"Musing on my ideal ruleset for WWII land combat" Topic

After having several pleasant discussions here on TMP about various rulesets I have been thinking about my ideal ruleset. I have laid out some criteria and then played a US Italian battle trying to find it. All found here:
link
your results will probably vary!
Enjoy
Joe

Thank you. Not my preferred level, but a clear exposition and you seem to have done a very good job of putting together a set of rules which meets your requirements.

I wish I could say as much for my own "Big 2mm Battle" project with bases representing battalions and companies.

Defining the problem is half the solution.

I like WWII, but have never found a set that I really cared for. Almost no one seems to understand how calling for artillery fire actually works. I am leaning twoards going back to Rapid Fire for ease and simplicity. I am glad that you are finding something that works for you.

Joe,
Sounds like an interesting system. Did you consider the Crossfire rules?

79thPA, I agree. My favorite tactical WWII artillery rules mechanic is from the original Squad Leader boardgame.

Joe- I left a comment on the link provided. You are on the right track IMHO. I do not see why it won't work at the Battalion level. Focus upon company level is not all that different than at the Battalion level if you are playing as a Commander.(The 10 or less I mention in my post). Talking command and control here.

54mm Bolt-Action with Modifications for the larger figs, we go
150% on all movement and Rangers -- Great Fun.

NUTS for me for Squad up to Company (the new NUTS Company Commander), Rapid Fire for Battalion, and Panzer Korps for Operational.

Thank you for the kind responses.
Robert, you were one of the big pushes for the solitaire AI rules. So far so good.
Andrew, true that!
79 battlefront WW2 has the best artillery system I have seen.
Nascati, don't know much about crossfire. Do they tick most of my boxes? Can check them out.
Dye, gave you a longer answer on the blog but agree the system would work just as well at battalion level.
Ron, haven't played bolt action but from what I have seen I don't think the activation system would really make me feel like I am in command. Glad it works for you!
SB, a lot of people like the nuts system but I have found it way too fiddly.
Thanks all

Joe

Joe, I replied on the blog with some additional points for you to consider. I still think you are generally still on the right path!

Crossfire is an interesting set of rules. There are no fixed turns or moves. Play alternates between player initiative. While you have the initiative you can move as many units as you like from terrain to terrain feature and keep doing that as many times as you like as long as you have initiative. Initiative changes to the other play if you attempt an action and fail, such as firing at an enemy unit or if one of your moving units comes in sight of one of your opponents and they open fire on it and hit it. Been a while since I played so can't remember if you have to score a pin or suppression in order for the initiative to change. At this point your opponent can move and fire as much as he or she likes as long as they continue to succeed or you are unable to score a hit on one of their units.
What does this mean in play? Well if you are a defender you need to defend in depth as if you are out flanked you don't get a turn to react. You can be rolled over before the initiative changes, so you need another unit positioned to bring fire on the attackers to stop that happening. Attackers also need to think about their flanks. I have seen games where players tried the standard push everything forward in a line have their line rolled up by a well timed flank attack by the defenders.
So there is a lot going for it. Having said that there are problems.
(1) The tank rules suck. They feel like they were tacked on as an afterthought. Now it is primarily an infantry game, but we are talking WW2 so a lot of people have redone them, which does mean lack of standardisation making pick up games harder.
(2) What I call the Usain Bolt effect! Consider this situation. You have a bazooka team on your right flank. In your opponent's initiate he or she brings a tank on your left flank. If you have something on that flank that can trigger a change of initiative you can pull your bazooka team back tracing a path that doesn't bring it into sight of land of your opponents units, then move it across to the other flank and back up to a position where it can ambush your opponents tank. I have done this myself in games repositioning units right across the to the other flank.
(3) This is a minor point, but depends on your view if it is important. Crossfire uses a standard squad format and allows for differing levels of firepower by adding additional MMG's at company level. Whether you consider this a problem or not is up to you.

Not sure I even understand comment 3. MMG's were allocated out, usually as 2 or 3 well separated but in communication. That way, in there long zone of control, they could up the fire rate on 2 while the third say changes a barrel and maintain there effectiveness. How could representing the real world ever be an issue?

Crosfire and tanks was always going to be implausible. The whole point was the action was all taking place in rifle range, hence a very small area, but to be fair well represented. Putting tanks in to such a small area would make them far too vulnerable to be of use. Similarly the artillery rules were daft. Danger close is about 200m 2/3 of rifle range so again not practical to do anything plausible.
As an infantry game I consider it very good. However I personally don't play it. That is not because its a bad set, as originally done it was really elegant. However it fails as soon as tanks come in as the rules are implausible and can never work given the ground represented is too small.

I can say that elements of the Crossfire philosophy inspired our wildly different rules, what greater complement can you give a set of rules.

Now as to your definition of a good set, I have to agree and disagree. Yes we play at "company level" in small games. We don't personalize as much as you appear to want nor would we whish to do so, just personnel preference. We do want tanks, so that means some simplification of infantry to keep the game fast If you want a Company battlegroup.

I would add that troops, win or lose should, "wear down" over time was a key requirement.

As to variable standards of troops within the Company. our rules would allow for that but it's not something we use, to me it's just more to track for (for me) too little gain. However our troops wear down so in effect we get variable response as troops tire /get stressed/run out of ammunition so they are never automata, its just we see no gain for the extra time needed to track degradation from different starting levels, but again i'ts your list of priorities not mine.

