bits and ends - and also a proposal for cannon

[former user]

Hi
I recently encountered some possible inconsistencies and omissions, which I would like to list here and also offer possible solutions (if clarification necessary). I don't know if these have already been adressed, but I am too lazy to search for them all 

here goes:
1- no damage rules are given for buildings or units in buildings. If such rules could appear necessary, I would suggest a simple building damage table for all buildings and a number of Damage points to differentiate between them. These would remain consistent with rules for passengers in vehicles.
2- while not explicitly stated, rules for taking out casualties in ranged combat and the fact that only a sniper can single out targets imply that characters/special weapons can not be singled out. Template weapons however would allow to hunt for such targets, since all models under the template are hit. A possible solution would be to allow the target player to substitute a casualty not under the template or allow a scorecheck to jump for cover.
3- it seems also implied that vehicle mounted weapons do not receive a penalty for firing on the move, since passengers do?
4- the thumbrule for points reduction for vehicle mounted weapons seems to be 20 - 30% ?
5- the points for a Minerva AC would be 100 ?
6- the 37mm AT gun of Peugeot and Renault AC is played as a big game rifle, with the -1 damage roll applying to armour too. The bonus should read +1, since the bad results for vehicles go upwards, not downwards as for infantry. The range of 30'' (as for the big game gun) seems a bit short for a high velocity AT gun, this should be unlimited and with no range modifier (a miss does not deviate). I could not find rules for field mounted 37mm AT guns (like the 37mm PAK in the spanish foreign legion), this should work the same as for the AC mounted one, for 40 points.
7- the difference between a light field gun (Renault FT-17) and a medium field gun is no difference at all, if the light field gun fires like a mortar but directly. Both mortar and field guns use the same template. The points for the vehicle mounted version seems to be 35, thus making the field mount version 50. Compared with the points cost of a medium FG, the light FG should use the smaller hand grenade template.
8- a distinction is made between the passanger capacity of carts and wagons, 5 and 10 respectively.
Since the Minerva AC built on a touring car chassis can hold 3 passengers and the Schneider CdA 5, unarmoured motorized vehicles should also transport 5 (car) and 10 (truck), armoured ones according to size 3 and 6 (if designed for passengers).
9- the crew of Peugeot and Renault AC would be 4-5 men.

[Driscoles]

WHAT ? So many bugs...

I will check this former user and come to this topic later. Thank you very much for your post.

Cheers
Björn

[former user]

WHAT ? So many bugs...

noone said anything about bugs 
minor inconsistencies - but since I am working with the rules, I have to check them out in order to not work in possible mistakes and multiply them, that's all

my suggestions also contain rule expansions, so I wanted to put them to trial here

[Westfalia Chris]

Hi
I recently encountered some possible inconsistencies and omissions, which I would like to list here and also offer possible solutions (if clarification necessary). I don't know if these have already been adressed, but I am too lazy to search for them all 

Well, thank you very much for this very professional approach.

here goes:
1- no damage rules are given for buildings or units in buildings. If such rules could appear necessary, I would suggest a simple building damage table for all buildings and a number of Damage points to differentiate between them. These would remain consistent with rules for passengers in vehicles.

If you wish to do so, you may write up rules for blasting structures. We wanted to keep it deliberately simple and treat buildings as part of the general scenery, whereas if a "destructible" feature was required, we put up individual rules for it, as suggested by the general T&T approach philosophy.

2- while not explicitly stated, rules for taking out casualties in ranged combat and the fact that only a sniper can single out targets imply that characters/special weapons can not be singled out. Template weapons however would allow to hunt for such targets, since all models under the template are hit. A possible solution would be to allow the target player to substitute a casualty not under the template or allow a scorecheck to jump for cover.

40k player detection sense tingling! Of course, you could do so. We do feel though that having to hit, possibly scatter, and then having a better save for characters evens it out; and, frankly speaking, I absolutely hate the "cherrypicking" approach of the 40k model. If the artillery hits, and your hero happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, tough luck. Apart from that, a T&T army as intended by the rules and scope of the game would only include two template weapons at the most, maybe some hand grenades thrown in (pun intended).

3- it seems also implied that vehicle mounted weapons do not receive a penalty for firing on the move, since passengers do?

There is no reason to assume that the -2 modifier from the shooting table does not apply to vehicles as well. We just wanted to point out that infantry units transported in vehicles also suffer from it, since *some people* might argue that the passengers didn´t actually move themselves, but their vehicle did.

4- the thumbrule for points reduction for vehicle mounted weapons seems to be 20 - 30% ?

There is no "rule of thumb" for that. I factored various aspects of the vehicles into the point values, for roughly similar performance and getting the points restrictive, but not prohibitive. We never actually use the point rules (apart from playtesting) and rather use a "flairy" approach which usually worked out find.

