"LMG teams in Company level games?" Topic

I'm struggling to understand how to properly represent fire teams in Company level games. My two favorite games handle it very differently, but both abstract them more than I'm trying to achieve (maybe that's a hint).

Crossfire combines fire teams and squad leader into a single base representing the whole squad.

Flames of War averages the firepower across 2 teams, so teams are either "Rifle", "Rifle/mg" or "MG" teams if every fireteam has an lmg.

I've wanted to try to more literally represent the different teams and allow for (what I believe to be) appropriate squad tactics, but a bunch a questions pop up, like coherency between teams of the same squad, the possible need for squad leadership to be represented on the table, etc.

I'm curious what people's thoughts are on the how not representing LMG teams in squads effects games, good and bad, and also if anyone has ideas for representing the squads without slowing down the game and also inviting weird side effects popping up.

Thanks in advance!!!!

-B

You could try Bolt Action. Or some other set of rules that represent squads as individual soldiers.

Very true, but bolt action is a platoon level game, and I'm hoping to implement this into a company level game. Also, I'm looking to play with models based as 4-5 man teams, not individually.

In PanzerGrenadier platoons are on 4 bases – one of which is the typically the LMG (depending on army).

It would be typical to use this slightly differently from the rifle squads – but it must be kept within command radius to be activated as a 'team' otherwise it needs to be individually activated.

Is that the sort of thing you wanted?

To get what you want I'd either go with Chain of Command (Two Fat Lardies) or Bolt Action.

For FoW, your other option could be to break out the LMG teams on separate small bases, and have rifle teams. Essentially, separate stands for the LMGs and the rifle teams, adjusting the ROF, etc, accordingly.

Adds a bit more of a complications than I'd like, but I think it would work.

Ray

Men Under Fire is effectively a company level game with individual figures you could take a look at that.

In IABSM if you cascade (attach in FoW/US Army terms) an LMG to a rifle squad, that squad gets one more dice when firing. Considering that 4 dice is the maximum a squad (and movement, spotting and other things each take a dice) that's pretty nice.

Bolt Action and Chain of Command are not company level games so LMGs take on a different significance because they are platoon games.

IABSM has that nice mechanism, of an LMG equipped section being able to add one more firing dice. You can also get an "Machinegun bonus" card in the deck which allows an MG to get an extra round of firing in.

I like the way PBI gives you separate bases for the LMG with an enhanced firepower capacity … a typical section would be 2 'rifle' groups, each of 3 figures, and 1 'LMG' group of 2 figures (but how you then configure and operate your platoons is your tactical choice) …

(platoon groups advance in the cover of tanks in a scene from our latest game of PBI)

Phil
P.B.Eye-Candy

I guess my question is whether any feel it's a problem that in company level games (even most 1:1 games like FoW) that the LMG element isn't providing cover for the rifle element, as everyone in the platoon piles into an assault. If no one thinks this is an issue then who am I to disagree (I certainly have no experience in the matter).

My fear with the other possibility is that a platoon will have 3 LMG teams sitting next to each other while 3 rifle teams go in, at which point you almost have a squad of LMGs and a squad of Rifles really. But again, I dont know that that would even really be a problem. This is mostly a lack of proper experience and research.

Bolt Action and Chain of Command are not company level games

Not true. We've played many games with multiple platoons.

Both games designers classify their games as platoon level. That doesn't mean they can't be played larger or smaller level, but they weren't designed with that approach in mind.

Aren't you worrying about squad tactics in a company level game instead of worrying about platoon tactics?

For FOW it's pretty simple. Just call any base with an LMG on it an MG team, any without a Rifle team. If you want to get complex you could even differentiate those using Automatic Rifles such as the BAR as their "LMG" as ROF 2 as per Rifle/MG in the rules.

"Aren't you worrying about squad tactics in a company level game instead of worrying about platoon tactics?"

I suppose this is exactly what I'm trying to answer. I'm trying to find out whether or not it matters to distinguish between the two teams when demonstrating platoon tactics. I have a feeling the answer is yes, but maybe I'm totally wrong.

in company level games (even most 1:1 games like FoW) that the LMG element isn't providing cover for the rifle element, as everyone in the platoon piles into an assault. If no one thinks this is an issue then who am I to disagree (I certainly have no experience in the matter).

