Rod I Robertson | 28 Sep 2014 5:37 a.m. PST |
In a world of special operations, very long-range snipers, targeted assassinations, pilot-less drone strikes, stand-off weapons with very long ranges, cruise missile strikes, etc. can a traditional miniature wargames simulate these new kinds of combat? Is a scenario based on covert, special operations even a "war" simulation at all; especially if the special forces are dressed in local garb and operating in an unconventional military capacity? I am thinking about getting into modern small scale miniature wargames. I have played modern micro=armour for years but I wonder how one can play modern tactical or skirmish games when so much of what effects the modern battlefield happens too far away to represent it on a miniatures table? Please do not take offense at this, but I also wonder if modern, covert, special operations by their very nature even qualify as "war" given the abandonment of old hard and fast traditions like the wearing of a national uniforms in combat or the reliance of quick and ultra-stealthy killing either by direct means or by supporting stand-off weapons. How do you have a wargame if the goal of the game is to eliminate the other side before the other side even knows you're there? If you wipe them out immediately there is no game and if you fail to do so then you have likely lost. Certainly it is possible to have patrols, ambushes and fire fights due to unexpected contact but as more and more warfare transitions to covert operations with special forces will table top wargaming do? Has modern warfare left the miniatures table behind? Is miniature wargaming in the ultra-modern arena the best way to represent such conflicts? I don't know and I wonder whether it is worth investing in what may be a soon-to-be extinct genre of gaming. Please show me the light. Cheers. Rod Robertson |
MajorB | 28 Sep 2014 5:49 a.m. PST |
Take a look at Force on Force and/or Tomorrow's War. |
Mick in Switzerland | 28 Sep 2014 6:55 a.m. PST |
Force on Force works very well. |
whoa Mohamed | 28 Sep 2014 6:58 a.m. PST |
I think you have over estimated the role of SOF in asymmetrical warfare maybe even confused Sof Direct action missions with it. Inserting a SOF unit for a specific mission is alien to the environment to start off so any contact with host nation population will not go unnoticed. SOF DA missions are usually conducted against Targets confirmed by recon and observation. Insert team ,occupy OP dominating the AOI,Confirm target, Report ,Strike,withdraw. And a whole lot can go wrong from start to finish and it can get real exciting. FOF as suggested above can handle all of that and more as well as Reg unit vs Reg Unit or any combination. You can fight any type of battle from almost any recent conflict there is even a supplement that has been out that specifically covers special opps missions historical ,what if and hollywood. you might go to your local gaming club and see if you can borrow the rules or the supplement to see if its your cup of tea… |
Rod I Robertson | 28 Sep 2014 7:30 a.m. PST |
whoa Mohamed: Well that's encouraging. I will try to find a set of the FOF rules and see what they are all about. Thank you also Major B and Mick in Switzerland. Rod Robertson |
Ambush Alley Games | 28 Sep 2014 7:38 a.m. PST |
Rod, you can also browse our forum for AARs and more info on our games and the types of scenarios you can play with them. It's found here: ambushalleygames.com/forum Our website itself is found at ambushalleygames.net All the best, Shawn. |
PatrickWR | 28 Sep 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
I think Rod brings up a good point. A gameable skirmish on the ultramodern battlefield really only happens when something goes catastrophically wrong (Blackhawk Down, etc). If all the drones, cruise missiles, insert/evac teams, all of that works perfectly, there's hardly anything worth putting on the tabletop. |
Tgunner | 28 Sep 2014 7:54 a.m. PST |
And here's the FoF book that goes with all that spooky stuff you're talking about: link |
Legion 4 | 28 Sep 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
I agree with Mikey. But don't know about rule sets. However on a tactical gaming level … Whether Krauts, Japs, VC, Taliban, AQ, etc. shooting at US, UK, etc., etc. and vice versa … It should still be playable with appropriate moral, attrition, C3, Hidden, etc., rules … Patrick I must disagree, not all actions involve Drones, Cruise Missiles, etc. … And as we know and hear so very often recently in the media … Airpower does not win wars … it only helps … in some cases … a lot … |
M C MonkeyDew | 28 Sep 2014 8:26 a.m. PST |
Take a look at modern naval games. The "game" hinges on detection. What happens after that is pretty one sided unless something goes wrong. Any number of Colonial wargames principles will also apply. Steal the cattle (poi, electronics), poison the water hole, escape back across the border, these sorts of objectives require more than massing fires. |
Andrew Walters | 28 Sep 2014 9:32 a.m. PST |
Anything is gamable. You just have to get outside the box of your previous gaming experiences and assumptions. |
James Wright | 28 Sep 2014 9:59 a.m. PST |
