I'm more and more convinced that the dice rolling mechanics are relatively unimportant as to whether a game is good or not. Whether you use d6 or d10, whether you add or subtract modifiers, whether you use contested rolls or a fixed target number.... ...it's actually not vital to make your game good. There are other (more important) elements to consider.
The mechanics merely need to be simple, consistent, and (if possible) familiar.
I'm not trying to controversial, just trying to be helpful. I think many game designers overly focus on kewl tricksy dice mechanics where their time could be more usefully spent elsewhere. In fact, when making home rules, the dice rolling mechanics are the last things I consider; in quite a few, I've swapped dice types and mechanics after playtesting, usually to "speed things up" when I realise I could do it simpler, with zero end effect on gameplay.
Why Dice Mechanics Aren't Important
Dice mechanics do not define the style of game. They do not help make tactics more historical. They do not make players play a particular way, or define the meta. It's the percentages that matter (lethality) and the activation (who goes first); whether you are using a single d20 or buckets of d6, you can get similar end effects. Dice mechanics don't necessarily make players play a particular way.
Move:Shoot Ratios >>> Dice
Changing the ratio of movement distance to shoot distance can change your game vastly. The "normal" wargame has units move 4-6"and shoot 24-36". The ratio of move:shoot is usually 1:4 or so, favouring shooting. This is mostly (I believe) due to tradition and commonsense impacts of a normal 4x6 game table and small amounts of terrain. However, imagine a game where units moved 1" and fired 20"(sounds like a modern naval wargame). Now imagine a game where units moved 20"and fired 1"(ancient skirmish/melee?). The two games would play vastly differently.
Modifiers >>> Dice
The modifiers for your dice rolls are more influential than the dice mechanics and dice types used.
Let's say a game has 3+ (67%) to hit enemies. But if they are in -1 if in cover: they are only hit on a 4+ (50%). But what if we changed the modifier to -3? They are only hit on a '6' (17%) which means that cover is so massively beneficial that I predict units would seldom move.
Table Setup >>> Dice
Even something as simple as table setup - making your game table devoid of cover vs buildings every 4"with no long sight lines will impact your game experience more than whether you are using a d6 or a d8. A game dev who agonises over which dice size to use but does not consider table setup or deployment rules has made poor use of his time. Even victory conditions (increasingly wargames have ways to win without "kill em all" or "scrum in the middle" can have a bigger impact.
Activation/Initiative >>> Dice
Longtime readers would know how much importance I place on activation and initiative; I was hating on IGOUGO long before it was fashionable. Activation determines the "flow" of the game; the "when" of your movement is just as important as the "where." Simply changing from IGOUGO to alternate activation will make vast changes to your gameplay flow, let alone reaction mechanics, action points/pools. I spend a lot of time on these in other game design posts so I will not rehash their importance here, though I recommend #68 and #69 on momentum and breaking up the turn.
It's the final result that matters: Lethality
At the core, it is the end percentage of success created by the die/dice rolled, rather than how you got there. I tend to look at lethality in combination with modifiers. If your percentages are simple it's actually quite easy to predict how your game will "pan out" before you even playtest.
Now I'm not saying that the topics above are the only ones to consider; nor am saying what dice resolution you use is completely irrelevant. I'm just saying it should be a long way down your list of priorities.
Best Practice: Lowering the Barrier to EntryBasically, dice mechanics should keep the skill floor low (i.e. the knowledge you need to be able to play) with very little knowledge needed. You should be able to pick up dice and chug them without much thought. Simplicity, consistency, familiarity are all good.
Simple (KISS)
Basically, as this means rolls are uncomplicated as you can get. After all, dice rolling detracts from the actual "meat" of gameplay - the decision making. Unless you are using a dice pool or some sort of system where you "game" the dice, every minute spent on dice is a minute not spent on decision making or tactics. Computers can do this instantly, under the hood so to speak. But wargamers manually rolling dice take up a lot of game time. If you are spending more time rolling dice than moving minis, then something has gone awry.
Ideally, I should be able to absent-mindedly chug the dice while thinking about my next move, just noting the results at the end.
As an example of what not to do: I remember Silent Death had a dice system using d4s, d6s, d8s and d10s (even d12s and d20s). Each weapon had a different rule and even different combinations of dice. I.e. "for a blaster, roll 2d6 + 1d8 and use the highest two dice for the "to hit"; then use the middle dice for damage." But a phaser might roll 2d10 + a d12, use the lowest two dice "to hit"and the highest two dice for damage. They were so proud how they managed to combine the "to hit"and "to damage"into a single roll... ...but didn't notice they'd actually made it more frickin complicated!
This is a classic example of how trying to be overly clever with dice mechanics actually made the game worse.
Consistency
I've used the example of Bag the Hun (and almost any TFL ruleset) vs say Warmachine. In BtH, the game uses seven completely different mechanics to resolve actions. That's incredibly messy and you need to remember both how (and when) you need to use a particular method. In Warmachine, you pretty much use 2d6 vs a target number in every situation. Consistency means you only need to learn one set of dice mechanics.
Familiarity
There's a reason games like Bolt Action and Flames of War merely uses a thinly disguised version of WH40K's dice rolling mechanics. Or why 40K hasn't changed much over decades. Familiarity with a system lowers the barrier for entry - a player instantly can grasp the "feel" of the game and there is little new knowledge needed. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, and in most cases it doesn't benefit your players anyway.
But.... what about Dice Pools and Probability Curves? : Interesting but Messy
Obviously a single d10 and 2d6 are not the same. Adding dice together (or using buckets of dice) can "smooth" the rolls, making them more predictable. The buckets of dice method (throwing handfuls of dice with say a 4+ or 5+ as a success) does something similar. But for a budding game designer, they can be a pain to balance. A +1 modifier on a single d10 is 10%. On a d6 is is a flat 17%. But modifiers on 2d6, for example, are not equal depending on your target number. Changing a +1 from a 7+ to an 8+ on 2d6 changes it from 58% to 42%. A +1 changing 11+ to 12 on a 2d6 is 8% to 3%.
The +1 modifier does not have the same "value." If this is confusing, then it's a good reason why these methods are not ideal for the amateur game designer. Whilst I like managed probability, unless you have a compelling reason to use these methods (or love math), they make game balancing/tweaking far more difficult. I do like dice pools (which can add depth to gameplay through resource management aspects) but they do add to the game's complexity/play time and "mental cost."
Anyway, I hope I've shown how agonizing over which dice to use is fairly unimportant in the big scheme of things. Focus on other stuff - starting with a mission statement/rationale aka success criteria, consider how all the elements (move/shoot, activation/initiative, table setup, deployment, lethality, etc) will combine to make players play the game using tactics you envision. Ruthlessly keep to your original goals - e.g. if your aim is a fast play game, consider hard before you add ANY complication that does not promote your core philosophy. Sometimes a cool mechanic is actually not the best for the specific game. This is especially true of dice mechanics. Think about the big picture, and keep the dice rolling simple, consistent, and "under the hood."
