Well Radwraith, you wanted to translate (not convert) OW to RT. I'm starting this thread, then, hoping people will chime in for suggestions. I know what I'd like to see...interesting decisions to make.

1. Raising troops: feral worlders don't make good aeronautica pilots
2. Outfitting troops: there needs to be a great difference between lasguns and rocks
3. Training troops: you don't just hire veteran troops, sometimes they are made
4. Organizing units: they are our household troops, and we should be able to organize everything from squads to armies as we wish
5. Deployment methods, whether deploying from orbit or from a fortified installation or mobilization point, etc.
6. Logistical limitations, maybe something as simple as supply points, or even more abstractly, combats or combat-days, weeks, or months, but nobody wants to count bullets
7. Officers with personalities, and that make an impact on outcomes
8. Installations and the scarcity stats to acquire them
9. Non-turn-based campaign movement, maybe based on initiative, or commanding officers
10. Battlefield circumstances: weather, terrain, home field advantage, scouting/recon
11. Step losses: for example, if companies are the operational unit then steps = squads, if battalions then steps = platoons, etc., though squad-steps in battalions is still very doable, I just prefer the whittling down of units to the complete survival or destruction method
12. Attack, defend, retreat, I want to make choices and not have everything forced upon me by the combat results; at the same time, I don't want complete control; I want to feel like everything is slipping out of my hands

I'm sure I could go on, but that's certainly enough to start with.

Happy to join you Errant! Here's a couple of thoughts for the moment:

1: Aeronautica can not be raised on any world less than T echnological tech lvl (RAW)

2: I think we hit this one in the prior thread. Reduce attack power to 2 or 3D10+power. Even "Modern" infantry should have trouble fighting an Armored company

3: I agree. Even RL troops like the US Army rangers retain their skill edge by mixing their new inductees with their actual veterans

4: As a rule I believe armies should be raised in companies. Companies are units of the same type but can be mixed with other types when forming larger formations such as Battalions and Brigades. As a side note; the numbers for an Imperial "Company" are wrong. They should be 50-150 to be Codex compliant. (Basically 3 IG infantry platoons are approx. 150 men)

5: Not sure what you're getting at here but I think it's this: Certain Starship components (Barracks, Lance Batteries, Flight bays, Torpedo bays and perhaps others) may be purchased for a colony (SOI) so as to form a sort of military base. If such a facility exist, units of one regiment per barracks may be deployed from this point. Unit type held by the Barracks must be specified upon creation (Armor, Infantry Etc.)

6. Supply points: While one of the most important facets of actual military strategy, I can just see my players eyes glazing over with this one! I think the best way to handle it would be to consider any Settlement or grounded starship as a supply point. If a unit cannot draw an uninterrupted line to a supply point than their base power is halved and they will ultimately start suffering attrition. More detail is certainly possible! IRL, FOB's (Forward operating bases) exist for exactly this reason!

7. They already do via the command roll and flashpoints! I suggest a system similar to SOI colony leaders that blends the personality types of regimental commanders (From OW) with the appropriate abilities for command (Like SOI). Appropriate area in this case would be Strategy (The ability to determine the most valuable objectives of a campaign and how to take or hold them.) Tactics (The ability to coordinate units on the battlefield) and Logistics (Tha ability to maintain replacement troops and supplies to existing units).

8: I covered this earlier

9. Non-turn based, You mean like in days or months (Which would just amount to a Strategic 'turn')?

10: Agree, needs to be there, I'll get back to you. Some of this can be handled with flashpoints but still...

11: This sort of gets into what i was talking about for "Tactical area of control" If you're looking to individualize damage values than you would have to track units individually (Say at company lvl). This would add detail but with larger units would become cumbersome. The current system also does a horribly bad job of engaging large units on large units. Seems obvious they originally intended to go company lvl combat than changed their minds half way through.

12: Here is one of the few points we disagree. IRL you only have the decision of whether or not to attack. you are defending if you dig in and retreat is basically forced on you! Withdrawal is another matter, Withdrawal is when you order units to disengage and leave the battlefield area. it is typically only done when the commander perceives an imminent loss and wishes to avoid total destruction of his forces. (Although it occasionally happens when a political leader is too incompetent to run a military and makes strategic decisions based on the whims of the polls!).

Greetings! I have to say that I really like my newest house rules on warfare. I haven't had the chance to test them with players. My newest campaign is still in the initial stages, the players are exploring and deciding where they want to focus their efforts in the campaign. I'll get to those rules later.

I like companies as the base unit, also. I like the idea of maneuver brigades that are made up of companies, but I also like exceptions. For example, a company of Leman Russ is probably 10 tanks (3 platoons of 3 tanks each, plus 1 command tank). A company of Baneblades is probably 3 tanks. I like the idea of players being able to commit those individually, though and that's probably a platoon. And then there's Titans, which I'd probably never bring into a campaign, but I want the possiblity to exist. And yes, IG companies should be larger. In fact, I'd go with even more variance that you've suggested as the IG codex permits companies with 4 platoons, plus attached heavy weapons squads, meaning companies could get as large as 250 soldiers, not including those gross conscript companies.

