PBI version 87

[Colonel Kilgore]

I thought it might be useful to start a thread to capture our thoughts on the version of the rules we played at the Berlin Day (yesterday).

My PC is currently unable to access this Forum (I think there may be some security changes which means it's blocked by our Internet provider?), so I'll do this in small doses from my phone.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

First up, flamethrowers. We only used the foot version, but I felt that the possibility of either having a big hit, or else pushing back the target - combined with the relative difficulty of getting lined up for the shot - worked well.

And of course, engineer platoons are fragile. Mine got rapidly killed in both games.

No complaints there!

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

MMGs. I don't see the point. They are a pain to set up, then have a limited field of fire (in typical terrain) and aren't a big improvement on (particularly German) LMGs, which are much more nimble.

How about we combine MMGs and the rarer HMGs into a single category of sustained fire MGs?

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Engineers count as a Support Platoon, as clarified by Martin yesterday.

Seems eminently sensible, and worth including explicitly in the rules.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Raw troops' 1 and 6 when shooting in proximity.

John and I found this to be quite (needlessly?) complicated to remember/perform.

Moreover, if the intention is (as I think we discussed) to do away completely with the -1 save for Raw troops in general, they would appear to be very cheap and not any worse than Average in most circumstances. I would vote to keep the -1 on saves and ditch the 1 / 6 paid-for firing penalty.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Foot AT again troops in buildings.

In both games, we (maybe just me?) wanted to use AT against buildings, where they seemed the obvious thing to do to dislodge defenders. But this possibility is currently only in the optional rules, which we weren't using. I would like to suggest that they be moved into the core rules

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Tank HE against foot.

We may have been doing this all wrong, but it seemed as though a single mortar shell is currently more effective against foot than a main gun HE round.

I'm confused!

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Big gun / small gun concept for armoured vehicles.

I found this really helpful in considering when an AFV could fire its LMG. This topic has to date been somewhat confusing for me, so I very much welcome this idea.

Simon

[Moggy]

Foot AT again troops in buildings.

In both games, we (maybe just me?) wanted to use AT against buildings, where they seemed the obvious thing to do to dislodge defenders. But this possibility is currently only in the optional rules, which we weren't using. I would like to suggest that they be moved into the core rules

Simon

Quite agree Simon.  Troops will always have used the best tool they have available to them in any circumstances.  To not allow troops to use RPG type weapons or bazookas against troops in buildings goes against what would have happened.

Maybe allow this by having a shot using gun rules. A single hit to save against but always pinned inside the building. I would also say this should happen when a gun fires a round into troops in a building. I would say the effect on troops inside a building of a HE round coming through the wall would be more than enough to cause an effect beyond a single base has to save on anything but a 1 (possibly this also has to be looked at).  Yep, this echoes Simon's second point. For me gun shooting against foot targets just isn't working. Don't want to sound negative about things but I need to have a feeling that the rules do, to some extent, simulate the reality of how things would have happened.  I feel infantry, based on the current rules is able to just shrug off big gun shooting as little more than an minor annoyance. Maybe have the HE factor is the number of dice to roll hits for on each base as per mortar and asset HE rules.

The other point for me that doesn't work is medium mortars. Now that they can only be targeted along a single row means that you cant use them effectively. By restricting the number of mortar shots targeted on a single square to 2 and that each square has to be observed by either the mortars themselves or their PC means the chances of being able top shoot more than 2, possibly 3, tubes is about the maximum due to the amount of terrain and LOS rules.  This could easily be rectified by allowing a square targeting pattern of up to 2 x 2. 

I would still like the ability top have the second shot be adjusted.  Perhaps this can be done be the owning player choosing to exclude EITHER the 1 or 6.  Its only a minor change but would reflect that the PC is doing his job. Not perfectly but enough to prove he was there. Perhaps the second shot isn't allowed to under/over shoot if it did so the first round. It can still be adjusted TOO far.

Martin has said a big part of this is to end speculative shooting. I agree to an extent. However, a large part of indirect fire is speculative.  As the second shoot is not allowed to be adjusted for fall of the first shot as would have happened. I can see that in future I would not be fielding a 4 mortar base platoon but a 2 or possibly 3 with 2 or 1 MMGs. Yes MMG's are a pain to use but they would be more effective as a bullet sponge with the PC than just sitting idle.

Big guns/Small gun worked for me as well. Makes a lot more sense. 



