Wednesday, 18 January 2023

Small Scale Solo Spanish Civil War Skirmish

 A nice bit of alliteration in that title! 

Last night I decided it was time to put some of the SCW figures on the table in anger, the inspiration being our game of "Nuts" last Friday. Now, I don't actually have Nuts, but I do have Chain Reaction 3, which if it's not the same, is very similar! 

To be fair, the original inspiration came from this blog I came across recently, Victoria’s Luck – a NUTS! Patrol Mission – Atomic Floozy Adventures, and I shamelessly plagiarized the scenario for my own version!

A four-person Republican patrol is tasked with a reconnaissance of the Nationalist positions, with a view to an assault in the next couple of days. The approaches to the Nationalist position are masked by trees, and its night, so visibility is reduced (I seemed to remember reading its 8 inches, but I could not find the section - so I unilaterally decided my memory was accurate!) I also decide due to the small playing area and 20mm scale of the troops, that movements in inches would be changed to centimeters. 

I took quite a few notes as it's a rather "different" system and I thought at least one reader might be interested in some detail on how the mechanics' work....I may be mistaken of course, but it's all here, in minute detail.....!




A view from above - Nationalist position bottom right with three Requetes PEF (Possible Enemy Forces) and the Republican patrol in the top left


The four-person patrol 


The Nationalist positions with initial PEF deployment


To complete the recce, the Republicans must spend an entire turn not moving, with line of sight to the centre of nine imaginary squares on the table.


On turn one, the PEF's all scored One Success with their two dice (see below)



The recce party sat still, so cleared box 1 of 9



On turn 2, the patrol did a test to see if they could do a fast move. Rolling 2 D6 needing 5 or less (they have a star leader, of course!) they passed and could move 16cm into box 2. The PEF's all scored 1 success again and moved towards each other rather than the enemy. 

I don't have a picture per turn so will try to link the appropriate image with the description. 

Turn 3, The Nationalist won initiative and one of the PEF's got two passes and thus moved 16cm towards the enemy. Meantime, the patrol remained still and cleared box 2.

Turn 4 The Republicans go first, do the fast move test and move into Box 3. Once again, the PEF's only manage to roll one pass and then get the Move 16cm towards nearest PEF result - lots of 5 and 6 being rolled, when you want to roll 4 or less!

Basically the game proceeded this way for a few more moves, the Republicans had recced boxes 1,2 and 3 and were now in box 4 when the PEF's finally woke up - PEF 1 scored 2 and 3 so moved 16cm towards enemy, PEF 2 scored 1 success and then a 4 so moved 8cm towards enemy and PEF reprised PEF 1's score


On Turn 8, the Republicans again did a fast move, this time into Box 4, and the PEF's again all moved towards the enemy - leaving the leading Nationalist within 8cm of the patrol and thus, within line of sight for nighttime - this triggered the PEF resolution table:


I had forgotten about EAL (Enemy Activity Level) so did it now and got a 2. I then rolled the test and resulted in a B - Contact - Two D6 rolled up a result of 7 - being a force equal to the Republicans.





The PEF in range of the patrol 


And its composition is resolved! Now, we had to do the In Sight Test - which is one of the key mechanics of the rules and determines who reacts first when opposing troops come into sight of each other.



The Nationalists start with a Rep of 4, but they moved, and the Republicans are in cover (the woods) so they het two dice each, trying for 1,2 or 3 - these are the results.



The Republicans nave a Rep 5 and have not moved this turn, but of course, the enemy are also in the woods, so they get 4 dice per figure - their results are below.


So, either figure with a 3 goes first, then figures with 2, then with 1 and so on - so, as you can see, it would be possible that one Republican could go first, then two Nationalist, then back to the Republicans - but not this time!

The Republican leader fired twice at the Nationalist leader - as with Nuts, you add the die roll to the Rep - so 5 plus the score below - times two...


Yes, it was some good shooting by the Republican boss!


A die was rolled for each hit and resulted in the instant death of the Nationalist leader!



