Boots on the Ground

A while ago I picked up Boots on the Ground by Worthington Games in a trade. It had been sitting in a trunk for the best part of 2024, but while I was searching for something quick-ish to play in order to test out my new plexiglass sheet, I wondered if it might be a good time to give it a try.

The rules are about six pages long, which is always a good start when you are looking for 'quick-ish'.

The game is designed to be played solitaire against a card-activated opponent, co-operatively against the same, or competitively, but I have not properly digested how the latter format works.

The system is simple: set up map of generic city; cover with your new plexiglass; populate map with markers (civilians, vehicles, items, insurgents) as per scenario instructions. Deploy your squad; activate the whole squad with limited action possibilities or activate an individual to use their special abilities; draw card for instructions on insurgent actions, perform actions. Repeat.

I chose the first scenario, requiring my squad of six to navigate their way down a long street to reach their objective, and to do so with at least four of the squad still alive. It's a 30 card (30 turns, in effect) scenario.

The first thing you notice is that the game's components are not especially appealing. The map has a sort of grainy 'satellite view' aesthetic with superimposed square grid. The counters are functional rather than artistic. But my set has already been clipped tidily by the previous owner, so that is an improvement on my own irregular clipping habits!

Game flow is similar to a first-person shooter. Insurgents suddenly appear in doors and windows to shoot at your team. You respond. You move close to a vehicle; you can't avoid it. Is it useful cover, or does it contain an IED? You approach civilians - are they harmless or insurgents in disguise? You flip the counter and see. There are lockboxes. Do you want to risk opening it? If yes, flip the counter and see.

And this one is an IED! Fortunately, our demolitions expert was able limit its effect. Can't say the same about the insurgent who appeared in the window; he has wounded the squad leader.

A wider view of the map. 

Player input is mainly about positioning your team so that they can respond to threats while also looking to work towards the objective. Combat odds favour the player - your soldiers are elite - but with opposed die rolls and situational modifiers the advantage is not certain. It is only my first game but tactics here were not particularly sophisticated. Move towards the objective, shoot anyone in the way, keep your medic close by to treat wounds. 

The card pull is the fun part. What will it be? Will it be an insurgents move and shoot card? Will it be an insurgents appear and shoot card? Will it be an insurgents take cover card? Will it be something else? 

Two thirds of the team wounded and still two blocks from the objective. Do we halt and patch wounds,  hoping for a lull in insurgent activity, or do we press on? 

In this scenario there seemed little need to use individual counter abilities. We wanted to keep everyone together and move then as a group if we could. The only one I activated individually was the medic,  who was called upon to deal with the wounded and get them back on their feet.  

At times it is brutal.

Another ambush. Our sniper killed!

At this juncture we are fortunate enough to get some air support (two card-pulls in a row) which forces the insurgents to keep their heads down long enough for our medic to get around the rest of the team.

We keep moving. We have killed or wounded the visable insurgents, but then find the civilian in front of us is not a civilian after all. Oh dear!

Insurgent revealed.  Another man wounded; we are lucky it wasn't worse. 

As we approach our objective the tension rises. Just half a block to go. We leave one of our wounded behind and press on with the four who can move as a group. Metres from safety disaster strikes.

An insurgent appears in the last doorway and shoots our demolition expert dead. 

The leader. medic and scout move to the objective; they call to the wounded heavy weapons expert to join them. He is wounded again in the sprint; the medic has to go and carry him to safety. 

They make it, but only just.

Four survivors at the objective. 

The long road travelled. 

So what of the game? It is light and a little cartoonish. But that is good for me. I prefer it to be non-specific and based on generic situations rather than real events. I don't want to play a serious game on this topic; it is still too close and too many people are still affected. 

As mentioned earlier, the play in this scenario was not sophisticated. The other scenarios will add complexity and no doubt the special abilities of the various squad members will come to the fore when there are different objectives and problems to surmount. 

On the whole, it was a nice little diversion, and a great way to start two weeks off work.

I will look to play it again and will try the next scenario and see how it goes. 

As for the plexiglass sheet, it really did the business!

