NATO Division Commander - AAR

Last March  I bought a copy (well two copies)  of NATO Division Commander, which I'd lusted over back in the early 1980s. I managed to play the introductory scenario (focussed on Fire and Movement) relatively soon after, but it wasn't until July/August that I made a start on the first proper scenario - having reduced the rulebook to an 8 page QRS! Those first two turns didn't go too well, just so much to think of and so much clutter on the map that I struggled to get back to it, but dutifully left it out on my table, and even preserved the set-up when the tables went down for the Talavera game. 

With a backlog of "hobby" boardgames building up (Storming the Gap, Operation Dauntless), and a gap in figure wargaming whilst I painted up some ECW I decided to finish the 9 turn scenario. I started again last week, at about an hour a turn, and finally finished last night. By the end I was at about 30-40 min a turn (and remember the US only have ~ 9 fighting unit counters and the Soviets ~18!), partly because a may have been skipping less interesting activity but hopefully more because I'd got the QRS down to 2 pages.

The Soviets just managed a substantial victory (11VP vs a threshold of 10!), mainly by flowing round the US flanks and legging it for the exits hexes. A mad dash by 25TR and 28MR on Turn 8 from mid-board saw the whole of 7GTD exit the board. The US did lose 3 combat units (so ~ 33%) and most of their recce, and their HQs were looking very precarious by the end.

My play set-up, with the Mk2 PACs, one per side

So what were the good and bad points of the game (and bear in mind this is based on only 1 proper play):

The Good

• Fatigue - the accumulation of fatigue in a non-deterministic way is nice, and emphasises the need to units to take breaks rather than fighting 24hrs per day
• Intel- the need to get intel on a target before engaging with fires works really well, and how you allocate to sectors, and the slight bonus it gives you in combat (yet another table). Of course it would come into its own in blind play.
• CSPs - the general application of Arty, Engrs, EW and CAS works pretty well - particularly the way each point is available for each phase in most cases. But see below.
• The Night turn every 3rd turn again works well, restricting movement but making attacks marginally easier
• The idea of Modes is cracking, and how they change  movt/cbt/ISR vulnerability. But see below.
• The combat sequence is actually pretty straight forward, but just a bit to complex, and see below.

A 6 counter stack (just one unit plus modifiers!)

The Bad

• It takes a lot of CSP points (mainly EW/Air) to grow permanent OpInt to the point where OpInt gives good results. The US have a LOT of air so get there quite quickly, for the Soviets it's almost mid-game. Was Soviet ISR really that bad?
• Calling Fires "Counter-Battery" is just very confusing!
• Fires are very ineffective, especially with low INT (which would be OK if not for the point above). A whole Div Arty Group can fire on a single target and not do any real damage!
• The Mode change system with CPs is horrendous. The numbers asked for are deliberately high (ie beyond what you will have in a turn) so forces you onto the next table - why not just restructure that 2nd table. I replaced it with a move penalty, but may go for a simpler SP option if I play again as it forces you to use HQs properly.
• The need for 4 CRT tables, of which you consult 2 or 3 for each attack is several too many.
• Its not clear what the difference is between the 5MP Hasty Attack and bein gin Hasty Attack mode. 
• HQ's seem relatively immune from attack, which is odd given the emphasis on C2. That said I didn't play the active EW rules which can disable HQs, inhibiting their SP/CSPs and placing units OOC.
• Like any hex game it suffers from hex play - getting your attacking units just so around the target. That said at least its a differential CRT.
• Counter stacks can be tall - 6 counters! See photo. I think I'll push most onto a PAC/rosta next time.
• Overruns should be more vicious, -3 or -4 rather than -2. As it is even small 1 or 2 str units have 6 T/O but lose max of 2 per cbt even in an overrun so can hold up a huge force 

My Mark 1 PAC

Conclusion

Do I like the game enough to play another scenario as-is? Probably not. The issue to me is that it has all these great C2 innovations, then gives you a relatively complicated combat process, so you get two complex games for the price of one. And the board clutter really doesn't help.

What's next

So to "improve" the game, or at least the game experience there are a number of things I have in mind, some minor, some major. Roughly in order of size:

• Use PACs/rostas to track most unit values - just leave Mode on the table.
• Upgrade Fires
• Upgrade overruns
• Make HQs more vulnerable - keep them on the move (we used to move at least every 24 hrs at Bde).
• Simplify the combat tables
• Introduce a streamlined SP/mode change system

And then I need to start playing the EW and Ammo rules, and then the Commander rules!

It will be interesting to see how more modern games like Dauntless and Storming the Gap compare.

And that second copy? I might now finally find the time to put it on eBay (it's all sorted and ready) to recoup some of that initial outlay!

Finally, here's the turn-by-turn photos.

Initial setup

End Turn 1

End Turn 3

End Turn 4

End Turn 5

End Turn 6

End Turn 7 - first Soviets off

End Turn 8 - Soviets off the board building

End Turn 9 - Endex

Vertical Urban Wargame - Summary Report

Vertical Urban Wargame was my game for Wargame Development's VCOW 2023 virtual conference held 3-5 Feb 2023. This post provides a summary and overview of the game, and I may do a second post to go into more detail on its genesis and design - and both will then be condensed down for my Onside for the Nugget (WD's journal). The game was set as a notional 1985 engagement in Berlin between Blue and Red, with a Company Group Blue force, and a slightly smaller Red Force.

