"How invested in the period and the troops are your players" Topic

This is about the period and the troops, not the minis or their uniform, in my experience these two do not always go hand in hand.

It is an incidental issue we are changing nothing on our latest lists, delayed as usual by life but it dose beg an interesting (to me) question.

In the Czek units there is a sagger team in the lists. We have left it at that. It is not unreasonable in some cases that the Saggers could be left behind and with and with a bit of reorganization the extra troops could find a home as infantry upping its combat power by a bit over 10%, not Huge but not insignificant.

However that means extra minis and the interest and capability to judge a scanario and decide the subtle
balences of combat power involved and enjoy it. Now we do have players who would consider this an uneccessay complication, they are not really invested in the subtleties of the real world situation, others like the authors of the rules are, simply in the quest for connection with reality. Its a decision that has to be made in the real world.
To be fair its not the worst set. The US Bradley dismouts have a huge array of kit they could take but tghey have to select what they want as they dismount.

So where do you stand on the selection of weapons fit for a particular mission? Of neccessity some of it may need to be done immediastely before the game, certainly for us as the players generally get the mission briefing at the start of the evening (plus many players are hopeless at "homework" even if you gave it out earlier).

Irrelevant to me as I don't play your period or that type of wargame.

So where do you stand on the selection of weapons fit for a particular mission?

It's the same as picking any force to meet a scenario requirements, mate. As long as they stay within the reality of what was/is available then it shouldn't be an issue. In real life the orders, given during the mission O Group, would spell out what the troops would be taking- including any non-standard weapons, attachments or detachments and ammunition. There's a lot more included that's irrelevant during a game, but may be useful in a campaign (eg boundaries, etc).

Dal Gavan, that its a real world issue is not up for debate the question is how many players get that involved in it.
In our bigger games the need to halt to allow fresh forces to take over while the current ones refresh, rearm, and potentially replace casualties or reorganize to cope with the loss of troops. However many players don't get that far anyway.

Depends on the scenario, period and level of game, but yes sure, my regular group like choosing stuff from a range of reasonable options.

For my Corps level WW1 Trench assault game, most of the game is about picking options from a limited pool of resources and the competition between the various division commanders for those resources.

In other situations less so as the historical situation is such that the players are stuck with what they've been allocated, but they can still do cross attachments etc between the units that they have.

I don't play periods in which the troops are so lavishly equipped they can't carry all their weapons to the battlefield. Historical battles are fought with historical OOB. Hypotheticals are fought with historical composition for the troop type. I have a random army composition system for fantasy, but I'm still working on a good system for SF skirmish.

The interesting question is how much information they (think they) have about the opposition, terrain etc. that they might meet. But sure, it's a force-building exercise, so part of the game.

Zero.

Players are invested in a milieu and a scenario, or a scenario and thus the milieu. Troops flow from that.

Schwabian Grenadier – It sort of is, the guys carry everything when in reality they proably had to think hard about what thet took on a particular day or had to go back and change kit, er arm. WRG epitomises the we carry everything at no penalty failure, I did used to play ancients years ago.

the question is how many players get that involved in it.

Probably the same number that research their armies, figures and appropriate tactics. If the game is more important then they won't, nor probably want, the knowledge to tailor the force. Which is fair enough.

I don't play periods in which the troops are so lavishly equipped they can't carry all their weapons to the battlefield. Historical battles are fought with historical OOB. Hypotheticals are fought with historical composition for the troop type.

This mostly seems to be an issue from WWII onwards, when mechanised (mainly) units start to have capacity to transport excess weapons, and industries started to have mass production capacities to transport them. Furthermore, other developments meant that units would need to be provided some means of defending them against enemy aircraft and armoured vehicles.

However, further back there are periods when cavalry could fight mounted or dismounted, and could sometimes transport with them weapons that could be used in particular role – for example 15th century European men-at-arms could fight on horseback with long lances, or dismounted with shortened lances, poleaxes and other hefty weapons. Before the battle, the commander could decide whether to order them to fight mounted or dismounted.

Many late medieval games allow the option of fielding such units mounted or dismounted, though usually the mounted option is more effective (though if a point system is in use, then the dismounted option tends to be cheaper to compensate).

I(t goes back further, Romans could carry some extras like Caltrops to stop elephants. However many rules seem to not really allow selection, you have them or you don't, but to be fair they don't penalize perhaps well enough when carrying extras.

Well, for the SYW it's pretty much musket, musket and musket so I am largely spared that problem

For my Sci-Fi my painting OCD has left me with many, many more troops and weapons than one could possibly use in a single game

many, many more troops and weapons than one could possibly use in a single game

Is that really a criterion?

I don't really play one single scenario with the sane troops. I do have some faves that I repeat annually (Cinco de Mayo coming up!). But let's take, say Nazis. I have a useful variety of them that are to be killed in different mixes in different scenarios. But not the entire retinue in one game.

OP, you wrote, "the guys carry everything when in reality they proably had to think hard about what thet took on a particular day…"

No. Troops take the load they are assigned, or a load that is created for the mission. They don't scratch their heads wondering what weapons and ammo they should take with them.

79thPA The players is the boss deciding what is needed and passing it down to the Grunts. perhaps you play different games?

79thPA The players is the boss deciding what is needed and passing it down to the Grunts. perhaps you play different games?

And if the players decide to give their figures so much gear that a real soldier would collapse at the first step, is that "realistic"?

You want realism but respond rudely if you don't like answers given by people who have been there and done that. What exactly are you after, chum?

Dal Gavan – seems we have wires crossed here. The point I was trying to make (but it seems failing) is that the players can only carry a limited amount so they have to decide effectively at the top what to leave behind from a limited list of possible arms. No bags of holding in Historical games.

Sorry for the delay, horrors of horrors the router broke and we were over two days no internet and no phone except the emergency one we have because the wife is disabled.