Game: Burning Blue, The

Thread: Re: Scenario 1 Session report & Quick review

cstimpson — 2008-11-24T17:54:57+00:00

Nice AAR, Adhika. The RAF did well to get so close.

I did notice one little 'nit': I think the RAF can only orbit over landmarks, airfields, towns, coastlines, etc., unlike the Luftwaffe, who can orbit anywhere. So I don't think you can orbit "off the French coast", as you did.

Also, your Luftwaffe channel patrollers should have been attacking any squadrons that ventured out over the Channel, if you had any.

I agree, this is a great game. Wait till you get to scenarios 3 & 4 and the bombers have to fight their way to London and beyond!

Thread: Re: Scenario 1 Session report & Quick review

adhikayev — 2008-11-23T02:09:11+00:00

Thanks everyone

@Eker : Good idea! I think if the LW player doesnt see how weather manifests itself, the planning won't be influenced.

@John O : Roger that! I've got my eye on your ship. Too bad I'm to far to take a shot at you Close Action is a fun game. Excellent system too

Thread: Re: Scenario 1 Session report & Quick review

jtovb — 2008-11-22T14:51:42+00:00

Adhika

Nice write up. It is a great, fun game.

At Chesapeake beware of Royal Oak

We couldn't get a 1 on 1 game going but this is going very well.

Thread: Re: Scenario 1 Session report & Quick review

eker — 2008-11-22T13:14:45+00:00

Excellent AAR!

While the LW player doing the planning -let the RAF roll and setup the weather. (It may affect the planning slighty, but it keeps both busy). RAF can set up the TOT board, and if any time to spare, reread his takeoff/climb prosedure. This will keep both players busy.

Thread: Scenario 1 Session report & Quick review

adhikayev — 2008-11-22T06:40:18+00:00

This is a session report of an game I recently finished along with a first impressions review. Leland, a fellow Fighting Wings wargamer, was my opponent. My first session report and review EVER too (so please bear with me if isn’t that good).

They'll Be Bluebirds over the White Cliffs of Dover

“What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. “
–Winston Churchill-

July 29, 1940…..

From London to Dover

1100 -1110 :
Dover RDF detects a formation of 10+ aircraft incoming from Le Touquet Etaples. Kenley Airfield, the Sector Airfield west of London responds first. A flight of Hurricanes from 615 Squadron is scrambled. Hawkinge airfield, just north of Dover responds in quick succession, scrambling 64 Squadron, Spitfires.
Not too soon either as a brief moment later the radar at Dover once again signals alarms… contacts incoming from Calais … another 30+ aircraft! (Game note : This second one is a dummy counter)

Conflict area ... close up

1110-1120 :
Another contact appears, 20 aircraft incoming from Cap d’Alprech not far from the first contact.
Kenley airfield scrambles a second flight of Hurricanes from 615 and vectors to Bexhill to meet up with their squadron mates.

1120:
The radar operators at Dover obtain a fix on the first contact. Not 10 aircraft as first thought….30 aircraft incoming at angels 8 (game note: 8000 feet).
64 Squadron sets up a patrol rout from Hawkinge to Margate. 615 does the same from Bexhill to Lympne. The picket lines await the looming adversary just over the horizon…..the clock ticks ever so slowly.

1125-1130 :
The radar reports that contact 1 is half way over the English channel, only 32 km from 615 Squadron’s patrol. The Hurricanes scan the sky…. nothing… yet.
Meanwhile, the Hurricanes of 32 Squadron take off from Lympne to support their brothers in arms.

1130 :
Dover fixes on what appears to be the main raid. Contact no 3 … 60 aircraft incoming from Cap d’Alprech.
Contact 1 is now just 8 kms off the coast of Folkestonem and 16 kms just off Dover. 32 Squadron is the closest and reacts first. The contact is spotted….. fighters!! A whole gruppe of them and at 12000 feet, not 8000 as reported.

1135 :
The fighters spotted were Messerschmitt Bf-109s from I Jadgeschwader 3 and were tasked to conduct a Freie Jagd sweep over Dover. Apparently, the Messerschmitts did not notice the Spitfires of 32 Squadron and continued on their path towards Dover.
According to the radar operators, contact no 3, the main raid, should be just off the coast of Dover. However, they have still not been spotted.

64 Squadron orbits just north of Dover and searches for the reported fighters spotted by 32 Squadron, to no avail.
32 Squadron continues its pursuit of I JG 3 and combat commences. The Hurricanes of 32 Squadron claim 1 Bf-109 shot down. However, they then must withdraw due to ammo shortages. I JG 3 remains over the skies of Dover.

Having been provoked by the Hurricanes, I JG 3 looks for more blood. They spot 64 Squadron north of Dover and attack. They claim 1 Spitfire shotdown, and have the Spitfires withdrawing. Having lost 2 more of their own, and low on ammo, I JG 3 returns to base. They have accomplished their mission, the skies of Dover are clear of Tommies.
74 Squadron and 54 Squadron from Hornchurch and Rochford are scrambled.

