Striker and "non-standard" TO&Es

[Golan2072]

Striker seems to be built around the US/UK (or NATO?) TO&E, with 4-men fireteams as the basic building blocks, as opposed to the Russian system where the basic building block is the undivided unit of 10 men (called "Decad" or "Squad" in the Russian system).

How difficult would it be to use as Russian-style TO&E in Striker? (I'm thinking about adopting it for the Solomani, to make it different from the Imperium's US-inspired TO&E).

 

[Whipsnade]

2-4601,

Phew... that's a tough one... Perhaps you could take an idea from another wargame?

Avalon Hill published a game called Main Battle Tank. It was a 'Counter & Hexmap' style game but played very much like minis. A tank counter is one counter, a gun counter one gun, an infantry counter one squad, etc. The setting was the usual NATO versus Pact encounters.

Anyway, the Pact player was constrained by a set of 'doctrine' rules to mimic Soviet combat theories. If he wanted to, the NATO player could push his vehicles singlely all over the map. The Pact player had to keep his vehicles together in the same hex in platoons. Instead of stacking 3 or 4 vehicle counters in one hex, the Pact vehicle counter had a number marker placed on it stating how many tanks, APCs, etc. were in the hex.

In play, these all Pact vehicles in these marked platoons had to fire at the same target. As the 'stack' took damage, the number counter was rotated to indicate the losses; i.e. 4 tanks, then 3 tanks, then 2 tanks, etc.

You could employ something similar to 'convert' Striker's US/UK 4-man fireteams into Russian 10-man decads.

To create a 'decad', you mark a single Striker stand with a chit and then treat it as if it were two Striker stands. They must move together, fire at the same targets, follow the same orders, recieve the same damage, etc. When applying damage, you rotate the marker to keep track of the 'extra' troops in the decad just as you rotate the marker to keep track of the 'extra' vehicles in MBT.

Just mt 0.02 Cr.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Judas]

For S-III I am still trying to find a sloution that does not require th euse of any extra counters.

You should be able to just look at the stand and see that it is a larger unit than the usual 4/5 man fire team.

Depending upon which route I go...

The "Decad" of the soviet system will be represented by either two 5 man fire teams that must move in unison (They must keep base-base contact). I am not sure about firing rules for the Tactical Level as firing at different targets IS possible with the rules, but is something that is not usually done.

At the Unit Tactical Level it is not really a problem as a stand must target only one other stand as its target (or two if it has multiple target capability with its weapons)...

The only real issue for S-III is the basing of the troops, as this will affect the possible maneuvering tactics available to the leaders of the unit. As for limitations imposed upon the unit for the capabilities of the Officers/NCOs... That is already built into Striker.

 

[Golan2072]

On a similar note: I can't imagine the Droyne using ANY basic unit BUT a 6-Warrior fireteam. It is ALWAYS six. ALWAYS

Also, K'Kree seem to me as a race that will like large basic units - and their NCOs will probably have an easier time directing large undivided squads than Human NCOs will. They are herd animals; they work well in large groups in the instinctive level.

Another thing - IIRC most force in WWII didn't have fireteams (but rather squads as the basic unit); is this correct? Also, IIRC some forces (such as the Chinese) used 3-man fireteam instead of the ordinary 4-man one.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:


Another thing - IIRC most force in WWII didn't have fireteams (but rather squads as the basic unit); is this correct? Also, IIRC some forces (such as the Chinese) used 3-man fireteam instead of the ordinary 4-man one.

On paper I believe the smallest unit in a TO&E was a squad in WWII - but that doesn't mean fire teams weren't used.

Squad Leader to squad: Joe, take Bill and Fred and circle around to woods on the right - I'll give you about five minutes, then Bennet will open up with the BAR while George and Sam bound across the field - As soon as we have fritz's attention, you hit him from the flank and clear the barn. Make sure you don't leave a sniper in there. The rest of us will move in on the farm house.

End result - informal fire teams using classic infantry manuever techniques as they close for battle.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

Another thing - IIRC most force in WWII didn't have fireteams (but rather squads as the basic unit); is this correct? Also, IIRC some forces (such as the Chinese) used 3-man fireteam instead of the ordinary 4-man one.

For a long time, Australians trained for something like a 5-3 or 6-3 split of a squad - the Assistant Squad leader and two guys with the SAW formed the base of fire and the other six were the assault unit. (Or so I recall from an ex-Aussie Infantry Sgt telling me of his training in 1970s and 80s) Apparently they (Aussies) also trained to further split in 3s, rather than 4s or 2s.

The idea in the USAian system is 'you always have a buddy' (giving you the two) and two two-buddy pairs make a fireteam. So you always split fire and manouver evenly (well, in theory).

The Aussie model used 3s because you could then be more flexible, having two bound and one fire or one bound and two fire. Different theory on getting to the same point.

Larger squads with more central direction are often a result of poorer troop quality and training levels. It take professionals (or well trained part-timers) to manage articulated operations in fireteams well. That's no mean feat and mistakes here can kill. Some armies just aren't really capable of it. (Of course, some fight more like skirmish barbarians than an organized force, but that's a whole other story).

Also, the availablility of support weapons may dictate squad organizations. I talked to SF folks who said 2 SAWs per 8 men wasn't uncommon. So they can have quite a high output of firepower if required. They tended to be organized in 8 or 12 man squads, but grouped in 4s, perhaps with a SAW in 2 of the groups. That gives you your base of fire intrinsic to the unit. But SF ops work a bit differently than standard infantry (at least in terms of how they try to run their ops... they probably aren't interested in stand up fights most times...).

