O'Group, Battlegroup and Command Decision: Test of Battle

[acctingman]

Curious to get people's opinion on the following WW2 wargaming rule sets.

Battlegroup
O'Group
Command Decision: Test of Battle

 What's your opinion on each? Which do you prefer to play?

My big "want" is ap fire to be a bit more granular. From some youtube videos it seems CD:ToB has the more granularity mainly due to the range modifiers to both to-hit and armor penetration.

I'll likely try all three on the table to figure it out myself, but curious to know what people's opinions are on these 3 rulesets.

Thanks

[SJWi]

Acctingman,  I can't comment on Command Decision as I have never played them but have played Battlegroup a lot and O Group a few times.  For me they are quite different games.  O Group is more of an infantry battalion game with support elements. One of my mates loves it, I'm not a huge fan. I found them difficult to read ( an issue I have with most of Mr Brown's rules....), and hence never quite got  on with them. However they are undoubtedly popular.

Battlegroup is different conceptually.  They are aimed at combined arms but don't really adopt historical "higher level" organisations.  The basic building block if the infantry company and tank platoon and you build up from there. I guess you can organise your troops in battalions upwards but this isn't a pre-requisite of the rules. That said the various force lists in the "theatre specific" books are pretty comprehensive, and the books also contain period/theater specific rules ( mainly pretty minor) .  I have played small games with them up to all-day mega-games on a 20 x 6' table with multiple players. I think BG gives you what you seek regarding ranged fire. Weapons have different "to hit" scores at various ranges plus their armour penetration degrades over range. I like BG. They aren't perfect but are slick and well-written. 

I will be interested to see what is posted about Command Decision as I know they have been around a long time and are a well-regarded set of rules. 

[Hoagie]

I have only read through O'group a bit, but I've played quite a bit of Battlegroup, and largely agree with SJWi's comment. I think it's a great and versatile ruleset, in my sweet spot between granularity and swift play.

AP combat is together with artillery the most granular part of the rules. Tanks carry a set amount of AP and HE ammunition,
Gun armour piercing capability changes with range, different armour values for front/side/back, and a hit can generate the results KO, immobilised, pinned and unscathed. I think this is well enough, I don't need to know if the bow gunner's right ear is slightly singed by spalling or the sprocket wheel has come off.

[carlos marighela]

The Command Decision stable are an elegant and well thought out set of rules. TOB basically streamlined the system, reducing the step levels and associated chits for casualty resolution.

Pre TOB, back in the 90s we used these extensively, theye were then revolutionary compared to what else was out there. Other systems have come and gone but these are still just as valid. We ran a Falklands campaign (twice) using these for the land battles just as one example. You can readily fight up to a brigade on one side with a little experience.

They would remain my pick for fighting battalion to brigade sized games.

[SJWi]

By the way I was intrigued about Command Decision and checked the Caliver Books website . They list the supplements but the ruleset itself is shown as "out of print". It still appears on the "Test of Battle Games" website for $35 so it may still be available on the US side of the pond?

[steders]

  O Group is more of an infantry battalion game with support elements. One of my mates loves it, I'm not a huge fan. I found them difficult to read ( an issue I have with most of Mr Brown's rules....), and hence never quite got  on with them.   

Wow, exactly what I thought. I've really struggled to read every rules system the chap has written. Played his Napoleonic set a few times though and enjoyed them (obviously with other players 'hand holding ' me.
Couple of boys at the club loved O group.
I've played quite a bit of Battlegroup and it gives a good game. Took me a while to get used to the need to observe the target each turn before firing' plus I felt the limited ammo seemed to give the more powerful guns a distinct advantage.

I only played command decision way back in the day and if I'm remembering the right set of rules you ended up with loads of chit markers all over the place

[SJWi]

Steders, glad it isn't just me who finds Dave Brown's rules impenetrable. Some of my mates who love the 2FL's games play both O Group and General D'Armee Napoleonics. I just don't find them well laid-out or very readable. Enough of my mini-rant!

There are several things that don't always seem logical in BG, and a couple of my mates wanted to change them. I'm a believer in not changing well-written rules as the author has written them like that for a purpose and has normally abstracted situations into his/her mechanisms. The one rule we do ignore is "ammunition", more to avoid record keeping than because we disagree with the principle.     

[jon_1066]

I’ve only played O Group of the three.  It is a good set of rules with an interesting set of decisions but… it needs a damn good pruning.  There are lots of exceptions and modifiers that apply. 

Eg you lose 2d6 from your firing if you move or will move unless you only move 4” or less which is 1d6, oh but if you are green it is 3d6.

