- Infantry unit: 4 SPs
- Cavalry units: 3 SPs
- Artillery units: 2 SPs
- Commanders: 6 SPs
These are used to calculate an army's total Strength Point value, which in turn determines its Exhaustion Point.
As part of my work on designing an Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War operational-level version of the PORTABLE WARGAME, I have recently been looking at a slightly different way of allocating SPs that will better reflect the different levels of training, equipment, and experience.
- Before the battle begins, each unit is allocated a Strength Point (SP) value that is based on its training, equipment, and experience.
- This is calculated by adding numerical values that represent the differing levels of training, equipment, and experience to the basic unit Strength Point value
- Basic Strength Point value for all units: 1
- The additional numerical values are:
- Combat unit that is smaller than a regiment/brigade -1
- Equipped with obsolete weaponry: -1
- Poor quality General*: +0
- Poor quality infantry and cavalry: +0
- Average quality General*: +1
- Conscript infantry and cavalry: +1
- Transport: +1
- Motorised/mechanised: +1
- Good quality General*: +2
- Equipped with light AFVs: +2
- Regular infantry and cavalry: +2
- Artillery: +2
- Exceptional quality General*: +3
- Equipped with medium AFVs: +3
- Elite infantry: +3
- Equipped with heavy AFVs: +4
- Equipped with very heavy AFVs: +5
- Note: The starred (*) additions to the basic Strength Point value only apply to command units.
- A regular Russian infantry reconnaissance battalion will have a Strength Point value of 2 (its basic Strength Point value minus 1 for being smaller than a regiment/brigade plus 2 for being regular infantry [1 - 1 +2 = 2]).
- A German motorised anti-tank battalion will have a Strength Point value of 3 (its basic Strength Point value minus 1 for being smaller than a regiment/brigade plus 2 for being artillery plus 1 for being motorised [1 - 1 +2 +1 = 3]).
- A conscript Russian rifle regiment will have a Strength Point value of 2 (its basic Strength Point value plus 1 for being conscript infantry [1 + 1 = 2]).
- An elite German motorised infantry regiment will have a Strength Point value of 5 (its basic Strength Point value plus 3 for being elite infantry plus 1 for being motorised [1 + 3 +1 = 5]).
- A Russian T-34 tank brigade will have a Strength Point value of 4 (its basic Strength Point value plus 3 for being equipped with medium AFVs [1 + 3 = 4]).
- A German Pzkpfw VI Tiger I tank battalion will have a Strength Point value of 4 (its basic Strength Point value minus 1 for being smaller than a regiment/brigade plus 4 for being equipped with heavy AFVs [1 - 1 + 4 = 4]).
- A Hungarian artillery regiment equipped with obsolete artillery will have a Strength Point value of 2 (its basic Strength Point value plus 2 for being artillery and minus 1 for being equipped with obsolete weaponry [1 + 2 - 1 = 2]).
Bob,
ReplyDeleteIs there a minimum value? The basic SP of 1?
Looking at the above a poor quality infantry battalion is on 0 and if equipped with obsolete weapons on -1.
Or is the intention that such units are in larger formations?
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteThe rules are intended to be used with the basic unit representing a regiment/brigade, with battalions for specialist units such as recce, anti-tank, and combat engineers. I would not expect anyone to field battalions of poor quality infantry armed with obsolete weapons … although such a unit might make a ‘bump in the road’ that advancing troops would have to deal with before moving onwards. I might need to add a rule that no unit may have a starting SP of less than 0.
The formula will work with the existing PW rules, and I hope that it will be used as such.
All the best,
Bob
Sounds like a good way of determining the SPs of a huge range of unit types easily. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteps there is a typo in the Tiger example. It's listed as "plus 4" and also "+5"
Donjondo,
DeleteI can see it working (with some modifications) for almost any historical period.
All the best,
Bob
PS. Thanks for spotting the typo. I’ll change it ASAP.
Good list Bob. I noticed that there is now variation in AFV units as reagrds their quality of training/ leadership/ morale only the relative technological strength of their tanks. Is that something you considered and then didn't include?
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Pete.
