Having set up my first Rapid Fire Reloaded game last time, this post is to report how it turned out.
The 1st Battalion West Suffolks had been tasked with capturing the small hill-top hamlet of Monte Lucedelsole, which was being held by the German 1 Battalion, 960th Grenadiers. We saw last time that on turn 1 the British had entered the table, pushing their Carrier Platoon and Battalion HQ Bren Carriers close to the Wastern and Eastern woods - and promptly ran into a fusillade of Panzerfaust and small arms fire. Contact!
 |
| Enter the West Suffolks.. |
On Turn 2, the Carrier platoon dismounted its PIAT team in the shelter of hedges close to West Wood, while 'A' Company's footsloggers moved up to join them. In the centre, B Company took shelter behind the stone-walled enclosure which also sheltered the Support Company's 3-inch mortar team. On the right, Battalion HQ bailed out of its battered carriers into the cover of a hedge, where they were joined by their PIAT team and 2-inch mortar, while C Company advanced on foot to their right.
Now the British could start shooting - not least because Rapid Fire Reloaded (doubtless correctly) allows PIATs to be used as 'HE' weapons against infantry targets, and they can be quite nasty (if a hit is scored, roll 4D6 for effect, so you might kill 4 figures if you get lucky!). German 3rd Kompanie in the West Wood, and 1st Kompanie in East Wood, started to take casualties. In the centre, the Suffolks 3-inch mortar started a sort of duel with their German 81mm counterpart on the hill, but missed with their first attempt. The fire of the British off-board 25-pounder battery could be called in by its Forward Observation Officer, also targeted the German mortat team - and also missed! Not great shooting by the Suffolks' mortars and artillery, and I'm afraid it didn't get very much better..
 |
| Carrier Platoon PIAT helps out 'A' Coy. |
In response the Germans mostly sat tight and returned fire - though 3rd Kompanie in the West Wood pulled back into the cover of the interior after that nasty PIAT experience. In East Wood, 1st Kompanie took a different approach, moving some men forward to join the firing line - though the mechanism of reducing their movement in woods according to a die roll meant that they moved very slowly this turn! Their comrades at the treeline inflicted one casualty on the Sufolks advancing 'C' company.
The heaviest German eweapons in play were by their 81mm mortar and 75mm Infantry Gun, plastering the British 3-inch mortar team in the walled enclosure. The 75mm gun scored one casualty, the 81mm mortar's first shot got another, but the mortar's 2nd shot missed! That gave 2 casualties on the British mortar, but to destroy a support weapon with a 3-figure crew, you need to score 3 in the same turn, so the British mortar team survived - just! That's quite fun rule, it certainly adds a bit of tension as you keep firing various weapons at the same target.
Turn 3 saw the West Suffolks' rifle companies trying to push forward to the woods on their left and right, moving out to the flanks in doing so - the carrier platoon re-mounted its PIAT team, aiming to ferry them to West Wood as they realised the Germans had pulled back there. More dramatically, on the right 'C' Company made a dash across the open, trying to rush the Germans in East Wood. British firing hotted up - the mortar and artillery duel continuing, of course. The Suffolks' 3-inch mortar scored one hit on their German 81mm opponents - but the 25-pounder battery missed again, with both guns! Better shooting at the East Wood, where the Battalion HQ 2-inch mortar and 'C' Company's small arms fire got 3 kills on German 1st Kompanie - which was now down to half strength. the East Wood looked vulnerable,
 |
| Turn 3: 'C' Coy. 'rush' East Wood |
.JPG) |
| End of Turn 3 - fighting for the woods |
Now to Turn 4 : something of a climax, as 'A' Company West Suffolks' charged into West Wood and close assaulted its defenders. In the centre, 'B' company decided against sitting in the enlosure getting shelled, and moved forward, hoping to reach the next hedge - quite risky! Close Assaults are decided before firing - so 'A' Coy. and 3 Komp. rolled their dice. Attackers roll 1D6, adding the number of figures in contact to give their total score, while defenders score number of figures plus D6 roll, plus 2, Highest total wins, and the loser takes casualties according to the score difference - simple. 'A' company had 5 figures but rolled a '2' - score 7. 3rd Kompanie only 2 figures, but rolled a '4', plus bonus 2 gave a total of 8 -the Germans came out winners. 'A' Company retired, taking one casualty. If only they'd rolled higher!
