WWII Rules with Fire Team or Squad as smallest unit?
Mike Parrott
unit. Any recommendations?
Thanks,
Mike
mparr...@aol.com
Martin Rapier
news:20021218102308...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> I'm looking for some WWII rules with the Fire Team or squad as the
smallest
> unit. Any recommendations?
PBI2 by Peter Pig/RFCM uses fireteams as the smallest unit and seems very
popular. Many older rules do as well - WRG 1925-50, Grey Storm/Red Steel etc
If by squad you mean squad/section/gruppe ie roughly ten blokes rather than
half a dozen then the only one I can think of off the top of my head is
Crossfire. Stargrunt II uses squads as the smallest manouvre unit (to a
degree) but the figures are individually based.
Cheers
Martin
Mike Parrott
>popular. Many older rules do as well - WRG 1925-50, Grey Storm/Red Steel etc
>
Thanks Martin,
I mean 5-6 inf teams as the smallest unit. PBI2 seems tome to be incredibly
messy. Do you know if they've cleaned it up a bit? I'[ve talked w/ several
people who own & play it and they say that there are many things left
unexplained in the rules.
Best wishes for a happy holiday season,
MIke
Steve Burt
news:20021218102308...@mb-mn.aol.com...
smallest
> unit. Any recommendations?
>
Crossfire is also good, but limited to mainly infantry actions
Various Miniature adaptations of Squad Leader
Andy
> "Mike Parrott" <mparr...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20021218102308...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> > I'm looking for some WWII rules with the Fire Team or squad as the
> smallest
> > unit. Any recommendations?
>
> PBI2 by Peter Pig/RFCM uses fireteams as the smallest unit and seems very
> popular.
Not round here it ain't.
> Many older rules do as well - WRG 1925-50, Grey Storm/Red Steel etc
1925-55 will have like 3 thingies per squad and they can all mill
about all over the place.
For micro, I've modified the rules to use an element per squad in the
past.
> If by squad you mean squad/section/gruppe ie roughly ten blokes rather than
> half a dozen then the only one I can think of off the top of my head is
> Crossfire. Stargrunt II uses squads as the smallest manouvre unit (to a
> degree) but the figures are individually based.
Ahh..
But crossfire is the work of the devil and sg2ww2 is perfection :^)
sg2ww2 requires stargrunt 2.
There's kind of an assumption that you know the relative strengths
involved in tank-anti-tank.... although there are guidelines in the
modification... I can just tell you how you what dice are best in a
scenario if you want.
There's a whole heap of guff I posted in the past about sg2 and on my
website.
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
Tim Marshall
>
> Ahh..
> But crossfire is the work of the devil and sg2ww2 is perfection :^)
Mike, ignore Andy - he is simply evil. "gruntingly" evil beyond all
belief. Besides, he doesn't re: anything. Totally evil.
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Want some?" - Ditto
Justin Taylor
http://www.warlords.org.nz/rapidfow.htm
I prefer a single figure game (as per Wh40K) rather than bases of 5-6
figures but if that's your cup of tea!
--
Justin Taylor
Veni Vidi Vici
Quality Transfers
http://www.3vwargames.co.uk
Allan Goodall
>Ahh..
>But crossfire is the work of the devil and sg2ww2 is perfection :^)
Except that SG2 doesn't use fire teams. While some folk have created fire team
rules for SG2, some of us are of the opinion that fire teams are abstracted
into the squad rules. I took a stab at SG2 fire team rules, in order to give
platoon level games more depth, but I haven't finished them. The further I
delved into the issue, the murkier it got.
Allan Goodall agoo...@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com
"We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones." - N. Peart
Rotwang
> smallest
> > unit. Any recommendations?
> >
> Battlefront:WW2 is very good. Plays fast.
> Crossfire is also good, but limited to mainly infantry actions
> Various Miniature adaptations of Squad Leader
I second Battlefront, nice game, it looks complicated, but it's actually
mostly very detailed and well explained examples.
SynicBast
Flames of War WW2 Rules that have been recently published.
1:1 Figure and vehicle ratios, with basing done in 3-6 figures per
base.
Synicbast
On 18 Dec 2002 15:23:08 GMT, mparr...@aol.comnospam (Mike Parrott)
wrote:
Martin Rapier
> >PBI2 by Peter Pig/RFCM uses fireteams as the smallest unit and seems very
> >popular. Many older rules do as well - WRG 1925-50, Grey Storm/Red Steel
etc
> I mean 5-6 inf teams as the smallest unit. PBI2 seems tome to be
incredibly
> messy. Do you know if they've cleaned it up a bit? I'[ve talked w/
several
{snip}
I was being diplomatic, a worse written set of rules from the last ten years
I have yet to come across. We tried it and did not get on with it, however
lots of people seem to like it a lot. I've played various game demos run by
the RFCM crowd and they usually go along fairly smoothly, but they know the
rules! Every time I pick up the big fat rulebook with paragraph after
paragraph of special cases, exceptions & contradictions my eyes glaze
over....
