Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: DCRBrown on November 14, 2019, 08:42:44 AM
-
The latest update to the development of the O Group WW2 rules is now over on the TFL blog and the GdeB blog!
Following on from a couple of recent play-tests we move away slightly from the pure "combat" aspect of the rules into a discussion on mechanisms that cover how we deploy our WW2 battalion, how it advances to contact and fights and also reflect on some of the reasons as to why battalions deployed and fought in the manner they did.
So, we look at the actual deployment of your battalion's companies, looking at how the companies and platoons were deployed or could be deployed, including nut just on-table units and just as importantly holding units in reserve and the ability to commit them to battle at the right time and in the right place! We also look at the advance to contact phase and how we have tried to make the mechanisms covering this vital aspect of a WW2 battlefield just a little different from other wargames in order to try and produce a certain amount of the fog of war. Finally we discuss the actual contact and consolidation phases of battle and how we could in incorporate WW2 doctrine into the rules.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1mZLHXM/3-Russian-Advance.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/generaldebrigadefr/
DB
-
Really like these approaches for a ww2 set of rules.
Looking forward to get a copy as soon as they become available.
Anything in regard of campaign rules?
I am in the process of developing several campaigns for this level of rules.
-
I like the idea of this, It sounds similar to a Bn level game I started to work on myself some years ago with proper TOE 3 men on a base equalling a section, Coy HQs represented etc. I always disliked the way Rapid Fire "rounded up" forces, and that I couldn't split it up into proper platoons and sections, the way a Company commander on the ground would.
So pleased to see a Battalion level game, there is a gap in the market for it.
-
Color me interested. :D
-
V,
Yep, I use 3 figures on a base to represent the section. For dedicated antitank sections, etc I use 2 figures per base.
Though there is no formal basing requirement, so players can use whatever they wish.
Each Company HQ is represented by any officer-type gaggle of figures on a base, (I believe a group of officers is collectively referred to as an Indecision, but I could be wrong! ;))
Battalion HQs are also represented.
DB
-
Definitely interested in this. It is good to see reserves being considered- as in so many wargames getting the most units shooting is what matters.
-
Will there be diffrent TO&E's in the publication? What nations will be represented, and will it cover thr whole war?
-
CM,
There will be different orbats as a guide to building your battalion, probably just concentrating on the main four (Ger/UK/US/Russian) but may well expand with campaign booklets, etc.
DB
-
Thanks, sounds good so far. Guess ill look up battalion TO&E's and set to makeing a U.S. and German force.
Any recommendations in scale? 15, 10, 6mm and baseing?
-
CM,
Aimed at 15mm and 20mm in the main. Can also be adapted to 6mm/10mm.
There's no fixed basing.
I go with 3 figures per rifle section base, two figures for heavy wepaons, etc. Company commanders (HQ) on a suitably larger command type base.
For my 15mm troops I use those smaller Flames of War bases - which measure 30mm across x 25mm deep. I use the bigger standard FoW bases for Company HQs, BN Mortars, etc. For 20mm I used warbases mdf 40mm x 30mm with rounded edges.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wT9nh6ny/Brit-Platoon.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/G9SMR1Ld)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTVyH4q1/20mm-AB-WW2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DWD7QjVq)
DB
-
Cheers! And thanks for the visual aids.
-
My 10mm WWII infantry is based on 50x30mm bases with 5-6 figures. Which are a little larger than what you have used for 20mm, but I hope will work OK.
Do LMG sections need representing? I see you have a Bren group in the first photo? And is it only Company and Battalion command stands that are needed?
So far it seems that the troops needed will be very similiar to what I have built up for BKC, with 9 infantry stands and a HQ.
-
F,
Your bases should be fine - as long as the opposing battalion has similar basing then it's ok.
The individual weapons teams do not need to be represented, so you don't need LMG or light mortars but they can be used and simply represent a "rifle section".
The use of the various weapons/tactics is represented through the platoon's Training Characteristic.
The command stands are Company Commander (HQ) and Bn HQ, oh and the FO.
