"If i wanted to be totally realistic..." Topic

… in a skirmish game…
I would have you roll a D250 and you hit on a 1.

If each turn were a second or two, sure.

Or 20 seconds for a black powder game.

OFM,

For what it's worth, and without any further information on the exact scenario, I respectfully disagree.

Ultimately, I'd go D20: a rifleman at 100 yards, not under fire, one roll per round fired, target in open (that is, stationary or running but with an exposure time of 4 seconds or more, i.e., long enough for our shooter to see the bad guy, have his brain process the info, attain proper sight alignment/sight picture, and fire), 8+ to hit.

Same shot on a man in cover, hit on 20. Moving target with less than 4 seconds exposure time just doesn't have a shot; you can fire, but he's already gone. Firing at the enemy without actually seeing them, shouldn't be able to hit, only have a 'morale' impact, i.e., the ability to pin, suppress, or even cause him to withdraw out of LOS of the firer (for the record, I'm not saying it's impossible to hit the unseen target, just that it would be back to using your D250).

You can see a lively debate on the subject here:
TMP link

Regarding 'running' in combat (please note that this thread was regarding 'modern' soldiers with all the gear they carry, but my point would be that, with regards to engaging at 100 yards or less, as fast as you think you're running, it's pretty damn slow looking to the guy shooting at you):
TMP link

V/R,
Jack

It's not the dice it's how you define the action.

Going back to Tractics, I remember on a d20 there was a critical hit that had a 5% chance of occurring.

5% for golden BB's that hit vision slots, hatches, gun barrels, turret rings etc.

But in air warfore 10% of pilots scored 90% of the kills.

real world and game mechanics don't mix. The game has to show a representation of the real world in a finite scale during a short period of play.

Advanced Squad Leader mechanics aren't realistic but in a series of phases and turns it gives the illusion of a skirmish.

John. yes, that is probably in the ballpark for a chance to hit/kill what one is deliberately shooting at. Yet, the fact that someone has shot at you has an effect to the target's ability to function. In a skirmish game, the difficulty in keeping everyone functioning together, as a unit, is a big job for the leadership. In game systems relying upon casualty production as a mechanic that determines a unit's ability to function, it is not surprising that the system breaks down. More is happening outside of that one parameter that is not getting tracked, but should, to more accurately reflect what really happens in such instances.

Remember that a unit is always made up of individuals. The group dynamics change when you have replacements until all in the "group" become aware of what the sum total can do.

I think this is why skirmish games involve fewer figures because there is much more to track/evaluate for cause and effect than going up the ladder (Grand Tactical) where end results can be applied to entire "groupings" of men, rather than individuals that will never be exactly the same. (A point lost in many "skirmish" based games.

My opinion, FWIW.

Best
Tom

Do the math for Lexington Concord.
Take the total number of Minutemen and the total number of shots fired by them. Divide by the total number of British casualties.
It's a lot closet to needing D1000 than D250.
Google it. It's out there.
Then go to SLA Marshall. And others.

The game would suck. I admit it.

For Napoleonics:

Roll d100 for each man in Line. Hit on 2%

If i wanted to be totally realistic…

I would specify enough context to make a meaningful statement.

Winston /John thought, "The game would suck. I admit it."

I don't know, maybe not. One has to remember that the idea of skirmishing is to create disorder and to get the other guy to give up his ground. In a skirmish game, the use of maneuver can accomplish this IF the gamers understand the concept. By keeping a base of fire going to occupy the attention of the enemy, a leader-led maneuver group might have a chance to get around on a flank and (due to being now being at a greater disadvantage) force the resisting side to relocate to a better position. Playing against the clock could then be used in the determining of victory conditions. Just how long can you hold out? Just how long will it take you to get your men to maneuver into a more advantageous position to force the issue?

Isn't this the essence of skirmish fighting in any period? Terrain would have to be more important and defined than in a Grand Tactical game. Paths thru wooded areas, defoliates, small hills, rivulets, boulders, etc. would take on the roles of key terrain features that limit sight, movement and protection. The aggressive player will have to decide the plan of attack more based upon the lay of the land than from an arbitrary "take their left/right flank".

