"target acquisition bonus" Topic

Is there a rule set that gives a bonus to target acquisition if the targets are to close, therefore avoiding bunching up of tanks or other targets? For example if several targets are available under a template or within a cone, a tank or direct firing gun could hit them all even though there are more targets than your usual rate of fire?

Dispersion of troops, tanks, etc. is SOP since after WWI. That it is often said by Team and Squad Ldrs etc. to get/keep your interval/watch your interval, etc. As it is obvious that if targets are too close together, they will receive higher losses.

That is why using a burst template, for most HE types weapons, as in real life will cause losses of more targets in the formation.

However, I don't think any type of bonus should be awarded for it. The burst template already does that. I.e. get a die roll, etc. for every target under it.

E.g. Will a tank be able to traverse its turret fast enough to engage more than one target if those targets have poor dispersion ? Short answer: Depends on ground/game scale. However, again IMO after gaming since the late '60s , etc. IMO only one die roll for each direct fire weapon vs one target.

I am very sorry for any confusion,maybe I should have written that the tanks/targets are very close to each other, not to the shooter. I am asking for a gaming system with that kind of rule. If you state that it is SOP since WWI and I still see bunching up on gaming tables there is something missing in the game systems I am aware of.

The SOP is there because you try to avoid presenting a target rich envirement for the gunner. So if a player decides not to follow SOP why shouldnīt his miniatures be punished?

Very few commercial rules take a count of target density wrt direct fire engagements. The concept that on the post 1900 battlefield, target availability rather than ROF determines losses apparently hasn't filtered through to many game designers.

Any mechanism which is inherently area fire (eg Squad Leader targets all units in a hex or an MG beaten zone) captures it. A couple of minis rules which spring to mind are the opportunity fire rules in 5Core Company Commander, Crossfire and Fireball Forward, where you can essentially keep firing at stuff as it presents itself as a target. There are generally some limits to this.

My old buddy Tim who was a tank commander in a previous life, ruled in his home brew armour rules that if you managed to hit a vehicle, any other enemy vehicle with 50m was subject to an automatic attack. He said that in his experience if you hit something, you ranged it, which meant you'd also ranged any stuff nearby. Just traverse the turret fractionally and shoot, and shoot, and shoot… which of course is how in real life Joe Eakins knocked out three Tigers with three shots in a few seconds.

Tbh this sort of thing is why I don't do tactical gaming, it is waaay too random and complicated to do realistically. You can abstract this stuff away if your elements are platoons or companies.

It is far easier to do this stuff if using a grid or a template. All targets in a grid area are hit by fire. People spread out pdq then. At least after the first couple of games.

That means you are using a template for any firing, right? For what kind of wargame is this system used? One miniature one real tank/soldiers sounds complicated with a grid.
edit: I havenīt seen your first posting, I will look into those rule systems

You wrote:
"There are generally some limits to this."
Can you give some hints about those limits?

WRG 1925 to 50 and the WRG modern rules used templates for direct area fire, the old Charles Grant "Battle" rules used templates for MG fire.

If you want to do this stuff in your game, just give free shots against things which are too close together. You can tone it down a bit, but nobody likes being on the end of free shots, so they will (probably) spread out.

My first idea was to add mali to additional targets under templates.
It is interesting that somehow there is nothing new under the sun.
Thanx a lot for the input.
cheers!

I agree with both the burst circle and grid square/hex solutions. However in my last series of WWII games, my opponent and I agreed that any unit within a set distance of the target stand was subject to the same damage for indirect fire. Works well enough for friendly games.

The WRG rules used a different mechanism for bunched-up infantry. Bases for individual figures were large, and overlapping bases gave a bonus to the shooters.

As for space warfare the closest would be naval actions with cruisers and BB's. Once the range for targets was correct, further attacks would get a plus to hit. You could give a bonus (for units within X amount of distance from original target) to be hit.

But to answer you first question. I am not aware of any rules that do this. Some have rules for torpedoes that may hit those near by. Some rules also have rules for template weapons.

Hope this helps!

"Can you give some hints about those limits"

In Crossfire, defending units which miss go to 'no fire' status, so can't continue to blaz away at everything which moves.

In 5Core, opp fire may be unlocked mites, but it isn't very effective (hits on a 1 or 6), so effectively it becomes a morale test for moving in the proximity of the enemy.

There are many ways to skin this particular cat, but they need to mesh with the other mechanisms of the rules. Eg the Crossfire description sounds like gibberish unless you read it in the context of the rules as a whole.

My sci fi rules use grids for indirect fire, mostly from off board units.

A firing unit attacks with a fire factor of X and shoots on the table at every unit under the template. SO if you see a motor pool like this:

You roll against every tank you hit. Some units have bigger templates than others too.

