I'm curious as to how effective people feel indirect arty fire is against infantry in trenches/buildings and tanks (working on a rev of my homegrown rules, so I would really appreciate any advice on the topic).
For example, against infantry in protective cover such as a trench or building/rubble, should arty only pin/suppress targets or should there be a small chance to destroy the target? For discussion purposes assume 1 wargame stand = 1 platoon of 30-40 men...so in wargame terms should 81mm/105mm/155mm indirect fire be able to eliminate such a stand or only pin/suppress? (there mught be a few casualties but were looking at aggregate effect for wargame purposes)
At the moment I'm inclined to change my rules so that 81mm and 105mm tubes can't eliminate infantry stands in protective cover but still allow 155mm guns a small chance to eliminate protected stands (pin/suppression would of course still occur independent of kill probability). In wargame terms, does that make sense? Or should 81s and 105s also have a chance to eliminate protected stands?
And what about tanks? (talking WWII here). Assuming 3 types of armored targets (open top light AFV, light/medium AFV, and heavy AFV) I'm inclined to eliminate the ability of tubes in the 81-105mm range to kill closed top light/medium AFVs and allow 155mm tubes to only pin heavy AFVs (each stand = about 4 AFVs, so again the aggregate effect is what's important).
Any advice from both historical and game perspectives would be very much appreciated!
Thanks,
Tim[/i]
Arty vs cover and tanks
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
tsalyards
Hello,
I too pursue the insanity of home grown rules so perhaps I can chime in.
First, what is your definition of "eliminate?" I would agree with your assertion that it would be difficult to wipe out entrenched infantry (as it often is), but it could render the infantry combat ineffective and effectively result in the "elimination" of the team. I usually describe this as "going fetal" but you may have moral rules that take this into account. There should be a slight chance of eliminating the target IMHO.
Same goes for disabling a heavy tank. Even the heaviest of tanks were vulnerable to arty shots dropping into their ventilation and week top armor. Again, while it likely couldn't destroy the tank it should be able to disable or demobilize the vehicle.
These are my thoughts at least.
I too pursue the insanity of home grown rules so perhaps I can chime in.
First, what is your definition of "eliminate?" I would agree with your assertion that it would be difficult to wipe out entrenched infantry (as it often is), but it could render the infantry combat ineffective and effectively result in the "elimination" of the team. I usually describe this as "going fetal" but you may have moral rules that take this into account. There should be a slight chance of eliminating the target IMHO.
Same goes for disabling a heavy tank. Even the heaviest of tanks were vulnerable to arty shots dropping into their ventilation and week top armor. Again, while it likely couldn't destroy the tank it should be able to disable or demobilize the vehicle.
These are my thoughts at least.
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
In my rules the results of shooting inflict a variable number of "hit markers" on the target.
For an average morale stand 2 hit markers pin (no move/half firepower) while 4 hit markers suppress (no move/no fire). 8 hit markers result in a route which could eliminate the stand if it fails a morale check (this represents the platoon being so disrupted/scattered/freaked out by vast amounts of firepower that it becomes completely combat ineffective for the battle). Hit markers are cumulative and can be rallied off based on company skill and morale.
After rolling for hits one rolls a number of dice equal to the hits scored "to kill". The probability of scoring a kill is based on the weapon's ability to kill soft or armored targets and the target's protection/vulnerability.
So, with an arty strike of significant size (say, a battalion of three stands...each stand represents ~4 guns), targets within the beaten zone are very likely to be pinned or suppressed while enough firepower could result in a route/"morale kill".
Thus "elimination" can stem from morale or represent enough casualties or vehicle damage being inflicted that the platoon becomes combat ineffective from personnel losses and euipment damage (not necessarily destruction since the level of detail in my rules mean that anything from mobility kills to main gun damage to penetration all mean AFVs becoming hors de combat...that level of detail is below the rule's scope).
So, in light of the potential for morale kills, I'm more inclined to accept fewer outright losses from arty fire and our local players seem to feel the same way. I'm just curious as to how others feel/treat this. I've played lots of different rules and there's always the "giggle factor" when something improbable (but still possible!) happens and then everyone rolls their eyes in disbelief. So, maybe it's just easier to ignore the very low probability kills and rely upon morale kills to allow arty to "eliminate" protected infantry and fully armored AFVs.