Like I said, the gamers must have some kind of concept of this style of fighting and small unit tactics, leadership and timing involved to be successful. Very doable as an interesting and exciting game/scenario, IMHO.

Tom

Some gamers howl at "only" hitting on a 1with a D6. *grin"

Also check on the SYW Prussians firing at sheets hung out in front of a battalion.

I recall a passage from Ardant du Picq's book, "Battle Studies" (great book – free read on the web) where he describes McDonald's great 20,000 man column assault at Wagram. Approximately 20,000 men started off. About 1200 men broke through the Austrian line. The next morning the participating units mustered 18,000 men.

Wargames IMHO tend to focus, perhaps over-focus, upon physical weapon effects and casualties. Less easily quantifiable psychological factors seem under-represented as a general rule.

FWIW

B

What Winston means…
In Real Life™ everybody usually misses. A LOT.
Wargames rules, and the players who play them, want to see the corpses pile up. The CRT better reflect that, or No Sale.

Which is to say that both Winston and myself have no illusions when we play.

John!

How often do you and Winston play with each other?

On second thought… never mind.

In the meantime, Dye4minis is speaking GOLD--and he knows whereof he speaks professionally.

I also preach the Gospel of Fear Over Blood, as players of "John Company," "Rough Riders!," and other of our rules are well aware.

Meantime, welcome back to the termite mound, Tom!

TVAG

Wargames rules, and the players who play them, want to see the corpses pile up.

The skirmish rules I run allow you to pretty much write you own exchange ratios (in the basic case to <3% granularity). Some of the scenarios I have received the best feedback on are ones with low Pk. There certainly are games with high Pk in them, and they can be fun, but I find they often suffer from First Blood Bias, which tends to lock them into known (quickly learned) sets of tactics or force combinations.

Thanks, Patrick. Blutarski- I have been a big fan of du Pict for over a decade (when I first learned of his writings). Some things just don't change! Glad you brought him up in the conversation.

etotheipi: Could you please define what your use of the terms high/low Pk and First Blood Bias means? (Pk= Personnel Kills?) Are the quickly learned sets of tactics or force combo unhistorical? Are there no counter tactics that work?
For me, a good game should offer a challenge between opponents- not a test of knowledge of the rules being played.

John/Winston: You are absolutely right! Lousy shots! Your references are spot on and so are the conclusions drawn from them.

I was thinking this afternoon just how much of a task accomplishment it must have been to haul all that expended ammunition around, get it to the right place at the right time in order for it to be expended in the first place! About a year ago I got to see several hundred (what looked to be) 3/4 inch solid balls fired for some (what seemed to be) large diameter WSS muskets. Several example weapons were on display. A wagon or cart carrying reloads for a battalion of , say just 600, had to have carried 1.25 tons of lead alone in order to supply each man 20 rounds (allowing for 3 oz per ball). Add to that the weight of the powder either as loose or together as a cartridge, and the weight of the wooden (or nmetal?) containers to put them in and you begin to see how efficient their resupply system was. (Because the records show that the armies expended millions of small arms rounds in an engagement.) When that much lead flys and misses, it has to have had a greater effect upon the target troops than the unlucky hit casualties produced!Just think of how brave the unit's leadership had to have been to personally disregard such dangers just to keep the men focused upon their tasks at had and keep it all together as a unit! Obviously, some were better than others at this which resulted in the winning side keeping more men under control than the loser was able to. THAT is the value set we should replace casualties with…make combat results expressed in loss of control (or cohesion at unit level) rather than casualties. Casualties counting is like counting only the red cars that pass by and not keeping tabs of the total number of cars that pass. The more red cars that pass is concluded that this stretch of road is more heavily used. The wrong set of values used to come to that conclusion.

So I have been suggesting that we look at this "un-measurable" concept by understanding that each unit starts the day out at 100%. The unit will never be as fresh as when the battle begins for them. They can loose and regain cohesion, but the effects of the battle will always be felt, dragging them lower in stamina as the day goes on. So to keep it simple, a loss of cohesion is simply 25% of the beginning 100%. By efforts of the leadership, the unit can once again act in concert at some (or many) points during the battle. We do not need to quantify the 100% value. A cohesion hit, when scored, represents a 25% loss of whatever applies to THAT unit testing. How good units are is expressed in how hard or easy it is for them to recover from loss of cohesion- the better trained , led and longer standing units will recover easier and quicker than those composed of lesser trained, poorly led and/or converged units will. Most games do not make the attempt to track how well the leadership does their jobs….but rather focus upon how well the rank and file, only, do theirs. (Counting Red cars rather than ALL the cars).

