"Is It Too Easy To Kill Those In Cover?" Topic

I often imagine that the shooting effectiveness of troops involved in a firefight seems to be too lethal especially against those in decent cover. I don't believe 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. I have felt at times combat descending into mindless die rolling and rather lacking in any kind of meaningful decision making.

Whats your opinion?

yes.

TMP link

Yes.

The old WRG 1950+ rules had it about right, I think.

First round, you can kill, or suppress the troops.

After that, presumably they've gone to ground, and you no longer have much, if any chance to kill them with further direct gun/rifle fire.

Yes, see thread above.

Concur. That is the main fault with Rapid Fire, and where FOW has the edge. Most casualties to veteran infantry in WW2 were caused by indirect fire, mortars or artillery. And even then its the first few rounds that do the killing, the rest if for suppression.

"Rapid Fire, and where FOW has the edge"

Sparks but very different rules systems, with RF being a section = a Company, 1 Tank = 5 etc. (There again I am not a great fan of one tank = a Troop!) The Battlegroup series, another 1:1 places a great emphasis on suppression, but any rule set that uses suppression gets a + especially as it makes the players think of mutual support, defence in depth etc,

Tally Ho!

100% agree with Grey Panda.

Sorry don't know how I missed that thread but it looks like I've a heck of a lot of reading to do :)

It rather depends on the rules, doesn't it?
In Battlefront:WW2 for instance you may be able to suppress troops in cover, but you are very unlikely to eliminate them; you have to get up close and personal while they are suppressed to get rid of them.

The whole concept of establishing a base of fire with automatic weapons to allow other groups (fireteams/squads/etc) to close with and destroy the enemy is lacking in so many sets of rules.

Denying an area to an enemy through a base of fire is also absent in many rules, though a common tactic. You do not want an enemy crossing a street to work around your flank? A base of fire down said street does the job nicely, and I cannot think of a game off the top of my head that allows that.

> A base of fire down said street does the job nicely, and I cannot think of a game off the top of my head that allows that.

Any game with OpFire rules covers that. The ASL boardgame probably does it best – when firing with an MG you can place a fire lane marker which does wonders for discouraging follow on troops running across the street.

Fireball Forward has a similar mechanic for MGs as well.

For making it hard to blast troops out of cover, the IABSM game works. Against good troops they will manage to rally shock from enemy fire away – poor troops will not do so as easily and run away eventually.

If the troops in good cover don't want to be shot it was very hard to get them short of HE support. Suppress and manouver around.

Been playing Crossfire after about a 12 year gap – where we have tried most rules. Amazed at how they model everything I have been moaning about other rules not having – although they are not everyones cuppa I suppose and are lacking in some areas.

Ahh Dynaman, good call on ASL. I had been referring more to miniature rules, but now that you mention it, I do remember ASL's mechanic. Wasn't bad either.

I had not played Fireball Forward, but will check it out.

I suspect the reason most games have a high kill ratio is because gamers want to kill guys/units/whatever. Does anyone want to play a skirmish game in which you have to fire 50+ rounds to get a hit? Game designers like to start with a 50% chance to hit and modify it from there. In combat conditions you should start with a 10-20% chance to hit as a starting point but nobody would want to play that game.

In reference to the above, I was think Squad Leader as well. We used to play it with miniatures and op fire could ruin your whole day.

79thPA,

it does seem to be a gamer thing, where a – because they know where the enemy are (because they are on the table) b – everything converges on a single vehicle/marker and c – ignore any ARC/AORs boundaries to take a shot because I can just see their mudguard over to the right flank of the right hand Squadron and ignore anything to my front because I know there is nothing there and just need to shoot at something!!

Tally Ho!

I suspect the reason most games have a high kill ratio is because gamers want to kill guys/units/whatever

I agree if the fire is against troops in the open but when they're behind heavy bocage for instance it just seems wrong.

I was considering some kind of skill or morale roll that might be required for the engaged unit to activate effectively. It could be modified by leader presence (-2 without leader…maybe +1 for really inspirational ones) or even various weapon firepower modifiers to the roll. BA Rifles -2 MG 0 Heavy MG +1 etc…

Different types of troops requiring higher or lower scores…(FoW skill tests)

ie A squad taking fire from a German MG might be required to make a successful morale test just to function effectively, whether that means returning effective fire or moving position…failing the morale test represents the unit's main prerogative in that moment or phase is simple self preservation no matter what the given order .

These tests for committed troops would be required regardless of their own morale status…pinned/suppressed etc…

Would also promote utilizing reserve troops who would be able to act with greater effectiveness than those pinned down in firefights.

I do like the simple suggestion of after the initial fire the suppressed unit should be almost impossible to eliminate with direct fire alone.

Yes. Most games (maybe all?) seem to be deadly in a WW2 firefight. Consider that 95% of all shots fired in WW2 missed their target. Likely this is because most shooting is 1) unaimed and 2) speculative fire.

