"Fundamental assumptions" Topic

Over the last few days having been chatting and considering such simple things like hedges, it occurs to me we can debate about rules benefits and failures but may not in many cases even have a common agreement on what is our fundamental minimum requirement.

Recently a friend appeared with a one hour war game, I was somewhat scathing, to me a one hour war game is just not an acceptable solution, by definition it cannot be sufficiently comprehensive to entertain me. But clearly as its successful it is a great idea to some.

Similarly we do not even share the view on whether modelling individual runs of hedges is important, some are happy to abstract the effect some of us are not.

Hiding figures is even an issues FOG of war vs visual impact.

Shape, sizes and how buildings are treated as similarly issues with differing views.

Its no wounder there are so may different view when even the vary basics of what is a war game vary before you even start to write a set of rules.

It does make rating rules impossible as there is no one standard on which to make an objective judgement.

Game versus Simulation…

A Game is abstract, streamlined, and makes little attempt to be "accurate", in any way.

A Simulation, on the other hand, goes a long way towards realism, with mechanics reflecting many historical, factual elements, such as the version of the gun on the tank, for example: the 75, the 75L, etc.

Some folks want that high level of detail; some players want a more abstract game to play, which is fast and fun, but not "accurate", in any sense of the word. Some want extreme detail in the minutia, some want simple and quick resolution to a clear result of winner/loser.

There are a hundred shades of gray in between the opaqueness of Simulation, and the mercurial flow of a Game. Most folks are found in the midst of the gray fog between the two extremes. Cheers!

game /ˈgeɪm/ noun
plural games
Britannica Dictionary definition of GAME
1
[count]
a : a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure

from Old German gammen meaning mirth, entertainment, and similar things.

P2.19.20. Simulation. A method for implementing a model over time. (DoD
Directive 5000.59 and DoD 5000.59-P (references (f) and (g)).)

There are lots of definitions for both words, but none discuss granularity as an essential element or discriminating criterion. In fact, the definitions of simulation that do not relate to this discussion (the non-mathematical simulation definitions) generally mean something that is not real or fails to measure up to the real thing.

no one standard on which to make an objective judgement

That's because this is an aesthetic choice.

100%

The various elements in a game design are there to EVOKE the sense and sentiment of the historical and fantastic situations we are interested in. We use the word simulation, but that's not what we're looking for. A flavorless but accurate simulation would not be popular with very many. But there are plenty of very, very flavorful and very, very innaccurate games that people LOVE.

Depending on game scale and period hedges are either very important or completely irrelevant, but perhaps the more important question is whether they are important to you. If you've read a lot about the battle and hedges figure prominently then rules that omit the hedges won't suit you, they'll seem flavorless, etc.

So that's the real issue. Some people like involved games, some people like streamlined games. That, too, is just an aesthetic choice. But either way if hedges or weather or whatever was important in a specific battle, if that's a prominent part of the story in our minds, it needs to be in the game to get the feel.

I read a book on cartooning that recommended that a drawing have three features that let you identify a character – eg something they're wearing or holding. More than three and there's too much information for a cartoon, one or two and you won't immediately know who this is and how they fit in the story. That sort of thinking in helpful in game design. If all infantry moves at the same speed in WW2 that's accurate, in the Bronze Age it's not. You need to make a list of the elements that are important in the period or battle, and be certain to include those elements, and think hard about any elements beyond that.

Good Napoleonics rules cover "blown" cavalry. Bronze Age rules don't (afik). Certainly the Bronze Age horses are smaller and much more easily exhausted, but that isn't mentioned in the accounts. Maybe they managed the horses energy more carefully, withdrawing the chariots for a period to breath the horses and get more spears/arrows, or maybe they just didn't care about this. In any case, it's not in the stories we read so it doesn't belong in the games we play or it will feel wrong.

But we need to get past this idea of rules aimed at a different aesthetic than you prefer somehow being wrong. Because there are good and bad rules, and there are too many bad rules around. Very bad. We need to learn to recognize when a set of rules is good, but not to our taste, vs being bad. The two are independent.

For me it is what level of command one wants. Sergeants have different decisions to make than field marshalls. The game is also a simulation if the players have roughly the same amount and types of data (and uncertainly) and make decisions comparable to real-life counterparts.

Pageantry is a different consideration.