So Winston, understanding this is easier than finding a D250 or D1000! Last Hussar's rolling a D100 for 1's and 2's, per man to see if he is a casualty might be close to historical results, it sounds like it would produce a game fraught with being a die rolling exercise more than a game! But could be fun to others, I guess…..

Tom

Ouch! my head hurts, way too much maths and too little fun.
Back to HGs little wars I say :)
Cheers all happy (simple) gaming

Could you please define what your use of the terms high/low Pk and First Blood Bias means? (Pk= Personnel Kills?)

For me, a good game should offer a challenge between opponents- not a test of knowledge of the rules being played.

Sorry, Pk is Probability of Kill.

First Blood Bias is an adjudication system where getting the first shot(s) in has a disproportionate effect on victory for that side.

Are the quickly learned sets of tactics or force combo unhistorical?

I wasn't necessarily talking about games with a historical referent.

Are there no counter tactics that work?

Generally, no. By disproportionately biasing the outcome, the system collapses the significant performance space. In extreme cases, the system ends up with a set of fixed (or nearly fixed) outcomes. Things like Force A, executing Tactic 1 cannot be beaten by Force B, c, and D.

One thing I want to say about the Minutemen. We always read in the histories that believe the legends that the Yankee farmers depended on their muskets for game for food. So , why were they such lousy shots ? I believe that being religious they took " Thou shalt not kill " to heart.
It's easy to aim at a target, not so easy to aim at a man.

etotheipi. "I wasn't necessarily talking about games with a historical referent."

So the game you describe is not really a game- it's is a framework that meets the designers perception of reality.
(Remember the OP subject is a question about getting more reality into games.) Since reality is usually associated with historical subjects, with events that really happened, I believe historical games is at the center of the OP's intent.

Why, in your example, are there only fixed tactics? Does that refelct the historical record? With such a wide brush comment, it's hard to understand a frame of reference.

Is it no wonder why some folks like Zargon just throws up his hands and rolls for a 6 (and he's dead jim) kind of games……but then, it also sounds like his need for more realism has yet to be realized, either. Fair Dinkum! That is what makes this hobby so great- there are rules and figures and books galore to keep us interested in new things. It's a pitty that more do not read and question why things remain the same, so we exist on different levels.

In any case, it's a hobby and everyone should have the choice to enjoy it in the manner they wish, without fear from someone ridiculing them for their choice. But if such discussions, as this topic suggests bothers you, may I suggest you just move along to another thread…there is nothing to see here! (….and let us discuss things that are of interest to us.0 Fair Dinkum?

British Brigadier General Hughes in his work, "Firepower," states that by adding up (as much as possible) the total number of rounds fired in a battle, and comparing them to the total number of casualties, you find that it takes very nearly the weight of an average man in bullets/shot to inflict ONE casualty.

This number appears to be a constant, from the general use of firearms in the 1600's to the modern day.

Of course, it's easier to fire 140 pounds of rounds in a shorter time now, but this is offset by the ever decreasing density of soldiers on the battlefield. From the days of shoulder to shoulder, to a handful of men in no formation, each supporting the other from the best position of the moment, the likelihood of any one shot hitting a man is minimal--yet it's the firing itself that is more important.

TVAG

John: yes, you are correct. It's one thing to shoot at an object,yet another to willfully harm another. As you are discovering, there are many reasons why. Like Sherman said, War is hell. Not just for the carnage it brings to humanity in death and maiming, but also to the survivors for the rest of their lives. Yet we continue to have to resort to it when diplomacy fails. For those times, if our leaders have not an understanding how to stay in control during the chaos of war, the side who does wins.