My fear with the other possibility is that a platoon will have 3 LMG teams sitting next to each other while 3 rifle teams go in, at which point you almost have a squad of LMGs and a squad of Rifles really

Precisely the issue which PBI throws up … the arguments are: not all national doctrines are the same; there are plenty of examples where platoons did concentrate their support weapons into a fire base; it is a player risk equation (the safest way to preserve your firepower is to spread the LMGs amongst the riflemen just like the contemporary practice) – if you group them together, use them in the assault etc. you can very quickly get them knocked out.

In the end PBI sees this as a player decision … authentic tactics are rewarded but every situation demands its own solution and the final decision is yours.

Phil

What Phil said, all those permutations are both possible and were done historically.

Just model your infantry as teams, like the old WRG 1925-50 did, and PBI does now.

Phil and Martin. Thank you for the responses. I'm not terribly familiar with PBI, which probably explains why I'm not sure I'm understanding your posts. Can you explain in more detail for me?

"if you group them together, use them in the assault etc. you can very quickly get them knocked out.

In the end PBI sees this as a player decision … authentic tactics are rewarded but every situation demands its own solution and the final decision is yours."

"Just model your infantry as teams, like the old WRG 1925-50 did, and PBI does now."

PBI uses a grid (squares) system for area movement and shooting etc. with an optimum occupancy of 3 groups (more than 3 and the groups potentially become easier targets). Hits are shared out within the square (with some firer/target prioritising).

As above, 3 groups is the generic size of a section (generally 2xRifle groups, 1xLMG group). Activation and Command is from the Platoon Commander who is not required to work by sections, can overload squares, can send all the LMG groups to the same square etc.

If the LMGs are dispersed amongst the rifle groups (in their sections, as it were) then the rifle groups will take a fair proportion hits.

The advantage of concentrating the LMGs (i.e. same square) is much higher firepower – the disadvantage is that the enemy will focus his firing on that square and all the hits will be on LMG teams.

So, although there is complete flexibility within the platoon, many players find sending the men forward in section sized groups with 2 rifle groups and a single LMG works best, give or take ad hoc amalgamations as the platoon takes casualties. But it is your choice. And your balancing of risks and benefits.

Inevitably all that is complicated further by SMGs, Assault Rifles, flamethrowers and the like – but I hope you get the picture.

Phil

In WRG (aimed at battalion sized games, although in my experience it worked better as company sized for infantry) infantry were based as weapons teams – LMG groups, rifle groups, light mortars, AT teams, HQ etc

So a typical platoon would have an HQ, three rifle groups and three LMG groups (maybe more rifle groups) plus possibly a light mortar, AT team etc. You could play the sections as a rifle group and an LMG group, or mix and match a bit more.

The base count isn't any bigger then e.g. FOW, but you have more differentiation of base type, so you can do a bit of task organisation within the platoon. Thsi stuff probably isn't the concern of a company CO, let alone a battalion CO, but it gives more flavour and means yo can e.g. lay out platoon defended localities properly with the points held by LMG teams and rifle grouped as a counter attack force centrally.

If you playing multiple companies, you probably want to go with section/squad sized bases ie the Crossfire approach. Fireball Forward lets you do either teams or sections, depending.

We play Crossfire a level down, and split squads into the appropriate teams. Of course, we use the game at platoon level. My personal preference would be to push squads at company level, and teams at platoon level, but YMMV.

Thanks guys, yes that's much more clear. I'm getting 2 things from your posts; 1: you feel that my feared "weirdness" of 3 LMG teams seemingly acting together (at least on table) and 3 rife teams together isn't really an issue at all, but also that PBI does have a semi suitable response to my query. The target density thing is pretty unique to miniatures games as far as I can tell, especially considering that almost all tactical board games consider it.

JCBJCB: What house rules do you use for playing Crossfire at platoon level? I'm very interested.

JCBJCB,

I would like to second the request for your house rules.

Thanks, Bill.

Did they remove the rule in FoW where you could leave part of the platoon behind? It couldn't move anymore, but it could still fire.

IIRC, the Rifle/MG stand came about in Flames because it was hard to see if the stand you grabbed had a LMG or just rifles. A simplification for gameplay, even though the platoon itself wouldn't roll any more or any fewer dice if you went with Rifle teams and MG teams.

