News on Rules

Just an update to say that not only am I still working at knocking Big Little Wars into shape, but that a couple of fans are working on making OHMU War Machine available as a PDF.

Whether this is a facsimile of the original, or a revised an updated second edition has yet to be clarified?

There are pros and cons to both approaches, and shades between a facsimile that's revised to more extensive changes that bleed over to modernizing the combat resolution and command and control mechanisms to meet the current standards for wargame rules and making it a new edition.

Either way, if all goes well there will something coming, but as to when, I have no clue. It depends.

Big Little Wars: Post 12 - Small Robotic Attack Platforms (SRAP)

Small Robotic Attack Platforms (SRAP)

Small robotic attack platforms (SRAP) is a generic catch-all term that covers all remotely operated small robotic vehicles. Human oversight is required for them to move and attack.

Remotely operated SRAPs come in a range of configurations with different capabilities. The most commonly seen are small flying drones, more correctly referred to as a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

Civilian SRAPs are only available at defense of 2, because they are commercial platforms rigged to carry weapons. Armoured military variants have a defense of 4.

However, unarmed reconnaissance UAVs are often deployed by the military as semi-autonomous vehicles. See Semi-Autonomous Combat Platforms (SACP) in the Armoured Fighting Vehicles section (coming soon in a separate post).

Small robotic platforms are not affected by shock, so they are not assigned a shock rating. But they can be hacked. Small robotic platforms are bought as needed, but are not always available to players in all scenarios.

Creating Small Robotic Attack Platforms

The base cost for each small robotic attack platform is the movement added to the defense value. This section provides examples explaining how to use the tables below to create and cost the value of unmanned robotic attack vehicles. 

SRAPs must pay to mount weapons and the for cost of the weapon. All movement is in meters.

The weapons for SRAPs can be found below, added at cost. Chosen from the available weapons for the size of mount chosen.

I'm all too aware of the time between this and the last post about these rules. No excuses, it's all down to me dropping the ball.

Finally, thoughts and opinions always welcome.

NB: Big Little Wars posts to date.

Big Little Wars: Post 11 - First World Infantry Formations

Continuing on from my last post, let's look at First World Militaries; though as one of my readers said, should we be using first, second, and third world anymore? One alternative term in use is Global North versus the Global South to differentiate between.  

The answer is I don't know. Feel free to argue the case for retaining or changing the nomenclature.

Armored Exoskeleton Infantry

First World and upcoming nations have access to powered armor exoskeleton that enhances mobility for their infantry. This also enables them to carry a full load of ammunition, and grenades with ease.

Often considered to be another form of mechanized infantry.

They also have the advantage of not being so easily disabled or killed, but when they are, it affects the perception of the battle's success. The standard weapons include a grenade launcher, which are treated like regular infantry light specialist weapons.

Creating Armored Exoskeleton Forces

Teams are the building blocks for a squad. And those squads are the building blocks for a platoon.

When a players' force takes casualties, the results are assigned to the team that has been attacked, according to how it is organized.

Therefore, squads with two or more teams have the option to spread the results across them all. And then players add leaders as follows:

  

Armored exoskeleton infantry can be be upgraded with

RAV stands for Robotic Attack Vehicles; think Boston Dynamic BigDogs and their ilk. These will be covered next, as they require a separate post.

 

Armored Exoskeleton Infantry Options

1. Sniper. Attached to the  platoon as a specialist team of two (spotter and shooter) included in the base cost of 30. Veterans can upgrade a team for 10 points, limited to one per squad.

2. ATGM. Embedded with the squad with one team member carrying the weapon, with reloads spread amongst the rest of the team. A team with an ATGM can choose to as normal or fire the ATGM.

3. Heavy machine guns are tripod mounted weapons with two crew. Can be attached to the squad or a platoon and deployed on a RAV. The crew allows the weapon to be dismounted, which then becomes emplaced. It can be left as a remote controlled sentry gun.

4. M252 81mm mortars are mounted on bipod with three crew and costs 30 points. Can be attached to the squad or a platoon and deployed on a RAV. The crew allows the weapon to be dismounted, which then becomes emplaced.

5. M121A: 120 mm mortars require a crew of five and costs 70 points. It's too large to be mounted on a RAV, but can be mounted on a vehicle. The mortar can be dismounted from the vehicle, but then becomes emplaced. Once emplaced cannot move and fire. Large 120 mm mortars are always attached to a platoon.

6. Robotic Attack Vehicles are assigned to teams and squads to allow them to carry extra ammo or supplies. Weapons and electronic counter measures can be fitted instead.

Let me know what you all think?

NB: Big Little Wars posts to date.

