The Battle of Verkhopenye 8 July 1943: A Rapid Fire Solo Wargame AAR | Storm of Steel Wargaming

[@dementisvir8899]

good to see that you won. I was rooting for you.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

You missed the chance to say you enjoyed watching me play with myself.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

To misquote Jellico at Jutland; "There's something wrong with my bloody tanks today!" Abysmal rolling from the GD. Manteuffel is rolling in his grave.

[@DG-ky2cu]

Great to see this old set of rules get some love. I've been reminded of our fun with this scenario in the 90s. Must try it out again.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Cheers, I don't play RF so much these days, but it does work nicely for games like this.

[@nirnman]

great to see Rapid Fire get a run out again. It has been a long time since I had a game using these rules but I seem to remember that armour cannot get within 6" of infantry without their own infantry support, or am I confusing this with another rule set

[@get_the_lead_out]

Definitely a trip down amnesia lane watching Rapid Fire - used to play it a lot. Thanks for dusting off the ruleset - would love to see another game of it, possibly an all infantry engagement!

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thanks, RF has been one of our favourites for years. It's getting less play these days though, but still a good game. I was thinking of playing Ponryi as my next RF game

[@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285]

Great to see these rules being used, still my favourite for this scale/period. Also interesting to see lend lease Aircraft and amour making an appearence. Fine commentary on your game.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thank you, TBH I don't play Rapid Fire! so much these days, I far prefer I Ain't Been Shot, Mum for this level of gaming. Rapid Fire are fun, but they are a bit old these days, IMO.

[@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285]

@@StormofSteelWargaming could that be because the focus has shifted to 28mm skirmish games? which has its own in built cost implications? Also I can never understand this old rules idea; I mean do they change the rules of football or golf every so often just because of the latest bit of kit?....

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

@@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285 I played Rapid Fire in 15mm and I play IABSM in 15mm, so there's no change from my POV. What I mean by old rules is that they are IGOUGO with very little chance of friction. You know you can move all of your units in your turn and the only thing that will potentially stop that is the enemy's reaction fire. Also, all movement is at a set pace, ie 6" for infantry, etc. which means you know exactly where your unit will end up when you begin to move them. In a game like IABSM units are only activated when their card is pulled from the unit deck card, so you don't know if your units will activate or your opponent's units will activate. Also the turn end is governed by the pulling of a 'tea break' card, so again you are unsure if you will be able to activate any or all or some of your units and you have to keep this in mind as an ever changing tactical situation. Movement in IABSM (and all Lardy games) is done using dice, you move the amount of inches thrown on a number of dice depending on how fast you want to move, so you are never sure if your units will make the distance. IMO this is far more realistic as anything could happen when moving, just as firing is handled in most games. It makes for a far more dynamic game when these are factored in, Rapid Fire just doesn't do that, unfortunately. That said, I have had 20 yrs of happily playing RF until I discovered the Lardies rules and realised the huge differences in approach.

[@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285]

@@StormofSteelWargaming Did yu ever read the book introduction to wargamming by John Sanders, that included many concepts like what you explain, have the lardies creditd his book?, it really is funny how wargames rules have the same sort of "life" as most consumer commodities when after all the objective of the games are the same.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

No, I am unaware of it. But I'm sure TFL have done and are aware of it.

[@MedievalWargamer]

Another fun battle Report!!!Thank you for posting!

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!

[@billburnside4364]

great looking table and game, I to roll lots of 1's and 2's lol, if the German Stug's + Pak 40 are in cover in the wood's, why not hold fire until the T34's are in short range, if they're not moving / firing the Russian's would have to try and spot them, which I'm not sure they can do ? it's been a while since I've played R F so the rule book is packed away, I only found the video by chance on a search looking to get back into playing once I've painted up German v Russian Inf + Vehs over Xmas

[@StackingLimit]

Excellent play through and AAR!

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Cheers again Andrew!

