AAR trial solo Vietnam games (MCB)

This is a brief report of my first few solo games of Men of Company B (MCB) (RFCM, 2017). Normally I don’t publish my solo trials with new rule sets, but in this case I thought it might be useful to give a flavour of the resulting games. My figures are 20mm individually based but this works fine within the rules; each figure equals a stand. The VC leaders are represented by a NVA figure to clearly distinguish them. I’m also short of SE Asia buildings, so I’ve used ruined stone buildings instead, which works OK. I only have 8/9 cache markers, so I created a quick ‘top man’ marker designed to look like ‘Uncle Ho’s’ birthday cake!

Cache Loop shown at bottom, includes 'Uncle Ho's' birthday cake marker

The first game was a ‘regular’ US platoon with a troop of carriers and an extra infantry stand, versus VC opposition. The VC tried for ‘snipers’ and ‘experienced leader’, but both attempts failed.  The US deployment saw the platoon commander on one side of the table, whilst the 2 squads were located on the opposite edge. The initial turns saw the US squads moving into the nearest building squares and searching (they did find the ‘top-man’ cache). I pushed their luck too far because this frenetic activity resulted in ‘failed’ activations, and this meant the platoon commander failed to move quickly. This was a bad decision! The arriving VC managed to recruit new stands from peripheral buildings and then move against the lone US platoon commander. He took shelter in some jungle but the VC quickly assaulted, forcing the commander into the open, where he was easily eliminated. This early loss in the game was a disaster for the White Star forces: All units lost 2 activation dice due to ‘out of command’; there would be no artillery support, and no Casevac of casualties! At this point the carrier troop arrived, but the VC were able to displace the arrival point by 5 squares! The carriers were isolated and a close by VC unit fired and took one carrier out! The second carrier only had 2 activation dice (-2 for isolation, -3 for KO’d carrier), so moved slowly down the road towards friendly forces. Unfortunately this attracted VC opportunity fire, who promptly threw ‘boxcars’! The carrier failed its save and the unit was kaput! The remaining US squads began taking casualties, failing morale checks which exacerbated their low activation dice pool. They had no choice but to hunker-down as the VC closed in. The game ended and the points tallied up: A Decisive Victory (+39) for the VC!

The basic US forces available in both games

Lesions learnt: The US platoon command squad is very weak (only 2 stands) and it needs to be quickly moved to a central position, protected by other squads. I think it should also go ‘Down’ whenever possible. I’m not sure if a squad leader can be upgraded into a new platoon commander? US forces need to move in a co-ordinated manner, working as a team. They should also aim to move quickly to search as many village/building squares as possible. The VC need to recruit up to 5/6 bases ASAP but should aim to leave 1 or 2 peasant bases for later use. Once a VC unit is reduced to 2 or 3 bases then it will have negligible impact and should bug-out ASAP to be re-cycled.

The second game played was a re-run of the first, again the VC failed to get a ‘sniper’. This time the initial US deployment was much more favourable; the platoon commander was central and had squads either side in village/building squares! By the halfway point in the game the US were well on top; they had searched a good number of villages, found the best caches, moved the carriers unharmed to a central supporting position, and Casevac’d  the few casualties sustained. The VC were struggling, but the US got over-confident and moved a squad into an isolated position. The VC nipped into a bamboo grove and plastered the isolated squad with fire. In the last turns the VC again gambled; They moved squad against the central US platoon commander and, with only 2 remaining activation dice, they fired from close range scoring ‘boxcars’! The US platoon commander responded by throwing ‘snake-eyes’ for his saving throw! The platoon commander bit-the-dust again! The game ended and the points were added up: A ‘Narrow Victory’ (+5) for the White Star forces. The victory could have been better, the dice for the caches was 8-down compared to the expected average result. The US had killed 18 bases of VC, but in the process killed 9 peasant bases. The media was outraged (rolled ‘6’ on the dice for killing more than 4 bases of peasants). With a bit more care and better dice rolling, the White Star forces could easily have achieved a more decisive result.