Wednesday, 9 January 2019
Aerial Rules Revisited - Part 3 Detection & Distance
I've covered maneuver in the last post - it is a very simple system, far more "gamey" than realistic. The aim was to keep the "feel" of air combat (tradeoffs between speed/position/height) without strict scale besides "it looks OK on the table."
I toyed with "limited fuel" i.e. after say 3 game turns all planes using supersonic must make a crew check or be bingo fuel." However this would mean tracking another token on the table, so instead I made supersonic less attractive by making supersonic planes unable to climb. Technically this is wrong, but it forces the tradeoff between speed/height, and makes supersonic less attractive, so players don't use it so often. The end effect is the same. (i.e. supersonic not overused)
The player is a flight leader/squadron leader controlling 4-12 aircraft, and the aim is to make the game play no slower than a skirmish game like Mordheim or Infinity. As a result, we don't need to micromanage each plane, measuring precise airspeed, doing 5 degree turns etc. Instead we are giving pilots general instructions.
I do have a more traditional style of movement (has similar effect to CY6 but without the recording and charts, uses 3 colours of d6 to track 3 height and 6 speed bands) but this slows the game.
Some FA/18s and Tornados. I enjoy painting 1:600s - they are simple, satisfying, and "pop"well at tabletop ranges.
Detection
Besides maneuver trinity of positioning/speed/altitude, detection is the vital element of air combat. Most planes are shot down without seeing their attacker, and nowdays planes carry complex electronics for detection, stealth, countermeasures etc.
I'm going to use the same 180d hemispheres as the movement rules; enemies are either "in front" or "behind" and can be "above" "below" or "same altitude." I like 180d as you can simply eyeball things without measuring - or if needed, hold your ruler in front of the model's base to check. No fancy charts or measurement aids needed.
Radar Detection
To limit the amount of die rolls, players may attempt to spot using radar OR Mk1 eyeball, not both (unless a 2-seater like F14).
I may allow hidden movement - i.e. counters which are only revealed when enemies detect them, with dummy counters etc - but at the moment I'll focus on the ability to engage enemy targets.
Radar range will vary depending on the plane
Radar arcs - the front 180d arc, + targets above or below must be at 4" range or longer
Radar lock is a roll based on the quality of the radar, say 3+ for a good one
There will be penalties if targets are lower, and/or on the deck, and if a target is stealth (F-22, F-117).
A single roll is made and ALL planes in the correct arcs/range who pass the roll will be spotted/locked.
As an example, a plane might need a 3+ on a d6 to lock. Target A is at the same altitude so needs the usual 3+, but Target B is below, so needs a 4+. A single roll is made for all targets, so a 4,5 or 6 would mean both planes are detected but a 3 would mean only Target A was detected.
Visual Detection
Visual range - enemies are hard to see, if they are: above and sunward, behind or below or in clouds. Each condition halves the visual range. E.g. if behind AND below, 1/4 usual visual range.
Visual "lock" - the lock/detect number is based on crew skill i.e. say 2+ elite, 3+ veteran, 4+ rookie? Perhaps add a -1 penalty if to the rear with a bad-visibility cockpit like a MiG-25.
Sunward - an edge of the board is designated as sunward. Clouds can be seen into/out of (at half range) but not through.
Again, like radar a single roll is made and all targets that roll equal or above are spotted.
Well, this may seem quite detailed compared to my casual approach to maneuver rules, but that is because I think detection is so important to simulate air combat.
These F-14s remind me of Macross fighters. I may do an anime space spin off (eschewing height and adding zany heroic feats and swarms of missiles).
Move/Shoot Ratios
As I've said, scales are pretty loose - it's more about how it looks on the table and the 'feel' rather than precise measurements like 1" = 500m, 1 turn = 5 seconds etc like some rules specify.
What I DO want is to keep firing ranges relatively low and movement high. A normal skirmish game has a move/shoot ratio of 1:4 (i.e. 6" move, 24" shoot); I'm aiming for 1:1 or better in favour of movement. I want to encourage planes to move and maneuver, not snipe from long range.
Let's do some examples:
F-14 subsonic move 6"; sprint 16"
= vs =
Cannon range = 4"
AIM-9 HS range = 2"min to 8"
AIM-7 RH range = 4"min to 16"
These are just ballpark figures, but you can see the firing ranges seldom exceed the movement ranges. In practice, this emphasizes maneuver.
Game Mechanics? Bah Humbug!
Well, it's getting late so I'll save game mechanics for another day. Spoiler: I'm actually going to use the Warhammer 40K roll to hit-save-roll to damage using simple d6s.
The older I get the less I care about mechanics. Move shoot ratios, activation, resource management, modifiers, maneuver, etc - all these things matter. The mechanics themselves don't so much (I'll do a game design post on this sometime soon) as long as they are simple and consistent. A bonus if they are familiar, to decrease the "buy in" for new players. I personally prefer d10s (10% increments make balancing the game easy) and d6s (everyone has them, familiar).
I toyed with "limited fuel" i.e. after say 3 game turns all planes using supersonic must make a crew check or be bingo fuel." However this would mean tracking another token on the table, so instead I made supersonic less attractive by making supersonic planes unable to climb. Technically this is wrong, but it forces the tradeoff between speed/height, and makes supersonic less attractive, so players don't use it so often. The end effect is the same. (i.e. supersonic not overused)
The player is a flight leader/squadron leader controlling 4-12 aircraft, and the aim is to make the game play no slower than a skirmish game like Mordheim or Infinity. As a result, we don't need to micromanage each plane, measuring precise airspeed, doing 5 degree turns etc. Instead we are giving pilots general instructions.
I do have a more traditional style of movement (has similar effect to CY6 but without the recording and charts, uses 3 colours of d6 to track 3 height and 6 speed bands) but this slows the game.
Detection
Besides maneuver trinity of positioning/speed/altitude, detection is the vital element of air combat. Most planes are shot down without seeing their attacker, and nowdays planes carry complex electronics for detection, stealth, countermeasures etc.
I'm going to use the same 180d hemispheres as the movement rules; enemies are either "in front" or "behind" and can be "above" "below" or "same altitude." I like 180d as you can simply eyeball things without measuring - or if needed, hold your ruler in front of the model's base to check. No fancy charts or measurement aids needed.
Radar Detection
To limit the amount of die rolls, players may attempt to spot using radar OR Mk1 eyeball, not both (unless a 2-seater like F14).
I may allow hidden movement - i.e. counters which are only revealed when enemies detect them, with dummy counters etc - but at the moment I'll focus on the ability to engage enemy targets.
Radar range will vary depending on the plane
Radar arcs - the front 180d arc, + targets above or below must be at 4" range or longer
Radar lock is a roll based on the quality of the radar, say 3+ for a good one
There will be penalties if targets are lower, and/or on the deck, and if a target is stealth (F-22, F-117).
