Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Thinking Out Loud : More on a WW2 Wargame Campaign

As I continue to seek out ideas on running a WWII-based wargame campaign, I've made one firm decision (small victories, folks): one stand = one platoon.

I don't want to worry what 1st squad, 2nd platoon is doing. I assume they're doing what they are supposed to be doing. I do want to make sure 1st platoon, A company is where it needs to be.

This lines up with the One Hour Wargame platoon basing and what I've been using for most of my recent Morschauser games. Blitzkrieg Commander supports this basing, and so does ‘Tactical Combat’ WWII rules, of which Stu Rat reminded me. The latter two have much more WWII feel, but Morschauser is a good bit of toy-soldier fun that is hard to resist. The other real contender is Portable Wargames: Modern or perhaps the Big Battles version, which as they are on grids, feel like a blend of toy-soldiers and hex-and-counter wargaming.

I am leaning heavily towards a Morschauser strategic map campaign. What can I say? I really want to use those blocks for map movement. The benefit of Morschauser's system is that no record keeping is needed, at least for the losing force. In Morschauser terms, and as I'm imagining it, each command on the map will consist of a battalion, or some part thereof, on the table.

How I generate the tabletop forces I haven't decided quite yet, but these are the options I'm considering:

  • FiveCore Company Command force generator moved up a level (it's written for squad bases) each side could end up fielding anything from a platoon up to a battalion
  • OHW force generator, either as is (one company to one company + one platoon), double the units (two companies to two companies + two platoons), or some variant thereof where I roll to see if the units are doubled which would mean between three and eight platoons of infantry
  • Morschauser's or BKC's point systems and try to equip each side specifically for the scenario being fought
  • If using a Table-top Teaser or similar, bases my forces on TT's suggestions - scaled for 1 stand = 1 platoon

Regardless, I have some painting to do to field a full battalion of infantry of nine platoons for the US and Germans (We can quibble that some battalions should have 12 platoons depending on the year of the war) with three figs per stand. I'd prefer four, mind you, but I have no desire to paint as many figures as I'd need. As it stands, the US needs two or three figures and the Germans require four for 3-figure stands.

Some nice to haves:

  • assemble my 2nd PAK-40, and paint it
  • touch up the existing PAK-40 - it's in desperate need of it
  • acquire some ATGs for the US, as my existing field gun was broken during one of the many battles with Godzilla that my son and I play
  • acquire proper scout cars (I found that Solido makes one for the US and one for Germany, in 1/50)
  • acquire one more PZ IV in 1/50

And, since I mentioned him, here's a grainy pic of Godzilla:




Saturday, August 27, 2016

More Thoughts on a "Modern" Campaign

As I added to my previous post, rifling around through the books on my games shelf (a single shelf. I got rid of more than 1/2 of my gaming related books collection over the past year!) I discovered both Morschauser and Featherstone (in his Advanced War Gaming) provide some interesting mechanisms for running a map campaign.

Both have a simplicity that I like, although Featherstone muddies things up with several optional bits - more complexity sounds great to me at first, but I have learned that in war gaming ,and RPGs, for that matter, there is a point where my enthusiasm wanes in proportion.

Morschauser's system is the harsher of the two, in that if a force loses a battle, they are just done and no longer available for the strategic level. There is the benefit of no record keeping in that case, but it does seem a bit difficult to swallow. Still, he uses painted wooden blocks on a map and who doesn't like the sound of that?

Featherstone 's method for generating a random map sounds quite fun - using 2"x 2" painted squares drawn at random and placed into a 12" square frame .

I believe it was in Featherstone that I saw mention of the often cited "rule" of 1/3 of casualties are killed, 1/3 are wounded and not available for some time period and 1/3 are combat ready by the next encounter.

Even if I did not see it there, that rule of thumb has a long pedigree and who am I to resist something with such history?

Of course, I could combine the two (blocks on a randomly generated map, using casualty recovery)

The other issue I find myself considering is the level of command.

Initially, I was thinking commanding a company at most in a given game, however, a battalion would not be out of the question, either with Morschauser or Blitzkrieg Commander, both of which work with the same basing systems I intend to use. It's more a narrative question than it is a gaming issue.

Scenarios in any case, I think are well accounted for with Blitzkrieg Commander, FiveCore's Company Command, and Platoon Forward (moved up a level) all providing scenario ideas, plus One Hour Wargames, and tabletop teasers (and presumably, situations would naturally arise from the campaign).

