"Game Design Challenge: No Infantry" Topic

This came up on Facebook and, as I am busy moving house, I've been thinking about it to scratch my game itch. It's a challenge to tackle just for the fun of it.

For a WW2 era game, could you design a game with no infantry on the board, just abstracting it out? For example, opposing units move slower around enemy infantry?

The goal is not to simply replace miniatures with, say, counters. The goal is to abstract the infantry out as much as possible.

My initial concept is as follows (loads of details to be worked out).

Stands represent platoons or

The game uses areas (think Crossfire). Each side has a front line made up of colored cubes. Cubes move either one (leg) or two (mech) areas per turn depending on scenario. All non-leg units are represented on table (SPGs, tanks, aircraft) per usual. These move by inches.

Movement in enemy areas is slower and you can enter, but not exit an enemy controlled area, unless you "neutralize" it. To neutralize it you must score a number of hits in a single combat phase. If you do so, remove the cube.

Each side also has a deck of cards or chits. These represent single use "upgrades" to their infantry. So you might have a card for "Extra AT" that would give a bonus when attacking enemy armor with infantry. Or for mortar attacks against enemy units or areas. They might be defensive, like a "dug in" card that gives a bonus on saving throws.

Each side's infantry stats would be generic and apply across the whole battlefield. (You could have 2 types, by using 2 sets of colored cubes to represent an elite unit and a regular unit, but this starts to get in the area of 1 cube = 1 infantyr unit).

The cubes may be suppressed. Cubes may be reinforcements. Cubes are never replaced.

Anyway, a fun little thought experiment for the rules noodlers out there.

I think you're saying that you design a game with only mech units, but since that's not realistic, you have to model presence of infantry. And since the minimum effect of enemy presence is to impede movement, you're saying that's all the infantry do. Only the mech units can attack back. Not counting card/chit upgrades to give some infantry AT capability.

Your cubes are acting as counters, not sure why you are making a distinction, unless it's because cubes are 3D.

You can also incorporate spotting by having the cubes all be the same color, with unit type written on the bottom, requiring spotting check to reveal. And some could be blank, representing poor intelligence / psyops / previously knocked out emplacements. Which adds a scouting consideration to the player decisions.

Would not want to, I'm actually far more interested in infantry actions than those with armour.

Just play Tractics or the original Panzer/88/armour games. Infantry is such a second thought and poorly glossed over you just leave them out.

Another way is, after armor crosses the 'front line', randomize their encounters with opposing infantry with each move (say, the further they move, the more chance of an encounter, or a stronger one.) To make it more interesting, instead of 'unlimited' infantry, each player has a 'pool' of infantry they can draw from (plus you can use your upgrades idea.) The cubes can be used as infantry 'zones of control' to prevent both sides' infantry (cubes) from moving into contact (i.e. must stay x distance apart, which will eliminate most infantry combat), so the vehicles can go have their fun. (hmmm, I may have to make my own game now… ;-)

I think it can certainly be done. Some WWIII games recommend only mechanized unit bases and have no need for infantry at all. The factors are modelled into the rules to not need infantry, save for non-mech units like maybe commandos, paras, or old-fashioned leg troops (maybe militia or home guard) without APCs.

But visually I still like the foot troops, so I model them anyway: one base has the APC or MICV, while each also has a doppelganger with 3-4 infantry on it. They change out as tactical circumstances demand.

Good luck with your project!

I'd go with cardboard infantry squad, or fireteam counters (anti-tank for the latter), and actually print on the face what they are, e.g. Infantry Squad, Bazooka Team, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck Team, Piat, etc.

They should be highly vulnerable in the open, so greatly encouraged to seek cover in woods, hedges, buildings, hills, etc.

Mix them in with dummies (at least 2X the number of real units for the dummy counters), and the armor, etc. need to seek them out, try to spot and identify them, then destroy them, or avoid them altogether, depending upon the goals of the scenario(s).

Hmm. Most people aren't out to reduce troop variety and tactical options in their games. Why the infantry and not the armor? (Do tell me how the system works for Monte Cassino or Crete, by the way.)

Perhaps easier to confine yourself to WWII battles without infantry? There were (ahem) a couple of them printed in MW last year.

For a WW2 era game, could you design a game with no infantry on the board,

Midway

Or B-17 Queen of the Skies.

A quicker/dirtier solution would be to downscale the conflict to near skirmish dimensions.