A single roll is made and ALL planes in the correct arcs/range who pass the roll will be spotted/locked.
As an example, a plane might need a 3+ on a d6 to lock. Target A is at the same altitude so needs the usual 3+, but Target B is below, so needs a 4+. A single roll is made for all targets, so a 4,5 or 6 would mean both planes are detected but a 3 would mean only Target A was detected.
Visual Detection
Visual range - enemies are hard to see, if they are: above and sunward, behind or below or in clouds. Each condition halves the visual range. E.g. if behind AND below, 1/4 usual visual range.
Visual "lock" - the lock/detect number is based on crew skill i.e. say 2+ elite, 3+ veteran, 4+ rookie? Perhaps add a -1 penalty if to the rear with a bad-visibility cockpit like a MiG-25.
Sunward - an edge of the board is designated as sunward. Clouds can be seen into/out of (at half range) but not through.
Again, like radar a single roll is made and all targets that roll equal or above are spotted.
Well, this may seem quite detailed compared to my casual approach to maneuver rules, but that is because I think detection is so important to simulate air combat.
Move/Shoot Ratios
As I've said, scales are pretty loose - it's more about how it looks on the table and the 'feel' rather than precise measurements like 1" = 500m, 1 turn = 5 seconds etc like some rules specify.
What I DO want is to keep firing ranges relatively low and movement high. A normal skirmish game has a move/shoot ratio of 1:4 (i.e. 6" move, 24" shoot); I'm aiming for 1:1 or better in favour of movement. I want to encourage planes to move and maneuver, not snipe from long range.
Let's do some examples:
F-14 subsonic move 6"; sprint 16"
= vs =
Cannon range = 4"
AIM-9 HS range = 2"min to 8"
AIM-7 RH range = 4"min to 16"
These are just ballpark figures, but you can see the firing ranges seldom exceed the movement ranges. In practice, this emphasizes maneuver.
Game Mechanics? Bah Humbug!
Well, it's getting late so I'll save game mechanics for another day. Spoiler: I'm actually going to use the Warhammer 40K roll to hit-save-roll to damage using simple d6s.
The older I get the less I care about mechanics. Move shoot ratios, activation, resource management, modifiers, maneuver, etc - all these things matter. The mechanics themselves don't so much (I'll do a game design post on this sometime soon) as long as they are simple and consistent. A bonus if they are familiar, to decrease the "buy in" for new players. I personally prefer d10s (10% increments make balancing the game easy) and d6s (everyone has them, familiar).
Tuesday, 8 January 2019
Aerial Rules Revisited - Part 2 - Abstracting Movement
Last post I discussed how aerial rules (simulating combat that takes place over minutes or seconds) tends to be bogged down with written orders, rivet counting and an innate complexity. Most aerial wargames have more in common with doing a tax return than a swirling dogfight.
I identified four factors (speed, height, positioning vs foe, detection) as key elements to track. Now, I'm considering how to simplify them. Note these rules aren't good, but more an example of my thought process and what I am striving for.
I've decided there will be 3 heights - high, medium, and "on the deck." As I am trying to do away with recording (and also I'm not using fancy bases) I'm simply going to record it thus: high = blue token, low = green token, medium = no token. I considered using a d6 and having 6 heights (using the dice to record it) but sometimes I bump the dice over, and the token can be fit neatly under the model's plastic base. Besides, I'm trying to abstract here.
OK, now for the speed/height/positioning interactions. I'm avoiding plotting moves or recording anything (including speed) so I have decided to divide aircraft speeds into supersonic and subsonic.
Supersonic is a sprint move. It's used to transit the battlespace quickly. A supersonic plane can dive one level and/or turn up to 90d after the midpoint of the move. A supersonic plane has high speed, but poor positioning (maneuver angles) and whilst it can dive it has no ability to gain height. You can see the trade-offs.
Here is an example of a F-14 making a supersonic sprint. It moves quite far (up to 16") and may make a turn after the midpoint. Interceptors with a high Mach number topspeed (like the Mig-25) have a great sprint ability, whereas light dogfighters (like the F-16) have a lower top speed.
I also call this supersonic sprint extending or pursuit as it is primarily to chase down or flee enemies.
Subsonic speed is where you perform extreme dogfight maneuvers i.e. it is strong in positioning and changing heights but much slower than supersonic sprint . A jet making a subsonic move can move into the front 180d arc and move up to it's subsonic speed (6"in the case of this F-14).
The jet may either turn OR climb - if it does both its move is halved and it can only move 3". It may dive without penalty. As you can see, attempting to climb (height) and turn (position) has a penalty on speed. I'm trying to main the trade-off.
The F-14 can make a tight turn (high or low yoyo) combined with dives or climbs (chandelle). The F-14 can even stay still (simulated by a loop). As you can see, I am lumping lots of maneuvers into the one rule, to keep things simple. Whilst I could have had separate rules for all these maneuvers, I've kinda made a single catch-all rule, so you never need to consult the rules or a maneuver chart. (Savage Worlds does this well).
I'd like to add an "evade" subsonic maneuver where the plane gains saving rolls against hits, perhaps. This evading would encompass scissors and barrel rolls and probably restrict speed to half. I'll think more about it when I add a combat mechanic.
Reversals are basically half-loop maneuvers into a plane's rear 180d arc. The main difference from a frontal tight turn is that the plane MUST either climb (Immelman) or dive (Split S) - it cannot remain at the same altitude. The plane's height will impose some restrictions; you cannot Split S on the deck; or Immelman when you are high.
Now last post I mentioned plane performance and pilot skill as being important modifiers. You might include pilot skill as a "crew check" on a d6, perhaps 2+ for ace, 3+ for veteran, 4+ for rookie - in order to pull off such a violent subsonic turn or reversal. A failure would see them move straight ahead or 180 behind, and get some sort of penalty (perhaps a "stun" token that gives them -1 on all rolls until removed, or being unable to fire or evade this turn).
Plane performance could be simply movement based - i.e. supersonic movement is based on pure top Mach speed and thrust, whereas subsonic movement is more based on power/weight + wing loading + agility benefits like fly-by-wire). So a F-14 in the example would have 6" subsonic, 16" sprint - while a more nimble but slower F-16 might have better 8" subsonic, but only a 12" supersonic sprint.
I haven't mentioned detection at all, but this gives you an idea of how I am thinking about movement. I'm not claiming these are even good. Just showing how I am striving to show the interactions between height, speed and positioning in as simple a way as I can.
+ There's no charts A-F, or complex maneuvers or speed to track. There's no "accounting."
+ There's no fancy bases needed or complex turn templates; the only "clutter" is a token that fits under the aircraft's base (so it's not really clutter) showing if it is on the deck or high.