The next two rifle armed Republicans also fired and got a target hit result - they rolled too high for dead but the got a "knocked down" result. The Nationalists had to do the Recover from Knockdown test which resulted in both of them being stunned, while the last Nationalist had to do a cohesion test and this resulted in him running away, which seemed a fair result in the circumstances!


Move 9


The Republicans got the initiative and moved up to the stunned enemy - coming into base-to-base contact with an enemy who is stunned means you either capture or dispatch them - in this instance, the Republicans chose option 2.

The PEF resolution resulted in "Something is out There", raising the EAL from 2 to 3. The one remaining rifleman from group one rolled on the Non Player movement table and got a result of moving back towards the Republicans, causing another In Sight test, The Nationalist rolled 2 D6 and got 0 success, the Republican results are below - needless to say, the last rifleman was shot and killed!


Move 10 - the Nationalists get the initiative - both PEF's move towards the enemy. The PEF resolution on EAL 3 results in a Zero score for one of them and the PEF is removed - all potential and no reality! -  the second scored a 6 on L3 = Here They Come - Two separate groups were rolled for - the result was quite lucky for the Republicans - one group the same size and a second group half the size - so a total of six enemy.


The PEF resolves into two separate groups of enemy troops.


I rolled all the In Sight tests, the Nationalists had two dice again, requiring 1,2 or 3 for success and the Republicans had four.


The Republicans were again in the ascendency, but as it was 1015 and I had been playing for roughly 90 minutes, I let the Republicans choose to retire, having scouted 4/9 boxes on the table. I thought that was a realistic reaction to having stumbled into several enemy patrols and been involved in a fire fight with one of them - in reality, this would have just led to more enemy troops coming out to investigate, so to continue the recce in those circumstances would not have been a sensible option.

I hope you found the detailed description of how the rules work interesting - as I say, I personally think these are better for very small-scale actions - having twenty or thirty figures on each side having to do in sight tests would be a bit monotonous - with 4-6 at a time, it's fine. The mechanics provided a pretty realistic outcome to me - the initial low scoring of the Nationalists just represented the sentries on patrol, unaware of the scouting party in the woods, until something obviously alerted them, and they headed into the trees to investigate! Blundering through the undergrowth, the first party were ambushed by the Republicans and shot down before they had a chance to react. As the backup group of Nationalists reacted to the blaze of gunfire, the Republicans melted back into the cover of the forest, returning to their own lines with some valuable information on the approach routes to the Nationalist lines - maybe the next game will be a larger scale attack scenario?

I am considering running another trial SCW game using the 9+ rules I have used for the Pulp skirmish games - will give that some more thought and if it goes ahead, an AAR will follow.

40 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Cheers Ray - it's only a little one, but I enjoyed it! The rules are designed to encourage you to fight a sequence of linked games in a kind of mini campaign.

      Delete
  2. Certainly looked like fun. Great way to try a set of rules. It will be interesting to see other rules handle what happens next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joe - part of me thinks I should play a mini campaign over four or five games, using these same rules, to really get the hang of them. They do have vehicle rules included, so the T26 and PzKfw I's can get involved too!

      Delete
  3. Lovely looking game sir!
    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Michal, nice to GdA few of the SCW figures into action!

      Delete
  4. I’ve played (and been) NUTS a few times and found the solo play or two against the AI aspect to be very good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks JBM, that's certainly the part of the rules that I have found most useful and attractive. As mentioned, I am not sure how well they would work in a larger scale game, given they have rules for most eras...maybe in Horse and Musket periods, you do the testing per unit rather than per figure? Thinking about it, it must be something like that!

      Delete
  5. That was an excellent game Keith. The mechanics seem really good, though I got the same impression as you about these rules being best for very small numbers of troops. Very entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Richard, more to come from these I think

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Cheers Scotty they seem to offer a lot of scope for smaller scale actions

      Delete
  7. Good looking game! I really like those Republican figures! I have a love/hate relationship with the reaction system in Nuts! (Final Edition, I haven't tried the recent 4th edition) but don't play it as often as I might. It's just a bit too much dice rolling for my tastes. However, I find the resulting reactions believable and the game flows unlike just about anything else, so I come back to it now and again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks John and I know what you mean about the repeated dice rolling but as you say, I feel the end result works.....the ends justify the means! They do try to cover every possible nuanced outcome, which does mean quite a lot of dice rolling to get to the final result. In my game there were an awful lot of successful shots by the Republicans, unlike our Friday game if Nuts...