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again

We all of us enjoy our wargaming, our playing with toy soldiers, our board wargames, and our reading around these kinds of topics.

There is crossover between serious games and hobby games, and many of us enjoy that aspect too. Some of the blogs I follow are more towards the serious end of the spectrum, where wargaming is a job, where it is used to prep military and intelligence professionals, and - perhaps - influence real-world policy, real-world decisions. 

One of the newer, modern boardgame designers was recently asked about an expansion to his game on Afghanistan, A Distant Plain, which would take into account recent developments. I quote here part of his response:

Given the speed of events, I think if anything what we are seeing now is each faction’s game pieces being swept around on the map and scooped up prior to being put back into their ziploc bags.

Game’s over, man.

If you want to carry on, I think you will need a different game.

He linked to one of his previous blog posts, and also to an (as it turns out decidedly non-prescient) article on the then current state of affairs, entitled 'Why the Taliban isn't winning in Afghanistan' (from which I quote below): 

“We must face facts,” remarked Senator John McCain in August 2017, “we are losing in Afghanistan and time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide.” He is not the only one who has argued that the Taliban are on the march. “The Taliban are getting stronger, the government is on the retreat, they are losing ground to the Taliban day by day,” Abdul Jabbar Qahraman, a retired Afghan general who was the Afghan government’s military envoy to Helmand Province until 2016, told the New York Times over the summer. Media outlets have likewise proclaimed that “The Taliban do look a lot like they are winning” and that this is “The war America can't win.”

Although the Taliban has demonstrated a surprising ability to survive and conduct high-profile attacks in cities like Kabul, it is weaker today than most recognize. It is hamstrung by an ideology that is too extreme for most Afghans, a leadership structure that is too closely linked to the Pashtun ethnic group, an over-reliance on brutal tactics that have killed tens of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians and alienated many more, a widespread involvement in corruption, and a dependence on unpopular foreign allies.

What am I getting at, you might ask?

Well, it is that games and game-models that are lauded for their innovation and perspicacity, whose designers are profiled in the Washington Post, whose hobby games potentially influence real-world decision-making, can still get it wrong. Why they get is wrong is not really my focus here, but it is clear that they get it wrong for reasons which include a) a reliance upon commentators who make incorrect assumptions; b) a game-induced need for simplification which means that factors that appear insignificant (but may not be in real life) are minimised; c) that formulated victory equations which may seem plausible to Western analysts who sit within the military or intelligence paradigms may well not match reality.

So what does this say about wargaming? 

That we should all be wary of it. That it may have consequences. That it is inexact for predicting future events.  

As hobbiests our first reaction to 'serious' military/intelligence-adjacent wargames on current or near-future conflicts is often likely to be "cool, we want to see more of them!" And why not? It seems to validate our hobby, encourages new designs, and perhaps adds authority or cred to what we do. 

But current events show that popular wargames on current conflicts do not necessarily lead to increased understanding or to desired outcomes. And in fact, if real-world wishful thinking is rendered in games as plausible result, may lead not to understanding but to folly. 

It's not a nice pill to swallow. 

NATO Air Commander board game

Well, I've just got to put in a plug for something my buddy Brad Smith of Hexsides and Handgrenades (and other things too) renown has done: he's just had his first game published, a solitaire Cold-War-goes-hot beauty called - you guessed it - NATO Air Commander.

I reckon this is going to be an absolute belter of a game. 90 minutes of solitaire action defending Europe from the Soviet hordes c.1987, using a very cool card-driven resolution process. It starts on special for $40, and the international shipping is only $22 (shipping sounds bad, but if you'd lived in Japan as long as I have you'd've seen a lot worse!).

Anyway, if Cold War solitaire play sounds like your thing, you can get more information on it here.

Well done Brad, congratulations, and I can't wait for it to arrive!

Edit: see here for my review.

WWIII 1980 with Brigade Commander

The second game that Luke and I got through on Sunday was a first attempt at FiveCore Brigade Commander, from Nordic Weasel Games (see Luke's report here).

