Donald Featherstone & Wargamer's Newsletter

The Don gets mentioned in quite a lot of my blog posts - his was the major influence during my formative years as a wargamer in the late 1960s and early 70s. I also have a bit of a soft spot for old wargaming magazines, so I was very pleased recently to be steered towards a site which has pdf versions of most of the editions of Wargamer's Newsletter, the legendary gaming fanzine produced by Mr Featherstone from 1962 to 1980. 

This online collection is a remarkable record, with only the very early magazines from 1962-64 missing. It is fascinating to see how the magazine developed and improved over the years, from the typed, copied and stapled early productions with their barely discernable illustrations to the really rather professional final editions. I have 4 original copies at home, including one from November 1964 which I managed to get on eBay a while back. The other 3 are from 1979, which I actually bought over the counter at the old Tradition shop just off Picadilly when I worked in London. I hated the job but loved to get out in my lunchbreak to places like Tradition and the Charing Cross Market where there was a great record stall.

Believed to be from the April 1964 edition,
one of those missing from the online collection.

If you're up for a bit of nostalgia, I'd highly recommend visiting the site. Truth be told, apart from nostalgia, the magazines themselves often have little to offer the contemporary gamer. What I'm usually looking for are scenarios, but they are surprisingly few and far between. This is an area where modern magazines score quite highly over the older publications. But there is always the possibility of finding something really interesting. For example, the January 1966 edition features some Napoleonic wargames rules by a certain Philip Barker - which extend to a magnificent two and a bit typewritten pages. What is clear is that the magazine was a genuine attempt to bring gamers together and give them a voice, in a pre-internet world.

Talking of interesting snippets, I found the following editorial in the August 1964 edition, the oldest in the collection. Rather than quote from it, I'll give you the whole thing. What interested me is the relevance to a post of mine from August regarding the professionalisation and commercialisation of the hobby, and the possible conflict of this process with the hobby's amateur roots. I won't labour the point, but the subject was obviously concerning Donald Featherstone all of sixty years ago. 

Click to expand and read more easily.

So, if you have half an hour to fill, dipping in to this resource is certainly worth it. For gamers of my age it's pure nostalgia, and for younger gamers it's a pretty good insight into our hobby in its early years.

'Til next time!

Airborne Armour - New Edition

 I was pleasantly surprised recently when Helion & Company got in touch with me to say a new edition of Airborne Armour was coming out, and they would be sending me a free author copy.

The first thing to say is that there are no changes to the text - as I said above, I only knew the new edition was coming out when Helion told me! What Helion have produced is a paperback of 224 pages, containing the full book, but using thinner, shiny paper to give something significantly slimmer than the original hardback. The shiny paper improves the quality of reproduction of the photos, and overall the book quality is what you would expect from a reputable publisher like Helion. I am well pleased.

The front and back covers feature new photos which are both interesting. It was slightly frustrating to see that the rear cover photo is of a six-pounder being loaded on to a Horsa glider, which is of little relevance to the 6th AARR, but what the heck. It's still an interesting photo.

My advice is to buy this edition, even if you already have a copy of the book. Tell all your friends (and family) to buy a copy as well. Spread the word on the internet. I need the money to spend on figures and models.

'Til next time!

Amateur or Professional? A response to Richard Clarke

Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy magazine issues 130 and 131 have both been corkers. Every now and then I get to thinking that wargames magazines have had their day, then I get proved wrong, usually by WSS. In both issues there were interesting articles, some useful scenarios, and interesting review sections. Oh yes, and some decent maps as well. 

I know some of you find the 'think piece' articles, where issues around the way the hobby is developing are aired, a bit uninteresting - too much navel-gazing when we should be thinking about painting figures and playing games. For myself, I find them worthwhile. I spend a lot of my average day thinking about and planning my wargaming, plus the time I actually spend gaming, and I like to try and understand what I'm doing and why.

