Mortain

For the Centurions game I prepared a Spearhead Scenario loosely based upon the German Counter Offensive in Normandy, Operation Lüttich, August 7th, 1944.   

The scenario kicked off at 0600 on August 7th and looked at the first two to three hours with 8 turns.

We really haven't played Spearhead often in the past half-a-dozen years and it showed.    Okay the game might have been a fucktastrophy, if that was an actual word.

Why did the game bomb out and fail?

First the Scenario designer is an idiot.   Yes that is me.   I moved hill 314 from in front of Mortain to beside Mortain because I thought creating a more straight battle line would be more playable.  When I set up the table, the base plates, I setup a mirror image of what I needed to.   

Base Layout

Image of the base without trees and buildings when I tested out the layout a few weeks ago.  The Americans were going to be placed to the bottom of the table.  When I was testing the layout I was trying to figure out where to put hill 314.   

For logistical reasons I switched the Americans to the top of the table.   When I set up the table this morning, using my picture I forgot to flip the table 180 degrees.   I than decided to not spend ten minutes rotating the table to fix my mistake.   I simply moved Mortain and hill 314.   

Hill 314 on the Left Flank of Mortain

For the Germans I have the Herman Goering's Panzer Division from Sicily and the 5th Falschrimjager Division with a bunch of weird Regiments and battalions for Operation Market Garden.    These formations were going to be subbed in for the actual German forces of the oversized 2nd SS Panzer Division and 116 Panzer Division.   This substituting left the Germans short an Armored Battalion but close on Infantry.

For the record I have a large number of regular Germans either mostly painted or entirly painted on popsicle sticks that I had considered mounting up for this game.   I didn't because I ran out of time and because I am not 100% sold that we are going to continue to play Spearhead in 15mm.   I may organize them form Battlefront....  But that is another discussion.

American Airborne defending

For the Americans we used 4 Battalions of Airbourne, 2 battalions of Glider Infantry, four battalions of regular infantry and two battalions of Armor for 30th Infantry Division and CCB 2nd Armored.    

Much like the Germans I have 100 or so American regular Army painted up on popsicle sticks or mounted for Rate of Fire that are going to be remounted.   In theory these figures represent the 1st Infantry Division for Operation Husky, along with my Airborne, I just haven't had either time nor the "requirement" to get them done so they have waited.

Mortain and Hill 278

The Americans were about right for number of battalions and figures on the board.  I should have forced the Americans to divide up CCB 2nd Armored as they were done historically.

The Americans were assigned a defensive line cover Mount Furgon on the North Flank, Hill 314, Mortain, Hill 278, and Mortain Forest in the South.

Germans attacking
north of Mortain

The Germans were allowed to place their attacking Battalion commanders 18" from their baseline and their individual units 6" or 12" from their respective commanders depending on the size of the command.  In theory this put the Germans as little as 18" from the Americans.   The Germans put very few figures past the 18" line of the commanders on the battle line.   This added two to three turns for the Germans to move across no man's land where nothing happened.

The American's knowing we had a actually time limit for game play and turn limit int he scenario were willing to wait out the Germans.   If only the Germans take casualties and hold than it is an American Victory.   That is a problem with the scenario.

Northern Flank of the Americans

The German players misunderstood their objective.   Before the game I explained the Germans had reinforcements that would support the attack once the battle was engaged.   See the comment about the German's not being as far forward as they could have been and a German Commander slow playing as he counted noses in front of him.     I prepared a path and objective for the German reinforcements before the game started, I did not explicit tell the German players that when the forces on the right were engaged the reinforcements would follow up.  

The Germans on the left flank attacked head long into the teeth of the American "airborne".  Full speed ahead.  

Germans attacking on
the Southern Flank

The question in center is would the Germans have enough men to attack Mortain.  

Neither side effectively used their available off-board artillery.   That's an understatement.   Both sides had plenty of Artillery and even though I used a sheet to space out its availability, neither side called artillery, until the American side decide "what the heck why not."   It is so frustrating to watch both side squander opportunities.

In the end we played five of the eight turns, the Germans pushed the Americans on the Center Left, fought to a standstill on the left but did nothing on the right, even if played out all 8 turns the result wouldn't have changed.     

I would like to play this scenario again, knowing what I know now, putting hill 314 forward into the gap, making the Germans attack and maybe allowing one of the German Armor battalions a flank march,  the Germans may not win but it would be a much more interesting scenario.

Glory is Fleeting - First Try

For the Centurions game on Saturday, September 21st we tried a game of Glory is Fleeting. Glory is Fleeting is the third edition of Field of Glory – Napoleonics.  The edition is relativily new published in late in 2023. Several of members of the Centurions have copies of the rules and have read them through. This was our first attempt at playing them out.