So, yes similar to your BKC, a basic Company consists of 3 platoons, each of 3 sections and a Company Commander. You can attach heavy weapons as well, such as MMGs.
DB
-
Thanks - that all sounds like it should just work
Looking forward to finding out more
-
F,
Your bases should be fine - as long as the opposing battalion has similar basing then it's ok.
The individual weapons teams do not need to be represented, so you don't need LMG or light mortars but they can be used and simply represent a "rifle section".
The use of the various weapons/tactics is represented through the platoon's Training Characteristic.
The command stands are Company Commander (HQ) and Bn HQ, oh and the FO.
So, yes similar to your BKC, a basic Company consists of 3 platoons, each of 3 sections and a Company Commander. You can attach heavy weapons as well, such as MMGs.
DB
Just as long as they're better than the BG: PzG orbats...
-
M,
Ha ha! lol
Still using your very fine orbats, though adjusted to reflect no LMGs and PCs.
DB
-
Dave, O Group might just give me a means to play out a battalion-level infantry action I've been wanting to launch for quite some time now, based on a 1/144th scale game board prepared, and with infantry figs. and supporting hvy. weapons to loosely explore the actions fought SW of Carentan (the US 101st AB vs. the 17th SS PzGren. Div......around the "Bloody Gulch"es).
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp8GnSqc/Normandy-Tactical-Board-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/2y38DzkY/Normandy-Tactical-Board-2.jpg)
-
M,
Ha ha! lol
Still using your very fine orbats, though adjusted to reflect no LMGs and PCs.
DB
Damn you! I was hoping for a bite... You're no fun any more... :-[
-
M,
Ha ha! lol
Still using your very fine orbats, though adjusted to reflect no LMGs and PCs.
DB
Remember there were all the other bits that we didn't have space for last time - mainly brigade/regimental/divisional/corps support assets.
-
Dave, O Group might just give me a means to play out a battalion-level infantry action I've been wanting to launch for quite some time now, based on a 1/144th scale game board prepared, and with infantry figs. and supporting hvy. weapons to loosely explore the actions fought SW of Carentan (the US 101st AB vs. the 17th SS PzGren. Div......around the "Bloody Gulch"es).
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp8GnSqc/Normandy-Tactical-Board-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/2y38DzkY/Normandy-Tactical-Board-2.jpg)
That is a thing of true loveliness. :-*
-
Thanks JM!
Every now and then I'll dust off this board, vacuum over the hedges, and sit it up back against the wall....
Hey, you mention support assets above - in O Group, wondering if these can be handled "off board", (and even for the battalion-level medium mortar sections)?
Depending on the game's ground scale, so many of these support assets were deployed well off the line of contact, and so wondering if there's rule mechanisms in O Group to enable indirect fire missions 'remotely' w/o needing to deploy these elements on-board (or in miniature)?
-
Depending on the game's ground scale, so many of these support assets were deployed well off the line of contact, and so wondering if there's rule mechanisms in O Group to enable indirect fire missions 'remotely' w/o needing to deploy these elements on-board (or in miniature)?
You would have to assume so, at Battalion level, you would be accessing regimental or battle-group level support, which could be literally kilometres behind the front. The real problem is that in this scale, if you get to call in a stonk, it will just obliterate the opposition. The use of artillery, making it available, but not in such a way that it makes the game completely one-sided, is a challenge with WW2 games.
-
Absolutely, but also thinking in terms of defensive mortar support, and how these elements might be reflected as the enemy assault battalion is driving deeper into the depth of the defended battle sector.
-
Thanks JM!
Every now and then I'll dust off this board, vacuum over the hedges, and sit it up back against the wall....
Hey, you mention support assets above - in O Group, wondering if these can be handled "off board", (and even for the battalion-level medium mortar sections)?
Depending on the game's ground scale, so many of these support assets were deployed well off the line of contact, and so wondering if there's rule mechanisms in O Group to enable indirect fire missions 'remotely' w/o needing to deploy these elements on-board (or in miniature)?