I dunno about 1st edition, but in 2nd and now 3rd, you can leave teams out of unit coherency to cover an advance. They can still move again later but must take the shortest path possible to regain unit coherency. And yes the concept of Rifle/MG stands is their simplification to average the firepower of 1 dice Rifle stands and 3 dice MG stands into 2 dice for both. Works well, although, again, I'm curious if there is a negative consequence to how the bases operate on the table.

At the company level, would the commander be concerned about the exact positioning of the MG versus the rifle group ?

I must admit, I'd be very tempted to simply use 2 identical stands to make up a squad and not worry too much about it.

There's also some questions:

To what extent squads actually DID split up neatly into MG and rifle groups and operate as per the text book?

How to handle squads that are less likely to do so or don't do so at all?

How to handle squads with unusual structures (like the Italian approach of a very large rifle squad and a bunch of LMG in a second squad) or without LMG at all?

It is more a question of how the platoon CO managed his assets, it was not uncommon for whole platoons to be run as two big bits, a fire group and an assault group, which would be of interest to the company CO. Micromanaging the running of section internals may be a bit much at that level.

"To what extent squads actually DID split up neatly into MG and rifle groups and operate as per the text book?"

Very little, despite what the manuals say, although the 1942 German manual explicitly states that they'd given up on the idea of splitting the gruppe and that in future it would operate as a single entity.

"How to handle squads with unusual structures (like the Italian approach of a very large rifle squad and a bunch of LMG in a second squad) or without LMG at all?"

Have rifle sections of two rifle groups and LMG sections of two LMG groups? It isn't hard.

Unit leadership would determine how many bits they could break up into effectively, that is even stated explicitly in the British manual. Why is why many average platoons ended up being run by the platoon CO and platoon sergeant in two big lumps. It doesn't stop the CO regrouping the personnel and weapons though.

Depending on ground scale, might just have a requirement that leadership skill dictates how far individual half-squads can be apart.

An "okay" leader can form 2 or 3 separate entities within the platoon. A "decent" leader can form 4 or 5 and so forth.

Then let the player figure it out from there.

Actually, Weasel, PBI does just that … Platoon Commanders have a limited number of 'motivations' per turn (= squares they can potentially activate) good ones are +1. poor ones -1. The average situation is enough to spread out an average sized platoon.

Phil

If your LMG team is ROF 3 while your rifle team is ROF 1, why bother specifying which is which?

Now, if your LMG team is ROF 4+, then it makes sense to split into rifle teams and LMG teams.

So I think it kinda depends on your rules to begin with.

If you start differentiating between the rifle and LMG teams, then there is more work in keeping track of casualties. Not to mention that the rules need a mechanism to decide how casualties are split between the two different types of stands.

Good catch Grief.

That said, dividing the casualties between the two stand types does not require particularly complex game mechanisms – but you still need to write them in the first place.

The ease or difficulty of telling apart the LMG and rifle groups would be at least partially a modelling issue. For example, if LMG bases have all of the models prone or kneeling, and rifle bases have all of the models standing (advancing or shooting), then it should not be particularly difficult to tell them apart quickly.

I think Weasel asked the right question, though we then went off on a bit of a tangent. If you are a company commander, then you should not be worrying about tactical placement of LMGs and rifle squads. You should be putting your platoons in the right situations with the right orders and support, and relying on the skills (or otherwise) of your junior officers and NCOs to deploy their troops to best effect. So a set of rules at that level should (IMHO) handle that detail for you. That also allows for different levels of skill and experience in those juniors, though rules which allow for variable leader quality. If YOU handle all the details for all of the platoons, then by definition all those people as as skilful as you. So I'd say if you want to tackle that sort of problem you should be looking at a platoon level game – there's nothing to stop you expanding the forces you use, if you really like a LOT of micro-management.

A lot of insightful stuff here, thanks guys.

Another question, how do you feel about how Crossfire allocates additional HMG stands as HQ assets as an abstraction of the fact that their LMGs had greater firepower than other forces? This is almost the way I've been playing my homebrew, giving german squads an MG for ever 3 stands and the american an MG for every 5 stands. I was concerned that this would be ill-received since it doesn't match any normal OOBs, but I suppose Crossfire doesn't either in that regard.

IABSM gives an extra d6 to teams with an extra LMG, and -1d6 to sections without an LMG

Cheese – I never minded it. It's one of those cases where technically it's "not right" but the game play works out just fine.