Derek

[John Watson]

I agree with Simon on the 1/6 rule. It is confusing and easily forgotten. Wargamers are used to needing a number to hit, to save, for morale etc. To be faced with an either/or situation some of the time is not simplifying the rules.
My other concern is regarding raw troops who seemed to die far too easily. Perhaps I employed poor tactics but my fight against Ben's veterans was a slaughter. Ben had about 24 bases of veterans and I had (after replacement platoons) about 70 bases of raw. At the end of the fight Ben had about 5 bases left and I had about 10. The overall result and the battle were very good but I feel it was unrealistic. Do raw die more easily or are they harder to get going and quicker to run away? I think it is the latter.
Re mortars I am with Derek on the spotting. In an age where the technology allowed for spotters I don't see the need for the officer to be adjacent to the mortar bases.
It is clear from talking to others that the Germans are best defending. With their proliferation of LMGs they excel at this.
Also the latest rules make towed guns and machine gun platoons almost redundant.
John

[Moggy]

On the subject of German MGs another issue is raised. The profiligate use of the extra dice,  Yes MG34/42 had a great rate of fire but this came at a cost. They ran out of ammo very quickly if used for sustained fire. As such most firing was, I suspect, more just short bursts where the higher ROF had little extra effect.

Bear in mind that an LMG crew only carried a certain amount of ammo and the only usable ammo was either in magazines or belted. The extra ammo carried by the rest of the platoon for the LMG would not be in the place the LMG is or in magazines. This extra ammo had to be loaded into mags or belts before it could be used and this took time. No speed loaders in the field! In defence, where additional ammo had been caried up to MG nests I can understand. In attack where the LMG team are moving position every couple of mins I don't see it happening.

Therefore what I am proposing is that LMG can fire sustained for only a short number of times. Rather than having to keep track of how many times each LMG has fired sustained I feel this would be better done based on the platoon.  Germans can have more times to fire sustained than others . Maybe 1 point per lmg in the platoon extra for each sustained fire burst or turn that A burst can be used for extra dice. This burst is a one time only thing.  Germans can buy more bursts than others.

This would stop the German player firing each LMG sustained in paid for shooting. Then multiple times in unpaid and return shooting.

Bear in mind that a LMG team, once it runs out of ammo is carrying a large heavy ungainly club.

The second point I would like to make is the MMG.  For the Germans it was the same weapon but on a tripod as far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong). Now how come a MG 34/42 used as an LMG with a 2 man crew gets 2 dice per shot plus 2 for being German but if used as a MMG it only gets 3 dice per shot. Does it get the extra 2 dice per firing and  if so what is the extra cast for the Gwerman having MMG's?

Derek

[Moggy]

Just looked it up. LMG No 2 carried 2 ammo boxes each holding 250 rounds in 5 x 50 round belts and a 250-round Patronengurt 33 belt. Gunner had the 250 round belt.  Equivalent amounts of ammo were carried in the drum magazine style. I make that roughly 1250 round of ammo.

Now at MG 34 ROF average of around800 rounds per minute they run out of ammo in about 90 seconds of firing. ((battle of Britain pilots only had 30 seconds in their Spits)  For the MG42 its worse. ROF 1200 or so. About  60 seconds before weilding a large club.

As for filling magazines with loose rounds.. hehehe ex squaddie (24 years in a green suit) here.  It takes a lot longer to load a mag than to fire it.

Derek

[Colonel Kilgore]

I think it would be rare - particularly in LMG mode - to be firing at anything near the theoretical cyclic rate. Too much ammo use and the barrel would need changing a lot.

The MG42 video Martin posted a little while ago makes some good points on these topics.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

To John's point, I think raw should die more easily- poor tactics, poor field craft, etc.

This is tragically seen in the modern wars ongoing today.

Simon

[John Watson]

Simon, I'm not suggesting that raw shouldn't die quicker, but I thought they were dying too quickly, to the extent that I would not bother using them again.
Derek the thinking behind the MG34/42 bipod having extra dice is based on the rate of fire when compared with other LMGs. I believe that this discrepancy did not exist between the tripod MG34/42 and other MMG/HMGs and so they all get the extra dice for being the heavier weapon.
The LMG issue is a thorny one and, in many respects, each one has individual characteristics. The MG34/42 has a high rate of fire but as a result burns fire and needs to change barrels a lot and also was not very accurate. Compared to, say, the Bren which was very accurate, had a lower rate of fire and so could keep going longer. Simon is right that a competent firer of an MG34/42 would fire in short bursts rather than sustained fire. I read recently comments by one of the D-Day defenders who said that he had to watch allied troops crossing the beach without firing at them because if he did he would run out of ammo before they tried to assault his bunker!
Perhaps the extra 2 dice rule should be amended but not abandoned. Perhaps 2 extra dice for paid shooting only and normal dice on return and opportunity firing (and adjust points cost to compensate).
John