Our usual Cold War rules are Modern Spearhead, but the problem with Mod.Sp is that it takes us a very long time to play it. A standard MS game for us will start about 10am, finish around 5:30pm, involve about 500 failed artillery call-in dice rolls, and will close with us calling the game for one side because there isn't time to game the scenario out. It looks spectacular, but we get a bit bogged down.

The FiveCore rules on the other hand are supposed to be very quick (and solo-friendly), so I got the Company Commander version and Luke picked up the Brigade Commander edition.

This is what happened.

My Americans (bottom of this picture) were tasked with holding the hill in the centre (marked here with a red circle) while Luke's Czechs were instructed to get twenty-five percent of their force off my edge of the table (see the black arrows).

I had three companies of  M60A1s, three more of mechanised infantry, and another of M60A2s to come on in turn five. I don't know what Luke had exactly, but there were two or three tank companies and a lot of mechanised infantry.

My plan was to advance to occupy the hill, push into the woods beyond it if possible, and hold the high ground to the east of it. On the other flank I wanted to take the village and push another company of tanks onto the ridge to the west.

Arrows show the grand plan...

Luke began by rushing forward at speed, but my tanks were able to destroy one of his mechanised units almost immediately. We got some units into a strong forward position and waited for the rest of our force to catch up.

Champions of democracy on our left...

...and more of them on our right.

The village is secured.

For the next hour we had a massive to-and-fro battle as my companies were driven out of position, rallied, pushed forward again, and again driven back.

The Czechs closed to assault where they could.

Czechs close assault but are driven off.

The Americans continued to attempt to seize key terrain, but Czechs in good forward positions kept forcing the boys in MERDC to back up with effective and accurate reaction fire. The armour on our right was destroyed by artillery fire, and things were looking very iffy for the Americans.

Czechs take the objective!

A series of badly timed 'scurry' (movement only, no shooting or close combat) and 'fire fight' (shooting only, no movement) turn results for the Czechs prevented Luke from being able to make the best of our involuntary withdrawals.

Our lowest point.

At last however we were able to creep forward without being driven back: our tank reserves arrived, and when we were finally able to lay down some fire, it was with powerful effect.

The tide turns; we begin to advance.

An armour company broke through from our left, sweeping around behind the Czech lines and in so doing destroyed three units in successive turns.

These chaps are fighters, and have some juicy targets ahead...

With devils coming up behind him, Luke rushed for our board edge, hoping that enough units would survive our reaction fire, bypass our positions, and allow him to achieve his objective.

Czechs advance towards the guns.

With a couple of 'scurry' turns in succession, the Czechs were indeed able to get three units off table and achieve their mission.

About to get through!

Although both sides achieved their objectives we gave the game to the Americans because they had destroyed a higher percentage of the enemy force. The number of kill dice that the Americans could bring to bear gave them a huge advantage; the kill dice being much more dangerous than the shock dice that the poor old Czechs mostly had to rely on.

We need to play this more to get a proper feel for it, but here are some initial impressions.

1) It does play nice and fast. We got through a lot of turns and a lot of action in a very short (by Modern Spearhead standards!) time.

2) There is room for tactics.

3) The system of rolling up scenarios and forces seems to be quite promising.

4) It feels as if there is a lot of luck involved.

5) We're not quite sure about the 'scurry' turns or the 'displacement' rule. We probably need to re-read the rules in case we missed something there.

6) There is a lot of moving forward and then being pushed back by reaction fire. Not sure how realistic this is, so will need to do a bit more reading.

7) It was an enjoyable game and we'll definitely be looking at this again as a way to get our moderns models and figures on the table more often and relatively painlessly.

Thanks to Luke for a great day's gaming, and for bringing down his superb moderns terrain boards and beautifully painted Czech hordes.

Review of Labyrinth: the War on Terror 2001-?

I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of GMT Games' recent 50% off sale and, having watched a few documentaries on the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, thought I'd like to try a game from the COIN series just to see what the system is like (and what the fuss is about).  A Distant Plain was sold out, so I went for Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? as it seemed to be in the same ball park.

To be fair and open, historical moderns is not really my thing. I enjoy hypothetical Cold-War-goes-hot stuff, but actual recent or ongoing conflicts feel raw to me and I find it a little uncomfortable thinking about gaming them. 

