Platoon-level GPMGs and AT Weapons

[Timothy OConnor]

My home grown rules use half-squad / fire team-sized stands. For example, a typical squad of 9 would have one stand with 4 figures and one stand with 5 figures. Each would be treated as a typical modern US fireteam of three assualt rifles and a SAW (indivudal figures are ignored so it's just a "Assault Rife/SAW Stand").

My question goes to modeling platoon-level GPMGs and AT weapons. For example, US platoons often have 2 GPMG teams and 2 AT teams at platoon level. In wargaming terms the challenge is how to model these assets. Here are a couple of obvious options:

OPTION A: SEPERATE STANDS
1x Platoon Command Stand
2x GPMG Stands
2x AT Stands
6x Assault Rifle/SAW Stands

OPTION B: INTEGRATED STANDS
1x Platoon Command Stand
2x Assault Rifle/SAW Stands w/GPMG
2x Assault Rifle/SAW Stands w/AT
2x Assault Rifle/SAW Stands

These options assume that each side in a game is fielding a company of 2 or 3 rifle platoons plus a few supporting platoons and/or AFVs as needed (eg APCs, MBTs, etc.). Also for game purposes a GPMG is defined as being a belt-fed MG firing ~7.62mm round with a bi-pod. Of course this means that some nations would essentially be fielding an "Assault Rifle/GPMG Stand" as their basic stand.

Looking at some other threads (eg the thread on USMC TO&Es) I noticed that many on the forum have military experience (mine is very limited as a civilian in technology development to support the military).

In your opinion which approach makes more sense from a modeling perspective? (as in game mechanics/modeling)

From what I've read and gleaned from conversations with veterans platoon level assets usually work very closely with a specific squad. For example, in Viet Nam it was common to assign M60 teams directly to individual squads rather than maintaining theoretical TO&Es when in action. On the other hand platoon leaders like to employ these assets as needed which might argue for option A. But option A means a lot of stands and sort of screws up the carry-capacity model for transports. Help!

Your thoughts and opinions?

Thanks!

Tim

PS For a long time I tried to maintain squad-level organization by having two stands stay next to one another...but consistently during convention games players would get the stands mixed up no matter how well marked...I eventually went with the flow and now ignore the squad-level organization and simply have players maneuver their platoons. oh well!

[jb]

My question goes to modeling platoon-level GPMGs and AT weapons. Looking at some other threads (eg the thread on USMC TO&Es) I noticed that many on the forum have military experience (mine is very limited as a civilian in technology development to support the military).

In your opinion which approach makes more sense from a modeling perspective? (as in game mechanics/modeling)


PS For a long time I tried to maintain squad-level organization by having two stands stay next to one another...but consistently during convention games players would get the stands mixed up no matter how well marked...I eventually went with the flow and now ignore the squad-level organization and simply have players maneuver their platoons. oh well!

Hi Timothy,
What I use now days are single troops mounted on their own metal base. this base is about 5mmX5mm. I cut them myself from larger bases that I don't use anymor(I too used to be an avid 15mm'er). I also use 3/4"X3/4" steel bases that have 5- 1/8" X1/32' magnets glued to it in a spread out staggerd fashion. I then flock over the whole thing. With this done I can change the composition of a single fire team to any weapons mix I need (WOW! thats like the Marines ). Anyways these little magnets are strong enough that you may pickup the whole fireteam by one figure without having the rest of the team fall off. Using this method also allows you to take single casualties ,and reform fire teams due to casualties. Sure this might take more work than some are willing to do, but the pay off is well worth it.
I've run into the same dilema with players disorganising the units during games,no matter how well you mark them. One thing that I've seriously contemplated is using a 1 figure equals 2 scale and use one stand as a squad. It seems to work quite succesfully in the last 2 months of gaming. Even so,with the method I describe I can use either troop scale. Like I said the pay off is positively versatile.
On your previous choices for composing a fireteam ,it just ends up with which one do you really want. It has to be one or the other.
here are a few pictures of what I'm writing about

[Vagabond Elf]

That's not what he's asking, JB. He's asking for advice on how to depict the GPMG's and ATs in the rules.

I've no actual military experience, and very little academic knowledge post 1945. But I do game a fair bit, and from that point of view I'd say integrate them into your rifle sections. It will make everything a little more standarized, it will give the heavy weapons some protection (assuming that a 4-6 man section is a little harder to kill than a 2-3 man one in your rules), it will reduce the (all ready fairly large) number of stands on the board.

Basically, any game is a trade-off between ease-of-play and realism, and my suggestion is to choose ease-of-play in this case.

[jb]

That's not what he's asking, JB. He's asking for advice on how to depict the GPMG's and ATs in the rules.

I've no actual military experience, and very little academic knowledge post 1945. But I do game a fair bit, and from that point of view I'd say integrate them into your rifle sections. It will make everything a little more standarized, it will give the heavy weapons some protection (assuming that a 4-6 man section is a little harder to kill than a 2-3 man one in your rules), it will reduce the (all ready fairly large) number of stands on the board.

