"Sweet Spot for Tactical Gaming?" Topic

Is there a sweet spot for tactical gaming? Does it vary by period (WWII to SF)?

Let's define tactical level gaming as one reinforced platoon, company, or (at a long stretch) battalion on each side. By sweet spot let's say enough stands/pieces so a force feels substantial, not too many stands/pieces so the game bogs down or gets too expensive, and enough variety in unit types for combined arms warfare and interesting tactical choices.

To help guide the discussion let's first look at typical real world TO&Es and game scale ratios for these different levels:
_______________________________

ONE PLATOON PER SIDE
1x Command Team
3x Rifle Squads (i.e. 6x fire teams in total)
1x Weapons Squad (i.e. 2-4x weapons teams in total)
3-4x Transport Vehicles

ORGANIC PLATOON LEVEL ASSETS: rifles, LMGs, GLs, ATRLs, Trucks/APCs/IFVs
ATTACHED ASSETS: for discussion

OPTION "PLT/SQUAD" AT 1 STAND = 1 SQUAD/VEHICLE: ~4 stands + 3-4 vehicle models
OPTION "PLT/TEAM" AT 1 STAND = 1 TEAM/VEHICLE: 9-11 stands + 3-4 vehicles models

note: a 'stand' is a group of 2-5 individual figures whether mounted as a single group or individually…a PLT/TEAM game could have 9-11 stands of figures to move around or 36+ individual figures!
________________________________

ONE COMPANY PER SIDE
1x Company HQ Section (i.e. about 2 teams)
3x Rifle Platoons (i.e. 9-12x squads or 19-31x teams in total)
1x Weapons Platoon (i.e. 2-3x sections or 4-6x teams in total)
12-17x Transport Vehicles

ORGANIC COMPANY LEVEL ASSETS: rifles, LMGs, MMGs, GLs, ATRLs, Mortars, Trucks/APCs/IFVs
ATTACHED ASSETS: for discussion, but this is usually where modern formal combined arms teams start with cross attachments

OPTION "COY/3:1" AT 1 STAND = ~3 TEAMS/VEHICLES: 8-13 stands + 4-6 vehicle models
OPTION "COY/SQUAD" AT 1 STAND = 1 SQUAD/VEHICLE: 12-16 stands + 12-16 vehicle models
OPTION "COY/TEAM" AT 1 STAND = 1 TEAM/VEHICLE: 25-39 stands + 12-16 vehicle models
___________________________________

ONE BATTALION PER SIDE
1x Battalion HQ Platoon
3x Rifle Companies (usually composed of 3-4 platoons each)
1x Weapons Company (usually composed 2-3 platoons)

ORGANIC BATTALION LEVEL ASSETS: rifles, LMGs, MMGs, GLs, ATRLs, Mortars, Trucks/APCs/IFVs
ATTACHED ASSETS: for discussion, but usually a battalion CO has access to the most variety

OPTION "BAT/PLT" AT 1 STAND = 1 PLATOON: 12-16 stands + 12-16 vehicle models

Note: for battalion level I just did 1 stand = 1 platoon of infantry or vehicles as this seems to be the most popular approach for this level.
___________________________________

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

Below is a summary of the options described above for discussion/reference purposes.

OPTION "PLT/SQUAD" AT 1 STAND = 1 SQUAD/VEHICLE: ~4 stands + 3-4 vehicle models

OPTION "PLT/TEAM" AT 1 STAND = 1 TEAM/VEHICLE: 9-11 stands + 3-4 vehicles models

OPTION "COY/3:1" AT 1 STAND = ~3 TEAMS/VEHICLES: 8-13 stands + 4-6 vehicle models

OPTION "COY/SQUAD" AT 1 STAND = 1 SQUAD/VEHICLE: 12-16 stands + 12-16 vehicle models

OPTION "COY/TEAM" AT 1 STAND = 1 TEAM/VEHICLE: 25-39 stands + 12-16 vehicle models

OPTION "BAT/PLT" AT 1 STAND = 1 PLATOON: 12-16 stands + 12-16 vehicle models

To summarize the assets available at these levels: WWII platoons usually (but not always) lack MMGs and mortars. Modern platoons have tripods for their weapons squad MGs but lack organic mortars. WWII and Modern companies have access to MMGs and organic mortars and some have organic AFV support (e.g. SdKfz 251/9 and Stryker MGS). Battalions in all periods usually have access to the same assets as company level but in a heavier form, especially in the case of infantry guns and mortars.

Regarding the practical load on the gamer with respect to the number of "playing pieces" that need to be moved/tracked/purchased/painted/stored/transported, two of the options are very similar in having 8-13 infantry stand and 3-6 vehicle models (PLT/TEAM and COY/3:1). In fact COY/3:1 probably provides the most variety wrt vehicle models at the lowest cost in money and time.

COY/SQD and BAT/PLT are also very similar in needing 12-16 infantry stands and 12-17 vehicle models. And as one friend likes to point out, having a 1:1 ratio for infantry to transport can make things easier to understand.

COY/TEAM is the most expensive and time consuming with 25-39 infantry stands and 12-16 vehicle models.

One problem with any approach that uses 1 stand = 1 squad or 1 stand = 1 platoon is that many platoons have mixed assets within weapons squads and platoons and the question arises as to how to represent those assets. For example, some modern weapons squads have 2x MG teams and 2x AT teams. At 1 stand = 1 squad do you violate formal squad organization and field those as two individual stands? If you have a WWII platoon with a mix of mortars, MGs, and even ATGs/SPGs and one stand = one platoon do you field that weapons platoon as three stands? One VERY abstract stand? Or aggregate the company level weapons platoons up one level to a battalion level asset? I guess none of the options can full respect platoon/squad level organization except for those which use 1 stand = 1 team or 1 vehicle.

