"Results of Small Arms Fire on Troops?" Topic
30 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Mako11 | 05 Jul 2016 1:37 p.m. PST |
Considering making up my own rules to deal with this, at the squad/fire team/man-to-man level, since I haven't really been enamored with any rules I've read thus far, for the WWII and Modern eras. Wanting to develop a comprehensive list of outcomes for results of being fired upon and hit, or suffering near misses from enemy fire (these might also apply to enemy howitzer, tank gun, vehicle machine gun, and mortar fire too). Here's what I've come up with thus far: 1. Gory Death (not sure it's really needed, but might add some flavor, and unique results to some engagements, e.g. automatic morale/gut check for the survivors who are in line of sight to see the person killed in this manner); 2. Killed; 3. Mortally/Severely Wounded; 4. Wounded (Moderately Wounded); 5. Lightly Wounded (not sure this is worth tracking, excepting perhaps in small, man-to-man, squad sized games); 5. Near Miss (under effective enemy fire) causes unit to proceed/move more cautiously, e.g. – 50% to normal advance movement rate; 6. Suppressed – troops go to ground – own fire effectiveness is reduced, since the troops are trying to hunker down, and avoid becoming casualties (perhaps may be able to rally, in order to advance/withdraw, but speed reduced as in #5 above); 7. Pinned – can't move until enemy fire abates a bit, or until a leader rallies the troops (options – hunker down completely to avoid enemy fire, or fire with reduced effectiveness to try to become unpinned, but that comes with a greater chance for troops being hit); 8. Morale Check; 9. Withdraw, or Move to nearest higher level of cover to sides or rear of unit (can't advance towards the enemy to seek better cover); 10. Tactical Retreat to Rear; 11. and Rout Off the Table. Seems like many of the above might be best suited to man-to-man combat, but would like to try to make them work for fire-team vs. fire-team actions, or squad on squad level battles too. Any other results I'm missing that you can think of? |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 05 Jul 2016 2:02 p.m. PST |
Suppressed is the key one here; the effect of most effective aimed direct fire at 300 metres and beyond is only to suppress the enemy. You don't actually kill or maim significant numbers of trained enemy soldiers until you are close in. Mortars and artillery caused the vast majority of WW2 casualties. Rule sets such as Rapid Fire which can have trained soldiers being bowled over like skittles miss the essential aspects of the period of automatic weapon warfare: Don't be seen, if you are seen, don't be acquired, if you are acquired don't move from cover until you have won the firefight. Another thing, unless you are replicating car park warfare – and I don't think there were many around then – there is no such thing as 'open ground'. A trained infantryman can hide behind a cocktail stick! |
Extra Crispy | 05 Jul 2016 2:02 p.m. PST |
I think you've covered the list. I assume then you are tracking wounds and morale for each individual figure? Otherwise Killed, mortally wounded and severely wounded are all pretty much the same in the context of the time frame of a game of this scale/scope? Also, near miss, pinned and suppressed – these will all have differing effects on movement, morale, to hit, incoming fire etc? This is going to be a very, very detailed game I would not want to try it with more than a squad per player. |
Dye4minis | 05 Jul 2016 2:06 p.m. PST |
Disagree with 8. Why not a control check to see if the unit leadership remain in control of the men's focus upon the mission/ the task at hand? Why not look at what the effects of fire have on the unit as a whole rather than on the individual? Don't you deploy them as a unit? How about "a courageous", "Lucky", "inspiring" or "stupid" move/reaction that could inspire the others in the unit? But then, I'd rather play Patton than Sgt. Rock! |
Weasel | 05 Jul 2016 2:31 p.m. PST |
Others that spring to mind: Ignore as desired. For a skirmish game man to man, you could throw all of this into one big firing table. Equipment damage (particularly for crews)
Target confused and disoriented. Firer position revealed to target. Target angry and returning fire energetically. Target acting unpredictably (charge, shoot wildly) Firer jammed. Firer wasting ammo. |
John Thomas8 | 05 Jul 2016 2:32 p.m. PST |
What's the max you're looking to do a side? With that kind of individual detail, more than a squad would make the game….cumbersome a bit. |
Wolfhag | 05 Jul 2016 2:48 p.m. PST |
Oh no! This looks like the attack of the Killer Suppression Discussion: TMP link Wolfhag |
nazrat | 05 Jul 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
Those are pretty much the exact same results that are on the charts in Battleground World War II that made that such a ponderous piece of junk. It certainly wouldn't be good for more than a squad or so. |
Rudysnelson | 05 Jul 2016 4:22 p.m. PST |
