From: David R L Porter Subject: Re: Firepower The message <34CCEFE3.3228@interactive.net> from Marvin Gardens contains these words: > gracanh@mafpz.fpz.hr wrote: > > > > Could anyone give me a short description/review of Firepower (AH), or > > point me to a website where I could find some info about the game? > > Thanks! > > > > Hrvoje > > > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > I owned this game years ago. I found it to be turgid, cumbersome, and > hideously overwritten. C'mon Marvin, tell us what you *really* think ... :))) I found the major problem with Firepower was that the counters were so neutral (any one could represent about twenty different combat entities) and the mapsboards so unconvinving that it was next to impossible to enter into the spirit of what was going on. It makes one realise how good the Squad Leader boards are. The rules, as Marvin says, are more or less impenetrable ... David. david.porter@zetnet.co.uk From: patronius@aol.com (Patronius) Subject: Re: Firepower >> gracanh@mafpz.fpz.hr wrote: >> > >> > Could anyone give me a short description/review of Firepower (AH), or >> > point me to a website where I could find some info about the game? >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Hrvoje >> > >> > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- >> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet >> I owned this game years ago. I found it to be turgid, cumbersome, and >> hideously overwritten. > >C'mon Marvin, tell us what you *really* think ... :))) > >I found the major problem with Firepower was that the counters were >so neutral (any one could represent about twenty different combat >entities) and the mapsboards so unconvinving that it was next to >impossible to enter into the spirit of what was going on. It makes >one realise how good the Squad Leader boards are. The rules, as >Marvin says, are more or less impenetrable ... I agree--but much to my surprise, I've heard some say FP has the best set of rules they've ever seen. I think what they meant was that it's a good "reference" book--easy to look up a particular rule for a given situation. But it sure makes it hard to learn the game for the first time. The game itself has a great "feel" to it, IMHO. Gets you down to nitty-gritty combat action without the slow-motion effect of Gunslinger. Nevertheless, I stopped playing it long ago, mainly because of all the charts you have to juggle. Btw, there's also an offspring of FP: Platoon (based on the movie of that title). Makes a tolerably good intro-level beer & pretzels game. From: edremy@chem1.usc.edu (Eric Remy) Subject: Re: Firepower In article <885844046.1145372683@dejanews.com>, gracanh@mafpz.fpz.hr wrote: > Could anyone give me a short description/review of Firepower (AH), or > point me to a website where I could find some info about the game? > Thanks! Very low level tactics game- units are individual men. Interesting "Impulse/chit" based movement system- each side gets a number of chits which are then thrown into a cup, followed by random draw. Each time you get a chit, you get to move a certain number of pieces. Although somewhat annoyingly random at times, it gives a nice feel for how "elite" units can outperform lesser ones, since the elites have more chits and can move more people/chit == much more responsive unit. The system tries to model every single weapon known from Korea on. Works ok with rifles and such, but crew served weapons and vehicles have some problems, since their max range is far beyond what the boards can show. It tries to model tanks and fails miserably, since a tank can drive across the whole map in a few seconds in the real world. An interesting game, although not a great one. Stick to squad on squad firefights and it can be a lot of fun. We played it once blind with a referee- that was a lot of fun. -- Eric R. edremy@chem1.usc.edu Director of Instructional Computing, USC Chemistry "See, I told you they'd listen to Reason"- Fisheye, _Snow Crash_ If you think I speak for USC, see your doctor now. From: John.Salt@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames In article <34CE1479.27A0@volcano.net>, The Maverick wrote: >John D Salt wrote: >> These I have, and would go so far as to say are bad games: >> Firepower AH >Would you go so far as to say why? ;-) I've met people who don't >particularly like Firepower, but I've never heard someone call it a >"bad" game. "Firepower" contained one good idea, which was the chit activation system. This can, if fitted well enough into a design, give some feel of the confusion of minor tactics (although it does not really model leadership or morale effects very directly); I have seen the system work in "Platoon", Tabletop Games' "Firefight" miniatures rules, and, on a larger scale, in "Panzer Command". However, it is important to be sure that the granularity of actions possible on a single chit pick, and the likelihood of one side getting a protracted "run" of chits, are both kept within reasonable bounds. It is also possible to mitigate the effects of a one-sided chit orgy by an intelligently-constructed opportunity fire rule. "Firepower" did none of these things. The result is a game that purportedly represents minor infantry tactics, and yet positively rewards large amounts of movement without fire. Sorry, I may only have done my section and platoon attacks at the School of Infantry on an amateur basis, but "Firepower" seems to bear as much resemblance to infantry tactics as it does to ballroom dancing. There are plenty of other failings of the game -- horrible graphics, obsessive amounts of unwanted detail, what I regard as the usual failings of the Battleline/Yaquinto stable -- but the failure of the chit system to gel is what completely wrecks the game for me. There seem to be no countervailing advantages of suspense, scope for skilful play, atmosphere, or any of the other things that make a game good. Bad game. No biscuit. All the best, John. [Who also hates the guts out of "Up Front!", FWIW.] -- John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one. From: The Maverick Subject: Re: Tactical wargames John D Salt wrote: > "Firepower" contained one good