The Grist Mill 208

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Winter Offensive, Friday Morning.

Aaron Schwoebel wanted to play something out of The Forgotten War. He found "The Grist Mill", 208. A quick random side selection gave me the Americans. The North Koreans are relatively simple to play (especially compared to the CPVA), so we didn't have any major difficulty there.

There are six American first-line squads facing fourteen NKPA 4-4-7s. The Americans are already pinned against the board edge with almost no room to maneuver and no place to hide. They have a variety of early war deficiencies, including ammo shortage and a reduction of all repair drs to 1. They have a .50 caliber MG but it can't move from the hex it must set up in. They also have a 60mm MTR, three sangers, and some concealment counters (which they can't use in many places). They do not have a wheelbarrow.

Fortunately the North Koreans have a few flaws too. They have no heavy weapons (unless you count a LMG) and very limited leadership. Of the two leaders they have for fourteen squads, they are probably going to trade the 8-1 for the 10-0 commissar, leaving them with a 7-0 leader as backup.

The VC are for the North Koreans to capture a stone building in the American setup area in five turns. After I set up my small force, Aaron set up his forces in a great semi-circle around my position. With only two leaders in some areas the North Koreans could not afford breaks. In other areas they relied on numbers. As they closed in the Americans kept punching at them. The 60mm MTR did a yeoman's service in breaking squads. The heavy firepower of the American squads and the .50 cal broke some too. The broken North Koreans ran back for the (light) woods, and the MTR fire followed them, now with airburst. During the first game turn one NK halfsquad died; during the second, two-and-one-half; in the third one-and-one-half. Additional squads broke, and the 10-0 commissar got wounded when he went into woods to help some of his boys out.

Even so the North Koreans kept creeping forward. The Americans were helped by a good deal of luck too, as none of their units broke nor none of the SW malfunctioned (ammo shortage, remember?) until late in the game. The North Koreans managed to get a foothold in the woods on the American right, next to the grist mill, but a shot from the American left (after several failed shots from the mill area) broke the wave. The North Koreans resigned on the beginning of their last turn, down seven-and-a-half squads to the American one.

My Take

As the Americans, you are going to feel the situation is hopeless. I don't know what to tell you. I won the scenario, and I still feel the situation is hopeless. On the North Korean side I would say that they should keep their forces concentrated. The American defensive area is so small that you don't gain that much by spreading out. Having units positioned in a few different directions (but not necessarily attacking) so the Americans have difficulty routing might help. With only two leaders you risk leaving broken units scattered about the board if you attack in too many directions. Obviously don't expose your leaders to unnecessary risks.
 
Last edited:

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
2,684
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Ya, the chinese have very complicated rules attached to them so it might be tough to get people to play that nationality. But the main question is was the scenario fun to play? Was it boring and a real drag to play? Was it fun and intense like playing Hill 621?
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Yea, probably the CPVA will be the next great unplayed side because of the complexity of their rules, just like the Japanese are now ;-)

I am of two minds about how much I liked the scenario. On the one hand it is not totally bad. On the other hand both sides seem to spend more effort avoiding exposure of their weaknesses. It's a bit like being tossed a box of miscellaneous parts and being asked, "can you make anything of this?" Perhaps, but I'd rather have a complete kit. On the other hand the scenario would make a good "filler" scenario. If the monster I had spent weeks preparing for fell apart after five malfunction results in the first PFPh, I might pull this out. It will set up and play quick.

JR
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,387
Reaction score
10,291
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
On the other hand the scenario would make a good "filler" scenario. If the monster I had spent weeks preparing for fell apart after five malfunction results in the first PFPh, I might pull this out. It will set up and play quick.
In such a situation, you could alternatively fall back on "Flying Turrets".

von Marwitz
 

Kenneth P. Katz

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
287
Reaction score
327
Location
Enfield, CT
Country
llUnited States
There are a little more than four pages of rules about the CPVA. About 0.5 pages of those four pages describe step reduction. We initially just had a reference to Chapter G, but the powers-that-be instead wanted to include the rules in Chapter W rather than requiring players to own Chapter G. Good decision, IMHO. Approximately two pages fo the rules cover Infantry Platoon Movement (IPM). IPM is not the same thing as HW, but we deliberately based the IPM rules on HW, so that if you know HW, you can learn IPM quickly. Of those two pages, most of one of the two pages contains some nice graphical examples. W7.91 Weapons Use is basically a straight port from the Japanese rules in Chapter G. Some of the CPVA rules are esoteric chrome that don't matter unless it is night or certain SSRs are invoked.

The term "very complicated" is subjective and what may be "very complicated" to you may be fairly simple to somebody else. I believe that the typical intermediate-level ASL player can learn the CPVA in 30 minutes or less.

