"Hail Of Fire - Video discussing new Activation System" Topic

Hi all! Life has gotten in the way, as it does, and so I haven't had a lot of time to game or work on game stuff for a few months, but I've spent some time the last few weeks writing and play testing some new concepts I'm considering implementing into Hail Of Fire. The new version on the game works similarly to the current version up on retroboom.com, but has a few core changes, included the concepts I discuss in this video regarding marking platoon leaders as spent after activating. Movement, assaults, and artillery are all seeing polishing, hopefully creating more interesting tactical choices, as well as a much nicer coat of paint on the whole presentation.

If you find the time, please check out the video and let me know if you have any thoughts. I'll have shorter videos on movement, shooting, assaults, and deployment all up as the week goes on.

YouTube link

Thanks! :D

Brandon, something I use with my own home ruleset to add a bit more plausible granularity to unit activations, is to have this affected by stand strength (if individual unit stands suffer losses in ones game system), or if done by unit groupments, by factoring the number of formation stands and supporting units into the process of determining the required activation roll. As an example, if you have a platoon or company formation (depending on your game scale) containing 4 stands, and these are in coherency, then the required number could be as simple as having a die roll of four or less meaning a successful activation (my system uses a 10-sided die for this). If individual unit stands have strength allotments, then an alternative method could be add up the strength "points" to determine the activation number.

Bottom line is, this is a simple way to incorporate tactical mass and supports into activation rolls that is pretty effortless to tally up and execute on the tabletop.

I watched most of the video but I really wasn't able to grasp what you were trying to explain.

FlyXwire, thanks for sharing! So it sounds like the concept is basically that larger units in coherency are easier to activate? Do you have a standard size of formation? Hypothetically, I'm curious how I'd implement something like that because I have units with only 4 teams and units with 12+ teams. Any ideas?

Greenknight4, thanks for trying to get through it. It's my first time trying to do a video like this so I'm still learning how to do it well. Was there anything I can clarify or did it make zero sense from the beginning? Thanks!

Interesting ideas. I always liked the initiative mechanism in Crossfire, and your enhancements seem good.

Brandon, that's correct for the strength/larger units thinking (and units with greater elan/training could receive increased "pips" to the activation roll – which your system at present incorporates I believe). My system grants "activation" as the successful ability to close upon the enemy – retrograde movement/displacement and firing are always allowed actions w/o a successful activation.

My system is based on platoon units, and their unit strengths factored on squad/hvy. weapons/vehicles contained within (organized by combat types – infantry/ arty-AT-AAA/armor, etc.).

On a ten-sided die procedure, teams/units within a command & control range can be grouped together for an activation roll attempt (this is the tactical process of cross-attachment/assigning supporting arms). As strength/support increases, the chances of successful advancement increases (therefore players can impact/affect their activation/initiative attempts by how they group their units – on the battlefield). Still, a roll of "10" always fails in my rules, so despite the accumulation of substantial combat power for an attempt to advance on the enemy, there's always a chance for failure/stalling/loss of communications (battlefield friction).

Would/could you consider adapting your rules to a 10-sided die system (wouldn't take much, and might add that bit more for differentiating results)?

Brandon,
I read the rules over and watched part of your game in Sacramento in Nov of last year.

Regarding Company Commanders. I spent 3 years in a Vietnam Era infantry unit being a Squad Leader and Platoon Radioman. At the Squad and Fire Team level we had very little interaction with the CO as it was between the Platoon Leader and him. My experience listening in as a radioman was that his main responsibility was coordinating movement between the Platoons and making sure the Platoons did not get separated along with coordinating supporting fire and assaults. Ours liked to carry a flare pistol to signal actions like lifting suppressive fire on enemy positions so the assault element could make close contact. It was usually red or green flares.

All of the Squads and teams within the same Platoon normally kept within voice or visual contact. The Platoon leader could give hand & arm signals to squad leaders which could be looked at as "activation" as Squads did not carry radios unless on a recon mission. Some situations we needed runners. On occasion the CO would link up with a Platoon Leader to assess the situation or get him "motivated". Personally I'd have the CO rated for a specific number rather than rolling each turn. Better leaders can accomplish more in the same amount of time as inferior ones, it's not totally random. He has an XO to stay at the Company CP while he's at the front with the troopies. However, it would not be unusual for a CO to be attached to one Platoon in an assault to observe and coordinate. In a dire or extreme situation he may lead the assault element. I'm not sure just how that would relate to your game or if it would be relevant.

Regarding "Suppressed Teams may not fire". I assume because they are spending more time hiding rather than observing and shooting. Can teams suppressed and behind hard cover be immune to causalities from direct small arms fire?

Personally I would not look at activating more than one Platoon at a time in your game. I think the ability to "activate" in a game should be based on training and leadership. Poor training can be overcome by good leadership and well trained and experienced troops don't need Platoon leaders in most tactical situations as long as they know their mission. A poorly trained unit losing a good leader could make them ineffective.

I like the idea of retrograde movement being automatic and failing gives some chance of moving or firing.

Overall I think it's a good balance between mechanics, playability and realism with only 6 pages of rules.

Wolfhag

Brandon,

As Mr. Sardu said, these are interesting ideas. I also like the initiative mechanism in Crossfire, and and agree your enhancements seem good.