idea, which was the chit activation > system. This can, if fitted well enough into a design, give some > feel of the confusion of minor tactics (although it does not really > model leadership or morale effects very directly) Yes, but the system wasn't designed to simulate leadership and morale factors... thus the focus on VERY SMALL and SHORT encounters. > I have seen the system work in "Platoon" Same designer as Firefight and Close Assault, of course... > is important to be sure that the granularity of actions possible > on a single chit pick, and the likelihood of one side getting a > protracted "run" of chits, are both kept within reasonable bounds. Well, it is a simulation GAME and in that respect is much more enjoyable than the arguably unplayable "military training simulations" produced by SPI. If you expect 100% accuracy out of it, you will indeed be disappointed. > It is also possible to mitigate the effects of a one-sided chit > orgy by an intelligently-constructed opportunity fire rule. > "Firepower" did none of these things. The result is a game that > purportedly represents minor infantry tactics, and yet positively > rewards large amounts of movement without fire. The open nature of the game system certainly makes it easy to add such a rule if you feel it's necessary. But since this is man-to-man scale, allowing automatic "opportunity fire" would give you guaranteed combat effectiveness from a single man. The point of the game system is that you CAN'T always rely on what one soldier will do under fire and limits the "absolute control" permitted in other game systems. With that rationale in mind, the lack of an opportunity fire rule makes sense. It is more reasonable to expect that a "single unit" in a squad or platoon scale game would be able to deliver some sort of opportunity fire. However, that concept does not necessarily extend to being allowed to deliver opportunity fire from a single soldier in a man-to-man scale game. > Sorry, I may > only have done my section and platoon attacks at the School of > Infantry on an amateur basis, but "Firepower" seems to bear as > much resemblance to infantry tactics as it does to ballroom > dancing. These "infantry tactics" really don't have much in common with a man-to-man scale game either though. > There are plenty of other failings of the game -- horrible graphics, I've certainly seen worse... ;-) > obsessive amounts of unwanted detail "Optional" detail. Much like Ace of Aces, there is a lot here to enjoy in the 4 page basic game (once you figure out what the rules are trying to say.) ;-) > what I regard as the usual > failings of the Battleline/Yaquinto stable -- but the failure of > the chit system to gel is what completely wrecks the game for me. Seems like that's because you might be asking it to do something it was not intended to do. > There seem to be no countervailing advantages of suspense The game can be very suspenseful... > scope for skilful play A good man-to-man game, unless assuming 100% reliability of every soldier involved, should not be locked into skillful play. That's what chess is for. > atmosphere, or any of the other things that > make a game good. Again, a matter of opinion. Some may feel the generic approach lacks atmosphere. I feel that this can be used to create atmosphere (as shown by the excellent General articles on the SAS, Central America, etc.) Besides, it's fun. That's the #1 thing that makes a game good. Unless your expectations for a 100% accurate "simulation" prevent you from having fun. > [Who also hates the guts out of "Up Front!", FWIW.] Ah... well, that explains it. ;-) Seeya! the Mav -- Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I all at: http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick From: John.Salt@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames In article <34CF6517.523C@volcano.net>, The Maverick wrote: > [In response to me saying why I hate "Firepower" so much] >Yes, but the system wasn't designed to simulate leadership and morale >factors... thus the focus on VERY SMALL and SHORT encounters. Huh? Are you suggesting that there is some scale at which leadership and morale do not apply? Why? >> I have seen the system work in "Platoon" >Same designer as Firefight and Close Assault, of course... ...but apparently with a developer who was doing a better job this time. > [more snips] >Well, it is a simulation GAME and in that respect is much more enjoyable >than the arguably unplayable "military training simulations" produced by >SPI. If you expect 100% accuracy out of it, you will indeed be >disappointed. Sorry, I have never accepted the "It's only a game" excuse for poor rules. Nor do I expect 100% accuracy from my games, for it would be ludicrous to do so. However, just like a film or a book, I expect a game to enable me to suspend my disbelief, and see it as representing what it purports to represent. Of course, this is a personal thing; all I was saying is that "Firepower" doesn't do it for me. Obviously it does for you. I'm not sure why the dig at SPI's games is there, but I have shelves full of 'em that I've played and enjoyed. I have never thought of any of them as "military training simulations", with the sole exception of Firefight, which of course was. >But since this is man-to-man scale, allowing automatic "opportunity >fire" would give you guaranteed combat effectiveness from a single man. >The point of the game system is that you CAN'T always rely on what one >soldier will do under fire and limits the "absolute control" permitted >in other game systems. With that rationale in mind, the lack of an >opportunity fire rule makes sense. It is more reasonable to expect that >a "single unit" in a squad or platoon scale game would be able to >deliver some sort of opportunity fire. However, that concept does not >necessarily extend to being allowed to deliver opportunity fire from a >single soldier in a man-to-man scale game. An interesting defence of the game mechanism. However, I'm afraid it doesn't wholly convince me, for two reasons. The first reason is that "opportunity fire" really exists, although it's not called that in the British army at least. An infantryman