were too light for pill boxes and the light mortar was phased out in many cases.

Light mortar 2″. Light enough to be carried forward with rifle platoons

 

The typical medium mortar is around 80-82 mm and of the Brandt design which meant that in many cases ammo was actually interchangeable between various national armies. These were often equipped with HE, smoke and white phosphorous rounds and could often also fire HE rounds as air bursts to shower enemy troops in fragments or branches (if hiding in a wood). Very few mortar rounds had impact fuzes to allow penetrations of overhead cover so more often elimination would be achieved by collapsing the sides in on light constructed defences. With more solid defences several hits would be required which was hard to achieve giving to the relative inaccuracy of the weapon. It is easy to view mortars as light artillery but actually do to the relative less force applied compared to artillery shells, mortar shells often has higher explosive blast as thinner walls are needed, this makes them excel a lot more in an anti-infantry role but less so in a role where penetration is required. The same goes for the trajectory where mortar rounds fall in a much steeper angle.

Heavy mortars are mortars above 82 mm and this category contains the 120 mm mortars used by Germans and Soviets and the 4.2″ mortar used to British and US forces. Especially for the 4.2″ mortar the initial thought was that the mortar would be used for chemical warfare similarly to WWI mortars. Gas warfare was however never used in WWII and instead the mortars were used to deliver heavier HE shells.

Even larger mortars such as the Soviet 160 mm were developed but these are outside the scope of this text.

 

Infantry Guns

Infantry guns have their origins in WWI where the need for accompanying artillery was necessitated by poor communications. The idea was a gun that could be used much like a mortar but also had a direct fire capability and better range. It could also be used in an anti-tank role although past the early days of WWII this was less likely. Reviews of the weapon performance after WWI found the infantry gun too cumbersome to be moved fast still and the British dropped the concept. The Soviets and Germans doctrines stressed the use of direct fire for hard points and pill boxes.  They developed 76mm and 75 mm cannons respectively for direct firing while also allowing them to fire shells similar to the power of mortars. When the 75 mm shell was found too light, the Germans developed a 150 mm infantry gun. The US regimental cannon company is a bit of an oddity as it’s purpose was to furnish infantry regiments with their own integral artillery. Originally issued with 75 mm pack howitzers these were later replaced with a short 105 mm howitzer. These operated more like artillery than the German use of infantry guns.

 

Gun Teams in Flames of War

A couple of general comments on gun teams. As Flames of War definitely is not supposed to be a simulation game and thus does have a couple of mechanisms that are up for interpretation. Gone to ground improves gun team saves to 3+ from 5+, which I have found a bit puzzling but my interpretation of this is that when the gun is in action (hence not gon

e to ground) the crew in order to serve the team effectively have to come close together and work, that means that HE shells have a higher chance on knocking out a sufficient number of men to make the weapon inoperable even if the weapon itself is not destroyed. Also serving a weapon would probably also mean that a trooper could not stay as low to the ground as he would like. Where as when the gun is not in action i.e. gone to ground my interpretation is that the crew likely disperse close to the gun and use the terrain like small depressions for cover which significantly improve chances that no or only a few guys would be injured and killed by fire but probably would have enough men to serve the weapon. I believe the same goes for infantry saves, for me the infantry save does not mean whether the plastic soldiers were hit or not. After rolling to hit,  any hits I at least interpret as rounds/shells landing close enough to cause damage, so the 3+ save is whether the team is operable or not after the shell has exploded. It could perhaps be one guy wounded or killed but the rest of the team is still combat effective. Perhaps it could even be interpreted as superficial injuries but to me a hit is actually a hit as in something that would cause damage, otherwise the game would be inconsistent. If a tank is hit in the game it always takes an armour save as if something hit the armour (but may bounce off), I would like to think the same for infantry/guns.

