Home Forums Modern FiveCore Brigade Commander

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 147 total)
  • Author
  • #15322
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Creating a separate thread for this.

    So here’s my thoughts so far for a brigade commander mod of FiveCore Company Commander:


    Base rules intend to stay the same as much as possible. The combat outcomes scale pretty well (a formation is either okay, bogged down, retreating, in critical condition or rendered ineffective).

    Each base is a company or equivalent.

    The design goal is, as one gentleman put it: “DBA for brigade level moderns”. This means we’re okay ditching minutia and rivet counting to get a game that moves fast and gives us the right feel.

    Mechanized troops, leaning towards treating them as an integrated unit rather than having separate infantry / vehicle stands.

    Each player will receive assets they can use as the game goes along: Air strikes, spec ops attacks, insurgent/partisans, intel, etc. all fall under this umbrella. In a way, this is the magic system for modern day games. 🙂

    Unit ranges will be limited quite a bit. I have in my head a 12″ range for infantry anti-personnel fire but that’s just a number that stood out. Infantry will probably have two ranges, one for Anti-infantry and one for anti-vehicle fire (maybe 3″ for post-WW2, 6″ once things like LAW and RPG7 shows up and 12″ if stationary, once ATGM are common?)

    Specialist elements, I’d like to still use but instead of being a few soldiers, they are now a platoon. This list could probably get pretty long. Attached engineers, scouts, spec ops guys, as well as representing say, a company of troops with a platoon of tanks in support etc.

    Troop quality at the moment I am leaning towards the simple “is one side better? If so, activate +1 unit per turn” as well as the morale system already in place, but I am okay listening to alternatives.

    Firing mechanics against air, infantry and tank all use the same Kill and Shock dice. F.X. 57mm AA in Vietnam gives Shock dice against air units, while SAM gives Kill dice.

    Vehicle stats might not change an awful lot though instead of rating “gun” strength, maybe it’ll just rate tech level? Higher tech tanks get a bonus to firing at lower tech ones.

    So T55 is higher tech than a Sherman. Centurion is higher tech than T55 etc. I am 100% intending on leaving that to the player and scenario writer and just giving a bunch of examples.


    Thoughts? Ideas? Things that I am missing?


    Can someone figure out how much ground (frontage) a modern mechanized infantry company takes up? It’ll give us an idea of how much space the table top is. I am very keen on keeping that as “natural” and uncompressed as possible. We’re still playing the “sharp end” of the encounter, after all.

    Avatar photokyoteblue


    Avatar photoshelldrake

    wow – I actually just visited TWW just now with the intention of asking how easily No End In Sight could be converted to a brigade level game, and I see this.

    I was thinking of putting together 3mm armies, with a base equalling a platoon and using the basic NEIS rules – but each platoon is given orders instead of each figure kind of thing.

    Admittedly this is for NEIS and not 5C, but I am very interested in where this is going.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    I actually have a vague idea in my head for using the NSIS activation mechanic for a large scale game, though my original inclination was squad-stands. Sort of a modern counterpart to the old Space Marine game, but you know, more weasel 🙂

    Avatar photoJust Jack

    As you know, I’m with it.  I agree the ‘1 and 6’ mechanism should remain unchanged, works like a champ, good with base= ~company, mech/motor infantry can be based with vehicles and infantry together (though I probably won’t, just because mine aren’t based like that, but the beauty of the rules is that it shouldn’t matter, i.e., when mounted they are vehicle, when dismounted they are infantry, so it’s flexible enough to do it either way).

    I like the asset concept, also have to figure out random events.  I agree ranges have to be limited, but 12″ for infantry anti-personnel fire seems a bit long to me.  I was thinking make their range the same as their movement, so maybe 6 inches?  Let vehicles move twice that, and their range possible equal as well?  I know it’s not the most accurate/scientific, but 1) it keeps things simple, and 2) it stays away from the maximum range a weapon can fire and more in the ‘range we’d realistically consider shooting at.’  I agree that infantry (every unit, actually) needs separate AP and AT values/ranges.  However, regarding LAW/RPGs, as those are organic to rifle companies (whereas ATGMs are not, and could be represented as ‘assets,’ AKA attachments) and very short range, maybe don’t have them as a ‘ranged’ capability, simply take them into account for close combat?

