Operation Chunky Bandit

[kyoteblue]

Will the East Germans get a T-55 in one of these games???

[Just Jack]

No, but you will see a T-72, if you haven’t already?

And that ‘East German’ stuff isn’t nearly as funny as you seem to think it is 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Thomaston]

MInifigs has some good minis, brings back memories.
I like that you revisit the same locations, really give the feel of the war going back and forth.

Have you decided what planes for Gulf War and Vietnam you want?

Tired is enough.

[Whirlwind]

Great report, many thanks.  As you said, the battle seemed to turn on defeating those aggressive Communist charges.  I did wonder about one thing – the retreat from the failed close combat (the one here):

That seems quite an unusual reaction – most rules don’t allow that kind of retreat from close combat as far as I know.

[kyoteblue]

Come on Jack T-55’s are so retro-cool.

[Just Jack]

Kyote John – Sorry, buddy, I don’t have any 10mm T-55s…

Thomaston – That may have been the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me! 😉  And my apologies, I’ve been delayed, so much gaming and painting, I need to get upstairs and get it all straight.  I humbly thank you for your patience!

Whirlwind John – Thanks, and that’s very interesting.  I can’t speak to most rules, I really don’t recall specifically, though I know such results as ‘recoil’
exist.  I will say that it doesn’t seem strange at all to me that an attacker moves up to close assault an enemy unit, gets beat up, and falls back to regroup.

On a side note, I’ve been working on some platoon-level rules using singly-based troops, pulling in all the stuff we discussed previously (that threat over on TMP, http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=527372).  Well, everything except the ‘reserves’ aspect, which I still haven’t figure out…

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

Bummer about the T-55’s, but now you are off down the rabbit hole of new rules????

[Whirlwind]

Hi Jack,

Definitely recoil results exist, but normally (as far as I can recall) in bigger battle rules and for earlier periods.  Modern period close combat rules tend towards once you are committed, that’s it…definitely not saying that a recoil mechanism is wrong mind.

My own view is that…it is complicated.  If you get close enough (say within 20-30m) and there is no cover to pull back into, troops are going to shoot it out (or freeze, or surrender); if there is some kind of possible escape route, then that option is always open.  And often there is a possible escape route, since hopefully the attacking troops used it to get close in the first place.

Anyway, really looking forward to having a look at your rules.  What is the specific issue with the reserves?  Hard to design a mechanism to reflect how hard it is to control committed squads/sections?

 

 

 

 

[Just Jack]

Kyote John – Sure, and see below.

Whirlwind John – Hmmm…  All good points, but from my standpoint, “Break Contact” drills are an integral part of platoon tactics, techniques, and procedures, and are practiced until you can do it blindfolded in the dark 😉  So, rather than some sort of willy-nilly, run for your life, every man for himself-type exercise, the close assault isn’t going well, the small unit leader signals break contact, and the squad carries it out, laying down covering fire, perhaps tossing smoke, grabbing casualties as possible, and falling back to cover, taking advantage of micro-terrain in order to do so (the ‘escape route’ you’re referencing, though this would, must, occur, even without the covered avenue of approach/retreat, it’s just going to be more difficult and perhaps more costly).  Particularly given the fact this is a company-level game, with one stand equals one squad/weapons team, I think it fits what the Company Commander’s view of the battlefield would be, i.e., he would not be controlling that, his subordinate leaders would be carrying it out based on the tactical situation with no input from him.  I would go so far as to say it wouldn’t even bother me in a platoon-level game using singly-based figures, as the player is assuming the role of the Platoon Commander and those actions/decisions are below his purview.  I’d say the only point where we can’t ‘abstract’ that out would be in a squad-level game, where the player should be essentially making the decisions/carrying out the actions of the individual soldiers.  At least that’s how I end up playing them, despite any attempts to ‘program’ the subordinates to act in line with the squad leader’s intent but still of their own volition.  For me, those attempts inevitably end up taking up too much time and I break down and give the individual troops far too much… ESP? 😉

“What is the specific issue with the reserves?  Hard to design a mechanism to reflect how hard it is to control committed squads/sections?”
Indeed, Sir.  The easy answer is to have an environmental effect, call it ‘Engaged,’ and give it a definition, something like “enemy is within 200 yards and has LOS to your unit,” and that means… what?  They’re under fire and will no longer move?  That implies the fire is effective, but we already have a measure for that (the opposing player makes the conscious decision to utilize that enemy unit within 200 yds with LOS to actually open fire on your unit, and then rolls dice to see if your unit is Pinned, Suppressed, and/or taking casualties), so it’s redundant, and if we’re not doing that the implication is that the opposing player DOES NOT have to make a conscious decision to act (he just places troops within 200 yds and LOS to yours), they’re assumed to be firing at yours, and the fire is assumed to be effective enough to keep your men from moving.

Another solution is to say ‘engaged’ units halve movement and firing dice, which is probably more reasonable, but for some reason still doesn’t sit well with me.  I need more and better ideas! 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Whirlwind]

Hi Jack,

I am still thinking this through about reserves.

I think that I prefer suppressed troops not to be able to do anything (except call in fire support) until they break contact, get rallied or the suppressing troops stop for whatever reason.

I think that firing troops could be treated as effectively out of command unless positively rallied, or break contact, although this should be easier than for suppressed troops.

Your idea for not even bothering to roll for firing is a good one.  If the attacker moves into LOS, and the defender wishes it (maybe he is in an ambush position and waiting for them to get closer/into LAW/UGL range), then the attacker tests to see how badly they are hit, and after that don’t roll, the defender is considered to be simply suppressing the attacker UFN.  As we discussed on the previous thread, the attacker doesn’t roll for damage again (or rolls with much reduced odds).  Sections/squads with shootier weapons get to suppress additional targets in LOS, compared to four guys with bolt-action rifles, who can only suppress more or less equal numbers. Or something like that.  So a tactical commander always needs reserves to achieve anything because all his committed troops will either be suppressed or suppressing.  And with this system, you could even make ammo consumption a meaningful thing.

But I am still thinking!

 

 

 

 

[Just Jack]

John,

Yeah, it’s a tough one.

I’m with you on suppressed troops not being able to do anything; typically I go from ‘good order’ to ‘pinned’ (can shoot with a penalty but not move, penalty in close combat) to ‘suppressed’ (no shoot or move, severe penalty in close combat, if it gets bad enough you can’t even self rally, a senior leader has to come rally you, and additional effective fire can force you to fall back).

“I think that firing troops could be treated as effectively out of command unless positively rallied, or break contact, although this should be easier than for suppressed troops.”
What do you mean by ‘out of command’?  I’ve used that term (and “command radius”) in Napoleonic games but have never applied a concept like that to WWII or later games.  It doesn’t feel right to me, but knowing you, you’ve added some wrinkle or concept that makes it relevant!

“Your idea for not even bothering to roll for firing is a good one.”
I’m not so sure! 😉  Part of the issue here is that it doesn’t work out great in games without hidden deployment/movement, as you get to the old ‘why would I move out there if I know you have guys over there and I’ll be instantly, automatically pinned or suppressed?  And even if you’re using blinds, I don’t like the idea of finding out my squad was suppressed for five turns by a dummy counter, or a single sentry.

Another issue is that I’m never a fan of automatic results, for anything.  I once had a discussion with Ivan (Nordic Weasel) about why my games seem to have so much drama in them; I replied “it’s the dice.”  I never use any of his recommended ‘auto’ successes or fails, and I’ll be damned if I don’t end up with a full, fresh rifle squad close assaulting a suppressed enemy team in the open… then losing or being thrown back by rolling a ‘1’ on one of those ‘all you gotta do is roll anything but a 1’ rolls.  I don’t like the idea of saying ‘that rifle team right there is going to suppress any enemy unit that comes into LOS, no matter what;’ what makes them such steely-eyed killers that they couldn’t suffer a lapse in attention, or nerves, or have their sights set to the wrong range or elevation, or any of a million different things that can go wrong in combat?  Or who’s to say that the guys they’re shooting at didn’t wake up feeling like extra special bad-asses this morning and aren’t about to be pinned down by a few scattered rifle rounds?

Ivan uses a middle way; in his No End in Sight rules, a man can fire at anyone that comes into his LOS, which either hits or misses, but there’s another aspect where the guy moving (and being fired on) sets a target destination and rolls a dice to see how far he can go, and if he doesn’t make it (and doesn’t get shot) he ends his movement pinned.  It’s interesting, but I’m not really a fan of that, either.

“So a tactical commander always needs reserves to achieve anything because all his committed troops will either be suppressed or suppressing.”
Righteous.

“And with this system, you could even make ammo consumption a meaningful thing.”
That’s true, but that’s farther than I’m willing to go in a platoon- or company-level game.

“But I am still thinking!”
I appreciate it!

V/R,
Jack

[Whirlwind]

“I think that firing troops could be treated as effectively out of command unless positively rallied, or break contact, although this should be easier than for suppressed troops.”

What do you mean by ‘out of command’? I’ve used that term (and “command radius”) in Napoleonic games but have never applied a concept like that to WWII or later games. It doesn’t feel right to me, but knowing you, you’ve added some wrinkle or concept that makes it relevant!

Just the thought that the commander has to take a positive action to stop his troops firing and get them to do something else.  So with modern comms, that is an “anything but a ‘1’ test, but your Chinese militia squad in 1937 will just keep firing at whatever it is firing at until the target is destroyed, they get suppressed by someone else, or the platoon commander physically (or via his runner) gets them to stop.

“Your idea for not even bothering to roll for firing is a good one.”
I’m not so sure! 😉 Part of the issue here is that it doesn’t work out great in games without hidden deployment/movement, as you get to the old ‘why would I move out there if I know you have guys over there and I’ll be instantly, automatically pinned or suppressed? And even if you’re using blinds, I don’t like the idea of finding out my squad was suppressed for five turns by a dummy counter, or a single sentry.

Another issue is that I’m never a fan of automatic results, for anything. I once had a discussion with Ivan (Nordic Weasel) about why my games seem to have so much drama in them; I replied “it’s the dice.” I never use any of his recommended ‘auto’ successes or fails, and I’ll be damned if I don’t end up with a full, fresh rifle squad close assaulting a suppressed enemy team in the open… then losing or being thrown back by rolling a ‘1’ on one of those ‘all you gotta do is roll anything but a 1’ rolls. I don’t like the idea of saying ‘that rifle team right there is going to suppress any enemy unit that comes into LOS, no matter what;’ what makes them such steely-eyed killers that they couldn’t suffer a lapse in attention, or nerves, or have their sights set to the wrong range or elevation, or any of a million different things that can go wrong in combat? Or who’s to say that the guys they’re shooting at didn’t wake up feeling like extra special bad-asses this morning and aren’t about to be pinned down by a few scattered rifle rounds?

Ivan uses a middle way; in his No End in Sight rules, a man can fire at anyone that comes into his LOS, which either hits or misses, but there’s another aspect where the guy moving (and being fired on) sets a target destination and rolls a dice to see how far he can go, and if he doesn’t make it (and doesn’t get shot) he ends his movement pinned. It’s interesting, but I’m not really a fan of that, either.

I’m not thinking of getting rid of die rolls altogether so much as eliminating a stage, and just incorporating that effect into destruction test and the rally.  All you say is true about the things that can go wrong, but lots of that is in the difference between getting fire close enough to suppress (not so hard) and hitting someone (much harder).  So the assumption is that fire will suppress (and more and better fire will suppress more and better) but the initial test for destruction and then rallying will incorporate the chance that it doesn’t work (appropriately modified for weapons, skill and morale).  It will emphasize the requirement for tactical reserves as long as, broadly speaking, then a commander expects his troops being fired on will be suppressed (and as dicusssed before, his troops firing will probably be stuck on task because he needs the enemy to be kept pinned and/or he physically needs to get the troops to stop firing).

 

[Thomaston]

“I think that firing troops could be treated as effectively out of command unless positively rallied, or break contact, although this should be easier than for suppressed troops.”
That’s something I’ve never thought of before, fire discipline. Also getting attacked by another unit would be like getting flanked and break easier. Wouldn’t it slow down play by a lot though?

Tired is enough.

[Whirlwind]

Thomaston wrote:

“I think that firing troops could be treated as effectively out of command unless positively rallied, or break contact, although this should be easier than for suppressed troops.” That’s something I’ve never thought of before, fire discipline. Also getting attacked by another unit would be like getting flanked and break easier. Wouldn’t it slow down play by a lot though?

I would hope not, since I think it would just be an activation roll/command roll/whatever.  I think in most games you wouldn’t actually notice that much of a difference, since you would be happy to leave the firing troops firing.  It would encourage players to keep reserves, since adding ‘more suppression’ would be largely pointless but would reduce your flexibility; whereas most rules now do reward you for keeping as many troops firing as possible.

[Just Jack]

“Just the thought that the commander has to take a positive action to stop his troops firing and get them to do something else.  So with modern comms, that is an “anything but a ‘1’ test, but your Chinese militia squad in 1937 will just keep firing at whatever it is firing at until the target is destroyed, they get suppressed by someone else, or the platoon commander physically (or via his runner) gets them to stop.”
So the ‘engaged’ team has to roll over a 1 in order to activate normally?  That makes sense; even pre-modern, you still have a Signal Plan, so they don’t have intra-squad radios, but well-trained units are going to have hand signals and use things like flares and smoke to communicate.  Runners are always an interesting concept as well; I really like it, and it’s not hard to come up with rules for runners, but it will definitely slow the game down, and, to my mind, you have to have more abstraction in the game in order to account for small unit leaders acting (nor not acting) on their own initiative in the absence of current, or out of date, orders.

“I’m not thinking of getting rid of die rolls altogether so much as…”
This is where FUBAR and KR-16 have a cool activation mechanic where a unit has to roll a dice to see if it can act, with positive modifiers (you’re in cover, there’s no enemy in LOS, better training, carrying out an action that is not risky such as falling back) and negative modifiers (you’re in the open, enemy in sight, worse training, you’re carrying out a risky action such as moving into close combat).  But the kicker here is, the enemy fires on you and adds ‘pins,’ and each ‘pin’ adds a +1 to your target score, making it harder and harder to activate, AKA, get your men to do anything when they’re under fire.  As far as I recall, the enemy still has to roll dice to shoot, but if you’re really looking at going this way you could say something like ‘an enemy rifle team in LOS automatically adds +1, an LMG team +2, an GPMG +3,’ or something like that.

