WaW85 Excess hits on a stack 10.7.1

[Starman]

I do recall a similar rule in the early days of Eisenbach Gap (not published rulebook) , it didn't appear in the later games and the last first edition TUS rules.

Does the additional unit get to save against these excess hits ?

Should this be added to the Second Edition changes?


Rule
Any hits in excess of the hits needed to eliminate the target unit are applied to the other unit in a stack, but only if the latter can be affected by the FP dice used in the attack.

 

[Keith Tracton]

HI, the additional does NOT get to save against the excess hits. It is a drawback to moving a stack.

 

[MkV]

Other than perhaps when assaulting, i cant see any reason to ever move in a stack

 

[Keith Tracton]

Other than perhaps when assaulting, i cant see any reason to ever move in a stack

Well a couple of reasons are PACT heavy armor only get the possibility of Volley Fire mod if stacked. And literally sometimes there is not enough room to get into cover. Also it can make your road move columns longer. And, though OpFire can affect both units of the fire affects them, if you only have one hex to go, and the OpFire fails, you have two units safely there. But frankly, though there are calculated risks involved, yes, it's safer not to, which feels real to me.

 

[Starman]

Thanks but if that's the case you should be able to spread hits against a stack of the 'same' type, it seems this rule would favour the NATO side otherwise.

The stacking drawback is still there as you do not increase the save value, it would also seem inline with Pact tactics "to fill the line"

 

[MkV]

Well a couple of reasons are PACT heavy armor only get the possibility of Volley Fire mod if stacked. And literally sometimes there is not enough room to get into cover. Also it can make your road move columns longer. And, though OpFire can affect both units of the fire affects them, if you only have one hex to go, and the OpFire fails, you have two units safely there. But frankly, though there are calculated risks involved, yes, it's safer not to, which feels real to me.

Good point. I guess as I get more (and larger) games under my belt I'll get a better feel for the different situations.

 

[Keith Tracton]

Thanks but if that's the case you should be able to spread hits against a stack of the 'same' type, it seems this rule would favour the NATO side otherwise.

The stacking drawback is still there as you do not increase the save value, it would also seem inline with Pact tactics "to fill the line"

As a Designer Note: in Indirect fire you would roll to save each unit in the hex because the pattern of indirect fire landing within the hex is effectively random. The choice I made for Direct Fire (which I think is what we are discussing?) is simply one way of reflecting the more unfair conditions of the moving units being directly targeted in what is - for the attacker - a high target density environment. It can be manifested in a number of other ways in terms of design, of course, but in testing this seemed to work, especially based on the few times that it happens. We found it a very clean way of making players think twice about moving in stacks, but without forcing "No you shouldn't" as the solution. More it would engender testers to ask "When do I risk it?" We found this question to be - and I hope you will find it to be! - a fun question to answer with our version of platoon-level tactics.

 

[MkV]

As a Designer Note: in Indirect fire you would roll to save each unit in the hex because the pattern of indirect fire landing within the hex is effectively random. The choice I made for Direct Fire (which I think is what we are discussing?) is simply one way of reflecting the more unfair conditions of the moving units being directly targeted in what is - for the attacker - a high target density environment. It can be manifested in a number of other ways in terms of design, of course, but in testing this seemed to work, especially based on the few times that it happens. We found it a very clean way of making players think twice about moving in stacks, but without forcing "No you shouldn't" as the solution. More it would engender testers to ask "When do I risk it?" We found this question to be - and I hope you will find it to be! - a fun question to answer with our version of platoon-level tactics.

There is more to it than that though, in a recent scenario, we had a disrupted, reduced M-901 in a hex with an undamaged M-1. (The Perfect Storm) A T-80 stack at close range with a HQ volley fires with 6 dice needing 3's getting 5 hits (only 1 hit above average). Improved position removes one hit leaving 4. M-901 gets 1d6 save needing a 6, missed it. Result, Dead M-901 and 3 hits roll over to M-1 killing it as well. My concern is that this was a situation setup deliberately by careful fire selection. The previous shots were taken at the M-901 with setting up this shot in mind.