really would be given a fire order of the form "Rifle group, two hundred, woods to your front, watch and shoot." The second reason is to do with the modelling of uncertainty. I have no problem with the idea that a rifleman, given an order like the one above, might not obey it in the stress of combat. What I do have a problem with -- and what the mechanisms of "Firepower" seem to allow much too often -- is for an attacking commander, who knows that the other player has exhausted his chits for this turn, to move men through the fields of fire of automatic weapons in the certain knowledge that they cannot possibly be hit. Bleagh. > [more snips] >These "infantry tactics" really don't have much in common with a >man-to-man scale game either though. Huh? (again). These infantry tactics -- as taught at the School of Infantry -- deal *precisely* with warfare at the man-to-man level. I don't understand what you meant by that remark. > [snips again] >Seems like that's because you might be asking it to do something it was >not intended to do. I would ask it either to provide a reasonably convincing portrayal of modern infantry combat, or to give a reasonably enjoyable game, and ideally both. It doesn't do either of these for me, and there are plenty of other games at this scale that do it much better. > [snip] >A good man-to-man game, unless assuming 100% reliability of every >soldier involved, should not be locked into skillful play. That's what >chess is for. There is no need for a game to assume 100% reliability of soldiers in order to give scope for skilful play. Am I being hugely unreasonable in expecting a game on infantry combat to make some efforts in the direction of favouring competent tactics over ineptitude? > [snips] >Besides, it's fun. That's the #1 thing that makes a game good. Unless >your expectations for a 100% accurate "simulation" prevent you from >having fun. Oooh, I wish you'd stop attributing opinions to me that I've never expressed, and are the opposite of the ones I hold! I'm quite happy to play games that make no pretence at simulation at all ("Nuclear War", "Illuminati!" and "Awful Green Things" are favourites). I just can't see what there is in "Firepower" that would make it fun, despite the fact it's on one of my favourite subjects. I know plenty of games that give me more fun for less effort, and which I feel are more convincing as portrayals of infantry combat. "Patrol/ Sniper", "Platoon", the "Ambush" series, "Grunt", "Ranger", and even, for goodness' sake, "Raid on Iran" come into this category for me, as do "Infantry Action 1925-1975" and BAPS miniatures rules. I'm still in the market for a better man-to-man tactical game, though... >> [Who also hates the guts out of "Up Front!", FWIW.] >Ah... well, that explains it. ;-) Oh yeah... "Squad Dealer", where drawing the right cards lets you order "Birnham Wood, left flanking, move now". The Christmas I got this game, I tried playing it with my kid sister. She organised her squad into a (small) fire group with the gun, and a (large) maneouvre group, having figured out that much infantry tactics for herself. As is the nature of "Up Front!", the game punished her for doing this eminently sensible thing. "This game's not very realistic, is it?", she said. We didn't find it was much fun, either -- Courtney Allen must have been having a bad day, because his "Storm over Arnhem" and "Thunder at Cassino" are two of my all-time favourites, showing how simple games that are fun to play can also be convincing simulations. All the best, John. -- John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one. Return-Path: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:20:19 +0000 From: Alan Poulter Reply-To: alan@poulter.demon.co.uk To: admin@grognard.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: Tactical wargames] From: The Maverick Subject: Re: Tactical wargames So anyway, you don't like Firepower and I do... ;-) But a few more points so that those who are still on the fence won't pass it by: John D Salt wrote: > > The Maverick wrote: > > [In response to me saying why I hate "Firepower" so much] > >Yes, but the system wasn't designed to simulate leadership and morale > >factors... thus the focus on VERY SMALL and SHORT encounters. > > Huh? Are you suggesting that there is some scale at which leadership > and morale do not apply? Why? Have you looked at the time and distance scale of the game? The chit draws are an indeterminate amount of time but the turn scale is given as thrity seconds and five yards per hex. At such scale it seems to be a reasonable abstraction to use the allocation of chits to reflect superior/inferior leadership and morale. Otherwise you are going to end up with some kind of role-playing system instead of a man to man wargame. > >> I have seen the system work in "Platoon" > >Same designer as Firefight and Close Assault, of course... > > ...but apparently with a developer who was doing a better job this time. I'd say the general consensus is probably the opposite. ;-) > > [more snips] > >Well, it is a simulation GAME and in that respect is much more enjoyable > >than the arguably unplayable "military training simulations" produced by > >SPI. If you expect 100% accuracy out of it, you will indeed be > >disappointed. > > Sorry, I have never accepted the "It's only a game" excuse for poor > rules. I am not excusing "poor rules" as I don't feel they are poor. I am excusing the GAME from being a 100% accurate (or is it 75% you are looking for) ;-) reflection of man to man infantry combat. > I'm not sure why the dig at SPI's games is there, > but I have shelves full of 'em that I've played and enjoyed. I have > never thought of any of them as "military training simulations", with > the sole exception of Firefight, which of course was. Firefight is exactly what I was referring to, but I think other releases were close enough to be just as guilty (i.e. Air War.) This wasn't a dig, just an observation as to what kind of "game" results from your desire for a "by the book" recreation of modern infantry combat. > The first reason is that "opportunity fire" really exists And it exists in Firepower too, but only when