Avanti Savoia! My Italians in all their Glory...

So, some might ask... "Dude, why Italians??"  

Yeah, they have a bad rep on the street, or erhm, perhaps "in the sand"?  Between race/ethnic bias, WWII propaganda, the political collapse of the nation in '43, and mixed performance as a nation despite solid - and consistent - performance from certain units, the Italians are mocked quite a bit.

Good example... long after I chose to play Italians as my first Flames of War army, I did a tournament at a big venue not too far away.  There were 20-30 players there.  I played three rounds, once against an experienced US Army player, once against a newbie Soviet, and once against a pretty experienced soviet player who was fielding an infantry company backed up by KV1's.  What interested me about the KV1 player was that he basically felt entitled to win since he was playing against Italians - he cheerfully informed me of this at the start of the game.  You'd think that since my stuff was well painted, he'd at least give me _some_ respect, eh?  But no, filled with Allied propaganda, he dismissed any chance I had at winning.

Well, things didn't turn out that way.  At one point I dropped about 48 MG dice on his infantry in a town, and the law of averages coming into play I tore up a Sov infantry platoon [company] while his other infantry platoons [company] wandered into the sights of a zillion other dice, albeit with is KV1 help.  My rickety light tanks zipped around the mangled Soviets holding the town to take the objective, while my Bersaglieri light infantry kept his KV1 busy.long enough for them to contest that objective.  Meanwhile, my armor drove about 15 feet for the win.

So why play Italians?  Well, it's a points game, and given equal points and competent playing, any force should win, right?  Plus I'm half Italian, and I enjoy the odd mix of lame light armor and dodgy infantry, altho the elite forces play just fine, of course.  The best being the Paracadutisti, but paras aren't my thing, so I've fielded armor with light infantry, mostly.  I dunno, aside from the fun of painting them up and researching them, it is fun to be the underdog.  After all, if you lose with Italians...isn't that what people expect?  And if you win, you get some quiet laughs!

Anyway, here's some pics of my Italians, may have to do a few posts:

 Company Staff: Captain on left in peaked cap, hero [with medal on base, surrounded by dead and dying], 2iC then a spotter.  Behind are a Fiat staff car and a "borrowed" German light truck, the Horch Kfz 15 [resin with cast base].  The Hero and vehicles are Battlefront while the rest of the figures are Old Glory Command Decision:

Old Glory Command Decision

 Blurry Hero in the front, with the Capitano in the back.

2iC and spotter with Horch in the back.

First platoon I painted.  The figures are all OGCD and are painted up as the Motorized Infantry Division "Trieste", with national badges on the sun helmets and green collar badges.  I chose this unit b/c they were both well equipped and well trained, considered the equal of the Bersaglieri light infantry.  I felt this gave me the flexibility to field them as either a Fucilieri company or Bersaglieri company.  Then again, I probably over think these things! 

Closeup of two squads.  The sangars are made of kitty litter.  The sand is real playbox sand.

You can just see the badge on the sun helmets, and some are wearing black garrison caps. I used the Osprey Italian books to paint the figs, found them easy to work with and reasonably accurate.  The British ones are a bit of a nightmare, but these were all fine.

Other two squads.  The extra base is in there by mistake - it's from the next platoon down. Have to correct this disorganization later!

I found these figs a pleasure to paint and work with, and the end results superior to the Battlefront ones.  There are new ones from Eureka of Australia, but they're pricey so I'd probably just use them to fill in the occasional gaps.  You can buy them in small batches.  My other favorite is the Peter Pig range.  The figs are very solid and have a number of good poses, as well as being clean sculpts.  Highly recommended.

But if you want a large amount of cheap and decent figs, you really can't beat the Old Glory Command Decision line with the Old Glory Army discount [40% off].  It puts a bag at 19 cents a figure, making up for any figures you don't like.  Of course, with buy bags of 50, you end up with lots of extra LMGs for example, but I've found they make great vehicle crews with AA LMG.

Anyway, some more pics:

Second platoon I painted - these guys are from a Blackshirt Battalion, or CCNN.  They were full of enthusiasm but not with a lot of weapons and training!  So no LMGs for these dudes.

Closeup of the platoon commander and the short squad.  

