"What Essential Element Constitutes Greatness In A WarGame " Topic

With the constant expansion of new rules available to us gamers it's probably fair to say that there should be a greater expectation of excellence in what is now released.

But what should be the hallmark of "excellence" in a tabletop war-game?

If the historical foundation of tabletop wargaming can be found in a ambitious attempt to recreate the conditions of real warfare on a tabletop; has it lost its way?

Is there a greater danger now that devotees of this hobby and modern rule designers may have very different visions of what constitutes a successful war-game; especially considering that it seems the most popular war-games (at least in the WW2 genre) are the most criticized for their apparent lack of realism?

Or is this prideful elitism in a hobby that is nothing more than an extension of childhood play?

Is it necessarily historical realism in tactics or strategy that should be the emphasis and focus of future game design and if so what does that actually mean anyway?
What is realism in a war-game…is there a universally accepted means of evaluating tactical realism? Should there be greater emphasis on the human character of war? The influence of leaders and the the psychology of the participants? Is there a better way of simulating these effects without the game becoming a tedious drag?

Or is this greatness to be found in the simple ease and intuitiveness of play at the expense of historical accuracy. Or should there be necessarily a conflict between the two?

Or does it boil down to simply an enjoyment of a game that should not necessarily have any relevance to historical tactics or strategy…

What is your idea of what would make a war-game great?

AFAIC a "great" wargame is one that I enjoy playing.

A balance of realism vs playability, the sense of an unfolding and unpredictable narrative (plot twists and turns), plenty of player decision points, and a visual spectacle. Works for me.

Too many questions for one thread …

For me the wargame is a piece of miniature theatre … toy or puppet theatre even: we create the stage, assemble the cast, in particular many of us put a great deal of effort into the props and costume …

Then we create the magical tale.

For me, the tale will be historical … I like it to run close to the real narrative I have chosen to explore, and I want the players to take a part in it: to influence and engage in the events (but ultimately take from the experience a sense of how those events fell together – both in the real battle, and in their miniature dramatisation)…

Like real theatre, producers will vary their emphasis – some will be spartan and abstract … some will wallow in rich costume; some will be character driven, some will depict the tide of events …

What makes for a great wargame is that the audience are also mostly the players (so we participate in the drama and we enjoy it) … of course, like other performances, we then often widen the experience by sharing our recollections, writing reviews, showing photos etc.

Realism? Not a word I use … but I think we all (in different ways) strive for a kind of authenticity. Authenticity in details, yes, but also authenticity in the experience.

Phil

Greatness = Fun game with pretty toy soldiers on nice terrain with good mates.

I second everything that Khusrau said.

I disagree with your premise : )

The explosion of games makes it more likely that a lucky consumer will find a title they are happy with, rather than some sort of unified theory of excellence.

Every player has their own tastes and expectations and what is "great" for one player is anathema to another.

It would be just as easy to reach a consensus on what is everyone's favorite colour. : )

Bob

I disagree with your premise : )

@Bob Well I don't entirely disagree with you :)

While I think your point is absolutely valid I don't think it should entirely exclude or contradict my opening premise…

The excellence that I mentioned though is not to be understood as a single perfect entity. I don't believe for one moment there could ever be the "perfect" single game that would comply with the tastes of every gamer (and I won't like to live in that world)…but I do feel with an increase in the production of anything including war-games there should be as a consequence a greater potential in a certain evolution of creative ideas and principles…

Consider the evolution of the automobile…If the car industry solely concentrated on the single improvement of Henry Ford's model T I don't believe the industry could have evolved as extensively as it has. As vehicles diversified into areas of speciality then improvements are seen across the technological board. Certain fundamental principals applicable to all areas benefit.

I believe that is possible here too. While of course there will always be a variable market for smart cars and trucks and suv's…as well as every type of war-game…I believe it is always profitable to be conscious of the direction taken.

I've no great knowledge of the history of wargaming but I'm excited to see so many new ideas being formed in different rules…Battle Group Series has so many innovative ideas…same with Chain of Command…I believe with this can only serve to increase the fun to be had…

Too many questions for one thread …

@Phil LoL …you're absolutely right…a ridiculous amount of questions for one or even a hundred threads :) I'm always Interested in the opinions of all you good folk out there…and I always have way more questions than answers…

Hi Piers, would that be as opposed to a good game, nice toy soldiers, fun terrain and pretty mates? That I can do…

Prideful elitism

I rather like that

I too dig a spot of self-righteous arrogance in my rulesets. Weird, that.

Clearly written rules that are understandable without having to ask everyone what the rules mean.

Players, lots of them. No game you can't get opponents for can be that good.

I like what Phil said, Yesthatphil.

Rather than realism, I feel that a great game is one which captures what I imagine is the feel of the era – not having been present myself, I can only guess.

I tired of ponderous mechanisms which proved hard work – you know, games where our heads rarely left the pages of the rules instead of taking in the game.

By way of example, In the Grand Manner is ponderous and hard going even though I played it for ten years or more whereas Black Powder is much faster play and more enjoyable which achieving similar results. Rapid Fire lost something in it's second addition and whilst a good set of rules and the one I use, is laid out poorly to my mind. Warhammer and it's derivatives are excellent and tailored well for period feel and, I believe are well adapted for different periods.

I play wargames for pure recreation and whilst I get carried away at times, fun is the key ingredient for me achieved by ease of play, period and army characteristics and resolutions which make sense to the players.

That it be Played, by a group that enjoys it.
That is a Great Game, at least to that group.
Everyone's tastes differ, and 'great' is subjective.
One could make a gradation based on How Many Groups play a game, but Why?

Is a game Greater because it is played by 5,000 people rather than only 5?
No, that simply means its More popular.
What satisfies a high-school kid likely won't satisfy a Ph.D in History or Anthropology, nor vice versa.

A truly Exceptional game is one that influences Other games:
That resets the Bar for Game Design.
Probably only a Dozen games would qualify for that title,
I think.

The original point stands:
a Game is Great if only one person Thinks it So.
Not very useful probably,
but i'm feeling philosophical today…..

I don't need a great wargame. Just one that is fun, can be played with novice and expert alike and isn't made by a company who is adding more rules to create a "pay to win" environment. (Not casting a particular stone there, there are several companies guilty of that).

Where the feeling is realistic. I don't need to worry about precise ways to fire/move etc. I want to feel that the result is realistic.

A game I enjoy playing.

In modern capitalism we have a million markets of dozens of people, one size no longer fits all.

I read that somewhere, and it appears to be increasingly true.

@ Grey Panda

"Consider the evolution of the automobile…If the car industry solely concentrated on the single improvement of Henry Ford's model T I don't believe the industry could have evolved as extensively as it has. As vehicles diversified into areas of speciality then improvements are seen across the technological board. Certain fundamental principals applicable to all areas benefit."

Ahh! I take your point now Sir!

Sadly I am not as fluent with across the board gaming developments to a point where I can comment further : )

Good topic though.

I think you already know my answer, we've discussed this quite a bit, but here goes anyway…

-It fits what I imagine fighting at that echelon in that period looks like.

-Lots of decision points based tied to scarcity, i.e., mechanisms that force you to make lots of decisions based on the fact you cannot do everything you want, but is not so restrictive that you feel at the mercy of the game (Chain of Command's command roll activation system).

-A 'non-linear' C2 process that doesn't allow you to know what is going to happen next (again, CoC with its phases/turns or the Bolt Action mechanisms for C2).

-Rules for carrying out C2, movement, and combat must be very simple in order to allow the player to spend 99% of his brain power on the above-mentioned decision making process.

To me, that is how you make a good wargame. But that's because I like the aspect of matching wits with someone (or, more often than not these days, my quasi-programmed opponent). I personally leave out all the 'rah-rah' stuff about camaraderie/buddies/chums etc… as that is an expectation I have of wargaming, not of the specific rules. When I do get to play against my buddies, they could care less what rules we play, as long as we're matching wits using stuff that makes sense intuitively.