For games where players command 5-6 fireteams (ie a platoon each) we use
house rules 'A Platoon Commanders War' by John Armatys, based on his 'Blitz'
rules available from caliver books. They are pretty much a tidied up WRG
1925-50 with a DBA type 'beat the score' combat system and work best with
all the players taking one side (usually the attackers) and ref(s) playing
the defenders hidden. I find them a bit cumbersome for anything over a
company but they are OK and the others seem to like them and we've played
dozens of games with them including the entire Battle of Singling in 15mm,
which certainly looked impressive.
If interested in games of this scale, an ancient copy of WI from 1987 has a
set of rules called 'Bocage Battle' by Andy Grainger which are outstanding
IMHO, the game is centered around motivation by leaders with movement &
combat somewhat abstracted but units organised into fireteams. I've blagged
some of the concepts for other games and much of the rules made their way
into Aaron Longbottoms much more detailed 'Skirmish 90' rules which are
still on the old SOTCW website - if you strip out all the overly detailed
(imho) weapon stats and concentrate on the leadership/motivation and area
fire components it gives a decent idea of what Andys game was about.
Cheers
Martin
Andy
> On 19 Dec 2002 08:34:54 -0800, ao...@lycos.co.uk (Andy) wrote:
>
> >Ahh..
> >But crossfire is the work of the devil and sg2ww2 is perfection :^)
>
> Except that SG2 doesn't use fire teams. While some folk have created fire team
> rules for SG2, some of us are of the opinion that fire teams are abstracted
> into the squad rules. I took a stab at SG2 fire team rules, in order to give
> platoon level games more depth, but I haven't finished them. The further I
> delved into the issue, the murkier it got.
There are fire teams.
You can split part of a squad off as a "detachment" which is pretty
much a fire team.
You can also do two fire actions in a turn and fire support weapons
separately from small arms.
Fire teams were a rarity in real ww2 though, it's largely a more
modern concept.
You'd be lucky if you could manage to scratch together enough
leadership to get all the squads in a platoon to act as squads.... let
alone getting each to work as foreteams within squads... outside of
"the book" SOP.
Over 90% of troops just weren't trained and motivated to a level could
allow them to work like modern infantry.
Arguably, with the exception of 1945 US marines with the 3 BAR to a
squad.
There again, one could also make a case they operated as one main
squad and two detachments....
In my command control model, leadership stems from the squad leader.
This is slightly different from sg2.
If he dies, you get one action, until you take an action to
elect/promote a replacement eg.
Main squad and any detachment/fireteam share the squad's actions.
With my sg2ww2 mods... and I think put this in writing, although it's
definitely a rule I use... a detachment can be left with instructions
such as "Suppress that area over there until we get to that woods and
then come join us" they then get a "free" action to carry out this
order each bound until the squad is reformed.
These orders need not be written and must conform to ww2 squad tactics
for that side.
Thus, early germans would carry out a squad level assault with the
mg34 in support in this way and the rest of the squad moving onto the
objective in file.
After studying ww2 small unit actions for some years I am of the
school of thought has the vast majority of soldiers completely
ineffective without leadership MAKING them do something.
Going off on a bit of a tangent...
This is part the reason I'm happy having just a platoon of infantry or
two on table for a side and a whole platoon of tanks with em.
They kinda represent the effective troops out a company.
The rest are not doing anything effective.
Allan Goodall
>There are fire teams.
>You can split part of a squad off as a "detachment" which is pretty
>much a fire team.
>You can also do two fire actions in a turn and fire support weapons
>separately from small arms.
This is very true, although people I know in the military are bugged by these
two options because they don't allow for realistic fire team use. You can't do
bounding overwatch, for instance, with detachments because the main element
only gets one action and the detached element gets two.
Technically you can fire any combination of weapons with two actions, so you
could have one support weapon and half the rifles fire with one action and the
other half of the rifles and the other support weapon(s) fire with a second
action (unless it's a missile weapon, which can't fire in the same action as
another weapon). This is loose in the sense that the combinations can change
at a whim. I do know of someone who plays with formal fire teams and only lets
fire be split with those fire teams.
The smallest element in SG2 is still the squad, even if some fire team ability
is built in.
Marc Canu
> >I'm looking for some WWII rules with the Fire Team or squad as the smallest
> >unit. Any recommendations?
You could look at Guts 'N Glory. The smallest unit is the fireteam
with individual figures. While it was designed originally for N Scale
(10/12mm), there are conversion charts for play at other scales.
Check it out at:
Andy
> On 20 Dec 2002 04:15:37 -0800, ao...@lycos.co.uk (Andy) wrote:
>
> >There are fire teams.
> >You can split part of a squad off as a "detachment" which is pretty
> >much a fire team.
> >You can also do two fire actions in a turn and fire support weapons
> >separately from small arms.
>
> This is very true, although people I know in the military are bugged by these
> two options because they don't allow for realistic fire team use. You can't do
> bounding overwatch, for instance, with detachments because the main element
> only gets one action and the detached element gets two.
AFAIK The main element gets 2 actions and the detached one.... if you
define the main one as having the leader in it.
