Development of the fast play, 3 x 3 PORTABLE WARGAME (or FP3x3PW to use its abbreviated name) continues apace, with several users trying it out and both developing their own versions and asking questions ... not all of which yet have answers! Foremost amongst the as-yet-unanswered questions come from players who want to differentiate between Shooting Combat and Close Combat.
As currently written, all combat that does not involve artillery or machine guns takes place between units in adjacent grid areas. However, there is a good case to be made that combat between units in adjacent grid areas should be Shooting Combat, and that Close Combat should take place between opposing units that are in the same grid area.
I must admit, that when you look at this suggestion, it has merit both aesthetically (as the following photographs show) and from a design point of view.
Opposing Napoleonic troops engaging in Shooting Combat ...
... before engaging in Close Combat.
I must admit that if I was going to write a set of FP3x3PW rules for the Second World War (something that I am seriously thinking about), I would probably opt for Shooting Combat taking place between opposing units in adjacent grid areas and Close Combat taking place between opposing units in the same grid area BUT there are implications for the size of the grid areas that will be required.
In the photographs shown above, the figures are 25/28mm and the grid areas (my new terrain squares!) are 10cm x 10cm. The opposing forces only just fit in a single grid area, and I would need to use bigger grid areas if I wanted to represent terrain items such as trees and buildings in the grid areas. However, if I use small figures (15mm Colonials, for example) the problem seems to be solved, as the following photographs show.
The British manage to get a volley in ...
... before the Hadendowah tribesmen engage them in Close Combat.
I want to spend some more time looking at this conundrum, but I am coming to the conclusion that if you have enough space to get all the units involved in a Close Combat into the same grid area without it looking overcrowded, then Shooting Combat should take place between opposing units in adjacent grid areas and Close Combat should take place between opposing units in the same grid area.
Ho Bob -
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the questions I explored in my 'Bagrat's Raid' mini-campaign (in the throes of being written up. In some respects the question is answered 9partially) in Mark's original concept.
The way I handled it was to treat all shooting much like artillery in the standard PW sets. That to arrange a given turn as follows:
1. Shooting
2. Roll for initiative
3. Top roll moves
4. Close combats
5. Bottom roll moves
6. Close combat
This isn't a total answer, and I'm thinking of adding 'shooting in the charge' as either (a) extra to other shooting, or (b) allowed only to non shooters as an unanswered shooting roll or (c) as a +1 to charging horse units and/or to infantry RECEIVING a charge. I have yet to play test these options.
Otherwise, the 'phase system' I was using seemed to work smoothly enough.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI have done quite a bit of thinking about how to solve this conundrum, and I have just added a file to the FB page that incorporates my initial thinking into a WW2 Russian Front set of 3 x 3 rules. You suggestions include some very interesting alternatives to my ideas … and I look forward to seeing how they work.
All the best,
Bob
Great idea, I was using that concept in a Roman vs Numidian combat yesterday and I am of the thought that it is great to help differentiate between shooting troops and close combat troops. Good point!
ReplyDeleteSlorm,
DeleteCheers! I think that the idea of separating Fire Combat and Close Combat is a good one, and will add something to the basic concept.
All the best,
Bob
PS. My autocorrect keeps changing your name to ‘Storm’ … and I don’t always notice. Please accept my apologies if this happens and I don’t notice,
Hahahaha, don't worry.
DeleteSlorm,
DeleteThanks for being so understanding.
All the best,
Bob
I am still dedicated to only allowing one unit in a grid square for all my games - it is just so much simpler and easier to follow than allowing multiple units into a square.
ReplyDeletePossibly two units from one side, with one supporting, would work okay (but I am still not keen on it) but having both sides units enter the same square ruins the clean simple style of grid games for me.
Mike Lewis,
DeleteI’m only proposing this change for 3 x 3 PW battles … although I suspect that some users might use this ‘Close Combat takes place in the same grid area’ rule in standard 8 x 8 PW battles. They joy of my rules is that you can adapt them to suit your personal preferences.
All the best,
Bob
I like this idea Bob. Just tried it and I'm happy with it!
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteCheers … and thanks for the feedback!
All the best,
Bob
I like close combat in the same grid, I think it looks good and is a bit more "visceral." I went with that for my hex version of OHW horse and musket. Need to dust those off... Following your 3x3 developments with interest
ReplyDeleteJozi’s Tin Man,
DeleteThanks for your feedback. I suspect that a lot of users are going to opt for Close Combat taking place in the same grid area.
All the best,
Bob
I like the idea of close combat taking place in the same square, and your rules modifications as well. I propose added a shooting phase before close combat which would be resolved before units enter into close combat. I've written it up in more detail on the Portable Wargames Facebook page. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteThanks for the feedback. I think the idea of units ‘shooting themselves in‘ makes sense. I look forward to reading your detailed report on the PW Facebook page.