Big Little Wars: Post 10 - Third World Infantry Formations

One of the problems with writing a set of SF rules is how players create forces. One can create specific army formations, or have players choose from lists, or give them the tools to create any force they want.

The first option is too rigid for my tastes and leads to endless Codex's or whatever. The second I think is great for historical games, but fails for SF because, see option one. And, the third option, which is my favourite, requires more work so ,I've broken it down into chunks to run past you, my readers.

Third World Militaries field infantry with a wide range between the quality of troops and their weapons. They are broken down into two broad categories: 

Insurgent Forces

Insurgents are civilians taking up arms against their own governments or occupying forces. Insurgents fall broadly into three categories.

1. Civilian irregulars are lightly armed troops with personal weapons. They can carry a grenade/improvised explosive device, or field expedient bomb. They can only create smoke by starting a fire with Molotov cocktails.

2. Civilian fighters are well armed, and carry blast/fragmentation grenades as standard. They too can only create smoke using Molotov cocktails.

3. Civilian militia are heavily armed infantry. Command level one militia carry blast/fragmentation grenades only. Command level two militia carry blast/fragmentation and smoke grenades as standard.

All civilian militia and army personnel have soft armor jackets, with plates.

Government Armies 

Regular government militaries are divided by training.

    1.    Conscript troops are civilians drafted willingly or unwillingly into the army.

    2.    Green troops are trained volunteers.

    3.    Veteran troops are trained competent soldiers.

Army units of varying degrees of competence and or military equipment. With access to resources that may not be available to civilian fighters or militia, depending on the scenario. These infantry are assumed to carry enough grenades on them for one battle.

Regardless of whether or not the force are insurgents or government forces, all infantry teams and squads of the same class have the same defense value. Attacks are made against this value. The defense value of a team or squad doesn't drop due to casualties inflicted. 

Creating Infantry Forces

Teams are the building blocks for a squad. And those squads are the building blocks for a platoon.

 

When a players' force takes casualties, the results are assigned to the team that has been attacked, according to how it is organized.

Therefore, squads with two or more teams have the option to spread the results across them all. And then players add leaders as follows:

And because none of the above has considered support weapons, the stats for the weapons are below, here are the options for them:

Light Specialist Weapon Team Options

1. Upgrade. One member of the team carries a light machine gun, RPG, or grenade launcher, which allows the team to attack at that weapon’s value. A team with a light machine gun, RPG, or grenade launcher, can choose to fire with that weapon or fire with their normal weapons. Base cost 5.

Medium Specialist Weapon Team Options

1. Upgrade. One member of the team carries the ATGM, and reloads are spread amongst the rest of the team. A team with an ATGM can choose to fire the ATGM and fire as normal at a target. Base cost 10.

2a. Medium machine guns are mounted on either a bipod or tripod, this makes the team burdened. Therefore they cannot move and fire in the same turn.

2b. Medium machine gun teams can be mounted on a vehicle at the base cost for the weapon and crew. But then the cost of the vehicle has to be added, and the team counts as a platoon support asset. Platoon assets can sometimes be limited by specific scenario missions.

3. Light 60 mm mortars, once emplaced cannot move and fire. Mortars require a crew of two and they become a separate team when assigned a junior leader. The mortar can be mounted in a vehicle at the additional cost of the vehicle, allowing the mortar team to fire and move, but it then becomes a platoon asset, which may be limited by specific scenario missions.

Heavy Specialist Weapon Team Options

1. Snipers are a platoon asset. They come in teams of two (spotter and shooter) included in the base cost. Platoon assets can sometimes be limited by specific scenario missions. Veteran forces can upgrade a team for 7 points, limited to one per squad.

2. Heavy machine guns are tripod mounted and require a gunner and loader. They are always considered platoon-level assets. A heavy machine gun once emplaced cannot move and fire when deployed as infantry. If mounted on a vehicle, at the cost of the crew and the vehicle, then it can move and fire. But this option may be limited by specific scenario missions.

3a. M252A 81 mm mortars, once emplaced cannot move and fire. Mortars require a crew of two and they become a separate team when assigned a junior leader. The mortar can be mounted in a vehicle at the addition cost of the vehicle, allowing the mortar team to fire and move, but it then becomes a platoon asset, which may be limited by specific scenario missions.

3b. M121A heavy 120 mm mortars require a crew of five (a team with a junior leader). Once emplaced, heavy mortars cannot move and fire. These heavy mortars are classified as a platoon asset, which may be limited by specific scenario missions. The mortar can be mounted in a vehicle at the additional cost of the vehicle, allowing the mortar team to fire and move, but is then classed as a vehicle.

4. Miniguns are always mounted on vehicles because they require a power source to fire. Therefore the cost here is for the weapon, the cost of the vehicle is extra. Miniguns are always attached to platoons, and are subject to specific scenario mission limitations.