For an average morale stand 2 hit markers pin (no move/half firepower) while 4 hit markers suppress (no move/no fire). 8 hit markers result in a route which could eliminate the stand if it fails a morale check (this represents the platoon being so disrupted/scattered/freaked out by vast amounts of firepower that it becomes completely combat ineffective for the battle). Hit markers are cumulative and can be rallied off based on company skill and morale.
After rolling for hits one rolls a number of dice equal to the hits scored "to kill". The probability of scoring a kill is based on the weapon's ability to kill soft or armored targets and the target's protection/vulnerability.
So, with an arty strike of significant size (say, a battalion of three stands...each stand represents ~4 guns), targets within the beaten zone are very likely to be pinned or suppressed while enough firepower could result in a route/"morale kill".
Thus "elimination" can stem from morale or represent enough casualties or vehicle damage being inflicted that the platoon becomes combat ineffective from personnel losses and euipment damage (not necessarily destruction since the level of detail in my rules mean that anything from mobility kills to main gun damage to penetration all mean AFVs becoming hors de combat...that level of detail is below the rule's scope).
So, in light of the potential for morale kills, I'm more inclined to accept fewer outright losses from arty fire and our local players seem to feel the same way. I'm just curious as to how others feel/treat this. I've played lots of different rules and there's always the "giggle factor" when something improbable (but still possible!) happens and then everyone rolls their eyes in disbelief. So, maybe it's just easier to ignore the very low probability kills and rely upon morale kills to allow arty to "eliminate" protected infantry and fully armored AFVs.
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
Yes, an 81 MM mortar should be able to eliminate an InfantryPlatoon. Asuming you are playing a 1 stand equals a platoon. Elimination in this play scale is also a broad term. It could me everyone in the target platoon is a causualty(very unlikely,but probable),Nobody dies,but the fire is so effective so as to eliminate them from the "SCENARIO". Of course remember you are not just firing 1 tube of mortars either.
Also chances should be less efective of 81mm mortars as compared to a 155mm. BTW have you ever seen what a 155 will do to a trench? Definitley ruin your weekend!
In my rules I have three effective hit columns for such type of circumstance.
1. In the open
2. In cover
3. In fortified cover
Besides that we also have one previous step that takes into account possible effective hits of in cover,or in the open. This determines how many hits might do damage.
If you ask me "elimination" is possible...
Also chances should be less efective of 81mm mortars as compared to a 155mm. BTW have you ever seen what a 155 will do to a trench? Definitley ruin your weekend!
In my rules I have three effective hit columns for such type of circumstance.
1. In the open
2. In cover
3. In fortified cover
Besides that we also have one previous step that takes into account possible effective hits of in cover,or in the open. This determines how many hits might do damage.
If you ask me "elimination" is possible...
John
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Not a rules writer, so I can offer no counsel on how to write it.
But a rules reader, and also a studies of effects of artillery reader, so I do have some views on how I would hope to find the rules effecting play.
Artillery fire against troops in cover, and against armor, does have a potential to destroy. At one-to-platoon scale, it is a bit tough to model, though. Two factors to bear in mind:
1 ) Artillery fire has a cumulative affect over time:
Once troops are in cover (entrenched), the likelyhood of casualities per round fired goes WAY down. But there is still a likelyhood. WW1 and WW2 studies indicate a fairly constant rate of attrition if the defenses/cover are well conceived. This is apart from the moral impact (which also bears consideration). Lots of explosions, and guys are going to get injured or killed. But the attrition rate will be low relative to a platoon sized stand and a game-turn of time. How you choose to model this is a challenge for the game writer, but as the game reader I know I want to see it modelled.
2) Artillery fire needs to be taken into consideration by the target:
This is a big factor in my mind. Yes, looking up moral factors on a table and throwing dice is all fine and dandy. But I want the commander's decision-making challenge to be a part of my wargaming. If the arty can only suppress, I can safely ignore it unless the enemy is in my sites. But in truth, no commander can ever safely ignore artillery falling on his forces. Sometimes you just have to hunker down, because you don't have a choice. But you sure should WANT a choice, because you should know that your force is getting smaller and smaller every minute, hour, day you sit under the beaten zone.
