"Looking for Feedback on WW2 Platoon Level Rules Concepts" Topic

It seems like there are a million "Platoon Level" WW2 rules out there (by Platoon Level I mean the player controls roughly a platoons worth of individually based infantry). But, being the eternal tinkerer I am, I'm not totally satisfied with any of them and am writing my own. I've got the core of the set mostly written in a Google Doc and I'm looking for general feedback on the core concepts, and then I have a couple specific questions I'd like people's opinions on.

My general style when creating a set of rules (I have none published but have two sets ((Ancients and Pulp Sci Fi)) that I commonly use for home games) is to write a relatively simple "core" set of rules and then have a series of Advanced Rules that can be chosen from to tailor the game to what specific players feel is important. Scenarios can also recommend particular advanced rules.

Core Concepts

Dice Basics

The game is a dice pool based game, where weapons, equipment and the situation determine the number of d6 rolled and the quality of the unit determines the target number. All 6s explode and may be rolled again.

Scale Basics

1:1 figure and vehicle ratio

Roughly 6" = 75 yards for ranges

Roughly 1 Turn = 30 seconds

Units, Turn Sequence and Activations

Individually based figures are organized into "Teams", which range in size from 2 to 12 figures, and represent the normal divisions of a squad or section. Players alternate activating one team at a time.

Here's where my idea differs a bit from a lot of the rules I've seen out there. When a team is activated, they may either perform a single "Team Action", or each figure in the team may perform two "Individual Actions".

Team actions include attempting Suppressive Fire, trying to Rally Off suppression markers, moving into Close Combat, and going on Overwatch.

The Individual Actions include Moving (which may be done twice), Aiming, Firing, and Going to Ground and Standing Up (basically using terrain for better cover, allows you to do less in exchange for a defensive bonus).

Movement

Movement is the fairly standard for WW2 rules, for infantry the first Move order gets you 6" of movement, facing changes are free. If you use a second move order for the same figure you get d6 worth of movement. This means all figures know they can reach a certain distance but there's uncertainty beyond that point, and a unit may try to move only to realize it doesn't have enough and can get caught in the open without taking defensive steps.

Unit Cohesion: all figures from a given team must be within 3" of another figure from the same team.

Fire Combat

Suppressive Fire
Suppressive Fire is meant to force units to keep their heads down. A team gets a d6 per figure, plus a bonus for each Support Weapon in the team (graded as light, medium or heavy, adding 2, 4 or 6 dice respectively). All dice are rolled against a target number of 4+, and the number of successes needed is based on the size of the target team (3 for 1-6 figures, 4 for 7-10, 5 for 11+). If successful, the target team receives a Suppression Marker and may only perform a Rally team action the next time it is activated in an attempt to remove the token.

Direct Fire
Direct Fire is meant to eliminate individual figures and is done from figure to figure.

Spotting and Fire Priority are some of the key things I'd like advice on, and I'll expand on the different possibilities below.

Assuming the target figure is spotted, the firer rolls a number of dice equal to his Weapon Rating + Range modifiers + other modifiers. Range is generally assumed to be table wide, with bonuses given for being within effective range (24" for a standard bolt action rifle, 60" for some LMGs) and bigger bonuses for being within half effective range. Certain weapons (notably SMGs) have short effective ranges and may not be fired past their effective range. Average troops are generally looking for 5+ to hit.

The defender rolls a default of 3 dice + any cover or Go to Ground bonuses. Average troops are looking for 4+ to save.

To give some example numbers, most bolt action rifles will have a Weapon Rating (representing Rate of Fire and lethality combined) of 2, while the M1 will be 3. The Thompson and MP40 are also Weapon Rating 3, but get an extra die at half effective range (only 6"). BAR and Assault Rifles are Weapon Rating 4.

Above that you start getting into weapons that can fire on whole areas instead of just individual figures, but to give some numbers the Breda gets 5 dice, Bren and US .30 on a bipod 6, MG42 bipod 7, and so on and so on. These weapons are also crew served so may have a number of "Assistants" who is they are in base contact with it (or on the base) add an additional die. These weapons also can fire on an area. They roll one attack and all figures in the area must defend against it. I've been wavering between two different methods of determining the Area. Either the conical zone of fire, as seen in NUTS!, or a more traditional but less realistic circular template centered on a given figure. I'm leaning towards the latter option out of simplicity, but I'd like opinions.

Close Combat

Close combat is the more direct way to clear out the enemy. A team given an Assault order must pass a Morale check and may then move 6" plus a d6. For each figure they have touching or within 6" of an enemy figure of the target team, they gain 1 d6. They also gain extra dice for close combat weapons and attached leaders. The target team gains dice in the same way, plus a bonus die if they have any figures in cover. Units that have a suppression marker get half their normal number of dice. Both sides roll against their Fight value (commonly 4 or 5+). The side who rolls fewer successes is eliminated, while the winner takes half the number of casualties rolled by the losing side.