It was therefore with slight wariness that I approached Labyrinth, which takes as its subject the post-9/11 war on terrorism. Please keep this in mind while reading this review.

Anyway, let's take a look at the game itself.

The first thing you notice is that it is played on a beautiful, hard-mounted map. The featured countries are classed as either Muslim or non-Muslim, and they are tracked differently depending upon which category they fall into. Muslim countries have governance (Islamic rule, poor, fair or good) and stance vis-a-vis the US (ally, neutral or adversary) noted, while non-Muslim countries have a counter for posture (hard/soft), indicating whether or not they support the use of force against extremism.

Countries may also harbour terrorist cells, US troops, or a combination of the two.

The game board, clearly enough...

To win the game the US must keep its prestige high and use 'war of ideas' plays to ensure good governance in Muslim states. The Jihadist player must try to keep funding levels high, reduce US prestige - and therefore its ability to influence other nations - and look to foment Islamic rule in Muslim states or set off a WMD in the US itself.

The game revolves around card play, with each card being able to be used as an event or as an operations play. Sometimes, if the card is an enemy event, you might have to play it as both an operation for you and an event for the enemy, so how best to use the cards dominates decision-making.

US operations options include 'war of ideas' in which the US gets, under certain conditions, to roll to improve the governance or stance of a Muslim country.  The lower US prestige, and the greater the difference between US posture (hard/soft) and the posture of the rest of the non-Muslim world, the smaller the chance of this roll succeeding.

The US may also attempt a 'war of ideas' operation to get a non-Muslim country to change its posture from hard to soft, or vice versa.  Again, this depends on a die roll.

The US may opt to use an operations turn to disrupt terrorist cells, foil a terrorist plot, or deploy troops. Troops can generally only be deployed to allied Muslim nations, but the US does have a game-changer option: regime change, whereby the US may order regime change against any country under Islamic rule. This immediately changes the governance of the country to poor ally and brings a significant troop commitment while the US attempts, over time, to end Jihadist resistance and bring the governance level up to good.

The US player has a sort of firefighter role - he or she must look to keep prestige high, maintain alliances, disrupt terrorist cells, use force where needed, promote good governance in Muslim nations, uncover plots and, above all, prevent a WMD attack on US soil.

Naturally enough, the Jihadist player also has a number of options. These include being able to recruit terrorist cells in certain areas, send cells to other nations, set up plots and use either of two different types of jihad to disrupt governance in Muslim countries in an attempt to bring these states closer to or under Islamic rule.

The US is powerful, but can't do everything at once, so the Jihadist player must try to stretch the US as much as possible, lower its prestige, and make it difficult to respond to every threat.

The game also includes solitaire rules (a key feature for me - most of my play is solo), which see the Jihadist side played by an automated system. Apparently there are plans to bring out rules to automate the US side which will be made available through a future edition of GMT Games's house magazine, C3i.

We've been talking so far about operations, but as one of the prime uses of cards is for events, I'd better mention them as well. In fact, it's with these events that things get really interesting (and tricky). There are 120 event cards, and over a turn each player must use the eight or nine cards in his or her hand judiciously. Some events are more useful than others at certain times, or require conditions to be right, or are at their best used before or after the play of other particular events. Learning the card deck is probably the most important thing if you want to become a competitive player of these types of games.

Sample cards showing events, who they favour, and operations value (OpV # in box)

Now, in most card-driven games, this is where things start to get less appealing for me. I don't really want to have to learn a card deck and associated optimal plays to be able to do all right in a game. If I want to play cards, I'll play a traditional card game. But the way that Labyrinth approaches card play seems fresh and does not result in the sense of frustration that I've had with some other games in the genre. I've been happy just to play through the cards as they come, hand by hand, and haven't felt that I'm missing anything on a macro level by not knowing optimal plays.

That said, I'm still ambivalent about the game itself. As I said before, I'm not very comfortable with modern conflicts - especially ongoing ones - and that is a major difficulty for me. It's nothing I didn't know already however, so I'm not going to hold that against the game.