Also, ROE can dramatically influence how asymmetrical warfare is gamed. Very often the most lethal soldiers in the world are forced to tie one, or sometimes both, of their hands behind their back due to ROE. Essentially, as everyone has pointed out, the game comes from the scenario. Yeah, if you put miniatures out on the table, and give a team of SAS or Delta Operators all the resources they would have in the perfect world, then yeah, it is likely going to be a one-sided pasting. Not much out there can stand upto that in the Third World, or insurgent community. But create a scenario--which happens all the time in reality--in which the situation is not ideal, then things get hairy quick, even for the most highly trained warriors in human history. I will also agree, FoF does an excellent job. Good game. |
Generalstoner49 | 28 Sep 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
Force on force is our go rules set for modern battles. It does an excellent job of distinguishing between kinetic and asymmetrical engagements with irregulars. As the regular forces it very much rewards sound tactics and over watch Fire with support from a handful of stronger assets like drones or gunships. If the regular force plays along movie lines, i.e. Running down alleys without using terrain, trying to cross open expanses without adequate support fire, they are punished for their mistakes very quickly. |
The G Dog | 28 Sep 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
I know Jake Strangeway has explored using Command Decision to model some of the less conventional troop structures in the Iranian intervention game he was preparing for Cold Wars this year. So it's possible at more than just the skirmish level. |
Ambush Alley Games | 28 Sep 2014 12:09 p.m. PST |
This sums it up nicely, in my opinion: Essentially, as everyone has pointed out, the game comes from the scenario. Yeah, if you put miniatures out on the table, and give a team of SAS or Delta Operators all the resources they would have in the perfect world, then yeah, it is likely going to be a one-sided pasting. Not much out there can stand upto that in the Third World, or insurgent community. Interesting combat oriented ultra-modern scenarios are usually centered on situations where 1st World troops are forced to operate without their normal support due to the covert nature of their mission, ROE, etc. or situations in which the "quick in & out mission" goes so sideways that many of their force multipliers are negated. Irene. I say again, Irene. Combat doesn't have to be the main thrust of a good scenario, either, as M C LeSingeDew rightly hints at – stealth missions can be tense and fun to play, as can scenarios focused on "hearts & minds." One of my favorite scenarios in our Somalia '93 companion book involves 1st World troops attempting to simultaneously drive off a group of rustlers and round up the panicked livestock the rustlers were absconding with – the best part is that the scenario is based on an actual historical event. Thanks for the kind words about our game, too! Shawn. |
Rod I Robertson | 28 Sep 2014 12:45 p.m. PST |
Thanks all for the excellent feed-back. Clearly I have a great deal of homework to do before I can play this genre. I have already been to the web pages mentioned above by Ambush Alley Games and I have been trawling Youtube for reviews and AAR's. Cheers. Rod Robertson |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Sep 2014 1:48 p.m. PST |
One of my favorite scenarios in our Somalia '93 companion book involves 1st World troops attempting to simultaneously drive off a group of rustlers and round up the panicked livestock the rustlers were absconding with – the best part is that the scenario is based on an actual historical event. I can just see the looks on the troops faces during the briefing: "You want us to do what?!?" Something that I had to explain to a friend of mine when I was teaching him FoF was that the game of Force on Force basically starts with the first sniper shot or IED going off. The first-world troops are basically already in the kill zone and need to fight their way out. Because you're right, gaming a drone strike with no boots on the ground is kinda pointless. |
Milites | 28 Sep 2014 1:50 p.m. PST |
The actual deployment of SF operators is the end game as many here have said, that does not mean the intelligence gathering operations cannot provide tense games. Think of them as land based versions of submarine games, especially with near-future stealth and chameleon suits! |
whitphoto | 28 Sep 2014 3:24 p.m. PST |
There are plenty of scenarios you can fight out using conventional troops, or even a mix of conventional troops supported by SF troops. Drones are not going to retake a police station from insurgents and rescue the hostages. SF troops aren't going to secure entire city blocks as part of an invasion or patrol a city and get ambushed. In a conventional war, even against insurgents, drones are just surveillance and air support and SF snipers are just assets attached to your platoon. You still need platoons of soldiers and marines to take and hold ground. And who says you can't just game a seal team making it's way across a village to secure an asset and fight it's way out supported by drones and A-10's? |
Rod I Robertson | 28 Sep 2014 5:21 p.m. PST |
This article and accompanying video illustrate my concern. Marines in Marjah, Afghanistan are pinned down by Taliban snipers and irregulars. The marines hunker down and wait for missile and air support. The ranges are very long – too long to fit on a skirmish table. Not much of a game! link Rod Robertson |
