"Scenario for comparing Platoon level rules" Topic

Folks,

As some of you know, there's abit of of a contentious thread going on about the differences between CoC and Bolt Action here: TMP link

One of the (many) issues is that one of the folks posting is basing his opinions on a single play of CoC using the situation from Fury (1 Tiger vs 5 Shermans) as his test scenario. He was roundly criticized for this, but it got me thinking about how to devise a scenario that would stress different subsystems in a rules set and give some basis for comparison.

So, I think I'm going to take this on as a Blog project – take one rules system a month and 1) write up an overview of the rules then 2) run the test scenario using the rules resulting in a detailed write up of how the scenario was translated into that rules set, what happened and why. Who knows, someone might actually be able to make informed decisions based on it instead of reflexively buying everything that comes out at this level (like me ;-) ). There are certainly plenty of candidates out there (Bolt action, CoC, Twat, Disposable Heroes, Combat Patrol, Victory Decision, Final Assault, even K47… ).

So, what I'd like out of you guys, especially those of you familiar with multiple rules sets, is some feed back on my proposed test scenario. Is there anything that needs to be added, deleted or changed? Please let me know! Anyway, here it is…

Thanks!
Ed

Platoon Rules Test Scenario – May 1942, East of Vyazma, Russia.

This scenario a German local counterattack against a Soviet 2nd echelon penentrating unit, so both sides will be attacking to defeat the enemy and drive them from the battlefield.

All units are the same quality (average/regular/normal/etc.) except where noted.

The Germans should have better leadership/command & control if the rules allow it.

The Soviets should have better morale (i.e. ability to absorb losses and still function) at the unit and overall levels if the rules allow it.

German Reconnaissance Platoon

Platoon Commander w/SMG
Platoon Sergeant w/SMG

5cm Mortar team

3 squads, each with: NCO w/SMG, team with MG34 & 3 men, team with 5 men (Bolt Action Rifles)

Understrength Pionier Squad (Elite/Veteran/Superior/etc.) with: NCO w/SMG, team with MG34 & 3 men, team with 6 men (Bolt Action Rifles) [Count as being Anti-Tank troops]

FO with 8cm Mortar Platoon offboard

SdKfz 222 Armored Car


Soviet Rifle Platoon

Platoon Commander w/Pistol

4 squads, each with: DP LMG (2 crew) & 8 men (Bolt Action Rifles)

Partisan Squad (Green/Inexperienced/Inferior/etc.) with: NCO w/Bolt Action Rifle, 11 men (Bolt Action Rifle)

Maxim MMG team

Sniper

Anti-Tank Rifle team

T-26 M39 Tank

OK, not interested in 1:1 moderns--I came entirely too close to participating a few times--but assuming you mean to run the same scenario under various rules sets, I like the idea. I have ever since "Three Roads to Paris" showed up in the Courier. Please keep us informed.

I think this is a great idea. I would say that unless you're familiar with the rules it may take two tries to be sure you got it right.

Is there a link to your blog?

Since the search function is gone I didn't realize that discussion has been going on for two months so thanks for that.

Great idea, will watch (and read) with great interest, although I would prefer Western front (purely personal on my part)

Robert & FusilierDan,

Playing the same scenario with each set of rules is exactly the idea. I've always liked when Wargames magazines did it. So thought I'd give it a go!

My blog is ratspatrol.com . I'll post on here as I run through each test…

Thanks!
Ed

Glenn,

I'm working with the Figures I have at the moment (I'm mostly an East Front guy), but some sort of supplemental test using US troops would be useful as the BAR/Semi-auto rifle Squad was quite different from everyone else's LMG/Bolt Action Rifle Squads. Rules writers have some pretty large disparities in how they value the BAR & Garand and what special rules the use to deal with US doctrine. Let me think that through….

Thanks!
Ed

And a similar thread over at the new Warlord Games forum was instantly locked…. :-(

Why don't you use an historical scenario? Then you can compare the results to the actual outcome. Almost all the Chain of Command scenarios in the CoC campaign books are entirely historical if you need some ideas.

Tend to agree with Tony S on this. Why not take a real situation and see how each version of the rules plays out in terms of not only final outcome, but the ability to replicate historical tactics etc?

