1973 / Scenario #14 part 2

It was a good fight in the first scenario, but there are still some questions here. It was a pretty easy win in the first post for the Isrealis - granted, I put a lot of thought into it, and this was the first time I had worked the gap between the woods and town. As a tactic, I think it worked well as it:

1. keeps the Infantry within the town due to the threat of massed firepower,
2. is flexible - Blue can move into Close Range and attack the town, or, suddenly advance and move against the hill.
3. keeps the attacking force out of LoS of direct fire from the hill.

This also exposed one downside to putting direct fire assets upon the hill - they are right in the way of a direct attack, so the attacker has no reason to be distracted from a hill assault.

With all this in mind, I put the same force up against each other, but gave the Egyptians an extra Infantry and gave the Recon ability to one of the Isreali Infantry Units. So the force looked like this:

Red Defender - Egyptians
Rated Unreliable: 
1 Mortar [off-table]
1 Medium Artillery
1 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, Russian Doctrine]
1 Infantry w'ATGM Upgrade
4 Infantry

Blue Attacker - Isrealis
Rated Reliable:
1 Mortar [off-table]
2 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, 2nd Gen]
3 Infantry with APC upgrade [vintage halftracks], 1 also had Recon upgrade.

Turn 1 & 2. The Isrealis headed straight for the hill. The Recon Infantry made it to the woods edge, and use it to hide from Direct Fire while spotting the Infantry on the hill. The Egyptian ATGM  deployed on the board edge covering much of the open terrain on either side of the woods. The Egyptian Infantry in the Town is determined to be more useful this time so heads into the woods so as to be disruptive to the Isreali attack. The T55s [or "whatever" Russkie tank] shift left to counter Isrealis, and take out an MBT with help from the ATGM Unit. They rolled well and have punched the Isreali task force in the nose!


Turn 3. Isrealis keep the heat on the hill with indirect fire. They dismount infantry into the woods and send the APCs to the rear as the Recon advance as well. The other Isreali Infantry advances with the Armor. The Egyptians shift their MBTs left again and wipe out the other Infantry platoon still mounted in the APC, with the help of artillery...doesn't look good!


Turn 4. A Fierce attack by Isreali MBT and Infantry destroys Egyptian MBT, relieving some of the direct-fire pressure on them. Egyptian pressure on the Infantry's flank in the woods ramps up. The Egyptian ATGM Unit is dug-in and out of the fight at the moment.


Turn 5. The battle in the woods heats up, and one egyptian Infantry Unit dies to a combination of Mortars and Infantry Fire. The other decides to dash back and hold the objective. The MBTs take some AT and Artillery fire, and need to fall back and rally.


Turn 6. The Isrealis shift positions, looking to rally off Hits while keeping the Egyptians under Fire. This tactic succeeds in driving one Egyptian Infantry off the table and another back into the town [and out of LoS]. The situation is still an Egyptian win, with them having lost two Units but still holding both objectives with one Infantry Unit, supported by the ATGM Unit that poses a serious threat to the main Isreali punch - the MBT Unit. Still, only Turn 6...


Turn 7. The Isrealis continue with this plan, but the Egyptians decide not to let the Isrealis have it all their way and advance one Unit off the hill to threaten the MBT. Artillery is slacking Fire as there are few targets in LoS - guess they can let the barrels cool down some!


Turns 8-10. The Isrealis shift to their left, and rally off a Hit from the MBT but it is still fragile with 5 Hits [dying at 7+]. The Egyptians dig in onenInfantry in a blocking position in the valley between the woods and the Hill Objective while the other advances into the woods...again! I just didn't see any point in in having the Isrealis regroup at will. The ATGMs take some Hits from Artillery despite being Dug-in and Ready [they're within 12" LoS].


Turn 11. The valley advance wasn't such a great idea - with the Infantry getting heavy accurate Fire, the ATGM unit moves to the hill. I probably should have moved them sooner to be more threatening, really. Egyptians advance for a position advantage in the woods.


Turn 13. A shattering Mortar barrage kills the ATGMs so the Isrealis advance upon BOTH objectives! The Town is attacked by the partially rallied MBT while the Infantry move out of the woods. The attrition of the Egyptian force and the mobility of the MBTs has resulted in what will clearly be a disastrous defeat for Egyptian arms!


Turn 14. The MBT secure the town, the Egyptians are in the wrong place, wrong time.


