Hey Designers : How About BIG Battles

[vince hughes]

In PG published World (inc.also " about to published" as well), we now have masses of British, masses of Americans, double-masses of Soviets and more Germans than you could ever shake a stick at. I'm of course referring to the total counters that hard-core PG players that own box-sets, book supplements et al would own.

Then there are the counter-artists such as Peter Lloyd who with their DIY constructed specific Divisions collection have even masses more ! And yes, there are also Larrys that buy up extra sets of counters. In varying degrees, most here have super-numbers of platoons ready to fight.

I wonder if any of our designers (you reading MP ?) are able to design some really monster battles ............... and I mean monster. Perhaps a supplement with some paper maps of a historical area (Cholm for example) containing something like 10-20 scenarios on a scale of unit usage not seen before. No counters needed as we have more than enough already. By using the historical maps of the area, the scenarios could follow a narrative (like Cassino or Beyond Normandy).

Of course, there are many gamers without the room, but such a huge historical supplement with massive scenarios would be my PG ultimate. For those with not enough room or not allowed to use enough room, its not such a big deal. They'll have to whistle :-) Just look how many gamers have zillions of games that they buy and after initial arrival and perusal they never even see the light of day again. Therefore, such a supplement is merely a PG indulgency that I would love to own and probably a minority wish product.

I know Wayne and I would give a few monster scenarios a run out here and there.

[campsawyer]

Vince, PG campaigns do this very well. I just posted a small blub about the last solo battle I had, best ever. Also from Matt W. and Hug's play they are liking is as FtF. If you are looking for historical and big maps Cassino has it.

[vince hughes]

Battles not big enough ... i mean BIG !

[Matt W]

Vince:

I started to look at this issue previously. Certainly we could be looking at divisional battles. The frontages of German and British battalions in defense were roughly 10-11 hexes (i.e. a short side of a board). Doctrine called for two battalions to be engaged with one in reserve. Thus a typical divisional battle would have one division covering a four to five board width, with four battalions in the front line, two in close reserve and three in a more removed position. Soviet small unit frontages were similar but their larger units tended to cover wider frontages by reducing the reserves available.

Attack frontages were 1/2 that. So for a large combat I would expect to have an infantry and armored division (or two infantry divisions) attacking an infantry division with some support on a 12-15 board set (4-5 short sides on the "front" and three long boards deep). After determiing that such a scenario was physically barely within possibility I found that I did have enough units to put together such forces. I started to look at possibilities and thought that Brody for Army Group South might be a good place to start.

Then I stalled out.

Most of the "battles" at Brody were far more extensive than this in terms of geography. The "frontages" only hold in set piece battles of which Kursk is one of the more representative and is well represented at the battalion and regiment level already. It seemed as though much of what we were looking at for interesting situations involved substantial movement and smalelr unit engagements in several locations. This led me to look into the campaigns and the construction of scenarios through movement. I haven't played the Cassino or Normandy campaigns yet and do wonder how they will play out but I dislike the hex capture mechanic.

The real issue is that PG is not really built, at the scenario level, to handle much above regimental battles. Between the FoW mechanic and the free ability to mingle formations there would need to be several modifications to successfully handle the larger battles. In addition, the rear area functions are not well defined in the countermix, etc. So far I like the campaign system for space, maneuver, and scale of engagement as well as the ability of the "commander" to avoid a combat if on reflection it appears to be forlorn.

Having said that, if one is designed I will play it and probably rank the darn thing a 5...

[campsawyer]

Battles not big enough ... i mean BIG !

Full battle of Cassino is not big enough? The beauty of campaigns is it gives you a bigger picture of the campiagn without the need to rent the dance hall to play. If you are looking at setting up and pushing 1000+ counters that is way too much for PG as is. FoW will not work well with it as well as there is no way to control large formations beyond the battalion level. Not to say it cannot be made, but theres a bit of work to make it happen.

[vince hughes]

Sorry guys.

Negative, negative, negative.

You naysayers are all involved in Campaigns anyway and that is what you are enjoying right now. I will indulge in such at some point in the future, of that I have no doubt. However, that does not mean that big big battles need be excluded. In fact, some of the reasons given above are very easily dealt with for the player that wants a battle royale.

Using Matt's post about the ground needed for a historical Grand battle pack: I would turn that into an advantage. Instead of fussing over historical (and new maps), simply write one-off scenarios using a selection from the 50-60 boards or more from those that are already in print. What makes this an even better option is that there would be no need for counters or maps and therefore a 10 pack Grand Battle selection could simply be downloaded from the site as all that are needed are the scenarios themselves. By being one-off scenarios, we are then only interested in the large battle itself. Cheap and cheerful.

FOW ? This is as simple as 123. Simply change the odds (by using more dice, or different shaped dice d12.d20 whatever it takes) as well as changing the point at when rolling FOW even begins. Its that simple.

I know that if there was a grand-battle beastie, those that like playing such monsters would do so, those that don't will not. Such a grand-battle can satisfy those that want something challengingly large without the foo & faa of a Campaign and its commitment.

Its simply different strokes ............. You pesky kids are all 'Campaign-Heads' at the moment. Now leave me to my PG dream you horrid lot. LOL

[Hugmenot]

I think I recall Philippe publishing a huge scenario he wanted to play at a convention in 2012. I might have saved it on my home computer. I will check tonight.

[campsawyer]

Vince, back off the ledge.

I am not saying it cannot be done. I am saying the starting point is there. It just needs someone to design it, hint, hint. You have the right idea with the points that need to change. Work with it and grow it. You know as well I if a person has the idea, they will need to design it. So go for it.

[Shad]

First, I wish Randy was here because he tackled Blue Divisions monster scenarios with relish and would have some insight.

Second, even if you have enough generic units I think the "Monsters" expansion would require a countersheet of only leaders.

Third, map(s) would probably best be handled by producing a one-off digital file that players could print out in sections either at home or via printshop.

Fourth, who has enough friends in real life to play it?

[vince hughes]

Vince, back off the ledge.

I am not saying it cannot be done. I am saying the starting point is there. It just needs someone to design it, hint, hint. You have the right idea with the points that need to change. Work with it and grow it. You know as well I if a person has the idea, they will need to design it. So go for it.

Build it and they will come