All weapons should be area of effect?

[Two Inches of Felt]

I was just thinking about how WW2 combat actually played out and it seems to me like all anti personnel weapons (except maybe scoped rifle) should be considered area of effect at normal engagement ranges.

If a rifleman is firing at the general vicinity of an enemy section, his likelihood of hitting scales directly with the quantity of targets.

Is it weird that we don't usually consider the number of targets when resolving small arms fire? Is it just too difficult mechanically?

[ced1106]

Good point.

I know in role-playing games and boardgames there's often an "aimed shot" mechanic, where you trade off an action for improved chance to hit *a* target, but it's based off firing at a single target.

Tide of Iron has pinning attacks vs. killing attacks.

So, in *all* games, there should be a "firing into a horde" mechanic!

[Harry Faversham]

Our name for it is...
'Aim where they're thickest!'

 

[jon_1066]

I was just thinking about how WW2 combat actually played out and it seems to me like all anti personnel weapons (except maybe scoped rifle) should be considered area of effect at normal engagement ranges.

If a rifleman is firing at the general vicinity of an enemy section, his likelihood of hitting scales directly with the quantity of targets.

Is it weird that we don't usually consider the number of targets when resolving small arms fire? Is it just too difficult mechanically?

This is one of my pet peeves with Chain of Command.  It is better to have large teams (as they can absorb more shock) than small ones.  In reality bunching up a load of men together just meant more targets.

Edit.  Thinking some more.  I would differentiate aimed rifle fire from a bolt action rifle and area effect weapons that are firing on auto (or HE).

For Chain of Command I might experiment with the following:
Aimed rifle fire retains usual fire power. = dice rolled
Automatic and HE fire calculates dice rolled as follows: Multiply the fire power by the number of targets divided by 6 (round up fractions).

Targets are the number of men that are in the target team plus any teams (and leaders) within 4" that would be eligible to share hits.

Eg an MG42 team fires at a British section of 10 men rolls 8*10/6 = 14 dice. 
The same MG42 firing at just the Bren team rolls 8*3/6 = 4 dice.

A mortar firing at a FOO would roll 3*1/6 = 1 dice
The same mortar firing at a german section of 10 men would roll 3*10/6 = 5 dice.

[SJWi]

An interesting post. From what I read about infantry combat in WW2 plus read and see in newsclips about post WW2 combat not many troops actually aim and fire. Despite all armies having lots of infantry the big killers in WW1 conflicts since have been mortars and artillery, with snipers inducing paranoia! I'm sure I have a book with the statistics somewhere.  In PSC's Battlegroup NORTHAG they have moved away from infantry teams "killing" units with direct fire, although units can be removed through multiple suppressions .This reflects the fact that figure/unit removal doesn't just reflect "kills" but units being rendered "combat ineffective" for a whole variety of reasons. I'm hoping they will introduce this concept into their next foray into WW2 which I think will be called "Battlegroup Commander".     

[Daeothar]

A large unit simply creates a 'target-rich environment' for any unit firing at it

I feel that lots of fantasy/scifi games get this right with their (flamer) template weapons. Although usually, this means a very short range as well.

Infinity has a type of weapon called a Spitfire, which is basically an SMG-type gun that uses a teardrop template instead of a to-hit roll to determine hits, as it's more of a spray-and-pray weapon.

I find that this represents this type of weapon in an acceptable way, bar the severe range deficit. But I can also see that very long/large templates are incredibly impractical on the tabletop (especially with loads of terrain involved).

Another mechanism that could work in this respect is the multiple wound weapon. A gun fires and hits, but causes several wounds. So these carry over to models near to the one that was fired at, up to a certain range.

If you apply this weapon as if it were the firepower of an entire unit, instead of each gun firing on its own. This would not only greatly increase playing speed, but also kind of resolve the posed issue.

I do believe there are several systems out there that already do this though, or have members of the same unit 'assisting' the firing model, increasing their to-hit or to-wound rolls.

An interesting subject, this

[Two Inches of Felt]

An interesting post. From what I read about infantry combat in WW2 plus read and see in newsclips about post WW2 combat not many troops actually aim and fire. Despite all armies having lots of infantry the big killers in WW1 conflicts since have been mortars and artillery, with snipers inducing paranoia! I'm sure I have a book with the statistics somewhere.  In PSC's Battlegroup NORTHAG they have moved away from infantry teams "killing" units with direct fire, although units can be removed through multiple suppressions .This reflects the fact that figure/unit removal doesn't just reflect "kills" but units being rendered "combat ineffective" for a whole variety of reasons. I'm hoping they will introduce this concept into their next foray into WW2 which I think will be called "Battlegroup Commander".     

My problem with multiple suppression causing a "kill" is that it encourages gamey behavior like directing all of your units to fire at one specific target to get a kill.  Which feels lame and also doesn't make sense. Like if two rifle companies meet and the captain orders the whole company to fire at one specific section to eliminate it rather than the whole enemy position. 