V/R,
Jack

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is said of our rules that the trouble with them is that being simple but with many decision points its quite possible to have very tactically complex games. These demand a high degree of concentration on where and when to move and fire. In essence demanding decisions about concentration in time and space. Not a game of chess but equally demanding of concentration. Some would say they don't want a headache at the end of a game. However some of us want to feel what it is like to have to handel, a real battalion even if in a very simplified way. This can include in some game the need for re-supply within game. Other want a beer, a few un-demanding moves with lots of randomness to get them out of poor play. Neither extreme is wrong, nor the bits in are more or less great for a given player. Many will argue over what even are the key drivers for a given model. Is the emphasis on weapons, manoeuvre or phycology.between ee

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. It is said of our rules that the trouble with them is that being simple but with many decision points its quite possible to have very tactically complex games. These demand a high degree of concentration on where and when to move and fire. In essence demanding decisions about concentration in time and space. Not a game of chess but equally demanding of concentration. Some would say they don't want a headache at the end of a game. However some of us want to feel what it is like to have to handel, a real battalion even if in a very simplified way. This can include in some game the need for re-supply within game. Other want a beer, a few un-demanding moves with lots of randomness to get them out of poor play. Neither extreme is wrong, nor the bits inbetwwen are more or less great for a given player. Many will argue over what even are the key drivers for a given model. Is the emphasis on weapons, manoeuvre, accurate depiction of terrain and its inhibiting effects, or phycology. Many wargamers may have more than 1 great game depending on their mood.

Jack I think you've laid out precisely (and better than I could) the main elements in a game that allow me to enter best into the narrative (borrowing Phil's expression)

I've found myself all too frequently tinkering and tweaking rules in an effort to add a certain flavor or detail just to find it destroying the natural flow of the game.

Rather than realism, I feel that a great game is one which captures what I imagine is the feel of the era – not having been present myself, I can only guess.

I think we all have that need for a sense of realism and it may not be necessarily the same for everybody; for as the Unlucky General mentioned we "can only guess". But whether imagined within our creative understanding of that era or based upon rigorous study of history each of us must have at least some sense of imaginative satisfaction.

But for me if the game's results and action have a certain authentic feel then the mechanics have their job only half done. The systems mechanical process must also work almost instinctively and intuitively. As Jack mentioned:

Rules for carrying out C2, movement, and combat must be very simple in order to allow the player to spend 99% of his brain power on the above-mentioned decision making process.

The rules are functioning as they should only if the action feels right and the action's process requires a very minimum amount of mental effort.

This for me is the fundamental and basic key to game excellence… and where lies the key components of an enjoyable and historically satisfying game.

I'd imagine these two combined principles would probably be universally accepted? The acceptance of what "feels right" is however very subjective

I believe if these elements are available it really helps ( for me at least) the ability of the gamer to enter into what Phil put so well:

For me, the tale will be historical … I like it to run close to the real narrative I have chosen to explore, and I want the players to take a part in it: to influence and engage in the events (but ultimately take from the experience a sense of how those events fell together – both in the real battle, and in their miniature dramatisation)…

While other areas like the choice of non-linear activation systems are probably more subjective…

But again if the activation system is itself an exercise in labourous drudgery …and I feel that sometimes random activational games are especially prone to stray into this. Chain of Command's random activation for me at least is effortless but also leads to another gaming element that Jack mentioned. An area that I've felt certain games lacking a little: The Decision Making Process.

Often in the past, after a game I have found myself questioning just how many real tactical decisions have I actually made?

Sometimes the layout of the table itself, or even the troops involved can almost dictate the very limited tactical choices available.

Sometimes I've felt the quality of a game can be decided more on the quality of the scenario rather than the actual rules themselves.

Even though I personally don't favor point driven games could their popularity be helped by the certain tactical choices required to be made before the game even begins.

I enjoy friction in my games as they give me a certain feel that apart from the enemy there are other forces not within my control. This for me at least gives me a greater sense of reality. Against this of course is the frictions potenital to lessen the gamers opportunity to exercise tactical decision making. Maybe this is something like what UshCha2 refers to

… a few un-demanding moves with lots of randomness to get them out of poor play.

But again this doesn't need to characterise friction in a game completely. For example I think this is where Chain of Command excells: its ability to combine these two almost seemingly paradoxical elements: the randomness and limited availability of unit activation but also the requirement of decision making.

It wasn't my intention to focus on CoC but I have found several unique elements tha found in it that I personally find very exciting…

Yesthatphil and PiersBrand hit it on the head.

I would add that a game should be straightforward without necessarily being simple. Complexity shouldn't come from the rules and the rules shouldn't get in the way of the game.

I tend to like games that have a certain conceptual elegance to them and play intuitively. Its one of the reasons I love Bolt Action. From what has been written, I probably need to give "Chain of Command" a look.

The essential element that creates greatness in a war game is the players. Great players-- great game. Crappy players-- crappy game. Talking about "the game feeling right" is meaningless for anyting prior to WWII as you weren't there. All you know of it is what you've read from books. I've spoken to many old veterans of WWII and almost universally when they tell me about what they saw it goes like this 'Well I didn't see much, there was a lot of firing, a lot of noise, I saw a lot of my biddies killed. I fired off all my ammo. I don't know if I hit anything. I found out we won two weeks later." If we're going to make a game that "feels right" we should have players play Russian Routlette in a shrieking din while showing them pictures of people being mangled, shot, and blown apart. I doubt that people from earlier ages saw more than the knapsack of the fellow in front of them, recall a lot of noise, pushing and shoving, and running forward and running back, and "they ran and we ran and we ran away man."

As for realism… Nothing at all relates the difficulty of loading and firing a 9 lbder, and hitting a target a few hundred yards away. The procedures are mere accounting functions and random numbers put up as a generic difficulty to represent a real difficulty and as such are no more real than foozeball to football.

War games is "nothing more than an extension of childhood play!" As the author opined. It is and always has been SENSE OF WONDER -- the "WOW NEAT!!!" factor of all the pretty toy soldiers and terrain, and THE SPIRIT OF PLAY- "Let's pretend! Let's make believe you're Napoleon and I'm Wellington" and losing ourselves in the excitement of the imagination. That's it, no more.

The greatness in a game is that game which allows these two things free rein, the Sense of Wonder and Spirit of Play, but that is found NOT in the rules, but in the participants, and in their willingness to suspend disbelief, and enter into the pure joy of make-believe. You can't find that in the rules, you only find it in the soul of the players.

War Games is playing with Toy Soldiers in an adult way, and at heart it's kids play.

Remember when you were playing cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, or whatever? The kid no one wanted on their team grew up to be the rules lawyer, and still today it's a matter of "Well OK we'll take Jeff, but you gotta take him the next two times!"

Ark3nubis,

Im not sure I could classify any of my group as 'pretty'…

Though some are pretty awful at rolling dice!

Oshmidt,
This shows how wargamers glory in the diffrences. To me you ideal game would be unacceptable. Replaying my youthful games would be utterly unacceptabel. Greatness is indeed in the eye of the behoder and the variation on what is defined as a good game is truly diverse.

To me the scenario is all. Its about the setting of a tale how is it? " All the worlds a stage by we are but players in it". The tale must be told in a credible way with friction but not simple randomness. It must accord at least in part with the basisc of the battles you read and the manuals that define basic mechaics. A simulation without any basis to me is just a game and of no interest. To others it may be the ideal. There is no right or wrong. Hoever I came to understand that complexity of rules does not nessessarily make a better or more accurate simulation. Speed of play adds a simulation of its own. It is hard to have a battle of maneouver if your fastest vehicle can scarcely get across the table even unopposed in an eveing.

OSchmidt, surely you are telling us what YOUR wargames are all about. For others here, Aotrs commander being a great example, wargaming is actually about something else? Is that okay with you?

Hmmm… Where have I seen this before? Okay, let me see if I can be as uncompromising as OSchmidt always seems to be:

"Crappy players-- crappy game."
I think this is the only thing you said that I can actually agree with.

"Great players-- great game."
This is so wrong that I have to question if you've ever played a wargame before. So, you and two great guys can square off against three great guys with my latest rules.

In these rules, the East Germans battle the Hittites. East Germans are armed with spears and employ the Phalanx, while the Hittites use Henry repeating rifles, but the spears have a range of 6km and hit on 4+ on a D6 while the Henry rifles have a range of 6m and hit on a 20 on a D20. There's only one scenario: the Hittites start on floating cloud castles over South America, while the East Germans are at the bottom of a canyon in Afghanistan. The East Germans can move 6" per turn, but they can't climb the canyon walls, and the Hittites' cloud castles are immobile. Have a great time!

"Talking about "the game feeling right" is meaningless for anyting prior to WWII as you weren't there. All you know of it is what you've read from books."
Reading in books generally seems to work for a lot of other human experiences, why not here? If you're not trying to make a set of rules (or get a set of rules) 'get the feel right,' why wargame a particular period at all? This is one of the most inane statements regarding wargames I've ever read. It can be dumb, or it can be intellectually dishonest, but either way, it's ridiculous.

"As for realism… Nothing at all relates the difficulty of…"
Ahhh, this tired crap again. If you're attitude is that 'it's not a wargame 'cause you're not starving, cut off, bleeding,' etc…, then what are you even doing here? For what it's worth, there are plenty of combat vets that play wargames, so there must be something to it. But that takes us back to the above paragraph regarding "what I think the period should look like."