In BLOODY DAWN I have the whole Alamo complex and close to a thousand minis. 1:1 for the Texians and roughly 2:1 for the Mexicans, representing the leading elements of each of five columns. Plenty of spectacle, and players are acting as Travis in deploying the defenders and as Santa Anna in planning the assault.
BUT once the battle starts it runs largely on remote control, as Texian leaders have only very limited control over the men close around them (due to darkness and noise) and the Mexican column commanders likewise have very limited options, e.g. fire another volley at the walls, or make a ladder assault, or withdraw to rally and reform. At that point it is much more a simulation than a game.

It's a matter of taste and that can change by interest, mood, time available and as interests change. That's why there are so many rules sets.

Rating rules one vs the other is subjective. But you can review them, describe how they work, what you liked and didn't like and let people judge for them selves.
Much like a book or movie review. I think that's why many of us have more than one set of rules for a given period.

Rating rules one vs the other is subjective.

Only if the review wants it to be.

Take doc mcb's description above. While brief and covering the C2 aspect at a high level, it gives an objective description of the game. You could compare this to our annual Battle of Puebla game.

BD gives the players a small number of decisions over a large number of troops, which is close to the type of orders the top tier (Making that up because IDK.) of commanders faced. BoP lets the players make a larger number of more granular decisions closer to the company level.

This is an objective ranking of the two with respect to one criterion. You could continue for other criteria. You could even extend this and discuss the best minimum and maximum number of players.

It doesn't tell you which of these you would personally like better, but it does inform you so you could make that call. Even if the call is different on different days or with different people.

The best movie review I ever read was for the movie The Avengers, the Ralph Finnes, Uma Thurman, Sean Connery movie based on the 60's TV show. The reviewer panned it. Told us how bad it was. How it was a waster of time, money and talent on the actor's part. Told us not to go see it. Then he said something like, "the sexual tension between the lead characters was dry and unresolved, the plot was incomprehensibly non-linear, Sean Connery a usually excellent actor was completely unbelievable and over the top, and they dropped in random bits of psychdeelia for no apparent reason".

Granted, the first part was someone giving their opinions. But the last bit makes the movie sound very much like the TV show. Very much like the parts of the TV show that I really enjoyed watching at at 1:00 am in the 80's. So I went and saw the movie and loved it.

Over the last few days having been chatting and considering such simple things like hedges, it occurs to me we can debate about rules benefits and failures but may not in many cases even have a common agreement on what is our fundamental minimum requirement.

unusually I agree with etoheipi, an unbiased review is almost impossible. With movies I like to find a reviewer that reflects my preferences and then a review by him/her is acceptable. Not really found anybody that reviews wargames in line with my preferences.

PS I hate reviews that say its a FUN GAME, past experience of such games is that poking your eye with a sharp stick is more entertaining..

The fundamental assumptions for me seem to be that most games are all reliant on variants on dice mechanics. Thes work in certain ways and "differernt" build down to re working or repackaging ways to translate the "reality" we're trying play in, in to numeric values that can operate with dice most commonly.
I don't like this becuase it add complication. While we have to translate an actual situation in to a series of numeric values work out a result and then rettanslate that back in to what would actually be happening.
It breaks immersion. These things aren't actual decisions or information in the world the game represents.
It also means that when we are representing an action we end up focusing on the out come or a dice roll rather than the choices we made or actions we did carried out.
And after something the outcome is defined by whether someone made good or bad dice roles.

Another fundamental.. we have too much information and too much control. The game we are modelling is out smarting an opponent with incompete or delayed information on their actions and what our own forces are doing or where they are.
We've no real delays in transmitting orders or receiving information and we have control that real commander would give an arm for.
Often when we try to replicate these aspects we end up using dice or numeric values so… see the point above. Or we use things that can prove frustrating as they stop a players involvement or they cause other delays in a game.

Connected to above but seperate. We see too much. Again we implement systems to obscure this, hidden movement. Chits etc… but we're still seeing the terrain that unless they'd had seen or could see the real person couldn't visualise and being able to view the terrain as a vista. Is something else real commanders would give a body part for.

Now some of these are part of table top games… though even in media where we could Iver come them we still default to.
Others I believe are the heritage of how games were and have evolved.
I see similar issues in TTRPGs too

@ Sgtslag

But does a simulation go along way towards realism or does it just generate detail which we claim is realistic without any actual data to back our claim up, or worse selective use of limited data applied outside it's scope of accuracy.

Gamesman6,
I could not have stated it better than you have.

A Game is abstract, streamlined, and makes little attempt to be "accurate", in any way.

A Simulation, on the other hand, goes a long way towards realism, with mechanics reflecting many historical, factual elements, such as the version of the gun on the tank, for example: the 75, the 75L, etc.

