Hidden Movement Mechanics

[Timothy OConnor]

This thread was inspired by one of serveral questions asked by Skypig in another thread. I thought it might be helpful to consolidate related responses in a single thread for future reference given the importance of stealthy movement on 20th century battlefields.

Here's the issue: in modern war it's usually death to be seen. Thus "not being seen" (shades of Monty Python here...) is crucial to modern war. On the miniature wargame table this is usually accomplished through the use of counters that represent real stands or units and dummy counters that represent, well, nothing. The Flames of War rules go the opposite direction and use a Star Trek-style transporter rule that allows one to deploy stands in ambush anywhere in a deployment zone within certain restrictions (if in LOS of enemy must be >16" away, if in concealment I believe the distance is >4").

Having played lots of miniatures games as well as computer games and first person tactical shooters (eg Ghost Recon and Battlefield 2) I must say that miniatures games have a very tough time simulating hidden movement which is core to modern war. In countless computer/FPS games I've seen teams completely outmaneuver an enemy through stealthy maneuver and rack up huge kills with smart ambushes. A favorite tactic is to try to anticipate a likely enemy route of approach and then lay an ambush along that route. By the same token when maneuvering it's best to avoid obvious routes. I've read about these tactics in countless memoirs but it's very difficult to replicate on the tabletop, even with counters (like Skypig said, you still see the counter!)

So here's the question: how do you represent hidden movement in your miniatures games? Personally, I've tried all of the usual mechanics (eg hidden movement counters, dummies, etc.)

And while I generally like the result I also find them cumbersome. Any ideas on how to improve the state of the art?
Tim

[av8rmongo]

I guess to truly replicate it you would need a double blind setup, 2 players and a GM, two tables (or maps) and the GM table, two sets of all the equipment - one for the player table one for the GM table. As a player moves on his own table the GM mirrors that on the Master table if units come into contact then the GM would either place the opposing forces on the player's table or the players would move to the GMs table. The GM would be the "computer' working all the stuff out behind the scenes. Labor intensive, real estate intensive and miniature intensive.

You can do this sort of thing in a Play By E-Mail (PBEM) game - most easily done with naval engagements. But then you're sacrificing the time element. I've been in games that took a year to fight a one day battle.

It just comes down to where you want to draw the line between accuracy and playability. Wargames on a tabletop will never give you the same feel (uncertainty, Fog of War, etc.) as a computer simulation. But you also don't get to see the doubt, uncertainty or shock in your opponents eyes when he finally springs the trap you've carefully laid for him. Or I guess when you fall into his trap. Its always a compromise. From everything I seen on this forum I think the best approach is with counters, limited intelligence and all the other thing we've mentioned.

Paul

[skypig53]

I've given this a little thought for the last year or so (I have time to think about it since I have no one to game with) since I'm mainly interested in gaming present day conflicts. Something I thought I would like to try, if given the oppurtunity, would be to have hidden units represented on a smaller map held by the players. Moving units would fall victim to the current rules, as they should. But say you had a insurgent stand held up in a building, they would only be represented on the players "mini-map". It could be a crude drawing or an elaborate computer generated map but as long as it was close in scale (say 1" on the table = 1/4" or 1/8" on the map.) and the major terrain features/types, roads and buildings were clearly represented and each player had duplicate maps it could work. Imagine if all units were "hidden" until they had LOS with an enemy unit or recon aircraft or if the unit was hidden in a structure it would stay "invisible" to the enemy until the trap was sprung. All your hidden movements could be drawn on your "mini map". So the the first 2 or 3 turns of the game could be carried out quickly on paper without having to manipulate pieces of paper. If your opponent cried BS you could clealy show them how you manuevered that unit there over the course of a few turns, or if you had a GM they would be watching all your "hidden" movements for fairness. You could use this for IED placements also. Mark it on your map and no one will know its there until you trigger it. What if you suspected insurgents were in a house, you might require a cohesion roll or something depending on your rule set to clear the house. The possibilities are endless. Thats my two cents anyway.

[Timothy OConnor]

I guess to truly replicate it you would need a double blind setup, 2 players and a GM, two tables (or maps) and the GM table, two sets of all the equipment - one for the player table one for the GM table.

Well, let's add one more qualifier to the question: what's a solution that's cost effective?

But seriously, you've nailed the problem well. In the absence of such a massive effort in time and materials (GHQ would be happy!) how can one replicate hidden movement?

For example, the FOW Star Trek Transporter approach certainly replicates the feeling of complete ignorance for the attacker. The problem is that it allows for too much freedom on the part of the ambusher. Peter Pig's Vietnam rules achieve a nice compromise through use of ambush "areas". This mitigates to some degree the chicken-and-the-egg problem of advancing a stand into an ambush and then having the defender declare the ambush.

Don't forget the other requirement: it can't be cumbersome. Map deployment is an old standard but is often difficult to implement, especially without an umpire. And there are always discussions about one's drawing skills realtive to where one wishes to deploy.

[Timothy OConnor]

Skypig,

We posted simultaneously and you virtually aniticpated my reply to Paul. I like the idea of the map with counters.

