"Unit Activation and Rates of Fire - 1:1 tactical level" Topic

One aspect of games using unit activations I've found hard to simulate is the rate of fire in a 1:1 level game. A 37mm gun that can have a theoretical ROF of 10-15 rounds per minute, even in combat. A gun with two-part ammo like a 122mm or larger gun might only fire 1-2 rounds per minute with about a 20-30 second reload time. If all units get one activation per turn to shoot it seems that the game is unbalanced in respect to rates of fire. Is that not an issue or are there ways to more accurately reflect the differences between rates of fire?

Wolfhag

I am curious about this as well. First you could either use action points with some fire taking more APs. Works but slows the crap down. Second some mechanism where a faster firing weapon gets multiple hits. Say for each "fire phase" roll D# and that is the number of "hits". Finally if firing faster and assume each hit can kill then how long to change target? If you send two rounds down range at a specific target and one or both kill that target how quickly could you acquire the next target? The main problem I see if fast firing weapons like AA guns trained on ground targets then the roll D# makes sense. BTW by D# I mean each gun type would roll a different Die type (D6, D8, etc.) based on rate of fire minus time to change target and any other factors.

It depends on how you reflect ROF in your combat mechanism.

For example, a unit might have a "firepower factor" which reflects ROF. So the 37mm gets more firepower for more shots, but still has the penetration/damage value of a 37mm. The 122 gets lower firepower, but higher penetration/damage.

Flames of War and many other rules give dice for ROF. So the 37mm rolls, say, 5 dice when shooting, the 122mm only one. Same applies to rifles and HMGs, etc.

Alternately, yes, simply require guns to reload. I see this in black powder games where a rifled musket when fired is marked unloaded and it takes an action/activation to reload.

Per Ryan Parkinson, an Abrams master gunner, "The slowest theoretical rate of fire for a QUALIFIED M1 tank crew is expected to fire one round every 8.58 rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a round) per minute. An Abrams loader is not qualified and will not pass TCGST (Tank Crew Gunnery Skills Test) unless they can load ANY/ALL round types in seven seconds or LESS." Caps by original poster at link

Modern auto-loaders can achieve a similar rate of fire.

The theoretical maximum rate of fire of a Sherman 75mm was 20 rounds per minute (Hunnicut, "Sherman A History of the American Medium Tank) and a 75mm artillery piece could achieve about 25. Sustained rate of fire was about half that.

Russian 122mm artillery had a maximum rate of fire of 7-8 rounds per minute. Again with a sustained rate of about half that.

As for activations: the quality and training of the crew should affect how often/quickly they activate, etc…

One feature of almost every twentieth-century weapons system is the ability to fire off its entire ammunition load in ten minutes or less (including infantry).

As some firefights in Afghanistan lasted over 12 hours, there are clearly real life limitations on actual rates of fire, most likely availability of suitable targets.

I am along the lines of williamb, above. Rates of fire are more dependent upon the training and experience of the operator(s). IMHO one needs to focus upon effects of firing considering time devoted to firing, range, type ammo, and LOS!(how can you shoot it if you cannot see it?) Unless you are playing current Russians, ammo supply should not be a factor in modern game unless the scenario designer has that in the scenario parameters. When 1 to 1, I don't see a game representing more than 30 minutes. Hey, but that is just my take on it. An ambush should only last for 15 minutes tops and that includes rooting thru enemy casualties for actionable intel and getting out of the area for fear of responding enemy reinforcements and/or incoming arty/mortar fire in the area. Simulations can be fun because there is so much info available if you and your fellow gamers just take the time look for it. But without some cursory knowledge, such a game will be just another toy soldier game and it's merely the game of the week. Seems harsh saying that but you are trying to play historicals, right? So why not make sure historical realities are in your game? Remember, the best weapons systems to date are only as good as the trigger puller!