To cut to the chase, WSS130 contained an article by Richard Clarke (of the Too Fat Lardies, of course) called 'Naked Communication'. As you'd expect, it was well worth reading, and largely contained a lot of common sense. Broadly, it was about the kickback some of the bigger commercial wargaming companies occasionally get when they introduce new rules, new supplements and new figures for reasons that seem to have more to do with increasing revenue than looking after their customers. Of course, if you run and/or own a company, increasing revenue is your job. The problem is that miniature wargaming is largely an amateur undertaking, and ordinary wargamers can react adversely to what they see as commercialism.

This is the crux of Richard's article, and it was a couple of his statements concerning the amateur/professional relationship that made me want to write a response. Let's start with the first quote that made me think I disagreed with him.

"...pleased as we must be that the hobby is more accessible and that products are more available, we somehow retain an odd attachment to the amateur roots of the hobby."

'An odd attachment to the amateur roots of the hobby'. What's odd about being attached to the hobby's roots? Let's check out the definition of hobby:

'An activity that someone does for pleasure when they are not working.' (Cambridge Dictionary)

'An activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure'. (Oxford Languages on Google)

So a hobby is by definition an amateur activity. It's not a job. Which makes that phrase 'the amateur roots of the hobby' rather suspect. Our hobby was an amateur one when it started, and it's still mostly amateur today. There are, of course, professional companies attached to the hobby, and their number seems to be growing. They are also quite often run by genuine and inspirational wargamers like Richard, so the lines are blurred. But that doesn't change the nature of the hobby. 

Richard goes on to mention the influence of the internet, which he correctly identifies as massively positive, and the emergence of 3D printing, which he seems less certain about. He states that "it is a direct threat to the large figure and model making companies". In that he is obviously correct, but from the point of view of an amateur wargamer, the picture looks rather different. For me, 3D printing has enabled me to get miniatures I couldn't get from any established manufacturer, or miniatures I could get from an established manufacturer but of better quality for the same price or less. As soon as I became aware of the potential of 3D printing, I realised it would change what I called the 'balance of power' between the main commercial companies and ordinary wargamers. The cottage industry was back (just like the 60s, 70s and 80s), and individual gamers could even print their own high quality figures and models. 

Now this is, of course, wonderful news, especially because it speaks directly to the 'amateur roots of the hobby'. To some extent, ordinary, amateur wargamers are taking back control. This is a feature of the influence of the internet as well, of course, although I reckon the commercial side of the hobby has benefited at least as much from the world wide web as us amateurs.

Richard saves the worst for last. He forsees "bigger companies asking, even insisting, that at their events you use their models when using their rules". Flames of War gathered some bad publicity a few years back when they tried this. I guess if a company is actually running a competition and footing the costs, then fair enough. But not something I would like to see becoming widespread. Such are the dangers of 'official' and 'commercial' wargaming. 

And then this:

"If we want the hobby to survive, grow and prosper, we need to recognise that the amateur hobby is not one we want to return to."

I intend to recognise no such thing. We've already established that wargaming with miniatures is an amateur undertaking. So we're not really returning to anything, as we never really departed from it. Richard identifies a "vibrant and exciting hobby industry" as vital to the future of the hobby. Well, it's nice to have you guys around, and we all wish you the best, but if you're experiencing a bit of competition, welcome to the world of capitalism. 3D printing is the best thing to happen to this hobby for many years. It promises to set ordinary wargamers free from the commercial pressures suffered by full-time professionals. We can have what we want, when we want it, rather than when it suits the priorities of various wargaming companies. The 'hobby industry' will have to learn how to catch up. I hope they do. 

Gamers will continue to protest from time to time about being told we have to do it differently now, because there's a new rulebook out, or a new range of figures. They can, of course, choose to just walk away, which some do. Well done guys. Do it the way it was before. Do it your way. 