1140 :
615 Squadron vectors to Dover and arrives just in time to intercept the main Luftwaffe raid…. Unfortunately not fast enough to prevent the Stukas from dropping their bombs. The two gruppen of Stukas divebomb dover from 10000 feet. Anti-aircraft guns react , taking down one Stuka. However, Dover is hit, heavily damaging the two radar stations based there (30 Victory points).

The first flight from 615 meets the diving Stukas and intercepts. The raid is escorted by Bf-109s whom immediately react to the Hurricanes. Combat commences… the Luftwaffe claims 1 kill for no losses, repulsing the flight of Hurricanes.
Having accomplished their mission, the main raid returns to base, still pursued by the other flight of Hurricanes from 615. 74 and 54 squadrons also intend to exact vengeance for Dover and vector to intercept the bombers on their way back.

1145 :
The remaining flight of 615 Hurricanes, catch up with the main raid 25 kilometers south of Dover. The Messerschmitt escorts are once again defiant and manage to fend off the Hurricanes despite being low on ammo. The Hurricanes are forced to withdraw. However, the grueling combat has finally taken its toll on the escorts and they too must withdraw, leaving the Stukas with little protection, a dangerous position for the Stukas, as 74 and 54 squadrons are hot on their heels.

1150 :
Approaching the French coast, 54 Squadron spots the Stukas and attacks. The results, however, are inconclusive and Spitfires break off the attack.

1155 :
74 Squadron having still not spotted the Stukas due to haze below 4000 ft, set up orbit just off the French coast.

1200 :
The haze proves advantageous to the Stukas as they manage to slip beneath 74 Squadron. 74 Squadron misses them and, after fruitless search effort, heads home.

------------SCENARIO END--------------
Victory Points
30 (Bombing)+2(kills)+3(exceed RL) – 4.5(fighter kills over England)-2(bomber kills over England) = 28.5 VPs

Slightly less than the Raid Chit VP (29)... resulting in a draw. However, scenario notes that the first scenario is tough for the RAF so a draw should be treated as a moral victory for the RAF (my opponent).

All in all , a good game was had

First Impressions review :

Gameplay
The Burning Blue portrays the air war during the Battle of Britain at a grand tactical scale. Each turn simulates five minutes, with hex sizes 8 kilometers across and Gruppen/Staffel size units for the Luftwaffe and Squadron/flight size units for the Royal Air Force.

As with many other wargames, the rules may seem daunting at first. However, once the ball gets rolling, everything is actually pretty straightforward. Turns are divided into several phases covering scrambling fighters, movement, radar detection, spotting, and air combat.

At the start of the game, the Luftwaffe player draws a chit that specifies the target and the forces available. The LW player then allocates the fighter/bomber gruppen into raids accordingly to fulfill the objective. Once the raids are formed, the waypoints for each raid are plotted along with their form up time and altitude.
Interestingly, this is where the gameplay between the Luftwaffe player and RAF player are distinctively different. Once the raids are plotted the LW player can issue only very limited orders, and those mostly to the Freie Jagd raids. Most of the time, the LW player has to stick with the route plotted, therefore, must rely on deception to draw away the RAF fighters from the main raid. Dummy raid counters are also available (based on scenario) to keep the RAF player second guessing.

On the other hand, the RAF player has much freedom in moving around flights and squadrons, limited only by a victory point penalty if the amount of squadrons scrambled exceeds a certain limit. However, this does not mean that it is easy for the RAF player. First, the knowledge of the target and composition of each LW raid is unknown so the RAF must plan ahead if it intends to take down the main raid. A mistake in judgement may result in units pursuing diversion raids, leaving the main raid unscathed or facing meager opposition. Also, RAF unit sizes are smaller than LW sizes (1 squadron = 12 aircraft, 1 gruppen= 30-40 aircraft). This most often causes RAF units to withdraw sooner than LW units.

Components

The Burning Blue comes with typical hex and counter wargame components :
- A hex map (typical wargame poster material) of the London area and surroundings with a bit of the French coast. Beautiful artwork. I like how the typeface chosen very much captures the feel of the era.
- Counters for LW and RAF forces including various markers
- Rulebook and Scenario book. Very nicely laid out wargamer style. The rules are clear and concise. The index is a great help (a MUST!). A lot of historical detail in both.
- Player Charts
- Tote board and Raid board for RAF and LW respectively
- d6 dice
- Plotting map sheets
- Detection cards. The detection cards are a very nice addition. Whether by radar, tallying or land observer, spotting raids merely requires the draw of these cards.

What I like :
- Assymmetric gameplay between the RAF and LW. Some players, ones that prefer balanced games mostly, will not like this feature. However, I find it excellent as it portrays the real life difficulties faced by both sides at the time.
- Beautiful artwork for the map and counters
- Tense game. The addition of a clock to mark the turns is a nice touch that adds to the tension.
- Detail.. for a grand tactical game, the detail present is good. The difficulties of attacking aircraft at higher altitudes, the bad weather effects, ground observers and radar inaccuracies are examples of the goodies modeled.
- Excellently researched. A lot of historical detail in the rulebook and scenarios.

What I like less :
- For the RAF player, the LW pre-game planning part may be a little boring. Especially if the LW player takes a long time to plan raids. This however, can be avoided by having the LW player draw the chit and plan the raids before the two players meet.