+ There's no need to consult rulebooks - you can memorise the rules and move a plane as quickly as a 28mm infantry figure in a skirmish game; so a player can handle 8-12 planes (like a Mordheim warband) rather than 1-2 planes each in traditional aerial wargames, making it a wargame rather than a laboriously slow duel.
Obviously I'm not saying this whole idea works well - or even works at all - (I need to bolt on detection as well as shooting/damage mechanics). Obviously activation is important; I'm thinking something somewhat random (like a card draw?) to simulate the chaos of a dogfight.
But what I hope I've shown is the intent to keep key concepts (height vs speed vs positioning) while abstracting where possible and removing complexity, charts, fancy gear and accounting. I'd like to see aerial wargames evolve similar to skirmish wargames instead of remaining a laborious chore based on 70s mechanics, while retaining the "essence" of air combat.
I identified four factors (speed, height, positioning vs foe, detection) as key elements to track. Now, I'm considering how to simplify them. Note these rules aren't good, but more an example of my thought process and what I am striving for.
I've decided there will be 3 heights - high, medium, and "on the deck." As I am trying to do away with recording (and also I'm not using fancy bases) I'm simply going to record it thus: high = blue token, low = green token, medium = no token. I considered using a d6 and having 6 heights (using the dice to record it) but sometimes I bump the dice over, and the token can be fit neatly under the model's plastic base. Besides, I'm trying to abstract here.
OK, now for the speed/height/positioning interactions. I'm avoiding plotting moves or recording anything (including speed) so I have decided to divide aircraft speeds into supersonic and subsonic.
Supersonic is a sprint move. It's used to transit the battlespace quickly. A supersonic plane can dive one level and/or turn up to 90d after the midpoint of the move. A supersonic plane has high speed, but poor positioning (maneuver angles) and whilst it can dive it has no ability to gain height. You can see the trade-offs.
I also call this supersonic sprint extending or pursuit as it is primarily to chase down or flee enemies.
Subsonic speed is where you perform extreme dogfight maneuvers i.e. it is strong in positioning and changing heights but much slower than supersonic sprint . A jet making a subsonic move can move into the front 180d arc and move up to it's subsonic speed (6"in the case of this F-14).
The jet may either turn OR climb - if it does both its move is halved and it can only move 3". It may dive without penalty. As you can see, attempting to climb (height) and turn (position) has a penalty on speed. I'm trying to main the trade-off.
I'd like to add an "evade" subsonic maneuver where the plane gains saving rolls against hits, perhaps. This evading would encompass scissors and barrel rolls and probably restrict speed to half. I'll think more about it when I add a combat mechanic.
Reversals are basically half-loop maneuvers into a plane's rear 180d arc. The main difference from a frontal tight turn is that the plane MUST either climb (Immelman) or dive (Split S) - it cannot remain at the same altitude. The plane's height will impose some restrictions; you cannot Split S on the deck; or Immelman when you are high.
Now last post I mentioned plane performance and pilot skill as being important modifiers. You might include pilot skill as a "crew check" on a d6, perhaps 2+ for ace, 3+ for veteran, 4+ for rookie - in order to pull off such a violent subsonic turn or reversal. A failure would see them move straight ahead or 180 behind, and get some sort of penalty (perhaps a "stun" token that gives them -1 on all rolls until removed, or being unable to fire or evade this turn).
Plane performance could be simply movement based - i.e. supersonic movement is based on pure top Mach speed and thrust, whereas subsonic movement is more based on power/weight + wing loading + agility benefits like fly-by-wire). So a F-14 in the example would have 6" subsonic, 16" sprint - while a more nimble but slower F-16 might have better 8" subsonic, but only a 12" supersonic sprint.
I haven't mentioned detection at all, but this gives you an idea of how I am thinking about movement. I'm not claiming these are even good. Just showing how I am striving to show the interactions between height, speed and positioning in as simple a way as I can.
+ There's no charts A-F, or complex maneuvers or speed to track. There's no "accounting."
+ There's no fancy bases needed or complex turn templates; the only "clutter" is a token that fits under the aircraft's base (so it's not really clutter) showing if it is on the deck or high.
+ There's no need to consult rulebooks - you can memorise the rules and move a plane as quickly as a 28mm infantry figure in a skirmish game; so a player can handle 8-12 planes (like a Mordheim warband) rather than 1-2 planes each in traditional aerial wargames, making it a wargame rather than a laboriously slow duel.
Obviously I'm not saying this whole idea works well - or even works at all - (I need to bolt on detection as well as shooting/damage mechanics). Obviously activation is important; I'm thinking something somewhat random (like a card draw?) to simulate the chaos of a dogfight.
But what I hope I've shown is the intent to keep key concepts (height vs speed vs positioning) while abstracting where possible and removing complexity, charts, fancy gear and accounting. I'd like to see aerial wargames evolve similar to skirmish wargames instead of remaining a laborious chore based on 70s mechanics, while retaining the "essence" of air combat.
Wednesday, 2 January 2019
Aerial Rules Revisted (2019) Part 1
Longtime readers will know that aircraft wargame rules are an area of wargaming which I generally dislike. Or rather: I love air combat, and 1/600 models are both affordable and fun to paint, but the rules suck. My run down of the various rules (in 2015) was negative. I don't think the rules have evolved since the 1970s, and most seem fundamentally flawed. I have lots of lovely plane models but no desire to use them on the table.
I created a manifesto of key things my ideal aerial rules would contain, and looked at activation mechanics. I then kinda left it there, as (like usual) I dallied with other projects. But I'd still love to get my aircraft minis on the table....
I revisited the topic last year, making a few points:
*rules are too complex, more accounting than playing. Why am I writing down "orders" for a fast paced dogfights with actions that last seconds?
*the 3D environment seems to necessitate complexity/aka energy management etc
*reusing tired old mechanics from 1970s where other genres have innovated/aka clunky mechanics
*tendency to rivet counting and excessive detail
*rules tend to be more suited to 1v1 duels than a wargame, aka one player flies one plane.
*wrong "command level" i.e. should you be controlling the exact throttle settings and maneuvers for each plane, if you command more than one..
The article wondered what we could abstract, yet maintain the essence of dogfight combat. (With some pretty abstract ideas)
Now I've been playing a lot of War Thunder (a free PC games) and I've identified a few key elements in air combat:
1. Speed (which can be converted into height/favourable position) aka kinetic energy
2. Height (which can be converted to speed/favourable position) aka potential energy
3. Position (relative to enemy aircraft; can be gained by trading in speed or height) attack delivery
A fourth factor which is not as directly related is:
4. Detection (allows planes to position themselves without opposition)
The more boring "good guys". As I was painting them, I was struck with the fact the majority of modern jets have their origins in the 1970s...