Tony & TacticalPainter,

I understand where you are coming from and if the point of this exercise was solely to determine which rules were the most realistic or historically accurate, I'd be all in on that. However, that approach has some challenges built in:

1 – Ground scale varies from game to game (CoC is 1"=10', TWaT is 1"=6', Combat Patrol is 1"=15', Disposable Heroes is roughly 1'=5') and in many cases there is no ground scale given. This becomes problematic both in how to structure the test and in the logistics of setting it up.

2 – Historical results at the resolution needed to serve as benchmark are really hard to come by, especially for eastern front combat. For example, the Kursk Pint Sized campaigns are great but they are generalized abstractions of Gross Deutschland's positions over time, not an accurate snapshot of individual platoon combats. I think you can usefully assess whether historical tactics are working without going down this road.

So given all that, what is the purpose of the tests? I think it's to a) highlight how each game deals with different issues (C3, relative effectiveness of MGs, Morale at the unit and collective levels, close combat & grenades, fire suppression, indirect fire, Armor & anti-armor, force creation, impact of doctrine, etc.) against a common backdrop and b) show both the process & results of applying each games combat model to a historically plausible situation. The reader can then use that information to see is the rules assumptions fit their conception of WW2 combat.

Don't get me wrong – I think there are games that are much more successful at putting you in the role of a WW2 Platoon leader than others are. I think that whether a rules set rewards historical tactics should be highlighted. There is an underlying historical reality that is discoverable and games that improve my understanding of it are much more enjoyable to me. But my tastes are not the same as everyone's so taking each game on it's own terms and figuring out if it works is the point here.

Thanks for your help! I mean that – having to think this through and explain it is really useful!!

Ed

OK so the basis of the test is to put two forces exactly the same and play with different rules. that show you a) how the mechanics work and b) the outcomes.
So you have to ignore both how force selection works under the rules (they would not be the same forces) and set them up in the same starting situation. Then 'have at it'.
Does not really matter what troops you use, proving all the sets you use have rules for them.
But there already various campaign books out there – I use them for playtesting
skirmishcampaigns.com
And yes I am the person who ran the Hunt the Tiger scenario, through both Bolt Action and Chain of Command. As well as my own Action all Fronts rules. It was quick (15 minutes was the longest game) and originally taken to the Britcon show in Manchester as a participation game. Simple tactics involved, kill or be killed and based on a recently released film, so I hoped that the players would have an idea of what to do.

VVV,

Yep, the forces are fixed but I think some discussion of whether the force selection rules could generate these particular forces (and how they would "point out") is an appropriate part of this.

I too have a bunch of the Skirmish Campaign books and think they are great, I just didn't see any where it checked all the blocks I wanted checked and used both figures & terrain I owned. One of the constraints here is me being able to execute it.

That sounds like a fun convention game. I hope your players enjoyed it!

Thanks!
Ed

Interesting. Going to keep my eye on this and see how it develops. Kudos to you, Ed, for taking this on as a project.

Over the two days of the event I think it was played 12 times. One of my friends makes and sells markers of flames (with little LEDS in them). I think that really made the games go with a bang.
Points or rolling for what you can have, very different approaches. But beyond that, most rules have extra limits on what you can choose. Coming from a background of Warhammer tournament play, I try to avoid shopping lists with min/maxes as they can be abused.
I go with points but what you can buy depends on what you have already got. So a platoon can have up to 3 infantry squads and one support squad. You have to go up to company level before you get off-table artillery support/company support units/AFV.

Sounds like a great idea, I'll be following with interest. Any plans to test the NUTS rules? That's the system my group is currently using, but not decided if we'll stick with them yet

BrockLanders,

NUTS! Is on the list to test, although this seems like the upper limit of what those rules can handle. I'll pop over to the two hour war gaming forum for some advice when it's their turn.

Thanks!
Ed

I think it would be interesting to run Disposable Heroes II with these forces.

I'd make the Germans Trained Guts (9) and Elite T&E (+2) and the Soviets Elite Guts (11) and Trained T&E (+0). The Germans will get more push activations, but the Soviets will have a higher morale.

I don't know that the pioneer and partisan squads are necessary for a test like this. Personally, I'd steer towards a smaller size game with just the three squads.

I might run this myself next week and see what happens. I'll report back what I found, unless something comes up and I don't make it to the club.