When we did our WW2 skirmish rules we reduced the number of options. Your list is impressive but unwieldy in book keeping and tracking. \One company about 20 years ago had a complicated system where each turn was 5 to 10 seconds and the game floundered. Quick resolution is what the players want. Traditionally, Moderately and severely wounded were grouped together unless playing a campaign. A medic can change the severely to moderately but not moderately to slightly. There is an option for the slightly wounded that you overlooked. That is fanatical rage which is a guy is slightly wounded and his adenallin (sp) sets in and he rushes forward to engage the enemy heroically though foolishly. Think Audie Murphy jumping on the burning tank while wounded and still firing at the enemy. The pinned and suppressed are often grouped together. Running away is the same whether it is a rout or just abandoning positions with a loss of morale. |
Mark 1 | 05 Jul 2016 5:29 p.m. PST |
I think that the distance between unit scales of squad, fire team, and man-to-man are too great to cover with one approach. In man-to-man yes, knowing if someone is dead, mortally/severely wounded, or moderately wounded might be useful. In squad level scale it is not. At the squad level what you want to know is if the squad is fighting at full strength or reduced strength, and whether a diminished strength effect is permanent (casualties) or temporary (suppression). How many steps in squad strength you make available is a reasonable question for how you balance detail vs. playability in squad based rules. If the squad strength is reduced by a quarter or third or half is important. But whether the squad is reduced because PFC Colby took a load of fragments to the leg, or took 3 bullets to the neck/shoulder, or had his head blown off, makes no difference. Also the differences between the listed steps 5, 6 and 7 are lost to me. A near miss that causes reaction but does not suppress? As I see it the squad's effectiveness is reduced … yes maybe track firepower vs. mobility separately if you like, but "near miss, proceed cautiously" versus "seek cover" … I don't see it at the squad level. And I think steps 8, 9, and 10 are rather jumbled. I would think that results for squad based units would be better as: 1) Casualties – permanent loss of 1 step in squad combat rating. 2) Suppression – temporary loss of some portion of squad combat capability. (Depending on rules this might imply only firing, or also movement) 2.5) Pinned – temporary loss of some portion of squad movement rating (if not combined with combat rating above). I am not a big believer in total loss of movement, but I really like rules that make the player chose to shoot OR move when suppressed/pinned. 3) Withdraw to cover – squad required to move, to extent allowed by 2 (and 2.5) above) to nearest cover that is further away from known enemy. Add to this a morale check. Morale failure may result in 2, 2.5, or 3 above, and depending on how extensive morale failure may be, can even make those results permanent. If you want lots of nuance, you make multiple steps in casualty, suppression and pinning. If you want faster play you make only 2 steps. Squad starts at full strength, and can be reduced to half strength, or it is gone. We can add the color commentary as part of the game chit-chat, about whether they are reduced in capabilities because they are treating Colby's wounds or cowering after seeing his helmet fly off with his head still in it, but it does not need to affect the game play. At least that makes sense to me. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mako11 | 05 Jul 2016 8:49 p.m. PST |
Thanks for all the feedback and comments. Not wanting to make a system that is overly complex. Would prefer it to be reasonably streamlined, with interesting results, while still permitting quick play. A bit torn between squad, fire-team, and man-to-man combat. Right now, my main interest is on fire-team/squad level play for the Cold War, but I added in man-to-man, since squad level skirmishes might be fun too. I don't see these as having to be mutually exclusive from one another, if I design the rules/charts/processes correctly. Upon a bit more review, and based upon feedback here, will probably just go with Kill/Wounded results, and leave the Gory Death/Light Wound/Severe Wound results out (can be added back in, as an option, if desired, for man-to-man games with a squad or two per side). Also, tossing the Morale Check option from the basic results. They'll still be there, but only for suffering casualties, and/or when desiring to move while under effective fire, when Pinned or Suppressed. I do want to add in nuanced, negative results, e.g. tactical move to seek cover (but not moving closer to the enemy, tactical retreat (has to retreat to cover/break line of sight, but may be able to rally eventually), and rout (out of the fight). I do like the idea of positive results on the Morale Check too, e.g. trooper, and/or unit going heroic, and charging the enemy, with a speed bonus to boot – the adrenaline kicks in, just for grins. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Jul 2016 2:20 a.m. PST |
Don't forget that 1/3 casualties will render a unit combat-ineffective for anything short of defending themselves in close assault! |
olicana | 06 Jul 2016 2:39 a.m. PST |