Overall :
Thoroughly researched (both from primary and secondary sources if I’m not mistaken), it provides a lot of insight and detail regarding the air war. The asymmetric gameplay is a winner. However, players that prefer chess-like balance may not like it. The presence of randomness is there which is a good thing for me. Randomness is essential to simulate the chaos and unpredictability of combat. As in real life, just because you have the perfect strategy does not mean you can go without contingency plans in case something goes wrong.

Conclusion:
Highly recommended! This is THE game for the Battle of Britain. Another masterpiece by Mr. Brimmicombe-Wood

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-11-01T13:39:39+00:00

cstimpson wrote:
Peter and Todd:

Although it's not designed as such, I find TBB plays well solitaire. This is partly because the Luftwaffe moves are effectively pre-programmed; I find it's fun to try for all sorts of deception in the Luftwaffe raid planning phase, then as the game unfolds, see how well it works. As RAF player, I try to react to what APPEARS to be happening, rather than what I know the LW plan to be.

The big secret to solitaire play, however, is not to notice the RAF Response level when selecting raid chits. (You need to cover up the right side of the raids page for this; awkward but doable). Assuming you use rule 20.1.1, in which you ignore the "scenario" response level and use instead the per-raid computed values, this leaves the RAF player guessing his response rate. Too little and you can't get through to the bombers. Too much and you lose points for over-reacting. Lots of decisions to take; lots of fun!

This interesting idea, I will have to check it out...thanks for your suggestion Chris!

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

cstimpson — 2008-10-27T17:03:51+00:00

By the way, I'm up for a Vassal game if anyone's interested.
cstimpson@ne.rr.com

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

cstimpson — 2008-10-27T17:02:30+00:00

Peter and Todd:

Although it's not designed as such, I find TBB plays well solitaire. This is partly because the Luftwaffe moves are effectively pre-programmed; I find it's fun to try for all sorts of deception in the Luftwaffe raid planning phase, then as the game unfolds, see how well it works. As RAF player, I try to react to what APPEARS to be happening, rather than what I know the LW plan to be.

The big secret to solitaire play, however, is not to notice the RAF Response level when selecting raid chits. (You need to cover up the right side of the raids page for this; awkward but doable). Assuming you use rule 20.1.1, in which you ignore the "scenario" response level and use instead the per-raid computed values, this leaves the RAF player guessing his response rate. Too little and you can't get through to the bombers. Too much and you lose points for over-reacting. Lots of decisions to take; lots of fun!

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-20T12:51:59+00:00

Thanks guys, my TBB should be in shortly then it's time for learning with VASSAL mod.

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

tppytel — 2008-10-19T15:14:58+00:00

Well, it's certainly a disadvantage playing solitaire for this one. You really want to find an actual opponent, otherwise it's hard to get into the right thinking process. But as far as the rules themselves go, I found it worked well enough simply to follow the sequence of play on the player aid card. The game is very procedural and all the rule references are included right there. It will be pretty slow going while you get the hang of it, but you can muddle through a game that way and then go back and reread important rules sections later.

Thread: Re: Learning Burning Blue

CoryC — 2008-10-19T15:02:29+00:00

You can skip the campaign stuff and the rules for wings - the rest you need to read however.

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

Chris_Milne — 2008-10-17T08:23:58+00:00

I was thinking more in terms of time compression - one raid represents a whole month's effort, or something like that. I've no idea what the ground and counter scales will be for that game.

Thread: Re: Realistic Dogfight rules

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-16T14:45:09+00:00

I agree with Lee as well and here is why. I love flight sims from WW2 as well and I have been flying with IL2 flight sim since the demo came out (2001 I believe). I even belong to I./JG53 Gruppe. I fought in many on-line wars as part of I./JG53. I'm 109er, I exclusively fly only 109s. And for the most part I do Boom & Zoom instead of TURN & BURN. In Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe pilots engaged RAF fighters using for the most part the Boom & Zoom tactics. The 109 is faster at 23000 feet and above, below that it's slightly slower than Spitfire. The 109 can turn with Spitfire at any attitude but not for a very long time. The spitfire turns better than 109. However the 109 can always out climb and out dive any RAF fighter. However Pilot's experience plays a critical part in any combat engagements. Anyways as escort I would always be slightly higher than the bombers so that in case RAF fighters shows up I can the Boom & Zoom on the enemy fighters. Once The enemy fighters do their pass I would chase the enemy fighters only for a short while and then climb back to my original position and wait for another enemy wave. As a 109 pilot I always stay high because that's where 109 advantage is...my purpose is to protect the bombers and not having one on one knight fighters with RAF fighters at the sea level. Altitude is the fighter pilot's best friend, and I learned the hard way So yes as a RAF pilot you want to do a pass and then get the hell out of there (sometimes do another pass if possible, but never alone). In any dog fight you loose your speed and altitude and you might as well bail out...Erich Hartmann (highest scoring pilot in history) never engaged in dogfights, all he did was Boom & Zoom with getting as close to the enemy as possible to the enemy...then one or two shots from his 109 canon and then he was out of there. Dog fights serves no purpose, you waste your fuel, heat up the engine and loose awareness of what's going on around you. A pilot should never engage in dog fights unless the area is protected by his wing/schwarm/squadron etc and he has a sure kill...otherwise it's a waste of time.