MY PREFERENCE
My personal favorite is COY/3:1 as it provides lots of variety at the lowest cost in time and money. You get all of those neat company level mortars and machine guns plus reasonable attachments from battalion level but only need to buy 4-6 vehicles. However, that approach doesn't always follow squad organization and only few games use it (IIRC Battlefront from the Fire & Fury folks use it).

My second favorite is PLT/TEAM because it respects the formal TO&Es, limits costs in figures and vehicle models, and it's not entirely unreasonable to to attach a heavy AFV or two to a rifle platoon. In reality the platoon leader wouldn't "command" the tanks but they'd certainly coordinate, even in WWII. However, direct control of other assets, especially in WWII would be limited. For example, indirect fire isn't always directed by or available to a platoon commander. It really depends on the period/army and that can lead to game balance issues if only one side has fire support.

My only problem with the many 1:1 vehicle model options at company level and the popular "5:1" battalion level approach (e.g. Command Decision) is that tabletops soon look like parking lots and one just side's vehicles alone will cost around $200 USD to $300. USD Fielding a German armored panzer grenadier company or American armored infantry company at 1:1 for vehicle ratios gets really expensive and crowded really fast. Same goes for the battalion-level formations of those two organinzation types. And a modern Stryker company at a 1:1 vehicle ratio requires at least 21 Stryker models (many of which aren't even available in 15mm)!

One solution to the battalion level problem is that used by Rapid Fire. In those rules an American Armored Infantry Battalion has just 8 vehicle models as a single company of infantry ride in one halftrack model. But then again many object to the fact that the formal platoon-level TO&E is not followed in that approach.

YOUR PREFERENCE
What is your personal favorite or some variation on the options defined above? What would be your 'desert island' choice? Do you have different preferences by period?

If gaming at platoon level do you prefer individually mounted figures or multi-figure bases?

For me, it usually comes to between 6 and 10 "things" on the table I can move.

So a well reinforced platoon fits right in there.
If the figures are based individually, a platoon in 1-to-1 scale feels like a lot of soldiers as well.

It depends on the rules system. For example, while Chain of Command is a platoon scale game with 1 figure representing 1 man, it's really a team game because the figures operate as teams. Also, the rules encourage you to keep a reserve so there's usually a significant number of figures kept off board. (Basically, figures kept off board cannot be harmed and there's usually not enough commands to order everything if you put all of your troops on the board. There's other reasons to keep troops off board too but those are big reasons).

So it generally fits with Weasel's 6-10 things to move even though it has more figures. 6-10 things to command is a good rule of thumb to go by.

Most real battles have an aggressor and a defender. Therfore at a tactical level one side needs about a platoon and the other a minimum of a company. A well engineered defence may take more than a company battle group to dislodge them. A company a side is unrealistic if you wast something other than stalemate. You are not going to take any significant ground without significant local superiority. A platoon typicaly holds about 500m of frontage and a company attacks on about 500m . These norms are similar for WWII but are only a norm, wild variations are possible if there are mitigating factors.

For me doing the Cold War, it's Battalion level for the attackers, and company+ level for the defenders, using fairly simple, yet tactically interesting, quick-play rules (at least those are the rules I'm hoping for – still looking for those), at 1:1 ratio for vehicles and squads.

Of course, for smaller games, and/or if the rules are more complex, may go with a company or two pitted against a platoon, or four (infantry, or mech inf co. + tank platoon; or a tank company plus a mech inf platoon, etc.), depending upon the scenario, again at 1:1.

In the Cold War, vehicles will die quickly, and I suspect troops on the attack in the open as well.

It depends a lot.
3 to 1 odds tends to ensure the attacker wins, which is desirable in real life but on the gaming table, we tend to want the game to be as close as possible.

At the skirmish level, take two platoons. Remove a few men from the defenders, give the attackers a bit extra support and in most every game out there, they'll do alright.
It'll be close and tense and that's what a game should be.

Good point UshCha! In that context things get even more interesting.

Let's say you're playing a company attacking a platoon position. Here's how the toys or "pieces" break down:

COY/3:1 (1 STAND = 3 TEAMS OR 3 VEHICLES)
Attacker: 8-13 stands + 4-6 vehicle models
Defender: 2-3 stands + 1-2 vehicle models

COY/SQD (1 STAND = 1 SQUAD OR 1 VEHICLE)
Attacker: 12-16 stands + 12-16 vehicle models
Defender: 4 stands + 3-4 vehicle models

COY/TEAM (1 STAND = 1 TEAM OR 1 VEHICLE)
Attacker: 25-39 stands + 12-16 vehicle models
Defender: 9 stands + 3-4 vehicle models

What's most interesting is how the ratio of infantry stands to vehicle models changes in each case. But most rules don't explicitly account for that difference. In two approaches above there are 2 or 3 infantry stands per vehicle model. In one approach it's 1:1.

Moving on to a platoon attacking a squad:

PLT/TEAM (1 STAND = 1 TEAM OR 1 VEHICLE)
Attacker: 9-11 stands + 3-4 vehicles models
Defender: 2-3 stands + 1 vehicle model

Of all of these approaches the COY/3:1 and PLT/TEAM are least expensive and least time consuming. The COY/TEAM is the most expensive and time consuming. COY/SQD is in the middle but faces the issue of how to treat weapons squads composed of multiple weapon systems (e.g. 2x AT teams and 2x MG teams).

Mako11 and Ditto,

If you're using squads as the "playing piece", how do you treat heterogeneous weapons squads?

For example, several modern U.S. TO&Es show 2x MG teams and 2x AT teams in a platoon's weapons squad. The rest of the platoon has 3x rifle squads (each of 2x fire teams).