Next, I need to look at my collection and see what, if anything, I want to paint (OK, need to paint. Want is a strong word) - I think I may be short some heavy infantry, and I know my anti-tank gun teams need some love.

Friday, August 26, 2016

WWII and Imaginations? Some thoughts and links

Over on 54mm or Fight! you can see that the sole wargaming I've been doing of late is set in Europe, WWII. While I enjoy playing one-off scenarios, my Helvetica Campaign (you can find the posts by going here and scrolling down to Helvetica) remains among the top wargaming experiences I've had, and so, logically, it seems to me that I should try something similar set in WWII or thereabouts.

But, so few wargaming campaigns discussed in blogs seem to be set in WWII, never mind Imaginations WWII-like campaigns. That doesn't mean I won't do it, but I was hoping for a bit of inspiration. (Far mor involve  20th C. South American or African Imaginations, it seems).

The likely route will be the  continental battle between Hefeweizen ( nee Riesling in the pre-unification days ) and the allies of Sauvignon-Blanc, particularly the Federal Republic of Lager. Or, perhaps, less evocative/alcoholic, Army Feldgrau vs Army Olive Drab.

Obviously thin veneers for the actual participants but what can you do?

My searching eventually lead me to an Imaginations 20th century mini-campaign on one of the better respected blogs, Wargaming Miscellany. The posts begin with this one I believe.  Mr. Cordery also stirs up the idea a bit a few years earlier in this post.

As for campaign rules, I know already that I don't want anything terribly complicated - nothing to do with supply and all that, although reinforcements and casualty replacement should come into play. And, I really enjoy the narrative "campaign diary" stuff, so if it supports that in some way, all the better.


  • Jeff, at Saxe-Bearstein's method worked well for Helvetica, and had the benefit of no map being required, although one developed during play. I keep getting stuck on the battle to the capitals though. This is probably a me thing, and perhaps I just need to change the labels? Perhaps the FRL "capital" is actually more akin to Normandy, while the initial battle takes place in a Battle of the Bulge-type situation?
  • Rather serendipitously, Peter at Grid Based Wargaming - But Not Always, has recently posted a series about this very topic. Looks like it might be more than I want, but I may be able to strip out the bits I don't want.
  • Featherstone, in his Wargaming Campaigns, touches ever so briefly on a WWII campaign, but focuses specifically on recon, and leaves everything else for the reader to develop (presumably from ideas presented in other chapters).
  • Kevin White (one of my all time favorite contributors to Lone Warrior),  sets up a map based WWII mini-campaign in issue 182 of Lone Warrior. I had trouble following some of the setup, and need to re-read this.
  • TMP is always a stop for debates about nothing, and this time is no different :D And here the participants debate why 18th C. imaginations over imaginations in other eras.
  • Platoon Forward might work if I change the scale upwards for a company per side, or I suppose I could just use it at the intended level.
Edit: It turns out I should have paid closer attention to Morschauser and Featherstone (Advanced War Games). Both have systems of map moving that would work for modern games. Indeed, Featherstone  explicitly uses a WWII campaign for his example.

If you have a preferred way of building campaigns, particularly for WWII company-level engagements (maybe battalion), please shoot them my way.


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Solo Role-Playing Series Part 3: The Essential Toolbox

When we consider at the bare minimum what a human Game Master does, we can distill out what is essential to have mechanisms or systems for in our solo toolbox.

What, at the bear minimum, does a GM typically do?

  • They answer our questions about the game world. 
    • Do I recognize the figure in the trench coat? 
    • Which political agents are at work in this town?
  • They adjudicate the success of our actions. 
    • I climb the side of the building, do I make it?
    • I jump into the rough water and attempt to retrieve the sword from the bottom of the river. Do I succeed?
  • They determine the reactions of others to our character. 
    • I hold up my hands in a sign of peace, how do the orcs react?
    • I apologize to the mafia boss for hitting on his wife. Does he accept my apology?
  • They adjudicate conflict, ideally without bias towards a particular outcome. 
    • I offer the merchant 1000 credits for the respirator, does he accept?
    • I attack the guard with my sword. Do I hit or cause damage? 
What you should notice almost immediately is that many of these might be handled by your rules of choice.

This picture of Pumpkin has nothing to do with anything. I just felt like the wall of text needed a picture
Conflict is almost always handled explicitly in RPGs, similarly many systems have Skills or Abilities mechanisms that determine if an attempt to do something succeeds or fails. Reaction tables go back to early versions of D&D, and wargaming before that.

