"Pinning" Topic

This topic is here not game design as it seems to me to be quite period specific.

Pinned – That is the condition where typically infantry are in a position where they are relatively safe but the incoming fire on them is such they cannot effectively move out of their current position without unacceptable casualties.

Some rules Barker -24 to 1950 for one has a system whereby if a number of elements are suppressed I.e there ability to return fire is drastically reduced and are unable to move the unit as a whole makes a die roll to see if this means the unit as a whole may not move. it should be noted that the Barker rules are standard (more or less) side at a time IGOUGO.

Our own system has no such specific sytem to acertain if it's pinned. It simply works on the basis thst if sufficient elements of a unit are suppressed the unit will be by definition pinned in that it is unable to move.

At that level it may seem odd why the first implementation is neccessary when the latter does as well.

Howeve I suspect the answer is more subtle. Our own system allows typically two shots a bound with then'ossification of an enemy return fire beteen them, plus the possibility of a for want of a better term a more protracted exchange within a bound and three levels of suppression represented, so the system to dose extent can operate in effect partially suppressed, proably harder to represent with a one shot per bound sytem.
Now with this level of flexibility (some would say complexity) the latter option is more plausible.

Now complex is an interesting term, our system has only one range band, and using a D 20 system resolves both permanent damage and suppression in one die roll so two shots in my opinion (personal bias) is very similar to one shot that takes longer to resolve.

The whole point is that there are different ways to resolve an issue. There may be an issue whereby the clear stating that a unit is "pinned down' may be seen by some as a distinct positive, the war movies of old often havev"were pinned down sir, can't do a thing sir" Whereas in our system that term does not appear in the rules at all though the effect does.

So I am interested in comments on the systems merits de merits but also the desirability of having a the term embedded in the rules.

In both sytems a slackening of enemy fire reduces suppression so in Barkers sytem you roll to unpin the unit as a whole. In our system slacking of enemy fire allows elements to remove there suppression to a point where the player may consider Maneouver is possible, so again difference in style largely not substance.

I have found the suppression rules in Command Decision: Test of Battle (CD IV) to be playable and give a reasonable effect on the table top

There isn't a common definition of 'pinned' across Wargames rules, so eg Crossfire vs 5Core Company Commander.

The actual term used in WRG 25 to 50 is 'neutralised', the first step of the three step combat resolution system, and corresponds with British Army terminology of the 1950s.

The platoon level test is a standard WRG reaction test, with the usual depressingly long list of modifiers, which can result in anything from the platoon running away to advancing uncontollably. The rules were published 50 years ago though, so it isn't hugely fair to compare them with modern ones. They were however vastly more realistic than "Battle", which many of us were playing at the time.

I meant to add that the 'neutralised' result was virtually identical to the 'pinned' one mentioned in the OP as it operated on an element by element basis and the elements couldn't move or fire. The entire platoon could also decide to halt as a result of the reaction test.

I always used to rather enjoy the rhythm of firefights as elements became neutralised, ceased fire and then dropped out of location range, only to pop up again later unless someone closed and assaulted them. I just wish the infantry was resolved at section level instead of teams, as it made even just a company extremely cumbersome to mamage.

I really like the way ODGW's Mein Panzer handles this issue.

Any element basically gets an action and a bonus move during it's activation. Just a basic construct of the turn sequence. The bonus move is easy -- you get to move. The action can be whatever tasks that type of unit might want to do -- an engineering task, firing weapons, spotting for unseen enemies, etc. It can also use it's action to move. So if you are not spotting, or firing, or whatever, you can double move. But then you can't do anything else.

When infantry takes fire, only a lot of firepower will actually inflict casualties. The more common result is a pin. When pinned, that element loses its bonus move. And the only action available to that element is to try to unpin. If the unpin action succeeds, great, you get your bonus move back. If it doesn't succeed, nope, you just sit there.

But here's the challenge for the player. If you DO successfully unpin, your only choice is to bug out, or just sit there. Because you've already used your action. And in the enemy's next activation you can bet they are going to focus on the unpinned elements, trying to re-pin them. And then, when enough of your elements are pinned they are going to start moving up on you, as they get better combat firepower at shorter ranges. So if you are not pinning some of them, eventually they'll get close enough to start inflicting some casualties.

Even without any sort of "morale" tables or throws, this basic mechanism places enormous pressure on the gamer. The elements who get pinned just sit there and soak it up, and that becomes a very powerful motivator to pull back any elements who get unpinned.

You don't face some table of variables and a die roll to tell you your units are withdrawing -- you yourself feel the pressure and decide you have to withdraw. Or you sit in place and watch your opponent closing in, waiting for him to get close enough to achieve decisive results, while you can't do a thing to stop him.