“It will emphasize the requirement for tactical reserves as long as, broadly speaking, then a commander expects his troops being fired on will be suppressed (and as dicusssed before, his troops firing will probably be stuck on task because he needs the enemy to be kept pinned and/or he physically needs to get the troops to stop firing).”
So take it out to ‘any units engaged will not move unless the on-table commander moves into base contact and breaks his foot off in their ass’?  That fits what we’re talking about, but is very restrictive.  I actually played some games like this before and, much to my chagrin, it wasn’t nearly as cool as I wanted because it turned out that the side with more forces was always winning, the side with less teams just couldn’t match up.  If you have ten units and I have 15, I move ten units up, you ‘suppress’ all of them, but then I have five units that can skate around do whatever they want (the assumption being that if you’re playing where it’s super easy to pin/suppress an element, you’re making it very difficult to actually destroy an element by fire).

“Wouldn’t it slow down play by a lot though?”
My experience with writing rules is that the hard part is deciding what to leave out, not what to add in, for this very reason.  Several times I’ve written the most accurate rules known to man; the only problem is that it takes 427 hours to play a company-sized engagement that lasted 45 minutes in real life 😉

“…since adding ‘more suppression’ would be largely pointless…”
You make a great point about economy of force, but I have two counters to that:
1st: there are many cases in real life where additional firepower shifted the defender out of that position, or not only stopped an attack, but forced the attacker to call off the assault.
2nd: I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, and everyone is free to design/play rules that match their own expectation of what combat at their desired scale should look like, but for me that means there is a progression from ‘good order’ to pinned (will fire but not move) to suppressed to falling back, and I tend to play ‘perspective-based’ games, meaning I’m trying to put myself into the shoes of the overall commander of all troops on the table, so I make decisions at that level, not at all the underlying levels (I’m a company commander, I don’t decide if the tank is firing HE or Sabot, the tank commander decides that), so that means I have to abstract things out to account for what lower-echelon leaders are doing (as opposed to what I want them to do).  There are a lot of different ways of doing this, but the point (in relation to this particular discussion) is that I typically handle fire results in the terms I described above because it reflects how a small unit leader under a particular level of fire would probably react, regardless of how I want him to act.

So look at it this way: I want him to keep moving and close assault that house, but he is:
-Receiving ineffective fire, so he keeps moving.
-Receiving somewhat effective fire, so he and his men halt and return fire.
-Receiving somewhat more effective fire, so he and his men are hitting the dirt and won’t do anything until he decides he can get them back in the fight.
-Receiving even more effective fire, to the point he and his men are hitting the dirt and won’t do anything until a senior leader comes over and convinces them to get back in the fight.
-Receiving such horrendous fire that he is going to grab his men and fall back to safety, and even then is worthless until senior leadership comes over and convinces them to get back in the fight.

So I don’t think I would ever be comfortable with rules that simply allot some sort of pin or suppression on a unit without a die roll, simply for moving into LOS of an enemy unit, because I need something to gauge the effectiveness of that enemy force’s fire.

A very interesting conversation, gentlemen!  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thought, and hope you continue to do so.  And don’t be thrown when I post the next batrep here, we can still keep talking rules here, if you like.

V/R,
Jack

[Just Jack]

All,

1300 on 4 Aug 1990
Mini-Campaign Fight #7
South Leon Army D Company vs FSNL 1st Company

The SLA’s D Company was dug-in deep into defensive positions oriented north, prepared to fight off the Commie hordes coming down Route 1, but were suddenly attacked from the west by FSNL3, which was retreating from a beatdown they received at the hands of TF Hammer.  It turned out to not be a big deal; the company quickly re-oriented itself to the west and very easily gave the retreating Communists a bloody nose, sending them packing in a northerly direction.  Security patrols were quickly sent out in all directions, seeking to find out if any other enemy forces were lurking in directions unexpected, and even hoping to tie in with the incoming Cuban forces, but bad news came back: fresh enemy troops were spotted coming in from the north!  It seems a new enemy formation passed through the retreating Communist troops they’d just defeated, and now D Company had to re-orient itself to defend to the north again.

A SLA machine gun (bottom left) lays down fire in support of SLA infantry (top left) rushing forward to kick Communist regulars out of the village (top center/right).

But things heat up in the village as the Communists counter with more infantry and light armor.

But fear not, there is always an answer to armor that has gotten to close to the infantry.

To see how the fight went, please check the blog at:
https://cubalibrewargame.blogspot.com/2020/05/operation-chunky-bandit-33-ground.html

Next up we have Major Chavez’ Task Force Hammer taking on the FSNL’s 3rd Company, for the second time.  Poor FSNL3; they got the piss beat out of them by TF Hammer and were forced to retreat into SLA D Company, where they got the piss beat out of them again, and now TF Hammer is jumping on them again.

V/R,
Jack

[madman]

I am really enjoying your discussion of rules. Getting back into gaming after over 3 decades away I have been stymied in my efforts to find rules which reflect my opinions and directions for infantry centric gaming.

I find your discussion puts your rules (concepts) very much on the line between simulation and game.

Are these rules intended to function with individually based troops or with a base composed of groups of soldiers between teams, of as few as two, and up to a full squad of say a dozen? I ask as you mention using individually based troops, and your games here and elsewhere show this to be the case. I ask as my experience is such that a base with of a number of figures usually has a single roll or result of actions applied to the base as a whole. So one di(c)e roll for attacks, combat results, morale checks etc.. When individually based I find most rules have you making rolls with handfuls of dice, one for each figure or trooper modified in number by specialty weapons or other passing conditions. Further they usually introduce some form of “saving throw” often times posited as a qualifier for the quality of the unit under fire. In my opinion this is less the case than the game is really trying to increase the potential spread of results. For example, rather than roll 2D6 say roll 1D6 to attack and have the defender roll a second 1D6 to reflect the defensive capabilities of the target unit. Having come from rules such as Striker where all rolls were 2D6 with a plethora of modifiers to this new system with very few modifiers and often times what is modified is the number of dice rolled as opposed to excessive numbers of modifiers, I like this mostly for the reduction of modifiers and less for the oft stated goal of “keeping both players engaged”.

I am very on the fence wrt just using single die type, say D6, or everything from D4 to D12, or even D20 depending on various circumstances. I have a knowledgeable and reasoning regular opponent who prefers using the panoply of dice types available as opposed to the traditional D6s only. His stated goal is to better reflect the differing odds but myself I feel a well designed game can make do with a single die type. Unless one is going to analyse exact combat results this is all just our opinions anyways.

Before being advised to write my own rules I have bought and or tried quite a few systems. I have given up purchasing more rules sets mostly due to costs and partially as I haven’t received good answers to my usual question of what system or approach does your rule utilize to portray infantry combat differently. Of all the systems I have worked with since getting back into gaming I find Conflict of Heroes best matches my “idea” of how things should work, primarily as a game and very secondarily as a simulation. As far as a simulation goes I do not have the military experience or knowledge to accurately judge any combat results. So I go more for a good game with more detail than many I have been exposed to. The relative simplicity of combat, few roll modifiers and the lack of buckets of dice appeal to me. Combine that with an easy to remember “hit number” as opposed to seemingly endless pages of CRT tables has me thinking along the lines of basing my attempts at rules writing on it’s directions.

I like your four step combat effectiveness approach, normal, pinned-fully combat capable but with no movement, suppressed-no fire or movement and eliminated. The application and employment of reserves should be handled by the basic rules. Your choice to have or don’t have and how to utilize reserves AT THIS GAME LEVEL should handle them as other troops. I feel the combat systems which cause their need will also make their existence and utilization apparent and not be called out as some separate rule. This means there HAS to be some form of command and control inherent in the game system. Whether this takes the form of activations of leaders with their inherent capabilities or activation of bases with leaders being abstracted gives food for thought. I have been pondering both approaches based on the systems I want to build upon.