Whew - what a crazy game! I think the Egyptians would have won if I just kept them tight on the objectives. It is hard to decide when to sit tight and hunker down on the win vs. letting your opponent regroup and renew an attack along a different opportunity.

A few conclusions are easy to draw:

1. Taking the ball up the middle into the teeth of a solid defense isn't going to work.
2. Taking time to attack methodically, chipping away at some of the enemy Units before closing in is a good idea, even if you are superior quality.
3. Artillery was hit or miss throughout the game - it could occasionally make a huge impact, and other times it totally whiffed. The sniper ability it has is useful.
4. Armor of any kind needs to stay away from ATGMs until they've taken a PH or two.
5. Generally, it is better to sit tight on the objective - even if I had fully rallied the two damaged Isreali units, they would have struggled to take the town or the hill without destroying the overwatching ATGMs.
6. You have to keep thinking until the bitter end!

Both these games were played satisfactorily with modified versions of the WWII rules. 

The main developments in the brief Yom Kippur war are in the area of Tanks; better AT weapons like the Recoiless Rifle and ATGM, and better Tanks with bigger guns and more armor [altho they have the same speed as the WWII tanks]. To a certain degree these cancel out since they are focused on each other. It really isn't that different from the Germans or Italians using heavy ATGs like the '88' in WWII against British armor - the ATG has a small edge, which widens if it is on the defense, Dug-in. 

So far, I haven't used a lot of heavy AT with the WWII rules, but there has been enough AT to impact the freedom of Armor. The main difference between the ATGM and '88' is that the former has a longer range and is much more durable, effectively disappearing into an Infantry Unit while the '88' has a footprint larger than most tanks with all its equipment.

Overall, the WWII rules are coming along pretty well. I still have a few things I want to fine-tune like moving Fires, Artillery availability, and Close Range / Assaults, and the combat tables need some more thought. Also, the scope of combat from 1940-2020 needs to be envisioned so there is room in the mechanics for advances in gear and doctrine.

Still, happy with the progress!

1973 Micro Armor playtest and Scenario #14 Analysis - a combination post!

"We are coming to Pimp your ride!" [well, torch it would be more accurate...]

By The Central Intelligence Agency - Israeli Tank on Golan Heights, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29194884

After Steve's excellent analysis of Scenario 14 and our stimulating post-game conversation I wanted to consider the tactical challenges for both the Red Defender and Blue Attacker in Scenario 14: Static Defense, specifically in the WWII rules [altho some of these considerations may apply to all the rules]. I strongly suspect that Steve is correct in saying:
     * You need two Mortars to take the town. 
Note that statements in italics are affected by my particular interpretation of the OHW rules in some fashion - this emphasizes how important filling in the blanks of the OHW RAW is.

The twist in Scenario #14 is that the defender will ultimately end up defending one of the objectives with four Units that have freedom of maneuver, and two that are long-range fire support. By forcing the Defender to keep two Units each "within 12" of the Town or Hill, their projected fighting power distance is 24" unless Mortars / Artillery [or ATGs & Tanks in my rules], which does not cover the hill or town and its approaches - it only allows support against an encirclement of the town or hill. Still, that can be enough if - IF! - said Units aren't destroyed due to piecemeal commitment to the fight.

The RAW force list always has 3-4 Infantry Units in it. It also has the potential for 1-2 ATG, Tanks or Mortars, each of which - in such a small force - pushes the commander in the direction he must take to attack or defend the objectives. This is due to the strengths / weaknesses of the Units and the terrain rules:

1. The Town is terrain that favors an Infantry defense. I allow ATGs to defend at the edge, and Tanks to remain in it if on the road, but neither are optimized in a Town.
2. The Hill favors a defense with ATGs and Infantry. Defending Mortars are also best placed here where they contribute by long-range shooting and "holding" the Hill.
3. Defending forces are either between the objectives or in/on them. If between, they can influence the battle at either objective but aren't holding them. If in/on the objectives, they must be destroyed / removed from them, but have little influence on the other objective. If either objective is too relatively strong, the attacker has the choice to attack the weaker objective. A pretty fine balancing point!
4. Infantry are good on either objective. They get a Terrain edge in the Town, and can dig in on the Hill, including on the reverse slope which forces a Close Range attack.
5. ATGs are good anywhere, but get the best defense bonus in the Town, next in the central Woods [which limits their field of fire] and thereafter on the reverse slope of the Hill. Placing them in the open rear area gives them more potential to cover either objective from Long Range, but they also need to be Dug-in facing a certain direction when it is clear which is the Attacker's objective.
6. Tanks are best in the center, rear, open area behind the Woods. There they can re-position themselves to either engage attacking Units at Long Range or maneuver into a decisive encounter.
7. Mortars are decisive in this scenario. The Attacker needs two if an attack on the Town is to be attempted. If the Defender has two, then the Attacking Infantry are vulnerable as they close in on either objective. Their main hope then is to scurry into the central woods and out of Line of Sight as quickly as possible while the Mortars are engaged by Tanks and Mortars, hopefully destroying at least one quickly.
8. Attacking. An optimized force for the Attacker is a Mortar, a Tank, and four Infantry Units. If there's three Infantry and an ATG, this is workable if the Defender has Tanks.  If there's two Mortar Units, the Attacker has an option to attack the Town. If not, he has to attack the Hill. An Infantry attack on the town - required to take it due to OHW terrain rules - can also be stopped in its tracks by Red Mortar fire.

All of this sounds brilliant, but is it correct? We'll see!

RE: the micro armor rules...as posted previously, the incredibly fast pace of contemporary shooting combat, especially between first-line vehicles like MBTs almost dictates a special rule mechanism unto itself. There probably needs to be a combat mechanic that isn't I-Shoot, U-Shoot and has a sort of "split second" interactive feel to it. However, this would also require developing a turn sequence that is just as interactive and responsive, or has portions that are interactive, which requires some thought.

So plans to address modern-contemporary combat have been shelved - for now - as I prepare to host a game that is modern but not contemporary, the 1973 War of Atonement in the Middle East. This is being driven by Steve over at Sound Officer's Call, who has the miniatures and the interest in the period, and has been a guiding light in pushing the rules in that direction. 

The '73 war introduces a few new gadgets - faster and more deadly tanks with bigger guns, and Anti-Tank Guided Missiles. To advance the "feel" relative to WWII, some of the tanks need more speed and the ability to fire on the move. The ATGMs provide a long-range deadly Tank deterrent that must be suppressed, but are vulnerable at Close Range. Two useful links for this period and its weapons have been added to the References tab on the right of the blog page: CNA Analysis of 1973 War and Modern Portable Weapons. Both are EXCELLENT and highly recommended for any student of modern warfare. As for books, two good accounts from the Isreali perspective:


The first should be available in any library, and the second is free on line [click] or [click], or available as a used purchase [click].

Another thing that is clear - even more clear than in WWII - is that modern firepower is unforgiving against any clumsy behavior by Soldiers. Training is absolutely key because the consequences of a tactical error happen faster and are more severe. So the relative quality of the forces and their gear has to be a combat factor that is in almost every combat resolution. For this advance in time from the WWII rules, I made this an additional D6 rolled against a lower quality Target, assigning three Qualities: Veteran, Reliable and Unreliable. While these could certainly vary within a force [e.g. Veteran Infantry and Reliable Tanks, or Veteran Tanks and Unreliable Infantry] I find it easier to just assign it to an entire force for the sake of simplicity.

I also fleshed out the differences between Armored Personnel Carriers [which are mainly transport] and Infantry Fighting Vehicles [which are basically light tanks that carry some infantry], and make it easier to call in a Fire Mission after a previous failure [the assumption being that it is either being ranged in or moved to the top of the request pile a bit each turn].
With this in mind, I came up with the following forces that I hope will both have "period feel" yet test the tactical theory we're putting forward for Scenario 14:

Red Defender - Egyptians
Rated Unreliable: 
1 Mortar [off-table]
1 Medium Artillery
1 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, Russian Doctrine]
1 Infantry w'ATGM Upgrade
3 Infantry

Blue Attacker - Isrealis
Rated Reliable:
1 Mortar [off-table]
2 Main Battle Tank [Heavy Gun, 2nd Gen]
3 Infantry with APCs [vintage halftracks]

Green tape is attacking Isrealis, Blue tape is defending Egyptians [sorry for colors].

Note the details on these excellent models and the great camo job...! Well, I'm working on it and have to play with something. These are what I plan to use as bases, anyway.

And for your convenience, the Scenario Map and my Interpretation of it, below:



Worth noting is that the town is 12" closer to the Attacking force, but it is harder to take.

