"Moving Stealthily" Topic

This week was a rate treat Paul generated the scenatio. A steathy river crossing on a dark (80m visibility) night Marines with Good Immage intensifier night vision againt poorly equiped conscripts with none. These scenarios take more planning than I thought. I put too much kit across than I needed at the start. I got lucky and was not detected but it was a bad move.
But too the point, stealthy movement. The definition for the purposed of this thread is moving within sight of the enemy such that it is not an automatic spot for the enemy to see them. So the question is how fast compared to normal movement. Maneouvre Groupe has a fairly uniue movement system but considering a single Phase move is somewhat analogous.

Fast is on average 115m (average as it's a bit variable) representing a fairly fast walking pace with minimal stopping.

Slow (skirmish type speeds 60m).

Stealthy 16m average for the highly skilled marines in some sort of cover (the situation in the scenario above).

So how do your foot speeds compare?

Perhaps a side question, I guess its only to 2 player gamers, this sort of scenario is, I would think, incompatible with begginers as it's slow, doed not involve much movement and the skill is in organisation and when/if it's time to go noisy. To be honest as it was a slow start for us due to other circumstances, this will be a 2 evening game which may put some folk off. We have played these at the club as a camera does a swift and sure job recording the situation for the folloeing week anyway.

Is it a scenario type you play?

Very rarely, as one side has little to do whilst the other is slowly moving. Rolling for spotting? Random movement of guards? I don't see it as very interesting for one side until things kick off; then you have the question of 'who knows what' again limiting what can be done by the defender.

Sounds like a possible solo scenario which may then be brought to the table if detected or sufficient forces are detected then played out as a 2 player game. Just a thought.

Just remembered another set of rules, Ambush Alley I think. They allow insurgents to use "out of contact" movement. As long as they stay out of line of sight of the regular forces the insurgents can move to any part of the board. Once they come into LOS they end their movement there.

Perhaps a variation. If in the dark and LOS has range limits do likewise. Once the stealthy units move into LOS under a visibility range then either end movement or revert at that point to either rolling each turn to see if they are discovered or limit movement which then allows rolls while in potential LOS.

You could look at some solo rules and stealth or night considerations. There is the new commando(?) sort of game 0200 hours (or something like that) where you play WWII operatives attacking infrastructure by stealth.

If it is on the table players will react and respond to it. This includes "hidden" figures, blinds, tokens, possible enemy force markers, anything that can be insert by the player. The game rules may constrain the table top actions that can be taken, but the player will still think and plan according to what he can see on the table.

Written orders, movement on a secret map, or a referee can all help with providing stealth or hidden movement.

To be truly engaging a scenario needs to give the players of both sides some active participation at all times. A stealth infiltration is going to be a tense nail biter for the infiltrator, but what will the other side be doing to retain interest and engagement with the game?

Larry Brom play tested a WWII set he was working on. Both sides got a map of the table, and marked where their units started. Then started rolling for movement (you could only move so far based on the die rolls due to variable terrain, miscommunication, etc). When each side had plotted 3-4 moves and they either got to where they wanted to be, or they thought they might spot the other side, then minis were placed on the table. Minis were then moved according to the plotted maps until they reached their destination or they were spotted. They the battle proper started.

There was nothing for the other player to react to during the initial movement. The players had to deal with the situation as it presented itself (that squad didn't make it into position in time, that machine gun is in a perfect position but with no targets, etc). Kept both sides busy.

You could probably modify that with limited intel (place some of the troops/defenses on the board before movement gets plotted).

Our defending commander does posses two key pieces of intelligence that his fictional counterpart may or may not posses. Those are knowing both where (the area on the tabletop) and when (game night) the attack will fall. Scenario design, especially in a campaign game can introduce uncertainty about both of these to greater or lesser extent.

In a sneaking up scenario, as in any scenario I prefer to start the game at the point where the "action" starts for both sides. For a night attack scenario blinds can give the defender a sense of jumping at shadows and giving the defender an active involvement in the game while still allowing the attacker to make a stealthy approach.

No, I do not play games like you describe. It does not sound fun.

I think it has great potential as a solo game, or a two player game with an umpire. You can do a lot with random events such as a conscript shooting at a shadow, a random call for a flare, unknown listening posts or patrols, livestock or an animal wandering around making noise, poor noise and light discipline, etc. At zero dark thirty on a moonless night, you can barely see a few meters past your own fighting position.

I've played and run situations like this in role-playing games, with the referee running one side, and they've worked out pretty well.

The only way I've ever tried to do stealth movement is as a GM, in a "staff exercise" game with all the players on the same side. This works well for minefields and ambushes too.