I agree with the concept of troops being in LOS of the “potential” enemy units having an effect on their actions sounds good. How to implement that? Have units in LOS of enemy “blinds” automatically behave thus or let them wait until they actually come under fire and react then. Ideally the commander should be the driving force on this but then again you are creating the omnipotent 100 yard general. Further having the force commander on each side NOT being in the weeds, except where they presently are located, but having the rest of the forces under their command behave in a reasonable way is both intriguing and difficult. I look forward to your thoughts and hope to help with this.

I also like the scale you want to work with, from a couple of platoons with support elements through a couple of companies with support. This has always been my ideal for games since getting into the hobby in the early ’70s. If you will be creating, or want to work together to create a set of rules I would be very interested in being a part of this, either here, some other site or off line. Thank you.

Stephen

[kyoteblue]

I like the discussion about the rules, on to the next fight.

[Whirlwind]

Very nice Jack.  Glad that it wasn’t quite as one-sided as last time, although still hard work for the Communist fighters…

[Whirlwind]

WRT the rules Jack, you could just take the following elements:

1 – Firing troops cannot do anything else except fire at a target once they have started to do so unless positively activated to do something else.  Positive activation could be from the mark 1 boot up the backside, but could be radios, runners, flares whatever (probably abstracted into a die roll).

2 – The only real chance of causing infantry casualties from direct fire is on the first turn of fire: thereafter the chances should be very small if the target has become suppressed (incidentally, in your schema, I would penalize the shooting of pinned units too; if it is close enough to stop movement, it is close enough to distract some troops from their aim).  Probably indirect fire shouldn’t be penalized quite as badly.

3 – The effect of firing should not be linear but should be subject to diminishing returns; you can still overwhelm the enemy with huge amounts of fire, but it is pretty wasteful.

4 – Troops need the ability to suppress more than equal numbers to stop the 10 vs 15 effect you described (I had to modify the WRG rules to help avoid this very thing).  Probably this is a combination of two factors:

a – Properties of the weapons themselves, especially having more machine guns and grenade launchers.

b – The sight of friends being pinned or suppressed in close vicinity is likely to make friends act pinned or suppressed too, although should be easier to rally.

 

 

 

 

[Thomaston]

I thought they’d win for sure this time. They even had a BTR.

Tired is enough.

[kyoteblue]

Should have been a T-55, not a BTR. Wink wink!!!

 

[Just Jack]

First, thanks on the batrep guys, I appreciate it.  It was a fun fight, went the right way, and kept the campaign moving forward, so I was very pleased.

Regarding the rules, thanks for jumping in Stephen, and thanks for keeping it going, John, and sorry for my delayed response, got pretty busy with work.

“I find your discussion puts your rules (concepts) very much on the line between simulation and game.”
I definitely come down more on the ‘game’ side, but want to do something that better matches my expectations of how combat should look at this echelon.  Regarding that, I’m still not decided on whether the echelon is platoon-sized with individually-based troops, or company-sized with element-based troops.  I’ve even had some fantasies about company-level with individually-based troops; sounds crazy, but it’s been done, IABSM is written that way.

“When individually based I find most rules have you making rolls with handfuls of dice…”
I’m a huge fan of 5Core’s “Kill” and “Shock” dice, and am looking hard at individually-based figures using “No End in Sight’s” version of coming up the amount of firing dice, expressed in Shock dice per weapon, with a Kill dice picked up for every two Shock dice.  This makes it easy to penalize units firing for things, like “moving units halve Shock dice,” or “pinned units count Kill dice per every three Shock dice.”  I feel like I’ll use that methodology whether the rules use individually-based troops or element-based troops.  And they’re all D6s, no fumbling for different die types, just looking for 1s and 6s, I very much enjoy simple 😉

I’m not familiar with Conflict of Heroes, but I’d love to hear more.

“I feel the combat systems which cause their need will also make their existence and utilization apparent and not be called out as some separate rule.”
I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s the whole problem, isn’t it?  I think John is up to something with this idea that a unit firing can’t do anything else until a leader breaks a foot off in their ass (I’m assuming a non-organic leader, i.e., not the fireteam or squad leader, must be the platoon or company commander).

“If you will be creating, or want to work together to create a set of rules I would be very interested in being a part of this, either here, some other site or off line.”
Great man, I appreciate it.  Progress is slow, so for not it’s just here on this thread.

“The only real chance of causing infantry casualties from direct fire is on the first turn of fire: thereafter the chances should be very small if the target has become suppressed…”
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

“I would penalize the shooting of pinned units too…”
I’m actually already doing that in these Chunky Bandit fights, if the pinned unit is in the open (not if they’re in cover).

“Probably indirect fire shouldn’t be penalized quite as badly.”
From which standpoint?  If you’re saying a pinned mortar team should be penalized, I agree.  If you’re saying a mortar team shouldn’t be able to hurt a pinned infantry target, I think they should, but be penalized as a lot of HE goes up and everyone is already down, but it’s still going to tear some stuff up.  When you get into company-level fire planning, whether on the assault or defense, a staple is using machine guns to fix the enemy and pound them into submission with organic (company-level) mortars.

“The effect of firing should not be linear but should be subject to diminishing returns…”
I agree, a staple here is the idea that pinned or suppressed units cannot be eliminated by direct fire, they’re going to have to be close assaulted or pounded with indirect fire.  But I’m still a fan of fire having the ability to push a suppressed element back.

“Troops need the ability to suppress more than equal numbers…”
Indeed, and when I first read this I had an idea, but now that I’ve been typing it escapes me…

“Properties of the weapons themselves, especially having more machine guns and grenade launchers.”
That would certainly add more firing dice, and what I’m thinking of is letting units split firing dice, which I’m generally not a fan of.

“The sight of friends being pinned or suppressed in close vicinity is likely to make friends act pinned or suppressed too, although should be easier to rally.”
I need to think on this a bit, but I don’t think I’m on board with that.  The way I typically handle this is that defending unit fires on attacking unit, and any excess ‘hits’ rolled are applied to any enemy units within 6″ of the target.  So if I rolled 1 Kill dice and 2 Shock dice, and I rolled up one suppression and one pin, the target would be suppressed and another enemy unit within 6″ would be pinned; you can see this in all of the Chunky Bandit fight and, from my perspective, it quickly, efficiently, and effectively handles the issue of “1st Squad just saw 2nd Squad get pinned, should 1st Squad be pinned, too?” as a separate die roll.  You roll your firepower and the effects are read and applied, couldn’t be easier (in my opinion).

Lots to think on, looking forward to continuing this chat.

V/R,
Jack

[madman]

“I find your discussion puts your rules (concepts) very much on the line between simulation and game.”
I definitely come down more on the ‘game’ side, but want to do something that better matches my expectations of how combat should look at this echelon. Regarding that, I’m still not decided on whether the echelon is platoon-sized with individually-based troops, or company-sized with element-based troops. I’ve even had some fantasies about company-level with individually-based troops; sounds crazy, but it’s been done, IABSM is written that way.

I am also much more on game than simulation wrt games of the size I prefer, a few platoons plus support to a couple companies plus support. At this scale individual bases only make sense if using what I have heard called “sabot basing” where the individual bases are inserted to larger “unit” bases of the size I suggested, team to squad size”. This allows them to maneuver and operate as that size force but allows for individual casualties. Mind I still don’t care for the buckets of dice approach. I have played games with very high levels of detail which approach simulations but in that case (Air Superiority) I was operating usually a single plane and at most two.

