FiveCore Brigade Commander

[Ivan Sorensen]

As an aside, I am thinking the activation counts for standard turns will be 1 unit per 4 for ww2, and 1 unit per 3 for cold war/moderns to account for advances in C3 and resultant doctrine.

What’s a good cut off point for that? Was thinking late 50’s (or just saying “post-Korea” to make it easy) but it’s occurring to me to me that it may in fact be later. Thoughts?

[Ivan Sorensen]

Having some forum issues, so apologies for double-posting.

Pondering giving MG attachments an extra ability that if the parent unit is killed, you can sacrifice the MG attachment to save them.

Thoughts?

[Just Jack]

Shelldrake – I gotcha, that’s easy enough to follow.  So, that seems to fit with the allocating batteries to specific line units, and you could leave RM-Reg/Div/All at the command stand, or allocate on them to line units on a turn-by-turn basis.  For that matter, I still like the idea of the CO ‘collecting’ up all the FMs for that turn and distributing them on a turn-by turn basis.  Just seems to keep things easier than ‘okay, which one was the devoted battery FM, which one was the regiment FM, and which was the All FM?’

Ivan – I really don’t know where to cut off the different ‘technology capabilities’ regarding the variances in number of units per activation.  But the good news is, I don’t think you need to.  We discussed this exact issue previously (regarding Company Command): it’s not a timeline issue, it’s a relative capability issue.  In WWII we talk about the Germans running around the early war French and Russians: you could easily simulate this by the Russians activating 1 per 5 and the Germans 1 per 3, or 1/4 and 1/2.  A tighter group, Brits/US in Western Europe vs Germans could be Allies 1/3 and Germans 1/2, or 1/4 vs 1/3.  Maybe VC vs USA (slick locals against lumbering out of towners) 1/3/ vs 1/4.  High end NATO vs Warsaw Pact, 1/2 vs. 1/4.  Cold War French vs. WarPac, 1/3 vs 1/4.  USMC vs Chinese (Korea, 1950), 1/3 vs 1/5.  Japanese vs. Brits at Malaya/Singapore, 1/2 vs. 1/5.  Israel vs Arabs in 56, 67, 73, 1/3 vs 1/5.

So, I don’t think you need to figure out relative to time, it’s an issue of an element’s capabilities vs its enemy.  For what it’s worth.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

I like this idea.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Yeah, that’s very true. That’s also more in line with the current rules anyways but fleshed out a bit more. Huzzah.

Okay so individual artillery batteries. An attachment that can be relocated between units and provides a fire bonus to the unit it is currently supporting?

If that’s the way it goes, I’d be tempted to add some sort of option for defensive artillery use. Place the Arty asset figure somewhere central and troops being attacked within a certain range get to fire back with 1S.

Large-scale, long-range bombardments I am inclined to just make a one-use asset (though you could have multiples). You get three bombardments this game, use them, resolve them, move on.

 

[shelldrake]

Ivan Sorensen wrote:

Okay so individual artillery batteries. An attachment that can be relocated between units and provides a fire bonus to the unit it is currently supporting? If that’s the way it goes, I’d be tempted to add some sort of option for defensive artillery use. Place the Arty asset figure somewhere central and troops being attacked within a certain range get to fire back with 1S. Large-scale, long-range bombardments I am inclined to just make a one-use asset (though you could have multiples). You get three bombardments this game, use them, resolve them, move on.

Being that you are playing a with a COY = 1 base, then yes to your first sentence. The BTY attached to a BN can be used by any COY base/stand via the use of an FO.  Thus if you had three fire missions per game for the BTY attached to a BN, any one of the COYs could use one, any or all of the pool of fire missions.

Thanks to hollywood, most people think artillery is all about big petrol explosions that kill hundreds of enemy troops with one round, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Giant puffs of smoke and dust is more appropriate, with a tiny fire burst in the centre, which is best seen at night it is that small.

