battalion sized games

[byram]

1. is it possible
2. what rules need to be changed to make such a game possible

 

[byram]

btw here are the ORBATs for the brits, USMC and the PLA:


British Armoured Infantry Battalion in Desert Storm
HQ Company
Battalion HQ Platoon
Signals Platoon
1 WARRIOR (HQ)
5 FV 432
3 FSC
Quartermaster Platoon
Motor Transport
2 3/4ton GS
2 1/2ton FFR
1 1/2ton GS
8 4ton
10 HMLC
2 3/4ton FFR
5 8ton
Catering Platoon
Pay Section
(HQ LAD)
1 FV 434
1 WARRIOR (Recovery)


Fire Support Company
Company HQ
2 WARRIOR (HQ)
1 FV 432 (Amb)
1 1ton
1 FCS
1 3/4ton FFR
Anti-Tank Platoon
Platoon HQ
2 FV 432
4 Sections
1 WARRIOR
1 MILAN
2 Detatchments
1 WARRIOR
2 MILAN
Mobile Section
4 SCIMITAR MCT
Reconnaissance Platoon
Platoon HQ
2 SCIMITAR
3 Sections
2 SCIMITAR
Mortar Platoon
Platoon HQ
2 SULTAN
4 Sections
1 WARRIOR
2 FV 432 with 81mm Mortar
(LAD Section)
1 FV 434
1 FV 432
1 SAMSON

3 Armoured Infantry Companies
Company HQ
2 WARRIOR (HQ)
1 FV 432 (Amb)
1 3/4ton FFR
1 1ton
3 Armoured Infantry Platoons
Platoon HQ
1 WARRIOR
3 Sections
1 WARRIOR
(LAD Section)
1 WARRIOR (Recovery)
1 WARRIOR (Repair)

PLA Infantry Company, 3-4 to a Battalion

CHQ: 9 Type-56-1
(Radio)

3 Rifle Pltns:

PHQ: 2 Type-56-1

3 Rifle Sect: 12 Type-56-1
(up to 1 Type 69 RPG)

Weapons Pltn: 10 Type-56-1
2 60mm mort.
2 57mm RCL


Support company at battalion level includes:

3 75mm RCL, 6 82mm mort., 6 SFMG (DP), 3 LMG (PK).


USMC Infantry Battalion
Headquarters & Service Company
Alpha Company-A Marine Rifle Company, consisting of 182 Marines, includes a Headquarters Platoon, three Rifle Platoons, and a Weapons Platoon
three rifle squads of three fire teams; 1 M16/203 per fire team
13 men:squad leader and three fire teams of four men each
Weapons Platoon/ 3 60mm mortars, 6 7.62mm machine guns, 6 SMAW
Bravo Company
Charlie Company
Weapons Company [8 81mm mortars, six .50 caliber MG, six 40mm GL, 8 CLU/24 Javelin, 8 TOW]
[/b]

 

[The Old Soldier]

I'm sure it is possible, but you would have to change the scale of the game. Instead of Squads you would either have to go to Platoons as the smallest unit in the game. You may even want to up it to Company level. This would leave you with only 1 command Warrior which would be the Battalion HQ.

 

[tneva82]

1. is it possible
2. what rules need to be changed to make such a game possible

Sure. You just need to up the size of the board by bucketload. 8'x4' way too small.

Frankly if you want battallion sized games I would look for other games. Right game for right use. BF:Evo is good skirmish game with few platoons per side(maybe company). For bigger scales you a) need too many models(too expensive) b) need too big board c) BF:Evo doesn't represent military problems of that size all that well(where things starts to be more of command&control oriented rather than invidual trooppers performance).

Modern spearhead and cold war commander are 2 games I know for battallion sized games(CWC allows decently even regiment to be fielded without bogging game down too much).

 

[Gibbs]

1. is it possible
2. what rules need to be changed to make such a game possible

Sure. You just need to up the size of the board by bucketload. 8'x4' way too small.

Frankly if you want battallion sized games I would look for other games. Right game for right use. BF:Evo is good skirmish game with few platoons per side(maybe company). For bigger scales you a) need too many models(too expensive) b) need too big board c) BF:Evo doesn't represent military problems of that size all that well(where things starts to be more of command&control oriented rather than invidual trooppers performance).

