"Levels of Cover" Topic

We've discussed this previously but we're revisiting our platoon level rules and I'm tempted to simplify them further by removing a level of cover. Is it madness????

:-D

After a previous TMP discussion we settled on two levels of cover for our home grown rules: partial and full.

Partial cover represents wooded areas (since it might not be easy to find bullet proof cover from all angles) and light buildings and fences which might be penetrated by small arms fire but which might also deflect a lot of rounds.

Full cover represents stout buildings and fences full capable of deflecting anything less than a 12.5mm round and provides some level of protection from 12.5mm and heavier rounds.

Games such as FoW seem to do just fine with one level of cover: "bullet proof" in FoW terms and full cover in our home grown rules.

Question: is one level of cover really enough?

Please note, this question of cover is separate from concealment. In our home grown rules tall crops provide concealment but NO cover. Wooded areas provide concealment and partial cover. A solid stone building provides concealment and full cover.

Essentially, this proposal to eliminate our partial cover classification would probably remove protection from small arms fire for wooded areas and light buildings. Acceptable?

I'd really like to remove it but the nerd in me wants to keep it. Removing it would let me do some other things with kill probabilities for HE and small arms vs targets in the open vs targets in cover but I'm just not sure I should do it.

Thanks in advance!

Go with your gut.

Essentially, this proposal to eliminate our partial cover classification would probably remove protection from small arms fire for wooded areas and light buildings. Acceptable?

My gut says no to this, but then aslong as concealment is kept it could still work fine, maybe better…

Gut says no
Head says not sure

I think that as long as troops in woods are harder to kill than the same troops in open it will work.

This is really a question of concealment vs cover. Your partial cover really offers concealment rather than bullet proofing. So it really depends on how your rules handle spotting. Many rules lump in spotting with firing so they give a benefit to soldiers in concealing terrain.

Found this from 2011 on TMP.

TMP link

VR
James Mattes

Oops, that was MY post about concealment, NOT the one with the link!

Those ladies appear to revealing rather than concealed!

:-)

This is really a question of concealment vs cover. Your partial cover really offers concealment rather than bullet proofing. So it really depends on how your rules handle spotting. Many rules lump in spotting with firing so they give a benefit to soldiers in concealing terrain.

In the current rules any concealment, whether providing no, partial, or full cover, makes troops harder to hit on an equal basis.

No Cover doesn't reduce kill probability.

Partial Cover reduces kill probability a little.

Full Cover reduces kill probability more.

This means that in the current rules troops in tall crops, woods, and stone buildings are equally difficult to "hit" which really means "to put rounds on target to make them worried" since all are concealed. Effectively, spotting is sort of built into the "To Hit" mechanic.

But if those rounds are on target the troops in tall crops are as easy to kill as troops in the open since the crop provides no protection other than concealment, troops in woods are harder to kill, and troops in the stone building are the hardest to kill.

Sounds good to me wartopia. You've got at least three things to take care of:
spotting
hitting
doing damage

I would have thought you could plausibly collapse the first two as something concealed will be harder to spot and harder to hit. But something concealed may not be any harder to do damage to if hit – as you correctly point out with your cornfield example.

cover can do 2 things
1 Make it harder to hit/see a target
2 stop a round from hitting a target

you can have 1 by it self or 1 and 2. or of coarse none.

You could potential have 2 by itself as well, in the case of force fields. :)

It is much better to have 2 Levels of Cover. A Slit trench which is only a few inches deep can save your life & is definitely not Full Cover, but should have an effect the Kill Probability giving troops a little more Survivability.
I'd add this to Partial Cover.

I would definitely Leave both types of Cover. To Give the game a little more realism. 2 Types of Cover would be the minimum I would use. The OP has Done an excellent Job Simplifying Cover. When he Defined Cover As Either Partial Cover & Full Cover Saying

"Partial cover represents wooded areas (since it might not be easy to find bullet proof cover from all angles) and light buildings and fences which might be penetrated by small arms fire but which might also deflect a lot of rounds.