The ongoing mortar duel just kept going, with the British 3-inc mortar getting 2 hits and 2 kills agianst the German 81mm. It was now down to the 25-pounder battery, but their FOO rolled a '1' - which means his request for a 'stonk' failed to get through to the guns, so no firing! The German mortar crew breathed again.
 |
| Turn 4 : 'C' Coy, Close Assault - was repulsed |
On the right, 'C' Company, the battalion HQ mortar and PIAT all fired on German 1st Kompanie - and inflicted no casualties! 'C' Company then took a big gamble, and charged in to Close Assault, but fortune was not with them, rolling a 2 against the Germans' 4. 'C' Company was repulsed with 3 more casualties - pretty much a disaster. The West Suffolks' Battalion commander had little choice but to bring on his reserve. 'D' Company coming up to replace the remnants of 'C' Company. That was a dreadful turn for the British, with close assualts on both woods stopped in their tracks at some cost, while artillery and mortar fire achieved precisely nothing.
The Germans in their turn moved reinforcements into West Wood and kept firing, though with mixed results. Their 81mm mortar scored 2 hits on the British 3-inch mortar -but the 75mm infantry gun missed, and the British mortar survived yet again. 3rd Kompanie fire on 'A' Company had no effect, likewise 1st Kompanie against the Suffolks Battalion HQ, but in the centre, 'B' Company had exposed itself to fire from a german MMG on the hill - and took another 2 losses.
With that, at the end of Turn 4 the British were in a terrible position - 50% losses on 'A' and 'B' Companies, 75% on 'C' Company, and no real progress made. With 'D' company coming up they might take East Wood, but had insufficient strength to progress anywhere else. Their artillery and mortars had done nothing to help, getting embroiled in a counter-battery duel that had no result - though perhaps at least keeping the German mortar and infantry gun occupied, which will have saved even more losses from the rifle companies.
 |
| End of Turn 4 - and of the game |
So, I called it a day at that point; far from a successful game for the British, with Monte Lucedelsole remaining firmly in German hands. And perhaps not terribly exciting, I'll admit, but the main point was to try out the Rapid Fire Reloaded rules. In that respect, I was pretty happy - the rules were very simple to understand and to use. Having started in WW2 gaming all those decades ago with Chrles Grant's Battle, these seemed to have a similar spirit - I like the simplicity of rolling a few dice needing 5 or 6 to kill, or whatever - and individaul figure removal is a balst from the past, in a good way - seems entirely appropriate for this kind of game. Spotting rules equally simple and effective, and artillery and mortar fire a matter of a few die rolls. Mortars having two shots makes them potentially deadly, as in reality, and off-table artillery have easy rules for 'calling in' fire, and 'bracketing' - basically the second shot is more likely to hit than the first. Not that my 25-pounders managed that! Close Assaults are pretty risky and can be costly, as 'C' Company found out, after their covering fire failed to deplete the defenders. In the excitement the British failed to lay down any smoke, which might have reduced casualties, but their artillery and mortars were too busy, fruitlessly trying to kill their opposite numbers.
Fairly obviously, the West Suffolks were always likely to have a hard time, but I'm afraid the dice gods took a hand, especially with the off-board artillery, and crucially in the two close assaults! But that is just how things go sometimes. It's pretty clear that a two-battalion force would have been more likely to succeed, and some armoured support could have been useful, but I wanted to keep things simple for a first game, and limit numbers of units so as not to get bogged-down. I'm afraid the West Suffolks did get bogged-down, as a result!
I seem to have written quite a lot, considering I have described only three moves of quite a small game! But I hope it's been fun, and interesting for anyone who might be thinking about trying these rules. I am pretty well pleased with them so far, and I can imagine they would do very well for larger games - the simplicity should make it easy to handle larger formations. I will certainly persist with these rules, as the West Suffolks and the 960th Grenadiers and their comrades begin what may be a long-running struggle up and down the land of Italy.
Meanwhile I have also been lucky enough to take part in another of Jon Freitag's remote games, as we had a second go at the ECW Battle of Cheriton - this time with me as a Royalist, I won't give any spoilers, but it was a great game, as Jon's games usually are, and I look forward to his report of the evening! Not sure where my next post will take us, to be frank - but until then, keep well everyone.
David,
ReplyDeleteI think with parity in numbers, the likelihood of a British win was remote, 2:1 or more is the normal force ratio the attacker would attempt to achieve before attacking.
As to Rapid Fire, I confess I've never been a fan. They have their adherents and most refer to them being "fun".
I've always found them something of a confused set; nominally tanks and units of infantry are platoons, yet act like individual vehicles or sections of 10 men. With the "Division" orbat this distorted split scale gets worse.
Artillery doesn't work like that; a battery would have a gun fire ranging shots to bracket a map reference, then the OP would relay when on target and the battery would fire for effect. The target would suffer damage as would anyone unfortunate to be in that area. How much damage is the question. Artillery support may be ineffective, but doesn't miss......
I think for me RF was summed up by a battle report in an old wargames magazine (Aegean campaign) where when adjudicating fire on a unit, the rear MG of a parked Stuka was included......
Best summed up as a "Marmite" set of rules.....