I think you should merge the 'dead / wounded' categories in any event, unless you are playing Hollywood games of course. Wounded men don't like fighting much – even having a finger shot off (and most bullet and shrapnel wounds would be worse) is enough to make most hunker down to dress wound and then 'sit quietly'. or seek medical help to the rear – and to be frank, most officers would order one of those courses of action and hope that shock didn't complicate matters before proper medical help was achieved. In game terms, any significant wound is a KO blow. Of course, I'm not including knock about cuts and bruises in the wounded category as these are generally ignored until after any fight, so in effect, they don't count as wounds. Just a thought. |
Skarper | 06 Jul 2016 2:40 a.m. PST |
This is the crux of WW2 and later combat. The main result and indeed the main goal of small arms fire is suppression. You may kill/wound a few enemy but it's scaring the rest into inaction that is the purpose. Once the enemy are suppressed your troops can move – possibly into close combat where the kills are racked up. My system any effective fire will score a PIN result as a minimum [I don't distinguish between pinned/suppressed though I gather there is a difference]. Any fire at all could score a PIN depending on the experience, leadership and luck. Morale tests [that could cause a loss] and Pin checks can both result in positive results, heroes, increases in grade of leaders/units if the dice roll is exceptional. This discourages piddling about with attacks that cannot achieve much just to waste time on the off chance you might get lucky. In general, my preference is to leave the figures on the table rather than remove them as casualties. Just need to mark them somehow to show they are ineffective for the moment or indeed for the battle. It's too tidy to remove them. Advancing through an area with the remnants of a broken unit is not the same as through an area of unoccupied terrain or indeed an area swept/mopped up already. Mopping up operations take time and risk incurring losses. |
olicana | 06 Jul 2016 2:48 a.m. PST |
I think you should merge the 'dead / wounded' categories in any event, unless you are playing Hollywood games of course. Wounded men don't like fighting much – even having a finger shot off (and most bullet and shrapnel wounds would be worse) is enough to make most hunker down to dress wound /etc. or seek medical help to the rear – and to be frank, most officers would order one of those courses of action and hope that shock didn't complicate matters before proper medical help was achieved. In game terms, any significant wound is a KO blow. Of course, I'm not including knock about cuts and bruises in the wounded category as these are generally ignored until after any fight, so in effect, they don't count as wounds. Just a thought. |
Andy P | 06 Jul 2016 4:27 a.m. PST |
Spotting is another important factor, you cant suppress what you cant see, and trust me you cant always spot where the fire is coming from. So example you a advancing in arrow head formation,a sudden burst takes down a guy…..section battle drills kicks in…dash, down, crawl, "OBSERVE", sights, fire..your still taking rounds but cant see where from. Now then at this point you might get panic set in due to the casualty, is he dead or dying, is he making a lot of noise…if he is he is fine for now! You will get somebody popping off rounds randomly into obvious cover which might set others off.. Finally somebody spots where the fire is coming from. Whole section opens up onto position and tries to reduce incoming fire. Peel off drills begin to get out of fire zone and into better cover. Using smoke if possible. Assault section attempts to flank position once in position opens fire from flank and using any LAW rockets suppresses position, then pepper pots forwards to within grenade range (gun group shifts fire) and assaults trench.Gun group moves up, following assault section route. Fight through position and regroup rearm. You can then check your wounded.. "Effective enemy fire is your section taking casualties" |
Badgers | 06 Jul 2016 6:13 a.m. PST |
Does the taking of 1/3 casualties making a unit combat-ineffective also apply to tanks? That would mean any tank platoon/troop would be ineffective after losing one vehicle…? |
Wolfhag | 06 Jul 2016 7:39 a.m. PST |
Mako11, Personally I think using a Fire Team of 3-6 troops is the best way to simulate small unit combat in a game where you have more than one squad. That's basically your smallest maneuver unit. With 2-3 Fire Teams per squad you can perform fire & maneuver with a suppressive and maneuver element. If you make small arms fire at medium and long range too effective in causing causalities players will sit back and shoot the entire game, why not. If you allow one side to be suppressed enough to make it safe to maneuver then it will reward the player to maneuver. I define suppression as "degrading your enemy's ability to observe, fire and maneuver". It depends on what rules you are using for observation, shooting and movement as to how they are affected. I think small arms fire should be measured as a "volume of fire" over the entire turn and not an individual chance to hit for each figure shooting. Many people disagree with me but I've found in games with more than one squad per side it moves more quickly. Putting out a larger volume of fire than the enemy has a detrimental effect on their morale (and suppression) as they know they are