I should end by thanking Richard for a polite and thought-provoking piece which helped me clarify what the hobby is about and what it means to me. I think I should also say that the Too Fat Lardies have added a lot to the hobby and given a great deal of pleasure to a lot of gamers, including me. Sincere best wishes for the future, gentlemen. But I for one welcome any move back towards the hobby's roots. We can do this move in a modern way, with excellent 3D products tailored to our needs, and home-brewed, self-published rules with professional-level presentation. This is our hobby, where we all choose our own way of enjoying the pastime. This is what we must not lose, and this is what is vital to our gaming future. An amateur hobby is the natural state of things. Long may it continue. 

"Testing, Testing..."

In early May, just before my wife and I set off for our 8 week Scandinavian adventure in our motorhome, I was working on two ideas that I thought might enhance Startline. The first was a new, alternate move sequence (rather than the current IGO-UGO), and a new morale system. Both offered interesting and quite fundamental changes to the game, so on my return I was keen to try them out.

Packing up the motorhome can be time consuming.

Do IGO or do UGO?

Startline currently uses a pretty traditional IGO-UGO system - I move and fire all my stuff, then you do the same with yours. Most of you will know the various arguments as to why this can be a problem - the most common being that one player stands there doing nothing (or not much), whilst the other player has all the fun. This has never really been a problem for me, as I am a gamer who enjoys watching the battle unfold, and I am very content to watch my opponent do his (or her) thing. Some banter can always be applied to liven things up - a loud sucking of the teeth combined with a doubtful shake of the head can often tempt your opponent to change their move. If part of a multi-player side, you can also indulge in behind-the-hand whispers about what your opponent is up to, which may cause additional alarm and despondency. 

There is, of course, the very basic argument that IGO-UGO is just plain old-fashioned.

For me, a much more telling critique of IGO-UGO is that it is too predictable and is a poor representation of battlefield events. To put it simply, the actions we are trying to represent are rather more interactive and less orderly than IGO-UGO implies. Thus, some form of alternate activation has become fashionable - one of my units goes, then one of yours, etc., until everyone has 'gone'. A further step in this process is random activation, where which player goes next is decided on a die roll, or picking a counter, or turning a card. Bolt Action is the most well-known WW2 game using this mechanic, where tokens are drawn from a bag. 

I recently came across this video on YouTube which covers this subject, amongst others. The whole video is interesting but the IGO-UGO discussion commences at 6.50.

One of the commenters on the video made a point which chimed in with my own thoughts - that random activation can get just a bit too random. The feeling of creating and executing a plan disappears and one ends up just reacting. Now some may argue this is quite a good representation of WW2 combat at section/platoon/company level. But my own view is that too much random can spoil a game. Hence my aversion to the recent resurgence of the 'special event card' mechanic - for example, the Fate Cards in Valour & Fortitude. The dice make our games quite random enough, IMHO.

So, I went for alternate activation, where Side A picks a unit and fires and moves with it, then Side B, then Side A again, etc. Indirect fire and air strikes are done by both sides in an opening phase of the turn, and after activation is finished both sides check morale.

Run Away!

The morale section in Startline is also currently pretty old school. A die roll, a set of modifiers (perhaps a few too many for modern tastes), and then check the total against a results table. Here, the inspiration for something different came from an online contact with a gamer in the U.S., Tom Dye. He had been thinking about what might be wrong with morale rules in miniature wargaming, and I took away two ideas from his thoughts - first, that more than just 3 morale categories (in my rules, hesitant, regular or determined) might be preferable, and that morale during the course of an action would go up and down, in particular as a result of the leadership qualities and interventions of the unit command, and this should be tracked in a game on a turn-by-turn basis. 

Now, hardly ground breaking you might think, but these ideas helped me see the way to a different morale system. Basically, each unit would start the game with a number between 6 and 12, which would be its Morale Value. Events through the game (mainly casualties) would reduce this, but the Morale Value can also be recovered through a rally rule. There is a still a results table that tells what the Morale Value of a unit means in terms of behaviour in the game - basically either OK, no advance, fall back, or run away. The upsides here were a system that looked a bit more original, and a significant reduction in the number of modifiers during morale tests.

