"Are You Experienced..." Topic

…enough a wargamer to run a modern, or even an ultramodern, wargame campaign?

Surely, campaigning in modern times is the most challenging of all wargame campaigns?

Agree or disagree?

And how do you go about it? Do you include all three arms, maybe even space and cyber warfare? Surely, it's impossible?

"Your four man recon team is forced to try and retreat on foot, as enemy AA cover is far too intensive for us to extract you by air.

According to the maps, you are about 3 days from friendly troops. Good luck"

Voila, ultra-modern campaign :-)

Run a campaign in a scale you are comfortable with and it'll go just fine. A lot of the "near-future" ideas won't affect you DURING a battle, they'll affect the conditions leading up to the battle, hence they can be factored into the scenario conditions.

edit: It should be added that statistically, the most likely combat encounter in the world in 2014 is still "guys with AK's and steel helmets shoot at some other guys with AK's and steel helmets. One side has a T55". It ain't all high tech out there :)

Same principles apply, just more chrome. Elint reflected by limiting command&control, off-board assets, hidden units and reinforcement arrival. Weather may effect one side more than another. Add CNN and civilians.
Drones for pre-game intel, snipers have longer ranges, squad firepower ramped up. Political Rules of Engagement can attenuate military effectiveness.Gunships for Point Offense Tactical Support, more lighter afv's than heavy, morale a bigger factor.

What I miss?

I don't think it's the most challenging of wargame campaigns.

Force on Force does it well and has a campaign system as well as rules for building insurgencies, civilians, media and other forms of assymetric warfare etc.

Wars such as Ukraine or Iraq/Syria are covered by 20th century concepts – they're not that far removed in terms of technology and tactics (other than say suicide bombings).

And in the end a firefight is a firefight and troop psychology is troop psychology. From a wargaming concept there have been no real fundamental changes since WW2 at platoon/company level.

If you want to hypothesise China v USA v Russia and do it from a brigade or higher level, then Cold War Goes Hot style concepts come into play.

OK, I seem to have taken over Weasel's brain….sorry…

odd, for a moment my post was under Weasel's..?

Not the most challenging. I used to do it for a living.

I don't think the genre is the driving factor in the difficulty of running a campaign. I think the biggest effect it has is with respect to the players' level of familiarity with the genre, which I consider to be more of a player effect rather than a genre effect.

I used to think it was more complex – and if you try to model the minute interactions of technology it will be. In most cases it is just as realistic to have it abstracted away.

A real world game example is Harpoon vs that other modern naval game that is far simpler and whose name escapes me at the moment. Another would be the boardgame Boots and Saddles vs Sands of War.

. I think the biggest effect it has is with respect to the players' level of familiarity with the genre, which I consider to be more of a player effect rather than a genre effect.

That is applicable to all periods and also affects rules design.

Shipwreck!

For the name that escapes him for modern naval war rules.

Yea, as mentioned, you need to choose your niche carefully, e.g. down at the very sharp end, you can be detailed, but for global domination, and/or large theater-area battles, you'd need to abstract a lot of stuff.

Team Yankee would be a good one

Try keeping a 60,000 man army in the field for a year, in the enemy's country, with bronze-age technology, and then tell me a modern campaign with air-mail delivered steaks and beer is more challenging.

That said, I second Team Yankee as a great source for a Modern Campaign (both the book and the board game).

I'm running a modern campaign right now, it is no harder than any other era. Linked scenarios, using SPIs BAOR etc for maps and a lot scribbles and coloured pens to keep track of overall progress.

The question which occurs to me is what level of autonomy do you want to give the players? Are they military commanders who have clear military objectives or are they being forced to wear multiple hats and manage logistics, clumsy rules of engagement, political dimensions, media spin, etc. If you define the expectations and limit the scope of the players mandate then running any campaign becomes far more manageable. The people in charge of a platoon, a company , a battalion or a regiment do not have to deal with much of this. They get the supplies they are given and must operate within the orders they are given. Unless a campaign is operating at an operational or strategic level then things should be streamlined by the person running the campaign in order to allow the players to concentrate on what they can reasonably be expected to deal with at their level of command and operation.
Rod Robertson.

Rod, Force on Force does have rules for the modern "multi-hat manager" even at platoon level.

E.g.:

1. Rules for Positive ID checks to check if someone is an insurgent.

2. Rules for media.

3. Negative political impacts for things such as calling in airstrikes (save cannon or show of force low level flights) or hurt civilians.