The infantry support weapons: Mortars, LMGs and AT guns prepare to hold off the advancing German armour

 

Machine guns in Flames of War

The light machine guns are incorporated in the infantry platoon as the MG team or in case of it having been diluted with too many rifle teams as the Rifle/MG team. The rifle/mg team represent the traditional fire and maneuver teams, one team with the MG the other with the rifles or smgs but because Flames of War does not have the scale to represent squad combat, I believe it was simplified to 2 rifle/mg teams rather than a rifle and an MG team. Rifle/MG teams are pretty much the standard infantry team late in the war and has ROF 2 (the average of 1 for rifle team and 3 for MG team). A lot of nations experimented with motorizing infantry and the additional transportation allowed squads to be fitted with more fire-power as it was more easy to carry extra ammo etc. In Flames of war some motorized units especially the Germans can take MG teams. These teams represent every team having access to a machine gun and allow for an astonishing ROF 3 and ROF 2 when pinned down. The US infantry in this regards is special as they are rifle teams being equipped with rifles (semiautomatic) and an automatic rifle in the BAR. This left the individual with more firepower than other nations but the squad with less. In the game this combination rates the US infantry as rifle teams (dropped ROF to 1) but the special rule automatic rifles allow the teams to move more aggressively than other rifle teams in that they do not suffer the moving with ROF 1 penalty making them effectively equal to rifle/mg teams on the move and only slightly worse in defense.

Defensive Fire vs Trained targets

	ROF	To hit	W/ reroll	Hits/team
Rifle	1	66,00%		0,66
Rifle/MG	2	66,00%		1,32
MG	3	66,00%		1,98
Rifle (US)	1	66,00%	88,44%	0,88

My experiences, I find that MG armed platoons (apart from the much smaller British Motor Rifle) are very capable on defense. I rarely find myself tempted to combat medium machine guns to the mix as their defensive fire even when pinned down is formidable. Rifle/MG teams I have much more trouble with, often they can bring the necessary ROF to create enough volume to pin attacker.

The Medium Machine Guns in Flames of War are typically covered by two types of teams, the LMG (ROF 5) and HMG (ROF 6) but are otherwise very identical. These are man-packed gun teams with a longer range 24″ to the 16″ of the infantry machine gun. To me that represent the more stable tripod which allows the team a more steady platform for long range fire. Apart from the US forces M1919 LMGs are fairly rare in Flames of War.

Many of the sophisticated machine gun indirect fire techniques developed in WWI deteriorated during WWII. The main reason for this was the abundance of support weapons that would be used in the same role such as mortars and artillery. Only British MMG platoons get the option to perform indirect fire. I must admit I rarely use the special rule. If my opponent is dug it the FP rating of -, does not allow me to destroy his teams and I can only hope to suppress him. While this is exactly the role of the machine gun in the indirect fire role, I often find, much like the WWII company commanders, I can allocate mortars and 25 pdrs to shell them instead. Often the 25 pdrs are already ranged in anyway as that would likely be my main point of attack that needs to be suppressed. Against infantry in the open where a template bombardment could be tempting, I find that 4 HMGs firing at ROF6 will do more damage. With trained machine guns vs the typical 7 team veteran grenadier platoon at long range and in cover, even if ranging in on first attempt the average number of hits would be 3.5 from bombardments, with 4×6 shots at 16% chance to hit is still 3.8 hits from direct fire. So it should be used only for infantry moving behind enemy lines out of range or where pinning is desperately needed to prevent them from moving in which case the chance of pinning is 70%.

British machine guns cannot be combat attached to combat platoons but I would like to take some time to consider them. Soviet companies (i.e. platoons) can have an integral HMG, this is actually owing to the Soviet infantry in theory having more organic support weapons with their infantry regiments than other nations but admittingly Soviet forces were seldom up to full established strength. I find that my Soviet platoons should often move forward and get stuck in close combat where their larger number of teams can make the difference and thus I seldom buy HMGs. In defence I rely on mortars and artillery to whittle down my opponent and then counter attacking with my infantry so HMGs simply reveal my infantry and expose them to counter fire which takes away the strength in numbers when I finally counter attack. With my Germans I most often play panzergrenadiers which is MG teams in their combat platoons, hence I do not find the extra ROF provided by HMGs really needed. For the US I have no experience but I do believe owing to regular infantry being rifle teams I would like to get the weapons platoon and attach some LMGs out while keeping the mortars in the platoon together.