Basically, any game is a trade-off between ease-of-play and realism, and my suggestion is to choose ease-of-play in this case.

...I do believe he is asking for advice on how to depict his two choices of mounting his figures. Look real hard and you will see that I'm showing a method of having both HIS suggestions represented,after all he is asking for opinions on how to do it,isn't he?

[Timothy OConnor]

Actually, you're both right in a way. The word "model" in this context really does have two meanings. Since this is mostly a "miniature modeling" forum rather than a "simulation modeling" forum, my imprecise use of the term has obviously led to some confusion. I apologize for that!

Elf is right in that the primary driver is game mechanics and "player ergonomics". If the game "model" treats platoon-level GPMGs as an asset available to the player/platoon leader then it should be treated as its own stand. But that can result in extra stands which can be confusing. The alternative is to model (as in simulate) the effect of the GPMG by combining it with one of the fire team stands. Remember, at my game's scale each stand represents 3-5 men...about a modern fire team or a heavy weapon and its crew.

JB is also correct in that with GHQ 1/285 figures the actual representation of the figures becomes an issue. With my 15mm WWII collection 2-3 figure stands of "half squads" are somewhat more abstract and such weapons need not always be represented.

Events have overtaken this thread to some degree in that my GHQ order arrived on Wednesday!!! My first reaction was, "Gosh these are tiny!". But I just kept reminding myself of the amazing work I've seen on this site and pushed on!

I based almost an entire company of infantry to represent troops from a Stryker brigade. I used Litko's small FOW bases which are ~32mm wide and 25mm deep with rounded corners. A squad has two stands, one with 4 figures and the other with 5 to represent the squad's two fire teams (each of 4 men) and the Sgt. One of the figures on the 5-man stand has a ATGM (can be ignored if desired when left on the Stryker).

The platoon's weapons squad has 7 men with two GPMGs, so this squad has a stand of 4 figures and a stand of 3 figures with one GPMG each.

Thus my Stryker platoons have:

- 1x Command Stand (Platoon leader, Platoon Sgt., RATELO, and FO...I left the medic out)

- 6x Fire Team Stands (3 have 5 figures and 3 have 4 figures)

- 2x GPMG Stands.

These stand strengths work perfectly within my 3-5 men per stand ratio and allow the player/platoon leader to maneuver his full-platoon-level assets. The platoon also includes 4 Stryker IFVs (mounted on stands 1" wide x 1-1/2" deep).

If I add the GPMG crews into the Fire Team Stands I found that I end up with stand strengths of 3 to 8 since some teams in other units/formation can only have about 3 men (eg sniper, command, and heavy weapon teams). I could move to 1 squad per stand but then the disparity became worse. This was OK in my WWII rules (uses half-squads per stand) since most troops had bolt-action rifles, but creates some simulation/modeling problems with moderns given the firepower generated by even a fire team.

Effectively a player in one of my multi-player convention games will command a Stryker platoon of 3 squads plus his platoon HQ. Each rifle squad will have 3 stands (2 fire teams and the Stryker) and the GPMG stands may be attached as needed. Since the Litko stands are so thick (3mm) painting the back edge will make platoon and squad ID a snap. About two-thirds of the back edge will be the platoon color (eg green) and the last third will be the squad color (Plt HQ/Yello, 1st/White, 2nd/Grey, 3rd/Black, Wpns/Red).

I've spread my mud/spackle and primed some of the stands and I must say I'm pleased with the results so far. My 15mm WWII figures are on 30mm x 30mm bases. These bases are nearly as large and even with a figure ratio of 1:1, the figures have a very nice unit density/look to them. The selection of poses also made stand composition easy. I did need to "sculpt" the company-level sniper stand by taking an exacto to a GPMG figure, but combined with two prone figures wielding binocs the effect was great at 6mm (the standard 3-man Stryker sniper team has a sniper, a spotter, and one M16/203 for security.)

One fear I have is that 15mm gaming dominates our area but I think this basing approach might limit the shock of moving from 15mm to 1/285.

Anyway, I'm painting this weekend and will provide an update on progress. We have a game December 9th so there's much to do!

[jb]

I based almost an entire company of infantry to represent troops from a Stryker brigade. I used Litko's small FOW bases which are ~32mm wide and 25mm deep with rounded corners. A squad has two stands, one with 4 figures and the other with 5 to represent the squad's two fire teams (each of 4 men) and the Sgt. One of the figures on the 5-man stand has a ATGM (can be ignored if desired when left on the Stryker).

The platoon's weapons squad has 7 men with two GPMGs, so this squad has a stand of 4 figures and a stand of 3 figures with one GPMG each.