Infantry is about area denial. We're here so you can't come here.
Artillery is about ranged interdiction. We can shoot at you beyond the range of infantry weapons, so we can disrupt/hurt/kill you before you can get to the infantry.
Add mines and it just gets better.

But out beyond artillery sight distance and range is the unknown. This is the realm of recce.

An easy scenario is a meeting engagement between armored recon patrols. Light tanks, armored cars and some soft skins vs the same. This would work especially well as an early Western Desert encounter.

You'd have to work out how MG armed hard skins hurt one another. Vehicles with AT ammo'd guns would have to be kept to a minimum. AT rifles don't do all that much damage.

Something to think about.

If the rules use a scale of 1 element or base equals a battalion then motorised infantry are replaced with trucks and you can game mobile encounters which exclude foot only infantry. At that scale you can get away with it, although it would be easier for cold war conflicts where everyone is motorised.
However the trucks still represent infantry.

Hate to show my age but in 6mm they came out with the vehicles and artillery before they came out with the infantry. I used unit counters and put in the NATO designation for the infantry, heavy weapons and support weapons. It worked but somewhat spoiled the effect.

In the old computer game "Panzer Commander", Infantry was abstracted out as just being a series of field fortifications. Limitations of the hardware at the time I guess.

One theatre where you might have a very tank heavy engagements while the infantry hide in holes is North Africa, the opening stages of Gazala spring to mind. You'd just need to model the minefields and static infantry /AT positions.

It does sound an odd proposition though. Tanks only is pretty much every set of Wargames rules published since 1960….

We have done it

link

Its one to one you just remove the infantry. It represents tanks better than most so you get something plausible within the limitation you have removed infantry.

You could have simple rules for infantry controlled area where ,if within say 400m they die, crude but the aim is not to go there. To be honest trying to abstract infantry more than this is an immediate fail.

As for using cubes I see no reason "tanks can't be cubes with a an arroe for direction and a rotatable "pin" for the turret. You could have large (heavy), medium for just that and Small for light tanks and another shape block for APC's if you are escorting them to the No Go areas effectively one end point of a game.

Infantry actions are on far longer timescales so in a quick interesting game it won't work. Tanks move at 5 to 15mph cross contry even in a fight. Infantry move at 1 mph in a fight.

Martin Rapier

Tanks only is pretty much every set of Wargames rules published since 1960

Where did that come from? Most wargames concentrate on infantry in my experience and are really poor at AFV's in general. The only "Tank" game I can think of os "What a Tanker" and that has no regard for any sort of plausability, definitely all game and no simulation.

I would abstract it by having your units make a check whenever they enter an urban or fortified area. They have to stop and roll to see if they take a wound or hit or whatever. Then they can continue-mission like normal, if they survive.

Tanks only is pretty much every set of Wargames rules published since 1960

Where did that come from?

From pretty much all WWII ground combat games published before Crossfire. WRG War Games Rules 1925-1950, Angriff, Command Decision, Jagdpanzer, Tractics…. and others I'm sure. These all have rules for infantry in them, but you can tell just from the charts which arm is the more important one.

To be fair, I think Command Decision had plenty of rules for infantry and artillery, but I don't remember anybody playing infantry-only games before Crossfire showed they could be fun.

- Ix

Even Featherstone had infantry in his rules. If the games were tank only they would have done a far better job on there behaviour than they have.

Have them riding on the tank and they deploy when the tank stops.

Wolfhag

I think tanks should only have to slow down in built-up areas, woods, or other close/rough terrain occupied with troops.

Otherwise, they should be able to roll on freely.

Of course, they will be vulnerable to having their supply lines cut, and being cut off from their own troops – this happened during the Battle of the Bulge, when artillery and infantry small arms separated them from the tanks. The tanks were in a town/village, and then were mercilessly hunted down by bazooka teams afterwards, since they had no protection from them.

The tanks though, had to stay in the village/town, on the roads, since the ground was soft, and those attacking cross country bogged down in the mud.

If there had been no mud, the tanks would have been free to bypass the defensive hardpoint for the Americans – Krinkelt- Rocherath.

Certainly round about me in the UK Tanks are going to find it hard to go far cross country, too many streams/ditches and canals/rivers. I suspect in N Europe wide off road crossings would be a raraty and also very slow. Re-supply would also be an issue, tanks may go through rough stuff but supply lorries much less.