Notes: Specialist Weapon Teams

 •    Specialist weapon crew do not carry grenades.

•    Medium and heavy specialist crew only carry additional ammunition and or the tripod for the weapon. They carry a personal pistol for self-defense.

•    If the crew of a specialist weapon team are killed, reducing them to less than the minimum number to move and fire. Then the surviving crew may:

⁃    Only fire the weapon if already placed on overwatch during the player’s turn sequence. But they cannot move during the player’s next turn sequence.

⁃    Or they can abandon the weapon, and move and fire their personal weapons as ordinary infantry.

•    If available, players can transfer figures from one squad to the team. To do this, requires the player to spend one command initiative point. But the specialist weapon team cannot move until the turn sequence after the replacement crew arrive.

•    If all the crew were killed, then the specialist weapon team cannot be moved or fired during the player's next turn sequence

Let me know what you all think? 

NB: Big Little Wars posts to date.

A Quick History of Wargames

Found this on YouTube, as one does, and enjoyed it enough to share it with you all here.

It also serves as a reminder of the need to get my finger out, and finish the unfinished rules sitting on my computer. Add to this the need to move the current conversions on my workbench, I need them for play-testing.

I know, I know, I could bathtub using other miniatures but, for me, miniature gaming is all about the toys.

Something about having a model of the actual person or vehicle to play with just clicks for me. I become immersed in the fate of the model. That of course is just how I play. Other ways or playing are perfectly good.

Big Little Wars: Post 9 - Asymmetrical Battles of Tomorrow 2

Here's the second post describing what makes this game different from all the other wargames out there. The near future setting of Big Little Wars is one where technology is unevenly distributed. A reflection of the current situation here on Earth, projected onto the future.

The Gate Walker stories are set in a universe where alien civilizations millions of years ahead of us exist.

In some sense, the setting hearkens back to the warfare between mismatched forces of the colonial period. Except now, the boot is now on the other foot.

The game's rules must allow battles between asymmetrical forces.

This is opposite to what most conventional science fiction wargames try to do. The biggest franchises rules are for competitions between two player. Battles between nominally equally balanced armies, facing each other to see who wins.

Instead, Big Little Wars aims to provide rules to make playing unbalanced battles fun.

The emphasis being on the need to play to a force's strengths to achieve the scenario goal. Games where it is possible for both players to win or lose. The outcome of games creating stories for the reasons the battles were fought.

I stole this idea from role-playing games.

So, one step to achieving this is to focus on command and control. I originally intended to label these as different tech levels.

However, feedback suggests this name conveys engineering and weapons, which it sort of does. And, that's not the whole story of how technological sophistication is a force multiplier. Rather, my thoughts are that technology improves the ability to command and thereby control a force.

So, the four different levels are based on the ability to integrate technology to leverage command and control of a force.

    •    Command Level 1: Early to mid 20th Century (approximately circa 1920 to 1980).
    •    Command Level 2: Late 20th to early/mid 21st Century (approximately1980 to 2040).
    •    Command Level 3: Late 21st Century (starting circa 2040 to 2100).
    •    Command Level 4: Advanced alien technologies (specific to the alien force).

Let me expand that snapshot and my assumptions

Command Level 1 

My assumption is that this is the natural outcome of industrialized warfare (sorry, I'm working from  a data-set of one, so assumptions have to be made).

We see this transition from traditional first-generation warfare, maneuver of line and column, change when faced with machine guns and indirect fire. This led to what is called, second-generation war of fire and maneuver.

Command Level 2

This covers the developments that come from improved technology and training.

The transition from forces maneuvering to face each other, to wars of outmaneuvering the enemy, so called third-generational warfare.

Command Level 3

I've taken the liberty of disconnecting this assumption from the military theory of generational warfare.

This is the idea of a connected battlefield; warfare as an internet of things. Whether this will realistically be the case is another matter, but the war in Ukraine gives us a glimpse of war where a drone can be sent to deliver a package to an enemy soldier that will ruin his day.

Command Level 4

Is a catchall term for what comes next. A civilization where technology, psychology, and society have advanced so far that  it's like looking into a singularity, where all within is hidden.

Or, if you prefer,:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” 

– Arthur C. Clarke

In Big Little Wars, command level four will be reserved for aliens, or for settings that fall outside of the Gate Walker universe.

So, while I may not be planning on writing any scenario books involving giant super robots, or Kaiju that doesn't mean the the rules can't be used in such settings.

They're just not settings I'm expending my time on.