Full cover represents stout buildings and fences full capable of deflecting anything less than a 12.5mm round and provides some level of protection from 12.5mm and heavier rounds."

For Realism I would Definitely Keep both Types of Cover. To Many Games Ignore Partial cover Surrendering Realism for Simplicity It is a Shame.

Thanks all for the input.

After crunching the numbers again have decided to stick with two levels. Can't quite compress some related kill probabilties anyway due to the need to model the relative effectiveness of various weapons vs troops in the open vs troops in cover (eg the current rules provide a natural incentive to shoot the co-ax at infantry in the open and the main gun, such as a 105, at troops in full cover).

Two levels also provides for some nice variety in terrain use tactically.

Thanks again!

Stance and cover cannot be separated. One trainer of the TA said his problem was to get the recriutes to see cover less than 6" as it was still very effective. Troops stationary if well tarined will be using even small undulations to protect themselves. Therfore statioary troops will have a lot more cover than moving ones on everything but salt flats and car parks, but some car parkes have a lot of kerbs so still provide significant cover.

Modeling that sort of micro-terrain is way beyond the scope of our home grown rules.

Let's say your troops in that parking lot are fired upon by troops 200-300 yards away and on the same elevation. Sure, I can certainly see them getting a cover bonus. Heck, there are first person shooters where this works too (eg in Battlefield 3 a curb can provide cover from the right shooter).

But let's say those same troops prone behind parking curbs are shot at by enemies on the roof of an office building right next to the parking lot. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

One could model such micro-terrain in a game but is it worth it? That depends on the players. IIRC your own rules use the conventional double-scale approach in that your ground scale doesn't match the figure scale or terrain (like virtually every game out there I don't bother trying to match ground and figure/terrain scales either). I guess that one could create a rule saying that troops in the "open" get concealment and, perhaps, cover, against fire coming from the same elevation and nothing from higher elevations. But that's more detail than casual gamers probably want. Might work for hardcore 1:1 skirmish gamers who use accurately scaled terrain and figures.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that stationary infantry are harder to hit than moving ones with direct small arms fire? A lot harder.

That is actually fairly common in rules – Squad Leader, Fireball Forward & Crossfire (if 'ground hugging') to name but three.

I think it depends on the situation which gets complicated.

Let's say you have pretty flat terrain or the shooter has an elevation advantage over the target. In those two cases sitting still in the open could be a death sentence.

There are numerous examples of NCOs and officers trying to get troops to move to cover when caught in the open. Often the first instinct is to "hit the dirt" which may or may not be the right thing to do. Sometimes running to cover is the best option, other times returning fire and assaulting the ambushers is the best option. Doing nothing is usually the worst option.

So then the question becomes one of incentives and tracking unit stance/movement status. If the player has troops in the "open" and you don't want the complications of micro-terrain and super-detailed elevation rules then what sort of incentives should the player have for using his troops?

I think at the highest level you'd want the following incentives:

1. Fight from concealment that also provides cover (eg a stout building).

2. At least fight from concealment (eg tall grass/hedges/etc.) if there's nothing nearby that provides both concealment AND cover.

3. Don't fight from the "open" since, against an enemy in concealment/cover, you're fighting at a significant disadvantage.

In all cases shooting back tends to draw enemy fire. This means that, if caught in the "open", such troops are faced with a dilemma if one assumes that hugging the ground in the open makes it significantly more difficult to be hit. Hug the ground and it's harder to get hit but odds are that, over time, you'll get slaughtered anyway.

Shoot back while in the open and, odds are, you're fighting at a significant disadvantage and will likely lose the fire fight against an enemy in cover/concealment. But at least you might suppress the enemy which goes to troop quality: higher quality troops are more likely to shoot their way out of that situation by using micro-terrain and shooting effectively. Lower quality troops would probably become bullet magnets while not really achieving anything useful by firing.

There's a good example of this in the recent book, "The Outpost". A convoy of US and ANA troops in Afghanistan is ambushed. The ANA troops panic and continue to get shot up as some sit still and others try to move towards the Americans who are also caught in the open. Meanwhile the Americans immediately begin returning fire, using their vehicles as cover, and begin to call in support from mortars and aircraft.

