"AFVs in 28mm Skirmish Gaming" Topic

One of the great challenges in WWII to SF combined arms game design is balancing AFVs and infantry. If man-packed AT weapons are extremely limited in number or in effectiveness infantry are often at the mercy of AFVs. If AFVs are too limited in number, too vulnerable, and too easily destroyed there's little incentive to field them.

In higher level gaming (say a company or battalion+ per side) opposing forces usually have several AT assets so that the loss of any one asset doesn't mean instant and total vulnerability to any AFVs on the table. That WWII combined arms combat team or Kamfgruppe is going to have ATRLs, AT guns, and tank support. In a modern or SF setting it will often have access to deadly AT air support.

But in skirmish level gaming, especially with 28mm figures and just a squad per side (maybe reinforced), the squad will probably have only a single AT weapons, maybe two at the very most. If eliminated then any AFVs on the table are free to kill with impunity thus forcing the opposing "AT-less" infantry to run and hide, staying out of sight of the AFV(s).

Here's the question…

In 28mm WWII to SF skirmish gaming with a squad of 6-12 men per side do you think it appropriate to include AFVs such as APCs, IFVs, MBTs, or their futuristic equivalents? Do you draw the line at the type of AFV (APC/IFV ok, no MBTs)?

Some of this is of course predicated on the standard squad level infantry weapons and support weapons that might be attached. For example, in a modern setting the squad might have an AT-4 or maybe even a Javelin (attached or organic). So the loss of that one (or two) AT weapon(s) is a big deal!

In a futuristic setting every trooper might be armed with Armor-splitting Plasma Grenades such as those in the Halo video game series. But not every sci-fi force will have access to such numerous, if short ranged, AT weapons.

Remember too we're talking specifically about 28MM figures, not 15s or 6s and specifically just a squad+ per side.

So, in your opinion, yea or nea on AFVs in 28mm skirmish/squad level gaming?

One maybe.
MBT's if the mission is to take it out and the attackers have the right sort of gear to do that.

I play 6mm sci-fi skirmish and have 4 squads of 5 men.
A single tank is a massive advantage in games when it appears so I make sure the other side has some way of taking it down.

I think in these sorts of games you need objectives to ensure balance and playability remains.

AB,

We've often gamed at the same level with 3-5 small squads per side and a few attached teams (AT team, sniper team, FO team, etc.), even in 28mm. In those games we've included IFVs and even MBTs/Mechs in a sci-fi setting and with no balance problems (we use 40K, Pig Iron, and AT-43 figures and vehicles all mixed together). Something is almost always on hand to kill a tank (plasma grenades, IFV ATGM, man-packed ATRL or ATGM, another tank, etc.)

We're starting to game more squad-level stuff and, while we love tanks, IFVs, and even mechs, it seems they'd unbalance things at this level very quickly, even in a sci-fi setting.

We also game modern/near future where the imbalance would seem even worse.

I think it could work.
A single vehicle vs a squad with the tools in a built up area.

Depends on the rules though.
And I think that sort of scenario would need to be the excepetion.
I would give it a go.

I'm sure there are scenario-specific exceptions, but when dealing with 6-12 men, I wouldn't include anything heavier than a Hummer, and even that might imbalance things.

A squad per side is essentially the playing out of a shootout. The dynamics of a shootout change dramatically when an AFV shows up.

^^^When you are playing at that small of a scale and an AFV shows up, the smartest thin g for the infantry to do may be to simply leave the table, but that doesn't make for much of a game.

The only way having a vehicle on the table with only a squad per side works is if the vehicle is a softskin (ie, vulnerable to even normal rifle fire!)

Otherwise, the side with the AFV has an 'I win' button.

Alternatively, you could introduce a lucky shot special rule that enables even the lowly rifle to damage the AFV in very un-probable circumstances (Multiple dice rolls of a six).

…or have all of the troops carrying grenades.

In a small skirmish level game I'd only include one AFV, and then have some sort of impairment for it.

Maybe have it thrown a track/tire, and can't move. That way the opfor can maneuver around it without being hunted down by it.

Maybe have it's main weapon system down due to ammo shortage or damage.

Maybe it took motor damage and has no power to move or turn it's turret. The opposing team is looking to capture or destroy it, and only pintle mount weaponry may be used by the crew to defend it.

Put a board together with very dense terrain, most of which is impassable to the AFV. This keeps it relegated to providing fire support from the edges of the table, and then only down restricted fire lanes.

It depends. I have a pretty large table, so we can even use a number of tanks on it.

I found with modern games, it hardly matters. The tanks and AFVs / IFVs fight their own battles, with the infantry often just taking their shots at tanks but hardly becoming targets of their own. By the time the tank battle is done, there are usually enough infantry from the loosing side (in the tank battle to put up a fight of their own).