ThomasHobbes:
I understand that, but my point is that lower level combat commanders do not usually have to manage such things. Their job is to fight and win battles as best they can. If there is a supply problem they inform their superiors who sort that out. If they have embedded media among their troops, they don't let them anywhere near the combat if they can help it and if they can't help it they ignore the media until the fight is over and deal with the problems later. Their first responsibilities are too their troops and to their mission. The other stuff is distraction and if they are distracted, the wrong people will get killed.
While I have got your attention, and since you have mentioned Force on Force, I wonder if you have an opinion on whether FoF or Ambush Alley is better for simulating asymmetrical warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa? I want to run Platoon versus 'Mob' (60-100 irregular infantry figures) scale battles. I bought NEIS rules but I am not sure whether they can handle such large numbers of troops. I'll certainly use NEIS for smaller games but for larger ones, I am seeking advice. Can you suggest which of the rules, FoF or AA would be the best to look at or whether there is a better set of rules out there of which I am not aware?
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

If you don't mind me interjecting:

A hundred guys in No End in Sight would be…challenging.

The problem would be keeping track of 15-20 leaders on each side. It'd be a bit of a mess unless it was a multiplayer game.

Now, you are making me wonder… somehow it seems that a mob like that might not operate on a "every figure fights" principle. Heck, I'd be tempted to use bases of 3 figures each, "counting" as one man.

Ambush Alley is a ton of fun but it's very low scale as well. I haven't played Force on Force so I'd be eager to see what others think of a game on that scale.

Maybe it's something that isn't quite covered in modern gaming? There seems to be a big jump from platoon and individual basing to "battalions of troops" with not a lot inbetween.

Weasel:
In the bigger games which I envision the irregulars would be on the attack or would be encountering their foes in a meeting engagement such as a motorised patrol. The irregulars would be 'organized' into groups of between 10-12 troops with one 'squad leader' per group and no team leaders. They would be controlled by two to three players. An overall irregular commander with an up-gunned body guard squad would be in supreme command but would likely not participate in close quarter fighting. This group would use their HMG's, LMG's, RPG's, AAGW's or Mortars to support the attack from a safer distance.
The regulars would be played by one or two players and they would command a platoon of Infantry/Marines with supporting elements such as heavy weapons, armed Humvee's, LAV's or even a tank or two.
That is the plan at least.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Campaigns in modern warfare are fought very much at the small unit level … Huge sweeping armored/mech units and manuevers still are useful, but tactics, fieldcraft etc. has to evolved with the changing situations.

Legion 4:
Hasn't that been true in all war throughout history? Isn't a grand battle really just a locus of small tactical fights aggregated together and influencing each other. Whether battle-wagon or chariot or phalanx or maniple or "medieval battle" or trench-raid or blitzkrieg or storming Fallujah block by block, it all boils down to local battles and local tactics on the sharp end of the battle-space. Better tactics wins more of these micro-fights which turns the tide of the whole battle, usually.
Rod Robertson

understand that, but my point is that lower level combat commanders do not usually have to manage such things. Their job is to fight and win battles as best they can. If there is a supply problem they inform their superiors who sort that out. If they have embedded media among their troops, they don't let them anywhere near the combat if they can help it and if they can't help it they ignore the media until the fight is over and deal with the problems later. Their first responsibilities are too their troops and to their mission. The other stuff is distraction and if they are distracted, the wrong people will get killed.

Actually the lower level guys do have to manage it. For example rules of engagement are critical to any unit in the field.

If you can only fire if fired on, then that's going to impact the safety of your unit.

Also the politics pushes up to overall victory conditions. For example you call in an airstrike that levels a house. You might get negative victory points because that airstrike has damaged the reputation of the Coalition forces which increases support for insurgency or ruins relations with local allies.

Hence a platoon's mission parameters might have strict rules on employment of artillery or airstrikes or they might not have any of these assets available at all.

As for journalists they have a tendency to get into where they shouldn't be – hence some poor bastards lost their heads recently.

A platoon commander's job is a lot more convoluted than it used to be.

While I have got your attention, and since you have mentioned Force on Force, I wonder if you have an opinion on whether FoF or Ambush Alley is better for simulating asymmetrical warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa? I want to run Platoon versus 'Mob' (60-100 irregular infantry figures) scale battles.

FoF/AA handles platoon versus 60-100 Mob very well.

It also covers things like IEDs etc.

Superb gaming system IMO.

understand that, but my point is that lower level combat commanders do not usually have to manage such things. Their job is to fight and win battles as best they can. If there is a supply problem they inform their superiors who sort that out. If they have embedded media among their troops, they don't let them anywhere near the combat if they can help it and if they can't help it they ignore the media until the fight is over and deal with the problems later. Their first responsibilities are too their troops and to their mission. The other stuff is distraction and if they are distracted, the wrong people will get killed.

Actually the lower level guys do have to manage it. For example rules of engagement are critical to any unit in the field.

If you can only fire if fired on, then that's going to impact the safety of your unit.

Also the politics pushes up to overall victory conditions. For example you call in an airstrike that levels a house. You might get negative victory points because that airstrike has damaged the reputation of the Coalition forces which increases support for insurgency or ruins relations with local allies.

Hence a platoon's mission parameters might have strict rules on employment of artillery or airstrikes or they might not have any of these assets available at all.