For No. 5 above, the idea I was getting at could be construed as "movement points." I've never liked those, though. Theoretically, a modern tank company could advance 600+ miles in a single day. You never see that done, though. Movement behind the lines is done with carriers. Advances are performed at the speed of the slowest unit moving safely with frequent stops to bring up more food, ammo, and POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricants). So, how far can a unit deploy into battle from a mobilization point? a city? a fortress? Is that the same? And then there's deploying from orbit.

For the concept of supply, I usually just like the concept of sustainable populations. "Your supply chain can support X number of companies. Anything over that and you're forced to cut your mobility, up to point Y, when your units lose fighting ability, up to point Z, at which your units start to suffer attrition.

And SoI's governors is exactly the idea I had in mind for commanders. I wouldn't want to add new skills to the character sheet, though. I think Command can take the part of Strategy, while Commerce could represent logistics.

By "non-turn based" I mean every unit doesn't move, followed by every opposing unit moves. There might be interceptions. There might be ambushes. I like the idea that only certain commanders can even move units at all. I call these Initiative Leaders. They have the initiative, on their own, to make decisions and act on them. They aren't all high-ranking, either. There are lieutenants with initiative. Of course, they can only move small units. There are generals with no initiative, but if they had it they could move whole divisions. On the idea of what can move, we might go with Side A moves one unit (a maneuver element, a brigade with many companies, or what have you), followed by Side B moving one unit. There are many different systems that other wargames have used, and I like many of them. I don't like turn-based, though. It's too mechanical, and this is an RPG, which centers on the actions of individual heroes.

To be honest, I like the idea of steps equalling squads or single vehicles, so that company of Leman Russ would have 10 steps while that company of baneblades would have 3 steps. That means a typical IG infantry brigade would probably have about 120 casualty steps. That's a bit unwieldy at the brigade level, but the typical company only has about 12-15 steps including heavy weapons and command squads, and a brigade is really only a collection of companies; it's the maneuver element.

And I can easily give on the last point, though I do like the idea of giving the players the option of putting a unit in the line, if only to give the appearances of a willingness to fight for something, yet giving that unit retreat orders if attacked; or the idea of being able to disengage a unit because you want to redeploy a part of it before sending the rest back into the fight. It all depends on what a "battle" is. Is it a single firefight? a series of firefights? a week-long tete a tete? a month's worth of attrition?

And now for the rules I'm currently still working on. I have some rules of medium-complexity that determine the strengths of units, but in the end you wind up with a single number, not attack, defense, armor, and a random strength variable (which I detest in its current form). That single number is the combine Strength of that unit, which along with Battlefied Conditions, Technology, and the skill Tactics Imperialis (or Tactics + Specialty if you're playing Deathwatch) determine the outcome of the battle. That is to say, Strength can change the Tactics Imperialis skill check a maximum of +/-60. Battlefield Conditions can affect the same skill roll a maximum of +/-60. Technology can affect the same skill roll a maximum of +/-60. Combined, all threee factors can still only affect the Tactics skill check a maximum of +/-60. The commanders make an opposed skill check to see who "wins" the battle. Winning means you hold the field; the loser retreats. Then every unit (company or indepedent unit of smaller size, in my current rules) involved in the battle makes a Survival check, modified by the DoS or DoF of that opposed Tactics check. Success means no casualties to that unit, while each DoF means the loss of a single step. Of course, this last check is skewed toward failure, so each unit would take some sort of casualties. Also, the Survival of each unit varies according to the composition of that unit, so tanks are more durable than infantry.

Like I said, I haven't had opportunity to test the system, but the numbers seems to jive. In the case of those 10,000 spearmen attacking 10 tanks, those spearmen would have that +60 bonus for Strength (though the tanks aren't penalized at all, so there's no -60 to make the matter worse because in the case of Strength, only, the bigger side gets the advantage while the smaller side isn't penalized), BUT the tanks would receive the +60 back for Technology differential while the spears would be at -60. This brings the outcome of the battle down to matters that are largely decided by the commander. To wit, the Battlefield conditions: did the commander of the spearmen dig tank traps and rig swinging tree-trunks a la ewoks versus walkers and ambush the armor, or did the commander of the tanks foolishly opt for a night battle without night gear versus infantry, or did the spear commander decide to charge phalanxes across open ground in broad daylight? Tactics check. Without a brilliant spear commander going up against a foolish tank commander the spearmen have virtually no chance at all (the tanks have a final modifier of +60, while the spears have a final modifier of +0). So the tanks hold the field and now it's time for the Survival check. The spearmen companies each roll separately with numbers approaching 0% and each DoF resulting in tens of dead spearmen, meaning a casualty rate of well over 50% of the total, while the 10 Leman Tanks probably won't even throw a track, though there is an outside chance that the company will lose a tank or two.