Artillery is an area effect weapon that is intended to kill the enemy, destroy equipment, deny the enemy it’s ability to attack or do what ever they intend to do in an area (stop them refueling for example), blind the enemy (denying intel/LOS for example), prevent them from forming up to make an attack, take away the ability to use an asset  and reduce the morale and fighting effectiveness of the enemy.

 

Thus having an fire bonus to attacking units, and a defensive factor depending on how you want to use it, is a good idea.

For attacking – give the bonus as suggested

For defence – maybe it could stop all movement of the target unit for that turn, reduce the number of dice it gets to roll, or even block the LOS for a turn.

Regardless, all troops within the impact area should take a morale test.

 

For large scale bombardments, honestly, not so likely to be seen unless you are pounding the hell out of the enemy prior to a massive invasion/counter attack.

 

Fast air though, is very likely, and most, if not all, FO parties these days are trained to call in air support, be it helo or plane, so that is something else to consider.

 

[Just Jack]

Not that Ivan’s idea about giving the company assigned the arty asset a bonus in attack/defense, but I just want to clarify: that is not what I was talking about.  Here’s what I was saying (hopefully better explained this time):

1.  My whole force has three arty batteries assigned to me: I have three singly based arty pieces in my hand.  We can talk about limiting the number of Fire Missions (FMs) for the total game later, but right now let’s just say each of those batteries is eligible to shoot a FM this turn.  In game terms, the actual artillery batteries are off table.

2.  Arty in the game, just like real life, has to have someone calling in the FM, usually referred to as an Forward Observer, or FO.  For our purposes in the game, each company-level stand, and the Command stand, has an FO or someone otherwise trained and linked in via comms to call in arty.

3.  Arty in the game works like this: A company-level stand has an FO that can see an enemy target (regardless of distance), so he calls in the FM.  Now, you could play this as, the arty is off table, and you can drop your three FMs on any enemy target that any friendly company (or Cmd Stand) can see, regardless of distance to the target (the arty can range the whole table).  Or, we can make it more restrictive, and force the player to allocate the FMs to units at the beginning of the turn.

4.  So, I’m the player with the three singly based arty pieces in my hand: at the beginning of the turn, I place those singly-based arty pieces next to a company level stand or the Cmd Stand.  Only those company level stands, or the Cmd Stand, that has one of those singly based arty pieces next to it can call in a FM.

5.  During the turn when it’s my activation, I go to the units that have my arty markers on them and I execute the FM on targets they can see.  No other friendly units can call in FMs, just the ones that have the markers.

6.  If you put arty markers on the CO, he can use them to call in FMs just like any other unit, OR he can use them for counterbattery fire.

7.  Once a FM is used it is taken off the table.  At the beginning of the next turn I look to see how many/what supporting fires I have in support (I had three batteries, now one was withdrawn by higher HQ, or I still have those three, but now I also have an airstrike), how many FMs are available (if we are looking to limit the amount of FMs you can have in a game, which I think would be scenario dependent), and then once again allocate FMs to the units I want to have them.

8.  I don’t think you should restrict the player by saying only certain units can be designated to call in FMs, as my experience is that makes those units priority targets, which doesn’t happen in real life (because so many folks are trained to call in air/arty).

Does that make sense?  I hope so, and sorry I didn’t spell it out earlier.  I knew what I meant 😉

V/R,
Jack

[shelldrake]

 8.  I don’t think you should restrict the player by saying only certain units can be designated to call in FMs, as my experience is that makes those units priority targets, which doesn’t happen in real life (because so many folks are trained to call in air/arty).

 

Quite true – most platoon commanders (and obviously,  higher) are trained to call in fire missions (inc. mortars, guns etc) so every stand should have the ability to call in artillery.  It is just the trained FO is better at it, so maybe gets a bonus when called in by a dedicated FO in game terms?

 

[Ivan Sorensen]

Jack – that does clear it up better.

Okay, so we’re talking about two things here:

One is how to handle batteries located on the table, the other is how to handle off-board arty.