That's a good overall definition without going into a lot of academic minutiae. I would add that a simulation uses rules with a historic or military basis. Things like being able to simulate historic rates of engagement and fire and nuances of weapons platform performance.

Wolfhag

Over the last few days having been chatting and considering such simple things like hedges, it occurs to me we can debate about rules benefits and failures but may not in many cases even have a common agreement on what is our fundamental minimum requirement… Its no wounder there are so may different view when even the vary basics of what is a war game vary before you even start to write a set of rules.

It does make rating rules impossible as there is no one standard on which to make an objective judgement.

UshCha:

As long as everyone hangs on impressions and opinions, then yeah, there is no standard possible. First of all, you have to decide on exactly what you want objective conclusions about, even if it is hedges. So…

I gave this example in another thread:

If I decide that Napoleonic firefights should always resolve with one side retreating or routing, that is an opinion. Obviously, others will have their own ideas.

If, on the other hand, I want to have objective information to base that conclusion on, I find 100 examples of firefights in the historical record, and of those all but 2% were never resolved but continued until reinforcements arrived, one side charged or one side was attacked in the flank, and create mechanics to model that, that is an 'objective' conclusion. No one is going to find other results from the same information.

IF I then find 20 more random examples I haven't seen before and test my results against them and the historic results stay true to those statistics…

You definitely have an objectively resolved conclusion validated. I would have to conclude my original 'opinion' and subsequent mechanics weren't realistic: i.e. they didn't match the evidence. Can't get more objective than that in the wargame/simulation arena. You can do the same thing with hedges or how much information commanders actually have, when and how much. With enough examples in one period, one can establish a range of outcomes and how often they occur.

That is what simulation designers do, that is what the military does. That base of military statistics is the objective information that Wolfhag used as the basis for his rules.

That matching conclusions to evidence has always been the idea behind the word 'objective.' Here's a website definition:

…not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
"historians try to be objective and impartial."

Interesting example given…

@ Wolfhag

"Nuances of weapon platform performance", I've never found that bit in the actual data can you give me some examples.

Thanks wolfhag.

I've noted that too often peole make basic assumptions that games and simulations are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed.
If a game is defined as an activity engaged in for fun or amusement. Then there shouldn't automically be a reason why a simulation can't be those things. As your rules seem to confirm, at least for those that are in the "war" more than the "game".
I think it's easy to get lost in tbe weeds of details and try to model those often things thag slow the process down and aren't really relevant directly to the meaningful choices that would actually affect the outcomes that's being simulated.
I also find it frustrating that the game. Becomes about certain accepted aspects of what a game is. Numeric dice for example. Which then get repacked or combined to make new rules, though personally I prefer games which aren't dependant for an out come on randomness but put randomness on the front end. The skill being using and dealing with that.

Mark J Wilson,
If actual 1:1 combat is "Time Competitive" then seconds or even fractions of a second will be crucial in executing your orders before your opponent.

The weapons platform performance nuances that affect the timing of a meeting engagement between two tanks to determine who shoots first would be reaction Situational Awareness (# crew, open top, buttoned up vs unbuttoned, periscopes, overwatch, flanked/surprised), ergonomics (2 or 3-man turret, turret basket, ammo storage locations, ready rack), turret traverse speed (commander turret override), targeting optics/rangefinders, and rate of fire.

Other factors and tactics include fire control (precision aim vs Battlesight), tactical deployment, and crew differences. With all weapons platform factors and engagement parameters being equal the better crew would most likely get the first shot off.

All of these factors are measured in seconds.

After the first shot, the reload time and crew expertise would determine the rate of fire. A Panzer IV would fire 3-4 times while an IS-2 fires once in the same amount of time or about 25-35 seconds.

Example: A meeting engagement of two tanks react and one engages and shoots in 8 seconds and the other in 9 seconds. If the first one hits and kills the one taking 9 seconds does not get to shoot. However, under some circumstances, it could. If the first tank was at 1000m and the gun's muzzle velocity is 800m per second the round would be about 200m away after 9 seconds and the second tank would shoot and they could knock each other out. This shows how Time Competitive 1:1 combat is. In a Western High Noon quick draw, it would be hundredths of a second.

So realistically, it's not a chance of shooting within a turn, a chance of activating, or players determining the action sequence. From an Otto Carius quote, "… seconds count."