The link for my current rules are here. All the modifiers used in BFK are present in these rules. I've just changed where and how they work. I know this isn't what you're looking for but it's a starting point. Let's build something in between.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1njT2vbliK1QRUtINoXD7rkdw3WbKExctu_o5fyzZEzc/edit?usp=sharing

That's an interesting build, and I think your right as a good starting point. One thing I'd like to bring in came from my experience with Damaris. During that battle, one of the portions of deployment/planning that my players really came to appreciate was the "Special Rule" section amended to most of the units. (The one I remember off the top of my head was the Stormtrooper's +5 str when on offensive actions) I think it would be highly advantageous to add a methodology for including this kind of bonus/penalty special into the unit creation system.

Generating a movement score (for non air-craft units) makes sense to me. One could also tie it to the distance a unit is operating from it's logical center to represent the supply chain it has to maintain, perhaps at the cost of -1 Movement Point per Zone between its current location and it's supply point.

I believe there are other operations then simply Attack & Don't Attack, based on the objective. Take Ground, Damage the Enemy, Disrupt Logistics, Disrupt Movement, Reconnaissance, Hold Ground, Escort Logistics, Etc.

I agree that SoI's Colonial Leaders is a good starting point for Company Officers.

I like the idea of special unit rules, Quick, and will have to give it some thought. I do think, though, that my system already makes those Stormtroopers very special. I'll give you an example. In my system, that unit (IIRC it's a platoon) would not affect a large battle very much, which it probably shouldn't. Take that same unit and use it like it should be used, say attacking an enemy rear-zone installation guarded by a company, and all of a sudden it's a super-unit. It stands a very good chance of winning, especially if it's properly supported with the Valkyries that should be carrying it to the drop-zone. Regardless whether it wins or loses, though, it stands a very good chance of surviving the battle relatively intact, which is the strength of a veteran/elite unit. These are troops that can win against the odds, and even when losing pull out before casualties get too high...usually. Of course these Stormtroopers probably have a very good commander with no lack of initiative, hence the idea that even a lieutenant might be an independent commander.

It's my experience that RT Household Guard units tend to be as well-equipped as Stormtroopers by the end of a campaign. Their experience level, though, shouldn't be, unless the GM is just being kind, and they probably shouldn't.

Now the idea of an operating range from a base is one I really really like. That's something I can accept without further adieu. Maybe that operating range can be reduced by enemy action, especially if that installation requires resupply in the form of convoys of trucks, which can become targets themselves.

Giving those different orders is another good idea, but I have to wonder if you don't achieve the same effect by differentiating between many types of installations. A fortress could instead be barracks, bunkers, artillery emplacements, AAA, augurs, void shields, comms centers, etc., all spread out over square miles, and while those square miles might be a single battlefield in a large pitched battle, it might be several battlefields in the event of a raid. This concept requires more conversation, I think.

I'm a little curious about your concept of Initiative. To me, at least, initiative has more to do with one's ability to react to changing conditions then with one's ability to move. It doesn't take a particularly high initiative commander to follow the direct order from high-command to take his troops from Zone A to Zone B. It would take initiative, however, to retreat back to Zone A if one suddenly discovered overwhelming enemy forces in Zone B.

There's a wargame I'm thinking of that deals with Standing order and Special orders. At the beginning of the battle, every unit gets their standing orders. (Hold this zone, Advance, etc) Every 'turn' the general then attempts to issue special orders to modify or override the standing orders that might get them in trouble. This seems like the biggest value of Initiative to me.

A leader with good Tactics can create a create a battle plan for his troops. A leader with good Command over his men can better control them under changing situations, such as receiving a last minute order to change destination and objectives.

I would hesitate to connect all movement to Initiative Commanders, or you risk ending up with a very static battlefield. I tend to use Damaris and Taros as my 'Test Wars" for mass combat - could I have run both of those with the rules in question. I feel with initiative as you've described it (to my understanding) couldn't replicate the actions of the Taros campaign.

Actually, Quick, you exemplify my idea of initiative. In the first instance, that commander taking orders from their direct superior to move from Zone A to Zone B isn't demonstrating any initiative at all, but that direct superior is. They took the initiative and ordered their subordinate to move. That just demonstrates that higher-ranked people with initiative are capable of moving more and larger units than lower-ranked people with initiative can, and can move them without having to be personally present...a vox call is good enough.

I can think of a wargame that used standing and stand-by orders. That was in its 3rd edition. I think it's now in its 6th edition. And no, it's not Warhammer. Yes, every unit began with certain orders, and commanders had to use initiative to issue orders to update those if they wanted that unit to start acting differently. I use that in my newest house rules, btw. All units can start in Garrison, Maneuver, or Reaction status. The first has you defending whatever point you're stationed at, the second leaves you free to advance toward the enemy, while the last leaves you free to attempt interception or interdiction against anything in range you can detect moving.

Let's look at Damaris. Who would the Initiative Leaders be? Well, there's our heroes, who probably all qualify, the other RTs and maybe a couple of their immediate subordinates (if the GM so deems), Captain Locke and maybe a couple of her immediate subordinates, the General, the Marshal, the Governor (he probably doesn't start out an Initiative Leader, but with PC encouragement becomes one), and the lieutenant of the Stormtroopers. Those people are probably capable of moving all Damaris' forces simultaneously, so I don't see any possibility of static lines on account of a lack of leaders. Then again, the loss of a few key leaders and Damaris' defense forces become paralyzed, which also well-exemplifies the problems of an Ork horde.