you receive a chit draw... not in the middle of another player's move. > What I do > have a problem with -- and what the mechanisms of "Firepower" seem > to allow much too often -- is for an attacking commander, who knows > that the other player has exhausted his chits for this turn, to > move men through the fields of fire of automatic weapons in the > certain knowledge that they cannot possibly be hit. Bleagh. The fallacy in this is that you are looking at the game system as allowing the "commander" to make certain decisions. Firepower DOES NOT reflect an "attacking commander moving men"! The alternative to your suggestion, and the true basis of the game system, is that the *man* was fortunate enough to move through the field of fire at the right time. See the distinction? Sure, the player is still exploiting the game system... > > [more snips] > >These "infantry tactics" really don't have much in common with a > >man-to-man scale game either though. > > Huh? (again). These infantry tactics -- as taught at the School of > Infantry -- deal *precisely* with warfare at the man-to-man level. > I don't understand what you meant by that remark. You spoke of Platoon tactics... perhaps that's not what you meant to say. In any case, if you think a game is realistic because a "by the book" procedure ALWAYS wins, then you are really missing the boat. Generally speaking, I think that using proper tactics in Firepower will bring successful results. In conjunction with occassional exploitation of the chit draw game system. But then I don't know of many wargames that don't possess some "rules advantage" that can be exploited in addition to historical tactics. I'd hate to see someone pass up Firepower based on your original hip-shot evaluation of it as a bad game. I think that it's clear that it has a lot to offer, and even the quibbles you raise would be easily remedied if you wanted to come up with some house rules... the Mav -- Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I all at: http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick From: bparker@chat.carleton.ca (Bryan Parker) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames [A conclusion to two other posts made moments ago.] [Mav: If I inadvertently mailed you the second part instead of posting it to the group, could you post it for me? I think my finger slipped on that one!] FIREPOWER ADVOCACY (Con't) Already discussed: - leadership and training. - morale (casualty induced). - opportunity fire rule. (Responses to newsgroup discussion) ----------------- Though I never got around to playing the game in it's full version (I only played Basic because the learning curve was a tad steep for my "casual-gamer friends at the time), I was always astounded by the level of detail that the designer threw into the game. The basic game (and it IS basic) allows you to run around shooting assault rifles, pistols (why would you want to?) and LMGs. Oh, and throwing fragmentation grenades. And, maybe, scaling a fence... The advanced game basically differentiates between a ton of infantry weapons, implements rules which allow them to be used realistically, and improves the realism of the game. e.g. you can throw a smoke grenade before you run to an adjacent building; you can open and close doors and windows (and climb through the latter, I might add); you can model fording through a stream, running through snow, or crawling in mud; lay mines or put satchel charges in a pillboxes blind spot (not fun!). All great stuff - and by this point the game is quite complicated. And a tad chart- and table-heavy. Then, if you're up to it, you can complete the simulation with a slew of optional rules (which the designer suggests ought to be implemented after a complete understanding of the advanced game). Now, you can: Jump off 4th story buildings, landing on enemy below (why would you want to? Can't say, but it also lets you jump into foxholes - which is faster than climbing down into them); you can have weapons jam and HEAT fail to explode (making Chobham, Reactive and Spaced armour MUCH more effective); Flamethowers and WP WILL start fires while other explosives MAY (plus, if you fire a Flamethower at a guy 20 meters from you, there will be a 20m fire on the ground between you 'til the end of the game); You can include vehicles (a lot of trouble, but interesting); You can put a mortar behind a hill and radio in for indirect fire!; You can capture enemy troops and make them prisoners... If all this isn't enough (and it is!), you can basically make this into an RPG-style campaign where you track your soldiers through battles. They'll improve their weaponhandling as they gain experience, some will be stronger than others, some will have better eyesight. Hell, some won't be able to swim and some won't be able to drive! Others will be able to do both!! Now, before I conclude, I'll mention a couple other things: -TEAM PLAY: So you want to attack a Green Beret basecamp with 2 Vietnamese squads. Have 2 players play the Vietnamese! No problem. -Refereed play: Mentioned before, but basically this completely simulates that elusive "fog of war." If you can't see the sniper lying under the tree 100m away (and you probably won't), he'll hurt you. Maybe your co-player can bring in his tanks (whom you were screening from missile attack or RPG ambush?) Maybe throw smoke grenades, and run into a nearby ditch. Crawl closer - under the watchful eye of your section LMG... ----------------- Admittedly, at this point the game is terribly complicated, but if that's your bag, that's no problem... Probably not for beginners, though, since THAT game wouldn't justify the price of the game itself. Uh, John, would you remind me why I shouldn't like it? I've forgotten... And I'd kill to play the game now.... Bryan (fidgeting) From: bparker@chat.carleton.ca (Bryan Parker) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames > > It is also possible to mitigate the effects of a one-sided chit > > orgy by an intelligently-constructed opportunity fire rule. > > "Firepower" did none of these things. The result is a game that > > purportedly represents minor infantry tactics, and yet positively > > rewards large amounts of movement without fire. > The open nature of the game system certainly makes it easy to add such a > rule if you feel it's necessary. [Above comments by John and "the Mav," respectively.] For what it's worth, the Firepower game HAD an opportunity fire rule. It was, however, an "optional" rule and was, therefore, adding more complications to an already complicated process. Thankfully, it didn't require additional charts for reference: The rule was the WRITTEN COMBAT ORDERS rule (16.5) Briefly, it was split up into 3 different sub-rules (ouch!) 1. Opportunity Fire - allowing the soldier to engage enemy crossing a specific line of sight. Basically, you'd have RFL10 (an M16 rifleman) cover a bush in hex ?? and anyone who entered said hex or crossed between the hex and the soldier trigger an attack. 