James Wright | 26 Mar 2014 2:59 p.m. PST |
My group has been playing a lot of Bolt Action, and while a lot of fun, it feels very "gamey" to me, if that makes sense. I have played a lot of WW2 rule sets, but in this scale, the last set we used was Battleground WW2 (fun, but for our group a bit slow paced, especially with bigger battles) and Field of Battle (waaaay too complex for our group). What I am looking for is a bit more simulation and less gamesmanship, but without a ton of complexity. We are not tournament players, nor particularly competitive. We are very scenario focused. In fact, we do not even like balanced fights and frequently ignore points all together for our BA games, and simply make our own scenarios. It has to be good with 28mm scale, but board size is not an issue (we can go as big as 6 x 12). I was wondering how Chain of Command stacks up? Is it closer to a simulation and does it get away from the 40K feel that our group feels when we play BA. I do not mean this to be a bashing thread at all. We have had a lot of fun with BA, but we are just looking for something a bit more simulation like, again, without being overbearingly complex. |
JimDuncanUK | 26 Mar 2014 3:07 p.m. PST |
Chain of Command is certainly worth a good look, I've watched a few and played a few games with them. They are fun but quite realistic too. Well supported by the Lardies and cohorts of others. link |
The Red Baron | 26 Mar 2014 3:37 p.m. PST |
I'd highly recommend Rules of Engagement, which has a good balance of game/simulation, this game makes mehave to think more tactically than any other game ive played, I find it covers fire & movement, suppression, smoke etc really well at the platoon lvl, its also ideal for scenario's my gaming group are planning to recreate a bunch of WW2 movies, Dirty Dozen, Saving Pvt Ryan etc |
PJ Parent | 26 Mar 2014 3:41 p.m. PST |
Face of Battle – you can complex it up to where yo want it and it's great for scenario games. |
Caesar | 26 Mar 2014 3:50 p.m. PST |
Nuts! is not complicated and is rather elegant in its simplicity as one quality value handles all situations a model will face. It has a built in moral/reaction system that handles firefights very well, providing the illusion of a simulation without a lot of complicated rules or procedures that frequentl get associated with "simulations". That being said it relies on the player to know a bit more about the historical organizational structures of the units and is a scenario based system. It has unusual mechanics that require you to drop some standard ideas about game play. It is not for everybody but the free ruleset Chain Reaction that the compqny offers should give you a sense of the mechanics. |
MajorB | 26 Mar 2014 3:56 p.m. PST |
|
Marshal Mark | 26 Mar 2014 3:57 p.m. PST |
I was wondering how Chain of Command stacks up? Is it closer to a simulation and does it get away from the 40K feel that our group feels when we play BA. Whilst I haven't played BA, I think you'll find the answer to your question is yes, definitely. I have played 40K, and CoC does not feel anything like it. |
Rich Bliss | 26 Mar 2014 4:05 p.m. PST |
What scale of game are you interested in? Do you want to command a squad, a platoon, a company, a battalion? |
nazrat | 26 Mar 2014 4:16 p.m. PST |
If he's looking for a replacement for Bolt Action then he wants it to be platoon based, I would imagine. I would highly recommend CoC, or Battlegroup if you want to put more tanks and stuff on the table. Both sets are fantastic and are hellafun to play. |
Pictors Studio | 26 Mar 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
Try Infinity if you want very well detailed small scale battles. The rules are free at infinitythegame.com It is a sci-fi game but absent the sci-fi elements, which are not integral, it makes a very good (post introduction of the machine gun) modern game. |
Tin Soldier Man | 26 Mar 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
Chain of a Command is just as much fun as Bolt Action but is based in WWII tactics and not 40k. I enjoy Bolt Action, but I saw one review that described CoC as more "grown up". If that makes sense. It also said that if Bolt Action was Chequers, Chain of Command was Chess. More nuanced and subtle but just as much fun. |
Tin Soldier Man | 26 Mar 2014 4:23 p.m. PST |
By the way, why is it when someone asks if game X is good, people here try to push game Y or Z instead? |
(Stolen Name) | 26 Mar 2014 4:50 p.m. PST |
|
Cyclops | 26 Mar 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
Because he asked for options. And any TFL game is worth a look. Though I don't have CoC, I do have IABSM and TTMATB and both are excellent. You can't go wrong with trying Chain Reaction III either. It's the daddy of Nuts! and free to download. If you like it, give Nuts! a try. link |
79thPA | 26 Mar 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
The OP is looking for a replacement for BA, and I read his post as being open ended enough that mentioning rules he may not be familiar with is reasonable. |
liborn | 26 Mar 2014 5:02 p.m. PST |