Greetings! I have to say that I really like my newest house rules on warfare. I haven't had the chance to test them with players. My newest campaign is still in the initial stages, the players are exploring and deciding where they want to focus their efforts in the campaign. I'll get to those rules later.

I like companies as the base unit, also. I like the idea of maneuver brigades that are made up of companies, but I also like exceptions. For example, a company of Leman Russ is probably 10 tanks (3 platoons of 3 tanks each, plus 1 command tank). A company of Baneblades is probably 3 tanks. I like the idea of players being able to commit those individually, though and that's probably a platoon. And then there's Titans, which I'd probably never bring into a campaign, but I want the possiblity to exist. And yes, IG companies should be larger. In fact, I'd go with even more variance that you've suggested as the IG codex permits companies with 4 platoons, plus attached heavy weapons squads, meaning companies could get as large as 250 soldiers, not including those gross conscript companies.

For No. 5 above, the idea I was getting at could be construed as "movement points." I've never liked those, though. Theoretically, a modern tank company could advance 600+ miles in a single day. You never see that done, though. Movement behind the lines is done with carriers. Advances are performed at the speed of the slowest unit moving safely with frequent stops to bring up more food, ammo, and POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricants). So, how far can a unit deploy into battle from a mobilization point? a city? a fortress? Is that the same? And then there's deploying from orbit.

For the concept of supply, I usually just like the concept of sustainable populations. "Your supply chain can support X number of companies. Anything over that and you're forced to cut your mobility, up to point Y, when your units lose fighting ability, up to point Z, at which your units start to suffer attrition.

And SoI's governors is exactly the idea I had in mind for commanders. I wouldn't want to add new skills to the character sheet, though. I think Command can take the part of Strategy, while Commerce could represent logistics.

By "non-turn based" I mean every unit doesn't move, followed by every opposing unit moves. There might be interceptions. There might be ambushes. I like the idea that only certain commanders can even move units at all. I call these Initiative Leaders. They have the initiative, on their own, to make decisions and act on them. They aren't all high-ranking, either. There are lieutenants with initiative. Of course, they can only move small units. There are generals with no initiative, but if they had it they could move whole divisions. On the idea of what can move, we might go with Side A moves one unit (a maneuver element, a brigade with many companies, or what have you), followed by Side B moving one unit. There are many different systems that other wargames have used, and I like many of them. I don't like turn-based, though. It's too mechanical, and this is an RPG, which centers on the actions of individual heroes.

To be honest, I like the idea of steps equalling squads or single vehicles, so that company of Leman Russ would have 10 steps while that company of baneblades would have 3 steps. That means a typical IG infantry brigade would probably have about 120 casualty steps. That's a bit unwieldy at the brigade level, but the typical company only has about 12-15 steps including heavy weapons and command squads, and a brigade is really only a collection of companies; it's the maneuver element.

And I can easily give on the last point, though I do like the idea of giving the players the option of putting a unit in the line, if only to give the appearances of a willingness to fight for something, yet giving that unit retreat orders if attacked; or the idea of being able to disengage a unit because you want to redeploy a part of it before sending the rest back into the fight. It all depends on what a "battle" is. Is it a single firefight? a series of firefights? a week-long tete a tete? a month's worth of attrition?

And now for the rules I'm currently still working on. I have some rules of medium-complexity that determine the strengths of units, but in the end you wind up with a single number, not attack, defense, armor, and a random strength variable (which I detest in its current form). That single number is the combine Strength of that unit, which along with Battlefied Conditions, Technology, and the skill Tactics Imperialis (or Tactics + Specialty if you're playing Deathwatch) determine the outcome of the battle. That is to say, Strength can change the Tactics Imperialis skill check a maximum of +/-60. Battlefield Conditions can affect the same skill roll a maximum of +/-60. Technology can affect the same skill roll a maximum of +/-60. Combined, all threee factors can still only affect the Tactics skill check a maximum of +/-60. The commanders make an opposed skill check to see who "wins" the battle. Winning means you hold the field; the loser retreats. Then every unit (company or indepedent unit of smaller size, in my current rules) involved in the battle makes a Survival check, modified by the DoS or DoF of that opposed Tactics check. Success means no casualties to that unit, while each DoF means the loss of a single step. Of course, this last check is skewed toward failure, so each unit would take some sort of casualties. Also, the Survival of each unit varies according to the composition of that unit, so tanks are more durable than infantry.

Like I said, I haven't had opportunity to test the system, but the numbers seems to jive. In the case of those 10,000 spearmen attacking 10 tanks, those spearmen would have that +60 bonus for Strength (though the tanks aren't penalized at all, so there's no -60 to make the matter worse because in the case of Strength, only, the bigger side gets the advantage while the smaller side isn't penalized), BUT the tanks would receive the +60 back for Technology differential while the spears would be at -60. This brings the outcome of the battle down to matters that are largely decided by the commander. To wit, the Battlefield conditions: did the commander of the spearmen dig tank traps and rig swinging tree-trunks a la ewoks versus walkers and ambush the armor, or did the commander of the tanks foolishly opt for a night battle without night gear versus infantry, or did the spear commander decide to charge phalanxes across open ground in broad daylight? Tactics check. Without a brilliant spear commander going up against a foolish tank commander the spearmen have virtually no chance at all (the tanks have a final modifier of +60, while the spears have a final modifier of +0). So the tanks hold the field and now it's time for the Survival check. The spearmen companies each roll separately with numbers approaching 0% and each DoF resulting in tens of dead spearmen, meaning a casualty rate of well over 50% of the total, while the 10 Leman Tanks probably won't even throw a track, though there is an outside chance that the company will lose a tank or two.

