A gaming mate and I have recently got into boardgaming online using the program Vassal. Although they lack the tangible visual awesomeness and the hands-on hobbying offered by miniature wargaming, the 'hex & counter' games of earlier decades have an appeal all of their own. This post will be a wordy one, as there aren't any miniatures to photograph. Here is my first true encounter with hexes...
Tactical Combat Series
We have tried out and played two scenarios from the Goose Green campaign for the Tactical Combat Series (TCS). This is a battalion-level game designed in the 1990s by a guy named Dean Essig which was produced most recently by Multi-Man Publishing (MMP) but whose rule and scenario/campaign booklets can usually be found free on the internet. The nicely-made Vassal module for Goose Green has its own visual appeal (not quite are great as actual physical miniatures and 3D terrain but the best 2D can offer), and is intuitive and easy to use, with all the helpful QRS and charts needed included. The TCS rules themselves, while very long, dense and fairly complex, are not surprisingly also very comprehensive and detailed, covering a wide range of contingencies, and seem quite realistic in terms of the combat and decision level for the player as battalion commander. We also found that we managed to pick up the rules quite well, learning-by-doing as we worked through the scenarios.
One of the main strengths of TCS are the very clever way it deals with uncertainly, the fog of war and command and control limitations through a pre-game (and during game sometimes) pre-planning system where players must develop 'OP Sheets' for their companies and platoons - drawing their planned movements, timings and actions on a hex map. This gives units (usually platoons down to individual weapons teams or vehicles) some scope for independent manoeuvre and firing, but within the strictures of the battle plan.
New OP Sheets (i.e. new plans) can be created during the game to respond to changed circumstances, but it can be difficult to implement the new plans, especially when units are already in action, or if the leadership is not particularly skilled. This system means that you have to think carefully in the time leading up to the game to draw up a plan for your operation - a badly planned operation can result in bloody disaster(!) and you can't cheat by using your player's 'god's eye view' of the tabletop battlefield to run your units around getting the most efficient shots at the enemy with all the right weapons. Sometimes you might need to scramble to implement a new plan to pull your men out of some messed-up situation, reorient your defence, or halt a failing or misdirected attack to mitigate losses.
Other strengths of TCS are the combat mechanics. There is a neat but effective Overwatch system that does not get too bogged down in actions and reactions. There are realistic combat modifiers that take into account unit stances, bunching up ('stacking') and terrain. There is an emphasis on laying down suppressive fire, use of cover and defilade (including the cover of night, smoke and fog), and morale. Speaking of morale too: this is a strength, as the morale system efficiently combines both individual unit and battalion-wide morale in believable and nuanced way.
The most problematic things I found with the rules were firstly the artillery or mortar smoke firing system (overly simplistic and strangely difficult to actually get mortars to do their primary job, per British doctrine anyway, of providing a smoke-screen). We also had more difficulty than we should have trying to identify lines of sight across contour lines. The rules are very detailed about this, but it all seems unnecessarily complicated and I think there ought to be a better way to explain them, or show terrain on the hex maps in a way that there is no uncertainty (perhaps with the use of light hill-shading?) I pretty much just ended up winging it, based on what I've seen reading real world contour maps. However, both these issues can easily be solved by house-rules or scenario-specific alterations.
Bloody Goose Green
So we fought the 'Bloody Goose Green' scenario from the Goose Green TCS module and bloody it was. I commanded the British 2 Paras, with the support of two Scimitar light tanks, and my opponent took the Argentines with Commandos as reinforcements. Looking at the scenario, it seemed like the Brits probably couldn't win using the primary victory conditions, because of the distances and number of objectives that must be captured and held, and the very high impact of casualties (I knew I'd be taking some). Therefore, I planned an operation to rush down the south-east side of Goose Green to take the main towns and airfield, regardless of casualties, thus achieving the secondary victory. The Argies hunkered down in defensive positions in their main trench line at Darwin Hill, around the airfield, and at Goose Green itself.
 |
| My original (overly detailed) plan for 2 Para's advance down to Goose Green. |
Dawn
The plan called for a rapid advance in cover of darkness (and smoke) to get into Darwin settlement quickly, bypassing the Argies' trench lines and hilltop defences. However, in the dark the lead elements (Charlie Company and the Scimitars) ran into Argentine infantry who were making a pre-planned withdrawal from their forward position back to Darwin Hill. The Brits inflicted heavy losses on the Argies in this initial firefight, but one of the Scimitars was destroyed by a 66mm from a brave Argentine platoon and the firefight delayed the Paras' advance.
 |
| Early stages: the 2 Para recon units run into withdrawing Argentine platoons. |
The Paras advance stalls
The advance in darkness was further slowed by the bridge to Darwin being out, then over-cautious Brit platoons bunching up, and finally a critical mistake by D Company's artillery observer which dropped 105mms on the British spearhead - pinning it down at a crucial moment. Dawn broke then, and the mortar smoke cover - which the plan relied on - never materialised. The dug-in Argies and their artillery inflicted heavy casualties on the pinned and flanked Paras stuck in a bottleneck until finally some platoons managed to break through using superior skill and morale.
 |
| What an absolute mess: 2 Para gets stuck in a bottleneck, ambushed on three sides, unable to see the enemy, hit with artillery (the enemy's and their own) and eventually bombed by the FAA and losing their commander. However, they still managed to break out by sheer force of heroic willpower. |
H. Jones meets his fate
More disaster struck as Argentine aircraft napalmed the advancing British column and killed COL H. Jones! All British plans were wiped out with him and the platoon he was with, and so the Brits were stuck for several more hours in a terrible position until MAJ Keeble could take control and the Paras finally broke through (relying more on their own courage than anything else).
The airfield, the AA, and the Scimitar
From there, the badly-shot-up Paras continued on to the airfield, and this is where the low Argentine morale (and the heavy casualties they also had suffered in the Darwin fight) showed. The last remaining Scimitar tank played a key role in providing overwatch to eliminate Argentine AA guns and allow the Paras to advance to take the airfield and prepare to move on Goose Green itself.
Argentine counterattack
A desperate Argie counter-attack by Commandos and the FAA personnel was mostly wiped out when it ran into the British and was caught in open ground. Incredibly though, the FAA, particularly their HQ section, covered by an AA gun's fire, managed to overrun and wipe out an entire British platoon from Charlie Company!
Outcome
However, the rest of the British forces finished off or forced the surrender of the remaining Argentine infantry units, and it was inevitable that they would take Goose Green, so we called the game there. It was a British victory, but at huge cost: I estimated that 2 Para had lost about 60% casualties, including their commander, plus one tank, with several platoons completely destroyed. The Argentines had fought very well, despite their low starting morale. They effectively used their firepower and entrenchments and exploited the disastrous failure of the initial British plan. Argentine casualties were very heavy (maybe twice the British, though including many surrendered units), but Argentine conscripts, airfield defence personnel, and other unlikely candidates were the heroes of their campaign.
Verdict on Tactical Combat Series and hex & counter gaming
I will definitely keep looking for future opportunities to play TCS either on Vassal or in real life, and got working on making my own module for a fictional 1980s Cuba scenario. TCS offers incredible scope to customise, design your own campaigns and forces, and explore possibilities, and gives players a wargaming experience that is just right in terms of tactical nuances and command challenges.
I also plan to look at TCS's larger relatives: Battalion Combat Series and Operational Combat Series, for wargaming at higher levels, and look into a way to link these all together in a campaign setting. I also hope to do a lot more hex & counter and other 'retro' military boardgaming in future, as, although you can't paint the playing pieces, it's all very interesting just the same.