Late WWII is much the same with Panzerfäuste, Panzerschrecke, PIATs and Bazookas. Early WWII the infantry often have quiet good a chance too, with their AT-rifles making and impression and AT-guns being effective, too.

Mid WWII is the tricky part IMHO. The infantry do not have the man pack AT weapons to take on the heavier tanks yet and AT- guns are foten too few or have not caught up with tank armour as well. I found this often leads to the infantry just standing by and watching the tank battle. The infantry who sees their side loose the tank battle has no way of defending themselves from that point on.

Although this all depends on terrain as well. If there is enough cover infantry even with greneades, molotovs and shaped charges can hold their own!

Cheers,

Burkhard

It works pretty well with DH/CF7B. I've had good results using anything from jeeps to Tiger tanks. Always in an urban setting with lots of cover and side streets. Dean

I am curious about the ref to scale. if your modeling a unit one for one.I don't believe it maters. As for the scope of the original question.AFVs don't always have it their own way all the time. They are probably more effective keeping a distance from Infantry its very hard to have situational awareness in a AFV to things that close. Even a platform with a remote weapon system still must have the depression and elevation to engage the target which is why most AFVs operate with in 2 veh sections for mutual protection. As Burkhard already pointed out there are numerous instances when MICVs and Tanks have been damaged or Destroyed by even molotov cocktails recently..

I've used a fair number of tanks with DH/CF7B as Dean Moto says. With tanks on both sides and an AT gun or two the vehicles are too busy trying to eliminate each other to worry about Infantry. This gives the AT carrying Infantry a chance to actually do something to the tanks. We had one game where a Panzerfaust took out a Sherman. The Sherman was driving by a forest where the AT man was hiding.
However, if one side gets the upper hand the opposing infantry doesn't do very well.

We play platoon level WWII skirmish, and quite often have one or more vehicles 'attached'.

While the players actively command the infantry, the vehicles 'run themselves' using reaction rolls based on what the vehicle can see, whether it's under attack, etc.

This works very well.
It avoids the unrealism of the vehicles automatically seeing & responding the same things the infantry commander is seeing and responding to, and means that infantry/vehicle cooperation requires action on the part of the player – as it should.
Getting an AFV to do what the infantry commander wants involves radio contact, or sending a runner… and in the meantime, the vehicle itself may have spotted something which takes priority.

DH/CF7B

???

John T

Suffering from Acronymophobia

Mohamed,

The scale issue goes to the look of the game. If you only have 9 infantry figures on your side adding an IFV AND an MBT might look odd. Also, if the figures are being maneuvered or played as skimrishers rather than a single squad/blob maneuver element players will interact with the game differently.

Think about how players treat figures in games such as 40k, Force on Force, and Infinity.

In 40k a blob of 10 figures is one maneuver element.

In FoF I found that 2-4 man teams worked great for maneuver elements in western forces.

In Infinity 10 figures could easily be your entire army!

Re: 28mm vs other scales that goes to maneuver room for the AFVs. On a 4x6 table with 28mm troops the AFV is huge and "looks" to be in very close contact.

On that same table a 15mm AFV can sort of look like it's standing off from enemy infantry on the far side of the table.

So the idea here is that by focusin on 28mm the visual presentation is one of vehicles in very close contact with infantry.

DH/CF7B

Disposable Hero's/Coffin for seven Brothers

DH calls for more troops than just a squad plus, not that you can't play the game that way but it is very streamlined so you would get very quick games.

I think in a game with only 8-12 figures a side I would agree with Ordinarybass's comments. At that level it is really tough to balance it out. Maybe if the German squad had 3-4 fausts and the Americans had a cuff off Sherman.

Chris

At this scale aren't AFVs extremely vulnerable to infantry? I've read a few memoirs of tankers in WW2 and their abiding concern isn't enemy tanks but enemy infantry. Especially in any kind of close terrain. Perhaps rule sets are undervaluing infantry in such close proximity to the tanks? Even without dedicated AT weapons they seem to give tankers nightmares. I'm assuming a pretty much 1:1 ground scale here.

DH limits the vehicles' effect by having them "Acquire" a target, its just another roll but it can keep a vehicle from shooting everything in sight. It helps to keep low.

For 6-12 men I would probably limit it to a small armoured car or technical.

I think the big thing is that most rules don't properly account for all the ways a vehicle can be damaged by infantry even without 'dedicated AT weapon' like missile launchers.

Even infantry without a bazooka or equivalent have demo charges, grenades that can take out the tracks, etc….

Rules often don't include this level of equipment or don't even have rules to allow for their use. In cases where the rules include it players, I find, often skip over it.

One thing I've done to "tone down" the AFVs is to limit the time they are available. Sort of like reenforcements in reverse…."What do you mean my tanks are LEAVING???"

Forager…brilliant!