Regardless of how much fluff is included, what isn't so common in a rule book are mechanisms to handle questions about the game world.

Many of our questions about the world will be closed questions (yes or no), and while there are a variety of ways to generate the exact answer, most boil down to 50/50 one way or the other.

Open ended questions, such as “What’s in the room?” or “What does the guard say?” seem more complicated on the surface.

However, they are more easily tackled, if you invoke your role as the part-time GM.

You might:

  • Decide by fiat - arguably the simplest method, but it does little in the way of surprise. However, even here, there are ways to shake things up. 
  • Consult a randomizer (such as cards or dice) with assigned results to each value. Random dungeon generators and room stocking tables are common examples of this. 
    • You can prepare these lists on the fly - using your role as GM to make them more logical and feel less random - or in advance. 
  • Consult an oracle. Here I mean something that gives a non-literal result for you to interpret - be they pictures, random word lists, tarot cards, etc. 
Fiat and randomizers will in part at least, be touched on below, but oracles will merit their own post(s).


Mechanisms to answer our questions about the game world.

A mechanism to adjudicate questions about the game world can also serve to answer questions about the success of our actions, the reactions of others, and adjudicate conflict. 


Indeed, with just this one mechanism, and without a set of rules, you can play a solo role playing game. However, if you are using an RPG system, you will probably defer to those rules when the system already provides the means to answer your question.



Type 1: Natural Language to Percentage Chance



Mechanisms of this type have a form like the following:


Adjective
Yes
No
A Sure Thing
01 - 90
91 - 100
Very Likely
01 - 75
76 - 100
Somewhat Likely
01 - 60
61 - 100
50/50
01 - 50
51 - 100
Unlikely
01 - 40
41 - 100
Very Unlikely
01 - 25
26 - 100
Impossible
01 - 10
11 - 100



Now you might quibble about the percentages, but the concept is clear, I hope. You pose your yes/no question, decide which adjective best describes the possibility of the hoped for result, and roll using the appropriate row to interpret the results. 

More often than not, you won't know which adjective is the right one, and in that case, go with 50/50.

Mythic: Game Master Emulator, or Mythic : GME,is probably the most well-known example of this kind of Yes/No table. The Mythic results table has more adjectives, and is unusual in that it makes use of an additional attribute which shifts the likelihood of a yes or no result as things go well or badly for your character.

Mythic’s table also includes the possibility that either result might be an extreme example. That is to say, if you roll sufficiently poorly, your result becomes a “No, and” and conversely, rolling well can give you a "Yes, and". I highly recommend purchasing Mythic GME as it is a complete method of solo gaming that offers a number of ideas that I will not be covering.

Wargamers who own Too Fat Lardies Platoon, Forward! will find a similar system to Mythic, without the notion of “Yes, and” or “No, and.” Rather than the granular approach Mythic takes with the d100, Too Fat Lardies use a d10 for percentages.

A free product which I rather like, is a system known as IN-RADIC. It can be found here. The author makes use of 2d6 instead of percentile dice but the approach is the same. In addition, he provides an oracle and a set of pulp wargaming rules that can be used as a rules lite RPG as well.

Type 2: 50/50 Systems


These systems avoid the use of varying chances of yes/no and focus only on the 50/50 outcome. As this is probably the most common choice with the Natural Language to Percentage systems, you can be assured they work quite well.

The most obvious method of deciding a 50/50 question is to flip a coin. Perhaps more common among gamers is to roll 1d6, 1-3 = yes, and 4-6 = no, or perhaps, odds = yes, evens = no.

Either of these methods works perfectly well, but with little effort it’s possible to add interest to your game’s narrative.

Taking a hint from the various bits of advice given to GM’s to say “yes, and” or “yes, but”, we can use the dice to bring in additional details about the game world, our actions or the actions of NPCs.

Here are three such mechanisms, all based on the ubiquitous d6:

The first method essentially replicates the Mythic-type approach to using yes, no and extremes of both.

1 = “No, and “
2-3 = “No.”
4-5 = “Yes.”
6 = “Yes, and ”

Next, we can add the possibility of getting a Yes or No, but not quite exactly what we bargained for:

1 = “No, and “ (Not only no, but extraordinarily so)
2 = “No.”
3 = “No, but <something yes-like>”
4 = “Yes, but <something no-like>”
5 = “Yes.”
6 = “Yes, and “ (Not only yes, but extraordinarily so)

The problem with a straight "yes" or "no" is not unlike the problem with receiving that answer to a question in other day-to-day activities; sometimes it's acceptable, but it's harder to go someplace interesting from that.