Leaders

Leaders are represented by NCOs and Officers,and may either be attached to a team or independent.

Leaders get 2 new Individual Actions:

They may "Reorganize" two teams into one or one team into two.

They may "Command", activating a team within their command distance which has not already been activated. After the team finishes activating the leader may finish his activation.

They also provide passive bonuses to Morale Checks for being attached or simply nearby.

At the end of each turn (after all teams have activated), the players may alternate attaching or detaching their leaders.

Morale

Morale Checks are taken for a variety of reasons, most notably the first time a unit takes fire in a game, when attempting to Assault an enemy team, when taking fire from a flanked position, when suffering heavy casualties, and to remove suppression tokens (Rally order). A Morale Check is a single d6, modified by nearby or attached leaders. Failing the check means different things depending on the reason for the check but in general it's not good.

That's just a brief overview of the concepts, I've omitted talking about vehicles or indirect fire, as well as many of the advanced rules I'd like to see. But I do have a few questions for you all.

Does the summary above sound like a game you'd enjoy playing? Why or why not?

The Area Fire rules I mentioned above for direct firing machine guns, do you have a preference between the two?

What sort of spotting or target priority system would work well for a game of this scale?

Any other feedback?

After reading your thoughts, I guess my question is what is it about other rulesets that you're seeing that makes you want to do something different? What do you like more about the proposed approach compared to what's out there?

@cheesesailor77

Primarily the individual figure actions and the control that gives combined with also having team actions to allow for suppressive fire and other events that did primarily happen as a group. It means that smaller forces(say a squad or a squad and a half) still make for a viable game, and lets you feel like the individual soldiers are doing things instead of acting in total concert. Team based activation also speeds up gameplay more than alternating individual figures, if just barely.

Well, this is not a game that would interest me. I really distrust exploding dice for historicals, and don't like buckets of dice either. But I'm an eternal rule tinkerer too and love to think about game mechanisms.

One thing is at that scale your table is tiny. I assume you will not have any vehicles beyond the odd one or two in this game? Your table represents 600 x 900 yards (on a typical 4x6). Even a slow tank crawling along at 10mph will move 12". At a moderate 20mph that's 24 inches per turn.

My first question is why you think some actions are "team" actions and others are individual. Why can't I have half fire to suppress, the others to move? Seems like this really should just be a 1:1 skirmish game with team activation.

I usually recommend looking for a game that's close and just tweak from there. Battlegroup actually does a lot of what you describe. You can either fire to suppress or fire to kill. Teams activate and get two actions (move, shoot, assault, rally, etc.). Why not use that as a starting point? It's a sound system, and has loads of army lists etc. written up.

I agree with Crispy's assessment.

CoC does every bit of that.

Squads/Sections were rarely split in practice. It was more likely for sections to be grouped than a section split.
Conscript soldiers needed close supervision from leaders and they were always short on them.

I don't particularly care for buckets of dice myself. From observation, my feeling is that opposed rolls are more involving for the players.
In any case, I prefer the dice shifting and opposed roll mechanics of Stargrunt 2. YMMV

Troop quality should be at least as important as weapons. You can have the best rifle in the world. The weapon is worthless if the guy holding it doesn't even bother trying to fire it or to aim properly while pulling the trigger.

Anyhow, my preference was and is to start with stargrunt2 as a basis and build on that.

For machine guns I suggest two modes. Directed at a squad or beaten zone.
The beaten zone could be a line if firing to same level or a template otherwise. Anyone entering the beaten zone the bound it's fired into runs a risk of taking an effect. This should be less than directed fire.
On one side you can have an mg firing bursts down a road.
An enemy squad wants to cross that road.
In SG2 terms they'd need a leadership test to leave their side road. They fail they get a suppression which a leader needs to remove.
They pass, then they can dash.
You can roll for effect on the squad at some lower value than direct fire.

Area templates are a bit of a nuisance in BUA skirmish.
Any mechanic which means you need to know exactly where a figure is inside a building is a PITA.
The difference between ground scale and miniature scale means your little men and model buildings are way too big.

I also suggest you remove any mention of timescale and ground scale. Even if you have something in mind.

Sg2 ww2 doesn't have overwatch. Interrupts are from sg2: An unactivated in-suppressed section can act if something moves into view.
I added: When you activate a section it can fire at something just moved out of view as if it was still in view. Unless destroyed, the target doesn't get moved back though.

This removes the need for declaring what a section is watching and fits hidden defence better. I run a lot of attack defence games where the defender is map deployed.

In practice the squad automatic weapon provided the squad/section's base of firepower, and the riflemen maneuvered off of that – this was the basis for fire & movement tactics during WW2. Some degree of unit flexibility in a ruleset to enable this is desired, while still requiring squads/sections to operate as cohesive units.