Look at Disposable Heroes. Great for platoon size games with a couple of vehicles. I tried BA and kept waiting for the drop pods to arrive and unload the terminator reinforcements. I found BA to be rife with gimmicks. You won't find that with DH. |
macconermaoile | 26 Mar 2014 5:03 p.m. PST |
I could not list the amount of WW2 rules I have tried, and not been happy with. At last I have found a set that ticks all the boxes. Chain Of Command. |
nnascati | 26 Mar 2014 5:28 p.m. PST |
How about Crossfire? Really different mechanics and a tactical feel to the action. |
James Wright | 26 Mar 2014 5:42 p.m. PST |
Wow guys, thanks for the responses. I have fun playing BA, but it is fun as a game, not as a wargame depicting WW2 small unit tactics. These responses have been very helpful. I am looking for reinforced platoon level games. So, a platoon backed with a gun or two, MMG and HMG, mortars and some tanks. We like our tanks, so any game that could accommodate a straight tank battle could be cool too. Finally, we like our artillery and air assets, but we like them off board. Thanks again guys. |
45thdiv | 26 Mar 2014 6:25 p.m. PST |
I found the Chain of Command rules being explained by the authors on YouTube. The short segments really are very helpful and gave me a good idea of what the rules were all about. Here is a link to part one. youtu.be/XiT70m6CJO8 Hope this helps. I also like the Battlegroup rules. Matthew |
altfritz | 26 Mar 2014 6:32 p.m. PST |
Another vote for Disposable Heroes. |
Goshawk | 26 Mar 2014 6:48 p.m. PST |
+3 Chain of Command. You can use your Bolt Action minis (well, not arty pieces unless they're used as objectives) and play a deeper, albeit not much more complex game. |
doug redshirt | 26 Mar 2014 8:31 p.m. PST |
Disposable Heroes. Used to play with each player commanding a platoon. Always finished in 2 to 3 hours. Easy to learn and teach. |
Forager | 26 Mar 2014 10:16 p.m. PST |
To be sure, BA is far from perfect, but it gives a fun game and, for me, the pluses outweigh the minuses. I house rule the more gamey parts of BA that I don't care for. Don't bother with points either. Just curious, what parts of BA does your group have a problem with? |
Nick B | 27 Mar 2014 2:17 a.m. PST |
|
Patrick R | 27 Mar 2014 2:53 a.m. PST |
|
jdginaz | 27 Mar 2014 3:05 a.m. PST |
No doubt Chain of Command is the best. |
Thomas Nissvik | 27 Mar 2014 4:09 a.m. PST |
What are we up to now, +5 for Chain of Command. In fact, I played a game last night and wrote a short report. link |
scrivs | 27 Mar 2014 4:57 a.m. PST |
I play both Bolt Action and Chain of Command. While Bolt Action is a fine game system it really does not feel all that World War II and things like artillery pieces on the table in a skirmish game really irk me. I think that you will find Chain of Command less gamey, it's more about doing the thing you need to do with what you have available rather than fine tuning some questionable equipment into a list that is supposed to represent a WWII infantry platoon but very rarely does. This is the inherent downside of rules from manufacturers who also want to sell you figures (c.f. Games Workshop, Battlefront, etc. ). I have many articles for both systems, including plenty of battle reports on my blog, Bolt Action here: link Chain of Command here: link |
peterx | 27 Mar 2014 5:29 a.m. PST |
And another vote for Disposable Heroes. I like the ease of use, and support by Keith and Chal for the game. Very good for a platoon on each side and a few vehicles. Although, we use DH for all armor battles in 20mm or 12mm scale. Try a few games of your top picks and see what your gaming buddies like. |
Karellian Knight | 27 Mar 2014 5:52 a.m. PST |
Definitely Chain of Command, try watching the Too Fat Lardies Youtube videos on how to play it. Ican't link form here (at work) but hopefully some helpful soul will. |
Marshal Mark | 27 Mar 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
You might not get the tank action you want in CoC though. It uses realistic ranges so the table represents an area a few hundred metres across. So not really the sort of ranges for tank action. It's intended for infantry platoon plus a small amount of support – maybe one afv or mg or atg per side. |
MajorB | 27 Mar 2014 11:04 a.m. PST |
So not really the sort of ranges for tank action. It's intended for infantry platoon plus a small amount of support – maybe one afv or mg or atg per side. But it is quite possible to use tanks in CoC, see the TFL videos. |
Steve Wilcox | 27 Mar 2014 12:08 p.m. PST |
Definitely Chain of Command, try watching the Too Fat Lardies Youtube videos on how to play it. Ican't link form here (at work) but hopefully some helpful soul will. Oooh, ooh! I'll be a helpful soul! :) Chain of Command, Part One (posted by 45thdiv up the thread): YouTube link Chain of Command, Part Two: YouTube link Chain of Command, Part Three: YouTube link Chain of Command Four – The Game, Part One: YouTube link Chain of Command Five – The Game, Part Two: YouTube link Chain of Command Six – The Game Ends: YouTube link |
Wolfhag | 28 Mar 2014 10:12 a.m. PST |