The last couple of squads close up.  Note that some of the figures are wearing scarves to protect themselves from the gritty sand.  Apparently this was a must-have item in the desert. What did they look like?  I don't know, but as many were local copying turban patterns would be a good start, any with color.  As it is 15mm, it should be a bright pattern or it won't be noticed at all.  And if it won't be noticed at all, why bother to paint it?

Neil Thomas: "One - Hour Wargames" WWII Rules - Review and thoughts

Well, perhaps I have something of a "Neil Thomas Problem" [which is definitely a "first world problem"! :)] but his books and rules have had a big _positive_ impact on my approach to gaming, the rules I want to use and what is "historical" in a game.  Hopefully, NT is satisfied with being a thought-provoking window into the past of game design, which is a good place to be.  I'm still revisiting my gaming past, present and future with WWII.  I found my old Squad Leader boardgame rules, scenarios and boards.  Lest I be overwhelmed with nostalgia, I've boxed them and have them handy for a rainy day.  If I start reading "the Guards Counterattack" I don't know if I'll be able to stop!  Lord help me.

I read the NT rules for 1HW:WWII a while back soon after getting the book.  I have to admit I thought they were woefully inadequate at first - they're so minimal as to be sparse.  But lately I've been reading Fistful of Tows 3, asking lots of questions of other players, and rethinking some of my biases.  The main questions for me now are:

• What scale are the NT1HW:WWII rules on the ground? and closely related,
• What do the Units effectively represent - squads, platoons, companies?

A fast-play set can be both streamlined and realistic as long as it doesn't go into all possibilities, permutations, variations and situations - that's where lots of the rules and special rules come from with so many rulesets.  And these add substantially to the amount of rules a player needs to understand if they want to play at all, much less be competitive on the table.  

However, if we say we're gaming the battles and situations that typify the combat of the time, location and belligerents in our chosen period, then we can both simplify and streamline the rules without a loss of historicity.  It's just that instead of recreating the small percent of oddities that real life brought the way of the combatants, we're leaving them up to the dice.  This is actually more realistic since the unforeseen circumstance is usually left to the decision makers below the level of command that the player is supposed to represent. 

With all this in mind, I've tried to approach the rules seeking some understanding before criticizing and changing them. 

The rules like all the rules in the book are only three pages, and hey, there's a half page at the end - so only 2.5 pages!!  Wow.  WOW!  NT differentiates btw four types of Units in these as in all the 1HW rules, here they are: Infantry, Anti-tank Guns, Tanks and Mortars. The rules require Observation / Line of Sight and have a combat matrix that cross-references the four types effectiveness against each other.  As in the other rules, NT only awards substantial advantages of +2 or -2 on a d6, or 33%.  The accepted norms of the types are followed, with for example tanks and ATGs being +2 v. Tanks while Infantry and Mortars are -2 against tanks, Mortars are +2 v. Infantry, and of course the majority are '0' as they ought.  

Regarding these modifiers and relationships, I've concluded that Infantry are all blooded regulars, ATGs are medium guns of the 57mm/6pdr size, all tanks are medium [MkIV, Shermans, T34] and the mortars are 82mm or perhaps even 75iG or other light field pieces in the 65-82mm range.  As there is no differentiation between direct/indirect fire from Mortars, it is safe to say that the "mortar" in game terms is either a medium caliber indirect-fire fieldpiece or has no ammunition that is effective against tanks. I think all of us could quibble with the fine-tuning of the above modifiers, but as written they are arguably correct per the representations I've figured.

EDIT: The Unit scale is given on pps 58-59 as about 40 infantry with LAW [bazookas, small ATG], about three mortars and crew [81mm mortars, 75mm light field pieces], about three ATG with crew and towing vehicles, about three tanks.  

The ground scale is not stated.  Infantry, ATGs and Tanks are all 12" max range with mortars shooting 48".  I looked up the ranges for 82mm mortars in WWII [the typical battalion mortar] and found it's around 2400 meters. So with game range being 48", that leaves us at precisely 600m to 12", which is short for ATG and Tank guns IMHO.  I'd say that 1200m is the effective range, so 24" for long range, but there's no LR in the game.  So I feel that there's a discrepancy between the relative ranges within the game itself.  While I understand he strives for simplicity, I think NT could have added a rule that guns can fire out to 24" with a -2 to the dice or something.  Aside from the clash of scale / range, the rules seem to make plenty of sense upon closer examination.  

