P&F Bloody Tarawa team game - calling all participants.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I'd sure like to see more of these larger scenarios for team play. There are plenty of places to get some like creating some of the Steel Panthers scenarios or some from the Campaign Series. Maybe not the exact composition of the CS scenarios, but creating the units listed and then maybe adjusting some from there as far as strength goes. Some of the SPs scenarios could also be created in the RSoE and AIW series. Maybe even a series of scenarios covering Market-Garden or the Bulge or whatever areas that come up. Another possibility would be something along the lines of the old ASL Red Barricades, but you have a list of units you can draw from and call in help at the cost of VPs or not, but the list you have to start with is all you get unless it is designed to also have another unit arrive in reserve you could help from. This series is basically endless.

[burroughs]

I am there, dude. The news of my death have been way too premature. I am all for carrying on until the bitter end for either or both sides and I second that completing the scenario is necessary to fully assess the pros and cons of the current design. I read about Tarawa a bit as we were struggling and that battale was stunningly costly for the marines, even now I happen to have another book loaded onto my e-book reader. Anyway, as far as I can remember we have already taken higher losses than it was the case historically and they are only going to get worse should we continue.

What Rabbit wrote above corresponds with a grudge I have always had towards SB with all their positive sides about them being a tactical level combat simulator - the losses taken and made seem very high. I used to think they are therefore perfect for simulating the WWI trench warfare onslaught yet before there was any WWI title we have now and used to write about that to my opponents and moan. Playing the Makin Raid I was pretty pissed off with the numer of my marines incapacitated for furter combat and thought that outrageous regarding the historic values, but then I found out that the lossess there were high. That hardened me a bit and I opened myself for the SB games; still I think certain situations are way too bloody, but that's the case with most of the HPS / TOC games - my MG '44 campaign was astonishingly costly for both sides so ... I magine that I have been "more aggressive" at Tarawa.

[TheBigRedOne]

When you talk about 'losses' are you describing KIA only, or a combination of KIA, WIA and the like? Casualties in SB are interpreted as basically a soldier being eliminated from active battle, either dead, wounded, captured, surrender, etc. When I first started playing I thought the values were way high until I understood that not everyone that is knocked out is represented as 'dead'.

As for making more huge scenarios like this, I agree there is a tiny market for it, but both team games that have been started here on the SB ladder have come to a grinding halt without any type of resolution as of yet. Oftentimes things get in the way with just two guys are playing. Throw 4-6 in the mix and things can get bogged down pretty quickly if only one guy has real life issues pressing. I haven't chatted with Oz in quite a while, I'd imagine that two little kids keep him pretty busy....

Either way this ends, make sure you guys give feedback to Marc on this so he can tweak the scenario a bit...

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

There are quite a few here who also play PzCs and MCs is part of why I also figure some larger, longer scenarios would be good. I would say Tarawa is a poor example to use as it is only a larger version of the smaller scenarios where your only choice is to advance with all possible strategy leading up to the battle taken out of the Cdr's hands. I would think it would at least be worth a try for a larger, longer scenario or set of linked scenarios/situations similar to Red Barricades or the later Close Combat where you draw upon your listed resources for continued action even to the point if there could be added a replenish phase at say midnight like in PzCs or something. Resupply would have to be a part of, no doubt, but at least a larger scenario with time and space to possibly maneuver to different positions rather than a straight advance most of the time. No doubt Tarawa leaves none. At least give one a try, say one of the AB drops in MG or Bastogne or St. Vith or somewhere else. I'm sure there are other good examples. Make one and let people try it out and see what they say. If positive, then make another.

[TheBigRedOne]

Make one and let people try it out and see what they say. If positive, then make another.

That's the challenge. Huge scenarios in SB are extraordinarily time-consuming and complex, and the addition of resupply, off-board support over the course of hours and just the logistics of a giant OOB makes the process even more challenging. The engine isn't suited well to handle the passage of time. If you start at night, regardless of how many turns you go, it will stay night, same for daylight.

