Tactical Gaming

[Mad Russian]

I much prefer tactical gaming. The third wargame I ever owned was PanzerBlitz. From there I have either owned or played most tactical level games.

When I got out of the service in, 1978, I got both Squad Leader, the entire series - including a copy with the dark blue German counters, all the tactical games of the time. After Squad Leader there was ASL and the first modules of that series.

In 1987 I bought a game called 'Fire Team' by Jon Southard. I bought that game in 1987. I liked the series so well that I contacted West End Games to do the NATO expansion. This included the British, West Germans and additional Soviet units. West End agreed that I do the expansion, which I completed in short order and sent to them. At that same time the board wargame industry imploded and I got the module back, with a short note saying, "Thanks, but no thanks. We don't sell wargames any longer." So the one and only expansion model of Fire Team sits in a box in my closet.

I had already started to convert ASL to Fire Team system. I really liked the impulse system that was meshed with the nationality based unit activation. It was the best system I'd ever seen. It had everything I wanted.

* More chaos - I never really cared for the "I take a turn - You take a turn" of the other tactical games.
* Nationality based activation - my nickname of Mad Russian tells how I felt about how gamers played all the national tendencies. With FT you finally had a system that seamlessly integrated nationalistic tendencies with game play. Nothing the gamer had 'know' about their side to 'play it right'.
* Fear - I really liked the Fear aspect of the games combat results.  After having recently come out of the military I knew that units were far from either fully capable or broken.

Converting ASL just seemed natural to me. Up until that time I had a regular gaming partner that was as avid about tactical gaming as I was. Then he got a different job and moved to another city 500 miles away. End of the tactical board gaming situation for me. Another friend and I redid PanzerBlitz. So, I was pretty well versed in creating what I wanted out of a hybridization of ASL and FT.

With that result and the condition of the board wargaming community I moved to computer games. I no longer needed a local opponent. Now we could play over the miles with either PBEM or live.

I stayed in computer gaming, am still involved with it, but had an event turn me back toward board gaming. I now have another tactical gamer that lives very close and wants to play. My Grandson. He was going through  my games and found Fire Team and all the expansion work I'd done on it and we played.

From 1987 until 2012 the game was just sitting there. 25 years.

I determined to see about 'reactivating' it for us to play. A friend and I had redone PanzerBlitz all those years ago....I knew I could make the maps and the vehicles. But what to do about those infantry counters. Simple I'll just use the weapons to show what the units are armed with. I can do whatever I want, there will just be 2 of us playing this and I'm one of the two.

I decided to look at the evolution of tactical games since I left the hobby 25 years ago. I looked and purchased copies of several of the current crop of tactical games. I thought most games would be impulse and activation driven, with chains of command.

SURPRISE!!!!!

Nothing of the sort has happened. Instead we have tactical game series that have NO LEADERS, where sides take turn activating one hex or leader at a time, CARDS, no dice, etc.  Not the basic Fire Team system at all.

A tactical level game with no leaders is worthless to me. Don't tell me that I'm the leader. I already got that. I know I'm the leader. I'm the commander in charge. The Big Dog!!! I want the little dogs to affect the fighting with their skill set and my Glorious Leadership. For me personally, it's quite simple, NO LEADERS and I'm not buying the game.

Small segment impulses are nothing more than bite sized versions of "I take a turn - You take a turn". The whole idea of having impulses is to interject randomness. At least it is for me. Not a single game system I've looked at has random impulses. After 25 years. That really surprised me. One of the major draws of computer gaming was the WeGo system. Things happen.

Cards. Really? Yes, I know all about Up Front. I was one of the first one to buy it and the modules. I recently GAVE IT AWAY!!! I was extremely anti-card until I looked at the Combat Commander series. Which in my opinion is the best tactical gaming system created in the past 25 years. Take my opinion on that and $10 and you can get a cup of coffee anywhere you like.