EDIT: Bases are 4-6" for infantry, 2-3" [or none] for guns, and a single un-based tank model. This seems like it should be streamlined a bit, altho it does give 200-300m frontage for an infantry platoon, 100-150m for three guns and with a 1/72 tank about 100m for three tanks. No depth is specified.

There's no close attack / assault range or mechanics.  That seems a lapse on NT since he has the mechanic in most other sets of the 1HW book.  And it is quite accepted that infantry routinely assaulted positions at the 25m range or less using pistol, SMG, grenades, etc and tanks closed with guns and MGs, crushing foxholes by grinding them under their treads.  Can't prove it perhaps, but certainly common enough!  So with 600m/12", then it would be 1/2" or base contact for assault, same as his other rules.

Therefore, all Units in the game fight with shooting and there's no advantage for being closer.  I find that a bit startling.  There's a "hail Mary" distance, an effective aimed distance, and a "so close can't miss" distance to any ranged weapon.  At the least NT should allow Hand-to-Hand attacks by Infantry and Tanks and make them deadly for both sides, perhaps a +2 on the d6.  That should handle it according to his own game mechanics.  

So thus far, what would I change [without even playing them...I'm a bad person - perhaps I will try them RAW just to sooth my conscience]? I'd give an additional +2 to all attacks at base contact, and a -2 at all long ranges.  Or perhaps +1/-1, would have to try it out.

For movement, ATGs move faster than infantry which I challenge on the basis that the game is only covering the combat environment, and I doubt there's any transport within these limits - they'd be in the rear with the gear.  I'd say they are immobile, or at best being "prolonged" by mounting, moving and dismounting at a rate which is less than the 6" of infantry, not 8".  Also, only infantry may enter woods or remain in towns, and I think ATGs should be able to start the game placed in both or move into the edge of both.  Guns generally dug in whenever there was time especially when they'd no gunshield, like mortars.

In shooting, infantry halve Hits if they are within a woods or town, and tanks get halved Hits if they are on a hilltop [hull down].  Neither ATG nor mortars have any terrain advantages.  Again, seems to me that especially mortars should as they're indirect fire weapons, small and easy to conceal in a deep foxhole.

Casualties are as usual 15 Hits on a Unit before it is destroyed.  There's no decrease in effectiveness along the way, and therefore no pinning or suppression effects.  This contributes to the scale feel that a Unit is a platoon of 30-40 infantry and about 3-5 tanks.

While these rules are not as limited as I thought they were initially, with just a little more effort I believe they could be a better representation of WWII combat.  It was a complex and interesting time period, and there's more _basic_ elements available than NT has chosen to show.  I will give these a go sometime soon, but mainly to plumb their limitations before I change them as a design exercise.  So thus far my changes would be:

1. ATGs and Mortars move < Infantry, can enter edge of terrain if not move thru.
2. Long range for Infantry, ATGs, Tanks = 24" with a -2 Hit modifier.
3. Infantry and Tanks in base contact with any other Unit, +2 Hit bonus and / or negate terrain bonus of defender [which is why you assault, anyway].
4. I think there should be some declining effectiveness with Hits taken, and
5. ...an opportunity to rally them off somehow.
6. Smoke!  A useful and fairly basic tactic, also simulating the dust and debris clouds of a barrage.  There are Barrage rules in the WWI 1HW rules...

I will say that I'm 100% in favor of fast-play streamlined rules that put the player in a specific role and limit them to that role.  NT has done a lot to help me rethink such things.   But these rules I think could've used an extra 1.5 pages and clocked in at a full 4 pages with little encumbrance but some critical mechanics and details that would be 100% more authentic. 

There is such a thing as TOO simple, in my Humble Opinion.

Clearly a playtest and batrep is in order!

Expanded Direction and Focus

There's a limit to the number of blogs I can tend to, and I hate to see them being neglected.  Also, there's crossover interest on my part that may also be crossover interest for readers of this blog.  So this blog's focus will be expanded to my interest in the rules Chain Reaction 3.0 [free download from Two Hour Wargames] and Force on Force / Tomorrow's War.  

The periods that interest me for both of these skirmish & squad level games is the Mexican Civil War and Pershing's Intervention, Modern Afghanistan, and near-future / Star Wars sci-fi gaming.  While I was tempted by 25mm WWII, I just felt that expansion into an additional scale was not wise at this time when I'm attempting to scale back on gaming [pun intended!].