[@samb2052]

Another great looking game. I played this scenario years ago using Blitzkreig Commander. Interesting to see a similar result. I think the StuGs need to stay out of side and attack from the flanks behind cover where they’re difficult to fire back at. Quite a lot of poor dice for the Germans that didn’t help.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Yeah, I've played this a few times in the past and had very different results as well. The StuGs really need to survive for a couple of turns at least. And yes, the dice were definitely not nice to the Germans...

[@WARdROBEPlaysWWII]

Awesome. Don’t see this ruleset enough. Only played once and it was enjoyable.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thanks, RF was our go to for years, it's fallen out of favour a bit in recent years but still stands up, especially for solo play.

[@lacrauzorro]

Great battle reports! I have the rulebook, but never played it! Don't know why, but the idea of 1 tank equals 5 and so on, doesn't connect! By the way, is it possible for some demonstration of Victory Decision WWII and Operation WWII wargames, please?

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed the game. RF is good, but it's pretty old and bit clunky IMO, I much prefer something like O Group for this level of gaming these days. Unfortunately I don't either of those rules sets, but looking at them they are the same scale as Chain of Command and I have plenty of videos on that.

[@BitesizeWargaming]

Nice models & table...Great work! Is this 20mm? Used to do 20mm RF "back in the day" a lot and would like to do so again sometime.

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Cheers, glad you liked it. These are all 15mm.

[@Helghastdude]

Great video! Got my copy of the rulebook a few days ago. Only problem i have, i can´t figure out how to build armies on my own, like i FoW. Or do i have to create (equal) armies for each selfmade scenario?

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thank you! Did you get Rapid Fire reloaded? I think it shows you a typical German and British battalion in there, doesnt it? If you have a look at www.rapid-fire-uk.com/ you can buy some of the supplement books which have army lists in.

[@andreweast410]

Those Germans couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

But at least they tried...

[@SpringfieldFatts]

This was cool, I was always interested in these rules and the Battlefront WWII set but never got a chance to use them. How "big" would you say this game was in relation to TO&Es in the book?

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Thanks, I've never used Flames of War, but what little I've seen haven't really impressed me to be honest. I prefer the Too Fat Lardys rules for my WW2 stuff these days. This game was taken directly from the Rapid Fire scenario book, so is one of their TO&Es, but it is quite a large game though.

[@SpringfieldFatts]

@@StormofSteelWargaming Haha see this is one of the problems, FoW is from Battlefront the company, but Battlefront the game is by Fire & Fury Games which do a really good ACW game by that name. Every time I mention the ww2 game it's confused with FoW!

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

@@SpringfieldFatts ha ha, I've never heard of it, but I'll take a look

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

I've had a look and I recognise the cover, I knew of Fire and Fury as well.

[@davidwhitehouse615]

Enjoyed this thanks. Just didn’t see the point of random movement, makes all movement a dice contest and slows it down a bit. But of course, each to their own😊

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

Cheers, the alternative is having fixed movement rates which means you know exactly when you will arrive at a given point on the table which doesnt mirror real life at all. It adds friction and we randomise firing without a second thought, so why not movement?

[@davidwhitehouse615]

@@StormofSteelWargaming fair point. Is it taking randomness too far? Only one way, I’m gonna try it😊

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

@@davidwhitehouse615 I don't think so. I play a lot of Too Fat Lardy games and all of those have randomised movement from dice rolls. If you think of it as the troops having spotted the enemy or slowing down to check something, then it's not just random, but an actual part of combat. Believe me, it took a while for me to think it through, but I really don't like fixed movement rates any more.

[@IAIN1815]

it would have helped if he had played the reserve fire rule as per the rules......1) you choose not fire in your own tun to earn reserve shot, 2) the shot is taken in the reserve fire phase of the opponents move.....and that's it. There is not a rule to stop your fire in your own turn afterwards. Of course that could be a club rule but it makes it harder for defender who lose a round of shooting and gives attackers the advantage....(when defenders should have the edge in such circumstances).

[@StormofSteelWargaming]

True, but we've always played it this way.

[@iaingray5806]

Each to there own..... If it suits your feel for the game and you enjoy it then who am I to argue...

[@iaingray5806]

It was more for the watchers to understand its a house rule... 😁👍