"Fooling With a Ruleset for Regiments or Divisions" Topic

So like a lot of us, I tinker with rules. My preferred scale for WWII gaming is battalion or regimental-scale. What I'd call grand tactical. I love some operational scale PC games like the old V4Victoy/World at War series, and have a ton of fun with tactical squad/platoon-based stuff, but given my choice I like to push battalions and regiments around the table.

Again, like a lot of us, I've played a bunch and have a bunch more rulesets I've never played – Fistful of Tows, Command Decision, Spearhead, Microarmor the Game, some stapled-together stuff from WRG, STONK, and some few others.

Out of all those I prefer Spearhead and have played in or umpired several games of it in my time. The problem is… Spearhead bugs me. I really like a few things about it and really dislike most of it, I'd come to realize. So I started working on my own redo of the rules. Luckily I lost those in a hard drive crash (remember yer backups, laddies!) so I had to start over. Now I've got something going which of course borrows heavily from the field before it, but offers something a little different, I hope. I'm still mired in early alpha-alpha-alpha mode, but here are a few points I'd like to throw out there for discussion on this fine rainy afternoon:

I call it RCT because the intended basic unit for baseline is a U.S. army regimental combat team from WWII.

Scale:

models = 6mm
pretty standard 1" = 100yds
1 stand = 1 platoon
I pretty much base like I did for Spearhead – 1"x1" squares for infantry, 1.25"x1.25" for vehicles/guns. With exceptions
Turn-based, and each turn = 15 minutes of time.

I like the arrows on maps and the posture options (attack/defend/breakoff) too and have versions of that in there.

Ho-hum. All the above is the same everywhere. So what am I trying that others haven't (as far as I know?).

Battles.

Most (all?) of the games I've listed above end up with sort of evened-out lines of stands facing off and rolling for hits against other stands. There's no need for unit boundaries and it's often very hard to tell what's going on just by looking at the table. I'm aiming for companies facing off against other companies with the numbers of dice and modifiers being determined by the number of platoons present "in the line" plus support.

Unit integrity.

Most game systems give you no reason to keep 1st and 2d platoons operating together – scatter 'em everywhere. I'm borrowing an old V4Victory mechanic that gives a small benefit for a unit fighting within an inch of a unit from the same company. Game-breaking? No. But a small reason to stick close without forcing you to – you might need to leave a platoon out by itself for a roadblock or tripwire, and you should be able to make that choice.

Unit quality.

No more "Germans are better because Germans", "Everyone else is bad because not-Germans". Instead you have 3 quality levels – A, B, and C. Lots of times in early war, Germans might be As and their opponents Bs or Cs. But not always.

Points.

No points. RCT isn't indended to be a pickup game, rather something for the more historically-minded. Campaigns/multiday operations should be fairly easy to bolt on.

Rule of Three.

No more than 3 gradations of anything. Light, Medium, and Heavy rifle platoons, tank platoons, artillery batteries, etc. At this scale there is no significant difference between a platoon of PzIVGs and a platoon of M4 Shermans. (The longer sight lines of the East Front might modify this one.)

Whew. That's a lot of babbling. Anyone see anything interesting/worth commenting on so far?

- dale

A lot of this sounds like "Command Decision".

Unit quality (morale and experience) can be modified as desired for individual scenarios.

Unit integrity is effectively built in-- more command elements gives a unit more flexibility. e.g., Playing Italians in a CDIII game the battalion commander eventually was KIA while running from flank to flank, trying to keep dispersed platoons active.

A good start, I'd say. I hate the parking lot effect of stands lined up all in a row, but it's hard to get away from that. Good luck!

@khanscom

Command Decision is way more fiddly than I am interested in, and at a lower scale. Like Spearhead, RCT is intended to allow for up to a division per side. That needs a big table, of course.

If there's only 1 player per side, then yes, you have to wear all the hats from company cdr on up, but ideally you won't be worried about the low-level stuff. You should feel like a regimental commander.

I fooled with having an activation mechanic based on more dice rolls but in the end junked it – if someone wants to act with every platoon during this 15 minute turn, then they can. But *changes* in plan are performed via Order Chits that sit at the various HQs and move up and down the chain of command. Higher quality troops have more order chits. When I get the balance right you should feel like you need just one more order chit to feel comfortable, most of the time.