So there will be a lot more variety on this blog, altho I'll continue to post pics and kick around ideas and resources for N. Africa in WWII, which is a favorite period of mine.  This will also result in more posts that will hopefully be of interest to readers.

Paper Bags and Cardboard Boxes

The title of this post probably requires some explanation.

The British tanks were part of a somewhat unique design journey in the 30s.  The Brits had a light cavalry role in mind for their tanks so armor was sacrificed for speed and maneuverability.  Unfortunately, like so many peacetime military projects, thorough development wasn't conducted and many serious problems weren't worked out in time for the war, such as bad transmissions and a track system that allowed the vehicle to get around as well as a horse.  The tanks were also designed to fire on the move with an unusual floating arrangement for the 2pdr gun  which is reflected in the Tally-Ho! special rule.

For 1939 they weren't great but they were not that bad.  I find them extremely dangerous to Italians in EW, perhaps not to the French.  Of course, they were laughable next to the T34, but then again everyone's tanks were except maybe the French, so nothing unusual there.  I think the best opinion on them is from Robert Crisp [Brazen Chariots author]:

     "...we had been equipped with ancient A10s and A13s, and even some A9s dragged out of various war museums and exhibitions.  They were ponderous square things, like mobile prefab houses and just about as flimsy.  By far their worst failing was their complete inability to move more than a mile or two in any sort of heavy going without breaking a track, or shedding one on a sharp turn.

     Of the 60 odd tanks 3R.T.R had taken to Greece at the beginning of the year, not a half a dozen were casualties of direct enemy action.  All the others had been abandoned with broken tracks or other mechanical breakdowns.  They littered the passes and defiles of Macedonia and Thessaly, stripped of their machine guns, but otherwise intact.  They were of no help to the enemy; no other army would have contemplated using them.  I like to think of them, even now, furnishing some sort of chilly, overcrowded dwelling place for a family of homeless Greek peasants.

     Whoever was responsible for the design of British tanks in between the wars ought to have a considerable weight on his conscience."  p.5-6.

Amusingly well put!  In Flames of War the A9 has FA1 and only the later models upgrade to bullet-proof FA2, but the A10 becomes Slow in consequence and it isn't until the A13 that a Fast FA2 tank is in British possession.  Unfortunately, their special rules make even the A9 a bit pricey and the A10s and A13s get into German cost levels, while the Crusader is nearly as expensive as the MkIII [a much better tank in FoW IMHO].  

The officially designated light tank was the MkVI B & C.  It was basically a Bren Carrier with a closed top and turret.  In Flames of War, however, it is nearly as good as the main battle tanks, but cheaper and with guns almost as useful as they've high RoF and FP5+ which makes them handy against infantry and guns.

In any event, they are a lot of fun to play and use - damn the history and the rules!  Their weak armor resulted in them getting the nickname "Paper Bags & Cardboard Boxes" at the FLGS [this may be Gary A's funniest comment of all time].  The paper bags of course are the light tanks, while the cardboard boxes are the 'heavier' cruiser tank series.  If nothing else, the cruisers have a heavier light gun to bolster their "heavier" claim.

Pictured below in all their glory are my Cardboard Boxes.  9 A13s in the back, A10s front left and A9s front right.  They are all Old Glory Command Decision miniatures from when BF had theirs OOP about 8 years ago.  They are nice models, the only irritant being that the A9s and 10s have fixed hatch covers for the turret. so no open hatches with commander without some custom work.  One A9 has the first attempt at Caunter:  

Closeup of the A9s:

And of the A10s, two converted to Close Support [CS] tanks.  Since the rest have "No HE" I consider them essential in every force with their 3" howitzers and FP3+, plus the template they can drop, or else the company has nothing but MGs to fight infantry and guns:

and the A13s:

As for the MkVI light tanks, these were bought from Peter Pig when BF had them out of print, and they are lovely little all-metal models.  They had nearly no flash and were cast from strong clean metal.  I got them cleaned and primed and now they're awaiting their Caunter scheme.  However, they also have fixed hatch covers and I haven't the energy to cut some off at the moment.  The B is in the front with the larger gun.  There were very few Bs in the desert, they were used as 2iC tanks in infantry tank companies I believe, the vast majority were Cs:

and more MkVI C.  The pic's a little dark, but it shows the excellent crisp details:

There you have it - Early War British Armor in all its glory.  All the tanks played an important part in the victory over the Italians in Operation Compass.  By Operation Crusader, the MkVI were nearly gone and relegated to scout roles.  The remaining A's were all destroyed with the 8th Hussars at Sidi Rezegh, where the Panzers pretty much went right through them at one desperate point in that lengthy battle.  I doubt their loss was regretted by the few crewmen who survived...