I don't really feel strongly about any of this.
The sg2ww2 mods are on my site just cos I like the rules and think
others might.
I'm not on a crusade here.
But... follow my reasoning through here, mate.
Is no time whatsoever lost in organisation between the two fire-teams?
Do they really move as fast overall as a squad not over-bounding?
If you get ten... oops.... you're talking ultra - moderns... 8 guys.
They run across a field.
Or
You tell 4 of them to run then stop and cover you whilst your 4 run
across.
Half the way you stand there.
Would you expect half the distance to be covered in a given time
period by the latter?
I would.
And if they came under fire.... you expect the overwatch to fire and
also move or just engage?
I'd expect them to follow SOP and engage until the forward fireteam
engaged.
THEN think about moving.
Not that I'm so keen on ultra moderns, I just don't think your mates
who're criticising how the rules model what they do..... well....
really understand what they do.
Perhaps that's a bit harsh.
Perhaps they haven't thought about the rules and feel no time could be
wasted.
The effect of 2 actions per fireteam would not, IMO, model overwatch.
I hope I made my reasoning clear above.
Basically though... if you spend half your time (bound) over-watching
then you should move half the distance.
I'd be interested to hear how they explain that one away.
No really, I mean, genuinely.
If the pros have a different viewpoint then I want to understand it.
Also.
Don't confuse the label with the effect.
If you feel fire teams are a maneuvre element and should have equal
dynamism with what SG2 calls a squad, then you should just consider
them a squad.
Have you noticed the very small size of some SG2 "squads",
Kind of suspiciously fire team size?
> Technically you can fire any combination of weapons with two actions, so you
> could have one support weapon and half the rifles fire with one action and the
> other half of the rifles and the other support weapon(s) fire with a second
> action (unless it's a missile weapon, which can't fire in the same action as
> another weapon).
ww2 is pretty simple in that respect.
I allow pzfaust and bazooka type weapons to fire in the same action as
other firing and at different targets.
If several tanks are the target and no re-organisation action is taken
first then each faust shoots at a random tank with the emphasis on the
closest.
>This is loose in the sense that the combinations can change
> at a whim. I do know of someone who plays with formal fire teams and only lets
> fire be split with those fire teams.
>
> The smallest element in SG2 is still the squad, even if some fire team ability
> is built in.
You never thought of making fire teams = sg2 squads?
Allan Goodall
>But... follow my reasoning through here, mate.
>
>Is no time whatsoever lost in organisation between the two fire-teams?
>Do they really move as fast overall as a squad not over-bounding?
Modern training makes forming fire teams pretty quick. In fact, I believe
modern doctrine has squads moving as fire teams to begin with. Overwatch has
fire team 1 giving fire support while the other team moves forward. Once in
position, that team fires and the first team moves up. In bounding overwatch
fire team 1 gives fire support, and fire team 2 moves forward. Fire team 2
gives fire support, fire team 1 moves up to -- and then past -- team 2 and
then sets up to fire. They lay down fire support, fire team 2 gets up and
bounds past fire team 1 and then sets up to fire, etc.
In SG2 a squad can move with one action and fire with another, or the other
way around. You can fire and suppress with the squad and then move it. Or you
can move it and then fire and suppress the enemy. I can live with this. Some
people, though, point out that you should be able to only put half a squad in
jeopardy when it moves. The only way to do this in vanilla SG2 is with
detached elements.
The weirdness is that a detached element gets two actions, but the main squad
element gets one. So, you can have the main element fire while the detachment
moves forward and then fires. Next activation, the main element moves, but it
can't fire because it only has one action. The detached element can move
forward, but it's supposed to do so with fire support from the other element.
This can't happen with the regular SG2 rules. Either the detachment fires at
its old position (and wastes its other action), or it moves without the
support of the main element.
Without making a detachment you can't move up half a squad and use it to
suppress the enemy for the other half. You must move up the squad and fire, or
fire and move the entire squad.
In the time frame of a given turn (stated as roughly 5 minutes per turn, but
this is "flexible") you should be able to move a fire team and have it fire,
then move the other fire team up and have it fire. Or, you could fire with one
team and move forward for two actions with the second team, then on the next
activation have the second team fire and move the first team forward and past
the second team with two actions (in essence the squad would alternate which
part was the main element -- gets 1 action -- and which part is the detached
element -- gets two actions).
The proper way to model fire teams in SG2 is to split a squad so that both
"elements" get two actions. The easiest way is to just form small squads. This
doesn't work 100% either because these two "mini-squads" have no rules forcing
them to operate together. Most fire team house rules I've seen require the two
teams to stay within a certain distance of each other, and use the one
Confidence Level for the whole squad.
>If you get ten... oops.... you're talking ultra - moderns... 8 guys.
>They run across a field.
> Or
>You tell 4 of them to run then stop and cover you whilst your 4 run
>across.
>Half the way you stand there.
>Would you expect half the distance to be covered in a given time
>period by the latter?
>I would.
>And if they came under fire.... you expect the overwatch to fire and
>also move or just engage?