I think NUTS or Disposable heroes has it that if a unit is fired at, even if it takes no hits, the unit must make a command/leadership test to be able to do whatejwt you want. Would that kind of simulate what you are after GP?

Great to see my thread on pinning and suppression in games is being used here, brought a tear to my eye…

Maybe too deadly, but we have to get on with the killing so that we can get the game finished up.

Ark3nubis what a great thread that is…I had never seen it…one of the best threads I've seen in ages…•

Most games insist on 50% casualties before you even have to take a morale test, when the professional soldiers will tell you that a unit that's taken 33% losses is utterly combat ineffective.

Any single-based rules system seems to have that problem.

However, I think Flames is modeling things a bit differently. Based on the rules mods for Vietnam, the hit that removes an entire stand of infantry is really more like 1 or maybe 2 guys hit, making that stand combat ineffective due to the wounded. If that's the case, then the "50% losses" for a motivation test are probably right about 30% overall casualties.

Also, I think that the firepower test for infantry dug in to bulletproof cover makes the game about the proper lethality. Gotta hit, and then roll a 6 to hurt the dug-in infantry. It's a 1/18 chance to actually hurt dug-in infantry assuming a 5+ to hit to begin with. 1/36 chance to remove a stand if in cover or outside 16".

Wargame lethality is an issue, but gamers want a result. We should maybe think of a 'casualty' as being a soldier who is unavailable in the very widest possible sense, that is to say wounded, too scared to function, hiding in a cupboard, just plain lost and/or disorientated. The general break test criteria are too difficult. The loss of 10% of a company or battalion is a serious blow. We tried making the company the vehicle for morale tests in Rapid Fire – made for better history, but it did n't make for a better game.

Denying an area to an enemy through a base of fire is also absent in many rules, though a common tactic. You do not want an enemy crossing a street to work around your flank? A base of fire down said street does the job nicely, and I cannot think of a game off the top of my head that allows that.

Face of Battle has a fire lane rule for MGs. Basically a MG unit can cover areas or "lanes" (e.g streets). Units entering or exiting the fire lane are automatically "attacked". This is a different type of attack form an MG unit (the other is burst or single shot, depending on the gun). As well, only belt-fed weapons may initiate a fire lane.

For details and examples of play, go here:

link

Mike

I'm not sure I understand the sentiment, "but wargamers want results," to be honest. In my game Over There (and in all the games that inspired it, like Combat Mission, IABSM and Crossfire), shooting up one or two squads results in the entire enemy force being ground to a halt, outmaneuvered, surrounded and driven from the table.

It does not, however, result in a lot of explicit casualties, and the game runs just as fast as any other. I think it really depends on what kind of results one expects from a battle, not whether one expects results at all.

Define 'Kill'. There is no way all the kills we cause in any period can be actual deaths- not if the historic casualty levels are a guide. I assume that they are 'combat ineffectives, from death, through to wound that takes them out the fight, to walking wounded and those who become just to scared.

FoW has the advantage that direct fire against infantry in hard cover is difficult…not impossible, as it is in WRG 1925-1950 (especially 2nd edition)…but difficult. You have to pin them, maybe whittle them down a little, but if you want to defeat them then it's time for hand grenades and the cold steel.

Rapid Fire: See it, hit it, kill it.

"Most games insist on 50% casualties before you even have to take a morale test, when the professional soldiers will tell you that a unit that's taken 33% losses is utterly combat ineffective."
Amen. Real units could never sustain the sort of casualties we regularly live with on the table top.

"The general break test criteria are too difficult."
Amen. This is one of the very very few problems I have with Chain of Command. My force isn't breaking until I've taken 75% casualties. The converse is, I'd be really @#$%ed if force morale broke after only 15% casualties, though this would be more realistic. Not as in 'the boys have had it today,' but more along the lines of the commander deciding perhaps this isn't the best option, let's pull back and think about this.

I think this goes hand in hand with the lethality issue though. In a lot of our games, one bad decision coupled with some opponent lucky dice rolling and maybe an unfortunate, random event, and you can be down 75% in a hurry.

"…maybe think of a 'casualty' as being a soldier who is unavailable in the very widest possible sense,…"
and
"I assume that they are 'combat ineffectives,…"
I agree with this (my own personal feeling) for company level games and higher, but not for platoon and squad-level fights. To me a guy that is too scared should be taken care of in the morale system (whatever that is, be it shock, etc…), and men detailed to something else (gone for ammo or water, casevac, etc…) should have to be tactical decisions made by the player. I've tried this, but it always bogged down too much with trying to have rules that penalized the player if he didn't do what his real-life counterpart should.

