RE: Vietnam and modern combat

G'day John,

> The problem in simulating the lower-level stuff is
> that guerilla warfare is, like special operations,
> impossible to simulate on the game table.  Both depend
> on the reality that for most of the time, nothing
> happens.  You do 30 patrols down the same stretch of
> road and nothing happens, it takes a dedicated
> professional to stay alert the 31st time.  But by its
> very nature, the game table is only out if something
> is going to happen.  You can't simulate that tendency
> towards complacency nor the vigilance of leadership to
> prevent that comlacency.  And if you try, what you end
> up with are a handful of dice rolls by the
> 'conventional' player before the game starts
> determining whether or not the guerilla will win--and
> after that it's hardly worth it to play.

I'm going to have to disagree with you John, at least its not the way
its come down for us in Tassie. It can be easier with a GM, but we've
done it without a GM (often you have to trust the other player(s) to be
honest during truly hidden movement). Yes you know something has to be
up at some point, but when the game notes given to the conventional side
is "patrol to point A and back again" and then nothing happens
immediately you'd be surprised how the mind can slip in to auto mode and
the subsequent attack catch them wrong footed. For instance, I played a
game with one of the regulars down here where we had a similar set-up,
after about a turn of activating squads he stopped expecting to spot
stuff and about lost all his victory points when he was surprised by
some farmers and opened fire. He was even more surprised when within one
turn of completion of his patrol my guerrillas sprang the ambush and had
a fight on his hands. He had superior fire power I had the numbers, in
the end he lost, just. Despite the initial inactivity he thought it one
of the best games he'd had, because it had tested him... he was also
amazed at my patience as I'd let him walk through the ambush point twice
before I acted.

As an aside I think the best example of this kind of thing is an
anecdote from Adrian who had some players who had their figs start a
soccer match while they waited for an attack ;)

It does come down to playing with people who don't have to be
entertained with action from the first activation, but can put up with
some inactivation. It can also come down to some scenario design skill.
If you want to represent a lack of "on the ballness" then start off
giving them poor unit rating, with the potential to upgrade if they
start to take the situation seriously (or conversely a chance to degrade
if things happen unexpectedly and go against them). Another alternative
is to start the patroling side with suppressions (they can still patrol,
they can take cover but they can't actually offensively react until
they've cleared them). Dawgie has also put up some interesting scenario
ideas in the past that can be both challenging and fun.

Also don't be afraid of taking the context of the fight into account
when setting up the quality of the different forces. When playing a
black-hawk down-like scenario I'd actually give the locals fairly decent
ratings just because of local knowledge rather than conventional
training. 

Lastly, if you do really think the conventional forces will just roll
over the opposition then give the opposition lots of figs, define
victory points based around objectives like "conventional force must
take building x with minimum loss of life on either side... While the
other side has to stop them for as long as possible at whatever cost".
Those kind of games can be a lot of fun and a big challenge, though they
can take people of a particular mindset (I happen to like trying to see
what I can pull off with crap troops, but I know that's not for
everyone).

With a little thought you can end up with a game that does capture the
features of 'unconventional' warfare, while still providing for fun
games. 

Cheers

Beth