 |
| My 10mm WW2 armies may yet get an outing. |
Eisenhower is such a high level game that model playing pieces are token in the extreme. But toys do add a bit of atmosphere and attract other players.
Discounting my 28mm Ardennes and 15mm Stalingrad armies (which have few AFVs), I have two potential sets of toys.
I have painted (but never used) 10mm Normandy armies, and I have the 3mm Battle of France armies I bought for Sam Mustafa's Rommel but which are still in their packets.
The 10mm Normandy vehicles are on 30mm x 60mm bases and the infantry on 30mm x 30mm bases which will fit 3-abreast in 4" squares.
If I get round to the 3mm armies, I'll put the AFVs 3-up on 40mm x 30mm bases, which will also fit 4" squares (2-up and 1-back). I thought about mounting them singly and using even smaller squares, but 3mm doesn't have a lot going for it unless based dioramically.
As regards scenery, I'll take a similar approach to what I did for Blucher. That is very flat scenery which the bases can sit on. It will be more-or-less in scale for 3mm but not for 10mm!
Not being a great hardware expert or rivet counter, I have to say it's very refreshing to be sorting out 'basic' armour and infantry without having to go into too much organizational detail.
Painting 3mm gear will also be quicker and easier than larger scales, and probably my preferred way forward were I to expand into other campaigns.
I have to say I was extremely disappointed in Eisenhower; even more than Rommel!
ReplyDeleteNot only are they somewhat "bland", I think some of the decisions are poorly thought out.
While there's an argument for abstracting artillery, at this scale I think they can and should be represented on the table. The decision that recce and engineers are just "assumed to be getting on with it" is simply ludicrous.
Where are things like engineering more likely to be important than in an operational game? Surely the ability to bridge that river or demolish the bridge is crucial to model?
Then there's the odd nod to Normandy (bocage) but clearly little research; my reading suggests German Aufklarungs battalions were used as ad hoc fire brigade - as they are not represented how is it possible? Likewise Arnhem with it's cobbled together German forces - but no Grabner - he's " just getting on with it... "
It may be co-incidence, but one of the playtest groups regularly play FoW tank fests - wall to wall armour, sometimes no infantry, with all the super heavy sexy German LW tanks v LW Soviets with IS whatever. Perhaps the feedback was more "game" than history?
People can kid themselves they are refighting Market Garden not playing waves of Shermans v handfuls of Tigers......
And then there's the dismissal of the entire Far East as "not really suitable for Eisenhower" which I think says a lot....were there no multi-divisional actions? The ability to fight for an entire island, not just a part of it?
I suspect it will be the diehard SM fanboys who play it; how often do you see Rommel being played these days?
Neil
Thanks for the input, Neil. I welcome robust discussion and I take your points.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like the abstraction in Rommel represented by the Command Post tactics. I guess Eisenhower simply removes these aspects altogether. That's evidently one up for me but one down for you, but I'll reserve final judgement until I've actually played it. As far as I can tell from mere reading, a lot of the game mechanisms are just as I'd like them.
In general I've gradually come to accept that tabletop wargames are games of chance with a military flavour rather than simulations. Of course, they need to be credible. If they are obviously unrealistic or unhistorical then they are a waste of time.
Design decisions about what they model or don't model is very personal and somewhat arbitrary. Tabletop (and boardgame) wargame rules tend to model some things but not everything. To work as a game and to be completable in 2-3 hours requires simplifications and compromises.
Hopefully the alternatives you mentioned will be published at some point and we will then have more choice about gaming at this level.
I have the book and am on my third pass of reading.
ReplyDeleteI sense a sophisticated game there, but not the type that a typical "Line 'em up and pew pew pew" wargamer would recognise.
The challenges of gaming at this operational level are several. Notably:
Loss of detail at high command levels: "what about every third tank having a bigger gun", "My recon armoured cars have eight wheels and improved cross country performance", "Our machineguns shoot faster".
Those features will either be absent, or represented in an abstract way.
What to do about small collections of extremely potent weapons: Typically heavy tanks, or massed artillery. Some operational rules allow companies of these to operate in support of larger units, improving their abilities. Eisenhower does something similar with tank destroyers and infantry tanks. But artillery i represented in an abstract manner.
Logistics: Some games feature a massive tail of trucks and soft vehicles to supply ammo and POL (Petrol, oil, lubricants) that keep an army rolling. Others abstract this. Eisenhower abstracts this through the isolated rule.
Combat: Very dull for people who enjoy muzzle velocities, rates of fire and house to house fighting. All the individual heroics are abstracted, in return for rolling a few dice. Let's face it, combat is dull when you're a higher staff officer.
Where's the meat? you may ask.
I believe the crux of Eisenhower lies in committing troops against the enemy, and isolating the damaged enemy units.
It will be less about "pew pew pew, roll sizes, win".
Victory will be achieved by creating and exploiting gaps, isolating enemy concentrations, and capturing objectives.
Too much chess for some people.
The staff officer view of campaigning to others.
Thanks for your contribution, Steve. The struggle to isolate enemy units while avoiding isolation oneself appears to be a key, and appropriate, feature of the rules and sets them apart from lower level rules based on simple zapping. I think it's going to be as much a dance as a prizefight, but that need not be dull.
DeleteI have a game arranged for Monday, but it will probably not be much more than an exploration of the basic mechanics.
Yes, I've been reading, and despite the apparently simple mechanics, there's a lot to remember.
DeleteI think these are going to be rules that need a few preliminary games to cover the rules.
The other drawback form the regular WW2 crowd is "what do I do with all my lovely models". It's not a game that offers many opportunities to line up the armour (Line an early scene from the Battle of the Bulge film)
The armies I'm using Monday were originally organised for Spearhead. I'm only using a fraction of the AFVs I have but I was short of leg infantry and had to borrow some bases from my Late WW1 British collection. Happily I have a lot of lorries to represent lorried infantry.
ReplyDelete