"Looking for less "gamey" WW2 ruleset" Topic

Jack,
Don't worry about the other thread. I'm working to finish rules for a tank-tank game I'm running at Pacificon at the end of the month. Congratulations on your new Fire Team member. My son just celebrated his 21st birthday at 29 Palms.

I'm using this as a basis for a suppression/causality formula:
PDF link

Field research carried out in the Second World War provided a useful metric for small arms suppression, as did some more recent analysis. We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed. That seems quite achievable.

I shoot an M1 Garand in a CMP 200 yard match and while in the target butts I can experience 100 rounds of 30-06 (10 shooters firing 10 rounds each) passing over my head and 12 yards to my right and left in about 30 seconds so I have an idea of this. So with the above formula a Fire Team of 5 members being exposed to that would take approx 20 rounds each in 30 seconds or about 2/3 round/second. Throw in two BAR's firing off a mag of 20 rounds each and that's up to 140 rounds bringing it up to about 1 round per second per member in the 5 man target team. That would make you want to keep your head down for sure. To keep him suppressed according to the formula you'd need a sustained fire of about 50 rounds per 30 seconds. Assuming you have a Team maneuvering to grenade range or flank assault you wouldn't need to keep it up very long before the enemy is dead or withdraws. That's pretty much the basis of my rules which are a WIP right now.

I'm rating firepower for Full ROF (maximum of one clip or magazine and 60 rounds for MG's), Sustained ROF (about 1 round/turn and 15 rounds/turn for MG's) and Harassing Fire (about 1/3 of sustained fire) based on weapon type and we are using 10 second turns. Target postures are Exposed, Improved Position and Full Cover. In Full Cover you can only perform Harassing Fire but are less exposed so less chance of a causality. To determine causalities I'm working on a chart that would index # of rounds fired against the number of targets. So the "formula" I'm trying out would be Firepower (number of rounds) divided by the number of targets. Anything >= 10 will force the target into Full Cover or take additional causality checks by choosing to stay exposed and fire back. Maybe vary the number +/- based on the targets experience/training. After I get everything worked out I'll simplify it. I'm looking at using 10 rounds = 1 unit of firepower to simplify ammo expenditure.

For Leadership we let Squad Leaders and Officers issue "orders" and perform "actions" just like they would during a firefight rather than a generic modifier. So "Set Fields of Fire" would improve firepower effectiveness. "Give'em Hell Boys" would increase ROF. However, each time a Squad Leader or Officer performs one of these actions or orders he takes a causality check with a 5-10% chance of getting hit each time. Use them wisely. Second LT's get hit twice as often, just like in real life (I never liked 2nd LT's).

Give me your contact info and I can send you a copy.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Great googly-moogly! I said math wasn't my strong point (amongst a lot of other things)! I'm joking, I know you said you had (or were working on) simplifyiing the mechanisms, so it's actually pretty cool to see the thinking that goes behind them.

I love the concepts, and can't wait to see how you going pulling that off in a set of rules. Very cool stuff, I'd love to take a look. I'm at bigjackmac AT hotmail DOT com.

And why limit yourself to 2nd Lieutenants? I personally had more problems with the mid-grades, say Captain and Major. It seemed lower than that and most of them didn't mind listening to what you had to say, and higher than that only sought you out if they wanted your honest assessment. Mostly…

Take care man.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
My goal with this is to use military terminology, techniques and tactics to reduce the "gamey" aspects. None of these are my ideas and I've come across a lot of good stuff and manuals doing research that can help quantify outcomes in a game. For example, lets say your guys are pinned down in Full Cover and you want to get them moving. Rather than a "gamey" Morale Check have a Squad Leader or Officer issue a "Follow Me" or "Get your ass moving" order. This display of leadership exposes him to enemy fire so he takes a causality check. If he survives his men are motivated by his display of leadership in the teeth of enemy fire and follow him. If he gets nailed they decide to play it safe and stay where they are. Leaders generally can only be hit when they "lead from the front" issuing orders or actions so can't be picked off by your opponent unless it's a Sniper shot. When Captains and Majors need to come down to the Platoon level to lead they will be exposing themselves more to enemy fire so will take higher causalities. It's a little bit of role playing for the Leaders. You have some Leaders that get hit the first time and others that defy the odds and can play an important role in keeping things moving.