An interesting historical side note which is also reflected in the game is the US practice of dismounting machine guns from vehicles and form provisional HMG platoons staffed by spare personnel from HQ or A&P platoons. This too can be done in Flames of War although I rarely see US armoured rifle platoons as these are not as interesting as their German counterparts, and US rifle platoons with transports I have yet to face.

 

Mortars in Flames of War

Mortars in Flames of War receive a reroll on the first range in attempt to emulate the ease of deploying and direct observation. I tend to view heavy mortars as poor man’s artillery, except for US and British heavy mortars, heavy mortars do not get the smoke special rule and also lack the ability to perform direct fire, they are therefore limited to firing bombardments with shorter range which also makes them very cheap in terms of point costs which somewhat makes up for their lack of staff teams. Firepower is keeping in the notion that these are good any infantry weapons and is typically 3+ or 4+. In the other end of the spectrum is the light mortar, this is often directly integrated into rifle platoons and lack the bombardment ability, these typically have very good fire power in direct fire (4+) and the British even get smoke. I like these for smoking up enemy weapons teams that could otherwise help pin assaulting platoons but otherwise tend to view them as a nice to have rather than a need to have. In Soviet forces I actually like them for their ability to fire over friendly troops as most of my teams would be unable to fire their weapons due to their large platoons. The US use the 60 mm mortar which is a bit in between, it does not have smoke but it does have a bombardment in addition to direct fire. I tend to group these together in lists that permits it and use it as medium mortars firing bombardments for pinning.

The medium mortar is the cheapest smoke generator around, a two mortar platoon can provide a template of smoke where it is needed and can provide pinning but with a bombardment fire power of 6 do not expect them to kill anything anyway. For armies that do get smoke with medium mortars I never leave home without them, however for Soviets I am less likely unless I create a massed group to advance and blast the enemy with direct fire. Direct fire was something that was added with version 3 of Flames of War and I must admit I often forget it. It can be really useful against troublesome infantry.

 

Infantry guns in Flames of War

The Germans get only 2 guns in each platoon, so I generally do not like them, they are too few guns to make an effective bombardment and for smoke mortars are cheaper (although shorter range). The 15 cm heavy infantry gun however truly shine in its direct fire with bunker buster and can be used to deny the enemy use of buildings. The Soviets have bigger batteries but only 76 mm guns and I find mortars fulfill the same role more cheaply. The US cannon platoon I consider artillery and should be treated as mortars although with 6 guns and good firepower (105 mm version) these are actually worth it.

Kaukopartiojoukot in Flames of War

Kaukopartiojoukot, the name is impossible for me to pronounce, but refers to the Finnish long range reconnaissance troops which were active during the period of 1942 to 1944.

During the Winter War in 1939 it was recognised that there were insufficient manpower in Finland to defend the entire border. The Soviets planned to attack Finland all across the border while the Finns had focused their defenses to the South in particular around the Mannerheim lines assuming the Soviets would not bother to attack in the remote regions to the North. The Soviet troops were however often confined to roads as they lacked equipment to travel cross country which meant the Finns could often block and cut them off. This led the Finnish general staff to develop ski guerilla units to operate in the gaps of the Soviet advances however these saw very limited action before the end of the war in 1940.

During the uneasy peace the Finnish army was not demobilized as everyone believed it was merely a cease fire before the Soviets once again would attempt to take over the rest of Finland. During this period the long range reconnaissance patrol, Kaukopartiojoukot, was developed in secrecy. The idea was exploit gaps in enemy lines to conduct long-range reconnaissance and guerilla strikes deep behind enemy lines. These units are not to be confused with with Sissi (guerrilla) or Jääkäri (light infantry) units while these did also undertake raiding and scouting which operated much more locally under regular army control which put them much cloesr to the front line.

The men themselves were selected from the most phyiscally and mentally fit volunteers. These were typically young athletes like skiers and runners. The typical mission would see a company sized patrol infiltrate the lines and set up a base of operations and then break up into smaller patrols to conduct separate missions. Often these would be recon but also raids such as small convoys, officers, supply depots and airfields as well as roads and railways.

Only a few company and larger sized patrols were deployed. These were formed to conduct a few high profile operations, such as cutting the Murmansk railway and disabling the Stalin Canal. The patrol was occasionally reinforced for these missions with guerrilla, Jääkäri (light infantry), and engineer troops from the regular army although specially equipped for the missions.

