Re: Battle at Camelot Comics and Games--After Action Report

In a message dated 11/22/99 9:18:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
fhelvey@pop.wilmington.net writes:

> As one of the defending Romanovs, I can say that it was difficult to
be 
>  facing so many other units.	Wayne and I seemed to be outnumbered
pretty 
>  heavily, and I got the impression Marshall Hoferkamp was saving our 
>  bacon with some good die rolling on several occasions.  I expect
Robert 
>  followed conventional wisdom and gave the attacking forces at least a

>  2:1 advantage in unit costs.  We inflicted pretty heavy losses on the

>  deploying ESU contingents.

Actually, the force costs were not that far apart--the attackers did get
more 
points, but it was more in the nature of 1.5-to-1.  Then again, I really

didn't point-cost the scenario, as there were a lot of "useless" systems

included on some of the vehicles and the point values for the area
defense 
systems were exaggerated (they are also supposed to be able to shoot
down 
aircraft, but since we weren't using any airpower, they could only be
used to 
destroy guided missiles).

>  
>  I thought the artillery rules were somewhat strange; we didn't play 
>  artillery barrages correctly at first and elected to continue with
the 
>  method we were using.  I'm not sure if it's permissable to lay down
an 
>  artillery barrage inline - the rules seemed to be that a barrage 
>  placement had to be either parallel to your starting board edge or 
>  clumped into a larger diameter circle of effect.

We did this part completely wrong--the area of effect is either a single
2" 
radius (we were using diameter) circle for concentrated fire or a sort
of 
rectangle with rounded ends and 4" wide but 4 x number of tubes firing
in 
inches long for an open sheaf.	This rectangle could be placed either 
parallel to or perpendicular to own sides starting edge.

>  Marching an artillery 
>  barrage up the map (say, to lay smoke, or hit someone in column)
didn't 
>  seem to be an option.

It was definitely an option--you lay fire on turn one, then adjust on
turn 
two and so on--just like they did it in WW1--the only problem is that
you 
(neither side, actually) didn't really have the ammunition to pull this
off.

>  
>  Question to Rob:  can infantry be organized as a separate unit but
still 
>  carried about in a personnel carrier?  Wayne's bridge defense was
very 
>  strange, and partly due to the way we did that; but those infantry 
>  basically did nothing for 3 to 4 turns while their attached vehicles
got 
>  hammered.

And yes, infantry can be organized as a separate unit than their 
carriers--the rules state that this is up to the owning player and
occurs if 
the transports/infantry are seperated by more than 10".
>  
>  It was different and I'd be willing to play it again.  Next time I'll

>  have more time to do so, and get there earlier too.
>  
And next time I'll design the scenario to play a little faster!  Of
course, 
being more familiar with the rules now helps as well.

I consider this a victory--yet another miniatures game that Frank is
willing 
to play...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (evil-souding laugh)  Soon I shall turn you 
completely to the Dark Side...

Rob, the (KIA) Commissar of the 41st Border Guards Rifle Company