I was thinking more about the higher-level direct support assets such as divisional anti-tank troops, which did frequently get attached to battalion groups, but which didn't make it into the final cut of BGPzG. We did write up all of these and had intended to include them in scenario books and supplements, but 'things happened'... ;)
-
You would have to assume so, at Battalion level, you would be accessing regimental or battle-group level support, which could be literally kilometres behind the front. The real problem is that in this scale, if you get to call in a stonk, it will just obliterate the opposition. The use of artillery, making it available, but not in such a way that it makes the game completely one-sided, is a challenge with WW2 games.
Higher-level artillery is difficult to model in wargames, I agree, but I would argue that there's not much point in fielding a British or US battalion if you don't provide them with the tools for them to do their job. I'm sure that Dave has it in hand :)
-
That is a thing of true loveliness. :-*
It certainly is.
Adding direct fire support options seems fairly straight forward - are you talking about having them on force selectors or army lists within the game.
Lots of artillery is difficult to model - I’m not sure of the ground scale of O Group, but I suspect the table is only a km or so in depth. Which doesn’t give a lot of room for artillery to land in.
-
I’m not sure of the ground scale of O Group, but I suspect the table is only a km or so in depth. Which doesn’t give a lot of room for artillery to land in.
Knowing the ground scale would certainly help inform us to the scale of the combat envisioned (even if defined as "battalion level").
The displacement of the supporting mortar sections [or neutralization of their FOs/communications] was arguably one of the critical factors in overcoming an enemy defensive zone - thus my query about the mechanisms of tactical fire support designed for O Group.
-
FlyX,
All the artillery in OG is off board.
Battalion Mortars are represented by a single base, (any shape or size) next to the Battalion HQ. The models function is to remind players of this asset, and when they've used them or if they are currently low on ammo. In reality they are, of course, much further to the rear along with the rest of the artillery.
Ground scale is very approximately 1” ≈ 20 to 25 yards/meters. Bearing in mind that we are always as wargamers limited by the physical depth of our gaming tables, something that did not impact upon many WW2 commanders. ;)
DB
-
Thanks Dave!
Keeps us better grounded as we continue to learn more about the set's design.
-
FlyX,
All the artillery in OG is off board.
Battalion Mortars are represented by a single base, (any shape or size) next to the Battalion HQ. The models function is to remind players of this asset, and when they've used them or if they are currently low on ammo. In reality they are, of course, much further to the rear along with the rest of the artillery.
Ground scale is very approximately 1” ≈ 20 to 25 yards/meters. Bearing in mind that we are always as wargamers limited by the physical depth of our gaming tables, something that did not impact upon many WW2 commanders. ;)
DB
Thanks for that Dave. Beginning to have remorse about leaving behind all my 6mm in Oz.
-
For a further update on the rules development, take look over on the GdeB site for a full AAR on a British attack during Operation Charnwood, as the rules were put under a serious stress test by the Too Fat Lardies!
As the design process of O Group WW2 rules moves to a close, I received a warning order to attend Lard Island, where O Group would be put through its historical paces by the Too Fat Lardies.
The action to be recreated was part of Operation Charnwood, as the British once more attempted to take the city of Caen, during the Normandy campaign. The engagement centred on a battalion attack carried out by the South Staffordshires, aimed at a capturing the La Bijude and Epron corridor. These two villages were held by two companies of the 12th SS and one infantry Jager company, making up the ad hoc German defensive battalion.
The denizens of Lard Island were exacting in what they wanted to see from the rules. This was to recreate the British attack as it unfolded historically. So, an opening barrage effect, an initial attack upon La Bijude marked as phase line 1, consolidation and attack upon phase line 2, the village of Epron. (For those interested in such things, Richard laid out the terrain with the correct distances between villages, etc, to test the move rates and deployment frontages.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2RcdGG5/Epron_5.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/nX07qzkL)
See the GdeB site for the full update:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/generaldebrigadefr/operation-charnwood-aar-t6933.html
DB
-
Very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. I'm now checking my 15mm stocks to see how much I have accidentally accumulated over time.