combat system?
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
I think so, Fly. You need a skirmish game to create the individual experience you want. That means you're looking at Striker, Star Grunt, SL/ASL, Soldiers, or any number of the games/rules sets already mentioned.
There's one proviso however. What ever you use to run your skirmish, you need to keep an eye the "big picture". That is you need to be aware of the "context" in which your skirmish occurs.
We're both old squids, Fly, so let me use a naval wargame to explain my point.
Ironclads by Yaquinto covers the ACW period. (An expansion covered naval battles of the same period, both real and potential, beyond North America) The game features individual ships and (in)famously individual guns aboard those ships. When larger ships, shore batteries, and forts are in play with their hundreds of guns, the die rolling quickly reaches WH40K levels.
This "single gun" level of detail means I can use Ironclads to follow the exploits of a 150-lb Parrott rifle gun crew aboard USS Onondaga during the Battle of Trent's Reach. I can note what target the crew is aiming at, I can note whether each of their shots hits, and I can note the damage each hit inflicts.
Just as importantly, while I can use Ironclads to follow the exploits of that sole gun crew, I can also work how the entire Battle of Trent's Reach unfolds. Will Onondaga, her gunboats, and the Federal shore batteries prevent the three slaver ironclads and gaggle of gunboats from reaching City Point and Grant's supply base? Or will something else happen?
The gun crew's actions could effect the battle, but there is a far better chance that the battle's events will effect the gun crew. That's why you'll need to keep an eye on the "big picture". Your POV squad may dealing out death left and right, only to be ordered to withdraw because of what's occurring elsewhere in the battle.
Last edited:
In S-II individual stands represent fireteams, single heavy weapons or single vehicles. There appears to have been a deliberate decision to step down from the scale of CD (one stand is a platoon).
That's because it's the same figure:troops ratio for Striker.
If I read you right, you want a system for determining the general course of battle as a backdrop for a PC-scale game (rather than a proper tabletop miniature wargame). For this, as suggested above, the Starvation Cheap system is perfect.
While it's a technical violation of the rules, [m;]I'm granting an exception in this case[/m;] to allow myself to post the following link:
https://shop.groundzerogames.co.uk/rules.html
I recently latched onto FORCE ON FORCE by Ambush Alley games. Each figure represents one individual, but each "unit" or "team" is treated as one entity. There is a sci-fi version of the game located at:
http://www.ambushalleygames.net/tomorrows-war/tomorrows-war-pdf-version
This however, will cost you 25 dollars. I've not played TOMORROW'S WAR myself, but if it is the same "system" as FORCE ON FORCE, the way they deal with training levels is to utilize different dice types - one per person in the unit firing, and 1d6 for the rawest or untrained personnel, 1d8 for professional level training, and 1d10 or 1d12 to represent even more "elite" levels. The thing here however, is that it doesn't really track time very well, and it is somewhat abstracted. However, it does seem to capture modern fighting experiences in a big way.
Something to consider.
Personally? I'd go with STRIKER just for a test scenario to see if that is what you want to do. In fact, you might even be able to play it over the net using a graphic map shared between two teams, one Ref to enforce the rules, and do it turn by turn. Just a thought.
http://www.ambushalleygames.net/tomorrows-war/tomorrows-war-pdf-version
This however, will cost you 25 dollars. I've not played TOMORROW'S WAR myself, but if it is the same "system" as FORCE ON FORCE, the way they deal with training levels is to utilize different dice types - one per person in the unit firing, and 1d6 for the rawest or untrained personnel, 1d8 for professional level training, and 1d10 or 1d12 to represent even more "elite" levels. The thing here however, is that it doesn't really track time very well, and it is somewhat abstracted. However, it does seem to capture modern fighting experiences in a big way.
Something to consider.
Personally? I'd go with STRIKER just for a test scenario to see if that is what you want to do. In fact, you might even be able to play it over the net using a graphic map shared between two teams, one Ref to enforce the rules, and do it turn by turn. Just a thought.
When you play the game on the table top, each roughly 8 to 11 man unit is a squad. Three squads to the platoon, three platoons to the company, and three companies to the battalion.
To answer your initial question: Platoon or Company sized is more in line with how the engagements would be run. However, the original poster's initial comments and subsequent comments make me think that he is going too high on the organizational chart for what he wants to achieve.
Now...
Mean guy that I am, and volunteering other people's time *teasing grin*...
Probably the BEST approach for Flykiller is for him to haunt Ebay and score a copy of Tomorrow's War cheap, or...
Have you whip up a map with gridlines on it much like Ambush Alley uses in their books. Each "unit" that is being manipulated on the board, would be tracked by the referee (maybe a third party?). The main rules would still be adhered to through out the game, but the decisions being made, and the results being created, would still have the same validity as actually playing the game in table top mode. The hard part would be handling the reaction fire involved. On the other hand, where there is a will, there is a way...
Now - the same approach for TW or FoF scenarios would work just as well for Striker Scenarios. It might be interesting for Flykiller to indicate what kind of scenario he wants to partake in, and for any of us other guys to try to at least create the map of the terrain, disseminate the map to the relevant players, and play this over the net.
We could try an experiment by having people download a demo version of FANTASY GROUNDS 2 (free of charge) and I could offer to referee or host the game. FG2 has the following features:
Map display: Check
Chat Display and chat logging: Check
Die Roll emulator: Check
Unit representative (one symbol equals one man): Check
I picked up the Ultimate License - which allows me to host games with Demo licenses. Normally FG2 requires that someone get a GM license, and that his player gets the player Licenses. With the ultimate License, I can host the GM players, the player players, and the Demo players. With a GM license, you can only host GM players or player players.
In the end, I think Flykiller is after the experience and wants to know what is going on at the personal level for what he wants to write or work on. This method would probably do it...
I know how the TO&E works, but the TW rules seem to be quite unwieldy with large units IIRC, especially since 1 soldier = 1 figure; at the battalion level, that A LOT of lead on your table. Higher-level wargames tend to have one "stand" with a few figures per squad or even per platoon (or company/battalion for even bigger forces) to make things easier.
Yup - but again, does Flykiller really NEED battalion level games for what he wants? Would company sized be closer, or even platoon sized?
One of the things that would help with his stated goals is understanding Command/Control/Communications — C³ — and that needs at least 3 levels to really grasp but 4 is better. Solderi — Squad — Platoon — Company — Battalion gives us 4 levels of command. At 5+, it's not reallt much different to the soldier than 4, as you've already crossed the Monkeysphere at 4.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Two hundred fiftyish would be a reinforced company, three hundred a battalion.