Jim Fitzgerald set up an 1813 game loosely based on the Battle of Großbeeren.  A Prussian force faces off against a French and French Allied force as they emerge from the wood line in Northern Germany.  In theory, both sides had three infantry brigade divisions and one “heavy cavalry” division and were relatively equal in point values.

For a game that is supposed to be more tactical the fact that units represent a brigade of infantry seems counter intuitive from the get go.  I am letting that slide for the time being, but yes I will come back to it.

My command of Prussians include one regular unit with an artillery attachment and a skirmish attachment, one reserve unit with a skirmish attachment, a landwehr unit, and a unit of superior hussars.

The two sides started just over 24 inches apart and the French were the aggressor in the game.  As the right flank of the Prussian Army I made a conscious decision to move it aggressively and attempt to flank the French to my front.

By the conclusion of turn 2 I had my hussars in a flanking position and balled up the French attack.  On turn 3 my target for the infantry charge ran away under withering artillery fire an it took another turn to move into position to charge on turn 5.   

In the center a cavalry brawl occurred and was a stalemate leaning towards Prussian victory, while the left flank the French and Allie’s were able to use superior numbers to take control of that flank.  We did not play turn 6 due to time constraints but it would have decided the game.

Initial Thoughts:  I didn’t hate the rules as much as I thought I would after reading them, that doesn’t mean they are good rules, however.   It was a learning game, we did lots of the little fiddly parts wrong, which may have effected the outcome.   It isn’t a tactical game.   The game is more suited to early periods of the Napoleonic Wars, 1792 through 1808.  The game might be interesting for a Seven Years' War game.

I didn't hate the rules as much as I thought I would after reading them, that doesn't mean they are good rules, however.   I had to say it twice as a notorious rules hater, some of my collogues will not believe that I have said that.   That being said it time for tough talk.   Fleeting Glory, is in essence a complex version of Napoleon's Battles in much the same way that Command Decision is a more complex version of Spearhead.  I play Spearhead over Command Decision because the added complexity of the latter does little to improve on the first.  What bothers me most about games like Command Decision is that groups that play the more complex game seem to often ignore the more complexity of the games to basically play the less complicated game with one maybe two changes.   That's what I feel like at the moment.   There are lots of little rules complexity that can easily be ignored that will speed up game play, but at what point do you go back to the less complicated game?   

An example of this is the rules on fire, the rules play in the following order, Bombardment, Skirmisher Fire, and finally Volley Fire.   The rules have restrictions that any unit that can fire during Volley Fire, may not fire in either bombardment or skirmisher fire phase.   There are range restrictions on skirmishers and a requirement that there is a base width alley for fire.   Squares cannot do Skirmish Fire but may fire for effect in Volley.   I could go on but I hope you catch my drift.   To speed up the game those restrictions are quickly forgotten.  That doesn't look at the basic fire restrictions on who can fire where.   

The next problem in the rules is that it often contradicts it self, in one rule squares can only move straight forward, and in another squares can move in any direction if they pass a Command Test.  I have found half a dozen examples of this, basically little rules, but it leads to another problem.   Half the rules are written in Arial the other half in Times New Roman.  Which typeface takes precedent.   My guess is the Arial additions were changes that never gotten reformatted and should be considered the later rules. 

We did several things wrong, most notably Skirmish Fire, but that is overlooking lots of the command rules that we never fully used.    Anyways in Skirmish Fire we allowed units on both sides engaged in volley fire to do skirmish fire.   If we had done this correctly many of the questions about skirmish fire would have been ignored because that wouldn't of happened.   We also handled the pool of skirmish makers wrong and we did not cancel out skirmish fire makers properly.     

We rarely used Command Points, outside of myself, they may have been one maybe two points used for anything other than a rally.   For something that is so core to the game, why is that?   Was it because it was a learning game, a small game, little opportunity was given to use them, or D all of they above?   I am going to add an option E and F.  E: at one point there were a lot more rules that provided reason to use command points, but to streamline the game and speed up play they were removed.  F both D and E.   My choice is of course F.

It will be interesting to look at group moves, and closer inspection of the use of Command Point opportunities in the rules.   It is kind of a choice, is the level of complexity of Command Points worth it if there is so little use for them?

One of my colleagues hates games like SAGA or SPQR because they are skirmish games ramped up to play a tactical level game.   Glory is Fleeting is the reverse of that, it is a Grand Tactical Game bath tubbed down to a tactical game.   It leaves me perplexed that the same individual that hates SAGA likes Glory is Fleeting, I just don't under stand the logic.   The tactical unit during the Napoleonic period was a battalion, or collection of companies for the Austrians, not the brigades that are used on Glory is Fleeting.  While I want a tactical game, this is not it.   By Tactical I want to be making decisions a Brigade Commander is making, not an Army Commander, I already have that in Napoleon's Battles.

