Game: Target Arnhem: Across 6 Bridges

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-23T21:03:50+00:00

The Target Arnhem map - pressed flat and looking good inside a glass frame

Thread: Re: Is this solved?

_Kael_ — 2008-08-22T11:52:38+00:00

heirodule wrote:
It was my guess, playing this, that this game is "solved", with an optimal unbeatable strategy.

Am I mistaken?
adamant wrote:
I am curious, which side is the guaranteed winner in your games?
You, sir heirodule, still owe us an answer

After a few games, my take on it would be:
if you play the historical set-up, this game is hard to win for the Allies.
if you play the a-historical set-up, this game is hard to win for the Germans.

Edit: my take on it added.

Thread: Re: Is this solved?

_Kael_ — 2008-08-22T11:49:58+00:00

Hastati wrote:
My allied placement is very similar.
[..]
I have not yet found a good German response to this allied opening. By the 1st impulse of turn 2 Arnhem is an allied fortress.
Sound.

My German answer would be to delay you as long as possible in the south (Eindhoven, Wilhelmina Canal) while my SS reinforcements (10/10SS and 19/9SS in L and probably 21/10SS in J) would race through the off board areas to the Nijmegen area. 10/10SS and 19/9SS can be in Nijmegen at the end of 2nd impulse of 3rd turn. I think that would make an interesting play.

my5cts

Thread: Re: Is this solved?

_Kael_ — 2008-08-22T11:39:39+00:00

MMPgamer wrote:
Here's my strategy [..]
82nd AB DZ supply in 1104, one 82nd unit dropped in 1103, two 82nd units dropped in 1104.
According to the FAQ&Errata, 1103 is where the German "Grave"unit starts...

Thread: Re: Target: Arnhem and the problem of 'scripting" in wargames

wargamer55 — 2008-08-17T19:03:25+00:00

Lagduf wrote:
Wargames aren't necessarily any more predisposed to suffer from "scripting" than any other type or genre of games.

Eventually in all games a dominant strategy will be found, one that potentially has the power to win every time unless it is adequately defended against. Or some method of winning will be shown to be better than others.

This tends to happens, as I see it, in games that don't give you a lot of freedom of choice, or at least in games that don't feature any random variables (or very few variables).

I would add a qualifier and say scripting only heavily occurs in wargames where setup positions are always static.

Would you care to name some games that don't suffer from being scripted? Because I still feel to an extent that all games feature scripted elements, though some more heavily than others.

I would have to say I disagree, wargames are more prone to scripted play than other sorts of games. I'd go so far as to say it's a factor every game based on actual events must address and one of the biggest philosophical decisions facing the game's designer. To the extent the designer allows the players' t have choices he is increasing the liklihood that the course of the game will not follow the course of actual history. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it's been my experience that a game that diverges too early and too often will come under criticsm for being "ahistorical." And such a criticism is valid if it results in a line of play that would not have been possible in the actual event for some reason.

I would also disagree that scripting only occurs with static setups. That's certainly something which tends to increase scripting, but reinforement schedules, geographic feature sand even certain rules can also result in scripted game flow.

I don't think any wargame based on an actual event can escape scriting entirely, which is one reason why I think players might try some of the non-history based wargames out there such as Victory or design-your-own OB games such as Axis & Allies: Miniatures to experience the utter unknowns thta actual historical commanders faced.

That said, there are different degrees of scripting in wargames and sometimes variations in scripting can be the distinguishing factor between games on the same topic.

Some wargames that have less scripting than many others on the same topic include Napoleon's Triumph (Austerlitz) and Napoleon (Waterloo campaign).

Thread: Re: Target: Arnhem and the problem of 'scripting" in wargames

rajungamer — 2008-08-17T16:53:21+00:00

The larger problem facing Target: Arnhem and other games on the topic is something I'll call "scriptedness," for lack of a better term.
...

In wargames the openings and even middle and end games can be much more explicitly seen as scripted. Sometimes the rules explicitly require certain activities. It's very common for there to be defined setups and often events such as weather and reinforcement occurs on a set schedule. Usually this straight jacket is defended on historical grounds, although this is also the source of the dilemma.