5- the points for a Minerva AC would be 100 ?

I actually scheduled it for 85 (open-topped, between armoured and improvised armoured), but I don´t know how the points cost got lost before printing.

6- the 37mm AT gun of Peugeot and Renault AC is played as a big game rifle, with the -1 damage roll applying to armour too. The bonus should read +1, since the bad results for vehicles go upwards, not downwards as for infantry. The range of 30'' (as for the big game gun) seems a bit short for a high velocity AT gun, this should be unlimited and with no range modifier (a miss does not deviate). I could not find rules for field mounted 37mm AT guns (like the 37mm PAK in the spanish foreign legion), this should work the same as for the AC mounted one, for 40 points.

The 37 of the Peugeot and Renault is NOT an AT gun (and certainly no Pak36!!!), but rather a WW1 "trench gun" mounted to the vehicles. It was originally used as close support for infantry, but was also useful against lightly-armoured vehicles. As for the damage modifier, as the vehicle rules apply, less is worse, ranging from immobilisation downwards to explosions (2ed, p.23, right-hand column, if I´m not mistaken). The range "deficit" is due to limited elevation as used on the car.

7- the difference between a light field gun (Renault FT-17) and a medium field gun is no difference at all, if the light field gun fires like a mortar but directly. Both mortar and field guns use the same template. The points for the vehicle mounted version seems to be 35, thus making the field mount version 50. Compared with the points cost of a medium FG, the light FG should use the smaller hand grenade template.

If you wish to do so, go ahead. I´ve re-read the section and apparently there was an oversight in not differentiating the light field gun more clearly, probably a reference to an earlier draft for mortars which did not carry over fully.

8- a distinction is made between the passanger capacity of carts and wagons, 5 and 10 respectively.
Since the Minerva AC built on a touring car chassis can hold 3 passengers and the Schneider CdA 5, unarmoured motorized vehicles should also transport 5 (car) and 10 (truck), armoured ones according to size 3 and 6 (if designed for passengers).

The armored vehicle crew sizes are based on historic precedent, whereas civilian vehicles have a more "generic approach"

9- the crew of Peugeot and Renault AC would be 4-5 men.

Apparently slipped out, as with the Minerva points cost.

[former user]

"Well, thank you very much for this very professional approach."
I think searching for 10+ topics would have cost me too much time, sorry

"we put up individual rules for it"
fine for the skilled rule designer, maybe difficult for the unexperienced one

"would only include two template weapons"
maybe not in multiplayer games.
40K or not, it was a question about rule consistency - but I am just as content with this approach

"might argue that the passengers didn´t actually move themselves"
ah, wrong thought from me - we played this different yesterday and assumed vehicle fixed weapons wound not receive the penalty - however, does this make sense? Yes, I hear the answer, as opposed  to not firing at all for field mounted heavy weapons on the move, but I guess this would not be the intention of mounting guns to vehicles? (yes, I know, the Garford putilov gun fires only stationary, but this vehicle is rather on the "improvised side")

"rather use a "flairy" approach which usually worked out fine."
again maybe for the experienced game designer, but if one wants to design own vehicles/equipment in line with Your rules, some "rule of thumb" might be required - so I simply tried to figure it out...

"The 37 of the Peugeot and Renault is NOT an AT gun"
got it, different gun, AC only (more some AT rifle apparently). But how about the 37mm Pak 36?
afer rereading the LoM rules many times I couldn't find neither rules nor points costs...
what now? flairy approach? field gun rules for an AT gun? no matches upon board search neither...

"I actually scheduled it for 85 "
thank You, I shall add it to my improvised army builder at once

"whereas civilian vehicles have a more "generic approach"
exactly what I had in mind in order to play historical vehicles not yet covered by the rules


thank You for the clarifications, hope to hear more

[Westfalia Chris]

"might argue that the passengers didn´t actually move themselves"
ah, wrong thought from me - we played this different yesterday and assumed vehicle fixed weapons wound not receive the penalty - however, does this make sense? Yes, I hear the answer, as opposed  to not firing at all for field mounted heavy weapons on the move, but I guess this would not be the intention of mounting guns to vehicles? (yes, I know, the Garford putilov gun fires only stationary, but this vehicle is rather on the "improvised side")

I see your point. Depending on the type of vehicle, we usually allow "open-mounted" weapons (i.e. not in an enclosed turret) to reduce the penalty to -1, whereas the enclosed ones are still restricted due to the smaller vision field. Additionally, it does balance out a bit of having a heavy machine gun or light field gun that can fire on the move.

