ITLSU - Road to Basra, 1914

[fred.]

Thanks Paul

I'd also managed to find the section 6.7 last night - again a feature of these rules is the really odd layout. Why this isn't simply listed as a condition of changing and order, I don't know. 

Infantry can move and fire so gives some flexibility. The difference between Attack and Advance is speed. Engageallows you to approach a position.

managed I understand what is there, but given with Attack you can move full speed, or you can move slower and shoot, it just seems a more flexible order. The only real difference with Advance is that you get to automatically stop if the position has been taken by the enemy. 

I'm still feeling all 3 could be of the form, move towards position X. And do one of the following it
Attack it
Engage the enemy in it
Hold your ground if it is enemy occupied and Engage them. 

As I said earlier it feels the Position part of the order is perhaps the most important, and this is what requires the HQ to issue new orders to get the unit moving towards the next objective. 

[paulr]

ITLSU gives a very good game but is not the best written set of rules

[Martin1914]

Hi Paul, Steve. Thank you for your comments. Glad you enjoyed the report.

Hi Fred. Sorry for the late reply, but have just returned from holiday. All I can add to Paul's answer about the Orders section of the game, is that we we use it flexibly to avoid gamers' omnipotence (friction as intended by the authors?) and actually attempt to form and carry out a plan.

Yes on Attack, you have to keep attempting to go forward towards the objective, but it's a battalion order, so how its subunits (companies) achieve this is at our discretion. Subunits may assault (possibly fire and move), whilst others may provide fire support. Once the specific objective is taken, the change to Hold is automatic and subunits can manoeuvre to defensive positions as required.

Advance and Retire require full turn(s) movement to a specific location. We would play that if moving to a location that is occupied by the enemy before you reach it, the unit stops and would need an Attack order to take the specific location.

Engage is usually given to specific fire support units during an attack. Better units may self-convert to Attack. Whereas on Hold you can fire on an threatening enemy units approaching your defences. And better troops are permitted to counter-attack a lost position without further orders.

The rules allow for compound orders Eg. Advance to and then Hold Hill A, or Advance to Ridge B and then Engage enemy on Hill C.

Hope this is useful. Regards to All.

[fred.]

Thanks Martin

I get the intent of the orders, and like that they force some planning and limit control. But once you start analysing them to understand how they could work under unexpected situations is where it gets a bit woolly.

Advance feels a very risky order to use - I can't see it has any benefits over Attack. As Attack lets you move at full speed (if you want) and lets you fight. But from a thematic perspective, I get there should be a difference in these orders. I'm just struggling to see it.

Even Engage feels a better option than Advance in most battlefield circumstances.

The only time Advance feels useful is if you have a weak force you want to probe with against a possible unoccupied objective - then if it turns out to be occupied your force will Hold.

Otherwise Advance feels it risks blundering into the enemy.

We are playing ITLSU on Monday so will report back!

[paulr]

The key difference I see between Attack & Advance is that Advance automatically changes to Hold if the position is held by the enemy. This will hopefully mean your unit with Advance orders will spot the enemy and stop before they are in effective range. If they had Attack orders, they have to keep getting closer.

I use Advance for:

• quickly moving a unit to somewhere, typically in the direction of away
• moving a unit forward to see what is out there

I hope your game on Monday goes well