    Regarding the specialist elements as platoons, the concept is fantastic.  I don’t think the list has to be that long (I think earlier we came up with MGs, mortars, ATGMs/ATGs, recon, engineers, air defense), and the only one I think is hard to to come up with some clever for (at least for me) is recon.  I do admit to being a little scared when you mentioned tank platoons as specialist elements, though it’s probably unfounded.  I’m just thinking that we’ve got ‘base elements,’ i.e., a rifle company, a mech company, a tank company, and it could get real confusing if you start talking about cross-attachment at the platoon level.  Though I freely admit I’m probably the only one thinking about this, and it probably doesn’t have to be complicated at all, just treat it like any of the other specialist elements, so I’ll be quiet about that 😉

    Troop quality can work as you described above, as well as what’s in Company Command already works great.  And I’m with you on vehicle stats.  What I’ve been thinking about lately is, tanks that are ‘even,’ that is, roughly comparable in capability, say an M-1 Abrams fighting a Leopard II (bear with me), they engage each other with 1K 1S.  Now the M-1 or Leo is taking on a T-72, superior tank is 2K 2S, inferior is 1K 1S (nice and simple without getting too crazy, I think).  I also give an extra 1K 1S for flank/rear/top attack.

    What’s your plan for attack helos?  On table or off-table?  I personally like on table, and I don’t think you have to worry too much about stuff like ammo expenditure as they probably won’t last that long (conventional engagements; for unconventional I’d make them off table assets I think, maybe random events).

    “Can someone figure out how much ground (frontage) a modern mechanized infantry company takes up? It’ll give us an idea of how much space the table top is.”
    There’s all kinds of pubs online that get into that stuff, differing by terrain, mission, and national doctrine.  If you decide to go with that I’d kind of just take an average, but, to be honest, I really wouldn’t worry about it.  I’ve been playing on a 3′ x 3′ in 10mm (just as an example for everyone to have something to look at for perspective); my plan with this would be to play on the same 3′ x 3′, but in 6mm, though I think 10mm would probably still work, with 15mm on maybe a 4′ x 4′.

    There’s a start.


    Avatar photokyoteblue

    Just me but in 15mm I like a 6 by 4.

    Avatar photoThaddeus Blanchette

    Of course, there is not set frontage for a company that will work for the entire period. It depends on doctrine and tactical stance: attqcking troops mass much tighter than defenders.

    But as a general rule, I think 250 meters per inch or one millimeter per ten meters works pretty well. This will allow most gamers to base as they please and at least be in shouting distance of reality.

    Direct fire against infantry with 1k, 1s should be limited to two inches or five hundred meters. Out to four inches (or a kilometer), it should only be 1s, except for units that have a “heavy support” special ability, who will get an extra kill die. Beyond that, I’d say no direct fire attacks against infantry.

    Anti-tank fire should be 1k, 1s out to four inches. At under 2 inches, it gains an extra 1 s. At four to twelve inches, it  loses 1k. Superior gunnery special should give the attack an extra 1k at all ranges.

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    I’ll tackle Jack’s comments in a sec but at the risk of being a spoilsport, range bands is not likely to be a thing for two reasons:

    1: Too fiddly especially with short ranges.

    2: I feel that as a brigade commander I’d be more concerned with whether the unit is in effective range or not.  Basically, the third company of 2nd battalion can affect the intended target or they cannot.

    To some extent, I imagine individual elements in the company would redeploy to take effective shots without necessarily causing the stand itself to move (such as the company commander setting up a few ATGM on a nearby hill or similar).


    edit: I should clarify, before I look like a complete numbskull (shush Jack) Company Commander currently does have a “assault” range that gives a bonus but with ranges scaling down, I’m not sure if that’s something that would be distinct from just being in base contact.

    Even if we assume (rule of thumb) that it’s about 1″ per 100 meters of ground, assault distance is.. half an inch? Not really worth the fuss, in my opinion.

    I do agree that giving extra dice to superior gunnery is useful but I wonder if that won’t just fall under a technological advantage? US vs Iraqi’s seem a clear case. I am trying to think of cases where a lower-tech force had superior training.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Infantry firing range at 6″ seems good to me. Keeps it the same as movement which is easy to remove and it’ll represent about 5-600 meters which is about as far as you could expect an infantry company to “reach out and touch” with their support weapons.

    Tanks as specialist elements was something that came to mind but it might be too problematic. Though I suppose an “anti-tank” attachment might be a few ATGM, a few recoilless rifles (early cold war) or even a couple of tanks or M113 with TOW. The exact nature isn’t the important thing.

    My rule of thumb for tanks is if people at the time thought they were equal, then that’s good enough. That means some wiggle room (is T72 equal to M60 tank? etc.) but that’s up to the players.

