"Rules that accurately replicate squad tactics?" Topic

I know this is very subjective, but which rules replicate squad tactics well? Not bothered if they are super-detailed or fast-play. Looking at individual figures, rather than multi-based figures.

Let the mayhem commence!

If I want to spoil a game and allow infantry to dismount, Panzermarsch or KGN/BGK allow one to use individual figures to replicate section battle drills and interaction with supporting units etc. I have also played Crossfire which gave the same effect. All in 20mm.

However to do it absolutely "properly" one would have to replicate every tuft in the ground, large stone, dip in the ground and have an umpire shouting down the seconds!

Tally Ho!

Force on Force does a good job. Although Modern rules they can easily be used for WWII if keeping to Infantry and light vehicles. If you want to throw armorer vehicles into the mix I'm not sure how to rate them.

Rules of engagement.

Jaz
Http://6sided.net

I think Baptism of Fire I-III did a nice job of representing squad tactics on the game table. I think version I might be free at Wargames Vault.

link
I found it. First edition is 2.50

2nd edition 2.50

link

In most games, I think it's up to the player to use actual tactits rather than leaving it to the rules to dictate the use of actual squad tactics.

In most games I think Sundance has it spot on! In some of the games I have run some chaps still move tanks etc around in a clump, attempt to joust other tanks etc!

Tally Ho!

I'm with Sundance.

The rules should make real tactics possible. So if your C&C rules prohibit splitting a squad into two elements, one to lay down fire and one to maneuver, that's a problem. But if your C&C rules allow this, then you just have to hope to hell the players have some idea of what they are doing.

I'm with Sundance as well. Rules shouldn't dictate proper use of tactics. They should reward they're use, however. By that I mean proper use of tactics gives one a better chance of success.

The best game I have found is Nuts, will handle all you have asked about and more. Best at about a squad each.

The best game I have found is Nuts, will handle all you have asked about and more. Best at about a squad each.

Second vote for Nuts!

I would recommend trying Chain Reaction first as it uses the same system, but it's free. It's generic but will give you the basics. That way if you don't like it, you're not out anything. You can find it here:

link

If you end up liking the system, then I would purchase Nuts! to give you the more specific genre and rules.

In most games, I think it's up to the player to use actual tactits rather than leaving it to the rules to dictate the use of actual squad tactics.

So, what is to stop a player from using some whiggum tactic that is completely a-historical or nonsensical? It sounds a bit like role playing.

I think Nuts (THW Modern systems in general) work well for small unit tactics. Squads and individuals will not always do what you want them to do.

In any case, a game should reward fix and flank tactics. Strong base of fire while a maneuver element flanks the target and wipes them out. If the target troops are not reacting to fire (keeping their heads down, suppression etc) then the game does not handle squad combat well.

Another vote here for Nuts or any of the THW systems. The reaction system works very well in detailing how people would act on the field. Also what i like about it is that you dont have compete control of your figures, you can try to get them to run out of cover to that area over there but the less trained ones are more likely to sit in the nice cover they have.

As has been stated have a look at Chain Reaction 3.0 final, its free and is excedingly playable as is. Also the yahoo group is very helpful and freindly.

Come on join us :)

Rules that would force the use of historical tactics or prohibit the use of ahistorical tactics would be ridiculously large to cover all the possibilities. Good rules will reward the use of sound tactics. There are "whiggum" tactics in EVERY game. That's why they are called "games" and that's what rules lawyers do – find the holes they can exploit. Good players use sound tactics, and don't rules lawyer just to win a game.

NUTS! gets my vote. use basic infantry tactics and Fix, Flank and Finish -- and run around in big machine-gun bait blocks, and you'll have a short game.

Nuts is so good it pretty much ruined other sets of rules for me.

In any case no rules system survives contact with gamers. i ran a Scii game this weekend at CincyCon. New rules, unknown foe. I mentioned twice "there are area effect weapons in this game." Even so they bunched up like cute little tercios. then the plasma bomb hit them and they discovered that spreading out was a good idea ;-)

Talking about 'Fix, Flank and Finish' – in most games, the Fix part turns into a firefight that decides the matter before the flanking force has an effect. If real life was like this, there'd be no point bothering with the flanking attempt. So 'head on' shooting should have little effect other than to pin down the enemy, while flanking fire should be quite devastating. Also, many rules allow you to shoot at suppressed units. But how? They all have their heads down. So suppressed units need some protective bonus against fire.

Force on force does a good job of rewarding good tactics while punishing not so good tactics…I would not be to hard on gamers not using good tactics. Not everyone got to play or even train to play in the big game…Thank God….Mikey

@Extracrispy, I had the same thing happen to player in a convention game I ran, a Stalingrad fight using NUTS. One player decided to double-time all his guys in a big mob (called "fast move" in the rules) through the ruins to reach a terrain feature quickly -- he ran into a Russian LMG team that shredded his squad…he moved the survivors more carefully after that…

Has anyone played "Final Combat"? Very detailed indeed!

@Extra Crispy,
And in your Viet Nam game using the same rules, I found our 113 support had driven off into the jungle chasing VC just as we hit the river and could have used the extra firepower! Your rules allowed for realistic tactics, but the players did not accommodate.

Force on Force is good……. Or atleast I thought it was and then I discovered Nuts by THW. I have to admit I did find the THW reaction system a little confusing at first but after I read a couple of AAR's and QA's on the Yahoo groups page I quickly got the gist. As another poster above implied, once you go the way of THW you are spoiled for other rules systems. There is a great campaign/scenario book I bought with the rules called Blood on the Risers, you play the part of a US Paratroop Seargant that has dropped in on Normandy, very much like in Band of Brothers. You have to find your troops, find weapons and equipment and complete the objectives. Very suspense filled and makes you play with extreme caution. You wanted a set of rules that reinacts squad tactics. This game makes you act like a real squad leader. It teaches you to not throw your men away on a poorly thought out or high risk plan, you do that and it will be a very short campaign. I hope this helps

Of course a section/platoon should be allowed flexibility. Situation and ground can change rapidly, think it was Sennybridge one morning we did a section attack up a little valley, followed by a section attack over more open terrain and finally had to take a small copse. In each case usual battle drills were used but use of ground, gun group etc varied somewhat!

Tally Ho!

NUTS for me too, though I am also a big fan of Force on Force.

Rules of Engagement.

was Sennybridge one morning we did a section attack up a little valley, followed by a section attack over more open terrain and finally had to take a small copse.

Jeez mate, that brings it all back, exhausted just reading that….I think Sennybridge must have the reddest, stickiest mud on the planet…

Tim

yes, it was a "variant" that got me into WWII and lovely AB figures! Run by an ex LD with his normal insane flair, figures were singly based and it turned out that the Tiger was out of ammo and fuel!!

Tally Ho!

As above, the rules should encourage the application of real tactics.

Which generally means that ranged small arms fire should be almost completely ineffective against targets in cover apart from generating suppression and that the only way to 'kill' the enemy is by assaulting them.

If you can shoot the enemy out of a position, that is what most gamers would do, and you'd do it irl as well.

A game that doesn't accurately reflect what happens when a unit realizes it is under fire cannot hope to accurately model small unit tactics, many of which are predicated on forcing your opponent to keep his head down and ignorant of what you are really doing.

Nick,

Do you know where I can access the singly based rules for CrossFire?

Thanks,

Bill.

Another excellent discussion and a lot of support for CR3 / Nuts. While I'd like to try it, one thing is holding me back: every man seems to be an individual and fireteams / squads are a momentary thing. Basically if you have a squad engage a squad, every man in the squads would have to roll separate reaction tests creating a string of reactions (20-odd in a go) that seems like a nightmare.

I want ONE reaction roll per team that is acting together (so for the Germans, usually the MG team and the rifle team, for example) to keep it going, does that work in Nuts? Same with shooting etc, the whole team in one go.

Also I'm not too keen on just 1 squad vs 1 squad with individual men running about overall, about a platoon a side is about the minimum usually.

Bill, sorry not sure if one exists I think it was on a few bit of paper and Kieth's insane mind,

Tally Ho!

I'd have to agree with Badgers and say he's made a good point. If you are in a slit trench or fox hole and put your head down no amount of small arms direct fire is going to hit you. Tactics are about accomplishing your objective. If you are assaulting a position you'll be using some type of fire and maneuver (base of fire suppressing and maneuver element advancing). To the degree and amount of time the enemies head is down is to the degree he is not shooting and you can advance. Too much defensive fire and you go to ground and the advance stops (exceptions Banzai Charge, Human Wave Attack, etc). Assaults were normally stopped before taking excessive causalities (except in most war games I've played). When a defender was getting out flanked normally other defenders would take the enemy under fire or they would withdraw to alternative defensive positions or wait for a counter-attack from the reserves. We also have a "full cover" rule that is putting your heads down and avoiding any direct small arms fire causalities. You give up the ability to fire back and observe. When the enemy stops to seek cover is when you call in the mortars on them. The idea is to pin attackers down with small arms fire and then kill them with indirect mortar and arty fire, hopefully pre-registered setting up a "Killing Field" for the attackers. The Germans used that quite often. Hold your fire until the attackers are in the open at the pre-registered point, open fire with the MG42, attackers hit the ground and then incoming from indirect arty or mortars. This gave the Americans very few targets to shoot at and the rifleman in the German unit held their fire and just protected the MG as needed. When the arty was coming in the MG42 would relocate to an alternate firing position if it could.

The point I'm trying to make is that both sides tried to avoid causalities, that's what suppression is all about (what fun is that?). War games are mostly attrition & causality centric. We like them bloody. Realistically units rarely took over 50% causalities in a short battle but it did and could happen under the right circumstances (ambush, blunder, poor tactics, surprise, etc). Don't forget the defenders tactics either. They are not going to sit there and wait to get assaulted or out flanked. They should have some surprises waiting for the attackers (mine fields, FPF, counter-attacks, ambush, etc).

In our WWII Pacific tactical game of island warfare we have a "Walking Wounded" result (in addition to WIA & KIA). It simulates light causalities, fatigue and suppression (friction) and the unit (4-6 man Fire Team) can be evacuated back to the Company HQ and come back the next strategic turn (6 hours) fully functional. It slows down the pace of operations for the Marines without extreme causalities.

Wolfhag

Sparker wrote:

I think Sennybridge must have the reddest, stickiest mud on the planet…

Reddest, perhaps, but I take it you've never done a mud run at Lympstone.

All the best,

John.

Troops, Weapons and Tactics: accurate tactics work, inaccurate tactics get hammered, and the non-IGOUGO and variety provided by the card activation is awesome.

Second TW&T, also I Ain't Been Shot Mum.

I also disagree with Sundance. Rules should reward what worked in the real world. If your rules allow you to consistently win using idiotic tactics then they are rubbish rules.

Thre is us Manneouver Group. We go down to team level. £ suppressions in our parlance and the troops are doing nothing and nothing can do anything to them. However they are easy meat for a flank assult. It follows the old rules of thumb first win the firefight but then you need troops to take ground. You get advantages from having a base of fire.

Wolfhag,
I feel stupid. It had never occoured to me to set up the base of fire PIMARILY to cover the FDF, to ground the enemy in its effective area.

That is how it should be, rules is rules, tactics are the sole perogative of the player. Bad tactics should be allowed, just not rewarded.

Bad tactics should be allowed, just not rewarded.

ie they replicate tactics well

Last Hussar,
I think I would rather say that the ruels reflect the basic physics reasonalbly. If you get that right then real tactics are to deal with real world issues. If your "wargame world" has the same issues then the tactics to get the best out of what you have should be the same.

While I would love to model phycology in wargames I subcribe to the school that says I cannot make a bad general, good so why make a good general bad. And that percolates right down to sqad level.
Decision loop timeing is an issue but in our games as so much can happen so quickly that you, the general, squad leader, have to be inside your protagonist's decision loop. You need to anticipate or else die.

However do be careful what you wish for. Many players ask for simple, reasonably plausible rules and when faced with them they are not to their taste. Properly deploying a platoon is no simple matter even idf the rules are simple and mere dice rolls are unlikely to save you if you get it wrong. Some folk don't like that, they want a diced based game with some movement to admire there models. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. However is not the same as a simulation. To some folk the models are all that really matters, to others the models are secondary to the battle. The rules you want need to satisfy your need not the ego trip of folks lile us ;-). Also complicated rules are not the same as simple rules that give complicated games. As always chess is simple rules, the game is not simple.

If you can steal a look at rules. I always compare the pages on weapons to the pages on terrain and command and control. If weapons have the lions share then the model is unballanced and not for me, but again thats not a universal truth for everybody.

UshCha,
I've learned a lot on this site in a short period of time. It's a pretty good group, I'm impressed. From spending 3 years in the infantry including short training periods with the Royal Marines and French Foreign Legion (2nd Para Rgt)I've had a fair amount of experience in low level/Squad/Fire Team tactics but am not an expert. Since it was in the early 1970's it's more relative to WWII than current time.

In 1973 I took part in the "hypothetical" invasion of North Vietnam war game the Marines ran every year at Quantico. I also attended a war game symposium at Maxwell AFB with game designers, US & foreign military personnel and Hollywood Special Effects people (yes-really). We got to evaluate the Army Brigade level computer simulations and attended some real interesting lectures. Frank Chadwick and Dana Lombardy are part of our group in northern California. We also have a model/miniatures/terrain expert that did work on the set of Star Wars too.

Let me know if I can help out as I have a lot of historical reference papers and US TraDoc stuff. They are better sources than my opinion. My main areas of interest are WWII East Front and WWII Pacific.

Wolfhag

The infantry portionn of TRACTICS is ideal for this purpose, it deals with different modes a soldier moves in, exhaustion for the same, small arms range and effectiveness, melee in detail, etc, etc. It does this much more naturally than games specifically designed for squad/platoon sized skirmishes were intended.

It's totally fluid and doesn't impose artifical restrictions into your decision making which is what you want in a game like that. I've even thought how ideal that aspect of the game could be (scale adjusted accordingly) would be for a game specifically designed to be used with those large 1/6 scale "action figures" made by Dragon or Blue Box Toys, or Ultimate Soldier. Would make a great backyard game!!! All those expensive collectible figures would have some purpose rather taking up space on a display shelf.

Let me know if you want a set of the rules – I've transcribed them for posterity, since it's long out of print and I've seen copies go for as much as $300 USD on eBay!

- Tibor