As a tweak suggestion, I would consider that the results of losing Close Combat not always result in elimination for the loser, but could reflect degrees of failure to hold ground too – by having varying levels of retreat imposed on the losing side.

That's one reason I really, really dislike Bolt Action. You can't split up your squads to do that. Kind of like having a set of ancients rules that doesn't let chariots charge. Might still be a fun game, but "meh."

I dislike buckets o dice for a more prosaic reason: it is cumbersome, slows down the game, and litters your table top with dice. And yes I see dice boxes, dice towers and box tops. But they are often ignored.

The math of exploding dice is very complex and I frankly suspect designers who use it have not really thought through what the heck it means.

The same applies to multiple dice types. A shift from, for example, a D8 to a D6 is a very big shift indeed.

Agree that opposed die rolls or saving throws or the like help keep everyone involved, and allow a designer a way to adjust odds, especially in a D6 game.

"In practice the squad automatic weapon provided the squad/section's base of firepower, and the riflemen maneuvered off of that – this was the basis for fire & movement tactics during WW2."

Sorry, but that is incorrect.
Two sections – that is SECTIONS would cover and one move.
My father taught battle drill in 1944.
He described this as "the three legged beast" on leg moves whilst the other two stay put and provide support.

In practice, in the assault many British units only had 2 effective leaders and or enough effectives for 2 groups.
They split into two groups.
One with the brens grouped would provide supporting fire whilst the other closed to assault.
( Wigram ).

Some interesting ideas here. One weapon you don't address is the hand grenade. Another (possibly for the advanced rules) is land mines.

Under Suppressive Fire, you don't address the effects of cover (of various types).

What scale of miniatures do you have in mind?

German Squad Tactics In WWII, by Matthew Gajkowski:

The Infantry Point In Contact With The Enemy
If the infantry point encounters a weak enemy force for example, a few riflemen or a light machine gun (forward security) -- then it immediately brings its light machine gun (or light machine guns) into position and opens fire. The point leader leads the riflemen in attack upon the enemy, taking advantage of cover and usually working around to outflank the enemy, so as to not delay the advance of the troops following.

….If the point encounters a sizable enemy force, one that surpasses it in strength, then it initially takes full cover until friendly, rear heavy machine guns arrive and are put in position and supporting troops come up from the rear.

Summary Of Basic Principles
Usually, the light machine gun forms the spearhead of attack by the Gruppe, so that if necessary it can immediately support the Gruppe by fire – if, for example the Gruppe suddenly comes under fire.

In covered terrain, if there is the possibility of a sudden appearance of the enemy, the Gruppenfuhrer has the Schutzen move out ahead of the light machine gun, thus providing better protection of the light machine gun against surprise.

There is an absolute reason that a Gruppe/squad/section in skirmish games be enabled to deploy their light machine gun and riflemen as elements, and as mutually-supporting echelons within the formation.

The original poster has forwarded game mechanisms which allow for squad maneuver and supporting fires – perhaps they seem cumbersome to some, could benefit from refinement, but do present an effort to reflect tactical flexibility at this level of game play.

When a team is activated, they may either perform a single "Team Action", or each figure in the team may perform two "Individual Actions".

This seems the wrong way round to me. Shouldn't they be able to do more if they act as a team and all do the same action ? Otherwise you'd always activate them individually, so they get two actions.

Its more they di different actions. Suppressive fire and rally only by unit, shoot to kill and movement i dividualky, etc.

The team activation is a good rule. I always wondered how games with individual activation are going to carry stretchers or ladders, or setup crew weapons.

Dice explosion can be a good idea if you have a set of modifiers.

Personally hate modifiers so i like your rules in that sense. I dont mind buckets of dice
I will second Andy squads did not split up at least as neatly as is often portrayed.
Your rifle fire is WAYYY too effective when compared to LMGs. Like many times over.
I dont like suppression based on number of men in a unit. The number of men in a unit does not correlate well with being suppressed or not being suppressed. It makes people shift forces to slightly bigger squads
Conical fire for for machine guns is better than a circle

OK this is a ton of great feedback. I'll start from the top.

@Crispy
On dice pool mechanics, we'll have to agree to disagree. I like the feel of rolling multiple dice, and there are oppossed rolls to keep both sides interested. I play a lot of DBA and know that single opposed dice can work, but I've always found it rather bland.

Exploding dice help represent the slightly fortuitous situations that seem to often come up in war memoirs, shots that hit that had no business doing anything. It is, though, not a mechanic I find integral to the rules. The probability is a pain but if you cap the theoretical number of revolts you get an approximation.

I'm not wed to a particular ground scale, as in most games I've seen (even skirmish) a consistent scale and an enjoyable game are opposites.

As for the team/individual action split, there are some things that are simply better done as a group, suppression and assault chief among them. With the leader rules, the teams couldn change turn to turn, and as to your specific example individual soldiers can choose to "Go to Ground" when taking fire, in essence giving individual soldiers the ability to force a minor form of suppression.