MAIN EVENT! "Flames of War" v. "A Fistful of Tows 3" which will survive??

Well, Gunny Highway, the fellow who provided the first comment of the page [special prize in order?] gave me some impetus for thought.  While I do like FoW and it's the #1 game at the FLGS, I wouldn't mind trying something that is a bit simpler and that also encourages historical tactics more consistently.  Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting the system when I try to play like the real guys fought.  Some investigation here and there led me to check into other rules.  

One group I know plays "Fireball Forward" occasionally, I plan to make the next one if possible.  A buddy of mine - the venerable Bede in the blog list - has "Blitzkrieg Commander" [aka Warmaster WWII] and FFT3 above.  He suggested I help him with a battle for the latter first as he wants to blog it.  I went to the site and checked it out:  http://fft3.com/  

There are plenty of useful things including a playthru, QRS and a steamlined WWII set of rules with examples.  While it bills itself as a mechanized warfare game, the infantry rules also look interesting and not just meant to leave them there on the sidelines while the mechanized knights decide the battle [or run them over].  

So I'm going to give them a shot with my buddy's modern stuff, and if I like it enough I'll borrow it and then do a play-thru comparison against FoW using the exact same forces and the same battle - desert forces "Up the Blue!" of course.  We'll see how it plays out.  I like that it has Overwatch fire and off-board artillery, and a few other touches, in the streamlined WWII rules.  Tally-Ho!

It's Crud-a-licious!

The Crusader Armoured Squadron in all its glory.  OK, they can't spell 'armoured' but then again, they can't get their tanks to go a day's march without breaking down, either.  All part of the fun!  Pictured is the HQ front left [differentiated by two crew figures] with the Crusader CS 'close support' tanks next to them.  Note that nearly all tanks are Old Glory Command Decision tanks, with the CS tanks and the spare tank next to them being BF.  The BF are noticeable for the spare fuel tank that is cast directly onto the rear.  The OG one is separate and glued on [correct and better looking, but sometimes fragile].  Also worthy of note is that the third tank in each platoon is a 6pdr Crud III from MW.  Apparently I opted for the flexibility to have some of them in the army.  In EW they can just be ignored and played as regular Crud I's and II's.

The HQ of CiC and 2iC.  I figure the pensive looking fellow gazing ahead must be the CiC and the fellow looking at him for orders must be the 2iC.  That sort of 'story in the diorama' is a big part of the fun for me.

The Close Support 'CS' Cruds.  They're armed with a 3" howitzer whose most noticeable features are the ability to Tally Ho! [move with full RoF 2] while shooting dug-in guns and infantry with Firepower 3+.  Aside from that, they're useless with Anti-Tank 5.  Well, they're dangerous to halftracks, MkII tanks and uhm, actual desert rats, I guess.  Still, they're important to the company and IMHO the first thing any bunch of guns and infantry should try to knock out.

Of interest to modelers is the difference between these Battlefront castings and the Old Glory ones.  Both have sculpting and casting strengths and weaknesses, and depend on taste [or budget - the OG ones are less than half the price I think].  The barrels I made myself with plastic rods from Plastruct.  In real life the barrels are hard to tell from the 2pdrs, but I wanted to have a clear difference so I and opponents could tell.  Just seems fair to me.

Typical platoon of two Crud II, one Crud III with 6pdr [note the flat gun mantle compared to the 2pdr guns to the left].  Personally, I'm very satisfied with how the Old Glory models came out, and overall prefer them to the BF castings.  Also, as an old-time gamer I just like the heft of metal.

The original paint job got messed up with a poor washing job.  I forget what I did to rectify it exactly, but after being too disheartened to deal with them for about a year, I actively sought advice at TMP, BF and WWPD, as well as a couple of guys at the FLGS.  The net was that I hand painted them with Vallejo Dark Sand, sprayed them all with Testors gloss finish, THEN applied a GW Devlan Mud wash [or Gryphonne Sepia...but probably Devlan].  Special thanks to Butch S for sharing how he does all his desert Limeys.

