"Moderns" Wargaming Musings

Wargaming has its own niches and sub-genres.  Many people are familiar with the Tolkien-like fantasy setting with Elves, Orcs and Barbarians with big swords etc.  Then there's the Warhammer 40,000 take with Space Elves Eldar, Space Orcs Orks and Space Barbarians Space Marines with big swords etc.  You've got all manner of historical periods (cavemen, ancients, roman empire, medieval, black powder and the various world wars are all catered for).   And there is a particular niche called "Moderns".



So what're Moderns about?  What makes Moderns a thing?   Well, there's no real definitive answer in that regard, but IMHO mostly it's a combination of the setting and mechanics.  When I think of Moderns, it's a war that has occurred or could occur in my lifetime (i.e. the setting), and the mechanics are somewhat more faithful to reality relative to something like W40k, e.g., getting shot hurts, people run away, and warfare is confusing.

Just last week I played a basic game of Spectre Operations with some friends.  It was a bloody affair that lasted about 60-90mins and saw several units crawling off the battlefield after taking an AK round or three to their nether regions etc.  It was fun and noticeably different from my recent war games.  Of the many novel mechanics included in the game was how it deals with suppression.  Each time a unit is shot at, regardless of whether they're hit or not, they're stressed.  This stress accumulates and erodes their effectiveness - making it harder for them to shoot, move etc.  More on that later.

One game that has caught my attention is Skirmish Sangin.  The first release of the game was set in Afghanistan, and there have been various subsequent instalments dealing with variations on the theme.  Amongst the things that I found enticing were it catered for asymmetrical forces (professional vs insurgent forces) and rules for off-table support (e.g., snipers and helicopters).

One area where Skirmish Sangin is quite different from the likes of W40K is how it handles Combat phases and Activation.  Each Game Turn comprises of 10 Combat Phases, of which soldiers will be activated in 4 non-consecutive Phases and can perform 3 Action Points worth of stuff like spotting enemies, running and shooting.  There are more action modifiers than are usual for many games, but they appear to be quite intuitive and well suited for the type of game that's envisaged.

So what is the type of game that's envisaged?  I'm not a war buff, but something like Black Hawk Down is a good example of what one could play.  Where things get interesting is the tactical play the game has to offer.  Players have to consider and balance all sorts of things none the least being spotting (actually targeting a valid enemy), stance (running, shuffling, standing, kneeling, prone!), morale, injuries - it is quite the feast.

A typical unit in the game has about 6 skill ratings (Pistol, Rifle, Spotting etc.), a Body stat (which is used primarily for Combat Phase sequencing), and Armour score (absorbs damage) and a Weapon - about 10 things all up, which is definitely comparable to Kill Team.

What are some of the points of difference?

Combat Phases.  As I had mentioned earlier, in a game Turn, each Unit has the opportunity to be Activated on 4 different, non-sequential Phases depending upon each Unit's Body stat.  Each Activation grants 3 Action Points that can be spent Spotting, Shooting, Moving etc.  So it is entirely possible that a Unit might perform six Actions before their adversary performs their first.


Spotting.  Targets have to be acquired, and that can prove to be complicated.  Success is dependent upon (1) what the spotter is doing (e.g., it's harder to Spot whilst you are running, easier if you're still) and what the Target is doing (e.g., it's harder to Spot someone prone than someone running) and other factors (e.g., has the target fired an automatic weapon?  Are they close to their allies?  Are they in cover?) Spotting can sometimes be very difficult to achieve.  I think it would lead to a little more depth when it comes to target selection.  For example, a running Target is +30% easier to Spot but -20% harder to Shoot.

A partial extract from the game's Quick Reference Guide.

There are seven different movement 'states': standing still, walking, running, crawling, prone, hidden and kneeling.  Each state yields different modifiers when being spotted, shooting or being shot at as mentioned above.  Also, the character's movement state is persistent.  E.g., a Character that spends their three Action Points running remains running until Action Points are expended to maybe slow to a walk.

Facings matter, meaning Action Points need to be expended to turn a unit around beyond 180-degrees.  As a result flanking is a viable and real tactic.

Even being shot at adversely impacts Morale.  More experienced troops are more dependable under fire as you'd expect.  There are other Morale modifiers (e.g., being in cover boosts morale, having allies nearby helps, being fired upon by a chaingun would make you wee your pants) and Morale is tested at the commencement of the Unit's next Activation.  That means you can almost guarantee anyone will be rendered less effective if you're able to pile enough dakka on them, regardless if it hits or not.

Damage is variable.  An opposed roll is made, e.g., an Assault Rifle sums 2d10 vs 1d10+4 of Body Armour.  If the target is lucky, no harm will result (just a Morale Marker), but a significant differential can be an instant kill.  Injured allies erode a team's Morale, e.g., seeing someone critically injured forces a Morale test at a -20% penalty for all allies in LoS within 12".

There is all manner of other things to consider and examine, plus a wealth of scenarios available.  Fortunately, there are a few guys in my gaming group who are willing to give it a try, so watch this space - my first game is tomorrow night.