"Unit field of fire - reality and game terms" Topic

It depends on the game, how detailed you get and so forth.

Realistically speaking, a tank is going to be really unhappy having any enemy to its rear, and a machine gun is more effective on the flank of an enemy than at their front (assuming they're in a skirmish line).

You may have to distinguish between "can observe a threat and take actions" and "can execute effective unit level fire on the target".
My infantry while walking between objectives can certainly spot in any direction but if they spotted an enemy on their flank, could they bring all their firepower to bear? How long does that take? How long is a turn?

From a game mechanic perspective, I am trying to think of any instance where I thought a game was better for having limited fields of fire, and not really coming up with anything, for me personally.

I'll say I experience a cognitive dissonance when 1 model representing a platoon of tanks has the front, side, and rear armor taken into account. Surely the platoon can redeploy for all-around defense? I guess as Weasel says it depends on time scale.

I think to inject flavour into the the game rather than looking at what might be theoretically possible is the way to go.

So a turretted tank could have 360 fire arc … but generally they want to be facing their enemy and they want their strong armour forward …. and that includes their turret armour.

The mobility of the turret means that if it fires outside its current postition, it can suffer less fire penalties that a turretless vehicle. Also it is very unlikely that a 360 turreted vehicle will have a 360 field of view due to visual obstructions and it is hard enough to find good forward facing firing positions.

Likewise firing on the march is not desirable as units in march mode should have a disadvantage when fighting as their emphasis is getting from A to B, not using the cautious movement that an 'in combat' situation requires.

In my own rules, a turreted vehicle that fires outside the vehicles front arc gets a small penalty, but that become a big penalty if the firer is in an area of cover, and turretless vehicles have an even greater penalty regardless of whether they are in cover or not, since something in a woods or town etc would literally have to move to another part of their terrain feature to see an enemy in another aspect.

I think in most combat situations, a unit is relying on flanking units to give them flank cover. In the more unusual situations in which a unit was in a kessel / hedgehog type position, needing all-round fire capability, their position would be carefully chosen to give that and would require the units to be actually dug in circular fashion, rather than all facing one way but being given a capability to shoot rearwards. I am guessing most units would actively seek to avoid that and morale rules white rightly give a big negative modifier to troops that are threatened in their rear.

It's kind of a complicated subject.

Tanks and people tend to advance with their main focus being forwards.
That movement over on the left could be enemy but that's where the second company is supposed to be.
Friendly fire was a particular concern. Remember that radios came in a big box with short range.
They wouldn't usually just blaze away at anything that moves on a flank.

Unless of course you're talking allied tanks driving through an area expected to have german infantry and you have plenty of supply.
In which case you might use prophylactic fire.
There's a school of thought that the main effect of that was to improve the morale of the shooter somewhat though.

I would suggest that any unit operating in 'travel mode' in a combat area is hideously vulnerable to any sort of enemy attack, regardless of whether it can see 360 degrees or not.

That is why real units move with advance guards, flank guards, rearguards etc to provide security against unexpected threats and give time for the main body to deploy (should it become necessary). It takes quite a bit of time to deploy effectively from line of march unless it is a pre-planned move.

Rule of thumb for a WW2 German infantry battalion was 45 minutes to conduct a hasty attack from line of march.

If the unit is advancing tactically, ie bounding overwatch, making use of cover etc it will a) move much slower than in admin mode and b) have far more chance of surviving a flank attack, although even then, units will have a tendency concentrate their field of view and most of their weapons on the direction of travel. A cautious commander might peel off subunits for flank security.

irl flank/rear attacks are devastating, increasing the attackers combat power by at least a factor of two, if not three or more (some OR studies show a combat multiplier of seven). Allowing 360 degrees fire on initial contact to moving units would make it hard to model such effects.

Infantry will normally have a 360 LOS and in many cases FOF.

It's kind of a complicated subject.

Very much so … We use some gaming tools from various sources. Infantry moving tactically on what we call Advance Orders [ADV]. Can only fire light weapons. On Charge Orders [CHG] the Infantry is moving too fast to fire effectively. Moving twice as fast as on ADV. Infantry on Fire [Only] Orders [FF] not moving, get a +1 to hit on die roll. And can fire all weapons. Again 360. And Infantry on FF receive an automatic cover bonus for obvious reasons. Infantry on Fallback Orders [FB] must move at least 1/4 of their movement factor at up to CHG speed, towards cover, towards their side of the table. With a cover bonus as they are using terrain, smoke grenades, etc. to withdraw. They can't fire any weapons.