"War games is "nothing more than an extension of childhood play!""
Granted, but you still have to pick a period, a scenario, and a set of rules that do what you and your group expect that period to look/play like. Which is the point of this post. But you have a habit of coming in, not answering the question, and telling everyone they're dumb for having posed it or answered it.

I actually don't expect that you'll respond to this post, as you and I have had this exact same conversation, regarding both rules and scales, in the past.

V/R,
Jack

There's only one scenario: the Hittites start on floating cloud castles over South America, while the East Germans are at the bottom of a canyon in Afghanistan.

@Just Jack

Can you tell me where you can get this full scenario …I want to try it out with my British Airborne and French Cuirassiers … :)

Talking about "the game feeling right" is meaningless for anyting prior to WWII as you weren't there….

@ OSchmidt I'm not really sure if we're discussing the same thing here. I presume when I read "the game feeling right…" this statement is referring to how the rules portray or coordinate the actions of the toy soldiers on the table-top; i.e. the effects of movement and the effects of gun fire in different circumstances; in the context of the engagement and circumstances and in the light of my intellectual understanding of history (whether true of false) do they feel right i.e. Do they comply with my limited understanding of what might happen in reality…does it seem plausible in the light of what I've read and heard about this type of warfare. A simple example of this is if the enemy whose in the open is fired at with automatic weapons at close range my expectations on the result would be that unit suffering high casualties; that would constitute my "feeling of the game" . I think everyone can relate to this even from movie watching…there are times when certain war movies portray something that seems totally implausible.

But I think your statements concerning this seem to suggest your interpretation of "feelings" mean something entirely different:

If we're going to make a game that "feels right" we should have players play Russian Routlette in a shrieking din while showing them pictures of people being mangled, shot, and blown apart.

What you're obviously describing here is replicating "traumatic psychological feelings" and please excuse my bluntness but what has that to do with table-top wargaming.

My grand-dad fought in WWI, he only spoke about his experiences but only when he drank and what he described was as close to Hell as I hope to experience…he became a completely different man after his war experience…if there is any confusion over this I'd like to be clear: my own interest in recreating any historical battle is not looking to share in the participants traumatic psychological experiences. It's closer to the truth that I'm probably trying to escape some of my own…

Dear Just Jack

As for me playing wargames? Want the pictures?

As for your game? Yeah why not, my group will play it. Nobody really cares, we'll play it. It's as good as any other game. We'll change the figures though and even change the rules till it's a workable game. Or we'll just play it and gossip what an idiotic game you made.Not because of the sides, and the write up but because you made an idiotic game. You see-- that's the problem YOU have made an game where the game logic doesn't work. Regardless of what the miniatures and models are, they're just tokens and procedures, and you could have ancient hittites versus the Krell, and it can be a good game, provided the logic of the GAME holds true, not the prototyping of history.

This of course completely plays into my point, that it is first and foremost a game and history is completely irrelevant to it. Of course what would happen would be in the group I game with we'd take your game, do a turn or two, realize how idiotic it was and begin reworking it to make a good game we could have fun with. You can do that with a good bunch of gamers-- probably not the type of people you play with though.

As for reading in books, all you're reading is the words of someone else who was not there, and he probably got it from someone else who was not there, and there are enough accounts of people who WERE there to know that the formal manual pretty much goes out the window when the bullets fly.

When you read an account of something all you are reading is a recapitulation of aspects that the author "privaleged" that is chose, and chose to exclude others. You can find this in any subject by authors who arrange the facts in entirely different ways. Doesn't mean they're dishonest or wrong, just mean's there's a different story. As for what really happened? Have a guess at it you'll probably do as well as any other. Not only that, when things are written by a person who was there, you still weren't so you don't know how it "felt" and you don't know if the words he used then have the same meaning as they do nows Second, the actual person on the spot alters the truth and the story because he has to put the phenominalistic sensations he receives into a rational order and into the confines of language, which means he subtly changes the story. Not his fault. It's all he can do. We are not telepathic.

As for your criticism of my reply. The question is open ended, anyone can post what they wish and disagree with one, some, or all of the points of the originator. Happens all the time.

Sorry I don't recall you or our previous arguments.But if they were about this subject, you're still wrong though.

Dear Grey Panda As for traumatic psychological feelings, that's exactly what the participant feels in war- the oft quoted dictum of boredom puntuated by moments of sheer terror. That's the feel of things, the real thing. That a game "feels right" in your definition is only that it squares with your prejudices and predispositions gathered from the sources that were privaleged or not privaleged by the authors above which you again, have privaleged, as to those who have privaleged others. It's all opinion. Begins, carries through, and ends with opinion. While I can agree with your statement of automatic weapons etc. that again is I believe more a "reconciling" the game with the high points of reality. As I told Just Jack, the game is an abstract set of possibilities delineated by the rules with no other purpose than to pose difficulties to be overcome.
All the person "who was there" has the transient and highly phenominalistic experiences which he then must patch into a pattern of rationality.

As for The Soldier man – Yeah fine, play what you want, doesn't matter to me. But after 52 years in the hobby I've seen it all, and at one time believed in the hypothesis Aorts Commander stated. It fell apart along with the arguments to realism, and all the rest and I saw that it's all up to the players. Good guy, sociable guy, not a rules lawyer or a megalomaniac who thinks he's a nascnet military genius =good player(s)=good game. Otherwise crappy player, crappy game. No amount of verbage or weight of rules or even the writing of them is going to change a crappy player to a good player.

The reason why you all dislike my opinion is because it puts the responsibility for having a good time and having a good game squarely back on the players, that is-- yourself. Can't fob off anti-social behaviour on the rules.

Grey Panda again. Your grand-dad proves my point on "feelings." My father, a Colonel by 1918 in the Austro-Hungarina Army in Galicia, never talked about the war at all except for one story. That was enough. I'll tell it because it shows what people who've been in real war go through. He was caught by a Russian Barrage and it blew off part of his foot. He collapsed and went into shock. It was mid winter and very cold and that probably saved him as his extremeties started to freeze. He was unconscious when the burial parties came around. They dug a trench and gathered up the bodies. They piled them on top of him. He didn't know this. Those bodies must have been an insulation for when they began throwing the hundreds of bodies into the trench he could just move his fingers a little and plead "No, No, I'm not dead! I'm not dead" in barely a whisper.

Sorry, no, I don't want to game that. I'll take Just Jack's idiotic game over something that portrays the above. I'm in the hobby for fun and enjoyment and good times with my friends.

Surely, OSchmidt, you can recognise that the experience your father went through is not the aspect of war that anyone here wants to game?

I think the point some people are making, and I think rightly, is that the game you describe as the perfect game for you. However, that does not make it the perfect game for everyone.

You may feel, and it seems you do, that to describe any aspect of a wargame as being related to the actuality of war is plain silly. However, what I cannot understand is why you object to other people attempting to capture some aspects of history, or reality if you prefer, in their games.

Where I game we certainly attempt that. Indeed we use historical reality as a starting point for all of our games. So, by way of example, weapons need to fire at ranges which are plausible based on historical precedent. Men and vehicles need to move distances which are based on what could be achieved in any circumstances. The effect of various weapons on their targets needs to be plausible and correlate to what first hand accounts suggest they could achieve. Without those basic foundations surely we can agree that the game would not be a wargame, but would just be a game with toy soldiers?

I game regularly with several retired senior military officers and they certainly feel that some of what we are doing can have a learning application in the modern military. They see advantage in preparing an officer for the type of decisions he makes in a wargame which he may have to make in the field. They see merit in sharpening his tactical judgement by placing him in situations on the tabletop which he may face in reality. And yes, they even see an advantage to exposing him to the horrors of war by showing that officer what can happen to his real men when something goes wrong by using the wargame as a window onto the realities of war.

Surely you can accept that, whilst the tabletop provides artificial parameters, there can be elements of real warfare that can be discerned from a wargame? And, more importantly, that the gamers here who strive to achieve that end are not idiotic or misguided.

As to fun, enjoyment and good times with friends; I rather presume we all wish to achieve that end. However, for me a wargame with historical plausibility removed does not equal fun. When my MG42 turns out to be a water-pistol I do not laugh that off, I recognise that the rules are broken. That doesn't add to my sense of fun and enjoyment. I know that is equally the case for my friends.

Alright, I'm definitely losing steam, but here goes:

"As for your game? Yeah why not, my group will play it. Nobody really cares, we'll play it. It's as good as any other game."
Okay man, you and your band of merry fellows can play my game and love it. For me, it doesn't work, it's too screwed up. For example, one of my personal limits is foes that couldn't plausibly clash; I don't mind 'what-if,' but it has to be at least possible.