Flying my P-51 Mustang on my PC, I'm struck by how efficiently trading speed/height/positioning seems to be so important. Without the fear of real combat, it can be quite clinical in a PC game "I can make a tight turn and get a shot off (position), but I'd bleed off too much energy (speed), so..." or "If I dive now, I can convert height to speed, and run down that bomber." Or choosing between a high or low yo-yo. I spend a lot of time doing mental calculations of time/speed/distance/angle. Further, detection is vital. I'd say the vast majority of aerial kills occur without the attacker being seen.
Then there are two "modifiers"which strongly impact the above elements:
(+) Pilot Skill (a good pilot finds it easier to convert speed/height/position for attacks/avoidance) and
(+) Plane Performance (a good plane has better potential speed/height/agility to position and even may have better detection). I.e. things like Thrust/weight and wing loading, the firepower to execute attacks, robustness to resist them, visibility from the cockpit)
While very important, I wouldn't say pilot skill and plane performance are key elements in themselves, but rather impact the elements.
I've always had a soft spot for the much-maligned MiG-23. I like their practical, businesslike look and although they don't have notable agility they have good thrust/weight and speed.
In my April post, I wondered whether height could be removed and simplified into "potential energy" but I think height is integral to air combat and abstracting it could lose to much of what makes air combat what it is. Differing altitudes impact positioning strongly in a way abstract "potential energy"does not. (There are a few rules, notably C21 Air War, which do away with height; incidentally it is a set of rules where you could attempt to fight a decent sized dogfight in a reasonable amount of time).
By the way, I'm not claiming my analysis of air combat (based on a PC game!) is exhaustive or accurate - this post is a kind of "train of thought" exercise showing my evolving thoughts on the topic (and hopefully inspiring someone more talented than me to write a set of relevant, modern rules instead of copying Blue Max for the tenth time!)
Anyway, I'm looking at the "four factors"and thinking "how simple could you make these, while retaining the essentials of a dogfight?" I'll probably start with a trimmed down set of conventional(ish) rules, and contrast it with more abstract ideas.
I created a manifesto of key things my ideal aerial rules would contain, and looked at activation mechanics. I then kinda left it there, as (like usual) I dallied with other projects. But I'd still love to get my aircraft minis on the table....
I really like my 1:600 jets. Easy to paint, and they look good at tabletop distances. I admit I secretly like the Su-27/MiG-29 over Western designs.
I revisited the topic last year, making a few points:
*rules are too complex, more accounting than playing. Why am I writing down "orders" for a fast paced dogfights with actions that last seconds?
*the 3D environment seems to necessitate complexity/aka energy management etc
*reusing tired old mechanics from 1970s where other genres have innovated/aka clunky mechanics
*tendency to rivet counting and excessive detail
*rules tend to be more suited to 1v1 duels than a wargame, aka one player flies one plane.
*wrong "command level" i.e. should you be controlling the exact throttle settings and maneuvers for each plane, if you command more than one..
The article wondered what we could abstract, yet maintain the essence of dogfight combat. (With some pretty abstract ideas)
Now I've been playing a lot of War Thunder (a free PC games) and I've identified a few key elements in air combat:
1. Speed (which can be converted into height/favourable position) aka kinetic energy
2. Height (which can be converted to speed/favourable position) aka potential energy
3. Position (relative to enemy aircraft; can be gained by trading in speed or height) attack delivery
A fourth factor which is not as directly related is:
4. Detection (allows planes to position themselves without opposition)
Flying my P-51 Mustang on my PC, I'm struck by how efficiently trading speed/height/positioning seems to be so important. Without the fear of real combat, it can be quite clinical in a PC game "I can make a tight turn and get a shot off (position), but I'd bleed off too much energy (speed), so..." or "If I dive now, I can convert height to speed, and run down that bomber." Or choosing between a high or low yo-yo. I spend a lot of time doing mental calculations of time/speed/distance/angle. Further, detection is vital. I'd say the vast majority of aerial kills occur without the attacker being seen.
Then there are two "modifiers"which strongly impact the above elements:
(+) Pilot Skill (a good pilot finds it easier to convert speed/height/position for attacks/avoidance) and
(+) Plane Performance (a good plane has better potential speed/height/agility to position and even may have better detection). I.e. things like Thrust/weight and wing loading, the firepower to execute attacks, robustness to resist them, visibility from the cockpit)
While very important, I wouldn't say pilot skill and plane performance are key elements in themselves, but rather impact the elements.
In my April post, I wondered whether height could be removed and simplified into "potential energy" but I think height is integral to air combat and abstracting it could lose to much of what makes air combat what it is. Differing altitudes impact positioning strongly in a way abstract "potential energy"does not. (There are a few rules, notably C21 Air War, which do away with height; incidentally it is a set of rules where you could attempt to fight a decent sized dogfight in a reasonable amount of time).
By the way, I'm not claiming my analysis of air combat (based on a PC game!) is exhaustive or accurate - this post is a kind of "train of thought" exercise showing my evolving thoughts on the topic (and hopefully inspiring someone more talented than me to write a set of relevant, modern rules instead of copying Blue Max for the tenth time!)
Anyway, I'm looking at the "four factors"and thinking "how simple could you make these, while retaining the essentials of a dogfight?" I'll probably start with a trimmed down set of conventional(ish) rules, and contrast it with more abstract ideas.
Thursday, 13 December 2018
Mortal Engines and Dieselpunk Tanks
I only saw the trailer for Mortal Engines and although the "tracked cities" seems ridiculous I kinda love the whole landship-but-a-city idea. It's probably too "young adult" for me to enjoy, but I plan on watching it soon for inspiration. As the google group discovered, the idea of "landships" has legs.
Toss in the videogame "Deserts of Kharak" and landships are back on the menu, boys!
So..... I've just ordered some 1:300 tanks. Lots of kinda steampunk/dieselpunk-y ones from prewar. You know, the tanks which were rubbish in WW2 but LOOKED cool. Or at least, like a mad inventor threw them together. I love what I call "developing periods" - when technology was not settled and there was no "best"design. Air combat now is very stale. The basic fighter design hasn't changed much in 20-30 years. Soviet and Western jets are virtually identical. Contrast this with the madness of the 1940s-60s, where we have F-104s, Mirages, Phantoms, Vampires and Sabres. Or Napoleonic - boring! - it's just identical soldiers but with different coloured uniforms. Contrast that with the pike-arquebus-swordsman tercios of the 1500-1600s.
Well, the tank came of age in WW2. By the end of it, we had an "optimal" design - the T-54/Centurion MBT style heavy-medium. But before then....
Well, in my world, giant landships will serve as mobile bases to repair and refuel swarms of light tankettes, like a tank-aircraft carrier of sorts. Brigade Models have done a landships themed game, but unlike their excellent aeronef, their landships look... kinda crap. Like I could do better with balsa wood and blu-tac. The now-defunct Spartan Games did the Dystopian Wars but the cartoon-y models never appealed.
So.... let's look at history.