Thread: Re: Solo Rules

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-16T14:14:20+00:00

pilotofficerprune wrote:
Tim Collier has posted his prototype solitaire rules to Consimworld here:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@55.W1CVbgUGM7W.14@.1dcf2...

These are far from being the finished article, but Tim hopes you will help test the rules and refine them.

Cool already got them with try them as soon as I get TBB in my hands sometimes this week, any update on these rules?

Thread: Learning Burning Blue

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-15T13:35:38+00:00

Hi All,

While I'm waiting for my copy of TBB to arrive from Gamer's Armory, I'm learning the rules and playing around with VASSAL TBB module. Yesterday I played the introductory scenario, I had a lot of fun playing it. Since I'm playing solo, I made the following changes: no raid plan (for obvious reasons), target was determined by rolling a die (since there are 6 targets) however the Hostile 1 would always move 3 hexes per turn. RAF fighter however would have to roll a die 1 - 4 which would determine how many hexes per turn the fighter can move (call that weather/clouds conditions)...and that was quite fun. I like how the scenario had READ RULES section which shows what section of the rulebook to read. However this READ RULES section is missing from the Scenario 1. None of the other scenarios have the READ RULES section. Even looking at the Quick Start scenario, even though it has "Scenario: This is a ready set-up scenario based on scenario 1. Use all rules for scenario 1." Point to Scenario 1 rules...which I can't seems to be able to find.

So my question is what rules do I need to read for the Scenario 1 or for the Quick Start scenario (I guess same rules). I'm looking at the Rulebook PDF 1.1 and Scenarios PDF 1.1 documents.

Overall TBB seems like a very interesting wargame, it looks like a monster but I think this is the first time in my life where I know a lot about the subject so the amount of information or the scale doesn't really bother me. It has classic written all over it!

Thanks!

PS: Now I gotta wait for the mail truck to arrive!!! Though I'm really glad that there is VASSAL module for TBB!!!

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

ricmadeira — 2008-10-14T20:55:55+00:00

Chris_Milne wrote:
Decision Games is publishing a game covering the USAAF campaign in a forthcoming issue of World at War. From what I can tell, it's akin in scale to Luftwaffe.

What's the scale of Luftwaffe, anyway? In TBB the small counters are 6 to 8 planes, the big counters 12 to 30... not anywhere near what I would call Tactical. Luftwaffe's scale can't be very different from that, can it?

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

Chris_Milne — 2008-10-14T20:46:47+00:00

Lee has a Bomber Command game on the back burner: http://www.airbattle.co.uk/bombercommand.html
Probably the single game I'm looking forward to most, even if it is many years off.

Brien Miller (designer of Silent War, amongst other good games) has also mused over such a design.

Decision Games is publishing a game covering the USAAF campaign in a forthcoming issue of World at War. From what I can tell, it's akin in scale to Luftwaffe.

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-14T18:36:47+00:00

Domhnall101 wrote:
Burning Blue is a great system that would scale well to the 43-45 campaign. It would be a damned big game though. At the scale of Burning blue you could end up with a game closer to Case Blue. Probably a 4-6 player game

Sounds great! I would buy it right away, if I could!

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-14T18:34:03+00:00

ricmadeira wrote:
JG53_Jaguar wrote:
Is there currently a boardgame with level of tactical detail of TBB that has focus for Allied Bombing campaign '43 - '45?

Luftwaffe (2nd Edition) could be exactly what you are looking for, at least in the scope and subject matter department; it's just a question on how much you dig the mechanics and play, I guess. I've been eyeing it since it was released, but haven't got me a copy yet.

I already got Luftwaffe 2 though I didn't get a chance to read the rules in detail. Having a brief look at the rulebook I would say Luftwaffe 2 is not that much on tactical level as TBB, it's more on operational level.

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

ricmadeira — 2008-10-14T14:50:37+00:00

JG53_Jaguar wrote:
Is there currently a boardgame with level of tactical detail of TBB that has focus for Allied Bombing campaign '43 - '45?

Luftwaffe (2nd Edition) could be exactly what you are looking for, at least in the scope and subject matter department; it's just a question on how much you dig the mechanics and play, I guess. I've been eyeing it since it was released, but haven't got me a copy yet.

Thread: Re: Ever played this solo?

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-14T14:47:58+00:00

dude163 wrote:
the solo rules are posted in this page

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@663.wS2lcAWBA7g.20@.1dcf...

Great, thanks Robert! I'm in the same situation as Rob, I'm very much interested playing TBB as solo so this docs will come handy!

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

Domhnall101 — 2008-10-14T14:41:02+00:00

Burning Blue is a great system that would scale well to the 43-45 campaign. It would be a damned big game though. At the scale of Burning blue you could end up with a game closer to Case Blue. Probably a 4-6 player game

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-14T14:27:06+00:00

ricmadeira wrote:
Hey, that would be cool.

Not anywhere near what you want, but hey... on the small chance that you haven't hear about it already, check out Nightfighter from the same game designer, now up for preorder; at least the subject matter should interest you!