Turn 1. Isrealis have the Initiative [which never changed once] and use their Mortars for a preliminary bombardment onto the ATGMs occupying the hill. They then advance onto board. In their haste - and due to the Egyptian Infantry being Dug-in deep into the town [so 4" LoS] they used the Road. The rest of the Force performs regular maneuvers. The Egyptian Artillery fires without much effect. Egyptian T-55s shift their attention to the right [barely] and manage a couple Hits onto the Isreali MBTs using the road. 

I'm playing the Egyptians close and hard onto the objectives. The Isreali choice of entering allows either an immediate assault on the town or a slower assault against the hill as possibilities - we'll see what develops.

Turn 2. Isrealis put more Mortar fire onto the hill, but ATGMs rally off 2 Hits!  Egyptian medium battery damages one halftrack-mounted infantry, giving them 3 Hits - one a Permanent Hit [marked by switching to a yellow die]. The Isreali armor slows down to engage the T-55s, putting two Hits on it each and dismounts the Infantry that got pounded by Artillery - they head into the woods. T-55s put two more Hits onto the Isreali MBT.

At this point, I should've moved up and engaged with the Egpytian Infantry, I think. Being pulled back into the town is giving the Isrealis too many options. It's a tough decision - if you are on the edge of the town, you can fight but you're also a target for most of the enemy army. If you pull back from the edge, you get an advantage if you're attacked up close, but you also limit the mutual line of sight to 4" in my rules.

Turn 3. Mortar fire is ineffective. Isreali Tanks move up and smoke Egyptian Tanks. I'd considered pulling them back to rally... Isreali force repositions to either dash forward or turn against the town - could still go for either objective - as two Infantry are still mounted and the third is positioned to lay covering fire against the town. Egyptians reposition one Infantry to the front of the town, hold back the second, and ATGMs rally all Hits off.


Turn 4. Egyptian Medium Artillery pounds another Infantry Unit with some great dice. Isreali Mortars put two Hits on the ATGMs and then the Tanks swing out into the open to dash against the Hill! The damaged Infantry and the only untouched one move out while the Tanks squeak through the gap between the woods and the town. The last Infantry rallies for two Hits. Egyptians respond by repositioning all their Infantry against the Isreali force passing by.


Turn 4 - Action Phase Close Up! The ATGM Unit has two Hits [green die]. The Isreali Tank Unit has none. It Tactical Moves into the open and fires on the ATGMs for three Hits which is a Permanent Hit as well! This puts the ATGM up to 5 Hits [so yellow die]. The ATGM unit was Ready, however, so it Fires immediately after, inflicting two Hits on the Tank. But I probably should've put them on the damaged Infantry Unit, really...


Turn 5. Egyptian Artillery fire against the damaged infantry has little effect. It then rallied off a Hit [stupid, should've moved away from the town]. The Isreali force moves up and the Tanks eliminate the ATGM Unit as they do. The two Egyptian Infantry in the town Fire and inflict another Hit each, and the one on the Hill fires off its Ready marker but misses.

I think the noose is tightening on the hill unless the artillery can manage something impressive, like eliminating a Tank unit...

Turn 6. Egyptians open the turn by dumping all their Artillery on the weakened Infantry Unit. They miss with the Mortars but roll well for the mediums, getting three Hits and eliminating the Unit. Isreali Mortars fail to deliver any fire due to communication confusion.


Turn 6. Isrealis dismount the Infantry and send the 'tracks to the rear. The Tanks close in and pound the Infantry for 5 Hits! Egyptian Infantry Fire has no effect, while the other Egyptian Infantry bravely advance out of the town to pressure the Isrealis Infantry holding the flank in the Woods.


Turn 7. Isreali Mortars dial in and get two Hits, wiping out the Egyptians holding the hill. Game over! Just for fun I did exchange fire down at the woods - Egyptians hammered away for 4 Hits, while taking 2 Back. They will be able to say, "We did OUR part!" anyway.


Well, that was an invigorating dust-up! Overall, the dice rolling was about the same for both sides - mostly average, but occasionally above or below. 

The tactical decision to creep up close to the town with the entire Isreali force certainly paid off. The fact that the entire force was mobile, armored [until dismounting], and the tanks could fire on a Tactical Move kept them advancing in the face of Artillery. Still, the Egyptian Medium Guns dealt some Hurt on two Isreali Infantry despite the halftrack armor.

