"Expressing "Close Combat" from history in Game Terms, Rules" Topic

Sounds reasonable to me.

I agree with your concept, and would just add:

1) Keep it simple and straightforward.

and

2) Keep it consistent with the rest of the rules. Forgive me as I may get this wrong (I'm going from memory), but if I recall correctly, the 'basic' combat mechanic is a unit rolls a D6 and that's how many 'hits' the target takes (up to 15, right?). So double it; in close combat, you still roll a D6, but double the amount of hits rolled to show the enhanced effectiveness of firepower at such short range.

Hope that helps.

V/R,
Jack

In Neil's rules there is no encouragement to get closer to the enemy than maximum fire range, because while you are moving you cannot fire,so you just absorb casualties for no good reason. Also the defenders in cover have their hits reduced by half, so they are tough to deal with.

So for an incentive for close combat (and to keep within the simple philosophy of the rules), I would include a close combat rule that said something like ….. Infantry (only) can become involved in close combat – in their firing firing phase, if those eligible to fire and at half or less weapon range (6" or less), can fire without the defenders gaining terrain benefits (i.e. halving).

This would give attackers enough incentive to move forward and assault a held objective.

Other tweaks could be added such as those within 3" get a +2 in firing to represent grenades and close range SMG fire and more accurate rifle fire etc.

other simple mechanics could be to introduce a morale testing system. The nearer an attacker gets to an objective (say 3 inch bands), the greater the chance of the defender failing a test and retreating from the objective. The attackers would also need to be subject to the same tests otherwise they would simply ram an attack home to success.

As static defenders will always get to fire, it still keeps capturing objectives expensive and dangerous.

I made some modifications to the ACW set that included morale rules. There is some info on my blog which may interest you (morale rules), the document is available at the end of the post under the RESOURCE section. LINK -
link

The cavalry rule from the earlier periods works very well, (with failed assaults bouncing, so you need to judge if the attack is going to work). For my NT WW2 variant I simply bumped the unit scale up to battalions and then differentiated between ranged and assault combat.

I can't speak for other rules. However our philoophy was (1)That the only way to take and hold ground is by infantry.
(2)You can trade time for space.
(3)The first thing in an assult is to win the fire fight.

If you belive in this basic strategy then the rules have to get you there. In our rules (MG)you cannot realisticaly win by killing off the enemy by fire in eithet attack or defence. They will either go to ground and stop assulting or find somewhere they can avoid the worst of the fire and stay there for a long time and fade very slowly. Effectively the Beaches speach "On the beach there are only dead men and men waiting toi die" so they got up and some got off.

If you are not in a trench its proably sensible to get out early where the odds are better, giving ground and making the enemy advance again untill he is worn down and halts. Inour rulkes neither side will get a wipe out but they will slow down to apoint where advance is not prectical. Slow but casualties on the attacker will be higher unless they can win the fire fight and then assult. Defenders may be able to run off.

Trenches and Urban proably a stand or die issue. But here the weight of fire prior to the assult is critical, you need to get them suppressed before the assult or the casualktie exchange rate will be generally unacceptable.

Seems to me there are 2 popular routes to go:

Old school, with a seperate close assault phase using seperate factors and mechanics, and a more intergrated system which incorporates assualt into very close range firing.

Here's my take on OHW's WW2 rules.

Fire combat represents all fire, not just long range. Although not shown on the table, it represents sub units moving forward while other sub units provide covering fire, etc. Or defender's fire trying to knock the heck out of units attempting to close, utilizing fire lanes, etc. Much like a zone of control in some board games.

Good roll – it worked pretty well. Attacking sub units got within close range and were able to suppress or knock out some enemy forces, support fire was effective, etc. Defending/support fire was effective in breaking up the attack (suppressing or roughing up the attackers).

Bad roll – it didn't work so well. Attacking sub units were held up or were suppressed themselves while trying to get to effective/closer range, support fire was ineffective causing the sub units trying to close to go to ground outside of effective or close range, etc. Defender's fire was not able to knock down enemy attackers or were suppressed by enemy fire, etc.

To me, NT's rules provide "results" oriented games, not "process" oriented .

Sam Mustafa once said that he designed a WW2, naval campaign game that abstracted out much of the details of air attacks and combat so that the players could move along and finish the campaign. Some liked this approach but most did not. They wanted the process, the detail and grist even if it substantially lengthened the game.

Mr. Thomas has chosen to abstract the process to get to the results – in One Hour. Of course, YMMV.

That's the nut: how to get close combat, keep the game length down to an hour or less and not upset the balance. Perhaps violate one prime directive and have both sides roll during close combat.

I'd have to go with UshCha as there was no need to engage in close combat as a defender if you had a real prepared defense with fall back positions (something rarely accounted for in war games). There are so many variables when you get to HTH I'm not sure if there is any one way to work it. I think ideally you want to avoid it because of so many unknowns.

Suppression of the defenders seems to be the key factor. Once you were close enough and identified the loopholes and firing positions in a bunker or pillbox (there seems to be relatively few) it was a simple matter of keeping it under constant small arms fire. Defensive trenches would be more tricky as defenders could move back and laterally to avoid attackers. I think the way to take a trench line is to break into it and then work your way down with small arms and grenades.
Here is how one guy did it: link

I think if you look at many of the WWII assaults on a fortified position you'll find it was a matter of getting as close as you can, suppress with small arms fire and smoke and then move your combat engineers up with flame throwers and demo charges. If combat engineers were not available some riflemen would assault putting grenades down air vents, firing into loop holes and attempting to break down the door in the rear or prepare to cut down the defenders as they evacuated. WP and thermite grenades worked best in these situations.

In WWII the Marines used flame throwers as a way to get the defenders to move out of their firing positions so the guy with the demo charge could place it effectively. Killing the defenders without destroying the bunker meant the japs would infiltrate guys back into it. Bulldozers and demo charges worked best to destroy them. Do a search on "Blowtorch and corkscrew".

In the 1970's we called it "Blind & Burn". 60mm and 81mm mortar fire (HE & WP) allows the assault squad to get close enough to start the assault. You could move up as close as 40 yards while keeping the target under 60mm HE fire, especially if they use delay fuses. Suppress with small arms fire to throw smoke or WP to allow the engineers to get close enough. Flamethrower gives a few squirts then the demo charge is placed. No need to engage in HTH. If the enemy was smart they'd book when the mortar fire stops.

I think today they paint the target with a laser, sit back and take a smoke break and wait for the 2000 pound JDAM or LGB to hit. I'd call that progress.

Wolfhag

Close combat was a concept that I first did the analysis charts on when I was working on the Coastal Command PT boat rules back in the 1990s. to cover close assault and boarding actions.

When projected for land skirmish actions, it becomes simple to determine which factors to calculate for close or assault combat. We prefer assault combat as the term for close range combat.

By World War 2, close assault is more than hand to hand fighting. It also includes the personal weapons (rifles, SMGs and pistols). So a casting with a SMG will have a better kill chance due to the higher rate of fire of his weapon.

In regards to combat results, assault combat has high casualties for both sides and a clear winner for that round rather than push back results.