Armor, is similar, on ADV, they can fire all weapons. On CHG, they get -1 to hit (* In more modern battles you may not use this. As with higher tech, etc. … but it's still generally better to fire while not moving.). On [FF] the Armor gets a +1 to hit. On FB the same as Infantry, can't fire any weapons. However in more modern eras you may want allow AFVs to fire as with CHG, get -1 to hit target. Turreted AFVs get a 360. Assault Gun types/no turrets, get a 180 … Obviously towed Field Artillery[FA] only fires on FF, at 180. Based on era, Indirect Fire [IDF] get a -1 to hit. And you must have a unit to spot for the FA also.
And a commo roll of some type must be made to spot. Like 1-3 can't fire IDF. 4+ it can.

Those are the pretty quick, down and dirty rules we used. And generally reflect reality fairly well … or close enough anyway. Hope that helps …

You perhaps should read some of the US manuals current or old (WWII). A platoon can deploy in a number of patterns. Line to front where they can fire safely all of them to the front. This could include LMG's etc crossing the front to improve fire. They can also be in echalon left ot right; large amount of Firepower to that side little on none to front, rear or other side.
V shape Flank cover both sides but only 1/2 the power. All round box, 1/4 firepower all round.

These formations are equaly applicable to tanks. However if you ruels work propely and don't put stupid issues on range. Movement to contact will be by bounding overwatch, one element moving while being covered by two stationary elements.

Not modeling these platoon configurations is what makes 1 element=1 platoon games laughable as they do not account for the playtoon posture, or its fronatage which can be massive in some cases.

Troops cannot pivot and fire the risk of hitting there mates is too high.

Just facts and opinins of course.

I dislike games with one platoon = 1 element too unless they are highly abstract map games with counters. That might work OK.

It's worth mentioning that Osprey has a couple of books on infantry combat tactics in WW2, one focused on squad/platoon level, the other on company/battalion level,which includes information on how they deployed and how they approached an objective.

For tanks, it depends how granular you want to be with their spotting, because a buttoned up platoon is not going to have the same all around view awareness that a platoon in transit with commanders out the hatch studying the area will. Tank observation devices in WW2 and forward up to a point can be very view limiting.

Like Aotrs said, read the RTFM (smile).
PDF link
link
PDF link

Using platoons you really need to have formation types and tactical movement/maneuver. All formations have their positive and negatives for movement, firepower, situational awareness and reacting. I'd suggest a chit or marker for the formation by the unit on the board as the opponent would see it but movement/fire orders written off board.

In a platoon and company level game recon units come into play and are much more important.

If the majority of the unit is moving on a road you really need flank security which may slow down the rate of advance because they are probably not using roads.

One of the manuals mentions battle drills. This is a trained and rehearsed action a sub-unit will perform when ordered. It goes against the common abstracted game technique of "activating" and random actions.

Wolfhag

So much of this depends on who has the flank. As mentioned earlier, instinct is to focus on the front as one would assume anyone of the flank is friendly,

When on patrol without support we did 3 lines with the officer, radio & MG in the center of the middle line. Front watched front, right line watched right & front and left line watch left & front. Each line had a point man out ahead to trigger the boobytraps (let's tell it like it is). Rear guys were to watch the rear (theoretically) but most of the time they were goofing off or looking forward since "we'd already been there."

As we were spread out with about 5 yards between each man front-to-back & the lines had about 25 yards between them (depending on the terrain), left & right lines could fire on those flanks with squad level firepower immediately. Reacting to an enemy at the front meant the trailing men had to scramble forward to take up position, but technically we only had 3 point guys readily available to fire to the front immediately (as everyone else had to change formation).

Legion – I think we've different ideas of "quick, down'n dirty"!

Sorry … thought it would help …

I would give a unit a 360deg field of fire at a rather low rate, followed by a much narrower field of fire (maybe 90deg, maybe smaller, defer to the professionals) at full effectiveness.

What liberal level of game are you aiming at? That may inform how much detail to put into the posture of individual elements.

Platoon stands behave very differently in e.g. Command Decision to Spearhead (where they are essentially just strength point markers for the battalions).

Go with wizbangs. I was in the infantry in the early 1970's and at the Platoon and Company level it's all about fire team, squad and platoon formations. You won't realize how important it is unless you play against hidden units. It's also a way for a player to use skill rather than random die roll outcomes to achieve tactical advantages and be prepared to respond to the enemy.

Formation types will also determine your speed. Being in a line ahead skirmish formation is much slower than a staggered column, especially in poor terrain. The faster you move the less security and situational awareness you'll have.

Wolfhag

Seems to me that on the march, all units would maintain a 360 watchfulness and readiness to meet a threat.

Depending on the formation used and your place in it, each man/vehicle has an assigned arc to observe, so the squad/platoon as whole has 360 degrees cover but individual men/vehicles do not.

E.G. If I wasn't detailed to carry the radio or LMG my usual slot was 4th man on the right hand file: I covered the rear and left quarter while my opposite number looked back and right, watching my back while I watched his. Similarly the guys in the middle of the formation looked inward, covering the back of the man opposite them.