Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: Lardy Rich on 06 November 2014, 02:39:14 PM
-
After a bit of chat here yesterday, I thought I'd start a series of talking tactics for Chain of Command. The rules are very firmly embedded in historical tactics, so this series looks at how real life tactics apply to the game and how to apply them effectively.
Part One is the introduction, here:
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3282
As always, introductions are a bit dull, so I thought I'd add Part Two as well which looks at reconnaissance and the Patrol Phase.
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3286
(http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Map-1-Allies.jpg)
I do hope these are of interest. If anyone would like to see any specific issues covered then please just leave feedback so I can sort that out for you.
Cheers
Rich
-
Most excellent! Thanks for the effort, that indeed is of interest. :)
-
Cheers, Rich. About to scout them out.
A handy tactic for me to justify avoiding work for 15 minutes or so. ;)
-
Great stuff!
-
We've just posted Part Three onto Lard Island News. Here we look at deploying onto the table from the attacker's perspective.
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3296
(http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Advance.jpg)
We'll be looking at this from the defender's perspective tomorrow.
Rich
-
And Part Five is now up here:
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3311
We cover the defender deploying along with issues of dealing withe enemy scouts and an opponent with overwhelming firepower.
(http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/4Scouts.jpg)
A day off tomorrow. On Monday we'll look at fire and movement. My favourite!
As said before, if there is anything you'd like to see included, just leave feedback and I'll cover it.
Rich
-
Rich, this is fantastic! Please keep it coming. IMHO I find CoC a much better game than BA for my tastes, but I find it's sometimes hard to get my mates to switch. They have more or less all the minis, I think this may be quite helpful to convert the 'unsure but curious' :D
Cheers!
-
Hi Too Bo Coo
That's interesting, we tend to find that most people convert pretty easily, as you say, they have the figures so why not play both? What seems to be holding them back?
Rich
-
Hi Too Bo Coo
That's interesting, we tend to find that most people convert pretty easily, as you say, they have the figures so why not play both? What seems to be holding them back?
Rich
Committing to another ruleset.... I know, it is baffling. Somehow I think, as much as the BA guys say otherwise, its easy for former GW gamers to get into BA due to the pedigree. Part of why I love gaming so much is that once I get the minis done, I can use your rules, try others, etc...
I was going to run CoC for Poldercon this year, but went with Across the Dead Earth because minis wise, I am much closer to having enough ready for a 4 player game than for my WWII stuff.
I for one think it's a great game and although I have not played it yet, I can see that the leader-centric style seems more 'right' to me. I hope the BA guys can forgive me, but when questions come up like, "Do the rules prevent the Sgt from being the LMG loader?" I have to bite my tongue from saying, "In CoC this question would not even come up...." but I digress :D
-
Thank you for this Rich. I always enjoy the "theory" articles on the blog (and the rest of course) ;)
-
Too Bo Coo. Interesting, I suspect that familiarity with the mechanisms is, for ex 40k gamers, a significant plus. However, what a shame it would be if all wargames were simply derivatives of what we already know! Oh well, let's hope you succeed in broadening their outlook.
Some of what is covered in these pieces could, in some way, also apply to Bolt Action I'm sure. Unfortunately the fire and movement from the infantry manuals stuff doesn't work for them as the ranges are abbreviated and you can't deploy as fire teams, so real WWII tactics don't work at all.
Ahistorian, thanks, glad they are of interest.
Rich
-
Some of what is covered in these pieces could, in some way, also apply to Bolt Action I'm sure. Unfortunately the fire and movement from the infantry manuals stuff doesn't work for them as the ranges are abbreviated and you can't deploy as fire teams, so real WWII tactics don't work at all.
As delicately hinted at in WI325, they also don't lay down enough fire with MGs to make fire/manoeuvre at a section level a viable proposition. You could technically pick two five man squads instead of one ten man section, but small units don't do much with their paltry fire dice.
-
I am interested in gaming the eastern front mainly up to 43. These unit tactics are interesting but what of the early war Soviet unit tactics? Where they just of the same sort or not as developed? Most, if not all the info I can find have the soviets as pretty much useless tactically during the early war and resorting to mass attacks. Does anyone know it the Red army used well developed small unit tactics early on?