    I’m sort of thinking that flank attacks against armour give extra Shock dice but not Kill dice. Maybe I am totally wrong here but my thinking is, if my company is attacked from the flank, odds are only one or two tanks are actually in the firing line but my whole position is now compromised.
    That sounds like Shock dice to me.
    I’m very open to correction though.

    Helo’s I’d prefer to have on table. More fun that way. Light AA fire at them with shock, dedicated, fast AA fire at them with kill dice.I liked your analogy of “flying tank” which isn’t too far from doctrine in any event.

    For 15mm, it does need a tiny bit more space. 4×4 with extra space for beer :-0 Mostly, the tank models get pretty big at that scale.

    Avatar photoNathaniel Weber

    This is sounding great, Ivan.  I’ve been wanting an excuse to buy 3mm moderns.

    Maybe I’m crazy, but I’d want logistics to play a role. I feel that by the time you get to regimental level combat, it’s starting to become a logistics fight rather than a tactical fight.  Now, I’m don’t want to actually count bullets or pump gasoline, but I’m thinking of morale and command penalties and benefits to protecting your own trains and  cutting the enemy’s.

    Is that a tree up which you wish to bark?

    Avatar photoJust Jack


    Regarding range, for simplicity’s sake I’d say three (and there may be anomalies): infantry fire (6″), anti-tank fire (12″), and arty (board, so long as someone has LOS to the target).  Example of a potential outlier: battalion level (80-82mm) mortars (attachment/specialty figure) are ‘infantry fire’ (wouldn’t do anything to armor), but have 12″ range.  I think MGs would be an attachment, but not an outlier as they are AP fire and should use the 6″ range (which ‘shorts’ them a little from real life, but works in terms of ‘effective’ range, I think).

    Upon review of your comments about tanks as attachments, I’d say it’s not hard to pull off, it’s simply an AT capability and additional AP capability, just like ATGs, ATGMs, recoiless rifles.

    “My rule of thumb for tanks is if people at the time thought they were equal, then that’s good enough. That means some wiggle room (is T72 equal to M60 tank? etc.) but that’s up to the players.”
    Agreed, close enough for government work, and keeps it quick and simple.

    Regarding flank attacks only getting additional shock dice, I agree with what you’re saying, it just all comes down to how decisive/dramatic you want it to be.  I have no problem with the ‘big swings,’ whereas, we all know of your ‘more than 1 kill dice’ phobia 😉  It really can go either way, with the other simply being an optional for the player, and my two cents is to go with your version and then add a caveat along the lines of “if it occurs to the player(s) that the attack is particularly violent/shocking in its execution, i.e., the target is not only being hit in the flank, but is totally surprised and outgunned, then you can add a kill die and a shock die to the attacking unit’s normal combat capability.

    I agree with you on helos and AA capabilities, but what’s the best way to model AA?  I initially envisioned AA and SAMs as an attachment, placed with a line unit, that operated on reaction mechanisms (prior to the A/C attack) to defend the supported unit.  Of course, if you do that you can end up in the situation of the enemy only attacking targets without AA capabilities, and doing so with impunity as the attached AA capability only protects the supported unit.

    I don’t think having AA operate independently, just because I picture stands of SAMs chasing stands of helos around the board….

    You could leave AA as attachments, then have them able to react to anything within range (which is probably what you had in mind?).  My only issue there is the ‘air-tight’ defense, where everything is covered and the player’s don’t even try to use air assets for fear of them almost certainly getting swatted from the sky.  It’s a tough balance to strike, but I think the ‘normal’ 5MIN rule of only one unit (in this case, attachment) can react, and each unit/attachment can only react once per turn, probably works.  So, you’re already a genius for coming up with it, just port it over?

    I’ve been thinking on arty as well, but not sure what to do (or what you’re thinking).  I love the idea of just placing them as attachments to the CO stand and/or line units.  You have three arty fire missions, so at the start of each turn the player distributes them as he sees fit.  Only the stand(s) with arty attached can call the fire missions, and they can be called on enemy unit (or area, for smoke) within LOS, regardless of range.  The CO (and maybe Recon?) can call ‘automatically,’ but line units must test (you’re regular 1 and 6 test from 5MIN and Company Command).  I wouldn’t mess around with wait times or anything; test passes, nominate the target and roll combat dice.

    The only thing I don’t like about that system is that it doesn’t allow the enemy to use air or arty for counterbattery, or to have enemy armor break into your rear area and overrun your arty.