Eventually the Americans beat back the Taliban attack with fire superiority but not before an ANA soldier is wounded (he later dies) and American soldier is killed while trying to help the ANA soldier.

What's clear from the narrative is that when ambushed, especially in the open, the Americans are trained to immediately return fire and then maneuver using whatever cover and concealment is available as quickly as possible. Meanwhile the ANA tends to "go to ground" and get slaughtered without returning effective fire or maneuvering.

So in the interests of simplicity we chose to take the following approach:

- the safest way for infantry to fight is from solid cover which also provides concealment. You still might get suppressed but getting killed requires a close assault or huge HE

- if fighting from concealment that does NOT also provide cover you might get off an initial ambush but then it's probably best to shoot and scoot since your fire will reveal your position (easier to hit) and the concealment won't protect you.

- fighting from the "open" is really hard and strongly discouraged. You're going to draw a lot of fire so you better be really good and really determined to be able to achieve fire superiority and then maneuver to assault the enemy or at least to cover/concealment.

- the problem with providing a significant benefit for remaining stationary in the open is that it might encourage players to fight from the open, even with merely average or inferior troops. Since there are limits to a game's detail if one wants to maintain a quick pace one must draw a line on detail at some point.

Thus in our rules troops in the "open", whether stationary or moving, are the same as far as hit probabilities are concerned since the situation can be argued both ways: sometimes it's better to keep moving to cover (think D-Day) and yet hugging the ground might be helpful in some situations. But we do penalize shooting from the open in that shooting from the open makes you an easier target (at least you have to poke up your head above any micro-terrain). At that point it becomes a matter of skill and morale: great troops might achieve fire superiority in that situation while poor troops will likely get slaughtered as they fire ineffectively, use micro-terrain ineffectively, and draw more fire.

This is where the modelling becomes critical. MG has a range of options to the player. The adage usually applied is generally get off the killing ground. In MG that is always an option. Troops have option of running off. This is a good idea provided they are not lots 100's yards clear of any cover. The other options are Go to ground. Or if supprised at very close range (50 yds or so) assult the ambushers. This latter came from a platoon commander who noted that in general was an act of desparation as you had already made a mistake.

Interesting about the issue of being higher. We have not botherd. Our actaul ground meodelling is based on our definition of hills. Troops on higher ground will typically not want to expose themselves so will unless in previously very carefully engineerd positions want to lose the benerfit of there own cover. In this case thet will be shooting a minimum of about 80 yards. Due to practical limitations we only have "hills" of about 3ft to 48 ft real world. Hopwever the "dead ground is always 80m per 6 to 8 ft. This means that the angle subtended is about 1.7 degrees. Not perfect but in the range of being neglectable. This is worst case. You can not shoot back witout losing cover yourself closer than this so the attacket would be spotted anyway and at greater ranges the angele drops. Again a reasonable analysis keeps it simple while maintainig plausibility. Therfore we have a range cover/status. Grounded which implies all troops are stationary but using best avialable cover but maintaining observation and the ability to return fire. Skimishing where troops are moving forward effectively in dashes alternately. However for simplicity the whole group move forward relatively slowly but is no too vulnerable. The third is Fast. This is the troop walking/running without dropping. 100% exposure but covering ground. Still a practical solution to being trapped in a killing ground. The final is combat ineffective. This is troops hunkering down trying to find the best available cover full stop. This is somewhat extreem in very open terrain but less so in genral not perfectly flat terrain . Once at this level troops are considered to be invulnerable. However they are extreemly vulnerable to infantry assult and cannot quickly come back to normal operation. This extremity is addopted to prevet the farce of a tank driving to a trench and killing all with ther MG. They do not carry the ammo and that is a worse farce than our conbat ineffetive and again its simple. It also causes tanks to fear infantry as they cannot keep them all down by fire and so are at grave risk if they do not have infanrty to clear them out if there are more than a limited number are around them. In extremis it would be possible for a crew to dismout all but the gunner and assult a single team and win. However it is VERY risky if there wer other un-detected infanty around.

