For some years now, I'd been hearing good things about RAPID FIRE (RF), written and published in 1994. RF is a company level game, with a company composed of around 10 single- mounted figures. The editor of the British magazine WARGAMES ILLUSTRATED (WI), Duncan Macfarlane, apparently has a vested interest in RF, and each issue seems to contain a scenario based on the rules. I note that at each of the conventions, yet another RF scenario booklet appears, as the RF advocates expand the scope of the system.
Digression
Prior to my test games, I wanted to see what other people thought of the rules, and went to the internet Yahoo e-groups site dedicated to wargaming and searched for the messages sent back and forth by those interested in the RF rules. I couldn't believe my eyes at the crappola contained in the sequence of messages!
- Item. Several people engaged in a long correspondence (about 10 messages) devoted
to the question of what happens to a man firing a panzerfaust if it should blow up. In
conjunction with this most important topic, was the issue of how many men should be
included in the blast zone. And should the panzerfaust blow up on the toss of a "6"? Really,
really good stuff, pertinent to the every-day events occurring on the wargames table.
Item. Another series of messages looked at "Russian dog mines". Were the dogs smart enough to sniff out only German tanks, or did they head straight for anything made of metal? Really, really good stuff!
After spending some time at the RF site, I decided that if the rules generated questions exemplified by the above, I could definitely ignore the RF rulesbook. But, open-minded fellow that I am, I persuaded a fellow PW member, Ben Pecson, to bring his set of the RF rules around for a try-out on my table. End of digression.
And so, Ben and I proceeded to try out the RF rules... at least, Ben's version of the RF rules. He indicated that the sequence that he used for the half-bound was:
- Side A move
Side B attempt to spot targets
Side B fires on observed targets
Close assault
In reading the RF manual, however, it appeared that the author mandated that the sequence for the half-bound consisted, not of the above, but of one of the following, (a) or (b), indicating that you could move either before or after firing.
- (a) Side A move
Side A spot
Side A fire
(b) Side A spot
Side A fire
Side A move
The above says that, during the half-bound, only one side does anything. Which meant that the sequence was the old, "Side A does things while Side B sits there", after which "Side B does things, while Side A sits there". This was, essentially, a simple boardgame sequence, and didn't seem quite right to me.
And so, it was off to the internet Yahoo RF site for me... I sent in a message, asking as to what was the correct sequence.
Alas! The replies indicated that in our game, we were in error... we should follow the text... during the half-bound, only one side actually DID anything, the other side just watched. And this was the set of exciting WW2 rules about which I had heard so much!
However, help was at hand! Well... sort of... there was provision in RF for an "overwatch" capability... if the active side selected one or more of its units, i.e., companies, and held the units absolutely still, i.e., no moving or firing on their own active phase, then the units were permitted to fire anytime during the opponent's half-turn. This gave them a defensive fire capability.
But this, to me, begged the question... here, we're supposed to have a fast moving action(!) game at the company level, and a full company had to be held back on its own half-turn, forfeiting all of its own fire and movement, to get to react to the opponent's actions.
Another item in my message asked for clarification on the spotting rules. Neither Ben nor I could interpret the spotting chart given in the rules book. And the Yahoo group's reply stated, in essence, that the spotting rules were so simple, they didn't really require explanation!
But evidently, I wasn't the Lone Ranger... of interest was one message in response to my inquiry which came from a tried-and-true RF gamer, who indicated that he, too, didn't really understand the spotting procedure... when a unit was spotted, did the entire side know it was there, or was it only the unit that did the spotting, that actually observed the target?
Why was this of interest to me? Because the rules were published in 1994, and here we were in the next millenium, over 8 years later, when a die-hard RF gamer was inquiring about the spotting rules... what had the guy (these guys) been doing all those years?
In reading the Yahoo messages in response to my inquiries, I noted another fascinating exchange of messages. Another tried-and-true RF devotee stated that the officer figures in RF were "absolutely useless"... the rule book is silent on their role... and he asked if anyone had ever found a use for them? He received a lot of hemming and hawing in response... no one had anything definite to say. Once again, I had to wonder at the guys who had apparently been playing with the rules for years, saying how wonderfully realistic they were, yet had never questioned the system.
In our game, Ben and I each had several 20mm companies of troops, 10-men per company. We each also had a couple of officers (battalion or brigade commanders, or what.?... I wasn't really sure.)... this made no difference, of course, since the rules avoided their use.
When our infantry advanced, they did so at a basic 6-inches per move. And when they hit rough terrain, they subtracted the toss of a 6-sided die from their 6-inch basic movement distance. The result was that infantry, in rough ground, crawled along at an average of around 3-inches per turn, which made for a slow game... rough ground was definitely to be avoided.
There were two types of firing calculations... one for anti-personnel, and one for anti-armor.
The RF small weapons fire chart listed "fire points" down the left edge, obtained from the number of men firing, and so on. Along the top of the chart, you looked up the type of target, its cover and its range. These two orthographic references then gave you a list of the results of tossing a 6-sided hit die. Here's a section of the chart for a target at medium range under soft cover.
| FIRE POINTS | DIE ROLL | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| CASUALTIES | ||||||
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
There are many, many such charts... short range/soft cover, long range/open, medium range/hard cover, and so on.
Anti-armor firing had its own, much simpler, to-hit procedure. You cross referenced the type of firing weapon with the defensive armor value of the target to get the basic toss of a 6-sided die to hit. This number was modified if the target or firer moved, if the target was at long range, partially concealed, etc. Then, if you tossed low and a hit occurred, a second die toss was needed for damage. This second die toss was essentially as follows:
- 1,2 light damage
3,4 heavy damage
5,6 destroyed
Now back to the internet.
Another interesting item... I had, in my previous messages to the RF site, mentioned that in our test game, we had, in our sequence, a phase for resolution of "close assault". One of the replies stated "Close assault?"
And I found out why. On the MAGWEB.COM site, in one of the listed magazines (the May/2002 issue of THOSE DAMNED DICE) an article stated: "... I feel it's time to address the balance, i.e., RAPID FIRE doesn't allow us to enter into close combat."
Gosh!... these most wunnerful rules appeared in 1994, and they still don't have a phase for close assault! And now, someone was to "address the balance"!
More and more, my opinion of RF dropped to the point at which I decided to, simply, avoid it.
Back to PW Review August 2002 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 Wally Simon
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com