Sicily '43 Solo Playthrough - Episode 2: The Charge | Assault Games | World War 2 Tactical Wargame

We take a deep dive look at combat in Sicily '43, Assault Games' wargame (historical conflict simulation) on World War 2 Tactical (squad level) Combat on the West Front in 1943, between US and German forces. Game is a two-player wargame, but works well solitaire. In this episode, the German and US forces exchange heavy fire as the US charge closes on the contested farmstead.
If you'd like to support my work in creating historical wargame videos, here are some ways:
Join the my Patreon community: / zillablitz
Make a purchase on Noble Knight Games with this link: www.nobleknigh...
Buy me a coffee via Kofi: ko-fi.com/zill...
Thanks!
Assault Games Sicily '43 Gamefound:
gamefound.com/...
Known Errors:
There are a few executional errors in combat. I think all of them are noted in text comments.
In some cases, the digital images I have for the cards are different than the older prototype version of the cards that I am playing with. I've noted that the first time it comes up in the video.
Assault Games Red Horizon '41 Webpage:
www.assault-ga...
This first look produced by Zilla Blitz.
The game in this video is a review copy provided by Assault Games.
World War 2 Games
Italian Army
German Army
US Army
World War 2 Tactical
Assault Games
Red Horizon '41
Sicily '43
#wargaming #assaultgames #redhorizon
boardgamegeek....
-----
My Current Wargaming Tools-
• Oregon 2.0mm Counter Clipper: amzn.to/3SUyDX7
• Oregon 2.5mm Counter Clipper: amzn.to/3SzYJPs
• Bent Tip Lighted Tweezers: amzn.to/3CqYmAU
• Dice Tower #1: amzn.to/3EcoQHU
• Dice Tower #2: amzn.to/3RweSDS
• Black Dice: amzn.to/3dXLd92
• White Dice: amzn.to/3rmQcn1
• Laser Line Sight: (out of stock)
Amazon links are affiliate links. If you’d like to help the channel, you can use those to purchase.
-----
Sicily '43 Solo Playthrough - Episode 2: The Charge | Assault Games | World War 2 Tactical Wargame

[@tacticaljackie4023]

Nice stream Zilla. That tiger is going to control that centre , the allied tanks all in the south and thus no flanking. Look forwrds to see how the allied armour tactics... Nail biting

[@ZillaBlitz]

Yes, I think we need to get that Tiger firing as much as possible, and I don't see a good way for the US to take it out, given their locations. We need to get in from the side, but that'll be hard to do.

[@assaultgames167]

Thank you very much for episode 2, you can really feel the action and your way of presenting is captivating. 😀

[@ZillaBlitz]

My pleasure! I'm looking forward to seeing which way this goes. I'm at a conference this weekend but will be back at it early next week. :)

[@Stumptonian1]

I really like the coloured-dice method of combat in this game over the usual method of DRMs. Looking forward to Turn 3.

[@ZillaBlitz]

Yeah, I'm curious to see if the Germans can wrest control from the US of the farmstead, and I think I have a plan for how they might approach it. Basically it's called "Blow everything up with the Tiger." :) It's definitely taken me a while to get up to speed with the combat, but I really like it now that I've gotten there. The colored dice system is clever, I think. I'm still learning how to assess potential with the dice, but I imagine that will come with time.

[@garyduddell3224]

Some success taking the victory point but then one tank getting it's tracks blown off, looking forward to the next episode and seeing who gets the upper hand if anyone. The dice combat I really like and also how each unit gets different defence dice depending on if they are attacked from the front, side or back.

[@ZillaBlitz]

Thanks! I'm at a conference this weekend but should be able to advance the game next week. :)

[@richardkingston794]

This looks very interesting game. Going to finish watching the rest of the gameplay. I like the coloured dice which is an interesting mechanism.

[@ZillaBlitz]

Nice timing! I'm uploading Episode 3 right now. :)

[@campsawyer]

Thanks for the video. I agree the dice on the attack roll need some thought, might be better for some one new to tactical wargames or Eurogames. You have quite the battle going on and look forward to the next one.

[@ZillaBlitz]

My pleasure, and yeah, I could see this going either way. Big help for the US to take the farmhouse, but I don't know how they take out that Tiger tank. Have to try to get around the side, but I think we can just park it there as the Germans and blow stuff apart. Those Stuarts won't last long, I'm afraid.

[@nordicmaelstrom4714]

Well you look like you just went into the bush! Nice hat by the way! I finished clipping SPQR deluxe and I got set up for the battle of Lautulae 315 BCE pitting Rome vs an old enemy in the Samnites.

[@ZillaBlitz]

Thanks on the hat! Sounds like you've ready for some gaming fun. Enjoy!

