"Units scale for a new fast-play WWII game" Topic

I am thinking of putting my fastplay WWII rules out there on the 'net for everyone to use. They are designed to give a good beer and pretzel game of up to divisional scale at a sitting and a corps-level game that can be finishe at a convention.

Written for the microscales (3mm and 6mm), they are not meant to be realistic but…

1) Quick.
2) Easy.
3) And fun.

Think simplified panzerblitz.

So, anyhow, for years I'Ve been tooling with these and could never decide on unit scale. Platoon seemed too fiddly and company too large.

I am now thinking of abandoning both and going for, roughly, half company units and 500 meters per inch.

What do you all think? Would this be a hideous turn off to most people?

Half companies was what Bruce-rea Taylors 'Korps Commander' used, for infantry anyway.

PB used to fudge the stacking limits for the Germans by adding a few logistics vehicles to the platoons so they were almost half companies anyway.

Depends what your basic manouvre units are really, if they are battalions then half companies are not unreasonable.

Personally I like platoons. you can still "see" the weapons within the units even if they are more generic in name like "MG Platoon" or "Mortar Battery".

Yeah, go with platoons…

Platoons seems more sensible. Often an odd number of rifle platoons in WW2 companies, so half companies are very artificial. As "who asked this joker" points out, also enable better depiction of weapon capability.

Personally I'd like to see companies. If you're running Division-sized games, why not? Armor and infantry companies pretty much always operate as a single unit, the only real issue you run into is support, i.e., weapons companies and anti-tank companies. But if you're going for quick and fun, I don't see why not.

The counter to half-companies is that while it makes sense for your weapons and anti-tank companies, it's not going to make sense for the line companies. They don't really operate in 'halves,' either as a company or as platoons (generally thirds).

Either way I'd like to see and play them ;) I'm just saying I'd like to see a Division-sized game with companies as the stand. Activate battalions as the basic unit (three to four stands)? If you go with half companies, now you've got a pretty big unit (six to eight stands), if you activate companies now you're looking at only two stands. Go with company stands ;)

If you think about it, you're division is going to have nine 'line' battalions plus support. If we're talking about a 'straight' infantry division, let's check it out (generically):
3 rifle and 1 weapons company per battalion
9 Infantry battalions is 36 stands, not including HQs, anti-tank, mortar, etc…, at the battalion and/or regimental level.
Then what are you going to have at Division level? Certainly artillery (probably a regiment?), maybe a tank battalion, a tank destroyer battalion, an engineer battalion, a transport battalion, plus other 'weirdness' like cannon companies or field guns, anti-aircraft and communications units, reconnaissance units, Corps-level supports chopped to you.

Hell, maybe you need to go to battalion stands! If you go platoon stands, multiply everything by about 2.5… That's a lot stands.

Just my two cents.

V/R,
Jack

I agree. Companies for Divisional level games.

Come on, no one else is going to respond? Forgive me, I love to talk about rules, and I'd love to see a quick, easy Division level game, so let's go guys, I know there's plenty of guys in the TMP-sphere that have plenty to offer.

I've got another angle: how about battalions as the base unit (stand). It seems I recall reading something somewhere (probably here on TMP) discussing how many units/stands is optimal for one player to control in a wargame, and it came up with the idea of about 12 per player. This is not to deny megalomania or the fact that certain gamers can do more or less, just that, as a game design mechanism, about twelve seems to work out best. If that's the case, a Division would be in the neighborhood of twelve battalions:

-Three tank or infantry regiments of three battalions each.
-One to three battalions of artillery.
-Maybe a recon battalion, though I must admit this would be better served as three company stands, which bring up another question: can you make a game where a battalion stand is your 'standard' unit, but have company sized stands present as well? If yes, how, just less dice for firepower and less hits to take?
-A couple other support elements, maybe an engineer battalion and an anti-tank battalion. Throw in an HQ or two, and we're in the neighborhood or 12-15. I think that would be cool.

What say you?

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
For years I've been considering using some of DuPuy's work (Understanding War and Attrition) as a basis for a Division level game. On P.154 of "Attrition" he defines an "Action" as a combat encounter with sizes no larger than a battalion and lasting a few hours but no longer than than a day. That would sound about right. I like games with an AM, PM and night turn.