I understand that it would be quite a lot of work...but perhaps it can be done. Is there currently a boardgame with level of tactical detail of TBB that has focus for Allied Bombing campaign '43 - '45?

I don't care much for "night bombing campaign" but I will check it out...

Thread: Re: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

ricmadeira — 2008-10-13T21:40:00+00:00

Hey, that would be cool.

Not anywhere near what you want, but hey... on the small chance that you haven't hear about it already, check out Nightfighter from the same game designer, now up for preorder; at least the subject matter should interest you!

Thread: Bombing Reich 1943 - 45 Campaign?

JG53_Jaguar — 2008-10-13T17:36:59+00:00

I just ordered Burning Blue as I find the subject interesting not only from tactical/operational wargame perspective but also from Slight Simulation perspective. I have few computer wargames/flight simulators on the subject. I downloaded the rulebook/scenario book...something to keep me busy until Burning Blue arrives. I was wondering if the same kind of game design could be used for potential product for the 1943-45 bombing campaign...

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Wo ist Hawkinge??!!

alsandor — 2008-10-07T18:06:54+00:00

cstimpson wrote:
Suggestion on the tables: I couldn't get along with the big fold-out format, so converted the fold-out into an 8-page booklet (you tear it in half then put the two halves together, book-style, and push staples through from the back. You quickly get into the habit of remembering that, e.g., the random roll table is on page 6, the combat tables on the inside spread, etc.

Plus you're less likely to sweep the sky clear of aircraft by mishandling the fold-out over southern England.........

I went another route entirely. I took a PDF of the rules, moved the last page to the front, built links in everywhere there is a rule number so that you can go right to the page in question, added FAQ and Errata as bubble notes and added links where tables are supposed to be. So, for example, on rule 7.0 (Random Event, IIRC), you click on the blue icon next to the header and the random event table opens.

Yes, you need a computer, but nowadays, that's doable, with laptops and minis. My only problem, the rules have been updated so I have to do it all over again. Grrr...damn you, living rules!!!

Thread: Re: Wo ist Hawkinge??!!

cstimpson — 2008-10-07T17:15:44+00:00

Suggestion on the tables: I couldn't get along with the big fold-out format, so converted the fold-out into an 8-page booklet (you tear it in half then put the two halves together, book-style, and push staples through from the back. You quickly get into the habit of remembering that, e.g., the random roll table is on page 6, the combat tables on the inside spread, etc.

Plus you're less likely to sweep the sky clear of aircraft by mishandling the fold-out over southern England.........

Image

Fantas — 2008-09-18T10:52:23+00:00

Back of the box

Image

Fantas — 2008-09-18T10:51:22+00:00

Back of a detection card

Thread: Re: Q. SUPP#1 S1.1.3

Captain_Physics — 2008-09-16T14:36:59+00:00

No, the rule is correct, it's just a little ambiguous.

It should more properly read:

'..if it starts its move lower than the specified altitude, it cannot climb higher than the specified altitude..' etc.

The point is that the fighters should be trying to take as direct a path as possible to the hex/altitude that they're vectored to.

Of course, if you aren't playing with the optional rule to roll a die with each vector order, and if the fighter unit is within command, you can just change the specified altitude with each turn.

Thread: Re: Wo ist Hawkinge??!!

CoryC — 2008-09-15T14:08:44+00:00

Interesting first game for me - i really had no idea so i tried to keep my raid planning simple. Straight there and straight back. In hindsight i was lucky more Ju87's weren't shot up - Michel got a bad roll when he intercepted one gruppe as it started it's dive on Hawkinge.

Didn't realize how many 0's & 1's exist for the RDF detection values, which means pretty much everything is likely going to get picked up on radar.

Seeing the usefullness of Frei Jagd now as well. Seems like the Germs should be aggressive with them and try to burn out as many RAF squadrons as they can. This will keep them off your bombers. In fact they should be plotted to orbit over an RAF airfield close to a bomber target to mess with scrambles. Is this a real tactic i wonder?

Thread: Re: Wo ist Hawkinge??!!

dude163 — 2008-09-14T21:52:30+00:00

I agree on the layout of the tables, I just photocopied the parts I needed for combat etc, instead of flipping back and forth for cohesion and combat results

nice writeup

Thread: Wo ist Hawkinge??!!

alsandor — 2008-09-14T15:19:16+00:00

(also posted to Ottawa Wargamers as a group after-action report)

Cory (CoryC) writes:

Played scenario 2 'Leg Before Wicket' from Burning Blue yesterday (Saturday, Sep. 13) at Fandom (a local gaming store in Ottawa).

As the German, I was assigned to hit the naval base at Portland, plus two airfields located at Hawkinge and Lympne. The weather was good but the launch time was rather late at 6pm, which meant I had to boogie.

For the Portland raid, I assembled a huge blob of three Ju87 gruppen (each gruppe being 25-30 planes) with one gruppe of Me110s flying close escort taking off from Cherbourg.

For the Hawkinge and Lympne airfields, each was assigned one raid composed of a Ju87 gruppe and an Me109 gruppe for top cover. Each one formed up near Calais for a short run in and straight back.

