I think the points you raised concerning US doctrine to be quite appropriate and I'm glad you brought them up. [Reference Mr. Meldrum's article in Ops:3) They certainly highlight the fact that the "Tri-Cap" formation is a 1970's style unit fighting in a 1990 setting.

The Tri-Cap "company" unit: When researching material for this article, I found nothing at all to Support the use of Tri-Cap doctrine at the company level. The company sized Tri-Cap units exist for only one reason-they are intended to be "miniature" battalions (reinforced company units) for use only in the Company/ Team scenarios in Force Eagle's War. Given the kind of units involved in this game, it is nonsensical to have Tri-Cap units smaller than a battalion.

I have been pondering about the LOS ruling governing your TCS games, It looked too simplistic for my liking and, quite frankly, not up to the high standards of the other rule sections. If taken literally, a low obstacle obstructs the LOS just as well as a higher one; the only variable being its relative distance between the spotter and the target.

Interested as I was, I started to compile a few numbers based on: range between spotter and target, distance to obstacle, and obstacle height. What is the relationship? I asked. Is there a formula that could be derived which could be applied in all cases, and yet simple enough so as to not discourage gamers?

I believe that I have found such a gem. Stay with me and get out your calculator. Taking the target elevation as ground zero, which means that all elevations are relative to the target unit:

Elevation x Distance/Range = Maximum Clearance

where:

Elevation is spotter height above ground zero
Distance is the number of hexes between target and obstacle
Range is the number of hexes between target and spotter.

The result--maximum clearance--is the maximum height above ground zero which can be cleared by the LOS. Anything above this blocks the LOS.

RE: Membership in the Omaha Beach Club for Bill Moody

The Moody household was the site of a full-fledged battle over the Christmas holidays. No, it wasn't because so many members of the family came together. Bill and David set up Omaha on the dining room table the day after Christmas. They finally finished and returned the room to normalcy on January 2nd after many hours of deep concentration, moments of angry shouting and a few disasters--including the day the cat sat on the game board and nearly destroyed a portion of the American landing forces. But that's my story, here's theirs.

From the beginning of scenario 2, things looked tough for the Americans! Wayward rockets, few leaders, and faulty ammunition! The pre- game leadership rolls gave the Americans only four leaders, all of whom were able to land on the first turn. That was the good news. The bad news was that one was fated to be on an LCA which, alas, never made it to the shore. Poorly planned. two of the four pre-game LCT(R) barrages fell harmlessly into the sea, and the other two produced nothing but smoke. Even the smoke did no good.

The invasion came in with most of the forces at Easy Green and a smaller number at Fox Red. The landing was assisted by all three companies of swimming tanks. Unfortunately, only 8 of 48 survived the swim. The non- swimming tanks fared slightly better with 12 of 16 landing. Over the next few hours, the smaller force on Fox Red made steady progress-knocked out the2 pillboxes at the east end of the beach and slowly worked their way south toward Port en Bessin.

And now the part about the faulty ammunition. The 8 tanks on Easy Green destroyed only one pillbox in the first hour. A closer examination of the hit table late that night revealed why. We had naively decided to use the 3-dice Point Fire Table in Operations 3. What we didn't realize was that using this table reduced the American's normal chance to hit from 1 in 6 to 1 in 24!

[Ed. Note: The defense values for the pillboxes were determined using the old Point Table in order to give a certain probability. To use the new 3-dice table, one must alter the defense values of the pillboxes. A value of 3 would give roughly the same results as the original.]

Fortunately, the Americans had a surprise up their sleevesthree cannon companies and one FA Bn landing in the second wave. Again the seas took their toll and deep-sixed one of the cannon companies. The artillery quickly subdued 7 pillboxes during their brief, but glorious existence. Brief, because the instant they landed on the beach, the German player (having carefully read all the player's notes) fired both artillery and pillboxes to eliminate the American threat.

Speaking of artillery, the German player proved to be a master of pyrotechnics. Again and again, densely packed Americans were caught moving by devastating strikes of German artillery. Six companies attempting to move through the E-3 gap saw just 3 platoons survive to reach the outskirts of Colleville.

Moving on, the third wave and first transport wave saw most of the remaining American tanks land. These new tanks (with better annno) began the relentless reduction of all remaining German pillboxes. One lone pillbox was left standing by the noon turn. Naturally, with the destruction of the German pillboxes came the creation pillbox squads. These squads with their low combat and poor morale values were expected to give little opposition. Pillbox squads, normally as steadfast as hamsters in a hailstorm, proved themselves worthy of SS designation this time around. Invariably untouched by direct fire, these brave little troops succumbed only when their company morale degenerated into the 20's.

The saving grace for the Americans was the utter lack of German reinforcements. Until 1000, that is, when four consecutive turns yielded a total of two artillery battalions, a flak company, and the Panzer lager tanks. So, as noon arrived, American forces in the east had occupied Huppain and Villers sur Port, forces in the center were beginning to cross near the E-3 draw. Only one pillbox and six squads remained. Although there were no shingle breeches, about half could have been opened within the next hour because there remained no direct fire resistance. American losses at noon totalled 184 units, indicating a probable German victory at the conclusion of the scenario.

It sounds fairly clear cut on paper, doesn't it? (It also sounds to me like the German player was incredibly lucky--which was what the American player insisted throughout the game!) Even in this recounting the air was fraught with tension as these two noble adversaries made sure the story was told correctly. They figured it took them about one hour per game turn, but the days stretched on interminably as they fit those hours in between work schedules, family activities and other commitments. (Do you have an honorary club for "war widows?" [Ed. Note: No, but we could start one if there is interest]

And did they enjoy it? Well, word has it they're going to do it again, so that David has an opportunity to join the club, too. Maybe the Americans will have better luck next time.

[Ed. Note: Bill you're in! As soon as I can get to it, I'll get out a certificate and whatever else I can scrape up. For those that are interested, the Omaha Beach Club now has the following members: Dave Powell, Dean Essig, Eldon Kincade, and Bill Moody. More will be welcome.]

Phone Call

[Ed. Note: The following was a phone call, not a letter, and I managed to fail to obtain the caller's name. Let me know what you think of the suggestion.]

I believe the artillery in direct fire mode in the TCS to be too strong. I suggest the following be considered by everyone for the 3rd Edition rules:

Direct Fire Artillery:

Vs. Area Targets: Player selects number of rounds to expend, up to 8.

Firepower = Round Firepower (as regular artillery) x number of rounds expended.

Vs. Point Targets: Player selects number of rounds as above.

Point Attack = Area Firepower of round x number of rounds x 1/2

Fire on Point Fire Table using this Attack value.

CWB Command

The built in delays in CWB's command system can some times be avoided by the planning of orders far in advance of when they are to be implemented. Although a player should be rewarded for attempting to plan his or her orders in advance, the unpredictability of the command system and the problems faced by the player as a result of foot-dragging subordinates may be lost in the existing system. Under the present system, even a poor army commander can safely plan a perfectly coordinated complex attack with several corps by merely issuing these orders several hours in advance of when they are to be implemented.

The following optional rules are presented as a suggestion for the 2d Edition of CWB to correct the problems outlined above and the ability of players to abuse the existing system. While the options below may not fully correct the problems, they are presented with the intention of modifyirig the existing rules as little as possible. Several options are presented with the hope that the readers may give them more intense playtesting and we may obtain feedback before any official inclusion of such an option in the 2d Edition.

[Ed. Note: This will be too late for inclusion in the 2nd Ed, but if players like these ideas they could be included when the 2nd Ed rules gets reprinted at some future lime.]

The options as set forth below have no effect on orders obtained through the use of initiative.

Option #1a : Restrict the content of an Order Under this rule, no order may be issued which is to be implemented in the future (i.e.. Attack at 1:00p.m.) and no order may contain sequential instructions (i.e.. Move to X then attack Y).

Option #1b : Restrict the content of an order Under this rule, no order may be issued which is to be implemented in the future (i.e.. Attack at 1:00 p.m.) more than a number of hours equal to the combined Ratings ofLhe leaders involved from when the order will be received.

Example: In BV at 11:00 a.m., Bragg wishes to issue an IPV order for Forrest to attack from Jay's Mill to the McAfee House. However, in an attempt to have Forrest's attack coordinated with another attack which will be launched by Walker's Corps, Bragg wants to delay Forrest's attack to a later time. Since Bragg has a Rating of O and Forrest has a Rating of 4, Bragg's order can direct Forrest to begin the attack at any time between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (up to 4 hours from when the order will be received by Forrest).

Option 2a : Modify the Acceptance Procedure

Whenever an order arrives at its destination, the Receiver rolls for acceptance as normal. If the order is written to take immediate effect, then proceed as usual. If the order is not to take immediate effect (i.e.. "attack at 2:00 p.m attack when Longstreet begins his assault," "attack when you reach position X," etc.) the following procedure is used:

1. Roll as usual on the Acceptance Chart.

2. If the result is "Dt," then play as normal, and ignore 3.

3. If the result is anything other than "Dt," then the order has been accepted and all prior orders are superseded. However, there may he some future delay when the time comes for the order to be acted upon (i.e.. "2:00 p.m." or "when Longstreet DOES start his assault"). To calculate this delay, the Receiver makes note of the column that wasj . ust used on the Acceptance Chart for future reference. The Receiver calculates when he estimates the order will be acted upon in the future and then counts back from that turn a number of turns equal to his Receiving Leader's Rating. The turn calculated will be the turn upon which the Receiving Leader can begin to determine the delay, if any, of acting on the order. Beginning on the calculated turn, the Receiving Leader starts rolls on the same column of the Acceptance Chart. Treat a "Dt" result as "D2."

Example:

At 8:00 a.m. in BV, Bragg gives an "in person, Force 0, Complex" order for Forrest to attack toward the McDonald house along the connecting road. To attempt to coordinate the attack with other commands, Bragg orders Forrest to launch the attack at 1:00p.m. Since the order is in person, Forrest immediately rolls on the "04" column of the Acceptance Table [3(4+0+2-1-2) - 1 column (currently has order)]. Forrest rolls a "6" (a result other than "Di"), so his previous order is overruled but Forrest is still not assured that he will be able to move forward at 1:00 p.m. Since Forrest has a 4 Leader Rating, beginning at 11:00 (4 turns before 1:00 p.m.) Forrest begins to roll again on column "0-1." He rolls a "10" and starting with the 11:30 a.m. turn he will begin to roll per the D2 result. At 12: 00 p.m. Forrest rolls a "5. " At 1230 p.m. Forrest rolls a "3. " A t 1:00 p. m. Forrest rolls a "6. " At 1:30 p.m. Forrest finally rolls a "2" and can beg in to advance on the McDonald house. Note that between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Forrest is still considered to have an order for all other game purposes.

Option #2b: Modify the Acceptance Procedure 1. Same as the above 2. Same as the above 3. If the result is anything other than a delay "D1" or "D2," then the proceed as normal. If acceptance is delayed, then the normal die roll process cannot begin until just prior to the time for the order to be acted upon (i.e.. "2:00 p.m." or "when Longstreet DOES start his assault"). The Receiver makes an estimate of the expected start time and then counts back from that turn a number of turns equal to his Receiving Leader's Rating. 'Me turn calculated will be the turn upon which the Receiving Leader can begin to clear the delay.

Example:

At 8:00 a.m. in BV, Bragg gives an "in person, Force 0, Complex" order for Forrest to attack from Jay's Mill toward the McDonald house along the connecting road. To attempt to coordinate the attack with other commands, Bragg orders Forrest to launch the attack at 1:00 p.m. Since the order is in person, Forrest immediately rolls on the "0-1" column of the Acceptance Table 13(4+0+2.1-2) - 1 column (currently has order)). Forrest rolls a "10" (D2), so his previous order is overruled but Forrest is still not assured that he will be able to move forward at 1:00pm. Since Forrest has a 4 Leader Rating, beg inning at 11:00 a.m. (4 turns before 1:00 p. m.) Forrest begins to roll against the "D2." At 11:00 a.m. Forrest rolls a "5." At 12:00 p.m. Forrest rolls a "5." At 12:30 p.m. Forrest rolls a "3." At 1:00 p. . Forrest rolls a "6." At 1:30 p.m. Forrest finally rolls a "2" and can begin the attack. Note that between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., Forrest is still considered to have an order for all other game purposes. Also, had he rolled a "1" or "2" before 1:00 p.m., the move would start at 1:00 p.m. as scheduled.

Option #2c: Modify the Acceptance Procedure

1. Same as the above
2. Same as the above
3. Same as either 2a or 2b above, except the turn calculated for the Receiver to begin rolling is the number of turns equal to the Receiving AND Sending leaders Ratings added together.

Example:

The examples above would be exactly the same since Bragg's Rating of 0 does not help. If Longstreet was the Army Leader (Rating of 4), Forrest could start rolling at 9:00 a.m. (8 turns before 1:00 p.m.).

Option #2d: Modify the Acceptance Procedure

Under this option, the existing command rules are followed exactly with the following addition. If an order is accepted that is not to take effect immediately, the Receiving leader will be required to roll on the Delay Chart once the time arrives for the order to be implemented.

Delay Chart
Leader Rating	Die Roll Needed to Act on Order
4	1-5
3	1-4
2	1-3
1	1-2
0	1
Modifiers to Die Roll (1+ Rating) if stacked with Army Commander -1 Each turn after the first

Example:

At 8:00 a.m. in BV, Bragg gives an "in person, Force 0, Complex" order for Forrest to attack from Jay's Mill toward the McDonald house along the connecting road. To attempt to coordinate the attack with other commands, Bragg orders Forrest to launch the attack at 1:00 p.m. Since the order is in person, Forrest immediately rolls on the "04" column of the Acceptance Table [3(4+0+2-1-2) - 1 column (currently has order)]. Forrest rolls a "10" (D2), so his previous order is overruled on the following turn Forrest begins rolling to obtain acceptance in regard to the "D2" result. However, at 1:00p.m. Forrest rolls a "5", so he cannot start the attack (not 1-4). At 1:30p.m. Forrestr olls a "6" and still cannot attack (not] -5). At 2:00p.m. Forrest rolls "1" and can start the attack.

The above options remains faithful to the original command system and require minimal variance. It should be noted that these options have not been playtested as fully as is necessary and it is hoped that its inclusion here may generate the necessary discussion and thought to further refine, if necessary, these ideas.

Make a Change

In the last issue of Operations you gave us a sneak peak at a TCS proposal (OstFront) that would cover all general types of smallunit actions that occurred on the East Front during WWII. The proposal marks an abrupt change in TCS style, moving away from actual battles and back toward PanzerBlitz-like abstraction. After giving the issue some thought, I think the time is right to make this change.

The more I think about the series, the more I think the chosen scale makes it very difficult to package important engagements into reasonable packages. I really like Omaha, and think its the best TCS design yet. Still, I don't know that I would be willing or able to buy a whole series of games of similar size. At the same time, I don't know that there is much new the series can tell us about fighting on the Western Front in 1944. Whether future releases are big or small, clearly something new is needed.

Your easiest option is to break with the subject area, but not the general scenario premise. I see you have TCS designs in the works for small historical battles in Finland, Crete, and Libya- any of these would provide a welcome change in scenery. That I am not too interested in these topics is beside the point: others presumably will be.

A bolder course would be charted by OstFront, which represents a change both in subject and scenario premise. While it seems in many ways a call for retreat-to meekly go where others have gone before--I think it actually offers the TCS the chance to boldly explore new types of historical truths. Rather than simply showing tactical change on the Russian Front as the product of evolutionary advances in equipment, as other games have done, the TCS command rules seem uniquely qualified to offer more profound insights.

Your OstFront proposal would attempt to show multiple lessons from four years of combat. The intent is to do so in a single boxed game. I think the goal is overly ambitious. Gaming pleasure, as well as whatever lessons the system has to offer, would be muted by the "mini-game" nature of the proposal. Without the full-blown command rules, I for one fail to see much purpose to the TCS in general and OstFront in particular.

[Ed. Note: I agree. The proposal has been changed accordingly.)

What I propose instead is the following amendment, Begin with the intention of making a series of four linked OstFront games, one for 1941, 1942,1943, and 1944-45. Each expansion game would add a new mapsheet, new forces and new scenarios--all building on the first. Scenarios could then be modified for use with any of the force pools and maps. For maximum effect, each of the games should offer the same general force Mix for each side-at least one tank and infantry regiment each. This would be much preferred to allowing OstFront to become "distracted" by non-essentials like parachute operations and Axis Minors. The end result would be an episodic treatment of changes on the East Front, but at least the episodes would share a common focus.