    Then we get to recon.  I don’t like the idea of recon being a stand/unit, because it’s very limiting in terms of you’d have maybe one recon stand, which is a company, but in real life they’d be operating (at least as small) as platoons, thereby effectively tripling your tabletop capability.  So then I was thinking of using them as attachments, but the way we’ve been thinking (or at least I’ve been thinking) about attachments, in terms of them being physically co-located, doesn’t work either.  So, maybe recon attachments can be placed 6-12″ ahead of the supported line unit?  I.e., you have a recon attachment and a mech SAM attachment supporting a tank company/stand; the SAM is placed in base contact with the tank company, but the recon is placed 6-12” in front of the tank company.  Okay, but now what?

    As I mentioned above, I could see allowing fire missions to be ‘placed’ with recon (if you think arty as described above works, and can figure out the counterbattery issue), but what other capability(ies) should recon allow?  In a lot of games it gives bonuses to spotting, but we don’t have hidden elements in this game.  I sort of like the idea that enemy units (or one enemy unit) in LOS of recon only gets to half move during its turn, but recon has to fall back as well.  This simulates recon’s screening mission to engage, force the enemy to deploy, then fall back.  I just throw that out as an example of something you might could have recon do.

    “For 15mm, it does need a tiny bit more space. 4×4 with extra space for beer”
    We all know that only weirdos play 15mm anyway 😉

    I bought a bunch more 6mm stuff for my (upcoming) birthday, gotta lot of work ahead of me.  But I was looking at it last night with an eye towards multi-basing.  I’ll try to post pics of what I have later, but a lot of work ahead of me…

    Nathaniel – I’m with you, I think it would be cool to have to deal with certain factors of logistics, so long as it was quick and easy.  Get to work Ivan!  I haven’t given any real thought to it.  Right now the only real ‘logistics’ aspect in the rules at all is the random event for low ammo.  Not sure where to go from there; I’m not really one to track ammo and fuel expenditures.

    Now I believe I’ll sit back, relax, and let the brain trust weigh in.


    Avatar photoNathaniel Weber

    I think that logistics could mainly be handled as a morale/command problem.  Break into the enemy’s rear area, bring it under fire, or strafe it with helos and close air, and the enemy’s command and control and/or morale is penalized.  It would require the game to define “rear area” or “trains” or some such.



    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    I’ll see if I can sort out some sort of first draft tonight.

    Assorted thoughts:

    AA – Attaching them to companies is the easy option. One option is to simply make “company” AA stationary. They’re deployed and that’s that. Might be a bit hokey but adequately preparing an AA defence probably takes significant time.

    I like your take on calling support Jack. I think it’ll look 99% like that. Counter-battery could be an opposing asset use? Subject to a dice roll no doubt.

    Ditto your thoughts about recon. I will think about it today, while we’re getting lunch but I feel you are on the right track. “Send out” the recon, it has an effect on the enemy, then it falls back. More thinking. More caffeine.

    Logistics. I like where this is going. The old “Wargame: European Escalation” game on the computer had a HQ area you had to defend. Maybe it’s as simple as that? Would need to figure out appropriate penalties for it being destroyed.

    I might actually add a more conventional “objective markers and victory points” option here, as an option, too, for scenarios btw.


    I may have to get myself some 3 or 6mm moderns at this rate 🙂

    Avatar photoshelldrake

    Ivan, I am not keen on discussing my knowledge base in a forum, but if you would like to discuss artillery a bit via email I would be happy to, as I have been working in that area since 1992.


    Let me know if interested and I will send you an email.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Yeah, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Email away good sir.

    Avatar photoRules Junkie Jim

    I like the way this is shaping up. Could be the ruleset my tiddly little imagi-nations have been waiting for!

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    I added some imagi-nation random generation in Company Commander so I’m sure that’ll be reproduced here. I might add some “events in history” tables to give you an instant back-story to what is happening too.

    Avatar photoJust Jack


    Regarding AA, I don’t know about the “company” AA being stationary.  Does it have unlimited range, can it fire multiple times per turn, can it be targeted?  ‘Aesthetically,’ so to speak, it flies in the face of everyone since WWII working on getting their AA mech/motorized to keep up with the front line, but I can live with it as a game mechanism if you can make it cool, quick, and easy.  Having a single AA unit kinda sucks in terms of counting against your unit total and having to have it if there’s an enemy air threat, and then if it gets KO’ed you’re naked, as no one is going to take more than one, right?  Or are you thinking about line units having some sort of organic/residual AA capability of their own (like MANPADs)?  If you have an AA stand, it’s kinda cool to think about running Wild Weasel/AA suppression type air missions, but that’s really getting out in left field a ways.

