"Bolt-action rifles in Force on Force " Topic

If you were to play an earlier period in which the predominant weapon was the bolt action rifle, how would you best reflect that in FoF? Most of the scenarios are designed with assault rifles in mind, so we're talking about a lower rate of fire for most of the squad/fire teams.

However, it also becomes important to show the differential between the rifles and LMGs and other weapons with high rates of fire. So is it better to increase the fire effect of the LMGs while keeping the riflemen the same, or is it better to apply some sort of negative modifier to fire teams armed with bolt action rifles? The net result (I think) is that they would be putting less metal in the air and therefore have less chance of hitting something compared to modern-day fire teams. Maybe go with lower dice (a D4 for really crappy troops)? I'm interested in some ideas without radically altering the core rules.

Gracias

I had the same problem when I was designing an scenario for France 40. After giving it some thought, I decided to keep the FP just the same as in the main game, as I supposed that WWII LMGs would give the squad the same firepower advantage that LMG SAWs gives today -after all as both forces would be armed the same, the balance of the game would be maintained-. What I changed was that I gave a bonus to SMG armed units in the Assault.

I think the 'rule of equivalencies' prevails. If both sides are mostly bolt action rifles, keep them all the same as the core rules.

I think this was covered in the old WWII FoF rules.

Yes, the rule of equivalencies applies here, if both forces are armed the same (bolt action rifles) no changes. If the opposing force has better weaponry (Say US with the Garand versus Heer with Kar-98), the US will get bonus dice, IIRC. The new rule is "Outgunned" and it is on Page 46 of the PDF rules, I don't know the print version page number as I don't have the hardback book with me (I love having a PDF reader I can take to work!). Also, you should be aware that it is an Optional Rule. Hope this helps!

That makes sense, but would you leave the LMGs the way they are? Maybe I could make them +2 weapons instead of +1, or give them "intimidating weapons" status.

I second the "rule of equivalencies" argument. The base rifle in WWII was the bolt action rifle so it should be the base line with 1d per trooper.

Machine guns were treated on page 34 of the old Force on Force rulebook. The better German machine guns like the MG 42 were treated as medium support weapons with two dice (whereas the BAR was just a light support weapon with one die).

My breakdown comes with the US carbine and other semi-automatic weapons and the German SG-44. How do you handle them? It feels wrong to give them the same dice as say a KAR-98. Maybe steal the tech levels from Tomorrow's War? In that case the KAR-98 (and other bolt actions) are tech 1, semis and US style carbines are tech 2, and the STG (assault rifle equipped units) tech 3. Maybe that would work?

Oooh! Good point Jovian. It's on page 43 of the new hardback book and that would fit the bill quite nicely without changing anything. Plus it has the same effect on the game that the tech levels have. Nice call.

Actually Altius, I would make your LMG team into a team and they would have a support weapon with their OWN pool of dice and since they are their own team, they would get their own special rule. See the Special Teams rule on Page 43 of the PDF (again sorry for not having my Hardback with me). The LMG team is actually listed on the page in the color section of the PDF – The LMG team gets two bonus dice, plus the number of men in the team. So, a 2 man LMG team for your MG34 or MG42 will get 4 dice all by themselves (I think I am doing this right – 1 die for each man in the team, plus 2 dice for the weapon), and they will have their own activation sequence. So you can activate them FIRST, put them on Overwatch, and then watch the enemy defenders get suppressed, broken, or destroyed by your LMG during one of your active units movements. This gives your units some tactical flexibility and does not force you to do anything strange with your units either. A typical Heer unit will become two groups of 4 men armed with Kar-98 rifles (perhaps an MP-40 or similar), and an LMG team with an MG34 or MG42 to provide them with support.

As for the STG-44, they would get the Outgunned rule against US troops with the Garand – because they have roughly the same combat capabilities with their weapons, however, the ROF of the STG-44 is much higher than the Garand.

Remember the general premise of the FoF rules – that is it is not the weapons used but the training and abilities of the soldiers using them. Elite and Veteran forces are going to have an advantage. So, an Elite Ranger unit is going to have a higher die type (D12 at the extreme end) versus a trained trooper with a D8.

