> And the esteemed list-ite wrote:
The games went well, although were a bit simplistic as I didn't even try to
fudge autofire rules for the repeaters; action was pretty much potshots back
and forth. The second time through we added grenades (made up some damage
rules on the spot) and discovered that grenades indoors are nasty. The grenade
targeting rules seem a bit off... the way the rules read now, missing one's
target number by one produces greater deviations that simply rolling way low!
Nevertheless, game two was largely an excercise in grenade lobbing which
produced near total casualties on both sides and nearly every activation
figures were suppressed. Niceties like overwatch, reaction fire, etc. were
ignored; I plan to use them next time, however.
-----------------------
Note that the grenade targeting mechanic is similar to that in SG2 for arty.
Though it seems counterintuitive to just miss by one and have a wide miss, it
isn't. Think of it this way: you miss or you hit. If you don't hit, you could
have huge deviation rolls and complex tables, or you could use the original
roll in part to resolve the deviation. To prevent you having to do inverted
math (take the number you needed, and for every one you missed by, you deviate
further), Jon just took the number you rolled. This also means that if you
needed an 8 to hit and you ended up rolling d8, your odds of deviating are
good, and you'll probably deviate a fair distance. If you needed (OTOH) a 3 to
hit, not only will you not deviate most-likely, but if you do, it
won't be by much. This adequately models hard shots and easy shots.
And if the targeting roll being close to the to-hit # bothers you, you
can set yourself up for the inverse math. That is to say you can calculate
deviation by saying "Missed by 1" or "Missed by 6" and use that for your
deviation distances instead.
On another front: I loved Los' piece the other day. Especially your truck
driver story. Man, trying out for SF with no desire to get up and
participate.... wow.... out of touch or what? No one wants to get slotted, but
something tells me that if you are the type willing and able to move, think,
and act with initiative in firefight situations, you have better odds of
coming out alive.
The A2C rhyme as we were taught it was (say as one breath)
"Up-He-Sees-Me-Down". I'd say 3-4 seconds would be our likely bounds -
maybe half a dozen (plus or minus three) strides.
About combat moves: 1) I do recomend at least trying the 2dX method as opposed
to the 1dX x 2 method. Try it, see what you think. (For combat moves). 2) Are
combat moves for an individual deterministic? I think not. But they should
probably be moreso than that for an entire squad, because coordinating one is
easier than coordinating more than one.
An interesting rule in Charlie Company (as I see it) is that when you are
fired upon, your move type is important. If you are moving in a "combat move"
fashion, you're guys hit dirt faster and take less casulaties when shot at. If
you are moving in march mode, you die like a dog. Perhaps a good way to
convince SG2 players and skirmish players to use the combat move with all its
variability (I know people who march everywhere like 1812 foot brigades... for
fear of randomness) is by saying anyone attacked while marching (by snap fire
or overwatch
fire) is attacked with a +1DS for the attacker FP. This makes a combat
move not only more random, with a slightly higher mean move, but it
makes it more defensive in nature - which it is. This would make
people want to use combat manoevres with all the risks.
And for an individual game, you need the "wind sprint" to run between
buildings in a city (like Los says, you go hell bent for leather and you make
it or you die trying).
FMA Skirmish must also model multiple kinds of movement/morale:
Individual, manoevre element, and organizational element.
In this case, the first is obvious. One figure. The second refers to the one
to three man bounding elements that move and fight together.
The third refers to the units like squads of 6-10 guys. At various
times, figures could move individually, or a whole squad could try to move.
Some things like protestors or rebels might not even really be disciplined
squads. Whereas SOF would have a high level of discipline (though even they
might screw up once and a while and not move as a unit).
Charlie Company uses another interesting mechanic. When close combat
is initiated, the officer/NCO makes his check and if he fails, he
might leave some of the squad behind (the sgt. gets up and goes, the green
guys who are supposed to follow are busy untangling their bootlaces...). In
FMA Skirmish, this mechanic could be represented by something as part of the
close assault check. Like if you roll 1 less than your target #, you can still
close assault, but every squad member rolls versus that target # with his
quality die, and if he succeeds, he gets to go with the assault. If not, he
stays in place (hesitates, is lost to that move). I think if the target roll
succeeds for a unit to initiate close assault (be it a manoevre element or an
organizational element), everyone should go with the same combat move roll. In
the even you miss, and some are left behind, the simple solution is to move
the unit on one roll. The more real solution would be to represent the haggard
and lagging attack by making every soldier that tested successfully roll his
own move die. Thus you'd get a staggard and haphazard attack.
