Entrap, How to

Frank said something (in the Benghazi book discussion) that got me to thinking about a related issue-
---
Third, although 88?s are often found with infantry when they are defending prepared positions, they are seldom found in mobile battle groups ? except for those build around a panzer battalion or regiment. The 88s, in mobile situations, tended to be used with the tanks. They were not used to defend; they were used to entrap.
---

Without hidden movement and rules for ruses, this would be hard to make happen on the tabletop. You could have the 88's be hidden and yet how do you have the German tanks "fail" their morale roll on purpose? I guess that would be a house rule. The goal being to suck in the enemy to chase you as you Forced Back Shaken* repeatedly. Perhaps a FOW card could tackle this.

Presumes there's some way to adjudicate the fake results (ideally a referee) and allowing the retreating player to (possibly?!) regain control of his unit approximately when he wants to.

PS And maybe I'm wrong on what Frank was talking about and I'm guessing wrong.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

Bill,

In TOB, the way the tank ratings are, the ideal engagment range for the Germans in a tank battle against cruisers is between 12 and 18 inches - it gives you the ability to hurt the British rather badly, but them almost no ability to hurt you.

Some quick math:

Panzer III f/g 4/3S 6(7)6 12(5)5 18(3)4 36(1)3

A-9 Cruiser 2/1S 6(7)5 12(5)4 18(3)2 32(1)0

A-10 3/2S

A-13 3/3S


As you can see, between 12 and 18 inches, (assuming the Germans are Vet and the Brits are Regular - which is how most of the historical scenarios rate the armor), if both sides goe stationary:

The Germans hit on a 3 (+1 for vet, -1 for opponent stationary), and then against the later cruisers, have a +1 to the penetration die roll, so IF they hit, they force the British back on a 3-5, and kill them on a 6+. Conversely, if the British are shooting, they hit on a 2 , and then have a -2 to the penetration die roll, so a natural 10 will kill, an 8 or 9 will force back, and a 1-7 will have no effect. This kind of ratio doesn't really get any better.


If the range closes, however, lets say to <6 inches, it becomes very different.

The British can now hit on a 7 and kill on a 7+, and force back on a 5+. Obviously the German fire is that much more effective as well, but most scenarios have far more British tanks than German.

The point of this rambling on is that in order for the British to have a chance in a mobile armored battle, they MUST CLOSE with the Germans, not stand back and shoot. The Germans can keep disengaging back from the British (the disengage order simulates the feigned flight) and the British MUST pursue. If not, the German player can continue to sit at range and pick off the British tanks.

With the command reserve rule, the German player can hold an 88mm off table, and then plunk it down so that he can ambush the Brits once they get close enough.

Is that close enough to what you are trying to simulate?

Jake

Okay. Your approximation of the issue makes me think of a related point.

In reality, how does one tell the difference between a enemy's being Forced Back and Disengaging?

Yes, in game terms, you know exactly what's happening--but why?

Just floating an idea, what if you moved disengaging troops at the same point of morale rolls? And presumably the morale roll would be taken in secret so the enemy wouldn't know that you were substituting a bogus Force Back (because Disengage had been ordered.)

Now there may be a too many rule issues impinged upon but if not, this approach means you don't KNOW which sort of retrograde movement has occurred. And why should you?*

*Besides the likely point that it's simpler if too many impinging issues... but what if it were easier (to do Disengage at the point of Morale Rolls)?
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

The problem with that IMHO is that it throws up all sorts of other issues, how about secret ammo roles so your opponent doesn't know that you are out of ammo, secret to hit roles so your opponent can not work out the grade of troop

Also, what about prep fire at going-to-disengage stands? (if they don't have initiative), firing at disengaging stand that come closer to firing enemy, etc?

I think your idea brings a lot more issues than what you think it can solve.

One last point is that this tactic didn't always work. It worked very well during Barbarossa because the soviet commanders usually had little experience and were ordered to act agressively. This can be attained by imposing a counterattack mission on the soviet player in your scenarios... Then they will have to chase you if they want to win. Actually, a lot of player are less cautious than historical commanders.

In the end, a trap is a trap. You will have to set it by yourself. It might be more difficult than historically but then more rewarding if it works...
_________________
Francis Garnier

quote:

---

Originally posted by francis garnier:
Also, what about prep fire at going-to-disengage stands? (if they don't have initiative), firing at disengaging stand that come closer to firing enemy, etc?
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Drye:

It seems a little counter-intuitive that direct fire assets CAN engage but IDF can NOT in this situation.