Big Little Wars: Post 8 - Asymmetrical Battles of Tomorrow 1

This post is the start of a number of articles describing what makes Big Little Wars different, or unique from, all the other SF wargames out there for players to choose from. I mean, why bother getting my rules rather than say, Warhammer 40K, BattleTech, or Heavy Gear?

They're all clearly SF wargames that feature mecha in some shape or form. And you all know I love mecha.

One word, plausibility; with an emphasis on command and control.

All right, three words: plausibility, command, and control; in a near future setting. 

Okay that's actually five words: plausibility, command, control, near future setting.

Enough of the Monty Python routine, what about the science!? 

I mean it's science fiction, otherwise it would just be historical wargaming dressed up with science-fictional buzz words. In other words, a game that lacks any awesomely mind-boggling futuristic science; just the same as every other SF game on the market. Yeah, I hear you, dragons, or insert X here, are cool!

But, there are already a plethora of future-science-is-magic wargames, and therefore my rules may not be for you.

Still, any advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic, unless you understand the science. Therefore, the rules will exploit advance science that appears to be magic, but which isn't magic. Okay?

Is it going to be Vietnam in space; just another bug hunt, ma'am?

No it's not.

Come and see me later for some attitude correction. Or read the rest of this post, or both. Give me twenty... 

Seriously, no.

The aim of the rules is to provide plausible, playable, combine arms wargames with Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). Yep that's sixteen words. You can see why I didn't lead with that.

The 'how of the game' is built on the foundations from Too Fat Lardies Chain-of-Command rules.

Specifically on how to manage the command and control. However, the combat resolution system does not involve buckets of dice (a personal bugbear of mine; though a perfectly valid choice).

But, on top of that the rules will provide players with guidelines to create an army, and encourages players to play with their favourite models, whatever figures size they have can be accommodated.

Other points to bear in mind, there will be mechanisms that treat the meta (no not that meta, the other meta*) of toy soldier wargames.

The current draft of Big Little Wars has turned some preconceptions about seeing where a model is on the table versus where the it actually is i.e: the playing table is just a map showing where the players sensors think everything is. This beds the game into the whole Fog-of-War, and emphasizes the asymmetrical nature of the battles of tomorrow. 

This is also me taking a leaf out of quantum mechanics.

Yep, I've said the Q word (quantum voodoo is cool), and by using a scientific concept of uncertainty. Until an object is measured (attacked) the location of the model is uncertain, which adds a science fictional feature to the game.

So, that's all for now, catch y'all on the bounce.

*Meta Notes: 

Traditional meaning beyond, after, or “behind e.g: metaphysics (beyond or after physics).

Wargaming acronym i.e: Maximally Effective Tactics Available.

Modern accepted use of meta means information about information e.g: metadata, or in this case what the position of a toy soldiers when placed on the tabletop actually represents (its information).

Big Little Wars: Post 7 - Play Testing Round 1

I got distracted by a shiny idea. But this post is is an update on play-testing Big Little Wars.

I've found two more volunteers who are interested in seeing the rules, and two of my original volunteers are still working through the, but as people have noticed there is a lot of stuff going on in the world at the moment.

Enough distractions and anxiety to upset even the best of people.

As I've said to everyone who has shown an interest in the rules, the current timeline is for feedback by mid to late July. I'd rather do things thoroughly than force anyone to deliver feedback before they are ready.

I learnt my lesson way back in the day that thorough play-testing is a must. My main concerns at this stage are.

1. Are the rules too wordy?

2. Are the rules clearly written?

3. Do the game mechanics make sense?

4. Does the setting spark joy?

5. Have I missed something obvious/glaring that jumps out, however small?

Currently, the scenario section is the least fleshed out section, as I ran out of steam when I wrote them. However, I'm compiling ideas (stealing from others and making them my own) to expand this section.

Oh yes, the above is a Subatduku mech suit to support the alien infantry I painted a while back. Obviously inspired by District 9, I'm melding two of GZGs Crusty exosuits together to make a more robust military mech.

That's all for now.

Big Little Wars: Post 6 - Platoon Primer

I realize that what I know versus what I think other people know are often at odds even when we share the same hobby of wargaming. So here is an explanatory video on what is a platoon.

Important because the rules I've written are based of players fielding a platoon.

There's a lot to digest, but consider this a primer for the command and control concepts behind Big Little Wars that outlines the origins, concepts, with examples for context.

Big Little Wars: Post 5 - Chapter Headings

 

A progress report that is more than just there has been progress. I've set a goal of completing the first daft by Christmas. So I sat down and made a priority list of what I needed to do to finish to be able to send the first draft out the door to my play test team.

The picture shows the progress made and the word counts.

My document tells me that the current word total is: 19,677 words; though the project counter only says 19,401 words. No doubt there are good reasons for this, but I haven't a clue why they differ?