It's a pity as I quite like their source books and the colour photos (although these can wind me up - the first desert book features rather naff DAK when there are plenty of lovely figures and vehicles....).
However, if you like them and have fun, just ignore me!
Neil
While I am unfamiliar with these rules, theoretically I agree with Neil that trying to take this position with even odds seems a daunting task. A force ratio of even 2:1 may not be enough. I suggest 3:1 to give these fellas a fighting chance especially if they roll they they did on this day. Excellent rules walkthrough.
DeleteThanks Neil, all interesting points! Always good to hear your thoughts. I knew the odds were poor for the attack, but admit I really just wanted to set up a game with 1 battalion each as a sort of 'minumum viable product' to try the rules out. Maybe should have gone for more of an 'encounter battle' but perhaps that's not very typical of the Italian theatre.
DeleteOn the rules, yes all good points - I confess I don't mind the way they have 1:15 figure:man ratios but then play them like 1:1, as this is another hint of nostalgia for me going back to Charles Grant, who did something similar if I recall ( well, squads representing platoons at least! ). With the artillery I suppose I would rationalise the 'miss' as simply meaning the shell didn't fall close to any part of the target unit, but just made a crater somewhere in the vicinity. They have a very basic idea of FOO calling in fire, first shot not so likely to do damage, second shot more likely, which feels OK as an approximation ( back to Grant, I suppose his artillery and mortar 'fall of shot' devices did indeed assume the shell would land basically in the target area.. ). I would certainly not be allowing parked aircraft MGs to join in!!!
So I can see the 'Marmite' aspect of these, but I like the simplicity so far. I was interested that my friend from Retired Wargamers Reloaded said they play their quite large display games with these rules, and I think Deal Wargames Club (who I have talked to at shows) do the same, which argued for 'playability' at least. I do have a copy of Anchluss 'The War On The Ground' which look to be quite a bit more sophisticated, and I will eventually have a proper read of those, at least..
And there's a group (Gentleman Wargamers?) Who play huge games.
DeleteIt's all "horses for courses" but there are some aspects that just jar for me; individual figures - in effect a section pretending to be a platoon (or company? battalion? in the Divisional scale) so has representative figures for say a Piat or Panzerfaust. So is that 15 Piat gunners firing at 5 tanks????
I just think there are better ways to model combat. It's basically because they want individual figures - fine - the downside is it reinforces one of the fundamental problems with WW2 and later rules. Players think of the model Tiger as a single tank. Not a platoon, company or battalion. They play as if it's a single tank whatever the intellectual understanding....
RF are basically a 1:1 set that's trying to be something bigger. The problem is, if you field a section or company, it doesn't have all the sexy attachments like tanks, artillery or air support....
I have played lots of WW2 sets and all have issues; it all comes down to what you want in a set.....
Neil
and thanks Jon - yes of course to succeed they probably needed at least 2:1 advantage. However this was more about setting up a small game and learning the basics of the rules, so it worked out OK for that. I will have to give the West Suffolks the chance for revenge later..
Deleteand Neil, I think your follow-up comment hits the nail on the head re: WW2 gaming - everyone wants to play the figures and models as individuals, so they should really go with 1 figure = 1 man, but of course then you can only do 'skirmish'. Maybe a Company, tops if you have a big table? And you'd be very lucky to see any tanks, of course! So that's the problem. It has occurred to me that board games like Squad Leader, PanzerBlitz etc are designed with one counter = 1 squad or troop, and everyone is fine with that.. I guess that is partly because hexes then represent quite a large area, and are defined as clear, woods or BUA etc, and you are not moving individual figures/vehicles within those spaces.
DeleteI guess if we are using figures, we are just inevitably tempted to treat them like individuals...? Several figures on a single base to represent a squad would work, but what about a troop of tanks on a base? It's a good discussion!
David,
DeleteBack when I lived in Wiltshire, I was a member of the Trowbridge Irregulars; we tried several sets in search of one we could agree on. I was a Command Decision fan but couldn't convince anyone else. We settled on Spearhead despite it's problems. I remember we tried a set by the author of Fire & Fury (a set we liked and played regularly) they had very odd rules about combining tanks and infantry - we played one game and didn't try again!
The issue of counters and miniatures is an interesting one; whatever we think, unless playing at 1:1 then a miniature is simply a counter representing whatever it purports to be. Intellectually however we see it as what it is; then we impose an odd representative scale. So for example, we turn 24 figures into a horse and musket battalion. Likewise our 3 tanks models = a company ( but at the same time still mentally thinking of them as 3 tanks...)
It's a particular issue when looking at operational games which are much more like boardgames. Here the base is the thing; what you put on it is a question of aesthetics.
It's the rules which determine how that base acts.