So Jack: In your mind would these be randomly available each turn or have some sort of depletion roll (1 in 6 chance of being out?).

I’m not super keen on having more dice thrown at the start of the turn, beyond the Activation and Event dice. Adding a Depletion die to the fire attack would be easy enough though, particularly if the fire mission is kept to 2 dice or so.

I think I like your setup. Will have to mess with it a bit though. It seems solid though.

 

Shell – at the risk of dishonouring your profession, I’d say the FO gets abstracted away. He’s where he needs to be, zipping around from company to company as need be.

Yes, that’s very abstract, but we already abstracted away much of the command structure as it is. (It also saves on having to make special rules about FO’s and whatnot).

Alternatively, we can make it a Unit Attachment, similar to heavy weapons platoons. +1 Shock die for missions fired in support of that unit.

Striking a game’able balance between how effective artillery will be, without basically making it an artillery game will be tricky.

[Ivan Sorensen]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw7GPI0bwHoScGI2RW1LcGNIcDg&authuser=0

Started adding proper version numbers to keep things simpler. 0.04 is above.

 

A ton of tweaks and changes from previously:

More attachments and assets have been added.

Mechanized infantry is now a bit more vulnerable to tanks compared to foot infantry.

Recon was fleshed out a bit (I added the “Heavy Recon” idea JozisTinman sent me)

Artillery is primarily an off-board asset. Assets can be designated as one-use (what it sounds like) or persistent (2 in 6 chance each use of being no longer available)

Added an option for individual batteries on board as well, mostly intended as defensive weapons. Units near the battery will get additional fire power. I may change this to be a defensive benefit instead, like firing when enemies approach within a certain range, essentially acting as a “turret” in a video game.

Assault modifiers have been tweaked a bit.

Probably a bunch of other stuff I am forgetting. You still need a copy of Company Commander to make much sense of it htough you could probably hack your way through it with the regular FiveCore rules.

 

 

Go test! Tell me if it’s broken before I put in choppers.

[JozisTinMan]

Awesome!  Our snow day did not materialize, it is just slushy, but I will give these a spin as written and give you feedback here.

Get your toys out, guys, I want to see pictures of your stuff (so I can steal your paint schemes!)

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

I have a huge pile of stuff I need to get primed, but the weather keeps being non-conducive to spray painting. 🙁

[JozisTinMan]

If you are doing 1/600, I have stopped using spray primer on my O8 stuff, I brush on black paint to undercoat.  May work for you, of course I do a final step where I use army painted quick shade and matte spray sealer to seal everything up so it is virtually armored, your mileage may vary.

Working on my reference sheet for next game, going to play it out of the box version 0.04, but keep the ATGM optional rule.  Here’re the stats I wrote up for late Cold War:

[EDIT: Having trouble pasting them in, will add Google Doc link tonight]

 

 

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

Yeah, I have some brush on primer so I may just go that route today.

FOr ATGM’s, let me know how it goes. I have a feeling that honestly all the options presented so far will work just fine and won’t make a huge difference.

I think the “counter-fire” option is more interesting and flavourful but simply letting IFV’s fire at 12″ without being stationary is simpler and quicker.

[shelldrake]

Some how I missed this bit:

For that matter, I still like the idea of the CO ‘collecting’ up all the FMs for that turn and distributing them on a turn-by turn basis.  Just seems to keep things easier than ‘okay, which one was the devoted battery FM, which one was the regiment FM, and which was the All FM?’

The technology today (used by the US in Afghanistan) actually determines which target is a priority, so it is quiet easy for an FO to miss out on a fire mission. By having the CO ‘collecting’ up all the FMs for a turn as mentioned would be a good way to represent this.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Okay, so I think what it’ll look like is this:

You still have a distinction between “little” arty and “big” arty.

Big arty is an off-board asset which can be expended to shell a 3×3″ area. Assets may be one-use or persistent (1 in 3 chance of being used up each time you use it) and a force can have multiple of one asset available.