@Andy and FlyXWire. Re:section or sub-section based fire and maneuver. I've poured over the relevant ospreys, looked at the handbooks, tried to find first person accounts (Andy your posts were invaluble) and in general found the answer to be "it varies but official doctrine tended towards fire and maneuver within the section". There are lots of accounts of squads splitting up into different sizes for different tasks, just as there are for platoons. My hope is that the rules for splitting and joining teams give players the flexibility to organize how they see historically fit.

@Andy re:machine guns. Great thoughts there, a beaten zone would be more powerful but less flexible than a traditional single overwatch attack.

@Don Lowry. Frankly I am unsure about how much cover helped avoid suppression. Ovviously they felt safer but that may mean they were actually less likely to move.

@FlyXWire, re:close combat, my reading made it seem brutally decisive, but I may allow a unit to retreat when a charge is declared.

@Simo, rifle fire vs MG fire is a point I knew would come up. MG42 on a bipod starts with 7 dice, plus 2 for the crew, plus either 1 or 2 for range (effective range is longer than a rifles). So 10 dice that effects all targets in a given area, as compared to 2 dice against 1 target. 5 times the power and also more targrts.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback. Apologies for typos I'm writing this on a phone with a sleeping newborn in the other hand.

I dislike the term "buckets of dice" as a lazy catch all for rules that use more then 1 die. For a start it is usually inaccurate, never seen anyone throw anything close to a bucket full, a generous handful seems the norm. Also it tells you nothing of the probability model. Do multiple successful rolls cause more hits or is there a limit? Do multiple success or multiple fails (typically a target score of 6 or 1) trigger some other event? Does the score needed for success change according to tactical situation? Does the opponent get to throw a bunch of dice for saves? Fortunately you have described your model quite comprehensively. I agree with other posters the exploding dice do complicate the probability curve. Will have a look at it when I get some spare time.

@Don Lowry. Frankly I am unsure about how much cover helped avoid suppression. Ovviously they felt safer but that may mean they were actually less likely to move.

Might depend on your definition of "suppression" and how that differs from "pin." Not moving is one thing, not shooting back is something else.

I do think individual aimed fire was rare, and so it should be in games -- almost exclusively the province of snipers. The vast majority of fire was (apparently) just banging away in the general direction of the enemy, trying for suppression or pinning -- in short intimidation. If an enemy actually got hit, so much the better.

"In practice the squad automatic weapon provided the squad/section's base of firepower, and the riflemen maneuvered off of that – this was the basis for fire & movement tactics during WW2."

Sorry, but that is incorrect.
Two sections – that is SECTIONS would cover and one move.
My father taught battle drill in 1944.
He described this as "the three legged beast" on leg moves whilst the other two stay put and provide support.

In practice, in the assault many British units only had 2 effective leaders and or enough effectives for 2 groups.
They split into two groups.
One with the brens grouped would provide supporting fire whilst the other closed to assault.
( Wigram ).

This is quite true…up to a point.
Battle schools and the manuals didn't really recognise section tactics, stuff was taught with the basic premise that the platoon was the smallest unit to accomplish a mission (other than recce patrol tasks).
of course in reality platoon tasks often had to be achieved with numbers much lower…

Have a look at "Secrets of the Third Reich" from WestWind.

Although designed as for Weird War II the rules are essentially late WW2 infantry platoons of the various nations with the "weirdness" added as alternative support opptions to the normal batallion or regimental assets available. The rules allow for sections to be split into fire & movement teams and recombining to a full section.
Westwind also had an alternate "pure" WW2 set called "Berlin or Bust" using much of the same mechanics.

SoTR only did lists for Germans, British, Soviets & US but these are set up for Weird War scenarios. for Historical games you would use actual platoon organizations and as all standard weaopns are catered for

Also it tells you nothing of the probability model.

Buckets of dice are easy to analyze mathematically. It's a binomial distribution. Even if you roll multiple successive buckets of dice (to hit, to wound, save, …), it still is a binomial distribution, with a chance of success equal to the combined probabi;ity of the individual die rolls.

One option that is valid is to have an MG on a fixed line where the bullets travel no higher than 24 inches. This is called graving or grazing fire. It is effectively a line. It may require some surveying in to ensure no dead ground. As protection from assault you need to cover Claymore mines. These are dangerous in font and to a limited extent behind. Look the relevant us manual up. You need to be careful about area fire it used a lot of ammo.

Buckets of dice just waste time better spent moving toys. Personal opinion of course.

If you have vehicles they are going to be difficult to use. If troops have bazookas or equivalent they will die fast as the view from a buttoned up tank is poor especially closed in. Troops on the ground not visible closer than about 30 (us manual). Un buttoned they are vulnerable to small arms.