The order chits sound interesting (more details please), but surely it is command / staff quality and doctrine not troop quality that counts in this. You can have great troops but if they're not employed effectively they'll still fail. Similarly the comms matter a great deal. These two factors explain a lot of the difference in effectiveness (not as great as sometimes made out) of the German army compared to others in the early part of the war.

I'm doing something almost identical.

But I'm using Activations from Pips for Command and Control from Kampfgruppe Commander III and it's really working. Activate a Battalion then the Pips are applied to the constituent Companies.

Each turn is half an hour and it's pretty quick to get a turn played. 4 turns to fit into an Operational turn of 2 hrs where the Regimental commands flow up or down from.

Combat: I use a variation of Battlefront WW2 for infantry and artillery, Panzer/Armor/88 for tanks. But you could use any combat system you liked really so long as it resolves what happens in a Contact.

I wouldn't touch Command Decision with a barge pole – awful game I think.

Have fun and keep us posted with updates,

B

You know, this is miniature warfare, and everyone does what is right in his own eyes. But given there are already half a dozen or more WWII stand=platoon games, I'd have thought what was needed was a good set of house rules and careful attention to scenarios rather than another 32+ page set.

Please keep us informed. And if the final product comes in at 6 pages or less, be sure to let me know.

Watch this space. I know of 2-3 rules in development where stands are Battalions.

Frank Chadwick and Sam Mustafa are both working on higher level games as well

Dalem,
Kudos for your efforts. I too tinker with rules all the time. I am working on a solo set at the company level. Your activation sounds really interesting. Keep going!

Joe

@BillyNM

Hit/damage

As platoons take part in battles, they may accumulate hit markers

1 hit – no effect
2 hits – negative affect to all movement and battle
3 hits – out of contact. Essentially a pickup/kill for the current scenario but can be contacted by friendly or enemy stands for VPs.

Quality, Orders and Order Chits

The "quality of troops" applies to the regiment (or battalion if you prefer – I want the player to have a baseline but also to feel free to adjust as they see fit). Quality dictates both the amount of support a battalion can coordinate and the capabilities of its HQs.

Size Quality # of Order Chits Held at HQ
----- ------- ---------------------------
BN A 2
BN B 1
BN C 0

RG A 3
RG B 2
RG C 1

That may be too linear a progression but that's what I'm working with now.

Order chits are how you change stance or attachments during a battle and are also the only way to remove hit markers from platoons.

ex a) "I want to get 3rd Battalion moving from defending Hill 222 to attacking the enemy." Spend a turn moving an Order Chit (OC) from the Regimental HQ to 3d battalion. Spend another turn to flip the OC to "Execute". 3d Battalion can now draw its arrow and advance to the attack. The OC returns to the HQ flipped back to its unexecuted side.

ex b) "I want the company of TDs in reserve to move and attach to 2d Battalion." Same as ex a – move an OC to the company in question, etc.

ex c) "I want to remove a hit marker from a platoon that currently has 1 or 2 hit markers on it." Move the OC (usually in this case from its BN HQ but Regiment can spend one for this also. 1 turn to move the OC to the platoon. Next turn flip it to Execute, take the hit marker and move it back to the HQ. Following turn any HQs with at least 1 hit marker can "shed" ONE of those hit markers.
Note that this is the ONLY method by which a hit marker can be removed.

Morale

There is no "morale" check or mechanic. YOU are the morale for your side. If you want 1st Battalion to die in place defening the road junction, go right ahead, if you are prepared to lose the VPs for all those casualties.

@robert piepenbrink

Well, obviously I think my rules focus more on what I want to see – battles and more genericized – yet easily customizable – attributes for units.

-dale

Early playtest approach to battle (green patches are woods). 2 x US rifle battalions on the way to oust 1 German rifle battalion. Both sides have a organic and attached support – mortars, HMGs, and some AFV.

Later quick playtest.

Simple setup of a German battalion defending against a US battalion. No attachments, just what's organic to the battalions. Oh, I stuck some regimental assets in there for the Germans – a recon platoon and an engineer platoon.

Ger Co 1: 2 platoons up defending the woodline. 1 has a platoon of HMGs directly attached. The 3d platoon is back off the line in reserve.

Ger co 2: deployed in another woodline guarding against easy flanking movements on that side. 2 up, 1 back, with 1 pak40 stand with good LOS to the open ground.