I find that the game mechanisms are clever, but the treatment (necessarily, of course) is at times simplistic and does not go into deeper causes or ramifications, and therefore any understanding that may be generated is, to me, undercut by the feeling that the game is presented from the US side of the divide. As a way to understand a US narrative of an approach to fighting extremism it may be a reasonable approximation, but as a way to come to grips with the wider nuances I think it is of less value.

As an example, we have the Predator card:

This is a positive card for the US if played as an event. However, what it does not show is the anecdotal real-world negative effect that the use of drones has on perceptions of US moral authority and is one example of how the game misses the double-edged nature of much of the goings on in the war against extremism.  That it misses this is due I think to a) it being designed within a particular paradigm, b) us finding that the real world has outgrown the game, and c) the unavoidable imperative to simplify things to fit within a playable game system.

So, points in favour: it's challenging; it has asymmetrical sides; there is plenty of room for player skill; and it is beautifully produced. Points not in favour: the simplifications reduce the value it might have in terms of understanding the conflict; it attempts to quantify a lot of unknowns, some of which have been or will inevitably be overtaken by events; and there is a sense that it is not distanced enough from its subject to be able to see causes, events, and results entirely objectively, even though the intent to be objective is there.

In conclusion I would say that it is an attractive introduction to modern card-driven game systems, has historical interest as a snapshot of 2011 US insider thinking around the war on Islamic extremism, and is likely to prove to be very interesting as a game. But if you are looking for a definitive treatment of this murky ongoing conflict you will have to wait a bit longer.

Modern Spearhead: Clash at Oberickelsheim

In December 1979 the 1st Brigade of the US 3rd Infantry Division was tasked with hitting the flank of the advancing Czech 15th Motor Rifle Division and stalling its approach to the Main River.

Stolen from Luke's blog 'hoti to kratistos'

Accordingly, the commander laid plans to do just that.

The forward deployed 3/7 ACAV troop, on the scene at daybreak, was ordered to advance to the Main and follow it north until it encountered the enemy.

But in a shock to the ACAV's recon elements, it happened that the Czechs were closer then anyone had thought...

As the lead recon units began to trade fire, other Czech units were making their way to the combat zone. Thankfully for the Americans, heavy rain turned the fields into boggy hindrances to the Czech advance.

1/30th Battalion arrived in time to provide the firepower needed to halt the initial Czech attacks.

But with the AVAC elements tied up in a firefight there was nothing to stop the Czech advance to the river further north.  The bridging equipment in evidence gave notice of their intentions...

As tensions rose, the 2/64th American armored battalion arrived, and with this the Czech opportunity to take 1/30 in the southern flank vanished, to the great relief of the American commander.

The day now settled into a series of patterns: Czech advances in the centre were stopped by the massed firepower of the M60A1s and the heavy artillery; Czech reinforcements struggled to get through the mud to aid their compatriots and, in the north, the Czechs continued their steady approach to the Main.

The Czech centre paid a heavy price for its attacks, but the river was bridged, and with air strikes impossible in the wet weather the advance units began crossing.

With time running out for the players, the action was called at 11:00 game time with the Czechs across the river but the Americans having routed the Czech centre and things very much in the balance.

It was a fantastic day and a real treat to see so much happening on such a beautiful table.  Many thanks to my noble opponent Pat and to Luke (whose more in-depth reports can be found here and who put the game on and hosted us) for a great wargaming experience.

The Cold War goes hot in 6mm

As mentioned in my last blogpost, Luke and I recently got a game of Modern Spearhead in using Keith McNelly's excellent scenario generation system.

Set in 1979, the situation saw a Soviet Motor Rifle regiment advancing into West Germany and encountering elements of the US 3rd Infantry Division.

We made it a 600 points game, so I took two BTR-60PB battalions, both with a company of T-62Ms attached, one with an anti-tank company for support and the other the regiment's recon battalion.  My third unit was an independent tank battalion beefed up with a recon company.  I only took one battalion of artillery - Akatsiyas - because I was wary of Luke's counter-battery fire, and also to have more troops on table to soak up the casualties I would inevitably suffer.

The table, with objectives marked, looked like this:

I was to be attacking from the top of the picture as we are looking at it, and having only three manoeuvre units, how best to deploy them proved a puzzle.

