"Simple AFV 'to hit' roll" Topic

Hi all,

I was thinking about the following as a 'quick and dirty' simple roll to hit for WW2 AFVs and AT guns etc. in the pre-stabilization era. What do you reckon?

Score needed to hit on d6:
Short range = 2-6
Medium range = 3-6
Long Range = 4-6

Modifiers:
Target moving = -1
Firer moving = -2
Target in cover = -1
Target concealed = -2

Unmodified d6 roll of 6 allows second roll of die;
1-3 score remains 6
4-6 score is 7, can reroll again to try for 8 or more (open ended)

Notes-
Range as per whatever rules you want to bolt this to, might want to vary by gun type.
Cover denotes partly obscured eg hedges or hull-down
Concealed denotes prepared position eg pillbox, AT gun pit, firing from inside house etc

Looks okay, but you might want to reduce the To-Hit values slightly, e.g. 3 – 6 for short range; 4 – 6 for medium range (aka "effective range" definition means 50% of shots fired are hits at this distance); 5 – 6 for long.

Also, since you're in the pre-stabilization era, moving vehicles firing automatically miss. Perhaps allow an exception for moving half, and then firing while halted, using your suggested values above.

Perhaps change the "Target Concealed" to Target in Heavy Cover, since if it's concealed you may not know it's there, so probably can't shoot at it.

I hope that helps.

This is not to different from the to hit system in Bolt Action.

That system uses a variation of 6 on 6 for "impossibly lucky shots".

It is certainly simple and elegant. How are you handling penetration?

makes as much sense as any other method.

the hits beyond 6 method was a feature of the old wrg rules iirc, always quite liked it.

Looks good, but like Mako said the numbers should be lower

Looks okay, but you might want to reduce the To-Hit values slightly, e.g. 3 – 6 for short range; 4 – 6 for medium range (aka "effective range" definition means 50% of shots fired are hits at this distance); 5 – 6 for long.

I disagree…somewhat. According to Featherstone, at close range tanks were deadly accurate. The first shot would hit some of the time. The second shot would hit most of the time. For your purposes, assuming the tank is assumed to be firing more than one shot for its "shot" I think your numbers are fine.

What happens after a hit is achieved?

Is long range considered long effective range? Past 1500 yards,most tankers had a pretty hard time hitting anything.

Would it be the same for all kinds of guns?

Very similar to Rapid Fire, have a look at that.

Check out the Pz8 rules for some ideas.

Past 1500 yards, most tankers had a pretty hard time hitting anything.

Past 1500 yards most firing parties had a pretty hard time SEEING anything. I'm convinced most gamers have never bothered to go outside and see what targets actually look like at the kinds of ranges they seem to prefer.

Looks okay, but you might want to reduce the To-Hit values slightly…

Disagree. There are no adders, only subtractors. So the base number needs to be very likely to hit.

A stationary tank or AT gun, firing at a fully exposed and stationary tank-sized target, at short range, will NOT miss 50% of the time, or 30% of the time, or even 20% of the time (unless it is a British gun firing APDS!).

Past 1500 yards most firing parties had a pretty hard time SEEING anything.

Again disagree.

Again, sure, with various subtractors in play – cover, movement, weather etc.

But as a base, no.

In fair weather, when I have an open field of vision and am stationary, I can easily see a car in the open at 3000m, 4000m or even 5000m with my Mk 1 eyeball. Give me optics of any type (show me a gun or tank that didn't have at least 1.5x magnification available!) and I'll be able to see a tank sized target at 8km without difficulty.

The question is the modifiers.

According to Featherstone, at close range tanks were deadly accurate. … The second shot would hit most of the time. For your purposes, assuming the tank is assumed to be firing more than one shot for its "shot" I think your numbers are fine.

Second shot is a key consideration. Does this proposed "to-hit" method comprehend multiple shots?

If it does not, then you really need an adder for second and subsequent shots. Most gunnery training emphasized observing fall-of-shot and correcting. It was one of the key failings of 1-man turrets that this was not possible, due to the need for the gunner to take his eyes off of the target to reload the gun. You can not see one of the key combat advantages of the Pz III over the S-35 if you don't have this mechanism.

At that point the base numbers are not good enough – you need a "less than 1" as much as a "more than 6" methodology. Because the chance of the second shot hitting, with no adders, should be notably better than 85%. And there remains the chance that the first shot hit, so your total chance of at least one hit out of two or more shots should be better than 90%.

Which is why I am not a big believer in D6 for tank combat resolutions.

I understand the call of simplicity. But D6, by needs, means you must either exaggerate or ignore events that have less than 16% (or greater than 85%) probability of occurrence (or failure).