I've read about that sortof thing countless times in memoirs covering everything from WWII to Iraq. Thanks!

Reminds of a scene from the Military Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles". They were featuring Canadian Shermans against German infantry and Tigers and one piece was about a single buttoned up Sherman having to deal with a -faust team…..using the main gun.

All-in-all, an AFV in a game this small would make for a very, very short game.

YMMV

yeah, Disposable heroes allows for close assault of vehicles by infantry. assuming the vehicle is initially mobile, hte first successful close assault immobilizes it, then after that successive close assaults can damage or even destroy it. this represents grenades or improvised explosives in vulnerable areas, like engine decks, tracks, exhaust ports, vision ports, etc

i find in disposable heroes, vehicles have far more of a morale impact on a player then on the actual game.

But wouldn't AFV crews sans infantry be extra diligent about looking for anti-tank teams?

"But wouldn't AFV crews sans infantry be extra diligent about looking for anti-tank teams?"

At close range, how exactly? Sticking your head out of the turret with enemy infantry within 20m is a good way of getting it shot off, and closing up leaves the vehicle blind.

We often use vehicles in sub platoon level games (generally the Skirmish Campaigns scenarios) and unsupported vehicles are really, really vulnerable to infantry even if the latter don't have any AT weapons at all. Simply spraying the vehicles with bursts of LMG fire keeps them closed up, they vehicles can't see where he fire is coming from and they blunder around blindly not achieving anything. In one game a single bloke with a rifle held up a whole troop of Curchills as he kept poppng away at the commanders and they couldn't see where the fire was coming from.

Which is why irl tanks can't clear ground and run away if enemy infantry are creeping around them.

If your rules allow vehicles to spot concealed infantry from more than about ten (real) feet away, then I would suggest your spotting rules need revisiting.

The 'Dead Spot' (The first dead spot is the area where the weapons can't be depressed low enough to use close to the tank; the second dead spot is where a buttoned up tank can't see) on an AFV renders them extremely vulnerable to Infantry up close, especially in tight terrain. Nothing makes the pucker factor increase than the 'pitter patter of little feet' on the engine deck :) Which is why running a single vehicle is actually unbalanced in favor of the infantry. Tanks always work in teams in order to 'scratch each other's back' whether there's infantry there or not by covering each others dead spot.

Lobsterback,

How close are we talking?

Seems like it could get complicated as different AFVs (and mechs!) would have different blind spots.

Maybe a generic rule based on vehicle characteristics with a simple spotting range. Something like the following in order of decreasing "situational awareness":

- Unbuttoned AFV or other vehicles with open cupola, etc.

- Typical Vehicle with Windows such as Hummer, truck, car, etc. which lacks elevated, open cupola.

- Buttoned Up AFV

Broadly speaking these three (or whatever) levels of vehicle situational awareness would determine whether other not the vehicle could spot/engage a target.

There are accounts of even PIATs getting lucky hits on Tigers (I think at Arnham) and in Iraq while trying to release an SAS team detained by the Iraqi police, a Warrior IFV was destroyed in the ensuing riot by a lowly molotov which is surprising in this hi tech world. Without an infantry screen, vehicles just become bullet magnets, getting that reflected in rules though is the tricky one.

Well GW's view is that more Tanks and AFV's should be fielded and they should be hard to kill.

My understanding is that tank crews and in particular allied crews were afraid of hand held AT weapons. All you have to do is look at pictures of Shermans with sand bags anywhere they would fit or framed on with metal.
The Germans used spaced armour and Zimmerit for this reason.

Rapid Fire has a rule where tanks will not move closer than 6" or 12" (I can't remember) to enemy infantry without their own infantry support unless they roll for a heroic action.

AFVs in 28mm? Only if you have a really big table. Heck it's a push to get them on the table in 15mm. If you can have them on the table you might as well allow artillery/air-support. On your average a cluster bomb or napalm strike is gonna get a sizable chunk of the board…

Wartopia, The dead spots can begin as far out as 20 meters for firepower (especially on the Soviet tanks) and in closer to 10 meters for visual in today's vehicles. Soviet designed vehicles are extremely vulnerable to attacks from above given their limited weapon elevation (see Grozni). And yes, hand held AT weapons are scary things….even light stuff is capable of taking out road wheels and tracks leaving a mobility kill. And in this business an immobile tank is a sitting duck.

The attached link may be of interest:

link

In SF terms, David Darke dealt with this issue with the use of self-defense strips. Tomorrow's War has these sorts of anti-personnel anti-AT weapon defense systems as well. The key to these systems is the capability and reaction time of the sensors. So, the need to operate with a wing man never really goes away. In game terms consider things within 4-6 inches (in 28mm) as possibly being inside a dead spot and things can get interesting. Perhaps give them an increased chance of hitting a critical area on the vehicle if they survive long enough to fire.