>I'd expect them to follow SOP and engage until the forward fireteam
>engaged.
>THEN think about moving.
I'm not sure I understand the example. I think I see where you're going by
using detachments, but as I mentioned above the problem is the fact that
detachments get two actions and the main element only gets one. To properly do
fire team tactics you either need both elements having two actions, or the
elements should alternate which one is the "main" group and which is the
detachment. Either way, you need house rules to model this.
>Not that I'm so keen on ultra moderns, I just don't think your mates
>who're criticising how the rules model what they do..... well....
>really understand what they do.
>Perhaps that's a bit harsh.
>Perhaps they haven't thought about the rules and feel no time could be
>wasted.
The guys doing the complaining are on the GZG mailing list, and they all have
military training. A couple of the most vocal are in the US military. One is a
combat engineer. I believe one is in the US Special Forces...
>The effect of 2 actions per fireteam would not, IMO, model overwatch.
>I hope I made my reasoning clear above.
I think so. You point out that there would be a delay. I can see that. The
problem is that in modern doctrine both fire teams are trained to do
essentially the same thing, with little transition between being a moving
element and a firing element. I can live with the detachment having 2 actions
and the main element having one, but to model modern fire teams the squad
elements have to be able to alternate between which one is the "main element"
and which one is the "detachment".
On the other hand, the rules do seem to model WW2 tactics, where a part of the
squad is a more-or-less immobile base of fire and the other part is a
maneouvre element.
>Basically though... if you spend half your time (bound) over-watching
>then you should move half the distance.
>
>I'd be interested to hear how they explain that one away.
>No really, I mean, genuinely.
>If the pros have a different viewpoint then I want to understand it.
Okay, I wonder if there is an issue here with the term "overwatch". In a game
sense (started with GW, I think) "overwatch" means to sit around and wait for
the enemy to do something, and then you react to it. This used to be called
"opportunity fire" in the old Panzer Leader game by Avalon Hill.
In modern doctrine, "overwatch" can occur after the enemy is found. One fire
team fires to suppress the enemy, while the other fire team moves forward.
Then that element fires to suppress the same enemy, while the other fire team
maneouvres. Modern training makes all of this moving and firing transition
pretty fast. This is called "overwatch", but it is often most effective
_after_ an enemy is spotted, not after the enemy does something.
So, when I say that SG2 doesn't have rules to allow proper fire team
overwatch, I'm talking "overwatch" in the military doctrine sense, not
"overwatch" in the game "opportunity fire" sense.
>If you feel fire teams are a maneuvre element and should have equal
>dynamism with what SG2 calls a squad, then you should just consider
>them a squad.
>Have you noticed the very small size of some SG2 "squads",
>Kind of suspiciously fire team size?
Except that if you look at the size of a squad in the back of the SG2 book you
will see that there are still only three of them to a platoon. Modern platoons
have 6 or 8 fire teams. They work in pairs. You can just make small SG2
squads. This is the easiest way to do squads -- I've done it this way in the
past -- but there are no rules forcing them to work in pairs. One fire team
could move to the far eastern edge of the board while the other moves to the
far western edge. Fire teams should be made to work in pairs, and morale
should effect the entire "squad", not just half of it (since if one fire team
is badly hurt, it affects the ability of the squad as a whole to function
well).
>ww2 is pretty simple in that respect.
>I allow pzfaust and bazooka type weapons to fire in the same action as
>other firing and at different targets.
That's a pretty common house rule.
>You never thought of making fire teams = sg2 squads?
Yes, I have. See above. Another problem is that SG2 is paced slowly enough
that doubling the squad count really grinds the game down.
Okay, I know people take exception when I say SG2 has a pacing problem. It's
not _really_ a pacing problem, it's more of a scale problem. SG2 plays well
with between 1 and 2 platoons on the table. This is kind of a strange scale.
I'd prefer to be able to play with an entire company, but company level games
tend to take more than the 3 or 4 hours to play (the odd company game I've
played takes most of a day). If you play with fireteams as two SG2 squads you
end up with an even slower game.
My contention -- and the contention of several others on the mailing list --
is that fire teams are really abstracted into the squad rules. With this in
mind, retrofitting fire team rules is adding more detail than the game was
really designed to accomodate. However, I've been tinkering with proper fire
team rules so that a game with one platoon per side can actually be fairly
interesting, tactically speaking.
Andy O'Neill
> I'm not sure I understand the example. I think I see where you're going by
> using detachments, but as I mentioned above the problem is the fact that
> detachments get two actions and the main element only gets one.
Well that's partly my misunderstanding or modifying sg2 then.
Can't recall which.
I play the other way around.
I wonder whether an errata is appropriate.
<shrug>
As you probably gathered.
Once I understood the rules pretty well... I put them to one side and
started thinking about how I wanted things to work rather than how I thought
Jon wanted them to work.
I don't often open them.
> To properly do
> fire team tactics you either need both elements having two actions, or the
> elements should alternate which one is the "main" group and which is the
> detachment. Either way, you need house rules to model this.
Part of my contention is that one action is all a bunch of guys with no
leader ought to get.