Also, supply is going to be important here, as it will not matter how many STG-44 troopers you have if they are poorly supplied. This gives a reduction in firepower as the troopers are less likely to engage in "mad-minute" type tactics. Whereas, US forces who have excellent supplies will have more ability to engage in the "mad minute" exercises because they know they have the ability to resupply or are carrying enough supplies for the firefight without worries.

There are several WWII scenarios in the PDF book with WWII load outs for different squads and suggested Troop Quality and Morale ratings. The Germans are given LMG teams which are rated as weapon teams (giving them the +2 dice).

Ok, that makes sense.

I have yet to actually get an opponent to PLAY these rules, but I've read them enough times to know them fairly well and am only waiting for an opponent to take them for a test drive.

In time I expect FoF to come out with a bunch of scenario books with forces listed for each side which are detailed enough for you to set up the terrain, pull out the troops and have a go at it. Perhaps a scenario design section is needed, but like everything in gaming, if it isn't fun, why are you playing it?

I have absolutely no clue how this FoF thing works, but surely one of the things you would unavoidably need to show in a WW2 game at this level is the difference between blokes armed with rifles and blokes armed with SMGs. The SMG is a much better bet under about 200 metres, but the rifle will reach much further.

All the best,

John.

Yep. We do that, John.

Indeed, they do. And in close assaults too!

In previous posts it was said that the WW2 stats would be put on the Ambush Alley web site as a pdf after the new book came out.

Is this still the plan?

That's still the plan. Probably won't happen till after Historicon, though. We're a tad pressed for time at the momen. ;)

Shawn.

Shawn, thanks. Sounds good. Me and my regular opponent both just purchased the FoF book this past week with the main aim being to get our WW2 figures on the table again.

"I have absolutely no clue how this FoF thing works, but surely one of the things you would unavoidably need to show in a WW2 game at this level is the difference between blokes armed with rifles and blokes armed with SMGs."

John, it isn't a WW II game. It's a Modern game. WW II was covered thoroughly in a past edition and will be again in a future release. These guys were wanting to use it now as a WW II system, which is perfectly doable.

Yup, rule of equivalencies. If everyone has bolt-actions, then why change the rules?

Submachine guns would get bonus firepower for 'outgunning' the bolt-actions, but would pay for that with lower die types.

The rule of equivalencies is inadequate. Moving acros an open field is more dangerous when facing modern weapons than when facing ww2 weapons. Firefights occur at longer ranges & are more intense in modern warfare than in ww2. A close assualt will be more unlikely in modern warfare because of the increased rate of fire of weapons. ww2 warfare is not modern warfare.

John kelly

The rule of equivalencies fails because military history doesn't fall into neat pre and post assault rifle periods. Throughout the post war period there have been conflicts in which some troops have fully automatic ARs and others have semi-automatic weapons. All else being equal there should be a difference in performance. I recommend Flames of War for a better way to handle both troop quality and weapon performance compared to FoF.

"I recommend Flames of War for a better way to handle both troop quality and weapon performance compared to FoF."

Except that FoW isn't a skirmish game, is it?

FoF isn't a skirmish game either in that troops fight in teams and squads rather than individually. Both games have a 1:1 figure scale and Both are "small unit action" games. Where FoF does have individual figure removal FoW groups figures into stands for casualty removal.

But FoW does a better job in representing the differences between small arms (a topic of another thread) such as bolt action and assault rifles without needing to appeal to concepts such as the rule of equivalencies.

When FoW was first demoed at HMGS events Phil ran games with just a platoon per side and maybe a tank or two. That's about the same scope as FoF. By the same token FoF can be played with a company per side. What I find interesting that when it comes to Questions such as that raised by the OP FoW does a better job with weapon details while also being more abstract in some waya, so you get the best of both worlds.

Looks like we have played different FoFs/FoWs then.

In FoF a Platoon is a BIG force. Usually, only insurgents field as many as a platoon-sized force. Practically, all the games of FoF that I have played put a couple of fireteams, with some support (snipers, one HMG, may be, if I was feeling megalomaniac, one ACV), against a platoon worth of insurgents, if at all. With those forces you can have a game. Can you have a meaningful, interesting game of FoW with three infantry bases per side and one tank?