If using squads as the playing piece does the platoon consist of 3x rifle squad stands, 1x MG stand, and 1x AT stand? Are the AT guys assumed to be part of the rifle squads? I guess one could use the Command Decision approach in that case and "award" an AT weapon to one of the rifle squads. The result might be:

U.S. RIFLE PLATOON (1 STAND = 1 SQUAD)
2x Rifle Stands
1x Rifle Stand w/AT Weapon
1x MG Stand
4x Stryker ICV

A Bradley platoon gets weird in that situation. It has 4x IFVs but only the equivalent of 3x squads! 8-O I've always hated the Bradley platoon when trying to figure out TO&Es!!! :-)

Visceral – Usually, the AT teams are probably too small to act on their own.

For FiveCore CC, we use "specialists" that you can stick on to a squad to indicate they have some additional capability, like AT weapons.

In something like Crossfire, I'd just have them be an integral part of the squad.

Usually, the AT teams are probably too small to act on their own.

Yeah, I suppose that goes to the stand:soldier ratio. In Flames of War each stand represents one "team" of 2-5 soldiers and they represent AT teams as separate stands.

In Command Decision infantry stands are awarded AT weapon status based on the number of weapons available at a given level. In some cases they get aggregated up a level or across an entire unit to maintain a reasonable "AT weapon to Vehicle" ratio. It sounds like FiveCore is closer to CD.

One advantage of NOT have them as a separate entity/stand is ability to use stands across multiple rules and scales.

If you have a stand or group of figures and one is armed with an AT weapon the group might represent a fire team, a squad, or a platoon and it simply counts as having an AT weapon.

One judgement call that would still exist is light ATGMs such as the Javelin. I've read some arguments that its light enough to carry around (in wargame terms) like an AT4. Others have argued that it should be represented with a unique stand/maneuver element on the table. It's especially troublesome for units like a Stryker Platoon which supposedly has one AT specialist in each squad and has Javelins available on the ICV. So does one of the 2 fire team stands or single squad stand that represents a Stryker squad dismount with a Javelin? Hmmm…

yeah, a lot of these questions end up not having easy answers :-)

It also depends, I think, on how you consider the individual decision making levels.

If I am a company commander, odds are that I wouldn't have a lot of input on where the AT weapons in hte platoon are placed.
Hence, making them integral to a unit makes more sense.

If I am a platoon commander though, I'd probably want to know exactly where I positioned it.

One option is to integrate it into a troop stand but require that they cease other activities temporarily while operating the AT weapon.
That makes it more of a tactical choice and it seems the grunts would keep their heads down anyways, while someone is firing the Javelin at a T55 or whatever.

I whipped up a chart that might help illuminate the conversation with actual examples. It applies the ideas discussed so far to three complicated company/platoon TO&Es: Modern US Stryker, WWII German PzGren, and WWII US Armored Infantry. I was rushing so if anyone spots errors I'll correct and re-post. I didn't bother with figuring out AT weapons as I think most people agree it's easiest to just award stand here and there with a bazooka or AT4.

In some ways the third column is related to the second column and simply goes the next step in aggregating vehicles as much as infantry teams.

The fourth column is the odd man out since it's really just the first column applied to a single rifle platoon. But I really like it since it appeals to my OCD side: all the elements are the same size (a team of 2-5 soldiers) and yet it's quite affordable with respect to time and money. It has the least variety but attachments can help there.

Voila!

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

I think when you break it down into "how many stands am I moving around on the table", it gives a better view, as a player, of the time and investment that is going to be involved.

Some Of The Analysis Is A Bit flawed. In reality platoons and company AT we aprons would be grouped out of there units in the optimum point for AT which is not the optimum for the infantry fight. Read Goose Green the para grouped the m's together to form a fire bases and attack ed with rifles in one engagement. Much beyond 1 team is one stand it's not possible to use a close approximation to real terrain. And even then it's a bit stretched. I am a 1 stand per team man at both 1/144 and 1/72 but it does limit normal games to a max size of a company battle group and huge games to a battalion. It's all a compromise. Missed a bit. At 1 stand per team or vehicle you get the formation. Are the tanks all looking one way or in echelon left or right etc. This is key in the real world and to me has to be put in place.

I don't think getting bogged down is a function of the OOB or TOE. I think it is a function of decisions x actions.

Decisions are meta-level decisions you have to make – Do I move in hard and fast, wait, feint, advance to cover, etxc?

Actions are things you have to do on the tabletop to carry out your decisions … measure, move units (together), roll dice, etc.

I think optimal is 4-6 decisions with 2-4 actions each. I think that's enough to keep you and others interested in your turn, especially with opposed rolls.

I don't think getting bogged down is a function of the OOB or TOE. I think it is a function of decisions x actions.

I agree but also believe that in the context of the game there's strong a relationship between maneuver elements and decisions/actions and there's a physical cost regardless of game scale/scope driven by number of "things" on the table.

For example, one might use column A but use full platoons as maneuver elements (as in Flames of War) or squads and individual vehicles (some other games). Using full platoons and column A reduces decisions/actions thus (to your point) speeding up play. But there is a cost in complexity wrt things like cover and close assault since the basic unit/platoon can be anywhere from 7 to 11 or more stands and vehicles spread over a large area ("Does the unit count as being in cover? How do I assault the whole thing?")

Then there's the physical costs. Playing company level battles with individual figures means moving about 120 figures. There's no way around it: moving 120 individual figures takes more time than moving 12 figures stands/vehicles.

How decisions are made is another factor in speed of play (i.e. with strict sequence of play such as move-shoot-melee-morale versus unit activation). Depending on other factors either one can be painfully slow or zippy! :-)

I think I'd attach the A/T units to the squads/fire teams.

