Home Forums Ambush Alley Games Force on Force WWII Quality and morale in FOF

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Oddball 1 week, 1 day ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #69939

    Mrsnufflelumpyguts
    Participant

    Hey there guys….

    Still stuck on the TQ and morale of WWII chaps….my battles at the mo consist of 3rd Canadian fighting 12th SS in the Normandy hedge-rows to the destruction of Falaise (these lads faced off against each other quite a bit over this time).

    I’m thinking – 3rd Canadian – TQ-D8/M-D10, Well supplied.

    12th SS – TQ-D10/M-D12 (?), Poorly supplied. – This one really gives me grief thinking about TQ….Should it be TQ-D8 to represent the young Hitler youth lads within the ranks, but be given the option to pass all TQ checks at TQ-D10 representing the presence of Liebstandarte older cadre? And D-12 morale to represent the fanaticism of the youth? (eg – Roll TQ-D10 to interrupt but use TQ-D8 for firing and everything else) and be given also the “Squad leaders” house rule spoken of elsewhere in FOF (impart a +1 reaction DRM to any reaction)

    British 7th div Desert rats – TQD8/M-D6  Well supplied. Veteran troops but at this stage in the war, very worn out and suffering battle stress.

    Other SS divisions –  TQ-D10/M-D10 (?) Poorly supplied

    German 21st Panzer div – TQ-D8/M-D10 Normal supply to begin with….

    U.S. and British paras – TQ-D10/M-D12 Normal to poorly supplied.

    U.S. Glider troops – TQ-D-8/M-D10 Poorly supplied.

    U.S. Infantry – TQ-8/M-D8 Well supplied.

    U.S. Armoured – TQ-8/M-D8 or D10 (?) Well supplied.

    German Para’s – TQ-D10/M-D10 Poorly supplied.

    U.S. Ranger’s – TQ-D10/M-D10 or D12 (?) Normal supply.

    British Commando – TQ-D10/M-D12 Normal supply.

    Skorzeny Commando, Devils brigade or OSS – TQ-D12/M-D12 Poorly supplied. (A real use for special forces stats in WWII?)

    Russians early war – TQ-D8/M-D6 Poorly supplied.

    Russians late war – TQ-D8/M-D10 or D12 (?) Well supplied

    Russian Disciplinary units TQ-D8/M-D6 (?)  Poorly supplied. Add a Commissar to any Russian unit (house rule – shoot one man and re-roll the Morale! Brutal!)

    Give me your thoughts and your own stats guys….would love to hear them.

    I think if I write TQ one more time its gonna loose all meaning….

    Thanks – Kind regards – Lumpy

     

     

    #69942

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    I would rate most WWII troops TQ and Morale d8.

    Poorly trained troops (a lot of Soviets, some first combat US units, many Germans from summer ’44 on), TqD6, morale d8.

    Die hard units, from battles where one side just wouldnt quit, morale d10 or d12.

    Crack units (paratroopers, some German pz grenadiers, a few tough US infantry units), tq d8 morale d10 or d12.

    Your idea of letting elite units test reactions a dice type better sounds great and would better model elite troops in a WWII setting than giving them all the other advantages of the higher dice type.

     

    #69943

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    I’d also suggest less experienced troops be compelled to operate in big squads—instead of letting a green US squad operate as a maneuever element and a BAR element, for instance, make them fight as a single element. This will make them naturally less flexible without having more TQ variations.

    #69948

    Mrsnufflelumpyguts
    Participant

    Thanks for your thoughts Nathaniel, but I feel that the Troop Quality and morale are there to be used….essentially TQ-D6 = Conscript, TQ-D8 = Regular, TQ-D10= Veteran, and TQ-D12= Elite with appropriate Morale added.

    I wouldn’t really think that the training of U.S. Para’s should be equal with that of the German training battalions (TQ-8) that attacked across La Fiere causeway  in real life terms….The para’s were highly trained chaps, do you know what I mean….