@Dogtail:

Having templates/grids for area effect weapons is pretty standard fare in many games. They are very common in WW2 games such as Flames of War, Fistful of TOWs and Command Decision. I see them in SciFi games too, such as Warhammer 40k, Gruntz and Dirtside II.

In 5150 from Rebel Minis temp[lates are used, and that is a 1:1 skirmish game.

Some very good comments …

I am very sorry for any confusion,maybe I should have written that the tanks/targets are very close to each other, not to the shooter.

Maybe I didn't understand the question ? Or maybe I was not clear enough in my response. Spreading out/dispersing men and equipment/not "bunching up", etc. is a standard tactical consideration.

E.g. if things are too close together, there is a higher probability of targets getting hit. Whether by an HE type weapon that has a burst radius. With the shrapnel from the exploding round spreading out about 360 degrees …

Or a weapon firing a "shotgun type round", that has multiple projectiles with each round. And spreads out when fired.

There is also a round that does not explode showering shrapnel, etc. in all directions. I.e. the way a standard rifle or AT round works e.g. one projectile going to a target. It does not use shrapnel to inflict losses and damage.

To add to this paradigm, automatic/fast firing weapons throwing out multiple rounds one after another at a high ROF. E.g. Sub-Machine Guns, Machine Guns, etc. Also makes dispersion/interval between men and equipment/spacing, etc. important for survival on the battlefield. Dispersing/spreading out will also make it harder to hit even with an automatic full auto weapon.

Whether an Infantry Squad or Section of vehicles. The closer they are together the easier they are to hit. It is obvious with a round that explodes sending shrapnel, etc. everywhere.

Or e.g. an MBT firing an AT round at an enemy MBT that is close to another enemy MBT, e.g. 30ft apart. The firing MBT can aim at the one MBT/target, hit it. Then with only a small traversing of the turret can bring main gun to bear on the second MBT/target quickly. Much faster if the two MBTs e.g. are side by side again are only e.g. 30ft apart.

That is why MBTs try to have say as much as e.g. 250 ft or more between each other. Verses 30-40ft between MBTs.

With Infantrymen the tactic is the same. With the standard interval between each troop being e.g. 8-10ft.

Now the overriding concern whether AFVs or Infantry is the terrain and situation. In closed, mixed terrain or in the dark troops will get closer so as to not break contact with the other troops in front or beside them in their formation. Based on the formation they are using. E.g. Online/Line-a-Breast/In a Row, Column, Wedge, etc. Again, based on terrain and situation …

I hope I made it clearer than what I meant with my first post. As a Rifle Plt Ldr then Mech Co. Cdr and often being attached to a Tank Bn. I can visualize and at one time do it easier than trying to explain it without visual aids, etc. To someone who have never as done it. If for no reasons other than I have/had the training and experience in 4 Infantry Bn. A long time ago in my long-passed youth …

than 40m. Today with Battle management that is even dead vehicle's. In all cases shifting the firing solution 40m or less is accurate so no chance of missing and no work to be done.

ww2 Sustained fire Machime gun crew were trained to pick lines of fire intersecting lots of troops so giving higher hit proability, The WW2 film I watched refered to a 150 yd span so you fitted as many troops in this span as possible.

Similarly when using Grazing or Graving fire (usually in pre-surveyed positions) the bullets did not rise above 2 ft over 600 yds so effectively a "beaten line" Our own ruls and Phill Barkers WW2 rules covered this (1925 to 1950) if I recall

the bullets did not rise above 2 ft over 600 yds so effectively a "beaten line"

It's called "grazing fire" and relies on the culminating point of the cone of fire being lower than the target. A perfectly sited MG is one where it can give grazing, enfilade fire from a defilade position. (So siting the gun to engage the enemy frontally is wasting the capabilities of the weapon.)

I haven't seen one rules set that is able to model the theory of MG fire- in a gamer friendly way- without using a template of some sort. But someone may have been able to do it.

In Fireball Forward you just mark the end point of the fire and any infantry crossing the line between the gun and the end point are at risk. I suppose that is a sort of template, but a very very narrow one…

In Crossfire, MGs just keep shooting until all targets are dead or you go No Fire. The frontal arc is 45 degrees, so quite generous, but no template required.

We play one vehicle or 3-5 man stand/unit in 6mm. So at that level, as in Sqd Ldr, it can get pretty complicated. Albeit it we liked Sqd Ldr.

It is impossible to do everything that occurs on a battlefield. And even to try to get it "right". So based on our gaming experience, study of history and my time being on Active Duty as an Infantry Officer. We tried to get the "feel" of these actions at this low tactical level. Using mostly one set of rules, modified as needed, adding other rules from other systems, cherry-picking what we thought worked etc.