3) Size and volume both make a difference:
Once the target is dug-in, the round has to actually strike within a fairly small radius (not much larger than its cratering area) to have a lethal effect. Unless they have bomb-proof bunkers, the bigger determinant of casuality rates is the number of rounds impacting, rather than the weight of ordnance. This is why the Soviet 76mm and British 25pdr remained effective weapons. More rounds on target is a better generator of casualities than larger rounds on target. Where larger guns make a big difference is in causing casualities in field-expedient bunkers and strong-points. Dig yourself down a few feet, put some logs and dirt over your head, and you may survive a hit from a 75-105mm round. But you won't survive a hit from a 155.
A parallel can be applied to light versus heavy armored vehicles. A light armored vehicle (APC, scout vehicle, etc.) will be vulnerable to lighter ordnance. More bangs is better. But heavy armor (modern MBTs) will shrug-off 75mm rounds going off within just a couple feet, or even on top of most parts of the vehicle. 81mm mortars coming in? Close the hatch and ride it out. But not 155s. They start dropping around you, you better boogie!
As I have mentioned in other threads, the low-probability events are one reason I very much prefer rules that use higher-numbered dice. Low-sided dice either ignore important possibilities, or make them more important than they should be. A hypothetical example in this case might be modeling low-probability of hits. Say we model our possiblity of casualties at 5%. With percentage or 20-sided dice I can model a 5% issue. WIth a D6 I must ignore it, or make it a >15% issue. So we say 5% is too low to worry about, and we toss it away. Now in the game a player leaves a company of 3 platoons plus HQ under an artillery barrage for turn after turn. Why not, the rules say it can't hurt him? We know that the odds are better than even that he should take casualties if he sits there for more than a few turns, but the rules have tossed that consideration out of our game.
For all of the rules and tables game writers may create, the moral effects I want are how issues and uncertainties weigh on a commander's mind and how his decisions are affected. Rules that encourage me to leave my troops under a barrage when I have a choice? No, I don't think I like those rules at all.
Just my $.02.
But a rules reader, and also a studies of effects of artillery reader, so I do have some views on how I would hope to find the rules effecting play.
Artillery fire against troops in cover, and against armor, does have a potential to destroy. At one-to-platoon scale, it is a bit tough to model, though. Two factors to bear in mind:
1 ) Artillery fire has a cumulative affect over time:
Once troops are in cover (entrenched), the likelyhood of casualities per round fired goes WAY down. But there is still a likelyhood. WW1 and WW2 studies indicate a fairly constant rate of attrition if the defenses/cover are well conceived. This is apart from the moral impact (which also bears consideration). Lots of explosions, and guys are going to get injured or killed. But the attrition rate will be low relative to a platoon sized stand and a game-turn of time. How you choose to model this is a challenge for the game writer, but as the game reader I know I want to see it modelled.
2) Artillery fire needs to be taken into consideration by the target:
This is a big factor in my mind. Yes, looking up moral factors on a table and throwing dice is all fine and dandy. But I want the commander's decision-making challenge to be a part of my wargaming. If the arty can only suppress, I can safely ignore it unless the enemy is in my sites. But in truth, no commander can ever safely ignore artillery falling on his forces. Sometimes you just have to hunker down, because you don't have a choice. But you sure should WANT a choice, because you should know that your force is getting smaller and smaller every minute, hour, day you sit under the beaten zone.
3) Size and volume both make a difference:
Once the target is dug-in, the round has to actually strike within a fairly small radius (not much larger than its cratering area) to have a lethal effect. Unless they have bomb-proof bunkers, the bigger determinant of casuality rates is the number of rounds impacting, rather than the weight of ordnance. This is why the Soviet 76mm and British 25pdr remained effective weapons. More rounds on target is a better generator of casualities than larger rounds on target. Where larger guns make a big difference is in causing casualities in field-expedient bunkers and strong-points. Dig yourself down a few feet, put some logs and dirt over your head, and you may survive a hit from a 75-105mm round. But you won't survive a hit from a 155.