“When individually based I find most rules have you making rolls with handfuls of dice…”
I’m a huge fan of 5Core’s “Kill” and “Shock” dice, and am looking hard at individually-based figures using “No End in Sight’s” version of coming up the amount of firing dice, expressed in Shock dice per weapon, with a Kill dice picked up for every two Shock dice. This makes it easy to penalize units firing for things, like “moving units halve Shock dice,” or “pinned units count Kill dice per every three Shock dice.” I feel like I’ll use that methodology whether the rules use individually-based troops or element-based troops. And they’re all D6s, no fumbling for different die types, just looking for 1s and 6s, I very much enjoy simple 😉

I also like the concept but have yet to bring 5core to the table. I have played a few games of NEiS. The first was with my son and noticed had to make up a lot of rules and concepts as we went. I assumed at the time it was unfamiliarity with the rules. I later played a couple games with a well versed opponent who also designs games. We never made it past the first “turn”. Please note with these rules a single turn can cover many repeated actions so we did quite a lot of gaming in each “turn”. First we found the roll for activations (or whatever he calls it) allowed for quite a few actions and was one of the reasons for the long turns. We felt dropping the roll from 1D6 to 1D4 would have given a better representation of our opinions wrt amount of unit actions and how quickly units would be exhausted. We also found many missing or incomplete rules as we made a point of playing the game as written. This was based on my experience with my son. The rules are not complete as written and left many unanswered or un-addressed areas. I cannot remember them now but my opponent was very put off by this. I was expecting to write or modify these sections for future reference but my buddy felt the designer fell flat on his face and it wasn’t his job to write the rules. Given the large number of these occurrences I did agree to some extent but it was my expectation that we/I might address this and produce suitable sections. I contacted the designer but was told essentially that game is done, I have gone on to other things and perhaps what I have done since covers this more thoroughly. My disappointment with this limits my intentions to pursue newer titles, although I have a few, as I feel finishing and supporting what you started should occur. As i said I have 5core company commander and read through it. I don’t agree with everything but not having played it I cannot assess how “complete” these rules may be. I also have his more recent RCW rules, the name escapes me right now, but picked it up with the intent of stealing ideas as opposed to playing it as is. This is mostly as I have a set of rules I like for the period and if I remember correctly his rules are also individually based.

I’m not familiar with Conflict of Heroes, but I’d love to hear more.

If you go to the Academy Games website you can download all their rules, scenario booklets, reduced scale maps and other items. You do need to create an account but in the few years I have been in their system I only received a few emails when they were releasing new games. The on line resources are the latest versions and most gamers keep up to date that way. The rules have images of every counter including quantities and if I remember correctly the same goes for the cards. The game is essentially a hex and counter game comparable to Squad Leader but with the addition of cards which partially replicate the effects of leaders as they do not appear but are heavily abstracted in this system. The other aspect compared to ASL is the detail or system id such that running much more than a platoon or two per side can bog the game down some. There are some early SL scenarios which have almost a battalion of infantry per side which would be unacceptable with CoH. Part of this may be the desire of current gamers to have games not longer than an hour or two as opposed to back in the day we used to game for an entire day. I remember having breakfast, lunch and dinner at the game table. But that was when I was a teen as well and that might be part of the issue (no cell phone addictions and more willingness to pay attention for hours not seconds).

A couple observations. The game system has been revised a few times. Some players are put off by this constant revision while others, such as myself, felt how the game was handled at different points in its history “felt” better. If you look closer at CoH and want to discuss we can do so then.

The other issue is the company has been around for some time but wrt CoH there are only 3 games, with 3 “major” expansions and a few more minor ones. The only games cover Barbarossa, Kursk and Guadalcanal. One of the expansions covers the German and Soviet invasions of Poland, one provides a solo system to play the game (based on feedback this system is light years head of almost all other solo solutions for games) and a procedure to design your own scenarios. The drawback is according to the company there are expansions to cover many aspects of the war in Europe which have never been released with the company seeming to ignore them and completely rewrite their basic game over and over. These games and updates are announced as imminent for years with real world release dates far down the line. Some of these have taken close to a decade and still only three titles. There are no third party vendors producing titles unlike ASL which has massive support. I do not know if this is because Academy will not allow it (probable given the popularity of the system) or if no one is interested (possible as the system is changed occasionally potentially making supplements not compatible). If you want to discuss this system further I would be happy to as I still see it as potentially the best solution for my needs.

“I feel the combat systems which cause their need will also make their existence and utilization apparent and not be called out as some separate rule.”
I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s the whole problem, isn’t it? I think John is up to something with this idea that a unit firing can’t do anything else until a leader breaks a foot off in their ass (I’m assuming a non-organic leader, i.e., not the fireteam or squad leader, must be the platoon or company commander).

I like the feel of this but writing it in a suitable way to both direct but not demand actions is the tricky part.

“If you will be creating, or want to work together to create a set of rules I would be very interested in being a part of this, either here, some other site or off line.”
Great man, I appreciate it. Progress is slow, so for not it’s just here on this thread.

Let me know if you want help or to work together. It seems we have a lot of concepts and intended results in common.

“The only real chance of causing infantry casualties from direct fire is on the first turn of fire: thereafter the chances should be very small if the target has become suppressed…”
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Again how to simulate this. In CoH sides alternate a single action for each unit. The first action after a unit moved “un-cautiously” in the open that unit has a better chance of being hit if attacked. Similarly in Hind & Seek after a unit has performed it’s action(s) for the turn it can be attacked but after that initial attack the unit is considered to “go to ground” meaning an increase in it’s covered status.

“I would penalize the shooting of pinned units too…”
I’m actually already doing that in these Chunky Bandit fights, if the pinned unit is in the open (not if they’re in cover).

If it is pinned it is reacting to effective incoming fire. Why wouldn’t that effect, much less for a unit in cover as opposed to open, any unit?

“Probably indirect fire shouldn’t be penalized quite as badly.”
From which standpoint? If you’re saying a pinned mortar team should be penalized, I agree. If you’re saying a mortar team shouldn’t be able to hurt a pinned infantry target, I think they should, but be penalized as a lot of HE goes up and everyone is already down, but it’s still going to tear some stuff up. When you get into company-level fire planning, whether on the assault or defense, a staple is using machine guns to fix the enemy and pound them into submission with organic (company-level) mortars.

A lot of these discussions lead to the writing of rules which allow or encourage or demand a more specific system of handling suppressing fire.

“The effect of firing should not be linear but should be subject to diminishing returns…”
I agree, a staple here is the idea that pinned or suppressed units cannot be eliminated by direct fire, they’re going to have to be close assaulted or pounded with indirect fire. But I’m still a fan of fire having the ability to push a suppressed element back.

One of the reasons I like a 2D6 combat roll. getting to an 8 from a 7 is easier than getting from a 12 from an 11.

“Troops need the ability to suppress more than equal numbers…”
Indeed, and when I first read this I had an idea, but now that I’ve been typing it escapes me…

This will also be very dependent on weapons used. I read accounts recently that the MG42, and to a lesser extent the MG34’s high rates of fire meant less chance of causing casualties due to dispersion of fire (compared to a Bren gun) but much better chances of suppression with the accompanying rifle section being responsible for the actual casualties. Although opinion it made sense.