Modern spearhead and cold war commander are 2 games I know for battallion sized games(CWC allows decently even regiment to be fielded without bogging game down too much).

A good way to maybe get around this sort of problem is to actually run a battalion with more that one player. Sure this will take a bit longer to play but why not run it where each side has a 'war council' of maybe three players. They together can decide on tactics and deployment and then each one takes control of one part of the force eg one on the left one on the right and the other in the middle. That way you would get into more manageable numbers. You could also rely on your comrades to bring their miniatures too (maybe a company each) and you could also use three or more gaming tables together. It does mean that the game will no longer be as fast because there are six players but it does make it easier to manage units and movement (even though you may have to coordinate actions together).

Just a thought. I played a 3,000 point aside game like this on a 6x4 board and it worked reasonably well (although we didn't have many troops to control). It would certainly be worth trying.

 

[The Old Soldier]

A larger board, nor extra players will be able to handle the game. The BEST and really only working option is to change the scale as I stated before. Good example of such a scale is the rules Command Decision.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I can just about suspend my disbelief that there is no such thing as morale at a skirmish level but increase that to battalions?

plus there's no chaos of command/fog of war like you get with command centred games

 

[The Old Soldier]

I can just about suspend my disbelief that there is no such thing as morale at a skirmish level but increase that to battalions?

plus there's no chaos of command/fog of war like you get with command centred games

You can handle this in one or two way. Way one is to leave the system as is. Remember removing models do not mean the tanks and men are destroyed, it just means the unit has lowered effectiveness, or lost the will to fight.

The second is to give a break point to each company.

As for the fog of war aspect, again it can be handled by limiting LOS since the scale is different. Each grouping is not on the table unless a enemy can gain direct line of sight at say 48". If LOS is gained the group must be placed on the table within 12" of the of the marker and no closer to the enemy. A 3" diameter marker should do, IMO.

Once LOS happens then normal ranging and shots can take place.

Again, very simple and easy of use is key for this kind of thing.

 

[byram]

tanks would need longer distance, they can make kills at distances over a mile, and are equipped with visual gear to help them scan at these distances.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Not really, once spotted and put on the table just use the distances MP gives, until then use the spot distance for the marker. What your doing is scaling back based on the size, since each tank represents a platoon and the scale of ground become much larger per 1".

I know it sounds strange, but your not looking for total accuracy, but a working set of rules to handle large scale engagements. In other words your using one scale before battle and another once sighted. Other wargames have used this kind of double scale before. Otherwise you are just going to end up with too many troops and too large a table to handle such a game.

 

[Gibbs]

Not really, once spotted and put on the table just use the distances MP gives, until then use the spot distance for the marker. What your doing is scaling back based on the size, since each tank represents a platoon and the scale of ground become much larger per 1".

I know it sounds strange, but your not looking for total accuracy, but a working set of rules to handle large scale engagements. In other words your using one scale before battle and another once sighted. Other wargames have used this kind of double scale before. Otherwise you are just going to end up with too many troops and too large a table to handle such a game.

I hadn't actually understood what you meant particularly well until now...having a model representing a larger group of models seems like a good idea.

As for morale in the game, there's suppression, shatter pints etc... I think morale is fairly well covered especially at a skirmish level but I don't see how it doesn't work at the battalion level too. Could you shed some light on that comment emperorpenguin?

 

[weasel_fierce]

Skirmish games generally do not translate well that far up, even outside the immense amounts of model pushing and dice throwing.

The concerns of a platoon commander are completely different to the concerns of a battalion commander.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Byran, here is a example of what I'm aiming at. If you went to platoon scale for a Btn. You would have the following not counting some troops that are more support and not frontline. (in game terms)

1 Command Warrior. (Btn: Hq) I didn't add any support vehicles, but if you did divided by 3 and round down to get the right mix)

Again I'm not adding Fire Support or Recce, mainly because you don't have them in game pieces yet. You could if you choose take a slot of them for each full Armored Infantry Company you have in the game. (again, I'm thinking in game terms.)

Armored Company Alpha
1 Command Warrior (may only effect members of alpha with it's third action)
3 Warriors
3 EFTF british units.

Both Bravo and Charlie Company is the same as Alpha. and thier command Warrior only effects their company troops.

This will give you 22 units of troops not counting any support models. which just add 1 section per full company. Not completely by the book, but a good working model for game play.