An interesting post I enjoyed reading. Yes, wargames can have a lot of external control to the flow of the game.

A wargame designer has to walk a fine line, between allowing players control of the game, but subjecting the players to similar constraints of actual participants, accounting for off map activities, and for that matter counteracting hindsight. (One reason why I'm not one.)

A couple of things about Target Arnhem
Picking your own drop zones is a good point, yes you can commit more units at Arnhem at the cost of other forces being weaker. Yes you seize the Rhine bridge, but may end up having 2 airborne divisions destroyed, and the front stabilized on the Waal.
The Germans are allowed off map movement - allows them to react to a different allied strategy and gives some fog of war to the allied player.
The subsequent drops which were delayed by weather in England, probably should have a variable factor - both sides knew more troops were coming but not exactly when.

A more "realistic" portrayal of the action might give players many options to choose from. The problem here, of course, is that players have the benefit of hindsight and a design would have to include many events that didn't occur and possible paths not taken in order to capture the environment faced by the actual participants.

This is probably why meeting engagements are so popular, the flow in the game can diverge rather quickly based on results of the initial engagements.

I agree that better games allow for options, alternatives (at a cost). However, it is easier to establish a fixed reinforcement order or a prohibition of attacking at 'X'.

There are several ways designers have attempted to reduce the certainty of things like reinforcements, as a general rule this reduction of certainty puts the player more in line with the actual participants.

A lot of games allow for variable reinforcements at the cost of more stringent victory conditions. This is a good trade off, if the player demands and gets more resources, he has to do better with them.

Others add a random factor to reinforcements - they may arrive earlier, later or perhaps not at all. Think of Waterloo if you don't know when or if the Prussians will arrive - how would that change your plans.

Weather if accounted for also gets a random factor, yes you will know it will rain, but not exactly when.

As far as games which can be less scripted one I can think of:
Civil War Brigade series (CWB) - especially if you use scenarios that start a day earlier where the forces are coming on to the maps, also use variable reinforcements and write your own orders to start.

Thread: Re: Target: Arnhem and the problem of 'scripting" in wargames

Lagduf — 2008-08-16T12:41:51+00:00

Wargames aren't necessarily any more predisposed to suffer from "scripting" than any other type or genre of games.

Eventually in all games a dominant strategy will be found, one that potentially has the power to win every time unless it is adequately defended against. Or some method of winning will be shown to be better than others.

This tends to happens, as I see it, in games that don't give you a lot of freedom of choice, or at least in games that don't feature any random variables (or very few variables).

This is why I favor games with some random element in the setup. Railroad Tycoon for example features random goods cube placement. This helps to keep the game fresh, though there are most certainly strategies that can dominate (North-East in RRT).

Likewise a game like Settlers or Viktory II features random creation of the World/playing area to ensure a different game each time.

Obviously things like Axis and Allies, etc where there is only one fixed scenario will become scripted, but such is the nature of the game.

I would add a qualifier and say scripting only heavily occurs in wargames where setup positions are always static.

I always found systems where you got to choose where to place your units at the beginning of a scenario to be the best because it at least lets you try out different ideas and strategies. Though ultimately one strategy will perhaps still be more sound than others.

Combat Commander is an example of a wargame system that I don't feel is necessarily scripted because of the random objective chit draw that occurs.

Would you care to name some games that don't suffer from being scripted? Because I still feel to an extent that all games feature scripted elements, though some more heavily than others.

Thread: Re: Target: Arnhem and the problem of 'scripting" in wargames

gamer72 — 2008-08-16T12:05:20+00:00

This is also true of 'Bulge' games, which require a number of 'surprise attack, fuel shortage, and traffic jam' rules. However, any Bulge or Arnhem game worth its salt normally includes options where such scripting is wholly or partially abolished. I suppose the choice for a designer is whether to recreate history, or change it : the best games allow for both.

