Inspiration from Guy Sajer's Forgotten Soldier

This post is overdue - I was knocked out of several days of normal productivity by a bout of illness and then computer problems. This caused me some problems with a number of competing deadlines and the blog simply had to wait.

In the meantime, I did finish up Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, an autobiographical account of a Franco-German soldier who spent nearly three years on the Eastern Front in World War II. It was even more depressing than I recall from reading it 14 years ago. I'm not going to do a review of the work, except to say that I highly recommend it. There's apparently some conflict regarding the authenticity of the work - you'll have to make that judgment yourself. I believe its based on actual experiences.

Beyond the sobering enrichment this book offers (akin to All Quiet on the Western Front) to a reader, there's plenty of interesting things in the book that lend themselves to wargaming the period - and I must say that I still have a hard time separating what I would consider technical details (ie. equipment, orders of battle, etc) from Sajer's emotional overall account. Regardless, here goes...

Obsolete Equipment
I was rather surprised how older model tanks and anti-tank guns showed in Sajer's accounts. Granted, they often appeared in last ditch defenses and the like, but I really didn't expect that Panzer I's and Panzer II's would be used in late 1943/early 1944. I recall the Panzer I's were used to tow trucks through muddy terrain during a retreat and another early Panzer (II or III) was employed in a ditch during the Prussian city fighting in late 1944. Even the 37mm anti-tank gun shows up, providing close support along with panzerfaust teams. On a sort of related note, Sajer even mentions trucks painted in blue in the late war years - I would have expected everything to have been in dunkengelb by then. Also, there always seems to be some foreign trucks impressed into service.                                                    

Anti-Partisan Actions
Sajer, whether a supply truck driver or as a member of the Gross Deutchland Division, encountered partisans more often than I would have expected. Sometimes their numbers surprised me, as well. Plenty of small actions and company-sized operations are described in the book. Again, this is where older equipment shows up (esp. the Panzer Is). Also, I believe Sajer's company mounts their machine guns on trucks during one operation.

Kursk
For what was a gigantic tank battle, we only see a few tanks in Sajer's account. His unit spends its time infiltrating Russian entrenchments and fighting its way through villages. Their defensive actions in a village prior to the German retreat would make a good company-sized game: plenty of machine gun nests, coordinated with a few mortars, infantry guns, and a bit of self-propelled artillery (or anti-tank gun).

Finally...
From a gaming perspective, there's a lot of unusual things one could add to their tabletop scenarios and miniatures that one doesn't expect to see late war, based on The Forgotten Soldier. Honestly, I'm only talking a little bit about how Sajer's accounts might alter the typical expectations one might have for gaming the Eastern Front.

New Year

I want to thank all the readers - old and new - who make an attempt to keep up with this blog. I do hope you find something of interest and value here as I ramble on. 

I've been thinking a little bit how on how I want to handle blog content and updates. Offhand, I think I'm going to make an effort to write at least one post per week. I've averaged better than that, but I think some more consistency is worth it. I've thought about archiving some of the older material  as well. Not sure just yet.

The next blog or two will likely focus on Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, the autobiographical account of a Franco-German soldier serving in the Wermacht on the Eastern Front (up until the last days of the war). It's been 14 years since I read this book and I must say I see a lot of inspiration to bring to the wargames table. In the meantime, I highly recommend this book 

Monte Cassino: Wargaming Ideas from Castle Hill

Matthew Parker's Monte Cassino

There was plenty of brutal fighting to go around during the Allied offensive for Cassino and the Gustav Line in the first half of 1944. I'm specifically referring to assaults and counterattacks for specific strategic points, not the horrific drawn-out attrition that consumed much of the campaign. One battle sticks out in my mind more than others - the struggle for Castle Hill. The German paratrooper counterattacks against British-held Castle Hill (another key point near the Cassino monastery and town) were harrowing affairs that were compared to a medieval siege that used machine guns and hand grenades.