So, finally, and my preferred, refinement: 

1 = “No, and “ (Not only no, but extraordinarily so)
2 -3 = “No, but <something yes-like>"
4-5 = “Yes, but <something no-like>”
6 = “Yes, and “ (Not only yes, but extraordinarily so)

An example might make all of this easier to follow.


The Scene:
Inside the tavern, Arnax’s eyes take a minute to adjust to the darkness that envelopes the interior despite the bright sun outside. He saddles up to the bar and the bartender says, “what’ll you have?”

Does he know where I can find the Old Man Who Gives Out Quests?

I roll 1d6. I get a 1, the result of “No and” on all three tables. I come up (i.e. made up, decided by GM fiat) with the following:

No, and he says, “If you value your life, you won’t ask again.”

Notice that the “extraordinarily so” doesn't have to be extreme, but if you want it to be, go for it:

“No, and he pulls a gun and shoots”

Or if surreal and dream-like is your preference:

“No, and he removes his head and punts it to the waitress who takes off running.”

What if I had rolled a 2?

The first and second approach would yield a simple “No”, which results in “No, he doesn't.” Helpful in some respects, but not for driving your game to interesting places.
The third approach could yield something like:
  • No, but he says, “There’s a kid who comes in here everyday and claims to know him.” 
  • Or No, but he says “For 50 gold crowns I might.” 
  • Or No, but he says “if you drink enough, they say he comes to you in your dreams.” 
You can see the benefit of the last approach in that, despite the question being a close-ended question, the results drive the game in new directions.

If you prefer, declare exactly what each result will be prior to the rolling of the die, writing it down to keep yourself honest.
So, for example:

1 = No, and he says, “If you value your life, you won’t ask again.”
2-3 = “No, but there’s a kid who comes in here everyday and claims to know him.”
4-5 “Yes, but it’ll cost you.”
6 - “Yes and he nods to a lone figure bent over a table nursing his drink. ‘That’s him.’”

This approach leads into the next type. 


Type 3: Dicing Between Options aka Featherstone’s Matrix

This method is similar to the last example, although there are two variations that I want to demonstrate.

The first I call “The Featherstone” and it gets its name to from an idea Donald Featherstone presents for playing skirmish wargames solo. As it turns out, it works equally well with role-playing.

The second variation is what I am labeling the Matrix method, based not on the movie of that name but on Engle’s Matrix games. It simply takes the argument resolution method from the Matrix games and uses it for deciding which of several options is, in fact, the case.

The Featherstone:

The Featherstone involves deciding upon the likely outcomes and assigning percentages to each of them, so that totaled, the result is 100%.

A simple yes/no result can be treated as 01-50 and 51-100 ,but you could include the “buts” and “ands” as well.

Does the bartender know where I can find the Old Man Who Gives Out Quests?

01 - 10 = No, and he says, “If you value your life, you won’t ask again.”
11 - 50 = “No, but there’s a kid who comes in here everyday and claims to know him.”
51-89 = “Yes, but it’ll cost you.”
90 - 100 - “Yes and he nods to a lone figure bent over a table nursing his drink. ‘That’s him.’”

But you could take it further:

01-10 No and he threatens you
11-20 No but he tells you a kid comes in everyday who clamis to
21-30 No but for 50 gold crowns he might
31-50 No but the old man comes by from time to time
51-60 Yes but he’s dead.
61-70 Yes, but you’ll need a letter of introduction if you want to meet him
71-80 Yes, but it’ll cost you 50 gold crowns.
81-90 Yes, but he isn’t talking until you order a drink, this isn’t a church.
91-100 “Yes and he nods to a lone figure bent over a table nursing his drink. ‘That’s him.’"

That’s a little extreme, but I wanted to demonstrate the possibility that this method opens up. In actual play, 3 or 4 options are plenty, especially for a yes/no question.


Matrix:

The Matrix method is something of a cross between the Mythic method and the Featherstone. Declare your possible outcomes, decide how likely each one is (called the strength of the argument in Matrix terms) and roll. The exact method and table necessary is illustrated here.

You could use the full Matrix method but it is a bit more time consuming to setup, as it is intended for multiple players.