“Properties of the weapons themselves, especially having more machine guns and grenade launchers.”
That would certainly add more firing dice, and what I’m thinking of is letting units split firing dice, which I’m generally not a fan of.

Again more dice!! Seriously what I was meaning above. Although I have not learned enough of how grenades effect vs guns vs machine guns to make a specific statement of rules. I think splitting fire would only be possible if BOTH units/bases have a suitable leader present. This may also be based on training and unit quality.

“The sight of friends being pinned or suppressed in close vicinity is likely to make friends act pinned or suppressed too, although should be easier to rally.”
I need to think on this a bit, but I don’t think I’m on board with that. The way I typically handle this is that defending unit fires on attacking unit, and any excess ‘hits’ rolled are applied to any enemy units within 6″ of the target. So if I rolled 1 Kill dice and 2 Shock dice, and I rolled up one suppression and one pin, the target would be suppressed and another enemy unit within 6″ would be pinned; you can see this in all of the Chunky Bandit fight and, from my perspective, it quickly, efficiently, and effectively handles the issue of “1st Squad just saw 2nd Squad get pinned, should 1st Squad be pinned, too?” as a separate die roll. You roll your firepower and the effects are read and applied, couldn’t be easier (in my opinion).

Interesting solution but if an adjacent but sufficiently “distant” unit sees but is not under fire would they also be more likely to return fire in order to relieve their comrades?

Lots to think on, looking forward to continuing this chat.

V/R,
Jack

 

AAARG. I tried to put my replies in a different colour text but it did not go through! I tried to indent my replies but my text based notebook program did I don’t know what to my paragraphs as they just vanished. Please try to follow. Thank you.

[Just Jack]

Stephen,

“At this scale individual bases only make sense if using what I have heard called “sabot basing” where the individual bases are inserted to larger “unit” bases of the size I suggested, team to squad size”.”
I’m familiar with them, but not a fan as my attempts, at least, have not turned out very nice.  Hats off to the guys that can put three rifle platoons and a weapons platoon on the table, individually mounted, and play it out!  I’ve tried and quickly end up becoming agitated, but for some reason the thought still enters my brain…

“Mind I still don’t care for the buckets of dice approach.”
Me too, but I suppose that gets to how you define it.  I regularly roll 2 Kill/3 Shock dice, even up to 3 Kill/4Shock, and it doesn’t bother me.  I just use red for Kill and black for Shock, roll them all together, looking for 1s and 6s, simple.

“I also like the concept but have yet to bring 5core to the table.”
At this stage in my life I have literally played over 200 games using 5Core (Brigade Commander, Company Command, 5 Men in Normandy, and 5 Men at Kursk).  It’s not the end-all, be-all for me (as Black Ops proves), but it’s certainly right up my alley 😉

Regarding NEiS, I agree with you in that it can feel like it’s bogging down with the command rolls (like a really great idea that doesn’t seem to come off as great on the table), but I didn’t experience the same issues you have in terms of it seeming like an incomplete game.  I haven’t played it exhaustively, but I’ve got around a dozen games in (the most recent were less than six months ago) and I don’t recall having those issues.  But, to each his own!  Like I said, my issue with NEiS was that it just seems to take longer than I want to spend; to be fair, I’m seemingly in the minority of folks who is looking for most of my game to last between 60 and 90 minutes, whereas it seems like many others don’t feel like it’s a game if it’s less than 3 hours.  I have my occasions when I’m looking to spend that much time (typically with IABSM), but that’s certainly not my norm.  I will say that the rules we’re talking about ginning up in this discussion will likely be in that variety, i.e., will take 3 1/2 hours to play.  Such is the cost, I suppose, of moving closer to a process-based reality rather than a results-based reality.

“If you go to the Academy Games website you can download all their rules, scenario booklets, reduced scale maps and other items.”
No kidding?  I shall take a look.  And I am ALWAYS looking for scenario material!  Barbarossa, Kursk, and the ‘Canal are right up my alley!
And I know this is heresy, but… I’ve never played Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader.  As a kid (around 10 or 12) I can remember checking out some WWIII hex and counter games from the base library, but my buddies and I weren’t smart enough to figure out the rules so we just made up our own 😉

“I like the feel of this but writing it in a suitable way to both direct but not demand actions is the tricky part.”
Indeed.  I can’t compulsory; for me the point of wargaming is tactical decision making, and compulsory, by definition, means you didn’t make a decision.  Which is a difficult balance as I don’t mind troops doing things you don’t want them to do, so long as it fits in with my concept of ‘perspective-based gaming,’ meaning they’re making decisions below my level, based on the tactical situation.

“If it is pinned it is reacting to effective incoming fire. Why wouldn’t that effect, much less for a unit in cover as opposed to open, any unit?”
Because pinned means taking fire to the point a unit is willing to return fire but unwilling to move, and a unit in cover will return fire while making best use of cover whilst a pinned unit in the open will return fire but doesn’t have the advantage of being in cover, only in being prone.  One could argue that the head and shoulders of a prone soldier is the same target as the head and shoulders of a soldier firing from behind a three-foot thick stonewall, but without spending a day teasing out all the differences (both psychological and physical) between someone being fired at in the prone and someone being fired at behind cover, I’ll simplify it down to “I believe the pinned element/soldier behind hard cover should receive a bonus over a pinned element/soldier caught in the open.”  That is purely my view and I can explain further, but there’s a lot of other stuff to unpack here so I didn’t want to get bogged down in this one detail.

“A lot of these discussions lead to the writing of rules which allow or encourage or demand a more specific system of handling suppressing fire.”
Sure, and I’ve laid out my abstracted concepts of pinned and suppressed, what are you thinking?

“One of the reasons I like a 2D6 combat roll. getting to an 8 from a 7 is easier than getting from a 12 from an 11.”
I understand what that means (in terms of statistics), but I don’t understand the context.  Well maybe; are you saying rather than an absolute ‘pinned/suppressed units cannot be eliminated by direct fire,’ they can be eliminated by direct fire, just with more dice-roll modifiers in order to make it more difficult?  If that’s the case, I understand, but my opinion is that the likelihood of that occurring is so vanishingly small as to not warrant worrying about another modifier.

“This will also be very dependent on weapons used. I read accounts recently that the MG42, and to a lesser extent the MG34’s high rates of fire meant less chance of causing casualties due to dispersion of fire (compared to a Bren gun) but much better chances of suppression with the accompanying rifle section being responsible for the actual casualties. Although opinion it made sense.”
Hmmm, I’m not so sure, but I figure we need more context.  Please note that I personally am very much in the “an MG is an MG camp;’ that is not to say there are not differences in weapons, but my opinion is that wargamers get much to wrapped up in things that don’t matter.  In this case, the cyclic rate, when they should be focused on the sustained rate, which puts most MGs in about the same ballpark and thus means their combat capability is pretty damn equal.  To me, an MG on a bipod is an MG on a bipod, and an MG on a tripod is an MG on a tripod, and that is the big delineator, bipod vs tripod.  But that is just my opinion, and the point is for everyone to build a set of rules that matches their own personal taste.