Tankettes are pretty cool. With 2 or 3 men crews, they are the light "fighters" in the game.
My favourite is the Mark VI - it reminds me surprisingly of a modern Wiesel used by the German airborne.
I mean, look at stuff like the CV/33....
Turretless MGs, StuG-style? Yes please!
Or a twin-turreted T-26?
I may expand to armoured cars (there's some weird ones for sure!) and I'm going to use a few half-tracks and Bren carriers for logistics. But what about the big hitters? Well, nothing says "heavy tank" like lots of turrets. Lots and lots of turrets.
If tankettes are the "fighters" then we need some "destroyers." Tanks like the T-35 will work well as slow, heavy hitters.
With its extra rear turret and extra piping and engine bits sticking out, the Char 2C seemed purpose built by a mad steampunk scientist.
But what of the landships themselves? I'm thinking just more multi-turret tanks like the Char 2C, but in 15mm (1:100) instead of 1:300 (6mm). That should create an impressive size gap.
I'll just get a 15mm (or 1:76 or even 1:48) multi turreted tank, and file off any details that give away the scale - and "voila" - a landship. Placed alongside the teensy 1:300 models they should be super impressive.
As for rules, I've been experimenting with some tank rule for 15mm (posted on the google group) which I think I tested a while back. I'll simplify them (FFTW3 will give useful ideas) but I want rules for a campaign (i.e. players control landship each, plus 8-12 tankettes and 4 or so heavy tanks). The tank crews can be upgraded and gain skills and perks like a RPG, and perhaps some mods to the tank itself (i.e. "tuned engine" +20% movement speed or "extra armour bolted on" +1 armour).
Whilst I am using the historical tank stats as the basis for my forces, I'm going to deviate from reality where needed (i.e. FT-16 won't go 5kph to scale with other 50kph tanks!) based on good gameplay rather than realism. Not that I really need to justify deviating from realism in a game focussing on giant landships that roam the inner deserts of the Hollow Earth.... Hmm, I wonder if I can find dinosuars in a small enough scale to match....
Toss in the videogame "Deserts of Kharak" and landships are back on the menu, boys!
Deserts of Kharak is a pretty good RTS by the folk who made the classic Homeworld, and a good source of gameplay ideas for a landship+tank game.
So..... I've just ordered some 1:300 tanks. Lots of kinda steampunk/dieselpunk-y ones from prewar. You know, the tanks which were rubbish in WW2 but LOOKED cool. Or at least, like a mad inventor threw them together. I love what I call "developing periods" - when technology was not settled and there was no "best"design. Air combat now is very stale. The basic fighter design hasn't changed much in 20-30 years. Soviet and Western jets are virtually identical. Contrast this with the madness of the 1940s-60s, where we have F-104s, Mirages, Phantoms, Vampires and Sabres. Or Napoleonic - boring! - it's just identical soldiers but with different coloured uniforms. Contrast that with the pike-arquebus-swordsman tercios of the 1500-1600s.
Well, the tank came of age in WW2. By the end of it, we had an "optimal" design - the T-54/Centurion MBT style heavy-medium. But before then....
Well, in my world, giant landships will serve as mobile bases to repair and refuel swarms of light tankettes, like a tank-aircraft carrier of sorts. Brigade Models have done a landships themed game, but unlike their excellent aeronef, their landships look... kinda crap. Like I could do better with balsa wood and blu-tac. The now-defunct Spartan Games did the Dystopian Wars but the cartoon-y models never appealed.
So.... let's look at history.
My favourite is the Mark VI - it reminds me surprisingly of a modern Wiesel used by the German airborne.
I mean, look at stuff like the CV/33....
Turretless MGs, StuG-style? Yes please!
Or a twin-turreted T-26?
I may expand to armoured cars (there's some weird ones for sure!) and I'm going to use a few half-tracks and Bren carriers for logistics. But what about the big hitters? Well, nothing says "heavy tank" like lots of turrets. Lots and lots of turrets.
But what of the landships themselves? I'm thinking just more multi-turret tanks like the Char 2C, but in 15mm (1:100) instead of 1:300 (6mm). That should create an impressive size gap.
As for rules, I've been experimenting with some tank rule for 15mm (posted on the google group) which I think I tested a while back. I'll simplify them (FFTW3 will give useful ideas) but I want rules for a campaign (i.e. players control landship each, plus 8-12 tankettes and 4 or so heavy tanks). The tank crews can be upgraded and gain skills and perks like a RPG, and perhaps some mods to the tank itself (i.e. "tuned engine" +20% movement speed or "extra armour bolted on" +1 armour).
Whilst I am using the historical tank stats as the basis for my forces, I'm going to deviate from reality where needed (i.e. FT-16 won't go 5kph to scale with other 50kph tanks!) based on good gameplay rather than realism. Not that I really need to justify deviating from realism in a game focussing on giant landships that roam the inner deserts of the Hollow Earth.... Hmm, I wonder if I can find dinosuars in a small enough scale to match....
Wednesday, 7 November 2018
Micro-level Combat: Gaming in 100:1 /Drone Wars
This is not 1:100 scale (aka ~15mm Flames of War) but the reverse - miniatures are dramatically LARGER than the unis they represent. I.e. the actual real world units are tint, almost invisible to the naked eye.
I've thought about 1:1 gaming (using both insects au naturale and also human-controlled insect "drones" with guns attached) and have purchased a few hundred plastic ants or ant colony wars, but at the moment I am rather lazily waiting for this videogame to go on sale. I did explore the dinos I mentioned in the post, and am the proud owner of an extensive plastic dinosaur army (both pillaged from my son's sandpit, and bought from junk shops in bulk). But my psychic-knights-on-dinos (and the rules I am developing for them) are meat for another post.
No, the current musing is about drone/miniature vehicle warfighting. I've been eyeing off normal toy drones lately (which have advanced amazingly in tech while dropping in price) especially the ones you steer in FPV (using goggles you "see"what the drone sees, kinda "flying"the drone from the cockpit so to speak.
You can see the potential of drone dogfights.
Drone dogfights would make a pretty cool wargame. (Also, a pretty cool videogame as well - I wish someone would make one). There are already drones with sensors where you can "shoot down" your friends' drone, so to escalate to real weapons doesn't seem to much of a leap.
Now using drones in "current"size (say your average drone about the size of a pizza box) would make for interesting and unique combat. The ability to make violent maneuvers at G-forces far exceeding a human pilot, and the stunning agility would put it apart from the usual dogfight genre. Add in "lag" and EMP weapons (or jamming) and it gets yet more unique. Furthermore, the ability to evade detection ("nap of the earth" is literally a foot off the deck) and fly into structures/launch ambushes.
Micro drones are not new, and have been around for a while, especially as a recon unit.
Drone swarms are also becoming (a somewhat terrifying) reality.
