"Draftees/Conscripts vs Volunteers/Professionals" Topic

All,

This is one of the very, very few threads on the moderns boards that actually deals with miniature wargaming. It's about rating different types of soliders in a game.

Let's leave it at that rather than dragging it into a discussion on the morality of "total war" conducted without regard to civilian suffering. That's a different thread (but maybe the same website unfortunately).

Visceral – my apologies. You are of course correct.

I agree Visceral … Yes, I think we answered your questions. And beyond that we're going somewhere many don't want to go … And well beyond the gaming paradigm.

@ original posting (sorry haven't had time to read everything)

KISS

I looked around the room at our club once and out of 6 games everyone was buried in rule books

I think your system is overly complex, and will still fail to take into account real variables in warfare from a multitude of different causes. A simpler system that does not try to take everything into account is likely to end up with the same, or even more authentic results

John

John, I encourage you to read everyone's posts as they were very informative and quite useful regardless of the rules you play.

The game is actually extremely clean and fast. Here's an actual summary of the rules in question:

MOTIVATION
The number of bonus action points available to a force. Each unit has 2 action points and may receive 1 motivation point as a bonus AP. Each action costs 1 or 2 AP.

COHERENCE
The distance a command team can throw its own motivation point(s) for use by subordinates. Also the distance for coordinating mortar support, etc.

TEAMWORK
Roll this number of less for actions such as securing objectives, clearing casualties, etc.

GUTS
Roll this number of less for actions such as moving under fire and to recover from the effects of combat.

COMBAT SKILLS
Roll these numbers of less (shoot, evade, assault) for…waaait fooor iiit…shooting, evading, or assaulting.

Can't get much simpler or more intuitive than that. One of the most entertaining aspects of the system is that the mechanics are very easy to learn (in fact, if just read this summary, you just learned the core game rules) but how they work together and are implemented by the players is extremely rich and provides great depth and variety of play.

For example, if your battle plan relies upon moving aggressively all across the battlefield then you better have highly motivated troops and excellent cohesion. And if your guys have low assault skills but decent evade skills then hit and run tactics will work better than trying to engage in close quarters battle.

It was a good idea Visceral to ask these questions. I've played some wargames/rules in the distant past. Where I kept wondering where the designers got that [goofy !] idea to write certain rules into game ? Looks like you have clearly avoided something like that …

COHERENCE [Cohesion??]
The distance a command team can throw its own motivation point(s) for use by subordinates. Also the distance for coordinating mortar support, etc.

This just reminded me of something one of my friends was involved in for the DOD and we talked about a couple of weeks ago. He did a study of "situational awareness", specifically the distances a commander could see and be 'aware' of in battle. Only later did he find out that the Army and Marines had done their own studies. All three came up with the same distances: @600 yards.

Just FYI

We sort of played the game before (or as) we designed it and over the years maintained a continuous and ruthless feedback loop between player experience and the game mechanics.

Sometimes we found players repeatedly forgetting a rule and either designed a mnemonic to aid memory or decided that if people didn't notice they were forgetting the rule it must not be needed!

And we try to maintain intuitve, conceptual links between mechanics and real-world stuff. So troop characteristics and skills are the base value for how well they perform various actions, situational modifers alter that base, and gear defines physical potentials and limits (eg high skill shooters shoot better, it's harder to hit a target if you're taking hits yourself, and you need something like a ln RPG to kill a tank from a distance).

Even my wife, a non-wargamer, loses herself in the playing experience and can focus on the "story" of the game.

This just reminded me of something one of my friends was involved in for the DOD and we talked about a couple of weeks ago. He did a study of "situational awareness", specifically the distances a commander could see and be 'aware' of in battle. Only later did he find out that the Army and Marines had done their own studies. All three came up with the same distances: @600 yards.

A friend of mine who was an infantry officer convinced me to focus less on the comms gear for this verg reason and instead focus on leadership quality.

The game mechanic is almost the same: there's some distance at which a command team can influence a subordinate. And comms and sensors certainly have a role.

But the best sensors in the universe won't mitigate the failings of a bad infantry officer (I'm looking at you Lt. Gorman). And even forces with low tech gear or just runners can seemingly dominate a battle's tempo through planning and trust between small unit leaders.

And ultimately, once down to platoon level, the sounds of battle and knowledge of enemy behavior can be even more important to the real-time decision making required of an Lt. or "old man".

But the best sensors in the universe won't mitigate the failings of a bad infantry officer (I'm looking at you Lt. Gorman). And even forces with low tech gear or just runners can seemingly dominate a battle's tempo through planning and trust between small unit leaders.

Well, the issues are what can the officer be personally aware of, what can outside sources…including sensors give him in the way of information, and finally what does the officer do with that information… what does he understand from the information? The whole process being termed "situational awareness."

In other words, what can he know and 'so what?' Leadership quality would impact the answer…or be the answer depending on how you are defining that quality.

A friend of mine who was an infantry officer convinced me to focus less on the comms gear for this very reason and instead focus on leadership quality.

Yes, very much so …