"The 37 of the Peugeot and Renault is NOT an AT gun"
got it, different gun, AC only (more some AT rifle apparently). But how about the 37mm Pak 36?
afer rereading the LoM rules many times I couldn't find neither rules nor points costs...
what now? flairy approach? field gun rules for an AT gun? no matches upon board search neither...

Well, obviously the Pak36 would be a "full" anti-tank gun with the full -3 penalty against any contemporary armour and earlier models.

"I actually scheduled it for 85 "
thank You, I shall add it to my improvised army builder at once

"whereas civilian vehicles have a more "generic approach"
exactly what I had in mind in order to play historical vehicles not yet covered by the rules

I must again stress that we did decidedly NOT use a "mathematical" or "tournament-capable" approach for the T&T rules. The best way to create units/writing rules for T&T is setting up a general line of reasoning with rules points that you consider basically appropriate, play it in a number of games, then modifiy the points cost accordingly, IF YOU USE POINTS VALUES AT ALL.

Generally, though, we prefer to "categorize" vehicles, i.e. all armoured cars with comparably armament would be comparable in performance and therefore cost. The cost levels indicated in the rules come from our playtesting environment and are not, in a statistically relevant way, truely representative of detailed capabilities of the units. If you will, the PVs *are* a "rule of thumb" for assembling forces until you get the "knack" on how units interact, and maybe to give a general level of comparison for differing-quality troops.

[former user]

"whereas the enclosed ones are still restricted due to the smaller vision field"

OK, I understand the approach

"a "full" anti-tank gun with the full -3 penalty"
must have missed that one in the rulebook, thx
so I guess no HE (no template), then?
however, I just found out that the 37mm Puteaux S.A 1918 L/21 gun mounted in the Renault and Peugeot AC as well as in the FT 17 (as well as other tanks) and still used in WWII as AT and tank weapon was in fact more a light field gun.
here my suggestion:
how about having the "light field gun" use either

HE, no range limit, small grenade template, or
AP, 30", -2 penalty, as big game rifle

this would simplify a lot

"play it in a number of games, then modifiy the points cost accordingly"

sure, but one has to start somewhere right? let us say "WH Great War" and T&T cover a range from veeery detailed unwieldy rules to fast and fun. However, T&T is rather new, and You have to bring people used to the other side a bit in motion to accept this "trial and error" principle. This works very well for me, since I've been fiddling with rules for ages, but there are also "other gamers", for whom - "because I say so" doesn't end the discussion always. For these I prefer "it is written on page xx", so that I can go on with the game  . I hope You get my point...

besides, I am trying to make some rules for armoured trains, and I need some guidance to get it right according to T&T, for which the comments of the designers are very useful and gratefully aknowledged

[Driscoles]

Hi,

thanks for answering Chris.

And thanks former user.

We are aware that some rules need a more precise explanation. We are working on it to satisfy the beginner and experienced wargamer.

Cheers
Björn

[former user]

thx Björn, Chris

since we are at cannon anyway, let me suggest something and sum up some things from other threads:

Artillery rules

Minimum range for all : 30 cm/12 ''

Mortars - as per T&T rules

AT rifle - as per T&T rules, -2 modifier against any armour, range 30''

light field gun - artillery range, with
HE ammo, grenade template
AP ammo, -2 bonus against all armour

medium field gun - artillery range, with
HE ammo, medium template
AP ammo, -3 bonus against all armour

both field guns as
AT only - AP ammo only
Howitzer/infantry gun only - HE ammo only

off table artillery - as per T&T rules, HE ammo, large template
if employed on very large tables, minimum range 40'' (always deviates 2 D6)
(it should be clear that this one can only be supporting artillery or a game objective - " Guns of Navarone" etc)
what is the points cost for this one anyway?

comments, suggestions anyone please?

[Driscoles]

Thanks,

I am not happy with the minimum range for guns. We were talking about this in another thread.

I also believe that the AP difference for light and medium guns do not matter on short ( small skirmish table )  ranges against inter war tanks !

But its a useful idea for early ww2 games,

Thank you.
Björn

[former user]

yes, sorry for mixing this up
shall I switch to the other thread?

why are You unhappy with the minimum range?
without getting too technical, but high velocity ammo differs especially on short range, and less at long range  (muzzle velocity,flight stabilization, point blank, etc) - or maybe You mean something different

but maybe it would also get too complicated for the T&T "easy approach", which in my eyes is the main feature of the ruleset to be preserved 

[Driscoles]

nope, you dont have to switch to the other thread.
What I meant was that all suggestions about minimum range didnt make me happy.
I like the mortar minimum range with 12"

[former user]

so what do You have in mind with the minumum range? or what is the exactly that makes You unhappy?