Just like firearms having a shorter range than spears; sure, I wasn't alive in any period where the spear was the primary weapon of a major combatant, but given my little bit of life experience I would expect my Henry rifle to have a greater effective range than the spear.

Not to mention, since the East Germans can't get out of the canyon and the Hittites are immobile, it doesn't look like much decision making will be done. I like my rules to have some decision making. I'm sure that you and your friends are better than me and my friends…

"…boredom puntuated by moments of sheer terror." I assume the wargame is built around one of those moments of sheer terror (or at least excitement that caused it). I don't want to game the boring parts. It might be more realistic, but not a lot of fun.

"…and there are enough accounts of people who WERE there to know that the formal manual pretty much goes out the window when the bullets fly." That's not true at all, but it is the maxim of people that don't know anything about SOPs, battle drill, immediate action drills, fire-planning, reconnaissance, battlefield communitcation, etc… It was written down because it works in combat if you can get your men to do it; to get them to do it, you write it down so it can be implemented and trained in a widespread fashion so that it becomes automatic under fire. So, I lend some creedence to these types of documents when we find them from previous generations.

"As for your criticism of my reply." My criticism is over the fact that every time one of these types of topics presents itself, you claim we're imbeciles for even having the conversation.

"That a game "feels right" in your definition is only that it squares with your prejudices and predispositions gathered from the sources … It's all opinion. Begins, carries through, and ends with opinion."
Amen. Now, so that we're all on the same page here: we're trying to have a discussion about what opinions each of us hold, and you're telling us those opinions don't matter.

"The reason why you all dislike my opinion is because it puts the responsibility for having a good time and having a good game squarely back on the players, that is-- yourself. Can't fob off anti-social behaviour on the rules."
What are you talking about? I dislike one aspect of your various opinions: the one in which you tell me my opinion is dumb because, no matter how you define realistic, a wargame can't be realistic, and that I'm stupid for trying to make a wargame realistic.

"Sorry, no, I don't want to game that."
Okay, raise your hand if you were clamoring for a game that buries live soldiers with dead ones.

Grey Panda – the scenario, which contains nothing more than what I've already written here, is available in PDF form for $99 USD, though there is a requirement to buy three (one per side and one for the umpire), and as you've already seen it, you're statutorily required to buy it ;)

Of course, TFL said all the stuff I said, just a lot more tactfully and intelligently. Probably made the points a bit clearer too. And clearer and easier to read. Oh well…

V/R,
Jack

And answer came there none,..

As for your game? Yeah why not, my group will play it. Nobody really cares, we'll play it. It's as good as any other game.

I'm a little mystified how anyone would be interested in a game that doesn't even aim to represent anything either fantastical or historical just the absurd. I always presumed that some attempt at representation whatever vague was an integral element of war-gaming. At the very least I would have thought it would be an extreme rarity to feel that way but to your great credit you have found an entire group that shares this philosophy…

John,

Sorry, it appears I helped derail the thread, which stinks, because I love talking about rules design! A couple thoughts on things from above:

Realism – To clarify, I think that realism boils down to accurately portraying the interaction of physics as we understand it (cavalry or vehicles move faster/farther than foot infantry, machine guns have longer range and a higher volume of attack than a sword), and the ability to accurately depict the tactics/techniques/doctrine of the selected period. The latter, I believe, is the harder one to pull off as we all have our own expectation of what combat at that echelon at that period of time looked/felt like, and historical records often contradict each other.

Scenarios – I personally do not believe scenarios are the make or break feature. In my experience, bad rules can easily overcome a great scenario, but the rules that do what you want them to can overcome an 'iffy' (not necessarily a terrible) scenario.

Lack of decision-making in certain scenarios – My personal experience with this has been almost exclusively playing the defender in an 'attacker vs defender' scenario. I chalk this up to rules that have all forces on the table and linear C2 systems. When you're the defender and you can see all the attacker's forces, and furthermore, because of an IGOUGO system, you know exactly how far they can get each turn, you know when/where you'll need to counter them. The only thing I know of that counters this is hidden deployment /movement (the Lardies blinds and/or patrol phase concepts), and non-linear C2, which doesn't show you the enemy until possibly too late, and you don't know if your counter will get there or not. You can throw in variable movement to further exacerbate the problem.

My experience is that if you do those things, it makes the defender (and the attacker, for that matter) hold a force in reserve (like real life), forcing you to make decisions as to where to place your MLR, where to place your reserve, and when/where to commit the reserve. It seems to me scenarios always give you enough forces to spread them out in a (roughly) continuous line, but if you pull a proper portion out for reserves you're left with a hole and having to prioritize, like real life.

The only other aspect I've mentally toyed with (with regard to rules mechanisms to 'force' the players to hold a force in reserve) is to have the rules' C2 mechanism favor the reserve's ability to act, over forces already committed. The point is that it's notoriously difficult to change the orders of a unit in contact with the enemy, whereas that's the point of a reserve; it's a unit not committed that is still in a state to receive and act upon orders readily. The question is, how do you do it? I dunno… If you have a C2 system that requires a roll to activate (like BKC/KR-16), or requires a roll to determine the number of activations (ala Black Powder), it's simple: make it automatic or give them a strong positive dice roll modifier (perhaps combined with or in lieu of a negative modifier for units in contact). How do you do this for stuff like CoC, IABSM, or Bolt Action is still beyond my understanding ;)

As always, my opinions are only for whatever worth you may assign them, AKA, there's my two cents.

V/R,
Jack

No need to apologize Jack :) it wasn't your fault, its always difficult to stay on track and my original post was a little fragmented and vague. I think it began to run its course but I really enjoyed the discussion. I always enjoy hearing other peoples opinions especially when they differ from my own. I'm always curious what areas of a game people assign most value to.

When you're the defender and you can see all the attacker's forces, and furthermore, because of an IGOUGO system, you know exactly how far they can get each turn, you know when/where you'll need to counter them. The only thing I know of that counters this is hidden deployment /movement

I'm relatively new to WW2 wargaming…I used to play the Napoleonic era which in my view seem to have more definite strategic decision making. When I originally started WW2 I was disappointed by the limited choices I seemed to have.

Should simulating a WW2 battle with an attempt at realism need to take a serious look at how to represent the empty battlefield? I usually employ the means that you mention;blinds or ghosts. Ive always wanted to use an umpire but that hasn't happened yet. Difficult enough to get opponents :)

I think CoC's use of Jumping Points are an interesting device to accelerate what sometimes can be a very tedious movement of blinds across a large table. But also could benefit the area that you mentioned:

The point is that it's notoriously difficult to change the orders of a unit in contact with the enemy, whereas that's the point of a reserve; it's a unit not committed that is still in a state to receive and act upon orders readily. The question is, how do you do it?

I found this very interesting and something I've never really thought about. I believe you mentioned using elements of Crossfire in your home brewed rules but I found the mechanism of almost unrestricted movement makes the use of reserves very effective. I personally had certain problems with the rules in their entirety.

But how could we simulate the advantage of troops kept in reserve with the Chain of Command's Dice mechanism?

Could make it be easier to activate troops kept in reserve ….or adversely we could make it be more difficult to activate committed units especially those involved in heavy fighting.

Maybe a unit already committed to the table needs to add a naturally rolled "4" "5" or "6" (or just 5 and 6's) along with its normally required dice to activate…or preferably a committed unit that wants to change its orders. i.e. a unit that has been ordered to move to a certain location can activate in its next phase without penalty.

I'm thinking maybe a unit that's involved in a firefight along with its regular required dice needs a 6 (or 5 or 6) to activate (even to continue an order like shooting). ..it represents their shooting while under fire isn't as accurate or effective as it should.

This would bring me to another area that I sometimes struggle with a little:

I often imagine that the shooting effectiveness of troops involved in a firefight and are in decent cover (like Bocage) seem to be too lethal to me. I realize we don't want to slow the game down too much but I'm not sure if this promotes authentic tactics. I'm all for suppressing the frontal enemy and outflanking them but it seems all too often that the frontal fire eliminates the enemy position altogether.

Anyway I'd like to know your thoughts on that

Back to the changes to CoC activations :)

e.g. British Vet Infantry roll 5 command dice rolling a 1,3,3,3,5,

1st Section with its Bren Team are in cover committed to a firefight with an MG42 across the hedgerows.

The 2nd Section are already on table and they're in the process of making their way across a field to outflank the MG42.

3rd Section with its SL have been held back in reserve.