Ger co 3: deployed back and on the left as the Bn reserve and easily moved to answer any flankers on that side.

Ger Bn HQ: Safely in the middle behind the main line of resistance. Holding 2 rifle platoons for reserves, plus some 81mm mortars and the 75mm IG from regiment. Both these gun stands are Support Stands – they can fire on direct LOS targets but also indirect with no LOS.

The U.S. forces are more rudimentary.

US Co 1: Main attacking company – 2 of its platoons already have hit markers. Single hits are (with one exception) not detrimental by themselves. 2 up, 1 back, with HMGs directly attached, identical to the German setup.

US Co 2: Casually tossed down on the right flank around a farm complex.

US Co 3: no-doubt somewhere clever waiting to spring into action, but I forgot to put them down before I took this pic.

US Bn HQ: Leaner than its German counterpart in this example. Has the 57mm ATG stand with transport, plus the Bn mortars.

All actions take place in the cleverly-named Action Phase. Actions alternate between players. There are Interrupts available to allow 2 actions in a row by the same player. An Action is any Movement or Battle or "Anything Else (like Engineering)" undertaken by any company-sized or smaller unit. So.

1) Battle between my elements of B Company and your elements of 3. Kp, including possible multiple attached and/or supporting stands? That's 1 Action.

2) Moving that single stand of StuGIIIs from their crappy "I thought they could see that farm from here" spot to that better spot 2" away? That's 1 Action.

3) Moving a Bn Order Chit from the HQ to the HMG stand with the hit marker on it? That's 1 Action.

And so on.

I'll describe a possible Battle in the next one, referring to the pic in this one.

(BTW, the only die used in RCT is the d6.)

So it's the Action Phase and the U.S. player finally gets around to the action around the wooded farmland above.

Action 1. US: anticipating more casualties this turn he activates the Bn HQ and moves the Order Chit (OC) onto the rifle platoon back off the line with the hit marker. Done.

Action 2. German: on the defensive here and happy with his deployments, the German player spends his action somewhere else on the table.

Action 3. US: Battle! US player starts by designating any 1 platoon in range and LOS of an enemy (assume these are both true here) and declaring a battle. He picks the rifle platoon with the hit marker and the German directly across as his target for this battle. Both players now tally up the forces they will use in this battle.

US:

initiating rifle platoon = 1d6
the other rifle platoon next to him = 1d6
the 3d rifle platoon is not on the edge of the terrain so has no LOS out of the terrain.

So that's rolling 2d6. Now we add support and other mods.

the attached HMG stand adds a +1 pip to the battle roll.
US player takes the chit off of the 81mm mortar at Bn HQ and tosses it in front of the initiating platoon – that's another +1 pip.
since the initiating rifle platoon has another rifle platoon of the same company within 1", that's Unit Integrity and gives another +1 pip.
The target platoon is in Light Cover (Woods) so that's -1 pip.

In this example that's all he adds so the US player will roll 2d6+2.

German:

target platoon: 1d6
other platoon in range & LOS: 1d6
Attached HMG: +1 pip
chit from 81mmm mortars: +1 pip
chit from 75mm IG: +1 pip
unit integrity: +1 pip
The attacking platoon is in Light Cover (Woods) so that's -1 pip.

So the German player will roll 2d6 +3.

players roll off.

US gets 5, 4. Add those for 9, add the +2 for a final result of 11.
German get 6, 1. Add those for 7, add the +3 for a final result of 10. But one of those was a 6.

Result of battle: US Wins battle – that causes 1 hit marker on 1 German platoon in the line.
German Loses battle, but rolled at least 1 "6", so that causes 1 hit marker on 1 US platoon in the line.

And that's a battle. Pretty obviously, with average rolls, a single battalion is going to have a tough time forcing a defending battalion out of its position. A smart Bn commander will be rotating platoons back off the line and trying to get the hits off of hurt units before sending them back. Bold players could keep all 3 rifle platoons in the line and add another d6. But that risks more units available to be hit.

So that's where the decisions about where your limited artillery missions should be used, where you need some mobile firepower to flank a position or just smash through, etc., come in.

Those are the bare bones of what I'm trying to accomplish. not long lines of stands facing off, but clumps of actions and decisions. Battles.

Types of battles:

1) Direct Fire. Ranges 6"+.