It's a fundamental part of my understanding of ww2 that leaderless guys or
badly led guys just did less.
I'd extend that into moderns.
With todays more highly trained soldiers I can see there's an argument that
there could be an anomaly.
I suggest that this is just because they/you/whoever is trying to apply the
vanilla rules to exceptional troops.
It is an interesting aspect of the mechanics though.
I might join that mail list for a bit.
Anyhow.
My explanation to an ultra modern soldier would be to point out that no-way
you do things is over-bounding going to mean more the same speed of advance
as an entire squad just legging forward.
My thinking is that you're going to lose some shooting and half the move.
One action for one of the pair seems a fair way to do it.
There's a problem with the splitting having a distance limit BTW.
Boca house ( falklands ) illustrates this, sorta.
There's a provisio though... which I'll try and remember at the end of my
wibbling.
UK forces preference is still move a "support" team to 90 degrees of advance
and blow the hell out of a position as the assault team moves in.
By the time they finished with boca house with mg and rockets it's something
of a surprise to find the argies continued to put up a bit of resistance...
but they did manage it.
So... there's an argument for "objective" based splitting.
Proviso.
Arguably the two bunches each operated under a leader and hence in SG2 terms
they just did a re-organisation and produced two non-standard squads.
>
> >Not that I'm so keen on ultra moderns, I just don't think your mates
> >who're criticising how the rules model what they do..... well....
> >really understand what they do.
> >Perhaps that's a bit harsh.
> >Perhaps they haven't thought about the rules and feel no time could be
> >wasted.
>
> The guys doing the complaining are on the GZG mailing list, and they all
have
> military training. A couple of the most vocal are in the US military. One
is a
> combat engineer. I believe one is in the US Special Forces...
>
> >The effect of 2 actions per fireteam would not, IMO, model overwatch.
> >I hope I made my reasoning clear above.
>
> I think so. You point out that there would be a delay. I can see that. The
> problem is that in modern doctrine both fire teams are trained to do
> essentially the same thing, with little transition between being a moving
> element and a firing element. I can live with the detachment having 2
actions
> and the main element having one, but to model modern fire teams the squad
> elements have to be able to alternate between which one is the "main
element"
> and which one is the "detachment".
Well...
I still reckon there's going to be SOME friction and hence loss of
efficiency for most troops. Experienced special forces who have seen combat
are probably an exception.
It's the speed of advance that I'd be concerned about though.
There ought to be some advantage in speed of movement for troops can't
over-bound.
Oh.
I'm assuming here these guys realise not everyone should be allowed
over-bound organisation.
> On the other hand, the rules do seem to model WW2 tactics, where a part of
the
> squad is a more-or-less immobile base of fire and the other part is a
> maneouvre element.
Well... certainly how it happened.
Arguably this is not how virtually all US, UK and Sov troops worked and
detachments are too sophisticated for them.
They are part of jerries' basic training and they seemed to be pretty much
the only regs out there using them in the field.
<<>>
> My contention -- and the contention of several others on the mailing
list --
> is that fire teams are really abstracted into the squad rules.
Umm....
What's Jon say?
I'm thinking here that overbound is not something all troops should be able
to do.
OTOH he doesn't really write anything much on this sort of stuff in the
rules.
> With this in
> mind, retrofitting fire team rules is adding more detail than the game was
> really designed to accomodate. However, I've been tinkering with proper
fire
> team rules so that a game with one platoon per side can actually be fairly
> interesting, tactically speaking.
>
Has to be said that a platoon per side is pretty much a starter game and not
terribly interesting otherwise.
Did you read my post elsewhere on percentage of troops did anything?
If you allowed for losses, troops in support and the percentage actually did
anything a full platoon on table is equivalent to somewhere between a ww2
company and division if you allow for ineffectives.
The mind starts to boggle when you start thinking in that direction though.
--
Jeff Hancock
So basically, you don't really play SG2. You play AndyGrunt 1, right?!?
;-)
Jeff Hancock
j.t.h...@cox.net
Andy O'Neill
news:NyZN9.31802$I23.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> Andy:
>
> So basically, you don't really play SG2. You play AndyGrunt 1, right?!?
>
> ;-)
I call it sg2ww2.
I think there have been enough revisions over the years it'd pretty much
AG9.
:^)
I think maybe some of these haven't actually made it onto that web page.
People have suggested that the differences are sufficient that it's
effectively a different ruleset.
I disagree.
Jon's core mechanics are pretty much still there.
I just tweak em.
Just heading off at a tangent.....
I just read the threads on that gzg site on over-bound.
Interesting to see how different people's approaches are.
A rule for everything isn't really my thing.
Anyhow.
I think I pretty much stand by my previous comments.
Most of the suggestions ( and there are numerous ) on over-bound make the
assault-er too good.
Essentially, they rob the static squad of the advantages inherent to
defence.
Being hidden as the most noticeable.
Allan's suggestion that the rules pretty much cover over-watch so long as
you move short distances seems most appropriate.
BUT then he goes on to suggest a reserve action.