James Wright, I spent 3 years in a Marine Rifle Company in the early 1970's and I agree about the "gamey" aspects. Unfortunately they are necessary to make a game playable. However, you can keep your favorite game and maybe just "militarize" it a bit and make some modifications or house rules or change nomenclature/terms. Read some infantry and tank manuals to get an idea of tactics, infantry formations and drills. Infantry men don't just "move" or run around the battlefield like they are in a track meet. They do short rushes from cover to cover, fire and maneuver, high crawl, low crawl, etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of them. They also spend much of their time in cover and hiding. They don't just "shoot". They lay down "Covering Fire", "Suppressive Fire", "Aimed Fire",etc based on orders from the Squad/Team Leaders. They don't just "Defensive Fire" they perform a "Final Protective Fire" coordinating with mortars. Individual rifleman rarely were able to select their target as Squads and Teams were assigned a field of fire or sector they were responsible for and generally fired only when told to by their Squad Leader. Ammo is limited and as a Squad Leader you don't want young inexperienced enlisted guys giving away you position to enemy mortar FO's just because he though he saw a target. A smart enemy will do something to make you open up and then blast you with indirect fire. There is such a thing as "Fire Discipline" but watching games at conventions you'd think otherwise. We play a Platoon level WWII Pacific Island war game where NCO's and Officers aren't just modifiers for die rolls or "activation". They issue orders or perform actions we've taken from manuals, AAR's and books to motivate or increase their Squads effectiveness. Each time they attempt one of these actions they take a "Causality/Sniper Check" because they are exposing themselves more to enemy fire. We try to limit shooting to accomplishing an action like covering for another unit to maneuver or assault. All of the "shooting" that occurs (especially long range small arms fire) in most games I've played just because you are able to spot a target aren't realistic in most cases. Here is a place to start for some real tactics for ideas: depositfiles.com/files/o9l910jcn depositfiles.com/files/n3hbywzhu Wolfhag |
Tin Soldier Man | 28 Mar 2014 5:15 p.m. PST |
"I agree about the "gamey" aspects. Unfortunately they are necessary to make a game playable." Wolfhag, are you serious? |
John Thomas8 | 28 Mar 2014 7:23 p.m. PST |
+whatever number for Chain of Command. Simply excellent. |
Beneath A Lead Mountain | 28 Mar 2014 7:28 p.m. PST |
I play BA and CoC in 15mm. CoC is richer and feels unlike a "40k" style game, but larger games of Bolt Action let me play with tanks too. I prefer Chain of Command and now make my BA forces as close to the true CoC ones as possible. Also consider battlegroup overlord/normandy from what I've heard and read as it has more armour possibilities. I believe CoC will handle Tank battles although i haven't tried them yet, luckily it's well supported and it's only in its infancy. |
custosarmorum | 29 Mar 2014 12:53 p.m. PST |
I am another vote for Chain of Command
brought me back to playing WWII after a hiatus of about a year. Some very interesting concepts but with relatively simple mechanics. And you can't beat the support provided with new army lists available on their website. |
UshCha | 31 Mar 2014 11:34 p.m. PST |
There is us:- link Definitely aimed at tactics and not dice throwing. Rules simple but game is not. Is IGOUGO which is a bit like Squad leader or StarguntII. No points sytem as you are expected to play on a wide variety of terrain and no points system will withstand that. Army lisats we have some but make your own from real lists. Does need you to write a scenario but books are full of them. The buildings are not required use yopur own. They are just space savers (a good vilage needs 10 plus houses to be interesting). |
Wolfhag | 20 Apr 2014 12:19 p.m. PST |
Tin Soldier Man, I am serious you need to use Gamey things like dice and charts and abstracted rules rather that going to the shooting range to engage in marksmanship contests or a Mixed Martial Arts beat down for close combat. More realism = more complexity so only gamey solutions can overcome the complexity. As I said some of the gamey aspects can at least have military type nomenclature or tactics attached to it. It's pretty hard to recreate a real battle when opponents know your OOB, how many and what units/points, all figures are on the board, etc. Real battles are many times an unfair contest with one side being outnumbered, ambushed, out classed, etc. A "Balanced Scenario" is gamey but who wants to spend the better part of a day getting your ass kicked with the only choice is to run and die? If you want to eliminate some gamey aspects do this: When one of your figures is wounded the opposing player gets to taser you in the stomach or chest. When one is KIA he tasers you in the groin. Play this at a convention and you'll have the biggest crowd and no matter what rule set you are using the onlookers will agree it's the most realistic war game they've ever seen. I've been on this forum for over a year and there appears to be very little consensus as to the best rules set for period or scale. That's not a bad thing. We're all striving for that "Holy Grail" of a balance of playability and realism. Main thing is have fun and friends to play with and share the experience. Fortunately we have lots of good choices. Wolfhag |