These work like the messy infantry battle I described previously but since rifle platoons are limited to a range of 6", these will tend to be single-stand tank/gun battles. "I say, Jerry's giving us quite a spot of bother from that far hilltop with those SPGs. Can your lads train their guns over that way and brush them back for us?"

(HMGs have a roll here too but that's in flux at the moment.)

2) Ranged. Ranges 3" – 6".

Intended to represent "Our guys in their holes taking their guys in their holes under fire. Mostly we're keeping heads down and trying not to get killed too much." That's what I outlined above.

3) Advance. Ranges 3" – 6".

A Ranged battle that, if you Win, moves your advancing company 3" closer to the target company. Entails some -1 pips for moving in the face of enemy fire. If you do this against a defender who is not already pretty beat up, you will probably get slaughtered.

4) Assault. Range 0".

This is the Last Hundred Yards. Still working out details. I don't want it to be like typical "everything on the losing side is dead" results in most games. But I DO want it to be costly even if you win.

More on unit quality.

@BillyNM said:

The order chits sound interesting (more details please), but surely it is command / staff quality and doctrine not troop quality that counts in this. You can have great troops but if they're not employed effectively they'll still fail. Similarly the comms matter a great deal. These two factors explain a lot of the difference in effectiveness (not as great as sometimes made out) of the German army compared to others in the early part of the war.

And that is a good question. I'll try to answer it here.

So, in RCT, what is "unit quality"? Well, I've already pointed out that there's no Morale concept except the one in your head looking at VP totals (more on VPs later, but a basic "each stand is worth 1 VP" is a safe assumption), so it has nothing to do with staying in the fight. Or does it…?

Assuming I stick with A is best quality and C is worst I have arrived at this:

for my working mechanics.

So left to right,

"Max Support Chits". This is the maximum number of the little +1 Support chits a company can use in any given battle. So even if you have lots of support available, low quality units can't make use of all of it – they are lacking training, experience, comms, or leadership to take full advantage of potentially available firepower.

"Max Move in Hold". This is the maximum distance on the table any platoon can move from its "Hold/Defend/Stay put" spot once its parent battalion goes on the defensive. A "C" unit is pretty much pinned in place unless it gets orders from on high. A "B" unit can maneuver a little to cover a threatened flank a little better. An "A" unit can dance out and counterattack you while you're getting your ducks in a row.

The 3 "Orders per" columns are just what I wrote above – more Order Chits for better units. This allows them to "do more" on the battlefield – like, I see a tactical situation developing and I want to go into Advance posture so I can move. I will send an OC up the chain of command to request that. (Admittedly this one is probably only useful in an umpired campaign game with multiple commanders.) Regimental OCs are used to activate, attach or detach support and reserves.

OCs are also used to remove Hits. More OCs means the battalion can handle higher loss rates – staying in the fight longer.

"Command Zone". The maximum distance from the battalion HQ that a member platoon can operate.

Lastly, I'm fooling with the idea of permanently assigning an OC to a specific COMPANY and turning it into a separate maneuver unit that has its own HQ, can take attachments, receive orders, etc. A regiment with a lot of OCs can afford to do that a lot. I haven't tested that one at all. It seems reasonable.

In theory, all of the above means that a high quality "short" company of only 2 platoons could take a lot of support and kick some booty in a battle against a full-strength opponent company.

Now, where does unit quality come in? Is it assigned to a whole regiment? Individual battalions? I figure historical research could help determine that during scenario design/conversion.

That's most of my thinking on unit quality.

I suspect you have a real groundscale problem. A platoon will optimally cover a frontage of 500m, 200m by fire and the outliers by fire. That meand your platoons need a minimum optimum spacing wider or closer will have a negative performance impact.

Your rules need to reflect thereal world gains for defence in depth, without that the basic 2 up one back therory which applied even at this level. Failure to do so will just make the game fantasy like 40K.

@UshCha

Firstly, thanks for reading, and thanks for replying. This kind of discussion is exactly what I need!

I'm not sure I understand your point about ground scale. The sources I've looked at (print and digital) agree – pretty much – that normal optimal rifle platoon frontage would be around 200-300m for WW2. On paper. So I figured 1"x1" bases, with 1" = 100yd/m would be fine: like a lot of games, the platoon can be thought of as "spilling out" a little past the stand's borders with maybe 2 up 1 back for its squads and HWs. The scale I'm working with allows that, and, if circumstances allow, encourages it. But a scenario might give you a lot more linear frontage to cover, of course, and the rules I have in place (pretty much the same as a billion other games out there) allow you to spread out and cover that frontage. In the case of RCT, with a slight loss of advantage (-1 pip you could have with SOP). Maybe I should create a better diagram?

