GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's

[jb]

A couple more good things about 1:1.




Speaking of modern tactics. Isn't the method of advance for armor is two covering two M-1s? So 2 will overwatch as the other 2 in the platoon advance.

During the '70s this was called overwatch. We had bounding OW ,where 1 section would be stationary while the other section would move to a position,become stationary and watch while the previous stationary section moved past and started the whole thing over.
We also had OW where 1 section would be stationary while the other section would move completely on to an objective,of course being covered by the stationary section-We used to get a lot of side shots on our opponents using this last one!
This could of course be done mostly by platoon,and company. We had 5 tank platoons then. Heavy section Plt Ldr 1 element,2 element and 3 element-Light section was Plt Sgt 4 element,and 5 element.

[av8rmongo]

On the topic of tactics and how they're portrayed (or not) within rules let me ask the designers out there how they handle movement and fire.

Here's the scenario: I had a Leopard 1A4 hull down on a ridge (edge of a plateau really)defending the left flank of my force. About 800 meters to my front was a wooded area that I suspected the American forces (M1s/M2s) would be approaching from. The ground between was open terrain. To my rear about 800 meters was a wooded area that I intended to fall back to as my secondary position. Again the ground between was open terrain across the plateau. The first forces that appeared where M2s or maybe M3s, it really didn't matter. I was able to pick them off without too much difficulty. Not yet feeling threatened I elected to remain in place another turn. Next to arrive were a couple more M2/M3 types and I think 1 M1 appeared. At that point my intent was to shoot at the M2/M3 then run back to my secondary firing position and wait until they advanced across the open plateau. I soon discovered that the rules we were playing (Combined Arms by Frank Chadwick) didn't provide for that kind of maneuver. In fairness to the rules we were playing a 1:5 ruleset at 1:1 so there are going to be some problems. But even if you were playing at 1:5 your options under these rules are shoot or move. If you shoot you essentially have fixed yourself in place until the duel is over.

How do your rules handle this?

Ultimately what happened to me was that I was lucky for a couple turns in that the M1 couldn't hack the shot against my hulldown tank. I couldn't really hurt him as long as he stayed in the woods so it was only a matter of time before he really zeroed in. I had good success against the M2/M3s but I definitely wanted to "be gone." Eventually, we cobbled some rules together to try a split move and fire but he was up on the ridge firing at me before I made it to the relative safety of the treeline and well... I died.

Paul

[jb]

On the topic of tactics and how they're portrayed (or not) within rules let me ask the designers out there how they handle movement and fire.


How do your rules handle this?


Paul

My rules allow you to try to "subsiquint" move.You need to roll for this. You also need to take into account your skill rating,with a better rating giving you a better chance of rolling for another move. What this simulates is a vehicle moving into /or being in a firing position,firing (successful or not),and moving to a secondary position ,or attacking and getting into a reaction combat. The roll is just taking what is (in reality) happening and putting it to an approximate chance of it happening in an actual time frame. simplified explanation:arrow: (or if you roll good you can do it!)

[Mobius]

In Airland War, my modern rules from Panzer War your Leo is not going to get any shots and flee. You would have to either stay and fight it out or scram.

The turn is 75 seconds so lets see what a real Leo could do in that length of time.
You could fire once. Acquire and fire might take 5-8 seconds.
Then you have to turn around. Maybe 10-15 seconds unless it has to back out of its position, then that would take longer.

Now traveling at an optimistic 30mph (48kph) cross-country would take 60 seconds to go 800m if you also started the turn moving at full speed.
But from a standing start it may take 400 meters or a 60 seconds to get to 48 kph, so another 30 seconds for the next 400 meters.
To get to those woods then would be 105-123 seconds. So at the end of the 75 second turn your butt is in the air not making it to the woods. Then for the first shot of the M-1 the following turn you are a moving in the open target.

A rule set that lets you take out a brace of M2/M3s and flee across open ground to woods 800m away without being fired on by covering tanks have diverged from reality.

[paul]

Realistically, the Leo should be able to fire and then discharge their smoke. Unless the M1 had an angle that would allow it to see the Leo, then it should be able to shoot and scoot.

[jb]

In Airland War, my modern rules from Panzer War your Leo is not going to get any shots and flee. You would have to either stay and fight it out or scram.
.

Reality is that you MAY possibly fire and move from a firing position. I was trained that if you stay in a firing position more than 15 seconds you are DEAD,really. With this thought you should re think about such a static decision on just doing one thing.

Paul,another thing what is your Leo doing by itself? It should have another section covering its withdrawal to the secondary position. This covering section (or tank) should be in the secondary postion area giving covering fire to the withdrawing Leo. I'm assuming that this ridge is going to block any fire that the US forces will have once the Leo backs away. If this is so your Leo may have time to get to the secondary before the US force moves onto the ridge that was unoccupied.