Thread: Target: Arnhem and the problem of 'scripting" in wargames

wargamer55 — 2008-08-16T01:45:30+00:00

Target: Arnhem is an interesting little game, although some who have played it more than I have suggest it has some balance issues.

The larger problem facing Target: Arnhem and other games on the topic is something I'll call "scriptedness," for lack of a better term.

It's a pretty common problem in wargames, actually, and perhaps inherently so.

"Scriptedness" occurs when a game follows certain well-trodden paths regardless of player decisions. An example is chess openings, in which some clearly defined opening lines tend to dominate play and many potential openings are never used by anyone other than novices. The creative aspects emerge in the middle game as players depart from the openings.

In wargames the openings and even middle and end games can be much more explicitly seen as scripted. Sometimes the rules explicitly require certain activities. It's very common for there to be defined setups and often events such as weather and reinforcement occurs on a set schedule. Usually this straight jacket is defended on historical grounds, although this is also the source of the dilemma.

The actual, historical participants, of course, were unaware of any "script" for their campaign. The impenetrable fog of the future meant they were unaware of the proper lines of play. The fog of war meant they had no way of knowing the enemy OB or reinforcement schedule. Indeed, details of their own OB and reinforcements were often lacking.

A more "realistic" portrayal of the action might give players many options to choose from. The problem here, of course, is that players have the benefit of hindsight and a design would have to include many events that didn't occur and possible paths not taken in order to capture the environment faced by the actual participants.

The rub is player acceptance. A game that departs too dramatically from the historical "script," especially in a well-known battle such as Arnhem, will probably be criticized as unrealistic.

And it very well might be, unless the designer goes to great lengths to depict the reasons why certain decisions were made. For example, in the Arnhem operation, given a choice, player might opt to use one of the American airborne divisions for the Arnhem bridge drop and would probably make sure that drop, of all of them, gets sufficient airlift to be completed in one day.

But there were good political and operational reasons for the historical drop plan and those need to be reflected if any change is allowed. And, of course, the Allies were ignorant of the deployment of the SS units near Arnhem, while the player is not.

Target: Arnhem has a defined set-up for the German forces, but gives the Allies the choice on where to drop their units, although when they are dropped follows the historical schedule. Because it's a simple game, there are no rules that might reflect the nuances behind the historical choices, so it's an open question whether giving the Allies this much choice is appropriate.

It does make Target: Arnhem a bit less scripted than many other games on the topic, although it's still very scripted by most other standards.

Unless players are willing to be more open-minded about the potential lines history could follow, "scriptedness" is likely to continue being a common characteristic in wargames, especially wargames about Market-Garden.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Help for new players: Rules often played wrong first time

EndersGame — 2008-08-12T22:25:47+00:00

It's no secret that the rules of Target Arnhem can be a little overwhelming the first time around, at least, for euro-gamers inexperienced with war-games. Yes, I know you grognards will say that it is a great introductory war game. And you're probably right! But for eurogamers like me, relative novices at war-gaming, figuring out how to play Target Arnhem on my own was like learning a whole new language! Fortunately I'd previously played Stand at Mortain and been introduced to stacking counters and some other elementary concepts, but even then it took me a long way to get a decent grasp on the rules, and our first few turns consisted of many blunders and rule errors that we only discovered later. For a true newcomer to war-games, I imagine that Target Arnhem is probably best learned firsthand from someone who already knows the game.

It seems that I am not the only one who has had this experience. While it's true that the rules are only two pages, are quite clear and well organized, and are like baby food for those with ASL experience, it has to be admitted that for the war-game novice they are in fairly small print, rather dense and concise, and it's easy to miss things. I'd respectfully suggest that the rules are the equivalent of at least 10 pages of more elaborate explanation and examples in your average euro game rulebook! There were quite a number of things that we missed or didn't understand at first, despite several readings of the rules and reviews. But I don't want to sound whiney, because after we got over the rules hump we had a fun time! The problem isn't the rules, but it's me, and the fact that I'm new to war-gaming. So I strongly suspect that many of us naive euro-gaming folk have played some of the rules incorrectly in our first few games.

