Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: TheBlackCrane on July 18, 2018, 08:50:36 PM
-
I'm in the middle of painting up lots of Khurusan C16th, so the natural thing for me to do was to go to Bovington and buy 15mm Early WW2 figures... In my defence I have been intending to do a 1940 project for about 10 years.
So - rules? Any striking recommendations?
Had been thinking to use Panzergrenadier Deluxe (in fact a while ago I posted a question about using them for Early War) - but I've now been looking at the 'Battlegroup Kursk' rules, since there's a Blitzkrieg supplement too, which doesn't seem to have appeared for Panzergrenadier although I've read comments here and there about one having originally been planned?
Anyway - has anyone used Battlegroup and how do they play with 15mm multibased, as most of what I've seen uses single figures? Would I be mad to try and do 1 base = 1 figure, or is there an easier way?
Alternatively, other WW2 rules which capture the Early War well?
Ideally good for 15mm, similar sort of size, so company to battalion -ish.
For some reason I've discounted Flames of War, don't recall why though...
Any thoughts welcome, I've rummaged on the net and looked at some reviews & batreps but always good to get views.
Thanks
Rob
-
Have you considered I Ain't Been Shot Mum from the toofatlardies. ???
Company plus support 'scale' (e.g. Infantry company with tank platoon support) with some interesting and innovative rules with emphasis on battlefield friction, fog of war and realistic tactics.
Also recently published and very detailed sourcebooks for the early campaigns of WW2.
-
For Battlegroup multi based figures work just fine. I wouldn't do one base = 1 figure as it's a 1:1 game and could look quite odd imho. You just need some way to record casualties. My own 15mm are a mixture of multi and single based as I've taken an age to decide which system to stick with and even now I've settled on BG I still can't decide on one basing style.
-
Have you considered I Ain't Been Shot Mum from the toofatlardies. ???
I had not, thanks, will take a look.
For Battlegroup multi based figures work just fine. I wouldn't do one base = 1 figure as it's a 1:1 game and could look quite odd imho.
Ahha, thanks, I'll think about some sort of casualty record/markers then.
Likewise I have trouble with basing systems - for 15mm I like multibase just for the look of the thing, but it does make it difficult as there seem to be a lot of rules out there calling for single bases. Guess it makes sense at lower troop counts on the table, but I don't fancy singly-basing 15s!
-
When last I was looking around for updating my big battle WW2 rules, I took a close look at Blitzkrieg Commander, Command Decision, and Flames of War.
For my tastes, BKC won and I've been very happy with the choice.
Command Decision was revolutionary streamlined WW2 miniatures design when it came out in the '80s and I enjoyed it a lot then. But the recent edition had not streamlined things enough to catch up to current game design and I ruled it out for being too clunky now.
Flames of War came in a close second. The mechanics are smooth enough, but I found the layout of the rules to be annoying for the amount of effort it took to find the actual rules amongst the fluff. And both the BKC and CD stats lists for everything are just much smoother to deal with than FoW army lists.
-
I had not, thanks, will take a look.
Ahha, thanks, I'll think about some sort of casualty record/markers then.
Likewise I have trouble with basing systems - for 15mm I like multibase just for the look of the thing, but it does make it difficult as there seem to be a lot of rules out there calling for single bases. Guess it makes sense at lower troop counts on the table, but I don't fancy singly-basing 15s!
multibasing works fine with Battlegroup and IABSM, actually I found that in a 'perverse' way it forces you to think as a company or platoon officer instead of being the squad leader. Never been fond of individual bases in platoon+ games. I even play Chain of Command in 15mm with team bases.
Said that in order of preference:
Battlegroup/IABSM. Always been torn between the two. I think Battleggroup does armor very well (not fond of TFL Buckets of dice for AT fire, on the other hand the infantry fire table in IABSM is wonderful. I like the card activation in IABSM, it gives you unpredictable results (good solo) but with the use of leaders (big men) you have a certain degree of control. As supplement are concerned both are great. TFL works on unit organization for the early war era is useful also for Battlegroup! Another plus, IMO, for IASBM is the way scenarios are desgined without points but with a force block system.
Battlefront WW2: it is a close second, sometime I think that it will work better with 6mm. Good free scenarios, and full OoB on their website (always useful also for other rules). It is a level up from the previous two. One stand one squad or 2-3 vehicles. It is good because you have on table equipment that otherwise will be absurd on a smaller level game. You can put an infantry battalion on the table. Tank battalion... well depend on your attack frontage, certainly a battalion sized combined arms battle group works. Because it is one level up there are more abstractions and the pace is a bit slower especially with infantry. Less kills, more morale results slowing you down.
I tend to play those three for my 15mm games above platoon level (platoon is Chain of Command), but Battlegroup has the added bonus to handle well also platoon encounters.
BKC: played a lot of it, utterly bland. I think it ended up with the worst of abstractions/blandness and putting stuff on the table. The more I played the less I was convinced by anti tank fire. Good ideas, but poorly implemented. The third edition was also a bug nest... makes klendathu bugs free...
FoW: I am convinced that some of the ideas are good, but on the wrong scale. Fow and its derivatives plays better in 6mm than 15mm...
Command Decision, loves it. But is not for 15mm. I do not think it is not 'streamlined enough' (another of these things like 'elegance' that signify different things for different players). It is just a better game with smaller miniatures. One 15mm tank representing a full platoon with the necessary range compromise is not very satisfying to me.