[Mobius]

In Airland War, my modern rules from Panzer War your Leo is not going to get any shots and flee. You would have to either stay and fight it out or scram.
.

Reality is that you MAY possibly fire and move from a firing position. I was trained that if you stay in a firing position more than 15 seconds you are DEAD,really. With this thought you should re think about such a static decision on just doing one thing.

It depends on how the time of the real events is divided by the turn bounds. It seems that one is trying to force the firing at the beginning of a turn and then allow movement at the end thus getting away from return fire in order to game a free shot at the enemy. If however a turn is divided into movement first and firing second the same actual sequence of events are accounted for but just in different turns. The firer fires at the end of one turn and then moves at the beginning of another. This does cover the real events of shooting and scooting.
BTW, Airland war does allow for mutiple hits from a single 'firing' die roll. So if the Leo does score a high enough 'to hit' roll on a M2 and the other M2 is close enough nearby they each may be hit. So firing at the end of a turn the Leo could nail both M2s and the next turn move away. Maybe discharging smoke as it pulled away.

Oh, Yeah, Airland war is a simultaneous turn game. So the next turn is the same turn for both the M1 and the Leo. The Leo is not frozen in place for the opponents M-1 to leisurely shoot at it

[jb]

[It depends on how the time of the real events is divided by the turn bounds. It seems that one is trying to force the firing at the beginning of a turn and then allow movement at the end thus getting away from return fire in order to game a free shot at the enemy. If however a turn is divided into movement first and firing second the same actual sequence of events are accounted for but just in different turns. The firer fires at the end of one turn and then moves at the beginning of another. This does cover the real events of shooting and scooting.
So firing at the end of a turn the Leo could nail both M2s and the next turn move away. Maybe discharging smoke as it pulled away.

Right now I play using different "phase" types during a turn i.e. Hidden undetected units 1st or reaction if it happens,stationary 2d,and moving types third. I do this just to simulate any type of simultaneus type of damage that might occur during a time frame. Before this I used to play by both sides rolling for intiative. The winner would then pick a tactical unit (platoon or in the case of some nationalities ,companies) to do functions. These functions would be- do nothing- move- move and shoot- shoot and move-double move (no fire)-with the possibilities of reaction combat happening when moving within reaction range. Also subsiquint move is always possible after doing these,and this is simulated by a roll.
After playing the fore mentioned regime for almost two years I'm really thinking of mixing the two. We always roll a die to see who goes first. If both rolls are even I want to use the simultaneus method,if there is a higher roll then we use the multi function method,with the winner picking a unit to function. After all units of both sides have "functioned" then a new turn is started. This method may change from turn to turn.
Either way I feel that using either of them allows you to simulate tactics on a 1 to 1 scale,using dice and charts as the fortunes of battle may or may not happen.

[Mobius]

After playing the fore mentioned regime for almost two years I'm really thinking of mixing the two. We always roll a die to see who goes first. If both rolls are even I want to use the simultaneus method,if there is a higher roll then we use the multi function method,with the winner picking a unit to function. After all units of both sides have "functioned" then a new turn is started. This method may change from turn to turn.
Either way I feel that using either of them allows you to simulate tactics on a 1 to 1 scale,using dice and charts as the fortunes of battle may or may not happen.

My idea of 'simultaneous' doesn't mean both sides bumping to one another trying to move and shoot at the same time. It means what is happening in the game is taking place during the same period of time rather than in an IgoUgo game where one side moves and fires and time stands still for the other side.
I too use an initiative system that allows one side to do some of their move before the other just to have some sort of order in the game play.
Simultaneous move and fire like this is done all the time in naval games, why it isn't done more in land, I don't know why.

When it comes to firing I don't use the initiative to see who fires first. The order is the tank that moved the most fires last. So a stationary tank would fire before a moving one, This immediately eliminates the need for an 'opportunity fire' rule.
There are 3 separate firing phases and fire in each is simultaneous but that in an earlier phase is not. Phases are 'stationary fire', 'half moving vehicles fire' and 'full moving vehicles fire'. It is thus possible that two stationary guns/tanks firing at each other can knock each other out in same phase. It doesn't happen that often but it is possible.

[jb]

When it comes to firing I don't use the initiative to see who fires first. The order is the tank that moved the most fires last. So a stationary tank would fire before a moving one, This immediately eliminates the need for an 'opportunity fire' rule.

