"Missile range bands Justification" Topic

Missile weapons Generally but not exclusively have a number of range bands for missiles. Some of the best games (personal opinion) only have one effectyive range DBM to mention one that is not my own.

Our own justifications for having only effective range are:- 1)Blasting away with a low proability of a hit would rapidly depleat ammunition for when its really effective. so limiting hits to ranges where the proability of a hit is "high" i.e "cost effective" makes sence.
2) Some weapons do not actually rely on accuracy in range to work effectively like a machine gun firing on a fixed line.
3) The accuracy seen on a rifle range is not an approprpriate reflection of warfare. Whether a grouping is 4" of 24" is immaterial if you are shooting at a man sized target, both give a near certain hit if the centre of the grouping is correct.

So what are the reasoins for having more than one range? How do you limmit ammunition so as to eliminate Issue 1 above. I am interested as I may have missed an issue in my design.

People under pressure will often fire at a longer range/inappropriate target because it gives them a sense of agency. Also, fire at a longer range might have less of a physical effect but may still possess a psychological one.
Accuracy, as well as velocity at impact, do change at greater ranges, leading to reduced effectiveness.

Weapons that have a high parabolic trajectory also require appropriate adjustments which might not be accurately done by people without the right training or under great stress.

Have you never heard of suppressive fire?

Torquemada, Suppressive fire depends on the density of the bullets falling. So it would need to have perhaps an effective range and a zone/area it was fired at. To my knowladge other than ourselves, only Barkers 1925 to 1950 rules coverd this and it had only a length of target and a max limit range and hence does not come under a "typical" set of range band criteria.

M. M. Steve, failure to control fire in time ands space to when its sensible is more of a morale/training issue rather than a deirect implementation. Again the issue is that adding this function too a game would need some form of ammunition limitation as this is expending rouds such that when needed they were not available. Again it would be interesting to understand how folk have implimented this credibly in a wargame.

These answers are more real world isses rather the implementation of in a wargame whuich is more what I was looking for.

Because it really is easier to hit a target that is closer than further away.

I guess it really depends a bit on the period you are interested in for gaming, and whether we're talking:

arrows;
bullets;
unguided rockets;
anti-tank missiles;
etc., etc..

Limiting ammo only makes sense if you are concerned about such things at your scale of play. In my current favorite rules, if the roll top hit comes up a certain number then that mini loses his next activation…the justification bedimming that he ran out of ammo at an inopportune moment. But that's skirmish level and it is assumed that everyone has enough ammo for the encounter. One less thing to track.

Battlegroup uses suppressive fire.

+1 advocate.

In terms of rules mechanics/implementation on the table, keeping track of ammo requires some sort of bookkeeping or use of tokens, which can be onerous whereas determining range and applying a modifier is fairly easy. One usually needs to consider the amount of work any bit of chunch/detail requires when designing a game and range bands don't require much.

advocate,
As I have already pointed out accuracy s not the same as target shooting Ref item 3 of original post. For instance if you engaged targets with only say 80 rounds in total at a 1:10 hit you would only have hit 8 times. If you conserved ammunition an shot at only at effective range say 70% proability of a hit you would have hit 63 targets. Wargamer's given unlimited ammunition have the potential blaze away un-realisticaly at low probability hit rate targets in the full knowledge that running out of ammo in most rules is avoided as it slows and complicates the game. We restrict the range to "high probability" hit rate ranges hence implying a measure of fire control to conserve ammunition.

I suspect this applies to even bows. While accuracy of a bow CAN be high, it depends on the quality of the arrows. It is why current archers use Carbon arrows with unbelievably tight quality control on weigh, straightness and flexibility. This level of control is not available to an English Bowmen at the time of Agincourt and hence until very close range the bow would be an area effect weapon. Again the area effect is probably not that range dependent once the minimum reasonable grouping range is achieved.

Can you define what period of history you want to discuss this in terms of and at what level of representation?
I don't think that any discussion of range bands in wargames can be meaningful without that context. What might be applicable to slings in an ancients skirmish game probably wouldn't apply to ak-74s in an operational level game.

There are two approaches to writing rules: creating a "simulation" game, which tries to be scientifically accurate, and real-world accurate (according to the designer's take on what exactly that is…); the second approach is an attempt to write, "game" rules, which are fun, without worrying about what is "accurate", or "realistic", but rather creating something fun to play.

I would suggest that the OP is interested in the "simulation" style of rules writing. It is very difficult to get everyone in agreement on "simulation" rules, as everyone seems to have a different opinion on how, or what, even, is realistic! This is very common when discussing "simulation" rules.

By the way, I wrote, and self-published, my own set of rules for introducing people to tabletop war games, using plastic Army Men figures. I sold around 150 copies over the decade I offered them -- not great, but not bad, considering my budget was Zero, for advertising. My rules received plenty of praise from those who played them, as I made it very clear, they were written as a "game", not a "simulation."

It is much easier to write a set of "game" rules, compared to writing a set of "simulation" rules… Everyone has a different opinion of what a set of "simulation" rules should include. I watched people argue about "simulation" rules for years, prior to penning my rules. I also studied, and performed professionally, technical writing. I wrote to a specific audience, tailoring my rules, and my writing, to make my "game" rules accessible and comprehensible to them, as an introduction to the hobby.

Would I ever consider writing a set of "simulation" rules? Never. Too many people who would argue, without end, about how I mis-handled this, or that, subject. Couch it as a set of "game" rules, and people are more willing to accept your rules. Trying to justify why you wrote a particular rule a particular way, to "simulate" reality, only leads to endless arguments, criticisms, and stress. Playing a "game", seems to mollify peoples' issues with why the rules are the way they are: "Because it's a game, not a simulation…"

My opinion -- worth everything you paid for it. ;-) Cheers!

