Battlefield Evolution: 1979

In between swapping heads and pushing putty this weekend, I've  been working on some point values for Battlefield Evolution: Modern Combat.geared towards Winter of '79

I started this back in the spring but found it was just too much for me to deal with then. In the interim I had considered just using the points system straight out of Cold War Commander or from my old copy of WRGs Armour & Infantry 1950-1985.

I thought I'd give Bevo: Modern Combat one more chance and luckily found myself more in tune with their points structure and able to make some headway. I established a baseline using the existing points values of the British Army soldiery, AFVs and weapons given in the rules to approximate the placement of troops and kit common to the 1979-80 era. The point values of broadly similar foreign hardware also proved useful for guidance - eg the Spähpanzer Luchs at 110 points equates nicely to a Fox CVR(W) in role and combat value.

Still a little rejigging to do, but the hard work is done. I'm not a slave to points, preferring to use knowledge and judgement to make sure a scenario is not wildly unbalanced. However, with both Winter of '79 and Crisis in Alcovia, a points based system will provide focus to collecting our forces and allow us quickly and simply to create ad hoc, off the shelf games.

Cheers
Mark

Force on Force Factors for Winter of '79

 

Unlike Cold War Commander, Force on Force by Ambush Alley Games is more scenario and situation focused from the start. As an experienced wargamer I can easily do the same with CWC but it's not as instantly intuitive as FoF.

Whilst a huge asset it's not perhaps quite so pick up and play as CWC for someone wishing to play Winter of '79 from a cold start. So let's take a look at creating some off the shelf suggested Troop Quality, Morale and Confidence Rating for the Force on Force gamer. Once again can I remind you that we are looking at the Factors within a sandbox created by Winter of '79 and making internal comparisons rather than trying to measure Royal Marines vs USMC or similar.

Mob/Rioters: 

 The majority are likely to be TQ D6, Variable Morale, Low Confidence but a string of riots which create No Go Zones or see demonstratable success against the authorities may improve Confidence levels. A few 'agitators', trade union 'praetorians' or politically motivated trained insurgents may even have a TQ of D8 and High Confidence.

Police:

The average 1979 bobby on the beat linking arms on a picket line or being subjected to petrol bombs, bricks and bats TQ D6, Average Morale D8, Confident

Riot Police/ Armed Police / SPG/ Para-militaries etc:

TQ D6, Good Morale D10, High Confidence. In an urban disturbance game, maybe rising to TQ D8.

Armed Civilians/ Militia/ Local Volunteers etc:

TQ D6, Variable Morale, Low Confidence

Territorials/Reservists:

TQ D6, Variable Morale, units with front-line roles more likely to be Average D8 to Good Morale D10. Support units D6-D8 Of course as the conflict wears on, it's more likely that they will gain the same experience as Regular formations. Variable Confidence depending upon the situation.

Regulars:

TQ D8 for frontline formatons such as Infantry, armour and artillery. Treat support corps as Territorials because whilst many served in Northern Ireland on foot patrol, and in Winter of '79 would end up on the streets of Birmingham and Glasgow, they would lack the focus and training of say a dedicated infantryman.

Morael Average D8 to Good D10.Variable Confidence depending upon the situation.

Royal Marines and Paras including Territorials/Reserves:

TQ D8, High Morale D12, High Confidence. 

SAS, SBS etc

TQ D10-D12: Personal choice. D12 is suitable for certain situations eg hostage rescue. High Morale D12, High Confidence

Rebels:

TQ D6-D8, Variable Morale, Variable Confidence

Now I realise that these broad classifications will set the fur flying because "2 Bumshires were every bit as good as 3 Para", etc etc  I know that my own unit was easily TQ D10, High Morale D12, and High Confidence and nobody is going to tell me otherwise - LOL! Seriously, these are just rough guidelines and probably more exclusive than inclusive. If you want to fluff a particular named unit, it's your game. Make the most of the factors to promote the uncertainty and personal confusion within a civil war.

Cheers

Mark

CWC Factors for Winter of '79

This is my 'Starter for 10' looking at Cold War Commander factors for Winter of '79. I've established a few more Infantry Unit types to cover a civil war in the UK and changed upgrades so that they increase the Attack Factor of the recipient rather than having weapon based Attack Factor.


Assigning Tactical Doctrine other than Guerrilla is a little problematical. British doctrine of the period, if indeed there was any, had changed little since WW2, and was NOT as flexible as is often portrayed and far closer to Rigid than we'd like to think. I would suggest that with the exception of Mob/Rioters, Police, Riot Police and Rebels - all other units operate as Fixed Formations and HQs can only issue commands to units in their own formations. At best, Tactical Doctrine should be Normal. You may want to give some units (especially Rebels) Flexible Doctrine according to scenario.


Morale is handled very simply in Cold War Commander and I would assign this by scenario. I will be giving  irregular forces, expecially Mob/rioters individual morale grades for each unit rather than as a whole for the force. With Mob/Rioters this will give the subtle variation neeed to turn some 'units' into more hardened political activists or insurgent group 'auxiliaries'.