Let me post a translated illustration of the wartime manual – The German Squad in Combat and the Training Manual for Schnellen Truppen, Training and Employment of the Panzergrenadier Company:

Doctrine and drill at the Gruppe-level within the German infantry platoon specified two command positions within the German squad, and two combat elements – Gruppenfuhrer (Squad Leader), Truppenfuhrer (Deputy Squad Leader), and the LMG Trupp, and Schutzentrupp (Rifle Section). This sub-division of the squad formation was mirrored in most WW2 armies (if the squad possessed an automatic support weapon). As can be seen and read from the Squad Column diagram, in the German approach drill, the squad's LIMG team formed the base of firepower for the formation (and was the first to react to enemy contact) – in the US Army, the riflemen (M1 Garand-equipped) formed the primary base of firepower. Within the German squad structure here, these two elements could be used in tandem, or to further develop the firefight by bringing up the rifle group (basic and intrinsic fire and maneuver deployment within the squad formation).

At such ultra low level combat Command Control becomes a dominant factor – so dominant as to limit interest as a game. Formulating orders and getting them to the troops takes time not generally reflected in most systems. Troops often fail to carry out orders due to confusion, noise or survival instinct. In a simulation at this level most of time should be spent watching miniature solidiers do nothing. It depends of course on the time scale.

This explains why manauals suggest complex multi-part manuver but real world soldiers work with bigger chunks of soldiers built around a few "effective" NCOs.

Agree that mass d6 rolling (often in muliple batches) is time wasting but can't be help if you insist on using such a small random spread as 1-6.

Artifically dividing fire as "suppression" or "for effect' is an un-needed complication. Troops fired to hit as many opponents as possible – they did not try to miss. The difficultly comes from achieving the goal. Hence most fire "missed" but caused enemy to seek cover – not because this was all that was intended – you want to kill/disable but because it was all that could be achieved.

TomT

In that Osprey on Squad and Platoon tactics. Please see page 23.
To precis:
Between the wars the German manuals stressed splitting the section into two groups. By 1939 that had changed and the practice was one section = one group.

My sources sited above are attributed to the period 1940-42, and also detail the tactics used by the Panzergrenadiergruppe utilizing armored half-tracks, and this notes the inclusion of the addition of the 2nd LMG section per squad, which was utilized when dismounted, while a 3rd LMG remained in each squad halftrack (thus well into the actual fighting period of WWII, and with the deployment of the SdKfz. 251 m.Schutzenpanzerwagen).

"My sources sited above are attributed to the period 1940-42, and also detail the tactics used by the Panzergrenadiergruppe utilizing armored half-tracks, and this notes the inclusion of the addition of the 2nd LMG section per squad, and utilized when dismounted, the 3rd LMG remaining in each squad halftrack (thus well into the actual fighting period of WWII, and with the deployment of the SdKfz. 251 m.Schutzenpanzerwagen)."

which was in that period after all a bit of a rarity …at a time when APC mounted troops weren't facing particularly effective AT opposition from their opponents… after 42 and the emergence of effective infantry AT weapons (and an increasing willingness to use them) the tactics changed considerably, with the APC used as a taxi rather than a fighting vehicle

Excellent point Christot!

To expand on this point, a suggested good read for tactics utilized by the US Army in Europe during WWII, would be the book Closing with the Enemy, How GIs Fought The War In Europe, 1944-1945, by Michael D. Doubler. Within the chapter on urban combat, is a section on tactics used for fighting in built-up areas:
"Some units reconfigured single squads into searching and covering parties, both under the control of the squad leader, who moved close behind to maintain positive control. Searching parties consisted of four riflemen organized into pairs using the "buddy system" for maximum teamwork. The covering party consisted of a second assault team under the assistant squad leader and a BAR team of three soldiers that served as the squad's base of fire. 13."

13. George H. Duckworth, "Operations of Company F, 23d Infantry Regiment at Brest, France, 8-14 September 1944"…..Infantry School Quarterly 32 (April 1948), and Combat History of the Second Infantry Division in World War II.

As Christot has already suggested above, tactics are not a monolithic dogma. As reinforced in Doubler's book – The need to train soldiers in the theater of operations was not fully appreciated before the war but took on great importance as the fighting progressed. Training programs in the combat zone strove to repair weaknesses and to teach new skills needed on the battlefield.

For example, Doubler sites the GI's utilization of marching fire [enabled by the semi-automatic M1 rifle]….is to utilize marching fire and keep moving…. One battalion commander said he had never heard of marching fire until he "landed in Third Army". 45.

45. John E. Kelley, "Shoot, Soldier, Shoot," Infantry Journal, January 1946, 47-48, and War Department Pamphlet 20-17, 12-14

Now, the reasons for my including the footnotes along with these passages above – is to stress that they are postwar studies of combat methods and practices used, and these ones developed during the conflict. For a full understanding of tactics utilized during any [many] conflicts of warfare, enthusiasts and historians alike can appreciate that many practices become codified 'in the next manual' after the cessation of hostilities….

