Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: volume of fire rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Two games I played for the first time last year, Cold Harbor II and Fields of Fire, share an unusual(?) mechanic I have not seen in any other game. In the latter it is called 'volume of fire'. Instead of the traditional way of resolving combat in tactical games, declaring lots of individual attacks, in these games you have a special phase were you look at each unit on the map and calculates how much incoming fire it is receiving, then rolls a die (or draws a card) to figure out what happens to it. Results are all applied simultaneously after you have decided the effects on all units.

Is this used in any other games? In operational or strategic games? Perhaps it is very common, but I just have managed to avoid some subset of wargames?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pelni wrote:
Two games I played for the first time last year, Cold Harbor II and Fields of Fire, share an unusual(?) mechanic I have not seen in any other game. In the latter it is called 'volume of fire'. Instead of the traditional way of resolving combat in tactical games, declaring lots of individual attacks, in these games you have a special phase were you look at each unit on the map and calculates how much incoming fire it is receiving, then rolls a die (or draws a card) to figure out what happens to it. Results are all applied simultaneously after you have decided the effects on all units.

Is this used in any other games? In operational or strategic games? Perhaps it is very common, but I just have managed to avoid some subset of wargames?

I've seen similar mechanisms; usually where the target is key rather than what is being fired at it. For instance, one minis game I played some time ago had a single roll against a target regardless of how many units were firing at it. Anything beyond a single unit added a modifier, and the modifiers were limited (because once effective fire reaches a saturation point everything else has little or no added effect).

IIRC, the Epic 40K rules developed into something similar; firepower markers were added to the target unit/units and the overall effect determined after all the firepower had been added. See Epic Armageddon for links to the online rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
pelni wrote:
Results are all applied simultaneously after you have decided the effects on all units.
That sounds neat, and more realistic than systems where you declare & resolve attacks serially.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustav Åkerfelt
Finland
Turku
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Epic Armageddons system of fire is good one, but i do think it's is better suited to the infantry in that game, then the units of tanks.
Basically, units gets blast markers when they come under fire, lose a stand, or have something similarly traumatic happen. Once they have as many blast markers as they have stands, they break. So here, it's actually used for morale.

Good point in this implementations is, that infantry units carry small arms, that on the epic-scale are actually to small to do any damage that would warrent the loss of a stand of troops, they can still be used for laying down supressive fire.

Damn shame my own army, the Squats, got stricken from the Epic lists (well, the entire 40K universe, actually), and especially so since i had gathered some 6000pts worht of painted troops.

There are afew fan-made lists sure, but a official one would be really nice, so there wouldn't be any thougts of how balanced the list really is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Heath
United States
Galesburg
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I fail to see the difference between what was described and the usual "an enemy unit can only be attacked once per turn" rule that's been around for 50+ years.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shad wrote:
I fail to see the difference between what was described and the usual "an enemy unit can only be attacked once per turn" rule that's been around for 50+ years.

Well for one, the OP is talking about tactical-level games; for another there is a difference between having a rule limiting a unit to being attacked once per turn and using a cumulative firepower mechanism. In the sense that this is a tactical-level game we're talking about, there are essentially several attacks against an enemy per turn which are resolved as a single attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shad wrote:
I fail to see the difference between what was described and the usual "an enemy unit can only be attacked once per turn" rule that's been around for 50+ years.

Yes, those miniature systems mentioned above all sounds pretty much like that. You still have to allocate individual fire attacks, it's just that you sum them up into one big attack at the end of the turn?

The 'volume of fire' rules I described above works the other way around. In Cold Harbor for instance, during the fire phase you look at each unit how close it is to the closest enemy unit, then rolls a die to see if it survives. Fields of Fire is basically the same, but more complex. Instead of looking at combat as a series of small inidvidual fire attacks you just mechanically calculate how dangerous each location on the map is and decide if the units there receive any damage or not.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls