There's another article in this issue, describing a solo WW II battle using a set of rules which I derived for use when there was no one on the other side of the table. This article describes a similar set, but the system is a 2-player one. I set up a small battle. My opponent was Tony Figlia… he commanded the defending Germans, which were composed of a rather weak force. He had 4 infantry stands, a couple of anti-tank guns, and one heavy German tank (which proved almost impossible to take out). He set up his units to defend two villages, one on his right flank, the other on his left. Each unit, i.e., each stand, was tracked for its Loss Points (LP). When 30 LP were recorded, one of the unit's Efficiency Level (EL) boxes was crossed out. And, as in the other game, each type of unit had a different number of ELs to be crossed off before it was destroyed: Infantry: 4 ELs Light tank: 4 ELs Medium tank 5 ELs Heavy tank 6 ELs Digression I'm still not certain that this approach, i.e., the assignment of different EL boxes to the different types of units, is correct. It's true that it should be harder to take out a heavier tank than a light one, but shouldn't this be reflected in the firing procedures? Simply put, it should be much harder to hit a heavy tank than a light one, and so the firing system itself, via the use of firing modifiers, reflects the lesser number of hits taken by the heavy tank. If we give the heavy tank larger defensive modifiers and a greater number of EL boxes, this puts a double whammy on the opposing player. Not only does he score fewer hits, but the "longevity" of the heavy unit, as expressed by its greater number of EL boxes, renders it a formidable weapon. In this game, the 'double whammy' approach was used, and Tony's heavy tank kept going on and on and on… end of digression. Low dice tosses were good for the firing player. When a unit fired, a very low toss resulted in a 20 LP loss for the target. A not-so-low toss resulted in a 10 LP loss. And even if the firing unit missed, we still added 5 LPs to the target's data sheet. In a sense, you couldn't miss… every time you aimed at a target, by plinking away at it, it took some sort of loss. I had 3 small columns of British troops… in retrospect, I should have concentrated the entire force in the middle of the field and driven straight through. Instead, one column proceeded on the right, one in the center, and one on the left. My inventory consisted of around 8 infantry units, plus 2 medium tanks, plus one light tank. Whenever possible, I continued to 'plink' at the German heavy tank. For example, when I was the non-active player, there were three phases in the half-bound during which I could fire either all, or certain selected units. a. I first had 'opportunity fire'. I selected a unit to fire, and blazed away, and the target recorded its losses. A 10-sided die was then thrown. I selected a second unit to fire and blazed away again. Another 10-sided die was thrown. I could do this until the accumulated total of all the 10-sided die tosses totaled 12. At that point, my 'opportunity fire' stopped. b. Second, later in the half-bound, after the active side moved, all of my units opened fire without restriction. c. And still later in the half-bound, I had 'reaction fire'… I could order certain units to move or fire using Reaction Points (RP). Here, due to the paucity of RP, I had to select my units carefully so as not to use up my RP too quickly. RP were renewed each bound, and, in theory, could be accumulated. But due to the requirements of battle, neither player could ever accumulate more than 3 RP to be carried over to the next bound. Most of the time, because of the German heavy tank's defensive modifiers, my firing units 'missed'… but I still chalked up the usual run of 5 LP on the target. I placed my 2 medium tanks on my left flank, and they, together with a couple of infantry units, quickly over-ran and destroyed the defending German infantry in that sector of the field. Regular infantry stands have the capability of firing against armor if the range is sufficiently small. In this case, the infantry's bazookas(?) panzerfausts(?) reached out to 10 inches. Despite this German anti-armor capability, my medium tanks suffered very little loss as they cleaned up my left flank. Then I ran into trouble. Tony had placed his German heavy tank in the middle of the field, and to get to it, i.e., to turn to the right to obtain a proper line of sight to the heavy tank, I had to direct my infantry and tanks through a series of wooded areas. It took a percentage dice toss of 70 or less to penetrate woods, and few of my units were up to it. They all seemed to balk at entering the woods. This gave the Germans all the more opportunity to blast away at my other units. I tried to close assault with my infantry, and too many Loss Points (LP) caused my force to fall back. When a unit was hit and took LPs, it received a casualty marker only if an EL box was crossed out (a loss of 30 LP). The presence of the marker mandated that the unit take a morale test. And if the unit failed, it fell back and lost even more LP. The Germans destroyed my light tank and one of my medium tanks. Not to mention, several infantry units. But finally, the end drew near. My continual plinking away at the German tank knocked off a couple of its EL boxes. It took a morale test, and fell back. At battle's end, the German force was composed of the German heavy tank and one battered infantry unit. In truth, I didn't have too many units on the table, either. Tony said he'd fight on forever, but I decided to call the battle a 'tactical victory' for the Brits. We were using my rules, and my figures, and my table. Surely, I had the right to determine the victory conditions…? Back to PW Review March 2000 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com