    “Counter-battery could be an opposing asset use? Subject to a dice roll no doubt.”
    Yeah, maybe just use a ‘normal’ fire mission, but it has to be assigned to the CO, not to a line unit or recon.  I’d say the CO still doesn’t need a roll to use it though, just the roll to see how effective.  Say 1K, 1-that enemy fire mission can’t be used this turn, but can be ‘recycled’ into the mix next turn, and 6-that fire mission is eliminated (if the enemy player started the game with three FMs per turn, he’s now down to 2 for the remainder of the game).

    I think the recon thing was initially you’re idea, I just stole it and gave it back to you 😉

    Logistics…  I’m still shaky on logistics, it’s just tough, or I just have a mental block about it.  It just seems to me that, to do it justice, you’ve really got to go all out and start tracking ammo and fuel expenditures, then have a log train, supply dumps, targeting of such by air and arty, rear area security and unit security zones, partisans/insurgents/irregular warfare elements attacking it; let’s not forget the medical aspect then, as well, and traffic jams between line units moving forward, medical units moving backwards, and log units moving laterally/every which way.

    I will say that ‘cutting the head off the snake’ is certainly a Cold War to present concept, so we need to think about targeting of the command stand by air/arty/SF/electronic warfare (yes, electronic warfare, and SIGINT units or, more likely, attachments/capabilities).  So you definitely have to figure out the CO getting knocked out, and a succession plan.  Then you gotta throw in the NBC environment 😉

    And go 3mm; while I  am strangely proud of my massive collection of 6mm stuff, and I’m beginning to feel like a benevolent dictator, I swear I wish I hadn’t done it.  It would be incredibly attractive, and cheap, to put together modern forces on a 2′ x 2′ or 3′ x 3′ to play these (or Company Command).  $4 gets you fifteen tanks, or five stands of three tanks to put in perspective.  A couple bucks gets you a couple aircraft or a couple helos.  VERY attractive.

    Meanwhile, I’m looking at trying to put three 6mm tanks on a single base, and it’s ugly/huge.  Plus it means I need to do something else with all those 6mm troops I did on pennies…

    As I stated before, these are shaping up nicely.  And that was an excellent post for Company Command’s force/scenario/war generators.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Yeah, AA is always going to be tricky, since it’s a “either or” proposition. I have enough AA to make your planes not useful or I lack AA and your planes can hit me with impunity.

    To an extent, we can probably fudge a bit and say that since overwhelming air support will pretty much obliterate an enemy that cannot defend in modern warfare, those encounters are simply not the ones we are gaming. Limited air support is what we see on the tabletop. More thoughts on this but we can probably tackle that when we get there.

    As far as company level AA, the way I see that, those would be large batteries that require some time to set up. Mobile AA would be more incidental and, unless deployed in mass, is probably more likely to drive off enemy AA than kill it. Hence, those would be attached.

    Logistics: I really want to avoid too much fuss here but I do like the idea that keeping your head quarters safe is important, to make breakthroughs actually worth something. Maybe the solution is something a bit more abstracted though. You knock out the enemy HQ and in addition to victory points or whatever, you now have an extra turn you can take at any moment you choose, plus enemy activates 1 unit less for 2 turns. Something like that.

    You are damn right on 3mm. I was taking a look earlier and two decent sized forces would cost almost nothing. And you could make some very cool little bases with infantry scattered around their M113’s or whatever. Figuring 3 vehicles per stand and a few infantry scattered about, and you’re barely looking at 50 bucks per army. Of course, getting all the planes and helo’s would be awful tempting then 🙂

    Avatar photoThaddeus Blanchette

    Abstract the AAA. Have AAA be an HQ level attachment that’s rated as 1s or 1s 1k. Anything that flies in a turn gets shot at once. “Morale” results send it off the board for a set number of turns. Kills take it out. For helis, the shot takes place (once a turn) when it’s first spotted by an enemy unit.

    Also, air-to-air can be resolved in this fashion, with opposing assets.

    Recon can also be done in this fashion: let recon units breakdown into light stands, the way company commander currently lets infantry breakdown.  That way, your recon can fight as regular troops and deploy as a screen or recon force.



