"Combined Arms Fantasy or Fact in Wargaming" Topic

Ok I love philisophical discussions

In YOUR, not mine, favorite WWII wargame rules do Combined Arms work, and why.

I will add my favorite and why tomorrow as it is late for me right now.

As an aside mine are Command Decision and my own game Division Commander.

Combined arms do work in my favourite WWII game. They work because you need a balance of armour and infantry to typically win games. Artillery is in the game as well and it can be a very useful asset. The scale of the game is not such that it is really appropriate to entirely take into account air power and artillery too much so they are not as well balanced as armour and infantry are.

Overall I'd say it is done well. If you have all infantry you are vulnerable to the armour of another force, if you have all armour you have a tough time dealing with the enemy infantry if they decide to hold their ground and dig in.

Pictors what rules please?

Yes. You go now.

completely…essential in fact.
I'd go so far as to say that if combined arms is not essential then the rules aint't up to much (for a ruleset with 1 stand = 1plt)

Combined arms tactics are certainly essential in my favourite WW2 rules – Blitzkrieg Commander (BKC2).

The way the combat system works means trying to suppress defending units with artillery or long range fire is usually a very good idea before moving in.

I have gone off many rulesets that didnt encourage/reward the proper use of that periods tactics.

What Stevus said, BKC rewards combined arms usage in a big way, with the fun of what happens if you call in an artillery strike too near to your own men…

Excellent system, looking forward to getting 2nd edition

Phil

"do Combined Arms work, and why."

Operational. Megablitz. Mainly the interactions of the unit types, particularly generation of high force concentration at particular points by using air, artillery, armour and infantry (where doctrinally appropriate) and operational manouvre. At this level of equal importance are recce (if you don't know where the enemy are and what they are doing you are stuffed), logistics (if you've got no fuel and ammo, you are stuffed), engineering (I like to design scenarios where engineers need to build/blow things up rather than just conduct assaults), repair/replacements (if you don't recover damaged tanks and reorganise/replace infantry losses you are stuffed). I sometimes even work in Military Police (directing traffic). They all contribute to success or failure.

Grand Tactical. NATO/Red Army Brigade Commander. Somewhat lower level. It is a good idea to suppress the enemy with artillery and heavy weapons fire before assaulting, armoured units are very effective in open terrain, rather less so in broken/dense terrain. Engineers have something useful to do. Anti-tank units are good against tanks:)

Tactical. A Platoon Commanders War. Where to start. Fire & movement work. Interlocked MG arcs and reverse slope defensive positions work. Snipers work. Digging in works. Suppressive fire works. Bunching up is a bad idea. Tanks are not all conquering, but can be scary in the right circumstances. Infantry are almost impossible to see in the right circumstances. Marching slowly towards the enemy in the open is a bad idea – why do people do this? It isn't Napoleonics.

They even work in Flames of War. In fact, failure to use them will cost you the game!

You need infantry to hold a position (or take one through assault), you need tanks or AT guns to stop the enemy's tanks, and you need artillery (well, at least mortars) to pin the target of your infantry assault. Assaulting an unpinned platoon is a losing proposition. Period.

I play FoW and agree that Combined Arms works in the game. I use Soviet Mech with T-34s, Motor Rifles and 120mm Mortars, with an SU-76 pain in the Butt unit. Most of my opponents call my SU-76s the 'Evil Ones' LOL. Believe it or not they earned the highest tank kills through two campaigns! (In my Army)

(My secret is to throw them out all by themselves and exposed when my main attack goes in. It puts the enemy in the unhappy position of either wasting fire on the SU-76s or engaging the main attack. You'd be surprised how many of my opponents now go out of their way to KIA my SU-76s.)

Our best Italian player uses a pretty good balance of forces (Tanks/Artillery/Infantry) and has handed me my butt a good number of times (He is good with his Itais).

The interesting thing to me in FoW is how many players I have seen that go 'tank heavy' and cannot figure out why they lose so often.

For me, at least, I want the effect of Combined Arms to be seamless in the game (No special rules to create the effect of Combined Arms).

This does occur in FoW, if you ignore the Super Characters, in Command Decision, and my own game (by design).

BKC not familiar I'll have to look into this one.

BKC works well. The second editon even more so. I'm just finishing the paint up and basing of my 41/42 Nazis to go against my Soviets from the same period. The rules will handle the differences between the two forces, and their use of combined arms, nicely with little fuss.

"A Platoon Commanders War" where can i find it? is a miniatures ruleset, or a tabletop wargame?

thanks

'A Platoon Commanders War' is by John Armatys, it has some similarities to his earlier 'Blitzspiel' – I got a copy of the latter from Irregular. He published a free version of PCW in The Wargames Devlopments Journal years ago but says he'll publish them properly one day. The playsheet for my modern version (A Platoon Commanders Counterinsurgency) was recently published in the WD Journal.

thanks very much