With the tanks basically painted, they just need some wear marks, baggage, sand drybrushed on, decals, aerials with pennants, and the crews painted.  Whew!  Quite a lot of work for a squadron that historically probably only lasted 20 minutes in heavy action with Ariete.  But more on that later.  Meanwhile, we can appreciate that the Crud represents the pinnacle of British cruiser tank design, and therefore the sleek appearance should dissuade us from discussions of mechanical reliability or the power of its gun, the lack of HE and shortage of MGs.  Quite a lot, really...!

EDIT: 01/04/2020
It's been a while, again, and time to collect info on 22nd Armoured Brigade Cruds. I will be sticking with my original plan of using the Cruds, plus some Grants, as a Gazala [CLICK] and Alamein squadron with a rifle motor company, and reserving my Stuart Honeys and my Old Glory Command Decision Desert Rats [CLICK] for 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards.

At Gazala in June '42 22nd Armoured Brigade was composed of:
22nd Armored Brigade: Brigadier W. Carr

2nd R.G.H. Tank Regiment: Lt. Col. Birley

3rd C.L.Y. Tank Regiment:Lt. Col. Grafftey-Smith

4th C.L.Y. Tank Regiment:Lt. Col. F. Arkwright

2/31st Motor Battalion

H. F. Joslen 

• Joslen, H. F. (2003) [1960]. Orders of Battle: Second World War, 1939–1945. Uckfield: Naval and Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84342-474-1.

has the brigade composed as follows:

2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars – 03/09/39 to 16/09/42
3rd County of London Yeomanry – 03/09/39 to 16/09/42
4th County of London Yeomanry – 03/09/39 to 29/07/44

1st Battalion, the Rifle Brigade, Motor Battalion - 07/42 to 08/45

Nov 41 – Jan 42, Unit fender markings, white on red background.
Crusader:
71 HQ,
40 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars,
86 3rd CLY,
67 4th CLY.
Red Stag on white unit badge.

Gazala: Feb 42 – Sept 42, back to Nov 41 serials. Stag unit badge to July '42,
desert rat from then, as it took over from 4th AB as 7th Armoured Div's armoured brigade. When this would have been painted on, who can tell? The 8th Army was on the verge of collapse as it retreated to Alamein!

8th Army tank composition on line here [CLICK]RGH, 3rd-4th CLY war diaries here: [CLICK]
13th July 1942, strength return was 7 Grants (all B squadron) and 25 Crusaders. 

End July B squadron "refitted with cruisers" (presumably Crusaders). 

August '42, Grants returned with 2 Grant squadrons (including B) and one "light" squadron of Crusaders.

First Post! Why 15mm North Africa WWII?

This blog will hopefully document the completion of  projects begun almost ten years ago - WWII desert forces for Flames of War in 15mm.  I think it was v.1 that got me started with the desert forces.  Most of the models weren't even made by BF at that point, and I had access to an Old Glory discount, so most of my models are Old Glory Command Decision pieces.  So the first question in my mind for a blog is always - WHY?

Well, when I was a kid someone gave me "Brazen Chariots" by Robert Crisp, the South African crickater and journalist.  It had an impact with its vivid first-hand account, personal details, odd events, and honest evaluation of both his own performance and that of the 'higher-ups'.  Ever since, I've loved the Stuart "Honey" and his book.  

As for Flames of War, well, v.1 was "the" WWII miniatures game,10-15 years ago, and it certainly packaged WWII and made it playable. There were some brilliant mechanics, like relating Unit quality to Fire - it is easier to inflict damage on green troops than veterans. By imitating the Games Workshop model it brought WWII from the back of beyond, behind ancients and horse & musket, to a very popular period. 

Unfortunately, by imitating the GW "Evil Empire" approach in terms of both gaming and marketing, thru v. 2-3 and now 4, they also created the same monster mix of power-gaming, special rules and units and drastically increased prices - and trying to force tournament players to purchase their stuff. Also, there continues to be a lack of realism that could be easily fixed, like no overwatch, etc. When I read Frank Chadwick's "First Battle" boardgames like "Team Yankee" and "Blood & Thunder" it's all so easy to correct. So like all Games Workshop games...Flames of War is dead to me now!