    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    Avatar photoJust Jack

    Yeah, AA vs air is difficult to balance, and it does matter how many times you can expect to see air show up.  I like Thad’s idea about the command stand representing AA capability, but that causes two problems: first, and less consequential, is that I need something to do with all my ZSUs and SA-6/9/13s 😉  More importantly, I like the idea of capability/counter, so that if a player can expect that he’ll have 2, 3, or 4 airstrikes throughout the course of the game, he could use them (1, 2, or 3 of them) for flak/SAM suppression to clear the way for later strikes, or even for his on-board helos.

    The other thing about having on-board AA with limited range (read: doesn’t cover the entire table) means the player has to take that into consideration, make decisions on whom and where to move with his limited activations.  To me, that is a key mechanism of the game: you’re making the best decisions you can, knowing you can’t do everything you want.  I.e., I really want to press this tank attack, but if I keep moving them up they are going to outrun my AA umbrella, so I really need to move some AA assets forward with them, but that means I won’t be able to move this other unit.

    I love the idea of very adverse consequences when a side loses its CO, and you need to figure out how rough you’re going to be on players to replace him.  I.e., a lot of games use the ‘pull another unit off the table and it becomes the CO.’  Personally I think that’s a pretty steep price to pay in a game in which you’re looking at a max of 12 maneuver/line units, though maybe I only feel this way because we haven’t yet mapped it out and I’m not sure that event (CO getting KO’ed) is likely to happen in a given game.  I know you’ve been talking about an armor overrun, but I’m still thinking about air/arty/SOF/EW, which conceivably could KO the command stand three or four times in a game (I think).

    And your damn right I’m damn right about 3mm, and I’m sure Thad (the 3mm guru) will agree.  Whaddaya mean with this: “Of course, getting all the planes and helo’s would be awful tempting then”?  Awful tempting, hell, it’s kinda the point!  You could get two Hinds, two Hips, and two MiG-23s for $5.55!  And PicoArmor is fantastic to deal with; it seems I usually receive my order about thirteen minutes after I placed it.

    Thad – Resolving air-to-air!?  Now we’re getting somewhere!  I’ll have tank aces and fighter aces.  I think it’s a great idea, and easy to pull off.  Assuming at least one side has fighter-bombers (let’s say my definition is multi-role aircraft, capable of being loaded out for a strike mission OR an air superiority mission, like an F-16 or F-18), he gets to choose a mission: strike, air dominance, or flak/SAM suppression.  In the air dominance mission he rolls in with 1k 1s on any bad guy aircraft that enter that turn (probably not including enemy helos as, from my limited understanding, look-down-shoot-down against helos remains a relatively difficult thing to do to this day, much less with Cold War technology).

    I’m not sure I’m following you about equating recon stands with light stands.  I know that if you’re talking about a recon battalion you could have three recon company stands (treating them as ‘light’ stands vice infantry stands), but what I was getting at is the idea of recon not operating as a company, but as platoons (or even smaller, in ‘real life’), so using them in the game as ‘attachments’ or ‘capabilities,’ similar to the specialty figures in Company Command, as opposed to them being represented as an actual, company-level unit.  I think we were looking at actual units being only armor and infantry, with everything else attached out as capabilities/specialty figures (AAA, SAM, recon, ATG/ATGM, MG, mortar, field guns, etc…).

    Cheers fellas.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Think Thad solved the AA issue. Nice.


    For HQ, I know a lot of rules do the “replace a unit as the new commander” but I’ve never liked how that works. Yes, someone lower on the totem pole will be in charge, but that doesn’t mean they actually fill all the same functions (for one, they need to get a bigger hat)

    We can probably limit arty fire versus HQ’s to units that are spotted. The image I have is that the overall HQ is fairly stationary: It’s where the communications gear are set up, all the important people are sitting in chairs and the AA guns and similar is located (as per Thad’s suggestion).

    If enemy tanks get too close, they either hope they have support near by or they bail, they won’t have significant combat ability outside of those specialist tasks.


    On recon, I think it basically comes down to what the recon is fielded like: It seems there’s two ways to go: “Fighting recon” operate in a limited manner, similar to light infantry in CC.

    “Dedicated recon” is an attachment that gives a bonus to its parent unit but doesn’t take independent action (other than whatever “deploy to interfere” options we end up with).

    The former has the advantage that it’s more familiar (it’s basically how all games handle recon units) and you have more direct control over things.

    The latter option might actually be a bit more realistic though. It forces recon to carry out the role they are tasked with.