Test Game 1

So, I embarked on a couple of test games to check out if the new rules were viable. I went for just a 4' x 4' table which would enable a quick set up. The terrain was adapted from the 'Cristot' scenario in the Dave Brown 'O'Group rule book. The first game was an attack-defence scenario with a German recce group attempting to seize and hold a Polish village during the 1939 campaign. Forces were of the same points, according to my points system:

German - Force HQ + 2cm AA on half track

Heavy Armoured Car platoon - 3 x Sdkfz231 

Light Armoured Car platoon - 2 x Sdkfz221, 2 x Sdkfz222

Motorcycle Infantry platoon

Truck-mounted Infantry platoon

75mm IG75 section - 2 guns

Polish - Force HQ

Infantry platoon x 2 (each with 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun attached)

TKS platoon - 3 x TKS mg, 1 x TKS 20mm

Tank platoon - 3 x Vickers 47mm, 2 x Vickers mg

Mortar section - 2 x 8cm mortars off-table with MFO on-table

A few photos just to give you an idea:

Set-up. Germans attacking from left.
Half the Polish force started off-table in reserve.

German armoured cars and motorcyle infantry making good progress...

...until the Vickers tanks arrive and things get messy.

The German heavy armoured cars managed to penetrate into the rear of the village.
You can see that their Morale Value is 8.

This first game was a bit confusing as I got used to the new ideas. To be honest, I wasn't convinced things were going to work out with the new rules. For the record, the Germans lost despite their bold advance, as they didn't manage to claim the required 2 objectives in 8 turns.

Test Game 2

For this game I decided that simpler forces and a simpler set up would enable me to concentrate on how the new rules were functioning. So I tweaked the terrain slightly and went for a tank-heavy encounter engagement:

Germans - Force HQ

Medium Tank platoon x 2 - each 5 x Pz38t

Light Tank platoon - 5 x PzIIc

Motorcycle platoon 

Polish - Force HQ

Light Tank platoon x 2 - each 5 x 7tp

Medium Tank platoon - 4 x Renault R-35

Truck-mounted Infantry platoon

Points values between the 2 forces were once again just about equal. Some more photos:

Set-up. Germans to the left once more.

Half-way point. Tanks casualties high on both sides.

Polish infantry retreating from the crossroads area.

In this game the Germans won by claimng one objective, whilst the Poles could claim none. A much more positive game where I could see the wood for the trees, or to put it another way, I could see the new rules working rather better.

So, overall, I'll be sticking with the new rules for future games - but there is a way to go yet. I might end up dumping either or both of them, or more likely adopting them in an amended form. We'll see. Should be a fun process!

To check out the new rules, visit the Startline io group, and look in the Files section. If you're not a member, it takes a couple of minutes to join. Free rules - what's not to like?

'Til next time!

The Stockholm Rendezvous

No, I've not started writing spy thrillers. My wife and I have been on holiday in Scandinavia since early May, and just recently we were having a couple of days in Stockholm when I lost my phone. Some nice person handed it in at the Nobel Prize Museum (as it was found nearby). 

So what has that to do with this blog? Well, a member of staff at the museum made it his personal quest to contact the owner of the phone and return it to him. By searching for my name online he found I had this blog, and left a comment which was flagged up to me by a regular reader, my old friend Steve Johnson. Being on holiday, I hadn't checked this blog in weeks, so thank goodness for helpful and quick thinking buddies!

Everything came together yesterday whilst Jane and I were travelling on the Stockholm metro. We managed to contact Jakob (the museum employee), and being about to finish work he was kind enough to meet us at a mutually convenient Metro station. And so I had my phone back.

Ah, Mr Bond, I've been expecting you...

So, this post is to thank Jakob formally for being such a terrific person. If he had just done nothing, or forwarded the phone to the police, I would never have seen it again. What a great guy - thank you!

