A new way of doing army lists

[Last Hussar]

Been thinking about this for about a few months now, but never got round to actually putting anything down.  I did wonder about putting it on the BKC board, but it's generic/rules independent.

Instead of having a strict OOB, or points, you take a third way - inspired by Heroes of Normandie, but without the points.

I'll take BKC as an example where a specific is needed

I'll call each Command a 'Template'
Each template has a basic force plus a number of 'Slots', what can occupy it being defined on the template

Borogravian Tank Battalion (75mm Sherman) - (Value - 1 Slot)

Template
HQ - CO 8
HQ - Sherman 75mm platoon
Recce Company - 4 platoons of Stuarts
Engineering Company - 3 platoons of engineers in Truck
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm

Slots
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
AA Company - 2 platoons 40mm - tow by trucks
+1 Command value
FO

So lets say you have 4 'slots' to spend.  

You spend 1 to buy the template
You get EVERYTHING in bold - you can't swap any of it.
you have 3 slots left to buy, which can be any mix of ANYTHING in the slots - but you can only buy each slot once - that's why the tank companies appear 3 times, and you can't buy the AA twice.  The FO could have a battery off table, but the way I have it here is he would be calling in a separate templates tubes. You can forgo actual combat stuff to take the +1 to the CO Command Value

For a Tiger Battalion you might say that 1 slot is 2 platoons of Tigers.  Or you might have a Battalion where it costs 2 slots to buy the template. You could make some slots either/or

Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm OR 2 Platoons Sherman 76 + 1 Platoon Firefly

Its still sort of points - 1 point per pick effectively but easier to calculate, AND you also have a formal structure which you can still customise.

Obviously you would agree with your opponent as to number of slots beforehand.  You might stipulate a min/max number of Templates.
So the scenario briefing might say
ATTACKER
18 Slots 2-5 Templates

DEFENDER
9 Slots 1-2 Templates

Thoughts?

If this was done it could be done for a set of rules BUT have a command conversion thing for others

[Chris Pringle]

Similar but different: may be you could adopt/adapt the approach used in the SkirmishCampaigns books, and have players roll dice to see what 'Variable Attachment(s)' they get to add to a standard base force?

And they needn't necessarily always be good. E.g. in your Tiger Battalion example, you might get:
"Nothing - the Tigers have broken down / run out of fuel / collapsed a bridge".

Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

[Leon026]

Sounds a bit like the Flames of War system - where you have the 'core' company structure, and various attachments. I do say it makes themed lists more interesting.

[Aksu]

Hullo,
This is more or less the method I used in our club BKC games. I usually started with the core being a (realistcally) understrength version of the e.g. regiment and the number of assets (or the lack of) each side depended on the overall level of pain I wanted to enforce on the gamers. They could then choose whether they wanted more maneuver elements or e.g. off-board support.
Cheers,
Aksu

[toxicpixie]

So long as you can account for actual battle field structure instead of theoretical TOE and do that for every variation within an army, you're good to go Most units will be down a bit on the stated strength, some might be up. In any given theatre there'll inevitably be changes whether it be 75mm to 76mm or Fireflys or Challengers to Cromwells to Fireflys etc.

There's then the balancing that structure to the opponents - a Panzer Abteilung with clapped out French retreads and PzrIII's is a very different beast to one with Panthers (although tbh given how useful and reliable even late model Panthers were in practise, I might prefer the French tanks ). You then need to account for skill, morale and crew quality (however it's done or not done), and command structure/flexibility.

It's mountains of work for the rules writer, but does take the burden off of the player.

I do like the Spearhead approach in the Scenario Generation system - it's similar, in many ways, and combines the best of both to gently encourage a bit of historical knowledge with ease of use. Basically you select the type of Division you want to run, then pick "teeth arm" battalions from it. You buy the components of same at anything from (IIRC) half strength up to full, but need to complete them before you get any more units or go outside of Division - so no picking just the Panzer and Gepanzert battalions, then the same from a second Division etc. Or in a cheesy Allied fashion, no picking an army groups worth of Achillies or the entire production run of IS-2's before you get the work-a-day units

You can add parts of support units by company - e.g. a company of AA from the Flak battalion, or a squadron of Daimler's from the armoured car recce regiment, but no cherry picking again - if you want a second set you have to start buying up the whole recce regt. or heavy tank unit etc etc along with their HQ and any support bits before you filch someone elses stuff from elsewhere.