Conclusion:

Obviously, use whichever method most appeals to you, but if you are just starting out, I recommend using:


1= “No, and “ (Not only no, but extraordinarily so)
2 -3 = “No, but <something yes-like>”
4-5 = “Yes, but <something no like>”
6 = “Yes, and “ (Not only yes, but extraordinarily so)

At first, don’t worry about writing things down before you roll - once you find that you like solo gaming, you might not mind the few seconds that takes, but in the beginning, we want the game to move at a good pace to keep your enthusiasm high.

Why this method?

It uses the d6 which in all likelihood, everyone who owns a boardgame owns. It only provides four outputs, which are quickly and easily generated, and all of the results move the story and the game world forward.

So, roll the dice, go with your gut in terms of the result. Later, you can write things down before you roll, or tweak the results by combining them with oracles or random generators.

With our method for resolving questions about the game world, and incidentally, the other questions as well, if our rules of choice do not, we’re ready to play.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Hot Chow! Rapid Play WWII

Posting has been a little light lately, to say the least. That doesn't mean I haven't been gaming though - I've played Hold the Line twice, and I've played a few scenarios from One Hour Wargames several times. 


Scenario 5: Bridgehead - Stand off at the hill. Missing crew on PAK 40 due to laziness.
As I mentioned before, I'm using my own rules for One Hour Wargames, but using many of Mr. Thomas's ideas as their foundation.

Below are the current draft of my WWII rules, "Hot Chow!" (I watched half a dozen or so WWII movies in the last month, and I swear, that line was in every one.). They are very much in the "playing with toy soldiers" tradition, and owe a debt to almost every rule set I've ever read. 

Hot Chow!

Rapid Play World War II



Table size: These rules are designed to work well on small tables, such as a 3’ x 3’ table, as used in Neil Thomas’s One Hour Wargames. The largest force fielded in those rules, and in these rules, is 6 units, or a reinforced company, although on a larger table, battalions should be feasible.

Figure scale: Unit frontage matters, not figure size or ratio of figures to real soldiers. 1 unit of infantry = 1 platoon and that is the basic unit for movement and combat.
Basing:  An infantry unit (platoon) should have a 4”-6” frontage. Depth is about half of width, but whatever looks right is acceptable. Vehicles and heavy weapons do not require basing.

  • For the record, I use 5 or 6  figures to the platoon (I use 1/32 figures). Weapon crews are 2 figures. 6 figures really makes more sense at 2 per section, but I don't have enough figures to do that for all platoons.
  • I've tried using bases 6" x 3" as well as figures without a base. I think the best compromise might be platoons of three 2" x 3" bases with each hit removing a single section.
Ground scale: If you must know, it’s 1” = 25m. This gives a platoon a frontage of 100m  - 150m which is about right for WWII platoons in the attack.

Tools: two six-sided dice, a ruler or measuring tape, pencil and paper or hit markers if necessary, toy soldi


Basic Unit Data
Unit
Movement/Turn
Combat Points
Attack Range
Infantry Rifle Platoon
6”
3
12”, 6” for vs armored vehicles
Infantry SMG Platoon(2)
6”
3
6”
Tanks
9”, 12” on road
n/a
24”
ATG
6”
2
24”
Mortar
6”
2
48”
HMG(3)
6”
2
48”


  • 1 infantry unit represents 1 platoon
  • 1 tank model represents about 3 vehicles
  • 1 ATG and crew represents about 3 guns and crew
  • 1 mortar and crew represents about 3 mortars and crew
  • 1 HMG and crew represents about 3 HMGs and crew


Movement is how far a unit can move per turn. Regardless of the number of elements that make up the unit, all move together.


Combat Points are how many hits a unit can take before removal from table. It represents both actual losses and morale. This can be tracked with markers, stand removal, figure removal, etc. It also represents the number of dice a unit rolls in combat - as the Combat Points are reduced, so too are the dice thrown.
  • Tanks and other vehicles don’t have Combat Points but instead utilize a method I’ve stolen borrowed from Featherstone.
  • EDIT: When originally posted, I forgot to include how many dice tanks roll to attack. I usually have them roll 3 dice against other tanks, and 2 dice vs everything else, although I have had them roll only 1 die on occasion. I justified the later as a trade off for getting to survive longer than any other unit, on average.


