"Being Pinned in Force on Force" Topic

In Osprey/Ambush Alley Games' Force on Force rulebook, being "pinned" results not only in a firepower penalty, but in a penalty to defense. As the rulebook explains:

…more than cover is required to provide an effective defense. Units that are Pinned are so busy scrambling for cover that they may be unable to oppose the enemy with an effective volume of accurate fire.

What do you think of this game design element?

* excellent idea!
* doesn't work for me
* no opinion

Excellent idea!
I think its a well thought out way to simulate how troops would be effected by a volume of accurate fire coming their way.

What I also like, is that the pin effects go away at the end of the pinned players turn, so you're not stuck trying to get a unit to unpin, turn after turn.
Joep

I think it's reasonable and it's something that most game designers don't give much thought to.

Yes, when you're pinned you're literally harder to shoot at, but you're also much easier to maneuver against too. That's why you suppress the enemy to gain fire superiority, then you get up close and let them have it with short ranged fire, grenades, rockets, or whatever mayhem you have to finish them off. They are just sitting ducks at that point and really unable to effectively defend themselves because they are too busy hiding in cover.

I think that's what Shawn and company are trying to demonstrate in Force on Force.

Not in any unit I served in. Pinned means different things to different countries and other arrmies. Movements are 3 second rushes at most. I am up, they see me, I am down. American combat arms, Infantry, Rangers, Special Forces train hard on this. To say effective fire can not be maintained due to being pinned is folly.
VR
James Mattes

But James, in FonF, pinned is not something you do because you want to, but because the enemy has laid down a heavy/accurate fire, and you are reacting to it by scrambling to get lower to the dirt. And in doing that, your ability to return fire is reduced.

This makes sense to me, as the reason to lay down heavy fire at the enemy is to keep his head down so you can maneuver for the kill?

Mike

If you are capable of moving about then clearly you have not been 'pinned', James. The phrase is 'pinned down', as in stuck to a board with a pin, like a butterfly – unable to move.

FoF conflates a number of issues along these lines and is why we finally gave up on it recently (gave my FoF Osprey book away for free). It seems a number of responses here are missing the point of Bill's question. It's not just the issue of being pinned vs fire and movement. It's also the effect on unit defense. Conflating movement, shooting, defense, concealment, cover and "unit defence" in one big mess is a non started for me.

It's the difference between a beef vegetable stew with perfectly done veggies and large chunks of tender beef roasted in a wine-based stock vs puréed mush from a can. Too often FoF ended up tasting like puréed mush while other, elegantly simple games provide lots of distinct flavors and contrast in their depiction of modern warfare (eg FoW).

The irony is that while ultimately tasting like mush FoF also managed to feel very complex with lots of Calvin Ball-esque rules. It's sort of a "how to achieve the least with the most" approach relative to other designs. We kept trying but in the end its complexity didn't provide any lasting benefits not possible with other, simpler approaches. It probably did a better job representing certain aspects of modern war compared to other games and yet managed to do so while missing a lot of color or flavor.

Read this link carefully. Pinned does not mean you can not move, and return fire. You might not be able to more OFF the X but you can move and repostion and return fire. At times you may not be able to do one or the other but being able to do nothing is showing a lack of understanding of small unit tactics.
VR
James Mattes

link

pzivh43 27 Dec 2011 5:39 a.m. PST wrote:
But James, in FonF, pinned is not something you do because you want to, but because the enemy has laid down a heavy/accurate fire, and you are reacting to it by scrambling to get lower to the dirt. And in doing that, your ability to return fire is reduced.

This makes sense to me, as the reason to lay down heavy fire at the enemy is to keep his head down so you can maneuver for the kill?

I agree Mike but to seems a bit too restrictive to me. I will have to see how it plays out first, I am not sold base on the way it was layed out in the first post.

Say Hello and Merry Christmas to "you know who" for me. My kids are up at his place this week.

VR
James Mattes

James, that quote is to explain why a unit receives a penalty to fire and defense when pinned. Out of context it kind of reads as if a pinned unit can't fire at all, while in reality it simply does so with reduced effectiveness. Pinned units can also move – indeed they MUST move into cover if they're not already in a covered position – they just can't move towards the enemy.

I agree that being unable to move or fire while being pinned would be FAR too restrictive.

Best,

Shawn.

It's not just the issue of being pinned vs fire and movement. It's also the effect on unit defense. Conflating movement, shooting, defense, concealment, cover and "unit defence" in one big mess is a non started for me.

It's somewhat counterintuitive. You'd expect that by keeping your head down you're improving your defense. The FoF author apparently believes that offense-- i.e. the amount of fire a unit puts out-- is part of its defense. Presumably the more it shoots at the enemy the less the enemy shoots at it.