You are comparing two systems whose scope is totally different. It's like if I compare Sharpe's Practice with Black Powder. Pointless, being polite.

By the way, Wartopia, are you trying to "sell" us FoW? If that's so, why do you bash FoF as "marketing" strategy?

Nope. Not FOW.

If you go back in time to a period of bolt action rifles, realize too that the LMGs are not going to be really fast MG-42 type. I have fired the Lewis and the Madsen 1908[?] and they are horribly slow compared to anything WWII and later.

"A close assualt will be more unlikely in modern warfare because of the increased rate of fire of weapons."

Depends, I guess. Most of the narratives I've read of combat in Afghanistan, Irak, Mogadishu and former Yugoslavia mention a lot of close combat or, at least, firefights at close ranges. If air or artillery support wasn't involved in the equation, the actual combat commonly happened at relatively short ranges. In places like Fallujah or Grozny practically all combat happened at close ranges. Actually, the kind of combat that it's less usually mentioned in memoirs from combatants is the long range firefights. Given space, the regular troops usually call for air or artillery support rather than trying to fight using their small arms.

baselius,

why are trying to sell us on FoF while bashing FoW? And why are you bringing up marketing? I never mentioned that. Is the marketing of FoF important to you for some reason? Do you feel like you're competing with FoW?

back ot, Shawn has said FoF can handle up to company level actions. Others have confirmed this and that has been my experience with FoF/TW. But that's clearly the upper limit for the system. I've played FoW with a platoon per side using squads and individual vechicles as the units, and that was with Phil Yates running the game! But that is clearly the lower limit for the system.

So, yes , there is overlap in the scope of two games. And it's simply a fact that FoW already models the differences between bolt action, semi automatic, and fully automatic rifles very well. While the topic of this thread is how FoF might handle it. Perhaps a FoW-like stat line would help since FoF already has stat lines. No need to get wrapped around the axle and using terms like "bashing" Pete's sake. Calm down and discuss the topic.

Wow, Wartopia, where in my posts have you seen me defending, promoting or selling Force on Force? Or making the slightest criticism of Flames of War? English is not my first language, but I believe I write it well enough to avoid such a glaring confussion.

But, as someone told me once, the best way to avoid a flame war is not to rise to the bait. So, with your permission, glad to have been of your acquaintance, ecc, ecc, I'll move on to other threads.

@JPKelly: But Force on Force is not really intended for a firefight in the deserts of North Africa or the Russian Steppes. Force on Force is essentially playing out the assault phase of a game of Flames of War (or refighting Stalingrad, etc). That's why there's no target out of range in FoF. If any given infantryman is only seen for 2-3 seconds, you're only going to be able to fire 1-2 shots with any rifle, whether it's bolt action or automatic.

At those ranges, it doesn't matter *MUCH* whether the other guy has a bolt action or an assault rifle. What does matter is the guy's skill with it. Also, note that in those cases where only one side has SMGs or assault rifles, the rules include an 'outgunned' bonus.

@Wartopia : "Throughout the post war period there have been conflicts in which some troops have fully automatic ARs and others have semi-automatic weapons. All else being equal there should be a difference in performance."

Well, the last conflict I can think of is the Falklands where both sides had basically the same rifle, the FN FAL, the Argentinians having a full auto version and the British a semi-auto version restricted to 3-round bursts.

The difference in performance due to the weapons paled in significance compared to the the difference in performance due to training. Which is what FoF models quite nicely.

FoF works on the premice that unless one side is massively outgunned training is the key. And if one side is massively outgunned, there are rules to cover that.

PS : it is generally considered inelegant to advise someone to dump his rules and play yours when respondiong to an enquiry such as the first post. About as inelegant as I would be if I told you to dump FoW and play IABSM. <G>

Pretty sure the British SLR used in the Falklands was single shot semi auto only.

There was much discussion at the time whether the smaller 5.56 round was any good.
Much was made of argy special forces fighting on even after having been shot several times with 5.56

Yep, my bad. the British SLR was single shot only (two modes, safe and semi-auto).

Risalder,

I don't play FoW. I didn't advise anyone to dump his rules. It's rude to falsely attribute statements to others. Please don't do that.