Still, there's lots of reasons to play this theater of war, if not Flames of War, anymore:

• Interesting opponents and match-ups!  DAK don't fight like RE don't fight like 8th Army.  Each has their own play style, strengths and challenges.
• Wild variety of equipment!  And if you're British, loads of it is on your side. If you're German, you capture lots if it at one point or another.
• Tons of information, inspiration and great history in English.
• Painting goes from very simple to very unusual camo and it's all historical.
• Plenty of great models.
• "War without Hate" as Rommel said.  As ugly as WWII often is, the desert war was without much of the horrors against civilians and generally the two sides respected each other and the rules of war.  Pretty much the polar opposite of the Eastern Front and the Pacific War.
• The British Army alone fielded more national varieties in the desert than most nations fielded in the entire war.  The Italians also had some unusual units and equipment.  It's a front and time that's almost without standardization, and nearly anything can be fielded historically.
• My local area has loads of 15mm North African armies.  Since I have both British and Italians, it's easy for me to get an historical matchup.  

So basically, this is a no-brainer.

PROJECT GOALS

I've made a few attempts to finish my desert armies, but I keep buying more and don't sell unpainted stuff off so haven't gotten anywhere close - and I don't have any DAK yet!  If nothing else, I need to finish two complete sides so that I can host desert games with people who don't have any and want to try it out, and also so that I can demo with people and play either Axis or Allies historically [not a fan of blue-on-blue training games, really].

Period & Theater

My favorite battle is definitely EW with Crusader.  It's a knock-down drag-out fight between two evenly matched opponents and there's plenty to game here.  There are great MW fights at Gazala and the early Alamein battles, too. But they represent the end of the 'classical' desert war as the strategic situation turned against the Axis. It becomes more of a Mediterranean Theater as the US and British invade from the West.

So it's all good, but I need to focus on Crusader at least for now.

Companies The original project somehow became a Crusader [Crud] Squadron and a Carri Compagnia. This despite the fact that the Stuart Honey is one of my favorite tanks.  I dimly remember using playtest EW lists and my first forays into making desert terrain in the basement of the house I had with wife #1.  With the divorce, house sale, and all those transitions the armies suffered severe neglect. Also, I didn't like the CD Stuarts much, so swapped them with someone. Eventually, I got the very lovely BF Honeys but have to get going on them - a bit daunted by the Caunter camo, actually!

Round 2. Eventually I got into playing again and did some more work.  I finished a bunch of Italian platoons that were official in MW FoW v.2 rules, even playing a tournament with them. 

THE Tournament.  My only tournament play, it was memorable for a match against a Russian infantry company with KV1 support, and the guy was really mouthy!  He basically dismissed any thought of losing as soon as he found out I fielded Italians.  Because since the Italians lost the war they should lose the game...?  Of course, I won the game.  I ignored his KV1s and instead focused on wiping out his infantry with loads and loads of MG dice, including those occupying a town.  Then I circumnavigated the board at high speed and seized an objective from his depleted army.  I think the hilarious thing about the "heavy tank mentality" is the gamers who assume that since they bought an unbreakable object that they simply must win.  The fact that FoW is a game based upon a point system, even fights, and carefully constructed missions seems to have been missed by them. Anyway...tournements and Flames of War thankfully in the past.

Round 3. More personal eventfulness lead to more neglect.  A second wife, a second house later, I was turning my attention to the Crud squadron - long overdue!  All went well until I was trying an ink wash with the models, and they game out way too dark.  Very discouraging.  Then job messiness had us relocating near my wife's family and job.  So the Cruds went back to the box with their problematic paint job.

I resurrected the Italians and did enough additions to them to field an Italian Compagnia Bersaglieri that was mostly driven by loads of gun teams and infantry with some tank support [tankette support, quite often]. It helped that a FLGS did an EW league and I was able to get the occasional game in there. Once I showed up with 17 platoons and had the opposition ready to quit after set up - he didn't really appreciate how poor most of the Units would fight, BUT FoW doesn't penalize shooting by low quality troops - they are just hit more easily, so you have to push them hard. Anyway, the league was somewhat hit or miss and the store difficult to work with, and v.3 was making FoW ever more complex.
Round 4.  Finally, I finished the paint job on the Cruds, cleaning, priming and basing some support platoons, and even playing a few games borrowing or substituting Italian gear as British.  Then...another move for a new job.  All back in the box, months in storage, spring and summer hiatus from FoW and most wargaming.  


Round 5. Tally-ho!