The Second Best Thing

The second best thing about this experience is something Jakob said to me regarding Googling my name. Of course, most of the hits referred to the guy (now sadly deceased) who used to front up The Prodigy. But apparently, if you are determined and search cleverly, mine is the next most common hit. So it seems I'm the second best known Keith Flint on the internet. Maybe. I guess it's about time I decided to be an Influencer, or something like that. Hmmm - maybe not.

Some Military Stuff

We have visited a number of lovely castles, and a couple of actual military museums, on our travels, so below are few photos that might be of interest to my usual readers. 

The Front Museum, near Hanko, Finland. I'd forgotten what a big gun the Pak40 is.
Manhandling this beast must have been a real bugger.

As a comparison, the Russian 45mm anti-tank gun seems much more manageable.

Outside the museum is another 45mm, mounted in a replica bunker.

The enemy's view of the same weapon.
Properly camouflaged, this position would have been hard to identify.

Captured Soviet T-26 at the same museum.

Gripsholm Castle, Sweden. These two magnificant Russian cannons came to the castle from Russia as war trophies in 1623. They were cast in the late 16th century. One was captured at Narva in 1581, the other at Ivangorod in 1612. Extraordinary weapons with wolf's heads cast into the muzzles. Whether the carriages are original I don't know.

Forgive my grim countenance in the Finnish photos - the details of Finland's experiences in WW2 are not likely to engender happy feelings. Anyway, that'll do for now. I'm back in a couple of weeks and hope to resume some wargaming. With luck, battle reports will follow. 'Til then!

Loving the Process

I continue to read the odd wargames magazine, mostly WSS. Issue 129 (the most recent) was pretty good, themed around Bronze Age warfare, but with some interesting non-theme articles as well. But it was the full-page advert on the back that caught my attention initially. There was a new WW2 game in town, apparently - Achtung Panzer! (I'm not much of a one for exclamation marks, but that's what it's called). It's from Warlord Games, as I'm sure you know.

Now, the wargaming internet is currently riddled with ads for the latest Flames of War/Gale Force 9 effort Trash of Steel (oops, I mean Clash of Steel), so my first thought was - what, another tank-only WW2 game? And then I remembered What A Tanker! (yes, it's exclamation mark time again), from 2018. So that's 3 such games now, all from prominent 'historical' gaming companies. 

I was surprised when What A Tanker! came out, as the Too Fat Lardies always made a fair bit about having a lot of historical flavour in their rules ('playing the period, not the rules', as their advertising says). A game like What A Tanker! is clearly one where you play the rules, not the period. But Richard and Nick have never been short of a sense of fun (as their company name confirms), so what the heck. But then there was Clash of Steel (shouldn't that be Clash of Steel!), and now there's Achtung Panzer!. 

It's worth hearing what Richard and Nick
have to say about their game HERE.

It's not hard to see the attraction here - lots of WW2 wargamers find messing around with tanks the most enjoyable part of their gaming. Those infantry and artillery thingies just keep getting in the way and slowing down the game, for heaven's sake. Which is essentially true. So there was bound to be a market for tank-only games. Plus there's all the interest in online tank-only games like World of Tanks, which holds out the promise of a truly vast number of potential customers. So why aren't I interested?

I guess most importantly, these games seem like a different hobby to the one I got interested in in the 60s, and am still interested in now. The historical element was always given a fair bit of importance. When gaming a particular period, it was taken for granted that, as far as armies went, one wanted the whole thing. That was the point of all that research and reading. The idea of playing Napoleonics with just the cavalry, or ancients with just the pike phalanxes, never occurred - except maybe for one-off games to test out the rules. Or perhaps just for the hell of it once or twice. But a whole set of rules just for that type of game? The clue is in that strap line from the What A Tanker! cover - 'challenging and fun'. Of course, the hobby is about fun - I've labelled it 'whimsical' in past posts on this blog, and I stand by that characterisation. But in a nutshell, a game of WW2 with just the tanks seems like half the fun.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, combined arms. Much of the fascination of historical wargaming comes from that. My serious interest in Napoleonics is relatively recent, but once I got some games in I found (of course) that the 'paper, scissors, stone' of Napoleonic warfare was truly fascinating. And the same goes for WW2. Have you ever read a tactical history of WW2 where combined arms wasn't considered vital? I don't think I have. To me at least, these tank-only games are a step back, and look a lot less fun than the ones I'm used to playing.

