A bit more feedback from our most recent session:

1. We're still playing WWII, but it doesn't feel very WWII.  Individually, we feel quite powerful, and some of the moves, especially for the officer, don't seem to make a lot of sense unless we're playing a more contemporary setting. Particularly the officer's ability to call for fire.  The battles end up feeling more like a SEAL team fighting the NVA, or the SAS in the Falklands.  Our officer just managed to go home, so we're going to try playing without an officer to see if it gets grittier.  

2. The horror of war doesn't seem to be explicitly supported by the mechanics.  I think we could do more with what we have - I had a horrific moment where my officer, after calling down smoke on some machinegun nests in bocage was forced to lead the unit in a headlong assault through the smoke to avoid a mortar bombardment, and in the smoke accidentally ended up shooting one of his own men.  That was horrible.  

But the mechanics don't suggest that the soldiers accumulate physical and psychic scars, which makes it really easy to play Rambo or Inglorious Basterds.  At our table, we might not be applying incidental fire as rigorously as we might... But with Grit and Tough, our Soldier managed to prove utterly immune to enemy fire.

And it's up to the players to make the choice of how the character reacts to warfare.  It's entirely possible to go stress and wound critical, and then recover and not have changed.  And while that's not a bad thing necessarily, I feel like the game seems to be about trying to live long enough to get home, and what prices must be paid to accomplish that, and I could use more guidance, myself.

If it is about the costs of war, it might be neat to see that reflected on the sheet.  We were talking about how it would be really cool to be able to tell the stories of our battered veterans after they come back to 'the world', and to have those stories supported by the game.  Maybe carry the characters over into a heist game, a la original Ocean's 11.  Even something as simple as a Fiasco aftermath chart.

When you go home, roll + times you went critical over the campaign.  On a 10+, pick 3.  On a 7-9, pick 2.  On a 6-, you are unscarred.  Why?
-You suffer from substance abuse
-You become an adrenaline junkie
-You're in and out of prison
-You're physically maimed

I think the letters home are a good start at dealing with that.  But Tim made a neat point that tying XP to mission objectives makes it feel wargamey.


3. One of the most valuable things I think is the battleplan tool.  I think it might also be valuable to include some heuristics so players who don't know much about combat have a sort of best practices list of doctrines that they can refer to.  But that might be a bit more than can be asked of such a tight, short game.

Version 2.5 is up now:

http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-regiment-colonial-marines-25.html

I love all the changes.  On Thursday, we discussed more specific wounds, tightening the attack moves, and a bunch of other stuff, and lo, much of it has happened!  Can't wait to give it a shot!

In our game two weeks ago (with Fuseboy and a few others) we came up with an interesting way of dealing with artillery, based on a DW AP I read, where a town was detailed, and then flame markers scattered over it.

Since in The Regiment, you're always drawing maps, when the German howitzers and nebelwerfers started ranging in on us, our GM started tossing poker chips onto the map.  Anything that one landed on was hit.  We were holed up in a pretty little French town, and watching the shells land and tear the shit out of all the beautiful cottages and houses we had cleared was... compelling. 

It's not right for every situation, but it worked for us. 

Especially when they scored a direct hit on the house we had set up as an aid centre for our NPC wounded.

I'm really wary of a move with more than four options to choose during play, that's just way too many. You can roll a lot of those together and make it way easier to parse.

In fact you couldn't just have one option replace almost all of those: "...you gain an advantage or put them in a worse condition." That one statement covers literally everything from grappling, driving them back, knocking them over, whatever. I'd rather have my players describing their actions and goals, instead of picking specific choices from a long list. Why do we need each option explicitly listed?

Good call

Here's a new version

When you engage in combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, do 1 harm, or do 2 harm and receive 1 harm.  On a 7-9, do one harm and receive 1 harm.  On a miss, receive harm.  The harm effects, as with all moves, must follow from the fiction.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established, divided evenly between targets as appropriate  If chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6.
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position or improve your own position.
Make a special monster, GM, or playbook move

What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

When you Engage in Combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, you inflict a harm effect without receiving it, or inflict 2 and receive 1.  On a 7-9, you and GM each choose a harm effect to inflict.  On a miss, you receive without giving.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established to a single target (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6).
Divide damage evenly between multiple targets (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6)..
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position.
Take a dominating position.

Playbook specific moves could modify these options, possibly under certain conditions.  Spend 1 ammo to gain 1 additional harm effect.  When you select Deal Damage multiple times, add 1d8 instead of 1d6.  If your Signature Weapon would be taken away, you may choose to suffer Damage rather than lose it.  Etc.

Narratively, these options are of course restricted.  If an archer is shooting at a charging goblin and rolls a 7-9, it's not appropriate for the goblin to deal damage, or take away the archer's bow.  It is appropriate for the archer to lose ammo, or be put in a worse position by having a screaming goblin appear in his face, or for the goblin to reach some high ground where he can roll rocks down on the archer's head.  If he were exchanging fire with a marksman, then Damage certainly would be on the table and maybe losing his weapon too.

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.  I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.  And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

- What does this line mean: "Apply both stress and wounds inflicted
to the strength damage track (so there’s no need to roll damage when
NPCs take direct fire, unless you need the added detail)."

I get that if you do 2S, W to an NPC unit, it just takes '3 damage'.  But why don't you need to roll?  (Is this because the GM is just converting the narrative in to damage points?)

You  don't need to roll because at the Direct Fire level, whatever you roll does 1S or 1W, so rather than rolling, you can just mark off a number of circles equal to the number of dice you WOULD have rolled