"You like Target Priority Rules!" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Some rulesets try to prevent unrealistic gamer tactics by requiring targets to be determined by priority rules, with the idea that the firer would target the most obvious, visible threat. How do you feel about target priority rules?

44% said "I prefer target priority rules"
30% said "I am neutral about target priority rules"
7% said "I prefer an alternate game mechanic"

I believe they are very necessary in periods with bigger weapon ranges. e.g WW2

In many periods there is little chance (range and arc) to target anything else but whatever is in front of you. e.g ancients

Hence PBI (WW2)rules have target priority but Longships (Dark ages) does not.
Good conversation.

martin

If the targeting is unrealistic then a rule to stop it is simply compounds an exsisting failure of the rules.

If the target was unrealistic to start with then that is the bit of rules that needs correcting .

Some targets are priority targets like Bridge layers or mine clerance vehicles even if they are not the nearest. So the nerest rules is obviously already massively discredited at the outset.

I have played rules that prioratize the nearest, even the US tank manuals note if the target infront is impervious to your weapon shoot at a target with its flank exposed. By definition not the nearest.

Machine guns are often set to fire across the front, again making a mockery of nearest.
Look up the US manual (free) for Entrenchments of infantry. There primary arc in defence is to the flank, they only fire directly forward if a responce is low risk.

So the question is, what is the basis for a nerest target rule? I suggest rule designers read up on their period and gaine some understanding of the real world before commiting to implausoible rules.

I loathe target priority rules.

If you don't want me to shoot your guard cavalry then mask them with an expendable unit (or a hill) ?

Happy hunting ;-)

Then the question becomes, how does your firing unit know that it is guard cavalry as opposed to a unit of cavalry 1,000 yards away? Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

I assume by the napolionic age telescopes were available to certain senior ranks and specialist troops, so it should be likely that identification of troop types at that range was a credible assumption.

I couldn't document it at this stage, but I worked out once that with the best telescopes available to Napoleonic commanders, the view at one mile would approximate a 5mm casting held at arm's length. That disregards dust, smoke and intervening terrain, of course--and I have no idea whether they were an "issue item" or something a battery commander could afford.

But target priority rules are at best a "least bad." Omit them, and a battery will cheerfully ignore a lethal threat to themselves to fire on a game objective, because it's almost the last turn. Have them, and you've reintroduced the old Avalon Hill "soak-off counter." Rules for the behavior of troops are an imperfect representation of a complex reality.

I seem to recall that Sgt. York always fired at the trailing men; the leading men apparently incorrectly decided that defensive fire was ineffective and arrived at the objective without supports. This would be appropriate for a skirmish game.

The main reason to have Target Priority rules is to prevent players from targeting opposing commanders to the exclusion of all else, i.e. kill the enemy's General & it's 'game over'…

"I seem to recall that Sgt. York always fired at the trailing men; the leading men apparently incorrectly decided that defensive fire was ineffective and arrived at the objective without supports. This would be appropriate for a skirmish game."

I've read his account, and the main reason he did that is because if he'd shot the ones in front first, the others behind would have stopped and started to shoot at *him*. :-o

UshCha: So the question is, what is the basis for a nerest target rule?

The question was obviously not about a nearest target rule but a target priority rule. That is a difference.

Some more abstract rules need them to get a realistic outcome.

In Spearhead for example target priority rules provide for a realistic interaction of infantry, ATG and attacking tanks.

Target priority rules are/can be an acceptable fix sometimes though not in any case ideal, even we have a few. Nearest target is definitely daft. You are right the two are not the same.

Fire Commands for the M60A3 tank:

From the manual: PDF link

It looks like common sense to me.

Wolfhag

The point of target priority rules is not the prioritization, but to limit the effect of player omniscience. There are two major factors:

First, just being able to see where everything on the board is exactly distorts actual targeting logic. Using Wolfhag's example, in many games, a player can see more things than someone on the board would, know exact ranges, and have more insight into what they are doing. So a player would consider more targets than someone in situ, and would make better determinations of threat level.

Likewise, a player usually has omniscient knowledge of unit capabilities. You read the rules, you know what things can do to an excruciating level of detail. Once again, the ability to assess threat is greatly increased.

So, they add more than the standard logic of targeting, but also compensate for an inherent challenge of tabletop wargaming.

Etotheipe, dummy markers eliminate some of the omniscience of the player which should be a first resort not a last resort. Target priority is a last resort, if used carefully, poorly done it is a major retrograde step. Target priority nearest utter disaster.