-
I am interested in gaming the eastern front mainly up to 43. These unit tactics are interesting but what of the early war Soviet unit tactics? Where they just of the same sort or not as developed? Most, if not all the info I can find have the soviets as pretty much useless tactically during the early war and resorting to mass attacks. Does anyone know it the Red army used well developed small unit tactics early on?
One can of course argue that the massed formations the Soviet's used was their 'tactic'. The availability of so much human capital perhaps helped retard any perceived need to develop more nuanced tactics like say the German army. Or it could have been partially the result of so many purges of the officer corps... or a little bit of both, plus some? It is an interesting question.
-
Great posts - very useful. Thanks!
-
I may be completely wrong, but my reading (certainly of the later war) is that the Russians did have (organisationally) low-level tactical training & ability, even if men were deployed en masse. The same is true of the Chinese in Korea - although their sheer numbers and predilection for night actions left the UN forces convinced the attacks were simple zerg rushes, they actually used tactical bounds in much the same way as anyone else would.
That said, the purge of the officer corps directly before the Winter War &c definitely had a terrible impact on the Red Army's effectiveness, as did a reliance on political correctness over pragmatism in tactical and strategic discussions.
-
I'd guess the bolshies would have had low level tactics as well, with the only difference that the fire teams had the firearms and ammo and the manouvre teams had comissars? :D lol maybe some HMG as company motivational weapons?
great to follow Your expositions Rich, I should have tried out the game at Crisis
-
The Soviets are interesting as they do not have a doctrine of fire and movement within the section. They CAN and did split down into scout teams, but that was very much according to local situation. As a rule the Soviets deployed as complete sections and relied on support weapons for the firepower element to cover the attack. Their artillery was famously uncontrolled, so the mass initial bombardment was generally followed up by a rapid advance as the infantry sought to gain as much ground as possible before the defenders were able to react - hence the image of the rushing Uhrah! charge.
That said, from the Winter War onwards, the Soviets were VERY quick to analyse the tactics they were using and develop new ones. In Finland in the winter of 1939 they literally stopped the war for a few weeks while they developed new tactics and then restarted their attacks with a much better performance. 1941 was a terrible disaster for the Soviets, but from 1942 on wards they became very good at developing tactical solutions to deal with specific issues. So, ultimately, the Soviets are a very interesting but inconsistent force.
In Chain of Command this is reflected by the fact that they do not have the tactical doctrine to break down into teams. This doesn't mean you as a player cannot do that, it just takes a bit of organisational energy to make it happen. They are, however, a cheap force, so tend to get a decent slice of support options and that provides them with the base of fire around which the sections manoeuvre.
Rich
-
former user
There's always next year! ;)
Rich
-
The Soviets are fun to play with, but CoC makes me with for a platoon of Brits or Americans plus some suitable supports just to be able to try out some of that corrupt Capitalist tactical dogma...
-
Interesting discussion about the Soviets. After their standing army was all but destroyed in the first few weeks of Barbarossa, they tended to just conscript peasants ad hoc, issue them Moisins and throw them at the Germans willy-nilly. I always thought / guessed that this explained the awful tactics in 41 and 42 and presumed they got better in 43-45. Any suggestion that their tactical doctrine changed and got better as the war progressed?
Second, I always thought that the standard Soviet solution to these thorny tactical points was simply to quintuple or sextuple the # of troops involved and overwhelm the Germans on a narrow front to achieve a breakthrough that the T-34's and cossacks could then exploit. Comments?
Third, if there was no breakdown into fire and movement elements within the Soviet section, why then did they not issue the DP's to a platoon-based "lmg only" section as a fire base in the way that the Brits issued Lewis Guns at the platoon level in WW1?
-
@Rich, You should consider offering a download file of Your tactical assessments once You have finished a chapter and have implemented editing. This is a whole new game value.
So, provided I am not misunderstanding things, what I am missing a bit in part two is consideration about the jump-off points being chosen so as to be in a position to cover each other if they are threatened to being overrun. Am I right or is this rather achieved through manouvre?
On the level of force composition (a different topic), I am often missing in a wargame the implementation of dedicated recon units. However, I might assume that 28mm (if played tactical) is not the right scale for this kind of force differentiation? The described infantry tactics could be therefore the situation after recon units have spotted the general deployment area of the enemy and the infantry has been dropped off to infiltrate.