The link for my current rules are here. All the modifiers used in BFK are present in these rules. I've just changed where and how they work. I know this isn't what you're looking for but it's a starting point. Let's build something in between.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1njT2vbliK1QRUtINoXD7rkdw3WbKExctu_o5fyzZEzc/edit?usp=sharing

I read through this and I like it but (Of course) have a few comments:

All commanders down to squad leaders typically have the command skill. If that is the defining characteristic for initiative, perhaps it should more properly be a skill test rather than a fixed "you have it, you don't" kind of thing. This would also give some interesting variable where young commanders might surprise everyone with a flash of brilliant tactical artistry (Passed check with 3+ degrees of success) while the general sat idle with "Analysis Paralysis"! (Failed check)

I still think the survival roll thing is going to be cumbersome. I think we would be better off tweeking the original damage roll from 4d10+power to something else. I know you hate the current system but it does have the benefit of being quick and simple. I would recommend finding a more reasonable number like 2d10 or 3d10. this would give results more in line with what you want. (The average roll of 18 means your spear chuckers aren't going to do crap to an Armor 20 tank!)

An add on to this would be how many units can engage one Company. This is where area of control comes in... I suggest the following; A single company "Controls" a single 1km square on the battlefield. A number of companies would therefore be placed along the map to form a "Front line" (This is really where that term comes from btw!). An enemy company may not move into an occupied square except by forcing enemy units off it (Either by destruction or by retreat) A friendly company may move through a square occupied by another friendly unit but both unit's attack values are halved as they seek to avoid firing at each other.

I've gotta go to work so I'll post more later.

I dabbled on this issue a while back and never came back around to it. Please see this link ( https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile#folder/0B5yRXQPAurADeUxHaWhPTXNKQnc/0B5yRXQPAurADTklQc1FCeS1ZbzA?sort=13&direction=a ) for further information that will hopefully inspire some ideas. I apologize in advance for not actually providing a normal click link; but my smart phone is actually pretty dumb and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of it.

Ok, I read through this and have mulled on it for some hours now. You're right Rad, about having to bring down the number of die rolls. I do, though, still like the idea of battle adjudication separate from casualty adjudication. It allows for Pyrrhic Victory scenarios (Bunker Hill anyone?).

I also like your Command skill doubling as Initiative, even though I'm not sure sure if that's what you meant. Still, failing to have a Person Of Initiative present could still leave the possibility of a unit being able commit itself at the initiatve of its commanding officer, and I like unknown possibilities.

I don't like the 4d10 roll, and I'm not fond of even the 2d10 roll, for 2 reasons. First, its a random factor for the sake of randomness. It doesn't even have a reason behind it, only the purpose of making things more random. Wargames do that because they don't want to generate all the other random factors such as weather, scouting, approach to battle, etc., which we are already doing. Secondly, even 2d10 is a variance of 18 (2-20), which is greater than Technology (-1 Feral to +3 Modern) and Unit Designation (-2 Light to +2 Heavy) combined and times three!!! Now I know you want to stick with their mechanics and come up with something that simply works better but I think the premise is wrong on a fundamental level. Even 1d10 permits a variance greater than the other factors combined. The mechanic just isn't working.

Now reducing survival rolls means one of two things, either making the base unit or single step larger, or coming up with a new algorithm. I don't mind algorithms, but simple is usually better. I initially thought of keeping squads and single vehicles as the step, with every point of the 1d100 failed survival check being the elimination of a step. I mean that works with squad-stepped brigades that have 100-200 steps, but it seems a bit odd. If companies are the step-size in brigades then the "average" brigade might have 10-12 steps to it. That seems much more manageable.

And while these are necessary conversations, I also think there are 2 more immediate ones...scale and scope. I'm not much of a hex-movement guy. Sure, that's the school I come from, but it's another of those I like to think I've evolved past. Maybe it's the roleplayer in me that no longer cares for the mechanic. I like wargames with a regional scope, and I'm not always into those being uniform. Say a region is typically 10,000 sq. mi. That's a nice uniform 100 x 100 mi. zone and allows for uniform movement. But mountains and valleys and forests and such rarely conform to nice uniform regions, hence the advantage of the hexagon. Still, the hexagon usually entails a smaller scale, and that means artillery can fire multiple hexes which nearly always makes them a separate unit and not organic to the unit engaged. That's fine in the case of a fire base that houses one side's heaviest artillery units and can support multiple actions in a single "turn" but now we're leaving the realm of RPG. The RPG is what I really want to maintain. I'm not playing a wargame. Can't we find a way to subsume all those actions going on in a single region into a single action, if not a single die-roll?