There is also the 'barrier to entry' argument, I suppose. These games, it is hoped, will get Warhammer gamers into historical (well, sort of historical) gaming. And Napoleonic gamers can get into WW2 just by buying a handful of tanks (plus an expensive rule book). The 'barrier to entry' thing is an interesting concept, one which we will all have experienced. The thought that it might take many months, even years, to get into that new period, to get to play the games you want to, is sometimes not very encouraging. But here we get to the reason behind the title to this post.

Yes, that's right. All that effort, researching, buying (when you can afford it), painting, writing rules or choosing and learning commercial ones, and playing games that might last more than 45 minutes  - it's what the hobby is. These things shouldn't be viewed as barriers to entry. The idea is that you're supposed to enjoy that shit. I think that's something that saddens me these days - those things that I learnt were part of our pastime are now 'barriers to entry'. As mindfulness tells us, the key to success is loving the process. Finding joy in the process. Not discarding the process for a quick fix. Which is why I find these three games not worth my time.

In my case, there's also the point that I'm not really bothered about encouraging young Games Workshop enthusiasts, or any other young people for that matter, into the hobby. I'd prefer them to get into a proper hobby, like football, or kayaking, or restoring old cars, or photography. Wargaming? That's for old tossers like me, you young fools.

Well, I think that's about it. I guess I wrote this because finding an ad for a third, high-profile tanks-only game kind of depressed me, and I wanted to explain to myself why. I've never been interested in World of Tanks, and I'm not interested in these new tabletop games either. It's like life really - I'd quite like to have a go at the whole thing, not just a bit of it. But that's just me. As an ex-editor of Minaiture Wargames once wrote - "it's all fantasy anyway". He's basically right, of course. We're just playing with our toys. So if you like and enjoy these games, good luck to you. I just don't think I'll be joining you.

Over and out. 'Til next time. (No exclamation mark this time around).

EDIT: I just noticed on the CoS packaging the phrase 'Complete WW2 Starter Set'. What is that supposed to mean? A starter set for the whole of WW2? I'm reminded of the description of the Games Workshop 'Lord of the Rings Strategy Game', which was of course a skirmish game. All a bit meaningless, and a bit misleading, IMHO.

A 'Startline' Wargame - Poland 1939

It was good over a recent weekend to have the opportunity to set up a Startline scenario and play the game through, first solo, then with a live opponent in the shape of my long-time friend and wargaming opponent Paul. I only have the one WW2 collection, so as usual this fictional engagement was set during the 1939 Polish campaign. 

To create a suitable scenario, I turned to a resource I have been using for a few months now, the latest list of Flames of War missions. These are available for free download online (you can also get a printer-friendly version without the fancy background). Thanks to FoW for making this available. The scenarios suit Startline very well, as my rules are set at exactly the same company level as FoW, and the basing is pretty much identical as well. 

As you will see if you check the link, the scenarios don't give specific terrain, but do give everything else you need - type of scenario (i.e. attack-defence, encounter), the details of deployment, victory conditions, and any special rules needed. So it's easy to replay any scenario several times by just changing the terrain, the period, or the forces used. Each scenario uses equal points forces on both sides - attack-defence set-ups work by having only around half the defenders on table to start with and the rest arriving as reserves. This gives the attackers a decent chance to win. Many of the scenario deployments are quite unusual and original, and give an excellent alternative to just setting up on opposite sides of the table.

One such is 'Hold the Pocket', which was the scenario I chose to play. You can check the details of this scenario on the download, but essentially the attacker deploys down each short table edge, whilst the defender holds a box centred on one of the long table edges. The defender is thus being attacked from both sides. The photos below show the terrain and forces for the second game, with the deployment areas outlined with green dice.