Some ideas:
Each unit has a formation which determines it's attack, defense and movement/exploitation and value in the QJM.

Battalion 1000m frontage on defense, 500m on attack. Width of board should represent 15-30km, you need some space to create gaps without having to wipe out a division. Battalions breaking down into Companies for exploitation, attrition?

Posture: Hasty Attack, Planned Attack, Meeting Engagement, etc modifies values and availability of higher level assets.

Determine "Relative Combat Effectiveness" rather than attack/defense factors and an attrition ratio.

Combat result is an advance rate. Defender can take additional causalities to reduce rate of advance. Attacker increasing losses for better rate of advance. Maybe a ratio of attack/defender losses that players can use to take losses. If it gets too costly for the attacker he calls off the attack.

Terrain would effect engagement ranges negating long range weapon advantages.

There is quite a bit in those books, probably not worthwhile to use everything. You'd have to program a spreadsheet to really crunch the numbers.

These are just some broad ideas. I'm not advocating any specifics just getting the discussion started.

Some other ideas:
Figure a combat ratio of losses for attacker/defender. Have a certain number of phases that players take their losses. Defender can withdraw a certain distance to reduce losses. Attacker can increase losses to increase advance (increasing tempo of operations). Depending on the strength ratio there can be a breakthrough chance after each phase. Each phase the defender can counterattack with reserves or attacker use mobile reserves for a breakthrough. I have other notes on this but they are in storage.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Wow, great stuff! Let's see what I can address here:

"…"Action" as a combat encounter with sizes no larger than a battalion and lasting a few hours but no longer than than a day. That would sound about right. I like games with an AM, PM and night turn."
So, it sounds like Bn as the lowest unit. My only issue here would be, I think you would need more turns. I understand the idea behind AM/PM/night, but it's not a lot of opportunities to use command influence, sort of the complaint about "Spearhead" (by some folks), that there are not enough opportunities to make decisions to influence the game. I'd say at a minimum 4 turns, but maybe 6 four-hour turns?

"Each unit has a formation which determines it's attack, defense and movement/exploitation and value in the QJM.

Battalion 1000m frontage on defense, 500m on attack. Width of board should represent 15-30km, you need some space to create gaps without having to wipe out a division. Battalions breaking down into Companies for exploitation, attrition?"
So, battalions as the smallest unit, go with companies as stands, but they (for the most part don't operated independently, they are only used to show posture/mark the frontage. Keep it real simple: three companies online 'x' inches/cm apart in defense, three companies in wedge for attack, three companies in column for march?

"Posture: Hasty Attack, Planned Attack, Meeting Engagement, etc modifies values and availability of higher level assets."
When you say 'posture,' do you mean scenario or tactical situation? If what you're saying is hasty attack means 'go with what you've got,' then deliberate (planned) attack means you'll have (potentially, at least) Corps/Army-level support options available? I agree.

"Determine "Relative Combat Effectiveness" rather than attack/defense factors and an attrition ratio. Combat result is an advance rate. Defender can take additional causalities to reduce rate of advance. Attacker increasing losses for better rate of advance. Maybe a ratio of attack/defender losses that players can use to take losses. If it gets too costly for the attacker he calls off the attack."
I agree conceptually, my only concern would be that the game becomes too 'formulaic,' i.e., rock-paper-scissors, so that it's too easy to foresee combat outcomes. I'm not saying you want wild swings that don't make sense, I'm just saying I also wouldn't want a player to know beforehand that his battalion will take heavy losses, but it's okay because 'it has one more attrition point than the enemy, so in three turns the objective will be mine.'

The other concern is keeping this (relatively) simple so that you can actually get a game in, say 1 1/2 to 2 hours. I don't know about you, but that's certainly my goal.

Your paragraph on "Some other ideas," is certainly interesting, and in line with your previous thoughts on combat. I'd like to hear more about the mechanics of it; again, cool idea, but how do you do it without becoming bogged down and/or formulaic?

When I read stuff like "Each phase the defender can counterattack with reserves or attacker use mobile reserves for a breakthrough," my thoughts are two-fold: 1. do you have a cool mechanic on how this works, or 2. are we just putting artificial limitations on what the player could probably do during the normal course of a turn? I will, of course, wait to see what you have in mind.