If you're running this with DH II, the meeting engagement scenario in the main rulebook would work. I'd suggest two squads of the platoon up front and one (or two) in reserve.

Pizzagrnadier,

It's nice when an author stops by to give you advice on how to adapt a scenario to their game… :-)

I think DH2 is the third game in the test queue (after BA and CoC). It's a good excuse to get it on the table to see how it plays since I picked it up in the Kickstarter but haven't had the chance to do more than read it.

Thanks!
Ed

P.S. Any idea when the updated DH2 army books for Germans and Russians are due out?

Not a problem. If you have any rules questions that come up, drop me a line on Facebook (or the Facebook group "Disposable Heroes Game Fans"), or my email (keith_stine at Yahoo).

I'm finishing the German Army book this week (hopefully) and it should be out this summer (I think in time for Historicon, but don't quote me on that). The Soviets or the British will be after that, but I don't know in which order. I'm also reworking the old Iron Ivan F&I rules This Very Ground in between. So it will be a busy summer for me.

Thanks!

Keith,

Will do and good luck getting everything done! You are going to have a busy Summer…

Thanks!
Ed

@Pyrrhic Victory, if your going to use a '42 scenario you need to add a Senior Leader to the German PHQ to the list in the book and either a Senior or Junior Leader to the PHQ in the Soviet list depending on how well you think the Soviet PHQ Command worked in '42

@jdginaz – the Germans have 2 Platoon Level leaders (PL & PSG) while the Soviets have 1. The idea is to translate that into whatever the rules in question use as a way to have a C2 advantage for the Germans. For BA it means that the Germans will have a 1LT vs a 2LT for the Soviets. In CoC, the Germans will have 2 Senior Leaders vs 1 for the Soviets. And so forth for other rules sets….

For the base platoons I used the mid war lists out of the X-mas 2016 TFL Special and added an extra Senior Leader to the Germans as support. I think that's going to work out pretty well…

Ok I just wanted to make sure you weren't using later war lists to compare when the others would be for earlier in the war

Er, sorry to be a pain, but I think the Fury scenario is not correct, there are only 4 Shermans (3 75mm and Fury the 76mm)- and since they only see the enemy after one of the 75's is killed, perhaps 3 against the Tiger would be better?
YouTube link

The scenario is already flawed as its seems roughly equal sides, thi is a rare event and rarely gets to other than a quick stalemate. It lacks trenches and fortifications so not a test of a more credible scenario. As a convention game it would be pointless you need folk who have a grasp of real tactics or it could just fail due to basic understanding of platoon tactics.

You really need to specify the actual number of rounds the mortars have so that you can see how the different rules cope with the ammunition available. You may want to define the mix Smoke HE for all the games.

While I think the idea of a test article is good it needs a lot of thought before it can be a really useful tool to assess a set of rules.

You may also want to define what troops are not visible to the enemy at the start to allow evaluation of spotting rules.

While you may not have got round to it yet, you need to be very careful how you define the real world terrain so that you can evaluate the systems ability to represent real world terrain. Bogs, hedges that are difficult to cross with troops or vehicles etc.

UshCha,

I agree that putting some thought into the scenario to make sure it stresses different systems is important, which is why I'm floating this here ahead of time.

My experience with convention games is that a lot of them big down once folks get into small arms range, both because small unit tactics at this level are hard to get right (both rules and knowledge wise) andbevause many gamers are horribly risk averse… ;-)

I agree that most battles are not fought on equal or even really equal-ish terms, but the situation I laid out (local counterattack into exploiting forces) is reasonably plausible and translatable into multiple rules sets. So, like much of Gaming, we are going for historically plausible, rather than purely historical, in the name of playability..

None of the rules in questions far account for mortar ammo rounds specifically. I know CoC has a mechanism for running out of ammo with light mortars and I'll look to see how others deal with the issue. Do you know of any platoon level games that deal with mortar ammo levels?

Some rules sets have spotting and others don't so forces will be initially unspotted as they enter the board, if applicable.

I'm building a board for my Historicon CoC game that I'll recycle into the test board for this. You are correct that being careful to define terrain in ways that translate across rules sets is important!

