PDA

View Full Version : Running a Military game



Blackhawk748
2015-03-05, 06:47 PM
Ive never really tried this, except as the PCs being the hotshot commando squad that can pretty much do whatever it wants. So i was wondering, how are the Playgrounds experiences in running/playing a Military campaign.

Note: for Military im talking about your in like WW2 or something similar, so active war not peace time, though if you played one set during peace time im really interested to hear about it.

Mr. Mask
2015-03-05, 06:57 PM
It'd be interesting to have a game where you play as an ordinary squad in a war. The problem is, for stuff like charging a defensive position, you'd largely have random rolls as to whether a player gets hit by artillery or machineguns. You would have some skill in identifying cover and sometimes hearing when a shell or plane was heading your way, but that aspect is kind of one sided (survive or die).

Attacking the defensive positions gets more interesting, as it gets back into combat tactics. A problem that presents itself is that normally there would be a lot of soldiers around, not just the players, so how would you handle the fact there might be a hundred guys in the vicinity on both sides?

From the defenders' perspective it might be better, but questionably so. If you're a commanding officer, you get some choice as to when to fall back to a secondary defensive line, and attacking or defending you might get to direct air and artillery support. You're still in danger of artillery, but arguably less so. The problem is that your attack actions may boil down to you shoot a guy, you shoot another guy, you shoot another guy, someone is shooting at you. Your tactical options largely down to who you shoot at, and whether to duck. As the enemy gets closer, and your defences get more mangled, the situation gets more interesting, but only to an extent.

Most field battle situations with players I've seen have them command one army, acting as officers and heroes. Fighting in the press is kind of hard to make a game of on the individual level--partly because it's hard to see the cause and effect of your actions.

Something like tank vs. tank might work better, with smaller groups and more adventurer-like conflicts.

genmoose
2015-03-05, 10:23 PM
I have to agree with Mr. Mask that trying to have your folks play out a squad in normal full engagement is going to be very tough and probably not too much fun. I also don't like the idea of the super commando squad; it just seems kind of played out.

However I think the idea of a group of average Joes who are thrust into a situation together could be quite interesting.

So here's a potential scenario (sticking with a WW2 theme but could be updated for almost any conflict):

All the PC's are on a ship traveling through the Pacific. It's a fast cargo ship making a run to a forward island base. The PC's don't have to know each other and can be from almost any background they want (medic, Marine, pilot, mechanic, etc). They're just all being transferred to the island base or that base is a stop over before they move on. Heck you could even throw in some civilians if you want. You can also mix nationalities; Americans, Brits, Dutch, Aussies, Chinese, etc.

In the middle of the night their ship is torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. The PC's manage to make it topside and get over the rail before the ship goes down. Either in a lifeboat or swimming the current deposits them on a nearby tropical island. They're not sure if it's inhabited or not but they wake up and have to assess the situation. One of the PC's or perhaps an NPC is distraught and tells the rest that the ship was secretly transporting some new tech device (doesn't matter what it is) that could make a big difference for the Allies. He assumes it's gone down to the bottom. However the PC's notice that some crates have washed up on shore, crates that were in the same hold as the McGuffin tech device.

Can the PC's find the device before the Japanese do? Once they do how do they get off the island? Maybe there is a Japanese base they can raid to steal a boat/plane/etc.

You could setup a similar sort of situation in Europe. Either through a shipwreck in the Med, or maybe their plane goes down somewhere behind enemy lines. Now they have to find a way to get home. Maybe they stumble upon some Nazi secret and they're the only ones around who can destroy it before it's too late.

So I think you've got lots of ideas where you can get a reasonable party sized group into some fun action without putting them on the front lines of a huge offensive.

Oh one more idea if you want to keep it a bit more conventional. Have your PC's be from various airborne units that are dropped as part of D Day. They could be from all different units and ended up scattered around Normandy. They'd have to operate independently and maybe be pushed into securing some critical bridge or rail junction.

Blackhawk748
2015-03-05, 11:46 PM
Thanks, and keep the ideas coming, your giving me a lot to work with.