It's awesome that you've clearly given quite a bit of thought to this; I must admit I hadn't thought of it too much until recently. I'd looked at a few higher echelon sets of rules (Spearhead, KISS, Not Quite Mechanized, Panzer Korps), and even looked at modifying a couple sets (BKC, just to move it up in echelon, and Memoir '44, which is already pretty much echelon-agnostic, just to put a bit more meat on the bones).

My thoughts are not nearly as focused or organized as yours, but I appreciate you sharing as I think most wargamers are always looking clever mechanics for command control, combat, and morale.

V/R,
Jack

Zakalwe64,
I know you were looking for something simple. I hope Jack and I are not hijacking your posting. If so we can start our own.

Jack, thanks for the compliments but none of these are my "ideas", they are just different things I've come across in reading, playing war games and doing research. I'm sure many designers are aware of them but felt they were not needed in the design for one reason or another. I'm sure they have their reasons. Using the QJM is out of the question as it's a formula based system only. You asked about artificial limitations? See Friction. The use of Tactical Advantage cards will prevent a player from gaming the system by predicting causality and friction levels. Whenever a Tactical Advantage is played the opponent can respond with one of his. I'm not going to comment on causality ratios or losses for now.

I know you are a rules junkie (like me). I've looked for lots of ways to tweak other designs but it normally runs into a dead end. It's made me respect the work of other designers and publishers because a real effort takes years. Whatever you've thought of they probably have too and had a reason for not using it.

My quest was to come up with a new system for Korsun Pocket, a boardgame by Peoples Wargames (scale 1 mile hex, AM, PM night turns, Battalion w/ Company breakdowns). I wanted to use a system based on real German and Soviet manuals and simulate the differences in their attack methods with more than just a DRM. Also to find a way to use "Friction" as a way of slowly degrading combat efficiency rather than causalities and suppression. Personally I hated games where the opponent searched the board to see if he could find that one unit to get the magic 3-1 attack odds with no respect to historical tactics or strategy. I admit, I've been guilty too.

I wanted to use "Tactical Advantage" cards that are tailored to nationality tactics and strategies. There is no draw limit on the cards. These would easily allow a player with no real historical knowledge to use real life attack/defense techniques at the right time during a game turn. To implement these I'd use 3"x5" cards that a player could lay down that would have a synopsis of the rules, maybe a diagram, how and when to use and outcomes. There would be pre-requisites and limitations for using them based on the units Posture and attack/defense type. There would be counter tactics printed on the card that your opponent could use too. It revolves around a player making a decision with risk/rewards. Lack of decision making and being a spectator die roller are one of the major complaints about games. There is always the chance the opponents response can be more deadly or advantageous than yours. Use wisely.

Some "Tactical Advantage" card examples:
Soviet Infiltration tactics: Infiltrate infantry at night and main attack is in the morning. It would cause "Friction" for the defenders. Rear Area Security could prevent it.

German Spoiling attacks on Soviet assembly areas: Does not need to be enough to cause a lot of causalities but cause Friction. The Soviet player can attack in the same turn with Friction points or wait to clear them and attack in the next turn. Decision, risk/reward. It could upset the time table for the entire division assault. This is normally a small scale surprise attack/raid that can be very abstracted and quick to perform. This means no more sitting idly while your opponent assembles for an attack.

Probing Attacks: German technique of using probing attacks to identify a weak spot for the Schwerpunkt. When playing the card you'd roll a die for the result which could be from "No Effect", additional Friction on defenders or "Find a clear path through defenses" which would increase the "Tactical Advantage" of the attacker. This could tip off the Soviet player who could start moving reserves to the threatened area.

Tactical Air Strikes: I'd like to use them as a response during a turn. When units move they make themselves targets for fighter bombers and tactical air strikes, especially in the open during the day. This is great when the defender decides to move a unit in reserve to counterattack and then gets hit in the open with an air strike. Russian fighters/bombers would fly down roads and attack targets of opportunity, even with cloud layers at a few hundred feet.

