Help support TMP

"Looking for a WW2 Campaign System" Topic

21 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Back to the Campaign Message Board

Back to the WWII Rules Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Showcase Article

Microscale LCT(5) from Image Studios

Thinking to invade German-held Europe? Then you'll need some of these...

Featured Profile Article

Axis & Allies: Knife Fight BatRep

A Japanese heavy-weapons company meets a retreating Allied column in the jungles of Knife Fight.

3,625 hits since 15 Jan 2012
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

JJMicromegas15 Jan 2012 2:07 p.m. PST

Hello, I am looking for a set of campaign rules for WW2 land operations that I can use and was hoping for some recommendations from the all-knowing TMP, here is what I am looking for:

- One set of rules that can be easily adapted to any theatre of operations.
- Can use any table-top rules for WW2, played at company level.
- I would like some simple map-based scheme involved.
- Simple and streamlined with elements of supply, attrition, theatre events taken into account, but not too detailed in that regard.
- Ideally I would like the campaign to end with no more than 6 table top engagements involved.
- Icing on the cake, though not absolutely necessary, would be options to include naval engagements.

I have looked at the Firestorm Campaigns that Battlefront has and they require far too many battles to be played out to reach a conclusion. I am strongly considering Operations & Objectives from Great Escape Games, but I am also open to other suggestions.

Thanks in advance….

Caliban Supporting Member of TMP15 Jan 2012 2:29 p.m. PST

I seem to remember that the old Charles Grant book "Programmed Wargames Scenarios" had a really nice idea at the end: an isthmus divided into wargames tabletops with terrain already specified. My own copy is on loan, but if I'm right it would solve the issue of the map scheme. The good thing about an isthmus is that you could include a naval component quite easily.

Rules, though, I have no idea about those! Hope this helps…

Mr Pumblechook15 Jan 2012 3:54 p.m. PST

I'd look at TFL's 'Platoon Forward'.

It's designed for generating platoon level battles but you should be able to scale it up pretty easily, just substituting platoons for squads/vehicles.

We played it for quite a few months, everyone playing an allied platoon and taking turns at playing the randomly generated axis forces.

Last Hussar15 Jan 2012 4:49 p.m. PST

What Mr P said.

JJMicromegas15 Jan 2012 5:07 p.m. PST

Is Platoon Forward a scenario generation system or a full blown campaign system?

Thanks for the suggestions.

Mr Pumblechook15 Jan 2012 7:32 p.m. PST

Platoon Forward is a way of generating scenarios for solo play (if needed), and handling events (replacements, upgrades etc) between battles to link them into a narrative, but it's not a campaign system with a setting in the same way as Firestorm or similar.

You'd have to work out a setting (Anzio / Sicily / Normandy / Stalingrad etc) yourself for setting specific rules, and for any specific 'key' scenarios.

One other constraint is it does depend on at least the random enemy being on blinds (when you identify a blind you roll to work out if it's a dummy or something real, and if real what it is.)

Mr Pumblechook15 Jan 2012 8:25 p.m. PST

Oh yes, it's not map based either as written, but you could easily do a zone based map and say that if you win you get to advance a zone or similar like some of the FOW campaigns.

VonBurge18 Jan 2012 8:52 p.m. PST

I have looked at the Firestorm Campaigns that Battlefront has and they require far too many battles to be played out to reach a conclusion.

Perhaps, but that system also has a method to reslove battles with dice rolls…so you can fight out the battles you like because they are key or cool looking ones and just roll of the rest.

Fall Rot19 Jan 2012 10:22 a.m. PST

Here's a basic set of rules I created for a 6 Player Dunkirk Campaign I did recently. Its fairly basic, but therefore, generic enough to lend itself to something like what you've described in your original post. Perhaps you could take a few ideas from it…


donlowry19 Jan 2012 11:44 a.m. PST

Fall Rot's campaign was so much fun that I'm planning to run one myself based on his ideas and set on the Eastern Front, 1941.

JJMicromegas21 Jan 2012 5:13 p.m. PST

What do you guys think about using Axis and Allies as a campaign system where the battles are fought out on the table top? Or any other board games to the same effect.

tuscaloosa21 Jan 2012 6:18 p.m. PST

A&A might be a bit too high scale.