I don't see the necessity for this.
In fact I see it as a bad thing.
An unacquired enemy SHOULD get to shoot before an attacker.
Return fire next bound matches this.
The sg2 rules (and not just andygrunt) allow for interrupts.
This is the advantage of a defender.
An attacker interrupting a concealed squad as it opens up is just plain
wrong.
I reckon keeping the activation ( or re-activation) of a supporting squad
back to acquire "new" enemy and return fire is sufficient.
I can see the argument for allowing fireteams to be considered as
semi-independent squads.
I'd maybe implement this as allowing dynamic splitting of fresh squads into
two.
I reckon worn squads lose their enthusiasm to an extent over-bound stops
working.
I also reckon, FWIW, that over-bound isn't very effective within a squad.
There's insufficient fire going down range and it's only half the time and
it's necessarily involving hasty sighting and position choice.
For these reasons tried by the paras and AFAIK rejected in combat on the
falklands.
BTW
I'd be very interested to hear opinions of people have tried this in combat
against regulars.
First hand experience.
Anyhow... my call on over-bound in sg2.
Squads trained in this can dynamically split into two for a given purpose
apppropriate to over-bound.
Confidence test is required to do this, if failed an action is wasted.
The leadership of the fireteam without the leader in it is governed by
scenario but should be equal in very highly trained squads and 1 worse in
others.
<< My assumption here is that a lot of armies don't really train enough to
use sub-squad tactics effectively >>
Fireteams both take a re-organise to re-form into a full squad.
Both fire-teams are effectively separate squads - for suppression and
actions but morale is somewhat linked.
They must co-operate on an objective unless one or other comes under fire
from a different angle by previously unacquired enemy. ( I use sighting
rules even in sc-fi ).
A fire-team may not carry on forwards once it's fellow sub squad cannot.
IE once half the squad stops bounding then there ain't no-one to bound with.
Note that small squads are fragile morale-wise since they relatively easily
incur more losses than they have left.
But I also recommend a >25% losses +1 threat on test rules mod.
I also recommend the morale trigger for a squad legging it due for unknown
reason... or whatever I call it...
Umm...
That's a lot longer than I intended.
Ah well.
Merry Christmas.
J M Kemp
O'Neill <NoIdo...@microsoft.com> writes
>I also reckon, FWIW, that over-bound isn't very effective within a squad.
>There's insufficient fire going down range and it's only half the time and
>it's necessarily involving hasty sighting and position choice.
>For these reasons tried by the paras and AFAIK rejected in combat on the
>falklands.
The British Army changed the way it did Fire & Manoeuvre as a result of
the lessons from the Falklands. Before that the section consisted of a
Gun Group and Rifle Group. They were supposed to be intermingled and
move forward in turn. They found (not unexpectedly) that the gun group
didn't get enough covering fire when the rifle group was firing. Being
Paras they'd nicked all the spare GPMGs they could get their hands on
and decided to have two gun groups per section. The rest of the army
followed suit during the 1980s as the new rifle was introduced (which
solved some of the problem as it was capable of automatic fire where the
SLR wasn't).
>BTW
>I'd be very interested to hear opinions of people have tried this in combat
>against regulars.
>First hand experience.
I haven't done it in combat, but I have done it using live ammunition.
Using blank it can be a very quick evolution and despite being possibly
the best form of aerobic exercise ever it covers ground (and uses up
ammo) very rapidly. When you start firing real bullets downrange then it
slows right down, no-one wants to risk getting shot by outgoing rounds
(nor incoming either but that wasn't an issue when I did it).
As well as outgoing 7.62 there were some charges placed on the target to
simulate incoming mortars (and they 'forgot' to tell us about that - we
were told that we would do advance to contact and that there would be a
clear signal to start F&M, what we were expecting was a single shot, not
half a dozen explosions!).
--
Jas
Dumbarton Games Group - http://www.castlegreen.org.uk/
Andy
<<>>
> Anyhow... my call on over-bound in sg2.
>
> Squads trained in this can dynamically split into two for a given purpose
> apppropriate to over-bound.
> Confidence test is required to do this, if failed an action is wasted.
> The leadership of the fireteam without the leader in it is governed by
> scenario but should be equal in very highly trained squads and 1 worse in
> others.
> << My assumption here is that a lot of armies don't really train enough to
> use sub-squad tactics effectively >>
> Fireteams both take a re-organise to re-form into a full squad.
> Both fire-teams are effectively separate squads - for suppression and
> actions but morale is somewhat linked.
> They must co-operate on an objective unless one or other comes under fire
> from a different angle by previously unacquired enemy. ( I use sighting
> rules even in sc-fi ).
> A fire-team may not carry on forwards once it's fellow sub squad cannot.
> IE once half the squad stops bounding then there ain't no-one to bound with.
>
> Note that small squads are fragile morale-wise since they relatively easily
> incur more losses than they have left.
> But I also recommend a >25% losses +1 threat on test rules mod.
> I also recommend the morale trigger for a squad legging it due for unknown
> reason... or whatever I call it...
Damm...