Interesting responces, I gess its abaout what is interesting and also as was stated at the start proably, not for multi player games. The enjoyment for us and there is a lot, at least for us, is is seeing how its done. The moving player get to work ouy how to do it, the defender/ who has some function as the "umpire" as he has to put his troops on when spotted", gets to see how the complkete lack of information shapes the progress of the situation. In addition the defender gets to see how easy it is for the attacker to over estimate the presence of the enemy in one area. It is a great test for the effects of fog of war, interestingly lack
of same ia continualy bewailed and yet this test is not recognised as a good one.

Oberlindes Sol LIC you are reight the defender does sort of function a bit like an umpire but its still an interesting part to play.

Interestingly nobody really seemed interested in the features of the game like when the attack needs or does not need to go noisy.

Many Gereman WW2 attacks started with infiltration yet few battle reports in TMP cover this. Phil Barker had rules for this many years ago, but to me older rules in some ways were better than many of the, too me, over simplified rules of today lack that depth. Still each to their own and thanks for the participation an interesting set of replys.

Assuming the defender isn't allowed to fire at random into the dark then the game starts when the first attacking troops are seen. What you need is a mechanism to define those points simply and quickly, then you can get on with the game. Taking 24 moves to crawl across the board with the defender failing endless spotting tests is as about as interesting as playing out the moves before deployment where you pack you kit in your webbing, polish your boots and cap badge etc. and probably less relevant to the outcome of the firefight, because where you packed your ammo effects how fast you can get at it when the s**t starts to fly.

Mark J Wilson You kind of missed some of the points made and some perhaps not made well.

Visibility for the defenders is 100m so you can move fast as the attackers until you get to risky places. Any decent player will work out the risky areas. If the attacker is in a stupid place and you have to go noisy early its no loss as a defender deployed poorly and will be easy meat.

Ushcha, I didn't miss your points; I'm telling you, having spent time in the dark waiting for the enemy to appear and or maneuvering in the dark to make that appearance, that you are not focussing on a militarily relevant function. Your rules are endlessly obsessed with the minutiae of detail that has little or no impact on combat outcomes and which the game player/commander in real life would have no control over or impact on. If I am sat in my CV I get reports of contacts from my front line, how many 'moves' the enemy took to get to that point is a meaningless calculation.

P.S. visibility after dark is a) potentially a lot less than 100 m and b) borderline irrelevant, the first thing you will do is hear the enemy and that is dependant on many other factors including wind direction and strength, external noise ranging from cattle to passing aircraft to gunfire elsewhere.

Assuming the defender isn't allowed to fire at random into the dark then the game starts when the first attacking troops are seen.

Probably heard before being seen as Mark said. Yes, guys will talk at night and be heard, smoke cigarettes, make noise, etc. too. I've experienced it many times.

The Russians are attacking Ukrainian trench lines mostly at night. The Ukrainian defender's vision being at ground level, allows the Russians to get within 50 yards before being seen and engaged even with NVG because of the unbroken round and shell holes. In many locations, the Russians have attempted to infiltrate enough times to know the best path to get close. If the defenders have a drone up with IR they can direct the defenders to the right location. If not the Russians may find an unguarded gap and get into the trench without firing a shot or being heard. That's when it gets interesting.

Some of the reports I've heard are that a single Russian NCO with NVG will lead a group of Z Troopers (cannon fodder) in a single file with them holding onto each other shoulders to a jump-off point where they'll attempt to make contact without his assistance. Once the Ukie defenders open fire they can be targeted by mortars and direct fire from tanks or APCs. Once the defenders run low on ammo (and most of the Z Troopers are dead) the Russians send in their 1st team and 1-2 vehicles and take the trench line. The big variable is how much arty and mortar ammo the defenders have and many times it's not enough or they can't keep their drones up.

Night visibility is extremely variable. I've been so dark I got vertigo just standing up and walking was difficult on a flat trail. On a clear moonlit night, you can see up to 200 yards. If you are on the ground and they are walking many times they'll skyline themselves against the surroundings.

Many times a night infiltration will be accompanied by artillery fire to drown out the attacker's noise.

I have not heard of the Ukrainians using Listening Posts in front of the trench lines. Probably because they'd be in the open.

Wolfhag

Again you have missed some of the necessity of a time marching solution.

As the skilled guys have II gear, GPS and discipline vs conscripts with nothing, the better troops will spot/hear/smell/detect litter where the conscripts are. depending where they are the are, perhaps it is best just marked (the marines have a company vs the Platoon or so of the conscripts if your intelligence data is correct) so can be in a position to eliminate them but hold temporarily from doing so. This allows you to delay going noisy while the rest can now move faster as they can route past the conscripts is defined.