These are high level bombers, long ranged heavy arty far behind the lines, WW2 pre-planned”stonks” and so forth.

Little arty is represented with our artillery models. When setting up, the arty miniature is placed with the company it is firing in support of, and provides 1 Shock die against any enemy that comes within 6″ of the unit.

If I activate my overall command HQ, I can pick up my arty mini’s, reassign them and then fire at any visible targets with 1 SHock die per arty model.

Provided this works out okay, this allows us to both portray concentrated “stonks” (big arty as an off-table asset) and “penny packets” assigned to support local units.

This also means the penny packets are more useful in a defensive manner unless time is spent coordinating them to support a mission, which I kinda like.  It reminds me a bit of how artillery worked in the old Panzer General computer games.

 

Thoughts?

[shelldrake]

I like it – now we need to see how it plays on the table.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Always the moment of truth 🙂

As an aside, the above is not how the “packets” are written in the 0.04 document I posted in the Google Drive folder. I’ll have 0.05 pretty soon, since I just finished the helicopter and airmobile infantry rules.

[JozisTinMan]

Ivan, I will let you know how atgm’s go. I suspect you are correct and i am compulsively overthinking this.

I will go out of the box for this next game, just recruited my wife to play tomorrow!

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

JozisTinMan wrote:

Ivan, I will let you know how atgm’s go. I suspect you are correct and i am compulsively overthinking this.
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>I will go out of the box for this next game, just recruited my wife to play tomorrow!

</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”>Nice, keep us posted.  :)</p>
<p data-wr_replaced=”true”></p>

[Ivan Sorensen]

Okay, artillery is reworked, helicopters are in and well, it’s starting to shape up pretty good
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw7GPI0bwHoScGI2RW1LcGNIcDg&authuser=0

Check ‘er out!

I am thinking that at this point, all the basic building blocks are covered and I can start work on turning it into an actual, readable game.
We have the various ground units, enough attachments to cover most anything I can think of, choppers and arty.

Do people feel strongly about special rules for air strikes or can they just be folded in as another type of heavy off-board bombardment?

[shelldrake]

I am in favour of another type of heavy off-board bombardment, especially if it helps keep it simple.

[Ivan Sorensen]

That’s what I am thinking.

[JozisTinMan]

Ok guys, tried 0.05 this morning with the wife, you can see the results here.

I am getting over my ATGM hangup and played the rules as written, worked well I think.  Also took it back to basics, so just direct fire units.  My only recommendation is to add the -1/-2 for pinned, damaged units as in Company Commander.  Also, I forgot several times about guard fire and we had to rewind, but that is just my fault.

She is up for playing again, going to go with a full MRR and add Recon and see how it goes.

I like the direction the rules are going, finishing some AH-1’s to add to the mix soon.

Thanks!

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

If you can add in some artillery as well, that’d be fantabulous.

Nice AAR. Did you make the little plumes of flame and smoke? They look excellent.

[JozisTinMan]

All my markers come from Litko, worth every dime: http://www.litko.net/categories/Tokens-%26-Markers/Blast-Burn-Smoke/

Will add the MRR arty battlion and let you know ho ot goes

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[JozisTinMan]

Ivan, preparing for the next game and read through the artillery rules and the discussion here.  Going to add a couple of SP artillery batteries to the Soviets, but as written they will not be able to use them as doctrine calls for in the offensive.  So, I propose modifying the rules slightly…

Self Propelled Artillery:

Many armies use self propelled artillery for observed direct or indirect fire.  The Soviets in WW2 and during the Cold War were particularly fond of this and would attach batteries directly to maneuver units to help overcome defenders and suppress anti-tank defenses.  To represent this:

• SP Artillery activates and moves with it’s parent unit, but must stay within 12″ of the unit is is attached to and must stay closer to the friendly unit it is attached to than it is to enemy units.
• Like regular independent batteries, it is removed if any enemy combat unit comes within 3″

Also, the restriction of only having them fire at non-mechanized infantry, makes it pretty useless in the Cold War, so allow them to fire with 1S against dismounted infantry or Ready mechanized infantry.