 

[Keith Tracton]

There is more to it than that though, in a recent scenario, we had a disrupted, reduced M-901 in a hex with an undamaged M-1. (The Perfect Storm) A T-80 stack at close range with a HQ volley fires with 6 dice needing 3's getting 5 hits (only 1 hit above average). Improved position removes one hit leaving 4. M-901 gets 1d6 save needing a 6, missed it. Result, Dead M-901 and 3 hits roll over to M-1 killing it as well. My concern is that this was a situation setup deliberately by careful fire selection. The previous shots were taken at the M-901 with setting up this shot in mind.

I have a number of thoughts but only my phone keyboard until tonight. Meantime I have sent our posts to my team for some additional consideration. Be back to you soonest!

 

[MkV]

We, (my brother and I) are very reluctant to do any house rules. This is primarily because we want to do a whole string of battle reports for YouTube using my miniatures set up. House rules would potentially confuse new players and (in my mind) distract from the overall usefulness of the Battle reports and their ability to showcase the game.

Having said that, we were discussing a possible fix to the rollover hits. It's only really a big problem IMO when units of a different type and/or armor class are stacked together. A non-composite vehicle with a composite armor vehicle for example. An ATGM shoots the non-composite in hopes of rolling hits to the composite. (especially if the target is already disrupted, or reduced, or both.) Or in the case of the example on the forums, an M113 is shot hoping to roll hits onto a MBT.

One thought we had was the primary target is allocated enough hits to maximum of what it would take to kill it before additional hits are rolled over to the next unit BEFORE any saves are rolled. then ALL units hit roll their saves.

This could be accomplished by changing the word applied to allocated:

10.7.1 Hits are allocated to the target unit that was specified by the attacker. Any hits in excess of the hits needed to eliminate the target unit are allocated to the other unit in a stack, but only if the latter can be affected by the FP dice used in the attack. Once allocated, all units affected roll their armor saves.

Let me explain further with some examples:

Moving stack of undamaged T-80s receives 1 hit, primary target rolls his save dice.

Moving stack of undamaged T-80s receives 4 hits, primary is allocated 3 hits and secondary target is allocated 1 hit (The other unit in the hex, providing he meets the criteria of rollover hits) both units then roll their save dice.

And in the example on the forum, A damaged, reduced, M-901 stacked with an undisrupted, undamaged M-1 in a hex with improved position receives 5 hits. 1 hit is canceled by the improved position, 1 hit is allocated to the M-901 and 3 are allocated to the M-1, then both units roll their respective armor saves. (Notice that in this case, It wouldn’t have mattered who the target was, in either case the primary target would have rolled hits to the secondary due to the number of hits rolled. The M-901 is allocated 1 and rolls 3 to the M-1 OR the M-1 is allocated 3 and rolls 1 to the M-901)

The thought being these are platoons shooting at platoons in a relatively small space it’s unlikely that a tremendous amount of precision in target selection would allow the primary target to be EXCLUSIVELY engaged to the point that the primary target is completely eliminated before the unit who is mixed in with them receives any fire.

Edit, Actually, re-reading the Improved position rules, it looks like each unit would receive their hits, roll saves, then ignore one of the hits.

 

[Starman]

We, (my brother and I) are very reluctant to do any house rules. This is primarily because we want to do a whole string of battle reports for YouTube using my miniatures set up. House rules would potentially confuse new players and (in my mind) distract from the overall usefulness of the Battle reports and their ability to showcase the game.

Having said that, we were discussing a possible fix to the rollover hits. It's only really a big problem IMO when units of a different type and/or armor class are stacked together. A non-composite vehicle with a composite armor vehicle for example. An ATGM shoots the non-composite in hopes of rolling hits to the composite. (especially if the target is already disrupted, or reduced, or both.) Or in the case of the example on the forums, an M113 is shot hoping to roll hits onto a MBT.