Geez, I'm going off on tangents now. Quick, you brought up The Frozen Reaches, and I'm using it as a basis since it was a system my players really liked. It was easy to adjudicate, there were interesting decisions to make, and the players felt that their decisions had a major impact. That's a formula for fun. The problem using Frozen Reaches as a base is that internally it is not consistent. The numbers are completely arbitrary. I'll give examples. The Household Guards are companies of 200 each and they have Strengths of 12, yet they are described as light infantry without heavy weapons. The Damaris Regiments are described much as Imperial standard with organic light artillery and armor, yet their companies, composed of 250 each, only have a Strength of 4 each. At some point this arbitrariness has to be recognized and abandoned. By the way, my method of using Troop Training to modify a Survival Check after every battle simulates both the additional casualties suffered by the ill-trained Armsmen and the lesser casualties suffered by the uber-trained Stormtroopers. Another thing to take note of is that in the FR system, armored companies have a base strength of 20 (+10 when used offensively) while infantry companies have varying strengths of 4-12. The BFK system puts those tanks at 7 and the infantry at 2-4. That's quite a difference between the two systems. They can't be easily reconciled, and sans the internal inconsistencies of FR I have to give it the thumbs-up over the BFK system. The only problem with the FR system is that it requires significant time investment by the GM in terms of a map. That's something most of us GMs are willing to invest in.

I'm going to close this post there, even though I have much more to say. I'm going to play with the systems right now and give the whole thing more thought. I'll probably post again in a few hours when I've had time to play with the numbers.

Yeah, I've been playing with the numbers for a few hours, and going over the BFK definitions. There are problems. They aren't major, but they need to be addressed.

Let me start by saying that the reason FR is so fun is because it fits within the framework of an RPG. The map is pure genius. It has 15 named points of defense and 1 nebulous offensive box. Each has a flavor all its own, sometimes shared with other sections. Each defense point has consequences should it fall. There is accomodation made for further outlying points, with nothing defining them, but given for the point of further dramatic situations, depending on the composition of the players and their desires concerning the game. Somebody had a real eureka! moment. Any land warfare campaigns I run with my players will definitely follow the same format.

That means the only thing remaining to do is to clear up the inconsistencies with their units. Let me first talk about the problems using the BFK units. Regarding infantry, by their own definitions there really is no difference between medium and heavy infantry. Heavy infantry should probably be the sole domain of space marines. Troops with organic heavy weapons are medium infantry, and troops with no organic heavy weapons are light infantry. The only exception would probably be sniper rifles, which are only listed as heavy weapons in WH40K because you can't move and fire in the same turn.

Cavalry probably shouldn't even be listed. The folly of charging machineguns with mounted infantry was demonstrated in Earth's past. If you just have to have these units, then, call them fast infantry that can't take cover and call it done. They should die early enough in any campaign regardless, unless used in a mostly recon mode.

Mechanized infantry is problematic. They are inherently large units. A platoon consists of a platoon of infantry plus a platoon of light armor. Does that mean they should have more staying power in terms of taking casualties? Logic says yes, but game mechanics and play balance always dictate otherwise. Historically, mechanized infantry can deploy into combat with their vehicles. They protect their passengers from interdicting artillery. No, they can't survive a direct hit, but those are rare. They can protect their passengers from shrapnel, and that's a big deal. It puts them miles ahead of motorized infantry. Mech infantry (and probably infantry) should have more defensive power than offensive power, and mech infantry should probably have more of both than leg-infantry. The only light mechanized troops I can think of would be bikers, and even those tend to have an abundance of heavy weapons. The difference between medium and heavy mech units is probably once again the difference between IG in Chimeras and space marines in Rhinos and/or Land Raiders. In fact, I'd put Terminators in Land Raiders in a category all their own.

Armor is probably the only category I'd leave as is in BFK.

Artillery is another weird category. What BFK lists as light artillery is generally organic to units, mortars and shoulder-fired rockets. Modern-Earth (or at least USA) parlance lists light artillery as below 105mm, which has remained pretty consistent since before WWII. That's why mountain, airborne, and most marine units were called light infantry...they only had light artillery attached to them. Of course, that changed over the course of the war. Medium artillery is all that falls between 105mm and 155mm howitzers. 155mm Guns and above are heavy artillery, though often that designation was reserved for coastal batteries. So what all this means is that there is no such thing as light artillery unless your players are fielding separate units of mortars. The category becomes superfluous. Quite frankly, I'm not pleased with their definition of heavy artillery either. Ok, Deathstrikes are heavy, but the only other ordnance that fits in that category is probably mounted on Titans and other gigantic Mechanicus engines. Most IG artillery is of such a short range as to fall into the organic category anyway. The Earthshaker cannon is almost alone in fitting the definition of true artillery.