 

In Flames of War

Kaukopartiojoukot fought both in the Continuation War and in the Lapland War so could theoretically be fighting both Soviets and Germans.

It consists of very limited options seeing that it should be a raiding force in line with other Midwar raiding forces. It can however also be used in late war. It has an upper point limit of around 1800 points but this would be very bold at best to try it out at this level. The official raiding missions for which the company is designed is typically 500-1000 points and meant to be taken against more lightly armed troops.

It basically consists of up to 3 combat platoons of SMG teams and 2 weapons platoons that adds additional abilities if chosen and two support platoons of pioneers and jääkäri which is regular light infantry with the options of being upgraded to recce. Lastly 8 booby traps can be added. So basically the force does not have any gun, tank or transport teams.

I have always been a sucker for weird forces so of course I have given it a try. I never liked the raiding forces part of the game so I have used it in regular games and I want to do a few comments on them.

 

Equipment

The Kaukopartiojoukot used a long range of specialized equipment such as captured enemy uniforms, chemicals to confuse dogs’ sense of smell and light weight snowtrack mines. Futhermore light weight radios were also used.

In Flames of War, the first thing to notice is the complete lack of gun teams, tranport, tanks, air support and artillery. It also lack any serious firepower except for close up being an army of primarily SMGs with a few rifles here and there. This is really limiting and I feel it must be seen purely as a close combat army even the anti-tank department, there are no ranged weapons which means that the army has to really close and assault tanks to destroy them.

Two very special units make their appearance, the radioasema and the other is Houltojokkue teams. The Radeioasema is a light recon unit, it only really has an effect while on the attack as it can be used to break up the mission and end the game with the platoons pulling back to safety and off table. It can be used as a way to cut losses in VP.

The Houltojokkue teams have two types, medics and transportation teams. The medic teams can allow to bring back a destroyed team on a 5+ roll once per team (at the time when it is destroyed). The transportation teams allows the platoons they are attached to, to get the stormtrooper special rule.

 

Special Rules

Hunters – move at the double through difficult going

Athletes and Boxers – move 14″ at the double

Self sufficient – mission tactics

Captured Uniforms – makes it harder to the enemy to target them until they have taken offensive action requiring skill test to fire at them

This force does not have British Bulldog against Soviets as it is a raiding force that should not get bogged down with drawn out fighting.

 

The main thing, this force has got going for it, is mobility. The ability to move at the double through difficult going will enable it to move at the double without getting hit/seen. Forests will make this force particular effective, as will heavily urban areas. As the force need to close with other forces to win, it will be all about manouvering to minimize losses as the force come in.

 

Offensive

I find that the offensive is where this force is at its weakest, which does seem a bit odd for a raiding force. But it is really too light to go up against forces that contain a lot of armoured units. With no ranged anti-tank and no smoke, there is simply no option for assaulting tanks in the open.

On the positive side, snipers can be used for pinning and mission tactics allow units to operate very independently and attack from multiple directions. The traps can be used to slow reinforcements.

The good mobility though difficult going can allow infantry to stay hidden while doubling through terrain which can bring the assaults in to the objectives provided the terrain can help.

 

Defensive

Interestingly enough I find the force much better on the defense. It is a combination of booby traps and snipers for pinning and slowing attacking infantry and strong ambushes (if scenario allows) where infantry can start in cover and come in at full speed SMGs blazing and move into assault to take a key unit. Veterans concealed and dug in cannot be hit unless in short range. Special rules allow the the reinforcements to move up very fast and in cover to avoid being hit by double ROF for moving at the double.

 

If you want to give it a try, find it here:

Click to access KaukopartiojoukotV3.pdf

FOW Battle Report – Death in the Desert

This week I managed to finally get a Flames of War game in. I have been away from the game for about 3 months except for a single game day of introducing infantry aces to friends.

 

We were going into the midwar desert on this one. I admit to normally being a committed late war player and thus apart from the 1-2 games I get a year against my friend Kasper and his Afrika Korps I have very little experience with the era of the game. Kasper is an excellent painter and have done many of my command teams as commision work.