This fails a basic test of reasonableness for me. If I have a company of 17 tanks on the table, I will find that events that have only a 7 or 8% chance of occurrence actually occur in most of my battles! Why? Because with 17 tanks I will take on average 70 shots or more during a given engagement. It is VERY likely that at least one event with a 7 or 8% chance of occurrence will actually occur if I make 70 attempts.

I do like simplification for the sake of fluid gameplay, but not when it ignores the facts of combat. And one of the facts of combat is that the unlikely does occur, frequently! Just read your small unit histories. Or your big unit histories.

I can't accept that a Soviet 76.2mm gun has a 16% chance of penetrating a Tiger's turret side. But I also can't accept that it has 0% chance. I need something in between, so that I will feel compelled to concentrate enough fire on it to have a reasonable chance of penetrating it (or tracking it, or jamming it's turret, etc). Because that is the only reasonable way my game rules can reflect the reality of the tank combat on the Eastern Front in 1943.

Anything short of that abstracts away the history. At that point I might as well just play Stratego with painted miniatures.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I think the weakness in this method is using D6. In order to make a reasonable allowance for the variables without either making hits ridiculously easy or impossible you need more combinations.

One somewhat simplified method a friend of mine used was to have dice of 6,8 and 12 sides for short, medium and long distance. Ranges depended on the type of gun. Hits were normally 1 and 2. There was a chart for modifiers, but the maximum modification was +1 or -1.

I love AFV, specially their latter episodes!

Then again I also like Outrageous Acts Of Science.

Dan

You forgot gun classes and armour classes

Given I don't think I've seen a ruleset that differentiated the accuracy of different guns, and it all comes down to penetration you can roll it all up into 1 calculation.

d6 (or 10 or whatever) + gun factor – Target factor (size and armour) +/- other mods as appropriate.

Result > X Destroyed
Result = X morale test etc (ie, didn't destroy tank, but makes the crew think twice)

I know some people will complain about bland mechanisms, but frankly, the players don't care about the physics – that is the rules writers job. If these results approximate the reality, then it's quick, and lets players concentrate on the point of wargaming: the manoeuvring.

and lets players concentrate on the point of wargaming: the manoeuvring.

Surely the point of wargaming is to combine the manoeuvring with the appropriate and effective use of the weapons available to defeat the enemy?

The point of maneuvering (tactically) is to get into a position from which your weapon can take out the enemy before he takes you out. So you have to consider what your weapon (and his) can and can't do.

Yes, but you shouldn't have to worry about the physics.

That is a firefly, but that is a 75mm, thus I need use them differently, as exhibited by the modifiers

Hi all, thanks very much for the comments and suggestions. The intent for me was to get a really simple system for bolting on to Rapid Fire or Operation Warboard, ie nearly as far from the sim end of the spectrum as you can go.

I should add d6 roll of 1 is always a miss, I think thats reasonable to cover inevitable friction.

Might change to 4-6 medium range, 5-6 long, something to consider.

Mark I agree very much on the less than 16% chance which is why the unmodified 6 gets open ended reroll so gives 1. In 12, 1 in 24, 48, 96 etc.

Not sure yet on the bonus for second shot etc especially as these are quite abstracted sets eg a model represents 3-5 vehicles etc,

Oh and perhaps take the firer moving modifier to -3

definitely make "firer moving" harder to hit. InWWII tanks usually moved a bit, stopped to fire, moved a bit, etc… reducing the volume of fire.

Timbow,
There are many free rule sets that have already done what you are looking for and you'll have a good choice to fit your taste.

If you really want to recreate a tank engagement listen to Mark 1. There are many nuances and factor that make tank warfare different from any other type of warfare.

What you are looking for is simple enough and could also be used for man-man, gunpowder and cowboys and aliens.

The more you start moving away from the "simple" system to one with multiple modifications you'll quickly go off the deep end. Tank gunnery is not simple. Using a D6 for a tank gunnery game is like using Parcheesi as a simulation of a Formula 1 race.

Wolfhag

IN the end just using d10 instead of d6 makes for both simplier and more accurate rules.

Another factor to consider is gun type. Some are much more accurate than others (compare for instance German records on the "to hit" chance of a 7.5/L24 and a 7.5/L70).

If you have a reasonable turn length you can abstract out subsequent shots into one general to hit chance.

In the end it will be easier to convert all Rapid Fire rolls to d10 then try and make a d6 to hit chart work (or just use a game that already uses d10).