In general, the player/referee should designate if buddy pairs or
small fireteams or squads exist, and anytime a body of men (more than one)
want to move together, some kind of reaction test would be made to activate
all of them at once.
In a snap fire sense, the same is true, anytime a squad sees a target,
everyone may want to activate and shoot, and all should test individually or
at least the officer should test to make this happen. (If on OW, the test
should be simple with small chance of failure).
This concept of a "squad action" intitiated by a squad leader would add a lot.
My 0.04 (I ramble...)
The thoughts I had didn't need to be quite as complex as the 4 move types Los
mentioned. I would propose that a figure may use an action to make a run over
an open area. This figure would move at maximum movement for that action.
Once this high-speed dash is complete, the figure
must make a check to see if they are out-of-breath (with a difficulty
mod for a longer dash) and if they fail they are then suppressed. Optionally
there may be a modifier for firing at a running figure (either way depending
on whether the figure can be seen for the entire run, and could be 'lead', or
just a fraction of a second, dashing past an open doorway) or a failed check
could lead to the loss of actions.
This then trades off maximum movement for the possibility that you must huddle
in a bunker catching your breath (and makes better trained men more likely to
be able to run a greater distance)
Someone work out how far an elite trooper could run (with and without leader
transferred actions) for the realism freaks on the list;) [Although how your
sergeant can make you run twice as far by shouting at you I don't know
;]
Cheers
--
Colin Plummer
Quoting Los (Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 11:11:43AM -0700)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
But
> > they should probably be moreso than that for an entire squad,
is
> > by saying anyone attacked while marching (by snap fire or overwatch
Maybe
> you have a few diffferent kinds of moves? (off the top of my head)
> Los wrote:
> Maybe the very term combat move is a misnomer? The reason one
As SGII (and FMA) works right now, yes.
> Maybe you have a few diffferent kinds of moves? (off the top of my
(no
> fire, or 1/2 capabilities or some such)
Hm. 3 and 4 both sound pretty much like what happens when you use both
actions to move rather than 1 move + 1 shoot (or, rather, + 1 anything
except move or go "in position"), no?
Later,
In a message dated 8/4/99 11:25:06 AM EST, oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
writes:
<< > Maybe the very term combat move is a misnomer? The reason one
> would use a combat move is to hopefully eek out a bit more distance
The whole nature of moving in combat is fraught with uncertainty. It is not
uncertainty about how far you have to go, it is uncertainty about what stone
will turn under your foot, will I put my foot in a hold I am unaware of, or
wiill the other guy's machine gunner be traversing across my approach just as
I stand and make a target of myself. To say a combat move is X number of
inches takes all the indecision out of it. XD6 inches of movement puts all the
fun back in. It allows for everything from a little initial hesitancey, to
freezing, to falling asprawl and having your weapon wind up six feet closer to
the enemy than where you happen to be laying dazed, all thos things which make
combat a crap shoot. To simulate a crapshoot you MUST THROW DICE.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> About combat moves:
I read your second post after I wrote mine and saw that you mention for
certain moves (like crossing a street for instance, then instead of a 2d6
(i.e.), then you just do a full 12" move. IMO that was a simple but accurate
way to reflect those types of situations.
> An interesting rule in Charlie Company (as I see it) is that when you
Sort of reminds me of ASL Assault Move. Actually the new COMBAT! by CIH has 4
move types for infantry. Double time, normal, assault move and low crawl. On
the second two you can shoot but you move much less and have greater
protection.
