TL and Mass Combat

[jaqpike]

I'm enjoying reading through the new Mass Combat rules, and I understand that they have simplified the old system, but the complicator in me has a few questions....

With the new Mass Combat rules, how do you account for differences in TL. I'm running a world with TLs from 1 to 4. I found some old rules from the Riverworld book that talk about +2 Strat per TL, but I would think the difference should be a kind of exponential difference multiplying the TS (so a TS 2 unit at TL 4, vs TS 2 unit TL 1, would be worth 2x2x2x2, or 16....)....

thoughts?

I also have questions as to why morale has been taken out of the new rules (and included just as part of losses), and why fortification values have been reduced (looking over an old Mass Combat, I saw fortifications up to +8)....and if this is not already too many questions in one post, what advantage might TL have in a siege? .....

[lexington]

For some low TL units TS doubles at every TL after introduction. It can make for a huge advantage.

[Polydamas]

At TL 1-4, it all comes down to differences in equipment quality and available troop types. TL 1 infantry with spears, stone maces, helmets, and big shields have Poor or Basic equipment on a TL 4 battlefield. The dismounted knights from a TL 4 country have Fine or Very Fine, and they get Artillery and Heavy Cavalry instead of just Miners and Light Chariots.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by lexington

For some low TL units TS doubles at every TL after introduction. It can make for a huge advantage.

All High TL units have double TS after intro - I can't remember any low-TL units that do, though maybe some medium-TL units (4-5) might.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Langy

All High TL units have double TS after intro - I can't remember any low-TL units that do, though maybe some medium-TL units (4-5) might.

Some early gunpowder units do get double TS each TL (Pistol Cavalry and Miners, off the top of my head). Other than that, TL increases mostly allow additional unit types: TL1 Light Infantry are superior in all ways to TL0 Stone-Age Warriors, TL4 Musketeers are better than TL2 Bowmen, and TL5 Skirmishers can replace both. The improvements are more gradual than at high TL (TL6+).

My big question with Mass Combat is about the jump from TL5 to TL6. For instance, TL5 Line Infantry and Skirmishers have TS 3 and 2 respectively, compared to TL6 Riflemen with TS 40. Light and Heavy Artillery go from TS 8 and 20 at TL5 to TS 60 and 300 at TL6. This doesn't match the progression at high TL (double each TL) or low TL (much slower). Was the technological revolution of warfare really so profound, increasing the effectiveness of a single soldier by more than x10?

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

My big question with Mass Combat is about the jump from TL5 to TL6. For instance, TL5 Line Infantry and Skirmishers have TS 3 and 2 respectively, compared to TL6 Riflemen with TS 40. Light and Heavy Artillery go from TS 8 and 20 at TL5 to TS 60 and 300 at TL6. This doesn't match the progression at high TL (double each TL) or low TL (much slower). Was the technological revolution of warfare really so profound, increasing the effectiveness of a single soldier by more than x10?

Remember that a typical TL 5 infantryman has a musket and bayonet good to 100 yards; a typical TL 6 infantryman has a bolt-action rifle and bayonet good further than he can see, grenades, and may be supported by a machine gun. I can't think any other TL boundary where weapons get that much more effective. Men with bows, swords, and spears had a chance against musketeers; against metallic cartridge rifles they could only win if the enemy was badly lead and vastly outnumbered.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Was the technological revolution of warfare really so profound, increasing the effectiveness of a single soldier by more than x10?

In the case of Riflemen vs. Line infantry? Yeah, I think so.

Let's just compare the guns of the two: an Enfield P/1853 for civil war line infantry, and a Mauser Gew98 for WW1 German infantrymen. How do they stack up:

Damage: the Musket does 3d+2 pi++, while the mauser does 7d+1 pi. So the musket, against the torso will inflict about 24-26 damage, while the Mauser will inflict about 25-26 damage. Comparable. Now, let's assume that the fire is taking place from behind a wooden barrier of thick logs, stacked atop each other to form cover for the infantry, let's call this DR 10ish(roughly 20" of DR .5 wood, or 10" of DR1 wood). The Mauser is going to tear through the DR 10 and still put a man in very bad shape, while the musket is going to do much less in the way of damage. It's clear that cover needs to be much heavier against modern rifles than against muskets.

Accuracy: With accuracy 3 as compared to accuracy 5, the musket has a shorter effective range. If we assume a base skill of 12 for the infantrymen, the musket has a 50% accuracy at 15yds, while the mauser has 50% accuracy at 30 yards. Greater accuracy allows for a longer "stand-off" range: you can shoot the musketeers more accurately from a distance than they can shoot at you.

Range: With range 120/1200 for the musket, and 1,100/4,800, the mauser wins this one hands down. This is particularly notable when you consider performance against cover: outside of 120 yards, the musket will have trouble penetrating light cover(such as 8" trees), while the Mauser is able to penetrate much heavier cover at near the musket's maximuim range. This is important from a tactical perspective in that the need for greater cover means that the Line infantry will have to utilize more time to prepare their defences, while the riflemen can use less time. This gives a much greater advantage to the rifle-men, who can prepare hasty defences that wil lseem redoubtable to the line infantry. Consider how much more effective then cover like building walls will be against a musket at 150yds.

