By Carter Hall
When designing SNAFU, I included designer notes wherever it made sense to explain our thinking behind the rules. For instance, in the data annexes, I lay out a variety of mortars and group them into “light,” “medium,” and “heavy” categories.
Those classifications came from careful analysis of effective ranges, ammunition weight, and other factors. Rather than exhaustively list every WWII mortar, the designer note let me share our thought process with players and gives them the tools to classify additional weapons themselves.
This post aims to do the same thing for Initiative Points (IPs): a practical guide to structuring them in your SNAFU scenarios.
How IPs Balance Forces
SNAFU’s initiative system is a powerful tool for evening out mismatched orders of battle. You can give the smaller force extra IPs to compensate for numerical inferiority. Conversely, you can create separation between two evenly matched sides by awarding one more IPs.
In general, the attacker should have more IPs than the defender. Reaction fire and cover bonuses make defending easier in SNAFU—just as it often was in WWII. To overcome those advantages, the attacker needs superior numbers/firepower, superior initiative, or (ideally) a mix of both.
Design Goal: A Smaller Unit Attacks a Larger One
Imagine a scenario where a better-led, better-organized German force repels a large but uncoordinated Russian assault. Here, give the Germans as many IPs as the Russians—or even more. The German player can then spend IPs strategically to hamstring Russian decision-making, potentially driving the opponent’s IPs to zero and gaining unopposed actions.
Design Goal: A Basic Company Assault
Basic scenarios—such as a company of American infantry assaulting a German-held village—can be surprisingly tricky to balance. The goal is often for both sides to have a realistic chance, but with a historical slant: say, the Americans succeed in taking the town about 90% of the time, while the Germans aim to hold out until a turn limit rather than achieve outright victory.
For the Americans to make meaningful progress, they need enough IPs to push forward. If both sides start with 5 IPs, the Germans might rally suppressed units as quickly as the Americans can suppress them, leading to a frustrating stalemate. Equal-IP scenarios are notoriously tough for attackers. If they are inverted, you will need to give the attacker a large numerical superiority, and just rate the majority of their leaders as +0.
General Guidelines: Basic IP Structure
A standard infantry company in SNAFU includes:
- A company commander (+2 IPs)
- A few company-level assets
- Three platoons, each with its own platoon commander (+1 IP)
This usually totals 5 IPs for a company-sized attacking force.
A typical defender might have:
- One commander (+2 IPs)
- Two platoons of infantry, each with a platoon commander (+1 IP)
- Perhaps one armored vehicle or 1–2 HMG teams
That totals 4 IPs for the defender.
This 5-vs-4 balance works well for historically difficult attacks. But if the historical outcome was more of a “romp” for the attacker, consider adjustments: strip one defender platoon commander, reduce the defender commander to +1, or add an extra IP to the attacker.
Keep in mind that when the IP margin is only 1, a single lucky roll knocking out a commander (or perhaps I should say unlucky) can stall the attack early, making the scenario an uphill battle from then on.
Final Thoughts
IPs are one of SNAFU’s most flexible tools for capturing historical feel without railroading players. Start with these baselines, playtest rigorously, and tweak based on how the scenario flows. The goal is tension and replayability—letting skill, luck, and tactics shine through.
Feel free to experiment, and share your thoughts with me. Happy designing!