Anyhoo, here are the factors as a starting point (excluding Patrols/Recce and Special Forces):


Infantry Unit - Mob/Rioters: Attack 1/5, Move 20, Hits 2, guerrilla tactical doctrine

Infantry Unit - Police Attack 2/1. Move 15, Hits 3

Infantry Unit - Riot Police, 2/5 Move 10, Hits 4

Infantry Unit - Para-Military, 2/20 Move 10, Hits 3

Infantry Unit - Militia/Volunteers, 2/20 Move 15, Hits 3

Infantry Unit - Rebels, 2 or 3/30, Move 15, Hits 4, guerrilla tactical doctrine

Infantry Unit - Territorial/Reservists, 2/30 Move 10, Hits 4

Infantry Unit - Regular, 3/30 Move 10, Hits 5

Infantry Unit - Para/Marine, 4/30 Move 10, Hits 5

 
Infantry Upgrade - GPMG/LMG: Attack +1 (or+2?)

(to give the unit additional GPMG/LMG per section)

Infantry Upgrade - 66mm LAW: Attack +1

Infantry Upgrade -  84mm Carl Gustav (MAW) +1

(Only 1 per platoon in non mechanised forces)

Infantry Upgrade - M16 Armalites/Ak47 etc: Attack +1/20

Infantry Upgrade - SMG: Attack +1/10 or +2 in close combat




Cheers
Mark

Thoughts on Cold War Commander

 

The decision to use Cold War Commander for Winter of '79 has proved to be a good one. It has removed several of the blockers in my thinking that were preventing me from realising the open warfare elements of the full blown civil war phase of the Winter of '79 scenario.

Plus it brings with it a quick win in the ability to use Mark R Davies' British Orbats for the 1980's (including notes for 1976 onward) as is, and they are available as a pdf download from the Fire and Fury dot com forums. These include regular and TA, infantry, armour, Paras and Marines. Sorted.

Mark is one of the few 'names' on TMP that I trust if not respect for researched, informed, balanced and objective comment. Despite the good work done by Mark I would urge against treating this information as tablets of stone, but it remains the best single, coherent source I've come across.

Looking at the factors for the infantry in Cold War Commander we need to make some changes to reflect the variation in training, discipline and quality of forces in a civil war. Forget factors assigned to other nations troops - we are not comparing like with like, but looking instead within a sandbox created by Winter of '79 where the factors need to be comparative between a range British regular, reserve, para-military and irregular internal foes.

The easiest thing would be to simply trot out a series of different Attack Factors - but I feel we need to go beyond this and use the full gamut that Cold War Commander has to offer. I'm expecting a bit of experimentation during play, but hey, all armies need to shake down and absorb the lessons of the first battles in a shooting war - Goose Green being a prime example.

I'll share my draft ideas with you in a day or so.

Cheers
Mark

Battlefield Evolution: Combat Dissected

What's the appeal of Battlefield Evolution: Modern Combat; even at 99p, beyond that car crash, rubber necking element. Was it worth all the hype and subsequent hoo-haa when the pre-painted plastics went down in flames?

I mean, BevoComMod represents combat ripped from our TV screens, 24 hours a day. High-Tech weaponry vs low-tech tactics in urbanised terrain. Balanced force compositions (by point value) for variety of cutting edge militaries and insurgent factions. Surely a winner?

And it could have been. having had a chance to look through the game, I feel that it wasn't just oversold but wrongly marketed and that Stalingradlike denial turned it into a mockery. But that's all water under Mongoose's bridge.

As a dyed in the wool, "I want to be down in the trenches and bleeding with my miniatures" type of  C20th gamer - Battlefield Evolution should be the complete antithesis of what makes me tick. But what I have found is a slick' game system with just enough chrome in the right amounts that could have given Mongoose, Warhammer Moderns on a plate.....could have.

So, what I am saying is that Battlefield Evolution is a very useful addition to your gaming arsenal. It's easy to learn, relatively slick to use and encourages play. For instance, movement is unfettered by short, described elsewhere as "retardedly short", weapon ranges. All too often other games, including those I've personally sat in, become bogged down by long range fire, or rather, the fear of long range fire. This encourages a 'Panzerbush' mentality with clumps of figures hiding behind hills and trees, maybe taking the odd potshot trying to get that lucky hit. The effect is similar to the scene in THE HURT LOCKER, where the IED team come across an SAS patrol and both have to take cover in a wadi where a long drawn out sniper dual takes place. Realistic - possibly yes, an enjoyable game on the tabletop after a hard day at work - no.

Maff and I were discussing a new (for us) gaming concept recently. Instead of spending hours maneuvering across a table, we started the action at the crucial point of decision and then moved straight to the next point of decision - we called it 'pizza base' gaming. More anon if you are interested. Battlefield Evolution has you moving fast across the table in order bring you into face to to face combat and thus create decision points quickly.

There's no morale. Now be honest. Have you NEVER played a game where you've dropped the morale rules to speed up the game - or perhaps made decisions about morale based on your experience of what is likely to have been the outcome? Battlefield Evolution is about playing and having fun in a way that reminds me strikingly of playing Ghost Recon, GRAW and Call or Duty: Modern Warfare on the XBox. It's the adrenalin rush, the action. Are these console games any less enjoyable because there's no morale check?