For detachment of individual tank hunters with RPGs, or similar, perhaps a morale check to see if the trooper is willing to go out on his own to do that (maybe also make it twice as hard, to pass as normal – again to limit that from occurring too often).

From what I've read, Soviets/W.P. don't really break down their squads, so that's a plus when fielding large units of them.

For NATO, I'd permit squads/fire teams, as desired.

For the MG/Auto Grenade Launcher units, let them act together as a base of support (or individually), and/or attach them to a squad, as desired.

Some of this depends on the time period too.

A platoon in a modern setting, particularly with a bit of attrition, may barely exceed 20 guys.
Their world war 2 counterpart might be 30 or more.

I like the idea of a "tank hunter" check.
You could even make it simpler:
Assuming a morale score from 1-5 or so, allow the AT shot be taken that many inches from the parent stand.

I agree but also believe that in the context of the game there's strong a relationship between maneuver elements and decisions/actions and there's a physical cost regardless of game scale/scope driven by number of "things" on the table.

I agree with this … it's related to what I called "actions".

Some of this depends on the time period too.

A platoon in a modern setting, particularly with a bit of attrition, may barely exceed 20 guys.

And this is why I think you should focus in the direction:

decisions X actions --> artifacts / OOB

Once you figure out your desired cognitive loading (which in no way has to related to the one I posited), it will lead you to the number of "things" (as you put it), then you can divide the OOB up in ~roughly~ that sized/type of chunks.

Speed of play is interesting. Our "journey" to maneover group started with Stagrunt II with its clones at a Platoon level its still OK. It was the first one that moving took more time than rule reading. Superb in its way far better than earlier Modern or WWII we had played. Real tactics sort of. This bought in the infamous 30 second rule. You had to move within 30 seconds of it being your tutn. This was doable and put credible time pressure on the player. Along came MG and at the higher level (normaly company) 30 sec can be too short, somtimes you can be allowed 45 seconds, if thre is a lot going on. As the dice rolling soon becomes very quick there is not too much time to assess how to implement your plan.
its interesting to note some begginers have to be given a break part way through. It becomes clear as they reach the end of their metal plan, they cannot replace it. They have to be given time to re-plan (nothing to write down of course) but you still have to have a plan.

So the upsshot is what controls speed of play? To me a good set should be controlled by the bit count and qualatative decision making, go here, hold ther, call the artillery and wait. 50 bits for an expert player is it. more takes physicaly too long just to move, 25 is better and less fraught. Too may rules just means the writer wrote the wrong ones and the game grinds to a halt.

My absolute ideal? 2 down, to keep the amount of stuff manageable.

For platoon level games use 'team' stands.

For company level games, use section/squad stands.

For battalion level games, use platoon stands.

For brigade level, use company stands.

For division level use battalion stands.

For Corps level use brigade stands.

Some of my most grandiose efforts have featured and entire Corps modelled on a single base (the flanking Corps for Market Garden, as well as my WW1 trench warfare rules).

all of these will stretch a level up, at consequent detriment to playing time.

Yes, if you are going for a 3:1 attack ratio, you may find the defender has very little stuff, so you possibly want to look at rienfirced platoon/company/battalion.

Mixed support or specialist stands can be handled in a number of ways – explicit modelling of the support weapons on smaller stands, treat them as a 'capability' which can be farmed out to combat stands, or actually model them as a mixed capability stands e.g. weapons stands in CD. Sometimes a mixed capability stand can be used demonstrate that the larger unit has the capability, as with weapons companies in GBWW2.

I base all my WW1, WW2 and modern tactical stuff as 'teams', with the intention they can be used as teams, sections, platoons, companies or battalion stands, depending what I'm doing.

Smaller scale things (2mm, 6mm) I tend to base as platoons or companies as I pretty much gave up micro scale tactical gaming in 1980.

I meant to add, you can of course track element status (mode, formation, losses etc) by using multiple stands e.g. in Spearhead you manouvre battalions, but they are made up of platoons which essentially function as strength points.

If you are going to go 4 down like SH does, you need to ruthlessly simplify your move/combat mechanisms.

When it comes ot figure/stand/vehicle ratios I often make it up based on what I have available. wrt the 'company transport' cononudrum I have found an acceptable compromise is to go for greater scale of representation than combat AFVs. RF goes a litle too far, but for lorried infantry I'll use one lorry per company (platoon bases), but for armoured infantry I'll typically use two APCs per company – so the Germans get to deploy those sexy Sdkfz 251/9s, and just factor in the AA/AT capability of all the other vehicles.

If you don't sub-scale the transport your 'companies' rapidly turn into mini battalions.

Systems which include the transport in the element bases are probably the most effective, but they only really work for higher levels of representation, and even then you'll maybe need some way to represent units dumping their trucks, or splitting off a Bronegruppe or whatever.

I blame Panzerblitz for getting us all to think we have to model all the transport on a 1:1 element basis.

When it comes ot figure/stand/vehicle ratios I often make it up based on what I have available. wrt the 'company transport' cononudrum I have found an acceptable compromise is to go for greater scale of representation than combat AFVs. RF goes a litle too far, but for lorried infantry I'll use one lorry per company (platoon bases), but for armoured infantry I'll typically use two APCs per company – so the Germans get to deploy those sexy Sdkfz 251/9s, and just factor in the AA/AT capability of all the other vehicles.

A related aspect of this issue is infantry:vehicle:WEAPON ratio.

Let's say each stand is a squad but each vehicle model is one vehicle. Suddenly squads with multiple weapons teams (primarily mortars and MGs) get "de-valued" relative to vehicles with the same weapons.