This thread is intended to help other new players, by listing some of the rules that are often played incorrectly or easily misunderstood when learning this game. I'll begin with some of the rules we played incorrectly at first. There are many small details that are easy to overlook in the rules, and yet can significantly affect gameplay.
Please add more examples, to help new players avoid some of the common pitfalls of misunderstanding, and enjoy this great game!

Misunderstanding: The Allies can place their paratroopers anywhere on the map at the start of the game (during their first or second impulse).
Actual rule: The paratroopers must be placed within 2 hexes of their Paratroop supply marker.

Misunderstanding: The Allied paratroopers can immediately attack after being placed.
Actual rule: Only two of the eight starting Allied paratroopers can attack on the same tactical impulse that they are placed.

Misunderstanding: In successful combat, the attacker chooses which of the opponent's units to which the damage is assigned.
Actual rule: The owner of the units chooses which units to which the damage is assigned.

Misunderstanding: You can stack as many units as you wish on one hex.
Actual rule: There is a stacking limit of 3, extra units are removed at the end of a tactical impulse

Misunderstanding: All units can be move, attack, or be resupplied in each of the three tactical impulses.
Actual rule: On the third tactical impulse, the only units that can move, attack or be resupplied are mechanized units.

Misunderstanding: German reinforcements come onto the board with normal movement at the beginning of a turn, using either the usual two hex movement or further along a road.
Actual rule: German reinforcements may only move to an adjoining hex besides the off-board area, during a tactical impulse, and counting as an action.

Misunderstanding: It is possible to move over a canal as part of regular movement.
Actual rule: Moving over a canal is allowed, but the unit must begin beside the canal and may only move onto the adjoining hex on the other side of the canal, and make no further movement.

Misunderstanding: All supply pool markers begin with 1 supply.
Actual rule: All supply pool markers begin with 0 supply. During the adjustment phase at the beginning of the first turn they are all increased by 1 supply point (the German Wehrmach receives a D6 x 0.5 rounded up).

Misunderstanding: Units may move onto a road and then along that road.
Actual rule: To use road movement, the unit must be on the road at the beginning of the tactical impulse.

Misunderstanding: Only the Allied XXX Corps have infinite supply.
Actual rule: All Allied units which can trace a route to the XXX Corps starting point (hex 0103) can use this infinite supply, once the XXX Corps reinforcements have entered on or after Turn 3.

Please feel free to laugh out loud at this newbie if any of the above blunders are ridiculously silly! And for the benefit of other new players, please add to this list!

I'm glad I did struggle through the rules, because by the end of my first game I had enjoyed myself immensely, and look forward to trying it again!

Thread: Re: Blocked off-board area

wwscrispin — 2008-05-21T15:43:32+00:00

On reading the rules again I agree. They do not explicitly state you can attack from the off-board areas. I am not sure that was the designer's intention. I will try to ask. It is not a situation that comes up very often.

Thread: Re: Comparisions...

Sphere — 2008-05-17T00:38:45+00:00

Dirty Harry wrote:
Has anyone played the GDW game Operation Market Garden (I'm about t try it out soon on ADC2 http://boardgamegeek.com/game/6813 Just interested in game play etc from games who have played it. Thanks

I've never played it. I think you'd be more likely to get a response about that game if you posted there.

Thread: Comparisions...

Dirty Harry — 2008-05-16T21:53:12+00:00

Has anyone played the GDW game Operation Market Garden (I'm about t try it out soon on ADC2 http://boardgamegeek.com/game/6813 Just interested in game play etc from games who have played it. Thanks

Thread: Re: moving from on-board to off-board

jeblucas — 2008-05-08T20:26:11+00:00

saxophone wrote:
I'm not talking about road movement. A unit can move 2 hexes. When moving from onboard to offboard, do you simply treat the offboard area as another hex? Or do you have to be on an edge hex and spend all of your movement moving into the offboard area?
You simply treat the offboard area as another hex. This works for moving offboard. Not for coming onboard--coming onboard you may move only to an edge hex.

