D6 Junkie | 28 Jul 2019 3:50 p.m. PST |
So when playing a 15mm game where 1 tank represents 1 tank, what should be the 'doctrine' distance. This stems from all those wall to wall tanks comments I see. |
Col Durnford | 28 Jul 2019 4:15 p.m. PST |
It depends on what you want. I prefer at least 2-3 tank widths between each tank regardless on size. |
torokchar | 28 Jul 2019 4:16 p.m. PST |
Flames of War rules does not "reward" you for playing historically and tactically accurate – spreading out your armor, not moving over open ground to attack, etc…..that is why I no longer play the game. |
MajorB | 28 Jul 2019 4:18 p.m. PST |
Surely that would depend on the ground scale? |
robert piepenbrink | 28 Jul 2019 4:27 p.m. PST |
Major B's right. Based on figure scale, if a platoon of five tanks was bunched up as close as a 100 yard frontage, you'd get ten tanks on a 4x6 table, and every weapon could shoot across the table--the long way, at that. And I think most of the treadheads would tell you a platoon in 100 yards was too close, even for tanks in the attack. Find a ground scale and work from there. |
Col Durnford | 28 Jul 2019 5:01 p.m. PST |
I would add I'm not a FOW player as well for much the same reason listed above. |
21eRegt | 28 Jul 2019 5:57 p.m. PST |
Some games, like FoW don't have a ground scale. Having played it for years I'm continually puzzled by the "parking lot" syndrome. Although artillery and planes aren't the tank killers they once were, it is still an unpleasant experience. Sometimes with dubious troops you have bunch up to stay in command, but usually not. |
BW1959 | 28 Jul 2019 7:57 p.m. PST |
I've played other game systems with tanks hub to hub, it had more to do with gamers putting more tanks in a game then should have been there. We gamers tend to try and cram more units on a table then the rules can handle. |
Thresher01 | 28 Jul 2019 8:11 p.m. PST |
Yea, at least 1 – 3 tank widths, or more. In the real world, spacing is usually at least 25 – 50 yds. apart or more, depending upon the period, what they're doing, e.g. advancing down a road, attacking, defending, etc., etc.. I'd say in the Cold War, 50m – 100m/yds. spacing would be the normal doctrine for many, on attack, and/or defense. I can see getting in closer at night, in a circular defensive perimeter you want to protect. Perhaps 25m/yds. in that case for spacing of a platoon of vehicles. |
Martin Rapier | 28 Jul 2019 10:55 p.m. PST |
For a massed tank attack German doctrine was 50m apart, 100m (or more) between waves. US doctrine specified a range of intervals from 25 yards up to 100 yards depending on the situation. Any closer than that and it makes the AT gunners job pitifully easy, let alone the effect of medium artillery. What that means on the tabletop depends on the ground scale. |
nickinsomerset | 28 Jul 2019 11:03 p.m. PST |
One of the main problems, besides command ranges, is that gamers want to cram as many tanks as possible into a position to shoot at a single target. Tally Ho |
Thresher01 | 28 Jul 2019 11:47 p.m. PST |
Yes, yes they do, which can easily be rectified with a quick, Time on Target, artillery barrage, aerial napalm strike, helicopter gunship ambush, etc., etc., etc.. That should press home the need for dispersion, about the 2nd or 3rd time it occurs to the players bunching their armor up. Hidden anti-tank minefields are great for this too. |
robert piepenbrink | 29 Jul 2019 3:26 a.m. PST |
"Some games, like FoW don't have a ground scale." Sorry. If you have weapons ranges, you have a ground scale. You may not have a consistent, sane ground scale, or one you're willing to admit to, but that's different. |
HMS Exeter | 29 Jul 2019 6:11 a.m. PST |
It's just a sort of subjective notion, but my rule of thumb would be a sort of, "when I look at my game set up on the table and observe the interval between vehicles," my first reaction isn't, "well, that looks stupid." I saw a grand 1985 battle run at one of the cons, and the vehicles were deployed in what looked like phalanxes. It was a well run and well received game, but looked a bit weird. |
Col Durnford | 29 Jul 2019 7:49 a.m. PST |
+1 to KPinder. It's the look of the thing. |
Yesthatphil | 29 Jul 2019 9:28 a.m. PST |
Command ranges that encourage stands to bunch up (when historically, they would have tended to disperse) are an issue. Phil |
Zephyr1 | 29 Jul 2019 9:07 p.m. PST |
Don't worry if they are too close together; Your opponent will thin them out for you… ;-) |
Legion 4 | 30 Jul 2019 6:41 a.m. PST |
+1 Zephyr ! As noted it depends on game/board scale. And in reality it depends on the terrain as well. Of course again in reality dispersion is SOP in all situations for AFVs & Grunts. |
etotheipi | 30 Jul 2019 12:39 p.m. PST |
Food for the discussion.
… also, this is how far apart ships are in a battlegroup, apparently. (I'm the guy mooning everyone from the signal deck.) |