[Dragonstriker]

Infinity has a type of weapon called a Spitfire, which is basically an SMG-type gun that uses a teardrop template instead of a to-hit roll to determine hits, as it's more of a spray-and-pray weapon.

Actually, it’s the Chain Rifle and Chain Colt that do this.
Spitfire is SAW equivalent, Red Fury is AR equivalent and HMG is a complete misnomer because it is an LMG used in the point fire role offhand.

[SJWi]

To clarify my point about NORTHAG, which I will confess I haven't played for several months. I was more making the point that PSC have moved away from the "killing infantry" via direct fire and figure removal of Battlegroup to rendering infantry "suppressed" via infantry fire. I think they did this as the rules are aimed at 10mm so not many people have individually based 10mm figures, but also to speed up gameplay. I like Battlegroup but the infantry combat component was the slowest part of the game.     

[carlos marighela]

It really all depends on the scale and level of granularity you are modelling.  The larger the model the less individual casualties matter.

A few observations.

If a rifleman is firing at the general vicinity of an enemy section, his likelihood of hitting scales directly with the quantity of targets.

Well no, not really. If a rifleman is producing some sort of aimed fire, he mathematically has no more or less chance than 3, 4 or 8 riflemen aiming at 3, 4 or 8 targets, variables in aptitude of the firer and circumstances/posture/covera and concealment of the target aside. Unless you are imagining a rugby scrum marching up the high street or across a bowling green then the very fact that there are more targets, doesn't really increase the mathematical chances of hitting them. There are more pertinent factors involved.

It's worth noting that many studies and accounts dating back to at least the Great War refer to the 'loneliness' of the modern battlefield, ie; the tendency for troops to be dispersed and making use of cover. Really target rich environments are relatively rare outside of ambushes.

Generally speaking aimed fire is drilled into the soldiers of professional armies. The aim is either to hit or otherwise disable the opposition by bringing them under effective fire*. That's part of the kill bit in 'close with and kill the enemy'.

Of course effective fire may also mean dissauding the other bloke from firing back. The crack-thump or the face full of dirt forcing him to have second thoughts about responding. To a certain extent suppression and actual hits are subsets of each other. Suppression may lead to others having the means to kill the enemy or force their surrender or withdrawal. The suppression of an individual may be as the result of a variety of factors. They may or may not be hit. They may be worried about the prospects of being hit or they might be factoring in the effects of seeing some other bugger get hit.

It all depends upon the fire being effective in the first place. Soldiers are taught (and if they aren't they soon learn to distinguish) when they are under effective fire or it's just some twat firing off random rounds into the blue. Even back in WW2 infantry underwent battle inoculation training.

"From what I read about infantry combat in WW2 plus read and see in newsclips about post WW2 combat not many troops actually aim and fire."

A conclusion reached by many that's based pretty much one one, rather unscientific, study: SLA Marshall's Men Against Fire. I'd take that with a very large grain of salt as the conclusions reached are contentious. As other studies have shown, even if Marshall was right about only 25% of US infantry producing aimed fire, it's been largely obliterated by post war training regimes.

"My problem with multiple suppression causing a "kill" is that it encourages gamey behavior like directing all of your units to fire at one specific target to get a kill.  Which feels lame and also doesn't make sense. Like if two rifle companies meet and the captain orders the whole company to fire at one specific section to eliminate it rather than the whole enemy position."

These are commonly called fire orders, typically issued by corporals. While the example you cite is an extreme, particular elements, often the ones visible or the ones creating the most bother do get targeted. It's called winning the firefight, an essential prerequisite to advancing (the close with bit). There's also the natural tendency for soldiers to aim at stuff they can actually see. While defensive fire orders will nominate sectors and range cards get drawn up for that very purpose, it would be rather unusual to number off the members of their section saying, 'you Jones will fire at the third bloke from the left, Smith you aim for the chap second from the right etc'.

So all of this can be modelled in different ways. You could argue that casualties are the result of suppression (effective aimed fire) or that suppression is, in part, the product of effective aimed fire.

The general gaming model at a skirmish level has been to assign hits and then work out suppression. That works for me so long as we make the assumption that the hits are actually the effects of effective aimed fire. Because everything is dependent on the fire being effective, it's sensible to ascertain whether or not it is in the first place. Games like CoC do it by assigning actual hits
(individual casualties) and then factoring in suppression as a result. I'm good with that.

At a higher level, with individual stands representing platoons such as Command Decision and its ilk, the determinative factor is making the opposing unit combat ineffective. Individual results are not modelled, only the ability of a unit to act/react. Good with that model too, entirely appropriate at that scale.

Where there is a need to model the primarily suppressive nature of a weapon system is with weapons capable of either producing a volume of fire and a beaten zone, such as an SFMG or an area effect such as a mortar. Relatively few games model the former, most do something with the latter.

Think of your 'to hit' dice as representing effective fire and you are good from there on in.