Thread: Re: moving from on-board to off-board

saxophone — 2008-05-08T19:37:14+00:00

I'm not talking about road movement. A unit can move 2 hexes. When moving from onboard to offboard, do you simply treat the offboard area as another hex? Or do you have to be on an edge hex and spend all of your movement moving into the offboard area?

Thread: Re: moving from on-board to off-board

jeblucas — 2008-05-08T19:31:17+00:00

I know you can Road Movement offboard--that could be from a ways away from the edge.

Thread: moving from on-board to off-board

saxophone — 2008-05-08T18:05:15+00:00

In one move, can you move from an on-board hex to an off-board area if the hex is 2 hexes away from the board edge?

Thread: Re: Blocked off-board area

Cantatta — 2008-04-30T20:16:34+00:00

The stacking rules specifically state that no unit may enter a hex occupied by an enemy unit (3.5 Stacking Limits, last paragraph).

The combat rules state that on-board units may attack enemy units (5. Combat, first paragraph). Nowhere in the rules does it say off-board units may attack enemy units.

So in your example Issac, the German units could move to another off-board space (ie. A or C), or sit tight until an adjacent hex became unoccupied. The German units could not attack the units in the hexes adjacent to off-board space B.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Thread: Re: Out Of Stock, now what?

Cruo — 2008-04-27T21:05:04+00:00

I'd really like to see it back as well. My wife WILL NOT play A Victory Lost with me, and it is hard for me to find anybody else to play with, and I bet she'd give this one a try and I could maybe work her up

Thread: Re: Out Of Stock, now what?

JoshBot — 2008-03-14T15:13:55+00:00

I got the game about a month ago (after previously being told it was out of print), and had the same experience as Isaac and Jake. It seems to be an ebb-and-flow thing.

Thread: Re: Out Of Stock, now what?

realgabriel — 2008-03-14T11:38:07+00:00

Good point, but i hope that's not the case, because if i get this game i might get closer to become one potential customers for those preorders.

Thread: Re: Out Of Stock, now what?

Captain Coconut — 2008-03-14T11:36:54+00:00

The last time, they just said it wasn't free in the mail anymore, it would only be available at cons and such, then they made it available to order again. I wouldn't be surprised if it was gone for good this time. I could be wrong, though.

Thread: Re: Out Of Stock, now what?

isaacc — 2008-03-14T11:20:30+00:00

Target Arnhem goes up and down for sale at the MMP website periodically. I ordered it just recently and then it went off the MMP website the following day. I bet you that they're not out of stock. The staff at MMP are super busy now pushing out the preorders for Valor of the Guards, The Devil's Cauldron and Operations Magazine 52. They have even gone a couple of days not answering the telephone because of it. I'm guessing that they don't want to be bothered right now with distractions such as orders for Target Arnhem. Check back at the MMP website every so often to see if it goes back up for sale.

Thread: Out Of Stock, now what?

realgabriel — 2008-03-14T10:39:03+00:00

I'm very interested in this game, at first sight, i like the graphics, the suposed introductory level and it's "price", so, can anyone give an estimate on when this game is going to be available again?

Thread: Re: Game is available for free, die-cut counters and all

realgabriel — 2008-03-12T23:18:24+00:00

Can anyone give an estimate on when this game is going to be available again?

Thread: Re: Is this solved?

Hastati — 2008-03-04T10:19:35+00:00

My allied placement is very similar.

1 Para Sup and both 1 Para in 1503. They will get the extra actions and attack Arnhem (1504) at 6-1. This guarantees the elimination of the defending unit. 1 of the Para units then advances into Arnhem.

101 AB sup goes in 1405.
501/101 and 502/101 go into 1304. 506/101 goes into 1405.

82 AB sup goes into 0703.
504/82 also goes into 0703.
505/82 and 508/82 go into 0702.

On the second impulse all of 101 airborne attack hex 1403 at 7-1 for an auto elim. I then move two units into that hex and keep one in 1304.