Mr. Mask
2015-03-06, 12:46 AM
So you know, while it is difficult to handle a field battle game, it would be possible. The emphasis would be different, and probably some of the mechanics. You'd get the general idea of a time limit before the other part of your formation breaks, and you need to break through the enemy before that happens. While your group may be one squad, it only takes one squad to get some headway before the whole line can get smashed into by the rest.

In particular, there ought to be more focus on the unit you're with, the people you know and the condition of it. To a small extent, the state of the war would matter, but you'd probably need a short term objective to focus on instead, more on the boots level of thinking.

Vrock_Summoner
2015-03-06, 12:59 AM
I have run some military/war games. The difference is, they didn't tend to be modern war. Usually it's fantasy (though not D&D, that doesn't do mass combat). I just prefer the level of individualism... You know, there are no character traits that allow somebody to "tank" machine gun fire, while in fantasy games it's easier to tailor your group tactics to what each character's capabilities are, how long they can last, their weapon effectiveness, etc.

Unless, of course, your "tank" is actually a literal tank, but that still only covers part of it.

Mr. Mask
2015-03-06, 01:32 AM
Well, if it's a high level DnD like game, you can tank anything. Grenades, ballistae, flame throwers, swords, shotguns, etc.. In a grittier game, you won't be able to tank much either way.

Vrock_Summoner
2015-03-06, 02:08 AM
Well, if it's a high level DnD like game, you can tank anything. Grenades, ballistae, flame throwers, swords, shotguns, etc.. In a grittier game, you won't be able to tank much either way.

I literally just said no to D&D. XD The kinds of games I play are usually more geared towards a Dark Souls definition of tank, where the tank isn't somebody who runs into the middle of a bunch of enemies and takes damage from all directions for several rounds so everybody else is acting with impunity, but rather, it's the only guy in the party who keeps standing after one hit (and whose own limit is still about 2-3) and is usually tactically putting himself between one enemy and (a) party member(s) while maneuvering to avoid getting ganged up on himself.

EDIT: Basically, not like an actual tank, but rather more like a guy with a riot shield, to use the modern equivalents.

Mr. Mask
2015-03-06, 02:19 AM
Well, the equivalent in modern military would be something like the guy with an LMG, who suppresses the enemy from an advanced position of cover.

Gritmonger
2015-03-06, 02:30 AM
Problem I see is with a military unit, most of your guys are going to be similarly outfitted, with similar weapons, unless you break it down by roles - one medic, one radio telephone operator, one heavy weapons, one standard weapon maybe with underrifle grenade launcher, and so-on.

It's not as straightforward as a party, and much of it, especially at low levels, is going to be rather rigidly controlled.

A normal game, the players can react to whatever it is, choose to ignore the king, hang out at the tavern, go to their lair or hideout, and so-on.

If you're in a military unit, especially in wartime, you're going to be doing things by the numbers, or you're going to get killed. No soloing, no heroics - if nobody does their job, nobody gets out alive.

Small unit tactics mean your party would be a sub-unit in a larger unit, which might be given its own objective or a supporting role in another objective. It might be as simple as "patrol" if you're in an area already occupied, or one in the rear area (more in the logistics region of the force rather than the front line), or as complex as being told to take an objective, and you as a sub-unit being given the role of advancing across when the enemy is suppressed, or providing that cover fire so others can sweep across the objective.

It can get kind of harrowing to do, especially if you've got players not used to taking orders. It isn't a situation where somebody is screaming at you - it's a situation where everybody else depends on you doing your job, as ordered, despite your own feelings or misgivings, because very often you don't have the whole picture like the company or higher commander does.

If anything, you might start off the campaign in basic training, where players can test out the mechanics of the system in a "safe" environment, learning small unit tactics before it becomes lethal. That's part of the reason the Army used to drill with MILES gear - an infrared emitter and sensor system - to allow people to get some idea of how easily they could become a casualty if they did something stupid.

They even used to hand out "injury" cards, so if you got lit up (your sensor went off) the medics could practice evacuating you to the rear. I got one "get out of jail free" card once- superficial injury, reset and return to the fight. Other guys lost limbs, virtually.

A few ideas. You could also look up old army field manuals for small unit tactics, there are probably some about. They are used because they work - or did work at the time.