"both under the control of the squad leader, who moved close behind to maintain positive control"

If he's in control of all his section then there is no effective split into two parts.
The squad was only "split" by a few yards. The one squad is clearing a house. On a table, they would not be separate at all.

Extrapolating from one company to "some units" is a bold move on the part of the author. That book has a number of such in it which has led to some criticism.

If you want stacks, bounding overwatch and fireteams in your ww2 games then that's entirely your call.
It's your game.

A question for the OP.

Would it not be better to start with historical probabilities of hitting/suppressing and so on using actual casualty figures, rather than starting with a neat dice mechanism?
Nothing wrong the the mechanism – but surely it should be set up to reflect historical reality, rather than building the game around the mechanism?

What Dexter said, in particular in relation to the close combat outcomes.

Generally infantry assaults either 'succeed' or 'fail' (with correspondingly heavy losses and withdrawal on one side and minimal losses on the other). It isn't a Hollywood style melee.

One comment I'd offer is that realistically all it takes to bring a squad of men to the ground is one rifle bullet sent among them. Unless you're a Zulu, if you are walking across a field and that happens, you'd hit the dirt at that point and so will everyone else.

It then becomes a leadership challenge to get them doing something useful, such as working around to the flank, etc.

Andy, for some, our simple game wants was there in the original message – Some degree of unit flexibility in a ruleset to enable this is desired, while still requiring squads/sections to operate as cohesive units.

One thing we've enjoyed with skirmish style gaming in recent years (and typical now with reduced figure-count games in general), is the ability to render high-fidelity terrain at this level of play. What once was a patch of woods, or a few singular buildings, becomes a more intricate array of woodlots, walls, hay stacks, a fox hole line, out-buildings, alley ways, and floor levels within structures, limited for us mostly by our own imaginations, free time to assemble, and of course by our wallet's ability to pay for (I'll mention transportability too for some of us who do public presentations). Along with greater terrain density and modeling fidelity, is a recognition of how tactics created to tackle such terrain might have been used. So now, what once was dead space on the gaming table, and perhaps of no great relevance in a company or battalion scale scenario, becomes a stand of trees to gain some protection within, an important garden wall to hold or outflank, or a small hillock to maneuver behind. Authentic squad-level teamwork, fire and movement tactics become relevant tools for tackling these more detail-rendered battlefield problems.

4th Cuirassier I think brings up a good point.

My dad who was a rifleman in the US 82nd Airborne Division during WW2, once told a story about an incident when his unit was advancing across a field in Normandy, and a single shot rang out – all went to ground immediately – after an extended moment, the advance was resumed. Dad never had the nerve to tell anyone that it was his rifle that had accidentally triggered causing the discharge.

Many of our games have most of the table covered in a complex BUA with many building models.
I think of our games as being ww2 flavoured fun.

In any event, I don't follow how one would represent F company's tactic differently from any other unit.
Either way, you have 12 or so figures next to a model building.
That model is probably the size 5 real world buildings ought to take on the table.

That's the problem with literal interpretation of fiddly bits of terrain like garden walls.
The difference between ground scale and figure scale causes logical problems.

What would you do?
Represent the building internals separately and move figures into it?
You'd need a separate table and larger scale model of every building.

I can't recall how much of this is from SG2 and how much I invented. The way I handle splitting a squad allows it but makes it unattractive. Mostly.
It's the section leader who gives the two actions per bound to his men.
If you split into two then you can have one part sit there doing nothing in a bound and the other move twice, or one moves and the other fires.
The leader has to yell to issue orders – if he sends half his men off doing something then once they're out of his sight they'll very likely just stop and he'll have to go get them if he wants them to do much other than return fire.
We experimented with allowing interrupts and not. I'm still undecided on that one.

We also experimented with fixed orders. The leader tells his men to go to a specific point and do something. The player can then claim actions that are appropriate to doing this.
That got way too fiddly though.

I just noticed something in the original post.

"Unit Cohesion: all figures from a given team must be within 3" of another figure from the same team."

What max frontage does that mean for a 10 man section advancing in skirmish line?
75/2 *9 = 337.5 yards.

If you use a more conventional 1" = 10 yards and 2" max between figures then that works out as 180 yards.
Which still seems too much.
Maybe one gap of 2" max and the rest 1"
Or 1" between men and 2" between squad leader and men.
I base on 1p coins ( 20mm ) and the last time we were discussing this the conclusion was they should probably be base to base when moving.

Dug into static positions is potentially a bit different. You could maybe allow greater distribution for a section which starts out dug in.

I wouldn't ascribe the need to scale a model building to equal the size of space, or reflecting equivalence to 5 real world buildings if designing for a skirmish game scenario.