outgunned. This is why you use max ROF in the initial stage of an engagement to obtain that superiority and sustained fire to keep it. If the enemy decides to increase their ROF (less suppression or rallied) then you pour it on them again until their fire slakens. In the mean time you are maneuvering on them. But again it depends on how you want the game to play out and simulate. There is no right or wrong way. From what I can gather all small arms fire suppresses to one degree or another and will most likely cause the unit under fire to abandon their current mission, mode or posture and respond seeking safety and/or returning fire. This means in a game when a unit comes under fire they should be given a chance to react and not just stand there and be shot at because they have not been activated. Other things to consider: Full Cover/Hunker Down: Allows the unit to be immune from direct small arms fire but with a severe penalty to observing and shooting. It could be to wait for reinforcements or supporting indirect fire. Why be on the losing end of a fire fight and needlessly expose your unit to causalities? Tactical Withdraw/Fall Back: Let a unit automatically follow a fall back order to move out of enemy LOS. Once out of enemy LOS they should recover from suppressive effects. When on defense you normally had alternative fall back positions to occupy. Moving under fire: This is probably the most difficult thing for a unit to perform which cannot be done effectively unless you suppress the enemy. There should be some type of an aggressiveness or guts check modified by the unit training/experience/leadership to move under fire. A maneuver element of a fire & maneuver, Human Wave and Banzai attacks could be automatic. Pinned Down: I've often wondered if this is something the enemy forces on you or is it more voluntary/psychological? Overall I think it is pretty subjective and I don't use it. As far as movement if you want to move under fire there is a guts/aggressiveness check with a leadership modification. Falling back to get out of enemy LOS is automatic even if exposing yourself to enemy fire. The player makes the decision with risk/rewards. Wolfhag |
Blutarski | 06 Jul 2016 9:08 a.m. PST |
I always thought that Phil Barker's later edition of 1925-1950 armor & infantry rules had some good ideas on handling suppression and neutralization effects in a simple way. Might be worth a look. B |
wizbangs | 06 Jul 2016 9:26 a.m. PST |
I think you should keep the differentiation between dead & wounded. If you're going to play to this level of detail, a wound on one soldier would result in a morale/leadership roll for the man next to him to see if he helps administer aid. That's why modern armies went to the 5.56 mm ammo: because wounding a man took 2-3 out of action temporarily while a kill just removes 1. |
Skarper | 06 Jul 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
I think I've solved most of what Mako11 is trying for in my own rules – to my satisfaction anyway. My smallest unit of infantry is 2-3 men – if you take a hit you lose that size of unit. Someone is dead or seriously wounded and that means you lose the effectiveness of 2-3 men from your unit even though only one is actually hit. Each unit has a morale level – experience really – ranging from 6-8. This must be rolled <= on 2d6 to pass. There are drm – I started from the the basic idea to modify ASL but have come a long way since then! I have leaders and other counters that represent individuals – radio men, runners, heroes, forward observers, snipers, medics. Some of these could actually be two men but only one is represented. When you want your unit to do something – anything – you must roll <= their morale [many drm for this]. It is easy to do some things like walk down a road when not in combat, hard to move under fire if you are suppressed [I call it pinned] You can still get results in a long range firefight [probably more than you ought to] but if you want to really make progress you have to get up close. A tank with a good HE capability is handy – even better if it has good MGs too. |
Andy ONeill | 06 Jul 2016 12:51 p.m. PST |
How about moving the focus on results. Modern units aim to do stuff like pin the enemy, deny an area to the enemy. Thus gaining the initiative. You could apply pin tokens to areas or teams. An unpinned unit gets a fuzzy move bonus if they're avoiding los of enemy unpinned units. Pinned units can't move until they rally or withdraw out of sight. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Jul 2016 11:57 p.m. PST |
Does the taking of 1/3 casualties making a unit combat-ineffective also apply to tanks? That would mean any tank platoon/troop would be ineffective after losing one vehicle…? I don't know, we need to get a former tank trooper on that. I'm just repeating what a Stryker infantry officer told me. I suspect not, since the big reason for the complete loss of combat effectiveness at 1/3 casualties is that for every 1 wounded, another 1-2 troops are providing first aid and/or other assistance (like carrying a stretcher or providing a shoulder). That doesn't apply to vehicles. |
Mako11 | 07 Jul 2016 12:01 a.m. PST |