This project has completely sidetracked my work on my next novel, but doing this has involved me thinking about a lot of stuff that counts as world building stuff I will need to know for later stories. I'll take that as a win.

The list of sections to finish are:

Chapter 2. Big Little Wars Assumptions: 

Terrain; Choose Your Faction; and Overview of play.

Chapter 3. Playing Big Little Wars:

Deployment Points Example; Command Dice Example; Action & Movement Examples; Resolving Attacks; and Combat Resolution Examples.
Chapter 5. Troop & Vehicle Creation: 

Armored Fighting Vehicles; Robotic Attack Vehicles; and Weapon Options (cost to do).
Chapter 6. Force Organization: 

Adding vehicles to a force.
Chapter 7. Scenario Set-up:

Force building for scenarios (this is the first of the two big parts of what's left to finish).
Chapter 8. Optional Rules:

Non Player Controlled Forces; Company Level Games; and Calculating Line-of-Sight (is the other big part of what's left to write).

That's it. Catch you all later.

Big Little Wars: Post 4 - Down in the Weeds

Another progress report. There has been progress. I've reached 14,843 words and I'm now down in the weeds.

By that I mean I've now have movement and combat resolution mechanisms that float my boat. I'm just at that stage where I'm working through the chapters making sure I'm not contradicting myself, and that everything is where it is supposed to be.

Keep finding things missing though.

I'm checking the construction rules, where there are still some gaps from equipment not yet covered, and checking the section that describes model attributes, and cross referencing to the movement and combat rules, and came across an oopsie.

As in, I thought I'd described what the game allows players to play with on the table, you know robots, tanks, power armour, and mecha etc but, oops not stated clearly in the introduction that these units are what the rules cover.

It's not a big oops. But it is an oops. One where one finds one has described a bunch of rules, but not which models have access to said rules.

And then I remembered last night, while semi-awake, between dreams, that autonomous vehicles and robots will have a variant of the activation rules to make them feel different. This also ties in with the solo play and group play rules that Big Little Wars aspires to deliver.

Extrapolating how future science and technology affects war. You know, to make the rules not just another SF recreation of WW2 or Vietnam.

Important stuff. Not just fluff, but the flavour of meaty goodness that comes from giving players significant choices to make with different benefits versus costs, which creates the feeling on involvement in the game.

Big Little Wars: Post 3 - Progress Report

WIP on two CAS-3-Mod 1 Apes.

Progress on everything has ground to a halt for the reason that I made the decision to take the rules to places I hadn't thought of after doing some research on the rules currently out on the market. And there are a lot of very good rules on the market covering near future warfare with or without mechs.

Having read a few I thought that there was something missing that would make mine standout as offering something different.

Hence very little progress. Not none, as I'm up to 10,224 words.

I recall that while I wrote the first draft of OHMU War Machine in a month, it took much longer to play-test and fix wonky rules. And even then we still had to do a FAQ to clarify some parts and and errata sheet for all the missing words and typos that got through the editing process.

So it is what it is. Given my funk I've done good.

Anyway, I've changed the working title to Big Little Wars, which is thematically congruent with the Gate Walker setting where have major powers fight small proxy wars.

Therefore the rules must be able to keep both players interested where asymmetrical warfare means one side is outmatched by the other. Not just Vietnam in space, but something truly science fictional with alien aliens.

If only because that while I haven't introduced technological aliens into my universes setting (yet), it seems to me that the key to having interesting games between human forces facing an alien race whose technology is far superior is the key to science fictionally interesting games.

The problem is how the rules allow players to enjoy the experience of being outmatched in one area is balanced by game mechanics that still allow for a victory? I'm doing my homework by researching all the rules that have attempted this.

And just to remind readers, I will also be stealing the best ideas for solo play/group against the game mechanics running the opposition rules too.

It's a tall order, but I'm having fun, which is the important part, right?

Big Little Wars: Post 2 - Update on Gate Walker Battles

Three new Combat Armor Suits representing the mecha in my universe.

Well, I threw my current draft, mostly notes, together, and sent it to a friend who has shown interest in working with me on the project.

Working title is now Bad Dog; though that may change again.

I've received the first feedback, and I'm excited. It seems it isn't totally crazy of me to write another set of future combat rules featuring mecha. The emphasis being on plausible future warfare with mecha as a part of the battlescape.

So it looks like it's a go for  C4ISR mission (Communications; Computers; Intelligence; Surveillance; and Reconnaissance) with ECM and ECCM, and morale feeding into when the battlefield becomes an internet of connected things.

Big Little Wars: Post 1 - Gate Walker Battles

After a year that feels like living in the Bad Place, I've started to get some interest back in making models and playing games. I'm still sad to say that I have no mates to play Heavy Gear with, and therefore have little chance of teaching the casual person to play a game I don't fully know how to play.