    Ranges for firing:

    Okay, stepping back to basics for a second, here’s what I am seeing for ranges.

    Effective fire is 1K1S, harassing is 1S


    Fire effectively against infantry at 6″

    Infantry AT is harassing only and reaches 6″ (with RPG, LAW and whatnot). To kill tanks, they need to assault.


    Fire effective against tanks at 12″. Fire effectively against infantry at 6″, Fire harassing against infantry at 12″

    Against lower-tech enemies, +1K+1S. Flanking fire vs tanks +1S

    Mechanized infantry:

    Get +1 Shock die versus infantry and may fire effectively at tanks at 6″.

    <i>MG attachments:</i>

    +1 Kill versus infantry. 6″

    Mortar attachment:

    +1 Shock versus infantry. 12″

    Anti-tank attachment:

    Fire at 6″ or 12″ (tech level) versus tanks. 1K


    Those dice values are a bit lower than you see at lower level ,since I feel a company of troops should be a bit more resilient than their squad-level counterparts in CC and for this scale of battle, I want troops to bounce back quite a bit.  Thoughts?


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    btw, playtest document tonight if all goes well. Cranking it out now. You’ll need a copy of Company Commander to make sense of it though.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen


    This is JUST the basics of ground combat but check it out, tell me what’s broken and push some lead around a table.


    Avatar photoThaddeus Blanchette

    Ranges seem a bit off, unless you’re using three inch wide stands. But that’s OK. I can easily cut everything by a factor of three for my own games.

    I’d also allow high tech tanks to fire harrasment up to 18 or 24 inches. I’d add only one K to high tech tanks for effective fire and one S for harassment fire.

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Tweaking ranges is pretty easy for anyone to do, without screwing anything up. The different sub-systems aren’t really that inter-dependable.

    I did actually have a thought almost identical to what you mention for high tech armour. Probably to 18″ but will have to roll some dice to see what fits.

    Great minds and all that.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    If all goes well, should have an updated file this weekend. Juggling a few projects at the same time.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen


    Okay, updated version.

    Artillery as an onboard unit. Still not 100% certain how to handle but for the moment, onboard arty fires at one enemy target.

    More assets including counter-battery, commandos and wave attacks.

    Brawling modifiers (may change them all to +/- 2)

    A few tweaks and touches here and there.

    Still more red text than black but check it out.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Avatar photoJozisTinMan

    Good stuff, Ivan!  I emailed you my comments directly.  The only ones that are really thought out or I had time to really try out were the Recon rules.

    I like the Advanced Optics or Tank ATGM getting an 18″ 1S, and I need to try out the optional ATGM’s can upgrade to 1K at the risk of 1K coming back at them first.

    Going to clear the cats off of the table and try again this week.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Cats are the bane of gaming 🙂

    One of ours likes to swat dice, the other likes to nest on the table when she realizes that’s where our attention is.

    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    As I’ve discussed with JozisTinMan in emails, one of the big questions is artillery.

    Logically, it makes the most sense to have arty be an 0ff-board asset but I feel like people would be upset if they didn’t have a chance to put some artillery models on the board as well.

    Leaning towards having “heavy” bombardments be an asset, but with an option for small, independent artillery elements to be used on the board.

    Jack? Thaddeus?

    Avatar photoshelldrake

    Maybe have small artillery elements (i.e a battery) on table in support of the unit they are supporting. Thus, they can normally only provide rounds on target for the infantry BN they support.

    You can have the bigger stuff: Naval gun fire, air, grid removal etc as the ‘heavy’ mentioned.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Didn’t mean to leave your name out 🙂

    I’m leaning that way since it seems to fit the best of all worlds.

    Avatar photoshelldrake

    I meant to add: a BN artillery asset is on a call for that unit, where as all observers can call in a fire mission with higher level assests, thus they could have a Fire Mission Division, or Fire Mission All Available, which would be perfect for the heavy stuff mentioned.

    Avatar photoJust Jack


    “Maybe have small artillery elements (i.e a battery) on table in support of the unit they are supporting. Thus, they can normally only provide rounds on target for the infantry BN they support.”
    I think this is a cool idea; you put a singly-mounted artillery piece next to the supported element, and they can call a fire mission that turn.  In my mind, you have the number of batteries supporting your overall force, which gives the total amount of fire missions you can call per turn (three batteries in support = max 3 fire missions per turn), but then you’re also limited by a total number of fire missions for the game (i.e., three batteries in support, but max of 15 fire missions in the game; or ammo is short so, three batteries but only 9 FMs in the game, etc…).