It makes it difficult to internalise all the rules.  This means you have to go through all the modifiers each time, which slows the game down.

A second aspect that slows play is the orders system.  Because you roll your orders first and then have to decide how to spend them you have to plan out your turn so you don’t run out.  This again takes time.  It is random then decision.  The other way round will generally be quicker.  If the decision is first then you roll to see if it occurs there is less analysis paralysis (though not entirely eliminated obviously)

[BeneathALeadMountain]

I’m a unashamed fan of Battlegroup - a ruleset with crunch but definitely not overwhelmingly so: I’ve taken it to club a few times and GM’d it for non-historical players and they’ve all not only really enjoyed it but also picked it up after only two or three turns. Battlegroup will allow you to play a game with a platoon a side (or even just a few squads) up to multiple platoons and gives you all the options to try and build a vaguely historical/reasonable force for the period. I also like the fact you get to represent trucks and other logistical or odd vehicles if you want. The BR system (morale) is very neat and generates tension nicely - we’ve had some incredibly close games with both players (unknown to their opponent) teetering on the edge of defeat. Forgot to say I play in 15mm as it allows more movement and space on an 8x4 table.

I was tempted by O group but I’m not a massive fan of representation/compression in gaming - ie this tank is a platoon. I realised I could use smaller scales and multiple tanks but couldn’t work out how I’d base them to get them to work and look nice!

Andrew
BeneathALeadMountain

(If you’re anywhere near South Wales and want to try Battlegroup out give me a shout and we can arrange a game)

[acctingman]

I’m a unashamed fan of Battlegroup - a ruleset with crunch but definitely not overwhelmingly so: I’ve taken it to club a few times and GM’d it for non-historical players and they’ve all not only really enjoyed it but also picked it up after only two or three turns. Battlegroup will allow you to play a game with a platoon a side (or even just a few squads) up to multiple platoons and gives you all the options to try and build a vaguely historical/reasonable force for the period. I also like the fact you get to represent trucks and other logistical or odd vehicles if you want. The BR system (morale) is very neat and generates tension nicely - we’ve had some incredibly close games with both players (unknown to their opponent) teetering on the edge of defeat. Forgot to say I play in 15mm as it allows more movement and space on an 8x4 table.

I was tempted by O group but I’m not a massive fan of representation/compression in gaming - ie this tank is a platoon. I realised I could use smaller scales and multiple tanks but couldn’t work out how I’d base them to get them to work and look nice!

Andrew
BeneathALeadMountain

(If you’re anywhere near South Wales and want to try Battlegroup out give me a shout and we can arrange a game)

Seattle, WA, so that would be a little bit of a trek! 

I've watched some bootcamp videos of BG and I like what I see, so much, that I'm considering have it replace I Ain't Been Shot Mum. IABSM is a nice set of rules, but it's way to sandbox for me and I always struggled with what is a "good" shot, a "poor" shot and an "ok" shot.

I'm with you on O'Group. It's a decent set of rules, but hasn't stuck with me. I might pick up a copy of Command Decision ToB if I can find a copy somewhere.

[fred]

I've not played Command Decision (at least that I can remember - we have tried an awful lot of WWII rules) but I have played a fair bit of both BattleGroup and O Group.

I like BG it is very clever in how it sets up your force, which is really just a couple of platoons but it lets you field various support elements that still feel plausible. Some of the mechanics around shooting are quite procedural - and they are quite different for small arms, anti-tank and HE, which can take a bit of getting used too. And can take some time to work out which weapon you want to shoot at some targets.

It has good granularity for AT shooting. The break point tokens are good, and add in some random events too.
Aircraft seem really over complex for what they are at this scale.

The books are lovely.

I can't really remember why we stopped playing them.

O Group - I found these fairly OK to get my head around - but I had watched some of the pre-release videos so had a fair idea on key mechanics. They are a step up from BG in representative scale a tank model represents 2 tanks. And a base is a squad/section so again around 2:1 figure scale.

I really like the patrol markers and what they do. But overall we found that they were fairly slow to play, and you really didn't get that many figures on the table, even of the force you had often 1/3rd would remain in reserve. And order tokens were always constrained so you perhaps wouldn't want to bring them on.

Some very clever ideas around reinforcements and them not having to appear on the base line, but up with the attacking troops. But also lots of different mechanics which meant lots of checking of the rules. Even though the rules are up a scale from BG you seem to get less chance to get the more interesting kit on the table - which is probably more strictly historical but tends to make games a bit samey.

Both games do need some prep to make playing easier, as they have tables for armour values, and separate tables for gun stats, so making a stat list is very helpful.