In a game, you could establish a base number for performance and use a die roll to randomize it in a bell curve and modify the result based on crew expertise. Better crews are a few seconds faster, and poor crews are a few seconds slower. I've found this is quicker and more historically accurate than traditional game systems, speeds up the game and we get more action in the same amount of game time.

While it may sound complicated and take longer it would eliminate the time spent determining initiative, IGYG sequences, activation rolls, etc. All units would be active and ready to react too, just as they do on a real battlefield, and able to cancel an order before executing it to respond to a new threat based on their Situational Awareness and suppression level.

Wolfhag

Gamesman6,

I prefer games which aren't dependant for an out come on randomness but put randomness on the front end. The skill being using and dealing with that.

In most of the games, the high level of abstraction makes it difficult to use real tactics, mainly because real combat is Time Competitive. So unless you are running the game on a clock (not real-time of course) you have a hard time using the real tactics.

Example: Once a gunner gets his gun on the target, he needs to spend additional time to estimate the range, aim, and fire. This is normally called Precision Aim. A tactic called Battlesight allows the gunner to elevate the gun for the expected engagement range. So if he sets it for 500m he quickly determines if the target is at 500m, over or under he can use "Kentucky Elevation" to aim.

From the M60 tank manual

In my games, Battlesight is a "Risk-Reward Tactic" for the player to use. Using the above example from the manual, the player can use the Precision Aim of 8 seconds with no accuracy penalty. He also has a choice of firing in 5, 6, or 7 seconds but with an increasing accuracy penalty, similar to what a real gunner would (we call it a Snap Shot). This increases the Fog of War because opponents are unsure of exactly how long it will take to shoot.

Generally at ranges under 500m players will trade decreased accuracy for increased speed using a Snap Shot. This can result in a miss at even the closest ranges. It also gives an advantage to guns with a higher muzzle velocity.

Wolfhag

@ Wolfhag

I agree with all the parameters you've included, but do you really think you can accurately assess the differences between these factors to impact your shot time, and how do you include e.g. the ammo blooper, where the loader picked the wrong round because he's a pit panicked, or the gunner saw the hen coup as a target not the part visible turret next to it.

I see the point of your snap shot and accept that at a certain 'point blank' range I would have done this, but I'm either pointing and shooting or I'm using proper technique, I'm not convinced that there are different 'faster' options. Re this, I think your snap shot range might be a bit short for the 105. If my memory serves the Israeli's of the 70's taught their gunners using the 105 in Centurion fixed range firing only and went out to somewhere in the 1000-1200 yards bracket.

Mark J Wilson
I agree with all the parameters you've included, but do you really think you can accurately assess the differences between these factors to impact your shot time

My assessment is based on historical research, training manuals, after-action reports, training films, combat footage, former tank crewmen, and my contacts at various museums including the Russian one at Kublika, not my subjective choices. Turret traverse speed, rate of fire, reloading, pivoting, and turning can be measured in seconds so can gunner target engagement time. I list some of my sources at the end.

Of course, crew actions are not always the same, the efficiency can vary each time and for different crew types. For reload time if the historical average is 7 seconds I roll a D6; for a veteran crew a 1-3 it takes 7 seconds, 4-5 takes 8 seconds and a 6 takes 9 seconds. Ace crews are -2 seconds and poor/green crews +2 seconds. So if you just fired at a game time of 3:38 and want to fire again at the same target. Your veteran crew rolls a 5 for 8 seconds reloading time your next shot is at 3:46. During the 8 seconds of game time (not real-time) the crew is assumed to be performing their reloading duties, there is nothing else the player needs to do except pause play to shoot when the game clock gets to 3:46 unless he was knocked out before 3:46, that happens too.

Your opponent may know it is going to be from 5-11 seconds and on a real battlefield you'd have the same estimation. This replaces activation and initiative rolls so can actually speed up the game and gives a more historic portrayal of the tank's performance. It delivers split-second results with no additional rules or die rolls.

I'm not convinced that there are different 'faster' options.

The manuals, after-action reports, and how gunners are trained state otherwise. Remember, real combat is time-intensive, and traditional game rules have a hard time portraying that because they don't track the timing of events. There are a number of accounts of gunners missing their target at under 50m, mainly in an urban environment, because they panicked or hurried their shot.

A faster engagement option is to be overwatching in the direction the enemy appears. If he appears on your flank you may not spot him right away (Engagement Delay from poor Situational Awareness) and you are giving your enemy several seconds of initiative to shoot first because he'll most likely spot you first.

