Crews for 1/2" SW counters

[Jazz]

Which shouldn't stop scenario designers from including some crews for Lt.Mtr's, HMG's et al. No special rules neccessary, but could be included. Balance the infantry and leadership ratio accordingly and playtest until it's as balanced as possible.
If enough designers are on the crews-for-infantry-weapons bandwagon and enough scenarios are published the practice will be accepted eventually. I don't think MMP will ever be up to changing the bible to include crew rules any time soon but a subtle grassroots campaign could start the ball rolling.

If you put extra crews into the mix, players will use them to man mortars, HMG/MMG at range, et....which is what I think you are talking about.

It can be done with SSRs. Probably the best way to motivate MMP do change the rules would be to design scenarios that require (through SSR) certain weapons to be crew served and then see how the ASL community reacts to them.

I am not advocating such a change, far from it, but would welcome the opportunity for the community to vote with it's dice (if you will) by electing to play scenarios that do require them.

HOB has tried, with limited to no success. If you really think it is that big a deal, try it again.

I won't "vote" for it, but I am only one player.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

If enough designers are on the crews-for-infantry-weapons bandwagon and enough scenarios are published the practice will be accepted eventually.

Hopefully not (IMHO).

I think if someone must have special units for e.g. a HMG, a better way would be to include an Elite half-squad of some sort and perhaps an SSR saying it can't recombine with others.

I personally can't see how training on a special weapon should allow self-rally (and better in CC vs. an AFV).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Can you say that for sure? They didn't acquire one or two that were kept off the official order of drill so the rest of the army woudln't try to nab 'em?

Where the hell would an infantry platoon, that walked everywhere, that had no training on Vickers guns, keep it, and why would they bother? Ever try and lift a Vickers Gun? I have.

Where would they get ammo for it? .303 was standard, but I wouldn't want to link it by hand, which is what they would have to do. There was no establishment for linked .303 anywhere in the infantry brigades. So where would they get it from?

And the idea that they might find one "laying around" to begin with defies belief. I work in military stores. Serialized kit doesn't wander off. Not in an army as cheap as the British/Canadian.

Playing the Brits (and Commonwealth) in modern scenarios is becoming very tiresome with no MMG or HMG alloted. Some must have been deployed in diect fire that weren't divisional...

I'd suggest buying a book or two.

 

[jwb3]

Playing the Brits (and Commonwealth) in modern scenarios is becoming very tiresome with no MMG or HMG alloted. Some must have been deployed in diect fire that weren't divisional...

I find this comment very interesting, because it ties in with a bunch of other threads/articles/random-thoughts-buzzing-around-my-brain recently. :crosseye:

ASL goes to great lengths to try to establish some sort of national identity for each army, such as the "No Cowering for Brits" rule. It even exaggerates these traits, in a design for effect sort of way. It's one of the reasons we love the game.

And yet, when there is actually a clear *historical* national characteristic, such as the lack of integral MMG/HMG -- one which requires no rules to implement, which makes a difference in the game, and which accurately reflects the differences in the way the British fought from the way other armies fought -- Trevor finds it tiresome (and to some extent I agree!), and Jim finds he has to introduce them into the Ortona CG to give it balance.

One of the other random bits this ties in with is a comment in Charles Markuss' "Tommy Atkins" article in Journal #7, about how if British usage of artillery was properly simulated in the game it would "utterly destroy playability".

Another random bit is the fact that, when playing Combat Mission (CMBO specifically), I always get a kick out of playing the British/Canadians, because their organizational structure is so different from the US or Germans. (Also because it's so... structured. Every platoon gets its PIAT and its light mortar. The game doesn't actually force those units to stay with their proper platoon, but I play it that way anyway.)


There's no real "point" I'm trying to make here, but I'm curious to hear any comments about all this. And it does raise a question: Should lack of British MMGs and HMGs in these scenarios be counterbalanced by greater reliance on OBA? (Or on pre-game bombardment, or other variations?)


John

 

[jwb3]

If you put extra crews into the mix, players will use them to man mortars, HMG/MMG at range, et....which is what I think you are talking about.

Given crews to use, and no SSRs limiting their usage, I would certainly use them for these purposes. But I'd still use squads to man the MGs if they'll be in range, and I'd happily use the crew as a self-rallying flanker or whatever.

Looking recently at Steve Swann's scenarios in Journal #7, I noticed that J108 "Danica Air" gives each side 2 infantry crews, 2 MMGs, and 2 light mortars. No SSR specifies what to do with the crews. I figured perhaps they were meant to man the MMGs... or perhaps the light mortars... or perhaps they were to be used creatively.

Then I moved on to J109 "Break For Hungary". The Croats get 2 crews, 1 MMG, and 1 light mortar. The Partisans get no crews, 1 MMG, and 1 light mortar... but they get two 1-2-7 half-squads! But the Croats also get a half-squad. I challenge anyone to find a logical trend here.

In the third part of the trilogy, J112 "Prelude to Dying", each side gets 4 infantry crews, 2 MMGs, and 2 light mortars. Now the intent seems clear... but there's still no SSR about the crews.

I think what this is, is a cautionary tale about the dangers of A/CSM Bird's notion of a "subtle grassroots campaign"... :laugh:

It can be done with SSRs. Probably the best way to motivate MMP do change the rules would be to design scenarios that require (through SSR) certain weapons to be crew served and then see how the ASL community reacts to them.
...
HOB has tried, with limited to no success. If you really think it is that big a deal, try it again.

I think this was also part of some CH products, back around the same time as the BAR Gunner rules.


John

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I find this comment very interesting, because it ties in with a bunch of other threads/articles/random-thoughts-buzzing-around-my-brain recently. :crosseye:

ASL goes to great lengths to try to establish some sort of national identity for each army, such as the "No Cowering for Brits" rule. It even exaggerates these traits, in a design for effect sort of way. It's one of the reasons we love the game.

And yet, when there is actually a clear *historical* national characteristic, such as the lack of integral MMG/HMG -- one which requires no rules to implement, which makes a difference in the game, and which accurately reflects the differences in the way the British fought from the way other armies fought -- Trevor finds it tiresome (and to some extent I agree!), and Jim finds he has to introduce them into the Ortona CG to give it balance.

One of the other random bits this ties in with is a comment in Charles Markuss' "Tommy Atkins" article in Journal #7, about how if British usage of artillery was properly simulated in the game it would "utterly destroy playability".

Another random bit is the fact that, when playing Combat Mission (CMBO specifically), I always get a kick out of playing the British/Canadians, because their organizational structure is so different from the US or Germans. (Also because it's so... structured. Every platoon gets its PIAT and its light mortar. The game doesn't actually force those units to stay with their proper platoon, but I play it that way anyway.)


There's no real "point" I'm trying to make here, but I'm curious to hear any comments about all this. And it does raise a question: Should lack of British MMGs and HMGs in these scenarios be counterbalanced by greater reliance on OBA? (Or on pre-game bombardment, or other variations?)


John

Jim's point about having fun is apt. Commonwealth infantry sections often if not always went into battle with 6 men maximum - on purpose - out of a War Establishment strength of 10 due to their LOB system. In Squad Leader, maybe that is "factored in" to the squad counters (if so, those HS are way out there) or maybe every squad in ASL is really 10 men all the time. In the end it is "just" a game. But to balance with artillery - I'd say no. ASL, like CM, portrays the period after the prepatory bombardment, after the troops have crossed the Start Line (or Line of Departure, as they say nowadays).

We discussed artillery in another thread; the ASL arty rules are very American and having them realistic for a British player would require massive rewrites that no one could abide, as well as making them so powerful that no one would want to use them.

As it is, just like the original SL rules said, all ASL can do is give a "taste" of the real events. We all know that 200 German tanks attacked the Tractor Works, and yet we distilled it down to a platoon of StuG IIIs in ASL Scenario C. So too the Commonwealth.

I'd have loved to have seen the game evolve like Combat Mission - with real command and control (i.e. platoons fighting as platoons, PIATs and LMGs on a one-for-one representation, etc.), but for what it is, ASL seems to work well and remain playable (if you count referring to the manual every second phase to double check obscure rules as playable) and fun.

ASL will never be a simulation of any repute so I suppose we can stop fooling ourselves into trying. I just don't understand why the community hangs on to the notion that all scenarios must have two detailed paragraphs explaining exactly how each fictional scenario happened in real life, given the disparities in the simulation. But it is the system that evolved. No arguing with success.

 

[Jim McLeod]

I personally can't see how training on a special weapon should allow self-rally (and better in CC vs. an AFV).

If you think of the Inf. crew in terms of being an MG crew and that that MG crew does have a soldier who could be considered something of an inherent leader (think vehicle crew here) then sure, the self rally thing makes perfect sense. More so when you also consider that MG crews often operated seperately from their section/platoon/company as they were often attached to other units for support. A MG crew with its inherent leader would also allow that crew to be immune from cowering abd be able to fire at ranges > 16 hexes w/o the need of an actual Leader to direct that fire.

The whole MG crew thing would probably do well in the realm of the CG as opposed to the run of the mill scenario. Players are too wed to the idea of two 4-6-7 with a MMG and HMG.

 

[jwb3]

If you think of the Inf. crew in terms of being an MG crew and that that MG crew does have a soldier who could be considered something of an inherent leader (think vehicle crew here) then sure, the self rally thing makes perfect sense.

Ixnay. Every infantry squad also has a soldier who could be considered something of an inherent leader -- the squad leader! The system explicitly recognizes that only a very few of them are worthy of being separated out from the men they command, and given the ability to inspire, rally, prevent cowering, increase movement, and all those things. There's no reason why SW team leaders should be any better, unless a certain army's doctrine put all the best soldiers on those teams. {but see below...}

More so when you also consider that MG crews often operated seperately from their section/platoon/company as they were often attached to other units for support.

Well, okay, there's one reason. One incrementally small reason. Still not enough to justify giving each one its own inherent leader! I am not aware of any reports in which the defensive line was saved because all the attached SW teams bravely rallied back to their positions without any motivation from superior officers, while the rank and file riflemen, LMGers and BAR gunners kept on running...

A MG crew with its inherent leader would also allow that crew to be immune from cowering abd be able to fire at ranges > 16 hexes w/o the need of an actual Leader to direct that fire.

And this is supposed to be good why?

Players are too wed to the idea of two 4-6-7 with a MMG and HMG.

Those of us who use the IIFT aren't... :devious:


John

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Ixnay. Every infantry squad also has a soldier who could be considered something of an inherent leader -- the squad leader! The system explicitly recognizes that only a very few of them are worthy of being separated out from the men they command, and given the ability to inspire, rally, prevent cowering, increase movement, and all those things. There's no reason why SW team leaders should be any better, unless a certain army's doctrine put all the best soldiers on those teams. {but see below...}

Agreed.

Well, okay, there's one reason. One incrementally small reason. Still not enough to justify giving each one its own inherent leader! I am not aware of any reports in which the defensive line was saved because all the attached SW teams bravely rallied back to their positions without any motivation from superior officers, while the rank and file riflemen, LMGers and BAR gunners kept on running...

Combat studies show that weapon crews because of their proximity to their weapon and comrades can exhibit more unit cohesion than the line infantry who may be isolated by terrain, out of LOS while prone for example, feeling alone and frightened. Crews working together are more likely to stay in the fight. See; Marshall 'Battle at Best'- The Fight on Saki Night. The line was held by the MG crews and men in small groups during a Japanese attack on the island of Makin.

 

[Jim McLeod]

and Jim finds he has to introduce them into the Ortona CG to give it balance.

Don't recall saying that.

I do recall saying that the Canadians like to have the extra FP, but then, who wouldn't?

 

[Jim McLeod]

Ixnay. Every infantry squad also has a soldier who could be considered something of an inherent leader -- the squad leader!
The system explicitly recognizes that only a very few of them are worthy of being separated out from the men they command, and given the ability to inspire, rally, prevent cowering, increase movement, and all those things. There's no reason why SW team leaders should be any better, unless a certain army's doctrine put all the best soldiers on those teams. {but see below...}

Why are crews allowed to self rally?

 

[jwb3]

Why are crews allowed to self rally?

Okay, two points for Jim. Well, maybe a 3-pointer given A/CSM Bird's comment about their unit cohesion.

BTW, the answer is in A1.123:

A crew counter... represents roughly five men with special training who perform as a group to operate special weapon counters. A crew also represents picked men who are the best of their company regardless of their morale level as evidenced by their Self-Rally capability.

In other words, they were multiple-personality-disordered from the get-go, and they still are. :laugh:

Note that it says "special weapon counters", not "support weapon counters". From the early scenarios we can deduce that MMGs and HMGs were not considered "special enough". :upset:


John

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Why are crews allowed to self rally?

A better question to ask is, why can't squads? I mean more than one squad per turn without a leader?

 

[jwb3]

and Jim finds he has to introduce them into the Ortona CG to give it balance.

Don't recall saying that.

I do recall saying that the Canadians like to have the extra FP, but then, who wouldn't?

Well, no, you didn't say precisely that. In one post you said something that made clear that there are, in fact, Canadian MG RGs in the Ortona CG. In the next, you said:

In ASL world do the Canadians need some 2 and 3 ROF weapons in Ortona to help dislodge the defenders? Yes, an HMG or three does help.

From your usage of the word "need", I inferred that the game would be unbalanced (i.e. too hard for the Canadians) if they were not given MG support -- regardless of whether such MGs were "historically accurate" or not.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just drawing conclusions from what you'd said. If those conclusions were wrong, feel free to correct them (or not, no biggy either way).


John

 

[A/CSM Bird]

A better question to ask is, why can't squads? I mean more than one squad per turn without a leader?

'cause der is only one Finnish Army by Yumpin' Yesus...


ASL could have gone that route I suppose, with Finn-like leader counters and self-rally for all units but that's a lotta water under several bridges by now.

 

[David Reinking]

I have sometimes used extra Infantry crews to man FT and DC. It allows the Assault Engineers the opportunity to throw Infantry smoke into an adjacent hex without needing a leader to move into the smoke as Assault Move. Then-- when Infantry smoke is successfully placed, the Infantry Crew with the DC or FT moves into the smoke and delivers the goods.

 

[Jim McLeod]

From your usage of the word "need", I inferred that the game would be unbalanced (i.e. too hard for the Canadians) if they were not given MG support -- regardless of whether such MGs were "historically accurate" or not.

If the outcome of an entire CG resolved itself around a handfull of M/HMG's then you would have a finely tuned CG indeed.

Besides, MG deathstars can be dealt with and neutralized in a variety of ways.

Actually, the outcome of the Ortona CG often depends on the pace of the attack and force management.

Back to MG crews, I still personally feel that they have a place in the game system. Whether or not the powers that be feel the same is another matter.

 

[fleetB17]

Crews for SW should be part of the infantry rules IMHO. George Kelln pointed out to Jim McLeod and I how trained machine gunners and infantry trained in the use of, differed in his platoon. The trained MG crew would handle the weapon better overall, with less problems and more effectiveness. (Perhaps more serving/former infantry could add to this discussion with their own experiences in this regard.)

I assigned the best soldiers in my platoon to the weapons squad. In game terms, as a group they would may have self rally due to the level of experience that they have between them and the best squad leader. They are still members of the light infantry company and without support weapons they can operate as a rifle squad. They would be the squad, as a player, I give the SW and when I get a self rally that is the squad that attempts it.

I play to have fun and I don't see a need to change the rules to add crews for each weapon system. The army today vs 1941-45, I can't compare as I wasn't around then.

It would be more accurate to have MTR & MG crews but the realism "benefit" to the game would not justify the change in extra counters and rules. I could not grab a MTR and drop rounds on target (without a large number of rounds):cheeky: but some of the guys in my platoon could. I could pick up any type of MG we use and get rounds on the target I am shooting, but that is because MG's have been part of the standard infantry equipment since I joined and we crosstrain everyone on them. When we went to the sandbox, everyone in the platoon could use every MG we could have in country including some of the ones they use.

To answer the question as posted:
I will use crews for 1/2" counters if I have extra, mostly in CG's for a MTR or H/MMG at distance to get self rally ability.

 

[A/CSM Bird]

I have sometimes used extra Infantry crews to man FT and DC. It allows the Assault Engineers the opportunity to throw Infantry smoke into an adjacent hex without needing a leader to move into the smoke as Assault Move. Then-- when Infantry smoke is successfully placed, the Infantry Crew with the DC or FT moves into the smoke and delivers the goods.