I've been using these type rules for a Marine Company level WWII game in the Pacific that suits squad tactics, fire and maneuver against a fortified position and small unit leadership. The basic unit is a Fire Team (2-3 per squad) plus Assault Engineer Teams with flamethrowers and demo charges and other assorted goodies. Each Platoon has an LT, Platoon Sergeant and three Squad Leaders that can use leadership orders. I'll get my notes out to you soon.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

I'm with Jack in his enthusiasm re: your ruleset. Even 40 years ago I recall being interested in suppression, proper 4F tactics, and the role of C-and-C in my wargames and miniatures efforts, as opposed to the less "realistic" tropes that seem to continue into modern wargame designs. If it wasn't too much trouble, I'd also love to review your current rules and thinking. daveyjj at me dot com. That would be appreciated and I'm willing to send along feedback. I'm also a designer of 25 years so if you need them eventually typeset, I'd be happy to do so.

David

Wolfhag,

They sound awesome, I really like the concepts, and I appreciate you offering to send them. It just so happens that I've got some guys already prepped for this, so long as basing isn't an issue. Will these work?

The full USMC force, in all its dungaree wearing, leggings over boondockers, and brown-side out helmet covers. Chock full of BARs, Garands, M-1 Carbines, 'Grease Guns,' Tommy Guns,' mortars, bazookas, and, a Marine's best friend, flamethrowers. These are all Minifigs 10mm.

Closeup.

Gotta have flamethrowers. The only thing I don't have are Wpns Plt 60mm mortars (Minifigs doesn't make them, only Wpns Company 81s).

Japanese too. All the leaders are individually based.

Will they work? You can see more pics at:
link

I hope they work as I really don't want to re-base. I'm sure I'll be able to figure something out if they're supposed to be individually based. Or put in an order for new toys ;)

What scale have you/do you play in, and any pics? And what battles have you been playing?

V/R,
Jack

I tried BA recently and other than the models, it seemed like a game of 40K to me. The casualties were terrible for infantry and all that was left at the end were a few German tanks and a field gun. Troops seemed to survive as long as they were held in reserve and to win you just seemed to have to know how to best work the rules to your advantage.(which one player did). Didn't seem very tactical to me. I may give it another try later on once I forget how irritated I was from turn 2 onward. I have played Arc of Fire and enjoyed it as a quick skirmish ww2. Crossfire is another.

Jack,
Your figures are great and can be used. With four man Fire Teams that would be the 1944 Rifle Company TOE with three Teams to a Squad. Before 1944 they had two six man teams to a Squad.

Just Jack and DaveyJJ. I'll get a Yahoo E-groups set up and send you an invite to view the files. I'd like another set of eyes on the system and recommendations.

Here are some staged photos of the Tarawa game I've put on at conventions: tinyurl.com/phm69k7
Scroll to the right to see the other pictures.

I created some counters that can be used with the miniatures or board version: tinyurl.com/lg452bf

These are 1/72 scale plastic figures I've painted. I don't have many for the Japs as very few came above ground during the battle. As you can see I'm not a real miniatures guy. Each figure represents a Platoon in the game. The board is pink foam board I've cut and into shape and sanded contours and is composed of four 4x2 foot pieces. I painted some white glue on the surface and then sprinkled sand and flocking on it followed by a spray of water diluted white glue to harden everything up. I wrote to people on Kiribati (Tarawa) to get sand from Red Beach 2 but never heard back from anyone. The palm trees are mounted on a 1 inch metal washer with sculpt clay base. The trunk is 3mm width solder painted brownish white. The solder is great because it can be cut and bent to any shape but holds its position and looks natural and each one is a little different. The palm fronds are clipped from store bough plastic palm trees and attached with hot glue. They are to give the effect from a naval bombardment, not look like a tropical paradise. The fortified positions are sculpt clay on a 1" metal base. The sea wall is built from balsa sticks. The amtracks are pieces of .5" width balsa with a color paper print of the top view of the amtrack and Higgins Boats glued to the balsa and the sides painted to match the top. Easier and cheaper than miniatures and gives the submerged effect.

We play this with four hour strategic turns. Each turn the Marine player activates a Rifle Company and starts attacking enemy defenses. He can continue as long as he has enough weapons, demo charges, grenades and flame throwers. He needs to keep his causalities low too so no stupid attacks. Once the Platoons have stopped their attacks they consolidate their lines. Any openings can be exploited by the Japs. At the start of each Strategic Turn the Rifle Companies get reinforcements and resupply to renew their advance. When playing Regiment and larger games we use charts to determine success for things like assault team movement because it makes for quicker turns, movement into contact, counterattacks. At Regiment and above putting all of the Jap units on the board and trying to do movement is unplayable as it's way too cluttered. Jap units are not normally spotted until they fire. I put a number under palm trees and other terrain features. When a Marine unit moves near it the number indicates the type of defensive position the Marines have run into and combat begins.

When played Tarawa at the conventions we can simulate the landing of the three Marine Regiments on Red Beach 1, 2 and 3. Each figure representing a Marine Rifle Platoon but a Company level game can represent a Rifle Team. Leaders and vehicles are all individuals. Amtracks get hit on the way in and infantry bails and needs to wade in or take cover at the pier meaning they won't be available to fight and will need to be motivated by Leaders. The Marines "discover" Jap defenses when they stumble into them so there are hidden defenses except for the large above ground bunkers. The Jap player responds to Marine assaults and movement by rolling on a chart which will result in a mortar barrage, snipers, local counterattack or a Spider Hole ambush. It's all somewhat abstracted because you can't fit all of the figures into such a small area. The night turns belong to the Japs so the Marines cannot move or attack which was historical. The Japs hit their lines with Infiltration and Probing Attacks which normally result in HTH combat and maybe Banzai Charges which can be repulsed with coordinated Final Protective Fire. If the Japs are successful in creating a gap in the Marine lines the rear areas will be attacked. There is also Naval Gunfire from Destroyers, Air Strikes and Marine mortars which can (and will) result in some friendly fire results. The Marines take causalities as KIA and Walking Wounded. Corpsman give modifiers to the result. The Walking Wounded are evacuated to the Company HQ and in the next Strategic Turn can be sent back to a Platoon as a replacements. This is an attempt to simulate light wounds, heat stroke, injuries, etc and slow a Marine advance without killing off the unit. The Marine player can stop attacking any time he wants which means no more Japanese counterattacks. I've replaced the minutia of individual movement and fire with charts that dictate results and actions. Somewhat "gamey" but the only way I can control outcomes and implement historical tactics and strategy as you can't educate players to do it. Long range small arms fire by the Marines is a waste of time and ammo and will only result in more Jap counterattacks without any advance. That's the biggest outcome I was looking for in the game. When not assaulting all other movement is cautious movement to contact until spotting something or getting shot at. Scout Snipers can be set on recon to thwart ambushes, counter-sniper or assault with a bonus. Only Combat Engineers or Leaders can use explosives. Leaders can perform actions by themselves too if needed.

I try to keep to historical tactics and attack types with the player decisions and charts so there is no moving individual Marines except Leaders which can be attached to any Team/Squad in their command. It's not your normal miniatures skirmish game. As GM I keep all of the charts to myself so I can tweak the outcomes in an attempt to keep the game going, balance it and be fun for the players while ensuring somewhat historical outcomes. It also keeps players from doing something really stupid and not historical. The Marine player tells me what he wants to do. As GM I tell him his options, tactics available and chances of success and as his "Battalion Commander" give him recommendations. They get it after a couple of turns. This system seems to work for an assault based game but wouldn't be good for WWII Europe or Desert. There's more but this post is long enough. Thanks if you got this far.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Glad to hear it's not problem with the multi-based figs; and I'm pretty flexible, no problem for me playing one base as a 4 or 6-man team, a squad, or a platoon. Seeing your figs was great, takes me back to how it all started right? I had those very same Airfix Marines and Japanese; but you need helmet covers on your Marines! ;) I try to at least 'okay' looking figs, but I'm with you: I'm a gamer, not a modeler, so if you look at my blog you'll see spray-painted carpet for hills, and lots of other ugly stuff. Good enough for me. Your board is awesome, gotta have the seawall and pier for any Tarawa fight.

I took a look at your counters, very impressed that you did those yourself, and they and your description above really have me interested in how you pull these mechanics off on the table. I'd love to have something to do the various USMC fights in the central Pacific. I look forward to seeing the Yahoo group, thanks for sharing.

V/R,
Jack

Jack and DaveyJJ,
I sent the invitations out. There are a few documents posted that have to do about suppressive fire. I'd like you to read them. Then lets talk about how they could be applied to a tactical game.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

I joined the Yahoo Group and read the documents this past weekend. I thought the docs were interesting, but nothing earth-shattering, i.e., people being shot at tend to duck ;)

V/R,
Jack