Air is another sticky wicket. It present the same problem as Mech Infantry. Light Air includes light interceptors, but it also includes the more lightly-armed types of Valykries, and those tend to be organic to the units they carry into battle. While erasing cavalry from the OB charts, I'd add in another type...air-mobile. That would be another category entirely. So back to air. I'm fine with the rest of it as is. Thunderbolts and most other Aeronautica are medium, while Furies and Starhawks and a few others are heavy. Of course, since so many of our heroes' opponents tend to include xenos, all of their units have to be defined in these same terms.

My solution to the numbers problems is to suggest that all the numbers be larger, something more in line with FR than with BFK. My reasoning behind this is that many players would want to see a difference between their troopers with guard flak and their troopers with carapace, and a difference between those who have 3 heavy weapons per platoon and those with 5. This is easier to do with larger numbers as you can define a troop as Infantry +1 (on defense) or Mech Infantry +2, without encroaching into the numbers of a an armored troop. After all, if there is no appreciable difference between mech infantry +2 and armor, then why raise the one that is more difficult to acquire? I know my players will quickly figure that one out and we will soon see no troops of certain types. I also don't think I like the power and armor numbers, since they are essentially the same, the armor simply being the power x 2. These numbers need to be different, period. A given unit of infantry and a given unit of Sentinels might have the same attack number. Would they have the same defense number? Some unit types are more resilient in battle.

In the end, I don't want to play a game of Warhammer 40K. In all candor, I've never liked their miniatures rules, and I certainly don't want to bring them into RT. I want something that is far larger in scope and scale, and far easier to adjudicate, and that means going abstract and simplifying. FR does that beautifully, while still giving the players the feel and atmosphere of the 40th millenia, and let me extend a congratulations to the writers who managed that, Sam Stewart and all of his team involved.

My players are signing online as I type. We are playing tonight in less than a half hour, so I'm going to call it quits on posting for this evening. As we get closer to our first massed combat, I'm going to try my hand at creating a FR-style map for my players to war across. I'm not positive, but I'm guessing their first opponents will be Rak'Gol, though Orks and Chaos are both possibilities. Heck, they might surprise me and attack the Eldar. I'm going to work on some numbers for units that we will use and I'll post them up, probably in a couple days. In the meantime I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about the system. I know you want something BFK Radwraith. Let me know if you have any Eureka! moments of your own that makes them work. I'm going to put my energy toward a FR-style system, but I'm always open to new and better ideas.

Well, I finally got some time to respond so here goes:

First: Let me state that Like you errant I am not really looking to reinvent a wargame. I am trying to manage a war though and that, as you well know, will necessitate some elements from a Wargame! Ideally, I want the players to be able to play from either a top down perspective, (As generals and field commanders) as well as from a battlefield level (For example as a squad in OW.) I refer to an area of control as a matter of convenience. Whether you want to use a tape measure with every cm. equaling a km or break out the old hex grids is irrelevant to me. Using a km. as the base allows for it either way!

I know I'm going to be in the Minority here but I'm not that fond of the rules in FR. Don't get me wrong, they were "good enough" for what they were intended but I found them very limiting when I was playing it. I also found their battle mechanics to also be somewhat unsatisfying. Now that being said, here's my list of grievances with things as they are:

Basically, tying a units defensive capabilities to it's base power lvl directly is not terribly realistic. Errant's example of mechanized infantry is a good one but sort of misses my point. Mechanized infantry are only marginally more offensively capable than their dismounted cousins but quite a bit more robust!

Two other examples that occur to me are Artillery and Aircraft. Artillery is one of the most powerful offensive units their are but if our hypothetical spear chuckers get close enough they have a very real chance of killing it!

Aircraft get even stranger. Aircraft are mission specific. An interceptor of any weight class is going win almost every time against a dedicated strike aircraft but will have comparatively little effect on ground units. Aircraft of any type are going to be almost immune to ground fire from any unit not specifically equipped with Anti-air weapons.

So; Sticking with the basic concept of BFK (Because that's where my thought process is ) Perhaps rather than a base power characteristic, a unit should have an attack and defense stat.

Another factor that neither system does very well with is detection! Geronimo proved that you could hide a small army in the desert if you knew how and there are certainly other examples! Reconnaissance and intelligence are primary facets of any warfare! Generally, I tend to believe that any Company or larger unit (Which I believe we've settled on being our primary maneuver element.) can be detected from orbit if it's moving across open ground. However much can effect this; Lack of Aerial or orbital reconnaissance assets means your back to ground based detection and that can get dicey at any range. The system says that any unit that gets within one kilometer of another automatically engage each other. But if neither knew the other was their before hand they'll both be surprised when it happens!

Anyway, For the moment, I'm going to concentrate on trying to fix the BFK system. I look forward to comparing notes when we're both done!

Some interesting thoughts, Rad. I do like the idea of attack and defense separate, and your point of engagement types piques my brain cells. Ever played Panzer General or any of its offshoots? Units could have ratings in Soft Attack, Hard Attack, and Air Attack, and corresponding defensive abilities or armor types, with that all-purpose Close Defense for when things get hand-to-hand.

