| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cacadores

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: A Squad/skirmish game modification |
|
|
Anyone (or DB) ever thought about making some skirmish or squad-based rules (one-figure one-man) based on Panzer Grenadier?
And would DB mind if someone did?
I was thinking - all the fire, armour and movement factors can be transferred together with most of the rule details like spotting to bogged down: you just need some simplification to rolls and one or two extra effects and you could make a pretty effective squad-rules suppliment.
Any thoughts?  _________________ WARGAMES SOCIETY http://ilovewargameing.21.forumer.com/index.php
http://wargamessociety.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ross Mcpharter
Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
I'd like to see this too. It would be interesting.
Cheers, Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alexb83
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 95
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
It really doesn't take a massive shift in the rules, I don't think - we recently did a semi-recreation of Operation Biting (perhaps a little big for a 'skirmish' scale - but also rather small compared to the full battalion battles we have done).
Forces on the british side amounted to just shy of a company, though I don't know how well this reflects history (116 men is the figure I've found listed).
I believe my friend adapted the scenario from FoW and simply tried to equate the units. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ross Mcpharter
Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah,
I was wondering if anybody had played 1 base equals 1 fireteam (1/2 section) and what their thoughts or suggestions were?
Cheers, Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DCRBrown Brigadier

Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Posts: 1031 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
D,
| Quote: | | 1 base equals 1 fireteam (1/2 section) |
Not a bad idea but I think this would need additional command and control rules to get to grips with the downsizing.
DB |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cacadores

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alexb83
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 95
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you're going to go to 1 15mm model=1 man/tank etc., I would just decentralise command for each platoon from one stand into 4-5 figures (platoon commanders, section commanders) and keep the rules the same.
I'm sure you could find an appropriate breakdown with numbers for the typical rifle section, MMG section and so on.
Just treat crewed weapons similarly to General de Brigade or BG!; the gun is crewed by a number of models and will still operate (reduced firing rate) if there are still crew present. Treat the gun shield (if there is one) as cover for the purposes of them being targeted.
You could start adding in more damage and surpression effects for AFVs, since there will ideally be fewer of them on the battlefield. But you could increase their effectiveness by allowing the use of hull mounted machine guns etc. as separate weapons.
Whether or not you'd need to adjust weapon ranges and movement I don't know. The appeal of BG:PG is that it plays quickly and easily and that you don't get bogged down in too many different stats, IMO - the system is pretty robust, just change the organisation of the units to reflect a tighter focus in scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ross Mcpharter
Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to see the rules as little changed as possible for this mod.
Personally I wouldn't want the AFV rules any more complicated than they are, or movement and ranges altered, in case of the increased workload of using more bases.
The typical inf platoon would increase from 4 bases to say 7 bases.(1 command section base, 3 section bases, to 1 command base and 6 fire team/half section bases.
Just perhaps the bare minimum of command rule changes to make it work.
Regards, Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cacadores

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexb83 wrote: | | If you're going to go to 1 15mm model=1 man/tank etc., I would just decentralise command for each platoon from one stand into 4-5 figures (platoon commanders, section commanders) and keep the rules the same. | | Alexb83 wrote: | That sounds right, Alex
| Alexb83 wrote: |
You could start adding in more damage and surpression effects for AFVs, since there will ideally be fewer of them on the battlefield. But you could increase their effectiveness by allowing the use of hull mounted machine guns etc. as separate weapons. | Yes: and I was thinking of adding some rules for tank crews - like better targeting and observation if the tank commander is looking out and, of course, the possibiliy to shoot him that goes with it!
And perhaps some advantages and disadvantages for figures lying prone.
| Ross Mcpharter wrote: | | Personally I wouldn't want the AFV rules any more complicated than they are, or movement and ranges altered, in case of the increased workload of using more bases. | That's right. Personally I'd not use the morale part of the fire results and replace it with a straight fire results table (which DB has). I'd keep the ranges and movement the same.
Anything else you reckon? _________________ WARGAMES SOCIETY http://ilovewargameing.21.forumer.com/index.php
http://wargamessociety.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ross Mcpharter
Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds Good Cacadores!
I always assume the AFV commanders are looking out anyway, unless they are suppressed.
Again I always presume the inf will assume the best posture under the cicumstances be that prone or using available cover.
Simple is best for me
Regards, Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cacadores

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 75
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Ross (what have you done to the thread?!!)
I agree with you - simple is best. I just reckoned that the decision to go prone or to stick you head out of the turret would be interesting to incorporate in the game.
Sometimes its a fine line as to what's best: the tank commander who decides to risk 'head up' in order to lay down tracer to identify a target to the gunner...the prone squad that decides to stand as a strategy to win the supression fire battle and enable them to move.......etc. I just reckoned these would be perfect tactical decisions to incorporate in a squad-based game. What you reckon?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ross Mcpharter
Joined: 26 May 2008 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
Sorry I don't know whats happened to it. Maybe I gremlined it!?
Prone/heads up would be skirmish (up to platoon I guess).
I would like to fight platoon to company a side. The player (me) representing the PC or CC who wouldn't make those decisions:)
Regards, Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|