2. Tracking Fire - allowing a soldier to "track" a specific enemy unit and engage it when desired. You might tell WPL20 (an RPG) track an approaching AFV and engage when it came into range. 3. Sweeping Fire - allows an automatic weapon to engage any enemy unit "expending movement points" in the soldier's line of sight. So, you plunk your LMG4 (M60 gunner) in a nice foxhole atop a nice hill and he can fire away at anyone he sees in front of him. (NB: "Sweeping" fire could only suppress enemy and not actually "hurt" them.) As for how the rules worked: You secretly wrote the order down (e.g. LMG4 - Sweep, RFL10 - Op Fire - 1D11, etc.) during your turn. It was considered an "impulse action" so would be counted against your allowance. During the opponent's turn, your written orders are triggered by his actions. If he had consecutive actions (i.e. you ran out of chits, he had more of them, etc.), the written order would apply - IN FULL - in each of his impulses. The written order ran out when the player's chit was drawn again. -------------- Someone mentioned unrealistic actions when the opponent ran out of chits and you had many left. Well, if the opponent had the foresight to end his turn with a few written orders, he was still a threat to you while he waited for his chit to come around again. So, rushing the MMG gunner in the pillbox wasn't so much fun if he could lay down fire before him to keep you at bay. -------------- John: Is this opportunity fire rule (intelligently-constructed) -enough to "mitigate the effects of a one-sided chit orgy?" :-> Maverick: I like the system too. And I did Infantry training (part-time), but have never been shot at. Consequently, I can't say how I would have reacted under fire. And that, gentlemen, is my $.02 worth. ($.0133 American) I hope this wasn't too complicated, I may have over-complicated them as I was summarizing them and providing examples. Bryan From: bparker@chat.carleton.ca (Bryan Parker) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames John, I agree that the game (F-Power) has a ton of rules which aren't presented in the easiest typeface to read and there are charts all over the place. Perhaps it boils down to people willing to stick it out through the steep learning curve (or organization curve). I found that once I'd sorted everything out, I could easily find all the necessary rules and the tables aren't as intimidating once you know which stands for which... Really, there are only about 4-5 sheets of tables, 3 of which are filled with weapon and vehicle data. I'll concede that the rulebook could have had a more interesting presentation: maybe photographs of battle scenes, technical drawings of weapons, what-have-you. As it stands, the only illustrations (though they're topical), are of various counter-related situations... Furthermore, you listed what seemed to be a massive game collection before, so I do allow for the fact that you're familiar with a great many more "skirmish" level simulations than I am and may have rated F-Power behind other games. I have only F-Power as a benchmark. I just wanted to defend the system since it did everything I asked of it (and everything it said it would). What other games would you compare to F-Power and how do they measure up? For example, what can Platoon (?) do that F-Power fails to do, other than receive your blessing, of course. I'd consider starting another thread, since this one's 20 deep, maybe: "best skirmish games" or something. Bryan (John, do you wish to see my defense of the F-Power system to your charge that Leadership\Training and Morale aren't modelled. Basically, the whole chit system represents the former and optional rules represent the latter...) (I just used more words in my "official" defense which I failed to successfully post yesterday.) (Tell me if you're interested in picking this apart.) From: John.Salt@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames In article <6atrbp$gm0$2@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, Bryan Parker wrote: > [snipped lots of exciting-sounding things you can do in "Firepower" if you've got the patience] I could throw smoke, demolish pillboxes with rockets or satchel charges, set off claymores from ambush, mow down rows of cavalry (yes! cavalry!) with machine-guns, and see men hangin' on the old barbed wire or running about like headless chickens with my copy of SPI's "Patrol" which I got IIRC in 1975. I am not sure entirely why, but I find it very much easier to see the rationale behind Jim Dunnigan's "Patrol" rules than I do to see what Craig Taylor is trying to do in "Firepower". This might be just because of the style of writing; it might also be partly because "Patrol" was the first man-to-man boardgame I owned, and so new and exciting, whereas "Firepower" was about the fifth. >Uh, John, would you remind me why I shouldn't like it? I've forgotten... Everyone has been so enthusuastic about the blasted game that last night I took it off the shelf and looked at the rules again to see if maybe I wan't missing some hidden treasure. I read the designer's notes, and the ideas he was putting forward seemed right on the button -- why couldn't I see them come out in the game? Then I saw the charts. Row upon row of charts. Tremendous tumuli of tediously tabulated trivia, all set in that revolting typeface I will associate