Squads, Fireteams, and the Scaling Down
I've been thinking about smaller-scale games a lot recently. My original inspiration imagined company or even battalion scale forces. I'm increasingly coming to view this is as impractical on a standard table.
I've never encountered a squad or skirimish level game I've really enjoyed. In GW/Warhammer skirmish games such as Necromunda, Mordheim, Warhammer Historicals: Old West, each model increased in importance, but didn't gain anything more interesting to do than move or shoot. Keeping track of the stats and experience of each model never really compensated for the tactical flatness of the game.
Squads apply all kinds of complex, adaptive maneuvers and tactics which are not normally covered by Company-level wargaming rules. See, for example, this set of Ranger training videos:
A Preliminary Rules Sketch
Here are some basic thoughts on scaling the game down to squad level. I think they would be too detailed to use in larger games, but might might really small ones more interesting:
Each Squad has a Squad Leader. Additionally, each Team may have a Team Leader. Teams must maintain coherency with each other.
Each model has a visual arc of 45 degrees from its front.
At the start of the movement phase, declare where you wish to move turns each model. Then roll a Leadership check for each model. If the model moves or turns to face a target within the arc and LoS of its Team or Squad Leader, or if the model moves in a direction parallel to the arc and LoS of the its Team or Squad Leader, it gets a +1 to the roll. If it fails, it becomes Confused until the start of the player's next movement phase.
A model which is Confused may move or turn normally, but it suffers an additional -1 to hit.
This represents the Confused model reacting slowly to the commands of his Team or Squad Leader.
Geek Notes
Keeping track of the facing of all models in a squad is annoying, but I think that at this level of simulation it would add a needed boost to complexity and realism. Particularly if you interpret line of sight restrictions harshly. Now it will make a difference on which side of the formation each weapon is located and which way it is facing.
I have no idea how common it is for people in an actual fireteam to become so confused they function sup-optimally, but it seems like a good game mechanic to reward wise placement and anticipation of arcs of line of sight and formation.
The placement of Team and Squad leaders will become crucial for directing the rest of the squad. A Squad with Team Leaders will have a distinct advantage in movement and control over one which has only a Squad leader. (Ie, one which uses more modern fireteam tactics, compared to the more homogenous WWII squads.)
4 comments :
Hopefully this will provide inspiration at least for a rule you might find less annoying;
An idea I got from watching the videos, would be to include a counter in each squad to represent the squads centre of concentration. Basically each squad member focus' on the area directly away from the counter. This way you can shift the focus of the members by altering the relationship between them and it. With leaders being able to adjust the focus area of nearby members by widening the area or bending the angle or some such to fill in holes. From this I think any of the desired formations could be arranged.
My interpretation has this as more of a defensive issue, I would consider granting a defensive bonus to a squad which has a member covering the direction of an incoming attack as they'll be able to either give warning or suppressing fire to reduce the effectiveness of the enemy attack, and/or a penalty for a squad that doesn't. More members covering the direction the better the bonus which leads to the tactical necessity or decision to open or close your flanks.
Thank you for sharing, I do enjoy reading the blog.
Interesting idea. I think that for a more realisitic squad-level game, the mechanics need to be built in such a way that the tactics used in real fireteams introduce themselves organically. So that it makes game-mechanical sense for the teams to advance in a line or a wedge formation, depending on circumstance. Some kind of mechanic indicating the awareness of each member might do the trick.
Tom
Hey Tom, just stared reading the blog this week, and have enjoyed every entry! I'm eager to try your system. As far as this squad variant goes, I like the logic and the mechanic, but speaking only personally, I would only be interested in using such a system in a post WWII setting.
I agree whole heartedly with your point about Company level games requiring larger tables, which is why I'll always prefer smaller scale models if given the option. I played 40k for 3 months before trying FoW, and haven't touched 40k since. The visual representation of weapons ranges has a lot to do with it too. Obviously it's all an abstraction anyway, but for me a 15mm model that can only shoot 12" is a lot easier to swallow than a 28mm model only shooting 12".
I also wanted to add that I rolled my eyes a but when I read about your proposed John Carter inspired setting, but you've totally turned me around on it. I would totally play that game! Just probably in 15mm. ;)
Thanks for reading, Retro. Yes, I think the Fireteam variant feels anachronistic for WWII and pre-WWII settings. If you want to give the rules a spin, I have a compilation of them in a page linked from the top of the site.
Tom
Post a Comment