Interesting perspectives. I shall have to ponder them a bit. I'd be interested in seeing your rules, Skarper, should you be willing to share them. For tank units, I'd say between 33% – 50%. In tank combat, it appears that losses can happen very quickly, and it may take a bit for the platoon, or company to sort out what's happened. For a 3 tank unit, losing one probably is an issue. For 4 or 5 tank units, you'd need to lose 2 or more vehicles to cause a morale check. Also, since the troops have armor around them, my guess is they may be slightly more resilient than troops on the ground, assuming they aren't relegated to crewing severely outdated, or obsolete vehicles. |
Skarper | 07 Jul 2016 1:51 a.m. PST |
I can send you a longer pdf that is kind of designer notes if you let me know your email somehow. I'm reticent about posting my email on here as I get enough spam already! If emails are a no go I can put a dropbox link in here. |
Blutarski | 07 Jul 2016 6:19 a.m. PST |
Mako wrote – "For a 3 tank unit, losing one probably is an issue. For 4 or 5 tank units, you'd need to lose 2 or more vehicles to cause a morale check." I myself have never personally been shot at, but my suspicion is that the number of tanks in the platoon would not necessarily be a big influence upon the likelihood of a morale reaction. If vehicle A sees vehicle B ahead take a hit and its crew "de-bussing" with alacrity, I would suspect that the TC of vehicle A would be more focused upon immediate self-preservation than with a relative loss percentage calculation. I'm not arguing that cumulative loss percentages are meaningless; at some point, the unit commander must confront the extent of losses suffered versus the task remaining before him. Perhaps morale might have to be viewed in both immediate (event-driven) and cumulative (situational) terms. On a related note, how does one treat a situation where the other tanks in a platoon remain unaware that one or more tanks in their formation have been knocked out – pre-radio Soviet tanks for example? B |
capt jimmi | 07 Jul 2016 7:37 a.m. PST |
Great discussion ! I personally like Modern 'Company-plus' sized games, with the fireteam (of typically 2-4 men) as the smallest tactical combat element. Individual 'elements' (eg; medics, guides, interpreters and very occasional 'heroes') may still have an important role but not a large 'kinetic' impact. Therefore, because my tabletop role as the 'Company-Commander', involves the coordination of (say) three to four platoons, a CHQ, and support and specialist elements,… I don't need to know (at this level of game) the exact casualties or wounds suffered, I just 'need to know' if an element (eg. a fire team, AFV crew, engineer team, FO team etc.) is "functioning normally" (doing what they're told), is "suppressed", or is "destroyed" (ie; incapable of functioning or taking orders, and likely needing a Medevac). It could be well-argued that even this (at fireteam /crew /team level) , is typically much more than a Company Commander would be aware of at the moment in battle. …That's what I have tabletop Platoon Commanders /Sergeants for ! |
Mako11 | 07 Jul 2016 7:46 a.m. PST |
Hi Skarper, I understand. My e-mail is: rkentjr AT Hotmail (d0} c o m Would love to see your PDF. |
UshCha | 08 Jul 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
One of the key the response of trained troops is to get off the killing ground. In some cases this is the optimum survival strategy as is throwing smoke. One valid option if ambushed at close range is to assault as going to ground is easy but potentially deadly, but it takes nerve I am told. M/GP also defines a level of hunker down (in game terms not attempting to return fire) Which effectively makes them invulnerable to ranged small arms but Very vulnerable if assaulted. |
Wolfhag | 08 Jul 2016 1:59 p.m. PST |
Ushcha, During the VN era we were trained to assault into the ambush too. They told us if you survived the initial 2 seconds of the ambush you had a 75% chance of surviving if you responded right and got out of the kill zone. Running away may put you into a booby trap or mine field. Another reason to get off the trail is because the automatic weapons were set up to fire down the trail/kill zone. Many ambushes are hit and run and will fall back if you attack. They are not really looking for a fight. We never practiced with smoke. My only personal experience was walking down a trail one night by myself and someone took a shot at me from the bushes at close range and missed. I quickly ran out of the kill zone! I use the same hunker down/full cover rule but it is still dangerous if within close range or the enemy has an elevation advantage. One aspect of small unit engagements war games seem to miss is the hasty ambush. If you sight the enemy before he sights you don't start shooting right away. Deploy, hunker down and then blast them when they get into the kill zone but be sure to leave a team back to maneuver onto their flanks. I was part of the Aggressor Unit (bad guys) at Camp Barret for the Marine Basic School for new LT's. We'd spend the day in the woods patrolling, conducting assaults, ambushing and getting ambushed and all of that fun stuff. The most fun was at night when we'd probe their perimeter to harass and trash talk them. We were encouraged to come up with original names to call the officers and what we'll do to them – and their girl friends. Wolfhag |
|