That's probably more complex to describe than to actually use - the PDF is downloadable at https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/  - it also generates a battlefield and vaguely in period, realistic goals and victory conditions that make it feel like a WW2 battle. It's also a bit asymmetrical which is nice, without being a "always 2:1 odds with minor defences, 3:1 with prepared" sort of thing, and takes account of national doctrine and command flexibility.

With relation to the BKC discussion, it would be excellent to implement something similar but then it might require an extra book of TOEs to give guidance for players. I suspect for those of us who carry the orbat for an "X pattern Field Heavy Kitchen Flak Division" in our heads, there's three people who just want a good, vaguely historical game with tanks where they don't have to swallow a 200 page TOE and know what colour Colonel Dave Blokestein painted his unit logo on the 12th of March at Umplesteen Village

[Ithoriel]

With relation to the BKC discussion, it would be excellent to implement something similar but then it might require an extra book of TOEs to give guidance for players. I suspect for those of us who carry the orbat for an "X pattern Field Heavy Kitchen Flak Division" in our heads, there's three people who just want a good, vaguely historical game with tanks where they don't have to swallow a 200 page TOE and know what colour Colonel Dave Blokestein painted his unit logo on the 12th of March at Umplesteen Village

I suspect you seriously underestimate the number of the latter type of player!!

[toxicpixie]

I dunno, maybe

But then, if it was the most common no game ever would have had any kind of scenario set up or army lists and would just be a book of rules without any info in

I think we may not be the most numerous, but we might be quite vocal

A good "points system" should not just be taken in isolation, is my point. It needs to be flexible to reflect the huge and massive variety in real world TOEs (to an acceptable level), whilst producing a "balanced" game. That balance isn't in "we both line up 1000pts of cheese-tanks  across the table and see whose fromage is strongest" but rather in both sides/players having an acceptable fun game which replicates in miniature the real world conditions of the period, with a chance of winning for both - and that win isn't necessarily "break the opponent" but involves key terrain (objectives), bypassing enemy forces (getting combat effective units off board), retaining a defensive position, having a viable force at game end etc etc.

It needs to cater acceptably for the player who wants to model Formation X on date Y when it had whatever attached or not running etc, whilst being simple enough for someone who doesn't want to spend hours pouring over TOEs and unit interactions to "pick up and go". Otherwise you lose a big slice of player base either way...

I like the basis of LH's idea, for the same reasons I like the SH SGS - you're selecting actual units at a realistic strength and with appropriate support, not just to the whims of game (un)balance or model sales or cheese. It's just hard to implement properly

[Ithoriel]

Perhaps I've just known an atypical bunch of gamers but the majority were far more interested in the GAME part of wargames than the WAR part preferring equal points value armies fighting encounter battles rather than "fancy scenarios" (their description not mine).

I've run a number of what I think were simple successful campaigns but all eventually foundered as players decided they wanted to play some "proper" equal points games.

[toxicpixie]

I think you're actually probably seeing the majority of games, there Ithoriel - certainly it's the majority of people I've seen play, as opposed to those I play with the most

The scenario system/army builders should support that, but give them a gentle nudge to behave like a general of the time in an easy fashion - BKC works quite well for that, I find, unless you deliberately choose an encounter game every time on exactly equal points and then just bash heads - which inevitably turns into a bad attack-defence as whoever is fastest/gets best activations seizes useful terrain/position and the other player grinds into them at a disadvantage on equal points...

That's the "bad" example of points systems taken in isolation. The system should allow the players to generate the "equal" army they want (within easy lines of something historical), and then allow you to fight something vaguely in keeping with the period without feeling you have to do odd things or anything massively complex. The changes with Peter Pigs' PBI over the years show an odd example of that going a bit skewif - you can generate a "minor nation" force of rubbish and you're opponent can wipe you out and "win" on table, only for your bonuses for being rubbish completely overturn the end result!