On the second impulse 504/82 attacks hex 0603 at 3-1 and will elim the unit. 505/82 and 508/82 attack hex 0602 at 6-1 and will elim that unit.

I have not yet found a good German response to this allied opening. By the 1st impulse of turn 2 Arnhem is an allied fortress.

Thread: Re: Blocked off-board area

isaacc — 2008-02-29T00:43:38+00:00

Area B. All 3 on-board hexes had an Allied unit in them, so No German unit could go on-board.

Thread: Re: Blocked off-board area

wwscrispin — 2008-02-28T23:19:23+00:00

I am not at home but I do not remember any place where the Germans had this situation. Which area?

The short answer is that German off-board units do not need to have a clear hex to attack.

Thread: Blocked off-board area

isaacc — 2008-02-28T22:53:55+00:00

German units are in an off-board area waiting to enter an on-board hex. All of the possible on-board hexes have an Allied unit in them. Does this mean the German units cannot enter play until at lest one hex is cleared? Or, can German off-board units attack from the off-board area?

Thread: Re: Is this solved?

MMPgamer — 2008-02-28T15:17:54+00:00

Here's my strategy & how I drop the Allied AB when I play.

Turn 1 Impulse 1
101st AB DZ supply in 503, one 101st unit dropped in 703, 303, and 503.
82nd AB DZ supply in 1104, one 82nd unit dropped in 1103, two 82nd units dropped in 1104.
1st AB DZ supply in 1503, both 1st units land in 1503, attack Arnhem at 7-1 odds, one unit moves in.
Guards attack 203.

Impulse 2
101st units attack 603, and 403, take both. Unit in 503 moves into Eindhoven, all others stay put.
82nd units attack Nijmegan.
1st units sit tight.
Guards continue attack at 203.

Impulse 3
Guards continue attack on 203.

Using this opening stratgey I've satisfied the victory conditions on the second impulse of turn 4.

Image

eightbit — 2008-02-20T18:35:54+00:00

High quality map

Image

eightbit — 2008-02-20T17:38:37+00:00

High quality counter back

Image

eightbit — 2008-02-20T17:38:09+00:00

High quality counter front

Thread: Re: XXX Corps supply and artillery barrage

oi_you_nutter — 2008-02-13T15:08:03+00:00

the paras can get advantage of the "Concentrated Bombardment" rule, and thus a free column shift, when at least one British Mechanised unit (i.e. a unit from XXX corps) is also included in the same attack.

Thread: Re: XXX Corps supply and artillery barrage

pelni — 2008-02-13T09:40:57+00:00

Just played a first game and some questions came up (most were answered by the FAQ posted here - thanks for that!):

If XXX Corps has unlimited supply, does this mean that every attack they make gets the column shift? Seems a little weird.

Yes, they get the column shift for every attack. They need it...

Also, when the paras are able to draw from the XXX Corps marker, do they also get the advantages of unlimited supply?

Yes. But no column shift as they have only infantry.

Finally, what stops the SS starting in the woods north of Arnhem to waltz into the city in the 1st German impulse before the Brits can do so (since conducting a paradrop takes up the whole 1st impulse for the paras). If the answer to this is nothing, then the British paras will not have an easy time of getting into Arnhem at all.

Read the scenario rules. The allies are allowed to take an action with two paratrooper units the first turn in addition to the paradrop.

Thread: XXX Corps supply and artillery barrage

camustafa — 2008-02-13T04:27:56+00:00

Just played a first game and some questions came up (most were answered by the FAQ posted here - thanks for that!):

If XXX Corps has unlimited supply, does this mean that every attack they make gets the column shift? Seems a little weird.

Also, when the paras are able to draw from the XXX Corps marker, do they also get the advantages of unlimited supply?

Can someone confirm that the historical placement auto eliminates the 101st Supply Point? The FAQ seem to imply this. But this means that the 101st can't drop any more.

Finally, what stops the SS starting in the woods north of Arnhem to waltz into the city in the 1st German impulse before the Brits can do so (since conducting a paradrop takes up the whole 1st impulse for the paras). If the answer to this is nothing, then the British paras will not have an easy time of getting into Arnhem at all.