A parallel can be applied to light versus heavy armored vehicles. A light armored vehicle (APC, scout vehicle, etc.) will be vulnerable to lighter ordnance. More bangs is better. But heavy armor (modern MBTs) will shrug-off 75mm rounds going off within just a couple feet, or even on top of most parts of the vehicle. 81mm mortars coming in? Close the hatch and ride it out. But not 155s. They start dropping around you, you better boogie!
As I have mentioned in other threads, the low-probability events are one reason I very much prefer rules that use higher-numbered dice. Low-sided dice either ignore important possibilities, or make them more important than they should be. A hypothetical example in this case might be modeling low-probability of hits. Say we model our possiblity of casualties at 5%. With percentage or 20-sided dice I can model a 5% issue. WIth a D6 I must ignore it, or make it a >15% issue. So we say 5% is too low to worry about, and we toss it away. Now in the game a player leaves a company of 3 platoons plus HQ under an artillery barrage for turn after turn. Why not, the rules say it can't hurt him? We know that the odds are better than even that he should take casualties if he sits there for more than a few turns, but the rules have tossed that consideration out of our game.
For all of the rules and tables game writers may create, the moral effects I want are how issues and uncertainties weigh on a commander's mind and how his decisions are affected. Rules that encourage me to leave my troops under a barrage when I have a choice? No, I don't think I like those rules at all.
Just my $.02.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
hauptgrate
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:39 am
Having written WWII rules for 25+ years, I have examined this question several times. the way I approach almost everything now is to consider the overall scale of the game both in terms of scale unit size, time represented by a game turn, and the overall "scale" of the rules system itself -- how detailed it is meant to be and how the details of one part of the system fits with the other parts. My rules are based upon Command Decision from about 20 years ago but now only a shadow of that system is still apparent. As I began to modify or completely rewrite parts of the system, I found myself changing other parts to keep some sort of overall fit.
As far as your specific artillery question, I have nice charts of firepower factors and nice charts for terrain defense benefits, and yes, it is almost impossible for an 81mm to eliminate a platoon while in an entrenched position. However, there is always a small chance -- and since I use a D20 the miminum is a 5%. On the opposite side I always leave a chance that a 155mm concentration hitting a platoon marching in the open will do no damage. I use the premise that nothing should ever be automatic as it adds uncertainty into games.
As a related issue, the manner in which a platoon on the receiving end of artillery fire reacts can vary widely. Green and/or poorly motivated troops might break and run, or simply lie down and refuse to move two seconds after the first round falls. Veteran and/or motivated troops might keep fighting even after taking heavy casualties. I suggest having seperate troop quality and morale ratings. I base the chance on whether a game unit "survives" damage based upon the troop quality (training and experience); and base the question of whether a unit is forced back, pinned in place, or can continue effective movement and fire on morale (motivation). I also have what I have labelled a "fanatic" rating, a low chance of temporarily gaining extra quality and morale. This is based upon the "berserk" rule in the original Avalon Hill Squad Leader game.
Good luck with your rules and have fun playing.
As far as your specific artillery question, I have nice charts of firepower factors and nice charts for terrain defense benefits, and yes, it is almost impossible for an 81mm to eliminate a platoon while in an entrenched position. However, there is always a small chance -- and since I use a D20 the miminum is a 5%. On the opposite side I always leave a chance that a 155mm concentration hitting a platoon marching in the open will do no damage. I use the premise that nothing should ever be automatic as it adds uncertainty into games.
As a related issue, the manner in which a platoon on the receiving end of artillery fire reacts can vary widely. Green and/or poorly motivated troops might break and run, or simply lie down and refuse to move two seconds after the first round falls. Veteran and/or motivated troops might keep fighting even after taking heavy casualties. I suggest having seperate troop quality and morale ratings. I base the chance on whether a game unit "survives" damage based upon the troop quality (training and experience); and base the question of whether a unit is forced back, pinned in place, or can continue effective movement and fire on morale (motivation). I also have what I have labelled a "fanatic" rating, a low chance of temporarily gaining extra quality and morale. This is based upon the "berserk" rule in the original Avalon Hill Squad Leader game.
Good luck with your rules and have fun playing.
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
Excellent suggestions all!
