When Books Inspire PG Play

[vince hughes]

I am approching half-way through Alan Moorhead's trilogy "The Desert War".

This was written and published during the war itself. Moorhead was a reporter and followed Britain's Mediterranean and desert exploits all over the place. I believe the third part of the book goes to Tunisia as well but I have not got that far yet.

Its a good book and I have enjoyed the writing style. I will give one word of caution on it though. Some of the results of battles and casualties need to be taken with a secondary look at other sources. Because it was written during the War, the casualty counts are extremely pro-Allied and do not hold up to scrutiny. That is not Moorhead writing a tissue of lies, but merely him repeating official numbers reported at the time. A good example is Crete, where it claims a 1000 German aircraft and 20,000 German casualties compared to 7,000 Allied casualties. In reality, those numbers for troops casualties are practically reversed.

Anyway, point is this. I have read through the section of the book dealing with Wavell's command in North Africa. This covers the initial Italian advance, Bardia, Agheila, Beda Fomm and 2 x Tobruck. These fit perfectly with the first campaign in PG's Campaign and Commanders "The Kings Officers". A 9 scenario campaign.

Brett (nebelwerfer) and I are therefore going to play through it. We are not going to do the individual officers promotions, but just play through the battles. these will be won and lost individually based on the VP's in each game, and then totalled at the end to see if there is an overall winner.

I was thinking that a 30% margin in points per scenario for a minor victory and 50% margin for major victory. I think this is going to be fun as our first game has the Italians quite aimlessly advancing into Egypt followed by a couple of tough 'Digger' scenarios as the Aussies get nasty. Look out for the reports.

[plloyd1010]

I read the The Desert War many years ago also. So long ago in fact that I don't recall where the book is (it was a combine volume). I came to many of the same conclusions, good insight in to the politics and commanders, but a little iffy some details in the field. Sort of like Rick Atkinson for the UK, only more blatant. I'm sure some of the units he focuses on were very happy with his narrative (the 11th Hussars comes to mind). It is a good read.

Looks like fun Vince. Have you designed your ribbon yet? I saw there wasn't one for C&C:KO yet.

[vince hughes]

LOL - No ribbon design. I am presuming that to get one for the Kings Officers you would have to complete the whole book. ie 3 x campaigns !!

[campsawyer]

look forward to the results of th C&C campaign. Disapointed that you wont be doing the leaders. I think they would fit nicely with your AAR style.

[vince hughes]

Apparently, more than 1 person has said that if one sides leaders get too strong, it can slant the battles thereafter a bit too much. Anyway, couldn't be doing the paperwork for it. Too much 'in battle' accounting rather than post battle stats.

It'll still be fun totalling the campaign VC's for an overall result.

[Brett Nicholson]

I played both the Desert War campaigns in 'King's Officers' with leader characters solo and really enjoyed it initially but in both campaigns, halfway through, both times the British leader characters I generated and advanced with were getting unheard of advantages against the axis and leader characters also have a high mortality rate. Having a leader character get seriously wounded can be worse than it actually getting KIA; overall morale drops along with modifiers and it also has to sit a campaign battle out to recover and then reappear with negative leader points! -but that was my personal experiance. Against an actual opponent I think it would have to be done face to face and not with skype. Even solo, just keeping track of the leader points gained and lost was tedious and some turns took over an hour to play out and some of the 24 turn and 30 turn scenarios took a week to finish playing every day for a few hours. However, I would not discourage the use of leader characters it just may not be for everyone. Also, I do like the overall, chronological coverage of the Desert War (from the Italian invasion of Egypt to the second battle of El Alamein) and that the scenarios are pretty no-nonsense, with minimal special rules. It is a bit more A-historical but not bland. Also, there are some units used in the campaigns, such as the British Bishop SPA that were in the 'Desert Rats' countermix that weren't featured in the DR scenarios.

[campsawyer]

Apparently, more than 1 person has said that if one sides leaders get too strong, it can slant the battles thereafter a bit too much. Anyway, couldn't be doing the paperwork for it. Too much 'in battle' accounting rather than post battle stats.

It'll still be fun totalling the campaign VC's for an overall result.

That is a possiblility. My experience 2 of 3 KiA before the end of the campaign. If they get demoralized, they are not likely to get promoted as well. Leaving off the personal skills help, just let get promoted and possible morale and combat mods is good enough. As for record kerping, you know me I keep track of all the activations so its not a big deal. Still in is fun however uou play.

[campsawyer]

I played both the Desert War campaigns in 'King's Officers' with leader characters solo and really enjoyed it initially but in both campaigns, halfway through, both times the British leader characters I generated and advanced with were getting unheard of advantages against the axis and leader characters also have a high mortality rate. Having a leader character get seriously wounded can be worse than it actually getting KIA; overall morale drops along with modifiers and it also has to sit a campaign battle out to recover and then reappear with negative leader points! -but that was my personal experiance. Against an actual opponent I think it would have to be done face to face and not with skype. Even solo, just keeping track of the leader points gained and lost was tedious and some turns took over an hour to play out and some of the 24 turn and 30 turn scenarios took a week to finish playing every day for a few hours. However, I would not discourage the use of leader characters it just may not be for everyone. Also, I do like the overall, chronological coverage of the Desert War (from the Italian invasion of Egypt to the second battle of El Alamein) and that the scenarios are pretty no-nonsense, with minimal special rules. It is a bit more A-historical but not bland. Also, there are some units used in the campaigns, such as the British Bishop SPA that were in the 'Desert Rats' countermix that weren't featured in the DR scenarios.

Yes, l like the campaigns. It gives you more of a strategic view of the battles. This reminds me to get back to my Ivy Division campaign.

[vince hughes]

It'll be fun however it pans out. Some scenarios support one side or the other, so when the going is good, then its time to rack up points a plenty for the sake of the 'Campaign' result.

One thing that will perhaps lead to more realistic play is because of the above statement. When a player is losing, he can't really just concede the game. Because points are at stake, he'll have to play till the last turn. As you know, I use my 75% rule, meaning that even if I were to be hammered, I will always play out 3/4 of the game turns before tossing in the towel. The campaign will not even offer that choice. If you are losing, then you have to do your damdest to preserve points and gain whatever you can cos' you are there till the last turn. (gulp)

Yes, I am looking forward to seeing my Italians through this, but will probably appreciate the arrival of the DAK in some of the later scenarios LOL

[campsawyer]

It'll be fun however it pans out. Some scenarios support one side or the other, so when the going is good, then its time to rack up points a plenty for the sake of the 'Campaign' result.

One thing that will perhaps lead to more realistic play is because of the above statement. When a player is losing, he can't really just concede the game. Because points are at stake, he'll have to play till the last turn. As you know, I use my 75% rule, meaning that even if I were to be hammered, I will always play out 3/4 of the game turns before tossing in the towel. The campaign will not even offer that choice. If you are losing, then you have to do your damdest to preserve points and gain whatever you can cos' you are there till the last turn. (gulp)

Yes, I am looking forward to seeing my Italians through this, but will probably appreciate the arrival of the DAK in some of the later scenarios LOL

That is similar to the large campaigns which you need to preserve units instead of points. Yes, those Italians need DAK help especially if yiu have me flipping leaders.