I'm thinking of a semi-FMA system for battalion / regimental combat.
Given that it just took me four tries to type "regiment" correctly I won't go
into great detail here but this is the general outline.
Scale is 1 unit = 1 company, 1 turn = 1 hour, 1 mu = (very tentatively) 5 km
Terrain is Open, Rough, Impassable, Water, plus Roads. Terrain modifies
movement and combat. Infantry can still go into Impassable.
Each unit has five characteristics: quality, anti-armor,
anti-infantry, anti-air, movement.
Movement ranges from 1 (dismounted infantry) to 7 (fast GEV /
grav) --ie 1/2 DS2 base move.
The three firepower ratings are determined by examining the DS2 weapons,
firecontrols, etc, and deciding whether that rates a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12.
Roll the appropriate attack die + quality vs defender's attack +
quality. Whoever has a lower total loses 1 quality die type (maybe an
additional 1 die type per each 3 points difference, something like that).
Units can recover dice types to some extent by regrouping (no movement, no
combat) but if it drops below d4, destroyed.
In my copious free time (ha!), I'm thinking to make this a block game (see
www.columbiagames.com) as far as "fog of war" but use the FMA opposed dice.
Comment?
> On 8-Apr-01 at 22:35, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
> In my copious free time (ha!) , I'm thinking to make this a block game
Sounds like a great idea. Are the block games at Columbia worth playing? I've
been curious, but at the price I hate to just jump.
> Sounds like a great idea. Are the block games at Columbia worth
Yes (assuming you like the subject material)!
They quite accurately depict the initial advantage fresh forces, and the
bogging of fatigued armies. It really is quite an ingenious system.
They are pricey however <sigh>
> In my copious free time (ha!) , I'm thinking to make this a block game
This sounds really good.
> Each unit has five characteristics: quality, anti-armor,
Probably also need a rating for target type, like: Armour, Infantry, Armoured
Infantry, Might be best to use military symbols, like crossed square, track in
a box, etc (I can't recall the abbreviations.)
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Each unit has five characteristics: quality,
Sounds good. You know where to find at least one
playtester--I'd be interested in applying those
formulae to NRE and opposing forces (AFAIK, the only
brigade+ formations on the web--but if I'm wrong I
want to know about it!).
> > In my copious free time (ha!) , I'm thinking to make this a block
And I should probably figure out a way to add Armor/Defense in there
too.... Maybe FP+Quality vs Quality with a DRM for armor/ECM/Stealth
> On 8-Apr-01 at 22:35, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
IIRC if you order by Web, you get 30 days to return it. Or just put it on your
Christmas list, that's what I did.
If I were playing vs another adult I'd probably have gotten East Front or
Pacific Victory, but Victory is working okay, I just need a custom
In message <004d01c0c0ef$d8208320$bfee1a3f@pavilion>, "Laserlight" writes:
> > On 8-Apr-01 at 22:35, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
Wow! They are expensive. What's so cool about them that makes it
> on 4/9/01 9:13, Andy Cowell at andy@cowell.org wrote:
> Sounds like a great idea. Are the block games at Columbia worth
At least to me the almost double blind nature of most of their games are
refreshing. They're not completely double blind in that you see where your
opponents units are, just not how big they are or which ones are which.
> In message <B6F7362B.53588%sage@bresnanlink.net>, Kevin Walker writes:
> on 4/9/01 10:19, Andy Cowell at andy@cowell.org wrote:
> At least to me the almost double blind nature of most of their games
In a sense. Usually all units have a chance of hurting each other though (you
probably already guessed this but just to make sure I though it worth
mentioning). For example - in the two American Civil War games they
have a block might represent a division of infantry, a brigade? of cavalry,
and a
company of artillery (I may have these sizes mixed up a little - the
infantry I'm sure about though). Unless the opponent gives away special
natures of the unit by strategic movement (moving cavalry faster on the
strategic board for example) you're really not sure what you might be facing.
These units may also not be full strength, a factor determined by
which side of the block is on top (some units have a strength from 1-3
or 4). A full strength unit might be worth 2 or more depleted units of the
same type in combat. It's also possible to have some idea of the strength of
your opponents local units by remembering something about them from recent
battles but beware counting too much on it because your opponent may have
provided some of their reinforcements to bolster a unit or two since the last
time you saw them.
All in all a nice system generally and very open to using the various games as
a slightly abstracted way of resolving strategic scale movement for other game
systems IMHO.