I don't know if this is correct. Fortunately I've never been in combat to find out. Maybe some who have can sound off on this issue.

I wonder whether it's a sound idea from a game standpoint, however. Assume the premise is correct. Does it matter whether the target unit has been shooting at the unit firing at it? If so, should the target unit's defense be reduced if it is shot at by a unit other than the one it has been shooting at? I expect the author didn't want to burden the player with keeping track of this. This however may not be too satisfying to people who like more literal representations.

Another question is whether the reduction in defense is overstated. Yes, the target unit is shooting less and thus not forcing the enemy to keep their heads down, but isn't the reduction in defense caused by the reduction in fire offset by the fact that the target is keeping their heads down and thus presenting a more difficult target? Should these effects be a wash?

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion.

I might be splitting hairs here but I believe there is a further difference between 'pinned' and 'suppressed'. A pinned unit may not be able to make any large moves forward due to incoming fire volume but it does not restrict ability to return fire. In the case of a unit being suppressed, not only is the unit incapable of movement but the ability to return fire is degraded due to most everyone keeping their heads down. The guys in that building at the first helicopter crash site in Mogadishu were pinned. They could not move out into and up the streets due to incoming fire. But based on Somali body count they were definitely not suppressed.

Rufus

Cant wait to see your rules when you release them Wartopia…

Simple: Excellent idea!

I have never heard of FOW being called elegant before!

I might be splitting hairs here but I believe there is a further difference between 'pinned' and 'suppressed'

These aren't scientific terms where all agree on their meaning. One man's "pinned" may be another man's "suppressed."

The principle in question is whether the amount of fire a unit pumps out has an effect on its defense. The words are just semantics.

The irony is that while ultimately tasting like mush FoF also managed to feel very complex with lots of Calvin Ball-esque rules.

The only thing I've found complex about FoF is the sequencing of actions and reactions. Beyond that the rules are quite simple.

Yep, a fine rule for a very fine ruleset.

I don't agree with the pineed penalty for recieving fire. Heck look at the picture in FoF rule book illustrating pinned units. Tell me that they are suffering from defensive modifiers? I think not.

Chris

My turn to beat a dead horse…..the 'pinned' concept in FOF works and does a fair job of refecting the suppressive effect of geting nailed with a large quantity of effective fire. It also works well given FOF weights troop quality/experience over other factors, such as equipment. Being 'pinned' doesn't mean you can't move and fire, it just means it's not as effective and for the lower quality troops being 'pinned' may mean that they have become combat ineffective by going completely to ground. FOF may have some 'glitches' based on my personal preferrences but being 'pinned' is not one of them. I have the rules and think they're pretty darned good.

Seems to me to be a reasonable and effective mechanism to portray this within the scope of the rules.

The only thing I've found complex about FoF is the sequencing of actions and reactions. Beyond that the rules are quite simple.

He likes to toss out the term "Calvinball" a lot. Don't know why he separates the words, though.

I think it's a good idea. It's not quite as excellent as the reaction system or how troop quality works, but it's very simple, makes morale mean something, and cuts down on bookkeeping by not being carried over each turn. I feel like there is something you could do to improve it a little bit, but I have yet to figure out what exactly that is. Otherwise, I like it just fine for the reasons described above.

And if you want a definition of what Force on Force's "Pinned" is, here's what I always thought:

It's the point at which circumstances have made it stressful enough that the troops are no longer functioning at the level that their training would dictate. That can be because of volume of fire, casualties, being attacked by a tank gun, etc. The primary focus, however, is the loss of effectiveness.

One of the things that takes a bit of getting used to in AAG products is the tendency to have overlapping or very similar rules that have marginally different effects. So, for example, as well as the 'pinned' rule there is a 'suppression' rule. Many comments in this thread have used the two intderchangeably, which is what I would tend to do – until playing AAG rulesets.

'Suppression' is very similar to 'pinning', but not the same. In one case, you can be forced to pull back if repeated 'pinning' occurs, whereas in the other you cannot be forced back. Both are the result of fire received, and in fact both can occur from the same fire combat, at which point you've got to sort out which takes precedence.

I'd personally liked it if there were more differences between suppression and pinning, but again I am unable to think of a way how. At moment, I let both stack (Which is not what the rules say), but suppression just never pushes anyone back (which follows the rules). It simplifies book keeping as you only have to worry about the immediate effect.

However, I run with a group which has many players that rarely learn the rulesets, so my simplifications are more for my group than the actual game itself.