This does however also mean that Kasper very much insists on playing with painted models and thus I was somewhat very limited in what army I could bring as I would like to match with as many painted models as possible. So I bring my British rifle company which is the only company I have which is painted and easily convertable from late to mid war.

Since we settled on Africa and not Italy battles I had to furthermore choose a company in which I could include late war tanks so it had to be the New Zealand rifle company as they can include 8th army Sherman tanks. I really feel I need tanks in any army to have something that can counterattack easily.

 

Army Compositions

I decided to bring 2 full platoons of rifles to form a solid defence. I knew I was going up against a tank army of veteran German tanks so I would have to rely on my infantry staying down and gone to ground while my reserves would race to my aid and my guns whittle them down so to strengthen my artillery I brought a platoon of 25 pounder guns and a heavy mortar platoon. I did think about air support but I concluded that the German tanks would be in short range to hit me anyway so I would not be able to use aircrafts out of fear of hitting my own troops. To help fight tanks I brought 4 6-pounder AT guns for ambush work. I am a huge fan of the small but powerful gun with AT 10 and ROF 3 I think most people underestimate it. For reserves I chose a platoon of Sherman tanks supported by a platoon of Stuarts as well as my trusted platoon of universal carriers (I love these guys and I should definately get them painted up next) and an armoured car platoon with daimler I and dingo. I know I am fairly heavy in the recon department considering I would likely face a defensive fight where the enemy is coming to me but I had difficulties finding enough models to bring me up to the 1750 points. Finally I bought a small rifle platoon and equipped all rifle platoons with sticky bombs.

 

Facing me was Kasper’s Afrika Korps but I was in for a shock. While my shermans are usually very capable against two combat platoons of mixed Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, I was also starring at a Tiger I and the company was led by Rettemeier for support they had a self-propelled anti aircraft unit with two unarmoured halftracks, a panzer grenadier platoon and 3 nebelwerfers. The Tiger was a particular nasty surprise, I am not used to Kasper bringing the heavy cats and I had nothing in the arsenal to hurt it in the front except a very close range.

 

Deployment

We rolled off for scenario and got Pincer, I did consider night attacking but thought the more classic defensive battle was more appropriate. As my reserves would be coming in from the sides I decided to place my objective in the middle, that way I could choose a good defensive position why my opponent would either have to place it close to mine making it easier to cover both objectives with the same units or put it to one side making it easy for my reinforcements to reach once the battle was joined. My opponent deployed his objective to my right flank. I deployed a rifle platoon on each with my mortars behind helping out behind on the right side and my 25 pounders which pack a respectable punch on direct fire to support the centre intermingling for defensive fire. My 6 pounders were in ambush.

My opponent deployed heavy to my right flank with the Tiger and AA to demonstrate against my centre to prevent me from reinforcing each other.

 

First couple of Turns

Being the attacker Kasper went first and moved as much as possible into short range as my veteran dug in and gone to ground infanty were impossible to hit otherwise. I popped my 6 pounder ambush trying to intermingle it with both my infantry platoons and destroying one and bailing another tank in the far right flank platoon. My heavy mortars managed to kill an infantry team that had taken up cover in the building.

The second turn my opponent pulled back to cover but put everything to fire on my 6 pounders killing a gun. The return fire manged to bail two tanks in the left platoon. The panzergrenadiers took more casualties and stayed pinned. The nebelwerfers continued to pin my infantry and 6 pounder guns and the Tiger lumbered closer to bring its awesome 88 mm to bear.

Turn three another 6-pounder gun went down and the right side platoon of tanks started working on my mortars which promptly failed their platoon motivation check and fled. I failed to receive any reinforcements.For the really keen eyes, you will notice I used Russian 45 mm for stand-in for my 6 pounders. Turn 4 was more of the same except now my 6pdrs have in as well and broke and the tanks closed in for the assault on my exposed infantry which failed to receive any reinforcements.

 

Close Combat!