The 3 (on its own) enables the 3rd Section in reserve to come on-board with their SL The 2nd Section is still under orders to make its way across the field so although its already "on-table" it doesn't need an additional 4,5 or a 6 (as it's not receiving a new different order this phase)

1st Section with its Bren Team could under normal circumstances use the 3rd 3 to activate but since its in a firefight it would require an additional 6….which it doesn't have.

Guinness :)

@number4 My word man…stroke of pure genius… you have it!!!

John,

"I personally had certain problems with the rules (Crossfire) in their entirety." I love the idea of the rules, and my Dad and I played a dozen games or so but just couldn't get them to work out. Turns out we were both too chicken to play Crossfire properly; there was a lot of hemming and hawing and gnashing of teeth, with not a lot of stuff happening on the table. Once you got the initiative, no one wanted to make the move that might cost you intitiative.

"But how could we simulate the advantage of troops kept in reserve with the Chain of Command's Dice mechanism?" This is a $64,000 USD question. Your idea sounds plausible, but I'm scared to mess with the command roll as it seems to be pretty perfectly balanced and easily screwed up, either making it way to hard to activate or way too easy. Already you're forced to make decisions as you can't do everything you want; it's a very delicate balance that I don't have an answer for.

"I'm all for suppressing the frontal enemy and outflanking them but it seems all too often that the frontal fire eliminates the enemy position altogether." I wholeheartedly agree. As I'd mentioned in one of my CoC batreps, I found myself carrying out close assaults because I wanted to, not because I had to in order to dig the enemy out. It would have been much more efficient to sit back and continue to pour fire into the enemy, which would have resulted in their destruction or being forced from the position (via accumulation of shock) rather quickly. My personal view is that direct fire is used to fix and pin the enemy in place, but is not capable of eliminating the enemy, which is why another element is needed to conduct close combat. I've still not found a set of rules that does this to my liking. You either end up with fire that kills too easily, or fire that has no effect at all. I've been pondering the idea that targets in 'x' cover at 'x' range can not accrue kills but can accrue shock.

"The 2nd Section is still under orders to make its way across the field so although its already "on-table" it doesn't need an additional 4,5 or a 6…" The only problem with stuff like this, for me, is that my memory is terrible, so I have to introduce a whole other mechanism to capture who was on the table (at what point) and what orders they previuosly had, which slows the game and takes away from the elegance of the CR mechanism.

"1st Section with its Bren Team could under normal circumstances use the 3rd 3 to activate but since its in a firefight it would require an additional 6….which it doesn't have." I assume the 6 would be 'dual-roll,' i.e., it could be used to activate a section under fire and would still count towards double phase/turn end?

Regarding the situation of giving orders to a section under fire, one of the things I've looked at is the concept of being 'locked in combat,' i.e., they can't do anything but sit still and return fire (NCO can remove shock). The only movement they can commit would be to move away from and out of LOS to the enemy firing on them.

But this has its own problems. First, it screws with the CoC command roll in that you're either getting a 'free' action (they essentially get to auto shoot, though without throwing any dice), which gives the player too much options with the remaining command dice, or you make them activate normally (perhaps with a penalty, as you described), but then that means they could be locked in combat but not return fire (which might not be so bad with regard to the fact a phase is a short duration of time).

Second, you have to have some sort of mechanism to show which enemy unit each friendly unit is taking under fire, as this will affect what command dice can be used to activate each unit. I've seen people do this by using arrows on the table, essentially indicating a principle direction of fire (PDF), saying 'this unit is taking that unit under fire.' But then that should mean you can't move that unit when it's your turn as it is involved in the act of putting down fire to keep your unit from moving. Also, this brings us back to the 'free' shot; here's what I mean:

During your phase you move a section out into a field, and it has no enemy in LOS. During my phase, I move my section at a sprint (I take 1 shock and cannot fire), but I place my arrow to show its PDF is on your section in the field. I've essentially pinned that section, as in your phase all you can do is fire at my section or withdraw out of line of sight (which should be at a penalty to activate). I suppose the 'fair' thing to do would be to use a double-ended arrow to show both sections are taking each other under fire, but I'd be perfectly happy with that, and you not so much, as my section is in a wood whilst yours is in a field.

This means that you would want a different option for when the PDF is laid, i.e., maybe only after you actually fire at someone as an action. That might work, but I could see a lot of confusion regarding (or 20 pages of rules trying to explain) exactly when the PDF is laid and who it applies to, and what if x, y, or z happens?

It might seem straightforward to say you don't lay a PDF until after a section has taken a fire action against another, but in real life enemies are going to shoot at each other as soon as they see each other, with certain exeptions, such as one side lying in ambush.

Overall, I think that the PDF concept is a good (interesting?) way of looking at things that is fairly realistic (coming under fire generally halts you and you return fire, until you think you're losing the firefight and pull back), but on the table it would likely not work out well. On the table, the side witht the numbers advantage would be the only one able to maneuver, whereas, in real life, there are so many unknowns that it makes the situation much more complex. But with a proper hidden unit/movement system it could work. Again, it would make it more realistic in terms of trying to obtain local superiority in firepower (as opposed to be evenly spread across the tabletop, as we so often do).

Lots of thoughts/questions, but not lots of answers. If I only had a brain…

V/R,
Jack

Your PDF idea is very interesting and I think I tried something like that in the past with my Home Brew rules (a strange mix of IABSM and Crossfire)
I remember there was something that turned me off the idea…not sure if it was just a lot of squads locking down and began to turn into a stalemate…but my rules were probably so messed up it won't have given a good idea how it could work

"1st Section with its Bren Team could under normal circumstances use the 3rd 3 to activate but since its in a firefight it would require an additional 6….which it doesn't have." I assume the 6 would be 'dual-roll,' i.e., it could be used to activate a section under fire and would still count towards double phase/turn end?"

Yes I'd leave the other values associated with the 5 and 6's intact as set in the rules.

I'm not sure if the values are balanced that I've given but I'd like to try it out even if it was for engaged troops only.

Another option would be to make some kind of skill test to activate if engaged. Or if the unit has shock then that unit must make a roll over their amount of shock. i.e. Team has 2 shock and it's committed then it needs to make a test roll and roll over 2 before it can activate. Giving even more importance to having attached leaders with engaged troops. (They could use their CP's to reduce the shock therefore increasing the chances of the unit activating.)

I'm not giving up entirely on this idea…I think I'll try it out …there really is no hope for me. But its good to know I'm not alone.

I'll let you know how I get on…and any more good ideas throw them this way :)

John

John,

"I remember there was something that turned me off the idea…not sure if it was just a lot of squads locking down and began to turn into a stalemate…but my rules were probably so messed up it won't have given a good idea how it could work."
I agree. I love the idea, but I just couldn't get it to work either. It was just like the CoC Patrol Phase with the markers getting locked down, then the side with more troops simply maneuvered at will.

"Another option would be to make some kind of skill test to activate if engaged."
This is what I'm doing with my modified rules (all the "All Americans" batreps). But I'm not doing it with just being engaged, but with shock. You roll a D6, have to roll over the amount of shock, Jr Ldr (Squad Ldrs) in command range gets you a +1, Sr Ldr (PC/Plt Sgt) gets you a +2.

I'm not penalizing them just for being engaged, as that seems maybe too restrictive. What I mean is, it's a tough hair to split. On the one hand I can say that "the most realistic thing is for a team with an unpinned/unsuppressed enemy team in LOS cannot move forward, it can only shoot at the enemy team or move away from it and out of LOS." On the other hand, if the team doesn't have any shock on it, I can see letting it do whatever it wants. The idea of having no shock means enemy fire is not having an impact on them/friendly leadership is doing its job keeping the men motivated to do whatever needs to be done.

I do like my system of the team perhaps failing (taking fire that's heavy enough to make them stick their heads in the ground), as opposed to the option of they will automatically perform, just at a lower level (-1 firing dice per 2 shock, etc…, which I also use).

To tie in with other points about reserves and weapons lethality, in my rules teams without shock will automatically activate. Not the most realistic, but it is simple and quick. But it gives no advantage to the reserve, i.e., the unengaged, uncommitted force. I'm happy with how shock works regarding impacting a unit's ability to activate, but I find I don't have to make a lot of tough decisions regarding "should the leader move up with these guys or go over to those guys and remove shock," because the firing is so lethal that by the time I decide to remove shock most of them are dead (that might be a tad exaggerated). But the point still holds that, in my rules, it is a much better tactical decision to hold back and fire at enemy troops in entrenchments than to close assault them (even though I do it anyway).

I've been thinking about your proposals regarding CoC. First, regarding the idea of changing the command roll/command dice for units that are engaged, I worry that Chain of Command's command roll mechanism is perfect but fragile, and it might not take much to throw it totally out of whack. But you'll never know until you try. I do like the idea of having them roll over their shock value to get to activate, and can't see any unintended consequences as a result.