Ya, the chinese have very complicated rules attached to them so it might be tough to get people to play that nationality. But the main question is was the scenario fun to play? Was it boring and a real drag to play? Was it fun and intense like playing Hill 621?
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
5,582
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
There are a little more than four pages of rules about the CPVA. About 0.5 pages of those four pages describe step reduction. We initially just had a reference to Chapter G, but the powers-that-be instead wanted to include the rules in Chapter W rather than requiring players to own Chapter G. Good decision, IMHO. Approximately two pages fo the rules cover Infantry Platoon Movement (IPM). IPM is not the same thing as HW, but we deliberately based the IPM rules on HW, so that if you know HW, you can learn IPM quickly. Of those two pages, most of one of the two pages contains some nice graphical examples. W7.91 Weapons Use is basically a straight port from the Japanese rules in Chapter G. Some of the CPVA rules are esoteric chrome that don't matter unless it is night or certain SSRs are invoked.

The term "very complicated" is subjective and what may be "very complicated" to you may be fairly simple to somebody else. I believe that the typical intermediate-level ASL player can learn the CPVA in 30 minutes or less.
Sir, I buy the Forgotten Wars to play the CPVA.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
From what I have read IPM (Infantry Platoon Movement) is Platoon Movement for squads and halfsquads. It requires at least one leader and at least one MMC to form a group. Other types of units that are not limited by IPM (e.g. crews, additional SMC, scouts, dummies) may optionally join a group. The leader provides leader bonus MF for the whole group no matter how spread out the group is. The group may use assault movement or double-time. The members of a group may not perform certain kinds of movement/actions, e.g. mount or dismount conveyance, dash, search, etc. The units use impulse movement. Unlike a human wave, the IPM group must remain in a blob. If a gap forms, it must be closed in the next impulse or the group ends its movement.

IPM is not required on the turn of entry, but may be used. The rules for gaps are slightly different when entering from offboard; if a gap can't repaired only part of the group ends its MPh, and only for units already on board.

Squads and halfsquads that do not use IPM must either pass a NTC or must move only one Location. With lots and lots of exceptions (e.g. moving with a leader, spending its first MF to load on a conveyance, it dismounting a conveyance, Fanatic, etc., etc.), the most interesting being that if it has LOS to an eligible target hex within four hexes it may move in such a way that it decreases the range and/or moves adjacent to that target.

This is all from a quick read. I may have fudged a point or two or more. There are lots of details that cover lots of exceptional circumstances, e.g. when an IPM group exits the board the units that have moved offboard do not break up the IPM group (they are treated as being in the last hex they were on board). In short the basic idea is very simple: form as a blob; move as a blob. There are lots and lots of odd situations that may happen and need to be covered in the rules.

JR
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
It looks to me like there will be (at least) two forms of IPM tactics. First will revolve around shooting leaders and avoiding getting them shot. Since there is no "direction" for an IPM group, leaders may spend their time "delaying" and/or moving to the rear while the troops advance, while the enemy tries to shoot them. Because a unit has to be in an adjacent (rather than ADJACENT) hex, the leader could conceivably move up and down in a building to delay. The second struggle will be in trying to create gaps and trying to fill them. The bad guys will try to create gaps so the CVPA spend more time moving sideward than forward, while the heroic CVPA will form in ways to make it hard to create gaps, e.g. in thick blobs rather than thin lines.

JR
 

hongkongwargamer

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
5,582
Location
Lantern Waste
Country
llUnited Kingdom
It looks to me like there will be (at least) two forms of IPM tactics. First will revolve around shooting leaders and avoiding getting them shot. Since there is no "direction" for an IPM group, leaders may spend their time "delaying" and/or moving to the rear while the troops advance, while the enemy tries to shoot them. Because a unit has to be in an adjacent (rather than ADJACENT) hex, the leader could conceivably move up and down in a building to delay. The second struggle will be in trying to create gaps and trying to fill them. The bad guys will try to create gaps so the CVPA spend more time moving sideward than forward, while the heroic CVPA will form in ways to make it hard to create gaps, e.g. in thick blobs rather than thin lines.

JR
OMG .. thick blobs .. you are not saying they need to STACK, are you??
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,207
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
OMG .. thick blobs .. you are not saying they need to STACK, are you??
Stacking might be useful sometimes as it gives redundancy within a hex, but I would expect that as much as possible avoiding stacking will still be desirable. By a "thick blob" I mean having large size in two dimensions across the board. With a line of units the loss of a single unit will break the blob, requiring that the units move sideways to get rid of the gap. If the blob is something like a double line, it can't be broken by removing one hex.

JR
 

sunoftzu

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
938
Reaction score
483
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Country
llTaiwan
Thanks for the AAR. My copy of FW is less than a week old, so its good hearing about these.

It will set up and play quick.