One thing seems clear, which is that a Force of lower Quality needs to have a bonus on-table Unit. While I gave the Egyptians a bonus Artillery Unit, I don't think it made up for the upgrades to the Isreali Infantry - all were in APCs - and the Quality difference. I'd say the Egyptians need another Infantry, ATGM or Tank Unit, as on-board means occupying space. The only change for the attacking Isrealis would be to make one Infantry a Recon Unit.

Aside from these issues, a two-Tank force attacker with one Mortar is almost certainly going to have to go after the Hill. I may have been able to get away with a direct assault on it, and that is worth trying out. If I had one Tank and two Mortars / Artillery, then the Town attack would be possible, I think. It is worth trying out later with different forces.

TMP: Scam or just Spam?

Gentle Readers, 
Please promote the posts you like here to other wargaming and military forums. 
The posts are done - and humbly shared - to promote healthy gaming and save others the time and energy of re-inventing wheels that are posted here. Sharing Lessons Learned is a time-honored part of military professionalism, including among Little Lead Men, so THANKS!

So, why don't we just do this ourselves?
Well, we do, whenever we can. However, some of the sites are, well, a bit troubling to work with. Latest example...

TMP, aka "The Miniatures Page".
EDIT 06-14-19
Hmmm, the plot thickens. Here's a few more thoughts, but perhaps someone with more tech knowledge can flesh them out?

When you are investigating a crime, the golden rule is to see who benefits. After that, follow the money. And who else is getting the benefit besides Bill “Something’s Fishy” Armintrout , and for what other reason than Money?

Let's check out some facts: 

There's a member ID, Tango01, who is supposed to be a guy in Argentina named Dr. Raùl Alberto de la Cruz. He posts on average 41 times a day, mostly spamarific, flame-war inciting nonsense, but some company release news and a very rare article with some merit.

* This is 50% OF THE TOTAL POSTS ON A DAILY BASIS! From his profile:

First Visit:

16 June 2010

Membership Started

16 June 2010

Membership Length

3,284 days

Most Recent Visit:

12 June 2019

Verified:

Yes

Good Trader Score:

55

# of Forum Posts:

135,212

However, my theory is that he doesn't exist at all, and that he is in fact - Bill Armintrout.

Think about it...

1. What kind of a Doctor has the time to post 41 times a day on a miniatures page?
2. Who in Argentina even plays miniature games??
3. This guy has no Facebook or other page, in fact he has zero presence on the internet at all by his - lengthy and detailed - name, and one would expect a Doctor [whether medical or academic] to have an internet presence either in professional news or with published articles or even just a speaker at a conference. But "Dr. Cruz" has none.

This identity must be a ruse by Bill to drive up post count, and create false value in the advertising scheme. Sure there's a small possibility that "Doctor" de la Cruz exists, is an avid wargamer, and a compulsive forum poster. But is that really very likely?? If that is true, then AT A MINIMUM he's colluding with the Troutmeister to drive up posts and clicks.

Arm-in-trout...this guy’s as fishy as his name. 
And I'm not even going into his odd fascination with Philippino transexual men.

What should be done? Start with NO CLICKING on his banners - NONE at all!

This will put the pressure where the pressure belongs, on his pocketbook. Look, I'm not saying don't visit his advertisers - they are generally great people who provide us with great stuff to wargame with. I'm just saying...open a different window and then go to the site!

[below...previous post]

Due to the activities of Bill Armintrout, who owns and runs TMP for profit, our primary promoter to that site - Queen Catherine - has been booted from the site. why-Why-WHY?? you ask! QC is such a respectful poster!! Because QC had the temerity to raise the question that the rabble-rousing flame-war-inciting posts of Bill himself - and others - are done just to increase post count [and therefore advertising revenues] of TMP. They serve no purpose related to miniature gaming.

"Really?", you ask, "That is a pretty serious accusation!" Well, follow our logic in a latest example...and to be fair we will only use the standards of TMP / Bill himself: 

1) Such posts violate the publicly stated purpose of the forums! 
Cut'n pasted right off the World War Two - Land Message Boards. It says the forum is...
WWII Discussion - For discussion of anything related to WWII miniature wargaming.

we ask you, dear reader, does this following post fulfill the above purpose of being "anything related to WWII miniature wargaming"??? 
"Nazis - Right or Left?" Topic [click] 
The answer of course is that it does NOT.