John Drye

---

I think Jerry is right, the rules aren't about to be redesigned at this point. I think, Jerry, you should be real careful about the use of the word, "justified". As in, "Perhaps this can be justified by the fact that a HE
round his a wider dispersal than a AP round. " The word you are looking for is "rationalized." A justification would be a reason it works this way, a rationalization would be trying to find some bit of data that would justify it working this way.

The fact is, its a game, and some things will work more realistically and others perhaps less so. When you add the easier spotting, automatic handoff of targets, alternative movement and the "all-lead-on-the-table" together, you cannot but help make the defender's chance of pulling off an ambush much harder. It was decided that it would be done this way to achieve certain design objectives. So be it. The occaisional attempts by some folks to come up with rationales to say its based (after the fact) on some real world consideration, like the dispersal of AP vs HE rounds, is not only unnecessary, but kind of annoying at times. Some real life tactics will work better in the new system, some worked better in the old, each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each satisfies a set of criteria. Neither one is actual combat, thank goodness. If the players around a specific table want something that is not in the newest set of the rules, or a previous one for that matter, and everyone is willing, you change 'em. No one minds. If you share it, that's cool too. It won't change the system, not until the next iteration in five or six years (prediction - as we get older, the game will get simpler ), when perhaps we will see Pop Quiz of Battle, or... Or as we age we may revert to our childhood rules, Oral Exam of Battle (I got him! No you didn't!! YES I DID!! NO YOU DIDN'T!! etc, loudest and most persistant side wins)...

Francis, by the way, I have seen a number of German accounts of tank engagements in 1941, where the Soviets used exactly that tactic on the Germans, feigned flight, leading the eager panzers into ambush. This stuff goes back to the Scythians, and before.

All the things raised about hidden rolls (not roles - different kind of gaming) so as not to advertise troop quality, morale level, lack of ammo, etc are all real good notions, its just that no one has yet figured out how to incorporate them into a game that can be played fast enough to be fun. The IDEAS are absolutely correct - our games always give the other side far too much information, from which they can figure out tactical solutions that would simply not be available to their real world counterpart. Keeping information from the players is sort of the Holy Grail in game design as far as I'm concerned, and about as hard to find. Even though we locally use roster sheets, to keep information about damage received and ammo left from the enemy, usually a player will disclose the information anyway, by loudly talking about it ("That gun is just about out of ammunition anyway" as the referee groans and says, "Your opponent really didn't need to know that, did he?") Yes, it would make sense for your opponent not to know that you had a -1 to hit because your troops are only Trained, or that you missed that morale check by 2 because their morale is only 7, or whatever. He shouldn't know all that, and shouldn't take it into account in his play. But the process of keeping all that information hidden means the ref has to do half of the playing, while the players twiddle their thumbs too much. Not a good outcome, IMHO.

---
Steven said:
The problem with that [moving disengage to make it less clear whether its a force-back or not] IMHO is that it throws up all sorts of other issues, how about secret ammo rolel so your opponent doesn't know that you are out of ammo, secret to hit roles so your opponent can not work out the grade of troop
---
Perhaps, it raises other ideas of improvements. But that doesn't change the value of this 1 idea.

Ironically, this is one of those rule suggestions that could reduce the rules needed.

Note that they would still test morale and possibly be pinned or really forced back (no change then at all). But the rules about being unable to fire at disengaging troops in certain situations would be unnecessary because they are Voluntarily Forcing Back* earlier than any of the fire phases (answering the obvious oddity that IDF can react to a Disengaging stand but DF AP cannot).

*Basically they are still targets if they end their movement in LOS of enemy.

I'm not proposing the ruleset be redesigned but this could be a FOW Card or house rule and can help a future edition, In the meantime, if it increases realism and reduces number of rules that's pretty grand.

PS I can't see why ammo rolls can't be done secretly. In fact, other such rolls are effectively made secretly by the sheer number of them and whether your opponent is sharp enough to intuit why you did or didn't make the roll needed. If both sides are strong on the ruleset, then they need not help each other figure out the numbers needed and thus they can already be made secretly.

PPS Yes, Jack, spake truth about how the game has goals of simplification and yet has found numerous improvements to realism at the same time. Jack's next editions' titles are hilarious. For those under 50 and without a sense of self-deprecatory humor, just keep pretending that you won't be changing as you age.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

I just realized obviously that the proof that you've Volunatarily Forced Back (Disengaged) is the Disengage order that is kept hidden rather than the Shaken chit.

And I appreciate that some won't want to think about this as a house rule but just remember that it could be a FOW card.

