The following are the basic generic building blocks of my Mid/High-tech Hyborian armoured forces. These are basic structures I use to collect my models before I start adding on robotics, drones, UAVs, point defence and other support weapons.
This is a typical TOE I use for a tank heavy High-tech Mech Battlegroup within FWC.
Each of the 'sabre' Gamma units has a scout car Recon/FOO whilst Gamma HQ has an armoured scout vehicle and two fire support AFV. The armour predominates with the Mech Infantry undertaking a true specialised panzergrenadier role rather than just being infantrymen carried in an armoured box.
This is the Mid/High-tech Mech Infantry variant. Gimel is 'Camel' in the Phoenecian alphabet which I thought described an APC/MICV unit perfectly. Res is 'head', ergo 'HQ#. Just sounds a bit more off-world than "Company A" "Bravo Company" etc and more fitting for my 'Eastern' influenced 15mm Hyborian forces. The 'Gimel' battlegroup is doctrinely focused on the primacy of the armoured infantry with embedded armour support.
Given the cost of 15mm armour, I tend to buy one Gimel/Gamma at a time. If I want a tank force - eg GZG Grav Gunsleds (v15-08A) it's the Gamma TOE, if Mech then I go for the Gimel structure.
Why don't I have 3 Gimels/Gammas? Primarily cost! Second is space on my tabletop. Equally important lastly, I have enough robotics, Guncrabs, UAVs or even wheeled mech to have a third unit consisting of these and ring the changes tactically as I require.
I understand the cost thing. You could also build units with three elements as the "paper" organization and then field partial strength units until you were able to purchase the full unit.ReplyDelete
Table space does come into play but I do have to ask what size table you usually play on?
Kitchen table is 4x5.5 feet, garden table is 4x7.ReplyDelete
I'm glad to say that standard wargames fare meeting engagements are out of the question. Scenarios and terrain are designed to maximise tactical and gaming opportunities. I have to thank an article in an old old edition of The Courier magazine for teaching me many years ago that you don't HAVE to fight across the length/width axis of your table
Yes, there is definitely something to be said for playing outside of "the box".ReplyDelete
I learned this from reading the Major General's web page a while back. Open field battles have always seemed a little less realistic for scifi games, at least in the sorts of settings I like. I have always seen objective raids and street fighting as much more in keeping with hard scifi.
Raids, assaults, fighting withdrawals and yes, my favourite - street fighting - all staples of Sci Fi.ReplyDelete
I dislike "line 'em up and shoot 'em" style of gaming. Particularly the mass shoulder to shoulder phalanx of men and tanks you see so often on FOW tables. If you like that great - good on you - simply not me.
What I like about Ambush Alley Games products is they break away from the tyranny of the 8x5 table and say "it's OK if you want to play with 2x2 or 3x2 foot games surface". And the games are structured around that.
I have tried breaking away from the typical 4x8 table too. Also, I am much more interested in games with solid objectives rather than "kill 'em all" fights.ReplyDelete