> a dog. Perhaps a good way to convince SG2 players and skirmish players
Maybe the very term combat move is a misnomer? The reason one would use a
combat move is to hopefully eek out a bit more distance on a move. Maybe you
have a few diffferent kinds of moves? (off the top of my head)
1. Normal: full normal move (Assume teh figure has a 6" range). No terrain
benefits when you are opfired on 2. Combat move (in this case) 1d6. Variable
but with added protective benefits. You're moving from cover to cover. Perhaps
firing against this guy he gets the In position bonus (ala SG2) 3. Double
time. 2d6 haul ass. No fire action. (or fire action with a penalty) 4. Wind
Sprint: 3xtime full move but winded for the next 2 rounds? (no
fire, or 1/2 capabilities or some such)
Just thinking out loud. May add to complexity.
Also to simulate squad type stuff or advantage of leaders, you could say
something like if there is a leader within x" of the figures, they can
move to gather OR combine their firing into a sort of ASL-like
firegroup?)
I have heard some good things about "Charlie". Might have to pick it up.
> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/4/99 11:25:06 AM EST, oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
I think you take my comment out of context. By your definition there is no
need for a combat move becasue EVERYTHING is a combat move. (true) The RAW
(Rules as written) have set inches for movement, not variable. But for
instance in SG instead of having a set double time move ala 12" instead of the
normal 6", there is a term called "combat move" which is 2d6. Fair enough, it
interjects some varaibility. Tom's original statement I was replying to was
about another kind of move that takes advantage of terrain and goes slower but
is safer. A combat move in the RAW is about trying to go faster, not trying to
be safer. If htere is more than one kind of move, (i.e. multiple moves then
perhaps they should be named different things). Re: the dice for move, perhaps
all moves should have some dicing variability thrown in. However I tell you
from decades of experience (god that makes me sound like an old fuck!) that if
you are going to cross a street under fire, you are going to cross that street
or die trying period! (Slip of no slip) Assuming it is within you maximum
moving distance for the given time period you are talking about.
On a totally seperate front, my mind being jogged by this discussion. What
about masking fire? In FMA, on the individual level, a model should definately
BLOCK line of fire. I don't remember if think this is adressed in the FMA
rules. (I'm
away from my rules right now so can't cross-reference).
> In a message dated 8/4/99 2:44:53 PM EST, los@cris.com writes:
<<
I think you take my comment out of context. By your definition there is no
need for a combat move becasue EVERYTHING is a combat move. (true) The RAW
(Rules as written) >>
I didn't mean to take any comment out of context, I assure you. The idea of
using indeterminate movement to show the unplannability of a close assault is
a good one. It shouldn't have trained soldiers "freezing" in the open, though
it should reflect the possibility that they will discover the fire incoming
has overwhelmed the assault and dive and roll now! reactions that are more
representative of combat situations than knowing precisely with a tape measure
how far this figure will move on this occasion before I order himj to move is
NOT going to give me a feel for how combat works. Soldiers in the field are
not chessmen on the board and war game rules should reflect that.
There was a truly good post from a combat instructor for the US Army showing
how a combat rush works. I think I'll leave the last word with him.
> In a message dated 8/4/99 2:44:53 PM EST, los@cris.com writes:
All useful comments and discussion, guys, and rest assured it is all being
stored away to haunt you in the future.... <grin> Just one point I'd like to
make: if a figure attempts a move across open ground, street or whatever and
doesn't make it that turn, the fact that the figure is left in the middle of
the street till his next turn does not
actually indicate that he has stopped or frozen - you need to think of
it as a moment of suspended time (geez, sounding like a Brannon Braga script
for STTNG here....) while other actions go on around him. Everything is pretty
much happening simultaneously, and is broken down into individual figures'
activations purely as a game mechanic (I know this is pretty obvious, but it
is easily forgotten in the heat of discussion). What the figure's failure to
complete the run in one activation really indicates is
that he has mis-timed it, or not gone quite fast enough, allowing the
enemy
to get a shot or two at him in mid-run. If he survives this, then in his
next activation he will complete the run - to him, the two activations
would have been contiguous (I think that's the word?) and he will actually
have been running all the time - not stopping for a minute and standing
there while people shoot at him!
In a message dated 8/4/99 5:38:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com writes:
<< to him, the two activations would have been contiguous (I think that's the
word?) and he will actually
have been running all the time - not stopping for a minute and standing
there while people shoot at him!