Russian Surprise Attack: I'm sure you've read about how the Russian infantry would infiltrate right up to German defenses at night and lay in the frozen snow all night and rise up to attack at close range at dawn. Using this tactic would allow a Russian Infantry unit to attack without a pre-assault artillery barrage and the German cannot use their FPF/Defensive Barrage. However, it may not work if the Germans had Screening/Outposts set up with their Recon or against a Planned Defense posture.

Recon units: I like using Recon units for Screening the front line or outposts, Rear Area security patrols to prevent infiltration or as a reserve for counterattacks. How the Recon units are deployed would stop certain threats but not all. Screening can give advance warning of an attack letting the defender start moving reserves into position. Rear Area Security can prevent infiltration. You can also use them as a Quick Reaction Reserve Force to counterattack. I'm a trained Recon guy and hate seeing recon units used as cannon fodder. Designate its mission at the start of a turn.

Artillery: The Soviets can register their heavy artillery on a hex before an attack (Planned Assault only) but the Germans get to do a counter-battery barrage (depending on Posture). It lets the German know where an attack is coming to deploy reserves or the Soviets can use it to fool them and attack in another sector. The counter-barrage Friction or losses could limit the FFE when the assault starts. More decisions.

Things like that. The idea is to use "Tactical Advantages" to generate the DRM's (what I call Tactical Advantage) or create Friction limiting a player's ability to fight.

When a card for one of these "Tactical Advantages" are played by a player the card also designates the defenders response, requirements and any post-requirements. This has the potential of creating an interactive turn rather than IGOUGO. The attacker has the initiative to attack where and when, the defender is forced to respond. If your opponents attacks bog down because of accumulated Friction he goes over to Hasty Defense and you now have the initiative to attack, if you have the reserves available and logistical support.

Friction: I like the idea of Friction as a way to show the FOW and degrading of combat efficiency rather than causalities or suppression. I'm trying to set up a system where an attack can suffer a certain level of Friction until the attacks stalls and is called off. If the defenders hit their Friction Level during an attack it can mean the attacker has achieved a breakthrough and counterattacks cease. The attacker can then move reserves through the gap to exploit with minimal interference. Historically pre-assault bombardments did not normally cause a high level of causalities but did "suppress" defenders, I'll call that an additional friction level rather than causing causalities or suppression. Friction simulates the loss of Command and Control, suppression, fatigue, variable things going wrong, etc. Friction can be a replacement for attrition based combat that in most games is too bloody. Flipping a counter to its half strength side is 50% causalities, it's an all of nothing thing I don't like. When an attack maxes out it's Friction Point allowance they can stop attacking and go over to a Hasty Defense or withdraw back all the way to their starting line. Rather than having movement points I'm looking at using the Friction Point technique to limit a units ability to fight and maneuver. Friction Points for moving? Yes, to an extent (especially those German Tiger tanks). This would simulate units getting strung out and breaking down while moving into contact. This is why units moved into an Assembly Area near the defender a day or two before an attack to consolidate and be fresh for the assault. How to keep track of Friction Points and at what level has not really been addressed yet. I'm open to ideas. Easier said than done.

SNAFU Cards: In an attempt to recreate the FOW and the little things that can go wrong at the worst possible moment here is a suggestion. Each turn each player gets a certain number of SNAFU Cards to play at any time during a turn against his opponent. The number of cards could be based on the difference between troop quality or other advantages. The cards result could be a re-roll for the player, force your opponent to make a re-roll, increase Friction one level, friendly fire when one of his artillery units fire or tactical air attack, unit gets lost and has ½ movement points for turn, etc. You could also have a SNAFU card that negates the one played on you by your opponent. You get the idea. Use your imagination.

Disclaimer: What I've discussed are based on real historical uses of techniques, tactics or strategy to the best of my knowledge. I'm not an expert. There is nothing new here that can't be found elsewhere. I feel using Tactical Advantage cards is the easiest and most playable way to implement them. These are just some ideas and ways to implement them, none of which have been play tested or claimed to work with any other system. You've been warned as they can influence play balance and playability.