Situational awareness and engagement time to get off the first shot are very important and randomness plays only a small part. I like the initiative to be determined by the side that had the best tactical deployment, weapons platform performance (faster pivot/traverse time, fire control/optics), and best crews, not a random die roll.

The variables, measured in seconds would be: Situational Awareness Response time. If you are suppressed buttoned up or flanked/surprised it takes longer to notice and react to a threat (Engagement Delay). If it takes too long, generally more than 10 seconds, you may be dead before you notice the threat. Then there is the target engagement time: pivot or turn, traverse to the target, estimate the range, aim, and fire. You could go into detail and have the player add them all up like die roll modifiers or determine what the average would be and roll a die for a bell curve result. The result is secret so a somewhat realistic Fog of War is created because neither player knows the exact time or second his opponent will shoot. If they both ended up firing at 7 seconds there could be mutual destruction. It happens.

I think your snap shot range might be a bit short for the 105. If my memory serves the Israeli's of the 70's taught their gunners using the 105 in Centurion fixed range firing only and went out to somewhere in the 1000-1200 yards bracket.

The 105mm L7 gun APFSDS round has a muzzle velocity of 4,839 ft (1475 m) per second. This would put its Battlesight range to about 1500m. Why the US M60 manual shows 800m is not explained. It may be for HEAT ammo. During WWII NWE where the average range was less than 900m, the gunner would set his elevation to what the expected range would be based on the terrain so it might be only 500m. The German 88L71 gun with a mv of 1000m/second can Snap Shoot out to 1000m. Personally, I think it's too far but I can't find any historical references. For playability and consistency, I use 1 second time of flight but I'm open to suggestions.

This is my understanding of using Battlesight aiming but not all tanks use the same system:

how do you include e.g. the ammo blooper, where the loader picked the wrong round because he's a pit panicked, or the gunner saw the hen coup as a target not the part visible turret next to it.

You bring up an excellent point. Not all orders are carried out in a timely manner without mistakes. SNAFUs do occur usually at the worst time – when firing. No tank is completely safe either, they all have weak spots.

When the shooting player rolls his D20 to determine a hit/miss the target player rolls a D20 SNAFU Check at the same time. If the SNAFU roll is a "1" the shooting player rolls on the SNAFU Chart to see what went wrong. Some are visible to the enemy and some are not. Anyone can use this in a game. How would you do it?

Here is a link to an old version I was using: TMP link

In the end, it depends on player preferences. What some people feel slows down the game others may enjoy the most. There is no point in criticizing people for their preferences. People design games to their preferences. If you like it play it, if not look for something else.

My preference is a Time Competitive game that uses historic actions and orders with a minimum of abstractions (of course some are necessary for any game to make it playable) rather than IGYG, unit activations, and random initiative which for me slow down the game. I want to use real tactics and make the same Risk-Reward Tactical decisions as real crews did in combat.

Smart tactics, maneuvering, suppression, and greater numbers can overcome the enemy advantages I listed. For me, traditional game rules slow down the game and the action and do not relate very well to historic action.

The basis for my design is:

Otto Carius, from the book "Tigers in the Mud": "Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide."

From US Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Tactical Decision Making: "Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time-competitive process and timeliness of decisions becomes essential to generating tempo."

A few people like my approach, most don't and some who have never played the game have called me a moron and lunatic. So be it, no hard feelings.

I've tried to use original sources when possible. Of course, not everyone will agree on how accurate they are and have their own preferences. Below are links to some of the sources I've used:

Control Warfare: inside the OODA Loop – The War College Series:link

Armor Magazine: link

WWII Ballistics and Armor by Bird & Livingston:link

Armor Magazine January-February 2001, Tank Error Budget, and Screening Policy: PDF link

Online Tank Museum: link

T-34 Mythical Weapon: PDF link

Sherman the American Medium Tank: link

Germany's Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy:link

German Tigerfibel:paijmans.net/Tanks/Tigerfibel

WWII Enemy Vehicle Ordnance:link

Murphy's Law of Armor (SNAFU's):link

FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery:PDF link

German 88mm antiaircraft gun:PDF link

Tank Archives (Soviet sources):tankarchives.ca

CIA Freedom of Information site (search Soviet sources):link

Wolfhag

@ Wolfhag,

I presume the game has relatively few tanks per side, which is fine for non russians but how do you cope with the eastern hordes, or do you have a long time to play.