For example, an MG squad with 2 or 3 weapon teams is represented by a single stand. It's transport might be an AFV mounting 1 MG of the exact same type such as an M240. If you treat the MG squad and AFV MG as having the same firepower then either the squad is getting nerfed or the AFV is buffed. If you give the squad proportionally more firepower then it starts to get really powerful relative to the AFV or the AFV MG is anemic in the context of the shooting rules.

This is one reason (in addition to time and money concerns) that we've stuck to companies at 3:1 scale for all infantry, weapons, and vehicles or platoons at 1:1 for these items (i.e. 1 stand is 1 fire team, weapons team, or vehicle). Either approach maintains a reasonable ration between dismounted weapons/staying power and vehicle weapons/staying power.

Which raises another often over looked issue related to scales. Going from vehicles and teams to vehicles and squads (ie each infantry stand is 2 or 3 teams effectively) changes the relative staying power of infantry and vehicles massively. Infantry goes from needing 2 or 3 "hits" to eliminate a squad to just 1 assuming an effective "hit" removes one stand.

All of this means that when choosing scales/ratios one needs to consider many factors: cost, painting time, game play burdens, and the math on both the firepower and staying power sides of the ledger.

BTW: just a general note to all…we already have a system developed to address these issues in our designs. I was just really curious to see the opinions of others on the matter and to see how "rigid" they might be. As expected there appears to be a range of opinion from flexible ro rigid.

We're probably pretty close to folks like Weasel, siggian, Martin, etc.: we like to command "two down" and prefer a flexible approach collecting and organizing our troops so that in various cases our stands can be teams, squads, or even platoons.This usually means that we're happy having about 9 things to command which also goes to the decision/action cycle above and the mental load on the player.

I realize this isn't much of a contribution, but a good friend if mine is in a Bradley unit as we speak and he can't even explain it to me, so I feel your pain visceral.

For me, I tend to like individual vehicles and infantry by the fire team/gun, kind of life how flames of was does it. About company level. All the cold war games I've played (not as many as I would like) warpac forces usually have the next level up if you will, just like we do on our ww2 games. It's usually been a reinforced warpac battalion attacking a NATO company/troop battle group. I say troop because most of the games have involved armored cavalry units.

I have also done a Soviet tank regiment with support trying to break through an armored cavalry squadron (battalion) with modern spearhead, it was an interesting fight.

When I get around to trying weasels company Commander rules, i'm going to try fire teams instead of squads.

6 to 12 maneuver units per side seems best, unless you have a very large table and more than 1 player per side.

One of the ways I've seen to eliminate the "nerfing" of units, is to use one vehicle per platoon on the tabletop, and/or one infantry stand.

However, on the roster lists, they track the true number of vehicles, and/or squads in a unit, and only remove them when all the vehicles are KO'd (or fail morale), and/or all the squads of the platoon are wiped out, or fail morale.

Adjusting the firepower of the units to reflect their actual makeup also helps to keep them from getting "nerfed".

For infantry, it's probably a bit easier to have a stand represent a squad though, and then track the makeup of it, instead, e.g. one or two MGs/SAWs per unit, plus men with rifles/other weapons, etc., in many cases.

Some rules just give these mixed units an appropriate number of different dice to equal their firepower – more dice, or better ones for those troops with SAWs/MGs, etc..

Dobber – the 2nd Battle Pack issue has fire team rules for Company Commander :)
Mostly small changes to account for the slight reduction in fire power, I erred on the side of simplicity for that one.

Mako – I imagine in the end, you can probably just count number of MG's and ignore the grunts.
A squad with 2 MG can take 2 "hits" before it's neutralized, etc.

Weasel- Have that, just haven't read it yet. thanks.

As far as the number of maneuver units goes, I really think it depends on what ratio of those units are armor vs infantry and how complicate the rules are.

Battlefront WWII goes slightly further in that direction, modelling 1 stand to 1 section but vehicles, and importantly, heavy weapons, at a nebulous 1 to 1 or 2.
Keeps the afv/hvy weapon/ inf ratios managable, and works for transport…ie half tracks, which come in at 2 per plt.

Tim,

Based on various combat memoirs I've read (WWII to today) I'd say your observations are spot on.

Obviously teams and squads are useful for certain purposes but in these combat memoirs there's a consistent theme: within the platoon these formal delineations matter less during the height of combat. The LT and his NCOs will order and lead the men within the platoon as needed and without regard for formal organization.

OTOH, as gamers, we sort of like these formal maneuver elements being represented on the table. If the player is a company commander and he knows his platoons each have three rifle squads and a weapons squad he usually wants three rifle stands and a weapons/MG stand to maneuver.

Personally (and as a designer now) I prefer a flexible approach that allows for formal organizations to be represented on the tabletop but which which can also represent the fact that these formal organizations are more flexible than we gamers might imagine. To that end our approach is probably more abstract in some ways but I would argue that whether playing Flames of War, Bolt Action, Command Decision, Rapid Fire, Force on Force, or any other system the results look remarkably similar: groups of figures maneuver and fight in a manner that "looks good" relative to the model terrain and largely independent of a nominal scale.

So in FoW, a company level game, you command a combined arms force including rifles, MGs, mortars, tanks, arty, and air even though you're a mere captain. And in Rapid Fire you maneuver individual figures almost skirmish style but you're commanding a battalion.

No matter our preference for scale and scope we all want the same thing: combined arms warfare along with dramatic tactical detail. As I've gotten older I've learned to worry less about the mental gymnastics of hard scales and ratios and simply enjoy the story unfolding on the tabletop.

For me, it usually comes to between 6 and 10 "things" on the table I can move.

This, though I am willing to go as high as 12 "things". I struggle to run more than that.