I meant a morale trigger at 25%+ rather than >25%.
Forgot re-activation.
The fireteam with the original leader may be re-activated, the other
may not.
The leader may pass on an action with a successful communications
roll.
Note, this is 1 action in the other fire-team for one action spent
communicating and not 2 for 1 as a re-activation would be.
Allan Goodall
wrote:
>I'd extend that into moderns.
>With todays more highly trained soldiers I can see there's an argument that
>there could be an anomaly.
>I suggest that this is just because they/you/whoever is trying to apply the
>vanilla rules to exceptional troops.
I disagree here. Modern fireteams aren't leaderless. I think the standard US
squad size is 9, with a squad leader and two fireteams of 4. Each fire team
has a leader. The detachment isn't leaderless in modern combat, it has a
person trained as a leader.
On the other hand, I agree with you that the vanilla detachment rules work for
representing WW2 combat units. They just don't work for modern/ultra-modern,
which is what SG2 was originally designed to simulate. *grin*
>My explanation to an ultra modern soldier would be to point out that no-way
>you do things is over-bounding going to mean more the same speed of advance
>as an entire squad just legging forward.
>My thinking is that you're going to lose some shooting and half the move.
>One action for one of the pair seems a fair way to do it.
Except that losing an action isn't slowing down the group, it's limiting what
it can do. A better idea would be to drop the movement rate of units doing
overwatch. I'm not crazy about reducing their movement rates, as SG2 movement
rates are pretty slow compared to what people can accomplish -- even in combat
conditions -- anyway.
>Proviso.
>Arguably the two bunches each operated under a leader and hence in SG2 terms
>they just did a re-organisation and produced two non-standard squads.
That would work.
>It's the speed of advance that I'd be concerned about though.
>There ought to be some advantage in speed of movement for troops can't
>over-bound.
The way most of them play, I think they tend to model this in the handling of
their troops. They move one fireteam forward with one action and either fire
with it or put it on Overwatch (using an overwatch house rule, thus it eats up
an action). The next fireteam then bounds forward and past the first one
(using one action) and goes on Overwatch (using a second action). To do this
properly, they are only using half their actions for movement. This is slower
than a unit not doing bounding overwatch, which would simply move with both
actions, and hence would be faster.
>I'm assuming here these guys realise not everyone should be allowed
>over-bound organisation.
I believe so, though most of them play in the Tuffleyverse, where most of the
forces are at least up to modern major power training levels.
>Umm....
>What's Jon say?
Nothing. I've asked him this question a couple of times and didn't get a
response.
>Has to be said that a platoon per side is pretty much a starter game and not
>terribly interesting otherwise.
I really like SG2, but I have yet to find "THE" set of rules that I love. The
problem with SG2, for me, is the size of the game. A platoon per side is
really, as you put it, a starter game. A company per side is too big. Two
platoons per side is about right, but a sort of odd level of game, and it
still produces a game that runs 3 to 4 hours. I'd like something that played
faster, for larger games, or had more detail for smaller games.
>If you allowed for losses, troops in support and the percentage actually did
>anything a full platoon on table is equivalent to somewhere between a ww2
>company and division if you allow for ineffectives.
>The mind starts to boggle when you start thinking in that direction though.
I didn't read that, but that matches with what I've read in books. Not a
division (I suspect you made a mistake there) but a company or battalion,
easily.
Allan Goodall
wrote:
>Allan's suggestion that the rules pretty much cover over-watch so long as
>you move short distances seems most appropriate.
>BUT then he goes on to suggest a reserve action.
>I don't see the necessity for this.
>In fact I see it as a bad thing.
Without an overwatch rule, you run into the old "panzerbush" syndrome from
Avalon Hill games. This is particularly true of vehicles, which have a greater
movement range than humans. Since a combat move can let you go 12" in an
action, you get situations where a hidden unit can't fire at a unit that
crosses a street from one building to another. The only way it can in vanilla
SG2 is if the moving unit spends both actions moving. You could move a whole
platoon between two buildings 50 metres (in real life distance) apart and
never be able to fire on them. Or, you could have a unit in a trench jump up
and run for the safety of woods 50 metres behind them. A hidden unit in front
of them would be unable to fire at them as they retreated.
In my opinion, and the opinion of others who have created such rules, you need
an opportunity fire rule in order to help the defenders in a game with lots of
terrain.
>The sg2 rules (and not just andygrunt) allow for interrupts.
Only if the unit spends both actions moving. If it moves and then does an In
Position, or moves and fires, etc. it can't be interrupted. The interruption
only occurs after the first movement action and before the second.
>This is the advantage of a defender.
>An attacker interrupting a concealed squad as it opens up is just plain
>wrong.
My rules don't allow that, though. A unit can only fire at a unit that is
moving. A unit on Opportunity Fire/Overwatch can react to a hidden unit
firing, but the concealed unit always gets to fire first. I don't know of
anyone's overwatch/OppFire rules (such as Tom Barclay's on stargrunt.ca) that
allow a concealed attacker to be interrupted before it can fire at another
unit.