2) Such posts drive the response count up and increase ad revenue.
So why does the editor himself create such posts??  Well, it ran to three pages and 141 responses. So despite the fact it is nothing related to WWII miniature gaming, provokes flame wars and is indeed harmful to the peace of mind of TMP-ers, it is done and will continue despite the occasional protests of QC and other posters.

3) What's the moral issue here? Fanning the flames of anger and hate!
- Well, there is a deception that such postings have any bearing on miniature wargaming that needs to be exposed. 
- Also, the reality is that such posts have no actual answer - they are just opinion. There isn't a standard for them to meet. Thus, it just cycles until it gets out of control.
- Finally, this is all part of the "making the people anxious" ploy that pervades popular culture, especially in the area of MEDIA and SALES.

4) What is the right thing to do about it?
The single most important thing for all TMP-ers to do is REFUSE TO POST REPLIES in such obvious descents into trolling, especially when Bill himself is behind it. If the community refuses to participate, the post count will lower, and money will talk - it's a language Bill Armintrout will understand.

5) That's not enough for me - I want to do more to send a clear message!
Hmmm, well, one thing would be a posting boycott or "fasting". Don't post at all, or even visit the site for a specific amount of time. Then "money will talk, and Bill A. will walk" so to speak. This would be most effective if every time such a flame-war-inducing message is posted you send Bill an email saying something like:
"Bill, disappointed that another flame war is being started, 7-day Fast for me."
Don't post into the threat as it will just get the count up. I welcome other ideas, but this is the best I could come up with. 

Without a clear alternative, it is hard not to use TMP for wargaming purposes. I'd literally pay $5 / month for a site that was better and more respectfully managed [and let's not even start about the controversy surrounding his choice of editors], but such tech work is beyond me. Looking for a self-starter and a Kickstarter on this...anyone got suggestions?

Micro Armor Work Part 3: GHQ Infantry

I got the GHQ infantry because TMP-ers said that they were the best - and they are very nice sculpts, crisp and made with pretty hard metal. The packs under consideration are TW-12 and TW-13, so-called "3rd World Regulars":

TW-12 Individual Third World Regulars

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/tw12.html

GHQ states there are 60+ in a pack, mine had 77.

60+ armed locals per pack: 
2 x standing pointing officer / NCO w/ slung rifle and binoculars [got 3]
2 x kneeling officer / NCO / FOO w/ G3 and talking on radio handset  [got 3]
3 x prone officer / NCO / FOO looking through binoculars [got 4]
16 x advancing EM w/ G3 rifle at the hip [got 20]
9 x kneeling firing EM w/ G3 rifle [got 20]
12 x advancing EM w/ G3 at ready and LAW rocket slung on shoulder [got 15]
9 x advancing EM w/ G3 at ready and PRG slung on shoulder [got 12]

And mine look like this:
Top are the Officer officer poses, standing kneeling and prone. 
Next down are the PRG [left] and LAW [right] poses.


Below are the kneeling and advancing poses.



TW-13 Individual Third World Regulars Heavy Infantry

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/tw13.html

GHQ says there are 50 per pack, mine have 87 figs on 63 bases.

50+ per pack: 
2 x standing pointing officer / NCO w/ slung rifle and binoculars [got 3]
2 x kneeling officer / NCO / FOO w/ G3 and talking on radio handset [got 3]
3 x prone officer / NCO / FOO looking through binoculars [got 4]
10 x L19 81mm mortar w/ 2 man team [got 12]
9 x tripod-mounted PKM MMGs w/ 2 man teams [got 12]
12 x prone MG3 (LMG) gunners [got 14]
4 x prone snipers [got 4]
4 x prone MilanATGM gunners [got 6]
4 x seated Mistral AA missle gunners [got 4]

And mine look like this:
Top are the Mortars, below Sniper, Prone Milan/ATGM, seated Mistral AA.


Below, tripod PKM MMG, prone MG3, same sprue of "officers" / leaders as above.


Prep and cleaning requires:

• Filing the mold line that cuts thru the helmet,
• Numerous tiny flash bits are on them, all need to be trimmed off with a blade.
• They have a base and are attached to the sprue by it, so one cut needed there. 