From: Kevin Walker sage@chartermi.net
> on 4/9/01 9:13, Andy Cowell at andy@cowell.org wrote:
> Sounds like a great idea. Are the block games at Columbia worth
Kevin said:
> At least to me the almost double blind nature of most of their games
If you use the dummy counters idea from Matt Geisler (www.mattjane.com IIRC)
then you won't even be sure of that.
> on 4/9/01 11:16, laserlight@quixnet.net at laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> At least to me the almost double blind nature of most of their games
True. I might have to investigate this a bit. With some of the time periods
it's probably appropriate to have some idea where units are, just not the full
nature or strength. I like the possibility of having it either way though...
Owen Glover posted a Battalion organization for the OU at
http://peninsula.starway.net.au/~epowles/ouorbat.html (bottom of page).
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
John was talking Brigade rather than Battalion. IIRC a division has
10-12 battalions, a brigade has about 5-8, I presume a regiment would
have 3-4.
[quoted original message omitted]
Depends on the time period - I'd say that today the main difference
between
a Regiment (US/Russian) usage and a Brigade is that
a Regiment is a permanent formation and a Brigade can (theoretically) change
in composition and both have about 4 - 5 battalion
equivalents.
Of course just to confuse things you have people like the British and the
French who have "Battalion" sized units called Regiments.
E.g. British armoured or recon units such as the 17th/21st Lancers.
> -----Original Message-----
I'm continuing to think slowly about this, I figure by 2185 or so it'll be
ready...
Each unit has die type ratings for Attack, Defense, and Move, plus
fixed ratings for Move Type (eg Foot/ Wheeled/ Tracked/ Grav) and
Attack Range (eg infantry has attack range 0, artillery might have 10). Rough
terrain upshifts defense die, downshifts move die. Units getting attacked in
flank downshift 1, units getting attacked from the rear downshift 2.
HQ's exist to dispense initiative (abstracting both C^3 and supply). The
player is the top level of command and rolls a die to determine which
(numbered) command gets to move. That command then rolls initiative among its
units. Example: Tom rolls a 3, so the 3rd Infantry Co takes its action. The HQ
of the 3rd is a d10 and rolls an 8, so his 5 platoons can take a total of
eight actions. Next turn, Tom rolls a 3 again. That's good for 3rd Infantry
but not so good for 1st Cav, off on the flank.
As the game wears on, initiative will wear down in one way or
another--maybe subtract 1 from the max die roll each turn.
Units which lose a combat (opposed die roll) should lose 1 die type off their
Attack rating, I haven't figured out a graceful way to mark
that. I suppose it could be done by tracking it on a roster sheet--we
track FT damage that way, after all, and that would allow some fog of war.
I say "company" and "platoon" above but it may fit better as "battalion" and
"company"...that would make the player a brigade commander.
G'day,
> As the game wears on, initiative will wear down in one way or
Only from units that have done something (like 3rd infantry in your
e.g.) or
all units (so 1st cav would be effected by the fact 3rd infantry had already
done stuff, even though they hadn't)??
Cheers
> Laserlight wrote:
Some interesting ideas there..... but I would make flank attacks more
effective than just 1 downshift. If you think about it, it's a lot easier for
a unit to simply about face and engage an enemy to the rear, than it is to
wheel the whole unit through 90 degrees to face an attack from the flank.
Realistically, only the sub unit on the flank being attacked is going to be at
all effective, if that. More likely they will decide discretion is the better
part of valour and run away. Time for a morale check then?
Hope that helps Mike
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose
or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House, Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England. Registration
Number: 2017873
Thank you.
In message <002b01c17edf$1bc533c0$8756c943@pavilion>, "Laserlight" writes:
> I'm continuing to think slowly about this, I figure by 2185 or so
This sounds intriguing.
> Each unit has die type ratings for Attack, Defense, and Move,
Morale? Why are Attack and Defense seperate values?
> HQ's exist to dispense initiative (abstracting both C^3 and supply).
I may have missed earlier discussions, but why are you dicing to see which
unit gets to move? I'm not opposed to this, but there doesn't seem to be FMA
precedence (that I'm aware of, maybe the much elusive skirmish rules work like
this...)
Maybe some sort of mechanism where the HQ must work to maintain
current unit ratings-- better commanders keep their troops supplied
and with high morale, bad commanders keep running out of fuel, have
disgruntled troops with no food, etc... Troops cut off from the HQ risk faster
degredation, etc...
> As the game wears on, initiative will wear down in one way or
Why not a down shift on the command die?