On a separate note, I got some forces (mid-war Russians and Germans) based up for company-level CoC. I'm still a little worried about how much time would/could be added by doing the 'normal' command roll for each platoon (you'd essentially be playing three different games of CoC, just on the same table at the same time). I've been thinking a lot about using the 'normal' command roll for the entire company, just bumping it up an echelon.
5, 6 as normal
4 Any senior leader (Company CO/XO)
3 Any Jr Leader (PC) and Platoon
2 Any platoon (PC activates but can't use CI)
1 Any squad/vehicle/team

I would keep individual MGs, mortars, guns, and vehicles, but allow them to be activated with a platoon if directly attached (which is always the pain, tracking who's attached to whom), or on a 1, or on a Ldr CI (have to figure out if you'd let Jr Ldr, i.e., rifle plt commanders, give orders to weapons plt/company assets; I think yes).

I like the idea, but I think there is probably a minefield of pitfalls/unintended consequences I haven't thought of yet.

Take care.

V/R,
Jack

Another option would be to make some kind of skill test to activate if engaged."
This is what I'm doing with my modified rules (all the "All Americans" batreps). But I'm not doing it with just being engaged, but with shock. You roll a D6, have to roll over the amount of shock, Jr Ldr (Squad Ldrs) in command range gets you a +1, Sr Ldr (PC/Plt Sgt) gets you a +2.

Jack I really like this idea…I agree it does seem a little too restricting to impose it on all "engaged" units. But this remains simple. Also this will increase the effectiveness of the "shock" mechanic which I like. I think I noticed on a different thread you mentioned that for "in cover" units you don't allow "kills" (or its much more difficult to kill) applied in conjunction with this change to the Shock mechanic it would seem to help address a few of our identified problems.

Problem 1: Engaged units should have greater difficulties in activating

Problem 2: Fire on troops in cover is too lethal.

Problem 3: Units with leaders attached are more likely to be functional when engaged and under fire

Proposed Solution For Problem 1: So with the addition of the "Shock Test" units engaged and who have received some form of "effective fire" (i.e. have received at least some shock) will be potentially more difficult to activate.

Proposed Solution For Problem 2: Troops in decent cover (heavy cover only?) cannot receive a kill. All hits are shock. This means the troops in cover will not be eliminated off the table but will be less and less effective. As their shock increases they will be less likely to be able to activate as well as the regular limitations of Shock (fire less effective…movement etc..)

Proposed Solution For Problem 3: Promoting the use of leaders remaining with their units. The Leader modifiers to the "Shock Roll" will mean that committed units will have a greater need for a leader to be present in order to remain effective when engaged.

Proposed Amendments to Proposed Solution For Problem 2: [I could go on with this all night :) ] I'm happy to be dealing with the lethality problem…
I'm not entirely sure how you're calculating fire effects on units in cover …but let me just imagine presently a roll of 4-6 means 1 point of Shock.

I'm concerned that firefights may become a little contrived or lose something of their drama with that kind of hit predictability…

So some suggestions:

Suggestion 1: A roll of 6 means 2 Shock Points received.

While I love the idea of the fire's effectiveness being more limited in these circumstances I'm not entirely satisfied that troops can't be killed under the proposed solution. Doesn't seem realistic that no one is in mortal danger with all these bullets flying around.

Suggestion 2: Maybe on a roll of a 6. In addition to the 2 Shock received a second dice is rolled to see if this fire has actually caused a kill. Maybe on a 5 or a 6 it means a kill.

I've been thinking about your proposals regarding CoC. First, regarding the idea of changing the command roll/command dice for units that are engaged, I worry that Chain of Command's command roll mechanism is perfect but fragile, and it might not take much to throw it totally out of whack. But you'll never know until you try. I do like the idea of having them roll over their shock value to get to activate, and can't see any unintended consequences as a result.

No I think your right Jack I don't want to mess too much with the Command Dice (well I do, the natural tinkerer does but I agree it doesn't sound like a good idea.)
But as discussed I do really like the roll against shock

ie 3 Shock would means a required roll of over 3 to activate (with modifiers applied)

What modifiers apart from leadership would be applied…probably best not to over complicate this any further…

On a separate note, I got some forces (mid-war Russians and Germans) based up for company-level CoC. I'm still a little worried about how much time would/could be added by doing the 'normal' command roll for each platoon (you'd essentially be playing three different games of CoC, just on the same table at the same time). I've been thinking a lot about using the 'normal' command roll for the entire company, just bumping it up an echelon.

Funny Jack I haven't had time to play a game yet but I was thinking something would have to be adjusted…that plan sounds a very reasonable one… at least in theory :)

Impossible as you said to know until its tried out…let us know how you get on…I'm surrounded by small miniature witches and superheros right now (my kids not actually minis :) ) I'll give that some thought and I'll back to you with some equally bad ideas :0

All the best

John

Jack,

I've just wondering regarding the proposed changes; how would you deal with indirect fire?

Against units in cover should say medium mortars have better chance of killing over direct fire? Or should they be seen primarily as suppressing weapons?

Jack,

Just another thought on the Shock Test

Lets imagine in a game we have activated most of our units and we now only have one Command Dice left; it's a 3.

We have 2 Squads available for activation.
1st Squad has a Junior Leader attached and is engaged with the enemy. It has received 2 Shock.

2nd Squad is still moving towards the enemy. It has no Shock and is not in enemy LoS

Question 1: Can the Junior leader attached to 1st Squad automatically activate (on the 3) remove the 2 Shock with his Initiative and then activate the Squad automatically.

Or is the Junior Leader seen as being part of the Squad and needs to make a successful "Shock Test" first and then spend his Initiative Points to remove the Shock?

My thoughts would be the first option. He can spend his Initiative Points to remove however amount of points that he can and then depending on the squads status they activate or if there are Shock Points remaining a Shock Test is made using the new amount of Shock.

Question 2: Lets just say 1st Squad has 4 Shock Points and needs to make a Shock Test (whether the JL removes 2 Shock before or not a test would still be needed) And say 1st Squad fails this test. Does that mean the entire Phase is over or should 2nd Squad be permitted to activate on the unused 3.

Again I think my preferred course would be the remaining Command Dice is seen to have already being used in 1st Squad's failed attempt to activate so that phase is now over.

Again this is an important point because with the already limited amount of Command Dice available to a Platoon losing one to a Shock Test is pretty risky.
This potential risk of effectively losing your dice would as a consequence probably make engaged units less likely to be activated and therefore adding to the feel of a unit under fire being less effective as we have discussed.

Would maybe also change my tactical reasoning about keeping the Senior Leader in reserve as long as possible so as to enable quicker fielding of troops.

His potential Initiative Points have even more value now in these critical areas of the battle. With this change more difficult decisions would no doubt be needed with regards to where the Senior Leaders are and what Units to spend the Command Dice on, ; especially when they could very well be wasted on a Unit failing its Shock Test!

This of course would be more difficult to insert into a Company Level Game as described below without some kind alteration:

5, 6 as normal
4 Any senior leader (Company CO/XO)
3 Any Jr Leader (PC) and Platoon
2 Any platoon (PC activates but can't use CI)
1 Any squad/vehicle/team

With individual Squads receiving their own Shock Points but only having CC and PC's represented on the Battlefield it will probably lead to more Shock Points (more Squads and men) but less Command Initiatives available (only CC and PC's)

Could this be solved by having Squad Leaders represented too. Not in an activating capacity as in the Platoon Level Game but just in a Morale Rallying Capacity. Junior Squad Leaders might retain their 2 Initiatives to help counter the greater amount of Shock that will inevitably arise from having much more troops on the table.

This may be the case with individual Squads being suppressed and pinned also. Or have you given any thought on how fire will be worked with the Company Level Game? Would it remain as in regular CoC?

But if it was kept intact the area of Morale Force and Suppression and Pinned status's would need to be looked at. Do you see individual Squads being suppressed as with Regular CoC? Again if so then I think individual Squad Leaders would need to be represented.

Anyway I don't know if I'm reading that right…maybe I'm missing something and you have a different approach in mind?

Anyway that's probably enough for you to stew on for a while :)

All the Best

John

Holy crap,John! New rule: you can only post one reply at a time ;) On a side note, I found myself leading a young Princess and a miniature Ninja around the neighborhood last night. Alright, gettin' down to business…

Problem/Solution #1: Sounds perfect.

"But as discussed I do really like the roll against shock."
I agree, and it shouldn't mess with the CoC command roll dynamic. I do believe solidly in the idea that the player makes the decision to use a command dice on the unit with shock, then makes the shock roll, and if the shock roll fails, that command dice is 'dead,' i.e., the player doesn't get to use it to activate/attempt to activate another unit.