Attack range is the maximum distance at which a unit may attack an enemy. (1)

Turn Structure:
  1. Initiative
  2. Morale Phase (side A) if necessary
  3. Action Phase (side A)
  4. Saving Throws (side B) if necessary
  5. Morale Phase (side B) if necessary
  6. Action Phase (side B)
  7. Saving Throws (side A) if necessary


Initiative
Each side rolls 1d6. High score wins initiative, winner is side A, loser is side B. Re-roll ties.


Action Phase:
Sides may activate their units in any order. Units may either move or fire, but not both in the same turn. Units are not required to take any action, however see Sitting Duck rule under combat.


Movement
  • Units may move in any direction as long as the terrain is passable, up to their maximum movement rate.
  • When attempting to enter difficult terrain, roll a d6, on a 1 or 2, the unit stops at the terrain’s edge and can re-try next turn if desired. On a 4-6, the unit continues moving into the terrain\ at their normal movement rate. (4).


Combat
  • Unit must have LOS to target, or in case of mortar, target must be in LOS of friendly unit.
  • Units have 360 degrees of facing.
  • Woods, forests, bocage, unharvested fields, buildings, hills, mountains, etc. block LOS to units on the opposite side of those features, but  not units occupying those features.
    • That is, units inside woods, fields, etc. are in LOS.
    • And yes, units in buildings are in LOS.
  • Attacker rolls 1d6  per Combat Point remaining. Hits are scored per the following table(5):


Unit
vs. Infantry
vs. Heavy Wpn.
vs. ATG
vs. Tanks
Rifle
5-6
5-6
5-6
6
SMG
4-6
4-6
4-6
6
HMG
4-6
4-6
4-6
5-6*
Mortar
4-6
5-6
5-6
5-6**
ATG
6
6
6
4-6
Tank
5-6
5-6
5-6
4-6
*Subtract 1 from Tank Saving Throw result  **Subtract 2 from Tank Saving Throw result
  • If target in cover, -1 on attack roll
  • Sitting Duck Rule: If attacking same target as previous turn and target has not moved, +1 to attack rolls.
  • For each hit, the target unit loses 1 Combat Point.
  • Base to base contact negates cover bonus.


Saving Throws
Only tanks have saving throws
Roll 2d6:
  • 9 - fall back 1 move
  • 10 - fall back 2 moves
  • 11/12 - destroyed:


Optional (and untested):
Assign each infantry unit a quality of: Green, Average, Veteran, or Elite
Elite units roll 1d6 per hit, on a 4-6 (3-6 in cover) the hit is negated
Veteran units roll 1d6 per hit, on a 5-6 (4-6 in cover) the hit is negated
Green Units roll 1d6 per hit, on a 1-4,, the attacker can re-roll the hit die, and if it hits again, the target unit loses an additional Combat Point


Morale Check: (Optional)
If a side is reduced to 1/2 of their starting units or less, on their next Morale Phase, roll 1d6. If result is greater than units remaining, roll 1d6 per unit.  Other than a result of “No Effect”, the result counts as the unit’s action for their next activation.


Optional: If using unit quality, adjust as follows: green -1, veteran + 1, elite + 2


<=1 - roll a saving throw, for infantry remove if failed. for armor, treat 10+ as fall back 2 moves. If passed fall back 1 move.
2 - fall back 1 move
3 - no action next turn  
4 - No effect
5 - No effect
>=6 - fire at nearest enemy, if none, then advance to close


No further morale checks are needed until the force loses an additional unit, at which point, they will check morale on their next Morale Phase (6).


Another play of Scenario 5 - That Sherman has no luck. Figures are placed on cardboard sabots.

(1)Please note that it is shortened to make play feasible on smaller tables. 12” represents some 300m, when in fact, an M1 Garand, for instance, had an effective range of 457m according to some website or other. I’m willing to sacrifice simulation for game play. Similarly, a panzerfaust 100 should have a range of 4”, a bazooka around 6” and panzerschreck around 12”. Tough luck.
(2)In One Hour Wargames, Neil Thomas limits forces to infantry, mortars, ATG and tanks. However, my Soviets wanted their SMG companies to get some kind of recognition. Who am i to resist the Red Army?
(3)As mentioned above, HMGs are not included in the OHW force lists. I allow an HMG to replace a mortar. 
(4)This is taken from the Wally Simon 70% rule.
(5)This table is based on Morschauser mixed with Neil Thomas's WWII rules
(6)This approach to morale owes a debt to G.A.S.L.I.G.H.T. but also, if I recall, Tony Bath's campaign rules had something similar.