Is there not a happy medium? A game that is somewhat simulation and is fun to play. I find it hard to accept that it has to be one or the other. Maybe write a simulation and then tune it to be fun. Then are some who find simulations fun.

Range bands CAN have a place in both simulations AND games depending on the scope/context of the simulation or game. What time period and at what level of abstraction are we discussing?

I do not think that "simulation" vs playability is a valid comparison. These are independent dime skins. If a game designer takes more than a month to design a set of rules and then expect people to buy it with their hard-earned cash, careful thought, analysis, and development can result in a game this is both playable and has a pretty good degree of realism. I would be happy to share the details of this position if you can catch me not running a game at Historicon.

Buck

I'm not against restricting firing to effective (as opposed to theoretical) ranges. But even within effective range, there can be bands. Musketeers holding their fire until they can see the whites of their opponents' eyes as opposed to opening fire earlier. In a later period, it can be argued that French chassepot fire at long range did slow the Prussians down, even if it didn't stop them altogether.
Fire control – and fire effect – can be managed in other ways than simply counting ammunition.

advocate, That is what I am trying to get a hold of what are the "other ways". A single effective range does some of that. In our games whites of their eyes is effectively the last few seconds say 0 to 30 seconds where the ranges are probably less than 60 yards and ammunition expenditure would be as high as possible regardless of period.
That has other constraints so that ammunition/Fear/Fire and fatigue are all at maximum stress and certainly in our game that generally limits the opportunities for a unit to get that close to one or two occasions in a day anyway. at these ranges kinds of ammunition expenditure is included like grenades of which most troops carry limited numbers. In earlier period it would be expending phyisical effort that could not be kept up for any significant length of time anyway.

Personally I am a living embodyment (as far as I am concerned ;-) ) that simulation and fun are most definitely not mutually exclusive. However simulation and thought are required, you can't pla a simulation without thought, its not a just roll some die and see what happens. To my mind some "games" stray into that territory but to me they are not the interesting games, I don't find gambling in the least attractive it has no challenge to it.

So what are the reasons for having more than one range? How do you limit ammunition so as to eliminate Issue 1 above. I am interested as I may have missed an issue in my design.

I guess I would have two questions:
1. Do the combatants concern themselves with ranges, close, long etc.? and
2. Do the combatants try to go for accuracy or volume?

For instance, during the Napoleonic period and earlier, volume in volley fire was the goal as accuracy was problematic… yet the ranges of effective fire and close fire was important.

So, it goes back to what the combatants felt were the most important. With bolt action rifles [more of an accuracy weapon than volume], the WWII Germans built their tactics around the volume weapon, the machine gun.

The Americans had a basic volume weapon with the M1 Garand. So what does that mean.

There are two approaches to writing rules: creating a "simulation" game, which tries to be scientifically accurate, and real-world accurate (according to the designer's take on what exactly that is…); the second approach is an attempt to write, "game" rules, which are fun, without worrying about what is "accurate", or "realistic", but rather creating something fun to play.

That is certainly the view that many wargamers and designers hold on to. I am always sad to see this long-held belief still being expressed. It is the result of too many years of just ignorant game designers and bad simulation design--all of which cause all the very real issues that Sgt Slag identifies.

Would I ever consider writing a set of "simulation" rules? Never. Too many people who would argue, without end, about how I mis-handled this, or that, subject. Couch it as a set of "game" rules, and people are more willing to accept your rules. Trying to justify why you wrote a particular rule a particular way, to "simulate" reality, only leads to endless arguments, criticisms, and stress. Playing a "game", seems to mollify peoples' issues with why the rules are the way they are: "Because it's a game, not a simulation…"

In our hobby it has led to endless arguments, but that is the fault of our designers, not some innate quality of simulations vs games.

Commercial designers have been designing functional--and popular simulation games for many decades, just not in the wargame mininatures and boardgame venues. That isn't some problem with miniatures or boardgames.

I have provided examples of very simple, accurate wargames in the past.

Spotting rules help to mitigate unrestrained long range shooting, both for the target remaining unspotted (or zeroed in on) and that the shooter is losing its own concealment by exposing itself by firing.

Here's some discussion on archery and spear ranges applying real-world data to a D&D-based miniatures game: link

Deserr Scrub, that very interesting. Particularly where we are talking about competition archers, who will be excellent grade and selecting their best arrows. The 12 ft radius at 180 yards means that it really was an area effect weapon, most certaily at long range. As it says this data is for a non-moving target and the shooters are not in a life threatening situation.
Poor arrowes and its proably at very short ranges the archers could shoot at the proverbial slits in the armour. It also proably means the area fire kill rate increase that much shooting at a horse as thr ranges drop. 12ft radius is about as accurate as you are going to get as in the real world the archer has to estimage rate of movement of the target anyway. Smaller COP, means more room to miss if the range estimate/rate of crossing is changing, particulrly if shooting at moderate ranges from the flank where rate of crossing is a significant factor.

For some weapon systems there is a range band within which you can't hit or at least not damage the target. I'm thinking some air to air missiles which have to travel a certain distance before arming, same for some torpedoes (AFAIK). Probably a similar issue for mortars and maybe howitzers?

YUP. minimum ranges can be quite alarming. Sagger missiles have a hit rate well below 50% below 500m due to collecting the missile into sight.