But what if we project even further into the future? Perhaps where drone-on-drone combat has become the primary means of warfare. Duels between drone swarms fighting though buildings at high speed, using unique weapons (including EMPs) would be like supersonic helicopter combat, mixed with sudden ambushes, like Descent on steroids.
As a wargame, you could play as a pilot of many drones. You could have some sort of resource pool of tokens representing your "attention" which you could distribute among individual or groups of drones, who would otherwise act automomously. Kinda like a Warcaster in Warmachine boosting his warjacks.
The ability to create unique weapons (and tactics - suiciding your drone to take out key opponents would be an option) and unique environments.
Drones could even be aquatic. Which could have its own hazards - your super high tech drone swarm could get gulped by a trout....
But what if we go smaller? I'm not original here, I like the Eylau Sequence (one of the coolest wargame settings no one has ever heard of) and their micro-tanks (though the rules are too gluggy and the minis a little expensive to an Aussie). Their MGVs are 20:1 drones.
Microscopic? In the Scott Westerfled book Risen Empire there is a scene about drone combat. The drones are the size of dust motes. They have pincer claws and explosives and can "go silent" using thermals to navigate a room and land in a glass of water (which magnifies their listening/detection systems).
Imagine microscopic squidder drones headed up your nasal cavity and burrowing into your brain - yikes!
Models require imagination.... My cheap EM4 spaceships (which have lately seen service as supersonic submarine fighters and MTB-like strike fighters, Descent fighters as well as hovertanks ) may now see service as drones. Probably painting out the canopies would give a more "drone" feel. I swear they have been the most cheap (~50c) and versatile minis I own. For value/usefulness, they can't be beat.
Heck you could even use an actual 1:48 model of a drone... a target drone.... The sky is the limit with sci fi and your imagination....
I think I could probably use quite a few spaceship models that are scale-agnostic,and of course there are the cool MGVs. For the hipsters, there's always scratch-building your own; deoderant cans, end caps, disposable razors, and LEGO and hydroponics piping + various weapon bits from everything from 40K to 1:48 WW2 boxes can result in some amazing stuff. (google "scratch built spaceships" and you will be amazed).
Anyways, I think there is fertile ground for sci fi drone wars. You could have drone swarms, antonymous vs piloted, unique tactics and weapons, and have games ranging from 1:1 duels to 100 vs 100 swarms. Stealth, dogfights, kamikaze attacks, and dogfights in the kitchen. You can change the scale from pizza box to dust mote. Heck, spider-bot drones the size of literal spiders... Or hovertanks that skim centimetres off the ground....
In a wargaming sense, you could use magic mechanics to simulate management/processing power of AI, as well as layers of EW including jamming, ECM and EMPs. Perhaps they can be coated in thermal camo or float silently to attack like dust motes. Drone combat can be a fun wargaming area which can be taken in any direction you want it to....
I've thought about 1:1 gaming (using both insects au naturale and also human-controlled insect "drones" with guns attached) and have purchased a few hundred plastic ants or ant colony wars, but at the moment I am rather lazily waiting for this videogame to go on sale. I did explore the dinos I mentioned in the post, and am the proud owner of an extensive plastic dinosaur army (both pillaged from my son's sandpit, and bought from junk shops in bulk). But my psychic-knights-on-dinos (and the rules I am developing for them) are meat for another post.
No, the current musing is about drone/miniature vehicle warfighting. I've been eyeing off normal toy drones lately (which have advanced amazingly in tech while dropping in price) especially the ones you steer in FPV (using goggles you "see"what the drone sees, kinda "flying"the drone from the cockpit so to speak.
Drone dogfights would make a pretty cool wargame. (Also, a pretty cool videogame as well - I wish someone would make one). There are already drones with sensors where you can "shoot down" your friends' drone, so to escalate to real weapons doesn't seem to much of a leap.
Now using drones in "current"size (say your average drone about the size of a pizza box) would make for interesting and unique combat. The ability to make violent maneuvers at G-forces far exceeding a human pilot, and the stunning agility would put it apart from the usual dogfight genre. Add in "lag" and EMP weapons (or jamming) and it gets yet more unique. Furthermore, the ability to evade detection ("nap of the earth" is literally a foot off the deck) and fly into structures/launch ambushes.
Micro drones are not new, and have been around for a while, especially as a recon unit.
Drone swarms are also becoming (a somewhat terrifying) reality.
But what if we project even further into the future? Perhaps where drone-on-drone combat has become the primary means of warfare. Duels between drone swarms fighting though buildings at high speed, using unique weapons (including EMPs) would be like supersonic helicopter combat, mixed with sudden ambushes, like Descent on steroids.
As a wargame, you could play as a pilot of many drones. You could have some sort of resource pool of tokens representing your "attention" which you could distribute among individual or groups of drones, who would otherwise act automomously. Kinda like a Warcaster in Warmachine boosting his warjacks.
The ability to create unique weapons (and tactics - suiciding your drone to take out key opponents would be an option) and unique environments.
Drones could even be aquatic. Which could have its own hazards - your super high tech drone swarm could get gulped by a trout....
But what if we go smaller? I'm not original here, I like the Eylau Sequence (one of the coolest wargame settings no one has ever heard of) and their micro-tanks (though the rules are too gluggy and the minis a little expensive to an Aussie). Their MGVs are 20:1 drones.
Microscopic? In the Scott Westerfled book Risen Empire there is a scene about drone combat. The drones are the size of dust motes. They have pincer claws and explosives and can "go silent" using thermals to navigate a room and land in a glass of water (which magnifies their listening/detection systems).
Imagine microscopic squidder drones headed up your nasal cavity and burrowing into your brain - yikes!
Models require imagination.... My cheap EM4 spaceships (which have lately seen service as supersonic submarine fighters and MTB-like strike fighters, Descent fighters as well as hovertanks ) may now see service as drones. Probably painting out the canopies would give a more "drone" feel. I swear they have been the most cheap (~50c) and versatile minis I own. For value/usefulness, they can't be beat.
I think I could probably use quite a few spaceship models that are scale-agnostic,and of course there are the cool MGVs. For the hipsters, there's always scratch-building your own; deoderant cans, end caps, disposable razors, and LEGO and hydroponics piping + various weapon bits from everything from 40K to 1:48 WW2 boxes can result in some amazing stuff. (google "scratch built spaceships" and you will be amazed).
Anyways, I think there is fertile ground for sci fi drone wars. You could have drone swarms, antonymous vs piloted, unique tactics and weapons, and have games ranging from 1:1 duels to 100 vs 100 swarms. Stealth, dogfights, kamikaze attacks, and dogfights in the kitchen. You can change the scale from pizza box to dust mote. Heck, spider-bot drones the size of literal spiders... Or hovertanks that skim centimetres off the ground....
In a wargaming sense, you could use magic mechanics to simulate management/processing power of AI, as well as layers of EW including jamming, ECM and EMPs. Perhaps they can be coated in thermal camo or float silently to attack like dust motes. Drone combat can be a fun wargaming area which can be taken in any direction you want it to....