As you can see, the terrain was flat, with a settlement and crossroads within the defender's box, or 'pocket'. On one flank, a stream ran between the pocket and the attacker's deployment area. This was crossable, but a bridge was also available. I chose the simplest possible victory conditions - one objective marker was placed on the crossroads, and the attacker had to claim this to win. If he did so in 6 moves, that was that. If not, an extra two moves were allowed. If the defender still retained the objective, the defender had won.

Naturally the Germans were attacking. The forces were:

German

Battlegroup HQ.

Panzer company with CO:

Medium platoon: 2 x PzIV, 2 x PzII. Medium platoon: 2 x PzIII, 3 x PzII. Light platoon: 1 x PzII, 4 PzI.

Infantry company with CO:

3 x infantry platoons. One platoon is motorised with a Pak 36 attached.

AA section: 2 x 2cm Flak 30.

Off-table artillery: 2 x 10.5cm batteries, each 4 guns.

AFO, and an airborne AOP (Hs-126) also available.

Polish - on table

Force HQ.

2 x infantry platoons, each with 1 x MMG and 1 x Bofors 37mm attached. 

1 x 75mm wz.1897 (attached to one of the infantry platoons).

AA section: 1 x 40mm Bofors, 1 x AAMG.

MFO.

AFO.

6 x 4" square minefields (to be combined as required).

Polish - off table

Recce platoon: 3 x Wz.34 armoured cars

Tank platoon: 3 x Renault FT-17.

Off-table mortar section: 2 x 8cm mortars.

Off-table artillery: 2 x 75mm wz.1897 batteries, each 4 guns.

I had decided to keep the Poles as a basically infantry force. To make up the points against all those German tanks, the minefields were just the thing. As the Polish commander, I marked their location on a map, leaving Paul to guess their location until one of his elements entered and had to roll for destruction. This makes for a nice bit of gameplay, and is simple to set up. Paul had the advantage of an AOP to spot for his artillery, and the use of a pre-game barrage, which also added a bit of extra flavour to the game. I used the normal FoW reserves rules for the entry of the Polish recce and tank platoons.

In the first game, other commitments meant I only had time to play out 4 moves. In the second game, Paul failed to gain the objective in 6 moves. We had to call the game there, but it looked like playing an extra 2 moves would have put victory in his grasp.

So, nothing remains but to show a few photos of the games in progress. I would strongly recommend any WW2 gamer to check out those FoW missions, if you aren't already aware of them. Very useful.

Solo Game:

The settlement after the pre-game barrage.
The Polish AFO copped it, a serious set-back.

German motorised infantry cross the bridge.

The brown counters mark a minefield.
Note the two Panzer Is overunning a Polish trench.

The motorised infantry make progress.

Heavy pressure on the Polish right flank -
but the Poles are fighting back.

A punishing airstrike by German Hs-123s.

German tanks are at the gates of the village near the Polish baseline.
But the red marker shows they have been forced to retreat following
the destruction of the acompanying Company Command tank.

Game with Paul:

One of the Polish platoons is falling back following artillery and airstrikes.
Note the orange marker and the Stuka over the table.

The main German attack makes progress...

...but the German diversionary attack is easily halted. 
The yellow markers show morale is wavering.

Close, but not close enough.
The village is still in Polish hands (just) after 6 moves

Movement Rates

One issue I've been dealing with in Startline is movement distances. How to get the game moving faster without making move distances unrealistically large? I've already been using my usual solution - allow for increased moves (and sometime decreased moves) on a die roll related to unit quality, with the presence of company commanders making larger moves more likely. Following these two games, I've also added what I call 'march moves', which add 50% to movement when out of contact with your opponent. Most of you will be familiar with the concept - increased moves as long are you are not too close to the enemy, sometimes called 'reserve moves'. I use this kind of thing in Shadow of the Eagles. In FoW, Battlefront introduced what they call 'dash moves' in version 4 to achieve the same thing. I guess we'll see how things go.

Thanks for visiting. 'Til next time!