Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
|
2017/04/22 12:52:46
Subject: Re:Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
Peregrine wrote:
They didn't ride horses against tanks, that's a myth. The actual battle involved a cavalry charge against infantry (which the Polish cavalry won, before being driven off by reinforcements), the tanks only arrived later to pose for propaganda photographs. Against tanks their strategy was to use the horses for mobility to get into position to deploy conventional anti-tank weapons just like any other infantry unit attacking tanks. At no point did anyone actually charge a tank with a sword.
Correct. I watched a short documentary on it, the story is narrated by a Polish general. As I understand it, their cavalry force unwittingly ran into and armoured company or division on the way back from trashing that German recon force. Caught between the rallied recon force and the tanks, they had no choice but to attempt to break through them, and susequently suffered heavy casualties. Whatever the particulars, what is clear is that they never intentionally assaulted enemy armour. It pi**es the Polish off to no end that the distorted version of this story is so widely accepted.
|
I let the dogs out |
|
|
|
2017/04/24 12:30:46
Subject: Re:Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
thegreatchimp wrote: Peregrine wrote:
They didn't ride horses against tanks, that's a myth. The actual battle involved a cavalry charge against infantry (which the Polish cavalry won, before being driven off by reinforcements), the tanks only arrived later to pose for propaganda photographs. Against tanks their strategy was to use the horses for mobility to get into position to deploy conventional anti-tank weapons just like any other infantry unit attacking tanks. At no point did anyone actually charge a tank with a sword.
Correct. I watched a short documentary on it, the story is narrated by a Polish general. As I understand it, their cavalry force unwittingly ran into and armoured company or division on the way back from trashing that German recon force. Caught between the rallied recon force and the tanks, they had no choice but to attempt to break through them, and susequently suffered heavy casualties. Whatever the particulars, what is clear is that they never intentionally assaulted enemy armour. It pi**es the Polish off to no end that the distorted version of this story is so widely accepted.
It's also worth noting that horses were still widely used by the Germans at the time for hauling and logistics. So it's also not some huge clash of technology, either. As pointed out, it's just a light, fast skirmish unit blocked in by armor, so the results were hardly unpredictable, but they had to try. It does go to show how effective German propaganda was, though.
|
-James
|
|
|
|
2017/04/28 15:46:33
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
It is funny that in Warhammer40K: Rogue Trader the game explicitly allowed you to take bows and arrows vs. lasguns. Yet somehow you would think this idea was impossible!
The way the game managed it was witha use of a GM to set the scenario. This allowed control over factions, conditions, etc. so a level game could be produced.
Mechanically a bow worked the same as a lasgun, but with a different profile to boost/degrade its lethality.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 15:46:48
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
|
|
2017/04/28 17:06:05
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Back to the OP, if I may...
It depends a little bit on how granular you want your system to be. Most miniatures games actually abandon a large degree of granularity around shooting. Even Infinity, one of the most granular skirmish games on the market, has just three sorts of shooting: normal, reaction and enhanced reaction (the last comes in several flavours but these don't need to concern us right now). You can't make your shooting any better by aiming, being prone, being supported or any of those thing that, IRL, make shooting much more accurate.
And I've never heard anyone complain about that.
Typically, in a skirmish miniatures game, you want your minis to be acting at peak potential all the time, every time.
However, if you want to head towards the territory occupied by RPGs and pseduoRPGs like Inquisitor, I would say you have the following:
1. Carefully aimed shots - taken from a good distance, with cover, camouflage and good support.
2. Normal shooting - aimed, but not carefully; it may benefit from support but not so much that you get to take your time over it. This includes firing singly or in bursts. Ammunition is a scarce resource. Use it wisely.
3. Panic shooting - snapped-off, from-the-hip, "s***, that scared me" shooting.
4. Spray and pray - this is a thing, despite what's said above, but is reserved for shooting at unseen or suspected enemy in close environments at close quarters, like through a door or into a trench. Typically accompanied by grenades. Probably best rolled in with CQB rules rather than shooting.
I hope that's helpful.
R.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/04/29 14:39:43
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Devastating Dark Reaper
|
precinctomega wrote:Back to the OP, if I may...
However, if you want to head towards the territory occupied by RPGs and pseduoRPGs like Inquisitor, I would say you have the following:
1. Carefully aimed shots - taken from a good distance, with cover, camouflage and good support.
2. Normal shooting - aimed, but not carefully; it may benefit from support but not so much that you get to take your time over it. This includes firing singly or in bursts. Ammunition is a scarce resource. Use it wisely.
3. Panic shooting - snapped-off, from-the-hip, "s***, that scared me" shooting.
4. Spray and pray - this is a thing, despite what's said above, but is reserved for shooting at unseen or suspected enemy in close environments at close quarters, like through a door or into a trench. Typically accompanied by grenades. Probably best rolled in with CQB rules rather than shooting.
I hope that's helpful.
R.
This is almost precisely what I came up with. Points 1 and 2 are spot on. I called #3 "Suppression" and pretty much rolled your 3 and 4 (minus the grenades) together. It will be easier to action, lessened damage and have a morale factor added to it.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/04/29 14:49:10
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
Suppression tends to not be 'panic shooting'. It is pretty deliberate firing into an area.
|
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
|
|
2017/04/29 18:27:31
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
In modern combat, "suppression fire" is what I described as normal shooting, except it follows the period known as "winning the fire-fight", during which the side with the higher volume and accuracy of fire takes the initiative from the losing side, who are forced to keep their heads down. After that, suppressive fire consists of a lower-rate of occasional fire intended to remind the pinned enemy that you haven't gone away and that, if they move, you will kill them.
But wargames design often owes rather more to movie-style combat than it does to the real world. That's not a criticism, btw: it's about delivering a game that people want to play and actual combat is surprisingly boring.
|
|
|
|
|
2017/05/01 13:00:24
Subject: Game combat style/type theory.
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
precinctomega wrote:In modern combat, "suppression fire" is what I described as normal shooting, except it follows the period known as "winning the fire-fight", during which the side with the higher volume and accuracy of fire takes the initiative from the losing side, who are forced to keep their heads down. After that, suppressive fire consists of a lower-rate of occasional fire intended to remind the pinned enemy that you haven't gone away and that, if they move, you will kill them.
But wargames design often owes rather more to movie-style combat than it does to the real world. That's not a criticism, btw: it's about delivering a game that people want to play and actual combat is surprisingly boring.
An excellent point. I think most wargamers want more action movie and less actual combat.
|
-James
|
|
|
|
|