2 Operational Level wargames within a fortnight sandwiched my trip to the Plassenburg. NQM is the original ‘event led’ Op Game designed by the Doormouse years ago (even I have been part of the playing group for 20 years, now!). Megablitz is a more codified game inspired by the NQM project. When NQM stepped down to 15mm for space reasons a decade ago, much of the 20mm collection went into the Megablitz stables (so even some of toys are the same).
(Fall Gabel: 4th PD – my 22 PD toys – getting obliterated by a Corps level artillery barrage or unprecedented ferocity)
The two games couldn’t have been more different. Fall Gabel (NQM) was played amongst a small group on a single evening just on one table; A Battle Lost? (Megablitz) was played all day on six tables with around twenty players.
In Fall Gabel we were channelled straight into the combat zones so spent just about the whole game running higher level combats; in A Battle Lost? the French were determined to dig in, while the Panzer Corps (at least) were given strict orders to by-pass enemy units and not to fight any battles (so the game was mostly a traffic game).
(A Battle Lost?: Panzer columns navigate around and between French positions)
(Fall Gabel: the Gross Deutschland Motorised Division gets stuck in – my Germans, Chris’s Russians, Treb’s buildings)
Neither game featured any player engagement with the logistics rules. Which, originally, was what these Operational Level games were about. What made them interesting.
Air power is another important part of these operations but was Umpire controlled in both games … in A Battle Lost? this combined with an ‘all in one basket’ policy imposed by high command to mean the Luftwaffe played little part in the conquest of France.
(A Battle Lost? Opening Phases … the Luftwaffe take off successfully – one of their better moments)
Here are some more pictures:
(A Battle Lost?: some of Rommel’s recce units – on strict orders from Gen. Guderian – me – to get to the beaches first)
(A Battle Lost?: the BEF about to cop it)
(A Battle Lost?: Cambrai about to cop it)
(Fall Gabel: 4th Panzer advancing confidently into the battlespace)
(Fall Gabel: the remnants of the Division reorganise a safe distance back from the smoking wrecks of its combat units)
(Fall Gabel: nightfall – the tattered Red Army are driven out of all their positions into a confused cauldron around the rail head; Gross Deutschland poised, brimming with confidence, before the morning’s assault)
In truth, blend the two games together, add back the missing logistics and air liaison – and give all the players enough to do … and you would have the perfect wargame. At the moment the Operational Game seems to have settled into a formula which everyone enjoys (me included) but which runs as much because of the fudges and bits left out as it does because of the rules which are played and work.
(A Battle Lost?: by Day Three my Corps had worked its way to the front and Rommel was headed for the coast)
The games are very well organised and the lunch at Shrivenham was first rate.
My thanks all round.
I played Germans in both games. In Fall Gabel I commanded 4PD which bounced off, but which had softened the position sufficiently that we took it in the afternoon, and I commanded Gross Deutschland which methodically destroyed everything in front of it. Unfortunately we were at the end of our (unplayed) logistic chain, so the thrust was doomed to fail.
In A Battle Lost? I played Fast Heinz whose XIX Corps of three Panzer Divisions was allocated a 2nd echelon birth with orders to break through to the coast.
Despite all the traffic trouble, the infantry getting in the way, and lack of allocated road priorities, by Day Two we were threading our way through. We took 3 or 4 small towns, the main Front airfield, cut off a full enemy Division and were first to the Sea with 2 of our 3 Panzer Divisions (Rommel up front); indeed, at the airfield we were just minutes behind the departure of the French C-in-C! Job done I guess.
(A Battle Lost?: XIX Corps securing the Albert air facilities just as the lumbering Bloch extracts the French High Command)
I took personal command of the Albert (airfield) exploitation phase so as to free Rommel up for the race to the coast. Had the Luftwaffe been properly about its business it would have forced the still visible Bloch transport down, enabling us to capture the top brass. As it was, they ignored air identification flags and flares, ignored the priority messages sent 2 hours earlier concerning the capture of the assets, and instead shot up the German Staff detachments and wrecked the captured planes. Thanks guys.
Not to worry, of course, it is the kind of hokum Umpires enjoy throwing into games but which doesn’t really happen: my father’s cousin won his DFC in this campaign and always insisted it was easy enough to tell the French from the Germans from a plane in 1940!