Michel scrambled squadron after squadron and managed to intercept both the Hawkinge and Lympne raids. The Hawkinge raid was disrupted (affecting its later dive bombing attack), but the Me109s in the Lympne raid reacted quickly and counter-intercepted the Hurricanes allowing the bombing raid to go in unhindered. Spectators on the cliffs of Dover were disappointed as no dogfights developed.

Starting late the Portland raid reached its target unmolested, with Michel unable to get any squadrons up to meet them. This was most fortunate for the Germans.

Near 6:45pm (gametime) it was all over. In the end the Germans grabbed 66VP (and they needed 62VP to win) - very close. Two Me109s and one Ju87 were shot down in exchange for two Hurricanes.

Wow this is a cool game! There are way too many charts, but there is a lot of subtlety built into the combat tables. A huge part of this game is the pre-planning the German's have to do, after which they end up kind of umpiring the game. If that's not your thing you probably won't like BB. The RAF player has to figure out this plan, not overcommit, and due to the turn order is always 5 minutes behind information wise. This is one of the more interesting game designs I've seen in a while.

Michel writes:

The RAF is truly hamstrung in scenarios 1 and 2. The number of scrambles is limited most of the time to one per 5 minutes with no more than 8 squadrons up. Having scrambled two sq. in the Middle Wallop sector, and with two pancaking towards Biggin Hill at the end of their interceptions, that left little up in the air, but the raids were done by then. Losses on both sides were minimal.

I suspect that in more advanced scenarios, the RAF has more time to prepare, especially when London is the target. In this scenario, all the targets were coastal areas, easy to reach for the Luftwaffe, and scoot out of as well. Targets farther inland would give the RAF time to see the path, scramble, form wings and attack in force. But it was our first try.

The combat system is quite elegant, not overly burdensome but with the right amount of detail. My only gripe (minor) is that the tables are a shambles, inasmuch as they are not in any kind of order on the three fold sheet of 34"x8". There is a fair amount of flipping that goes on whenever a table needs to be consulted.

Thread: Q. SUPP#1 S1.1.3

WBRP — 2008-08-09T14:56:10+00:00

This sentence from Supplement #1, rule S1.1.3 seems backwards to me:
If it starts its move lower than the specified altitude, it cannot climb higher, and if it starts its move higher it cannot move lower.

Shouldn't the rule force the squadron to move to its ordered height ASAP? It would then read:
If it starts its move higher than the specified altitude, it cannot climb higher, and if it starts its move lower it cannot move lower.

Thread: Re: Hidden information

cstimpson — 2008-06-19T17:11:23+00:00

A gentleman named Tim Collier did exactly that - came up with a set of rules that incorporated an Excel spreadsheet, allowing you to play the RAF against a Luftwaffe plan that (if you were honest) only reveals itself move by move.

The links for the rules and files are somewhere on the consimworld discussion of TBB (you'd have to hunt for them). I downloaded them and played the three games he prepared. They were fun, but Tim says he won't develop any more because Vassal and CBB make it so easy to play a remote opponent.

Thread: Re: New Nightfighter game up for preorder at GMT , by Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-05-14T21:09:43+00:00

Sounds interesting. I've preordered since TBB and Downtown are awesome, looks interesting and night fighters are certainly not the most covered topic for wargames.

Thread: Re: New Nightfighter game up for preorder at GMT , by Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

dude163 — 2008-05-14T19:55:18+00:00

I dont know

there are some after action reports by Playtesters here however

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?13@967.vTmZdNgH2BR.22@.1dd2...

the game has 1 player as an umpire running the bombers and another who plays the fighter(s) with limited info, and these games last less than an hour .So you can play again and fly the other side quite readily. I believe that one team of testers got 4 games played in 2.5 hours

Thread: Re: New Nightfighter game up for preorder at GMT , by Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

crazyyog — 2008-05-14T19:43:31+00:00

Looks interesting, but I still need to play Downtown and Burning Blue. Does anyone know if it uses the same system as those games?

Thread: New Nightfighter game up for preorder at GMT , by Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

dude163 — 2008-05-14T19:06:31+00:00

http://www.gmtgames.com/p-233-nightfighter.aspx

Thread: Re: Hidden information

Dorque — 2008-04-29T18:32:38+00:00

geira wrote:
Does this mean that the game is not really suited for solitaire play?

Yeah, it really really isn't. Germany comes up with a hidden plan, and RAF reacts to it. You can't fool or mislead yourself with a cunning plan.

But I think this could be made in to solitaire if someone would write a German Plan book. A whole bunch of raids planned out and revealed through revealing lines from a time table. "9:45, raid starts forming at X" and such. Then for the hidden card flips that determine if RAF can see the size, a die roll would index a table on the Plan and give a number without the A-E information.

Hmm... probably work better as a computer app that you could run on a laptop next to the game. That could actually be pretty sweet.

Thread: Re: Hidden information

geira — 2008-04-29T18:16:28+00:00

Does this mean that the game is not really suited for solitaire play?

Thread: Re: Paper Time Machines

Captain_Physics — 2008-04-11T19:00:28+00:00

To clarify:

The plaque states that 1 RCAF found 25-30 Dorniers, and that they downed 3 (and damaged 3 more) in exchange for losing 3 Hurricanes.