Bede19025 27 Dec 2011 8:22 a.m. PST wrote:

The words are just semantics.

It is not semantics if it is published Army Doctrine. Ever few years the verbiage changes but fundamental doctrine and tenets of war remain the same.

VR
James Mattes

Justice and Rule 27 Dec 2011 12:19 p.m. PST wrote:

The primary focus, however, is the loss of effectiveness.

Here is something to consider, does the circumstances always result in a loss of effectiveness, or does in some instances directly lead to a higher level of combat performance?

VR
James Mattes

Rufus T Firefly 27 Dec 2011 7:48 a.m. PST wrote:

…The guys in that building at the first helicopter crash site in Mogadishu were pinned. They could not move out into and up the streets due to incoming fire.

Well yes and no. They were occuping a blocking position and told to stay in place while other were working to extract the body of Wilcox. TF could have left the site numerous times. And the teams were extreamly good at F&M. Synchronicity of actions and unity of command were well rehearsed. Remember every man on the mission had a radio on the command channels.

VR
James Mattes

James,

Will say hi to the man! Hope your holiday was enjoyable.

Regards,

Mike

vojvoda 27 Dec 2011 2:47 p.m. PST wrote:
Here is something to consider, does the circumstances always result in a loss of effectiveness, or does in some instances directly lead to a higher level of combat performance?

VR
James Mattes

You're talking about a "Combat High", right? I want to say there's a Fog of War card specific to that (if not, it's easy enough to make one), though it's certainly able to be modeled within the system:

If more than half the morale dice rolled in a Pinned/Suppression are a 6(d6), 7+(d8), 8+(d10), or 9+(d12), you get a "Combat High". The result could be losing any previous pins, becoming High Confidence, or getting a plus to your firepower and/or reactions. Having not been in combat, I'd have to lean on you to ask what sort of effects would be best.

But while I agree that increased pressure can result in increased performance, "pinning" in FoF specifically refers to when it leads to a decrease in performance. You can account for the increased performance if you want, though. It's something to consider, and I'd love to see it make it in eventually if it can be made simple enough.

Difficult call really, but I think James Mattes nailed a really important point.

Taken purely in game terms – the mechanism appears to be consistent, logical, and intuitively correct.

Being 'pinned' is as much a psychological effect as a physical one. The incoming fire is overwhelming enough that the targeted troops act out of some instinct rather than act to the current plan.

You would think that the 'instinct' would be to duck and cover and seek safety .. and in many cases that is probably true. In fact, that is an entirely normal human reaction – for civilians. You can test this yourself by going down to the local mall and shooting randomly into the crowd. Most civilians will happily drop their shopping plans and run randomly towards the perception of safety. Low breaking point, predictable instinctive reaction patterns.

But I wouldn't like to trust those assumptions about pinned reactions in a real situation though, especially against trained troops.

Another equally probable result is the 'pinned' troops drop their current plan of action and swing straight into a counter ambush drill – and keep pressing that line of action until the commander grabs control again. So pouring fire into well trained troops, and 'pinning' them may well be the surest and quickest way of getting a bayonet stuck in you.

That is, after all, the whole purpose of intensive training …. to replace 'normal' human instincts and behaviours with conditioned responses to abnormal situations.

You can test this yourself by going to a bar filled with guys who have just been released from the French Foreign Legion, and firing random shots into the crowd. They too will act before thinking … but the results of their now abnormal and conditioned reactions may be less to your liking than the reactions of the civilians in the mall, under the exact same stimulus. Some will just shrug it off as nothing, and get back to their beer … but some will do otherwise.

Very difficult call to model this in a consistent and logical way in a tabletop game.

Subjectively – you could say that any group of people, armed or not, have both a plan of action, and a group wide psychological breaking point. When that breaking point is exceeded, they replace their planned 'orders' with 'instincts', and behave accordingly.

A challenge for the game designer then is to objectively set these breaking points, and also to provide a set of probable instinctive reactions based on who the target is.

That is one of the more exciting elements of getting into a gunfight with a group of strangers … you really don't know much about them, or who they really are until the bullets start flying.

Setting a list of instinctive reaction behaviours based on troop quality would be an excellent way of differentiating different troop types on the table. It really is the major difference between well trained troops and less trained troops.

Then there is 'trained' as distinguished from 'blooded'. Troops who are blooded (been through combat together recently, probably with losses) may have a more predictable and useful set of reactions – maybe ?

I would also suggest keeping that information hidden from players until it is needed. No commander really knows his men properly, nor do troops in a unit really know the guy next to them properly, until faced with being in a situation that brings out their true colours for the first time.

