Bombarding Tank Riders

[plloyd1010]

"Is my jaw supposed to drop?"

Now you just sound whiny.

I believe I asked Fred what he was looking for.

[Blackcloud6]

I would suppose we should first ask Fred which camp he is in. How about it Fred, are you a RAW/fundamentalist type, or are you a reader-how do you make this fit sort of guy?

I almost always play RAW because I assume the designer had a reason for writing a rule the way he did. It also keeps one playing consistent and will not have to adjust when playing against another person. But I will question rules, as I have done .in this case, to see if I've either misunderstood the rule or there has been a change I don't know about, or the there was an error in writing or printing the rule. If a rule is obviously broken, I will fix it with a house rule. That however is rare and usually broken rules are uncovered by us gamers , brought to the attention of the designer/publisher, and fixed.

I played this particular rule in the way Poor Yoreck answered me in his first post. I do question if that answer is what the designer intended. It seems that riders exposed on a tank would suffer greatly from artillery fragmenting the tank. But , let's think it through. In a truck, there would be no protection at all. the mild steel and wood (many beds were wood) would afford no protection whatsoever from artillery fragments. But, on the tank, depending where the shell lands, the turret and the hull, if you are on the other side from the burst, will protect against fragments if the riders hunker down (they will not get this protection form an airburst however). So maybe the writer of the tank rider rule took this notion into account and decided not to give the +1 shift. (One may say you would get the same protection against DF but that is aimed fire at the dudes on the tank and will be vicious). Remember, the riders can still be armed by an effective roll, so I see a side of the argument that causes me to play this one as explicitly written. We can debate it, but there could be a valid reason why it was written as so.

[vince hughes]

Peter,

I won't mention my myriad credentials which includes a tale of daring do with me as the hero in that great published work "Deeds That Thrilled The Empire" as well as a lesser known story but in no way something that should be sniffed at titled "Aldershot, Cpl Hughes, 14 pints, 4 Women and a Parrot" .......

Instead, I shall be ever so 'umble guv'nor

But just taking up your point re playing Rules As Written or Own Interpretation Rules (hereafter RAW or OIR should either be mentioned again) my mantra on RAW is very simple and I think worth highlighting on the forum. I like ftf/hth play, in other words an opponent. Tried solo many times and can not do it (properly). By sticking with RAW I 'm pretty safe in the belief and actual execution of ......that whether the opponent is English, German, American, Belgian, Canadian or God forbid Scottish !! They will be generally in a position to play the game as we all know it. There are of course rules that are missing (overrruns of pesky mortars holding up tanks), rules that are a bit queer (British formation rules) and so on and they do bug me, but the game is what it is and we must like it to be here presumably. So despite some warts, if we are all singing from the same song-sheet, all the better for ftf/hth gamers.

Once the road is taken of 'adding this' and 'taking that' on a large scale, then each opponent has to be basically logged somewhere in a book or spreadsheet as to how they do or don't play and consequently forces me to remember each opponents quirks and they mine too. "What PG rules apply and what do not" I would have to ask before each game. With my scale of opponent base, I can't afford or be bothered with all that.

Also, I am happy that of the 160 or so results of my dual plays listed, they are all hand in glove in that the same game was played as good as dammit with each opponent. That means when I list losses at the end of each game, they were achieved by using the system as printed and there should be nothing 'funky' found in my results .... results meaning either scenario winners/losers as well as stats for losses.

To varying degrees and varying spheres we are ALL pretty much experts in military matters here whether read, recreated or real. Whether qualified, published or enthusiast. It would be wrong of me to decree my rules and versions as superior or 'righter' than a man's that disagrees with me on a point of opinion. Try discussing the causes of WW1 on CSW if you want to put that to the test and most if not all inputters have read volumes on the subject. Despite that, I know my views on the debate of causation tally with say about 10-20% only.

This is a long, reasoned and hopefully constructive post of laying down the objectives for a RAW point of view. It has nothing to do with an ignorance of the subject matter, in fact, very far from it indeed and hopefully is not something you conflate when looking at RAW v OIR. But instead, it is a deliberate attempt to continue to work towards players at least playing the same game with results that are relative to each other AND by playing the same game, a better chance of inter-player games in the future.

This I believe is why PY answered in the 'fundamentalist' form as you put it upstream so that Fred at least first gets the official ruling rather than an IDEA for a ruling that you unfortunately preceeded with a list of experiences that PY ribbed you about. Having not seen the film Godzilla 2014 I can not confirm whether his quote is either correct, accurate or even remotely exists on celluloid

Talking of experiences I think in my two main jobs (professsions) of Army & Police both careers in their respective training schools would begin lessons or exercises with: (and I'm sure most peoples job training does)

"There are some better,some quicker and also some just plain different ways to achieve this objective you are learning today. But I'm going to show you the CORRECT way first, the way the MANUAL teaches it. Learn that and then afterwards ............................

(and afterwards, there will be the 4th ed. where optionals will need to be agreed.)

[Blackcloud6]

Peter,

I won't mention my myriad credentials which includes a tale of daring do with me as the hero in that great published work "Deeds That Thrilled The Empire" as well as a lesser known story but in no way something that should be sniffed at titled "Aldershot, Cpl Hughes, 14 pints, 4 Women and a Parrot" .......