I would not want to play a battalion-per-side game with individually-based figures, but I think Flames of War is actually best when played with multiple companies and limited divisional-and-higher support. (I use an extra Artillery command and staff team for the battalion HQ teams)

I also think that the sweet spot gets smaller as you move from WW2 into scifi. WW2, the sweet spot is really the battalion, IMO, though there's nothing wrong with a company or platoon game. For more recent gaming, though, I think the sweet spot is down to the company-per-side, or maybe reinforced platoon level.

And I love Infinity, which means 10-20 individual troopers to command, but Infinity is special ops missions, not full-out warfare IMO.

We (well us MG) game designers went for teams. This is not just because we formaly like groups its also because it simplifies game mechanics. Its great having informal groups but now the system has to model by man not by 3 or 4 men. This is more rules, which detracts from realism bey resulting in less time playing time. Bigger bases soon lack any credibility to me. The real world is very large and complicated. At our ground scale 1m to 1mm our troops are nearly 8 times to tall and occupy too much ground already. However even here you can take a real map and gets most of the features like roads, rivers and hedges and at least quire a few of the crest line. This results in battlefields far more complicated than the typical wargames table forced by an incapable points system to "steralise" the terrain to match a points system. This complex real world terrain perforce means troops have to change formation and frontage to accomodate these complecities. This is not possible bey a singlebase.

The sweet spot may actually be defined by the level of abstraction you wish to put on your terrain. The closer you get to the real world the more the larger units fall down. In the real world a WWII battalion traveling down a road takes 20 minues to pass a point and is a very long coloum. Germans used 10 vehicles a mile to avoid losses to air power. In the real world you may be very close to the enemy and still be down the road. Hells Highway anybody?

At our ground scale 1m to 1mm … However even here you can take a real map and gets most of the features like roads, rivers and hedges and at least quire a few of the crest line.

An average two lane road is 6m wide. So your roads are only 6mm wide?!?! 8-O

Doesn't that look odd relative to your vehicle models? What size is your figure collection? (6mm, 15mm, 20mm, etc.)

I also think that the sweet spot gets smaller as you move from WW2 into scifi. WW2, the sweet spot is really the battalion, IMO, though there's nothing wrong with a company or platoon game. For more recent gaming, though, I think the sweet spot is down to the company-per-side, or maybe reinforced platoon level.

Makes complete sense to me!

But I have noticed that as one moves up the chain of command the only thing that seems to change for the most part is the number of stands needed to represent a given maneuver element and the ratio of vehicles/heavy weapons to infantry.

For example, suppose you have 2-3x rifle stands/groups of basic infantry figures and 1x MG team. That could be:

A FoW/WRG-style rifle squad of a few fireteams with attached MG team.

A Crossfire or Battlefront rifle platoon of a few squads and a weapons squad.

A Command Decision rifle company of a few platoons and a weapons platoon.

In each case the transport vehicle(s) vary based on the particular rules from just 1 vehicle model carrying all 3-4 infantry stands to 3 or 4 vehicle models, each carrying 1 stand.

This is one reason we tend to build our collection and play games based on the "Rule of Three" with 2-3 figures being grouped together as a basic stand/unit and 3 stands/units and an MG stand/unit forming a basic maneuver element. That group of stands can be a squad, platoon, or company, doesn't really matter.

VIS,
At our 1/144 scale figures the roads are 8 times too wide but they are that and more on a map. In rural areas you can get the spacing about right at say typically 300 to 600 mm in UK and northern Europe. Obviously there is a really wide variation in actual spacing. Obviously urban areas are not so well modelled but any significant urban Area is best done using 1/72 figures when the figure to ground scale variation is less about 5 to 1. Still a large abstraction but acceptable as you can get enough houses on that scale is not an issue as most sight lines are inside rifle range as per Crossfire rules.

What's the tabletop range (in inches or centimeters) on your SMGs, RPGs, and tripod-mounted MGs?

Actually I do like having more than 12 things to move about ( but thats just me).

I'm tentatively mucking about with a bastardised crossfire varient (which for want of anything better I'm calling chrisfire) which is essentially crossfire with ranges and move distances and a d10 system.
the premise is a simple one, most wargames rules allow most units to do stuff more or less every turn, this doesn't.

Simple point activation based on command numbers allowing various actions – not a fan of card or random activation so went this route.

None of it rocket surgery, in fact, if its not an unoriginal idea it doesn't get in!

The focus of all this is to allow largish forces – I envisage a competant player should be able to command an infantry btn with each squad represented- the key thing being that he will rarely be able to activate evrything at once. Hopefully this will encourage players to keep realistic reserves and assign tasks and force levels in a more doctrinal way rather than the normal "pirates of the Caribbean" seen on most wargames tables…..good luck with that, I hear you say.

MG such as GO MG range 100m (tracer burn out) SMG's have a range of approx on table. This is high as the size of a road is larger and these guns need to fire at least across a road. Rifles 320m again highish due to minimum entity size. Ground scale 1/144 minis is 1 mm to 1 m so rifles 300 mm on table. 30 inch at 1/72. Houses are close together, not much further apart than the road in urban, due again to ground scale issues.

Christot,
Reserves typicaly don't work in wargames as they cannot be deployed fast enough. If you get speed of deployment of reserves right it's worth keeping them. Fundamental errors in rules lead to errors in tactics.

Howdy,

In my opinion, Command Decision Test of Battle is a great game at the proper scale for WW2/modern action. In CD a player usually runs a battalion sized force (this can vary). CD is well suited for campaign games.