Basically, it's my view that the army generation and scenario and terrain and objective and victory aims should be taken as a whole package. You can't divorce any single bit without duffing it all up. It needs to be simple enough to cater for a "pick up and play" "equal game" whilst also giving enough depth that the grognard doesn't feel out of place because "Unit X didn't have the Tiger with the odd numbered muzzle break until Jan 44" etc etc. It's a tall order, but a good example lets you put as much depth in as you AS A PLAYER.

Sorry to bang on about the Spearhead system, but with a copy of the TOE booklet in the rules and the scenario system you can knock a pick up list really easily - two half strength Sherman units with a Firefly troop each, a motor battalion with support, three FAO with 2*25pdr batteries each, done. Or you can spend your hours getting involved with the Unit X at Battle/Campaign Y, work out exactly what they had and then tailor a list to match that. The depth is there if you want it, and the ease of something generic is there if you don't. It then generates a quick set up with understandable goals for each side in about the time it takes to, err, set up the table

I've often thought about grafting the ideas onto BKC, but the current set up is actually more than flexible enough to do the same; I just have to think about what I'm representing and then structure my choices from the appropriate list to reflect that!

[Leon026]

Speaking of scenarios, one of the best system I've seen was in Epic Armageddon using playing cards. Each player would pick a card, and keep it hidden from the opponent(s). He/they would then consult the chart and see which objectives were attributed, and what percent of his forces were in reserve and already deployed. This hidden system meant that your mission might be to pierce the enemy with your tiny vanguard force before your follow-on forces could show up, while his could be to secure a specific crossroad. It would be made interesting as you'd have to probe the opposition to see what objectives they had, and if they had more forces in reserve or possibly in ambush (!!!!).

[toxicpixie]

Actually, that worked quite well so long as the missions/objectives were sensible and clashed enough to produce a game (as opposed to say both sides sprinting one unit across the baseline at double speed and doing nowt else...). I do like "hidden aims" - it works nicely to create a fog of war effect.

[bigjackmac]

Wow, that Spearhead stuff is pretty cool, never seen that before.  Thanks TP!!!

V/R,
Jack

[fsn]

Interesting idea, Hussar.

How would you differentiate between quality of troops? For example, between a raw bttn and a seasoned one? You'd want to allow the same number of slots per template, but perhaps it would cost more for the template?   

[toxicpixie]

Wow, that Spearhead stuff is pretty cool, never seen that before.  Thanks TP!!!

V/R,
Jack

Pleasure, Jack!

It's not perfect but then nothing ever is And it works very well!

[paulr]

It's mountains of work for the rules writer, but does take the burden off of the player.

I do like the Spearhead approach in the Scenario Generation system - it's similar, in many ways, and combines the best of both to gently encourage a bit of historical knowledge with ease of use. Basically you select the type of Division you want to run, then pick "teeth arm" battalions from it. You buy the components of same at anything from (IIRC) half strength up to full, but need to complete them before you get any more units or go outside of Division - so no picking just the Panzer and Gepanzert battalions, then the same from a second Division etc. Or in a cheesy Allied fashion, no picking an army groups worth of Achillies or the entire production run of IS-2's before you get the work-a-day units

You can add parts of support units by company - e.g. a company of AA from the Flak battalion, or a squadron of Daimler's from the armoured car recce regiment, but no cherry picking again - if you want a second set you have to start buying up the whole recce regt. or heavy tank unit etc etc along with their HQ and any support bits before you filch someone elses stuff from elsewhere.

That's probably more complex to describe than to actually use - the PDF is downloadable at https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/  - it also generates a battlefield and vaguely in period, realistic goals and victory conditions that make it feel like a WW2 battle. It's also a bit asymmetrical which is nice, without being a "always 2:1 odds with minor defences, 3:1 with prepared" sort of thing, and takes account of national doctrine and command flexibility.

I know Keith well and helped him out with some proof reading and suggestions on the Scenario system. A number of us then played a lot of games and managed to break the earlier versions a few times. It has been used at two of our Nationals, one WWII and the other Moderns

It really was a mountain of work for him but has paid off really well with an amazinlg flexible and robust system that gives great games.