I could imagine another gaming premise where two fast motorized recon teams attempt a combat recon by element of surprise and then the assault element of the recon unit appears to engage the deployed enemy. Would this kind of scenario be achievable in this scale? All too often I see rules that upscale very quickly to the tanks barging in, so the easiest "tactical" option lies in the force composition, and all ends up in an arms race of who can deploy the best firepower. I am trying to collect towards the mechanized combined arms doctrine, I had the tank overkill earlier in my wargaming career and I think it does not work in 28mm unless you have very large tables and consequently a very long gaming time.
-
First of all, many thanks for Rich posting the tactics discussion, need to read them through with time and hopefully learn something :)
Here's couple of pics from "Suomalainen ja venäläinen taktiikka talvisodassa" (Finnish and Russian tactics in Winter War) by Colonel Y.A.Järvinen. Besides this book he also wrote "Armoured forces and Russian Armour tactics" (1937) and "The Battles of Continuation War: Continuation War Tactics and Actions".
This first pic shows Finnish (black) regimental defense against Soviet (white) divisional attack. I guess most of you don't understand Finnish that well so maybe I should translate few words… if needed?
(http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j384/pocolocopocoloco/IMG_4257_zpsae937589.jpg) (http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/pocolocopocoloco/media/IMG_4257_zpsae937589.jpg.html)
Second pic shows Finnish divisional attack against Soviet regimental defense.
(http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j384/pocolocopocoloco/IMG_4258_zpscf7b5a9f.jpg) (http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/pocolocopocoloco/media/IMG_4258_zpscf7b5a9f.jpg.html)
It can be said that at overall level, the Finnish doctrine included suggestions whereas the Soviet doctrine included commands and orders. Both doctrines did emphasize a strong spirit of attacking, encirclement and aimed to annihilation of enemy forces. Finnish artillery acted in very orchestrated and concentrated manner (one factor being the ammo situation) whereas Soviet artillery, as stated in previous posts, acted quite liberally. Winter and forest was seen by the Finns as an ally whereas Soviet doctrine saw them as a hindrance for operations.
There's lots of useful insight into Finnish and Soviet tactics but going though it all could prove too much here, IIRC the book is also available in other language besides Finnish. And also there's an article for CoC about Finnish tactics in CoC forums???
-
THX for sharing, I don't understand anything though :D
-
former user :D
So here goes for the first pic:
tykistö = artillery
rykmentin reservi = regimental reserve
tukiryhmät = support groups
patl:n reservi = battalion reserve
tukilinja = support line
päävastarinta-asema = main opposition/defence station
pääpuolustuslinja = main defense line
kompp:n res = company reserve
eteentyönnettyjä tukikohtia = forward bases
taisteluasema = battle/defence base
etuvartioasema = sentry bases
etuvartiolinja = sentry line
tukipsv.ryhmä = support armor group/force
sitova ryhmä = engaging group/force
patl:n tukitykistöä = battalion support artillery
iskuryhmä = strike force
reservi = reserve
kaukotoiminta-psv.ryhmä = long range armour force
rykmentin tukitykistöä = regimental support artillery
kaukotoimintatykistöä = long range artillery
-
great! THX!
-
Well, I wasn't going to do one today, but I sketched this out while watching the Remembrance Sunday service on the box.
Part Five, Fire & Movement is now on Lard Island News.
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3319
(http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/5Find.jpg)
Lots of people have been asking if we can package this up in a PDf once the series is complete, and we will indeed do that.
Cheers
Rich
-
Thanks for the new article, Rich - and indeed, for the entire series.
I notice that you drew a distinction between platoon tactical organization and functions for US mech inf and paratroopers on the one hand and ordinary "leg" infantry on the other. I know that they differed in that the former category had the Browning .30 cal. lmg issued at platoon level to replace the BAR.
Is the tactical and organizational difference discussed in any more depth in the CoC rules or the supplements?
-
Too Bo Coo. Interesting, I suspect that familiarity with the mechanisms is, for ex 40k gamers, a significant plus. However, what a shame it would be if all wargames were simply derivatives of what we already know! Oh well, let's hope you succeed in broadening their outlook.