The 4-man fireteam is fine, 8 or 12 men to a squad. So is the 3 x 3 for 9 or the 3 and 6. You benefit from some articulation and good troops will leverage that fully. Poor troops just lack the organization and discipline to do so and trying would just make them worse off than fighting as more or less a mass.

 

[weasel fierce]

a bit of resurrection here, but Im reading Striker currently..

My take would be simply require these large squads to remain in contact with each other. Since they cant split up effectively, they'll be vulnerable to burst weapons, and less tactically flexible, but on the upside, they are no fun to take on in melee

 

[Golan2072]

They will also have quite concentrated firepower.

 

[Supplement Four]

God, I'd like to play Striker. Just once.

I've been blessed with a group of guys who love to game, and we've been gaming together for over 20 years.

So, I'm lucky that I've got a dedicated group.

OTOH, these guys like to role play and only role play. They're not really into wargaming.

I've tried to sell them on Striker, but they'd rather keep on with the Traveller campaign we're playing. They want to play their characters, not a squad of Imperial Marines.

I've thought about working a Striker scenario into the campaign, from time to time, but it takes work. The players would have to learn the Striker rules.

I don't think they're fooled.

They just want to play their characters.

I'd like to see how a mass Striker battle would go down, with each player playing a unit on opposing sides.

Oh well. At least I get to game.

 

[Ranger]

Just a couple of observations here.

First, looking at old Soviet doctrin you have to remember that their infantry was all mounted (including their airborne forces). They were intended to ride onto the objective and dismount. In Striker terms that means they basically would go from riding the vehicle directly into close combat. There are a lot of pictures floating around of Soviet troops assaulting dismounted, but that was mostly for propoganda purposes (the picture look nice). The only really 'light' infantry the Soviets had were their air-assault troops, and they were supposed to land directly on the object too.

Second, US organization changed from an 11 man squad to a 9 man squad based on equipment constraints. The M113 could carry an entire 11 man squad, but the M2 couldn't. In fact, the M2 platoon can only carry 2 x 9 man squads of dismounts total (plus the Platoon Leader and his RTO), as opposed to the three line squads and support squad of the old M113 platoon. US light infantry was still using the 11 man squad organization into the 90s (and may still be, don't know for sure).

I think what was really driving the 4 man fire team was simply the 1 inch square bases that GDW decided to use for the rules. Personally, I would go with in line bases (since that is closer to actual troop distances on the battlefield). If you do, you are no longer held to the 4 man fire team 'rule.' You culd make up a 10 man squad with two 5 man bases of 2 1/2 by 1/2 inches and then deploy them either in line or one behind the other based on the situation.

The issue as I recall the last time I looked at it (probably 4 years ago or so) is the morale rules are set up around the 4 man fire team. Just adding one guy to the fire team makes it much tougher because it reduces the effect of casualies on moral significantly. I'm not sure that's unrealistic, but the game is really built around the command and morale rules, so tinkering with the unit size is a major decision.

One big issue that need to be addressed in the rules is firepower in larger units too. One thing that is missed in the creation of the fire team concept by most people is that it was only half of the reorganization that the Army made in the 60s. The other half was the mixed weapons concept. The idea was that every soldier had to have a different weapon so they felt their controbution to the fight was significant. SLA Marshall(sp) did studies that tend to show that only about 1 in 10 soldiers actually aimed their weapons in WWII fire fights. Giving each soldier a unique weapons system was designed to help overcome that problem. To address that in Striker (and it is an issue with Soviet doctrin based units) is that they were organized just like WWII squads for the most part; 10 men with one support weapon team (LMG or RPG). That means 8 of the guys just had AK47s (that does change in later years with the Soviet version of the M203 and snipers added, etc). I think in Srkier terms the way you deal with that is when you have multiple instinses of the same weapon in the fire team, instead of each one getting to fire, you make one die roll per weapons system and add 1 to it for each addisional weapon of that type in the fire team. That means a 10 man squad with 8 Gauss Rifles would make one Gauss rifle attack with a +7. That's a lot of concentrated firepower, but they could only target one enemy fire team, so it means the will pummel their target, but they can only take on one target at a time. (This rule idea was really meant for units of just 4 or 5 men with two of the same weapon in them, so it really doesn't work so well for big squads.)

Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue.

 

[flykiller]

The idea was that every soldier had to have a different weapon so they felt their controbution to the fight was significant. SLA Marshall(sp) did studies that tend to show that only about 1 in 10 soldiers actually aimed their weapons in WWII fire fights. Giving each soldier a unique weapons system was designed to help overcome that problem.

not quite. the WWII study showed that less than one man in ten in combat ever fired their M1, because they didn't feel they could affect the action, but one weapon that was always fired was the BAR. the army decided to give everyone an automatic weapon, and this eventually resulted in the M16.

squads today have quite a bit available to them - I think the biggest reason is the fact that the U.S. faces such light battlefield opposition and takes so few casualties.

 

[Ranger]

not quite. the WWII study showed that less than one man in ten in combat ever fired their M1, because they didn't feel they could affect the action, but one weapon that was always fired was the BAR. the army decided to give everyone an automatic weapon, and this eventually resulted in the M16.

The key finding about the use of the BAR was that it was the "unique" weapon in the squad, so soldiers using it believed they had to fire for the squad to be successful. It wasn't just about getting automatic weapons in the soldiers' hands. The Army also issued soldiers with the M79 grenade launcher (the precurser to the M203). The Army made distinctions between the "automatic" rifleman and the rifleman once the M16 was issued. The automatic rifleman was issued a colapsable bi-pod to mount on the end of the M-16. The ultimate goal was to give every member of the fire team a different weapons system and role. It just took 30 years (with the deployment of the SAW) to get there.