There's an inherent honesty about Battlefield Evolution as a game system that promotes play. It's not for everybody. It's not for every gaming situation. Does it have a place in Winter of '79? It doesn't fit my vision as such, but I'm prepared to give it a go, especially for larger urban games.

Cheers
Mark

Battlefield Evolution Modern Combat

Bought Battlefield Evolution Modern Combat on Ebay at the beginning of the month and it finally arrived on Thursday.

Why Bevo ModCom? Well, it was 99p! Yes, just 99p and I noticed last night that it's on the  ebing sold on the Mongoose Publishing website for £2.99.

Pushing past the publisher's excited hyperbole that prevented me from purchasing Bevo ModCom on release, it does appear to produce a fast paced 'fun' small scale modern combat game in less than two hours.

I've only had a short space of time to look at it this week but I am liking what I see already. No, really! Bevo ModCom is a breath of fresh air in many respects - allowing gamers to fight a wargame with tanks and a'hin 'Airfix style' but with a certain Warhammer twist. Morale? What morale? Your figures are on the table to fight, soldier! And fight they shall!

Is this modern combat? Is it bollocks. If however, you want to get a couple of squads of infantry backed by a handful of tanks onto a tabletop and play the arse out of them with a nod to the 'Airfix games of your youth, yet retain a level of modern gaming sophistication and a little bit of character, Battlefield Evolution Modern Combat might well be worth a go, especially at a knockdown price.

Cheers
Mark

Cold War: 1983 ......A Tabletop Review

 .

Cold War: 1983
Modern Skirmish Wargames Rules
 
by Matthew Hartley, Michael Baumann & Steve Blease
 
From: Wessex Games
Price £5
 





THE BOOK:

 24 pages, A5 booklet, including:

• TO&Es for US Mech Infantry, BAOR Mech Infantry and Soviet Motor Rifle platoons circa 1983.
• Stats for 20 different types of small arms
• Stats for 18 vehicle mounted weapons
• Stats for 33 vehicles from civilian sedans to pickups, jeeps and Challenger MBT.

SCOPE: 

Modern 1-to-1 skirmish rules primarily designed for section and platoon level combat during the Cold War.

ARMY SIZE:
8-40  individual miniatures and 1-3 vehicles/AFVs per side.

This is NOT an armour vs armour game. Vehicles and AFVs play a supporting role so the rules subsequently reflect this.

SCALES:

 None really, all move distances and ranges are in cm's.

The rules are notionally designed for 28mm figures but can easily be used for any miniature scale.

GAME LENGTH: 

1-4 hours realtime depending on number of sections in play and complexity of scenario.

PLAYING AIDS REQUIRED:
Normal 6 sided dice (the more the merrier)
A tape measure
Markers/dice for denoting current 'Bottle' rating, 'suppression' etc

UNIT STATS:
All figures in the game start with a predetermined 'Bottle' rating which reflects the sum of their training, skill, experience and motivation.

Bottle can be set for a whole platoon or varied between sections/squads or even individual miniatures to reflect the differences between individual characters and give the game more depth.

The Bottle rating ebbs and flows throughout the game and can be adversely effected by combat results.

Skills are optional, but again be assigned to individual miniatures to create characters and provide a greater level of sophistication in your scenarios. 

 
THOUGHTS:

The focus of Cold War: 1983 is on the motivations and training of the individual soldier and the 'friction' that occurs in combat. This is reflected in the 'Bottle' rating. The whole game is slick and plays fast once you understand Bottle and the Critical Success/Failure system. In fact it allows you to easily expand the game to suit yourself and any scenario you can come up with by creating your own ad hoc Critical Success/Failure table.

Basically, the degree of success or failure of any combat action is determined by a dice roll against a figure's Bottle rating. I've been playing this system for many years and love it. The other aspects of these rules I particularly like is how fire combat is classified as Single Shot, Controlled Burst, Burst, Machine-gun Burst etc each with their own Critical Success/Failure table; and how terrain is classified by 'Clutter' value.

No set of rules survives first contact untouched in this household. I've expanded the Leadership section and changed the movement from pre-defined distances, to a Crit Success/Failure system I originally used with Crossfire. The player nominates the figure/figures to move, then rolls against the Bottle of the individual or the lowest Bottle within a group of miniatures.  In brief:

• Critical Success - they make it to destination unscaved.
• Success - they make it only if they are not caught in the enemy's LOS. Enemy gets opportunity for reactive fire, before moving unit can complete the move.
• Failure - they don't budge. Perhaps some rounds richoched off the brickwork above them before they moved.
• Critical Failure - only move the score on the dice and move/initiative ceases (might leave them caught in the open)

The simplicity in design provides infinite possibility for innovation through tweaking the Critical Success/Failure tables or even adding your own to enhance the core game system to meet scenario needs or your own personal gaming requirements. 

To sum up, what you have with Cold War:1983 is a dynamic, fluid game with enough granularity to satisfy the modern enthusiast. The rules are easy to read, very much pick up and play. Recommended, especially for the casual Modern skirmish gamer.

Cheers

Mark

.