[@nordicmaelstrom4714]

Now I just gotta get the rules digested. Was going to do that tonight but got drawn into an over five hour character creation session for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2E that was unexpected.@@ZillaBlitz

[@mikem668]

Nice video. Thanks. The overall system seems interesting. I have two opposite points about fire combat. I like the fact that the dice emphasize intuition, hopefully based on some sense of tactical knowledge. Which is how you seemed to approach it. Because the probabilities are hidden, it's not easy to try and work out optimal attacks. On the other hand I'm a little worried about it being fiddly: dice, line of sight, and info markers. I'm guessing it will become easier with experience, but if you play with lots of different kinds of units, maybe not. Some designs allow you to speed up play by rolling dice before doing all the calculations. Players who enjoy cheering for a good roll hate it. Not me. Impossible to do here. I'm no expert, and I've mentioned this before, but Lock 'n Load and Old School Tactical use different ways of partitioning the probability space. This seems like a third way. It's comparative (both players roll) and while you aren't checking a CRT, you are checking the unit cards before you roll. I'll be interested in your overall impressions in the last video. You're getting very good at this. Nice flow. 👍

[@ZillaBlitz]

I'm glad you're enjoying it, Mike. That's been one of the fun aspects of exploring this tactical space, seeing how differently each designer approaches the challenges. One of the things that I'm finding I like about this one is that it feels like you're making decisions in a physical space rather than a mathematical space, and that physical decision-making space feels directly tied to combat principles, if that makes sense. So you're not thinking, "Oh, my attack strength is reduced by 2.5 because I'm shooting through through those woods, which means I need to add another adjacent squad to get the odds to 3-1." It's more of a "shooting through the woods will make it harder, do I take the shot at low odds?"

[@mikem668]

@@ZillaBlitz It absolutely makes sense. I felt the same thing. And you conveyed the idea beautifully in your narration. I don't know if you remember Firefight. Jim Dunnigan designed it for the Army and then SPI published it in 1976. I bought it, but I was in the Navy soon after, so I never played it. My sense was that it had a similar kind of transparency. Almost like Rock, Paper, Scissors. I laughed when you moved the mortar up with the last action, to use the other two units as spotters. I was wondering if you'd do it, but I'm seeing infantry and I'm thinking mortar please. As you finish it I'll be interested in seeing if you get that combined arms feel. I also found your tank tactics interesting. Plausible and rational, yes. Doctrine? Got me. The German use struck me as odd. In theory the probabilities ought to dictate tactics. Since IIRC the American tanks were trash, I'd have expected the Tiger to close, and the Panzer III to play the overwatch role. Zero idea if that's right. But in more traditional designs, it's easier to estimate the correct tactics if your unaware of the doctrine. Gotta say, I love these videos. There was an interesting discussion on Monday night on KZbin about the difference between a Simulation and a Game. To me, I play wargames to learn. I can learn from any level of abstraction as long as I'm making decisions based primarily on a design feature that matters realistically and historically. So a Game that allows me to manipulate game-only features ultimately leaves me cold. You may be interested to know that Mark Herman was part of the discussion. He said that in his experience tactical games were the least realistic, which seems right to me. So if these games engage and teach us, they are doing something right.

[@doncossack1016]

I watched this video and thought "Man, I'm gonna buy this game because it looks so awesome." Then I investigated and well.... Awesome it may be, but it ain't $107 awesome! I always love your videos, though.

[@patrickols]

yeah it is a bit expensive and I already started on The Last Hundred Yards so I could not see myself going into this system for that price but it’s fun to watch the play, Zilla enthusiasm always make;a it a lot of fun 😊

[@ZillaBlitz]

It very much feels like a system purchase to me. There's definitely value in the box, with the campaign, all the sandbox potential, and the scenarios. But if you think you'll play a couple of times, the price tag is up there for sure. We can't get them all! Or at least most of us can't. :)

[@JackMcMall]

Yes, agreed $107 is a lot money. I also play Red Horizon 41 and I have to say that the richness of the box justifies the price. I think the option to play a dynamic campaign is great. Other systems usually don't offer as much

[@Perchpole]

I'm a bit confused by the spotting rules of the mortar at around 3:18. There looks to be some intervening terrain but you say the mortar can still see the AT gun because there have to be "three hexes" of obscuring terrain?

[@assaultgames167]

May I help you with that. The mortar unit is behind the atg. Inside the LOS are two relevant hex: the brush (with atg) and the light forest beside the multistorey building. So you have two LOS degrading terrain in between the LOS line = LOS is hindered for the mortar but not blocked. Blocked would be if the stonewall would have a elevation like the forest. Then you have three degrading or hindering hex inside the LOS - the it would be blocked.

[@Perchpole]

@@assaultgames167 Thanks. So the mortar can see through a light forest (trees) to pinpoint a target with no appreciable drop off in accuracy? I know table top games aren't a simulation, but isn't this stretching things even a little?