From a gaming perspective, I think this would translate well into a good squad/section or platoon-sized game. Why? Well, for one thing, the rules really need to highlight on the bomb-throwing aspect - and that's something tends to be handled a bit abstractly the further up the org-level of the game (ie. maybe as a combat factor or stat). I think the amount and nature of the castle and ruins might have made linear rifle fire a bit limiting compared to lobbing a grenade over covering obstacles.

While I don't know if there was an unusual number of MG42 and Bren crews positioned for the fights, I could certainly believe the local battalion commanders put as many of them into the hot spots as possible, leaving some sections in reserve without their squad MGs. The idea lends itself to an interesting possibility of scenario-specific orders of battle that allow one to attach a few extra MG crews to the combat squads.

Then there's the terrain. Even if one did not attempt recreate any of the assaults at Castle Hill, the use of medieval walls and gates combined with later period buildings would make for a cool tabletop if handled right. In my mind I'm thinking that some of those plastic Warhammer 40k buildings could pass for Gothic/pseudo-Gothic architecture used in churches and other civic buildings.

This has really got me to thinking thinking about Warlord Games' plastic Commonwealth infantry and their extra weapon sprues. That would be a fairly quick way to get as many bomb throwers and Bren gunners on the table as any, considering the build options available. While they don't offer the German paras in plastic yet, their plastic German infantry (and extra weapon sprues)  would also be a good way to build this mix of troops. Of course, any rifleman can be a grenadier, but I think the visual appeal of having more than a couple of bomb-throwers on the table is a plus.

Coming Up: A few more words on Monte Cassino, plus board games

While I haven't had much time for posting in the last couple of weeks due to a number of unexpected work and home improvement projects, I have been thinking about them at least.

I have a few more game-related things to say about Monte Cassino. After that, I'm ready to talk about some inspiration from Richard Borg's Battle Lore and the Milton Bradley classic, Shogun (aka Samurai Swords).

Cassino: Wargaming Ideas

I have been reading Matthew Parker's book on the campaign for Monte Cassino and thought I would share some thoughts I had on rubble in wargaming.

The bombing of Cassino -  which was even more brutal than the bombing of the monastery - and its subsequent assault by Commonwealth troops gave me a lot of ideas for wargaming certain aspects of the terrain conditions. Rubble piles - some measuring 20 feet high - and craters blocked the progress of infantry and armor alike. Like quite a bit of the natural terrain of the campaign area, this forced the Allies to channel troops under fire and countered advantages in numbers and mechanization. Storming a building or strong point might happen, but the town would not be simply and quickly overwhelmed.

I think huge piles of rubble need to make more of an appearance in street fighting scenarios, at least in heavily decimated and contested areas. Offhand, I think of the Ruhr Pocket, Stalingrad (and probably most Eastern Front city battles), and of course, Cassino. I see a lot of ruins and rubble on tabletops, but not often like the way they described in personal accounts. They should be more than table dressing and maybe something more/other than difficult/very difficult terrain.

In games like Flames of War, where the infantry have a steady movement rate regardless of terrain (if I recall correctly), I think some of these debris areas should require a successful skill check to ascend or move across. I would probably consider them impassable to vehicles. Really, I think that might be ideal for most skirmish games in regards to the infantry; heavy movement penalties for entering rough terrain has its place, but I think that requiring a plodding one-quarter move up a debris hill the size of a building as taking away from the fast-paced action one associates with a firefight. I think pass or fail on a climb check seems more like it.

Matthew Parker's Monte Cassino

This is one battle that has intrigued me since I was a kid and saw some photos of German paratroopers in the rubble of the campaign area. I bought Matthew Parker's book on the subject for my dad a few years back and decided it was high time I read it myself.

Two things I'll say for the book before giving a fuller review on down the line - it is great for providing something more than just a summary of the campaign leading up to Cassino and the Gustav Line. I've found it quite illuminating - about a quarter of the book is spent on this. The second thing is that I realize the Italian campaign for Rome has a lot of thematic similarities to Gallipoli - an even some of the same players (Churchill).