Creating a ground scale, with a plausible combat resolution system is a pursuit for creating gaming "granularity". If the pursuit is to create simulation-level fidelity, the task is probably doomed from the outset (Paddy Griffith once wrote something to the effect that the wargaming hobby would eventually come to understand that for truly realistic simulation to occur, there would have to be a realization that the miniatures themselves would always be getting in the way)…….what?, give up our toys Paddy, never!

Yes, plausible game play results, but to me, enable players to use the tactics and make the command decisions the encounters might facilitate (perhaps there's a great difference in gaming/entertainment philosophy amongst hobbyist – but maybe the original intent [premise] for the designing of any rule set is the most important factor to consider in the first place)?

So first Just cos Paddy Griffis said it, it is not automatical right. Feathetsone got it wrong lots of times despite being a famous author. Lots of time folk fail to understand a simulation, be it engineering or wargame is to some extent a coruption of the truth but still usefull.

Built up areas are an example. Go look at the army training grounds for Urban areas. Some are less convinceing than our terrain but they are obviously fit for purpose.

Our own approach to urban is to have far less buildings (25 times by area scale) with our figurse (5 time ground scale). However in compensation we have eliminated back gardens and closed them up. In the real world a city is full of buildings most of which by definition cannot be occupied as there is never enough troops. We reason the famous One,Two,Some, Lots theory holds. If you have the buildings outnumbering the elements to occupy them (typicaly sections) between 2 and 4 to one you get the command tasks and issues without the long drawn out real world issues. If you attack on say 8 to one out numbering buildings to troops the task does not chage it just takes longer and there is no additional learning experiences, which to me is what the hobby is about.

You have to recognise that the number of troops used is much less and the time taken is shorter but the basic practices are the same. However they take place even at that rate much slower than vehicle engagements so there is enough difference not to invalidate many of the issues and solutions.

Here's a video some might enjoy watching on German fire and movement techniques for the squad (also demonstrates how orders were given, and cohesion maintained once an assault began – much by sound).

YouTube link

As many gamers on the boards here already know, there's a trove of tactical fun had at this level of gameplay with just a platoon or two's worth of figures on a side. Maps can also be compact when the terrain density is closer to a 1-to-1 scaling (that farm complex ahead can be exactly what it is). From the foot soldier's perspective, this is the point of view they experienced their war from, and probably why non-gamers find it the most easy to visualize, literally "playing soldier" from. Still (at least in my experience), this skirmish-level of gameplay can be a real challenge to master.

Less can indeed be more [fun].

Often players want to be Generals or Colonels when they don't have the skills/knowledge to play a corporal! [I do not exempt myself]

I think the most fun is to be had with skirmish type games using from 10-50 figures a side and one or two vehicles.

Platoon level games where one piece is a platoon and a lot of what it is doing is 'factored in' bore me. But to each their own.

I don't think you can play a company commander and have individual figures moving about. You might have them grouped into sections/teams using some kind of command and control rules. I've done that in some of my games and it worked [I thought it worked at least].

That film is based on a translated pre war manual.
It wasn't how German infantry trained ( at least from 1939 ) It wasn't how they fought. Unless you're talking some elite formations who had plenty of motivation, training and leaders.

It took a few years to publish a new manual which represented real training and practice.

Please see
link

"This text is a translation of the greater part of the german handbook…"
…
Page 12
"The squad is the smallest combat unit".

Page 22
"The squad is usually employed in combat as a unit. The division into two groups – a light machine gun group and a rifle group. with different combat missions – no longer applies. The fire fight is now conducted through the concerted effort of the entire squad."

This is dated January 25th 1943.

Again.
The pre war German infantry manual has the section split into 2 groups. This just didn't work.
As a result, the training and practice was for the squad to operate as one unit and not to split.
It took a few years before they re-wrote manuals and the US army got hold of them.

The US infantry trained initially to split into 3 with a scout, assault and support sub section. This put them at a disadvantage in combat because such a split leaves 2/3 of the section out of control of the section lead. Out of control means doing nothing ( unless elite). Very quickly, units realised they shouldn't go splitting up sections and they matched the German practice of section level granularity.

As Andy says above, this was the reality. As much as gamers (and Hollywood) love the notion of a couple of soldiers performing a mission and operating under their own volition…this rarely occurred, 20th century infantry combat did not resemble the Pirates of the Caribbean.
The Section, often split into subsections, but still close enough to respond and acting under CLOSE orders from a leader, undertook the majority of tasks in WWII, at least the ones that were successful did.
As above: Out of control meant doing nothing.

Yes, the squad "often split into subsections" under the command of the squad leader. No, there's been no reference to Rambo, Sergeant Rock, or Hollywood, just "requiring squads/sections to operate as cohesive units" (that means maintaining required command control).