Slipperychicken
2015-03-06, 03:09 AM
On the bright side, military campaigns make introducing new/replacement PCs pitifully easy compared to fantasy murderhobo shenanigans.

Civilian here, but perhaps you could put the PCs in some kind of scouting/special-forces-like role? That way, they might have some diversity in their assignments: scout one day, sabotage a building the next day, then participate in a pitched battle after that.

Also, look up Shoggy's All-Guardsmen Campaign. I think it's still on the front page here. It's absolutely glorious, and it follows a party of grunt-level soldiers in the 40k universe. They have little choice about their assignments, but considerable leeway in details due to a lack of effective oversight.

Mr. Mask
2015-03-06, 03:44 AM
Grit: Well, some squads have gone with reasonably diverse weaponry. An LMG, a sharpshooter (Russia still has a sniper rifle with every squad), a couple of SMGs during WW2, a medic, a CO (gear depends on army and era), a radio operator (same as CO), several rifles, sometimes a rocket launcher (if you have a bazooka/PIAT team attached, or if you're a modern Russian squad), or even an IFV if you're lucky. And of course, your choice of bayonet, trench knife, knuckle dusters, or shovel. And that is when things are going well. Later in a war, you get stuff like soldiers fighting with medieval flails, and captured German equipment, and just whatever they can get their hands on.

As you say, field manuals are a good place to look for some ideas of what the players might be doing. It's true the players will have limited control of their situation in the overall strategy. With the right set up, you could give them some tactical control of how they achieve the objective.



I implied this before, but one thing you'd need to have with such a game, is a presence of what the other people were doing. At minimum, they are keeping the rest of the enemy occupied so that they aren't shooting at you, while you take out your portion of the enemy. Or, they might be losing, so you either need to hurry, or lend them support in some way (or get out of dodge). They might be making some headway, and so lending you some extra support. Sometimes, they might get confused and start shooting at you. And all of that is true for the enemy.

You won't always be able to get the air, armour or artillery support you need, because it might be busy helping your friends fighting elsewhere. You might be able to roll to convince them you need the support more, to get it to arrive sooner/faster/immediately. There might even be potential for trouble, if you didn't need it so badly as you made it sound. There is potential for trouble with a lot of military actions, but generally no one has time for that during a hard war.

Speaking of support, if the players start doing too well, they ought to expect enemy support focusing on their area.

Of course, all the above assumes a battle. If the players are ambushed out on patrol, things may be a simple small scale slug-slinging skirmish shootist shoot-out.

Kiero
2015-03-06, 04:47 AM
What about expanding the "party" troupe-style? As in the players don't just play one PC each, and those PCs are the party, but have them involved in creating an entire unit. Depending on how deadly the game is likely to be, that might be a platoon, or a company, a battalion or even a whole regiment. Thus there are always a store of backup characters, perhaps have everyone create four or five they'd like to play, initially, so they have lots of alternates.

Make sure there's a discussion of the chain of command; especially whether one of the players is going to play a character who is a superior to the others. Some people really resent being given orders, that needs buy-in.

neonchameleon
2015-03-06, 08:24 AM
There are a few attempts I know of. The successful ones basically all treat the PCs as a commando squad and tell them to accomplish the impossible. Whether it's effectively near dungeon crawling ("Get into the gatehouse and bring down the enemy drawbridge and up the portcullis" isn't terribly different from "Get to the bottom level of the dungeon and retrieve [plot device]") or something more ambitious like Night Witches the PCs always need autonomy on the ground, and you've then mostly changed the framing story.

LibraryOgre
2015-03-06, 10:10 AM
One option is to set them up as a single fireteam or squad... a fireteam is about 4-5 guys, and a squad is about 8-12. If you've got a fireteam, pick one guy and call him Corporal. Everyone else is privates. If it's a squad, pick one person to be a Sergeant, one person to be Corporal, and everyone else is privates.

Keeping it at that level gives your team a nominal leader, but a lot less choice of objectives. Your sergeant has someone who is in charge of him. If he proves incapable, they might be able to go around him to the Captain.

While not a perfect military simulation, I would suggest reading Starship Troopers; it's a good look at what your players are likely to expect, unless they're military themselves.

Garimeth
2015-03-06, 01:41 PM
Who wants to RP being hazed at field day on thursday?