All the best,
Bob
This solves a lot of the issues I had keeping track of close combat in my game. It makes "danger close" artillery fire a real thing, as well.
ReplyDeleteMardigan,
DeleteCheers! Thanks for your feedback.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI think to answer this question satisfactorily involves considering the following factors:
1. The historical period portrayed by the game. In the ‘Ancient’/medieval eras, Close Combat would be hand to hand, with sword, spear and axe, so having opposing troops in the same square seems intuitively correct. The same might also be appropriate for ECW ‘push of pike’ when Foot fell on each other ‘pell mell’ and Horse fought each other with swords. In the blackpowder era, when infantry relied more on musketry to reduce their opponents to breaking point before charging with the bayonet, it might seem more appropriate to have such Close Combat begin in adjacent squares: if the attackers succeed in driving off the enemy, their movement into the adjacent square represents the bayonet charge; if they do not succeed in breaking the enemy, they remain in the adjacent square and continue to engage in a musketry duel. 20th century troops whose weapons fire further can compel the enemy to withdraw without coming to close quarters.
2. The level of action being represented. In an action between individuals or small groups of soldiers, it seems appropriate that they shoot from adjacent squares, but engage in Close Combat in the same square. But if ‘Ancient’ or black powder the units represent large formations, such as phalanxes, legions, brigades or divisions, the short range of shooting weapons relative to unit frontage might be thought to require both shooting and close combat to occur within the same square (or between bodies drawn up to the boundary between the two adjacent squares. Longer-ranged weapons would suggest the opposite for 20th century forces.
3. The size of the figures relative to the area of the squares will affect both the aesthetic appearance, and the players’ appreciation, of the game. Large figures standing almost ‘toe to toe’ yet supposedly shooting at each other, rather than engaging in hand to hand combat, look faintly ludicrous and decidedly unrealistic, unless one uses command figures, such as a French general on horseback for example, to represent an entire brigade or division, in which case the symbolism mimics the tone of many battle narratives – Soult advanced up the Pratzen – and neutralises the visual unreality. Small figures drawn up in blocks can create an impression of large formations or, based singly, represent individuals or small groups.
Portraying forests and BUAs in such games probably requires 2D symbols placed sparingly in the square or hollow square card boxes surrounding an area, into which figures may be put.
Best wishes, Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThanks very much for your detailed comments.
I cannot fault you thinking. You have summed up the various factors in great detail and with a clarity that makes the options clear. My own thinking is that as weapon ranges increased, Close Combat needs to be separated from Fire Combat. Likewise, if I think that if a unit represents a company or battalion, the separate types of Combat need to be included in the rules, but each unit represent a division, one only needs one Combat mechanism.
Looking at my photographs, I think that the Napoleonic figures look too crowded in the 10cm squares, but that the 15mm figures look right. As I suspect that most of my FP3x3PW games will involve 15mm figures, I think that I will be able to stick to using the 10cm squares for most of my games.
Thanks again for your very insightful and useful comments.
All the best,
Bob
OK, yes, this sounds alright. The element size is definitely important, and my next game will enlarge the squares a bit. I am okay with having CC in the same square for WWII and will use it that way next time.
ReplyDeleteWhat confused me, I think, was the fact that at close range, 20th-century infantry fire and close-combat are practically synonymous. We don't cross bayonets any more, we use grenades and point-blank fire. In CC, the troops are actually doing a lot of shooting, which causes a lot of rules to vacillate over whether they should be rolling for ballistic skill or weapons skill.
Jennifer,
DeleteI’m glad that things are now somewhat clearer.
The boundary between Fire Combat and Close Combat changed as the twentieth century progressed. Whilst the bolt action rifle was the predominant infantry weapon, Fire Combat would take place at 600m and Close Combat was at bayonet point and the distance you could throw a Mills bomb. By the time that automatic rifles and submachine guns were widely introduced, Fire Combat range was reduced to 300m, with much fighting taking place at even shorter range and it began merging into Close Combat.
All the best,
Bob
I don't see that the whole unit need cross over into the enemy square. Surely it would be obvious that an enemy unit which has advanced even 1mm over the boundary line is carrying out a close assault.
ReplyDeleteRoss Mac,
DeleteA good point, and one that would certainly work with situations where the grid areas are relatively small compared to the footprint of the figures being used.
All the best,
Bob
This is all very interesting. However, with my Black Hat Thinking I can't help wondering whether your are in effect simply remaking a bigger grid by giving each space on the 3x3 game two functions.
ReplyDeleteJon S,
DeleteThe development of the 3 x 3 concept has actually made me rethink and re-examine the relationship between Fire Combat and Close Combat. In the full-size PW, I’d fudged this somewhat, but reducing the grid size has forced me have another look at this relationship.
All the best,
Bob
I see... so there might be a PW 2.0 in the offing? 😉
ReplyDeleteJon S,
DeleteIt’s something that I am thinking about … possibly as part of the proposed PW Compendium.
All the best,
Bob