As far as the other games, great in theory. Implementation is the challenge.

VonBurge22 Jan 2012 3:44 p.m. PST

Maybe something like A&A "D-Day" that has a more specific focus would be OK. It still would have more than the six battles maximum that JJMicromegas is lookig for above, but then again most of the battles could be resolved with the board game's system while the more important or more interesting battles could then be played out as minature wargames on the table top.

hagenthedwarf22 Jan 2012 4:57 p.m. PST

What do you guys think about using Axis and Allies as a campaign system where the battles are fought out on the table top? Or any other board games to the same effect.

If you have a copy I suggest you play it as it was designed.

If you want a miniatures campaign then you can use the map or general concepts but you have to adapt and build your own from it. How are you going to adjust it so that the two sides are balanced? You might try the Memoir 44 campaign books to get suitable battles and find an appropriate formula to create the fighting units. How about Panzer Grenadier?

donlowry23 Jan 2012 11:46 a.m. PST

Why do the two sides have to be balanced? Real battles seldom are.

JJMicromegas23 Jan 2012 3:08 p.m. PST

The sides don't have to be balanced for each individual battle, but for the campaign overall I think both players need to feel that they have a reasonable chance at winning in order for them to enjoy and stay engaged.

Has anyone played Operations & Objectives and can comment on the game system?

hagenthedwarf23 Jan 2012 4:33 p.m. PST

Why do the two sides have to be balanced? Real battles seldom are.

To make the battles more interesting. Note I use the term balanced, not equal. Thus in our WW2 campaign battles the attackers are normally geared up to have more forces than the defender but in such a way that success is uncertain. While many people enjoy the intellectual challenge of losing in style most people want the opportunity to be successful. Hence I design campaigns in which the battles provide a challenge for both parties. For April 1945 the Germans are going to lose but the battles can be fought as delaying actions so the Germans get a win if they can keep the allies advance at a slow pace; the balancing is to make the outcome of each battle uncertain and convince the players that their input as commanders will be pivotal in success. Success in one battle should not result in future battles being unbalanced because of the effects.

HesseCassel23 Jan 2012 8:19 p.m. PST

I thought that the TFL had a campaign system that was set at the company level, also? Or am I misremembering this? And they have some campaign books for certain places/units, like 82nd Airborn in Normandy.

Depending on how your game system works, it can be easy or hard to put into a "zone map" of movement. Personally, I think FoW with its mission-oriented game play works very well for campaigns of any kind. FoW doesn't have a supply system of course, but you could certainly post at their forum or here at TMP for ideas.

Perhaps low ammo could be lowering the RoF or just adding +1 to hit, and low fuel could have vehicles not permitted to forcemarch, etc, just a couple of ideas.

Petracelli6914 Aug 2017 10:06 a.m. PST

Fall Rot please re post your link as it goes directly to an advert.



UshCha14 Aug 2017 10:28 a.m. PST

We at Maneouver Group love this sort of action. Not realy any need for lots of rules. We assume 10 min pert bound. Everybody but stationary troops have an endurance of 8 hours. They have to go of table an hour each way so you have 36 bounds on table. You cease to function after 7 hours, this is Sharpe edged but you should never get the far. Artillery needs to be rationed by the amounts available so they too have to re arm. Then just draw up say 7 or eight battlefields in a row, basically your map. Defender plots where his units are hidden. Stationary troops clock stop there 8 hours provided they do not shoot or move. Now start playing. It's harder than you think with limited resources.
You soon find you need to replace units as they become exhausted or run out of time. Reconnisance by company is expensive it uses up lots of time you do not have.
I can give more details and perhaps a map of sorts if it helps. Our game had two routes and took 150 bounds. A smaller board would use less bounds. As we had engineering it took more than a company to dislodge a platoon, but you set it up how you want to play. Smaller games will not want to use too many force multipliers like minefields, barbed wire or anti tank ditches.

Marc at work14 Aug 2017 3:06 p.m. PST

The old command decision rules had a mini campaign – Stolberg corridor I think. Any use?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.