"Help with rules for assault" Topic

As I find time I'm trying to polish and cement Hail Of Fire to the point of removing the beta tag as soon as possible (probably a few more months since I don't get to playtest nearly as often as I'd like).

One area I'm not satisfied with are the assault rules. I've been trying to find a system that was as quick as possible while still including all the important variable/narrative I'd like (an unending struggle I know). I've had several people ask me for clarification on how they work, which is mostly do to poor writing on my part, and I think I've succeeded at least partially in subsequent updates, but I think the mechanism is slower and more flawed than I'd originally thought. For one thing, I just encountered that its possible for both sides to wipe each other out to a man. That's definitely not what I'm going for.

Shaun Travers made a blog post about making up a simple war game to play with his kids, found here: link

His assault rules seem rather brilliant on first glimpse: "Close combat was each figure rolls a d6 with 4+ a hit, +1 if in cover, +1 if charging. Compare hits – winner loses 1 figure, loser loses the difference (up to 3) and retreats."

I haven't had a chance to simply try these out (perhaps should be doing that instead of writing this) but it seems excitingly simple and evocative.

If any of you have played or read Hail of Fire (or if you haven't, its free at wargamevault.com) do you have any suggestions on how to improve the assaults system, or have other favorite system that I should look at?

Thanks!

Period ? Game scale ? 1:1 or 1:20 ?

Give some information if you want realistic answers.

It all depends on your "gaze." Gaze is what I call the thing you are looking for in your picture of what happens. That breaks down into a few things--- if you want them to. What I mean by that is what is the level of the game and the period. From the title of the rules and the few hints you have given us I assume it's modern or WWII. (I tried to look at it on the link but it doesn't go anywhere. But that's OK. When you say "assault" unless you're doing it figure by figure you are dealing with a "mass happenng." Even in a modern or WWII setting the chaos of movement and individual actions across any piece of ground which has a very high lead and iron content of the atmosphere is going to generate into the chaotic. After all, you call it "Hail of Fire" yourself. What this means is that any number of men are going to be in that environment with individual perceptions and actions of each individual in the group whether attacking or defending is going to be chaotic and very much under the "gaze" of the individual at the lowest level rather than your "gaze" as the commander.

In this sort of combat, people are moving at different rates given the intensity of the fire, their courage, the perceptions they have and so forth and the defender is doing the same thing. Further, once they get to what is normally considered "assault range" which is to we old folks "hand to hand combat" or nearly, most terrain differences and attitudes of soldiers become the same. The Barrakady Tractor Plant is a ruin for both sides, providing cover for the attacker working his way forward as wonderfully as it is for the defender. You can handle this however you want with a whole encyclopedia of modifiers and conditions but I feel all you will do is bog it down with endless arguments over who gets what +1 or -1.

I recall what Don Featherstone said in his WAR GAMES in the Civil War Section where he more or less used Tony Bath's ancient rules for melees, saying people in that desperate situation pretty much fight as hard as they can. So far so good, perhaps.

What I did in my modern game is in the sequence of action I made it that the sequence is asymmetrical. The attacker fires first and causes casualties first on the defender in an attempt to destroy, suppress, or cause to retreat, all the defenders he can. He then moves forward. The Defender then gets to pour on the fire as best he can to suppress, drive back or kill the enemy. Then comes the assault were all attackers and all defenders roll against each other and both attempt again to destroy, or drive back the enemy. You will notice there is no "suppress". The assault continues till one side is driven out.

Now… I use a hex system for my modern game but the hexes are BIG, 8" across! You could do something like the same thing by what I call the "rubber band" method. Go to Staples or any Stationary Store and get one of those big long rubber bands which make an 8" loop, or you don' even need rubber bands, make a loop of string 8" 6" or whatever you want your assault to be. The attacker loops these around whatever figures he can get it and these are the figures considered in the assault. Assume these guys are going at it with guns, rifles, pistols, grenades, tomahawks, bayonets, whatever. Make the rules nice and deadly and bash on.

Don't fall for the modifier trap, it will overcomplicate the game.

I also mechanical devices to supplement for rules. For example, in machine gun fire, the fire is considered area fire. So a machine gun fires on EVERY stand in a hex. One stand, it rolls one die. Ten stands, ten dice. Twenty stands- twenty dice.

Keeps the attacker dispersed so he is not caught by a barrage.

Remember. Assaults are short, sharp, incredibly violent and deadly. Terrain doesn't matter so much down at that level and as the attacker almost always gets to hand to hand combat in and among the defenders, careful attention to cover and modifiers is unimportant. Remember even when the attacker is attacking pillboxes and trenches, the aim of the defender is to keep him AWAY and not let him get close. Once he gets close the pillbox is at a disadvantage as a grenade can easily be tossed into a slit or thorugh a back door.

I've actually used this is quite a few WW2 games over the last three years, both FTF and solo but with a few more modifiers (+1 dice for vets, -1 dice for green). Most of the homegrown rules AARS on my blog for the last few years use these assault rules. It seems to work fine but i haven't really palyested them or done detailed odds calculations. I cannot remember where I got it from – it is like the Take Cover!! assault rules but replaces rolling a number of dice rather than single die modifiers. I am sure I read adding and removing dice somewhere for assault and thought that would be good.