Image

steffensorum — 2008-02-12T13:32:36+00:00

501 on the other side of supply-line. 2 impulses to get back to supply.

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

peacmyer — 2008-02-09T20:06:17+00:00

That's quite correct. The "if" part is quite hard to achieve, though....

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

steffensorum — 2008-02-09T14:43:35+00:00

Hi and thanks for the answere!

That means that for instance the 5/ gds mech can resupplie three times in one turn? and then get rid of three damage markers.

in the rules it says: "Each unit can perform any one of the above (movement, combat, re-supply) tactical actions once in their allowed tactical impulse."

so if you get to Arnhem with three xxx troops and keep the road free you will be able to re-supplie 3 x 3 per turn and making it nearly impossible for the germans to kick you out by damaging the units inside the city.

or did I miss something?

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

joebelanger — 2008-02-07T17:51:56+00:00

peacmyer wrote:
House rule one can use for better balance (IMHO) is 1d6/3.

There's just not enough balance in war.

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

GaryP — 2008-02-07T14:27:33+00:00

steffensorum wrote:
but the mechanised troops attacking from 0103, how many supply points to they get?
As mentioned above, they XXX Corps have unlimited supply. This has been discussed elsewhere, but it is worth pointing out again. Any Allied unit can use the unlimited supply from 0103 if they can trace a supply path. However, each unit is still limited to only one resupply action (removing one point of damage) per impulse.

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

Venga2 — 2008-02-07T12:21:55+00:00

Unlimited

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

steffensorum — 2008-02-07T12:02:23+00:00

but the mechanised troops attacking from 0103, how many supply points do they get?

Thread: Re: Supply point starting positions

steffensorum — 2008-02-07T11:03:11+00:00

but the mechanised troops attacking from 0103, how many supply points to they get?

Thread: Re: couple rules questions

GaryP — 2008-02-06T15:28:37+00:00

1. Half strength is not rounded at all, per se. You use the actual half strength value to calculate the odds ratio. The only rounding is the normal rounding (down) of the ratio when determining which column to use on the CRT.

Example: I have a unit with strength 7 but attacking at half strength against a unit of strength 3. The odds ratio will be:
(7/2)/3 = 3.5/3 = 1.166
Now you round down to use the 1:1 column of the CRT.

2. Yes to both. (Just to give another confirmation.)

Thread: Re: couple rules questions

keethrax — 2008-02-06T03:50:16+00:00

cmdr layman wrote:
didnt see these in the rules.
1. is the half strength rounded up or down?
2. can unit starting adjacent to enemy unit move out into a space adjacent to another enemy unit? if unit starts adjacent to enemy, can it move 1 space through the enemys zone of control?
thanks

1. Not sure, don't have the rules handy right now.
2. Yes to both.

Thread: couple rules questions

cmdr layman — 2008-02-06T03:40:30+00:00

didnt see these in the rules.
1. is the half strength rounded up or down?
2. can unit starting adjacent to enemy unit move out into a space adjacent to another enemy unit? if unit starts adjacent to enemy, can it move 1 space through the enemys zone of control?
thanks

Thread: Re: Looking for "easy" wargames like this

Gameluis — 2008-02-05T00:31:43+00:00

This one looks very interesting! I will be problaby buying this or A Victory Lost

Addenda: I finally ordered Corps Command: Totensonntag and I´m waiting for it. My next order will problaby be "A Victory Lost"

Thread: Re: Area 'P' as German Supply source

keethrax — 2008-02-04T17:25:56+00:00

GaryP wrote:
No. I'm not sure that this is expressly given in the rules, but the reason area P becomes unavailable to the Germans is that the Allies had advanced into that area. If no combat vehicles can move through there, you can be sure any logistical transports would have been stopped, too. =)

Which is what we used , not that it even came up, except as a question beforehand.

In any case, I lost badly due to me seriously blundering on protecting the road. He cut it of with the 107th Panzers and I let him. I let him because I thought I could cut off the infantry he was bringing in to reinforce the tanks, and could kill the tanks themselves handily.