Since I use a 4" x 4" grid on my table I could make small magnetic boards with a corrosponding grid (think Battleship but with a 12 square x 18 square grid). Magnets could represent hidden stands. This would be very inexpensive since one need not draw a map for each tabletop setup. The grid is the common and universal reference. And markers need not be placed on the table to avoid that whole problem! Total hidden deployment!

I probably wouldn't require every stand's position to be recorded with a magnet. Just company CPs, Battalion CP, key independent stands (eg FOs), IEDs, etc. To deploy a company-sized ambush one must simlpy deploy within the command radius of the company CP.

[skypig53]

if one opponent started off static for the most part, already holding postions, waiting in ambush it could work. If both players started out a opposite ends of a table and had to move across the table to an objective then the "drawing skills" would be a factor. An Umpire would be a must and a trusted opponent that isn't "in it to win it". One player would definately have to start out fixed. The mini-map idea isn't really feasible for large scale engagements but would help as far as realism for Small Wars/Skirmishes in Urban Terrain.

Another thought. The "patrolling" player could perform an "observation roll" that, if passed, would reveal hidden units within a certain radius and give them the "initiative" in the engagement (oppurtunity fire, overwatch, etc.)

Maybe having all units "hidden" until in LOS is a stretch with todays technology. UAVs for modern forces, a 6 year old with binoculars and a cell phone for the insurgents. It would be impossible to walk through a city with out the enemy having some clue as to your position. Now forces held up in buildings or IEDs or evn VBIEDs are where this mini-map type play might be interesting.

[Luca]

I propose this, that only the most forward elements of an army should make visible. This would rappresent the forward echelons of an advancing battle group wich always display in a very forward position some security or reconneisance elements. This was often done to conceal real movements of troops, so the enemy supposed that in front of him was going to prepare a great operation when in fact there were just a number of scout cars making lot of noise. So the proposal is that for the first turn the players should move only the first stand in front of his group/s, and recording the rest of the deploymet on a separate map (obvyously should be a fare game in absence of judges). And when the major elements of the armies clashes, the rest of the stand should be made visible, for example a full battalion of tanks and some units on the flanks, but the units in the rear could remain concealed, because now the sounds of battle are covering even better their movement (but if you are in a rolling hills country should be taken in account the line of sight). This way surprise and flanking attacks could be guaranteed at any moment of the battle.

for the infantry things should work differently. It would depend much more on the cohesion of opposing forces. Very cohese and disciplinated attackers could move close and stealthy up to 200 yards from enemy position, depending on disponibiliy of close terrain and covered route of approach. Higly cohese defenders having ready sentries and lots of forward position and patroll scouts could locate the enemy even at 1 or 2 thousand yards, frustrating the attack.
The cohesion method could work this way. At the beginning of the turn the player trow the dices and if favorable, the attacker move his troops on his map without revealing his position and even showig his forward infantry stand on the tabletop. On the other side if the defender is succesfull this means he got some info where the attacker is, and the closer the attacker got to the defenders line, the more stands the attacker should put on the tabletop. For example if the defender detect the attacker very far away, the attacker should put just one stand. if the defender detect it at very close range, the whole attacking party should be exposed.

To help playability I would favour in some way the attackers, or in general the players wich moves (in case of meeting enagagements). If the attacker is detected from very far away, this doesn't mean that the attacker lost all the surprise. This just mean that the defender got some "rumors" of an ensuing attack. For this reason on the next turn the attacker stand should be take away from the tabletop, and to see it again the defender must get another favourable cohesion dice roll. If it fails, that mean that his sentries are only a little more exited. For example a smart attacker could send very forward a platoon of troopers in a section of the front, while retaining the bunch of his forces on the opposite side, making his opponent concentrate his soldiers on the wrong spot.

This method could be applyed also to the motorized elements. they could appear and disappear the farther they remain, while after a fortunate series of positive cohesion rolls suddenly appear in force.

Hope this helps. bye!

[Luca]

Ah, another thing! Only higly capable scout squad and brave leaders should detect at once the closing enemy, but in any case they should go very close to the front line exposing themself very much. If spotted they would automatically be hit from some very effectiv suppressive fire (representing this not the ability of the enemy of attacking them, but rather the small size of the scout or command party and his greater vulnerability). If destroyed these stands would loose their information, returning the enemy in the "dark", and severily penalizing for the rest of the game the spotting capability of the troops the stand was attached to.
So you have to chose: dispatch in the front your best leaders to get fresh information to prepare the battle at best, or retain and use them when the battle will start?

bye!

[jb]

We use maps in plastic sheet protectors for our hidden forces mechanics. (There are some real nice writing devices now days that let you write on plastic that won't rub off or smear,but will allow you to erase easily too. One of these products is called "Zwipes",and may be found at Walgreens"). We also require a neutral judge or umpire to take both sides deployments,lay one of them over the other and determine where there is a conflict to be setup tactically. We no longer have the days where recon forces are fruitlessly wasted as sacrficial lambs,but employed as the way they were intended. The judge may also play tactically but may not help out in any manner with the map movements. We also use this method with naval warfare....