"Question 1: Can the Junior leader attached to 1st Squad automatically activate (on the 3) remove the 2 Shock with his Initiative and then activate the Squad automatically."
My leaders are heroic, and never feel the effects of shock (that's for the lesser mortals they are commanding), so I personally would play it as the leader activates and can remove shock. To my mind, that's his job and that's what he's there for in game terms. Still have to test on remaining shock. A counter would be, he has to take a shock test, but with his leader modifier, though I would stick with the first one.

"

Problem/Solution #2: Right now I have two rolls, one for hit, one for effect: to hit= foll number of D6 equivalent to firepower (almost exactly the same as CoC's FP) Open 4+, Lt Obstructed View 5+, Hvy Obstructed View 6.

For each hit, roll 1D6, with 1 always=no effect, Open 2-3 1 shock, 4+ 1 kill; Lt cover 2-4 1 shock, 5+ 1 kill; Hvy cover 2-5 1 shock, 6 1 kill.

The numbers should work, but using half-squad/section team's and CoC amounts of FP (rifle is 1, SMG at short range is 3, LMG is 5, etc…) against another half-squad/section team, even in heavy cover, is getting too many kills.

I agree with (what I think is) your solution: keep the 'to hit' roll the same, then bump the result roll score up one, so that to get a kill in the open is 5+, lt cover is 6, and troops in hvy cover can't be killed (though shock will still be added from 2 to the number to kill).

"I'm concerned that firefights may become a little contrived or lose something of their drama with that kind of hit predictability…" I'm not as worried about this because it's not one roll, but two (to hit, then for result). So, to me, it makes sense that the resulting shock/kills is a result of the amount of accurate fire the firer placed on target.

"Doesn't seem realistic that no one is in mortal danger with all these bullets flying around." I agree, which is why I'm not all that comfortable with the idea (above) that troops in heavy cover can't get killed by fire, but I don't like adding a third die roll, or another rule to remember (i.e., 2 shock or double sixes, etc…, causes a kill). That's why I was also giving some thought to using a D10 system, to have some more 'room' (higher chance of getting shock, with a very slim chance of getting a kill, not possible with the D6).

Problem/Solution #3: Simple and effective, perfect.

"What modifiers apart from leadership would be applied…probably best not to over complicate this any further…"
I agree. You could throw in a million different modifiers to make it more 'realistic,' but you're just adding more things to look up and calculate. I think the leadership modifier does the job.

"…how would you deal with indirect fire?"
This is always tough, in my opinion. Actually, I think the mortars are relatively easy, and I treat them as primarily suppression-type weapons. Off-table arty is always more difficult in my opinion; I just don't see a reasonable way to make it realistic in tabletop games at squad/platoon/company level.

First you have to deal with how to call it and mark targets, is it pre-registered, is it on-call, what's the skill level of the caller (PC or dedicated FO?), how is communicated, how are corrections made, where does the first salvo land.

Then you have to deal with, how long should the process take to make the call, then receive the fire mission, then make corrections. How many times do you get to do this, how long will it last? How long is a phase in CoC (or a turn in other games), how long do the various methods take, how responsive is the supporting element, etc…

Lastly you have to deal with the magnitude of the event. A battery of arty is probably going to cover a goodly portion of the table in a company-level fight, and for sure would cover the whole table in a platoon level fight.

So, what do you do? Me, in this case, I choose 'playability' over 'realism.' I like a mechanic that allows a player to know he has arty in support, but not how many fire missions he will have. I like the call for fire to have about a 50-50 chance of getting through (and acted on), but for games' sake, if it does it happens almost immediately. The reason for this is because, in our games, the opponent knows you're calling for fire, and if there's enough of a delay (in game turns) between the call for fire and rounds landing on target, the opponent will simply move out of the kill zone you had to declare. I like the deviation die concept, with positive modifiers for additional rounds to aid in walking the rounds onto target.

The barrage template I use (in company-level games) is approximately 10" by 4," and all units that have any part of their base in the template get hit equally (for example, assign the barrage a firepower of 5D6, which get rolled against every unit in the template). I also like to have some sort of blunder (usually built into the roll to call for fire) element to make it possible for the player to accidentally call in arty on himself. The design is for arty wreak havoc on men and softskins in the open, suppress men in cover, and disrupt (suppress) armor.

So, the short answer is, I keep it very simple and look to use it as an abstracted, but tactically relevant tool for the player. For example, I want to call for fire (and it says I can in the scenario):
-Roll a D10 for the call (1 is arty lands on the closest friendly unit to the observer, 2-5 is nothing happens, and 6-10 the call succeeds. Successive calls for fire are -2 to the die roll for each successful call for fire, until you eventually (theoretically, as I've never had it happen) get to a success can only occur on a 10.
-Place a bead on the table as the center point of the barrage.
-Roll for deviation. I generally roll a D12 for direction (clockface) and another dice for distance, with the more skilled the caller, the smaller the dice. So a dedicated FO might use a D6, with the roll adjusting the center of the barrage that many inches; a Company CO rolls a D8, and a PC rolls a D10.
-Lay the template, with the center on the bead, long-ways parallel to your front line. All units with any portion of their base in the template get hit.
-Roll arty firepower (I usually use 5D6 per unit for 105mm, the most common). I use the same roll to hit, roll for effect mechanism.

So, that's how I handle it.

"His potential Initiative Points have even more value now in these critical areas of the battle. With this change more difficult decisions would no doubt be needed with regards to where the Senior Leaders are and what Units to spend the Command Dice on, ; especially when they could very well be wasted on a Unit failing its Shock Test! This of course would be more difficult to insert into a Company Level Game as described below without some kind alteration:"

I dunno, I think it will still work. At first I thought about going with two (multi-figure) bases per squad, but more and more I'm thinking about one base per squad. This would keep a platoon to a relatively even with CoC number. That is to say, a platoon would have 3 rifle bases, a PC, and a weapons team or two (PIAT/Bazooka/PzSchreck, 2"/50mm/60mm mortar, etc…). I actually have Plt Sgt's based up as well, and could use them like that or even plus the rifle squads back up to 2 bases each.

"Could this be solved by having Squad Leaders represented too." I think I'd rather go the route of having Plt Sgts then having squad leaders for the company-level game.

"This may be the case with individual Squads being suppressed and pinned also. Or have you given any thought on how fire will be worked with the Company Level Game? Would it remain as in regular CoC?"

I definitely want to have the ability for individual squads to be pinned/suppressed. I'm still trying to decide on firepower. I've been giving a lot of thought to Crossfire style: a rifle squad is 3 dice, an MG is 5 dice, etc… But now, after we've had these discussions about shock tests, I realize I would lose that with Crossfire style FP.

I suppose I could simply still aggregate the squad's firepower using CoC-level FP, and make it uniform to all nations. I.e., all squads are assumed to 8-12 men with roughly the same FP, say 10 FP dice: roughly 5 for rifles firing and 5 for the LMG with NCO (asst squad ldr) and assistant; the Squad Leader is giving orders, not firing, and a couple rifles are reloading/pulling rear security). SMGs are kinda factored out, unless you want to make it a little more complicated and add extra dice at a certain (close) range. I think it's necessary to keep the FP high (like CoC) in order to keep the level of shock up.

I think FM will still work, pretty much (if not exactly) as written in CoC. When a squad dies, it's just like a team dying in CoC, leaders and vehicles ditto. If you really wanted to get realistic (with regards to how few casualties real units are willing to put up with), I think it would be magic to give squad's 2 bases each and test FM each time a team is eliminated/run off. That would likely walk your FM down from 10 or so to 0 resulting in 'only' 30-40% casualties, rather than the current 60-80% casualties. Whaddaya think about that?!

I still intend on using the Patrol Phase concept, also.

So, I'll see your three long posts and answer with one interminably long post!

Hope all is well, and it's great talking to you about this stuff. I feel I'm on the verge of doing something pretty cool with this company-level idea (to include using the shock test and increased suppression vs kill concepts we're discussing).

V/R,
Jack

I found myself leading a young Princess and a miniature Ninja around the neighborhood last night.

I led (or more accurately was led by…)Iron Man, a lion, a butterfly and a bee, the scariest moment of the night was when dad mistook the butterfly and the bee as a pair of witches; angriest butterfly I've ever seen :)

For each hit, roll 1D6, with 1 always=no effect, Open 2-3 1 shock, 4+ 1 kill

I prefer your interpretation of fire received in open…I think the CoC rules themselves only issue shock on a roll of 4 upwards? (I don't have the rules to hand) But I'm all in favor of making fire in the open as effective as reason allows!