For defense in depth, I have a small penalty for including platoons with hits already one them in the main defense line – I think I forgot to list that one. So keeping a platoon out of the main line allows for its hit to be taken off by the battalion HQ, and then you can send it back into the line un-hit, avoiding the penalty. I intend that a savvy player will keep to that 2 up 1 back deployment to take advantage of that circumstance. Maybe I need to penalize the "stand at all costs" player more.

One other thing I am trying to achieve is having a decent combat system that handles company vs company well, while also allowing for single platoon "roadblocks" and "tripwires" to be of value. I've tried a couple of ideas for that but do not really like them much. :)

Thanks again!

-dale

So we can agree to disagree on platoon frontage but you still need 1 company to take on a platoon in defence. This means in effect you will need to represent this on table as a "column" of companies if the attack is on a frontage of say 3 platoons or more. Your tank company base sive is prhaps a bit small but perhaps given you infantry spacing its going to be awkward. What spacing will you use when a platoon gets a couple of tanks as was not uncommon. Will you have a distinct mixed base or use the "column" representation. early war is harder as cooperation at least on the Brits side was very marginal at times, bater later in the war.

That gives the company's a depth of 300m. this may not be that good as all are in rifle range of the enemy when closed up. Do they need to have an optimum depth spread?

Now your sketch of what you wanted and the games may have another issue Company mortars 3.2" for Brits. They have a range of between 1600 and 2800m by the end of the war. My guess you want them out of rifle range and not to move with the company in attack so they will need to be about say 1/12 2/3 range to the target for optimum effect. That puts them 8 to 14" Behind the company. You need to represent that distance as in the event of a breakthrough you don't want the mortars to have to move if the breakthrough starts and they are overrun immediately. So a company may need a separate mortar platoon as a matter of course. This is not unreasonable as uoy are quite rightly allowing platoons to operate somewhat independently anyway.

Shell Bomb 10 lb (4.5 kg)
Calibre 3.19 in (81.0 mm)
Elevation +45° to +80°
Traverse 11°[4]
Muzzle velocity 650 ft/s (200 m/s)
Maximum firing range Mk.II: 1,600 yd (1,500 m)
Mk.II LR: 2,800 yd (2,600 m)

Looking as wiki for 81mm German "Effective firing range 400–1,200 m (440–1,310 yd)" pehaps a bit more realistic for thr Brits and Gemans still means they proably need to be a good 600m behind the prim target so 6" behind the infantry stands.

Your few pics don't seem to show that so it may be missing.

Now to me another issue will be terrain. At even a Tactical level most wargames seem to feature too little terrain. Go look at a picture of Normandy in WW2 and there is a lot of terrain. It sort of gets worse at your level. Mobility will be a key issue. Areas with no main roads will be hell to move large amounts of stuff, whereas a main road will help get reserves up FAST.

These were show stoppers in our brief forays into this scale gaming and I admit it made us give up. The much vaunted Spearhead was farcical in its treatment of terrain so no help there.

Looking forward to see how you tackle the issue.

@UshCha

I suspect that the level of abstraction I'm striving for is the opposite of what you like in a game. I like the unit and ground scale of Spearhead/MicroArmour the Game, etc. specifically because it lets me put a rifle battalion on the table represented adequately by maybe 12-15 stands – 9 x rifle, 1 x HQ, and 1 – 3 x heavy weapons.

There are medics and clerks and ambulances and supply trucks and forward observers and maybe even MPs and prisoners all running around in those 15 stands, just like there are brooks and bushes and outbuildings and cart tracks and little copses of trees mixed in with the building and tree models on the table. But all of that is abstracted for efficiency of play, right?

You are probably correct about my AFV basing being too small. But 3 tanks up with 40-50m in between isn't awful at 1.25" = 125m across. A little "spillage" is inferred. If I had a bunch of 1.5"x1.5" sheet steel squares maybe I'd re-base. :) Maybe not.