forever with "Battleline" and their dully unplayable games. Then I put the game away, and went back to my marking. I want to pretend I'm an infantryman, not a bloody clerk. All the best, John. -- John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one. From: bparker@chat.carleton.ca (Bryan Parker) Subject: Re: Tactical wargames > > > "Firepower" contained one good idea, which was the chit activation > > > system. This can, if fitted well enough into a design, give some > > > feel of the confusion of minor tactics (although it does not really > > > model leadership or morale effects very directly) > > > > Yes, but the system wasn't designed to simulate leadership and morale > > factors... thus the focus on VERY SMALL and SHORT encounters. [John and "the Mav," respectively] LEADERSHIP\TRAINING I would suggest that the effects of leadership were represented by the number of chits a squad received per turn as well as the number of "impulses" allowed per chit. e.g. A good squad could get 5\2, a poor one could get 3\2. Both would be allowed to activate units from two hexes per chit, but the former squad, due to better leadership\troop quality, would be able to act much more frequently. A super squad (i.e. Soviet Commando - 6\3) would be acting all the time and would get a lot done in a turn. Furthermore, a player could activate EVERY unit in a hex and it was possible to have a leader (officer, squad leader), in the course of his move, activate another hex by moving into it. e.g. A hex containing an M60 gunner (and assistant) and Sgt. "Salt" could be activates. The gunner fires (only one attack per hex, remember) and Sgt Salt runs over to a nearby hex containing an M79 grenadier and has him fire as well (plunk! boom!) Sgt. Salt could conceivably run over to the sniper's position (the guy with the M21 with Nightsights) to have him pick someone off, but it would be more advisable to have Salt "go prone" with the grenadier until next turn. All that with a single chit! The player could activate an entirely separate hex as well (and, if a leader is involved, activate more men) Or, perhaps, the Squads APC could be rolled up?. NB: In this example, the soldiers would have to be very close to one another and would be grenade and RPG bait! MORALE Another optional rule dealt specifically with Morale. If the Soviet Commando squad (the 6\3 mentioned previously) started getting killed piecemeal by Salt's sniper and M60 gunner, a tank, whatever; it would start losing "sequence units." e.g. After sustaining 50% losses, the Soviet Commandos might only be a 4\3 squad or a 3\3. Still pretty good, but no longer *super.* >> The game can be very suspenseful... [The Mav] Indeed! Especially in the Ambush scenario in which one side walked across the map knowing that the ambush lay in wait, but unable to react until the first shot was fired. (BTW, the Ambusher's units were *off-map*, remember?) Then, if you were up to it, you could use the "double-blind" optional rule. In this one, 3 players were involved - Sides A and B, and a referee. Only the latter knew the disposition of all the combatants, the others know their own positions and those of "spotted" enemy units (as per Rule 18 - The Umpired Game\Sighting). Bryan (This was part 2 of 3, the other parts ought to be around here, somewhere.) > I'd hate to see someone pass up Firepower based on your original > hip-shot evaluation of the game as bad. I think that it's clear that > it has a lot to offer, and even the quibbles you raise would be easily > remedied if you wanted to come up with some house rules... [The Mav] I agree.... From: John.Salt@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) Subject: My last blast on "Firepower" Well, I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here; thanks to the "hornets" who've contributed to what I've found a lively and well-argued debate. I have been corrected on a couple of points about the rules of "Firepower". More important, several people seem to have found this game enormous fun. I'm obviously missing something; I've promised myself I will make a real effort to play the game again, in the hope of finding what it is. Please don't just take my word for it that "FP" is a poor game, nor Mav and the others' that it is a good one; try it out for yourself, and make up your own mind. This post is a long 'un (edited offline due to server explosion here). I don't really intend to say any more on this subject after this, but I *do* hope we can get a thread going on good man-to-man games, rules, and mechanisms. Ross wrote: >John, may I suggest you obtain and read S. L. A. Marshall's 'Men Under >Fire'? The problem is NOT that a rifleman MIGHT not fire under the >stress of combat. It is that he almost certainly WILL not. Marshall >discovered that only about a quarter of the men in an infantry unit >would fire, and that the crew-served weapons were almost certain to. >Meaning that, in a modern US squad, the M60 provides almost all of the >firepower. Further, this held true for virtually ALL units. It was not >significantly altered by training or combat experience. The US Army, of >course, ignored the last part, and instituted new training methods. And >they worked great. Over ninety percent of the grunts fired their >weapons ... in peace-time training exercises. In Nam, with a real enemy >firing real bullets, we went right back to nobody but the machine-gunner >firing. Worth thinking about. I've had a copy of the book for years, and read it three times. Creators of wargames rules at this scale apparently seem compelled to quote it as an inspiration, since the WRG 1925-75 Infantry Action rules published in 1972 at least. Y'know, I think even those chaps at the School of Infantry who teach those terrible "by the book" tactics might have seen a copy... Oh, and the right title is "Men Against Fire". ;-) More recent scholarship has tended somewhat to discount Marshall's findings, as his "combat interview" process was not, it turns out, as "scientific" as he claimed -- for an interesting, if unflattering, view of Marshall in person, look at Col. David Hackworth's "About Face". A brief but more scholarly review is "S L A Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" by Prof. R J Spiller, in the Winter 1988 edition of RUSI Journal. This piece says, in part: "The 'systematic collection of data' that made Marshall's ratio of fire so authoritative appears to have been an invention". Still, let's assume Marshall's findings are broadly correct (as they are widely accepted to be). Your contention that the ratio of fire is "not significantly altered by training" is precisely the reverse of what Marshall claims. He says (p. 41 of the Peter Smith 1978 edition): "During training, the soldier, and certainly the officer, can be given enough knowledge about human nature and the stresses of the battlefield that when it comes time to go forward, he can make tactical use of what he knows in the same way that he applies what he has learned about his equipment". The introduction to that edition also contains a claim by the author that the "Train Fire" training system increased participation rates in the Korean war to 55%. Mav says: > Also, as is noted in the introduction to the advanced rules of > Firepower, Marshall's works were used as a basis for the game system. > In fact, having browsed through the advanced rules introduction again, > anyone questioning the basis for the design decisions made in Firepower > should look to this summary as an explanation for why the game was > designed the way it was. One of my big problems with the game, as I've said, is that it presents some very sound ideas in the designer's notes, and fails (to my satisfaction at least) to match them with mechanisms in the game proper. It reminds me of the phenomenon in some S&T magazine games, where an article would be full of interesting stuff that strangely didn't match the way the game played -- understandable when they have separate authors, but not in this case. Let's look at the Marshall "rationale", then: Marshall found a particpation rate of 15-25% was typical for US infantry in WW2. In "FP", everyone can participate, any time they get a chit. How is the game based on the book? Marshall also found that there were "Natural fighters" and "Non-fighters" in any unit. No such distinction exists in "FP", everybody can fight, you just give 'em a chit. How is the game based on the book? Marshall found not only that BAR men were more likely to fire than those with rifles, but also that men nearer the BAR were more likely to particpate. I can't find a rule for such an effect in "FP" -- How is the game based on the book? Marshall found that men running to the rear, without a good reason for doing so being known, tended to produce panic flight all along the line -- again, I can't find the "FP" rule for this. How is the game based on the book? In a separate post, Ross says: > I would suggest that the effects of leadership were represented by the > number of chits a squad received per turn as well as the number of > "impulses" allowed per chit. Okay, but it seems a pretty poor model of leadership to me (a good model of confusion, yes, as I've said). [snips] > e.g. A hex containing an M60 gunner (and assistant) and Sgt. "Salt" could > be activates. The gunner fires (only one attack per hex, remember) and > Sgt Salt runs over to a nearby hex containing an M79 grenadier and has him > fire as well (plunk! boom!) Sgt. Salt could conceivably run over to the > sniper's position (the guy with the M21 with Nightsights) to have him pick > someone off, but it would be more advisable to have Salt "go prone" with > the grenadier until next turn. All that with a single chit! I've done something very similar on Salisbury Plain (with riflemen, though -- gun groups tend to be quite self-motivated, and snipers are famous for it, as well as being hard to find). The Directing Staff said "Good grip, but you're running around as if you've got a steel chest. Keep your f**king head down. Sir". Of course, they didn't know I was allowed to do all that and fall prone before my action chit expired! :-) If you don't want to believe me, try Marshall again (pp. 57-58 of the above- mentioned edition): "But the best of NCOs cannot for long move up and down a fire line booting his men until they use their weapons. Not only is that an invitation to sudden death but it diverts him from supporting and encouraging the relatively few willing spirits who are sustaining the action. Also, regardless of what the book says to the contrary, that is not his real role on the battlefield." Ross again: > Another optional rule dealt specifically with Morale. > If the Soviet Commando squad (the 6\3 mentioned previously) started > getting killed piecemeal by Salt's sniper and M60 gunner, a tank, > whatever; it would start losing "sequence units." This models loss of effectiveness through casualties, which is what wargames rules writers normally mistake for "morale". In fact, the chit system pretty much requires a rule of this kind in order to prevent a section's efficiency (in actions per man per turn) increasing as losses are taken. Personally, I do not believe that casualties affect morale at this scale in this way; indeed, I suspect that often you won't even know who's been hit until the action is over. Rather than a steady reduction of effectiveness, I think single shocking events (which may be casualties, or may be something else) will cause sudden panic, which spreads very easily. Marshall agrees. "FP" doesn't seem to show this at all. Maverick wrote: > Have you looked at the time and distance scale of the game? Yes thanks. I always do. > The chit > draws are an indeterminate amount of time but the turn scale is given as > thrity seconds and five yards per hex. At such scale it seems to be a > reasonable abstraction to use the allocation of chits to reflect > superior/inferior leadership and morale. Otherwise you are going to end > up with some kind of role-playing system instead of a man to man > wargame. Not necessarily. SPI's "Cross of Iron", SPI/TSR's "Sniper/Patrol", WEG's "Soldiers" and VG's "Ambush" series are all at this sort of scale (2 - 10m hex, vague but short turns), are clearly not RPGs, and use quite widely- differing systems. Miniatures rules offer a whole bunch of other systems, again without becoming