Instead, I shall be ever so 'umble guv'nor

But just taking up your point re playing Rules As Written or Own Interpretation Rules (hereafter RAW or OIR should either be mentioned again) my mantra on RAW is very simple and I think worth highlighting on the forum. I like ftf/hth play, in other words an opponent. Tried solo many times and can not do it (properly). By sticking with RAW I 'm pretty safe in the belief and actual execution of ......that whether the opponent is English, German, American, Belgian, Canadian or God forbid Scottish !! They will be generally in a position to play the game as we all know it. There are of course rules that are missing (overrruns of pesky mortars holding up tanks), rules that are a bit queer (British formation rules) and so on and they do bug me, but the game is what it is and we must like it to be here presumably. So despite some warts, if we are all singing from the same song-sheet, all the better for ftf/hth gamers.

Once the road is taken of 'adding this' and 'taking that' on a large scale, then each opponent has to be basically logged somewhere in a book or spreadsheet as to how they do or don't play and consequently forces me to remember each opponents quirks and they mine too. "What PG rules apply and what do not" I would have to ask before each game. With my scale of opponent base, I can't afford or be bothered with all that.

Also, I am happy that of the 160 or so results of my dual plays listed, they are all hand in glove in that the same game was played as good as dammit with each opponent. That means when I list losses at the end of each game, they were achieved by using the system as printed and there should be nothing 'funky' found in my results .... results meaning either scenario winners/losers as well as stats for losses.

To varying degrees and varying spheres we are ALL pretty much experts in military matters here whether read, recreated or real. Whether qualified, published or enthusiast. It would be wrong of me to decree my rules and versions as superior or 'righter' than a man's that disagrees with me on a point of opinion. Try discussing the causes of WW1 on CSW if you want to put that to the test and most if not all inputters have read volumes on the subject. Despite that, I know my views on the debate of causation tally with say about 10-20% only.

This is a long, reasoned and hopefully constructive post of laying down the objectives for a RAW point of view. It has nothing to do with an ignorance of the subject matter, in fact, very far from it indeed and hopefully is not something you conflate when looking at RAW v OIR. But instead, it is a deliberate attempt to continue to work towards players at least playing the same game with results that are relative to each other AND by playing the same game, a better chance of inter-player games in the future.

This I believe is why PY answered in the 'fundamentalist' form as you put it upstream so that Fred at least first gets the official ruling rather than an IDEA for a ruling that you unfortunately preceeded with a list of experiences that PY ribbed you about. Having not seen the film Godzilla 2014 I can not confirm whether his quote is either correct, accurate or even remotely exists on celluloid

Talking of experiences I think in my two main jobs (professsions) of Army & Police both careers in their respective training schools would begin lessons or exercises with: (and I'm sure most peoples job training does)

"There are some better,some quicker and also some just plain different ways to achieve this objective you are learning today. But I'm going to show you the CORRECT way first, the way the MANUAL teaches it. Learn that and then afterwards ............................

(and afterwards, there will be the 4th ed. where optionals will need to be agreed.)

Good post Vince.

[plloyd1010]

Well Fred, your leaning is quite important. (That is why I am not really interested in a pissing match with PY, it only takes the discussion off topic.) I seems to me that you require a definition of "normal" in regards to this case. "Normally" passengers are only affected by what effects their transport, as they and the transport are treated as one unit (rule 5.6). So apart from the exception regarding DF vulnerability, that is what is written. It isn't historically accurate in any way, doesn't appear to have a grounding in reality, but is what has been written.

If you are happy with your game results, that's fine, they're your games. After you've read a few small unit AARs and some middle echelon combat narratives, your view on playing RAW will likely soften. That happens with most systems as the tension and compromises between play and simulation is revealed. The beauty of PG is that rarely does one need to look outside the system to find a better application.

[plloyd1010]

Vince, I'm a little surprised by your dissertation, as we are both in our 5th decade of wargaming. On this side of the ocean, rules become a negotiation-reference process in regards to game play, the deterioration of American discourse not withstanding. I wouldn't have expected there to be much difference in your part of the world. If there is, perhaps we should start a thread about that. "Credentials" to me, and many other (unossified) old gamers, relate the formation of the speakers thoughts and the reference from which they were drawn. This especially true in a forum. Have not the greatest number of, and certainly a couple of the best, innovations come from relative newbies? Stephen Crane, regarded as having written the truest expression of soldiering, especially in reference to the ACW, was never in the army of either side. Fred Jane regarded as the authority for combat vessels around the world, never dampened his feet in any navy. Why would you, of anyone here, suggest that I may attempting to speak from a position of authority?

Be that as it is. I do dig down beyond most of the pulp, to accounts on a lower and more technical level than what is often provided for us. All games, including PG, come up short in regards to simulation. So wargames are like the old joke:

A guy on the make, goes into a bar. He spots a pretty women and goes over to her.
Guy: Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?
Gal: ...YES!
Guy: How about $2?
Gal: What kind of girl do you think I am?
Guy: We already established that. Now we are haggling over the price.