TomT

Depends a lot on what level you are trying to model, do you want a one to one representation? If so, a d6 system as simple as this probably isn't going to cut it. Unless, possibly you are going for large table, with large forces (battalion of tanks+).even so, you are still probably better off going for d10.
If you are going for a 1 vehicle equals a platoon+, then a simple d10 system is perfectly adeaquate. There are so many variables you aren't even attempting to model that the (in reality) minutiae of armoured combat obsessed and absurdly beloved by wargamers simply doesn't matter.

A couple of quick comment years ago I had the chance to game the new CD3 with Chadwick and Radey, Chadwicks was asked what he preferred. L his boardgames First Battle series or his Command Decision. He split the difference, preferring the Cd for infantry and the boardgames for armor. The boardgames uses odds.no hit rolls and damage rolls. It's easier than doing the two separate rolls
Second, a single to hit roll seems simple unless you are doing a 1 to 1 game where the hit placement, engine, turret, front, side is important along with several other factors mentioned, and then there's the damage roll
There's a famous scene in Band of Brothers where a US paratrooper is chased by a still moving but knocked out British tank. This is in the Ambrose book But I've never seen anything like it in Flames or Bolt or any other 1 to 1 game
So the hit table is only the beginning, unless you want to have a simple GAME,without historical pretentions, which would defang the accuracy realism kooks in the hobby

Hitting a tank target is not the main issue in WW2 AFV warfare. It is the penetration of the target. A 3pdr gun with thye right sighting or conditions will easily hit a target but not penetrate ,so not do any damage. Get real when talking about the 1 in a 1,000 chance of going through the driver slit.

In the 1970s US Army Tank Gunnery manual, they cited some facts to show how important gunnery training is. In World War 2, a Stationary M4 tank firing at a STATIONARY Enemy tank at 0nly 500 yards needed to fire 13 rounds at the target before it reached a 50% chance to hit the target. Firing at longer ranges or at a moving target, the chance to hit was extreme.
Wargamers do not have the patience to have such terrible to hit chances.

Using a simple d6 is unrealistic for chances to hit.

In Fire! Ogon! Freur! (1981) and the current revised set of rules, We use the d10 or percentage chance with gun and target ratings to determine chance of penetration.

What does the to hit and to penetrate rolls represent in a game where each stand represents a platoon or company or even a section?
My understanding of to hit and to penetrate is about individual vehicles or troops, not groups or even pairs. Why? The combat effects upon a platoon are not the same for the individual. The combat results for a platoon reflect as much the platoon morale, abstracted as there's no separation into the individual vehicles that make up the platoon. In effect, the fire affects all the individuals in the platoon, not the discrete individual or vehicle. Game designers who have stands representing platoons and also stands representing squads or small batteries have difficulties trying to meld the both types into a single system as to hit and penetrate for a squad as target, or a pair of tanks, must have a special rule concerning the smaller size, which can play havoc with the combat rules. The old Panzerb lite having an odds vhart, no to hit or penrtrate, was able, without any special rules, to have companies, platoons and sections in the game, with only their attack and defense numbers altered due to size. Command Decision cannot do this because the to hit and penetrate numbers are really based on the individual vehicle performance, with no modification for a larger or smaller unit size.
In a word, what are you doing using a combat results method for individual combat in a group setting??

You are right penetration mechanics are Berger for tank to tank combat.

The original question did not say anything about a platoon or company per stand level combat.

The discussion was individual tank in nature when you are referring the conditions listed.

Again simple to hit numbers are not realistic.
For you unit level situation it is not realistic there either. The idea that a inferior amend tank platoon can do more than hinder superior armored tank platoon is not realistic. a 3pdr British tank unit or75mm Sherman trying to get to the flanks of a unit is more complicated representation than a simple to hit roll.

I rather think this is being overthunk!

I was wondering about a reasonable to hit score for a d6 based game, based on op war board and or rapid fire. Many moons ago I made some new armour penetration tables for operation war board but made the to hit roll too complicated for what should be a simple fast-moving game.

I don't agree that d6 is less useful than d10, or d100 here. The open-ended roll gives the chance of an unlikely hit, and I've always adhered to the principle of '1 is a miss'.

The key here is bathtubbing

As I was saying,

Fair enough, if you want to use one model to attempt to simulate a troop of tanks then a different system is needed. But if you shrink units down and play 'as if' single vehicles, then I think this leads to less complication. After all Lionel Tarr did Barbarossa without having to paint 5000 T26s!

It is the penetration of the target.

No it isn't. Armor can be defeated by spalling without ever being penetrated – in fact the post war HESH round was designed to work that way. Non-penetrating hits can also disable guns, turret mechanism and tracks. An HE or a Willie Peter round can set fire to external stowage (tankers have a weird aversion to being set on fire), and a big HE round can literally knock your block off.