Aim

The aims of the game were:

• to explore if/how a "vertical" (i.e. point-of-view table level) viewpoint changes the experience of a wargame - particularly an urban one;
• to see whether consumer grade systems (phones, bandwidth, video conferencing software) are up to the task;
• to have some fun on a Friday evening!

Game Set Up

I chose to use Dropzone Commander as the rules, with stats modified for 1980s. I chose these as they are pretty simple and had been used by Dstl in some of their own work. The players weren't given the rules, just a rough sense of engagement distances on the model for the various weapons. I rolled all dice and didn't bother to measure movement (although I had guidelines) and typically moved units in tactical bounds.

The terrain was built from two sets of Dropzone buidings (Cityscape and Ruinscape) which at c.£30 each are a wonderfully cheap way of building city urban terrain. The buildings are all fold-flat, and the pack also includes the 1ft street tiles. Each pack is designed to provide 6' x 4' of playable space with reasonably open urban terrain, I found that two packs wasn't quite enough to do a dense 6' x 4' table! Models were 10mm Timecast, with 10mm Pendragon civilians.

Tech Set Up

I looked at various options for the cameras and stream but decided in the end that the best bet was mobile phones for the cameras, with each feeding its own video conferencing room in Jitsi (a free open-source Zoom clone). The nice thing with Jitsi is you just name a room (e.g. VerticalWargame1Pl) and give players the URL to that room, and then they can go straight into it with their browser - no download, no sign-up, just straight in. One issue was initially I'd hoped to have the phones vertical so as to make them easy to use and get the cameras really close to the ground, but all the conferencing software I tried kept trying to re-invert the image - so it was always upside down. So the phones had to be on their side, which kept a lowish camera but meant they didn't fit down the streets so I had to keep moving the buildings out of the way! Something to improve on.

Camera set-up, with a simple balsa holder to keep vertical

We used Zoom to start the session with video on whilst I gave the briefing. Once that was over we switched video off and used it effectively as the Coy radio net, and the players (two teams of two) called up the Jitsi feed from their AFV. The Coy Comd had no video (as he wouldn't in real life in 1985) and had to rely on audio reports. 

This screen capture from a test game shows the two JITSI feeds running on one screen, plus an overview via Zoom.

Scenario

The game had 2 1/2 phases:

• Phase 1: Each team had a single Scimitar recce tank to try and find a route through the city to the 3 objectives, and then report this route back to the main force. The real aim of this was to get players used to the tech and mechanics;
• Phase 2.1: Each team now controlled a Platoon Group, each of 1 Pl and 1 Chieftain (one player controlling each but sharing a single camera in each team). The aim was to secure and hold 2 of the 3 objectives.
• Phase 2.2: At some point during Phase 2.1 I allowed the Coy Comd to start tasking a choice of UAVs, and the option of calling forward a reserve Pl Gp.

The company moves off in line astern!

How it Played

The Coy Comd immediately took charge and had the two Scimitars work out where they were in relation to each other (I put them in on different axis 90 degrees apart!) and to team up before pushing forward in a mutually supporting way (something that the solo playtesters hadn't bothered with, but far more sound tactically). 

Scimitar starts its patrol.

Note: All the images in this section are in-game screen grabs from Jitsi by Ian Robinson.

A hunt of the streets finally found the objectives - which relied on getting close enough to actually read the signs! A Red recce BRDM and BMP were soon dispatched, but then the T72 appeared! Time to fire the smoke and scoot back home.

Friends or foes? One of the few long avenues in the city.

For Phase 2 the Coy Comd decided to send both Pl in on the same axis. At the first junction they them split, one going L down the earlier route, and the other going R across the main square (with a fine 28mm statue in the centre) so as to effectively pincer the closest two objectives. Just to add some more fun there were civilian groups scattered around acting under a simple paper AI, and although painted in bright colours, at a distance, through a smartphone, they were often misidentified at Red soldiers, and narrowly avoided being gunned down. Between Phases 1 and 2 I'd also blocked off a couple of routes with improvised barricades made of ISO containers.

2Pl Chieftain engaging T72s in the murk

Red and Blue arrived at the objectives at about the same time. A tank duel between two T72 and a Chieftain by the main square was eventually won by the Chieftain (despite a T72 getting first shot as it wasn't spotted through the camera). By the Mayor's Office 1Pl dismounted and occupied a neighbouring building as Red rushed the Office. 1 Pl Carl Gustav took out one BMP, and it's Chieftain the second (I think). I then gave the Coy Comd the choice of a mini-UAV overflight of the whole city or a micro-UAV flight along 8ft (8 tiles) of street at building height. This was the first view he had of the city and situation and significantly lifted his situational awareness. 2 Pl realised that it could get in the back of another neighbouring building to the Mayor's Office, and narrowly avoided hitting 1Pl as both fired on the same BMP from opposite directions. 2Pl stormed the Mayor's office and took, it, 1Pl then rush across the street and to their surprise found themselves in the back of the Police Station just as Red moved in from the front. A quick firefight and the Red section was dispatched and it was game over.