Leaving them on the sprues until I have finished spray-painting them - they are easier to handle. That being said, several of the MG3 figs have already fallen off and I suspect filing the helmets will make more do the same.

EDIT 02-02-18: cleaning and prep took longer than I hoped, about 2 hours. The main difficulty was seeing and removing the tiny bits of flash that are hanging off the boots and sometimes the helmets. They are quite strong despite their thin size, and have a tendency to bend rather than break or cut, then they hide against the figure at another angle! I assume that as the cleaning and priming process continues, they'll be more visible and I'll trim them. TOOLS NEEDED: a sharp pointed X-Acto blade, some magnifiying glasses, jewelers files. Still, this is 164 figures, so a couple hours isn't that bad!
EDIT 02-02-18  the tiny bits of flash that are hanging off the boots and helmets were most easily trimmed with a pair of small, sharp scissors.If a nub is left behind, trim that with an X-Acto blade.

I have to say, they almost look like 15mm figs - in fact, they're nicer than some! Looking forward to painting them, which is a pleasant surprise.

"Oil Cheaper than Water": OHW Scenario 14 AAR

So, throwing together a title for a wargame covering the innumerable and unending wars in the middle east, I made a few off-the-cuff changes and took my hard copies of "Oil Cheaper Than Water" to Ken's house for a playtest. We put together some terrain and forces from what he had on hand out of his micro armor collection to do a scenario from the 1973 Yom Kippur War. With no idea how it would play but that I would rate the Arab forces as inferior to the Isreali, I made the forces:
Arabs - 4 Tanks [T55], 3 Lt. Tank [APCs], 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery [available 4+ each turn]
Isreali - 2 Tanks [Centurion], 2 Lt. Tank [APCs, Halftracks] + 2 Mech Infantry, 2 Infantry, 2 Artillery [available on 4+ each turn].
So with an 11-10 advantage, the Arab forces attacked the defenses at...?

I stupidly forgot my copy of OHW so did Scenario 14: Static Defense that we had just fought a few times so it was fresh in my memory. Some of the game tweaks were to switch the scale to 1"=100m, which reduced the Close Range to 2", and Infantry weapons to 6", while the tanks had a Range to 18" and a Long Range to 36". As Quality is very important in the modern era, along with gear, I gave a Unit shooting at an inferior Quality Target an additional die. 

Finally, I introduced a new Terrain type, "Flat" which is basically featureless terrain leaving little or nothing to hide in, and gave a bonus to the Firing Unit. The assumptive "norm" in this game is that troops are trained to disperse and hide and use terrain as best as possible, and that most battlefields have some terrain in it which would be the attacker's avenue of assault. Therefore "open table terrain" is assumed to have enough features for normal tactical usage, while "Flat" just doesn't have it.

I knew very little about this war, so went with whatever Ken remembered off the top of his head regarding gear, so we did wing it a bit.

The table - of which I forgot to take a pic, was the standard #14 except I introduced a couple of "Flat" areas, the largest of which was in front of the hill objective, and is pictured below as the brown felt to the right - units in it are fired at with a bonus Target dice.

The first several turns unfolded much like any other Scenario #14 I've played. I chose to avoid the town as I only had one Artillery Unit. I used the APCs to drop the infantry off at the central wooded area, thru which they subsequently advanced. All the armor and APCs went to the left around the wood to attack the hill. The Isreali defense shifted a few times as Ken tried to keep Units alive that had been shot up. 

Around turn 5, the big rush across the Flat Terrain Area occurred and it was full of Arab armor. Artillery availability didn't favor the defenders and altho a few of the Arab units took some serious 3-4 Hits including Permanent Hits, nearly all the force made it in for the attack on the hill, which at the time was held by one highly motivated platoon of Isreali Infantry. 

Below, Turn 7 has the Dug-in Isrealis at center, with a severely damaged T55 unit above it, two below it, while additional Infantry and APCs move in from the right - the Siege Begins!


End of 7. Besieged Isreali Infantry on hilltop, Chieftans with loaded APCs [halftracks carrying infantry] behind at top center. Chieftans being overrun at center [green dice '2'] with Arab APCs to left, T55s below right, and more Isreali halftracks to their top right towards the little hill. Arab Infantry line the groves of date and palm trees to the right [green dice '1'] and are advancing thru the "Flat" terrain at lower center. Cool explosion marker at center right!