Andy ONeill | 21 Apr 2014 7:25 a.m. PST |
That's a different definition of gamey than I would usually expect. To me mechanics are gamey if they're not giving (in game )results similar to the end result of the engagement being "simulated". You don't need to have things explicitly described for them to be factored in. An elite force is assumed to do elite stuff. The player need not specify they're making each round count or whatever. They get a plus of some sort because they do elite stuff. They're more dynamic and hence "activated" more often, recover from surprise better. They're a buzz saw you don't want to meet on equal footing. That militia force is not well trained. It doesn't matter if a delta operative plays them, they still are assumed to spray and pray, don't clean their weapons and don't have western "luxuries" like spectacles. That is represented by some sort of minus. They are brittle, they may panic if surprised, they are bad at shooting, they get activated less. Plus of course the game is simulating you as a CO. Not you as a C.O. and as each of your men. |
kevanG | 21 Apr 2014 1:03 p.m. PST |
'More realism = more complexity' and 3 = 2. |
UshCha | 21 Apr 2014 1:22 p.m. PST |
'More realism = more complexity' Not sure that is entirely true. A lot depends on the parameters you chose to model and why. many rules are complex because the rules are wrong. One game made players role for morale for tanks near infantry as they were in danger. Thats rubbish in my mind. If tanks are near enemy in close terrain they should be fearfull for a reason. They will be eliminated. Players in our games know not to go too close to infantry without a role. Exit loads of rules. A number of serving warriors consider wargamers are far too range obsesed. Answer reduce range bands. In a simulation where tactics is the aim of the simulation it may be argued that an error in range/hit rate may not be critical to the outcome, as the error may be the same for both and hence to some extent cancel out and hence be adequate for the purpose of the model. |
Last Hussar | 23 Apr 2014 1:37 p.m. PST |
So troops put in a dangerous situation DO NOT react badly because although they will all die, they know the CO will learn not to do it next time? |
Zelekendel | 29 Jul 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
"If you want to eliminate some gamey aspects do this: When one of your figures is wounded the opposing player gets to taser you in the stomach or chest. When one is KIA he tasers you in the groin. Play this at a convention and you'll have the biggest crowd and no matter what rule set you are using the onlookers will agree it's the most realistic war game they've ever seen." So am I to understand that when units suffered casualties, their COs got punched in the gut or kicked in the nuts for it? |
Just Jack | 29 Jul 2014 8:19 p.m. PST |
"So am I to understand that when units suffered casualties, their COs got punched in the gut or kicked in the nuts for it?" Sometimes ;) For what it's worth, I agree with Wolfhag, more realism=more complexity. For example, a lot of games use random events as a game mechanism to simplify and speed up the process of what's being simulated on the battlefield. I'd say that in real life, 99.9% of those 'random' events are not random at all, they are the result of something a commander or troopie did or didn't do. But, as gamers, we don't want to try to work out the the individual decisions of each of the 1200 men on our tabletop, plus the myriad of different environmental factors (stress, hunger, sleep deprivation, weather, enemy fire, etc…), so game designers came up with a smoother way to have this happen on the tabletop, i.e., roll a D10 at the end of each turn, if you roll a '1' then pull a card with a random event on it. I will agree that very simple game mechanics can give very realistic end results by abstracting out all the various calculations that otherwise would have been made, and so possibly this is simply a misunderstanding due to a semantic issue. I am certainly in the 'simple' approach to rules, throwing out all but a very few 'necessary' (in my opinion) calculations, AKA die rolls with a few modifiers. "You don't need to have things explicitly described for them to be factored in." If you want to be 100% realistic you do. If you're okay with taking a hit in realism to give what you believe to be realistic results than you can use game mechanics to abstract those things out. "Plus of course the game is simulating you as a CO. Not you as a C.O. and as each of your men." I agree, but I don't believe that was what Wolfhag is getting