I used the charts, and figured out that the only way to achieve that result was with two attacks, one from each flight, so I took a bit of a liberty there.

The notes in the Scenario book say that only the Debden portion of the raid got through, so I made another assumption and declared that it was 1 RCAF that turned them back (after all, they did down or destroy 20% of the Gruppe).

Thread: Re: Paper Time Machines

Kozure — 2008-04-11T17:30:17+00:00

I'm generally not an emotional person, especially when reading forum posts at BGG, but this one touched me.

Thanks for the time machine, Tim (and Mr. Lee-Brimmicombe!)

Thread: Re: Hidden information

Captain_Physics — 2008-04-10T02:27:17+00:00

There isn't really much need for the RAF to hide much, because the Luftwaffe doesn't get to make many decisions once the raids are in the air.

The only situations that might make a difference are:

a) The LW has a Friege Jagd out, and by either moving it 3/4, or by keeping it in orbit, it could decide between attacking two RAF units (say a stack or a single squadron). It would want to go for the stack, probably, but in that case the RAF would probably get the squadron to attack first anyway.

b) The LW has a Friege Jagd plotted to fly over several airfields, and uses the Tote Board to decide which one to strafe (i.e. the one with the most unprotected squadrons.

I don't think that either of those are worth the trouble of trying to hide the whole toteboard.

Turning units on the map upside down would be problematic because the order tokens have the squadron number on them, which is only visible on the front of the unit token.

Thread: Paper Time Machines

Captain_Physics — 2008-04-10T02:16:40+00:00

This isn't really a session report, but I hope no one will object. I also bent a rule or two along the way, so don't go looking for an Angels 15 counter in the box.

In the FAB Bulge rulebook, Rick Young (quoting Redmond A. Simonsen) says that wargames are best approached as 'paper time machines'. I thought about these words today while in the courthouse in Cobourg, Ontario. On the wall there is a plaque dedicated to Robert Wesley Edwards.

Extended Scenario History

Robert Edwards was born in Roseneath, Ontario, and went to school in nearby Cobourg. Later, he attended and graduated from Toronto University. On November 4, 1938 he married Ms. Ruth Brownlee. Three days later, he joined the Royal Canadian Airforce, and began training as a fighter pilot.

On September 2, 1939, the day after German forces crossed the Polish border, Edwards received his wings. In November, he was transferred to Halifax, and in June 1940 he made the crossing to England, where he was assigned to 1 (Canadian) Squadron at Croydon.

On 17 August, 1940, his squadron was transferred to Northolt, and nine days later, on the morning of the 26th, 1 RCAF was temporarily reassigned to North Weald to replace a depleted RAF squadron.

At 3pm that day, Edwards and his squadron was ordered aloft on patrol.

Scenario 3: Bodyline. 3pm August 26, 1940

RDF had detected a raid crossing the coast near Dover. Estimated strength was 100+, and the RAF player gathers up 4 squadrons to intercept.

As reports came in from the observer corps, that estimate was revised upwards to 150+. Grudgingly, the RAF player vectors 151 Squadron down to help, leaving only the Canadians patrolling the area east of RAF North Weald, which looks quiet, for now.

1 RCAF is vectored to several locations in succession, chasing phantom sightings. Cursing under his breath, the Luftwaffe player places an undetected raid marker next to the Canadians. A sharp-eyed Canuck tallies a Gruppe of bombers at Angels 15. It's a Gruppe of Do17s from KG2, and they look like they might be heading for North Weald.

Better still, they're flying unescorted. It looks like the Luftwaffe player was trying to sneak a raid in the back door while the RAF was distracted further south. Unbeknownst to the RAF player, a raid is still undetected and heading for Debden. We're not interested in that one; let's keep our attention with F/O Edwards and the rest of 1 RCAF.

There's blood in the water now. Seeing no enemy fighters to deal with, S/L McNab orders 1 RCAF to split into flights and attack seperately. McNab takes five other fighters into attack, leaving F/O Edwards behind for the second attack run.

The RAF player rolls an intercept, then rolls 7 on the attack table, shooting down one.

The Luftwaffe player lucks out, and rolls snake eyes. Two Hurricanes, those flown by S/L McNab and F/O Delonges, are shot down.

The cohesion rolls assign one level of disruption to each unit. The flight pancakes, and the RAF player orders it to land at Northolt where (hopefully) they'll be safer.

Next, the second flight comes in for the attack. They roll an intercept, and then serve up some revenge by rolling a 12 on the attack table. Two more Do17s drop out of the sky.

In response, the Luftwaffe player manages a 4, shooting down Edwards' Hurricane.

The flight pancakes with one level of disruption, heading back to . The Gruppe takes two levels of disruption, and turns back for home.

The RAF player has turned back the raid, and gained 3VP on the aircraft exchange to boot.

Post-Game

The Luftwaffe player had drawn raid chit K. Only the raid on Debden got through. The large raid on Hornchurch was turned back, as was the Gruppe heading for North Weald. A win for the RAF.

Extended Post-Game

S/L McNab and F/O Delonges suffered serious damage to their machines, but both managed to bail out and parachute to safety. F/O Edwards, however, was unable to get out of his aircraft, and was killed.