You see, I don't mind getting detailed when tallying up a unit's capabilities, it's just the adjudication I want to be simple. There can be lots of downtime preparations just as long as the play doesn't get interrupted by loads of calculating. And you know, since companies would tend to be uniform (in that they'd be composed of the same arms and vehicles...for resupply reasons) we could actually tailor each one of them to match their actual armaments load-out, and we'd only have to define a few of the really common types since the tailoring could be a simple modification of the "norm." For example a company of IG with organic mortars and grenade launchers would have a higher soft attack rating, while one with lascannons and plasma guns would have a higher hard attack rating. In fact, the "norm" would only be in detailing what those lasguns are, since everything else is custom, and the details could be as simple as a lasgun's damage and penetration values as given in the charts.

To take the same example further, that company of 10 Leman Russ tanks would roll over that company of 10 squads with 9 grenade launchers and 3 mortars in open terrain, while it would have a fight on its hands if that company were defending inside an urban area with 9 plasma guns and 3 lascannons backing it up. Alternately, those mortars and grenade launchers would be more useful to the infantry company if they were attacked by opposing infantry. And, that gives our players more interesting decisions to make when making recruitment and equipment acquisitions, and when outfitting for battle.

I'll have to think further about this...

Never played Panzer General but have played other things. By soft or Hard attacks to mean direct or indirect fire? My military terminology is from the eighties so some things might be a bit dated! If so, then yes, that's what I'm talking about. In my example, The bomber laying waste to everything below is technically an Indirect attack!

In the interests of simplicity, I'm not sure I want to get too crazy with dividing up attacks that much but I'll have to think on it. I agree with you that I want simple adjudication during the combat rolls. (That's the part I like best about the BFK concept) Perhaps a "Notes" section for the unit? The idea of setting a primary attack type occurred to me but you run into problems with things like your Mortar/Infantry unit. In that case, The unit has a direct fire rating as per normal infantry but ALSO has a specialized indirect fire capability. So perhaps our Mortar Infantry has a special attack that can reach 5km? This would allow for a layered approach where your Mortars could take position immediately behind the front line but still defend themselves if the front was overrun.

My approach to Aircraft would be mission specific. Aircraft would be tasked by mission (And would be limited as to what missions they could perform). Mission tasking in my mind would consist of CAP, CAS, Strike, transport or Recon. Aircraft would operate from an Airbase and have a combat radius it could operate from. Again, Issues arise with Aircraft like the Valkyrie. Is the primary mission transport or CAS? It's really both but it's also typically a "Special forces" type thing.

Combat Grouping: Badly failed in BFK If you have a Battallion engageing a Battallion in BFK you STILL roll the same attack dice as a Company! No multipliers or modifiers? That hardly makes sense! I'm fine with making one roll for similar groups but the effects of multiple units must be accounted for. This is where my area of control becomes important. If Direct fire units engage at 1km then we know who can engage who if a company controls a 1 km. sq. area.

More to think on but there's some more for ya!

I really don't like using fixed distances/dimensions for occupying or area control, because it automatically creates issues with terrain and other environmental effects. 'Controlling' 1 km ² of agri-world farmland is way different than controlling 1 km ² of city, or worse 1 km ² (1 km ³ ?) of a hive. The same applies to movement - you would have to come up with a variety of movement score penalties or you'll find your tanks driving as quickly through swamps and ash dunes as they do on highways. I find it much easier and more organic in an RPG to deal with things like 'zones' then try and make things fit on measurements.

I do like the idea of having Soft/Hard/Air stats, or related. (To explain to Rad, soft is traditionally anti-infantry firepower, where as Hard would be used against hardened targets like bunkers or vehicles). Anti-Infantry, Anti-Tank, Anti-structure, Anti-air would all make good categories to work with. (Assault/firefight/Long might also be important) At least for infantry, I can see their 'base' stats being generated by their standard-issue weapon, while passing a particular threshold for special/heavy weapons would provide a bonus to X stat(s). This method could even be used to account for things like integrated armor support (which you see often in guard doctrine), occupying bunkers and more.

I like your 'blocks' idea because I think there really needs to be a mechanic for attrition, but I'd be wary of any version that allows for too wild of swings of how many 'hit points' a particular unit has, or you risk weaker things becoming powerful by weight of rolls, because one simply can't kill enough of them per battle.

I don't like fixed scale, either, Quick, and there's never been a wargame that begins to simulate the first few weeks of Barbarossa. In WWII, on the attack, it wasn't unusual to see a division with a frontage less than 1/2 mile wide. On defense, though, it was unusual to see a division with less than 3 miles frontage.

And yeah, Quick defined the soft/hard target concepts well. And Quick, as opposed to range categories, you can use an initiative factor there as well...the longer the ranged weapons shoot first, modified by preponderance of blocking terrain (i.e. close terrain lowers high initiatives).

Not much time for commenting, just throwing more stuff into the mix.

Just to add a quick thought on Initiative as Command Roll: Making it a roll also allows for nice modifiers from things like artillery/bombing strikes and even sniper fire - the kind of attacks intended to keep armies from moving as quickly in the open beside or instead of just doing damage.

I think I finally see the problem here. Hey, I'm not the fastest on the uptake. Some of you want a system that actually runs in something like 4-hour increments, which BFK does. I want a system that accounts for the week's attrition (like FR does), while only playing out the Flash Points.