In big game we extend timescale and other issues by table design. As companies "Wear out" big games need to consider where and when to replace troops and by representing multiple routes, placement of things like artillery is key, representing high level decision making. Some of the is covered in my thread on the Bursk Scenario, but this is a multi evening game.

Dye, will email you. I do think cohesion is important. Leadership should help with that.
Fred, thanks for the explanation of crossfire. I looked into it and it does have many things to interest me. I am really fascinated by the simple combat result system.
UC, excellent comments. In regarding troops wearing out, if you mean cohesion I was starting to discuss that with dye. If you mean fatigue my games don't really last that long. A good hour of game time. Your games seem to be bigger and last longer.
It is interesting that you track ammo but not leadership. As you said, to each his own.

Thanks all.

@UshCha The point about number 3 is that the MG's weren't at company level, they were integral in squads. A German Panzergrenadier squaddie not have extra MMG's held at company level, they had more LMG's at squad level. The MMG's that were at company level weren't always allocated out to squads either. However the way combat works in Crossfire giving some squads higher integral firepower would be a problem. The solution they adopted you may or may not think a problem. It gives you extra units to command that weren't there in real life, giving you options your real life commander did not have.

I wish I could say as much for my own "Big 2mm Battle" project with bases representing battalions and companies.

Elements which represent Battalions and Companies are my favourite scale, so complete your project please.

Joe Legan we track a parameter called "Leadership" but its not really that it's a Fear, Fire and Fatigue monitor, this degrades communication effectiveness as the troops tire. However better troops start with lower (better) starting values so respond "faster" to orders (less time explaining if you like) and will recover from suppression faster. What we don't do, and perhaps I did not make this clear, we do not vary leadership from squad to squad in a company. They all start the same to make life simple.

Our game size is typically a Company Battlegroup, basically a mixed tank and infantry formation. Often 1 tank and 2 infantry platoons.

We may have the odd hangers on like a couple of scout cars allocated from higher level and of course links to both company mortars and possibly higher level artillery. However these are really beyond the credible scope of Crossfire.

A MMG platoon typically works in defense and is allocated a job protecting an area by fire. By definition it is not under the command of a platoon to be used as spare MG's. For one thing these are big heavy weapons, always on tripods and backed up by say a jeep carrying ammo for each of the guns in the platoon. Its presence is significant even at the platoon level though it may be protecting as many as 3 platoon frontages as they are effective in their role out to around 1500m.

Now there may be issues in crossfire rules that mean they are not well represented, if at all. You are correct they can't be represented by just more troops with MG's as they are not terribly portable especially as they need lots of ammunition to function as intended. There does seem to be an element of poor control in the rules as scope creep came in.

It also surprises me how few rule writers seem to understand the subject they are representing, machine guns are often one of the worst representations.

Great idea sketching out and defining what is wanted before sinking into statistics. Proper real world problem solving approach.

UC,
Having units respond faster to orders is an interesting concept. I believe that is similar to cohesion that dye and I are going to be discussing.
I think where you and Fred might be missing each other is with the German WW II infantry company specifically. I believe most of your games are modern. As you are aware both main types of LMGs for the Germans in WWII were the same gun as their MMG just with tripods and sights. It appears you are talking MMGs in general while Fred is talking about the Germans in WW2.
I could be wrong on both of your thoughts of course but I think that is what is going on.
Thanks
Joe
Ps. Robert, sounds like you need to get your rules finished.

The MMG platoon were a WW2 thing, I assumed it would be relevant for the Germans as it was for the US. It's not really about the weapon so much as it's specific use. The Germans still use the MG42 tripod they just mount MG3's on it which whan all said and done is pretty much the MG42 re chambered asd a few mods from the MG42, they are of common heritage. So I assume usage would be similar as it is an optimum solution to MG's in defence where tripods are a definite advantage, Fixed lines etc. Fixwed line most certainly were also used by Germans.

At Pont Du Hoc it is thought the earlier bombing had upset the MG defences as the Grazing fire was degraded by the craters both at the MH posistion and the ground disturbace on the fimnes of fire. It's all about setting up crossfires.

Was the Vickers in the MMG platoon? The US called their M1917 water called MG "heavy" and the M191 Medium.

So I assume usage would be similar as it is an optimum solution to MG's in defence where tripods are a definite advantage,

In WWII the Marines brought up the M1917 Browning at night for sustained defensive fire.

Fred,
It seems Crossfire is an area movement game. What if you defined open areas that units need to move through one at a time like moving through woods? Infantry centric games do model armored combat poorly.

Wolfhag

The M1919 MMG used a bipod for most of the war. Later the M1919A5 was bipod mounted.

It appears defining light, medium, or heavy MG depended on the nationality.

So perhaps another parameter is to get thje ranges and effectiveness correct for weapons. Many "classic" rules screw up on this big time regarding Machine guns and artillery. If ist a 6 to hit on a s bound game for a mahine gun used as Sustained faie, then it could not be call effective as it may have no influence on the game at all.

It may be your rules need to have a workable definition of what effective fire in the real world, and then make sure your definition is met in the game. It always strikes me the D6 is an inadequate tool for defining hit probabilities without some very clever rules, too coarse.

Beware the Dark Side. We started out Tinkering but eventually we realized some rules are basically so bad they cannot ever be useful. In the end we had to start from almost scratch and a mere 2000 manhours later we had a workable set we have used for 16 years. 2000 man hours is a long time trust me, even shared between the two of us!