Operational games are like proverbial buses (unusually I used a real one recently) … you wait for too long then several come at once. I am pleased to have been able to join in.
NQM vs Megablitz
NQM has too many stands (you don’t need so many stands at battalion level if they are all going to do the same thing) … Megablitz is better in using company stands for recce (who disperse at that level) but battalion and similar stands for other troops.* I prefer scaling by relevance, so might compromise by allowing 2 stands to a full strength battalion so I can show a difference between transit and combat moves.
I do like NQM giving different values in attack and defence compared with Megablitz Strength Points – I like the way artillery can be strong supporting an attack but relatively weak if caught unprotected**.
I like Megablitz‘s codified movement concepts but still have a soft spot for NQM‘s variable (event led) length bounds. One day that sort of system will be harmonised into a working game mechanism that requires less umpire fudge than tradition has allowed.
Megablitz has a very efficient orders/posture system that reduces confusion. NQM is more ‘old school’ (and free-wheeling) …
Both games are great value and should be played more.
*******
*NQM gives an infantry battalion up to 6 stands, varying strength by the number of stands present. Megablitz uses one stand per battalion, varying the strength by varying how many strength points the stand can contribute (and absorb) in combat. Megablitz feels less cluttered as a consequence.
** NQM rates a stand Heavy, Medium or Light for its firepower and similarly H,M,L for its target value. It means that, say, a Katyusha unit e.g. can be H in its hitting power but only L when taking incoming hits. Megablitz uses the same SPs for hitting and taking hits (so tough units are equally tough in attack and defence): this is a very useful and quite justified simplification which does the job relatively well – I just prefer the more subtle detail the NQM mechanism allows.
A very interesting comparison of these two operational-level wargames, and I tend to agree with you regarding your conclusions. If it was possible to meld the best aspects of both systems, the results would be phenomenal.
All the best,
Bob
Thanks, Bob …
To be fair to both games I should probably have added that there were newcomers playing so the Umpires do simplify and fudge, in part, to allow the newcomers to get a smooth entry to the game (rather than require them to be overwhelmed with technicalities from the start) …
It is an important point to make because, as I say, people should play the games more so need to appreciate that, unlike some established games, the big Megablitz events e.g., are deliberately pitched so that newcomers can get involved and have an enjoyable sociable time while they get the hang of the game and how it works.
Phil
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to play Fall Gabel, so I missed the latest development of NQM, and I have never played Megablitz. However, I would agree with Bob that this is a very pertinent and interesting comparison between the two systems, and with the potential in both to somehow be developed into a unitary system. I have a soft spot for NQM, having participated in its development, but it is very umpire-dependant. Indeed, I am not sure it is ever played without its creator-umpire. Is Megablitz similarly umpire-creator dependant? If so, they may both need to be surrogate ‘parents’ in the ‘birth’ of a new system under a third umpire-creator.
As to WWII ‘blue on blue’ casualties, I would suspect it was fairly easy for the Luftwaffe to identify who was the enemy and who was not — the colours of vehicles for a start!
Motylos,
Many years ago Tim Gow (who devised Megablitz), Chris Willey and me fought a battle using NQM without Chris Kemp being present … and it lead to the development of Megablitz.
Megablitz can be used without Tim Gow having to be there: I know because I have done it with several different groups of people. There are several aspects of NQM which I think are superior to Megablitz, but if I wanted to run a game with large numbers of players Megablitz would win hands down.
Bob
Thank you for the further background, Bob. WWII is not really my period —though Tim has the majority of my French Army and has recently benefited, I hope,from some books on the French Army in the period which I recently sold him — so I am more interested in the ‘conception’ than the ‘practice’ of the two gaming systems. The fundamentals of wherewithal and logistics, for example! Wargaming, of course, generally assumes wherewithal — that is the wealth, production of weaponry, and political will to bring about the conflict in the first place; and, perhaps with the exception NQM and Megablitz (though not in their two recently reported incarnations), most wargaming assumes supply as a given, too.