Objectives, in Keith's scenario generation system, give two points to the holder and breaking an enemy formation will provide an additional two.  I only had a vague notion of this at game start (I was too busy pre-game getting my army list sorted to worry about peripheral matters such as how to win the battle!) but the general plan was to secure three objectives and try to bash the enemy as much as possible.

Knowing Luke, I reckoned he would want three manoeuvre units of his own, so I was banking on there being two units coming up table and a third marching in on a flank somewhere.

After a bit of thinking I decided to hit objectives C and D and look to drive on E if luck was with me. With my BTRs being wheeled, there was no point having them slog through the muddy fields in the centre, so this made my decision easier.  The 1st battalion with the recon would go straight up the road and take the town on Luke's side of the board; 2nd battalion with the attached anti-tank assets would flank march and head for objective E; the independent tank battalion would be deployed on table in reserve, allowing me to order the armour through the centre or to my right later on, once I had a better idea of whether there was likely to be a flank march coming in against objective B.

This is what my order sheet looked like (seen from my side of the table):

Things began reasonably predictably: Luke also appeared to be heading for the town on his right using an ACAV unit comprised of a couple of M60A1s, some M113s, some nasty M150s, and a bit of recon.  His main force, a composite battalion of mechanised infantry and trusty M60A1s, was heading for objective E.  It was quite big; probably 2 companies of infantry, a company of tanks and support in the form of tank-killing M150s and mortars.

Hmm, not sure if I want to tangle with these guys!

Luke took the town on, I think, the first turn, and as he came into view 1st MR Battalion began deploying off the road, trying to use speed and cover to close with him as quickly as possible.  

Luke's ACAV have taken the town and are heading for the objective on the high ground.

Over the next two turns 1st MR began taking casualties from the M60A1s, ATGWs, and incoming artillery. But our Shilka calmly switched from AA duties to hitting the enemy ground troops while we winkled our BTRs closer.

The advance continues in the face of enemy fire.

My T-62s await their orders...

Meantime Luke's main force showed its hand. I had expected the composite battalion to halt on the hill and assume a defensive position, but it didn't.

He came down off the hill, rushing recon and combat teams in M113s towards the wood on the ACAV unit's left flank.  I waited one more turn before committing the tanks - just to make sure - and gave them timed orders to advance through the centre to objective E, and then - perhaps a trifle ambitiously! - to turn towards objective B from turn nine onwards.

As turn four rolled around the god of flank marches proffered me a 5, which allowed my 2nd battalion to come on table in a position that was particularly sweet. Since Luke has done this to me in just about every game of Spearhead or Modern Spearhead we've ever played, it was nice to return the favour!

2nd MR battalion arrives, behind the American ACAV.

With tanks behind Luke's flank and able to hit the weak side armour of the M60 Pattons, I decided now was the time to push the BTRs of the 1st battalion into close combat to clear the hill and hopefully break the ACAV unit completely.

Turn 4 after movement, but prior to the artillery phase.

The tank battalion commences its advance.

But Luke had some tricks up his sleeve.  First up, he called down smoke to prevent the advantageously positioned tanks from 2nd Battalion utilising their flank shots.

Luke's skill: exhibit A

Second, he called down artillery onto the advancing elements of 1st Battalion, hitting them so severely that the battalion was suddenly only two kills away from its break point; exactly the number of elements that (if you'll recall) I had ordered into close combat on the hill, against an M150 and an M60!

To make matters worse, Luke's forces now suppressed both of those close-combat elements with gunfire prior to the fight, putting the odds heavily in his favour.

Clearly, those two kills were not now a million miles from possibility, and if I lost those combats it would in fact be my battalion that broke first.

Luke's skill: Exhibit B - suppressing the advancing BTR teams prior to close combat.

So, with everything (for the moment, at least) riding upon the results of these close encounters, we took our dice, nodded coolly at each other, and flung.  The first result saw the M150 kill off my initial attack, so now both his ACAV and my 1st Battalion were just one kill away from breaking. 