S/F,
Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

I sincerely and humbly apologize for not replying sooner, real life has been getting the better of me…

I heartily agree with tweaking other rules; I've had limited success with this at smaller scales (platoon level), but can't seem to make anything work at higher levels. I either end up with something too bogged down because I try to add too many things in (having a hard time doing divisional-level rules without at least a nod to logistics), way too simple (a la Memoir '44, where I can lose the suspension of disbelief due to thinking "that's just a tank shooting at some infantry," i.e., the units not 'feeling' like battalions, still feeling like squads or platoons), or just disjointed (too many disparate concepts tossed together).

Regarding your comments on Korsun Pocket casualties, I think the answer lies in formula of sorts, modified by DRM, something like: for each turn of combat, attacker in 'x' terrain and 'y' posture takes 'z' casualties, modified by a die roll with a heavy chance of taking that amount of a casualties, a small chance of heavier casualties, and an even smaller chance of lighter casualties. I think this could give you attrition without watching casualties step down in a regimented fashion, but also without the shock of wild swings.

Regarding the 3-1 attacker ratio, I agree it's an issue, though I've always liked the TFL concept of blinds to help with this. Helps to enforce actual recon and reserves, but I always end up fighting with the idea of how to represent infantry and armor battalions ('standard' stands) with recon companies ('non-standard' stands) on the table. I'm sure there are simple and elegant ways to do it, I just haven't been able to come up with them. I always end up with some clunky, 'special' mechanisms that don't flow with the way other units are handled in the game.

Along those lines, I've also always had issues with supporting units and reserves on the attack; in real life you can attack in waves and hold units in reserve, set lines of departure and demarcation, etc…, and it all serves its purpose, but in games it always works best to throw everyone into line and have them 'gang up' on the enemy, who's probably doing the right thing by holding some of his own units in reserve, but watching his forces get defeated piecemeal!

Regarding your concepts of Tactical Advantage cards, wow! Suffice to say I think it's a great idea, and, while on its face it looks complicated, I think it could actually make for a much simplified game. I can't really say anything further as you clearly have the concepts down; I'm in no way equipped to further your idea into a workable set of rules though, but I'd love to play them when you get them finished!

A former recon guy, eh? What service? I did ten years in the USMC.

Thanks a bunch for your posts, and again I apologize (and understand if you're no longer monitoring this channel).

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
No problem, glad to see you have a life.

I was in the Marines from 1972-75 as an 0311. I went through a quickie version of Recon training at Onslow Beach for Scout Swimmer, Scout Sniper, rappelling, rubber boat ops, etc with 2nd MarDiv Echo 2/8 at Geiger. We also had a Med Cruise and trained with the Royal Marines and 2nd Para Rgt of the French Foreign Legion on Corsica. I was at Quantico as an aide to a Major when the Marine Command Staff did their Force Landing War Game exercise for the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions invading N. Vietnam. It was pretty cool as they had a basketball gymnasium floor decked out like the D-Day invasion with miniature ships, units and LST's. I think they used Tractics as the rules (only kidding). My son is a Marine Tactical EW Specialist at Camp Pendleton and maxed his PFT. What were your MOS and duty stations?

Back to business. For me a good games comes down to balancing realism, skill and chance. You'll never please everyone. For realism I'm attempting to use real military terminology and nomenclature with the Tactical Advantage cards and unit posture. The info is taken from military manuals. The realism part is what type of action you can perform when using the card along with any pre-requisities and limitations. The chance part is having a CRT type result on the card itself, Friction and the SNAFU cards. The skill part is deciding how much time to spend moving, planning and attacking and what Tactical Advantage cards to use.

Causalities: The QJM has good if not complicated formulas. To prevent wild swings in die rolls I use binomial tables.

Attacking in Waves: Absolutely. I think using the Friction Point system you can have a Regiment with three Battalions attack an enemy Battalion in three waves. Another method would be if you had a Regiment of three Battalions with an AF of 9 attacking one enemy Battalion with a DF of 3 you could have one attack at 3-1 odds, two at 4-3 odds or three at 1-1 odds simulating one, two or three waves. Of course after each wave they can send in reserves. The defending battalion may max its Friction Points after the second attack and have to perform a fighting withdraw (I dislike the "Retreat" result) staying engaged but moving back with the attackers staying in contact and advancing. That would be good for a fluid turn rather than IGOUGO or trying to activate units.