If you wish lower level HQ sections give them the ablility to reroll 1 die per turn for troops in thier command.

Work with the idea of scaling as I mentioned before for manuveur, then play the rules as normal once sighted, with break points per Company or section depending on how you want to handle it. Also have a overall break point to be reach for total withdrawl. That way if one company breaks just count up the total models in that company and subtract from the total army break point.

This should be a quick and easy way to handle larger games.
Note: at this scale support would consist of one vehicle or 1 section of troops per support slot.

 

[emperorpenguin]

As for morale in the game, there's suppression, shatter pints etc... I think morale is fairly well covered especially at a skirmish level but I don't see how it doesn't work at the battalion level too. Could you shed some light on that comment emperorpenguin?

Historically the "average" losses in battles amount to 33% before an army will give up and concede the battle. The shatter point keeps you in the fight until you lose 75%

Look at the invasion of Iraq, Desert Storm, the Falklands, WW2, many troops give up and surrender or withdraw when under attack. Something that I feel suppression doesn't cover.
I have to say my one bugbear with first SST and its successor is "no morale"

 

[Gibbs]

As for morale in the game, there's suppression, shatter pints etc... I think morale is fairly well covered especially at a skirmish level but I don't see how it doesn't work at the battalion level too. Could you shed some light on that comment emperorpenguin?

Historically the "average" losses in battles amount to 33% before an army will give up and concede the battle. The shatter point keeps you in the fight until you lose 75%

Look at the invasion of Iraq, Desert Storm, the Falklands, WW2, many troops give up and surrender or withdraw when under attack. Something that I feel suppression doesn't cover.
I have to say my one bugbear with first SST and its successor is "no morale"

Morale's really difficult to govern though, especially if you have a different cultural psychology. For example the Japanese would rather die than pull back or fail or the Russians (WW2 style) had blocking units that kept them in check... how do you cope with things like that?

But you are right.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I have to say my one bugbear with first SST and its successor is "no morale"

The morale is you - you decide when your troops have had enough

The context of the game is important too. In the Final Victory CTA tournament (running now!), we are seeing morale very much come into play, as what a player does in one game is affecting his chances later on, so tactical withdrawals are not uncommon.

 

[Gibbs]

I have to say my one bugbear with first SST and its successor is "no morale"

The morale is you - you decide when your troops have had enough

The context of the game is important too. In the Final Victory CTA tournament (running now!), we are seeing morale very much come into play, as what a player does in one game is affecting his chances later on, so tactical withdrawals are not uncommon.

Well in that case I choose to leave the field when my last man is gone. If I've still got a fedayeen trooper on the field then I can still take down tanks and infantry! :twisted:

I leave in a body bag!

 

[The Old Soldier]

Well, Matt that is one way of looking at it, but I don't think that will satisfy the average gamer. MOST gamers do not play tourney style games, something many companies getting into wargames forget.

That said, as I mentioned before I rationalize the system, by knowing that removal of miniatures do not equate in casualities. They are a simple means of unit intergity. In other words the unit loses combat effectiveness with the removal of miniatures.

So really they are not casualities, just a way of showing the unit is losing effectiveness. There is nothing stopping the player from making a more complacated morale system if they want to, but we are talking here about large scale battle. Adding too much to it will slow it down. That is why I suggested to have a overall breakpoint, and a breakpoint for each company. The player may also choose to use the vehicle size also in computing breakpoints which would increase realisism (if there is such a thing in miniature gaming), while not dragging down the simplicity of the system.

 

[tneva82]

Well, Matt that is one way of looking at it, but I don't think that will satisfy the average gamer. MOST gamers do not play tourney style games, something many companies getting into wargames forget.

Actually Matt's style is OPPOSITE of tourney style gaming. 99% tourney's don't care about losses in game A. They get replaced in game B. I don't remember last time I heard of tournament where losses DON'T get replaced.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Morale's really difficult to govern though, especially if you have a different cultural psychology. For example the Japanese would rather die than pull back or fail or the Russians (WW2 style) had blocking units that kept them in check... how do you cope with things like that?

But you are right.

well using 40K as an example (a poor one though given how often they have "ignore morale" rules), commissars shoot IG about to flee, a similar mechanic would work on WW2 Russkies