A new way to play Operations ?

[noob]

I dont know if this idea has been touted before so i will posit it anyway.

Me and one of my opponents have been playing Operations with a major restriction.

Deployment is only allowed at the start of the first battle, there is no re-deployment allowed at the start of the remaining battles.

All units at the start of the new battle must remain in the same positions they finished the previous battle.

The only exception to this rule is where units that lose their position due to nuances of the game at the start of a new battle can be moved into their correct positions.

Reinforcements that come on can be placed anywhere on the map edge in a tactically relevant place to the on board friendly forces.

This is allowable as any reinforcements theoretically should have some warning about the enemies positions as a result of the fighting done by the friendly units that have fought before the reinforcements arrived.

(This eliminates an opponent camping on road exits to ambush what should be a forewarned reinforce unit)

This rule significantly changes the way operations are played for the better and in my mind removes the unrealistic "teleportation" of units around the map that an un restricted re-deployment system allows.

Consequently, especially in large operations, safe withdrawal procedures will be needed and terrain features like hills will play a more significant role if they overlook possible enemy reinforcement roads for example.

It also impinges on the positioning of MGs and field guns, especially if there is limited or no transport vehicles available.

Try it and post your comments be they fair or foul.

[Malakovski]

This is exactly what I found was necessary in order to make ops fun, although I usually used more relaxed rules. I found limited repositioning, and placing reinforcements in, say, the village nearest the action, to be very workable.

The only thing you need to avoid is massive, unrealistic repositioning, as in a river crossing op or some such, where you could position all your forces on the other side of the river without fighting.

[BulletRat]

Still, if there is say several hours between fighting when your reinforcements are brought up it wouldn't be at all unusual to expect said reinforcements to be lined up and in position by the time the next action begins.

[noob]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

This is exactly what I found was necessary in order to make ops fun, although I usually used more relaxed rules. I found limited repositioning, and placing reinforcements in, say, the village nearest the action, to be very workable.

The only thing you need to avoid is massive, unrealistic repositioning, as in a river crossing op or some such, where you could position all your forces on the other side of the river without fighting.

I think strict is good in this case, any repositioning other than correcting a unit that the game has repositioned (a quirk of operations)

is a reposition too far I want it as realistic as possible in that respect.

[noob]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Still, if there is say several hours between fighting when your reinforcements are brought up it wouldn't be at all unusual to expect said reinforcements to be lined up and in position by the time the next action begins.

A player can reposition reinforcements along the map edge they appear on if they are present at the start of a new battle, this simulates them having information gathered by their comrades as to the disposition of the enemy based on the previous fight.

That way the player can have some flexibility in entry location and unit formation of the reinforcements, however they still have to "move" to the frontline.

[ March 06, 2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: noob ]

[Nidan1]

I have been playing operations with my regular opponents this way for some time. Based upon each of your historical knowledge of a particular engagement, you can decide beforehand the most realistic assembly point for units arriving as reinforcements, taking into consideration the results of the battles already played, and the current configuration of the setup zones.

Of course when playing with paratroopers, you have to agree to allow more latitude, to take into consideration placing airborne forces at particular locations as would be done in real life.

When using PBEM play, this all must be agreed to from the start, when playing on line, you can define specific limitations using the on-line chat feature, before each battle starts.

[Tarkus]

This is interesting. I think quite similar results can be achieved with the troops & map importation feature, except you get to "buy" your reinforcments, which may not be to the taste of everyone, and it does require some map editing.

Look here also for some details.

Cheers

[Bannon DC]

This is the way most ops should be played. I came up with the same idea and developed a set of rules called "Play as the Lay". (Not saying I originated the idea of course).

Basically pretty much as noob outlined. Someone pointed out you should have a little more freedom of movement for night battles which I agree to.

Artillery spotters I let set up anywhere on the map. Vehicles can move a little, etc.

This is the way to play ops... makes you plan the next battle while the current one is under way. Ammo resupply becomes critical if too many men get caught in no man's land. Lot of fun.

If you want to take a look at my rules, there is a discussion at The Proving Grounds. I'm not aware of a "sanctioned" set of rules on this, but would be interested if anyone knows of any.

http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/tip_results.html?sku=235

[tar]

Interesting. I have noticed a problem with the ability to infiltrate across open terrain between battles in an Operation.

Still, I would expect that a bit more flexibility could be called for:

1) Instead of a general prohibition on reposition, perhaps one should just limit or ban repositioning toward the enemy. Instead, you are free to pull units back from the front lines as much as you wish. If you don't want to lose the effect of units trapped in no-man's land, then you could limit the pull back to units in your normal setup zone.

2) Allow arbitrary repositioning before and after night battles. Under cover of darkness, the infiltration and exfiltration would be a lot easier to arrange.

[noob]

The idea of this way of playing operations assumes there is no time delay between battles therefore no repositioning.

As said in a previous post its just a huge battle chopped up into parts that allows resupply after each "day".

So there seems no real need to add exceptions unless there you add some virtual time between battles, which seems unnecasary.

[Brent Pollock]

...although this might be offset by the difficulties inherent in passing communications to units at night; the runner might never find them to pass the order.

2) Allow arbitrary repositioning before and after night battles. Under cover of darkness, the infiltration and exfiltration would be a lot easier to arrange.

[tar]

The idea of this way of playing operations assumes there is no time delay between battles therefore no repositioning.

But if there is no time delay between battles, why bother with an operation at all? Why not just run a scenario? Or is it that the time limit on scenarios isn't long enough?

I do agree that wholesale rearrangement seems a bit unrealistic, but in the lulls between assaults, there were usually some opporunities for redeployment.

[noob]

But if there is no time delay between battles, why bother with an operation at all? Why not just run a scenario? Or is it that the time limit on scenarios isn't long enough?

Because in most big battles ammo runs out after say 40 turns.

Playing this way allows you too play battles with 100 plus turns whilst getting rearmed at regular intervals.

Plus playing games of such a length with no redeployment force you to plan ahead and consider lines of retreat, layerded defences, etc and this to me adds a new and more realistic element to the game.

I do agree that wholesale rearrangement seems a bit unrealistic, but in the lulls between assaults, there were usually some opporunities for redeployment

Yes but why complicate it, its simpler to say no redeployment and then both parties can take that into consideration during the game.