    At the beginning of each turn the player gets to allocate his three batteries wherever he wants: assuming you have three batteries, you can put one with three different units, all three with one unit, or some combination therein.  You can also place batteries with the command stand, meaning he can call in the fire missions himself, or use them for counterbattery.  One fire mission targets one enemy unit anywhere on the table, so long as the calling unit has LOS to the enemy unit, minus counterbattery (you don’t have to have LOS to the enemy arty for counterbattery, that’s done via radar).

    Shelldrake – “I meant to add: a BN artillery asset is on a call for that unit, where as all observers can call in a fire mission with higher level assests, thus they could have a Fire Mission Division, or Fire Mission All Available, which would be perfect for the heavy stuff mentioned.”
    Forgive me, I’m not familiar with ‘FM Division’ or ‘FM All Available’ terminology, what’s that?  And are you saying that we have FO stands, or that each (company-level) stand is assumed to have an FO (or someone able to call in air and arty)?  My vote is for the latter.

    Now, having said all that, there is always Jack’s argument for simplicity: an arty stand or two is on table and is treated just like every other fighting unit except: arty can hit any enemy unit anywhere on the table, so long as any friendly unit has LOS to the target.  Quick and easy.  As always, my counsel is make the simple one the rule and make the more complex one an optional rule.  Give the player a toolset from which to choose what he wants, sort of a la carte 😉

    There’s my two cents, sorry to hop in late.


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    So use the individual artillery models as, essentially, markers to show artillery support?

    I am liking that thought. Would make counter-battery easy to show too, just by placing an enemy arty model next to them.

    I’d rather tie their usage limitations to a die roll than counting it up though but maybe it’ll be needed to better model particular forces or scenarios.

    Avatar photoJozisTinMan

    Hey guys, I am behind on this thread and need to get caught up!  Will do some reading.

    In the meantime, I realized I have been play testing in correctly as I do not have a grip on Company Commander yet.  Can anyone spot check me here?  I also tried the optional ATGM rules and rather like them.




    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    THat’s a gorgeous kitty 🙂

    He/she looks like one of ours before she got to be a (not so) little furry balloon.

    It looks like you are mostly on point. To make it as simple as possible:


    ANY movement while in front (180) of a visible enemy causes reaction fire from ONE enemy unit.

    Reaction fire is ONE SHOCK die unless the enemy is within 4″ then it is ONE KILL die.

    If you’re making a ref sheet, that’s the most concise way I can think of phrasing it.

    (now, many people play this differently, either using the full firing dice or limiting it to only appearing in sight. Those two options used together would probably work juuuuuust fine).

    Avatar photoshelldrake

    . Shelldrake – “I meant to add: a BN artillery asset is on a call for that unit, where as all observers can call in a fire mission with higher level assests, thus they could have a Fire Mission Division, or Fire Mission All Available, which would be perfect for the heavy stuff mentioned.” Forgive me, I’m not familiar with ‘FM Division’ or ‘FM All Available’ terminology, what’s that? And are you saying that we have FO stands, or that each (company-level) stand is assumed to have an FO (or someone able to call in air and arty)? My vote is for the latter. 

    The terminology is Artillery speak.

    Yes, to keep it simple, assuming each Coy will have an FO attached, and each BN HQ will have an FO attached (the BTY Commander).  Even a Brigade HQ can have an FO in the form of the arty regiment CO.  By including them within the applicable stand you eliminate the need to put FO stands on the table.

    I can’t quote for every nation’s army artillery support, but basically a gun battery (BTY)  supports one INF BN, with an FO with each COY. These FO’s can only call in their parent BTY, but can be given permission by the ARTY CO to fire the other BTYs in the Regiment.  This latter Fire Mission is a “Fire Mission Regiment”, as opposed to “Fire Mission Battery” they would normally fire.

    Again, depending on the nation, you might have one ARTY REGT per Brigade (I am guessing nations like the U.S. and Russia would have more.. I need to see OOB).

    A Fire Mission Division would have an FO calling in all the the BTYs within range from the Division – thus all the BTYs that make up the Division OOB can be used for that fire mission.  Granted, it is not so likely these days, but can still be used.

    A Fire Mission all available includes air power, naval guns, artillery, mortars – any thing capable of chucking ’rounds that go boom’ down range.  Again, if nothing is within range you could get a gun BTY or some mortars, or you could score big and shake the pillars of earth.


Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 147 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.