Its really surprising how sometimes the 'toughest' squad of well trained guys simply lose it at the wrong moment, or how the quiet little bloke who always finishes in the middle of the pack .. ends up cracking jokes in combat, and cheerfully closing with the enemy at bayonet point with a smile on his face, and not a care in the world.

Its a strange world !

It would be interesting to see it modeled on the table top. I do not know where divisions would break out however. At the bottom would be raw conscripts, Somewhere in the middle would be the average combat arms soldier. above that would be units like 82nd Airborne, Marines, Rangers next level would be vanila SEALs, Special Forces and other units. At the high end would be say Devgroup, Ground Branch,CAG and a few others.

I can only speak to the US and some other allies on the subject. I am no SME on most of the rest of the world. It has to be evaluated through current OSIntel materials.

I will say this, and it goes back as far as 1980s. Army Psychologist worked with TIER 1 and many TIER 2 units on maximizing the effects of the chemical cocktail. Soldiers were instructed in Daishadokyo and other forms of mental disciplines as well.

The psychological aspects of sudden combat such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, electro dermal stimulation, time space compression, metal track, and physiological effects such as pulse and breathing,Adrenaline release, corordination and reflex actions are all addressed in instruction and hands on training.

In the Chemical Cocktail the human body will dump Epinephrine, Nor- Epinephrine and Cortazol into the bloodstream mixed with sodium. This creates an imbalance characterized by general muscle tightening and loss of fine motor skills.

The reaction to the cocktail can be utilized to the war fighters advantage if properly trained.

There are some in the military who got this type of training for more than 20 year of thier service on a regular almost monthly basis. Col James Tirey is one name I can say as he pasted away in 2007.

Fear is not a factor for those type of guys. Does not even enter into the picture, it is all mission focus.

In gaming I do not think we give these units enough plus up as indicated by this training and general skill levels far and above even the average SOF guy. A young E-6 in SOF might have 2-3 years in group. Others have over 10 years plus.

Anyway I am getting off topic. I think you have to factor in the level of experience of the soldier. What consitutes suppressive fire to one unit is not the same to others.

VR
James Mattes

Not a bad point, Steve, and it's something I think is probably best reflected in THW's own Reaction System. If I remember correctly, in ATZ they have different reaction tables for civies and former military. Along with the Rep System, you'll get the readiness of a veteran, the shakiness of a conscript, and the panic of a civie. The level of game is a bit lower, but it's probably the only one I can think of that really gets that, especially with the amount of personal traits that some of their games (FNG in particular) have.

Within FoF, I'd say that passing your morale test means you go into your proper drill: you hold up under fire, your instincts remain true and you follow your training. Thus you don't lose your TQ and fire back. The failure of the morale test is a breakdown of sorts: Someone loses their cool, the fireteam panics or is pushed to do something stupid due to stress and pressure. That might be pressing on with an undisciplined attack or keeping your head down or anything in between.

However, I am very interested in the idea of a failure in morale making one simply resort to instinct, losing initiative rather than quality. Instead of reducing TQ, you could simply be forced into place or move in a restricted manner unless you pass a TQ test to snap out of it and regain control. Pinning would stay between turns, and more pins would shift the TQ test down while Sergeants and other commanders would shift it up (or down, if it's a particularly poor commander). Also, a pinned squad would no longer count towards force initiative, meaning that pinning down fireteams would allow one force to gain initiative more easily.

I think I want to mull this about a bit more. This is also why I love mutable systems. So much possibility and play!

Edit: Damn, I took so long VR posted in front of me. Very interesting info!

I would think that the actual dynamics of being 'pinned' would be the issue here comparing FoF to real combat events…and the dynamics FoF is attempting to portray. The FoF rules give a general explanation of what they believe pinning is all about, but not where they got the idea that this is the way it is. That is the comparison, their source to their rule, that tells one whether the rule is a 'great idea' or not. [i.e. meaning that the game mechanics effectively captures what reality/history they were designed to simulate.]

The military describes the expected behaviors and results of 'being pinned' from a combat unit, a necessary description as 'pinning' or suppressing the enemy is a intregal part of U.S. combat tactics since at least WWII

Here is a detailed discussion of 'pinning' in combat by a veteran, with examples.

link

Bill H.

Bede19025 27 Dec 2011 8:22 a.m. PST wrote:
The words are just semantics.

It is not semantics if it is published Army Doctrine. Ever few years the verbiage changes but fundamental doctrine and tenets of war remain the same.

VR
James Mattes

James, I suppose you'd be right if the terms were being used to describe published Army Doctrine. But they're not. They are terms in a set of rules which attempt to define soldiers' reaction to being shot at.