> [quoted text omitted]
Quite true - we are speaking of interlocking impulses here and
everything
happening at once - which makes for a good skirmish game. Another nice
feature of doing it this way is that the close assault takes place as many
tiny waves instead of one big one and the assault doesn't crash home so much
as arrive by individuals.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> figures' activations purely as a game mechanic (I know this is pretty
True I understand that's a given. But ASL adresses this pretty good by marking
a moving vehilce with a motion counter. this makes it harder to hit and also
makes it harder for the thing to shoot. (In game terms during the next turn a
vehile that happens along and sees that counter sitting their in the open will
no it's actually in motion thus harder to hit) In the scenario I describe
above. I.e. running across teh street. the guy who is going to dash ten meters
but fails (normally well with in his move lets suppose) is stuck in he middle
of the street because of a bad roll. Sure we know in real life he's in teh
middle of a run. Now normally during this move the only guy that could fire at
him is someone on some sort of version of opportunity fire or overwatch. fair
enough. But because he's
stuck out these and that model actioned-out until the next turn, any
other model on the board that happens along in the interim can take a pot shot
at him as if he's just camping out in the middle of the street scratching his
ass.
Now again ASL came up with another rule to cover this. (NOTE: I'm not trying
to turn this into ASL, just pointing out various solutions others have tried
to get around this problem), and that is called DASH. Given a street or path
or normal length and no enemy at the arriving location. you can move the unit
from one covered location direct across to the other in one move (It dashes
across the street). This of course uses all the movement allowance but avoids
the stuck outside porblem. Any fire against dashing units was halved but all
the normal (ASL) moving in teh open and using non assault movement modifiers
applied.
Variables in FMA of course have to include how much actual time a turn takes
vias vis how far someone can move, even encumbered across a short open area (a
street not a damn highway!) in that time.
Anyway keep in mind that I like the rules as written for FMA and am not trying
to start some sort of lobby to overhaul the movement rules. But since someone
started talking about various movement techniques in the game (Tom?) I thought
I'd just throw out as many different ideas as possible. If nothing gets
changed at all I'd still buy them. If one is trying to make a realistic (and
common sense) set of skirmish rules, then the farther down the realistic scale
you go the higher up the complexity scale you go. Certainly a fine line to be
balanced on.
I have tried a number of skirmish rules and even though they're easy and fun
to play (Underfire and High Noon come immdeiately to mind), they are so basic
that they take away from me (as the real soldier turned game player) many
basic
life-saving moves/actions that a soldier in teh actual situation would
use to stay alive and win.
If you want to see me really get going we can start talking about room
clearing and close quarter battle <grin>.
And scott says:
> There was a truly good post from a combat instructor for the US Army
yeah that was me <grin> (or Tom, though he's a bit North.)
Cheers all.
> ScottSaylor wrote:
> There was a truly good post from a combat instructor for the US Army
Um, Scott... The combat instructor you're referring to is the same
person you're having the above argument with, ie Los :-/
Regards,
The Estimable Los said:
> If you want to see me really get going we can start talking about room
OK, start talking--ths is exactly what shipboard Marines (not to
mention the rest of my troops, if anyone makes it inside an asteroid) will be
doing, and I'd like to be able to write about it with verisimilitude.
In a message dated 8/5/99 0:08:54 AM EST, oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
writes:
<<
Um, Scott... The combat instructor you're referring to is the same
person you're having the above argument with, ie Los :-/
> [quoted text omitted]
Then we're not having an argument, we're having a discussion and do not
realize we are saying the same thing.
I hope noone is miscontruing this as an argument. It's just a friendly
discussion!
Los
P.S> And just because I'm the aforementioned instructor doesn't mean that my
way is always right or good for the game. We have a saying in the Army:
"Tactics are like asssholes and everyone's got 'em."
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> ScottSaylor wrote:
To mis-quote a popular saying:
Tactics is what you call what happened, after the battle is over... Weather it
fits anyone's book of tactics is another question!
(hehehehe)
Donald Hosford
> Los wrote:
> I hope noone is miscontruing this as an argument. It's just a