Now the if you can come up with a better system than a time marching one, that takes the actual defense of one side without use of an umpire write on.

As troops are detected then better definitions of FDF points is possible allowing the attacker to exploit there advantages over the conscripts.

The whole point is that at all levels a measure of human intelligence is required to assess the data, you cannot do it simply by die scores. If you are sitting waiting you are not where the command intelligence operating and making decisions which ripple up the command chain, so by definition you are not a player in the game at this time, it's somebody else.

Now in a credible multi player game you could have players reporting back to central command, but that per-supposes the subordinate players have the appropriate organization skills, even if they want too play, they may not be a credible participant if they don't have the communication and knowledge skills to perform the allotted role. So inevitable there is duplication of some roles by the player (s) that is inevitable unless you recourse to mindless dire rolling which is fare less credible. Computer AI may be able to perform such sub tasks but the swearing of my son at times, indicates that even commercial computer games have very flawed AI and they invest millions.

Again if you have a credible solution to the problem write on.

"Again if you have a credible solution to the problem write on".

Forget all your tackey pseudo detailed mechanics and focus on the results as the commander would know them. I am sat in my CV looking at a map board. The last I heard from my units is when they went silent at the FUP's and started to move. The next thing I know is when I get a contact report, which tells me, if I'm lucky, that a firefight has occurred in a specified location, the result and how my forces is now acting.

Mark J Wilson That is a pointless statement regarding what is going on. You maybe sat doing nothing but minds are at work. just because you are not doing anything the world is still working on a logical manner. Youare not waiting for your men to "throw a 6" so you can do something, they are doing their best. You can't represent that by "throwing a 6" so you have to do the job yourselsf. Assuming magic happens below yopur level of observation is not a solution.

Congratulation Uscha you have achieved what generations of psychologists haven't, you understand the human mind;. Except that you think it's predictable, which I think puts you in a very small minority.

Mark J Wilson – That has to be laughable. The Ukraine army still gets fed, their kit gets to the front. If the system was as lamentable and incompetent as you imply such systems are, then such things would not happen.

You may argue a stronger case for say the Russians but I suspect its more minds working effectively to a different plan at all levels. Personal greed, carefully and deliberately selling much of the kit off. Minds at work but not on the outward declared goals.

Now while perhaps you could write a set of rules to cover such issues, personally that bit is not within our design scope. WŁe are only interested in friction where generally the overall aim is to achieve war goals and that reasonable attempts are made to minimize fraud and generally folk are trying to do their job.

I suspect there are few UK commanders attempting to make small fortunes out of the army by fraud and even less succeeding. In the UK selling commissions was abolished a long time ago, that I gather is not the case in the current Russian army. Again how ineffective your army is may have a political dimension, robber barons may not have the same aims as say the current UK state. So my argument stands utter corruption and incompetence is not rife. Some limited skills are present in my rules, to wit me. QED.

Many Gereman WW2 attacks started with infiltration yet few battle reports in TMP cover this.

So did the Russians, Japanese, and many others. People won't play it because it is not a "fair and balanced" scenario.

I would not shortchange or denigrate conscripts so quickly. Invading armies are often up against "conscripts" or locals without military training. The locals know the territory, woods, trails, etc and many have the field skills and hunting experience many invader city boys don't have.
They'll have an initiative advantage over the defender to attack when they have the advantage and avoid encounters when they don't. They'll often have better intel on the enemy locations, objectives, and movement too.

The Ukrainian conscripts are better motivated and have the advantage of defending so will outperform Russian conscripts and convicts who are mainly utilized as cannon fodder to locate Ukrainian defensive positions for the regulars.

The VC and ISIS did pretty well against the Americans, Russian Partisans and French Resistance did well against the Germans. Colonial Farmers did well against the tyrannical British regular forces in the woods and terrible in a traditional battle line. There are many more historical examples.

A traditional unit of conscripts against an enemy of well-trained regulars will be at a severe disadvantage unless they have some type of terrain advantage or initiative.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag surprisingly (to me) the very poor conscripts did some significant damage to the Pros' admittedly with a horrendous loss rate. Interestingly I thought our rules may be over biased to the pros but when used intelligently they were a significant actor.

This thread like many, is way off topic in many places but is still interesting.

So we agree on something?

When I was mentioning conscripts as being more effective I think what I meant was partisans. I think motivation, proven leadership, and having the initiative can overcome poor training.

Wolfhag