Thanks for your feedback!
Ed

Er, sorry to be a pain, but I think the Fury scenario is not correct, there are only 4 Shermans (3 75mm and Fury the 76mm)- and since they only see the enemy after one of the 75's is killed, perhaps 3 against the Tiger would be better?

Well the Tiger might have missed with the first shot. So then there would have been 4 Shermans vs the Tiger. But you are right, you could assume first one killed, then it is the US tankers turn to respond to their mates going up in flames. You just miss the Tigers first turn.

You may also want to define what troops are not visible to the enemy at the start to allow evaluation of spotting rules.

Do many rules do spotting? Certainly Bolt Action and Chain of Command don't.

Our rules (Maneouver Group) run from about plaoon level up. We do allow for ammunition its defined a bit like the real thing on an area basis and a level of impact.

For vehicels it does require that the models turn there weapons as appropriate and fixed line weapons will have some problems.

we do have Blinds and spotting.

We don't have a points system (dont't get me started on THAT one).

I most certainly NOT RECOMMEND our rules as is for a standard convetion, such games need to be unrealistic due to time and lack of understanding of the average punter on such occations.

We do cut them down for convetions but at a very high cost to the credibility of the game. Wihe enough to get a slow game of a few bounds with novices you cannot expect a good test of any set. If it gets it all in the time, odds are it was poor to start with as it was too simple anyway.

Again aims and objectives is what is needed.

Perhaps a better test would be to take situations where the platoon is in the various formations given in the manuals and elisit the responce to the rules in those situations.

Its not reallly clear whether you are really testing the rules or just playing the same convention game with different rules. None to be fair are goint to do a good job in that latter situation.

Ushcha,

The point of this test is not to determine how closely each rules set replicates situations in Infantry manuals, although I don't rule out doing a limited form of that in the future. The point is to play a standard situation with each set of rules, document it with some analysis of what seemed to work well and what didn't, then let the reader decide if this is the kind of game they are interested in. If that sort of testing would be interesting to you, great! If you don't think that has value then I understand that why you aren't interested.

Really rigorous "testing" of rules would require doing, essentially, Monte Carlo testing (I.e. LOTS of iterations) for each rules set under different conditions which is not in the cards. Even then, for lots of questions there is no real benchmark to compare against. For example, one of the things rules disagree about is the relative firepower values of bolt action rifles, magazine fed LMGs, Belt fed LMGs, Semi-Automatic Rifles, SMGs, etc. Since effective firepower is a strange mix of hard factors (sustained rate of fire, re-load times, magazine/belt size, etc.) and soft factors (training, ammunition proximity, fire control, etc) there is a good deal of subjectivity in what values each rules set uses. I know what mix of values I think provides a more realistic environment but folks can and do disagree about it. So showing what assumptions an author has made in his rules and what effect they have on relative lethality is really the only result you can show….

Thanks for your feedback! It really does help explaining all of this….

Ed

When I see the term platoon level rules I usually think of rules like Spearhead, Command Decision, etc. where one stand represents a platoon. While Bolt Action, and similar are !:! rules. Years ago I came across a website where WW2 rules were compared. The site had several criteria for the rules including one he called the Tiger rule having to do with how the rules treated Tiger tanks compared to historical actions. Unfortunately I do not recall the sites name and a lot of rules have been released since then so an updated comparison of rules would be good. At the other end of the rule spectrum this site did a comparison of rules for operational level warfare link While not at the scale you are doing it does provide a good comparison of rule systems.

One thought I had WRT the vehicles: it would be a more apples-to-apples test if both sides had tanks, instead of the Germans having an armored car. Perhaps give the Soviets an understrength platoon of 2 T-34/42s (AKA T-34/76Cs) and the Germans a section of 2 PzKw IIIG/Hs (short 5cm with armor upgrade).

This would allow comparison of how the rules deal with a "fully-crewed tank" (i.e. the Pz III having a commander, gunner and loader in the turret) vs. one that doesn't (i.e. the T-34 where the commander also has to function as the gunner). Also, by having two of each, the aspect of AFVs with/without radios could be evaluated (very possible the T-34s in this timeframe would be without radios) and AFV unit morale could be assessed.

I concur with williamb's statement: I would call the subject of this thread "skirmish-level" vs. "platoon-level", but I wasn't going to quibble. I also remember the website where the author discussed his "Tiger Test" for rules (and also don't remember what the website was).