Will try this and let you guys know how it works.

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

Seems pretty reasonable.

Though if I may play Devil’s ADvocate for a moment, direct-fire self-propelled guns, I’d treat as an infantry support attachment instead. (they occupy much the same role as say, a unit of ww2 STUG or SU)

[Ivan Sorensen]

As an aside, I hve started what I like to call the Bunker process. Where I hide from hte world and pound on the keyboard until words come out. In this case, all the intro stuff and the core rules explanations for Brigade Commander.

Testing will go on but most of the core FiveCore stuff isn’t really changing so that’s an easy place to start.

[JozisTinMan]

Love the cover, and I am smacking my forehead… You are correct just using them as direct fire infantry support is even better and less fiddly.

Ok will do that for the set up and run through.

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Just Jack]

Great stuff again Jozi, and how’d it feel regarding force structure?  I’ve been pondering this: a NATO force of M1s should be able to easily handle those T-72s I’d think.  I know you the Russkies had a size advantage, but how did it feel (looking for a ‘Goldilocks’ answer I guess: too big, too small, or just right)? 😉

Ivan – I strenuously object to the cover!!!  It’s you, so it’s a foregone conclusion that it’s going to have the Red Army on it, but how about a modern pic, not a WWII one?  Like this:

 

 

 

There was one in particular I was thinking of, with tanks, infantry, and Hinds in the background, but my Google skills are lacking and I can’t find it.  Do what you want, but WWII is so passe 😉

V/R,
Jack

[JozisTinMan]

Jack, I have been running the M1’s and T-72’s as equivalent tech, but giving NATO an extra activation, so they tend to shoot more often.  Going to rate T-62/55 as low tech versus the M1, and maybe count 120mm armed M1A1’s and Leopard 2’s as higher tech versus T-64/72/80.

Currently working on some FRG Territorial M-48’s with 105mm and am going to count them as lower tech when shot at by T-64/72/80 but equal tech when they are shooting.

 

Will let you know how it works.

 

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

There was one of a bunch of T72 firing in Afghanistan. I like the latter one you posted though.
I might see if I can clean it up a little.

I had actually looked for some modern British but didn’t find anything that:

A: I really liked.
B: I could guarantee was in the public domain.

[Ivan Sorensen]

[kyoteblue]

I like that photo !!

[Ivan Sorensen]

Okay, so the asset list is shaping up like this:
(Might add a few more)

Intel
Counter battery fire
wave attack
shoot and scoot
partisans
commandos
communications jamming
determined assault
entrenched
tactical withdrawal
breakthrough

Each can be single use or persistent (1 in 3 chance of being used up, each time).
You can have multiple instances of the same asset.
(I didn’t add bombardments to that list because they are listed separately, and most games will likely use artillery but not all may use assets)

Basically a nice way of adding all sorts of technological, situational and doctrinal tweaks and edges.
In a round-about way, assets is the “magic spells” of the system, letting us screw with rules on a limited basis.

None of them will be required either.

[JozisTinMan]

I ran a playtest last night with 0.05, took pictures but wanted to get my feedback to you as rapidly as possible.  I played all the rules as written, will get pics on the blog tonight.

I did a larger table, 3′ x 4′ attacking down the length.  The Warsaw Pact had a Motorized Rifle Regiment (BMP)  with the trimmings (full strength, air defense company, Recon company, Regimental Artillery group) with persistent off board artillery stonks available (152mm battalion attached from division)  I also gave them 1 activation for every 4 units

The Americans had a small Brigade with an armor battalion (4 x m-1 with 1 x recon attachment) and a mechanized infantry battalion (3 x M113 Infantry, 1 x recon attachment, and 1 x M901 ITV.) Also had a platoon of AH-1 gunships attached from division and a persistent off board stonk (155mm guns from DIVARTY) and I gave them 1 activation for every 3 units.