> Units which lose a combat (opposed die roll) should lose 1 die type
What about morale? Seems about as likely to affect morale-- a defeat
or two, and perhaps the unit simply won't stand and fight any longer,
regardless of it's true fighting strength (although, I guess you could
consider "Attack Rating" to be a generalization of combat ability and
willingness to fight-- like I said, I may have missed earlier
discussion.).
> I say "company" and "platoon" above but it may fit better as
I'd say concentrate on brigade...SG2 could conceivably due an entire battalion
(esp. with a little streamlining of casualties). This would also allow you
some different types of battalions on the table, and seems more "grand
tactical." Not just big and easy SG2, but a different game. That's my 2c.
It rhymes. GZG BC. Shouldn't you jump straight to version 2? :-)
PS: Today is the anniversary of Pearl Harbor-- for an updated WW2
> Andy C wrote:
I thought about Morale but decided it's really part of Attack/Defense,
and I wanted to keep the number of ratings low. This was before I had
the idea to keep a unit log sheet--it would be easy to keep track of
that way.
And I split A/D because I wanted a possibility of units (eg artillery)
which can dish it out but not take it.
> HQ's exist to dispense initiative (abstracting both C^3 and supply).
> I may have missed earlier discussions,
I mutter on tis topic at a rate of about a paragraph a month
> but why are you dicing to see which unit gets to move? I'm not
They don't but it sure would simplify a couple of problems (while doubtless
raising others). In this case, I wanted to have a certain lack of command
control, and to keep units organized in subunits. One problem with PanzerBlitz
et all is that you didn't have battalions and unit boundaries, you had a lot
of completely separate companies or platoons. This way, if you have
d6 HQ's, you're going to need to limit them to 3-4 subunits or accept
that some of the subunits are going to be underutilized. As far as "why roll
for which HQ's activate": a. avoids "I move all my units, you move all your
units" (which I don't
like about Ogre/GEV
b. Introduces unpredictability for time and movement (same reason Piquet uses
cards)
c. Does not introduce a new manufacturing/collating issue (you have dice
already, you don't need to buy cards and set up the deck each time) d. is more
unpredictable than cards (ie no card counting)
e. rewards people who keep a reasonable span of control (eg 3-5 units)
> Maybe some sort of mechanism where the HQ must work to maintain
Yes, I was thinking of HQ as a distributor of supply, and you had to allocate
a supply chit to each attack factor you wanted used (so an A12 unit sucks up
ammo in a major way). But I felt that it might be simpler to use the
initiative system above. If you roll low, it may not be that you're ignoring
that unit, just that theyir trucks got strafed.
> As the game wears on, initiative will wear down in one way or
> Why not a down shift on the command die?
I was thinking to do it every turn and you run out of die levels pretty quick.
On the other hand, there wouldn't necessarily need to be a "turn." If I were
caffeinated enuogh to think, I'd say this bears further thought
> Units which lose a combat (opposed die roll) should lose 1 die type
> What about morale? Seems about as likely to affect morale-- a defeat
That's kinda what I was thinking, yes
> I say "company" and "platoon" above but it may fit better as
> I'd say concentrate on brigade...SG2 could conceivably due an entire
Might be a shade presumptuous, given that I'm not on v1...more like v0.01.5
<grin>
From: Mike.Elliott@integris.co.uk
> Some interesting ideas there..... but I would make flank attacks more
True but I'm under the impression that an attack from the rear is more
disheartening? In any event, a flank attack is probably only going to have to
deal with one units at a time and will roll up the line that way. Haven't
tested it yet, we'll see.
In message <RELAY1c03pQtSB2qgrZ00001f41@relay1.softcomca.com>,
"laserlight@quix
> net.net" writes:
which
> can dish it out but not take it.
Ah, good example, but seems to really be the exception rather than the
rule. I think most units would have very similar A/D values. Perhaps
A/D modifiers? Down for artillery on defense, etc...
Was just reading Battle of the Bulge book about artillery group holding off
German attack by lowering their guns and firing with 1 and 2 second
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> From: Mike.Elliott@integris.co.uk
It also depends on the size of the unit being hit in the rear. A platoon
attacked from the rear can turn around. A batallion attacked from the rear has
a bunch of support units strung out behind it, and those going to be shot up
pretty badly before the batallion's combat elements can move backwards to
protect them.
[quoted original message omitted]
From: Bif Smith bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> > As the game wears on, initiative will wear down in one way or
The die roll in question would be the HQ initiative roll for HQs of subunits
which have been in combat. Or at least I think that's what I was thinking of.
Make a more convincing suggestion and we'll go with