RPGs. Mav again: [I said] >> What I do >> have a problem with -- and what the mechanisms of "Firepower" seem >> to allow much too often -- is for an attacking commander, who knows >> that the other player has exhausted his chits for this turn, to >> move men through the fields of fire of automatic weapons in the >> certain knowledge that they cannot possibly be hit. Bleagh. > The fallacy in this is that you are looking at the game system as > allowing the "commander" to make certain decisions. Firepower DOES NOT > reflect an "attacking commander moving men"! The alternative to your > suggestion, and the true basis of the game system, is that the *man* was > fortunate enough to move through the field of fire at the right time. > See the distinction? I see the disctincion clearly. If "FP" does not reflect a commander moving men and making other decisions, then it would seem to violate one of John Hill's principles of good game design (sorry, I can't remember which edition of The General he wrote these up in -- or was it Moves?) which I have always thought of as the "commander's shoes" principle. It would also go a long way to explain why I can't get on with the game if the designer really *does* want me to be a clerk, not a corporal. And yet, the designer himself makes the very opposite assertion to yours. "The players take the roles of the opposing commanders", it says at the end of para 2, page 1 of the "FP" Basic Game Rules Folder. For what it's worth, he also writes of the game as a simulation of minor tactics in several places, so I don't think it's unreasonable (pace Mav) of me to judge it in those terms. Back to Mav: [I said] >> Huh? (again). These infantry tactics -- as taught at the School of >> Infantry -- deal *precisely* with warfare at the man-to-man level. >> I don't understand what you meant by that remark. >You spoke of Platoon tactics... perhaps that's not what you meant to >say. I said "section and platoon attacks" (I just checked my original post on DejaNews). That's precisely what I meant to say. Possibly you didn't understand my funny British way of saying "section" instead of the American "squad". :-) Mav again: > In any case, if you think a game is realistic because a "by the > book" procedure ALWAYS wins, then you are really missing the boat. Sure... but I don't think anything of the kind, which is why I've never said so. I find your arguments more convincing when you argue against what I've said, instead of what you think I think. > Generally speaking, I think that using proper tactics in Firepower will > bring successful results. ...and I think otherwise. > I'd hate to see someone pass up Firepower based on your original > hip-shot evaluation of it as a bad game. I think that it's clear that > it has a lot to offer, and even the quibbles you raise would be easily > remedied if you wanted to come up with some house rules... Hip-shot? I was taught always to fire aimed rounds from the shoulder! ;-) Seriously, I think my objections to "FP" are more than "quibbles". I've tried to back them up by citing the appropriate sources where necessary. hcamper123@aol.com (whose true identity I appear to have dropped down the back of the sofa) said: > Hehe...it was always interesting to see your opponents face when by sheer luck > he drew ALL of his chits in a row before any of yours came up. When you know > the next few turns are yours it is amazing how much damage you can do. ...which is a very neat re-statement of my principal reason for disliking "FP", both as a simulation and as a game. Bryan again: > Really, there are only about 4-5 sheets of tables, 3 of which are filled > with weapon and vehicle data. "Only" 4-5 SHEETS?! Urgh. I've played (and enjoyed) "Air War", "USN", "Red Star/White Star 2", started (though never finished) "Next War" and "Highway to the Reich", and struggled gamely through "Tobruk" (now *there's* an example of a "military training game" that fails horribly to work). None require that volume of tables. It's plain bad design to have them. Bryan asked: > What other games would you compare to F-Power and how do they measure up? > For example, what can Platoon (?) do that F-Power fails to do, other than > receive your blessing, of course. "Platoon", IMHO, succeeds by attempting *less* than Firepower. It has various superficial advantages -- shorter, more clearly-written rules, vastly superior graphics, more atmosphere due to a more specific subject and named individual men. The thing that made the big difference, though, was that it made the chit system work, by having less happening per chit, and more of them on each side. This is what I meant in my earlier posts when I was talking about getting the "granularity" of actions right. Alan Goodall wrote: > On the other hand, I've never been able to get into ASL in spite of having > most of the stuff for it. Very few games, IMHO, contain more than one really good new idea (actually, quite a lot contain none, and need not be bad games for all that if they are competently done). One good idea, properly exploited, is sufficient to make a great game. I think one of the reasons "FP" annoys me so much is that it has what is obviously a good idea -- the chit system -- and then fails to make a good game out of it. Rather than make the basic system work properly, the designer cannot resist loading on extra stuff. But more is not necessarily better. ASL is a classic example of taking a game with one really good central idea -- John Hill's morale-check mechanism, with leader modifications -- and overloading it to produce a fat, flightless turkey. "FP" doesn't even make the basic good idea work properly. Back to Bryan: > I'd consider starting another thread, since this one's 20 deep, maybe: > "best skirmish games" or something. Good idea... let's do it! I'd be particularly interested in how people model group cohesion (a different thing from motivation, but seldom modelled as such), leadership and initiative, fieldcraft and spotting, noise, fear and fatigue. These seem to me to be the "hard bits" of man-to-man combat. Big tables of weapons I can do without. All the best, John. -- John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.