If you want to have to send guys back for ammo, then you have to track ammo, if you want to have guys dedicated to casevac, you have to have meaningful negative consequences for just letting the wounded lay there, then you have to track how fast they can move carrying the wounded, how far they have to go, how long it takes to get back. You have to figure out the wounded guy himself; can you slap a bandage on him and have someone escort him back, or does he have a sucking chest wound that ends up taking four guys to stabilize then hump him back, etc… Like I said, I bogged down…

Back to the question at hand, I use a simple system in my platoon level gaming: troops in open are hit on 4+, roll each hit again needing a 4+ to put someone down, with 2-3 being a shock. Lt obstruction is 5+ to hit, hvy obstruction is 6 to hit, while the fire result is lt cover is 5+ to kill, hvy cover is 6 to kill.

Even that is resulting in too many men going down and not enough shock, to the point that it is a much better option to sit back and fire at enemy troops in hvy cover than to actually close with them in order to eliminate them. One option I'm seeing is to make it where guys in cover can't be killed (they can be hit, but can only receive shock as a result of hits), but that doesn't seem 'fair.' The only other option I've thought of is to go to a D10 (vice the current D6) to give me some more room to maneuver with regards to having a very slight chance to put a man down in lt and hvy cover.

Any ideas?

Also, I really like the firelane, but need to think about potential pitfalls/unintended consequences. This is much better than the usual 'opportunity fire' in my opinion. Putting MGs on opp fire overlooking a linear danger area (such as a road that enemy troops want/need to cross) always results in the MG laying into the first enemy team that tries to cross, then the 10 other enemy teams simply strolling across the road as if nothing happened…

V/R,
Jack

As way above, I think Crossfire covers this nicely.
You can blaze away all day with small arms at infantry
In cover, and get nowhere, you need those mortar/arty rounds
to get long lasting suppressions, and even arty on it's own
Is rarely enough to destroy an infantry position. You need to
Pin them in place, arty them, suppress the position, then
close to, hopefully, overun. I think it's very clever, but then,
I am a massive Crossfire fan.

John

Looking at my last post, writing on my I-phone
Gives it a very pretentious poem lay-out!!
I think I like it!

John

John,

I like it, it's a haiku!

I love Crossfire's simplicity (I am a simple man). I'm a fan too, but I never got it to work right; my opponent and I were always too scared to do something that would cause us to lose the initiative!

V/R,
Jack

Like Jack I loved Crossfire when I first discovered. One of the reasons being that it seem to produce less bloodied type firefights which I initially thought would encourage suppressive fire and then close engagement. But I found that no one wanted to risk losing the initiative and so these fruitless firefights would go on and on, with one side throwing a party when they eventually won a suppression only to lose initiative and the enemy would successfully rally the suppressed unit…soul destroying. I'm not sure if this is a common problem with the game but I can identify with what Just Jack is saying. Probably the game that I believed had most potential but I kept on getting frustrated with the same problems being repeated game after game.

One action that springs to mind about this question of being too easy to kill troops in cover is the Falklands intial action at goverment house. Didn't this fire fight go on for hours without anyone getting killed?

Cover is great but it requires the opposing side to be stressed or poorly trained for it to be effective.

Case in point: in most wargames two sides fight it out in the open at 50 yards, both sides are going to get cut to pieces. Add in cover and the battle takes a lot longer. The reality? At 50 yards I can put a bullet from a carbine into a 2" hole without bracing. At 100 yards I can hit a 4" target without magnification or much bracing. So if all you are showing is your face I can own you at either range.

However if you start shooting at me? If there are other factors? If you are moving in cover? Now all I'm good for is keeping you pinned while my maneuver element flanks you or I move up to about 25 yards and rush your position.

Also a lot of cover is only obscuring. Brick and stone are good but most other building materials are worthless for stopping bullets. At 125 yards I can put a 5.56mm bullet through quarter inch steel plate. Pistol rounds are easily stopped by most building materials but rifle rounds are not. At the same plate a .30 cal WWII carbine round is stopped but rifle rounds will blow through it. I saw a Russian M41 rifle take a steel plate apart with nice entry and exit blossoms of melted steel.

If cover is obscuring but I can see part of you and guess where the rest of you is it's not worth much in the cover department.

Personally I think mobility and initiative are more important than cover, tactically, but some situations demand you move from cover to cover. Cover is good for unit discipline. However it's bad for unit mobility which means that a mobile enemy is eventually going to find you pinned in place and without any cover benefit.

No. In fact some think they are not enough as it takes too many turns to dispatch them.

Corp Commander. Surely the fire and maneover is in effect using cover and short sprints to close with the enemy. I recall a TA trainer saying his problem was getting the newbies to see cover less than 6". Now clearly we cant proably model that on a Wargames table but we should proabbly take in some account of it. In MG a man lying on the ground is a lot less likely to be hit than when standing and running.

You should not in general be able to eliminate troops in any resonable defensive position by firepower alone. If that was the case in the real world there would be no need for the hand grenade and the Bayonet. Nobody carrties that much ammo. To take ground you need the grunts to get close and personal. If you rules do not allow it trhen they are adrift. Thre is a problem with points system games as nobody wants to attack. Most of our games the attacket has to start with approx 3 times more power, be that tanks, artillery or in some cases in part, better quality troops.