One issue with the "Tiger Test" for "skirmish" rules is that at "skirmish" scale, the small area the table represents might mean that some frontal penetration/damage of a Tiger could realistically occur.

REWORKING THIS VERY GROUND?!??!?!?

WHAT WHAT WHAT!?!?!

CSherrange: Yep! Summer project. Been testing some new mechanics and going to make the rulebook itself a lot more user friendly. It was definitely the worst laid out of the old lot of IIG rules. It'll also be expanded to more of the black powder period, though the F&I will still be the main focus of course.

I like the idea, I concede the forces are virtually equal, but for test, it will work well.

The old timey crowd could also try BGWWII, a fantastic (if chart heavy) game for smaller forces, but the proposed scenario would work for it as well.

Windward,

I wish I could find them somewhere in PDF just to kick the tires, but they are kind of hard to come by. They are Squad and higher level (like Nuts!), right?

Pizzagrenadier-

Looking forward to new TWG rules. Love the game but if I hadn't played it at a few conventions I'm not sure I would have ever picked up how to play it from just reading the rules. It's a lot of fun and we have played more than a few skirmishes using the ruleset.

I'll be running my test of this scenario tonight, though I'll have to swap Soviets for French as I don't have the right mid war forces for my Soviets to match this.

I'll post the results when I get a chance.

CSherrange: I hope to make the rules much more clear and better laid out to facilitate that. It was a common criticism of the rules (and it was one of my first rules sets outside of writing Disposable Heroes). Glad you like the system though, and I hope you'll like the new version too.

Pyrrhic Victory, they are epic! We have had such fun with this system. Really designed for a platoon or less. You will die of old age it you try to run larger games.

But fun as hell, with wild results. It's very Hollywood in feel, you have total control, as long as the figure is not broken he will do whatever you want. If it's crazy or hard it's addressed with a skill or gut check, so he can fail, but general actions are always executed.

The combat is resolved with buckets of 20s. You roll hits per round fired, and resolve each hit. Very old school, but lots of fun.

Historical? Not too sure, but boy they can be fun.

Sources: basic rule book

link

neo-forge.com/rules1.html

Better charts can be found digging around in the BGWW2 yahoo group

When I see the term platoon level rules I usually think of rules like Spearhead, Command Decision, etc. where one stand represents a platoon.

And when I think of platoon level rules, I think of something where the entire force represents a platoon in action with its supporting units.

With say Command Decision it's a Battalion level game defining the overall force your commanding not the maneuver element.

There is no consistency on how we characterize rules. Black powder rules (Napoleonics & ACW especially) are usually defined by the maneuver unit (I.e. Brigade or Regiment or battalion), Ancients usually break down into mass battle or skirmish depending on how the figures are based. With 20th Century stuff you get a range of scales for 1 figure = 1 man scale ranging from less than a squad (1:48 combat etc.), to a squad plus support (Nuts!, BGWW2, Five men at Kursk, etc.) to a platoon plus support (Bolt Action, CoC, DH2, etc.) to company plus support (Flames of War, Battlegroup, IABSM, etc). All of these except FoW also use individually based figures as a default.

So I think it makes sense in this case to use the Command that the player is controlling as a way to describe the rules Im looking at.

Thanks!
Ed

Ran Disposable Heroes II through this scenario last night in 15mm. The forces were slightly different, as I didn't have everything I needed to do an exact match.

We used:

German late war grenadier platoon.

2x nine man grenadier squads with sergeant and corporals with MP-40s, an LMG team, and a panzerfaust.

1x nine man grenadier squad in reserve.

1x sMG-42 off board.

1x 8cm mortar off board.

1x Panzer IV H.

Germans had a Guts scale of Trained (9) but a T&E of +1. This was to represent a german platoon who had been attacking but who are tired. Their morale is lower than the Soviets but they have a push Activation which will allow them to take an extra Activation every turn.

Soviet late war rifle platoon.

2x rifle squads with sergeant with Ppsh 41,1x DP-28 lmg team, and 1x corporal and 6x riflemen.

1x rifle squad in reserve.

1x Maxim HMG offboard.

1x 81mm mortar offboard.

1x T-34 76 D.