And if you hate FOW cards too, never mind.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

Bill,

Its not less rules - you and you need a GM to do it. That's the biggest flaw I see in the theory. One of the major concepts of TOB was for two people to get together and play a game without a GM - hence "all the stuff on the table" which doesn't require a GM to adjudicate hidden movement among other things.

You would need to have someone, as you pointed out, put down fake shaken counters and pull up disengage orders, to then reveal that he was "faking it" after intitiative the next turn. Messy in my opinion.

Not only that, but you would need to roll ALL morale rolls in secret, because otherwise your opponent will know that the ones you are rolling for are the ones that are trying to see if you can "fake disengage".

As far as IDF being able to interdict disengaging troops, while direct fire AP could not, to me that makes complete sense in that a disengage is troops popping off smoke and using cover to get out of the enemy's LOS, making it harder for them to fire at them. Artillery sheafs don't really care if there are smoke grenades going off, or if the enemy is using terrain to block LOS to a flat trajectory shot from the front.

I think your idea could work, but it is the start of a slippery slope regarding information given to your enemy.

I think that your idea of the FOW card is probably the best thing you could have thought of though - a perfect card for the desert!

"Feigned Flight"

Selected company that failed morale in the previous morale phase may automatically remove any demoralized/shaken/pinned marker and place a new order

Or something like that - you can make it less powerful if you wish or tweak it anyway you want - but it allows a company that fell back shaken to have been "pretending" and then rally immediately and sweep back to encircle any opponents who have been drawn in to finish off a "breaking" enemy force.

Simple, effective, and no new rules needed.


Jake

quote:

---

Simple, effective, and no new rules needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Mackenzie:
Every FOW card is a new rule!

---

Yes, Bob FOW cards are like new rules and if your group is plagued with "rules lawyers" they are probably a source of trouble.

Here's my FOW Card suggestion:
A disengaging unit that does not fail morale may pretend to Force Back Shaken and keep this card secret until needed to prove that it may ignore any impact or limitation of being shaken.

Jerry, the rationalization of IDF coming even more suddenly than DF AP weapons overreaches because you admitted that we must assume that the IDF fire was called some time ago... probably before they exposed their position.

If a unit suddenly opens fire and I have any time to react at all before it disappears, then I think a DF gunner could fire before a radioman could contact artillery and bring it on target. I think this is just a case of a current rules weakness that you want to justify. And if it's "general policy" to not fire at retreating enemies, why waste artillery shells on them?

Jake, it reduces rules because there's no need to prohibit fire at a forced back stand. The fact that it is not really shaken is proved (if necessary) by the Disengage chit underneath (if playing as a house rule).

Why would it require a referee to put down chits and reveal them? Keeping some/any rolls secret (there is no rule that requires them be public) is simple enough. Actually if you can't trust opponents then there are too many opportunities for cheating to occur.

Of course, if some players are new then they typically play more openly because they have little idea of how the game works to start with; they roll and say 'so what happened?' But that does not undercut that there can be rules that they don't yet understand (i.e. most of them!)

But I understand that most would rather play the game "stock" and forgo improvements because of the fears about follow-on impacts.

My interest in MODEST revisions/reductions in rules (or FOW Cards if you prefer) is when the rules do not facilitate real tactics undercutting their excellence*. A recent example was the apparent lack of advantage to maintaining local reserves in CD (a different thread).

But even if you feel that this idea is of limited value, I think you get the point.

*Unfortunately, a very few perceived weaknesses in a rule set are frequently used to reject them by ignorant people unfamiliar with the 99% that is truly excellent.

One way to address these kneejerk opposers is to have optional rules or FOW cards to address their perceptions. They need not be official and caveats noted... but act as a sales tool if it could be listed with errata: "Read if you hesitate buying the rule set." Other text that could help convert the unwashed is our reasons why we hesitated about CD, but what made the difference to change our minds.

The final selling point to CD is the forum's valuable debate and discussion that helps to resolve issues. Other rule sets either have no such forum or they are moribund.
_________________
ICD Wargame Club's motto "ICD, do you?" CD aids: www.g-design.us/cd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Radey:
I think Jerry is right, the rules aren't about to be redesigned at this point. I think, Jerry, you should be real careful about the use of the word, "justified". As in, "Perhaps this can be justified by the fact that a HE
round his a wider dispersal than a AP round. " The word you are looking for is "rationalized." A justification would be a reason it works this way, a rationalization would be trying to find some bit of data that would justify it working this way.

---