The cards for the most part seem to be a way to do away with dice. Okay. I got it. I do numbers really well. I know some that don't. You really HATE looking at a chart to get a result? You really do? Because I despise the structured results of having a specific set of combat results in a pool. Again, I do numbers very well, I understand the randomness of the numbers on a 150 cards. I also understand that you cannot get the randomness that you get from rolling any number of die. In all cases the cards are implemented to create a simpler system.

Simpler seems to be the main direction that the hobby has gone in the past 25 years. A single card draw can do multiple things, die rolls, special events, multiple events, etc.

Not having gone through the evolution I don't really like the new Euro style games. I don't like the fact that the games are still mostly ASL clones. But to be fair to some extent they will be when they are the same scale. What I do see is the systems all trying to be ASL lites. As much like ASL as they can be without the tremendous suffocating rule book. I stopped playing ASL over 25 years ago and haven't looked back since.

With all that in mind I have been propelled forward with my own game design. I've looked and learned. Some of the things that are better overall, easier to understand rule books, nicer maps, far more substance in the games that are sold.

I have made a small name for myself by making games/scenarios that I like and then sharing them with other gamers. I may do that with the tactical series board game I am creating as well. If it works out that way I'll be happy with that. I had a lot to learn in today's world of gaming. The first and foremost thing was art. I'm not an artist. I also find that I much prefer the older games like ASL, where you have the detail of the system and everything is not glossed over. Having said that, I left ASL over 25 years ago and have not intention of going back.

As with all my projects I do construction sets. This Fire Team evolution series was researched in detail. It has all the weapons from WWII through the present and into the future. The historical detail is there. Dice are there too because I believe in luck. Tables are there too because I believe in differing results and I like the variety of results that actually do happen. Chain of Command is there because the cheer leaders of ASL style games aren't  realistic to me. Impulses and activation are there because I really like it.

What's not there are cards or structured turn sequences.

I have discussed the game series with publishers. I may do that again. When I get it finished.

What I'm curious about is the general consensus. Do those of you that play tactical games like the Euro style games, CDD or CDA, more or less structured?

And of course we can discuss anything you like concerning tactical games.

Good Hunting.

[Jack Nastyface]

Mad Russian,
You make some interesting points.  I don't necessarily want to "argue" with any of them, but if I may, here are some of my humble opinions and views.  I should mention that I haven't actually looked at the Fire Team system, so I won't speak to comparisons (this better than that).
In no particular order:
1)  There are about a zillion internetweb forum threads on combat results mechanisms.  Here are some comments made on this forum:  http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=6028.25.  I would bet for most gamers the answer to the question "what is your favorite combat results mechanism" they would probably answer "it depends".  For example, Avalon Hill's Gunslinger (STILL one of my favorite games on the theme) uses a results card deck with just over 100 cards.  What's nice about the card deck in this game is it lets you figure out shot result, wounds, delay, stagger direction, and random events just by drawing a few cards.  You DO need to look up damage amounts from a CRT, but I believe the game moves quicker because of the cards...and I never feel that the cards somehow "limit" my possible outcomes.   Another example (discussed in the linked thread) is the buckets o' dice mechanism.  Originally, I was suspicious of this system (sounded too much like Risk, etc) but I think it works because it supports ideas like unit supply, effectiveness, morale, etc without excessive CRT lookups.  Force on Force and Bolt Action are two good examples.  I really do encourage you to try one of these games and keep an open mind...I was very much a doubter but have enjoyed all my gaming sessions with these rules (well...except for those gaming sessions where I lost, but that's a different story).  I still play games that use a CRT, but I do notice that some players are a lot better at "playing the odds" with a CRT game than in some of the other systems.  I have also had some spectacular (random?) results while playing Buckets o' Dice games, which is great.  The dreaded "golden bb" or lucky shot don't translate to CRT's without multi-table look-ups.
2)  The LnL squad battles systems uses impule actions and leaders.  Granted, the impulses are still based on an IGOUGO mechanism, but players can elect to "pass" on their impulse, so you can have one player move / act repeatedly while the other "waits" for an opportune moment.  Leaders have effect on morale and combat effectiveness.  The game also recognizes the importance of other combatants such as civilian mobs (Somalia '93), medics and heros.
3)  There comes a point in our gaming playing continuum where we all need to make the decision about what KIND of gaming experience we want.  Complex often = time consuming but detailed;  Simple = faster but less detail.  I just can't commit to 6 - 8 hour gaming sessions like I could when I was younger...and if I go to a convention or an event, I would like to play MORE than one engagement / game during my precious time off from home, work, life, etc.  I don't know how many gamers are going for the massively complex game systems (ASL is still popular) but I am seeing more of the "simpler" games showing up on convention tables.  I really don't think this is a good or bad thing...it just is what it is.

Yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

[Mad Russian]

Jack NF,

I'm not here to argue anything either. Discussions are good and generally worth while.

1) I have entertained using something like a "buckets of dice" system by using different sized dice for different weapons types. For instance bolt action rifles resolve combat using a D6 while a semi-automatic weapon would use a D8 and an automatic weapon uses a D10. Still looking at that.

2) I own some LnL games. The turns for me are too regimented. What I see there is smaller bites of IGOUGO. I do like the level of detail that LnL puts in their games though.

3) IMO, this is what the ASL lites want to accomplish. Something like the feel of an end of ASL game experience without all the rules depth. I can't imagine that there will be another game like ASL. The younger people don't read that much. Computer game play is instantaneous, without reading a single rule of any kind.

Thanks for you comments.

Good Hunting.

[Jack Nastyface]

MR,
1)  "debate or discuss" would have been better words than "argue".  I did NOT take your post as contentious or confrontational and regret that I may have chosen a word that indicated as much.   Sincere apologies.
2)  FWIW, Force on Force (i have a pdf copy I can lend you) uses buckets of dice to reflect training, supply and weapon multipliers.  So an untrained taliban force using 4 AK's and 1 RPD would get 4D6 for the AK's and 2D6 for the RPD.  If they were poorly supplied, you would subtract 1D6 from their dice pool.  An equal size regular USMC unit with 4 M16's would get 4D8 for the rifles, and 2D8 for a SAW.  This basically assumes that most individual weapons (be it an SKS, AK, M16, FAL or Steyer Aug) are relatively "equal" and squad weapons (SAWs, LAWs, RPD, RPG, etc) simply "add" firepower to the equation.  Heavier weapons, like a Ma-deuce or the DSK can add firepower weight, but also can create suppression (affect targets ability to move or fire).  During gameplay, this creates some interesting (but perhaps more "realistic"?) scenarios - if the taliban player REALLY wants to hit the USMC, they need to bring larger numbers to a fight, because - trust me - despite appearances, 6D6 vs 6D8 is not as close as it looks.

best regads,

JNF

[Mad Russian]

JNF,

1) I took it the way you meant it. We're good.

2) It seems that in the past 25 years die rolling has gone two directions. Completely away from die rolling, with the advent of cards added, all the way to LOTS of dice being rolled. I'm still working on the Combat resolution for the game. It's one of the reasons I came here to discuss what gamers like.

3) About weapons values, I would agree that, for the most part weapons show little difference. In most serious discussions about organizational value the ending valuation is on training and morale and not on the weaponry itself.

As an example here are the individual weapon values for the Vietnam era weapons in my game system.

M14 - 5.4
M16 - 5.8
M14A1 AR - 5.9
M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4
M2 HB HMG - 6.8

Bolt Action Rifle - 1.3
SKS - 1.6
AK-47 - 4.7
RPD LMG (Drum Fed) - 5.6
RPD MMG (Belt Fed) - 7.4

As you can see, if the technology is close so are the value factors. Now if you put bolt action rifles up against assault rifles that becomes another issue. The difference is training and morale in most cases.

What that means in practical terms is an NVA Fire Team with 3 AK-47's would have a fire power of 14, while a US Infantry Fire Team with 3 M-16's would have a firepower of 17. The communists were fine with that considering that the RPD was a better light machine gun than the M60.

Good Hunting.

