|
Horrible Lurkbeast posted:Phoenix question: I suppose that real armies don't use Molotov cocktails and other such improvised explosives because those suck rear end compared to actual manufactured grenades, how is this modelled? I'd guess that a molotov is going to be hard to use and give you poo poo-all fragmentation damage and that's the disadvantage. Dunno what the rules on fire are though, there's probably a whole supplement for incendiaries, injuries and intricate tables to determine how good your plastic surgeon is.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
There seems to be an assumption in buying body armor that X person is the lead/assault element and so should get the good stuff, whereas Y person is the support element and should be given PASGT. I'm looking at the battle and I'm not sure this division is born out by our casualties. Our first casualty was taken at range, and wasn't even a pointman; poor Sticky was the second or so in column. Likewise, Hugh Mann was acting part of the support element, dueling with enemy riflemen at range, when he got shot and killed. If anything, it almost seems to argue that our support element--the one trading fire with the enemy instead of the one slipping around the flank--should armor up. Also, PASGT vest and helmet were designed to deal with artillery fragments, remember. Rifle fire will knife through them. If you don't have to deal with mortars, grenades, or field guns, I'm not sure how much value they add.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Well they are also effective against pistols and smgs at medium range, and we are soon going to be dealing with enemy explosives I would have to imagine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
I'm sort of wondering about putting loads of armour on the static MG teams and grenadiers and whoever else doesn't have to go at any particular speed and who will have the stand-off for the armour to protect better, then leaving the assaulters light and nimble. Casualties will be disproportionate on assault units anyway, might as well keep some of the unit alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
MG people are already slow as molasses, you want them to actually get into the position to cover the others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Rulesets like this are amazing. Like was said before, that whole engagement taking a whopping 22 seconds is pretty silly for something trying to model the realities of combat. Combat in tabletop RPGs (not as familiar with wargames) tends to go in one of two directions, abstract or incredibly granular. Dungeons and Dragons has had both throughout its lifespan, as an example. In AD&D 1st Edition (not sure about 2nd) each round of combat represents a minute of fighting, which also goes well with the original design philosophy behind armor class and hit points. Hp are an ablative pool of abstract resources representing endurance, luck, skill, reflexes, magical protections, etc (you become winded dodging and parrying blows, the impact of hits on your armor cause pain and fatigue, your luck slowly runs out). When you run out of hp, you’re out of the fight (typically death, especially for NPCs and monsters). Armor class determines how hard a target is to hit (deal damage to the hp pool) as it represents the base protection against harm (you block with your shield, your armor turns a blade harmlessly, your footwork keeps you out of attack range). While there are plenty of more complex optional rules that go counter to the core simplicity of the system (weapon effectiveness vs specific armor charts, individual rather than group initiative, etc) the meat is dead simple and allows easy adjudication of the combat based on its particular circumstances and participants. Positioning was intentionally vague, as fighters were assumed to be moving constantly. A swirling melee between an experienced adventuring party and numerous or very dangerous opponents might take 10 minutes of exhaustive fighting, shooting and magery. The abstraction of combat and lengthy rounds assumes things like fighters pairing off and sizing each other up, feints, repositioning, taking cover from missile fire, etc, without having to directly address any of it with specific rules. As a contrast, by 3rd Edition, the six-second combat round was standard. Exact positioning down to 5’ squares of space is vital, as many combat sub-systems character abilities and spells depended on where targets are in relation to one another, and their actions might trigger reactive or contingent abilities, etc. Hit points and armor class still technically represent the same thing here as in 1st Edition, but time between meaningful events (attack rolls, spells, etc) is compressed to 1/10th of what it used to be. Most encounters are over in less than twenty seconds of “real time” and what would have been a ten-minute slugfest decades earlier (perhaps fighting a demon or dragon, or a swarm of orcs) is concluded in a brisk minute. The more specific, detailed and precise a combat system tries to be in the sake of serving realism, the more it seems to skew towards unrealistic swift lethality. In my opinion, sometimes less is more when trying to simulate something as complex and chaotic as combat. Plenty of RPG systems involving modern or future combat have you rolling to hit with each bullet of a machine gun burst and other such nightmares. Sign me up as Ophelia Balzac, a confused French soldier who last remembers roaming around Poland after the Twilight War. Maybe she fell through a dimensional portal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