“Although I have not learned enough of how grenades effect vs guns vs machine guns to make a specific statement of rules.”
I’m not sure I’m following here.  This is real simple: let’s say a rifle squad fires with 1 Kill and 2 Shock dice, an MG team fires with 2K and 4S.  They would be free to allot those firing dice however they saw fit, within the established rules.  So a rifle team could see two enemy rifle teams in the open and choose to allot 1K and 1S to one enemy rifle team, and 1S to the other.  An MG team could spot a pinned enemy rifle team, an MG team in a bunker, and a rifle team in the open.  They could then allot their 2K 4 S as follows: 1S on the pinned enemy rifle team (can’t use Kill dice on pinned or suppressed units, so you’re giving them 1 Shock dice just to see if you can force them from ‘pinned’ to ‘suppressed’), 3S on the enemy MG team in the bunker (can’t use Kill dice on units in hard cover, but really want to pin or suppress these guys), and 2K on the enemy rifle team in the open (this is the only team you can use Kill dice on, and you’re all out of Shock dice, though I will say I don’t like the idea of being able to only fire Kill dice at a unit, so probably should have a rule saying ‘if you’re allotting Kill dice you must allot at least one Shock dice’).

“I think splitting fire would only be possible if BOTH units/bases have a suitable leader present. This may also be based on training and unit quality.”
That’s an interesting concept, though I think I’d only apply that to poor troops.

“Interesting solution but if an adjacent but sufficiently “distant” unit sees but is not under fire would they also be more likely to return fire in order to relieve their comrades?”
I’d say not necessarily, and hopefully they’d do whatever their boss tells them to do.  Now, if they were themselves affected by the fire I could see some such rule (something like, ‘a pinned unit may fire, but only on the unit that fired upon them,’ so they can’t split firing dice or choose to fire on an enemy unit that didn’t fire at them, while they’re being fired at).

Interesting stuff! 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Ivan Sorensen]

> Stephen

I apologize that you found No End in Sight unsatisfactory. Sometimes a game does not connect with someone. Has happened to me as well.
Other players and reviewers have had different experiences.

Unfortunately I don’t have my old emails any longer due to a problem with gmail and my own stupidity, so I cannot refer back to any prior discussions.
As an older title, (the second we ever did, in fact) there are aspects that aren’t worded as clearly as they could be, certainly.

* * *

As far as firing dice, as Jack alludes to, the entire point behind the Shock and Kill dice is to encapsulate everything into a single die roll.
In my view combat is either attrition based or state based.

Attrition based combat means we tally up hits (Command Decision, Blitzkrieg Commander) or remove guys (most games with individual figures. IABSM f.x.)
A unit may falter through a bolt-on morale check (25% casualties, whatever) or combat may be entirely attrition based (as we did with Hammer of Democracy) but fundamentally the counting and removing of guys or accumulation of damage is what drives the game system.

State based combat means we ignore these factors and instead look at the unit overall: Is it currently capable of fighting?
This is as old as the trusty old Squad Leader board game: Units are okay or they are Broken or they are dead.
The Fivecore dice just expand that to a few more cases (okay / pinned / broken / damaged / dead).

As John Hill said all those years ago, whether a squad is being hit by a machine gun burst, a grenade or a sniper doesn’t matter. The outcomes are the same: Either the squad as an entity is okay or it is not.

(mandatory disclaimer – I’m not opining that state based combat is superior though it may be superior for specific cases or tastes. I’ve written and played state based and attrition based games alike, including the RCW game mentioned upthread)

[madman]

Ivan

I am trying to post my after game thoughts from months ago. I have a couple of text files with my thoughts from a day or two after the game and will review and reply. What I stated above is what I remember of it now. At the time I remember discussing it on Wargaming DropZone with a fellow who’s handle is Josta as the scale of games and our mutual interests matched well. He also passed on NEiS but went with his own rules which are very simplified at a couple of pages. Not the direction I want to go but I hope I gave him some constructive feedback on them.

That is what I hope wrt to NEiS. Something didn’t quite do it for me but it feels worth the effort of giving feedback with the hope someone can use it if they find it helpful. Yes it is an older game and I can understand the attitude of moving on but the scale seemed where I wanted to go. Same for company commander. Great ideas but something just didn’t gel for me. Since I never brought it to the table and it has been about a year since I looked closely at it it would be very unfair and probably inaccurate for me to comment at all on it.

I don’t remember it being the wording so much as unfinished ideas or areas, which seemed to us incomplete, which needed finishing. Again I will review my notes to make sure I am not doing the system poor by my half year further on fuzzy brain.

Sorry but I remember 5CCC having the shock and kill dice but can’t for the life of me remember it in NEiS. Not being anal I just don’t remember. Seemed like a good idea as was the lack of saving throws, but don’t kill dice also have a second roll for the effect of the hit. I seem to remember we discussed this and I mentioned they would be more accurately called shock and hit dice.

I know what you mean about effect results vs attrition results. And yes SL did “go for” effects more than outright attrition. I played only a couple games of SL back in the day but have all of it and about the first dozen parts of ASL from back in the day. Getting back into gaming these were the titles I remembered so figured they would be the direction I would head. Well I like the game scale and the IDEAS they worked towards but having played both since getting back into gaming I can say they are not the way I want to go for my small unit actions whether  using micro armour or 15mm. Primarily the endless phases in each turn and the nearly endless charts and tables are the big turn off. I have a gaming buddy who likes the original and has tried the starter kits for ASL and I will play them but not as my main miniatures game.

Ivan we did some discussing of NEiS here a few months before the game session I have been eluding to. Your answers were quick well thought out and thorough. I will review and try to become more familiar with the questions brought up that day and post them, if still applicable, on your support section of this site. Our previous discussion was here;

NEis questions

[Ivan Sorensen]

If you gather up your thoughts and email me at [email protected], I’d definitely like to have it in one place.

With gathering up some more manpower around me, the chance of doing a revision of the game to tighten it up is becoming viable, but I’d rather not bog down Jack’s thread with a side question 🙂

I do agree with you on the scale, it’s where my heart naturally gravitates.

I definitely hear you on something not quite clicking. Blitzkrieg Commander is a game like that for me, where I understand and like whats its doing, but it never worked for me. Luckily, it did work for lots of other folks!

[madman]

Agreed. Jack we have taken this thread way off topic towards game design much like your Black Ops thread. On the other site the moderator was very quick to either put us back on track or mostly insist we start a new thread. I think in the case of this thread and the other one we should do so as well. I suggest titles like company size per side rules ideas for this discussion and squad size rules for the other. As these are your threads I leave it to you. If you do I would suggest moving or copying all our previous posts wrt rules design to the new threads. Thank you for allowing us to hijack so far.

Ivan I suggest we discuss on your section of this site.

[Just Jack]

“Agreed. Jack we have taken this thread way off topic towards game design much like your Black Ops thread.”
No problem at all, that’s what wargaming forums are for, to discuss wargaming!

“If you do I would suggest moving or copying all our previous posts wrt rules design to the new threads.”
I’ll see if I can get around to that, but it’s really not a big deal to me to keep using this thread.

In any case, I believe I have a fairly tight set of platoon-sized rules using singly-based troops completed, borrowing heavily from 5Core.  Hmmm, one might say, simply another modification to 5Core, call it “5Core Platoon Commander” 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Just Jack]

All,

1330 on 4 Aug 1990
Mini-Campaign Fight #8
TF Hammer vs FSNL 3rd Company

Major Chavez leads his TF Hammer in pursuit of the FSNL 3rd Company, which has previously been defeated by TF Hammer, was forced to retreat, ran into the SLA’s D Company, was defeated again and was forced tp retreat.  The overall Task Group commander, Major Halabrio, has decided to attach himself to the assault element, leaving Major Chavez in overall commander but willing and able to assist as necessary, functioning as a second command stand for the Cubans.

