The Loose Association of Wargamers

Pemps (Pembles on here) visited last Friday for a WWII game using Battlegroup rules.



Then on Saturday Tim H and my mate Dave joined us for a shiny ACW game.



There's a bit more on the blog....

https://general-e-pickled.co.uk/

....not much, to be honest, but there is a nice elephant.

E

You can't go far wrong with a nice nelly or several.

A couple of good AAR, EB, and your WWII table looked very good. Lurking may not be brave, but it can be effective. Professionals refer to it as an "ambush". My '44 Poms haven't done so well, so far, though I did manage to be runner-up in all the games.

I agree about the artillery rules in Battlegroup being fiddly, but I think that's partly a way to dissuade over-use of the trail apes (unlike some rules that seem to allow platoons to have direct support from the entire divisional artillery). I've only had three or four games, but I prefer them to the other recent (since 2015) rules we'd tried.

Jolly nice

Thanks for that Spanner.

We didn't play the ammo rules - i wonder how they would dissuade blasting away at silly targets.

E

That looks great EB

Thank you Bro.

E

Essex Boy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:09 pm Thanks for that Spanner.

We didn't play the ammo rules - i wonder how they would dissuade blasting away at silly targets.

E

We scrapped them. All they added was book keeping and arguing ("That tank has already fired eight times and is out of ammo!"- "No it hasn't, that one has!"). They dissuaded some people from using suppression fire/ fire and movement. Besides, the allocations were too small and that meant having resupply vehicles on the table, which ate up order points (and added cost and painting time).

I don't think there's anything that will stop some gamers from firing at anything they can see, even if the odds of a hit are 1M to 1.

You've confirmed my suspicion, Spanner. The ammo thing is a thing too far.

Iain

Looks lovely. How thick are your hill contours in the shiny game?