In the beginning of turn 5 the tanks charged my right hand side infantry and ground them down however I did manage to take out a tank in return bringing the centre tank platoon down to 1 tank. The tiger followed in, I how had two enemy platoons sitting on the objective and thus was about to lose if I could bring nothing in to contest it. Meanwhile the other tank platoon being only 2 tanks and the CinC pulled back a little. I rolled for reinforcements but failed to roll any 5+ thus received only 1 platoon, I chose to bring up my infantry relying on the number of teams to hold the objective rather than the Sherman tanks. Wtih a Tiger tank there I felt they would be made into mince meat in minutes. They moved to hold the objective. I did not managed to kill anymore teams.

The following turn was equally bloody for the poor NZ troops, the infantry platoon was whittled down but managed to stay but the two enemy tanks unscathed. I received reinforcements and brought my shermans on and moved them behind cover hoping to take out the other enemy platoon of tanks hiding in the back. I managed to kill the CinC who failed his warrior save but the following turn annihilated my infantry platton and failed all my 3 tanks leaving them to be assaulted and captured by the panzergrenadiers who moved up. I was now back to two enemy tanks in two platoons on my objective.

 

Conclusion

I managed to do an excellent roll on reinforcements and brought in all my remaining forces, the armoured cars, universal carriers and stuart tanks. I love light tank which meant they could get behind the Panzer IV.

I fired the Stuarts at the Panzer IV, the 25 pdrs at AA halftracks and every machinegun at the panzergrenadiers and all my rilfes at too at the AA. The results were atonishing, the AA halftracks were killed, the panzergrenadiers disappeared failing almost every save, the Panzer IV got double bailed and fled and with no commanders on the enemy side left me in control of the field. It felt very much like an unfair victory, my opponent had me and had been sitting on the objective, I had to feed more and more troops into the mess trying to close the hole on my lines and it was anything but tactical but in the end lady luck favoured me.

Sorry Kasper, you really had me this time.

 

 

 

 

Meta Gaming – How Players Shape Games

Meta gaming or the meta prefix is often used to indicate a concept within a concept and thus often describe a local practice in a local group of players.

Whenever game designers have made a rule set and launched it out there, it is often up to the players to figure out how the most viable strategies in the game is. If played multiple times in small groups local strategies tend to form almost like an arms race.

For instance core game Settlers of Catan even though it is a relatively simple game where players have to develop a colony faster than other players but cannot attack or generally interfere negatively with each other (a few exceptions like building in a disruptive manner og using the robber) can develop its own meta depending of different practices of the player. An aggressive attitude can steer the game in a certain direction and often force players to equally play disruptive compared to a collaborative attidue where trading fairly is strongly encouraged. If a group of players play together often enough they will tend to go in either an aggressive or collaboration play style.

Similarly the same can be observed in Flames of War where an arms race in small groups seems to develop. In the beginning players tend to pick an army they like but as they start playing games they tend to find a certain unit type may work better in this group and tend to develop a tendency where bringing as many of that type as possible is prefered establishing a meta game. This will in terms breed a reaction so for instance if medium tanks has been the prefered option, the next meta change will be for heavy tanks or tank destroyers to deal with these and gradually players will leviate towards that establishing a new meta until a player brings in infantry to deal with the large amount of heavy tanks there suddenly is present in the group. The same goes for other table top board gaming and PC games.

 

Other things like local practices and landscape can also contribute towards establishing a meta. I had quite an experiece in my Flames of War career. I came from the flat country of Denmark with few and neatly organized woods and a village here and there and our table top terrain seemed to reflect that. our table tops probably close resemble what it would look like if WWII was fought in a flat Danish country side which would likely make for ideal tank country. When I started playing most players used tank armies and seemed to lean towards medium tanks that could move fast across the open fields. Infantry was only encouraged to dig in and hold objectives but with so little terrain they tended to be machine gunned to death in the open if they tried to move far.

When I moved to Canada and found a gaming group in Vancouver I always felt they built their armies in an odd way until I realized it was the local practice of building table tops. They used a lot more forrests than we did and in general had much more dense tables which resultited in quite different armies being favourable. With the denser terrain there were fewer avenues of approach for tanks which made infantry and antitank guns togehter a formiddable defense. As a result the inability of tanks to dash around positions, attacks were often more head on meaning that heavy tanks with more frontal armour were favoured while infantry could move at ease through the woods. Infantry with heavy tanks was something we did not see much in Denmark but would probably have been described as the more common way of playing in Vancouver, being the meta game.