During the playtesting process, you find all kinds of weird things that happen. Scenarios that a designer thought were balanced in one direction actually turns out to be imbalanced the other way. Hours go into into making a 15 turn scenario excellent between design, playtesting and tweaking. Imagine the impossibility of a 200-300 turn SB scenario. What happens at turn 125 and the game has an error? It's too big to playtest, so you've just spent weeks, maybe months of time only to have to start over.

I'm not being negative about this concept, I'm being honest and realistic as to what can be done with the game engine and the limits of scenario design. There's a reason so few gigantic scenarios have been made.

[burroughs]

Yes, I imagine the situation is that when a team or a squad gets hit, the numbers of personnel deducted from the direct combat duty purpose comprise dead, wounded and MIA alike and also on top of that those that assist in the medevac and tend to those in need - then the loss ratio looks definitely much more acceptable. Moreover I understand that if the men get disrupted or pinned down, it is not that their morale has just started to look for the bottom, but rathre they suddenly must juggle a few tricky actions all at once and cannot focus solely on the advance or assault which diminishes their direct combat action potential.
I entirely agree that there is a way one can imagine larger scenarios being incorporated into the game system here for the purpose of setting up team games, even without massive changes to the current fashion the game engine handles the tactical situations. I am a bit surprised why the Tarawa games has stalled so abruptly, I know that we may be disappointed with the shape it took, but with such a hardened bunch of the vets here I had thought we could rejoice even in defeat - at least for the sake of getting the whole thing going on and move on to some more elaborate and refined re-creations of either historic or fictional engagements. I am still willing to carry on and / or participate in forthcoming projects - if there are going to be any with such unfortunate developments.

[kolc]

Why do we think a 15 to 20 turn scenario could not be suitable for a MP game? If one side has a company of two platoons, one player could take command of one while the other commanded the other platoon? If there is a tank, another player could command that...or if there is a platoon of tanks, one player could command the whole platoon or find a player for each tank in the platoon...just thinking out loud...

[Jeff Conner]

Actually, the first team game I participated in was completed. The Germans surrendered with a couple of turns left as there was no point in playing any further. I am fairly confidant that the results were logged, although I am not positive. If there have been other team games, I am unaware of them. One of the differences between the RV game we played and this one is that in the first game, each player controlled about a company, give or take, of troops. In this scenario, each player controls a battalion and Marcin actually has two now.

You could play a team game with each player controlling a platoon or even less. I like scenarios of that size and wouldn't mind playing one. But, I think the optimal size for a SB battle is a reinforced company. One of things to look for in a team game is an OOB that can easily be split into the number of players you have. If players are controlling portions of the same base unit, it can get complicated when it comes time to move.

I am more than willing to continue this game. Bill might want to look for a replacement for Oz rather than trying to take over the whole thing himself. Sometimes, some fresh blood is just what it takes to get a game going again.

Jeff

[Stejones82]

I played a number of multi-player games in the Early American War series. They are great fun! If you want to get a MP game of ES, Vn, or AOTR - count me in! I would prefer that they not be gargantuan in size. [My ADD, ADHD, Old Age, Selective Hearing, Wandering Eye, etc. kicks in after about 15 minutes!]

[Richie61]

I played in the RV battle with Jeff & Jose as the Germans. I had a blast!
I was the weak link in the center & lost a bunch of half tracks and this
slowed down our infantry advance.

I then did another RV scenario with Rabbit, Chad & Dennis.
Roar of the Monsters and we got a "draw"

This battle wasn't that bad, but the USMC needs more support in the form
of smoke to advance across the HUGE waist deep water in front of the
Japanese forces. It's tough since your support teams can't use their
weapons (mortars/ mg's) in the water.

I think I took this screen shot?


I bet that Marc's big Stalingrad for RV (help me get Steve to buy it )
would be a lot of fun with a group of guys!