[@ZillaBlitz]

I talk a bit more about the Line of Sight and spotting in the first half of Episode 1, too. That might help with a few things. I don't really have much thought on the accuracy element. It seems to me fair to distinguish in game between shooting over obstacles rather than shooting through them. I've seen a number of games where indirect fire doesn't consider intervening terrain in its calculation. I've been learning the Lock 'n Load Tactical system and it does the same thing. I mean, yeah, technically it's probably harder with some partially obstructing terrain, but every game has to balance complexity and playability.

[@assaultgames167]

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Yes, in principle this is now a subjective matter. We already see the light forest as visually penetrable terrain. With steep fire, such as the mortar, it is also important to hit an area - so the operating crew can also focus on the impacts to be observed. Of course, this is not an accurate simulation of reality, but we are quite happy with the result.@@Perchpole

[@Perchpole]

@@assaultgames167 thanks for your response. It looks like a very elegant game. My concern is when rules allow indirect fire weapons to be used with unrealistic accuracy. This can be mitigated when the effect of fire is purely to disrupt the target. However in this instance, the mortar is not only accurate, it was also able to score a critical hit. This means the mortar has effectively become an indirect fire sniper.

[@rogerpaul8918]

An excellent WW2 board game system. (much better than Squad Leader in my opinion). I own the 3 Conflict of Heroes games + the solitaire version . I'd jump on this if there was a solitaire version.

[@ZillaBlitz]

I'm having a lot of fun with this. I've got the Conflict of Heroes and have heard good things about that one too. :)

[@patrickols]

Nothing is better than ASL 😊 but I played the older version I think the new modern reprint of the game is not as in depth but I could be wrong

[@PrimarchX]

Why didn't the US 57mm gun get a red defense die when fired on by the PzIII? That tank was in its front arc, right?

[@ZillaBlitz]

Happy to answer. I mention it a couple places in text but the physical cards I have with the prototype are different in a few places from the updated digital card images that I am using in the video overlays.

[@PrimarchX]

@@ZillaBlitz Ah, a prototype glitch. Got it!

[@ZillaBlitz]

Yep, although it's probably more accurate to say that they are refining gameplay through testing, tweaking unit values when they notice something in the scenarios.@@PrimarchX

[@thecustardprophet8434]

Is it just me or is this game more complicated than many of the games you've featured. The coloured dice thing has me completely lost.

[@ZillaBlitz]

The colored dice system is rather unique, so I think that's part of it. It's definitely the more complicated part of the game, and has taken me the longest to learn. Once you get up to speed, it's quite elegant. Did you by any chance catch the Episode 0 segment on how the dice work? I imagine it'd be a bit confusing without some background information on what's going on. Conceptually, the basic idea is that you add/remove dice from the attacker and defender's rolls depending on the positive and negative factors that influence the shot.

[@pterrok5495]

I dunno, a separate German player may very well have taken a potshot at the advancing tank, ESPCIALLY since there pretty much has to be something about the passengers on it being affected even if the tank isn't. THEN, most games I've played have some sort of penalty for firing a tank gun with men riding on it. Some say can't shoot, others say go ahead and shoot but the passengers get dismounted and penalized--so probably suppressed in this game. And probably the GERMAN gets to decide where they bail out to. OK, next attack shows what happens to the passengers, which I'm OK with the damage to them, and yeah, I guess being marked with the Fast Action means they can't do anything else. Um, isn't that a stone wall in the middle NW of the farmhouse that a lot fire is crossing? Surely that gives some value even if the unit isn't directly behind it. I didn't go back, but why was the German AT flipped over but the US AT not?

[@ZillaBlitz]

~ Yeah, I like how the game handled the infantry on the tank. That seemed to make sense to me too. ~ Walls only impact firing if the unit is right above it. ~ Neither AT gun was flipped. They only took one hit each. They have 4 hit points. :)

[@pterrok5495]

@@ZillaBlitz Heh--I thought the German AT was a lighter color and so it was flipped, but it wasn't. Just my eyes playing tricks and jumping to conclusions instead of winding back and checking. As for the wall, kinda disagree with the game here. If they say that a tank right behind the wall is Hull Down (like most games do) then 1 hex away it is STILL effectively hull down! There is no way a tank round will 'drop' that much to hit the hull, more than likely, unless it is a max range shot. So that clues us in that they want offense and not defense. But an infantry doing a low crawl ANYWHERE behind that wall should not be seen unless the enemy has an elevation advantage! Even standing up, same thing: the wall a hex or two in front of them is providing solid cover as the enemy has to make sure to fire over it. ~~~ So that aside, what IS the wall advantage vs the house advantage? Should they leave the house for the wall??? (While another comes up for the house.)

[@ZillaBlitz]

No worries. :) The house (red, green, green) is much better than the wall (yellow).