High roll wins, attacker (for the turn) wins ties.

or

Each player rolls (say, a D6), and loses that many of *his own* figures. (Yes, that's being cruel… )

cheeseman,
Most Western trained units in an organized/planned (not hasty) defense are going to have some type of pre-planned final protective fire drill when the enemy gets into assault range.

FPF is usually initiated at the squad or platoon level normally by firing a star shell by the squad leader or platoon leader. The FPF would include pre-registered light/60mm mortars firing dropping HE rounds as close as 25 yards in front of the defenders (ideally in some type of cover). Automatic weapons are normally placed near the flanks and fired laterally for interlocking fields of fire.

Every fighting hole would have a designated area to cover with semi-automatic fire. This is much different than selecting individual targets which you cannot do at night when many of the assaults are made. Everyone conducts grazing fire allowing the enemy to pass through the kill zone of interlocking fire. This is how Banzai attacks were handled. The Japs would infiltrate in an attempt to identify the MG locations so they could silence them before the charge. This is why they held their fire until FPF time.

The attackers should also have the option of offensive/concussion grenades of which the German potato mashers were unless a frag sleeve was used.

The idea is you do not assault a prepared defensive position without a lot of suppression. Command-detonated mines like Claymores are icing on the cake.

I hope I didn't complicate things for you – again.

Wolfhag

"Assault" covers a mile of ground. From taking a prepared position like Wolfhag's, to a simple rush in to close combat.

If you are talking about hand to hand/close combat, in all my rules I keep it simple. Opposed die roll, high die wins. Each soldier has a rating that modified the die roll. So Seal Team 6 might be a +2 versus an armed mob at -2. Sure Bubba might get lucky, but it's doubtful. Meanwhile, soldier versus soldier is a die roll. Unless you have pinned or have other advantages it's not a great option.

Keep it fast and simple.

Okay just read your assault section.

First, yes it does not scan well but a rewrite can fix that.

Rather than the 8" rule, I would just go with most kills wins ties to the defender.

Otherwise I think they will work fine. I'd be happy to suggest edits if you like…mark@scalecreep.com

Thanks guys for the insightful responses!

First of all yes, I apologize for not specifying in the OP (forgot that I hadn't in the subject) that the game is company level WWII. With stands representing teams/half-squads. "Assaults" happen when stands move into contact with each other, with multiple stands activating and moving together at the same time. This move into contact and resolution is meant to represent the closing of the last 30 yards or so.

When one side assaults, all unsuppressed enemy teams within 8" get defensive fire. Then there are 2 rounds of fighting with both sides rolling a die for each unsuppressed team within 2 inches of enemy, rolling against the quality of their troops (3+, 4+, 5+ on d6) each success destroys an enemy team, failure suppresses. Then roll again for all teams (unsuppressed and suppressed). Success removes teams, failure suppresses teams. Hits against tanks requires an additional step.

After the second round, count up all unsuppressed teams within 8" of the assaulting teams. Whoever has fewer loses and must move their teams out of 4" of the enemy otherwise the teams are destroyed.

This has worked out alright and is usually quick, but can be confusing to read and figure out for the first time, and also like I mentioned, has the rare potential to wipe out both sides completely at the same time.

Crispy, I'll absolutely email you!

Thanks again :D

you need to think very carefully overthe range of issues you need to consider. Take for instance the presence of barbed wire. If it is closer than 30m to the defender, the enemy could throw grenades while the attacker is trying to cut it. If in trenches grenades are useable by the defender at close range as he can duck into the trench to avoid the blast.

Like lots or rule writers you appear to have been looking at the rules rather than what you want to model and the spread of the results about the nominal result. The old adage is first win the firefight and then assault. If you have the enemy ducking on your final approach you will get in with less casualties than if they are not. List out all those characteristics you want to model. Set up examples of assaults and what you want the typical result to be and the spread of those results. Then armed with the answer you can look at how you might implement a rule set that gives you the answers you want.

as an example Outnumbering an enemy 10 to 1 may be a disadvantage as the attacker will get in his own way, this might lead you to there being an optimum level of outnumbering of say 2:1 beyond which no further improvements in success is not no possible.

If you attack from the flank, a company will have deployed in a formation. If its all to the front then then an attack from the front will take maximum damage. If it is attacked from the flank and has been suppressed such that it has not been able to conform to the flank threat, it will not be able to bring as much fire to bear. If deployed for all round defense then it will have reduced capability in any direction but will not have a worst direction. It is not simply about troops turning round as the risk of hitting your own troops becomes too high.

Hope this helps.

Is occasional mutual destruction actually an issue? The point was made that if close combat occurs it is a very intense activity, for which troops will have to prepare themselves and once the adrenaline wears off they might indeed be fit for nothing for some time, even if they have were successful in the initial assault. This does seem to have caused issues when captured ground was lost quickly and far more easily to counter-attacks.

I'm assuming that your destroyed stands aren't just casualties, but also those who are keeping their heads down. If you wanted to give players an incentive it could be that the first side to mount a counter-attack/reinforcement on that location has a lost stand returned as the fresh troops 'encourage' the survivors they encounter to rejoin the fight.

The assault phase is two-steps. Why not just one step? The side that gets more hits wins. Defenders win ties. Done. For WWII, I'd imagine the assault phase should be bloody, and a hard thing against ready troops.

Thanks for more food for thought :)

Vince, the reason for two rounds is to penalize suppressed teams, as they only attack after unsuppressed teams. That said, your point still stands, and I'm seriously reconsidering the current approach in favor of something that appears simpler to first time players.