Yes.

Force on Force. Without a doubt the 2nd worst rulebook I have ever seen in my life.  Pages and pages of noise, among which are sprinkled a small handful of tables that drive the game much of the game. Well 24 charts…..

You know what this deserves more. This deserves the video!

 

Thank fully a local ASL player and minis player has recreated the rule book for Infantry combat in a digestible format.

Clear, concise, reformatted charts, nicely done decision tree to fix the inherent problem with Overwatch and Opportunity fire.

All in 22 well spaced pages. Now I can focus on the game and the game play. The first thing I’d like to do is test the tenant that firepower is not as important as the training and troop quality applied to a given situation.

I think that is a solid argument at a high level. But if we were to look at Vietnam and the outgunned US forces (M16 v AK47) and the lower trained VC’s, I think we would see that the Light MG’s and M60 etc made up for some of that weakness, but not all of it.

Same concept here, the  the miss armed Rangers in Mogadishu with armour piercing rounds found them selves shooting thru and thru and taking 5 rounds to down a AK-47 wielding Somali.  Quantity has a quality of its own as Stalin said and I think that applies here to small tactics gaming.

More recently it was interesting that Marcus Lutrell story talked about 100’s of Afghans being killed by the handful of SEALS. I’d be interested to know if there was ever a body count.

Even though you may shoot at 4 targets to their one, you still have knock down power, that must blow wiring or plumbing of someone intent upon killing you. In today’s world are all rounds equivalent? I think not.

At a squad sized combat that is asymmetrical I do not feel that ‘better trained’ forces will do away with up gunned or better weapon equipped forces.

Time will tell when I play.