Battlegroup Normandy 20mm

[hayeswauford]

A small Battlegroup Normandy game to learn the rules with my 9 year old.

[SJWi]

Hayeswauford, looks brilliant. I'm sure you will find BG a very easy set of rules to learn. They are my favourite set of rules for "combined arms" WW2 games in 20 or 15mm. They aren't perfect but hit my sweet spot as regards playability and my view of historical accuracy.  They would also meet my criteria for "big armour" battles in 10mm ( as with BG NORTHAG), but the infantry rules with individual figure firing and casualty removal rather preclude that.  I've thought of using the NORTHAG infantry system with individual fire teams but wonder if that would break a fundamental part of BG ?     

[Kikuchiyo]

Great looking table

[BeneathALeadMountain]

Great stuff! Always pleased to see Battlegroup getting some love as it’s one of my favourites (only downside is you’re in 20mm not 15mm but such beauty can be forgiven). Your table looks great I hope your minion enjoyed it (the dream of a captive opponent) if not I’d like to be adopted 

Andrew
Balm

[CapnJim]

Looks good!  And kudos for playing with your 9-year-old! 

[MaleGriffin]

Lovely game! Great figures and terrain!

[fred]

Great looking game! I hope your 9YO enjoys it - I think (it was a long time ago!) that was about the age I started playing wargames

@SJWi we’ve played Battlegroup with multi-based 10mm infantry and I don’t recall any problems

[SJWi]

Fred, when you say you use multi-based 10mm figures do you still use individual figures removal but just mark them as a reduced number?  I guess what I am after is a game which can handle lots of tanks but keeps the infantry as an integral part of the game, but probably needs to slightly abstract them, as BG have done for Cold War with NORTHAG. The BG tank vs tank combat is very simple but effective, vehicles are either fully functioning, pinned or killed. With figure removal the infantry "degrades". Probably realistic but more complex. 

   

[fred]

I’m really struggling to remember! We definitely used multi-based infantry in both 10mm and 15mm with BG. We would have marked hits with a small dice.

I assume we used this to track the current strength of the team. But it is possible we just used them as hit points before the stand was removed.

What this is really telling me is that it is too long since I last played Battlegroup!

[SJWi]

Fred, you need to get them out and game it again. For me BG can handle a couple of platoons of tanks, a couple of platoons of infantry plus some support weapons and artillery. Bigger than that and the system struggles .I've played bigger games but they were really two linked games played on the same table with some co-ordinating commander . What I am after for my 10mm WW2 is a ruleset than can handle 1-2 tank battalions plus infantry and support.

I'm sure some would suggest "Blitzkreig Commander", but having just played "Cold War Commander" yesterday I doubt that meets my criteria either. We quite enjoyed the game even if we found the rule writing a tad idiosyncratic, however there is quite a lot of complexity.

Any thoughts anyone?   

[fred]

Agree on the scale of battlegroup - but somehow it seems to make the higher level supports work well too. Perhaps the odd bit about it, is that with it being d6 based a 6s at the right time can make some unusual things happen!

We have played a lot of O Group in the last year - and it does get a few more troops on the table, but due to the activation system there is a practical limit to what is useful to deploy. But we have enjoyed these games, they definitely have the right feel to them.

We very much like bigger games! BKC or CWC is a good choice here. BKC is pretty simple at its core, with the activation mechanism and the same to hit / save / damage mechanism for all weapon systems. CWC is more complex with more weapon systems involved. I go through phases with BKC - it can give good games, as long as you treat it as top-down. But sometimes the activations can make it rather one sided.

Overall I find a good set of WWII rules very hard to find. I do wonder if because it is such a popular period with so many books that everyone has a bit of a different view of what they are expecting from a game

[hayeswauford]

Thanks so much all for the kind replies.

Over the years I have used ASL for miniature, Rapid Fire, Crossfire, and now Battlegroup. It seems to me BG is great for a company per side with some support. Larger would be hard from a figure count and table size standpoint if nothing else.

However, I REALLY like the Battlegroup rules. They are easy to learn and still give a lot of choices each turn for commanders- how to use initiative, type of fire to use, whether to Fall Back, etc. etc. It would seem a game could be played in an evening under most circumstances and the Battle Rating means for army morale that might break your force right about the time you think you can "win."

I am excited to play these more and try out different theaters of war with them.

[SJWi]

Hayeswauford, totally agree. BG has its IMHO minor flaws, and not everyone likes it. One of my mates hates the orders /command and control system thinking it way too simplistic, but I think it gives a decent, challenging game in a relatively short time. Your point about force /table size is really important. I've found you really need to stick to the suggested force sizes for the table you are using or the games can be pretty poor. I ran an attack/defence game with overlarge forces and the attacker simply had no manoeuvre room which rather ruined it.