wizbangs | 05 Feb 2015 3:29 p.m. PST |
Although I play Flames of War, me and my comrades have implemented a bunch of House Rules to take the gaminess out of the rules and introduce a little more realism. We're trying to bring some new gamers into the fold, but have come across someone who passionately defends the existing digging in rule. (Rather than move, a successful skill test allows the platoon to dig foxholes). As an old soldier I find this ridiculous. If you're in the open facing an enemy, digging in was never an option because you simply don't have the time: you move to find cover, call in smoke or suppressive fire to cover your advance. Yet it seems this whole digging in issue has become a standard infantry tactic in the game. What say you? Can anyone here defend the rule and persuade me that such a rule is a good idea? I'm proposing a skill test on the SECOND turn they are stationary (so units can't rush up to an objective & fortify their position before the enemy can respond). I'm also proposing that they are targeted like moving double-time when digging in, since it is a lot easier to target a man digging a hole than one who is actually moving. |
Frederick | 05 Feb 2015 3:50 p.m. PST |
While not a FOW gamer it seems to me that it does take at least a little time to dig a foxhole or a trench |
mad monkey 1 | 05 Feb 2015 3:53 p.m. PST |
Do they have a go prone rule? I don't play FOW ( dabbled a bit, but the two times I played at conventions but me off my feed) so don't know. Also don't know the timescale per turn. If the timescale is 5-15minutes a turn then yeah there's enough time to dig in. |
wizbangs | 05 Feb 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
I'm not aware of a time scale, but if we're talking time to dig a trench, then what's stopping engineers from laying an instant minefield or barbed wire obstacle? My 37mm ATG is still only firing 3 rounds per turn. |
Privateer4hire | 05 Feb 2015 4:01 p.m. PST |
Hasty scrapes rather than digging in or going prone behind best available cover with the effect that they have a bulletproof cover save are maybe a little more palatable. It's already a dice roll (so not guaranteed success) that they have to sacrifice movement for and which affects their rate of fire. The little I've played FoW (maybe a dozen times total) the more I appreciate things like IABSM that says in the short time you're fighting foxholes built during the game are not workable. Your proposals are good house rules except I wouldn't make them easier to hit. I'd just penalize their ROF and still make them take dice rolls to succeed at least 2 turns worth of trying to get decent enough scrapes. |
raylev3 | 05 Feb 2015 4:07 p.m. PST |
I think you're taking the term "digging in" too literally. If I remember from the designer notes (or maybe my interpretation) what it means is that in any given area I will use the terrain to the best of my ability. It's rare to find billiard table flat terrain (maybe North Africa battles, but even then only in a few areas). Generally even on flat terrain there are rolls in the ground etc that you will use to get as much cover and concealment as possible. As an old soldier and as someone who lives on the plains I know you can always find somewhere to hide to the best of your ability. Having said that, I like the idea of taking more than one turn depending on the scenario. In Europe, one turn makes sense, if you buy my interpretation above; during 8th Army ops in N. Africa, maybe more, or none at all. Of course, I'm saying this without getting into a discussion of time, space, and scale as it applies, or not, in FOW. |
John the OFM | 05 Feb 2015 4:11 p.m. PST |
As an old soldier I find this ridiculous. There is your problem. Conscripts have a lower skill level. They are too tired to dig in, complaining and bitching. For the same reason they are easier to hit. Veterans have an easier time, since they dig in almost automatically. ALMOST. Veterans who are not dug in are still harder to hit than conscripts who are dug in. It's part of the Fog of FOW. Your troops don't always behave as smartly as you want them to. Maybe the conscripts ditched the shovel on the march because it was too heavy. BTW, you are not digging in on the turn you rushed up to the enemy. You are digging in on a turn where you must be stationary, and cannot shoot. |
wizbangs | 05 Feb 2015 4:22 p.m. PST |
Not a bad depiction Ray, and I considered the hasty "scrape." (Weren't those called skirmishers trenches?). The problem I have is the bullet-proof cover that comes with it. I have no problem with Going to Ground and, in subsequent turns, allowing them to shoot & keep the defensive benefit of going to ground. To me this better depicts a quick scrape, collection of ground debris or what have you. But instantly conjuring something that will protect you against bullets 5 out of 6 times seems a stretch. Great discussion guys. |
VonTed | 05 Feb 2015 4:35 p.m. PST |
I am with raylev3…. this rule depicts the soldiers finding whatever cover is available to hide behind. I would assume given a little free time anyone would try to find a better spot to hold up in….? |
raylev3 | 05 Feb 2015 4:48 p.m. PST |
Heck, yeah…an infantryman can always remove the buttons from the front of his shirt and get even lower to the ground. :-) |
darthfozzywig | 05 Feb 2015 5:10 p.m. PST |
I think branding is something of an issue with FOW rules. "Digging in" is evocative and catchy, so it's more memorable than an unnamed block of text. The same goes for "Bailing out", which also seems to cause similar reactions here. It's an abstraction with a catchy name mnemonic, but like analogies, can cause headaches if stretched too far. |
VonBurge | 06 Feb 2015 4:38 a.m. PST |
I agree that it's really more of a case of finding a good bit of cover than actually breaking out shovels. Really a poor use of terms much like "Bailed Out" for tanks which really means something more along the lines of the tank simply being temporarily incapacitated more so than the crew being out side of the vehicle. One thing that gives strength to the idea that "Dig In" really is not so much actually digging foxholes is that thier is nothing for another unit to move in and occupy if the "Dug In" unit moves out. Nope, the following unit has to find those natural bits of terrain that give some degree of cover all over again. No convienant foxholes for them to just move in to, |
ubercommando | 06 Feb 2015 5:04 a.m. PST |
Digging in in FoW roughly equates to something like "going tactical" in CoC except that the troops don't move. But both games effectively allow your troops to improve their cover by a factor of one. It's all about nomenclature… |