Also, I'm still struggling still with a lot of self-doubt about my fiction writing. I've gone through a period of stagnation, and at the moment it would be stressful trying to jump back into writing full-time.

So getting back into the saddle too soon might trigger a relapse of my depressive episode.

But writing something would be good for me. So, I have decided that I might try writing a set of rules for the Gate Walker universe setting. If only because it will be easier to teach people to play a new game if I wrote rules.

I may be biased, or deluded, in holding that opinion, but I do have the previous experience of designing game rules from writing OHMU War Machine.

Given the amount of time between the last time I considering writing a set of rules for my setting, it's time to reassess my options. My previous thoughts on the rules centered around updating the command control rules, and revising the available units to reflect my Gate Walker universe.

However, I'm unconvinced that I still want a set of rules that can handle battalion and larger sized combat groups. Also I might need to consider the option of being able to play solo as well. But I do know I want to capture the feel of #RealRobo combat.

I know, I know, what does that even mean?

1. Capture the feeling of future warfare with power armor etc.

2. Detailed enough for squads with support elements to make combined arms platoons.

3. Command and control rules, so the player acts at the level of each squad commander.

The first goal is a bit like being General Haig at the start of WW1. It's like me having to face the challenge of learning how to fight a war where technology has moved the goal posts on what works and what doesn't.

Fortunately, I won't have to put real people through the grinder.

Second, what do I mean by squads?

I'm thinking two to five people or vehicles per unit. A platoon would be three to five squads, so a combined arms platoon would be between ten to 25 infantry or to six to ten vehicles.

Optional off table support will be available to represent assets available to the combined arms platoon like: satellites; artillery, air-support etc.

Finally, I want the command and control rules to be a bit like Chain-of-Command.

Players get dice to roll that generate the number of commands they can give a turn (thinking this could represent limitations from bandwidth, ECM and ECCM that battles generate). But also allow them to focus on what heroes can bring to the action.

That sounds like a reasonable set of goals, but whether I can write a set of rules that other people want to play remains unknown. And now I have to think of a name for them. Please feel free to make comments now, before I start writing.

I'm sure this blog that will make my friend Roger laugh, as he predicted I end up trying to write my own set of wargame rules.

Bad Dog Rules 3

The other night, while lying in bed about to fall asleep I couldn't help thinking about a simple combat system for my Heavy Gear inspired mecha games. And I came up with the following way to construct Gears for the game.
 

Classes

Light: Gears like the Cheetah and Iguana etc.

Agility: four dice used for defence.

Two armour boxes.

Medium: Hunters, Jagers, Jaguars and Mambas etc.

Agility: three dice used for defence.

Three armour boxes, unless up armoured.

Heavy: Grizzlys, Cobras, Kodiaks and King Cobras etc.

Agility: two dice used for defence.

Six armour boxes, unless up armoured.

Weapons

Light: pack guns, small missile pods, and anti-infantry weapons–one attack die per weapon.

Medium: light and medium autocannons, light bazooka, and medium missile pods–two attack die per weapon.

Heavy: heavy autocannons, rifles, medium bazookas–three attack die per weapon.

Special: heavy bazookas, rotary cannons, large missile pods, and others will get perks. Large missile pods will have three attack die and have a burst radius of four inches. Heavy bazookas will get four attack dice.Rotary cannons will get three attack die and more than one attack per turn.

At this point, movement is looking to be around four inches. There will be modifiers depending on size and the loadout chosen, which will have an affect on how fast a Gear can move. Ranges will be short, medium and long, which will subtract or add to the defence–long range will be line-of-sight.

Concealment will reduce the chance of being hit, but cover will also reduce the effect of being hit. Being hit will always add a suppression modifier to the the model, which will cost an action to remove.

On top of that I will have action point options to allow players to sacrifice firing for moving again, remove one suppression marker, choose to split fire, or choosing to emphasize attack or defence (simulating ECM and ECCM), or designate a target lock.

Veteran pilots will get perks for defence, attacks or other options to be decided (think Luke Skywalker's or Wedge Antilles ability in X-Wing).

Examples might be, Gear optimized for distance and pilot gets to re-roll blank dice when shooting at long range, marksman will reduce defenders defence roll by one dice, squad leader can remove a suppress marker from any friendly Gear in their squad etc..

So, for example, my RAFM Hunter Commando moves four inches, has three dice for defence, probably four armour boxes, and five attack dice (three for the bazooka and two for the medium missile pod).

Standard actions would be to choose one of the following, ECM (add one dice to defence), ECCM (add one dice to one attack), split fire (fire the bazooka at one target and the missiles at another) or place a target lock on one enemy unit.

