Moscow '42 Team Game

[Schmolywar]

So how do we start this? Seems like me, Liebchen and Burroughs are ready. Is it possible we start it, do our turns, then whoever comes in later to join can do theirs?

[Schmolywar]

Email: [email protected]

[Ricky B]

The scenario sounds good gentlemen. I do agree with Liebchen, default rules in this case seem best - the suggestion of rules by Burroughs, adding the exclusion of the alternative fire and assault rules would put things at very close to the defaults anyway. And playing with the alternative fire rules in a game not designed for them generally ends up as an excercise in self punishment for the forces with larger stacks of men and material, the Soviets in this case. Many years ago I played a Kharkov '42 campaign where my Soviet opponent suggest the alternative fire rules, and he had to give up the game in less than 2 days of game time as his losses were horrendous and he gained almost no ground as his big stacks were disrupting en masse.

Rick

[Liebchen]

So how do we start this? Seems like me, Liebchen and Burroughs are ready. Is it possible we start it, do our turns, then whoever comes in later to join can do theirs?

What you do is this:

a. Figure out which commands each of you will take,
b. Figure out how you want to coordinate. Some teams have a commander, some don't. Some teams have one player handle the hand-off, others don't..
c. Plot your moves, since the Russians go first. Do your moves one by one, and SAVE the game (but DON'T end the turn until the last player is done), then the last player sends it to Rick and me. We'll take it from there.

[burroughs]

The default M'42 rules look fine to me. Besides, they were playtested that way.

What is the argument against delayed disrupion reporting, counterbattery fire and indirect fires by the map?Alternative solutions add a slightly higher level of randomization which simulates the extreme nature of the theater ad conditions instead of rounding everything up and evening up - anything goes and can hapen.

---

Sorry I overlooked Ricky B's eply - did anybody notice that the Kharkov '42 was a disaster for the Soviets historically? Have we got anything aganst the game simulatng the historic setup?

[Fhil]

Sorry guys that I´m messing in here, just want to add something to your debate about rules. I mean, I´m a fan of alternative fire rules, but as RickyB said, not every game is made for them, in some of them, they would do more bad than good.

Marcin, about Kharkov´42, yes, it was a disaster for them in real as well, but before it was, the Soviets gained some ground, but I believe that with Alt. Fire Rules such a thing as pushing those Germans back before their counterattack from the south is strictly impossible!

Mostly, in my games I only use Alt. Assault Resolution, but ONLY if it´s Volcano Man´s update as the stock scenarios were not created with that rule in mind, at least from what I know. And the second Alt. rule I like to use, it´s something like a small compromise, is Alt. Air Assault/Fire Resolution, I´m not sure which of those two words is there.

Good luck in your game guys, enjoy it!

[Ricky B]

The default M'42 rules look fine to me. Besides, they were playtested that way.

What is the argument against delayed disrupion reporting, counterbattery fire and indirect fires by the map?Alternative solutions add a slightly higher level of randomization which simulates the extreme nature of the theater ad conditions instead of rounding everything up and evening up - anything goes and can hapen.

---

Sorry I overlooked Ricky B's eply - did anybody notice that the Kharkov '42 was a disaster for the Soviets historically? Have we got anything aganst the game simulatng the historic setup?

Delayed disrupt and counterbattery are ok by me. I avoid indirect fire by map as I have seen players use it in ahistorical ways but the overall impact is low.

But the alt fire will probably make the battle unwinnable for the Soviets. I like the rules myself but the scenario, PDT and oob must be setup for it to keep things historical. This is a game we are playing not a simulation but these alt rules will negatively impact both. Anyway my experience in team games is if a team finds it has no chance to win even if the losses are historical, the players don't have fun and play very slow or quit.

Fhil covered K'42 well. For M42 start the scenario with the alt fire rules and just fire at each other. I tried it along with moving 2 Soviet stacks. Losses after 1 turn were 498 Soviets to 46 German and that was with minimal combat. 1 German arty shot killed 68 Soviets for example and 4-5 units disrupted in total. It was mass slaughter and the battle would be over soon I think.

[raizer]

The alt artillery and alt air will crush soviets. German arty is A and B qual and stukas will do more damage. The soviets need their stacks to get over the quality of the germans-you go with alt artillery those stacks are big fat targets. Sure the soviets can try to mitigate this by spreading out but you cant spread out when you are pushing off assault lines and once night turns come in that alt artillery, even if it does not kill crap in droves, will hit each unit in the stack causing night fatigue to every unit in the stack. Meanwhile, this does nothing to the germans, who have to spread out and can effectively operate thinned out. You want all your soviet units in a stack affected by night fatigue from being shot at by german arty or weaksauce AT guns, go with alt direct and alt artillery fire.

[burroughs]

Alright, I am no that entirely fixed on that , I just wanted to hear some constructive reasoning behind and see the point, that many excellent fellow wargamers here simply cannot be wrong.Thanks for the comprehensive feedback.

Which alternative rules we exclude then - just the alternative fire(both direct and indirect? ... ) and air strikes resolution - or what? Delayed disruption reportting has not been addressed at all or I have missed something again.

[Ricky B]

I said I am okay with delayed disrupt above. How about if you give reasons for liking various rules? That would really open debate on them!!!

Rick