As for journalists they have a tendency to get into where they shouldn't be – hence some poor bastards lost their heads recently.

A platoon commander's job is a lot more convoluted than it used to be.

While I have got your attention, and since you have mentioned Force on Force, I wonder if you have an opinion on whether FoF or Ambush Alley is better for simulating asymmetrical warfare in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa? I want to run Platoon versus 'Mob' (60-100 irregular infantry figures) scale battles.

FoF/AA handles platoon versus 60-100 Mob very well.

It also covers things like IEDs, insurgent use of terrain etc.

Superb gaming system IMO.

ThomasHobbes:
Rules of engagement are fine but I mentioned above "clumsy rules of engagement" which can get troops killed. I am going to go on a bit of a tirade here, but I feel I must, because too many lives are needlessly wasted by such thinking.
So a platoon commander or NCO is supposed to unnecessarily risk the lives of the troops under his/her command so that the home-nation's military and government can look good in the local (hostile) and international media? Soldiers are to be sacrificed to take a position, when that position could be neutralized by heavy ordnance and then likely taken without friendly casualties? Very dangerous thinking, that.
While I agree that pressure is always there to manage a situation based on non-military concerns, when it comes down to the lives of the troops and the military success of the mission, mustn't military concerns be the priority of local combat commanders and not some political considerations? To put other considerations ahead of military victory and the lives of the troops under command is very dangerous and invites disaster. Any officer or NCO worth his salt should value his troops and military victory over such concerns and should resist such constraints with all of their power. If an enlisted man is expected to risk his life to complete a mission and protect his comrades, should not officers and NCO's be willing to risk their careers and perhaps court-martial if irresponsible orders based on non-military priorities have been issued? As long as war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity are prevented in combat, only military priorities should prevail until the enemy is militarily defeated. Then the propaganda and the diplomacy can start to win the hearts and minds. Spend were-geld to placate the injured victims of war, not the lives of your own brave and loyal troops. To do otherwise makes it clear that the military command values political expediency and spin-doctoring over the lives of its own soldiers and that invites demoralization, defeatism, desertion, defeat and ultimately mutiny. While the military must remain answerable to the civilian authority, the civilian authority has a sacred responsibility to the military personnel to let them do their jobs and not encumber them with dangerous caveats and prohibitions which endanger the lives of citizen-soldiers.
As I hope all students of history know, war is abhorrent and must be avoided if at all possible. But once war is entered into it should be shown to the public for what it truly is and commanders and soldiers should not be sacrificed to create illusions about how war can be prosecuted "cleanly". To use hypocritical language like "Police-action" or "Counter-insurgency Operation", hides the brutality of war and promotes the wider use of war. That, to my mind, is the greatest war-crime possible, for it makes casual and regular use of war possible. War is dreadful and should never be entered into, except in the most dire of situations. To sanitize war promotes war; to report it truthfully and graphically educates the electorate of war's horror and gravity and hopefully motivates the electorate to constrain war-hawks in positions of power. War should not be an option for politicians and economists who can't solve problems peacefully and with some creativity. That is one reason why I wargame and use wargames to teach my students about war. Citizens must be aware of what war really entails or cynical politicians and other "interests" will hijack the military and use war with impunity as a bloody tool to force their will on others. That is a shameful waste citizens' lives for selfish reasons.
The men and women who bravely serve in the military should not have their lives squandered in wars unless such sacrifice is absolutely necessary and their lives must never be under-valued and risked by considerations other than swift and efficient victory.
Rod Robertson

Rod, I totally agree.

However I was talking about wargame rules and in particular rules that reflect modern restrictions on war.

Despite these rules of engagement often increasing risk to troops, they are very much a part of modern warfare and as such should be reflected in a wargaming ruleset to better represent the period.

If it's any consolation, I added "dumb political rules" to hearts&minds campaigns in NEiS :)

Fancy storming a building when you're under orders to not deploy any explosives against it? Gotta protect local architecture after all.

(I will avoid the political discussion and ramifications of it in this discussion as I would rather avoid ruffling feathers)

It's not exclusively a western thing either. Even the soviets in Afghanistan often operated under limits to where supporting firepower could be deployed.
Fundamentalist insurgents have their own political demands, even if they are not humanitarian in nature.

Force on Force was pretty much tailor made for Platoon-plus actions.

If you're playing with multiple players per force (so you can split up the command and decision making processes on each side), it'll comfortably handle much larger games. I've seen lots of folks running games right up to the Company level at conventions.

Our design intent was for the rules to cover engagements ranging in size from a one or two squad patrol up to a a platoon-plus engagement, though, and I think it works best at that level. Since the game uses the fire team (or mob, in the case of insurgents) as the decision unit, games of this size tick along at a good pace.

If you've got any questions, please feel free to PM me more drop by our forum (www.ambushalleygames.com/forum). I'm always happy to talk about our games!

All the best,

Shawn.