There's a lot here to inspire wargaming scenarios, and I'll probably address some thoughts on that as well some time in the future.

The book is worth the read. I surely haven't read enough on the subject to tell you how it stacks up against any definitive accounts of campaign for Rome, but it is packed with a lot of information and insights drawn from unit histories and numerous personal anecdotes - British, American, German, French, and Italian (esp. civilian). I think if you like books like Stephen Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers, you will like the style of Parker's work. It is very engaging.

WW II Gaming: Luftwaffe Air-to-Ground Tactics

Rise of the Luftwaffe

I stumbled across a blog post that had some US Army data gathered on late war German air tactics v. ground targets at Lone Sentry. Don't know much about the site, but I did find a number of interesting topics and pictures while browsing around.

I think late war scenario design could benefit from this kind of study. While I thought about how it might be put in the context of a skirmish game, it certainly has a much broader application.

First - and I'm making the assumption that you have read the report by now - is that I was amazed at how much the German Air Force still played a combat role against Allied ground troops at that point of the war, especially considering Allied air superiority.

The assertion that German air attacks concentrated on armored spearheads (target type), followed by attacks on crowded bridges/river crossings (target area) was illuminating. Rear areas do not appear to have been priority. This certainly opens the possibility of bringing in a Luftwaffe attack in a hot ground engagement between Allied armor and German troops in breakthrough/last ditch scenarios.

I was also interested in the tricks the Luftwaffe would pull on the ground units, such as purposefully drawing AA fire so as to spot them for waiting bombers and staging fake dogfights to dupe foes on the ground into thinking Allied aircraft was in the mix. Offhand, I'm not sure how to bring that to most ground based games, but it leads to certain possibilities with campaign missions for aircraft card games like Down in Flames (Rise of the Luftwaffe, etc.). However, this would be a great reason to paint up the US M16 AA halftrack model with the quad .50 cal mount.

Finally, I'm going to make a big assumption here: probably most ground attack missions did not occur in during a ground battle already in progress. I thought the idea was to hit the enemy while he was vulnerable (ie. in column on a road) and before he could bring his forces to a ground fight. That said, timing, opportunity, and other priorities could certainly bring aircraft into play in the heat of a ongoing battle. I suppose at some point I should try to find some data that challenges/supports my thoughts here.

FOW Project: Wooden Guns on M10s

 Sometimes I really don't like the soft lead guns on 15mm AFVs. Battlefront's M10s gave me an option to keep from bending or breaking the barrels.

If you look closely at the pictures, you will see that a clipped toothpick is mounted on the vehicle. It fit snugly in the gun mount and doesn't look that much wider than either of the guns provided for the model. I'm pretty sure that when the model is painted, no one will really notice what I've done here when it's on the table.

FOW Project: M7 Priests and M10s

I'm bringing in a number of AFV support for my US infantry and armor. Ultimately, I am trying to build an armored company and an assault infantry company (taken from 3rd Division lists from Battlefront's Dogs & Devils).

Of course, I am continuing the tradition of posting pictures of the "Drying of the Washed Resin/Plastic Models". I gave the vehicles a good soapy scrubbing - and still amazed at the bluish gray water left behind in the soaking cup.

This time around the vehicles are new enough that they have the new hard plastic tracks and accessories. OK - new to me; I think Battlefront began the switchover to hard plastic a few years back. I was very impressed with the quality of the pieces - even the the .50 cal machine guns. Also, the new track-mounting method leaves 3 slots on one side of the hull and 2 on the other, with corresponding tabs on the tracks. This keeps guys like me from putting the tracks on backwards - and I have done it, believe me.

Also, I think Battlefront did a good job with the crews. Most of the time I do not like most of the crew figures. Many of them look poorly sculpted or molded compared to the decent to excellent figures you get with an infantry platoon.

FOW Project: Flakpanzers

I finally finished up the flakpanzers - part of the summer project for last year!