Tuesday, 6 November 2018
Subterranean War
Watching the Netflix's Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War piqued my interest in the tunnel systems of Vietnam, and inspired musings on "underground warfare" in general.
Besides Vietnam, I know a bit about WW1 fortifications, and the tunnels in Okinawa, but I haven't really studied much about underground warfare. I know currently caves in Afghanistan seem to be used a bit, and of course sieges/mining/counter-mining in the ancient/medieval world. From memory, North Korea has complex tunnels including ways to rapidly shuttle troops to forward areas, and even underground runways. Hezbollah and Syria/Libya have tunnel systems. In WW2, I recall fighting in the Odessa Catacombs.
I enjoy reading about abandoned underground Cold War bases and doomsday hideouts and complex underground facilities like the ill-fated Maginot Line.
I've seen a few US documents where they government is exploring subterranean/tunnel fighting technology, as ISIS and North Korea for example, can negate many US advantages by moving underground.
The subterranean world is an untapped domain.
So... what underground warfare might look like for wargaming?
I'm concerned that while modelling it might be fun, trench warfare and tunnel-rat style warfare might be a bit dull in the sense that maneuver is limited. Detection and reaction mechanics would probably be key here. Booby traps and mines that insta-wipe an entire force are not so fun... The fields of fire are narrow and the chokepoints are many. Reduced lighting means night-fighting rules would apply.
..so I'm travelling into "what if" territory....
Well, sci fi has rich ground. Google "underground base" and 99% of hits will refer to Greys, reptilian aliens and government conspiracies. Scenarios pretty much write themselves. I'd imagine any small-skirmish rules (aka 40K Kill Team or Infinity or Black Ops) could be fun. Think small scale (squads and fire teams) of men-in-black hunting down reptiloids beneath Antarctic bases.
As I type this, I'm eyeing off my Secrets of the Third Reich weird-war-two Nazi mech suits; Nazis and underground bunker complexes seem to go together. Toss in some mad scientists and perhaps ravening undead, and fun could be had.
At the far end of the spectrum is the Hollow Earth/Lost World - where the underground spaces are vast - whole islands or continent-sized spaces; perhaps inhabited by dinosaurs and lost tribes. Or aliens. Or giant apes. Or all of the above.
Define your world
I think the thing that stands out to me is "how cramped is your underground?" - ranging from a battle in a single waist-high tunnel to giant underground cities to a complete "Hollow Earth."
I'm thinking that subterranean warfare could be used conveniently prune and focus warfare to suit your interest. Let's assume big caves (Sarawak chamber is 600 x 435 x 115m) - this would mean infantry- only battles, probably squad/platoon sized, with some maneuver.
But what about really big caves? Say hundreds of metres high, and kilometres wide?
You could design your underground world to answer questions like:
What would modern warfare be like without artillery, airpower and helicopters? I've always liked small AFVs like Scorpions, Wiesels, and ASUs. You might even be able to remove MBTs as they would be too expensive to risk in confined spaces. Small, compact vehicles (the sort that support airborne units).
It would be fun to answer questions like: if a nuclear war forced us underground in the 1960s, what would military tech look like today? Or - what future weapons and equipment would form the focus of future underground warfare, in say ~20 years?
Small AFVs might be relevant in a subterranean setting...
You can make an interesting setting
In a future where the Earth's surface is unfit for habitation, the nations have moved below ground. Fungus farms and bioengineered animals provide food, and nations fight using small strike teams utilizing high tech drones including spider gun-bots. You get the idea.... ....underground as a genre has not seen much use.
Besides Vietnam, I know a bit about WW1 fortifications, and the tunnels in Okinawa, but I haven't really studied much about underground warfare. I know currently caves in Afghanistan seem to be used a bit, and of course sieges/mining/counter-mining in the ancient/medieval world. From memory, North Korea has complex tunnels including ways to rapidly shuttle troops to forward areas, and even underground runways. Hezbollah and Syria/Libya have tunnel systems. In WW2, I recall fighting in the Odessa Catacombs.
I enjoy reading about abandoned underground Cold War bases and doomsday hideouts and complex underground facilities like the ill-fated Maginot Line.
I've seen a few US documents where they government is exploring subterranean/tunnel fighting technology, as ISIS and North Korea for example, can negate many US advantages by moving underground.
The subterranean world is an untapped domain.
So... what underground warfare might look like for wargaming?
I'm concerned that while modelling it might be fun, trench warfare and tunnel-rat style warfare might be a bit dull in the sense that maneuver is limited. Detection and reaction mechanics would probably be key here. Booby traps and mines that insta-wipe an entire force are not so fun... The fields of fire are narrow and the chokepoints are many. Reduced lighting means night-fighting rules would apply.
..so I'm travelling into "what if" territory....
Well, sci fi has rich ground. Google "underground base" and 99% of hits will refer to Greys, reptilian aliens and government conspiracies. Scenarios pretty much write themselves. I'd imagine any small-skirmish rules (aka 40K Kill Team or Infinity or Black Ops) could be fun. Think small scale (squads and fire teams) of men-in-black hunting down reptiloids beneath Antarctic bases.
As I type this, I'm eyeing off my Secrets of the Third Reich weird-war-two Nazi mech suits; Nazis and underground bunker complexes seem to go together. Toss in some mad scientists and perhaps ravening undead, and fun could be had.
At the far end of the spectrum is the Hollow Earth/Lost World - where the underground spaces are vast - whole islands or continent-sized spaces; perhaps inhabited by dinosaurs and lost tribes. Or aliens. Or giant apes. Or all of the above.
Define your world
I think the thing that stands out to me is "how cramped is your underground?" - ranging from a battle in a single waist-high tunnel to giant underground cities to a complete "Hollow Earth."
I'm thinking that subterranean warfare could be used conveniently prune and focus warfare to suit your interest. Let's assume big caves (Sarawak chamber is 600 x 435 x 115m) - this would mean infantry- only battles, probably squad/platoon sized, with some maneuver.
But what about really big caves? Say hundreds of metres high, and kilometres wide?
You could design your underground world to answer questions like:
What would modern warfare be like without artillery, airpower and helicopters? I've always liked small AFVs like Scorpions, Wiesels, and ASUs. You might even be able to remove MBTs as they would be too expensive to risk in confined spaces. Small, compact vehicles (the sort that support airborne units).
It would be fun to answer questions like: if a nuclear war forced us underground in the 1960s, what would military tech look like today? Or - what future weapons and equipment would form the focus of future underground warfare, in say ~20 years?
You can make an interesting setting
In a future where the Earth's surface is unfit for habitation, the nations have moved below ground. Fungus farms and bioengineered animals provide food, and nations fight using small strike teams utilizing high tech drones including spider gun-bots. You get the idea.... ....underground as a genre has not seen much use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)