Legion 4 | 29 Sep 2014 7:57 a.m. PST |
No not all situations would be "gameable". You could have a similar situation in any modern war though. And that is one of the "school solutions", so-to-speak in that situation. Hunker down, don't become a target and use the most powerful weapons in your unit. The radio and the ability to can in supporting CAS, Gunships, FA, Mortars, etc. … Another thing I find "interesting" … in most game scales, in modern conflicts, even 6mm(which is vall I do). You really don't need a model(s) for most FA … some 6mm Arty pieces can fire the length of a real world football field … So if you were really of the mind, you'd put you FA models in a room on the other side of the house, when gaming … With some ADA to protect them from CAS etc. … For a mini game as a side bar … |
Weasel | 29 Sep 2014 8:22 a.m. PST |
Well, the army keeps giving it's men rifles, so someone out there is shooting them :-) Watch Generation Kill or Ross Kemp in Afghanistan. Yeah, they have fancy support but in the end, they aren't doing anything their comrades didn't do 60 years ago in Normandy. Someone has to patrol, a drone can't capture the insurgent leader and if the insurgents are firing on your patrol NOW, you need to fight back NOW. Of course, ultra-modern doesn't have to mean delta force types. Georgians fighting Russians, Ukraine, fictional conflicts around the world. You just have to build a game-able scenario and design for the period. I forget the title now, but there was an excellent book describing a series of encounters in Iraq and they were almost all conventional fights. When you're downtown and trying to win hearts and minds, you can't just call in artillery left and right. For my own rules, we start the game pretty much "in contact". Forces are a moment away from crashing into each other and off we go. Of course, all those drones could be shot down or jammed by a technologically savvy enemy too. Lot of talk, in the end, its really down to the scenarios you put together. |
Legion 4 | 29 Sep 2014 8:30 a.m. PST |
I know that very well … how useful small arms are. They are the first and sometimes only firepower available at the time … We spent a lot of range time, in perfecting the art of marksmenship … |
Weasel | 29 Sep 2014 9:26 a.m. PST |
btw, didn't mean for my reply to sound snooty or snide, so if it came across that way, apologize. |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Sep 2014 1:05 p.m. PST |
Weasel: Thanks. No, I did not find your answer anything but informative. Legion: With what seems like a manic risk averse culture in the political and military command structure of most western armed forces, isn't the Marjah firefight becoming more and more typical of skirmishes in in the modern asymmetrical military milieu? |
Legion 4 | 29 Sep 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
I believe so Rod. We sometimes are used to massive battles like we saw in most of conflicts in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. Asymmetrical forces operate in smaller numbers generally, use little heary equipment, and normally don't go in for a stand up fight for very long. Much like the standard guerilla tactics. And Yes, At Marjah link , the NATO/ISAF forces numbered some 15,000 while AQ had somewhere around 2000-4000 or so. For all those forces involved NATO had 61 KIA and AQ 120 maybe more. Small losses for a fairly large amount of troops engaged (Thank God in the case of small NATO losses]. So I think manic risk aversion is the norm for most of the dwindling West/NATO forces. Modern high tech forces are very expensive to equipe, train, etc. … And in turn don't want to be wasted, as their numbers are smaller and their cost is more, much more. While most of the asymmetrical forces are getting by with lower tech, older equipment, etc. … Even Daesh with all their heavier captured equipment, like AFVs, etc., I can't think of any report of a battle where they were used en masse. Massing to make an attack will make them a bigger target, especially now that the US and it's allies are flying airstrikes daily. And along with all those considerations, the US and some others are a bit tired after being in a long two front war. With no real endgame, it appears. That is another reason that it's easier for the West to call-in CAS, drones, missiles, etc. then risk the losses on the ground. Fighting asymmetrical forces, embeded, in many cases an urban environment. Guerilla and urban warfare are known to be very costly as we know. And as we see at Marjah, limiting collateral damage has become very much a priority … So firepower is generally more limited and targeted … Not to mention the lack of Strategic Surprise and relying more on Tactical Surprise to limit collateral damage. No Shock and Awe … in appears … |
M C MonkeyDew | 29 Sep 2014 3:35 p.m. PST |
The "captives of our bow and spear" Are cheap—alas! as we are dear. link |
Rod I Robertson | 29 Sep 2014 3:56 p.m. PST |
M C LeSingeDew: I always appreciate a little Kipling! Yes, war does force on us all a cruel arithmetic. Equations and calculations wax and humanity and compassion wane. But at least around the gaming table there is fellowship and good hearts, even if (as Legion 4 points out) they may be in a different room or building given the ranges of modern weapons. Cheers. Rod Robertson |
Legion 4 | 30 Sep 2014 9:36 a.m. PST |
Yes, always a fan of Kipling ! |