Lesions learnt: Don’t get ‘cocky’. Stick with a steady approach through to the end of the game. Gamble if you are ‘behind’ in the final turns because the ‘Dice Gods’ seem to appreciate the gesture! The VC should maximise bamboo groves and place then centrally near villages. The US player needs to swap the bamboo so that they are peripheral on the table edges. Once VC get into the bamboo, they are a b****r to shift! Artillery is the best option but deviation can cause peasant and friendly casualties.

Overall, the game moves very fast. The ‘Push the Luck’ mechanism works very well. It is surprising how quickly you pick up the rules and how little you need to refer to either the QRS or rulebook. The main thing I needed to remind myself of was the -2 dice when shooting etc. with the ‘raw’ VC. I have yet to try many of the special options e.g. helicopter gunships and snipers (the VC failed to get these in both games).  Over the next week or so I plan to play again with these options, and also try the NVA game (I will simply use VC figures as NVA). Then, I will look at the supplementary games given at the back of the rules. I very much doubt whether I will manage any opposed games over the next couple of months.

First Impressions of Men of Company B rules

I want to stress these are simply my first impressions of Men of Company B (MCB) (RFCM, 2017) and NOT a detailed review. I have not yet played enough games to even begin to assess how well the rules reflect the historic period. From my initial reading (plus a couple of trial solo games), I am able to give my opinions about the rule/game structure and the type of game experience they should provide.

This is the newly published 2^nd version of MCB. It differs completely from the 1^st version (RFCM, 1998), so much so, it should be considered as a totally new rule set rather than a development from the old set. The 1^st edition had many interesting ideas that I liked: I liked the moveable deployment zones for the VC/NVA player, and the resulting ability to shift units around the gaming area. I liked the feeling of uncertainty imposed on the US/ARVN player, you were never sure of what would happen next. I liked the different levels US activity (Bodycount, Search & Destroy, Hearts & Minds) and the constraints these rules impose. I liked the different geography’s available (Delta, Highland etc.). The 1^st edition rules did suffer a few problems: There was a lot going on in terms of mechanics, which made teaching the rules to new players a bit of a nightmare! There was a lot of tactical ‘depth’ and subtly within the rules, which meant that even experienced players needed to play a few games in fairly rapid succession to get their heads around the nuisances of key decisions (I don’t believe I ever managed to ‘master’ these issues!). As a result, I played 1^st edition MCB in a batch of games over 4 years ago (and enjoyed the experience), but since then the rules have sat unused on my shelf. I have not got them down because it was too much effort to re-learn the game, and the idea to trying introduce them to new gamers proved too much.

This 2^nd edition keeps the focus on platoon-level operations undertaking Search & Destroy missions in a fairly generic geographic setting. The first major change is that the game is played on a gridded 5’x3’ area, divided in to 60 squares (each 6”x6”). Terrain pieces all occupy 2 squares and each player supplies 10 pieces, 8 of which are compulsory, and in addition there is a road covering a 10 square ‘column’ of the table (the road can be removed by the VC/NVA player). The resulting gaming area is terrain ‘heavy’, and will not vary greatly between games; there will always be 6 village/building pieces, with a few paddies, more jungle, a few bamboo groves and may be a rocky hill or two. The VC/NVA player sets up all the terrain and the opponent can swap the position of up to 5 pieces.

A player can select one of three basic ‘White Star’ (US/ARVN) forces and add a limited range of add-ons. The opposing player can either play VC or NVA in the base game, and can choose up to 4 changes (includes removal of the road) but each change costs Victory Points and may not happen. I only have the figures to play the VC option (I need to buy more NVA figures). The rules do allow some additional scenarios (Firebase, Mountain Tribes, and Downed Aircrew) but I have yet to consider these. The deployment rules are simple, and in the VC game, the ‘White Star’ initial deployment is fairly random.

Village/building squares are the key to the game. They are the location of both potential peasants and potential caches (i.e. important VC/NVA supplies). The ‘White Star’ player is aiming to search as many of the potential caches as possible, and hopefully find many valuable supplies (via a ‘Cache Loop’, discussed latter), whilst avoiding booby-traps and not killing any peasants. In contrast the VC player is attempting to prevent this and by moving into un-occupied villages to ‘recruit’ new VC stands from the peasants. The initial VC units are few in number and very weak. They can only expand by converting peasants, whose number is variable in each village/building square.

The ‘core’ engine in the game is a ‘Push the Luck’ mechanic familiar to anyone who plays boardgames. A few other wargame rules utilise a similar mechanic in a limited way e.g. Lion Rampant where failure to activate a unit ends a players turn; or Impetus where units can do multiple activations before they become disordered etc. In MCB the mechanic is much more dominant. An activated unit starts with multiple dice (generally 5-7), actions are undertaken which require at least one of the dice to succeed, actions are graded from simple (3+) to difficult (5+), and following the action the dice pool available to that unit is reduced by one. Failure results in all remaining units yet to be activated having their dice pool reduce to one dice (!), plus one unit being similarly reduced in the next turn. A player is therefore faced with a dilemma, do they ‘Push the Luck’ and undertake many actions, or do they play with caution reducing their activity but avoiding a costly failure? I think this is a brilliant mechanic to employ, particularly in a Vietnam context; a real feeling of do-you-don’t-you especially as your dice pool shrinks e.g. you can get to a village fairly easily but will only have 3 dice remaining, do you try to search (requiring 5+) and risk failure, or do you pass and try next turn?

The other mechanics of the game built on to the activation system are reasonably straight forward. Shooting requires 5+ to hit with variable saves depending on cover, quality etc. Shooting will trigger return fire from the target (6+ to hit), and some movement will trigger opportunity fire. Units can go ‘down’ to reduce casualties. Close Assaults are bloody but a defender can fall-back if they wish, but this can result in some losses. Morale is a key ruling and is only taken if an enemy is in proximity (i.e. the 8 squares surrounding the unit) at the start of a turn. The presence of casualty figures with a unit will increase the number of potential ‘morale failures’, which in turn reduce a unit’s activation dice pool (bad news!). Players can remove casualties either by an action (VC) or Casevac (White Star).  The VC units can also ‘disappear’ off-table if they are put under pressure. Artillery support can be generated and is useful in getting peskie VC out of bamboo groves! But care needs to be taken, particularly near to villages, due to deviation which can take out peasants.

Another interesting mechanism is the use of opposed dice rolls for a range of incidents e.g. entry of reserve units. The high scorer can either ignore the result, or apply the difference in the score to move the entry point that many squares in either direction around the table edge. The same mechanism alters the choice on the ‘Cache Loop’; the VC/NVA players places the caches (high and low value) plus booby-traps and empty spaces on the ‘Cache Loop’; the opposed dice score can shift the White star players choice, resulting a potential boobytrap explosion.

Game length is via a count-down mechanism (common to many RFCM rules) and Victory is determined using a simple table. The White Star player gains randomised points for caches found, destroyed or controlled at the end of the game, plus a few points for killed VC, minus points for killed peasants. The VC player primarily gains points for killed enemy and unsearched potential caches left at the game end. If playing the NVA (rather than the VC) game, then the points awarded are different, and in addition, the deployment and action rules differ.

I think I have given an overview of the prime characteristics of the new 2^nd edition version of MCB, which should give a new player an impression of how a game of MCB should pan-out. I really, really like the ‘Push the Luck’ activation mechanism, and cannot wait to trial this on the tabletop. I have a feeling that other games/designs might be tempted to employ such a mechanism in other settings, but I would advise caution against such temptations. In my reviews of other rules, I have often criticised authors for simply lifting-and-shifting mechanics without giving sufficient thought to the new setting. I have applied this criticism to recent rules released by the RFCM team; I was very disappointed in their new Regiment of Foote rules which were just Square Bashing in a different (inappropriate) setting. So I am glad to say that RFCM have found their mojo again by coming up with new, innovative mechanisms focussed on specific historic periods. My next post will look at my trial, solo games using MCB and give my views on how they work on the tabletop. Later I will report on opposed games, but this may be a while coming because my diary is full for the next month or two, and gaming activity will be curtailed.