NQM without Chris, and the palm span, is an engaging image! lol
I have run NQM and Megablitz without the authors, and my grid based hybrid ‘Megablitz Squared’ (on which more work will emerge) … plus I have run (locally and at COW) a Napoleonic variant of NQM (‘Not Quite Marengo’): the latter both with and without Chris involved.
Megablitz is OK without the author – the only bit of trickery is Tim often performs an overnight simplification (sweeping up a lot of spent units which he thinks would bog the game too much on the following day) ..
NQM is trickier in the definitive versions incorporating an ‘event led’ (VLB-like) turn where everyone would move (and keep moving) until an enemy shouted ‘stop’ and a recce roll would then kick an encounter sequence into action. The mix of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ game mechanics, and the transition from fluid continuous manoeuvre phases to broken down combat sequences requires an umpire (and one who understands what is going on) – but NQM is not unique in this respect and any game that uses closed systems and variable time (Howard Whitehouse’s ‘Science vs Pluck’ is a popular example) needs an umpire to decide how things break down and what happens next.
Megablitz’s clever use of order chits and innovative combat roll (where the recipient rolls his incoming dice and adjusts strength points secretly) dispenses with a lot of umpiring without making the game completely open.
Phil
Heh, nicely called out on the Luftwaffe strike Phil :O)
I was all for fudging that the strike came in support of the attack on the airfield, but the umpire consensus came down in favour of playing the rule as written (for once) as it made no difference to the final outcome. You wuz robbed for the sake of the narrative! It makes a change for it not to be Chris Willey flying off with the national gold reserves
The Fall Gabel logistic point was fairly made too. With a third of the allotted time available, it just had to go, even though we all know that every time this happens, the game becomes a slugfest.
It was gratifying to see the follow-on units in Tim’s game snarling up on the allocated roads without umpire intervention – I noted one of the divisional commanders doubling up his divisional column at rest to clear the road. Even if the loggie toys aren’t used they perform a valuable service in occupying real estate. NQM could not handle a 20+ divisional game in the accomplished way that MB does.
I keep thinking that the NQM orbats should become more functional as MB has done. An alternative would just be to equate 3 infantry stands at (s3) to one vehicle (s3) stand. at a stroke, this would reduce infantry fighting strength by 2/3 compared to armour and artillery. I’ve soloed this option but never played it with others. Any thoughts?
I like the evolution into NQM squared too as it codifies movement and procedure without overly complicating things. Are we going to play more of it?
Regards, Chris.
Genuinely, Chris, I think all the second half of all the foot stands in NQM do is double the firepower and hit absorption of the unit (i.e. half as many stands with twice the effect could do the same job with half the clutter). Given you have had said on occasion that you never have enough grunts (for the red Army at least) that might be the way to go. Actually I think the combats might now be taking longer than they need also (so once the result is inevitable there might be a benefit in cutting to it?) …
Given I don’t currently have the space to put up the squares, NQM or MB ‘squared’ is on hold (although wagons and truck periodically come off the production line – so all is well with the ‘Op Games’ project 🙂 )
Phil
Even though logistics didn’t feature heavily in A Battle Lost it certainly occupied a proportion of my time as the other Panzer Corps commander. Keeping my divisions supplied and not losing my supply line was responsible for several of the decisions I made. The halt around Arras to allow the rest of the German army to catch which eventually lead to the Ghost Division being passed through to take the lead was logistics based as I couldn’t really push on and risk the French DCL to cut the road behind us. Supplies in general weren’t a problem, but I kept the corps log units well up with the advance and they were able to resupply my divisions which enabled their log to be kept topped up. I think the Luftwaffe was more help to me than you. I had a couple of usefull strikes although they didn’t stop the French from strafing my corps command!
Thanks, Fred … One of the points about the Luftwaffe in 1940 was flexibility, one of the dictats from our 1940 High Command was that it was to be inflexible. It never seemed to be where it was needed – indeed all I saw of it was when it bombed an airfield already captured by one of my divisions a full 2 hour phase after High Command were informed we had secured it. That may have been deliberate of course (Lol – it certainly felt like it was) but I have no doubt it did not happen that way in 1940!
Phil
[…] comment then had been that something more formal was needed to cover the gaps. Phil is developing NQMsquared (or Megablitzsquared) and I’m happy that he is troubling to do the work on a system of squares that I enjoy […]