One thought we had was the primary target is allocated enough hits to maximum of what it would take to kill it before additional hits are rolled over to the next unit BEFORE any saves are rolled. then ALL units hit roll their saves.

This could be accomplished by changing the word applied to allocated:

10.7.1 Hits are allocated to the target unit that was specified by the attacker. Any hits in excess of the hits needed to eliminate the target unit are allocated to the other unit in a stack, but only if the latter can be affected by the FP dice used in the attack. Once allocated, all units affected roll their armor saves.

Let me explain further with some examples:

Moving stack of undamaged T-80s receives 1 hit, primary target rolls his save dice.

Moving stack of undamaged T-80s receives 4 hits, primary is allocated 3 hits and secondary target is allocated 1 hit (The other unit in the hex, providing he meets the criteria of rollover hits) both units then roll their save dice.

And in the example on the forum, A damaged, reduced, M-901 stacked with an undisrupted, undamaged M-1 in a hex with improved position receives 5 hits. 1 hit is canceled by the improved position, 1 hit is allocated to the M-901 and 3 are allocated to the M-1, then both units roll their respective armor saves. (Notice that in this case, It wouldn’t have mattered who the target was, in either case the primary target would have rolled hits to the secondary due to the number of hits rolled. The M-901 is allocated 1 and rolls 3 to the M-1 OR the M-1 is allocated 3 and rolls 1 to the M-901)

The thought being these are platoons shooting at platoons in a relatively small space it’s unlikely that a tremendous amount of precision in target selection would allow the primary target to be EXCLUSIVELY engaged to the point that the primary target is completely eliminated before the unit who is mixed in with them receives any fire.

Edit, Actually, re-reading the Improved position rules, it looks like each unit would receive their hits, roll saves, then ignore one of the hits.

For Direct Fire this was my point in sharing the hits, the penalty is only the target gets to roll saves , the player can distribute between units. However I think this should apply if both units are of the same defence type and vulnerable to the same fire type. The firing platoon would either be firing on the tanks or the APCs or the Trucks possibly through comms and drills co-ordinating attacks (SW was being trialled and tested then for exactly that co ordination and was used in the Gulf War)

I would suggest it is limited to Vehicles of the same armour type Hard, Light or Soft and still allow sharing the logic being if there moving as one unit to benefit from Volley Fire or to allow faster movement etc. they are effectively one unit, it is unlikely Tank Platoons would intermingle with APC/IFV or soft vehicles and very few light armour or soft vehicles would risk being crushed by heavier vehicles, they would keep their distance and present a seperate distinct target

 

[MkV]

For Direct Fire this was my point in sharing the hits, the penalty is only the target gets to roll saves , the player can distribute between units. However I think this should apply if both units are of the same defence type and vulnerable to the same fire type. The firing platoon would either be firing on the tanks or the APCs or the Trucks possibly through comms and drills co-ordinating attacks (SW was being trialled and tested then for exactly that co ordination and was used in the Gulf War)

I would suggest it is limited to Vehicles of the same armour type Hard, Light or Soft and still allow sharing the logic being if there moving as one unit to benefit from Volley Fire or to allow faster movement etc. they are effectively one unit, it is unlikely Tank Platoons would intermingle with APC/IFV or soft vehicles and very few light armour or soft vehicles would risk being crushed by heavier vehicles, they would keep their distance and present a seperate distinct target

Agree, My main concern is using the rollover hits to bypass armor or armor type (moving or otherwise)

 

[Keith Tracton]

OK I had some time tonight to think over all our posts, so this is long, sorry!


Just a preface: I am informed the rules have gone to print, so changes will be down the line if they are merited. Sorry about that, but deadlines are deadlines. :-( Obviously, there will be discussions continuing on this and other forums. Thanks for your continued input!