In fact I do differentiate between morale and skill. Skilled troops are more effective at delivering fire and at avoiding its effects (better at exploiting concealment). High morale troops are more likely to soldier on while receiving lots of fire and low morale troops are more likely to go to ground upon receiving fire.
So, the basic WWII veteran unit will be more skilled but perhaps somewhat reluctant to die, especially as they spend more time in the field. Fanatical conscripts will die in droves and require large numbers to deliver effective fire but will fight to the last man.
The most effective troops are ** CENSORED **/volunteers who are highly motivated upon entering service and who have enough battle experience to improve their skills while not so much experience so as to dull their enthusiasm (eg paras with decent battle experience and who have not yet become overly risk adverse due to battle fatigue).
And at some point any unit can become broken by losing so many veterans that no matter how motivated at the start of their war they end up completely reluctant and unable to fight effectively.
re: the arty fire issue, based on everyone's input I think that I've found a workable solution to allow a very small chance to kill the prototypical dug-in infantry platoon with 81mm mortar fire while allowing for significant pin/suppression effects of such fire.
Thanks to everyone!
Tim
In fact I do differentiate between morale and skill. Skilled troops are more effective at delivering fire and at avoiding its effects (better at exploiting concealment). High morale troops are more likely to soldier on while receiving lots of fire and low morale troops are more likely to go to ground upon receiving fire.
So, the basic WWII veteran unit will be more skilled but perhaps somewhat reluctant to die, especially as they spend more time in the field. Fanatical conscripts will die in droves and require large numbers to deliver effective fire but will fight to the last man.
The most effective troops are ** CENSORED **/volunteers who are highly motivated upon entering service and who have enough battle experience to improve their skills while not so much experience so as to dull their enthusiasm (eg paras with decent battle experience and who have not yet become overly risk adverse due to battle fatigue).
And at some point any unit can become broken by losing so many veterans that no matter how motivated at the start of their war they end up completely reluctant and unable to fight effectively.
re: the arty fire issue, based on everyone's input I think that I've found a workable solution to allow a very small chance to kill the prototypical dug-in infantry platoon with 81mm mortar fire while allowing for significant pin/suppression effects of such fire.
Thanks to everyone!
Tim
-
hauptgrate
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:39 am
Timothy,
Sounds like you've got good stuff going on there. As a side thought, you can use your seperate quality and morale ratings to add greatly to your scenario set-up. My group plays a semi-blind game prior to which we purchase our troops in battalion/battlegroup sized formations. I have developed a massive system of scenario objective cards, special situation cards, Corps and Divisional formations available, etc. However the whole idea came to me many years ago when I wanted player to be able to experiment with that age-old question of "quality or quantity". I came up with multipliers model the value of troop quality and morale into the purchase price of a group -- for example, a company of Sherman 75s might cost 100 points with average quality and medium morale, but the cost goes up as one or both of those factors goes up and down as they go down. I have a range of possible quality and morale ratings on each sheet of units being purchased, so within limits, a player can decide how to taylor his troops for the mission. It has been a very cool gaming experience since I got the system fully working a few years ago, and I have found myself making purposful choices to either go with a large, low quality force or small, high quality depending on the terrain and/or situation. Adds lots of interst to the game.
Sounds like you've got good stuff going on there. As a side thought, you can use your seperate quality and morale ratings to add greatly to your scenario set-up. My group plays a semi-blind game prior to which we purchase our troops in battalion/battlegroup sized formations. I have developed a massive system of scenario objective cards, special situation cards, Corps and Divisional formations available, etc. However the whole idea came to me many years ago when I wanted player to be able to experiment with that age-old question of "quality or quantity". I came up with multipliers model the value of troop quality and morale into the purchase price of a group -- for example, a company of Sherman 75s might cost 100 points with average quality and medium morale, but the cost goes up as one or both of those factors goes up and down as they go down. I have a range of possible quality and morale ratings on each sheet of units being purchased, so within limits, a player can decide how to taylor his troops for the mission. It has been a very cool gaming experience since I got the system fully working a few years ago, and I have found myself making purposful choices to either go with a large, low quality force or small, high quality depending on the terrain and/or situation. Adds lots of interst to the game.
-
Pitfall
- E5
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am
- Location: South Bend, IN
- Contact: