Since it is summer much of my gaming time is spent playing history maker baseball. But during my many semi automatic functions I carry out to help my family during the day I have been thinking about my perfect rule set for land warfare in the modern era. I have also had 3 interesting discussions about it on TMP which has helped spur my thinking on the subject. Now the amount of complexity, scale, "realism" and time involved are all matters of personal taste which is why we have so many great rulesets out there. So I have tried to define; for myself what would be the perfect ruleset.
1. First, as readers might remember, I have upscaled over the past two years from platoon to battalion level games. I have realized that, given my bias that people and personalities make a difference in the moment, a battalion is too large. Also the ground scale becomes off with 15mm figures which bugs me and the jury is still out on 6mm. So I think platoon is great for stories and company is probably best for the sense of command. Anything larger and you get too far away from the people. In the Air Force people say squadron command is your best command, anything higher and you are just commanding other commanders instead of airman. That is true and probably biases my view here as well. So I am going to focus on company level rules for the moment.
2. Command is a great privilege/burden/test. You have to use the tools provided to accomplish the mission. This not only includes the material, but time and your people. All your people will have strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully you have trained your people and minimized their weaknesses. So my perfect ruleset will make me feel like I am in command of a company of people not automatons. I myself will have limitations of situation, time and danger which with to grapple. Platoon Forward can provide the characterization. But the ruleset will have to allow me to differentiate between Lt Smith the aggressive super star that I have to hold back and Lt Jones the barely adequate that I will have to keep an eye on an potentially step in.
3. The ruleset has to have a smooth combat resolution sequence. I have already stated that I dislike TFL's "shock" routine as too fiddly. I admit it works well. Some chrome is nice in a perfect ruleset but not if it adds fiddle. I will admit I am intrigued by Fields of Fire's area fire system. I talked about it in my last post. The hypothesis is that troops don't initially fire at specific targets but at an area. As they calm down, win the firefight, see better, targets are pointed out by leaders, they start to concentrate their fire. It seems to make sense and is different than anything else I have come across.
4. The ruleset has to be solo friendly. I actually prefer to play solo because an opponent is never as interested in the story as I am . They are concerned about winning. I already have a system that deploys an unknown enemy force in PF that is normally balanced. I don't have an AI that controls the force on the board. I have started working on one based on the attitude of the force, either attack or defense.
5. The game shouldn't take forever. I would like to play an attack/defend scenario in about 2 to 21/2 hours.
6. The game system should be flexible enough to cover WW II, Vietnam, the African Wars, WW III through Afghanistan.
So any rules you know of do all that?
Force on Force comes close at the platoon level. I have house ruled leadership, artillery and some armor. Troops, Weapons and Tactics is an honorable mention if I use my variant that replaces shock. Rich was nice enough to publish is way back. Chain of Command [which I playtested] doesn't really do it but it is fun to play.
O group, Battlefront WW II and Piquet and touch on parts of my list above. Fields of Fire actually gets too in the weeds with command. You count the number of bazooka rounds!
Soooooooooo, I decided to create my perfect ruleset by throwing bits and pieces together. What follows is a report of a straightforward.
An infantry company in Sicily tasked with a simple attack mission. Everyone is average except our "star", SSgt Hinchcliff platoon leader 1st platoon.
US will enter from the right and need to take the ruined abbey on the left. They will have 12 turns because after that I will become bored. Black markers are the blinds per platoon Forward.
The Abbey right and hill 253 left from US jump off.
US always has plenty of artillery so pre game we pound hill 253.
And we're off! I am using 5 command dice per O group but then using a heavily modified ordering system from Fields of Fire. The stuarts will lead. 2nd platoon will move towards the hill. 3rd platoon will occupy the woods. SSgt H will be in reserve.
Turns out there was a squad of Italians on the hill in foxholes. They were roughed up a bit...
And all but 3 men decide to leave.
Those three men manage to pin down 2nd squad/2nd platoon. One of the neat/frustrating things about this system in WW II is, as the company commander, once you send 2nd platoon out you really have no control or say in what they do. Unlike O group, I can't active 2nd platoon this turn, the Lt will show some initiative to follow my plans at a reduced efficiency. He needs help. I send my first sergeant out to rally 2nd squad and get them moving towards the hill!
Meanwhile, my AI opponent decides to mortar the woods where 3rd platoon is. Not good.
Also the Italians have a 47mm ATG positioned to take on my stuarts.
After 3 turns 30 minutesish. Stuart tank is taking fire from the abbey and they are trying to spot the gun. 3rd platoon has rallied and I sent a runner to tell them to push up to see if they can spot and lay some fire down on the abbey. 2nd squad is moving again and going to climb the hill. I am moving up to get closer to the action with my staff.
Another shot of the action. I have just come up and personally ordered 2nd platoon onto the hill.
as we are nearing the abbey I roll for the rest of the Italians. We get 1 squad [20 men], 1 leader, 1 mmg and extra LMG.
The 1st Sgt brings up a LMG that was lagging to the CP. We order it to the hill to provide covering fire for our advance. 2nd platoon finishes their occupation of the hill. 3rd platoon sends a runner to tell me they are taking a lot of fire from the front of the abbey as they probe. I hatch a plan! I send a runner to go get 1st platoon.
A quick "O group" meeting behind the hill. "Sgt Hinchcliff", 2nd platoon is going to swing left. I want you to move straight up at the abbey using the rough ground for cover. The stuarts will provide covering fire."
The Italians from the hill have moved back to the hedges at the cart path. 2nd platoon is starting to win the firefight with the help of the LMG. It is time for them to start their advance.
One of the stuarts shifts fire, adding to the misery of the Italian defenders. Their NCO goes down.
2nd platoon continues their advance. But the Italian AI is shifting both MGs from the front to this endangered side.
As one squad dukes it out close range near the cart path the rest of the squad becomes engaged with MG fire from the abbey. 2nd platoon suddenly has it's hands full. But once a plan is in motion it is hard to pull back. I watch from behind the stuart tank as the first squad of 1st platoon makes it to within 30 yards of the abbey when suddenly...
a heavy MG opens up on the squad. When did that move there!?! Clearly the AI is working.
It isn't pretty as the squad pays a heavy price for my plan.
Again without my help, Hinchcliff picks out the location of the MMG, orders the bazooka to fire [ black ball] as well as the rest of the squad to aim their fire. [ white ball]. It is enough, the MMG falls silent.
I stopped there as I was at 140 minutes. I felt I had learned a lot from the playtest.
The order system with the dice and orders at each level worked really well. Fine tuning only.
I liked the area fire but need to clearly define the areas and make them a bit smaller.
The combat chart I made was too harsh. Almost no one could ever move without being pinned.
The AI worked surprisingly well for a first try. Granted it was on defense but it responded to a situation by moving forces from one flank to another.
I need to speed the game up but hopefully with less pins that will help.
Overall I enjoyed it and I thought it showed promise. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but more to come!
Enjoy!
Joe
I like a lot of what I saw there. Especially the reality that a unit will continue to strive to accomplish their assigned mission without unrealistic external micromanagement as most rules allow. I'd point out that as in real life (be it military or civilian) 10 is the optimum max one leader can hope to control. It is at that level where intimate knowledge of your subordinates develop. At battalion level: Your staff (G-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and possibly attached element commanders?) G-3 (Operations) can have operational control of the subordinate/organic Companies and maybe even attached elements from above. Use of historic organization can change from period to period- just like weapons systems- but humans are the ones that need direction- any period. I think you are inching down the path I have advocated for for over 20 years- the leadership's ability to maintain control over the men to accomplish the mission.
ReplyDeleteDye,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thoughtful post. I have always thought leadership was about relationships. I have just been looking for the right rules. I agree this would work at the battalion level as well. But you will be one step further removed from the sharp end.
Thanks
Doc. If you are a company OR battalion commander, "your" people are the company or platoon leaders (depending on your level of command). I healped teach African Battalions Peacekeeping skills and saw, firsthand, difficulties at both levels, thru exercise injects designed to simulate actual experiences. The theory about max supervision is about 10 subordinates. At company level those would be squad leaders and a small (maybe 2-3) staff. At Battalion level, the "G" staff and any attached subunits (like Heavy Weapons, engineers, etc.) you would have direct supervision of. Your Staff heads would have their own personnel make-up to task. If your objective is to be at the tip of the spear, then probably not higher than platoon level if the goal is to direct sub-unit attacks. The Platoon leader would have some knowledge of the capabilities of those men. Not so much at higher levels- only the general knowledge of your platoon/company commanders and their strengths and weaknesses are. No reason to expect much knowledge below that level about individuals- only sub units. Drop me an email and allow me to send you some background explanation and see if you at least see how I have been approaching the same issues. So far, my last demo game lasted for 2 hours with 2 ACW Brigades and arty per side. In that time the playtesters completed 10-12 complete turns with a decisive result. That met my requirements for a quick game with believable, results with fun for the participants. MY biggest problem has always been trying to convince the playtesters to brain dump numbers, casualties and morale. It's really the effect of the unit leadership's ability to keep the unit functioning towards their assigned mission. To reinforce that, I ask them to look at the amount of ammunition expended verses the casualties produced and they quickly conclude that it's the results that count- not expressed in casualties but if the unit remains capable of functioning as a unit. My CRT is based upon loss of unit cohesion (and by performing a "snap shot" account for the effect (success or failure) of unit's leadership to maintain/regain control during the span of the game turn. Everything is results oriented rather than fighting numbers oriented. A unit can be shot at and the effects could be low or nil in casualties but that distraction could see the unit become ineffective...for a while or for the game. In every period I have researched I found examples of units running with little or no casualties while in the same period, units that fought to nearly the last man. That alone should be enough to dispel the use of casualties and numbers as a value set for our games. Love to compare where we meet and how we handle real life happenings. tomdye14@yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteInteresting insight into what you are looking for and what you think your plans can accomplish. If gamers is general were more aware of what they actually want t in a game they would be better served.
ReplyDeleteThank you both for your comments. It is an interesting exercise to actually list want you really want in your ruleset.
ReplyDeleteTom, agree with your comments. Think I will stick with company for now. You have actual G series orders, better ground scale and less troops on the board. Will email you next week.
Good AAR and thanks! I'm a 100% solo gamer and have been for decades. As such, capable AI models are of great interest to me. I've tinkered with trying to make one that does what I want it to do but have yet to be happy with the results. That leaves me playing both sides which I try to do fairly but would prefer to not have to do that. Is the one you used something you have released / willing to share or on "close hold?" Thanks. Either way I understand fully.
ReplyDeleteJohn
John, I have play tested it once. Far from ready but will release it if it turns out worthwhile. Like you this product is needed.
ReplyDeleteIf pretty simple will just post here. If more robust will release as PDF and ask for a couple of bucks. Like all my products 100% of profits go to local food banks. I have been blessed so want to pass it on.
Make sense?
Thanks for asking