Company heavy weapons:

Again you are correct – in a real game the mortar platoons could/would deploy a few hundred meters to the rear but for my playtests against myself I tend to just plop them down close by. Indirect support is via those little +1 chits you see in the pics. In range just plop a chit down in a battle – the tubes are working for you there this turn. Is it HE? Heavy HE? Smoke? Doesn't matter – it's support fire for +1 pip (the chits go back to their mortars at the end of the turn). You could also put them somewhere with direct LOS to the enemy and attack that way. C quality artillery systems (in RCT) pretty much have to do it that way – they get fewer support chits to work with. If your scenario has a defender who's really well dug-in and has had time to lay solid coms and stocks of ammo and pre-registered fires, then put an extra chit on each mortar platoon – lots of support there.

Now, are those mortars all back with the Bn HQ or are they dispersed by squads to the rifle companies? That doesn't really matter in RCT – it's abstracted. Now, I'm hoping that I can add in the option to "deploy to company", pull the mortar stand, and permanently give each company in the battalion an extra +1. In my head that doesn't smell, but it may turn out to be unworkable or unnecessary. Again, I'm in really early stages right now.

Terrain:

I mostly agree but plead "scale" again. Yes there's lots of stuff there not represented specifically. But it's a game scenario not a museum display, so I want some efficiency. Heck, if we wanted 100% realism we'd paint everything gray-brown, which is what everything looks like at our 5000 foot scale height distance, and never put much on the table to see at all.

Movement:

Right now sticking to my "rule of three". There's moving 12" per turn, 6" and 3". I haven't decided what roads do. Within 6" of an enemy, probably nothing. 3" per turn is 300m in 15 minutes which is 100 in 5 minutes, which, under fire, is probably way too fast. So I'm looking into after action reports and the like to see what a reasonable consistent ground speed is for infantry, etc. Still in flux.

Thanks again!

-dale

To be honest this looks a lot like the thread avout big battles. To be honest what you are describeing is not a big battle, but an engaugement already set up. Most of a division level game about decideing wher to put stuff then getting the stuff where its needed. If it's already there then that main work is already over before the game starts. Top level waterloo is really about where and why Waterloow was chosen so the top level game might decide waterloow wan not the right place,.

Your movement looks like "classic" unrelistic wargames movement. Road moves cam easily be at 15 to 20mph. Battle movement is typically 1 mph a diffrence of a factor of 15. If they are reserves parked at the side of the road and have had a warning order in force they can move in 5 min or less and are already in column formation.

You really need to look at some manuals to see how real armies deploy. I suspect early cold war russian is not that far out. Main coloumn, then colums by company, then platoion columds then finally line of battle.

This all needs lots of reconnisance as at the level you are playing, bridges are really key, there will be lots. we did in our abortive big game days looked at Norfolk in England as it was similar to Normandy. In one 10km by 10km area there were 100 bridges over drainage ditches that would not be crossable by vehicles and proably not practically for infantry wadeing.

It may be you decide to compromise the game, far less realistic for some artistic objectives, that seems in many cases one that a designer has to chose. Reality or what you fancy. Nothing wrong with either choice but it is often overlooked or skirted round as folk often don't like to admit the massicve compromises what "looks good" does to realism.

Look at the Non limnear range setting, it degenerates into pure fantasy but folk like it and pretend its real when even Einstien could not deistort space time that much.

Brassies notes Northern Europe has 500 to 1500 meter intravisibility. That means typically from any one point beyond that range only 10% of the land is visible to the horizon. Obviously some exceptions. but pick a high spot and yoyu woill be supprided how trees and folds obscure huge amonts of grouns. This meand at you level you are aiming to get your kit in battle formation (or stsrt line) about 2k at most from the enemy line. Often much less. On that basis road speeds of the order of 15mph are critical.

I assume you will play on a 6 by 4 ft board so 7km by 4.8 km. So artillery batteries still won't be on table only the smaller mortars. It's and interesting question will you fight longways, you get some sensible depth at that point, perhaps to have some combat re, supply points in for the companies. At 4.8k (playimng across the width that may not be practical and tyou will need to note how long off table to re-arm a company.

What can I tell you. Our own game we for instance are running a new Long Game. One of the ways we can do this is road speed on or 1.8m square board is infinite, provided its clear and no tight bened. It weoks very well but ther is no shooting or maneouvre allows, they follow the pre-planned track and chaos ensures if the track is blocked. This model shows deploying to line takes far longet than the road move especially if ther is difficult rterrain to be crossed.