The issue is: damage caused by excess hits being regardless of armor, when two units are stacked.

The concept upon which the rule hangs is: excess hits rolling over like this should lead players to be careful of stacking, just like they have to be careful of the stacking limit itself, which also kills without regard to armor.

To try and support that, and from a simulation perspective, let me set the scene from your posts, gentlemen. Maybe I can convince you (and maybe not…) ;-)

Firstly:

MkV’s example was in fact a self-described perfect storm. And the edit on MkV’s later post is most important: “Edit, Actually, re-reading the Improved position rules, it looks like each unit would receive their hits, roll saves, then ignore one of the hits.”

Critically, that is not quite correct. The rule states that “A unit in Improved Positions ignores the first hit it receives each time it is attacked.” So, the M-901 ignored a hit, missed its armor roll and so took the second - and it should have taken a third. Though reduced, it should have become Disrupted first, then eliminated (two hits - unless it was already Disrupted??); then the M-1 should have only had to take two hits AND THEN the improved position still should have allowed it to ignore the first of those hits. Without an armor roll. So, in fact, the M-1 should have received one net hit and so have been disrupted…and very much still alive.

To my mind, I ask myself: is this a plausible result with Volleys of 125mm rounds coming downrange that are actually on target (thus the initial five hits, not to mention whatever inflicted the first two hits on the M901) in a small, overpopulated kill zone? I think yes. The M-1s were Disrupted but US Morale/Training is typically good and so it would likely recover quickly. And with no more M901s, now its armor value IS in play. Did it need an additional evaluation against a second more powerful armor value to reduce the excess hits? As a designer, I still think no, the kill zone is too small, there is so much fire coming down range and on target that its almost like a critical hit of a sort, and as RARE as same, but without calling it that. Again, a perfect storm. But still plausible to me because of its infrequency. Yes: in this case I think the IP held up to its reputation.

I have already said that stacking is dangerous. As for stacking different unit types making the heavier armored ones more vulnerable? As you point out, Starman: “It is unlikely Tank Platoons would intermingle with APC/IFV or soft vehicles and very few light armor or soft vehicles would risk being crushed by heavier vehicles, they would keep their distance and present a separate distinct target.” Yet: a separate distinct target is, well, in the next hex, to my mind.

But yet in the example, in our perfect storm, the defender did in fact stack an M901 and an M-1. And why not? They were in an IP, perfectly reasonable…yet – still stacked. In effect (though not explicitly stated), therefore intermixed. Inside of that hex, if the M901s and/or M-1s are forced by the large volume of incoming fire to shift fighting positions within the hex they are all in fact so close that yes, the vehicles may collide, or be crushed, or lose a track, or anything at all that represents being hors de combat, and so reducing or eliminating the platoon, regardless of, nay, because of the heavy armor. And additional casualties may mount from the incoming fire itself: in having to shift, heavy armor flanks are inadvertently exposed, the weakest armor on most of these tanks, besides the top deck and bottom armor. There is a lot going on in any one hex or counter when the dice are rolled, to my mind. For this reason, the M901 can and does make the M-1 more vulnerable just for being there, regardless of the M-1s armor.

Secondly:

I want to address MkVs point about the “careful fire selection” on the IP: “My concern is that this was a situation setup deliberately by careful fire selection. The previous shots were taken at the M-901 with setting up this shot in mind.”

Intentionally? Sounds like it. Yet I do not think anyone could have EASILY set up a shot like this. It would be dependent on a multi-layered result of just enough hits to not kill the M-901 (two) and then banking on a higher than average return on 6 dice to make a higher than average number of 3s or higher, or six hits, which would result in the M901 being eliminated and the M-1 being reduced and disrupted (and still alive again). Score exactly two hits on the first shot and then score all six hits in the follow-up? I can only go on what I think I would feel: I am too wrapped in the overall game to worry about die rolls that I truly cannot control. That said, shooting at the M901 with that intent is not invalid or unfair or even unusual. To attempt so precise a result in a D6 system so that one attack damages an M901 but to have supporting Volley fire on hand for a coup de grace? I think that’s fun and brilliant myself. Or plain crazy... ;-)

And risky.