Instead I neglected to figure in one of the canals in my plan to cut off his reinforcements and so he met up and held the road from then till the end.

Eventually Arnhem was starved out (the reinforcements I had gotten there with the open road, the paras were already in very rough shape), and the 107th went north and retook Nijmegen with help from the Arnhem SS guys.

Then he decided to see how far south he could push his road ownership, but I held him @ Grave. With more time left he could have used the off map boxes to flank me, but there weren't enough impulses left by then.

Thread: Re: Area 'P' as German Supply source

GaryP — 2008-02-04T16:28:31+00:00

No. I'm not sure that this is expressly given in the rules, but the reason area P becomes unavailable to the Germans is that the Allies had advanced into that area. If no combat vehicles can move through there, you can be sure any logistical transports would have been stopped, too. =)

Thread: Re: Paper Tigers

_Kael_ — 2008-02-04T13:13:30+00:00

MattDP wrote:
Although this is an attractively simple way of modelling the extra speed and firepower of armoured troops it has the downside of actually discouraging stacking of infantry and armour together, as armour units in such a stack are fairly useless acting on their own in the third impulse. Given the combined arms tactics that dominated during the Second World War, this is a slightly surreal oversight.Good review.

About this quote: I don't think this is a surreal oversight, since combined arms tactics doesn't mean mixing brigades: a armor counter in TA:A6B will have it's own inherent infantery units, while some infantery units will have a small detachment of armor.

Thread: Re: Looking for "easy" wargames like this

beta.lyrae — 2008-02-03T15:54:08+00:00

Corps Command: Totensonntag

Edit: Of the games suggested, it's closest complexity wise to TA. Infact, it may even be easier than TA.

Take a look at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/273548 to see what I mean.

Thread: Re: Looking for "easy" wargames like this

Gameluis — 2008-02-03T11:39:38+00:00

Thanks again to everyone! I will certainly consider all of your suggestions.

Thread: Re: Looking for "easy" wargames like this

riks — 2008-02-03T11:05:56+00:00

chargetheguns wrote:
Battle for Moscow is nice and is on the same level as Target Arnhem.
... and is available for free at Web Grognards http://grognard.com/bfm/index.html

There is also a free software version. The original website is long gone but you can Google search for "Battle for Moscow software" and pick your favourite download site.

Thread: Re: Looking for "easy" wargames like this

tppytel — 2008-02-03T07:54:19+00:00

Though they're larger in size, I'd think that any of The Gamers SCS Series games (Afrika - 2nd Edition, Yom Kippur, Stalingrad Pocket - 2nd Edition, Drive on Paris, among others) would fit the bill. The series rules are only 8 pages long, including notes and examples, and if you're a veteran wargamer it will be so familiar (ZOC's, overruns, odds-based CRT, etc.) that you can skim it in a few minutes. The complexity of the game-specific rules varies with each game, but mostly they're still pretty straightforward. As a bonus, the same basic system covers a variety of conflicts, including WWI, WWII, the Spanish Civil War, and the 1973 October War.

The only reservation I'd have about SCS is that small scenarios aren't really its strong point. All of the games have scenarios of various sizes, but they're not all particularly tight or balanced. The love at The Gamers goes to the full campaign games rather than the scenarios (in SCS and in their other lines as well.)

Image

jeblucas — 2008-01-14T20:22:36+00:00

Session related: Nijmegen nightmare for the Allies

Image

SiskNY — 2008-01-10T16:11:56+00:00

Homemade box and insert, map mounted onto a homemade quad-fold board.

Image

SiskNY — 2008-01-10T16:10:32+00:00

Homemade Box -- Yes, I'm a compulsive DIY'er

Image

Cric75 — 2007-12-27T18:34:55+00:00

Turn 3 - The German player still resists...

Image

Oersted — 2007-07-28T19:31:25+00:00

Not the best moment for the 82nd, stopped at Arnhem and with German reinforcements at his rear.