I'll try to explain where I'm at with the posture and Tactical Advantage system. The attacker and defender would have a posture for their division which is its overall deployment and what abilities and Tactical Advantage (Tac Adv) cards it can use (posture like Prepared Defense, Hasty Attack, Mobile Defense, etc). The Tactical Advantage Cards would also have which Postures they can be used with so there are built in limitations. Tactical Advantage cards are actual actions and attacks. A Preliminary Bombardment Tac Adv card would not be used by a Hasty Attack Posture but it could use a Mortar Barrage. The attacker has the initiative and plays his Tac Adv card first and implements the results which can be a die roll on its CRT, Friction Points, movement, die roll for random action, etc. I'm trying to base it on realistic outcomes and examples. On the attacking Tac Adv card it has which Tac Adv cards can be played against it by the defender as a response and that Tac Adv card has what Posture the division must be in to use the card. He could not use a Counter-Attack against a Mortar Barrage be he could use Counter-Battery against it. It's all on the cards, minimum of rules to look up or memorize (ideally). There are built in limitations what an attacker and defender do depending on the division posture and response to an attack. The postures reflect the amount of time for planning and organizing attacks and defenses and limits what actions or Tac Adv cards can be used. More planning equals more options. More time planning means more time for the enemy to respond and maneuver against you.

A division could be in tactical movement posture and move into their assembly area and be 1-2 miles from their attack objective for turn one. Next turn they spend planning and stay in place and go into Hasty Attack posture. Third turn they continue planning and are in Planned Attack posture (their heavy artillery is deployed, ammo staged, etc). The fourth turn they move into contact and attack in Planned Attack posture. After the attacking division moves into their assembly area the defenders could launch a spoiling attack and prevent them from changing postures or force them into a Hasty Defense posture. The CRT on the Spoiling Attack card would have the results of the die roll which could be No Effect, stay in same posture next turn, deploy into Hasty Defense, Spoiling Attack ambushed, etc. However, if the attacking division had their Recon unit on screening it may prevent the spoiling attack. Different results than just attrition. That's the concept anyhow, I'm short on the details and admin for now.

So a player can be confronted with a decision of attacking in Hasty Attack posture this turn against a division in Hasty Defense posture or wait until next turn and be in Prepared Attack posture and have more Tac Adv cards to use that are more powerful. However, the defending division could go into Prepared Defense posture or maybe moved into better defensive terrain the next turn. These are real risk/reward combat command decisions.

S/F,
Wolfhag

Wolf,

Fantastic, Semper Fi! I was in from Jan 95 to Dec 04, got out as a SSgt. I started out as an 0331, then lat-moved to 5711, then lat-moved to 0211. Very familiar with Onslow Beach, started out with A/1/6 then went to C/1/2 before my first lat-move. Floated once while I was there, hit up Albania for the NEO, but not much else. As a 5711 I went to Iwakuni, swinging with the Wing (huge culture change going from Lejeune to Iwakuni!). The only cool thing there was Jakarta in '97, when we (31st MEU and one of the Cali MEUs, I think the 13th) went ashore to separate Sueharto's people from the anti-Suehoarto people. Then I lat-moved again, volunteered to go to Oki (had a great time in Japan), hit Afghanistan attached to some "purple" stuff (i.e., "Joint Assignment," probably didn't use that term when you were in), and went to Iraq with B/1/5 and then K/3/1.

By the end I was worn out; it was real, and it was fun, but it wasn't real fun, so I hopped on out to make my way in this brave new civilian world (still work for DoD). Ten years later and I'm married with a litter of kids, and I'm still alive, so things have worked out! Always good to see another Marine, we're everywhere.

Regarding your concept, it sounds absolutely incredible. As I'm reading I find myself agreeing with everything you're saying, with not much room for me to add anything other than (again), I'd love to play these! With that in mind, I'd love to help in any way I can, and I can see where there would need to be a lot of playtesting done to work out the mechanics/flow/proper amount of cards.

