Home Forums Sci Fi General Sci-Fi Rules theory. Would this bother you?

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5411
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    One of the concepts in a game I am working on (not the 6mm game I have discussed elsewhere) is that for infantry, weapons and abilities are “averaged out”.

    Basically, instead of keeping track of one figure with a heavy weapon and rolling separate dice, each figure in the squad just gets a bonus to damage or range or whatever.

    An inspiring sergeant is a morale bonus to the whole squad and so forth.

     

    This is intended really for 6mm and 15mm games with a lot of toys on the table but still based individually. The downside is that it’s more abstract, and you don’t have to position specific figures as carefully.

    The upside is that it’s more abstract and you don’t have to position specific figures as carefully 🙂

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #5417
    venusboys3
    Participant

    At 6mm… based as a squad… it doesn’t bother me all that much. Anything bigger, individual based, and I would take issue. I’d prefer it if the squad could choose to split its targets, on occasion, for weaker/less accurate attacks… a desperate move vs. concentrating fire.

    #5421
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Appreciate the response. Just to be clear: Under this system, you;d still be able to split fire, just not assign specific weapons.

    To give an example, if my squad has 6 guys that each get 1 attack with damage 1 (using random numbers here), I give them a heavy weapons upgrade that give them all +1 damage to account for one of the lugging around a plasma gun.

    When I shoot, the 6 guys are still 6 attack dice and I can direct them wherever I want (2 on that squad, 4 on those guys, whatever). Its just that the effect of the heavy weapon is a bonus to all of them, instead of one guy firing with unique rules.

    (Though for some things like anti tank weapons, it’ll be a bit differently).

     

    I may just go for team-based stands instead. Not sure yet.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #5437
    Barks
    Participant

    That’s sounds like what Ambush Alley/ Force on Force does. One die per figure, and extra dice for support weapons, rolled as a fireteam without worrying about exactly who shot who or who is standing where. It works.

    #5512
    Patrice
    Participant

    As I understand, it means that you want the miniatures based individually, but still consider them as a team.

    (Sorry if I don’t understand precisely) but your question isn’t what they can do, but rather: “Can they do the same thing (ie: benefit from the bigger weapon) if they are based separately and not on a single base?”

    Um, yes. Why not? If you want them to. You can decide that a separately-based team can do exactly the same as if they were all stuck on the same base. No problem with that.

    (…but then, I mostly play 28mm, so don’t ask me )

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    https://www.anargader.net/

    #5528
    Mike
    Keymaster

    hmmmm I have been thinking about this and am still not 100% sure.

    But I think that if my figures are individually based I want them to do what they look like they can do.
    But as it is a game that is has lots of models in play then I don’t think I would want them individually based.

    As a stand vs stand then it makes perfect sense to me.
    As individual models it seems odd, even though it is still squad vs squad.

    Does it mean that a squad with a very powerful heavy weapon will always get that +1 damage and the +1 leadership bonuses for their hero NCO, even with only 1 man left?
    How is attrition modelled if casualties do not mean the bonuses are removed.
    If the bonuses are removed then so should the relevant figures?
    if the bonuses are not removed what is gained by shooting at squads, do they go from 100% to 0%?

    I think I would be OK with it if I knew it worked.

    Is that any help at all even?

    #5531
    Mike
    Keymaster

    With KR16 for example, which is individually based models that act as a squad.

    They would say roll 10d6 (this could be 6d6 of rifles and 4d6 of HMG) as a squad and if that ended up in 2 enemies killed then you remove 2 models.

    However for each model killed the player that did the shooting rolls a d6 and on a 6 he gets to pick which model is removed.
    (Snipers on a 5 or 6 on that d6 roll.)
    So in the above case he would roll 2d6 and for each 6 he chooses who the casualty is, otherwise the defender picks the models to remove.

    This gives the attacker the chance to remove an officer and reduce the squads command ability or say a heavy weapons guy and reduce their firepower etc.

    #5533
    Mike
    Keymaster

    Ah, hang on.
    For every hit your squad takes they could lose 1 attack die.
    That would work I think.
    Then the +1 for the heavy weapon guy makes sense.

    Still not sure about wanting to play a game with lots of individually based models, but then that was NOT your question!

    #5537
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Ah, hang on. For every hit your squad takes they could lose 1 attack die. That would work I think. Then the +1 for the heavy weapon guy makes sense. Still not sure about wanting to play a game with lots of individually based models, but then that was NOT your question!

    That’s the intention yeah.

    I’m not 100% sure about individual bases. It seems though that most 15mm gamers base individually while 6mm gamers tend to base in teams.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #5541
    Yukon5G
    Participant

    What level of command is the player playing? If Company Commander, I would advise against splitting a team’s or even a squad’s fire. That type of decision is too low for the Company Commander to bother with. Even at Platoon Leader level, splitting fire at team level would be tricky (or even unnecessary). Again, at some point, the higher leaders just have to trust their subordinates to make those decisions on their own. I would say that adding such a level of detail detracts from a game rather than adds to its “realism” (whatever that means to you).

    A leader works with the tools at his disposal. A company commander works with his platoons. He doesn’t care how the platoon gets the job done, so long as they do. Arguably, he may want to be aware of what his squad leaders are up to, but shouldn’t be directing their actions. He has a platoon leader to do that. Converserly, the platoon leader isn’t directing teams and their team leaders. The squad leader may be directing individual soldiers, but that’s more a function of proximity. He shouldn’t have to if his team leaders are doing their jobs.

    In the interest of clarity, I’m taking “team” to mean up to five men, most with rifles and maybe a light support weapon. A “squad” means two such teams with a squad leader. Three to five squads in a platoon, etc.

    Sink meh!

    #5574
    Shawn Carpenter
    Participant

    What’s being described here is exactly how we do it in the Ambush Alley game engine – other than if the team splits, each portion only benefits from the weapons/special figures attached to it.

    If the unit is a trained military unit, it’s assumed that its members are cross-trained on weapons and someone will pick up a fallen gunner’s weapon and put it to good use. Untrained units have to make a Troop Quality check to do so.

    If a unit that takes hits contains specialty figures (a point man, medic, JTAC, etc.), a roll is made to see if  it is among the figures hit.

    It’s been working pretty well for us since 2007. Seems like a solid, time proven mechanism.

    Best,

    Shawn.

    Shawn Carpenter
    [email protected]
    www.ambushalleygames.net

    #6711
    fairoaks024
    Participant

    In answer to the original question:-

    nope, wouldn’t bother me at all as a mechanism, whether my guys were based individually or as a squad, seems like it would speed up play, which I always like

     

    regards

     

    jim

    #7166
    ExtraCrispy
    Participant

    It’s interesting that acceptance of this seems keyed to basing. I guess when we multi-base we tend to think of the team/squad’s abilities in total, but when single basing we assign that to the individual.

    For me it’s more about tactics. If a squad of 10 men has a SuperBlasterKillOZap support weapon, do your rules allow it to be set up to provide cover while the rest of the squad maneuver? Depending on what your game really looks like, you might have to make units fire teams to do your “averaging out.” I’ve played Ambush Alley games like this where the units were the wrong size, squads instead of teams. So you lost the ability to use certain weapons on their own. Not a big deal if the game is still fun (I had a good time), but definitely worth considering.

    #9289
    Logain
    Participant

    Yep, that is exactly how it works in Tomorrows War, as Shawn mentioned.  We like the mechanism for platoon level games, individually based 15mm figures, it works great.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.