One of our current interests is a skirmish game of sorts. We mount 3 figures., on a stand, call it a squad, and term 3 or 4 squads an Assault Group. Every 3 or so Assault-Groups has a Command Stand of 4 figures.
This is the first full scale set of rules to incorporate what I term "swath fire" i.e., area fire, wherein the firing procedure does not provide for each token on the field to pick its own separate target and fire individually. Instead, it takes into account an overall impact, made by a number of units firing into a specified area, on a number of potential targets contained within the area.
Each Assault Group fires as a whole, selecting an area which it hopes to inundate with death and destruction. The stands measure 2 inches by 2 inches, and so the Group frontage, with the stands spread a couple of inches apart, is usually about a foot wide. This is the width of the "swath" into which the Assault Group will fire.
The depth of the swath varies from 20 to 30 inches, depending upon the type of weapons used, and whether or not any obstructions can block the line of fire.
I first discussed "swath f ire" in the August, 1991 REVIEW, wherein the topic looked at area or "volley fire" in a modern armor game environment. The first cut at the technique used a chart (ugh!) to determine the number of hits inflicted on targets within the selected firing zone. one or two revisions later, however, the chart (ugh!) was tossed aside, replaced by a simple calculation.
There are 3 factors considered when assessing the impact on the target area:
- N Number of squads firing (usually 3)
F Fire power factor (a base of 10, modified)
D Random die roll (from 1 to 10)
If the 3 factors are multiplied, the maximum result becomes 3x10x10, or 300. Every 100 points represents an effective impact on the target area, i.e., something in the zone was actually hit.
The fire power factor, F, may be modified by a number of items, each one of which adds or subtracts "2" to the base of 10. A partial listing is:
- Add (+)2:
- More than 3 squads firing
Any targets at point blank range
More than 3 targets in the zone
Heavy weapons firing
More than 3 target squads in the open
Subtract (-)2
- Less than 3 squads firing
Any targets in cover
The F factor can be increased up to about 20. giving an increased maximum product of 3x2,0x10, or 600, i.e., 6 hits in the targeted zone... and even more if a 4 squad Assault Group is firing.
Once the number of hits in the target zone is known, the actual targets upon which the impact was made must be determined.
This is an I-go/you-go affair, with the firer placing the first impact marker on one squad, the target commander the second, the firer the third, and so on. Any squad within the zone, regardless of where it is, is eligible to receive an impact marker.
The firer, of course, wants to accumulate markers on one specific target, while the target commander wants to spread the hits out.
When all hit markers have been placed, each affected target is diced for: each marker contributes 10 percent to the probability that the squad is destroyed. If so, the squad is removed from the field and 2 "tics" are placed on the target Assault Group's data sheet. If not destroyed, a single tic is placed on the data sheet.
The data sheets for the Assault Groups are quite simple:
| TOTAL HITS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| MORALE | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| STRENGTH | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
When a tic is placed on the data sheet, an entire column is crossed out, thus reducing both the morale level and the strength of the Assault Group. The important thing to note here is that regardless of the number of markers placed on the Assault Group, only one column is crossed out-per tic.
The actual probability, P, of a stand being destroyed is:
- P% (10 x Markers) + (5 x TOTAL HITS on Data
Sheet)
Thus as the squads in an Assault Group get weaker (the more hits noted on the data sheet), the easier it is to knock them out.
Melee follows closely along the same lines, with the units in contact placing markers on the squads in combat, with each marked squad then dicing to see if it is destroyed, and with columns being crossed out on the data sheet.
We liked the swath fire procedures... they were quick and efficient. Just as in "normal" wargames firing routines, by concentrating the fire of 2 or more Assault Groups along one swath, a number of markers could be accumulated on selected targets. .. but here, however, it was done in a much more rapid fashion.
In our very first test set-up, we used about 4 Assault Groups each, i.e. , we had, on the field, only a dozen or so tokens on each side. A very small force to test the concepts.
Fred Haub and I, as defenders,. were given, amongst others, a special unit, a single stand (single squad) heavy-heavy weapons "Assault Group". we placed the heavy-heavy weapons squad under cover in a pill-box of sorts, which was promptly fired upon by the attacking forces of Bob, Hurst and Jack Culbertson.
Note when I say "fired upon", what I mean is that the pill-box was included in a particular swath targeted by Bob Hurst... there were targets present in the swath other than our weapons squad. Which meant that during the marker placement procedures, we defenders could spread out and absorb some of the markers on the other units in the swath.
Keep in mind that the firing procedure has 2 phases: first, the "hit" percentage dice throw to determine the number of hits in the affected area, and second, a percentage dice throw for each of the designated targets to see if it has been destroyed.
In our game, a poor "hit" dice throw resulted in a minimum number of markers, hence only one marker being placed on our weapons squad, but an excellent "destroy" dice throw resulted in its being eliminated.. we were thus heavy-weaponless. In fact, the Hurst/ Culbertson force, in the initial stages of their attack, knocked out about a quarter of our squads... a remarkable feat, considering that most of the squads only had one marker (10 percent to destroy) on them.
The first run-through of the rules system wasn't bad. We were still searching for an appropriate sequence... new rules always betoken a new sequence... and the first sequence we hit upon was to have the sides alternately draw cards, on each of which was annotated "Activate 2 Assault Groups" or "Activate all Assault Groups", etc.
Where we went wrong, this first time out, was to permit the same Assault Group to be activated on two or more successive cards, instead of having it wait, after its initial activation, until all the other units on the -side had had their turn. The result was an excessive concentration of fire power. Each side kept activating and firing its front line troops, the same units card after card, and ignoring the ones in the rear.
Modification 2 of the rules, and a new sequence, shortly appeared thereafter. I think that, for this new sequence, we had first tried a variation of it well over a year ago, and I had mentioned it in conjunction with the modern armor rules, ARMOR PLUS. The sequence was derived from (a) one noted in a boardgame by Brian Dewitt and (b) an input from Fred Haub.
Note, by the way, how perfectly willing I am to give full credit where credit is due... although some sarcastic onlookers tend to think that the word "blame" is more apropos than "credit". Their thought is that in mentioning names, I'm underhandedly trying to spread liability for these rules rather than credit. What a cruel world we live in!
Back to the Sequence
Here, all Assault Groups, regardless of which side they were on, were counted to determine the total number of Groups, G, in the battle. A set of cards were: then made up, G of them, with one number placed on each card. Each bound, the deck was mixed and each side drew a number of cards equal to the number of Assault Groups it had.
Each turn, both sides played a card. The numbers served as "priority" numbers... if Side A played a 9 while Side B played a 7, then A, with a higher priority, would move or f ire any of its squads f irst, after which, B would select a squad. Note that if Side A had more squads than B, and thus more cards than B, it would have, statistically speaking, more of the higher numbers in the cards in its hand and therefore, be able to exploit this advantage in terms of activating most of its units first.
A Digression
Before I go any further, a word or so on the game described above for Mr. Average Reader, who, no doubt, plays Napoleonics. His tokens are painted for identification purposes, say, a lot of blue for the French, red for the Brits, and white for the Austrians. My tokens are also painted: sort of a grayish green for one side, and sort of a metallic for the other.
His rules have a procedure wherein he can move his tokens. My rules have a procedure wherein I can move my tokens.
His rules have a procedure wherein his tokens can "fire", i.e., produce an impact at a distance, on other tokens. My rules have a procedure wherein my tokens can "fire", i.e., produce an impact at a distance, on other tokens.
His rules have a procedure wherein his tokens "test morale" i.e, see if they move back from their current position. My rules have a procedure wherein my tokens "test morale", i.e., see if they move back from their current position.
His rules have a procedure wherein the tokens are placed in direct contact with opposing tokens and "melee" is resolved, i.e., see which set of tokens is moved back from the line of contact.-My rules have a procedure wherein the tokens are placed in direct contact with opposing tokens and "melee" is resolved, i.e., see which set of tokens is moved back from the line of contact.