 

I can't recall if I mentioned it before, but I tried out the Late War German Armour spray from Battlefront (I believe Army Painter makes it) on one of the flakpanzers. It makes for a great shade of dunkengelb. While I'm not crazy about the price of $15 US retail, it might be worth it in time saved and great color (it serves as primer too). Since I picked up a can in the discount bin real cheap, I can't complain at all.

Instead of using a mix of black and brown inks, this time I just went with watered-down black acrylic paint. It left a lot of smudges and I like the effect.

The last thing to do for last year's summer project is to put in crews for the 251/9s. I've already started the next summer project - more on that later.

Things That Go Bang! by Neil Smith

It seems only appropriate on July 4 to write about things that go bang, and Paul’s musings on artillery and aircraft have me pondering all things explosive. Paul has brought forward some very interesting ideas on what might be labeled “off-table interference”, so I hope my thoughts can add to his.

My first point is that if we’re skirmish wargaming we don’t really need artillery and air-attacks to enhance the game, and historically I cannot thing of many examples where a commander in a skirmish action has called in fire or air support. More often it is likely to be a stray shell or opportunistic air attack that comes into play – although to my utter discredit, my best “example” that comes readily to mind is the German plane attack in Kelly’s Heroes! Nevertheless, my point is that this event is in the lap of the gods, and we know they roll a d6 before every turn, don’t we?

Supposing we do have a stray shell come flying across our table, how can we work that into the game in a fair and hopefully realistic way? If there is no fighting at the time, then the soldiers would hear the sound of the in-coming shell and should be given time to take cover. Grant every soldier a 50mm move to cover or to hit the deck before the shell lands, so that after the event takes place that is their new starting position for the impending turn. If combat is underway, then no action is taken because no-one hears the shell.

Working out where the random shell lands has always been a problem of mine, but having the non-receiving player lobbing a grain of rice works as well as anything – it is hard to aim and has an unpredictable bounce. Whatever the means of delivery, the shell lands and has an impact radius of perhaps 120mm. The receiving player then rolls for damage on everything within that radius, with perhaps a radius of 25mm completely obliterated and replaced by a model shell-hole, or black cut-out circle if you haven’t mastered making shell-holes out of round beer-mats and modeling clay.

Aircraft are different because their intervention is targeted. In this case I advocate a roll of a d6 on a 360 degree circle – 60 degrees per spot running clockwise. I love Paul’s idea of a silhouette being place on the incoming line of the aircraft, though a model works too if you’ve made any Airfix investments lately. Now flip a coin to decide whose side the plane is on, unless you agree beforehand who has air supremacy. Whoever gets the attack may now decide on a strafe or bombing mission – i.e. the player is now the pilot – and he can attack anything on a straight line from the entrance point to the exit point on the opposite side.  But again, if no combat is taking place, the defender can make the impulse move to cover.

A bombing run should be one targeted bomb with a simple d6 to decide on hitting the target. The radius would probably be the same as for an artillery round, and it makes life easier. My strafing runs are 300mm long and 25mm wide for two guns at 75mm apart – as stunning coincidence has it, that is the exact measurement of the plastic ruler I bought out of the Dollar Store for the purpose! The intended target is located 150mm along the strafing line, it doesn’t matter which side, and damage is rolled for everything else that falls under the strafing ‘template’. While, yes, you could throw in friendly fire, the plane being shot down etc, why complicate a simple random event?

My final thought on things that go bang is on on-table direct fire artillery. I don’t want to overload my table with artillery, but I painted that 88 and I want it to do something useful!  And if you were a commander on the ground and had access to an artillery piece, you would want it firing. To slow down rate of fire, I advocate that your artillery piece is either firing, or loading, or traversing if it is capable, and even then the dreaded “1” should result in a misfire that takes another turn to clear.

When firing an artillery piece at the ranges you are working with on a skirmish table, deciding on if it hits the target seems superfluous. Although, you could roll a d6 to assess the height in cm at which the shell hits. Otherwise a simple straight line between barrel and target works easily enough. However, you must include a dead ground distance in front of the barrel where in heavier pieces the barrel cannot be depressed enough.