You will of course at this level need to set phase lines. You may need the rcon to set up the tracks from the start point to the road and the road to the positions on the next phase line so that the movement is as fast as possible. While you can to it without recon then it will be slower.

To be honest this looks a lot like the thread avout big battles. To be honest what you are describeing is not a big battle, but an engaugement already set up. Most of a division level game about decideing wher to put stuff then getting the stuff where its needed. If it's already there then that main work is already over before the game starts. Top level waterloo is really about where and why Waterloow was chosen so the top level game might decide waterloow wan not the right place,.

I haven't really described what I am picturing as a whole game yet – just some basic mechanics. With enough table space an approach march and "shaking out" into formations is perfectly feasible, and intended.

Your movement looks like "classic" unrelistic wargames movement. Road moves cam easily be at 15 to 20mph. Battle movement is typically 1 mph a diffrence of a factor of 15. If they are reserves parked at the side of the road and have had a warning order in force they can move in 5 min or less and are already in column formation.

Well, all games are unrealistic to some degree as I have already mentioned. I am definitely a "design for effect" guy and not a simulationist, so abstracted movement mechanics don't bother me that much. And I've already stated that I haven't factored roads in yet. Am I going to approach a 15:1 ratio of movement from approach columns to platoons under fire? I don't know. Probably not, but it will probably be closer to 8:1.

You really need to look at some manuals to see how real armies deploy. I suspect early cold war russian is not that far out. Main coloumn, then colums by company, then platoion columds then finally line of battle.

I don't want to get in a bookshelf measuring contest because I'm sure I would lose. But… I'd be in the contest for sure. :) Rest assured I have and will continue to look at some manuals.

This all needs lots of reconnisance as at the level you are playing, bridges are really key, there will be lots. we did in our abortive big game days looked at Norfolk in England as it was similar to Normandy. In one 10km by 10km area there were 100 bridges over drainage ditches that would not be crossable by vehicles and proably not practically for infantry wadeing.

I am debating with myself how much of the recon "battle" to include. A lot of that depends on the degree of umpiring available, the ability of the players to be satisfied with not seeing a lot of their painted lead on the table for much of the game, etc. A realistic reconnaissance effort would be an entire game scenario just by itself, in my opinion. Is that valuable to the average player? Is a simple chart with some dice rolling per recon asset sent forward possibly revealing enemy presence and positions enough? too much? I think it would depend on the size of the scenario. 2 hours spent reconning to prep for a game you hope to have done in one 6 hour session for that week might be too much. But for a campaign where you have 3 game days/sessions to cross a river and establish a bridgehead or prevent the enemy from doing so? Maybe it's worth it.

It may be you decide to compromise the game, far less realistic for some artistic objectives, that seems in many cases one that a designer has to chose. Reality or what you fancy. Nothing wrong with either choice but it is often overlooked or skirted round as folk often don't like to admit the massicve compromises what "looks good" does to realism.

Oh I'm aware. And yes, compromises to realism are very necessary in my opinion. Panzertruppen with jet packs? Too unrealistic for me in a WW2 game. But Panzertruppen with halftracks and trucks that magically leave the battlefield when no longer needed? I'm okay with that kind of thing at this scale.

Look at the Non limnear range setting, it degenerates into pure fantasy but folk like it and pretend its real when even Einstien could not deistort space time that much.

I don't understand your point here.

Brassies notes Northern Europe … [SNIP OF GOOD STUFF FOR BREVITY] … then it will be slower.

For games of this scale with the phase lines and supply etc., I generally prefer an umpired Kriegsspiel game, but I do agree with your point that once a division-sized unit hits the table, these larger scale issues you bring up at least have to be acknowledged.

Thanks again!

-dale

I don't want to get in a bookshelf measuring contest because I'm sure I would lose. But… I'd be in the contest for sure. :) Rest assured I have and will continue to look at some manuals.

My appologoes if that came across wrong. I was suggesting perhaps you need a diffrent approach to movement. Covering the type of approach, main coloumn, colum of companies, column of platoons and actual battle advance. In our own much lower level game these are forced on the players by when and where they need to leave the road, then cross say a stream, limits on how many vehicles can cross at an umprepared point, and finally the deployment into battle formation. At your level yo may need to do that by definition and assess any combat effectiveness changes as a function of that mode if they are caught in one.

Interestingly the US recon about 10 vehicles across a unprepered wet crossing before the water dump makes it impassable to vehicles so VERY roughly a platoon.