In Fireball Forward you just mark the end point of the fire and any infantry crossing the line between the gun and the end point are at risk. I suppose that is a sort of template, but a very very narrow one…

In Crossfire, MGs just keep shooting until all targets are dead or you go No Fire. The frontal arc is 45 degrees, so quite generous, but no template required.

Very narrow, Martin, but depending on the ground scale probably a bit too broad. :-) The biggest problem with replicating MG fire is that real ground isn't the flat table-top most of us game on. So grazing fire at 100m may become plunging fire, or ineffective overhead, at 300m. Also, most templates have too broad a beaten zone. The M60 had the widest beaten zone of the weapons I trained on, and it was only 1m at 600m. But I suspect it gives a better game effect. (Why can I remember that useless info and not what the missus sent me to buy at the shops?)

Not sure about the Crossfire method. A section only had 10 belts for the M60, sometimes a couple more (on EX, usually less), and it seems to be replicating cyclic fire rates.

my time being on Active Duty as an Infantry Officer.

That reminds me of an old saying, Legion- "To the section scouts even the platoon commander is a pogo!" (pogo="REMF" in Yanklish).

Dal Gavan,
For graving fire (grazing fire to some) we only allow it unobserved when pre-surveyed and then in limited amounts beacuse it cannot be universally applied. When observed we allow its equivalent as like the GPMG they have nodding devices to vary slightly the elevation to make it similar to the real thing. Again we mark the end of the line and just count troops in the line at the time, unlike FDF fire lines where the fire is maintained for a moderate time, possibly till the ammo runs out so not that long.

My impression is that Machine guns have been neglected with regards to there advantages vs limitations, representing some of the worst weapons represented. It may be too much Holywood on the designers part and insufficient thought and research on the other. Too often rules seek to portray the advantages of a weapon and not its disadvantages.

"To the section scouts even the platoon commander is a pogo!" (pogo="REMF" in Yanklish).

I've been called worse … 😏

As far as some of the rules that have been talked about here. The AH Game Squad Leader + covered a lot of things in a lot of detail. FWIW, some who are looking for more detail
in their games may want to look at those.

For graving fire (grazing fire to some)

Different armies have different jargons, mate, but "graving fire" is new to me. I've used MAG-58 and I don't remember a "nodding device" on the latter, unless you mean the play in the bipod that allows the butt to be raised or lowered to adjust aim? It's not unique- you can do the same with the M60, L4A4, MG3 and RPD (I've played with all of them). I agree about MG fire being neglected. The "Theory of MG Fire" (same here as the UK) is full of jargon and a few concepts some diggers just could not grasp (like first catch and dangerous space). Most people would probably accept spray and pray- at the cyclic rate- as how MG are used.

I've been called worse …

As have I, mate. Junior ranks can be very inventive when it comes to describing their SNCO, WO and officers, can't they?

You got that right! They can be a very imaginative lot …
😎

Something else with this discussion about MGs. Trying to simulate in a game everything that happens on the battlefield may be a bridge too far in many cases. And in some cases on the gaming table, you generally have much more knowledge of enemy locations, etc. than you would be on the ground. Even with drones …

You try place an MG that has the best FOF to support your mission.

Sometimes you can pick places to locate your MGs, e.g. in the Defense. While in the offense with fire and maneuver you can't always pick the optimum position for your MGs. You may be moving, maneuvering against an enemy.

Many cases MGs are put in Support by Fire role. E.g. the .50 cal. on the M113 is there to support the Infantry as it maneuvers, generally.

Light/SAWs as well as Med MGs will generally move with the Squad of Fire Tm. A .50 cal. is too heavy to dismount and move with the Infantry. In a Deliberate Defense you may want to dismount and digging that Heavy MG. Otherwise, you keep it mounted on the track/vehicle.

As I have said before, terrain and situation dictate pretty much everything. Certain concepts of using MGs, etc. comes down to what is my LOS? What is the farthest range of my LOS ?

I think sometimes some try to do too many things that really are overthinking the situation. E.g. Can you see the target? Can you hit the target. Can oyu damage or destroy the target?

I think a good set of rules answers all those questions. With the dice roll and various modifiers that affect that roll being the X-Factor/random outcome generator.

I think sometimes some try to do too many things that really are overthinking the situation. E.g. Can you see the target? Can you hit the target. Can you damage or destroy the target?

Good point, Legion, and I think we all do that sometimes. But MG fire- all auto fire, in fact- doesn't often get modelled well in rules. With the usual "Pick a target, roll the dice, apply the results results, repeat with the next MG" types of rules you can't easily do the basics- interlocking arcs, fixed lines/limits, indirect MG fire, etc. Though the more I think about it, I do like the Fireball Forward rules, as described by Martin R, to model dangerous space and beaten zones.