Ponder on,

JAS

So which comes first the terrain or the game. I have played bigger games, battalion level is my highest but as has been said "Amatures concentrate on tactics, profesionals on logistics". At Battalion level its inevitable that even keen amatures like me have to cover logistics else it become a fantasy game. You can't keep a company fighting for long at full stretch before it runs out of men, fuel and ammo. This says do we pick the models, the terrain or the rules first? I admit to the first and last. Out move to 1/144 was because fighting in very dence terrain at 1/72 eventually loses some interest. At that scale vehicles won't work, they don't generally get in that close. So we went round all the scales to find a smaller set of models that are compatable with our rules (you need to turn turrets to avoid stupid rules). This then set the ground scale (i.e about 5 to ten time ground scale). Perhaps the sweet sppot is not the model but the groundscale. At say 1 inch = 50m the board is unlikely to be representative of the real world as with say 1/144 the fields would be so close together it would look stupid. As the board becomes less like the real world the game degenerates (personal opinion) into a map game where logistics must dominate. A LONG WAY from my sweet spot.

Brian,

Given your interest in terrain and ground scale I would have thought that you would settle on 1/285 (micro armor). Did you try that?

Re: vehicles, whether 15mm or 20mm (1/72) IMO if one is fielding a full 1:1 company's worth of vehicles one is pushing the limit of what looks right for WWII to SciFi gaming. 40 vehicles on the average wargame table (20 per side) is just waaay too dense imo. Only down at 6mm does that start to look acceptable to me.

That's another reason we think of our forces as 1:1 reinforced platoons or 3:1 companies: 4 to 6 vehicles per side on a 4'x6' table doesn't look too dense.

Re: ground scale, I must admit to having given up on such things years ago. Looking at other game designs ranging from FoW to CD to even your rules, at the end of the day NOBODY I know tries to make their terrain fit the ground scale.

Instead we make the terrain fit the model troops so that, like you, our tanks can drive comfortably on model roads that have nothing to do with the abstract/nominal groundscale. And as designers we tend to ignore abstract/nominal ground scales as we make sure that even weapon ranges look right relative to troop size and model terrain. If we didn't then SMGs wouldn't be able to fire across even the most narrow roads and in otger cases there would be NO reason to maneuver for a better/closer range shot! :-)

IMO our top priority as designers and gamers, whether we want to admit it or not, is to play games which look and feel right relative to our troops and terrain regardless of nominal ground scale or figure ratio. Command Decision players want figures armed with bazookas instead of abstract "AT Value" which would probably be more appropriate for its scale. And FoW players want full control over air and arty support and a huge variety of AFV support even if they're just a lowly rifle company CO. In some ways, they all play the same game with battalion-level combined arms forces executing squad-level actions.

I think it's entirely possible to game battalion level, Cold War engagements on the tabletop, given some of the narrow attack frontages they'd use (apologies in advance for the chart, but TMP doesn't do posting of those very well – see link below, for more info):

Soviet Attack Doctrine (Cold War)

Frontages and distances

Each level of unit has deployment frontages and depths. These distances apply regardless of the formation the unit has adopted, e.g. a defending company must cover 1-1.5km of frontage regardless of whether it is in line, wedge, or "V".

Distances

Platoon (m) Company (m) Battalion (km)

Defence frontage 400-500 1,000-1,500 4-7 km
Defence depth 150-600 500-1,000 1-3 km
Operational attack frontage ----- 750 1-2 km
Attack frontage ----- 1,000 2-3 km
Depth of attack (immediate objective) N/A N/A 2-4 km
Depth of attack (subsequent objective) N/A N/A 8-15 km

The Defence frontage combined with the defence depth define the area the unit is responsible for defending.

The Attack frontage is the distance the unit is responsible for when attacking, although the troops only operate within the Operational attack frontage. That means there will be gaps in the attack.

Depth of attack only applies to battalions and above. It is the distance to the unit's immediate objective and the subsequent objective.

link

Using 1" to 50 meters/yds. seems like a good compromise for this.

I like to play on a 6' x 12' table, though obviously, you can choose any table size you have handy.

If you have a smaller table, you can either adjust the tactics used by the Soviets to match them. I suggest a "Breakthrough Attack" against a defended position. In this case, a single company wide attack is made, followed by two other company waves to follow, in case the previous one(s) fail to penetrate the defensive lines.

When attacking, "vehicle spacing on roads is 15 – 50m, and 50 – 100m cross-country".

Obviously, given these narrow frontages, many scales of miniatures/models can be used, though the smaller ones like 1/300th do provide for a better ground-scale match, if you like the looks of them.

By compressing the ground scale a bit, even 1/144th, 1/100th, and 1/72 scale models may be used too.

In the larger scales, maneuver warfare is difficult to depict on the tabletop, so for that, I recommend either using a boardgame, or map to set up engagements between various forces, which can then be played out on the game table.

Mako…what sort of figure ratio are you suggesting for that approach? One stand equals one platoon?

Vis'
In an actual battle 1 company attacks on about 0.5 km frontage and a pltoon and its support on about 0.5 to 1k. Given that the defender attacks in depth, 20 tanks is not too many as lots will be lost very quickly and does not look too poor. It is a commonplace that wargamers are range obsessed. Tactical doctrine for the bren gun is that it gets no more effective closer than 400 yds so range is not the driver in the real world. The war fighting requirements are not the same as club target shooting. As for looks the game is the driver as far as we are concerned. Looks do not override tactical doctrine or else it's not a simulation of any sort.

As for looks the game is the driver as far as we are concerned. Looks do not override tactical doctrine or else it's not a simulation of any sort.

Which is where some of us disagree on what we want in our game.

I play games, not simulations, so my priorities are gameplay and looks, in that order.

=====
The real challenge with Cold War Gone Hot scenarios is the Soviet "Grid Square Removal Service", aka the monstrous amounts of artillery they bring to bear.