I'm waiting for that first sign of 'game fatigue' with BA and then I jump! :D I've been putting together the markers, etc to be ready. We have a nice group but they tend towards the larger publishers like Battlefront, GW, Warlord, etc. But all it will take is one chap to say yes and I think it'll be a done deal. Fingers crossed!
-
Thanks for making these tactical lessons Rich. Very interesting :)
-
Huevens, the main rules give the breakdown of the platoons we are talking about in terms of structure and how the teams made up the squads, but they don't particularly discuss the tactics. The US armored Rifle Platoon has two rifle squads, but it also has a MG squad of two 0.30 cal teams and a Mortar squad with one 60mm mortar. So they would use the MGs and mortars to put down fire while the two rifle teams manoeuvred to outflank and attack. Parachute infantry are different again. On D-Day they only had two squads per platoon (they added a third before Market Garden) and a Mortar squad. You need to handle these blokes very differently, with one squad stationary putting down fire while the other advances, then leapfrog. The mortar just keeps banging away whoever is moving. They are a VERY punchy force and put out a lot of firepower, but they can be a bit brittle on D-Day due to the small platoon size. That said, I've neve rlost a game with them. It's like two big clunking fists smashing all resistance to one side.
Too Bo Coo, Sounds like a cunning plan! We're not exactly a small company, we just sell rules as opposed to figure ranges, something we like to think means we will never write any "cool" rules just to sell an expensive model! :o :D You can tell your pals that at Crisis Chain of Command won Best Participation Game with our game AND most innovative game for James and Scrivs Keren game, so we do have a bit of a track record! Lots of CoC players in Benelux too (well, BeNe, not so much Lux).
Garder, Glad you find them helpful.
More tomorrow maybe.
Rich
-
hmm, I do have a pretty good insight into french typical platoon organization, however I wonder if they adopted british and US doctrine respectively when they fought as part of their forces (and not only wore their uniforms)
-
Here might be an interesting page for some of you... battalion level organisation for few major participants of WW2. If you follow the links, you will find also more accurate breakdown to company and platoon level of things.
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/
-
This has made for really interesting reading. We haven't gamed WWII for over a year now and I've been looking at different rule sets. I picked up Bolt Action but it wasnt for me. Since CoC was previewed there have been elements that really appealed. These articles really cement that interest as tactical play is a big plus point for our group.
-
Huevens, the main rules give the breakdown of the platoons we are talking about in terms of structure and how the teams made up the squads, but they don't particularly discuss the tactics. The US armored Rifle Platoon has two rifle squads, but it also has a MG squad of two 0.30 cal teams and a Mortar squad with one 60mm mortar. So they would use the MGs and mortars to put down fire while the two rifle teams manoeuvred to outflank and attack. Parachute infantry are different again. On D-Day they only had two squads per platoon (they added a third before Market Garden) and a Mortar squad. You need to handle these blokes very differently, with one squad stationary putting down fire while the other advances, then leapfrog. The mortar just keeps banging away whoever is moving. They are a VERY punchy force and put out a lot of firepower, but they can be a bit brittle on D-Day due to the small platoon size. That said, I've never lost a game with them. It's like two big clunking fists smashing all resistance to one side.
Rich
Thanks, Rich. Maybe at some point, there could be a page on the blog w crib notes of how to fight each kind of force. CoC-rookies like myself would find it useful.
Interestingly enough, I have just finished reading the Nijmegen chapter in Martin Bowman's Market Garden book. I noted w interest comments from US airborne officers that they felt they had no difficulty handling non tank supported German infantry - not only in Holland, but throughout the war. I took that to mean that they had tactical procedures worked out to cope with German infantry tactics and outplay them and thought of your CoC pieces.
-
Fascinating discussion
-
Morning all. Somehow I managed not to post Part Six here yesterday. No idea how I did that.
Anyway, here are part six on resource placement:
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3329
And part seven on "Fish & Chips", FIBUA or whatever we want to call it:
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=3338
In the next week I'll be stitching these all together into one PDF manual which will be free to download. As always, any feedback gratefully received.
Rich
(http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/7House1.jpg)
-
Best fish & chips I've had in ages! :D