These are the 'larger' games I played in a way or another, and my comments on them.
-
One set thats not been mentioned is Iron Cross by great escape games. I've played it a good few times with early war BEF, Germans and French and it works really well.
-
Iron Cross is a great game but I didn't mention it as no early war lists currently available afaik.
-
Another recommendation for Battlefront:WW2. A very well designed set of rules that works for the whole war, and also works well for both infantry and armour and any combination.
-
Iron Cross is a great game but I didn't mention it as no early war lists currently available afaik.
Very true, the friend I. Play with made his lists which work really well.
-
For those of you recommending Battlefront WWII, how does the game handle fog of war and command control? How does it solo?
-
Fog of War: usually not modeled explicitly, but a system with counters representing possible enemy forces is provided. I tried it, it was not bad (better than written hidden deployment as attempted in a big mega-game I participated), but often I found it redundant.
Command and Control: I think it is well handled and easily makes the game solo friendly. At the start of your turn every formation (usually a company, sometime a platoon) must take a maneuver test. Of course it is very easy to pass almost automatic until... you start to take losses, pinned and suppressed results, and a lot of other bad things.... at this point bad things start to happen to your little lead (or plastic) men like reduced movement, fall backs... and routs.... of course the original training level of your troops is also important and plays in the maneuver table. It provide you with a way to fold C&C and formation morale into one and works well.
Solo is easy IMHO.
-
Battlegroup all the way. Best company level rules out there.
-
Thanks all, some options definitely there! Have to do some more reading around I think.
Are Battlefront available in the UK? Can only see them in the USA? I remember when they were released though, always looked interesting.
Quite torn between a lot of them now actually!
I did play Peter Pig's PBI at a show once years ago. As I recall I quite enjoyed. Anyone still play those or are they another ruleset which have been bypassed by newer rules? (No value judgement intended, just my perception that rules like PBI, Rapid Fire etc have fallen by the wayside these days!)
-
Caliver stocks Battlefront rules. I bought a couple of supplements from them for sure.
PBI: good goncepts, poor implementation. I think they have some issues with the breakdown of infantry squads as they are written. The big let down for me is the BoD approach to combat. I cannot stand it anymore!
Rapid Fire has still a following and they publish supplements. Last one was... France 40 battlegroups... hint hint... ;) Bought it PDF, very useful, even if it is too much BEF focused for my tastes! I am always conflicted about them. RF 2 solved a lot of my original misgivings, and it now works better at the level stated (the first edition felt to much 1 to 1 to me but tacked to a larger scale) but I am still not 100% persuaded by some design decisions (grenades!) and how they relate to the scale chosen. They have a pretty good anti vehicle system (Battlegroup borrowed the concept from RF...).
By the way... while I like Battlegroup a lot, I dislike the artillery system, it is crap as crap ti could be more or less on par with the original Rapid Fire and utterly idiotic (when I start to see deviation dices I realize it is fantasy...). Sorry to sound hars, but when people say Rule X is the best without any other comment I feel they are about to become Gollum... lol
-
One thing Battlefront:WW2 does really well is artillery. In fact I've never seen a better system in a WW2 rule set. Really reflects national doctrine for artillery.
(e.g. whether you can use a concentration, or in the case of the US, Time on Target bombardments, speculative fire at terrain features, smoke, mixed barrages, you name it). It also handles airstrikes pretty well.
Rapid Fire is a skirmish set pretending to be a high level one; version 2 is a bit better but doesn't really solve the underlying problems.
-
My thanks to Arrigo and Steve Burt for their insightful comments on Battlefront WWII. It's not a rule set I'd considered previously and I've been looking for something larger than platoon-company level recently.
:)
-
One thing Battlefront:WW2 does really well is artillery. In fact I've never seen a better system in a WW2 rule set. Really reflects national doctrine for artillery.
(e.g. whether you can use a concentration, or in the case of the US, Time on Target bombardments, speculative fire at terrain features, smoke, mixed barrages, you name it). It also handles airstrikes pretty well.
Rapid Fire is a skirmish set pretending to be a high level one; version 2 is a bit better but doesn't really solve the underlying problems.
Perfectly agree, while I was armor by trade, artillery has become my pet peeve in rules. too often it seems completely random or depicted like a single tube is firing. Very few rules have any idea of sheaf patterns, or the fact that indirect fire is not that random but governed by ballistic laws (as long you have good maps and good FOO is not random at all. One of the issues I have is the dumping of spotting rounds and fire for effect all together. The best actual representation of the process was in some older editions of The Gamers Tactical Combat Series. You actually fired the spotting rounds until they were on target and the switched to FFE, but it was quite tedious. Firing spotting rounds is not a thing I like to do all the time. It was streamlined later on, but it works for a game were a counter is a platoon and a turn 15-20 minutes. I usually like games where the spotting rounds process is abstracted (not omitted, but abstracted... another of my pet-peeves... as I said to the students, abstraction is when something is still in the game but you run it i n the background usually in the 'engine' itself, omission is when you just dump it out... usually the latter looks easier... but this is another story).
Rapid Fire... nice game but still a skirmish one pretending to be bigger, but its supplements are quite useful anyway. I found it easy to adapt scenarios to other rules. The OoB info are also good.