War has been defined by Clausewitz as "Imposing your will upon your enemy by denying him ability to resist." This last part is key…."by denying him the means to resist". Thus we side step a very important element in most of games---that of logistics. You lose a battle if you cannot get to the right place at the right time with the right force and sustainability to impose your will. In most historical games, everyone starts fresh….no fatigue for the side that had to march and deploy before engaging the enemy. Others could have slept on their arms, woke up, ate breakfast and manned the defense works while watching their opponents deploy and add to their fatigue before the first shots are fired! Or even, "Why is this battle being fought?" Usually to deny free movement or to protect stores or economic wealth from the enemy. This is why (IMHO) scenarios, NOT rules, make a game good!

But then, not many really want to play with logistical concerns because they are boring……yes, reality- I'll have another dose, please, in "my" games, thank – you!

John: yes, you are correct. It's one thing to shoot at an object,yet another to willfully harm another. As you are discovering, there are many reasons why. Like Sherman said, War is hell. Not just for the carnage it brings to humanity in death and maiming, but also to the survivors for the rest of their lives. Yet we continue to have to resort to it when diplomacy fails. For those times, if our leaders have not an understanding how to stay in control during the chaos of war, the side who does wins.

War has been defined by Clausewitz as "Imposing your will upon your enemy by denying him ability to resist." This last part is key…."by denying him the means to resist". Thus we side step a very important element in most of games---that of logistics. You lose a battle if you cannot get to the right place at the right time with the right force and sustainability to impose your will. In most historical games, everyone starts fresh….no fatigue for the side that had to march and deploy before engaging the enemy. Aren't they hungry, thirsy, tired, did the march order put the water wagon up front or miles to the rear? Others could have slept on their arms, woke up, ate breakfast and manned the defense works while watching their opponents deploy and add to their fatigue before the first shots are fired! Or even, "Why is this battle being fought?" Usually to deny free movement or to protect stores or economic wealth from the enemy. This is why (IMHO) scenarios, NOT rules, make a game good when such considerations are featured in winning of the scenario!

But then, not many really want to play with logistical concerns because they are boring……yes, reality- I'll have another dose, please, in "my" games, thank – you!

Since reality is usually associated with historical subjects, with events that really happened, I believe historical games is at the center of the OP's intent.

The overwhelming majority of the wargames I run are focused on potential conflicts in the present. There is no historical record for these potential events, but they are grounded in a "reality". I think this is just a difference in perspectives.

F'r'ex, consider a scenario for a tactical team to clear a civilian area that has dangerous weapons or armed criminals. I am not trying to portray any specific historical event, but I am trying to realistically portray some of the important interactions from specific perspectives.

I think this is just a difference in perspective.

Why, in your example, are there only fixed tactics? Does that refelct the historical record?

I didn't say there were only fixed tactics, I said high Pk environments tend to lock players into fixed tactics and force compositions. I assumed we can assume the players want to win. The idea is that there a lots of tactics, but only certain ones are viable for success, based on the influence of First Blood Bias.

80's video games are good, simple examples of this. Most of us (?) have played (or seen) an old video game where there is a "tip" like darting in and out of a corner, and waiting for the big threat to be "tricked" into moving into a vulnerable position where it can be easily killed.

This issue can be seen in a more complex environment in modern video games. I have to take this specific piece of high ground and place a sniper there, or I can't defeat this scenario.

These types of locked in tactics are functions of the game design. In the first case, a function of the AI logic. In the second case, a function of the level.

In a tabletop wargame, you can have the same effect. If I don't flank the Persians with cavalry, I can't win. If I don't spread my line wide, artillery will nerf all my infantry before I can get good shots in. If I force my enemy to fight me in single ship combat instead of total force on force, I won't survive.

All I was saying is that a lower Pk (though maybe not as low as the OP proposes) tends to mitigate these effects.

everyone should have the choice to enjoy it in the manner they wish,

I do believe I did say that high Pk scenarios can be fun, just that they tend to narrow the tactical options. I didn't say that isn't or can't be fun. I love playing the Battle of Salamis (referenced above as one of the tactically narrowed options), Puebla, the Masada, and others of the sort.

These questions aren't easy to answer in a void without context.

What's the chance of a firer hitting a target at 300 yards, with bad light and incoming fire?

What's the chance of the same firer hitting the target 8 years away in good lighting?

What if the turn is 3 seconds? 10? 3 minutes?