[Westfalia Chris]

Given the size of a usual gaming table, the "ALL TABLE" shooting distance for artillery pretty much means it is all still "short distance" for field pieces. Yes, ground scale and all, but if you want to get into that detail, work it out for yourself and propose it as a house rule in the forum. If it works out fine, I guess a lot of people will give it a try.

Furthermore, we never intended for T&T to be a mass battle game with loads of vehicles, and we didn´t necessarily feel the need to obstruct what is otherwise a rather fluent game with too many special rules - I´m personally not that happy with the various damage tables for vehicles, but it´s a necessary evil for game balance on the level of detail intended. Further differentiation for artillery was not needed, as long as we were concerned, and most players agreed with that approach.

Always keep in mind that the prime focus of the T&T rules is a fun, action- and interaction-driven game that does not get bogged down in minutiae - a "Hollywood approach", if you like, with some role-playing elements thrown in.

More specific notes on your ideas:

Artillery rules

Minimum range for all : 30 cm/12 ''

Personally, I think that´s not needed, since cannon would fire shrapnel or canister at that range (smoothbores, at least).

AT rifle - as per T&T rules, -2 modifier against any armour, range 30''

That´s a bit difficult. -2 against all armour is overpowered. Maybe -2 against contemporary armour, -1 against modern armour, ineffective vs. Late WW2 armour. If you want to go into that detail. I wouldn´t.

light field gun - artillery range, with
HE ammo, grenade template
AP ammo, -2 bonus against all armour

medium field gun - artillery range, with
HE ammo, medium template
AP ammo, -3 bonus against all armour

both field guns as
AT only - AP ammo only
Howitzer/infantry gun only - HE ammo only

Not really the focus of our games - I´d consider AP ammo (as in contrast to shot) for field artillery a WW2 thing. Maybe keep that idea for a WW2 supplement. For earlier periods, I don´t really see the need to differentiate between shot and shell, since both would have a certain area of effect (shot by sonic boom and debris/splinters where it hits the ground/structures, shell due to the explosive charge).

off table artillery - as per T&T rules, HE ammo, large template
if employed on very large tables, minimum range 40'' (always deviates 2 D6)
(it should be clear that this one can only be supporting artillery or a game objective - " Guns of Navarone" etc)

Oh dear, now that´s waaaay up from what we had intended. Off-table artillery in the T&T scale would be from calibre 100mm upwards (La Bange, etc.), to a maximum of 20 (heavy howitzers), maybe 30cm (railway guns), and that would be stationed well back from the battlefield so the "minimum range" is already covered by the traveling distance to the playing area. You could, of course, have a multi-table scenario, with supporting artillery on a separate table being attacked by an enemy raiding force; guards try to keep them at distance while the guns try to continue the barrage or limber up, leading to the main battle on the other table not receiving artillery support anymore.

Furthermore, such developed artillery support would be pretty much restricted to the field armies in WW1; for most BoB scenarios, you would probably be happy to have small and medium-calibre field pieces, at all.

what is the points cost for this one anyway?

No points cost for those since this should strictly be a scenario-based item, i.e. decided upon by an umpire and probably balanced by some advantage for the opposition. Also, you could use it to represent large-ish booby traps as seen, for example, in the movie "Khartoum".

[former user]

well, of course
that's what I meant above too

the problem with wargame rules is always the balance between detail and game performance

as such, T&T has achieved this balance best (in my eyes), so far

When I started to think about railway wargaming, exactly that was the reason to choose T&T adaptability, for it is quite easy to work out a very elaborate and detailed simulation  (as we know from past rulesets), that gets unplayable.
So the special challenge here is to dress down detail for T&T (for me).
Of course when I make suggestions in this T&T discussion related board, these only refer to my approach and can thus be viewed as "house rules".
However, I would like to hear what others think (especially the game designers). Whether You or Björn share my approach is entirely up to you, but I surely appreciate the T&T approach of discussing ideas in a forum (as opposed to other ruleset inventors) and I want to profit from it.

The special challenge when deploying any kind of armoured train is that it tends to dominate the game, unless countered by another armoured train, which then expands the game size. This is the reason why at the moment, I focus much on countering the armoured trains, thus thinking very hard about artillery.

In some 3 weeks, we will have the first game to feature an armoured train, and since I am doing the scenario, I want to be prepared. Artillery and ammo shortage is so far my approach, experience will show the results. Allowing only parts of the equipment on a model to be used is not my cup of tea.

I understand that T&T initially might not have been designed with such a dimension in mind, but things are evolving, and besides, what would be the point of playing RCW without armoured trains or gaming them as pumped up tanks or AC?

I hope that my intentions are now more understandable, and I again would like to point out that I appreciate any comment on my thoughts