Why risky? Though the “tactic” is dramatic, to my mind it has much more potential to backfire than not, if I am reading the odds correctly. Because, despite excess hit rules and regardless of armor, you have to score 2 hits plus 6 hits that’s 8 hits out of 8 or so die rolls to seriously damage, not eliminate, the M-1 in this situation. So, allowing it to happen once, for me, ads spice and drama to the game but will be difficult to reproduce (I think, at least if playtesting is any foreteller of results).

And a side note: Volley Fire was deliberately brought in as a modifier to deal with units in IPs. It was suggested by Jeff Schulte. And you see even then you need a perfect storm to damage an M-1 in an IP.

Lastly:

Stacking is two units because if you have your average two vehicle platoons (6 - 10 vehicles) you can give them roughly 50 - 75 yards of separation between their constituent vehicles in a 150 yard hex (barring real-world terrain restrictions like trees and such). Thats pretty much the minimum recommended combat formation separation, from what I have been told. Thats 10 targets in a space the size of a US football field and a half square. Pretty small, I think. ;-)

So that’s my take on this: I want you to see the style of thinking that goes into my rule choice. Again, I may not change your mind but then again I may. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

 

[MkV]

OK I had some time tonight to think over all our posts, so this is long, sorry!


Just a preface: I am informed the rules have gone to print, so changes will be down the line if they are merited. Sorry about that, but deadlines are deadlines. :-( Obviously, there will be discussions continuing on this and other forums. Thanks for your continued input!


The issue is: damage caused by excess hits being regardless of armor, when two units are stacked.

The concept upon which the rule hangs is: excess hits rolling over like this should lead players to be careful of stacking, just like they have to be careful of the stacking limit itself, which also kills without regard to armor.

To try and support that, and from a simulation perspective, let me set the scene from your posts, gentlemen. Maybe I can convince you (and maybe not…) ;-)

Firstly:

MkV’s example was in fact a self-described perfect storm. And the edit on MkV’s later post is most important: “Edit, Actually, re-reading the Improved position rules, it looks like each unit would receive their hits, roll saves, then ignore one of the hits.”

Critically, that is not quite correct. The rule states that “A unit in Improved Positions ignores the first hit it receives each time it is attacked.” So, the M-901 ignored a hit, missed its armor roll and so took the second - and it should have taken a third. Though reduced, it should have become Disrupted first, then eliminated (two hits - unless it was already Disrupted??); then the M-1 should have only had to take two hits AND THEN the improved position still should have allowed it to ignore the first of those hits. Without an armor roll. So, in fact, the M-1 should have received one net hit and so have been disrupted…and very much still alive.

To my mind, I ask myself: is this a plausible result with Volleys of 125mm rounds coming downrange that are actually on target (thus the initial five hits, not to mention whatever inflicted the first two hits on the M901) in a small, overpopulated kill zone? I think yes. The M-1s were Disrupted but US Morale/Training is typically good and so it would likely recover quickly. And with no more M901s, now its armor value IS in play. Did it need an additional evaluation against a second more powerful armor value to reduce the excess hits? As a designer, I still think no, the kill zone is too small, there is so much fire coming down range and on target that its almost like a critical hit of a sort, and as RARE as same, but without calling it that. Again, a perfect storm. But still plausible to me because of its infrequency. Yes: in this case I think the IP held up to its reputation.

I have already said that stacking is dangerous. As for stacking different unit types making the heavier armored ones more vulnerable? As you point out, Starman: “It is unlikely Tank Platoons would intermingle with APC/IFV or soft vehicles and very few light armor or soft vehicles would risk being crushed by heavier vehicles, they would keep their distance and present a separate distinct target.” Yet: a separate distinct target is, well, in the next hex, to my mind.

But yet in the example, in our perfect storm, the defender did in fact stack an M901 and an M-1. And why not? They were in an IP, perfectly reasonable…yet – still stacked. In effect (though not explicitly stated), therefore intermixed. Inside of that hex, if the M901s and/or M-1s are forced by the large volume of incoming fire to shift fighting positions within the hex they are all in fact so close that yes, the vehicles may collide, or be crushed, or lose a track, or anything at all that represents being hors de combat, and so reducing or eliminating the platoon, regardless of, nay, because of the heavy armor. And additional casualties may mount from the incoming fire itself: in having to shift, heavy armor flanks are inadvertently exposed, the weakest armor on most of these tanks, besides the top deck and bottom armor. There is a lot going on in any one hex or counter when the dice are rolled, to my mind. For this reason, the M901 can and does make the M-1 more vulnerable just for being there, regardless of the M-1s armor.

Secondly:

I want to address MkVs point about the “careful fire selection” on the IP: “My concern is that this was a situation setup deliberately by careful fire selection. The previous shots were taken at the M-901 with setting up this shot in mind.”

Intentionally? Sounds like it. Yet I do not think anyone could have EASILY set up a shot like this. It would be dependent on a multi-layered result of just enough hits to not kill the M-901 (two) and then banking on a higher than average return on 6 dice to make a higher than average number of 3s or higher, or six hits, which would result in the M901 being eliminated and the M-1 being reduced and disrupted (and still alive again). Score exactly two hits on the first shot and then score all six hits in the follow-up? I can only go on what I think I would feel: I am too wrapped in the overall game to worry about die rolls that I truly cannot control. That said, shooting at the M901 with that intent is not invalid or unfair or even unusual. To attempt so precise a result in a D6 system so that one attack damages an M901 but to have supporting Volley fire on hand for a coup de grace? I think that’s fun and brilliant myself. Or plain crazy... ;-)

And risky.

Why risky? Though the “tactic” is dramatic, to my mind it has much more potential to backfire than not, if I am reading the odds correctly. Because, despite excess hit rules and regardless of armor, you have to score 2 hits plus 6 hits that’s 8 hits out of 8 or so die rolls to seriously damage, not eliminate, the M-1 in this situation. So, allowing it to happen once, for me, ads spice and drama to the game but will be difficult to reproduce (I think, at least if playtesting is any foreteller of results).

And a side note: Volley Fire was deliberately brought in as a modifier to deal with units in IPs. It was suggested by Jeff Schulte. And you see even then you need a perfect storm to damage an M-1 in an IP.

Lastly:

Stacking is two units because if you have your average two vehicle platoons (6 - 10 vehicles) you can give them roughly 50 - 75 yards of separation between their constituent vehicles in a 150 yard hex (barring real-world terrain restrictions like trees and such). Thats pretty much the minimum recommended combat formation separation, from what I have been told. Thats 10 targets in a space the size of a US football field and a half square. Pretty small, I think. ;-)

So that’s my take on this: I want you to see the style of thinking that goes into my rule choice. Again, I may not change your mind but then again I may. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

I am perfectly fine if you want to leave it as it is. My concerns were 2 fold. 1st, was it was an unintended consequence of trying for another effect dealing with stacked movement? 2nd, was it was producing an unrealistic outcome that could be "gamed" for back of a better word? If these two aren't issues and you're aware and OK with it I am as well. My lesson was learned in the event and I am a wiser player for it.

 

[Starman]

Hmmm have to think more on this , I still think if your saying they are tightly bunched then shared hits is fair as they are acting as a single larger unit. The damage and only one save is made not two. Maybe if mixed types ot should be ra dom which unit saves.