If you start with the models as the basics of mechanisms (firing, morale etc) as oppose to the base, the more you get into the issue of one model representing many, yet acting as if it's an individual model.
Nappy players have similar problems around scale; wanting to be Napoleon yet also form battalions into squares.
It's an odd hobby, wargaming! ☺
Neil
Cheers Neil, you have summed up the issues nicely! Maybe it's more of a problem for WW2, because we 'want' one model tank to be one tank, less so for a Napoleonic Battalion, though indeed Napoleon would certainly not be telling individual units to go into square!
DeleteHi David. Contrary to your expectations, that was an enjoyable read, despite the end result being predictable. Your dice rolling (as the British) hasn't improved in the 300 years between Cheriton and Lucedesole!
ReplyDeleteI like the sound of the rules. I like simplicity. Might have to give them a go with my Continuation War chaps.
With respect to Neil's point about artillery, could you rationalise the 'missing' as the battery landing the shells where the FOO told them, but that he got the co-ordinates wrong? Maybe, poor visibility, bad map, being nervous under fire etc. And maybe even worn barrels being inaccurate (what with the intensity of fighting and being the poor relation to Overlord). I could be talking absolute balderdash as it's not my period.
Oh, and those cypress trees you were thinking about: bump chenille cut in the right places might do the trick (though possibly too small for 20mm figures). I was planning to use it for 6mm but it's too big.
thanks Chris, glad you enjoyed that, predictable though it was. I had hoped the British artillery might have evened things up a bit! I think I agree with you about the artillery fire rules, I would indeed rationalise it that way.
DeleteThe basic rules are only about £5, so no great loss if you don't get on with them.
Thanks for the tip about cypress trees, I will consult my in-house haberdashery expert..
Hi David, thanks for the write-up, very enjoyable. I love the reloaded books and have them all. I am told that a east front ‘41 booklet is in development and another north west Europe one.
ReplyDeleteI agree the ‘you need 3 hits’ for a support weapon is a clever rule, doing a lot for so little rules overhead.
Thanks Norm, glad you enjoyed that. I wonder if they might have a look at Italy eventually? So far, so good with these rules, and I do like the way they usually manage to come up with a simple (often just 'roll a D6') solution to each problem.
DeleteTheir website has some free Sicily scenarios to download David, which might be of itnerest to you?
Deletehttps://www.rapid-fire-uk.com/free-downloads/
Thanks Steve, I have downloaded a couple of those, very interesting!
DeleteWell although the West Suffolks took a right old battering, but the most important things were that you got a game in, enjoyed it and started to get au fait with the rules. BKCII are my rules of choice for WWII and I love them, plus I've played enough games now to have a fiarly decent idea on how to balance forces and terrain, depending upon the scenario played.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve, you are right, it was mainly about having a go with the rules. I admit I don't know the 'BKC' rules series: just had a look around the web and I see they have 1 base representing a platoon, and they are up to BKC-IV, so you are clearly not getting sucked into the 'new shiny edition' trap! I will take a look at some WW2 game reports on your blog..
DeleteI do have BKCIV as my copy came courtesy of being one of the playtesters, but I still prefer BKCII. Alognside my normal house rules, a couple of things from the latest version I use, alongside more stats for AFVs etc that weren't in the 2nd edition.
DeleteI just checked out the RF website and they have plenty of free scenarios, which port over easily to BKCII, as well as some rather nice signage etc for all theatres. Even though I don't play the rules, the scenario booklets are very useful and a great price too:).
Thanks Steve, yes the Rapid Fire free downloads look pretty good!
DeleteGreat little game there Steve and the rules certainly seemed to tick all my boxes, including the ability to play solo. Hope the West Suffolk’s have better luck next time!
ReplyDeleteThanks Mark, it was a good little trial run of the rules. Reinforcements will be brought up for the next assault..
DeleteI very much enjoyed reading your report David. Regardless of the scenario details, the fact of the matter seems that you have found a set of rules that appear to have brought you some joy. That was after all the point of this game. I found your musings interesting. Well done David on a stimulating post.
ReplyDeleteThanks Richard, yes it was good to try out the rules and I was quite happy with them. Glad you enjoyed this post!
DeleteReally interesting report, unbalanced but I see why you played it like that, the mortar rule is a neat touch. I also enjoyed the debate after, really between aesthetics and reality, I know that for instance in a Napoleonic battle I want something that gives a good game and will reward something like period tactics, I know James from the chauvinist blog wants a much more granular and detailed game, both valid and equal but different, it's back to the wide church I guess and play whatever your happy with!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain caveadsum1471
Thanks Iain, glad you enjoyed this report. I think I want reasonably simple rules that hoepfully still 'feel' right, i.e. sensible period tactics (as far as I know them) should work OK. Indeed, play what you enjoy!
Delete