I agree with (what I think is) your solution: keep the 'to hit' roll the same, then bump the result roll score up one, so that to get a kill in the open is 5+, lt cover is 6, and troops in hvy cover can't be killed (though shock will still be added from 2 to the number to kill).

Yep I'm proposing in Heavy Cover replacing that result of 6 which would normally mean a kill but would now give just 2 shock! So I think that's a universal ?

But I think you feel the addition of the second (or third) die roll for kill chances is too much…

"That's why I was also giving some thought to using a D10 system, to have some more 'room' (higher chance of getting shock, with a very slim chance of getting a kill, not possible with the D6).

Now this is where I think our paths may divide

Do you mean a complete switch to d10's in everything?

For some reason (I put it down to some trumatic childhood experience with a bunch of different multi-sided dice) I hate changing dice…but I agree that a d10 or d20 would give a lot more scope for refining a more exact kill calculation . But for me keeping things simple or more elegent would just mean one more die roll (considering that this won't be required all that often.)

I just think a third d6 dice roll every so often (and it wouldn't be every time of course) is simpler than adding a different die for this roll. But I've lots of d10's in lots of colors :)so I might tinker with it.

But I do think its a little more radical solution than a third d6… I've tried it a little today and I found it very straight forward.

My mind begins to melt the moment I start thinking of introducing the d10 into the mix but as I said the advantages of doing so are obvious.

But just so that we're both singing from the same page …I've noticed that you're using a hit system different than CoC and it seems to be more difficult to hit an enemy in cover. The CoC hit system is a base role disregarding cover (modified for distance only) so in your system to kill in hard cover, you're already requiring two consecutive 6 rolls! That I believe is just short of 2.8% chance of a single BA rifle scoring a kill in hard cover!
That's a lot lower than what CoC needs to do the same thing. Just to be clear though; you are still not happy with the kill results even in your modified system? Considering its a base 2.8% with each firepower die if you have an MG and a rifle team firing on a single target say a sniper it has almost a 50% chance of killing him if he's in a building?

By the way I do think I prefer your method of hit calculation…or at least a variant of it. It did seem wrong to me that the hit chances were just based on distance and troop quality and no allowance for cover at all. (i guess they used the second roll for that)

My leaders are heroic, and never feel the effects of shock (that's for the lesser mortals they are commanding), so I personally would play it as the leader activates and can remove shock. To my mind, that's his job and that's what he's there for in game terms. Still have to test on remaining shock.

Yes in total agreement on this…•

A counter would be, he has to take a shock test, but with his leader modifier, though I would stick with the first one.

I have to battle all the time this desire for perceived realism by adding extra detail…I have found that on paper it seems attractive but on execution it just slows things down…so • (that's an agreed negatory just in case you think I'm calling you a troll :)

The indirect fire rules you describe sounds like a great way of dealing with it.

Yeah its great to have someone to chat about these things. Bounce ideas off and be enlightened with all that military wisdom! Hope all is good with you too and be warned I'll get back to you about the rest tomorrow!

All the best

John

OK looks like i've broken the golden rule and you'll be outnumbered again….I'm going for quanity not quality :)

I am slighty confused with how you're working the company level…is it with bases representing whole squads but with the same CoC casualty system?

This of course would be more difficult to insert into a Company Level Game as described below without some kind alteration:"

What I meant by this was if you're having the same CoC morale system effecting individual squads etc which I think is the case here:

I definitely want to have the ability for individual squads to be pinned/suppressed.

…then won't you have a lot more shock points to deal with with way less leader's initiative Points to remove them?

In the original squad based CoC we have 1 platoon, thats say 3 squads with 3 Squad Leaders and a Platoon Commander. Each Squad leader has only 2 initiative points available and the PC 3 Points. That's a total of 9 potential shock points removed between 3 squads in every phase in a Game Turn. Thats 3 points removed per squad per phase. And we'll say an average of just 5 phases per turn (that would be extremely low of course) That's a removal capacity of 15 points of shock every Turn (considering turn is just 5 phases long)

If you still use CoC's without adapting it some how then a Company of 3 platoons each with 3 squads will have assuming the CC has 4 points and the PC's have 3. That's a total of 13 points of shock removal between 9 squads and that's a maximum of .7 points of shock on avg rallied per phase.Using 5 phase avg turn That's a removal capacity of only 3.5 in comparison to 15 points of shock every Turn
Thats what I meant by:

Could this be solved by having Squad Leaders represented too. Not in an activating capacity as in the Platoon Level Game but just in a Morale Rallying Capacity. Junior Squad Leaders might retain their 2 Initiatives to help counter the greater amount of Shock that will inevitably arise from having much more troops on the table.

I'm probably not understanding how you're getting round this but please enlighten me :) Are you substituting individuals with multi based squads? Or is it the same as CoC?

That would likely walk your FM down from 10 or so to 0 resulting in 'only' 30-40% casualties, rather than the current 60-80% casualties

I think even close to 80% seems to be ridiculously high. I'm oviously not I'm an expert but it just would seem wrong to me if the intention is to represent realism. Having that said; is it in the best interest of game playability to decrease the rate?

I'm not sure. I wouldn't like to see my platoon fold too quickly in the context of a closely fought battle where I might have to attack a heavily defended position. Would it discourage aggressive tactics? Would the game always resemble a slow cautious advance turning into an uneventful firefight behind strong defensive positions waiting for armour or artillery to bring some chaos to the enemy…sounds more realistic but again would to mean an entertaining evening I wonder?

Again I don't know if without lots of playtesting could we answer this question…I'm all for aiming for realism myself but if I see that my attempts to recreate that realism begins to destroy my enjoyment then I'm only too willing to compromise. I'm not being paid to do this so God knows I need some kind of incentive :)

Anyway I won't torment you any further Jack :)

Take Care

John

Not your fault regarding breaking the rules; I apologize, I've had some stuff going on and haven't made time to get on here. No games this weekend, AGAIN, but I did get some work done on terrain while watching a football game.

I'm sure you're right regarding not messing with D10s. I like the idea of using them for the increased options, but they can be a pain in the butt if you're constantly swapping between various die types.

"I am slighty confused with how you're working the company level…is it with bases representing whole squads but with the same CoC casualty system?"
Don't worry, I'm really confused. Not everything has been thought out, my good Sir! As previously stated, I've given some thought to a very basic, Crossfire-like system using one base=one squad, squad rolls 3 dice, MG rolls 5 dice, two hits suppresses, three hits eliminates, etc… I think this may be too simple, and so I've been thinking about two bases per squad (rifle group and LMG group), with firepower roughly akin to CoC, casualties marked per base (each base can take 3 or 4 hits), shock accrued per base (using the 'shock test' we discussed elsewhere).

So, I like the latter of the two mechanisms above, but, as you pointed out, it brings up issues of command initiative, specifically regarding shock removal. I need to look up how I based up my Germans and Russkies. I believe I did it with two bases per squad (of course, could just leave one base out and have twice as many forces), and I may have done up squad leaders.

I'm a little worried about going down to that level, a little from the 'how many forces do I have on the table?' aspect, but more so from the 'how do I activate a Squad Leader?' aspect. Maybe a SL can only be activated by using a higher leader's CI? Or without a SL on table, maybe the base can spend a phase rallying itself as an action, which pulls 2 shock?

You could really screw the system up (and I've given this a little thought) with keeping squads as one base, but giving them an aggregated FP score (maybe five or seven dice), and keeping everything else the same. It's still out of whack leader-wise, and you'd have to come up with a score of how many kills a squad (and smaller weapons teams) could take, then try to balance that with the correct number of shock they could take.

Sounds like a lot of work to figure out, when I'd rather go with the Crossfire-style simplicity or with the CoC-style stuff that's already (mostly) figured out and/or translatable to company-level.

"I wouldn't like to see my platoon fold too quickly in the context of a closely fought battle where I might have to attack a heavily defended position. Would it discourage aggressive tactics?"
Don't worry, I'm completely with you on this. Hell, you've seen my batreps, I like drama, action, and I'm not afraid of casualties! I think with the abstraction that comes with one base per squad, you can keep the CoC FM system exactly as it is and justify it under the idea that the squad took several hits and is out of action, not that every single man in the squad was hit. It gets harder to have that same justification if you have two bases per squad, each representing five men, and the base stays in the fight through five hits (i.e., one hit per man).

In any case, I agree, we want the game moving and enjoyable, not a slog through the mud, giving a good feel for what we expect WWII combat and combat leadership to look like and feel. I apologize, I'm a bit woozy under Cold and Flu meds and probably am not the most clear of thought and speech.

V/R,
Jack