at, and is actually part of the point of simulation vs. game. In a game you give an order to an element and they do what you said, or maybe you have an activation mechanic that perhaps doesn't allow you to everything that you want to do. Again, this could give a perfectly realistic outcome, but to be a simulation you would have to carry out the whole orders issuing process (runner, radio, signal), determine if it was received (to include all the things that go into keeping it from being received), then when it's received, you'd have to figure out if the guy receiving it understood it correctly, ignored it, decided to do something else, couldn't get his men moving (and all the factors that go into making them want to move or not move). You can see how this wouldn't be a lot of fun. So we create game mechanisms which handle this quickly and simply. Directly to the point, I agree with the player being the CO and not making decisions for each troop on the board. The point is that because the player can't make a decision for each troop on the board, you'd again have to have a ridiculously complex series of calculations to determine each troop's mental state, training, capability, and all the environmental factors on the battlefield to determine what HE decides to do, then do that for every single man on the board. In some cases the US military uses simulation software that actually does what I just described. "One game made players role for morale for tanks near infantry as they were in danger." I agree with this conceptually, though I wouldn't call it morale, I'd call it 'willingness to do something stupid/follow orders.' Again, you could make the case that a very complex series of calculations would have to made to determine what the tank commander decides based on what orders his received and his assessment of the local tactical situation. It's easier to have a 'morale roll.' This gets to another issue though, which again would require a tremendous amount of calculations, and I don't think it really can be simplified, which is why I personally haven't yet seen it in any set of WWII to present rules (though the beauty of TMP is that, if such a set of rules exists, someone will be along shortly to point me in the right direction). The issue, given our previous description of the player as Commander, is that, at least since WWII, commanders do not give the types of orders we give as wargamers, i.e., this tank is going to move to that spot, pivot to the right, and fire at that enemy tank. In real life, commanders give 'commanders intent' and 'mission-type orders,' such as 'my intent is that we invest the town of Smithville by 1600 tomorrow afternoon, by-passing and neutralizing enemy forces on Hill 450. Our supports and attachments/detachments are as follows…" This gets turned into "Arty will be in support of 1st Battalion performing an economy of force mission to to isolate Hill 450, and will be in position not later than 1200 tomorrow. 2nd Battalion, with attached tanks, will cross the LOD at 1200 tomorrow, with priority fires in support. 3rd Battalion will occupy supporting positions in vicinity of XY123456 as Regimental reserve." So, as the player/commander, you're job is finished until tomorrow, with your only real role to be harassing your battalion commanders for SITREPS, threatening them when they are behind schedule, and deciding if, when, and where to commit 3rd Battalion. Also, if things are going really bad and you've already committed the reserve, you can go about changing unit missions/priorities, but this is generally bad for business and very difficult to pull of once the battle is joined. For example, the enemy on Hill 450 is larger and more aggressive than anticipated, turning out to be more than 1st Bn can handle and seriously threatening your flank. You could switch arty priority back to 1st Bn, but then your shooting a huge hole in 2nd Bn's plan of attack right as they need it to help dislodge the enemy from Smithville. If it's real bad, you could scrub the assault on Smithville (and receive your kick in the nuts from the Division Commanding General) and order 2nd Bn to pull back under fire, swing 180 degrees, and attack into the flank of Hill 450 in support of 1st Bn. Good luck in real life, but all too easy in our wargames, because we use game mechanics rather than real calculations, which should take into account just how hard it is to do in real life. I agree that we could come up with a game mechanic to smooth things over and give us a dynamic in which it's almost impossible to turn an engaged battalion around and attack in a different direction. I can't figure out how to have a game mechanic which simulates the decision-making process of everyone I'm giving orders to: 3 battalion commanders to twelve company commanders to 36 platoon commanders to 108 squad leaders, to (in USMC parlance) 324 fireteam leaders (and this does not include attachments/direct support), each of whom is seeing the tactical situation through a different set of eyes, from a different location, and may have understood his orders in a different way than intended. An example of what I'm talking about is the classic cavalry scout unit patrolling ahead of the main body in a northerly direction towards the main objective. As the commander you've done a good job outlining the overall situation to your subordinates, so that cav scout commander knows there's a river to the east, and, though it's not our unit's mission to force a crossing, it is in our military's vital interest to capture a bridge over that river. Our cav scout is trained to be aggressive and exercise tremendous initiative in the prosecution of his duties. So, miles ahead of the main body, out of comms, he comes to a fork with roads leading north and east. To the north is nothing but open road, to the east an undefended bridge. His original mission is to eat up as much ground to the north as possible, keeping the enemy on the run, halting when he meets organized resistance. But he also knows his army needs a bridge over the river, and there's one ripe for the taking. What does he do? Does he press ahead with his mission to the north, does he lunge east and grab the bridge? Does he split his force and do both? Is he unsure of himself and decides to call a halt until comms can be made with the main body (giving the enemy the chance to get organized in the north and blow the bridge to the east)? In our games the cav scout does… whatever the player chooses to do. In real life the cav scout leader does whatever he chooses to do, and there are a million different factors that go into him making that decision. Sure, you could roll a D8 and say '1-2 he does this, 3-4 he does that,' etc…, except in real life that cav scout leader might do something I haven't even thought of because, as the player, I'm unaware of some aspect of his personality or some environmental factor that 1) made him think a certain way, and 2) act on it. There exists simulation software that does all that, but I don't know how to do it without that software (nor would I want to play it, it's too much like real life!). Maybe a random event thrown in somewhere? ;) V/R, Jack |
Last Hussar | 31 Jul 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
Looking for less "gamey" WW2 ruleset Change your opponent. Also behave yourself. Rules are the physics of the game. Just because you can run your officer towards the enemy throwing hand-grenades, and his death has no effect, doesn't mean you should. |
Wolfhag | 03 Aug 2014 6:17 p.m. PST |
I'm just going to address tactics at the Platoon level. During infantry tactics training you drill actions to perform in certain circumstances. A well trained unit will normally perform with little leadership, activation or orders needed. A combat veteran unit will perform almost automatically. A Green or untrained unit will hesitate and maybe even freeze. Our small arms segments are somewhat simultaneous. With our rules when fired on you get to "react" right away by sprinting to cover (higher chance of causalities), hitting the deck and returning fire or hitting the deck and not returning fire (best way to avoid causalities). It's the players choice so we have a built in "self-suppression" rule. Our rules are built around gaining firepower superiority to keep the enemy heads down while you maneuver. As a target you can choose to fire back and expose yourself or seek full cover out of LOS and not return fire but be safe from small arms fire. It's driven more by the players decisions, not die rolls. Kind of a risk – reward decision. Lets take a Platoon moving into contact with the enemy. You'll have two squads up and one back and occupy a frontage of about 100 yards. The Platoon CP with radio will be with the squad in reserve. If fired upon most likely all squads/fire teams are going to hit the deck as you are unsure exactly where the fire is coming from or if you are next. It's pretty much an automatic self-preservation reaction, no order, activation or suppression check needed. So you basically have an automatic suppression and if they are upright and advancing the enemy will have no more than 1-2 seconds to fire at exposed targets before they hit the deck. It can be deadly at close flanking fire but not so deadly frontal over 100 yards as there should be 3-4 yards between members of the squad. In most terrain there is going to be enough cover and depressions (dead zone) to keep a prone infantryman out of the line of most direct small arms or aimed fire. I call this being in an "Improved Position". It's an infantryman taking advantage of available cover. Normally once you hit the deck you immediately return fire, even if you don't see a target. The unengaged Squad/Team automatically becomes your maneuver element because that's how you've been trained and drilled. It may be led by the Platoon Leader or the Squad Leader so there is enough command initiative to get the job done. There is no "activation", order, etc needed. A trained and experienced unit does this automatically. Green and untrained units may freeze or take longer. You want to gain firepower superiority ASAP – that's what a small arms engagement is all about. If you put out an unexpected larger quantity of fire than the enemy he may think they are out gunned and slacken their fire. At that point you've won firepower superiority and gained the initiative to maneuver more safely. Also when firing your morale is kept up. The morale killer is taking rounds and not being able to see a target or shoot back or being flanked and the unknown if friendlies are supporting your flanks or not. It's generally better to lay down suppressive/covering fire than to just sit there. Your Squad Leader is the one who will direct the Fire Teams fire and ensure the enemy area is covered. My feeling is that Squad Leaders don't need to be "activated". The initial stages of gaining firepower superiority is where semi-automatic weapons like M1 Garand are better than bolt action. Putting out sustained fire of 6-7 rounds a minute makes semi and bolt action about equal. During the same turn the firepower factors of both sides is compared. The losing side takes a causality check or goes into Full Cover to avoid causalities – the player can choose. Both sides fire at the same time, then maneuver takes pace. If you try to maneuver without firepower superiority expect causalities. The firepower comparison segment covers causalities and suppression so no suppression checks needed. Also when in Full Cover your observation and spotting is limited and you can only react to an assault or being surprised. It's a tradeoff for staying safe. Generally if you take fire from a position over 100 yards away it may be best to hunker down and wait for a mortar fire mission or a mobile gun to come to your aid. We don't use a lot of range bands as small arms fire over 200 yards against enemy in Improved Positions or Full Cover is going to be pretty ineffective (automatic weapons are of course more effective and longer ranged). You don't want to fire and maneuver in the open over 100 yards of exposed terrain against enemy automatic small arms fire. Being in an Improved Position allows you to return fire while taking advantage of available cover but you can also be hit by small arms fire. Being in an Improved Position and not returning fire we call "Full Cover" and you cannot be hit by direct small arms fire. This can be voluntary or as a result of enemy fire. This rule prevents unrealistic long range small arms engagements from being lethal and enables more maneuver. It's not realistic to engage in a long range firefight and expect to do a lot of damage to the enemy. It's normally not worth the ammo being wasted. When over 100 yards from enemy fire and getting pinned down/suppressed you need to think about maneuvering out of the area ASAP. There is a good chance the enemy has that location registered for mortars. I've never been pinned down by automatic small arms fire while being on the receiving end of a registered mortar barrage and hope I never am. While in Full Cover we do allow popping smoke and crawling movement to the rear so you can somewhat safely disengage when fired on. To keep it simple we've done away with morale checks unless being outflanked or surprised. The player has more control over firing or being safe. We feel it's simpler than making a lot of die rolls to see what happens. We don't reward long range small arms fire with causalities so it is generally avoided. This makes turns quicker and you don't have players searching the board to take a pot shot at long odds just because he can. This forces players to use maneuver and combined arms suppressive fire. Rather than single personnel units performing aimed fire at selected enemy targets (rarely happens in combat) we use an abstracted firepower comparison modified by troop experience. Once you lose firepower superiority it's hard to regain it unless you get reinforcements or additional automatic weapons fire. Short range, flanking fire and ambushes are the best way to effect small arms causalities. Some people feel we give too much player control to the units. However, it does give a better feel of being a squad or platoon leader and with less die rolls plays quicker. Wolfhag |
Just Jack | 04 Aug 2014 7:47 p.m. PST |
Wolfhag, First, let me say I apologize! Seeing you on this thread reminded me that at one point we were having a very interesting conversation on another thread (I don't recall which) about regimental or divisional-sized gaming. Again, I sincerely apologize for going AWOL on that. Regarding these rules, they sound fantastic. It's very interesting chatting with you on TMP about game design; no one is looking for an 'echo chamber,' but certainly you and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, no doubt brought about by our common 'upbringing.' In any case, how does one get hands on the above-mentioned rules? I'd be very interested in giving them a gander and (someday) getting them on the table. I say someday because the wife and I had our third baby in mid-June and I haven't gotten much of anything done with regards to gaming. I love the focus on small unit leadership and decision-based morale system. Very interesting stuff. V/R, Jack |