Couple of observations (NOT criticisms!)

Your table (and Cigar Box Mat?) looks great!

As mentioned in the comments on YouTube, please put the camera down. I couldn't get to my Dramamine quick enough (I'm that old).

One of the most interesting things about CrossFire is the rapid interaction between players and the constant and unpredictable shift of initiative and momentum.

Although your rolling for initiative system seems easy and straight forward, does it slow the game down verses CrossFire? What does rolling for initiative add to the play of the game as compared to CrossFire's situational based initiative?

The one handicap that CrossFire has is the difficulty handling initiative with multiplayer games. Is Hail of Fire designed for more than a two player game? If so, how is this accomplished?

Thanks so much for taking the time to share your ideas,

Bill.

Hey guys, thanks for the responses. Life got in the way this last week, so I haven't been able to make the videos like I had planned (I also was borrowing the camera and had to give it back lol), but I hope to do the rest soon.

Thanks for the notes and input!

FlyX, at the smaller scale I'm playing, I've been trying to represent that smaller groups are easier to coordinate than larger ones. So a recon platoon of only say 4 teams can simply use "squad" activations and activate the entire platoon repeatedly without spending command points to re-up the leader (assuming of course they're willing to be all bunched up), while a platoon of 14 stands, spread across woods and hedges, would be more difficult to control and would require either multiple activations moving the platoon in smaller groups, or spending points to re-up the leader (not to mention the teams need LOS to their leader in order to move, which can cause problems). I see in many games of this scale that larger platoons are simply better than smaller ones, so I like the idea of making several small units more viable in specific instances. What do you think?

I'm open to d10s, but I gotta say, I just love rolling d6s and have so many :D

Wolfhag, thanks again for the support, I've always appreciated it! :) As someone with ZERO military experience, I've always wondered really how much interaction troops have with higher ups in combat, as well as how organized or intermingled platoons etc get when things get bad. Most of my design choices are simply made based on my experience with other games, what seems logical (I always avoid the word "realistic" when discussing games) and what seems interesting/fun to me. On that very shallow level, I think HoF lines up with your description reasonably well. On the point of rolling command points vs having a stated number, you may be right. I can say that the random roll strikes me personally as more interesting. Not knowing how many points your opponent has left, while you try to decide how to use your own has been fun for me and provides additional fog of war. My rationale has been that I rate the proficiency of the force as the whole, so even though a CO may have access to fewer CPs for a certain round, generally those points spent will be more successful than points spent on lesser troops. Thoughts?

Your assumption about suppressed teams is correct. And yes, teams that are "gone to ground" while in hard cover are immune to small arms fire, and suppressed teams are automatically gone to ground. Once you suppress them, they're even harder to kill, so someone generally needs to get in there and push them out.

Can you clarify what you mean about activating more than one platoon at a time? Do you mean in a single initiative, before the enemy activates a unit? As it is now, you activate a platoon, execute their orders and once that's resolved (including reaction fire, etc), if you rolled a successful activation, you can attempt to activate another unit. If you failed, then after you move or shoot with that unit, the enemy's initiative begins. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

The new version has grown to 10 pages, plus simple forces, qrs, etc. Not that there are many more rules (the new command points are the largest addition) but because I've made the formatting less dense, used larger type, and added clarifications and pictures. Just about everyone's told me to give up and kill my "only 5 pages!" baby, so I finally did. Still very concise.

Big Red, thanks for checking out the video! I promise to do something about the shaky video next time. I actually work in film production as a Cinematographer, but I'm used to big cameras, dollies, etc. None of this little camera nonsense! I'll see if I can find a tripod and lock it down.

HoF is definitely slower than Crossfire, though I figure we can agree that Crossfire moves super fast. I love it because it feels more natural than most games, like playing with toys as a kid, ditching the rulers and just grabbing the pieces and moving them around making pew pew noises (everyone does that, right?… right?) That said HoF plays pretty quickly compared to say Flames or Bolt Action or CoC.

You can play HoF multi player by simply having each player on a side choose a unit, roll to activate, and execute orders. Once those orders are resolved, any player that successfully activated gets to activate again. Once half of the team has failed or passed, the other side all selects one of their units and rolls. There may be a more clever solution, but it seems to work fine.

Brandon, I like the example you've given above explaining your activation system and the ideas behind it. I think I'm coming from the point of view of thinking where greater troop numbers and supporting arms in proximity to a checking formation would increase the activating unit's morale, and therefore its likelihood of a successful activation. As an example, a squad or platoon in an assault could have an increased likelihood of closing on an enemy position if it had tanks in direct support of the effort. This is to approach the activation system from a more organic level, and to incorporate conditions into some of the modifiers that might affect troop reactions (to activating) – not necessarily through the top-down "intention" conveyed by orders received through the lines of communication and command, but from the "bottom up" perspective of the unit's current situational condition.

As player-commanders, successful activations could be encouraged by where a player reinforces his main effort(s), and where he utilizes his assets of artillery and tanks to support troops moving forward against the enemy. This emphasis of where to amass more troop power and assets would reflect the command decisions players must manage to successfully encourage their troops to move forward, and before their units go to ground due to their reaction to the enemy firepower brought against them.