Good tactics. I have not used crews this way I usually split an engineer squad and use the HS's for FT's but it's a great idea. In some fights I will sometimes put the 10-2, if I have one, in the front line to deliver the 'Candygram for Mongo'

 

[A/CSM Bird]

If you put extra crews into the mix, players will use them to man mortars, HMG/MMG at range, et....which is what I think you are talking about.

It can be done with SSRs. Probably the best way to motivate MMP do change the rules would be to design scenarios that require (through SSR) certain weapons to be crew served and then see how the ASL community reacts to them.

I am not advocating such a change, far from it, but would welcome the opportunity for the community to vote with it's dice (if you will) by electing to play scenarios that do require them.

HOB has tried, with limited to no success. If you really think it is that big a deal, try it again.

I won't "vote" for it, but I am only one player.

Hopefully not (IMHO).

I think if someone must have special units for e.g. a HMG, a better way would be to include an Elite half-squad of some sort and perhaps an SSR saying it can't recombine with others.

I personally can't see how training on a special weapon should allow self-rally (and better in CC vs. an AFV).

Given crews to use, and no SSRs limiting their usage, I would certainly use them for these purposes. But I'd still use squads to man the MGs if they'll be in range, and I'd happily use the crew as a self-rallying flanker or whatever.

Looking recently at Steve Swann's scenarios in Journal #7, I noticed that J108 "Danica Air" gives each side 2 infantry crews, 2 MMGs, and 2 light mortars. No SSR specifies what to do with the crews. I figured perhaps they were meant to man the MMGs... or perhaps the light mortars... or perhaps they were to be used creatively.

Then I moved on to J109 "Break For Hungary". The Croats get 2 crews, 1 MMG, and 1 light mortar. The Partisans get no crews, 1 MMG, and 1 light mortar... but they get two 1-2-7 half-squads! But the Croats also get a half-squad. I challenge anyone to find a logical trend here.

In the third part of the trilogy, J112 "Prelude to Dying", each side gets 4 infantry crews, 2 MMGs, and 2 light mortars. Now the intent seems clear... but there's still no SSR about the crews.

I think what this is, is a cautionary tale about the dangers of A/CSM Bird's notion of a "subtle grassroots campaign"... :laugh:


I think this was also part of some CH products, back around the same time as the BAR Gunner rules.


John

I assigned the best soldiers in my platoon to the weapons squad. In game terms, as a group they would may have self rally due to the level of experience that they have between them and the best squad leader. They are still members of the light infantry company and without support weapons they can operate as a rifle squad. They would be the squad, as a player, I give the SW and when I get a self rally that is the squad that attempts it.

I play to have fun and I don't see a need to change the rules to add crews for each weapon system. The army today vs 1941-45, I can't compare as I wasn't around then.

It would be more accurate to have MTR & MG crews but the realism "benefit" to the game would not justify the change in extra counters and rules. I could not grab a MTR and drop rounds on target (without a large number of rounds):cheeky: but some of the guys in my platoon could. I could pick up any type of MG we use and get rounds on the target I am shooting, but that is because MG's have been part of the standard infantry equipment since I joined and we crosstrain everyone on them. When we went to the sandbox, everyone in the platoon could use every MG we could have in country including some of the ones they use.

To answer the question as posted:
I will use crews for 1/2" counters if I have extra, mostly in CG's for a MTR or H/MMG at distance to get self rally ability.

I think there is a pattern developing here in regards to the perception that there is a desire to force change to the RB. I think that change MAY come eventually, but not anytime soon, realistically.

If there are more scenarios with crews added for Lt. Mtr's,MMG's/ HMG's without any SSR's as to the forced use of them for any purpose and there is a long period of thorough playing to accurately reflect the effect such inclusion has on the balance of these scenarios. Then and only then, if the effect is perceived as positive, we may see movement for change to the RB.

Change to the RB is such a big deal that there would have to be such huge support a la Platoon Movement. Our discussion here is hypothetical, no? We are exploring possible use and effects. It's the possible misuse of crews that I'm interested in, being a 'true believer' in the inclusion of same.

Is the CCV value of crews and Self-Rally that much of a deal breaker for you guys, not neccessarily those quoted, I single no one out. What else could that crew do to a scenario if it was not used for a SW?