In fair weather, when I have an open field of vision and am stationary, I can easily see a car in the open at 3000m, 4000m or even 5000m with my Mk 1 eyeball.

That car is likely to be a)brightly colored, b) not try to hide an c) not with a bunch of other cars shooting at you.

Your Mk.1 eyeball isn't looking through a Mk. 1 keyhole either. A tank gunner is usually reliant on someone else sticking his head outside and calling out directions so he even knows where to start looking.

People get too bogged down in trying to recreate the physics, rather than the RESULT of those physics.

The designer has to do some research to check odds, but once you've done that you can actually 'black box' everything.

Tank Gun II destroys Tank Type C 40% of the time in a straight forward shot – that's a 1-4 on a D10. If you were to have a really complicated system that modelled the physics – Yaquinto's Panzer does chance to hit, angle of impact- hit location – armour at that angle – penetration of gun – roll to see if disabled by penetration and it still comes out an average 40% chance then why are you bothering to make the players do all the maths and chart reading?

People here tell you they want a realistic system, and a single die throw bypasses that, but they never want to account for each MG42 bullet. When they play ACW they don't work out the likelihood of each musket ball in a 700 man regiment, or the trajectory of each SYW cannon ball.

Every period has a weird rules blind spot where people demand complete accuracy. AT gunnery is WW2's.

The reason why d10 is so much more useful than d6 is playability. It takes no more time and effort to roll a d10 and look at the result than a d6. But with d6 you need lots of extra rules: a "1" always misses 16 per cent is a rather large jump in many cases. You also need some adder roll to make it reflect small chances to inflict damage but have a "critical" occur on a "6" means again a large 16 per cent chance and now you need to roll another d6 to get "crit" result.

Its just much much simplier to use an adequate range of results on the first randomizer. If everyone had started with say "d8" and some one proposed to restrict dice to "d6" we would all agree its a silly idea. But for some reason systems remain tied to cumbersome mass d6 rolling when solutions to this problem date back to the first edition of Dungeon and Dragons.

TomT

I use d6's, with a "6" hitting. The number of dice you roll is basically 1 per 20mm of muzzle diameter, rounding up. The range is determined by the gun's capability. All units on the board roll to hit, then all effects are rolled. Tanks have a d6 number for defense, so all hits are rolled and if the die roll is under the defense number the tank's dead. If equal it's a compartment hit (gun, movement, lose an action). Low velocity guns (mortars and infantry guns) only give compartment hits and get half the dice against tanks.

So early war tanks don't hit as often but die easier, late war tanks take more hits and die harder. It's a compromise between accuracy and speed. The same system is used for infantry but with different numbers of dice. We even have a rule for people who complain that they can never roll a six.

There is a lot of available research on tank design and performance. Certainly there was a lot of evolution of tank design over the course of the war. Using a D6 means you aren't interested in counting the rivits or even answering questions of which of two similar tanks is better. There is nothing wrong with this approach. Sometimes such games can focus more on the aesthetic aspects of miniature wargaming and less on the crunchy details.

Of course one of the sacred issues hated by most wargamers is visibility. Talking about seeing tanks has another dimension. Tank commanders even now have their head out risking themselves to get a good view. With your rules are you assuming head out or not. How many in that platoon are looking in the right direction. Even modern tank manuals recognise the efficiency of a tank drops 30% when buttoned up. Do you address this in the to hit roll?

Just because other rules do it it does not mean it's sensible, it may mean it's fashionable but that is like all fashion essentially I logical.

Interesting you should mention this, I've been tinkering with a section level set for the last few months and recently wondered about the efficacy of a very simple to hit system (for both infantry and vehicles) married to a more complex spotting system.
More and more I come to the conclusion that spotting is way more important than "hitting"

Corps Commander:

Its not a question of counting rivets. We are trying to reflect the difference between hitting a PzI and hitting a PzV. The difference is more than a few rivets.

Or in the case of To Hit the difference between trying to hit a tank at 100 yards in the open with a 7.5/L70 and trying to hit some infantry in cover at 1000 meters with an 7.5L24. Its big range.

d10 just gives a wider range of possible outcomes with no need for extra complexity (which tends to overwhelm WWII games esp d6 based ones).

TomT

We (MG) took advise from a role player and went D20 this is about right 5% is as accurate as is needed but does allow a bit of variation. You can approximate a normal distribution with a die like this. We do for close combat situations. Exsessive variation is not useful. While it may be real at times un-typical outcomes are not useful in our aims for a set of rules.