JR
I'd say that's the true virtue of this scenario. Heck, you could even manage it without cutting out any of the FW counters....

John.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,818
Reaction score
7,253
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
This is all from a quick read. I may have fudged a point or two or more. There are lots of details that cover lots of exceptional circumstances, e.g. when an IPM group exits the board the units that have moved offboard do not break up the IPM group (they are treated as being in the last hex they were on board). In short the basic idea is very simple: form as a blob; move as a blob. There are lots and lots of odd situations that may happen and need to be covered in the rules.
That was a good summation. The difficult part was to get all those exceptions/odd-situations in without making the rules too "wordy".
 

JR Brackin

Cardboard Challanged
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
574
Location
North of Philly
Country
llUnited States
Back to the Grist Mill.

JR wanted to see how this would go against a more aggressive attack so we played this a couple of weeks ago. From the KPA point of view there is a lot of OG to cover with 2 - ROF 3 weapons. However the Americans are under Early KW US Army rules which puts them at low ammo among other issues. The KPA as JR has mentioned are basically 4-4-7's with 3 LMGs. I did the commissar exchange and placed him with 2 squads carrying LMGs as my FG. Otherwise I came in strong the KPA right using the Paddy Fields and some Light Woods as cover. I also had 2 squads on the KPA Left and about 4 squads and a leader coming in the middle to tie up troops from supporting the main effort.

I was making good progress and generated two KPA Heroes - that may be the first official occurrence, so I believe I get some style points. The US MTR did not last long when it broke trying to fire WP, then the 1/2 squad broke and became some prisoners for a little soap to the brain.

The end game came down to a mad dash from two sides to get into the building that was housing a 6-6-6 squad. Unfortunately I had to get passed the .50 cal that would not break. Most of my guys broke going to the building due to Sustained Fire that along with the Ammo Shortage would not break the HMG. Still I was able to get 2 x 4-3-6 (these had ELR's earlier and were rallied) under CX markers and a hero guarding a 1/2 squad of prisoners into CC on the top of T5 (last game turn) - no ambush. Also no result on the top of T5, however I did take a squad into the .50 cal hex to get the two leaders into CC and wouldn't up killing each other.

The bottom of T5 went quick, my only unbroken units (other than the CC) was a 1/2 squad guarding 1 1/2 squads of prisoners. All others were dead or broken on both sides. So on the final CC JR had a 6-6-6 and I had 2 CX 4-3-6 and Hero with escaping Prisoners. We calculated the odds as 1-2 for him and 1-1, -1 for me. He did not make his roll and I rolled a three for the outright win.

Looking at this on paper it does not look like a balanced or fun scenario - gee 6 6-6-6 squads versus 14 4-4-7 squads, but it is really a nice little scenario that is actually very tense and a quick play. I recommend this highly especially if you want to get your feet wet with a scenario that does not have many new rules.
 

lightspeed

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
440
Location
Calgary
Country
llCanada
Gents,

I've played this one twice.

Once as the US. The KPA set up en masse in the south, and tried to get to and through the gully. I had some good rolls,
and the game was over on turn 3 with a US victory.

In the post game debrief, my opponent thought he took too many risks. We agreed that the KPA needs to avoid the US mg.
Even though it's under ammo shortage, 8FP lead by a -1 can be quite brutal.

We switched sides, and I took the KPA. I decided to set up almost everyone near the paddy fields (grain). One squad in the center
and two on the north. Their job is to get on the hills and hinder the US ability to rout.

The bulk of my force (11 squads) did a lot of assault move and advance through the paddy fields. My amoeba attack had some success.
By turn 3, I was at the hill on the US left, and had captured 1 (or was it 2?) US squads. His 9-1 battle hardened and went heroic. In hindsight,
I had been too cautious. However, a couple of lucky rolls on my part and the remaining US forces broke and it was a KPA victory.

I think that the KPA should come from the paddy fields. The difficulty is that any fire from the hill to the field is considered fire into open
ground, and hence assault move/advance is a decent choice. The US has a lot of firepower but are quite brittle (6 morale, not many places
to hide).

JR Brackin said

Looking at this on paper it does not look like a balanced or fun scenario - gee 6 6-6-6 squads versus 14 4-4-7 squads, but it is really a nice little scenario that is actually very tense and a quick play. I recommend this highly especially if you want to get your feet wet with a scenario that does not have many new rules.

He hit the nail on the head. It's a classic firepower vs numbers match. If the KPA is too aggressive, they get slaughtered. If they're too timid,
they never make it to the victory building.

I've played lots and lots of ETO, and had to be reminded a few times that light woods are not a same-level obstacle. That's a statement about
me...the rules are quite straight forward.

If you haven't played it, I would suggest you do so. There's more happening than at first appearance. Even the decision about taking
a commissar is not obvious, imho.

indy
 
Top