Having said all of the above, it seems that artillery has the propensity to decide a skirmish game – which makes me think of the super-weapons in GW games that made me wonder why anybody played the game with anything else. But, if you’ve set up your game with bucket-loads of terrain then the effects of artillery are much reduced: artillery then might deviate your game trajectory but wont kill the game, at least I hope not. If it does, adjust your random event tables accordingly!

Artillery Support in WW II Skirmishing

WI 259

This is my last post in a series of combined arms in World War II skirmish gaming, taking inspiration from Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope" from Wargames Illustrated 259. However, I do like skirmish gaming, and I expect I will return the subject sooner than later. 

I think a number of basic ideas used in local mortar support can be applied to artillery support - check out those posts here, here, and here - things like automatic knockdowns/pinned results, chances for suppression and kills, and the effects of heavy cover in some cases. I think fire support from battalion and divisional headquarters should be potentially devastating - and not always welcome.

I think heavy indirect fire could be handled in a manner similar to Flames of War - simply determine a center point for the barrage and measure out a large circle, square, or rectangle on the tabletop and assume multiple rounds pound the area liberally; I think 2' square feet would do nicely.  I think any infantry would be automatically pinned with chances to suppress or kill - ie. maybe roll a d10, with results of 4-8 resulting in suppression and 9-10 in heavy wounds/killed. A building might provide some protection, changing the odds of suppression to 7-9 and kills on a 10. In woods, it might be similar, although I recall that timed fuses were sometimes used to cause blasts in the treetops to make things much worse on the ground.

If by some chance either of the platoons on the ground have a chance to call in fire, it will probably be worth having chances of delays, even if requested for a specific turn in the future. I'd say if a defender has the option, it's a good idea to go ahead and identify a limited number of landmarks on which the barrage will center. Offhand, I'd say that planned defensive fire would have less chance of scattering, or at least not scattering as far as artillery that has not had a chance to make some preparatory test rounds.

If the big pattern blast does not appeal to you, then it might be worth trying a series of smaller templates (say, 12" in diameter) and giving them a chance to deviate or pre-assign a pattern - ie. "the first salvo is aimed a landmark A, and the next will occur due North, 12" away.

Of course, the random event table comes in handy here. It may be that neither side has a chance of calling in the heavy guns, but knows there may be a chance it will fall on their behalf. It may be that it does not matter which sides is firing the big guns - the referee or scenario designer can simply pre-plot fire based on certain landmarks and roll randomly which one receives fire when it happens. I'm sure battalion commanders have ordered or requested fire for their men without consulting them. In a lot of ways, I think this may be the best approach to using battalion and divisional artillery support - the players have no real control over it and at best they are only aware it could happen.

Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

WI 259

Today, I'm throwing out some ideas on how I would handle the occasional strafing and dive-bombing in a World War II skirmish game. As the teaser mentioned yesterday, I have some more conceptual food-for-thought kind of ideas as well, but I'll probably go into that later.

Right now, let's get to the mechanics of a limited air attack. This one should probably really have a random out-of-the-players' hands feel to it. Neil Smith recommended a random events table in his "Skirmish Envelope" article in WI 259 and I think this may be the right way to bring in air attacks into a skirmish game. The scenario designer/referee can certainly tweak the probabilities of having air support arrive as well as WHOSE air support arrives. Of course, there's such vagaries as misidentifying aircraft and troops on the ground by both parties, so there's a chance to throw in some friendly fire into the mix.

Frankly, I think all of the above concerns are big IFs and I suppose the designer can make them as simple, complicated, or random as desired. The most devious thing I could think would be to have a plane show up - doesn't matter whose side it is on - and make a random check (you might could weight the probability for one side or the other) for what section, gun team, or vehicle takes a pounding with bombs or rockets - and it might be worth clarifying a priority target list here as well. Simply use mortar or artillery templates for effects.

