Introduction
Anyone
attempting
to design
a
companion
set of
rules to a
game as
popular
and
successful
as Arty
Conliffe’s
SPEARHEAD
rules is
asking for
trouble;
every
change of
the rules
is bound
to upset
someone
somehow —
perhaps
even the
original
designer.
Furthermore,
SPEARHEAD
gamers are
certain to
have
predetermined
expectations
of how the
game
should be
applied to
the modern
era.
In
designing
a modern
version of
SPEARHEAD,
we thus
faced
dangers on
two
fronts. If
we altered
too much,
we risked
violating
the
integrity
of the
SPEARHEAD
design; if
we altered
too
little, we
might fail
in our
efforts to
simulate
modern
warfare.
With this
double
jeopardy
in mind,
we present
the
following
Designer’s
Notes to
explain
why we
made the
changes we
made to
the
original
SPEARHEAD
rules (for
an
explanation
of the
design
philosophy
that led
to
SPEARHEAD,
we refer
players to
the
Introduction).
Mechanized
Infantry
One
decision
we made
early on
was to
retain the
"single
stand"
rules for
infantry
and
armored
personnel
carriers
from
SPEARHEAD,
judging
that the
numerous
tactical
decisions
required
of a
player by
a
two-stand
system
were
outside
the scope
of the
division-level
mechanics.
We also
felt the
complexity
of
mechanized
infantry
operations
could not
be made
compatible
with
MODERN
SPEARHEAD
if we used
a
"multi-stand"
approach.
The
question,
then, was
how to
best
simulate,
using one
stand, the
mounted
and
dismounted
action of
a platoon
of
infantry
and its
supporting
armored
vehicles.
We found
our answer
in the
West
German
doctrine
that the
dismounted
infantry
squad is
but one of
the weapon
systems of
a
combined-arms
team of
men and
vehicle
(what we
called a
"Combat
Team").
Since this
doctrine
reverses
the
conventional
view that
the
armored
vehicles
exist to
support
the
dismounted
troops, it
called for
a closer
look at
why troops
fight
mounted.
After
studying
modern
infantry
doctrine,
we
concluded
that there
are two
main
reason
infantry
fights
mounted:
1. To keep
up with
the tanks.
2. To
reduce its
vulnerability
to
indirect
fire.
Much of
modern
defensive
doctrine
is
concerned
with
generating
and using
obstacles
and
anti-tank
zones that
force
attacking
infantry
to
dismount,
rendering
them
vulnerable
to
indirect
fire.
Thus,
Combat
Teams move
as
vehicles
on the
assumption
that the
infantry
are
usually
mounted
inside
their IFV
or APC.
Combat
Teams are
spotted as
vehicles
for the
same
reason;
the
exception
is when
the "Team"
is in
cover
under the
assumption
that the
infantry
are at the
edge of
cover with
the
armored
vehicle(s)
in
comparatively
safe,
covered
supporting
positions.
Combat
Team DEF
factors
are based
on similar
doctrinal
underpinnings.
The Combat
Team is
vulnerable
to enemy
armor,
especially
in the
open. This
is because
loss of a
vehicle
with
mounted
infantry
will
usually
result in
loss of at
least part
of the
infantry
component,
the net
result
being to
render the
whole
temporarily
ineffective.
However,
the
skilled
application
of
combined
arms
tactics
will
reduce (if
not
eliminate)
these
risks. The
Team is
much less
vulnerable
when in
covered
defensive
positions,
where the
infantry
can be
protected
from
artillery
and yet
not risk
sudden
death from
antitank
fire.
Read More
>>