The Soviets had a higher morale, with a Guts scale of 11 because they were on the offensive, but a T&E of +0.

Both players were deploying from their table edge and both were trying to capture 1 victory location (out of five across the middle) by the end turn 1, then try to get two more by the end of turn two.

The game went well. Both players pushed a flank, and captured a location but the German player was in a better position to support his move. Both players used their offboard mortar but found that once they got in close it was better to use their HMGs, which they both used to create an area of denial. By then end of turn one, the Germans had eliminated the T-34 with a panzerfaust and were in a better position with their infantry going into turn two.

Turn two saw the Germans capitalize on their position to grab two more victory locations. The Soviets pushed a German squad back on their right and secured their victory location, but weren't in a good position to do much else there. However, they did cause the German player some stress when they began pushing their second rifle squad towards the lightly held German victory locations on the right (the German player had split a squad to capture two of those locations and they were far enough apart to make them vulnerable). The German HMG went into action and interdicted the Soviet push while the panzer IV waited in case they broke through.

By the end of turn two, the Germans held onto the center and right of their line to pull off a victory. Their line was held, but both would be in position to bring in reserves, so we called it a minor victory. We didn't have time to game a third turn. Casualties were light with only 5 Soviet WIA/KIA and 2 German WIA/KIA. The Germans had lost a squad that had fallen back off table but they could be regrouped and brought back in the fight if the player had wanted to.

All in all a good game. Being a meeting engagement with roughly mirror forces, it turned into a pretty evenly matched game with the Germans edging out a victory with a gaining fire superiority.

Hope that helps for this project.

Thanks!

Pizzagrenadier,

Thanks for the report! I'm looking forward to trying out DH2 via this route. I think I'll use the Guts/ T&E splits you used to reflect different leadership and morale levels when I run my test. Command ability/leadership, unit morale and individual training all seem like different charactistics that could be better or worse independent of the others. Sometimes rules sets link them, sometimes they are independently adjustable, so highlighting how a rules sets deals with that is interesting to me.

Thanks!
Ed

No problem!

The Guts and T&E (training and experience) levels are labelled Conscript, Trained, Veteran, Elite etc., but those are just descriptive titles. The rules contain more detailed lists of suggested scores for various unit types and theaters. But even this is just a guideline. This really opens it up for creating very campaign or battle specific morale and C&C. The Waffen-SS could be made up as an elite unit before a major campaign such as Kharkov (high Guts and T&E), or one of the battered and replacement riddled units of the end of the war (low Guts and T&E), or something in between such as an experienced SS unit with good training but at the end of a campaign or even in a moment where their offensive has stalled (such as a low Guts but high T&E). The Guts rating reflects how the individual units react to fire, while the T&E gives bonuses to initiative and gives extra Activations as well as bonuses to other rolls in the game. The push Activations then can be used to give a unit that extra push to take an objective or rally and rush to get into cover, or rally and turn the firefight around or even to better coordinate an assault with supporting fire. You can then make some interesting matchups with forces such as a very small, but high Guts and T&E force defending against a wave of low Guts low T&E force. How long can a single squad hold out against a supported platoon attack with maybe only an HMG of their own in support?

You just have to ask what was T34 doing that close to infantry? The panzerfaust has a Max range of 60m (THATS THE LONG RANGE ONE). A T34 Machine guns are equally effective out to 400m plus. Somebody must have really screwed up to be that close with no infantry support or the game is a VERY poor simulation.

*shrug.

So it's a poor simulation if it doesn't model ideal circumstances for the tank?

There are tons of instances where a) there aren't long range LOS, B) the enemy infantry moves to where they might be in range or C) you don't know the enemy is that close until they fire.

Bad Tank/Infantry coordination is the norm for most armies for most of the war, unfortunately…

Plus, you never know when your infantry support are going to get entangled in a fight with the enemy's and/or end up in the wrong place or otherwise be unable to support you, which is what happened here. The Soviets ended up getting suppressed on their flank and were unable to prevent a German rush up the center and within Panzerfaust range of the T-34.

I don't see how that situation playing out like that is a poor simulation.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was about rules where one stand represents a platoon. TMP has defined rules for WW2 by their level of representation for decades. See TMP link What Pyrrhic Victory is doing by testing various rules is a very good idea.