Whenever you produce a variation in a model you need to ensure that it integrates with all the other overall assumptions to ensure there are no gross diparities, or encorage wholey unrealistic stances. The aim is to get a fractal approach. Combining very simple easily understood rules that when integrated provide a complex realistic enviroment where the effect of any situation can be quickly understood with the minimum of ambiguity.

Brian,

How do you handle building elevation? You mentioned hills but I've always found the bigger challenge to be buildings in some ways. With hills and a relatively abstract ground scale that most games use (even nominally 1:1 games) hills are easy to handle. The challenge seems to be reconciling building height with those abstractions since a player's natural inclination is to view the building as a truly 1:1 entity (eg putting guys on a roof or church tower to cover surrounding terrain). Would like to read your thoughts on the subject.

re: movement status I used to do the same thing but disliked the markers. I believe the old WRG rules took a similar approach. I enjoy that level of detail but I found most players don't seem to care about it, at least in casual convention and club games. Hardcore guys probably care about it more.

Now we use a single double-sided marker. "Ready" indicates a unit in overwatch and, if in concealment, doing everything possible to avoid detection. Such units in concealment are nearly impossible to engage unless you're on top of them or pouring in lots of "recon by fire". The other side is "Fired" and indicates the unit has "gone loud" by firing or conducting a close assault. These units are easier to engage whether in the open or concealment since they tend to draw fire and/or have given away their position.

By having the two sides of the marker mutually exclusive we only need one chit for any given unit. By definition a unit can't have fired and be ready.

Hills and buildings:-

The full monty (sans pics):- Note Ground scale is 1" = 10m,
10.2.7 Dead ground

Hills, Ridges and folds have dead ground (areas that are not visible). Hill dead ground zones are measured from the base of the hill on the line of sight of to the target at a rate of 60 m (6") per level. (See diagram below).
In addition elements on the crest line may see up or down parallel to the crest for 20m (2").

If a hill is very steep, that is either vertical (cliffs), or very steep (the base being less than 2" further out than the contour line, then a dead ground of 8" per contour should be used.

Hill view from above showing dead ground measurement from edge of hill

Vehicles without high elevation mounts, on the slope of a hill may only fire at targets that would be classed as in the dead ground from the top of the hill and or the local crest. See below.

Elements on the slopes of a hill can see all other elements on that slope, but cannot see into dead ground defined by a local crest. Troops less than 1 contour higher than the local crest and not at the edge treat the area as a flat topped hill (see diagram below)

10.2.8 Building Dead Ground

In order to receive the benefit of cover whilst firing from a building only one weapon may fire through a window or similar sized aperture unless specified in the scenario, with an arc of fire of ±45 ° in both horizontal and vertical planes. This represents the troops standing back from the window to avoid detection.

Troops wishing to fire outside this arc, or shoot more than one weapon per window, must make a Move to Position to the window. Fire at ±90 ° is then permitted and hence have no dead ground. However they receive no benefit for cover in these circumstances. …………….

Seems pointless not to quote the rules. It does mean you need defined crest lines but you want that as for a simple game between friends it is better if the terrain is unambigious. This is not about arguments but to be fair to both sides and not to have to conceed a point which on reflection could have been ambigious. This approach means like the real thing troops if sane walk down the side of buildings not down the middle of the road.

As always there is some element of simplification. Folk could argue forever about tank elevetions but the same rules in reverse apply to tank guns (not high elevation AA guns). It is over restrictive but gives a representation of the Starlingrad effect where the Russians on higher floors were typically invunerale to main gun fire due to the lack of elevation. Ground to hill height is wrong but actual vehical to buidding is less so but not perfect. All is a compromise and ours is about tactics (rules of thumb)generally.

MG uses a marker that defines stance i.e speed and leadership and suppression/reaction markers. Its simple and the suppresion/reaction markers being a bit like smoke do not detract visually. As an IGOUGO system every element has to have a marker anyway. Overwatch etc are coverd in a way that means lots of different markers are not required and the system allows quite complex situations to be assessed quickly..