Now we can haggle of where game-simulation line should be. I come down down on the side of history, but don't wish to damage the system.

[vince hughes]

Peter,

I did not know it was de rigeur in the US to have what you succinctly name a negotiation-reference process and it is not something I have taken part in to my memory other than when optional rules are up for bidding or confirming whether an errata rule has been realised by both opponents. If that is the normal or mode procedure in America these days then I confess my ignorance. :-)

With that in mind I would have to count myself lucky then with the many guys I have played PG against as I am struggling to remember any noticeable negotiated 'new or changed rule' against any of them. Perhaps my long time PBEM opponent that I only just finished playing against this year (due to continual cat attacks of the set-up game that the 8 year old mog found as a new source of entertainment) was about the only player I knew that had some rules quirks. As I was the newbie initially against him years ago, I never really changed too much to the 'real' rules against him.

I know you like to add your version or perception of what is the more realistic to your game(s) and I appreciate that. That is the flavour you have chosen and you are right to do so because it is right for you AND fits in with your understanding of the subject matter. But my decision was taken above my own 'reality' perception processes simply in favour of increased chances of finding opponents and also being able to appeal to a larger 'footfall' of PG gamers. With 14 different opponents so far played against and another 2 in the pipeline I am neither inclined nor in a position to remember possibly 16 different ways of playing the same game against each of those erstwhile guys. As I mentioned in the post further up ... Yes this means swallowing some parts of the rules I do not like or would prefer to be different, but on the plus side, all 17 of us know where we stand from the get-go.

On the rare occassions I have gone for home brew innovations in the past in other games, I have found players will often want a new 'realistic' rule added as a situation arises that more often than not has them at a disadvantage. The descent into "This would never happen" or "They would do this in that situation and its far more realistic" are the kind of debates that when I am mid-playing a game I am not interested in. Even after the game it is a dicey business changing the rule as once again, I have seen home rules in games modified again as other situations come to a head. Practically in all those games, had everybody stuck to the rules as presented we would have all had an easier playing experience OVER the LONGER term.

Finally, to catch a sentence from your previous post and on the subject of small unit actions, do you have a copy of "Small Unit Actions During The German Campaign in Russia" published by The Dept of the Army - Pamphlets 20-269 ? This certainly must give a pep to any would be PG gamer when building up to an East Front scenario. If not, have a look. My copy is printed in England by Naval & Military Press Ltd

[Blackcloud6]

> If you are happy with your game results, that's fine, they're your games. After you've read a few small unit AARs and some middle echelon combat narratives, your view on playing RAW will likely soften. That happens with most systems as the tension and compromises between play and simulation is revealed. The beauty of PG is that rarely does one need to look outside the system to find a better application.

I am in progress of teaching this game system to someone at work who is a relatively new wargamer (he has been playing for just a few years, I have been since the 1970s). the first game system he learned was ASL which uses explicit rules. has the concept of COWTAR (concentrate on what the rules allow) and have many nuances caused by rule combinations exception and so on. So, I back him off to a game with what some might be viewed as a "looser" system of rules and it becomes harder t explain the nuances without backing them up with a rule. I asked the question above mainly to see if there was an exception or a ruling that I missed to actually have the +1 column shift for tank riders on bombardment. There appears to not have been such thus I assume then that designer intended the rule to be played the way it was written and I have n problem doing so. I can see an argument for the rule as written as I said above due to the turrets and vehicle itself providing some protection as opposed tot he canvass and mild steel of a truck. When you only have a value of "1" to play with (Some thing that many whole play ASL never have grasped) then sometime a hard choice on "reality has to be made: the designer wanted to show the difference in riding on a tank as opposed to sitting in truck, OK so be it. (BNTW, I think hitting moving vehicles with indirect fire artillery is very difficult anyways and one could argue for a left shift if the vehicle had moved previously to the shot, but that is another argument).

[plloyd1010]

Vince, you never did or do rules/mod negotiations? I've doing it since high school. It always seemed to be the way through college, and at the conventions (Mile High Con at least). The basic flow was we started talking about the games we would be playing and what we had read about history, or previous session experiences. About the time we were setting up the discussion would be more of how well the game simulated events on the game's scale, notes and mods from prior games then moved in. Once setup, the questions: What are we going to do? (ie: mods we may want apply for this session. We made notes, stuck them in the rulebook, and played the game. Afterward, there was short debriefing round-table (what worked, what didn't, was it worth the trouble), mark-up the notes, talk about next time. There were guys who started RAW others who always had to change "one more thing".

I didn't have that book, but it is online. It looks a good read to me. Have you read 'Small Unit Actions' CMH pub. 100-14, or 'Bastogne: The First Eight Days?' by S.L.A. Marshall? I presume you've gone through a few field manuals for mixed battalion & brigade combat teams. They can be quite interesting, if a little too modern. Anyway, I've downloaded 'Small Unit Actions During The German Campaign in Russia'. I got the epub version.

[plloyd1010]

Alan Moorehead's 'Tank Fighting in Libya" and Halliday's 'The Ignorant Armies' are pretty good too.