Within Glory is Fleeting there are lots of complexity in Army organizations that go out the window in post 1808 era of the Napoleonic Wars.  Everyone has skirmishers is reformed, artillery, cavalry...   This is another one of those are we just ignoring the complexity of the rules based upon our choice of period, 1809, 1812, and 1813 questions.   If you play the 1806 in Prussia campaign many of these different unit types are present on the battlefield.   I could make the same argument for 1792 or 1799 or ...   Finally would these rules with adjustments finally work for our long considered Seven Years' War games in 10mm?   

I know we will be playing these rules again, and yes I will be giving them my all when I play, but I have to wonder if they have long term future in our group....   

Order of Battle:

Prussians [1042 pt.s]:
* Corps Commander - Skilled & Charismatic, 2 CP, @ 66 pt.s
  12pdr Field Artillery - Small Average Drilled Heavy Artillery @ 72 pt.s
Total Cost - 138 pt.s
*3rd Bde. - Skilled, 2 CP, @ 46 pt.s
  Musketeers - Small Average Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 48 pt.s
  Reserve - Small Average Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 48 pt.s
  Landwehr - Small Poor Conscript Reformed Infantry @ 20 pt.s
  Hussars - Small Superior Drilled Light Cavalry @ 60 pt.s
  Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
  2 Skirmisher Detachments - Drilled @ 8 pt.s
*4th Bde. - Competent, 1 CP, @ 26 pt.s
  Musketeers - Small Average Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 48 pt.s
  Reserve - Small Poor Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 36 pt.s
  Landwehr - Small Average Conscript Reformed Infantry @ 32 pt.s
  Landwehr Cav - Small Average Conscript Light Cavalry @ 32 pt.s
  Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
  2 Skirmisher Detachments - Drilled @ 8 pt.s
*5th Bde. - Competent, 1 CP, @ 26 pt.s
  Musketeers - Small Average Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 48 pt.s
  Reserve - Small Poor Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 36 pt.s
  Landwehr - Small Average Conscript Reformed Infantry @ 32 pt.s
Hussars - Small Average Drilled Light Cavalry @ 32 pt.s
Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
2 Skirmisher Detachments - Drilled @ 8 pt.s
Total Cost - 202 pt.s
* Cavalry Division
  Skilled & Charismatic, 2 CP, @ 56 pt.s
  Dragoon - Small Average Drilled Heavy Cavalry @ 56 pt.s
  Dragoon - Small Average Drilled Heavy Cavalry @ 56 pt.s
  Landwehr Cav - Small Average Conscript Light Cavalry @ 32 pt.s
  Landwehr Cav - Small Average Conscript Light Cavalry @ 32 pt.s
  Artillery Detachment - Conscript @ 18 pt.s
Total Cost - 250 pt.s

French and Allied [1080 pt.s]:
* Corps Commander - Skilled, 2 CP, @ 56 pt.s
 12pdr Field Artillery - Small Average Drilled Heavy Artillery @ 72 pt.s Total Cost - 128 pt.s
* 1st French Div. - Skilled, 2 CP, @ 46 pt.s
  Legere Rgt. - Small Average Drilled Light Infantry @ 48 pt.s
  2 Ligne Rgt.s - Small Average Conscript Light Infantry @ 80pt.s
  1 Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
  2 Skirmisher Detachments - Conscript @ 4 pt.s
Total Cost - 198 pt.s
* 2nd Italian Div. - Competent, 1 CP, @ 26 pt.s
  It. Light Rgt. - Small Average Drilled Light Infantry @ 60 pt.s
  2 It. Line Rgt.s - Small Average Drilled Reformed Infantry @ 96 pt.s
  1 Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
  2 Skirmisher Detachments - Drilled @ 8 pt.s
Total Cost - 210 pt.s
* 3rd French Div. - Competent, 1 CP, @ 26 pt.s
4 Ligne Rgt.s - Small Average Conscript Light Infantry @ 160 pt.s
Artillery Detachment - Conscript @ 18 pt.s
2 Skirmisher Detachments - Drilled @ 4 pt.s Total Cost - 208 pt.s
* Light Cavalry Division
  Skilled & Charismatic, 2 CP, @ 56 pt.s
Chasseur - Small Poor Drilled Light Cavalry @ 36 pt.s
Chasseur - Small Poor Drilled Light Cavalry @ 36 pt.s
Artillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.s
Total Cost - 148 pt.s
* Heavy Cavalry Division
Skilled & Charismatic, 2 CP, @ 56 pt.s
Dragoon - Small Average Drilled Heavy Cavalry @ 56 pt.s
Dragoon - Small Average Drilled Heavy Cavalry @ 56 pt.sArtillery Detachment - Drilled @ 20 pt.sTotal Cost - 188 pt.s