On August 26, 1940, Flying Officer Robert Wesley Edwards became the first Canadian pilot to be killed in combat in the Battle of Britain. He is buried in Brookfield Cemetary, in Surrey, England, resting in the country whose skies he gave his life to defend.

His picture, wings and medals are on display in Cobourg's courthouse, along with his story. If you can't make it there to read it yourself, I suggest Scenario 3, 15:00, draw raid chit K and put 1 RCAF at North Weald.

Thread: Re: just noticed something on the counters.........

Kozure — 2008-04-06T04:35:23+00:00

pilotofficerprune wrote:
Strictly speaking, isn't the maple leaf an anachronism? Not that it stopped me from adding it to the counters...

Some squadrons, such as 401 RCAF http://www.rcaf.com/squadrons/400series/401squadron.php (though not termed that at the time of the BoB) did paint red maple leaves (though not in the modern form) inside a white circle with or without a blue outline on the fuselage next to the cockpit. This is well documented in colour plates from the books "Spitfire: The Canadians" and "Spitfire II: The Canadians" by Robert Bracken. Excellent books, by the way... ISBN 1-55046-148-6 and 1-55046-267-9, respectively.

The maple leaf used at the time differs fairly significantly in appearance from the somewhat stylized leaf used for the "new" national flag as introduced in 1965 (and consequently used by Mr. Brimmicombe-Wood for the counter art).

Not exactly an anachronism, since it was in widespread use by the Canadian forces as a general emblem, just not as an official roundel image on their aircraft.

As a Canadian (and someone with a great deal of interest in the BoB), it was a pleasure to see the Canadian (and Polish) squadrons distinguished to a small degree by their background symbols.

Image

jvdv — 2008-02-11T15:52:24+00:00

A raid is forming, or is it a German feint? The RAF isn't taking any chances...

Image

jvdv — 2008-02-11T15:51:02+00:00

The Luftwaffe plan a raid on a convoy near the Thames Estuary, with a daring return run over Kent...

Image

jvdv — 2008-02-11T15:48:29+00:00

All is quiet on the North Sea...

Thread: Hidden information

jvdv — 2008-02-11T15:33:13+00:00

I'm still a bit confused, after playing a short solo session of scenario 1 to get a grip on the rules, what information is available at what time to the players.

For the Luftwaffe player it is pretty clear to me, but how does the RAF player hide/present information?

- Should the tote board be behind a screen of some sorts, so the Luftwaffe player can't see which units the RAF player is scrambling?
- Should RAF units on the map be facedown at all times?
- Is it correct that units on both sides are only placed face up when there is combat between those units?

Thanks in advance for the answers!

Thread: Re: just noticed something on the counters.........

pilotofficerprune — 2008-02-04T13:03:03+00:00

Strictly speaking, isn't the maple leaf an anachronism? Not that it stopped me from adding it to the counters...

Thread: Re: First Game Suggestions

pilotofficerprune — 2008-02-04T12:59:33+00:00

As folks have suggested, I'd hand the RAF to the n00b and have the person most familiar with the rules take the Luftwaffe.

Scenario 1 is very simple and a good choice to start. better still, try Quick Start A, which is all set up for you. To be honest, there's not a lot of decision-making in this on the Luftwaffe side, but its a great tool for familiarizing yourself with the process. And it plays fast. You should be able to polish off a match in under an hour.

The later scenarios are basically the same thing, but bigger, and the choice of targets gives the Luftwaffe a lot more planning options. It will multiply your planning and play time. Doing an apprenticeship on Scenario 1, learning the ropes, seems a good idea before scaling up.

Much like the Luftwaffe did in the real battle!

Thread: Re: Burning Blue vs RAF

pilotofficerprune — 2008-02-04T12:54:30+00:00

You are comparing apples and oranges. They are entirely different games.

I had some issue with historicity in the original RAF. But the designer is addressing these in the reprint and I'm trusting it will be much more historical.

So really you are choosing between a shorter, faster, solo-oriented game, against a longer, more detailed, two-player game. It's your choice.

Thread: Re: Tally Ho! Card Questions

pilotofficerprune — 2008-02-04T12:50:45+00:00

The numbers on the cards are all mixed up to avoid the 'good card' phenomenon, where drawing a great card means it is out of play until the deck is reshuffled. So some cards will have better results for a poor air picture than for a good one. But the aggregate results mean that a good air picture will permit more tallies than a poor one.

Thread: Re: Tote Board Stacking

pilotofficerprune — 2008-02-04T12:47:57+00:00

There is no stacking limit for the Tote Board.

Image

Radz — 2007-10-26T16:49:19+00:00

Burning Blue Countersheet 3 Front

Image

Radz — 2007-10-26T16:48:19+00:00

Burning Blue Countersheet 2 Front

Image

dude163 — 2007-09-13T18:36:45+00:00

after 2 attacks A flight and B flight return to Manston, 141 SQDsDefiants scramble from Hawkinge

Image

rickbill — 2006-07-22T03:59:46+00:00

Screenshot from the THE BURNING BLUE VASSAL module

Image

Chris_Milne — 2006-02-25T23:56:15+00:00

Battle about to be joined