Combat HQ rules

[braxenk]

I have bought these rules recently and I am surprised not to see more people talking about them.

Is anyone else playing?

They are a bit similar to Blitzkrieg Commander in scope. The combat system is quite intuitive and does not get bogged down in details but use a rather astute system of attack and defence dice. It makes for gameplay quite fast.

The big element is indeed the activation system where both players get to move their units according to dice commands and special actions they can harvest at HQ. This part works better than Rommel's in my opinion.

I thought that the rules were a bit long at +140 pages but it appears that a lot is made of clear examples and the core of the system is contained between pages 27 and 58 (and again with a lot of examples). So overall, they are not complex and the QRS should be enough to get us going.

I have been looking for a long time for a game where the base unit is a platoon and players cannot control everything all the time on the battlefield. The rules ticks a lot of my boxes.
Time to take out my 3mm armies for a ride!

(not affiliated in anyway to the author and have no financial interest in these rules)

[SJWi]

Never heard of them. Can you say a bit more about them and where you can buy them from.

 Thanks

[braxenk]

Here is the link:
https://wargamesdesign.com/rules/

I recommend to start with the free rules that are more than enough to get a very good idea of the game:

https://wargamesdesign.com/rulebooks/armour-battles/

But supporting the author is the way I went, and I bought the few rules.

I don't want to cheerlead too much for the rules, but I like the ease of play and activation through chained dice alternating between players.

I have
-Spearhead
-Blitzkrieg Commander
-Flames of War
-Piquet WWII

but Combat HQ will replace these rules for the next coming campaigns.

They seem to lack a bit historic scenarios and the current focus is on late war (US, GB, Germany)
I would have liked early war and Eastern front as well

[fred]

I did have a look at these a bit back (perhaps when they were first published, or when the second edition cam out) but I don’t recall much about them.

The WWII rules field is pretty crowded, so rules need to do something to stand out.

[vodkafan]

I hadn't heard of them . Can you tell me what level they are? You mention that the "base unit is a platoon" do you mean the smallest unit? So is your complete force a company, battalion, a brigade, etc?

[braxenk]

I hadn't heard of them . Can you tell me what level they are? You mention that the "base unit is a platoon" do you mean the smallest unit? So is your complete force a company, battalion, a brigade, etc?

They have a simple version available for free and to be honest it looks quite enough to get started.

I believe the game makes you field up to a battalion with one base = one platoon. and from what I see in the scenarios you field up to three companies and support. I am counting 15 bases  a side.

I have based my 3mm armies in platoons on 60x45mm bases. It looks well suited for my needs. I find the artillery rules a bit long for what they are supposed to bring on the table but to tell the truth I have skipped them...

They somehow reminds me of Blitzkrieg commander with a different activation system, more interactive. Combat seems more intuitive and streamlined. The blunder part from BKC is inexistant, I liked it but I thought it was a bit too much forced onto the system. They are also blinds that you move around until your units are identified. I am not sure yet how much it is central to the game.

What attract me to the rules are:
-activation system with a high degree of interaction between players.
-resource management for your order pool: how much you can chain your orders depends on the dice you roll and how you customize them
-good abstraction of combat at platoon level roll AT dice or FP dice, target defends with defense dice. Results have a good granularity and don't seem to be heavy to compute.


We were never hooked by BKC, we thought it was OK but very procedural at the same time, with all kind of interesting mechanisms but lacking in flexibility.

At the moment, we play FOW with my 3mm bases (we play also in 15mm) but we find it in an awkward spot where you play individual tank and infantry team in a very involved way while it really is a platoon based game, not to mention the IGOUGO that simplifies things too sharply for our taste. FOW serves its purpose (has served) but we kind of want to play other games now.

Here we have real platoon level action, with very good interaction and much simplified combat. There is also an element of guessing your opponent moves with the initial blinds and reco you can do. I am not sure yet how much it will work but in past Napoleonic games I thought it was a super interesting experience where a battle could be won before any combat had even started. It was to me exactly the idea I had of Napoleonic battles. I am not sure though if it works the same for WWII.


We need a few games under our belt to have a final judgement but it is the kind of rules that draw you in while you read them so it is a good sign, especially as I hate reading rules

So yes, I am happy I have found a player friendly game engine to play with my WWII platoon bases.

[vodkafan]

Ok thank you it sounds like it is a battalion level game then. I have actually just bought O group but I will check out the free download of this game to see how it compares.
I am really a bit confused with your use of the words "platoon based game" and "real platoon level action" but if you are happy that's cool.

[braxenk]

yes, indeed, I confess I never really know how to call a game with its basic element. I meant platoon based as the most basic element is a platoon. But that seems the wrong way to denominate it, on the other hand, if one says Battalion level game, I understand you play a battalion (or battalions?)  but what is the smallest element on the table?...

[fred]

This naming convention seems to be an ongoing problem with wargamers.

I think to be really clear you need to say both, so a battalion level game, with platoon bases

[vodkafan]

This naming convention seems to be an ongoing problem with wargamers.

I think to be really clear you need to say both, so a battalion level game, with platoon bases

That does explain it succinctly Fred.
To me it is about the level of command. Your smallest unit may be a platoon but if you have a battalion's worth of assets to command you are obviously not playing the role of platoon commander if you are telling all the other platoons and companies where to go, and giving orders to the battalion mortars etc. So your level of command must be the battalion commander.

[fred]

Yes, specifying the command level I think is the typical approach. With a bit of an assumption that bases are 2-3 steps below that.

Combat HQ seems between BKC and O Group in size. With BKC being Brigade command level with platoon bases, and O Group being battalion command level with section bases.
 

[Andrew_McGuire]

I was becoming quite intrigued by these rules until I realised they are only available as PDFs and Kindle downloads. Even the free rules, Armour Combat, are about 70 pages long and in colour, so having them printed is hardly economical. It’s difficult to understand why a POD option is not available. This may go some way towards explaining why they are so little known.

[vodkafan]

Interested to see how they work out for you braxenk.  They should play quite fast by the sound of it.

[Alex Pyrrhus]

At least here in the Colonies, a paperback version of these rules is available on Amazon for $28.38.  Furthermore, the rules have received fifty-seven ratings with the vast majority being either four or five stars.  I personally have not played them, but do find the reviews intriguing.

[Andrew_McGuire]

Interesting. All I could see to buy on Amazon was for Kindle. It’s particularly odd as Amazon has its own printing arm.

Edit: I’ve just found it available in POD form from Abe Books. Amazon UK only offer it for Kindle, while a PDF is available from Wargame Vault. I’m sure there’s an excellent reason for this multiplicity if platforms, baffling though it appears.