Wolfhag

I've peered at the drawings a bit more and one thing strikes me. Clearly the gunsight on the example is not the same graticule pattern as the one I used to use. The pattern for Rarden 30mm started at the top with a boresight mark and then moved right and down as range increased. If close I'd have used 600 m because even if aiming at the centre of the observed mass [which was the only permitted option] you couldn't go over for a nearer target.

I've also followed the link, there are items in there that are M60 specific, certainly don't apply to Rarden in CVR turrets. Clearing misfires have risks involving rounds cooking off while the breech is open, and for round explodes and blows breech off, the breech is designed for it to explode every shot, so why would it blow the breech off.

Mark Wilson,
I presume the game has relatively few tanks per side, which is fine for non russians but how do you cope with the eastern hordes, or do you have a long time to play.

Without having played it, your perception of the game is typical of experienced gamers. We automatically compute additional detail equals decreased playability and a game that can claim it can accurately portray second-to-second action must be insanely unplayable. So did I until I took a different and more intuitive approach.

At PacifiCon a few years back we ran a N. Africa battle with 9 first-time players controlling 4-6 vehicles each. We concluded the game in 4 hours using a detailed version of the game. The simultaneous movement system speeds up the game and eliminates the need for special opportunity fire rules. Most importantly players are 100% involved and not waiting for their "turn" to shoot, move, or activate units and can react to any enemy activity in their LOS the second it happens. I know, it sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

I've seen new players control 12 at a time. I've run 30 tanks in a game myself and it works well for solitaire play. Most multi-player games take 2-3 hours with new players.

I ran a game with a 14-year-old (with a slight learning disability) and an 18-year-old with no war gaming experience they were able to control 10 vehicles each and after about 45 minutes they were mostly on their own with a less detailed version of the game.

I do a 10-minute explanation and samples of moving and shooting. There were no rules to read. Getting used to navigating the vehicle data card is what normally takes the longest. I figured that if some teenagers with no wargaming experience can pick it up it's pretty easy to play.

The mechanics of the orders are simple: have each unit under a shoot (determine when to shoot), move (movement marker next to model), or observe/overwatch order (assumed standing order when not moving or shooting). Reacting and shooting involves a D6 roll with 0 to 3 modifiers. Record the future game time you'll execute your order and when the game clock advances to it pause the game to execute it. After executing it observe the results and determine your next move or shoot order, when it will execute, and record it and hope you are quicker than your opponent. Ideally, your model allows the gun to point at the intended target.

Rules like unit activations, initiative determination, command points, turn interrupts, overwatch restrictions, moving shooting restrictions, command dice, card activation, opportunity fire rules, and exceptions, IGYG move/shoot sequence, etc. are used to artificially parse the action within a turn of a set amount of time so are not needed in a time competitive game.

I've found the result is players spend more game time performing moving/shooting actions, reacting to enemy threats, and making decisions rather than multiple rules and die rolls to determine what units can do, when, and how often. They are always in the game to react and issue an order and not wait for their turn to do something as in most games.

Wolfhag

Mark Wilson,
I've peered at the drawings a bit more and one thing strikes me. Clearly the gunsight on the example is not the same graticule pattern as the one I used to use. The pattern for Rarden 30mm started at the top with a boresight mark and then moved right and down as range increased. If close I'd have used 600 m because even if aiming at the centre of the observed mass [which was the only permitted option] you couldn't go over for a nearer target. I've also followed the link, there are items in there that are M60 specific, certainly don't apply to Rarden in CVR turrets.

I'm not surprised the M60 and Rarden guns fire control are different. It's a generalized example. Like I said, not all guns have the same fire control system and optics system. I'd expect the Battlesight range would also depend on the height of the target and maximum ordinate of the gun. The MV for the 88L56 gun is 800m/second and the max ordinate at 600m is 2m (small vehicles and assault guns), at 800m it is 3m (medium and large vehicles). There are a variety of factors that determine it which I don't go into for the game. One second ToF works. I'm not writing an instruction manual but it would be pretty easy to modify it to your liking or tailor it to specific weapons without impacting other rules.

Clearing misfires have risks involving rounds cooking off while the breech is open, and for round explodes and blows breech off, the breech is designed for it to explode every shot, so why would it blow the breech off.

Regarding the SNAFU Chart result, I think your description is more accurate based on the accounts I've read. But it's a descriptive narrative that players can relate to and I only have so much room on the chart. I‘ll look into changing it. Thanks.

Wolfhag

I think I'd like to try these rules but it's not going to happen, shame.

UshCha:

If you want objective standards, then use the basic standard for objective judgements: Evidence. It's fundamental. There isn't another route to objectivity.