In reply to a comment by Neil Patterson about his recent battle report entitled LITTLE GREAT WAR: KAVKAZ CAMPAIGN EPILOGUE, Archduke Piccolo stated that:
One change to the rule set I will make is to increase the machineguns 3 Strength Points. At 2SP, they are too brittle. ... I'm thinking of increasing the MG range, too, to 4 grid areas instead of 3, one more than rifle range.
It might not be such a bad idea to reduce to 2 grid areas the effective range of rifles (and MGs too maybe) whose targets are in any kind of cover. This on top of the existing penalties.
Part of the tabletop battlefield featured in Archduke Piccolo's recent battle report. © Archduke Piccolo.
Interestingly, I have been thinking about this very element of my draft PORTABLE BELLE ÉPOQUE WARGAME rules ... and although I had come to slightly different conclusions, I am now having a re-think.
BOB,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't change the Range of the MG- sometimes small tweeks to the rules can have catastrophic effects. KEV.
Kev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteIt’s something that I am thinking about … and I haven’t made a definite decision as yet.
All the best,
Bob
Machine gun doctrine was in fluctuation throughout the period 1865-1918, so firing range is as much about that as it is about weapon capability. The same holds true about artillery with contact fuse development and recoilless artillery. It would not be odd for one nation to be using a more effective method than another. Easy to justify any rule for the period, especially given these are ImagiNations. Body count and weapon crew shielding is a good base for determining SP representation. Like most gamers I like to tweak rules to fit my interpretation of the history they model.
ReplyDeleteWEK 3,
DeleteFunnily enough, I’ve just been reading about the effectiveness of French mitrailleuse during the fighting around Sedan during the Franco-Prussian War. Apparently, a battery of them did lots of damage to some Prussian artillery that came within range. They decimated the gun crews and the artillery had to be withdrawn.
My thinking is that I ought to give machine guns slightly longer range but not increase their SP. Also, I will definitely make it clear that a machine gun unit that moves and then fires during the same turn will have reduced effectiveness. I want machine guns to be used defensively rather than offensively.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in your views. I did acknowledge that the MG ranges I was contemplating might not 'work' for your usual table size. I'm not 100% sure it would work for 10x10 square gris or 15x12 hex grid.
The reason for my increasing MGs to 3SP is that I have found it very difficult to bring them safely into the action. Even playing solo one is inclined to concentrate artillery fire against them; so bringing them forward to support an attack can be problematic.
Mind you, my MGs are pretty much an army corps asset. The ratio of infantry stands in my armies is to MGs is 10:1 at best. The latter don't dominate my battlefields as they did by WW1.
At 4 grid areas' range, the MGs would equal smoothbore mountain guns. That seems reasonable to me, but I would like another opinion.
Kev raises the perennial issue: what is the overall effect of a rule change? Combining the two I have suggested might well lead to battlefields becoming dominated by machine guns and earthworks. I guess we'll just have to suck it and see.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI see the machine guns as a defensive rather than offensive weapon. Therefore, I envisage machine guns that remain static as have a slightly longer range than magazine rifles … but if they move and fire in the same turn, the range will be shorter (the same as magazine rifles?) and only throw 2D6 rather than 3D6.
This is my current thinking … but may change when I try out the amended rules.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteYou raised a point I has overlooked - mainly on account of a certain assumption. I haven't been permitting MGs to move and fire in the same turn. Now, that might be a problem of time scale, that given the theoretical during of a turn, the MG's ought to have have ample time to set up a fire position. I just assumed that not to be the case.
Methinks I'll have to go back to Rethinksville...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteIt’s a moot point. I don’t allow artillery to fire and move (or move and fire) during the same turn, but do allow machine guns to. Perhaps - for the period - machine guns shouldn’t be allowed to move and fire/fire and move during the same turn.
It something to think about.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, if by machine guns you mean weapons like the Vickers they deffo shouldn't be allowed to move & fire in same turn. Even in FWW they were largely static, which is why the introduction of light MGs like the Lewis Gun was so important.
ReplyDeleteGary S,
DeleteI am thinking about everything from the mitrailleuse to the Vickers-Maxim … so the move and fire/fire and move option is definitely out.
Perhaps they should also fire during the Artillery Fire Phase and be treated as artillery … just as the French treated the mitrailleuse.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, that's a great idea. It would reflect the status of MGs in the period very well.
DeleteGary S,
DeleteCheers! The more I think about it, the better I think that it will work.
All the best,
Bob