Now the bridge thing, now you want minis so putting lots of bridges is impractical, but you may need different terrain definitions than a 1 to 1 table top game. Thinking aloud: maybe only pmovement in platoon coloums or battle formation. Tracked over a certain weight (due to bridge restrictions (a big issue around Arnam) may find the terrain impassible without engineering assistance. Making the table top terrain identical to a 1 to 1 game does make stuff look nearly as daft as Sperhead terrain. Your pics do look like you are moving that way anyway.

Bill shut TMP down before I could finish
Reconnaissance to us in the UK who play mainly one on one, an umpire well versed in the rules and available, is about as available as Rocking Horse dung. However we as always, have to make compromises. The best one for able players is to have a decent map of the terrain on which to work. A typical "Big game one" is shown below a recent 1 from the Bursk scenario:

TMP link

This allows accurate plotting of hidden units and precise definition by review of Dead ground. Again it is critical your mapping system can model dead ground at whatever scale you play at. Think of the issues due to failure to do this in Normandy around Hill 112.
Now we have a reasonable rules for us (but sort of, at a lower level game, these games are in actual fact more like Brigade level command games) is that if it's not moved or shot since the game started it's not on the table and can't be spotted until its very close a few meters or it shoot and is spotted doing so. However recon units looking further back can spot the supplies going down the road further back on a daily basis. This was a key job for the Brits LRDG, it's just it does not make a good movies but is vital work regardless. Now it's easy to plot where these units are and what this scarce resource is watching and to all intents and purposes is undetectable it may be km's away from the spot its watching, and will by definition have a narrow view to help prevent it being spotted by the enemy. This makes it simple for the enemy to give an estimate, in our case ±30% of what level this supply line is being carried down the road and hence what is between it and the FEBZ. This is vital but by no means perfect information.
In terms of combat reconnaissance nothing on the attackers or defenders side can act against stuff they cannot see. The movers put on their kit on table, and only see enemy if they spot (within a limited area) any enemy present or the enemy is seen moving or shooting. The enemy likewise can only move against enemy they have spotted directly. In reality this adds a surprising level of difficulty for both sides. So much so it's does not work for less able players, they suffer from analysis paralysis and so are unable to make any decisions at all. We help them by giving them markers some dummy and some real to limit the terrain analysis. However too many slow the game and if one side has a an able player he will most of the time be able simply by terrain analysis assess which are the dummy's or are so badly placed if real by the less able player they are no significant threat.
A game like yours will need very able payers able to make coherent decisions based even using our preferred method requiring on a good knowledge of the performance of their units. However the resulting game are absolutely the best ever, forcing you to play like a real top level commander.

Quick thought on movement. 15 min ( your bound) at 15 mph a vehicle can cover 6600 yds. Your battlefield assuming 6ft long is 7200m long. So infinite moves is really practical. However it is at the cost of moving fast and predictably so no stopping or changing your mind except at high cost of disorder. And the diver(s) will need to be briefed before the starts where on he is going and where he is going to stop/slow to start the spreading out onto the forming up point or similar and that will be for another bound or so. No sharp bends or traffic lights or obstacles in the road as these slow the convoy down massively, especially if you insist on convoy discipline of maintaining spacing at all times.

For infantry that not really possible. 2 mph fully loaded for 15 min seams reasonable depending how good the kit is and how fit the men are. That's 880m in 15 min Again at that you need the troops to know where they are going and no stopping, spotting or shooting or anything else and they are vulnerable to fire.

Now to be fair we don't do this for infantry directly. However we have a Fast move but usually for short distances, this is basically the infantry walking but being at least a bit wary and not as programmed. This rate is a bit variable but a equivalent of about 840 m in 15 min, possibly a bit more with some urgency applied from above so perhaps a bit fast but it is a bit variable so without a lot of calculation and a lot of how it fits into the system this is a good an estimate as is needed for this thread.

After some research I used the following rough numbers, detailed out for leg speed:

foot:

assume 2mph avg under possible observation or fire

1760 yds/mil

1" = 100yds

17"/mile

34"/hr = 8.5"/turn

foot speeds rounded to

open ground = 6"/turn
road = 9"/turn
"last hundred yards" Advance to Assault Battle = 3"/turn

turns approx 15 minutes.

those seem like reasonable game approximations to me.