I have to agree with you Lion on both points. Of all the email we've received on Age of Madness nobody demanded that we commit to a fixed ground scale. Instead they focus on asking for new toys and gear to play with. And one of the challenges we struggled with is massive indirect fire support which can decide a tactical level company firefight in a few minutes in a conventional setting!

VIS,
That sounds more like utter failure of the game writer to read the correct documents. US manuals on artillery. Impact of Battlion level russam mortars. Anybody caught in the open dead. Those in prepared defences no significant caslualties. It would appar that wargamers generally overestimate the effect of artillert the object of which is from the US manuals "to supress and fix in place". Secondly using the rates and densities of fire you find quoted that only one or two spots can be hit that hard in say an 8 hour timescale as it empties the vehicles really quickly and it takes a long time to reload or you do it at very high risk. The whole point of defence in depth is that the enemy runs out of ammo before you run out of depth. Again belief in manufactures data(which is never wrong but can be mis interpreted)vs actual planning data. Again US manuals are free and with work readable. The one on US mortar platoon is a good start for small scale.

Just for fun we checked against WWII data amassed by a fried. Actually little diffrence. Thisgs like ICM are not super weapons they just prop up poor guns like the M109 whoses rate of fire is too slow.
Thre are definitely two types of player.

Modellers who like to push a few bits round throw a few dice drink beer, chat and complain how bad there dice thows were. Any reality should in no way interfere with this (and why should it).

The others arrive with a complex tactical scenario requireing them to concentrate their forces in taime and space ochestraing a dance interfered with by the friction of war. Then in a quick post battle review complain bitterly they missed untill far to late that the 8 house on the left or a small rise (like Hill 112) was actualy a key feature that they had overlooked. The go home facinated having put there all into a story and loved every minute win or lose. Completely different game but whichever way you play it needs to suit you. We are definitely type 2. We play for the game and if its unrealistic then its no fun at all nomatter how good the models are.

For all of us our sweet spot is a shade of on one of these.

I do find it depressing when folke atribute bad rule writing as being the fault of the real world. If your pick up with a 50 cal or your Landrover wolfedoes not work in the context they are used, then its likely the rules are wrong not the folk driving the real thing.

Well put, Ushcha.

B

That sounds more like utter failure of the game writer to read the correct documents. US manuals on artillery. Impact of Battlion level russam mortars. Anybody caught in the open dead. Those in prepared defences no significant caslualties. It would appar that wargamers generally overestimate the effect of artillert the object of which is from the US manuals "to supress and fix in place".

I don't believe that anybody suggested that dug-troops troops would be automatically obliterated by indirect fire. Lion is extremely knowledgeable about this stuff and he too knows the difference between troops dug-in and troops caught in the open.

But to be fair, I also agree with you, wargamers do put far too much value in thing like manuals and abstract data relative to their actual value when developing an entertaining tabletop game.

A prime example is the use of theoretical effective weapon ranges and unit frontages (in meters) relative to a strict tabletop ground scale and a belief that such things make a game "realistic". They'll quote these values, declare a game realistic simply because they're cited in the rules, and then effectively and totally ignore these values when they build their terrain and plop their model tanks and infantry on the table. They'll still insist the values have some sort of meaning despite the fact that the game's actual, on-table experience is virtually identical to games that don't use a strict ground scale. Same goes for time scales. The moment one applies a strict time scale to a game he's left with a huge problem: troops enter and exit the table in a turn or less or fire fights could go on for days in real-time.

What I find impressive about Lion and his contributions to TMP is that while he's a veteran whose profession required him to know a lot of this stuff in great detail as it pertains to the real world he also enthusiastically enjoys games such as Flames of War which doesn't make any pretense about being "realistic" through the use of things like strict ground scales and similar data of questionable entertainment value. Instead, Lion recognizes the difference between a game's objective (entertainment value) and the practical limits of tabletop miniature gaming with respect to simulating "realism". He accepts those limits based on very reasonable standards.

I think you see that sort of nuanced position throughout the industry today and many veterans seem to adopt it. Look at the Ambush Alley forums: lots of vets love the game and fully understand the limits of tabletop gaming in simulating "reality".

All of this pertains to the issue of heavy artillery fire and gaming too. Let's say you have a company-sized move to contact scenario. The lead elements of one force quickly locate and identify the opposing force and call in supporting fires. If a game has a strict ground and time scale two problems immediately emerge. The proximity of the lead scout element is almost certainly "danger close" if its on a typical 4 x 6 table along with the target troops. Second, if the barrage is of any significant duration then the entire game might well consist of the indirect fire attack alone and the target force's attempts to disperse under fire (because if the time scale is anything longer per turn then given the ground scale the force is probably off the table in a turn or less!).

In other words, realistically modeling massive artillery and air support assets just isn't entertaining for a number of reasons if one's goal is to be really strict with ground scales, time scales, and the actual effects of such supporting fires on troops caught in the open. So if one is going to compromise on these attempts at "realism" the question becomes how far can one push these limits to be entertaining AND maintain at least a modicum of credibility.

I think the easiest approach is as you suggest: simply limit the available off board supporting assets and chalk it up to events beyond the control or awareness of the company commander. The irony is that it's probably even EASIER to justify this approach at the more tactical levels. Once down to a company or platoon it's easier to rationalize that your specific spot on the battlefield simply doesn't warrant the allocation of huge supporting fires for a variety of reasons.

Or as a designer one could simply be very disciplined and decide that such events are beyond the scope of the game and limit the model to supporting assets organic to the player's command and maybe one level up (e.g. you get your company mortars and maybe the battalion mortars too but anything else is out of scope for the game).