Offhand, I would recommend that a strafing attack simply require a tape measure, yard stick, or wooden dowel to be placed at the selected attack point and set across the table as desired. The kill zone could probably measure 2 or 3 inches on either side (giving a 4 - 6 inch swath of destruction), with a knockdown or pin zone of equal distance beyond. I guess 3 feet would be about the extent of the strafing run, but 2 feet might work as well; I think 12" seems a bit short, but I suppose it would be worth researching minimum strafing fields of fire before coming down against it.

Now I suppose if you decide on using the random ground attack method mentioned previously the referee could use scatter dice to determine the axis of the strafing run. This could certainly result in attacks on both sides.
To represent a strafing attack, I suppose you could use a scale model of a suitable aircraft. If we assume that 1 inch represents about 5 feet, then it's probably not too crazy to have the model suspended over the tabletop by 18" or 24" (90 or 120 feet altitude) - which seems close to treetop level. You could also put them in at an angle. I would say that attack/descent altitude be handled abstractly by ground fire - ie. the plane isn't actually 18" above them. Offhand, I'd say any AA weapons should treat strafing aircraft as medium or long range shots (and assuming they aren't surprised and can react).

Alternately, I think it might be kind of cool to make a silhouette out of card of foamcore and place it directly on the table. I think this even more appropriate if you are handling a bombing action. I'm taking a nod from the Combat Mission computer game here - whenever aircraft show up, you just see passing shadows - and there's always a chance of friendly fire.



All right, that's it for today. Next time around we'll take a look at some historical data on Luftwaffe air-to-ground attacks and see how that can play a role in scenario design.

Coming Up: Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

OK, I know I said I would post next on artillery fire in WW II skirmish gaming, but I stumbled across some great data on German Air-to-Ground tactics compiled by the US Army (can't remember the source right now, although I think it was an armored division in the 3rd Army) and it has made me think of some tabletop gaming and modeling ideas that I have never considered before. I had some mechanic ideas already in mind, but these may give some scenario-building considerations and a nod towards aesthetics.

Out of the Blue - more on mortars in skirmish gaming

WI 259

This post is part of a series regarding combined arms in skirmish level games (primarily World War II and taking inspiration from Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope" article in Wargames Illustrated 259). This one in particular picks up from a guest post made by Neil Smith. You can follow the whole thing from his post or simply roll back a couple weeks.

I think Neil brings an important fact to light regarding mortar attacks - or more specifically, opening a combat encounter with a mortar attack. The falling rounds give little or no warning, giving them the advantage of ambush - ie. taking the targets by surprise. I'd also have to agree with Neil's suggestion that falling mortar rounds in the midst of an already-hot combat kind of loses some of its impact since the targets are already taking some sort of evasive action if possible.

I think this probably should translate into an increased chance to pin, suppress, or kill with the opening salvo (which might only be one round). Going beyond mortars here, I think the ambush concept of applying bonuses to initial attack rolls for any kind of fire ought to apply - and this thought is probably not a stranger to most rules systems.

Another point Neil mentioned is that for game purposes one side shouldn't be allowed to simply pound the other with mortar rounds right after another - ie. the targets should get a chance to act. I agree with this certainly. In an I-Go-You-Go game this can be done by simply requiring a check for suppressed figures to take some action (maybe at some reduced mobility). I kind of like how Arty Conliffe's Crossfire handles one-sided pounding - if the attacker can't achieve significant results (ie. suppression or kills), then the targets get a chance to do something besides take a shellacking.

Finally, I think skirmish games do benefit from interrupting actions - things that come under such names as opportunity fire or overwatch - and I believe mortars ought to get those kind of options. I think this mode of fire typically applies only to direct fire, but I can really see it working for a local mortar team, self-spotting or with a spotter.

Out of the Blue – mortar attacks on infantry (Neil Smith guest blog)

[This guest post by WI regular contributor Neil Smith is in response to some recent posts on combined arms in skirmish wargaming: here and here.]

WI 259

As Paul was kind enough to mention my Skirmish Envelope article in WI259, I thought I would respond with some thoughts of my own and jump into what I think is a fascinating thread, how to replicate skirmish combat in miniature. For the most part I agree with Paul’s assessment and as always I bow to his superior knowledge on rules and rules mechanisms, what I want to do though is get into the weeds on how to frame a mortar attack. So, without further ado...