      Delete
  8. A nice run-through Keith, and I can vaguely remember these mechanisms from a skim through I did a few years ago. They really do seem like my sort of rules. Just got to find some table space now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok I look forward to your AAR soon Lawrence!

      Delete
  9. A nice looking little skirmish Keith.
    I’ve never tried NUTS but they sound like an interesting set.

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Aly, it depends what you want out of a game but for solo or cooperative games against "the system" I think they are very good.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for the battle report and the rules run-through. I guess I really have no recollection of my Nuts! games from many years ago. Not much of this looks familiar at all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jon.....not too surprising as the blurb at the start of the version I have says the original came out in 2006 which is a while ago now! Even between CR3 and Nuts v4 there are changes, so no doubt it's quite a bit different in 2023 v 2006!

      Delete
  11. Good to see you getting a game in Keith:). The playing against an unknown enemy is just perfect for a solo game, or I think that's how it works? Whatever it looked fun, but I wouldn't want to play with more than a section aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve and agree on all counts...that's why our three person game on Friday took about four hours and was nowhere near completion!

      Delete
  12. Always a good idea to test out rules and a nice looking skirmish 👍

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers Matt...I have played these before maybe five years ago, and liked them for what we were trying to achieve at the time. I still fancy a combination of Great Escape Games 1914 and Irin Cross fir larger scale player v player SCW games....

      Delete
  13. I like a little alliteration!
    Oh, I have chain reaction! I think I got it way back when I tried out some solo games. Which this was yes? 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A little alliteration....lol...see what you did there Stew! Last time, you said you have a "Swashbuckling" version of this....when will you get it out and give us a blow by blow account?? And yes, it was a solo game....there was a clue in my alliterate post title!!

      Delete
    2. OMG, I was so dazzled by the word play I missed the word Solo. I am ashamed.

      I totally plan to try out the swordplay rules in the near never. 😀
      I got a couple of rules like these that were good for solo games and I have since learned that I am not a good solo gamer.

      Delete
    3. Haha, what was it about solo you didn't like.....too many arguments with yourself about rule interpretation?

      Delete
  14. Very interesting to see a low level (skirmish) played out and the mechanics behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Norm....it's the complete antithesis of what your board games do, representing whole armies of thousands of men with one counter! Hopefully it wasn't too small scale!

      Delete
  15. Looks like a stunning game, I'll have to give Chain Reaction a look!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Bill, I think they work well for certain scenarios.

      Delete
  16. Excellent write-up. I can see where the rules would get tedious with a lot of figures on the table, but for a small scouting scenario they sound super.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Greg, I would be interested to see how they handle larger scale games

      Delete
  17. An interesting way to treat a special scenario (recce). I've taken note :). As usual, another informative and detailed game report. Thanks for the lead to the Victoria's Luck blog--another one to follow!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ed, using these rules as part of a campaign, but for specific smal scale actions, might be quite interesting....

      Delete
  18. A very good write up Keith, I do like the CR rules they can get a complex with the group activations but I find them great for squad level actions, your post is really helpful.
    Cheers
    Stu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pleased you found this useful Stu. It's a set of rules that would be a challenge to ever just "know" the next step in every given situation, as there are so many variables...but the core mechanics aren't too hard to assimilate...two dice and equal or lower than your rep value....it's pretty simple!

      Delete
  19. Nice to see a fun simple scenario that was easy and enjoyable to follow along with.

    I have both the 5150 and ATZ rules by 2HourWargames, mainly cos they seemed an interesting ruleset to run for solo games but have yet to actually try them out. Guess like most other rulesets I wish I had someone to run me through a game cos I learn so much easier "doing" than I do reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol...you and me both Dai, although I guess the advantage of learning by playing a small solo game is even if you get bits slightly wrong, if you are happy with how it all works out, you can just call it a house rule!

      Delete