This is a simple attack/defend scenario; the Cuban goal is to crush their enemies on the way to the capital, the Communist goal is to hold the ground.

Cubans rolling in heavy for this fight!

But so are the Communists…

The advance gets under way.

To see how the fight turned out, please check the blog at:
https://cubalibrewargame.blogspot.com/2020/06/operation-chunky-bandit-34-ground.html

Next up we have 1st Lt Ordonez’ TF Redleg defending against a counterattack by the FSNL’s 5th Company.

V/R,
Jack

[kyoteblue]

The West Germans kicked the crap out of the East Germans!!!

[Darkest Star Games]

RIP Hammer 01.  That Leopard… TF Hammer should get their money back!

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Thomaston]

A thing to learn from this, Cubans make bad tank crew.

I’ve finally worked out what I hate about your Cubans. They have a seriously messy logistic trail. Chieftains, FV432, Lepeods, LAV, and that’s not even half of it. In an overseas operation no less.

Tired is enough.

[Whirlwind]

Thomaston wrote:

I’ve finally worked out what I hate about your Cubans. They have a seriously messy logistic trail. Chieftains, FV432, Lepeods, LAV, and that’s not even half of it. In an overseas operation no less.

I believe that the UAE do this in real life.

[Whirlwind]

Nice action.  I was a bit surprised that the T-72 crew was that vulnerable to suppression from the Marders.

On a strategic level, I think the Communists should re-organize and re-think.  They clearly aren’t getting very far with their current organizations and tactics…

[Just Jack]

Kyote John – Yeah, told ya the bad guys would get tanks.

Darby and Thomaston – Yeah, I have a habit of loading up against the Cubans whenever they get tanks, and/or making the Cuban vehicles do dumb stuff 😉

Thomaston – I’m an amateur, I don’t worry about logistics 😉  Besides, the United States is paying for it all.  If you guys haven’t figured it out yet, the Cuban Expeditionary Force is essentially the American Foreign Legion!

Whirlwind John – “I was a bit surprised that the T-72 crew was that vulnerable to suppression from the Marders.”
I dunno man; there’s not much of a chance, but at that range there was even a chance of the 20mm auto-cannon opening up the T-72, and so I think there’s definitely room for a crew to be suppressed, which in this case contextually means ‘reacting to enemy fire in a defensive manner rather than performing in an offensive manner, and able to be compelled to withdraw if the same volume and effectiveness of enemy fire is sustained.’  So the game mechanic is the Marder is firing with 1K 1S and rolled a ‘6’ on the Shock dice, suppressing the tank.  If the Marder fires again and rolls another ‘6’ on the Shock dice the target would fall back.  That matches my expectations based on discussion with US Army and Marine tankers/mech guys, as well as books by Peters and Coyle; it seemed Bradleys expected the above to happen at close range had the Cold War gone hot, and it actually happened when Marine LAV-25s (of TF Grizzly, if I recall correctly) did it to Iraqi T-72s in Desert Storm.

“On a strategic level, I think the Communists should re-organize and re-think.  They clearly aren’t getting very far with their current organizations and tactics…”
Not in the cards, the Cuban blitzkrieg is moving too quickly.  Besides, their current organization and tactics brought them all the way to the South Leonian capital city 😉  And what did you expect, that I would lose a bunch of these battles? 😉

V/R,
Jack

[Darkest Star Games]

Whirlwind wrote:

I was a bit surprised that the T-72 crew was that vulnerable to suppression from the Marders.

  I was visiting an interesting museum east of Dallas not that long ago during a Special Forces Association gathering and we got to ride around in an FV433 Abbot SPG (among other vehicles).  Typical out of nowhere Texas storm occurred and it started to hail while I was inside the track.  Let me tell you, it was LOUD, and hail isn’t even explosive!  Though not much harm may have come to the T-72, I could imagine it freaking out an inexperienced crew, or them not wanting to get tracked or engine-killed.

My uncle once told me about his M-48 getting belted by a .51cal HMG in Vietnam and how loud it was, sort of rung their bell a little.  Didn’t do much to their tank (a vision block knocked out and a return roller chipped) but they were pissed off that it blew apart their cooler.

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Just Jack]

My understanding is that there is a huge loss of situational awareness that many times works to convince the vehicle commander that his best option is to pop smoke, pull back, and reassess the situation, rather than sit tight or charge blindly forward and run into threat vectors.

It was US doctrine to team wire-guided ATGMs (TOWs and Dragons) with heavy machine guns (M-2 and Mk-19) in Combined Anti-Armor Teams (CAATs); the HMG would open fire on the enemy tank to button them up so the crew didn’t see the ATGM launch, and then continue taking the tank under fire in order to keep them buttoned up while the ATGM was in flight, thus keeping the crew from returning fire on the ATGM or performing any radical evasive maneuvers (the theory being the crew could speed up or back up, but wouldn’t undertake any crazy turns without better views of the terrain).

V/R,
Jack

[Just Jack]

All,

1330 on 4 Aug 1990
Mini-Campaign Fight #9
TF Redleg vs FSNL 5th Company

1st Lt Ordonez is leading his TF Redleg west, attempting to breakthrough the Communist lines in order for TF Redleg and TF Razor to reunite with their Cuban comrades advancing from that direction.  This morning they assaulted the rear of the FSNL’s 5th Company’s positions, tossing them a beatdown and forcing them to fall back to re-group, but the Cubans weren’t able to capitalize, having to move cautiously in the densely jungled hilly terrain, which allowed FSNL5 time to regroup.  Not only did the Communists regroup, they have actually staged a counterattack, so Lt Ordonez quickly shakes his men out into a hasty defense (ambush mentality!) in order to throw back their assailants.  This is a simple attack/defend scenario; the Cuban goal is to repel the enemy attack, the Communist goal is to destroy the Cuban force.

Lt Ordonez has the assistance of his Task Group Commander, Major Fulgencio, who has attached himself to the Task Force.  Major Fulgencio is leaving Lt Ordonez in overall command of his Task Force but will assist as necessary, essentially performing as a second command stand in the game.  This proved a winning combination as Major Fulgencio was key in breaking the enemy’s defense in the last fight, leading several close assaults that saw him awarded the Bronze Star w/V.

Cuban Marines push forward (right side of the photo) in the center, engaging an enemy outpost (top left).

The outpost is pinned (far right), but the enemy CO moves up and rallies them, bringing reinforcements.

So the Cubans move around the left flank (bottom center).

But they (top right) run into the enemy’s main line of resistance (left/bottom left).

So the Cubans (far right, bottom left) try the right flank…

The tough Cuban Marines defeat the enemy’s left flank (far left) and move up (center) on the enemy’s center position (right).

But the Communists launch a ferocious counterattack to shore up their line!

To see how the fight turned out, please check the blog at:
https://cubalibrewargame.blogspot.com/2020/06/operation-chunky-bandit-35-ground.html

Next up we have Captain Soares’ Task Force Razor fighting a rear-guard action against the Free Leon Army’s 3rd Company.  TF Razor is the other part of Task Group Fulgencio, which was cut off from friendly forces and is now fighting to break out and return to friendly lines.  Unfortunately the withdrawal was halted when FSNL5 decided to counterattack TF Redleg on Hill 261, which allowed the pursuing FLA3 to catch them.

V/R,
Jack

[Author]

Posts