[bayonetbrant]

M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4

What's the reason for the huge discrepancy here?  Is it just firing platform stability?

[Mad Russian]

M60 LMG (bipod) - 4.9
M60 MMG (tripod) - 6.4

What's the reason for the huge discrepancy here?  Is it just firing platform stability?

Ammo availability.

An LMG is served by the gunner and assistant with some rounds being carried by squad members.

An MMG is considered to be served by at least twice that many crew members. They can simply carry more ammo.

Having more ammo means you can put out a greater volume of fire.

Good Hunting.

[Mad Russian]

In game terms the difference in the M60 LMG and MMG is only 1.

The LMG has a firepower of 5 (4.9 rounded up to 5) and the MMG has a firepower of 6 (6.4 rounded down to 6).

Good Hunting.

[Staggerwing]

MR, what do you think of Avalanche Press' Panzergrenadier series?

[Mad Russian]

It's a platoon level game. I like that level but to be honest, I haven't had time to play many games. As JNF pointed out, I have less time than I used to 4 decades ago when I first started playing wargames. Then I kind of went from playing them to designing scenarios to then designing the games themselves.

While I own a lot of wargames (over 400 at last count) it means I have less time to play now, than say, 25 years ago.

So, in answer to your question, it looks really good but I've not had a chance to play it.

When I do play, I like the units to be at the single vehicle and squad/fire team level.

Good Hunting.

[Rekim]

In game terms the difference in the M60 LMG and MMG is only 1.

The LMG has a firepower of 5 (4.9 rounded up to 5) and the MMG has a firepower of 6 (6.4 rounded down to 6).

Good Hunting.

There is a similar situation in ASL where the German MG 42 is the basis for both the medium and heavy German machine guns support weapons. The key difference between the two being bipod vs tripod mounted. The firepower modifiers of the two is 5 vs 7

[GJK]

ASL Rulez.   8)

[Mad Russian]

One of the weapons issues I have with ASL is the German MG's. There are all three categories of MG's for the Germans in WWII.  For my factors I track the bullet size, the rate of fire, the feed type and the amount of ammo a unit has available.

Here are the factors I have for the German MG's.

MG34 LMG (drum fed) - 5.3
MG34 MMG (drum fed) - 7.3
MG34  HMG (belt fed) - 9.1

MG42 LMG (belt fed) - 9.1
MG42 MMG (belt fed) - 11.1
MG42 HMG (belt fed) - 12.6

The fact that ASL doesn't differentiate between the MG34 and the MG42 is an interesting part of the game. As you can see, by looking at a variety of parameters, they don't have the same capabilities. It's one of the few things that was never expanded on from SL to ASL. Interesting that it wasn't.

Good Hunting.

[GJK]

The fact that ASL doesn't differentiate between the MG34 and the MG42 is an interesting part of the game. As you can see, by looking at a variety of parameters, they don't have the same capabilities. It's one of the few things that was never expanded on from SL to ASL. Interesting that it wasn't.

Good Hunting.

It does, they're "mislabelled" though.  In ASL, the German MMG is the MG34 on tripod.  The HMG is the MG42 on tripod.  From the Chapter H notes on the HMG:

*† The German HMG counter represents the MG 42,
and is not available before 5/42.

[Mad Russian]

So then, what ASL would have me to believe is that from 1939-1945 all HMG's are an MG42 on a tripod. How exactly does that fit for a time period before the MG42 was in production? How is it that there is a single LMG counter for the game?

No, the fact is that ASL didn't model the different MG's for the Germans in the game. They were not so similar as it being a one size fits all situation.

The maximum rates of fire for the two guns is very different. The MG34 is 900rpm, while the MG42 is 1500rpm. The MG42 is known to be an ammo hog. It's also known to be extremely deadly because of the number of rounds it puts down range.

This is not a discussion about what ASL does or doesn't do. That was a simple observation about the game. We can discuss ASL vs non-ASL games but I would rather discuss gamers preferences for what they like in tactical wargames and what they dislike.

Good Hunting.