2Pl spies the BMP, engages with CG - just missing 1Pl in the building beyond!

For a fuller sense of the terrain, engagement sites and final deployment there's a short fly-through video on YouTube.

Conclusion

I'll do a fuller set of conclusions and lessons learnt in the second post, but everyone reported having a really fun game and a far more visceral experience than if we'd played the same game over an open table. There was a real sense of trepidation each time a unit poked its front around a corner to see what was there, and spotting targets and identifying friend from foe from civilian was also a real (and realistic) challenge. Several players have now remarked how much the whole experience resembles a tank-based dungeon crawl, with high engagement and emotion. 

So given the initial question "if/how a "vertical" (i.e. point-of-view table level) viewpoint changes the experience of a wargame - particularly an urban one;" the ad-hoc, single experiment answer would seem to be that a) it does and b) for the better by making the whole experience more visceral and more "realistic". I might have to switch into PhD mode to more critically examine that and perhaps start running some versions of the game under proper experimental conditions!

Prepping Vertical Dropzone Commander

 For Wargame Development's VCOW virtual conference at the start of February I'm planning to do a "vertical" wargame, where players (Pl Comds) get a table-level web-cam view of what is going on as they try and fight through the city. Played through DZC a few times and done some 1985 stats for it. And here's a couple of images from the technical testing. Will test with some remote players next week.

Chieftain on the prowl - pity I haven't got the Berlin Brigade urban cam

The two platoon cams, plus an overview cam

Onside report after the event.

Prepping NATO Division Commander

 

When I bought NATO Division Commander in March I had a HUGE box of counters to sort through. There were effectively two copies of the game, but luckily most of one set was unpunched, but I needed to a) find all the punched counters from set 1 and get the counters from set 2 sorted so I could start playing. Well that job is finally done! Set 1 can now be prepped for sale on eBay (and hopefully recoup some of the price I paid), and Set 2 is already being laid out ready for the first proper scenario. 

Note the large black box of counters I had to sort!

I played the introductory Attack on Fitzlar scenario but that was a bit toy. I've also produced a ~6 page QRS that has all the tables and rules on it. I'm certainly not playing CBRN, Commanders or Ammo in my first game, I might even miss out the CPs (but will do the CSPs), so we'll see how it goes. I'm also doing modern "1 page orders" schematic sheets for each side so as to try and play the game/tactics "properly". 

Just look at how all the "status" counters (grey and orange) outnumber all the combat counters!

A few things I really like about what I've seen far are:

• HQs have a real purpose, and vulnerability. There's even Tac, Alt and Main (where I spent my 20s!)
• CSPs nicely abstract Fires and Combat Support, and there are also specific EW rules
• Units have modes which reflect their combat stance
• Units have up to 6 levels of damage - a far cry from the old counter-flip
• It's a differential CRT, not a ratio one
• It actually has ISR - it can be played with two maps (hence two copies of EVERY counter!), but even with one map you are forced to gather intel in order to target units with fires.

If it works tolerably well I plan to update it to 2020+ and start to add in some of the more modern tech and see if I can change it into MDO Division Commander!

 

NATO Division Commander

 

About 40 years ago I lusted after SPI's NATO Division Commander. I had The Next War, but NDC just kept being delayed, but the rumours that it had a PC companion made it seem like the game to have. But a combination of price, delays and starting to soldier for real meant that I never got around to buying it.

Fast forward 39 years and I started tracking NDC on eBay, most copies where £150 and in the US (so add £30 postage!), but Hind Figures had one, looking battered and "only 1 map" for £100. Then a week or ago so someone had a map on its own, I picked that up for a bargain, debated whether I could survive with just the map, PDF rules, and self-printed PDF counters, but once I had the map in my hands I decided I really needed (wanted) to bite the bullet and get the whole thing. 

Discussions with Ian at Hind to confirm the state also revealed that it was actually 2 (!) sets he was selling, but the boxes were so battered and counters so intermingled that he couldn't face trying to divide it up to confirm 2 sets. So in the end I decided I might as well be the one to sort out 1200 counters so I made him an offer and the sets were mine.

Yep the boxes are pretty battered, and there is a bag of ~700 counters, but the rest are unpunched, and it does look like there are 4 maps there (NDC is one of the few games with a double map set for hidden movement/umpire play).

I've already got the starter scenario - Advance on Fitzlar - laid out, ready to be played over the next week or so.

So the plan is try create two separate sets, and sell one. As long as most of the counters are there I'm not too bothered by completeness (will probably create some UK ones anyway), so I'll give the "for sale" set the mostly unpunched counters. I will probably keep the better box (still tatty) but make the second box at least usable. Then I'll put it on eBay and see if I can recoup some of the cost. And then there's always the 5th map! Given my schedule don't expect me to get it done til late summer though!