Andy O'Neill
> >This is the advantage of a defender.
> >An attacker interrupting a concealed squad as it opens up is just plain
> >wrong.
>
> My rules don't allow that, though. A unit can only fire at a unit that is
> moving. A unit on Opportunity Fire/Overwatch can react to a hidden unit
> firing, but the concealed unit always gets to fire first. I don't know of
> anyone's overwatch/OppFire rules (such as Tom Barclay's on stargrunt.ca)
that
> allow a concealed attacker to be interrupted before it can fire at another
> unit.
In the threads I read on the GZG archive there's a bunch of people talking
about overwatch as if it should mean a squad can shoot at someone opening up
on it, potentially first.
They talk about comparing qualities.
This gave me the impression that the pro-over-bound-guys were rather
overdoing the the whole thing.
Anyhow...
I recommend being able to interrupt when an enemy comes into sight.
Games have shown you have to be a bit careful on this though.
I stress to new players the difference between groundscale and figure scale.
A single building is really representing a bunch of them and the odd gap
little between ruined walls etc should probably not count unless a defender
is in position and set up to specifically cover it.
I feel an extra level of cover and or range band is often appropriate.
Andy O'Neill
> >If you allowed for losses, troops in support and the percentage actually
did
> >anything a full platoon on table is equivalent to somewhere between a ww2
> >company and division if you allow for ineffectives.
> >The mind starts to boggle when you start thinking in that direction
though.
>
> I didn't read that, but that matches with what I've read in books. Not a
> division (I suspect you made a mistake there) but a company or battalion,
> easily.
Perhaps a division is going a bit far....
I'm still working towards perfection,
In the mean time mistakes are indeed possible.
:^)
BUT late war ww2 german and soviet formations were often badly worn.
Allan Goodall
wrote:
>In the threads I read on the GZG archive there's a bunch of people talking
>about overwatch as if it should mean a squad can shoot at someone opening up
>on it, potentially first.
>They talk about comparing qualities.
>This gave me the impression that the pro-over-bound-guys were rather
>overdoing the the whole thing.
I can understand the confusion, then. I'm not sure who you were reading,
though I do know that a couple of the more popular "Overwatch" rules don't
allow a unit to fire at a hidden unit before the hidden unit fires! *grin*
In my rules, squads have a chance to "opportunity fire" or "overwatch".
Opportunity fire lets any unit in LOS react to an enemy unit, but the unit
must make a Reaction Test first (this is a test to see if the unit can set up
in time to react, or if it even sees the enemy unit in time). A unit on
"overwatch" has spent an action to get into that state and can react
automatically.
Whether or not our (Andy's and mine) rules agree, it seems that we _are_ in
agreement that a system of reacting to the advancing enemy is needed as a
house rule in SG2. Funny enough, it's going to be _in_ the actual rules of FMA
Skirmish, whenever they are released...
Tim Marshall
>
> I can understand the confusion, then. I'm not sure who you were reading,
> though I do know that a couple of the more popular "Overwatch" rules don't
> allow a unit to fire at a hidden unit before the hidden unit fires! *grin*
Proper thing! 8) This seems to fit with my own peacetime experience,
historical accounts (there was one particularly excellent quote from a
David Glantz book on German experiences with Soviet hidden positions
which I would love to quote but don't have handy - it more or less said
that hidden units inevitably were dicovered only after they had opened
fire) and, more recently, with my son's experiences with 26 MEU in the
Tora Bora area last January.
I would think some kind of mechanic which takes into account overwatch
would be appropriate - ie, effectiveness for the "free shot(s)" from the
hidden unit is reduced because the overwatch unit can react more quickly
or number of "free shots" reduced greatly.
Allan Goodall
wrote:
>I would think some kind of mechanic which takes into account overwatch
>would be appropriate - ie, effectiveness for the "free shot(s)" from the
>hidden unit is reduced because the overwatch unit can react more quickly
>or number of "free shots" reduced greatly.
I'm glad to see my house rules are holding up to scrutiny with regard to
realism! For "opportunity fire", any unit can fire at a hidden unit that just
fired. However, they have to make what is known in SG2 as a "Reaction Test"
for it to work. If they don't, they either didn't react in time or they didn't
see where the shots came from. An Overwatching unit doesn't have to make this
Reaction Test, they get to fire automatically by expending the Overwatch
counter. In both Opportunity Fire and Overwatch, the range band is increased
one to represent the hasty nature of the fire back at the opponent. If a unit
fires at the opponent during its usual activation, it doesn't have this range
band modifier applied.
For what it's worth, vanilla SG2 is actually a pretty good game for use in a
Vietnam setting. The game models sci-fi conflict, but realistically enough
that they can be applied to modern and WW2 without a lot of tinkering. The
game (as well as Dirtside II, it's 6mm, 1-unit-equals-a-platoon brother) is
inspired by David Drake's _Hammer's Slammers_ series. Much of the mechanics
seem to work better with a 1970s view of technology rather than a 2000's view.
In fact, it should be trivial (with few, if any, house rules) to create
Vietnam War scenarios for use with SG2.