    This is where, like I said, I get hung up on on this particular part of the rules.

    I like your idea on big squads….that would be very life-like.

    Lets see what the others think…..It would be great to hear also from the creator of these fantastic rules on this subject! Nudge nudge wink wink Shawn….

    Regards Lumpy…

    #69953
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Hi,

    One point I would make is that at this level, lots of the German units (Panzer Grenadiers, Paratroopers) are going to benefit from having two MG42s per squad, against one Bren or BAR.  That accounts for much of the difference at this level.

    These aren’t rules I play, but I would go for something like:

    Everyone T8/M8 except:

    Allied Airborne and Commandos T10/M10 (not Glider infantry)

    some German Paratroopers T10/M10, but mainly T8/M8

    some German Grenadiers T8/M6 (Ost Bns or ‘illness’ Bns); some 1945 infantry T6/M6

    Russians T6-T8/M8 (some Allied units in 1940, but probably M6 too).

    Remember at this level there are a whole host of factors that aren’t applicable, because they mainly effect commanders.  I’d concentrate on actualities:

    Have these troops been especially selected?

    Have these troops been given extra training?

    Have these troops been successful in battle over a long period without suffering heavy casualties?

    Have these troops been rushed in to battle with obviously inadequate training?

    General histories of the war concentrate on whether such-and-such a division or Corps were good; a lot of this reputational stuff is a – circumstantial and b-down to the command staff.  I think using this kind of thing at squad-level probably just isn’t that accurate.

    All the best

     

     

    #69954

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    I remember some other rules in FoF for reflecting general troop quality, too. Allowing or not allowing MG teams to get the weapon team bonus, that “Initiative” rule (which I can’t remember at the moment…has something to do with restricting movement and represents a lack of quality junior leadership? Would be perfect for Soviets, green US units, late war German infantry), etc.

    #70118
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Remember at this level there are a whole host of factors that aren’t applicable, because they mainly effect commanders. I’d concentrate on actualities:

    Have these troops been especially selected?

    Have these troops been given extra training?

    Have these troops been successful in battle over a long period without suffering heavy casualties?

    Have these troops been rushed in to battle with obviously inadequate training?

    General histories of the war concentrate on whether such-and-such a division or Corps were good; a lot of this reputational stuff is a – circumstantial and b-down to the command staff. I think using this kind of thing at squad-level probably just isn’t that accurate.

    I don’t kknow these rules at all, but the above strikes me as very sound advice. ISTR in the player’s notes for WEG’s boargdame “Against the Reich”, the designer (Joe Balkoski, who knows his stuff) explains that he has given all divisions of the same orbat the same combat values, regardless of reputation, because over the course of the campaign many of them had 100% turnover of personnel.

    Reputations at division level are, largely, a matter of how good the commanders and staff are. The people who do the fighting at the pointy end are the rifle companies, but they are the places where almost all the casualties happen. It is probably not too far from the truth to regard a division as a sausage-machine for feeding the cannon-fodder into the meat-grinder (to mix metaphors as badly as buying a gift horse that quacks like a duck). The unit and formation staffs, the supporting arms and the heavy weapons companies remain relatively steady in their composition, whereas the rifle companies can expect to suffer 20-30% casualties in a serious battle as the basic price of doing business.

    For the riflemen at the pointy end, the factors that dictate the psychological element of their fighting power are probably how much and how severe the action is they have seen over the past day or three, how well rested they are, how well fed, and whether they are cold and wet. S L A Marshall’s unregarded masterpiece, “The Soldier’s Load”, makes the point that fear and fatigue are largely fungible. Sleep deprivaton is probably a much more significant factor in platoon effectiveness than the division the platoon belongs to.

    All the best,

    John.

    #76006

    Oddball
    Participant

    I agree with the previous post – surely the saying “an army marches on its stomach” is just as relevant in WW2 as it was in the 19th Century, and general fatigue would offset any reputational advantage?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.