And now, the denouement ... for all the above is to make a point to the "historical miniature purists" out there... you see, Messieurs, the game described in this article is none other than one that historically and accurately and realistically reflects warfare as it is (will be) fought in the 31st century!
A couple of years ago, I told of ginning up a science fiction game for the kiddies at HISTORICON... this one, however, is for me!
Yes, children, I, Walter Simon, President Emeritus of HMGS, Historical Miniatures Gamer Extraordinaire, Collector of Toy Soldiers, Noted Sportsman, Raconteur and Playboy of the Western World, 'fess up to playing a science fiction game! And my only def ense is that, on the table-top, a game is a game is a game regardless of how the tokens are painted.
How did this all come about? Well, one day, Bob Hurst got a hold of some science fiction figures. Then I got a hold of some more science fiction figures. Then we looked at each other and wondered, now that we got a hold of these figures, what should we do with them?
Easily answered: we gonna play a game.
The figures are 25mm in size, manufactured, for the most part, by CITADEL... excellent detail. Space marines and alien beasties and other off-planet thingies.
It turns out, by the way, that there are a lot of closet science fiction gamers "out there" ... many of them members of HMGS. Perhaps the Society should have all its members carefully screened, and have each certify as to the "historical purity" of his gaming activities... although this might not leave too many active members...
End of digression.
What's nice about a science fiction game is that one can create new weaponry. Consider, if you will, the dreaded Flamer, a devilishly destructive device.
When one fires the Flamer, a wall of flame issues forth at 3 inches per movement phase. Depending upon the burst strength, the wall will be either 2, 4 or 6 inches in length. All stands touched by the wall immediately have 2 markers placed on them, and their Assault Groups immediately cross out a column or two on their data sheets.
The flaming wall advances until it comes to rest about 15 inches from the firing weapon, when it stops, and, eventually, will die out. As the wall moves forward, squads in its path scurry rather rapidly to get out of the way... after all, no one likes to have his Technite-Rubidium Armor Plated Underwear singed.
And we can't forget the Enthalpic Disintegrator... at least, I know that I can't. Fire this weapon, and you create a large hole in the time-space continuum that draws into itself all surrounding matter and renders inert the thermodynamic and entropic forces of the universe. And, if were you, I wouldn't get too close to the impact zone; not unless you want to get the fillings sucked right out of your teeth.
I could go on and on...
Comparison?
Now, tell the truth, guys... how can you compare this to something as mundane as Napoleonics? as Ancients? as American Civil War?
All you Napoleonics players, for instance. Doesn't the shout "The Guard is advancing!!" pale into insignificance when you hear: "Run for your life! The pods of the unholy three-fanged Vijna, eaters of human flesh, have just landed!!"
Enough of that.
What Bob Hurst and I intend to do is to use the PBM software of Richard B Scott to set up a campaign. I described Scott's product in the last issue, wherein I discussed the medieval campaign which comes with the software.
PBM also comes with what is termed a scenario generator. It permits you to individually generate and program all the factors desired in a campaign effort. Cities, distances between cities, key personalities, types of troops, combat and movement capabilities ' revenue, turn length... just about all the parameters one can think, of.
Instead of cities, we'll have "worlds", and instead of kilometers between cities, we'll have "parsecs", and so on.
What is interesting about the software is that, once the system is set up, the program takes over in several ways beyond the control of the players. Unit attrition, for example, will occur if we try to move fairly long distances. Movement capabilities themselves may be constrained.
The way we ran our medieval campaign, everything was handled directly through the input keyboard. We fought no miniatures battles. The participants simply moved their troops around and, when there was contact between opposing forces, we let the computer do all the fighting for us and resolve all the combat results.
The program presents the user with a second option, however, one which enables table-top battles to be fought and the outcome entered into the system. This is the way we intend to run this current campaign.
Back to PW Review February 1992 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1992 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