Turn 8 below. Arabs continue assault in the hill, but progress is slowed since Isrealis are Dug-in and only two Hits have been inflicted [it would really help if the Artillery would be available...]. The two Arab Infantry lining the groves to right are being attacked on their right flank by two Isreali Infantry from the town. Overall, bottom half Arab, top Isreali, hill objective threatened but not secured by a long shot.


Turn 10 below. Arab Infantry have shifted from groves to assault the hill. Isreali APCs behind Chieftans at top shifted left to reinforce the hill, dismounting the Infantry [who should have had a Permanent Hit like the APCs - I forgot]. Arab APCs and T55s at center / right got beat up from Artillery and Chieftan shooting, but the center Chieftans are destroyed. The noose gets tighter on the hill as Arab armor shifts left and around.


Turn 12, below. One Isreali Infantry has been wiped out, as Arabs pour onto the hill. The reinforcements have Dug-in, but are taking hits from three sides. Their supporting APCs are almost destroyed, altho more APCs are coming [center]. The T55s to right survived but the Arab APCs in the center are gone. The top center Chieftans moved off-camera to behind the small hill where they are trying to rally...and failing. 

Interestingly, there are six Isreali Units on the field, and six Arab [however, the Isreali's can't use two that are guarding the town]. The attrition is almost the same, showing how well the scenario rules work.

Turn 13. The Arabs concentrated firepower and managed to overrun the last of the Infantry on the hill, as well as knocking out their APCs. The dancing can't begin, however as some APCs are arriving to contest the hill, and Chieftans are lurking behind the small hill at top right, having finally succeeded in rallying off a few Hits [was 6, now 4 I think]. Just to the right, some Isreali Infantry are straining at the end of their leash from the town, threatening the T55s nearly. Overall, it is very close and anything can happen!


Turn 15. The Chieftans emerge to claim some Arabs along with the Artillery. The Arab Infantry fire is not enough to purge the holy soil of Infidel, and altho the Isreali APCs have 6 Hits, they are still contesting the hill amidst the confusion of battle. I should have moved the bottom left Arab Infantry to the right to attack the Isreali APCs that were obviously going to get onto the hill - they didn't contribute to the fight at all the last couple of turns, and have no Hits - cowards! The rest of the Arab force is toast...burning T-55s everywhere!


Whew! Another close game. We both made some tactical errors, and both made some rules errors [but not many] and had to feel our way with the vehicle weaponry. Still, a good first time out for these rules.

Ken's major points of feedback were:
- the 3-base Units are fiddly. That's a bit true, and the minis could certainly be put on larger bases [say 4x2"] or just tape three together at the bottom. I'm basically using 3-base units b/c that's what my FoW WWII stuff is based for, and I won't be re-basing them! Also, there may be some value in the shape of units with multiple bases, I haven't plumbed those depths yet, that may be an advanced rule type of thing.
- Related to above, it makes LoS complext at short Ranges as there's no requirement to choose which base edges are providing the LoS for the shot. This would definitely be easier if the Units were on one base.
- he found the use of two mechanics for combat hard to remember. Some things give or take away a die, and other things raise / lower the Target Number. There's a limit to what can be done with using one 6-sided die for combat, and I like the subtleties of the Permanent Hit system and its dependence on at least 3 Fire Dice. No solution for this at present, as I think switching to 2d6 and a modifier table won't be much easier.
- ATGMs [not used today] need a minimum range [which I changed and made them same as Mortars].

My major points:
- Units may need a classification for their weapon type and Target type - I tried a "hard / soft" classification in the past, may need to revisit that.
- Suicide Units. Badly damaged Units can exploit the Priority rules by moving into Close Range and forcing a defender to shoot at them. This may not be realistic, depending on the forces. For the Middle East, it may be OK ['cause those folks is crazy!]. A simple fix would be to say that Units with 4+ Hits cannot enter Close Range. Also the Initiative test should penalize for destroyed Units, which would make suicide charges even more dubious.
- I'm still not satisfied with the front/Rear definition as it doesn't work well when opposing Units are very close together sometimes. I will switch it to being the front 180 off the middle base and see if that helps resolve the problem.
- I will also introduce an "Air" category so that helicopters and planes can be introduced easily - all part of the fun!

Overall, these worked fine, with the main problems being unfamiliarity with the historical period and the gear involved, as well as a couple of little rough spots that need to be considered and smoothed over.