For the second attack - with me at -2 - we rolled again; and this time I had all the luck in the world.  My 4 played his 1 and we had broken the ACAV after all!

The crucial combats end one apiece.  Great tabletop theatre!  I think I like this game...

Whew!

Next turn Luke committed the third battalion which he'd been keeping in reserve. This was not large, but packed some punch: a company of M60 Pattons, a company of M113s, M150s, and the obligatory mortars.

Fortunately for us, as they came on table we got off a lucky shot, destroying the lead tank.

Things look pretty good right now!

Less fortunately, the good news was not entirely universal. 1st Battalion now took the hit which put it over the break point. This was inevitable, but it's still a blow to see your little lead men beaten up and forced to flee...

It was now two formations on two, but I had the advantage of terrain and numbers. It was going to take some careful manoeuvring to make sure I got the best out of the tank battalion, but I was so confident that I even joked to Luke that it'd take some work to explain if I managed to lose from there.

I really should have learnt to keep my mouth shut by now!

The next few turns saw us jockeying for position in the centre and a mini-battle on my left as the tanks accompanying 2nd Battalion tried to get shots on Luke's M60s while the ATGWs and a T-12 anti-tank gun moved into position to give us local superiority.

2nd Battalion getting into position to take out the M60 Pattons.

In the centre our recon managed to call down some ICM rounds onto the M150s in the composite battalion, which tilted things significantly in our favour.  Luke now had, in effect, only three guns against a potential nine in that sector.

The situation in the centre just prior to us sorting out the M150s with artillery.

But it was at this point, when things were looking at their grimmest for him, that Luke started to get into his work. You will probably already have an idea about what form that work took, but as I can summarise it very briefly, I will.

He did two things:

1) Call down smoke to limit the number of tank guns the Soviets could bring to bear.
2) Have confidence in the superiority of his tank crews.

And it worked.

Turn after turn we would fail to score the killer blow, and his M60s would knock out another one or two T-62s from those approaching, as you can see illustrated below:

By the end of it not only had it taken three turns to kill his three tanks, but he'd gutted my tank battalion and prevented the breakthrough to the hill that the advantages I possessed should really have made a mere formality.

It was a superb example of a player keeping his nerve, using every inch of ground, every round of smoke to limit the firepower that could be brought to bear, and carefully making sure of his own shots.

It was a hard lesson for me and one that I found a little difficult to take.  After the third turn of not making any but the barest progress I was getting pretty grumpy!

My mood was not helped by the fact that it was a similar story on the left, as again I failed to make the most of my chances. There we faced smoke, shrewd gambles on our shots missing, and deadly shooting in return.

I also made a couple of silly errors here by fluffing around going into the town, but the less said about such rookie mistakes the better!

So by the time we finally destroyed the last M60 in the centre the situation on the left had reached an empasse: I was holed up in the town and pinned there by American combat teams on the outskirts, with neither side wanting to risk closing for close combat. I had more combat teams on the hill, but all of my tanks and the AT-gun had been destroyed.

At current ranges I had nothing left to hit his tanks with, and he couldn't see my infantry in cover. If he closed it would get bloody but neither of us was particularly keen on that!

So after turn nine, with family duties calling, we finished up.

As it turned out, I had won a nominal victory - 5-2 - but it really felt like a defeat. I had not made the most of my considerable mid-game advantage and it was clear that I still have a lot to learn about how best to employ combined arms tactics, particularly mortars and artillery.

I was reasonably happy with how I used the tanks in the centre, but Luke's counter-tactics there were too good. At this juncture I'd just like to say that throughout the game Luke gave me a lot of sound advice, some of which was quite detrimental to his cause. It's a great pleasure to have an opponent who genuinely wants you to get better, and not just to beat the pants off you because he knows the rules or period better, so hats off to Luke again on this score.

To conclude, it was a great game, and showed once more that Modern Spearhead is an excellent set of rules. There's still a lot I need to get better at, but hopefully that will come with time, and more speedily when there are players as sharp as Luke to learn from.

For anyone interested in reading things from the American perspective, Luke has a report up on his website as well, here.

Luke also has a blog now too, so do head on over and have a look when you get a moment.

Until next time!