One other rather important aspect to consider is the crew or squad/fireteam quality/skill/class etc. Some are definitely more "skillful" in destroying more of the enemy than others.So you should really have something that seperates the crews (I'll use crew as an overall term representing Inf,Art,and arm individuals) You see if you take a Panther tank give it to a really crap skilled crew,someone like Wittman would have a good chance of taking them on using inferior equipment. So you really can't discount who can't fire first-combat is not always simultaneus.
As for the opportunity do you let the moving tank move by the stationary one if they are close enough to drive by? Or do you let them fire at a certain spot before they get close? Or do you let the Stationary crew fire at the mover where they stopped?

[fullmetaljacket]

I have played JB rules and love them now he just needs to get them published hint hint:) I'm also looking at panzer war rules which is good a little higher learning curve than most and I have also used GHQ rules as a 1:1 ruleset. Thinking of adventuring in to making or my own set we will see. Charts of gun tables are easily found on the internet for most any era just have to do a little creative google searching.

FMJ

[Mobius]

One other rather important aspect to consider is the crew or squad/fireteam quality/skill/class etc. Some are definitely more "skillful" in destroying more of the enemy than others.So you should really have something that seperates the crews (I'll use crew as an overall term representing Inf,Art,and arm individuals) You see if you take a Panther tank give it to a really crap skilled crew,someone like Wittman would have a good chance of taking them on using inferior equipment. So you really can't discount who can't fire first-combat is not always simultaneus.

We do have some quality modifiers. If it has a really good crew it improves the to-hit chance. If it is someone like Wittmann they it would receive and even better to-hit chance and reduce by one phase the order to fire. So a half moving Wittmann tank would fire in the stationary phase.
But, it would bog the game down something terrible when you have 30-40 tanks on the table and trying to queue them up in order in which to fire.
"Now serving tank 38, Tank 38? Your turn to fire."

As for the opportunity do you let the moving tank move by the stationary one if they are close enough to drive by? Or do you let them fire at a certain spot before they get close? Or do you let the Stationary crew fire at the mover where they stopped?

The time of the turn belongs to both sides. So the stationary tank can pick the point in which to fire. Actually, most stationary tanks can fire twice in a turn. The first shot must be used at or before the target reaches its halfway point. This takes place in the stationary fire phase. Its second shot must be used after the targets halfway point and could be at the end of its movement. But this takes place in the full movement phase (the 3rd one.)
For moving WWII tanks all firing is done at the end of their movement, so they must live until then to get to fire.

Now for modern things are handled a little different. With 3-axis stabilization the tanks can fire accurately on the move. So in the first example a 3-X tank moving full could fire once in the 'stationary fire' phase, and then another time on the 'full moving' phase. The first shot would have to be taken somewhere along its path before it reaches its half-way movement point. The second at its end of movement point. Markers should be place along the path to indicate these shot locations.

Now that I have stated this I guess the early question of the Leo shooting and scooting is possible if it had 3-axis stabilization.

[Mobius]

Charts of gun tables are easily found on the internet for most any era just have to do a little creative google searching.

Yes, there is lots of data. Too much in some cases.
Like the saying goes: "The man with one watch knows what time it is. The man with two doesn't."
Data is from all different sources conflicts to a degree. So there's a lot of work that has to be done to resolve this.

[jb]

Now that I have stated this I guess the early question of the Leo shooting and scooting is possible if it had 3-axis stabilization.

I still don't see why the stab fire system would determine that in reality,but I can see why you would,using your system. You see Mobius I used to fire at 3 targets in 11 seconds ,and then move out. Using any game system would have allowed me to move far away from my initial fire position. My fire position also would have given me cover from return fire by simply backing off ( I of course would have didied the AO ASAP after backing down) I also had no Stab system.
Just trying to give you some insight from an average tanker

[Mobius]

I still don't see why the stab fire system would determine that in reality,but I can see why you would,using your system. You see Mobius I used to fire at 3 targets in 11 seconds ,and then move out. Using any game system would have allowed me to move far away from my initial fire position.

In PW this type action would have to occur in two different turns. The firing in the last 11 seconds of one turn, then the movement in the following turn.

I left something out but I didn't want to go into the minutiae of my rules. But to get away from the gamesmanship firing at something moving at the same point in two subsequent phases I had to add that the target gets to move at least 1/8 its overall movement between shots. This lets your Leo move 1/8 its movement free before being shot in the turn that it moves. In that he may get behind, or partially behind cover.

As to firing 3 times in 11 seconds, one of our playtester was a gunner in an M60s during the 80s. He was the one that was not satisfied until we had the high rate of fire rules (multiple hits) added to what was once our more of a ASL type lazy fire once per turn rule system.
Now if you can roll high enough with a single shot you can get more than one hit. I think the 105mm at 1000m can get up to 3 hits with a very high roll. You can spread these around to other targets if they are close by. And since it can fire twice a turn that is a possibility of 6 hits. Same goes for WWII. Now your Michael Wittmann tank can brew up half a dozen ronsins in a single turn if he's lucky.