It's probably not fair for me to say this, but it's funny sometimes what folks perceptions or understanding is about why things are done certain ways or how it's really done at all. Again, not a shot at anyone, I certainly don't mean it that way, but it's just funny sometimes. For example, the other day a buddy and me were discussing a combat patrol, so I was describing the differences between an administrative movement and a tactical movement, and then even how a tactical movement does not mean you're 'guns up,' 360 degrees, ready for action, it means you're in a better formation to react 360. But the only time you're at 100% is when you're taking rounds or when you're coming up on an identified danger area (linear danger area, chokepoint, etc…).

I've had folks ask me why we have lines of departure, assembly areas, rally points, etc… I had a guy tell me that it's actually better (as the attacker) to fight IN cities than outside them, and I tried to explain the idea that having 360 security doesn't mean having 360 combat capability, i.e., having Tail-End Charlie watch your backside only warns you someone is behind you, it doesn't take care of the problem, more men then have to repositioned to handle the threat, and that, by definition, means you're weakening you in other places.

If I'm not making sense, ultimately he was trying to argue that any element, from fire team up to Division, was a series of little amoebas capable, at all times, of 360 degree combat power, with equal amounts of combat capability in each direction. Most of the time I run into guys with 'movie' issues, meaning they saw it in the movies so it must be true. In this case the guy had read about 360 security and was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about when I told him you tend to focus all your firepower on the place you're receiving fire from… Sure, you've got one man designated to watch your back, but everyone else is putting rounds on target. I couldn't imagine having a squad with only one fireteam reacting to ambush right, while the other two fireteams are maintaining 360 security. But what do I know?

In any case, my whole point was that I think the card concept is fantastic in that 1) it takes away having to look up numerous charts for combat/movement/C2 interaction/resolution, and 2) it fits together various tactical and operational concepts so that players who have not been through the various warfighting pubs are kind of walked through a concept and shown the capabilities, resources necessary, and weaknesses associated with it, which really makes it a user-friendly idea.

Good stuff, and great talking to you.

V/R,
Jack

Poor old Zakalwe64. He just wanted some thoughts on his simple rules, and he seems to have started a thesis. My own answer to the original question – personally I'd try to stick to units (stands) which represent some recognisable organisational unit in real life. So platoons, or companies or whatever, but not something artificial like "half a company". If you do that you'll have even more problems when you try to produce a TO&E for a real force.

John Secker,
It all Just Jacks's fault! See his May 7 post.

Jack, that's quite a tour in the Marines. When I was in we still had M-14's, WWII style web gear, steel pot helmets, bazookas, flame throwers and C-Rats. I like to think I was an E-4 as I was promoted to E-2 twice. I was also part of the Marine Security Guard unit at NSA HQ in Ft. Meade and I've been in the basement and seen the supercomputers. Cool stuff.

The types of rule techniques I talked about have already been done in Wacht on Rhine by Joe Youst (a friend of mine), NATO Division Commander, People's Wargames Kirovograd (the most playable) and probably a few others. I quit working on the concept three years ago because it got too complicated when using a traditional CRT with DRM's, tweaking someone else's system. After seeing how cards have come into prominence in war games I think they can solve the problem of trying to fit a single CRT into all different combat situations. Cards can be cool if done right with graphics and play aid. Also the cards make the combat more "realistic" as you are using specific weapons systems within their own parameters rather than an abstracted FP rating added to another FP or a DRM. I'm trying to use the cards as a "Force Multiplier" or "Tactical Advantage" to replace die roll modifiers.

Using Friction Points can reflect a unit slowly losing effectiveness without using attrition or morale checks. However, it's a huge problem trying to keep track of postures, formations, friction points, etc. The lower level you break down to the more informational counters you need. The only game I know of that used Friction Points is SPI's old "Fifth Corps" game and they were not satisfied with it. I have not found a solution.

Jack, talking about 360 degree coverage. In my first tactical "firefight" in training I was so focused on where the bad guys were supposed to come from all of a sudden I hear a shot to my right flank and a bad guy says "You're dead". Surprised the hell out of me! I learned my lesson.

Jack, I think we should take the discussion off this site as it's really about board games and I could send you copies of my notes and research. Email me at stevedrg@gmail.com

My apologies to Zakalwe64. Take John Secker's advice and keep it simple and enjoy the game. Don't worry about what other people think.

Wolfhag