It's a really cool phenomenon. Not at all obvious just reading the rules, but quite palpable at game time.

Or so I have found.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

It appears we are having the same issue with non-standard definitions of terminology.

This is from a 1979 study from the Army Research Institute of "perceived dangerousness" of the effects of small arms fire suppression which are highly variable:

My evaluation:
Response A & B would be when under intense artillery bombardment without the fear of being immediately attacked. You would be safe from small arms fire because you'd be out of the direct LOS hiding or in overhead cover/trench. Artillery would almost need a direct hit to cause casualties. There would be no movement under fire (Pinned?).

Response C & D might be under mortar fire and/or heavy sustained machine gun fire with 25% firepower and 75% of the time evading and changing position. Fire and maneuver would be very dangerous.

Response E might be the same as C & D with 50% firepower and 50% of the time evading and changing position. Fire and maneuvering would be dangerous.

Response F might be the same as C & D with 75% firepower and 25% of the time evading and changing position. Fire and maneuver would have a good chance of success.

Response G might be under sporadic/harassing fire with 100% firepower and not moving or evading. Advance under fire without a problem.

The greater you are suppressed the less your firepower is but the chances of becoming a causality are less because you are spending more time evading and hiding than shooting.

It's not an exact science so feel free to interpret the results of the study for yourself:
PDF link

Personally, I don't like the term "pinned" and how it is normally used in games. Why? Because I see it mostly as a conscious decision not to move because it is not worth the risk. Fire and Maneuver is almost always used when being fired upon so take your chances.

Here is a good example of the Ranger airdrop on the Grenada airstrip being "pinned down":
We quickly got out some air-ground signal panels to let them know we were friendly and fired over the next ridge toward those 23-millimeters to give the gunners a little something to worry about. The first pass of planes had dumped about a company of Rangers and now the planes were circling and heading back for the second drop. Rangers were scattered down the length of the ten-thousand foot runway, just getting out of their parachutes, when two armored vehicles rolled out onto the airfield and started firing their machine guns and heavy cannon.

"Oh hell! Not that!" I yelled in frustration. "The sons of bitches will cut our men to pieces". But almost as soon as the vehicles gained the center of the runway, the Rangers opened fire on them with two 90-millimeter recoilless rifles-abruptly ending the armor threat on Point Salines. Now the second pass was overhead, and the air was full of green parachutes dangling brave men.

So the automatic weapons fire shifted its focus from the airplanes to the men on the ground.

This is bad, this is bad, I thought, watching the fire rip across the far end of the runway. This is when a unit is the most vulnerable. Just as they land and their leaders are scattered and they haven't had the time to reorganize.

But then I saw an amazing sight. The Rangers rose from the ground as one organism, screaming their war cries, and assaulted straight across the runway toward the enemy guns. Within ten minutes, the guns fell silent. The third and last pass of Rangers jumped almost unmolested.

Later that day I learned that a corporal had led the spontaneous assault across the airfield. Somebody said the guy jumped up from the ground and shouted, "I've had enough of this shit!" and took off across the airfield toward the enemy positions. Every man near him jumped up to follow, and the attack spread like wildfire up and down the length of the airfield. Goddamn! What Soldiers!"

So I leave it to the players. If your unit is under intense fire and wants to move, do it and take the consequences.

Depending on the time scale of your game, you can abstract a squad or platoon unit conducting Fire & Maneuver by advancing the entire unit a short distance, maybe 1/3 of a total move (depending on the time scale) with the unit expending 2/3 of its firepower. This would simulate two teams or squads laying down suppressive fire and one making a short rush.

If a unit is under pressure I allow it to automatically obey a "Fall Back" order but they must move as fast as possible to get out of the enemy LOS and cannot return fire.

That's how I'm planning on doing it for small unit actions. It also gives a better description and narrative as to the effect on the target unit too.

With all due respect, I'm not going to get involved in another long discussion on what pinned down and suppression means. If yours is different than mine or the study no problem. It's not something we all need to agree on.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag facinating g data as always. Speed of play is always an issue, So at the scale we play we stop suppressed units firing but at say squad Le el it works out as some will unsure S's some won't and speed of play is much faster, swings and rounderbouts as always.
Mark 1 – the situation is why you are often 2 up 1 back,you put in the reserves to 'unpin" you men. it yes it makes for a credible and interesting game.

To speed up play in a firefight, I assume all small-arms fire is simultaneous so there is no activation or initiative determination needed.

Every 10th turn we compare the firepower between the units and their cover and casualties to determine the level of suppression.

Using the level A-G description gives a better description and narrative of what is going on with the unit.

Wolfhag