Obviously, this is a work in progress.

SF Wargame Rules: What I Want

The above is a crop of a picture I got from Catalyst games showing off their BattleTech rules.  I must admit my first reaction was this is not exactly selling BattleTech as a fun game to play.  What I want are a set of  rules that I can use while playing a game.  The above is pretty much my definition of a set of rules that would slow down the game every time one wanted to refer to them.

So I want rules that are really, really accessible.  A good example would be the rules booklet for Star Wars: X-Wing.

But what I want most of all are a set of rules that give me the feeling of playing in the future, which Star Wars: X-Wing fails to do, being WW2 combat in space!  Unsurprising given the source material, and don't get me wrong I love playing the game.

To put it plainly, a game must not only to have the tropes of SF (Robots, Rockets & Rayguns), but it has to feel science fictional, which is something that's very hard to pin down.

Partly I suspect what would make game feel like the future are things that traditional wargames have toiled against down the years: too much information from having the models on the tabletop and knowing the outcome of every move your opponent makes during the game.  So, it seems to me that what are seen as bugs in traditional historical wargames could be made to be seen as features in a science fictional setting.

Perhaps that's why SF wargames are so popular?  I jest slightly, as I don't imagine for one minute that this is a concern for the average punter who buys a game like Warhammer 40K.
   

Science Fiction Wargaming: The Three Rs

  

Over on Neil Shucks Meeples & Miniatures podcast Henry talked about his decision to resign as editor of Miniature Wargames, and mentions what he sees as a problem with SF wargaming: namely it's not a unified community in any shape or form, being driven by ranges from manufacturers.  An obvious example being Warhammer 40K from Games Workshop.  The implication being that SF wargamers tend towards one system and setting, though I would add that most of my friends tend to mix it up and play in more than one manufacturers universe.


So, for example I tend to be thought of as a BattleTech grognard, at one time it would've been Battletech for breakfast, lunch and dinner, with a late night snack of BattleTech before going to bed.  However, as readers of this blog know I also have an extensive collection of Steve Jackson Games Ogre and GEV game miniatures, which have also graced this blog, and I've been know to wibble on about the game at great length.  And then there's Dream Pod 9s Heavy Gear range that I've gotten into over the last few years.

I should also add that I'm also into StarWars: X-Wing from Fantasy Flight Games, and have in the past played the odd game of Star Trek Star Fleet Battles from Amarillo Design Bureau.

However, perhaps I'm not necessarily a typical SF wargamer?

There is an element of truth that SF wargames are compartmentalized by brand/universe setting.  In fact one could argue that all the successful SF wargames have a strong brand/universe setting, because without the setting what is one actually playing?  And furthermore, without a setting, how does one come to an agreement about how to play a game set in a hypothetical future?

Fantasy gaming also has a similar problem with, for example, Lord of the Rings versus Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but the one thing they do have in common is the extensive mythology from historical cultures.  Even if the trolls from Norse mythology are not the same as say the trolls from Runequest, one doesn't have to explain that a troll is a monster, only the nature of the beast.

There again there are the common SF tropes, which I will boil down to the three Rs of science fiction: Rockets, Robots, and Rayguns.

But, once you get past the basics what is actually the common denominator?  I'm into robots – BattleTech and Heavy Gear – but my friend John Treadaway is into Hammer's Slammers and Silent Death, and we disagree on the relative realism of walking tanks versus hover tanks.  Whereas in Fantasy no one I know is arguing that trolls are less realistic than goblins.  The root of this is the difference between science fiction and fantasy: one is rooted in historical based reality the other in mythology and beliefs about forces outside of human understanding.

Is there an answer to this?

Probably not, and does there need to be one because what we're talking about is playing games.  However, it does seem to explain Henry's assertion about the lack of a central community for SF wargames.  Personally, one of the reasons I play SF games is because I free of community group thinking about what is right or wrong in the games I want to play.
    

Bad Dog Rules 1

The above picture is a teaser of the Table of Contents for the Bad Dog draft rule-set that I'm working on.  Of course there's the small matter of all the text.

Whether or not I will complete writing the rules is dependent on a large number of variables, which when you boil them down are based on time and money considerations.

But, at least now I have resolved the scale of the game's actions, up to a platoon, the ground scale as 12 inches equals 100 yards, and the model size as 10/12mm or 1/144th scale.

The latter being quite easy as I've been a big fan of this scale for a number of years.  But the rules will also be able to use 6 and 15mm miniatures without any major concerns, and larger figures if one is prepared to do some scale conversions, and have a big enough playing area.