Dummy markers add noise to the decision process, but do not mitigate either the geographic or capability omniscience. I can still see all your forces and know your force composition.

In some cases they can slightly delay precise information to the other side, but only if you limit maneuver (if it moves like a helicopter, I know it's a helicopter) and engagement (if you're using tank stats or dice, its a tank). Except in special circumstances, this elicits unrealistic behaviour in the players when they try to maintain the hidden knowledge.

They introduce a different kind of noise that that of incomplete information. They add additional information to the decision. They are better at representing specific problems in modern ISR and C2 systems. Those problems can more easily be introduced with mitigation to targeting probability.

In reality, there is some command and control or SOP's for engaging targets. For example, you target the front and rear vehicles in a column first.

If there is enough time the Platoon Commander could give orders for engagement priorities and targeting.

From the US Army manual "Tank Platoon"
Direct Fire Planning and Control
13 December 2012 ATP 3-20.15 7-9
PDF link

Details from page 133:
DISTRIBUTION
7-31. This discussion provides standardized methods for directing and controlling fires applicable to the individual tank, the section, and the entire platoon. It covers
the procedures used from the time target s are acquired, through the placement of fires on those targets, to the reporting of the effects of those fires to the company commander. Also included are considerations for fire distribution and control during
offensive and defensive operations. Although the discussion focuses on actions at the platoon and section level, these actions are always integrated into, and become part of, the company plan.

7-32. The PL employs two primary methods to ensure effective distribution of direct fires—fire patterns and firing techniques.

FIRE PATTERNS
7-33. The entire platoon must thoroughly understand the three basic fire patterns— frontal, cross, and depth. In addition, each tank crew must understand its responsibilities, by SOP, in using the fire patterns for target engagement. The basic fire patterns cover most situations and promote rapid, effective platoon fire distribution. They are normally used in the defense, but may be modified for employment with movement techniques. They may be used at both platoon and section level.

7-34. Regardless of the fire pattern used, the goal is to engage near targets first, and then shift fires to far targets. Tanks should engage targets "near to far" and "most dangerous to least dangerous" in their sector. There are three levels of threat that classify the enemy:
* Most dangerous. Enemy is equipped with armor-defeating capabilities, which appears to be preparing to engage the platoon.
* Dangerous. Enemy is equipped with armor-defeating capabilities, which is not actively preparing to engage the platoon.
* Least dangerous. Enemy is not equipped with armor-defeating capabilities; however, they do have the communication capabilities to call other equipment that does have armor-defeating capabilities to engage the platoon.

7-35. As directed or when he determines it is necessary, the section or PL may make exceptions to the "most dangerous to least dangerous" guideline; an example would be engagement of designated priority targets (such as command vehicles).

Regarding precise targeting ID I came across this. It's from this Army Research Institute publication:
PDF link

In games using alternate unit activations it's going to be pretty hard to implement these tactics unless targets are designated before the turn.

Wolfhag

Though anecdotal at 1/44 scale I did miss identify Tanks as APC's due to the excellent camouflage That almost cost me the game! Attempts exaggerate detail on a war game model is clearly counter productive to the game. One advantage of 1/44 infantry is that it is difficult to distinguish troop types particularly for prone figures so confusion comes with no extra rules, the perfect solution.

Ideally a game system should not require any form of target priority system, as it adds complexity and effort. In simple terms it represents friction for both learning and playing a set of rules. On the other hand if there are trade off elsewhere and its required to compensate for those trade-offs then its viable.

Ideally it should be built-in to any visibility rules, of if required should be simple – such as the closest visible threat firing at you.

Perhaps there are too many assumptions built in. So many games rely on a IGOUGO, pick a target, roll a dice model that it feels like the entire visibility/target acquisition/loading/fire sequence/etc. systems design just gets squished into a roll or two and a "target nearest" rule.

Ideally, this should instead reflect the nature of the conflict being portrayed. Is a battalion commander selecting targets for individual fireteams and getting instantaneous reports of the results? Probably not.

OTOH, manually picking individual targets for a skirmish level engagement of a dozen or so soldiers on each side desperately fighting over a farmhouse would seem to reflect the grim man to man level of the engagement as would things like worrying about individual ammo, making too much noise, losing nerve or slipping while charging with a bayonet/etool/whatever.

I think self-preservation would be an overriding factor along with the fog of war of what you detect.

Wolfhag