Pete.,
DeleteI thought about including a morale factor, but decided that as morale should be a reflection of a unit's training and equipment, it didn’t require an additional bonus or penalty factor.
All the best,
Bob
Maybe making poor quality units large formations would be the way to go, with a +1 or +2 if a Brigade/division sizes unit?
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteThat is an interesting idea, and would certainly make sense when fighting a battle involving very large forces where the quality of one side’s army was appreciably worse than their opponent’s.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteThis will, of course, HAVE to be play tested.
A couple of points to consider, perhaps:
- To a Russian Tank Brigade +1 for integral tank riders (IF it has them)
- For infantry mounted in armoured half-tracks or similar +2 instead of +1 for motorised.
- I presume that a 'command unit' is not a 'combat' unit.
So far my approach has been, in the case of infantry units, to let the stands carry the strength point information. At the moment I can't really see that working with the SP system you have suggested.
Something for me to think about anyhow!
Cheers,
Ion
A
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteThis is still very much a draft, and I welcome recommendations for any adjustments and changes. I hope to play-test the system once I am happy that it is reasonably balanced.
I am considering using small dice as the means of recording a units SP. I have loads of them (plus dice holders) and it would not be too difficult to 'add' them to my games.
All the best,
Bob
PS. Command units will only fight as a last resort, and will not be combat units as such.
Sounds fine Bob, but I wouldn't over think it. I usually start with the range of SP values I'm happy with and work back from there (typically one to five).
ReplyDeleteMartin Rapier,
DeleteI take your point, and my reductionist approach to wargame design is always in the forefront of my mind.
I want to play around with what a division will look like using this SP formula, at which point I may well make some significant changes.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting piece Bob. Would you apply a similar arrangement to Horse & Musket formations do you think?
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteIf I get to the stage where I am happy with the formula, I can see it being applied to earlier historical periods. I might start with a basic SP of 2 rather than 1, but if - with this minor change - the formula is applied 'as is' to - for example - an experienced Confederate infantry brigade led by 'Stonewall' Jackson, it might have an SP of 2 - 1 (obsolete weapons) + 3 (elite infantry) = 4. An opposing newly-formed conscript Union infantry brigade might have an SP of 2 + 1 (conscript infantry) = 3. The latter might even be rated as poor quality infantry, in which case their SP would be even lower (2 + 0 = 2).
It certainly formalises the sort of suggestions I have made in the rules for adjusting a unit's SPs.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob, I hope you're well, I can see Pete's point about unit quality, but if you use the P. W. combat rules then a unit's morale/training status would be covered by the combat result with "better" units having a better chance of surviving. Keep up the good work.
DeleteTake Care,
Tony.
Unknown (Tony),
DeleteI have always had mixed feelings about morale being a stand-alone concept, and like you, I see it as a reflection of training and experience.
There will be further thoughts about this over the coming weeks … so keep reading the blog!
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI've often considered increasing the number of SPs per unit as it would:
1. allow more differentiation between units, based upon weaponry, training/tactical doctrine and morale, which is what your proposal offers.
2. allow a better reflection of the differences in the effect of 'hits' by different weapons or tactics, such as between skirmish fire and a close range volley, or between roundshot and canister.
3. it would allow one to portray the steady wearing down of units until they are exhausted, 'burnt cinders' (Clausewitz) over long periods of time.
4. it would enable units to remain effective for longer, despite suffering casualties &c., which might be more realistic in some cases.
5. it would tend to make games last longer, even if involving only small forces, which might be more satisfying for some players.
The downside, of course, is that one would either have to use tiny dice, counters or chits accompanying each unit or a roster system.
I think adjusting and/or increasing the SPs of units is certainly worth experimenting with; unit SPs could vary to suit different historical periods and styles of warfare.
But for a simple, easy to remember and play game of toy soldiers, one could stick to the original concept.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI think that we are - as usual - in common agreement about this. The formula still has room for improvement and refinement, but I think that it has the kernel of a system that will enhance the basic PW rules.
That said, for shorter games I can still see players using the ‘two hit’ and ‘sudden death’ options. This means that players can still adapt the rules to suit their requirements without deviating from the basic mechanisms used in the rules.
That looks like a ‘win-win’ for everyone!
All the best,
Bob