Thus my Stryker platoons have:

- 1x Command Stand (Platoon leader, Platoon Sgt., RATELO, and FO...I left the medic out)

- 6x Fire Team Stands (3 have 5 figures and 3 have 4 figures)

- 2x GPMG Stands.

These stand strengths work perfectly within my 3-5 men per stand ratio and allow the player/platoon leader to maneuver his full-platoon-level assets. The platoon also includes 4 Stryker IFVs (mounted on stands 1" wide x 1-1/2" deep).


Effectively a player in one of my multi-player convention games will command a Stryker platoon of 3 squads plus his platoon HQ. Each rifle squad will have 3 stands (2 fire teams and the Stryker) and the GPMG stands may be attached as needed. Since the Litko stands are so thick (3mm) painting the back edge will make platoon and squad ID a snap. About two-thirds of the back edge will be the platoon color (eg green) and the last third will be the squad color (Plt HQ/Yello, 1st/White, 2nd/Grey, 3rd/Black, Wpns/Red).


One fear I have is that 15mm gaming dominates our area but I think this basing approach might limit the shock of moving from 15mm to 1/285.

Anyway, I'm painting this weekend and will provide an update on progress. We have a game December 9th so there's much to do!

Hi Tim,
I like the idea you have for basing your troops.I also like to play one-to-one scale.I do so because the presentation is wonderful.
I too am a former 15mmm gamer reconverted back to micro. Mainly because you never have enough wargaming room.
Any ways,I still have some of those bases,and with your idea of using them for micro has given me an idea. I will show you soon...

[Timothy OConnor]

While I'm using a figure ratio of 1:1, something made possible by the size of the GHQ infantry figures, the game mechanics ignore individual figures and use only complete stands for combat. So while each stand has 3-5 figures and also represents 3-5 real people, I don't worry about how many figures are actually on any given stand wrt the rules.

That being said I do make certain assumptions about certain stand types based on the number of men likely represented by the stand and their battlefield use. For example, sniper, FO, and command stands are weaker in close assault and command stands have a shorter effective range compared to average fire team stands.

I like to field about a company plus supporting platoons per side, so counting individual figures in the rules is not really possible for me. But I do like the ability to model (the physical sort!) the stands at 1:1 scale.

Besides, we middle aged+ gamers (just turned 40!) might have a hard time handling such small figures if individually based! But seriously, one reason I chose the 3mm-thick Litko bases at 32mm x 25mm is to make handling the stands easier. They're essentially extra-thick board game counters with 3D terrain/figures on top.

I also based the vehicles on 1" wide x variable length stands (1", 1-1/8", 1-1/4", or 1-1/2"). The various stand sizes provide a nice equal visual "margin" around the vehicles based on their size. And the 3mm-thick stand edges should help players determine vehicle facing more easily.

[jb]

While I'm using a figure ratio of 1:1, something made possible by the size of the GHQ infantry figures, the game mechanics ignore individual figures and use only complete stands for combat. So while each stand has 3-5 figures and also represents 3-5 real people, I don't worry about how many figures are actually on any given stand wrt the rules.

That being said I do make certain assumptions about certain stand types based on the number of men likely represented by the stand and their battlefield use. For example, sniper, FO, and command stands are weaker in close assault and command stands have a shorter effective range compared to average fire team stands.

I like to field about a company plus supporting platoons per side, so counting individual figures in the rules is not really possible for me. But I do like the ability to model (the physical sort!) the stands at 1:1 scale.

Besides, we middle aged+ gamers (just turned 40!) might have a hard time handling such small figures if individually based! But seriously, one reason I chose the 3mm-thick Litko bases at 32mm x 25mm is to make handling the stands easier. They're essentially extra-thick board game counters with 3D terrain/figures on top.

I also based the vehicles on 1" wide x variable length stands (1", 1-1/8", 1-1/4", or 1-1/2"). The various stand sizes provide a nice equal visual "margin" around the vehicles based on their size. And the 3mm-thick stand edges should help players determine vehicle facing more easily.

As stated I use 1 to 1 scale for gaming,for its fashion,and versatilty. In my system I can use individual weapon stats, or like you use stats for a "stand" or "base''. I've been finding uses for the Little Neodymium magnets presented to us by "8ball" on this forum, on a continous basis. One of these "discoveries" was their use for attaching single infantry figures to bases. With this also comes using stats for single weapons,and of course single losses. Something else is that I can convert to "any" game system. I know that this is more work,and maybe expense, than some ,or even the majority of folks here care to do. But hey, after all this work I can do a lot us different things with my infantry. This is game mechanic wise,and just for the looks of it.
As for the "ol' fart" thing picking up the small figs, I just can't buy that one , Maybe because I have small hands and of course fingers(thats why I don't play guitar, I can't stretch 'em across the frets ,unless I have a custom one built).
Sorry for rambling on about this,but this idea just excites me. I'm not trying to convert anybody. I would just like to pass it on because I beleive there are a few here that are interested. I would truly like to thank 8ball again ,thanks dude...