Skarper, I also agree that less can be more, and I've seen the same joy at this skirmish level of play too, and I don't exempt myself from its challenges either. :) Many of us play WW2 in different ground and figure scales also, and enjoy these for the level of battle command they're representing, but have also seen the inevitable "mission creep" occur with that favorite set of rules, and skirmish-level games are particular vulnerable to this, where an effort is made to push the game further in units accommodated, or the size and scale of the battle originally meant to be represented (also – to each his own).

Tweaking a squad-level game to enable team elements (going smaller, rather larger as Skarper has mentioned, and more easily done with single-mounted figures, as SwammeyJoe did originally specify), can certainly work. You can do this with Bolt Action too, by requiring that each team element of the squad starts with an NCO (Squad or Asst. Squad Leader), and that these must observe a squad command range between each other. Each team is represented by a action die, and the whole squad can activate together as one pull (two dice are then expended), or as separate action dice are pulled (of course you have to have enough action dice for each/all side's potential units). It works fine.

On the subject of fire & movement tactics at the infantry squad level (now for the American Army), let me link a PDF here to the US War Department's FM 7-10 Infantry Field Manual, Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment, date June 2, 1942 -

PDF link

The manual's pages 138-141 are a good read on the methods US Squad Leaders could employ when moving to the attack, and in conducting an attack on an enemy position. I've assembled a copy of a few of the manual's passages below that demonstrate the training in fire & movement tactics employed by the US Army, and methods that could be used to maneuver a squad's sub-elements during offensive action. I'd recommend anyone interested in this era's use of small unit tactics to browse the manual themselves, there's a load of examples for the deployment of infantry pairs and squad teams in a wide range of additional combat tasks performed both for offensive and defensive action (infiltration, scouting groups, out-posting troops, sentinels, etc.). Some ideas that you might just use in that next WW2 skirmish scenario planned….

In other words, the assistant section leader simply implements orders already given to him by the section leader – there is no independent action by 2 separate entities, merely a single mission accomplished by 2 parts of a whole.

If you are playing single figures to a stand (15 & 28mm) the squad leaders should not be firing, they are too busy supervising, observing and ensuring their team leaders are doing their job. Of course there are exceptions when the action gets up close and personal or he decides to lead an element himself.

Wolfhag

@Andy, on the topic of German squads I agree with you, almost all sources I've seen say that while early war squads split up by the late war (with the 9 man squads) they tended to act as one group. US soldiers I'm less sure about, which ironically makes the least sense seeing as the difference in firepower between the rifles and the squad automatic weapon was by far smallest in US units. I've read about US infantry in Italy ignoring the Able/Baker/Charlie groups and instead splitting into a large rifle group and a smaller BAR group.

Either way, from a rules perspective I think allowing platoon leaders (and squad leaders in more "flexible" armies) the ability to reorganize their forces lets players make the tactical decisions themselves. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it. Large (squad sized) teams will be less flexible, and the alternating activations means that given equally sized forces their opponent will get many activations in a row at the end of the turn allowing for greater coordination, but they will be stronger when attempting suppressive fire or in the assault. They will also tend to be closer to leaders and less likely to end up suppressed. Which makes sense as far as I'm concerned.

@christot, to your latest point, I think that while in a stand based game where a few men represent a whole squad, and you're commanding companies, the level of command is abstract enough that the squads don't need to be split apart. But at a skirmish/platoon level, where figures are based and perform actions individually, even the "2 parts of a whole" should be represented in some way.

My rules allow for this, as well as for leaders to spend more time "Leading" versus shooting, by letting leaders spend an action that they could spend shooting to activate an additional team within a certain distance. The encourages squads to keep roughly together, but lets them perform different actions if need be. SMGs (commonly given to squad leaders) also have a hard capped range unlike other weapons which have an effective range but can be fired the length of the table, which helps encourage them to lead rather than fire.

Sounds very functional, with a tip towards tactical flexibility. Btw, a belt-fed LMG never proved to be an effective assault weapon.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with (is this something you'll eventually provide as a download?)

I can't really see the point in considering the nominal sub groups separately unless you have quite an unusual ground scale.
1" to 10 yards is pretty common.
The squad leader would be within 1" of both sub units, which is also a pretty common unit cohesion limit.
It was used more as a labelling thing rather than making a squad into 2 or 3 small squads.

I 've read of us platoons grouping their bars rather like wigram found British platoons did. Mostly though, the bipod was removed and the bar used just like a rifle but with some auto capability. The us infantryman was much more likely to have other support available so they could be less reliant on integral weapons.

The 1942 us manual was of course written prior to trying out all this sub unit stuff in combat. In combat, splitting a squad like that meant most of a squad was ineffective unless the entire squad was within command of their leader.

The problem was the same for all armies. Their conscripts mostly needed leaders ordering them about before they were effective and nobody had enough leaders. Ww2 infantry combat chewed through men at a ferocious rate and particularly those leaders.