Bottom line, I liked all the rules I tested:

• Recon:  Continues to look good, the light / heavy split is good and the ability for heavies to roll 1S when withdrawing makes them a useful screening force that can delay an enemy.
• Gunships / Air Defense: Also looks good to me.  The gunships were useful as a highly mobile firepower platform, but I was reluctant to close with the Soviet air defense elements.  I think this worked well, as air defense was mostly a deterrent.  Also, in the attack, I did have the quandry of when should I move my air defense forward, which was good.
• SP Artillery on table: I deployed these on table as attachments like assault guns, with 6″, +1K versus infantry and really worked well.  They were very useful in an assault on a town on the table, and I feel did not need any other special rules.  I’ll give players in this instance the option to field the regimental artillery like this or as an off board stonk.
• Artillery:  I did not have the figures to try the “packet” rules and it did not feel appropriate for this period, so I used off board, persistent stonks.  I think it worked very well and I would not change a thing.  It was powerful, but not overly so.
• ATGM’s: I am now 100% on board with the rules as written after having played them a few times.
• Close assaults: Did several and they worked well, I now know I want to keep my M-1’s away from ready infantry and standoff and shoot at them or get soem friendly infantry in to handle them.

My only suggestion is:

Close Air Support: I know this is rolled into bombardments, but maybe as an optional rule:

• Limited asset
• Can hit targets anywhere on the board, not just in LOS
• Must be called, roll d6: 1 = unavailable this turn, may try again, 6 = Aircraft tasked to another mission by higher HQ, lose the airstrike
• Hits like Bombardment (1K/1S)
• Air Defense within 6″ of the target roll 1S before the airstrike hits, 1= mission aborted but you may try to call it again in future turns, 6 = Aircraft damaged / destroyed and you lose the airstrike.

My only questions are:

• If a target of a close assault is “Man Down” should it be a -1 or -2? I treated it like routed at -2, but how should it play?
• A unit that is “Man Down” is hit by fire in a following turn and gets a bail on the shock die, what happens?  Bail and keep the “Man Down” status to check next time it is activated?  Or check it immediately and if it survives then bail?  I played it as the latter.

Cannot wait to see the next iteration and I love the cover!

 

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

I like your suggestion for CAS. I’ll prboably add that. It’s one of those things people expect so probably better to have it covered separately.

No issues with the bigger table and short ranges? THe largest I’ve done is 3×3 feet (courtesy of my kitchen table).

Your questions:

Man Down is -2, correct.

Units that are down don’t bail in the skirmish rules but I am thinking on a unit scale, they ought to do as you suggest.

[JozisTinMan]

No issue with the larger table, played better as there was room to maneuver and the troop density felt right.  I’ll get the pictures up tonight so you can see what it looked like.  I think 3×3 is good for Cold War.  I think 2 x 2 would work well for WW2 Infantry heavy battles.

A MRR should attack on a 3-5 KM frontage and it works perfectly.  There was enough room that the attacker could weigh the attack on one flank and it was deep enough that the recon units mattered.  The attacker became strung out as he advanced, having to decide each turn to either push forward or slow down the overall advance and regroup.  A couple of fortunate scurry turns helped the attacker.

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[Ivan Sorensen]

With a ground scale that is sort-of, kind-of, roughly, approximately, estimated to be somewhat near a guesstimate of 12″ = 1 km that works out pretty much perfectly then.

You’re right that a mainly infantry battle would need to be a little tighter. I’ll have to add some notes about that.

I am not 100% if there’ll be another test version or not, since I am not predicting any major changes at this point unless something comes up. I’ll see what I can do. Right now, I am hammering out the main rules text. (Which is slightly madness inducing but it’s also helping me catch a few vague points in Company Commander in the process).

[Author]

Posts