I’ve never been under mortar fire, nor would I want to be. My reading of such an event tells me that to do so would be worse in some ways than coming under long-range artillery fire for a couple of reasons. First, a mortar attack comes with no warning, unless the target is close enough to hear the tell-tale “puff” of the round being expelled from the mortar tube. Otherwise, the first the target knows about a mortar attack is the detonation. The second reason is the sensation of being specifically targeted: the enemy firing the mortars must be close to know the location of the target if only approximately. Both of those add an element of terror to coming under mortar fire that doesn’t exist with the equally terrifying but more random lightning-strike quality of artillery fire. At least that is the assumption I operate under when considering how to replicate mortar fire on the table-top.

Mortar fire, depending on circumstances, creates two levels of reaction, voluntary and involuntary – the dominant circumstance is whether or not the mortar fire begins an attack, or is part of a broader enemy response to the presence of hostile troops. Assume it is the former event; your infantry are moving forward into enemy territory and a mortar round lands, what do they do? I suspect the normal reaction, around which most rules should be written, is to instinctively duck or seek some sort of safety. Hearing the round land would be enough to prompt that reaction; therefore, in the scale of a skirmish game, I suggest that every soldier on the receiving end takes some sort of instant evasive action and should be moved or repositioned accordingly, say within 50mm of their current position if cover is that close.

The conscious reaction follows on from the initial movement – will your soldier under mortar fire take an action or stay put? If the mortar round detonates within sight or is close enough for the soldier to reason that another round is on the way and has a good chance of landing close by, then the odds of staying put are quite high. I think it is quite reasonable, therefore, to demand that a figure within a 125mm radius of the detonation, or any figure with line of sight to the detonation to a distance of 250mm, requires a 6 on a d6 to take any action for the rest of that turn – figures in front of the detonation would probably be less consumed by fear, I think, so only those closer than 125mm would be affected beyond their instinctive reaction.

I would ignore the psychological reaction to mortar fire if the target infantry comes under fire as part of a larger assault on the grounds they probably already have bigger problems to deal with from direct fire.

As for the physical effect of a mortar round detonation, I think there is no way past using a template or a quick spin of the tape-measure from the point of explosion. For the sake of argument, I assume the round lands where the firer intends, although that does not necessarily result in any casualties within the blast radius. I would also halve the effects of mortars both psychological and physical in built-up areas or jungles/forests.

I think also because skirmish games are generally one-to-one for figure scale, the mortar should be on table and each model fires only one round/turn like any other single shot weapon. Mortar ammunition should also be severely restricted, maybe three rounds/scenario/mortar. Finally, in keeping with my Skirmish Envelope idea, once a mortar (or mortars in the case of more than one being present and allowed to fire in salvo) is fired, the initiative immediately transfers to the receiving side. Those measures would hopefully prevent the rules lawyers for laying down continuous mortar fire and operating unopposed for the rest of the turn.

Thank you Paul for letting me squeeze into the driving seat for a while. I’m already looking forward to your thoughts on the big guns.

WW II Skirmish Gaming: Mortars

WI 259

In my last post I mentioned talking about my thoughts on bringing in the heavy guns (indirect/off-board artillery fire, naval gunnery, and air support), but it occurs to me that before I tackle that I should say a few things about the kind of localized firepower that might not seem quite as random or overwhelming to a platoon or so of infantry - at least if they are somewhat aware that their commander can access the firepower of an integral or attached heavy weapons platoon.

Battleground World War II offered templates for explosion bursts for grenades, small mortars, and larger weapons. Furthermore, it gave guidelines for calling in assorted patterns of fire - ie. how to lay down multiple rounds. These seemed pretty good ideas for how to handle grenades and mortar fire (on table or off). Now compare that to the blanket area templates used in Flames of War - which, by the way, seems quite appropriate for a game that represents multiple figures (sections, teams) on each base. Now, at some point I think a skirmish game crosses the line from individual rounds to the blanket effect, depending on the amount of firepower that ranges in. When is a good time to try for something that may be a bit more abstract that may still provide the same net effect as plotting numerous incoming HE rounds (and maybe save some time)?