Mike Target | 08 Feb 2015 4:05 a.m. PST |
Seems like some folk get too hung up on names… |
Lewisgunner | 09 Feb 2015 4:36 p.m. PST |
The game is intended to last for six to eight moves. In that time an infantry unit may have too get to a point and then protect itself. That is why they can 'dig in'. Its clearly not meant to be the construction of revetted trenches with bunkers, but it would be clearly wrong to equate it with the time taken to shoot three rounds. The game is about balance, if you truly replicate WW2 it would be a very boring game,,,infantry advances, shots ring out. Infantry goes to ground, infantry calls up mortars, artillery or air. If none available sections pin the opponent whilst other sections work the flanks until they get crossfire, suppress the opponent and assault. But that's a platoon level game,,,its not FoW which is sort of a kampfgruppe game. Or you could have another realistic game. russian artillery pound German line, Russian infantry assault in waves, Germans shoot wave after wave until the barrels heat up and Russkies swamp them… not much of a game, but quite like reality. Or a realistic desert game, British tanks arrive on table, German 88 invisible in the next room picks them off, British pull out what is left??? WW2 on the scale FoW is running it is only possible if we assume that there is no time ground scale, just a set of rather arbitrary relationships between actions, movement, ranges and penetrations. And while we are on about realism why can't my matildas just drive over German anti tank guns in 1940,,,its what they did? |
Poniatowski | 10 Feb 2015 5:18 a.m. PST |
I also agree with that it is more of a "catchy tune"… just like bailed out…. it is meant to signify grabbing any available cover.. where bail out really means "bottled up"… not to be confused with buttoned up wiht the hatches closed…. How would you describe it….? "when in combat troops will try to get into the best cover that they can find. More experienced troops are battle hardened and know what cover will work and what won't. Troops can "get into cover" on a roll of xyz…. Call it "hunker down" if you choose, but I think it very accurately reflects getting into what cover is available…. just poor choice of words…. Mor eexperienced troops will know that a briar bush, although very concealing won't offer ant real protection while a dead tree would be better…. It is another case of being too literal and looking for "catch" phrases….. Remember.. in the rules.. if a dug in position is left by the troops, it cannot be reentered…. they need to make another roll…. that right there lets you know it isn't a "real" trenchline.. just finding what cover is available. D |
Tgunner | 16 Feb 2015 6:24 a.m. PST |
Not a bad depiction Ray, and I considered the hasty "scrape." (Weren't those called skirmishers trenches?). The problem I have is the bullet-proof cover that comes with it. I have no problem with Going to Ground and, in subsequent turns, allowing them to shoot & keep the defensive benefit of going to ground. To me this better depicts a quick scrape, collection of ground debris or what have you. But instantly conjuring something that will protect you against bullets 5 out of 6 times seems a stretch. Great discussion guys. _______________________ I don't have a problem with it. Infantry is easy to nail when they are moving in the open, but once they hit the dirt they are harder than ticks to take out. Give a skilled grunt half a chance and they'll find solid cover that will require some serious stain remover to take out… mere rifles and mgs just don't cut it. Like weapons with good firepower or close quarters combat. Our tables just can't fully create reality. There are folds in the earth, depressions, and ditches that exist in the world that our flat tables just can't model. So that rule seems about right to me. |
Thomas Thomas | 19 Feb 2015 2:43 p.m. PST |
The problem with the rule is tactical control. Yes troops not moving "go to ground" and seek out the best cover they can find. You don't order them to do so its just a natural response. You don't need a seperate rule. Going to full on hard cover (equal to a trench or building in FOW) is another matter entirely and where the rule breaks down. Old soldier is correct the rule makes no sense. TomT |
wizbangs | 19 Feb 2015 7:02 p.m. PST |
We resolved that a unit can skill test to dig in on the second turn they have been stationary with no firing. In addition any units digging in are targeted as if they were double-timing since a man digging a hole is easier to target than a man on the move. To somewhat offset this, we allow a unit that has Gone to Ground to fire in subsequent turns since most of what has been explained above justifies an additional -1 to hit (as if Gone to Ground) rather than the bullet-stopping cover equivalent to a house, stone wall or full entrenchment that digging in signifies (thanks for the examples Thomas). As far as getting hung up on flashy terminology, why use it if it isn't accurate? I delayed playing FOW for 6 years because if the "bailed out" rule, which I have since justified as simply "suppressed." If I thought "digging in" was reasonable I'd have no problem adopting it. But, I was never persuaded that this was an accurate depiction of how one creates bullet-proof cover so quickly. |
Wolfhag | 22 Feb 2015 8:27 a.m. PST |
We use the idea of an "Improved Position" whenever an infantry unit is not moving to reflect their ability to take the best available cover when they stop or Go To Ground. This does effect their observation somewhat but not their firepower. When rolling for causalities and suppression better units are harder to suppress and kill. The player can elect to self suppress any or all units in the fire team. This is a good tactic to reduce causalities while waiting for reinforcements or a mortar barrage to suppress the incoming fire. It does not make sense to slug it out on the losing end of a fire fight. Suppressed units cannot be hit by direct small arms fire but cannot return fire either. Suppressed units are easier to bypass or assault. We also use the concept of a "Tactical Withdraw" where the player can automatically rally all suppressed units IF they make a move away from the enemy in an attempt to get out of LOS but cannot fire while moving. Usually the player makes a tactical withdraw before an assault happens if too many are suppressed. However, the enemy can still attempt to cut them down while withdrawing. We feel digging in, shell scrapes, etc are out of the scope of the game unless already on the playing surface or there is a lull in the battle with enough time to prepare these positions. Wolfhag |