I kid I kid. The problem with this is essentially a problem with the chain of command. Either one PC is in charge, or an NPC is in charge. Unless everybody is cool with that its not gonna end well. when the group is a bunch of **** hot Black Op guys they have specialized roles and can spend long durations of time working on complex missions without routine interaction with higher HQ, or at least they could before instantaneous communication via satellites and ****. That feels alot more like a TTRPG than standing post for 8 hours and inspecting veheicles before you have to shoot a dude driving a Vehicle Borne IED. Even being the guys going out on mission and patrol all the time isn't gonna make for a compelling TTRPG imo. So here is how I imagine it:

1. The group ARE a bunch of badass black op dudes working complex missions not reporting to HQ on a regular basis.
2. The group is a squad or platoon and the platoon commander is an NPC who affords the fire teams and squads alot of autonomy. Each player controls an entire team of squad, the only actually character is the no 1 and 2 guy - the rest are red shirts that represent equipment and skill loadouts and can be swapped around, requires a good system for mass combat.
3. Play as some type of Commanding Officer and RP the social and setting dynamics and the large battles, leave the minutia to NPCs.
4. You play as normal dudes, gloss over the camp life unless there is some social stuff you want to RP, and run missions as episodic in nature.

Alternatively, you could make a social game and call it Peace Time Marine Corps and RP as a leader who tries to protect his Marines from their own poor decisions and punitive action from the unit. JK

I think the best way to do it honestly is one of the above four.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-12, 10:32 AM
"Captain, I won't lie to you; things are pretty grim. With this latest weather report..."

"The USO show, sir?"

"Exactly, they won't be able to get through for at least a week. And I don't need to tell you about the morale level around here. Do you think you could..."

"Put something together, sir? Well, Jenkins can carry a tune. Hobbs has one of those mouth harps you Yanks are so fond of. And if I may say, sir, I give a fair recitation of Byron. Yes, sir, with I believe we may be able to muddle through."

" Good luck, captain, and may God help us all if you fail."

WARZONE TALENT SHOW - A MILITARY CAMPAIGN

Knaight
2015-03-12, 10:41 AM
One option would be to run a military game, but generally focus away from the actual fighting, at least with regards to where most of the rolling gets done. The PCs are frontline soldiers, out in the trenches, and the game could easily be about what they do when they aren't fighting to try and handle it all. Even if the fighting is focused on, breaking it down so it's more about decisions and individual acts of heroism where the extra risk comes in could work. Does the PC try to help a wounded comrade get back to the trench, or keep running with the rest of the company? Do they involve themselves in a particularly dangerous volunteer mission, or stay out of it entirely? What if they get captured, and end up a POW - what happens then.

This sort of thing could easily end up really grim. Still, if that's what you're going for, go for it. Maybe take a look at Grey Ranks and see how they handle things, though that's grim even by realistic military standards.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-12, 11:21 AM
Special operations or partisans might be the easiest way. The PCs are behind enemy lines. Their job is to accomplish various objectives, from stealing McGuffins to blowing up bridges to targeting commanders.

The benefit of this is that each mission can function much like normal. The house/bunker/bridge is the dungeon, which the PCs move through like normal. Except everyone has guns.

Milodiah
2015-03-12, 04:50 PM
Look into the Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols of the Vietnam War. They're surprisingly close to parties of adventurers, except...well, it's raining more, and everything is ****tier. The tank is the guy who's stuck more mass to his flak jacket, and has a cut-down M60 he's way too fond of which is likely to possess a people name. The ranger's now the pointman going ahead of the patrol watching for an ambush. The wizard is now the radioman, packing spells like Rain of Lead and Summon Napalm.

Blackhawk748
2015-03-13, 11:23 AM
Look into the Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols of the Vietnam War. They're surprisingly close to parties of adventurers, except...well, it's raining more, and everything is ****tier. The tank is the guy who's stuck more mass to his flak jacket, and has a cut-down M60 he's way too fond of which is likely to possess a people name. The ranger's now the pointman going ahead of the patrol watching for an ambush. The wizard is now the radioman, packing spells like Rain of Lead and Summon Napalm.

I loled at this.