For me, I think if I'm playing a game with multiple tubes - and especially if they are off-table - then I'd go with marking a center point on the table and doing a simple radius - something between 6" and 12". It's easy enough to mark the incoming rounds' total area of effect with dice, and then simply make attacks or suppression checks as desired. But what about the guys that might not have been hit by an individual round? Well, I don't think soldiers necessarily have to be within a spray of shrapnel to be effected by the very real danger surrounding them. Also, that's why I think pin/suppression should be a more likely result than outright wounds or death - and that's another point in favor in Arty Conliffe's Crossfire where destroying a unit (a stand equaled a squad) happens with a mix of shock and degrading fire; wiping out a stand on the first try might happen, but it is not likely without overwhelming force.

Now all that said, I'm still in favor of small burst radii from a limited number of on-table mortars. Even the best team won't lay down the area saturation provided by three or more tubes. There is a more immediate feel to close indirect support - and least on the tabletop where the players can all see the figures firing and moving.

Next time, we'll take a look at artillery effects and game mechanisms. I'll say this offhand - I don't think they should be limited to seeming like a really, really, big mortar attack.

[At right - the cover to Wargames Illustrated 259, which featured Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope," which inspired some thinking on recent topic of combined arms]

Coming Up: World War II Skirmish Gaming With Combined Arms

WI 259

I'm working on a post or two regarding ideas on how to integrate combined arms into skirmish-level World War II gaming (ie. where opposing sides have no more than a platoon or so to put on the table). I'm not talking armor or company level heavy support, I'm talking high level assets and other branches of service (air, naval).

In the meantime, I would like to draw your attention to Neil Smith's "The Skirmish Envelope" from Wargames Illustrated 259.Neil brings some sample mechanics and scenario to the piece (British and German squads near a farmhouse, if I recall). What's more, he brings a philosophy of how randomness, isolation, and a break down of command & control can be used to tweak anyone's favorite rules. I'm drawing a lot of inspiration from the article and some historical accounts of how heavy firepower (even - especially - friendly fire) really made things difficult for the men on the ground.

Essentially, I think it all comes down to controlling what does not seem controllable from the grounds eye view - and how best to adopt such a feeling for players who are supposed to be limited to making decisions than only a platoon or section leader could make.

More later...

FOW Project: Just Add Tufts

I have added Army Painter winter tufts to my US heavy weapons teams, and I like how they turned out. I tried out the model railroad straw stuff about 20 years ago and only managed to get a lot of straw glued to my hands. For $6, I think I got a good value for 20+ tufts that only require me to use a set of tweezers and some glue.

While I was able to get the tufts through my local gaming store, you can take a loot at them on the Warlord Games' Army Painter Battlefield Basing page here. There are winter, swamp, jungle, and Highland tufts available. 

I'll probably work in some swamp or Highland tufts in some of my other FOW models. Frankly, mixing tuft shades ought to be a good idea, just like mixing turf and flock shades - I see plenty of pastures and open fields that are not uniform in color or height, with patches of new, old, and dried grass/weeds all about.

FOW Project: Our Frank

I've done a few US commanders for my heavy weapons platoons, plus a few more leaders to spread around as needed. While I think it is standard to place three figures on a command stand of any given level (platoon, company, etc.) in Flames of War, I prefer to place two figures on platoon command stands so I can better identify them when I'm trying to figure out out where my company commander and second-in-command stands are.

I got to do some fun stuff with the figs from the Battlefront US Company HQ pack I picked up years ago. The rifleman and carbine-wielding officer appear to be having a frank discussion over the CO's next big plan. There's some NCOs and officers in the pack who are definitely urging the men forward, but I like the laconic posturing of these guys quite a bit.