I think the cause of that effect is quite simple. Most of combat is people ducking in cover, refusing to peak out, hiding, ect ect. Which is boring so it gets skipped over. If you have a more abstract system is can compensate for this to some extent by only allowing one action per minute, or whatever. Obviously it doesn't take one minute for someone to fire a burst or swing a sword but it might well take one minute from them to pluck up the courage and do it. But no one wants 29 rounds of failing morale checks then 1 round of action, which is what it would end up being in Phoenix Command. Honestly I think what phoneix command was born to be is a swat storming simulator where everything would happen at that kind of pace with a very set start and end to the engagement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
On the topic of firefights being too fast: This is an optional rule I haven't been using. Your Intelligence Skill Factor (ISF = INT+11 for you goons) determines how long it takes to lay a plan of action. Initiative Time (IT) is the number of actions you must spend to lay a Course of Action, which can't include more than A# steps. Here, a "step" lines pretty closely up with the different kinds of maneuvers a character can take: the example the book uses is Donovan, who has sneaked into a building and wants to throw a grenade at an unaware opponent in another room. This is 5 steps: put down rifle; draw and arm grenade; draw pistol; move two hexes; throw grenade through door. Donovan (IT 8) needs to spend 8 actions coming up with this plan, and another 17 to execute it. You can duck, take cover, and fire at immediate threats without planning, but everything else takes time. In real-world terms, Phoenix Command assumes the average soldier has 4 actions per 2-second phase and an ISF of 20.5, so it takes 4-6 seconds to lay a course of action.  This is another optional rule I haven't been using. A leader's Leadership Skill Factor (LSF = LDR+11 for you goons) determines how long it takes to issue an order. Command Time (CT) is the number of actions a leader must spent to give his troops an order. The example provided is Donovan (CT 16), who wants to order his squad to hold their fire as a larger enemy unit passes, direct his squad to take cover, and tell his MG team where to set up. This is three separate orders, and so takes 48 actions to issue. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
How long does it take to scratch your balls from the moment you realise that they're itchy? I must keep it realistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
There are probably separate tables for cursory and thorough
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
You want us to vote on plans or purchases?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
goatface posted:You want us to vote on plans or purchases? The plans, not each individual purchase. Though you can still come up with a new plans, if you think you can convince people in the time remaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
VOTE BY 19:00 GMT+0 05-FEB-2018 Current Proposals Arms Plan Cathode: Grenadier Edition: 6x HK691 (66 points) 40x spare grenades (16 points) 1x P90 (6 points) Arms Plan Cathode: 2x HK691 (22 points) 20 spare grenades (8 points) 2x Ranger Body Armor with plate (42 points) 2x P90 (12 points) Arms Plan Rossini: Swiss Squad Package 3xPASGT vest Plan Increase Wounds: 10x PASGT Helmets (2x10=20) 9x PASGT Vest (3x9=27) 1x Ranger Body Armor with Plate (21) 2x HK69A1 w/10 grenades apiece (22) Swiss bank account: Swiss Squad Package (81pts) 20 grenades(8pts) Better protection for faster troops: 10x PASGT Helmets (20) 7x PASGT Vest (21) 3x HK MP7A1 (15) 3x Ranger Body Armor (33) Plan: Fiscal Responsibility: 1x HK69A1 w/ 10 rounds (11 Budget Points) 2x M1952 Armored Vest (2 Budget Points ea) Total: 15 Budget Remaining: 75 budget Budget plan Goat: 6 helmets 12pts 4 ranger suits 44pts 2 grenade launchers 22pts 2 P90s 12pts Angora: 7x helmets 14pts 4x ranger suits 44pts 1x grenade launchers 11pts 20x 40mm grenades 8 points 2x P90s 12pts Angora II: 4x ranger suits 44pts 2x grenade launchers 22pts 10x spare 40mm grenades 4pts 2x P90s 12pts Silly Hats for All! PASGT Helmets x10 (20BP) Ranger Body Armor x5 (55BP) PASGT Vest x5 (15BP)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Rulesets like this are amazing. Like was said before, that whole engagement taking a whopping 22 seconds is pretty silly for something trying to model the realities of combat. Short, violent, and lethal fights are quite realistic. If you look at old school fighting styles like HEMA or Olympic fencing, the fight tends to be over in a few seconds. When you bring modern semi-auto and full-auto firearms with high-cap magazines, you get similarly short and bloody fights. Looking at the kinds of shootouts Phoenix Command is trying to simulate (i.e. 2 vs. 2 police shootouts or SAS building assaults, instead of platoon-sized ambushes) it's amazing how short and violent the action becomes. The [url=]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout]FBI Miami Shoout from 1986[/url] is the most-cited example of this. Within the opening seconds of the the firefight, both bank robbers had been shot (one fatally, but not immediately so), along with four FBI agents. The entire fight lasted only four minutes and most of the injuries were inflicted by the first few rounds of the gunfight. The first robber was shot in the forearm, head and neck, which took him out of the fight. And infamously, the first hit on the second bank robber stopped an inch from his heart - despite this fatal injury, he went on to kill two FBI agents and wound four more. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04dUCT-qO3c The point being, modern shootouts end with a ton of bodies and a lot of time left on the clock. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:I think the cause of that effect is quite simple. Most of combat is people ducking in cover, refusing to peak out, hiding, ect ect. Which is boring so it gets skipped over. Aces & Eights is an old west RPG that has detailed gun combat system that is broken down into tenth-of-a-second counts. This is actually kind of appropriate (if insane) because it is trying to simulate the mechanics of a quick-draw firefight. There’s charts for how many counts it takes you to do something, like clear a pistol from a holster, or bring it up to hip level for a quick shot vs raising it higher and spending precious time acquiring your target. Good stats and combat experience can cut down on the cost of actions, but likewise, bad stats and inexperience can add to the cost. The penalty for being in your first deadly engagement is huge. I read a rules query once where somebody wanted to know how many counts it took to flip a table for cover. The author told them to flip a table and use a stop watch.  This is a game that also has a system for realistically simulating driving cattle based on the historical cattle drives and routes that actually took place, has a system to simulate prospecting for ore and even has a system for running, rigging and otherwise mucking with jury trials. It’s actually a small collection of interconnected games that are tailored to their particular focus. I’ll never actually run the game, so I don’t know if it actually succeeds at any of this, though. Phoenix Command does seem like a game tailored to SWAT/Tac-Ops stuff trying to be a NATO vs Warsaw Pact skirmish simulator. In engagements involving multiple AFVs, air-support, off-board artillery support and dozens of soldiers, do you really need to know the soldier that just got knocked out of the fight has a cracked, as opposed to broken or crushed, pelvis from being shot in the dick? Do you even need to know where he was shot at all until it becomes relevant? Make those rolls once someone tries to administer aid, or work it out after the battle if you insist on such detail. Otherwise have dudes be wounded and in need of evac/care and leave it at that. Is a rifleman trying to put pressure on a buddy’s blood geyser going to even know what bones/organs got hit and their various states beyond the most basic of terms while under fire? What I’m saying is, I can’t wait to catch bullets for Team Boondoggle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Short, violent, and lethal fights are quite realistic. If you look at old school fighting styles like HEMA or Olympic fencing, the fight tends to be over in a few seconds. In the sort of engagement we just did with both sides in cover that really isn't the case though. You're talking about point blank range engagement. were things do indeed happen fast. However those tend to be within a much smaller space and be much more extensively preplanned. Infantry engagements at squad size really do not tend to be like that though. orcbuster fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
I obviously proposed, but did not officially vote! So here's what I'm saying. First Priority: Plan Increase Wounds 2nd Priority: Silly Hats for All! 3rd Priority: Better protection for faster troops 4th Priority: Angora One And the rest can go whereever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
First Priority: Plan Increase Wounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Angora II Goat Cathode: Heavy Assault Angora I I'm really not liking those PASGT vests. I initially meant for Angora I to be withdrawn but Davin voted for it so I won't do that without their agreement. FrangibleCover fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
1) Silly Hats for All! 2) Better protection for faster troops 3) Plan Increase Wounds 4) Fiscal Responsibility As far as I'm concerned, it's protection for everyone or maximum budget hoarding. For those not wanting PASGT vests or helmets: If we can pick up loot at the end of a mission, we can exchange or upgrade equipment later on once better options become available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
1. Cathode grenades 2. Cathode heavy assault 3. Increase wounds 4. Goat
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Phoenix Command does seem like a game tailored to SWAT/Tac-Ops stuff trying to be a NATO vs Warsaw Pact skirmish simulator. In engagements involving multiple AFVs, air-support, off-board artillery support and dozens of soldiers, do you really need to know the soldier that just got knocked out of the fight has a cracked, as opposed to broken or crushed, pelvis from being shot in the dick? Do you even need to know where he was shot at all until it becomes relevant? As far as intent is concerned, one of the scenarios in the "core" Phoenix Command book is an engagement between US and NVA soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam. There's also supplements for mechanized combat and (off-board) artillery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
The artillery rules could all be on-board if you have a big enough board
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The artillery rules could all be on-board if you have a big enough board How big? Few dozen square feet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
a single hex is 2 yards across. Assuming 53 mm per hex, you're looking at 4,650 hexes, ranging 246 meters across, in order to represent the effective range of something like 75mm artillery. That's more than two football fields in length.
gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:a single hex is 2 yards across. Assuming 53 mm per hex, you're looking at 4,650 hexes, ranging 246 meters across, in order to represent the effective range of something like 75mm artillery. That's more than two football fields in length. Awesome. Is it possible for us to find a couple of footballfields to cover in grid paper and work out a hexadecimal chart to keep track of where rounds land presuming the rules system can handle that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
First Priority: Plan Increase Wounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As far as intent is concerned, one of the scenarios in the "core" Phoenix Command book is an engagement between US and NVA soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam. Depends on the edition. 3rd edition has "The Bridge At Oppenheimen", a bridge defence set in the WaPa invasion of Germany, and a SWAT raid on a drug factory. 2nd edition also has "The Bridge At Oppenheimen" and SAS raid on a cruise liner that has been taken over by terrorists. I'm not against some missions where the maximum engagement range reaches the effective range of your weapons, but finding high-detail maps that are several hundred hexes across is not easy. I'm having trouble enough with maps as it is!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:a single hex is 2 yards across. Assuming 53 mm per hex, you're looking at 4,650 hexes, ranging 246 meters across, in order to represent the effective range of something like 75mm artillery. That's more than two football fields in length. Faint-heart. Go full Jorge Luis Borges and do a scale of 2 yards per 2-yard hex. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
bibliosabreur posted:Faint-heart. Go full Jorge Luis Borges and do a scale of 2 yards per 2-yard hex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
1. Goat 2. Angora 2 3. Hats 4. Cathode heavy
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
1. Increase wounds. 2.Cathode heavy assault 3. Angora 2 4. Better protection for faster troops. Those voting plan goat please note the plan buys grenade launchers however it omits to purchase any grenades to use in them. making it rather questionable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Those voting plan goat please note the plan buys grenade launchers however it omits to purchase any grenades to use in them. making it rather questionable. The HK69s come with 10 grenades each. Buying more grenades is always good though.  1) Angora II 2) Budget Plan Goat 3) Increase Wounds 4) Better Protection
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:You can also speed up the ballistic modelling considerably if you all stand in the hexes and shoot at each other with real firearms. To be fair, this sounds less painful than figuring out the chance to hit.  Did I mention yet that LatwPIAT is a goddamned heroine for putting up with this system? As for votes... 1) Angora II 2) Cathode Heavy Assault 3) Goat
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Votes are in! Plan Increase Wounds: 6 Angora II: 3.38 Goat: 3.38 Cathode Heavy Assault: 3.08 Better Protection For Faster Troops: 2.33 Arms Plan Rossini: 2 Cathode Grenades: 1.5 Silly Hats For All: 1.38 Swiss bank account: 1 Fiscal Responsibility: 0.75 Angora I: 0.5 Plan Increase Wounds: 10x PASGT Helmets (2x10=20) 9x PASGT Vest (3x9=27) 1x Ranger Body Armor with Plate (21) 2x HK69A1 w/10 grenades apiece (22)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Not a single plan for whiskey and prostitutes? What sort of army is this?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Horrible Lurkbeast posted:Not a single plan for whiskey and prostitutes? What sort of army is this?! A professionally sponsored one, thank you very much. Also, yay, my plan got picked! I'm surprised!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Yay, crappy 1980s armor for everyone! Hopefully our riflemen won't be slowed too badly by this. Here's to the hope that our PASGT will slow the 7.62mm rounds enough to wound instead of instakill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
Dammit! I missed the vote, although it wouldn’t have mattered. I still maintain that the soundest strategy for keeping our troops safe is to ensure that the entire battlefield is exploding all the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
poo poo armour is better than no armour. Personally I'm ok with goons being expendable if we got better shootguns
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 04:04
|
|