Weight and Rate of Fire: in thisregard, both weapons are fairly similar. Null advantage.

Shots: This is the kicker! With 1(15), the musket pales in comparison to the mausers 5(3). After that first volley of musket fire, the rifle men can deliver 5 shots with 2 seconds of aim each. The rifle can also be used from a prone position to allow easier use from cover, while if the musket is re-loaded from a prone position, you're looking at around 20-seconds of re-load time. Things are really looking negative for these line infantry!

The other atributes are less important, but the mauser is considerably more expensive. However, TL6 societies are also much wealthier, so it's less of an onerous problem.

Another piece of kit that makes a dramatic difference is the grenade: TL5 grenades are unreliable and prone to malfunction, while true TL6 grenades are more effective and reliable. Grenadiers are a specialized troop at TL5, while at TL6, grenades are widely issued to combat troops. The effectiveness of tossign a grenade into a bunker or house occupied by enemy troops is amazing, and grenades can break up attacking concentrations of troops.

I think the firepower of the rifle and grenade combine do a whole world of good for explaining the superiority of the rifleman over the line infantry. Has this helped, at all?

[AmesJainchill]

Good analysis, Verjigorm. That IS a very large gap.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Some early gunpowder units do get double TS each TL (Pistol Cavalry and Miners, off the top of my head). Other than that, TL increases mostly allow additional unit types: TL1 Light Infantry are superior in all ways to TL0 Stone-Age Warriors, TL4 Musketeers are better than TL2 Bowmen, and TL5 Skirmishers can replace both. The improvements are more gradual than at high TL (TL6+).

My big question with Mass Combat is about the jump from TL5 to TL6. For instance, TL5 Line Infantry and Skirmishers have TS 3 and 2 respectively, compared to TL6 Riflemen with TS 40. Light and Heavy Artillery go from TS 8 and 20 at TL5 to TS 60 and 300 at TL6. This doesn't match the progression at high TL (double each TL) or low TL (much slower). Was the technological revolution of warfare really so profound, increasing the effectiveness of a single soldier by more than x10?

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

In the case of Riflemen vs. Line infantry? Yeah, I think so.

Verjigorm tackled the TL 5 to TL 6 jump very nicely. Let's compare it to the TL 6 to TL 7 jump in the same way. I'll use the same TL 6 gun he used, and compare to an iconic TL 7 gun: the AK-47

Damage: The Mauser deals 7d+1 pi (or ~26 damage) while the AK-47 deals 5d+1 pi damage (or ~19). Strictly speaking, the Mauser is a far more lethal weapon than the AK. It's going to force a survival check on the average torso shot, whereas the AK won't. Likewise, the Mauser will rip through light cover where the AK might not. The Mauser, here, is the better gun.

Accuracy and Range: The Mauser has an accuracy of 5 and a max range 4,600, whereas the AK has an accuracy of 4 and a max range of only 3,100. They're closer than the musket and the Mauser, but clearly the Mauser has the advantage here.

Weight and Bulk: The AK-47 is actually the heavier weapon, weighing in at around 11 lbs as compared to the Mauser's 10. They have the same bulk. Interestingly, the AK only requires ST 9, whereas the Mauser requires an ST of 11.

RoF, Shots and Recoil: The Mauser only fires a single round per second, so it's recoil (4) isn't really important. The AK-47 has an ROF of 10, which is +2 to hit, and with a recoil of 2, has a real chance of hitting more than once, especially at close ranges. This will more than make up for the damage and Acc difference, at least in close-range battles. The AK also has far more rounds (30 vs 5). At full auto, it won't last as long as the Mauser, but it can afford to plink away for 6 times as long as the Mauser can.

Cost: The AK-47, despite being a more advanced weapon, is actually cheaper than the Mauser: Half the price, in fact, at $450 vs $900.

Personally, I think the AK-47 has the clear advantage. You can afford to arm two soldiers with AKs for the same price as the Mauser, and you can start to do things like lay down suppressive fire or have a single guy hose down an entire enemy squad. But whereas a guy with a musket is pwned by a guy with a Mauser, a squad equipped with Mausers wouldn't be helpless before a squad equipped with AK-47. There's an incremental increase in lethality here: the AK-47 is the better weapon, but it's not a huge leap.

And I expect you'd see that with most military technologies here. From TL 5 to 6, you went from wooden ships and iron clads to dreadnoughts, aircraft carriers and submarines. You went from guys on horseback to tanks. You go from battlefield cannons to artillery pieces that can shoot over the horizon. I honestly don't see how a TL 5 force could compete with a TL 6 force. They're completely outclassed, and simply don't have the tools necessary to defeat their enemy. You get a charge of the light brigade against tanks and machine gun nests.

This really isn't true from TL 6 to 7. You go from tanks to... better tanks and gunships. You go from from dreadnoughts, aircraft carriers and submarines to more agile cruisers, aircraft carriers with supersonic aircraft, and nuclear submarines. Clearly, it's an improvement, but it's not nearly the leap you had before, and I think the same applies from TL 7 to 8.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Langy

All High TL units have double TS after intro - I can't remember any low-TL units that do, though maybe some medium-TL units (4-5) might.

Miners, for one. Which really helps in siege circumstances.

I think higher TL should civilizations have more money to work with in general but Mass Combat might abstract that away.