I still don't see the need to worry about rates of fire. I think training and quality only really come into play with adversity.
A skirmish line of 3 sections should all be able to wander along at the same rate until contact or threat thereof.
A higher trained unit should be more effective when shooting and to greater range, a badly trained unit should be more brittle. Getting a low quality unit out of cover and moving should be harder than a higher quality unit.
A higher quality unit should recover from suppression faster.
A better leader in any unit shoukd make that unit do a bunch of these things better.
All these and more are modelled in sg2 ww2.
Mostly because sg2 is a great design.

sg2=?

Stephen m,
I'm assuming he means Star Grunt II. It's a better game than most out there. I'm mainly discussing vehicle-vehicle combat.

sgii: PDF link

Wolfhag

That was what I was thinking but since it is not a WWII title I wasn't sure. I am not opposed to using non WWII rules to model WWII by any means. Just wondered about it. Thank you.

Seems like a skirmish level (individuals) rules set. I wonder how the Dirtside rules would feel?

What mechanism do you use for activating units? A die roll? cards? How much time does one activation represent? Seconds? Minutes?

You could make it so that guns with slower rates of fire don't active at often. But then, there are other possible activities than just firing! Like moving, looking for targets, giving/receiving orders, etc.

I dealt with this by having a DR to fire which can be attempted multiple times with a DRM for 'rapid fire' weapons. I would also have a DRM for slow firing weapons.

SO – if the situation is 'target rich' and the crew of the weapon and motivated and trained they can fire many times.

The issue is RoF is part of a system of systems for combat engagement. You shouldn't consider it alone, without the context of the rest of the system.

Lets use the 37mm at 10rpm and the 122mm at 2rpm as an exanple. And let's start with both having a Ph of 20%. Your combat engagement represents a long chain of events.

with 10 shots in one activation, the 37mm has (.8)^10 chance of miss, which is about 10%, so a 90% Ph for one activation of shooting.

With 2 shots in one activation, the 122mm has (.8)^2 chance of miss, which is 64%, so a Ph of 36%.

This illustrates how RoF is rolled into your Ph. Of course, there are a lot of other variables like damage, so your Ph for one may be lower, but it's Pk higher. And so on for other things worked into the kill chain.

To show some of the RoF considerations above in this type of system, you can use an "aggressiveness" factor, representing different RoF for different sets of orders. The commander decides how aggressive for his units to be. If there are three levels, then you get three combat outcome numbers in a table.

While this is extra work and a table, it is the base cost for representing more things in the combat space.

The vehicle rules from stargrunt 2 were not to my taste. My ww2 adaptation uses mechanisms rather more like the infantry combat.

etotheipi,
I agree with the math. No problem there.

What I'd like to see is a way to realistically synchronize the individual rates of fire with all units on the table.

For example, let's say I have a unit with a ROF of 10 rounds per minute he'll fire 6 times in a one minute game turn. If the enemy is going to target four of his units at me (they all have a clear LOS with the enemy in their frontal arc) if I activate or get the initiative first I can theoretically knock out all four enemy vehicles before any of them get a chance to shoot at me. In rare circumstances it could happen but not likely.

In a 30 second turn I'd fire 3 times before the enemy can respond. In a 10 second turn I fire once. My conclusion is that in small 1:1 tactical engagements you need to use a smaller increment of time for a turn to get a real interaction of different rates of fire. Making it playable could be a problem.

Then there is the interaction with movement. In a 60 second turn a vehicle moving at 20kph can move about 300m. I cringe when I play games that allow an enemy unit to move a long distance and then hit you while you sit and observe doing nothing.

Any ideas?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

I think you are on the right track with a much smaller turn size for a 1:1 engagement style. Sixty seconds is a long time between decisions in the real world for modern combat.

The other thing you can do is alter the turn structure. Have all combat adjudications done whenever you normally do. Then apply the effects to units at the end of a round (after each player has had their requisite turns). So sweeping around a corner, guns blazing may get you a kill on your opponent, but it also may get your unit killed, too.

I suggest you're on the wrong track entirely thinking in terms of seconds.
Start by deciding what effects you wish to achieve.
Then think about how you model them.
No mention of seconds or metres.

When an enemy moves into view you want to be able to react to it.
When shooting, you want some vehicles to be able to shoot more often.
What are the deciding factors?
How important are they, relatively? What priority do you give modelling these factors?

Don't think about how you achieve this initially. Think about the problem statement.
From what you describe, you want some sort of reaction to a moving unit.
Some tanks might be able to shoot at one enemy and then another quicker than others.

This is a game, so you need "interesting decisions" somehow.

At a later stage you can then think about specifics. You have gathered your requirements so you can think about mechanisms satisfy more than one.
Multiple shots, interesting decisions…
Maybe you keep doing stuff until you fail a momentum roll or run out of go next cards. Do you really care about all those minor factors you gathered? Unless they fit in with simple mechanisms then forget low priority factors.

There's a difference between how many shots you can fire in a given time (rate of fire) and how many TARGETS you can shoot at in a given time!

Andy,
I suggest you're on the wrong track entirely thinking in terms of seconds. Start by deciding what effects you wish to achieve. Then think about how you model them. No mention of seconds or metres.

That's actually how I started. I wanted to model the effects of the timing of engaging and firing at a target in a 1:1 level game on a shot-by-shot basis. The historical data for speed rates, turret traverse, rates of fire, crew task performance and many other historical factors can be broken down to their performance in seconds. There are historical Risk-Reward Decisions like I showed for a tank engagement (Battlesight and Burst on Target). I would also include SNAFU's to ensure the game is not too predictable as not every order is executed to perfection. I tried using traditional activation rules but it didn't come out right even using unit activations with 5 second turns.

Ideally, I'd like to use historical and evidence based data (which presents its own set of problems) with a minimum of abstractions and artificial rules in a game. Can it be made playable? Who knows? Some people like a higher level of abstraction. To each his own, play what you like.

The game play I envision is that a player can react and make/change a decision for his unit at any time during the game, generally reacting to enemy action/firing and new LOS from movement depending on his Situational Awareness level and some other factors. However, unlike most games where orders are executed immediately in the same turn, it takes time for a crew (measured in seconds) to execute an order. Immediately after executing an order, the player gives the crew another order, generally to shoot or move. Just like a real unit would. Each unit is active, ready to react, and generally under a move or shoot order or in an overwatch position. So players can attempt to do almost anything, it just how long will it take and will the enemy stop it from happening by acting before him (getting through his loop first). This would allow a tank to engage and shoot in any order with few restrictions.

When an enemy moves into view you want to be able to react to it.
Yes, units are always active and able to attempt to react when a threat is in your LOS. When reacting, they may be able to go into action immediately or there may be a delay. That's what Situational Awareness is all about. It is best to the front and decreases towards the rear and when buttoned up or suppressed. Delays are deadly and give your opponent an initiative advantage.

When shooting, you want some vehicles to be able to shoot more often.
Yes, based on historical rate of fire and reload time, crew expertise, target engagement times, suppression, and player Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions to trade decreased accuracy for increased speed. I think you can do it with one die roll an 1-3 modifiers, no more difficult than activations and initiative determination.

What are the deciding factors?
Situational Awareness (spotting, delays, suppression, crew expertise, and reaction time), amount of time to execute an order (target engagement time, shooting, reload and aim time, crew expertise). SNAFU's come into play at any time so no order has a 100% chance of executing as planned. That's what can make it interesting. Better crews are generally quicker. Surprising or flanking an enemy will give you a timing advantage to shoot first.

How important are they, relatively? What priority do you give modelling these factors?
They are all important as long as it is still playable which takes precedence. Most factors would increase or decrease the amount of time to execute an order.

In the system I envision rather than special rules, exceptions and die roll modifiers you use historical timing modifiers which some are variable with a die roll and some are not.

This is a game, so you need "interesting decisions" somehow.
Yes, so let's use the historical ones. Players can trade decreased accuracy for increased speed to shoot first (Snap Shot), rapid fire to increase their rate of fire, reverse slope defense, Shoot & Scoot (issue a move order immediately after shooting), moving fire, halt fire, rangefinders, etc.

For example, there is no evidence that crews or individuals were "activated" by their leaders in the middle of a battle to perform an action or they stayed inactive even in the face of dire enemy threats. Units and their crews are always active and ready to react and were assigned objectives, had standing orders, on overwatch, and reacted to threats based on their Situational Awareness, experience, intel, leadership, and training as quickly as possible. They are always active and observing ready to react. How quickly they reacted and how effectively executed their orders is a timing variable. It took time to execute an order with a few timing variables which can historically be identified.

So if a Sherman was engaged in combat his gun may have a maximum rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute but he can realistically engage at most 3-5 targets with one shot each IF it is a target rich environment and somewhat ideal conditions. He might be forced to engage only one target and get off 10-15 rounds at it in one minute. There are so many permutations of what can happen in one minute of time I don't see how traditional activation and initiative rules can accurately model that at the 1:1 and second-to-second scale I'm discussing. Situational Awareness, crew expertise, reaction, target engagement times, and visibility are as important as rates of fire as Don Lowry stated.

This is completely different than rules that use a die roll to determine the chance of an action occurring or being successful. So if two units reacted to each other when the game clock shows 3:31 and unit A takes 12 seconds to engage (get the gun on target), aim and fire and unit B takes 13 seconds. So when the clock gets to 3:43 unit A shoots, observes the results, and decides to shoot again at the same target or engage a new one (OODA Loop). If unit B is destroyed he was one second too slow. If not destroyed he shoots at unit A at 3:44. A realistic Fog of War is created because the game time units Act is kept secret. As the game clock ticks off the seconds no one is sure who shoots next.

Regarding using seconds:

This is from the US Army Abrams tank training. It gives you an idea of how long a trained crew should take to destroy a target:

Seconds decide the engagement:
"Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemies gun report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti-tank gun opens fire halfway to the right, his eyes will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time. Everything depends on a prompt identification of a dangerous target Usually seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with periscopes."
Quote from Otto Carius Tigers in the Mud

In an OODA Loop timing designed game turns are not a set period of time where the players need rules and die rolls to determine what unit performs next. Players input their order that will execute a number of seconds in the future and hope they are still alive to execute the order, many time they are not. The action then unfolds second-to-second. The game stops for players to perform an action, issue their next order and enemies react. Then the clock starts ticking again.

Wolfhag

OODA loops are inherently tied to timing. First, the OOD does require time. Thinking takes time. So does digesting new information. The A is directly tied to the OP topic of RoF (or other things in other situations).

In the OP example, the OOD segment is much smaller than the A cycle. For other types of engagement, that is not necessarily true (modern tactical missile engagements, cyberwarfare, etc.)

There is also an implied activity between D and A, issue orders. For a tank commander, this is probably pretty small, even negligible. For a mid-19th Century infantry commander with 5,000 people in lines, the enemy can do a decent amount of stuff between the end of D and when the change in orders takes.

The interplay between OOD and A, as well as the C2 communication step (usually absorbed in A) when it is not negligible create significantly different dynamics and different challenges for the commander/player.

Unless you want to use a computer or a very crunchy action tracker, you pick a standard time step and aggregate the decisions into that time-step.

etotheipi,
Thanks, I think you explained it better than I did.

Over the weekend I ran four games in 2 days at Little Wars with 6-10 players in each game controlling 5-6 vehicles.

Like any new concept, it took a little to get used to. I had to remind the players many times that immediately after they shot they issued the next move or shoot order (target same vehicle or engage a new one). Gamers are so used to shooting and then "waiting" to do something again they forgot to "loop back" to Observe the results, consider their options and tactics and issue their next order. Really just do exactly what a real tank commander would do. Your crew should be either moving, shooting or in an over watch/ambush position. It's not that difficult. The unit data card has all of the info you'll need.

Using the one second time increments does not slow down the game because the game is always moving to the next game time a unit executes (Acts).

Wolfhag