BattleTech Infantry Paradigm 2

Last time I talked about how I was creating a paradigm for deploying infantry in BattleTech and have them deployed on a one-to-one basis, just like battlemechs and vehicles. This time I want to talk about simple rules that add flavour, but don't slow down the game. These rule suggestions are based on using the models to represent numbers of men attacking, and from that easily calculate their attack value.

Sound too good to be true? No, not really, and here is how to do it.

If you look at the classic BattleTech rules one can see that pretty much a platoon of 30 men does an average of 15 points of damage. Yes, the numbers vary, but if you add them all up and divide by the number of choices it really is an average of about 15 points. Interesting that, and I wrote about this earlier here.

Modern infantry today came generally attack with a wide variety of weapons, bringing considerable firepower to bear on their targets.

So, to calculate the damage the infantry will inflict divide the total number of figures by two and that is your usual damage at the standard ranges for infantry of one, two and three hexes.

Now we can play around and assume that infantry come with anti-vehicle weapons, and to represent that attack divide the total number of men by four and round down to an even number to calculate the number of two point attacks. I'm using the same range bands as SRMs, which are three, six and nine hexes for this .

Finally, to allow for a longer range LMG attacks against other infantry we can use the same divide by four metric and again use the same ranges, but no longer need to round down to an even number.

So for example a 28 man platoon will do 14 points of attack at one, two and three hexes, which now represent a close assault melee. At ranges three, six and nine they can do seven points of attack against infantry representing normal firing. Finally, they can do six points of attack at a vehicle, or mech at ranges three, six and nine, in the standard groups of two.

Okay, this is a lot less detailed than the current CGL expanded infantry rules, but it is a lot simpler and gives the flavour of modern infantry. We shall be play-testing these in the next game.
 

BattleTech Infantry Paradigm 1

At the top are three bases each with three figures, which I think makes a good representation of a squad/section of infantry for the game. In front, on the left, is a single figure on a base to allow for casualty removal during the game.

 

One of my desires in my current campaign is to play games with more stuff on the table than the typical BattleTech game, where it is mostly mechs with the occasional vehicles, or infantry acting as speed bumps. I also want more battlemechs too, don't get me wrong, but I want infantry, vehicles artillery and air support as well. If we can have combat engineers, medics, bridging units, and other specialist toys too that would be even better.

Not that every game has to have all the toys on the table, but I want the game to be fun when they are. More stuff is after all more stuff to play with.

I'll be honest as say that infantry in BattleTech aren't much fun, unless you are an infantry gonk.

I would consider myself an infantry gonk, but my current players aren't. This makes me sad, as I want them to see the fun to be had by playing infantry. So I want to work towards a paradigm for deploying infantry when playing BattleTech on the tabletop. A paradigm being a fancy way of saying a pattern, or model of how to deploy infantry so as to act as an example that can be copied, and therefore be an exemplar for others.

I also want to have the infantry models in my games to cover the area that real infantry platoons would be expected to cover. More info on infantry platoon frontage here. You will note that a squad in real life is expected to defend an area that is about the same size that a platoon in BattleTech would occupy. However, I want to just move on to basing figures, rather than talk about the rules this time around. How I want to organise them, to meet the needs of the the game, and increase the players enjoyment when using them?

Everything else in BattleTech is represented by one model except for infantry, and I just don't like the way it looks on the table, and it puts me off playing with infantry. Therefore I base my figures on coins, and can comfortably fit three conventional infantry figures to one base.  However, I have had to base my battle armour, and jump infantry as two figures to a base, because of their size. I also use two figures on abase to represent the platoon commander, and single figures on a smaller base for casualty removal. So quite a lot of variants when you think about it, and all because I don't like one base equaling one platoon, because to me it looks wrong.

Then it is a matter of deciding what number of bases make up a squads/section? I'm thinking a minimum of two bases, and a maximum of four bases. This would allow players to face Word Of Blake six man squads/sections, or 12 man larger squads/sections, for when one wants to represent contemporary practice e.g.: British Army sections, or US Army A teams. I'm thinking two three man bases with one small mortar section of two bases for House Steiner platoons, because it allows for one up front and two back formations.

Platoon size can then be based on a minimum of two squads/sections per platoon, up to a maximum of six squads/sections, per platoon. This is really only to allow for Word of Blake/ComStar forces in BattleTech, as historically three, or four squads/sections are more usual in the real world. Generally I would expect to see platoons organised as two to four bases of figures per section, with two to four sections, giving a range of platoon sizes from four bases up to a maximum of 16 bases.

This as it stands is quite a lot of figures, but it does bring infantry into the game on an equal representational footing by keeping to the one-figure-equals-one-man basis that BattleTech uses for both vehicles and battlemechs.

Once this is in place it is easy enough to count bases and add up the attack value from that, but how I intend to do that is for the next post.