"Battlefront WW2" Topic

Is there a UK stockist of Battlefront WW2? I am after a copy of the North Africa supplement rather than the rules themselves. Any ideas please?

Steve

try Caliver Books, they do the BF WWII books

link

MikeH – good enough for me, thanks.

Try Miniature Wargames (as in the magazine). They were selling them on sale last I saw them.

Wargames Fever is the link Mark is referring to;

link

They only have the Late War Card Supplement in stock now.

Got my Pacific Cards cheap thanks to a tip off from Mark a while back, took a bit of a hunt to find the site though!

Thanks chaps – a real shame to miss out on a bargain.

I have noticed in the past that they were often cheaper to get directly from Fire & Fury, so it might be worth checking.

RMD – thanks, I wondered about that given the usual $1 USD = £1.00 GBP conversion rate for US products. I will give it a try.

Ii thought Rich quit selling those rules?

No, not at all. He directed his energies into RFF, but BF:WWII is still sold and supported:

fireandfury.com/index.shtml

SC,

I've had a quick total up. Including postage, you can get it from Caliver for £17.49 GBP It'd be about £4.00 GBP more expensive from the USA.

Caliver link: link

You could save a quid by going for standard postge.

RMD – thanks again.

So for 20mm, does anyone else use these rules as written, or do you play the 20mm ranges? A friend who played them for 20mm said they ranges were too long and he plays them as written (15mm) for his 20mm troops. Just curious as to how others play them with 20s.

Depends very much on the scenario, specifically the troop density. Some have so much in a small area that it's necessary to use 20mm ranges with 15mm kit.

We use the rules and ranges as written for 20mm – the game works fine.

I'm starting to take an interest in these rules but have a couple of questions. I'm limited on table space so how small of a battle field can I go with and still get a reasonable sized battle going. Lastly, has anybody adapted the system to hexes? Going to hexes and condensing ranges to fit them goes a long way to overcome the table space issues I have at the moment. Thanks.

What do you call a reasonable sized battle?

RMD's Welcome to the Island scenario has 2 Brit infantry companies, a Squadron of tanks and supporting arms against similar amount of Germans on a 3' x 3' table IIRC.

The ground-scale is 1 inch to 40 yards, so 1km fits roughly into a 2 foot square. That means you can fit most battalion-sized actions comfortably into a 4x6 foot table and many are smaller than that.

That said, and as discussed in a previous thread, some historical actions were astonishingly packed, so I'm starting to use 20mm ground-scale with 15mm figures in order to spread things out a bit.

@NigelM
Reasonable being about what you cited, a battalion+ on both sides sounds good. I'm looking at doing a lot of early war blitzkrieg type scenarios and have at best a 5X3 table to play with.

Looks like I'll take a swing at Battlefront. I've dinked around with FOW a few years now and never liked it so here we go with some new rules. Thanks

5x3 is what I have too, works up to bttln per side approx, anything larger than that I use BKC.

The problem in modern war is that it is hardly ever one battalion going against another. Usually, the rule of thumb was three against one, with the third battalion held in reserve for a breakthrough. In my experience,this makes running modern games with multiple players more difficult. Any thoughts, as this is one of the issues I have been struggling with – and directly ties to a rule system.

HG, you might be surprised how many times battalions squared off against other battalions without a whole brigade or regiment to back them up. The 'force multipliers' often came not in terms of straight infantry numbers, but in supporting artillery, armour, intelligence training, experience, or positional strength.

In any case, if you want to fight brigade actions, that's no problem as you can do that in BF:WW2 too. But you'll need a bigger table. ;o)

Even in your 3 against one scenario the 2 bttlns leading the attack would normally only have 2 companies up with a company/squadron of tanks in support. This would fulfill your requirements quite well IMHO.

But a battalion would lead with two companies (two players) say attacking one enemy company frontage (one opposing player). That equals three active players (two against one), with an attacking company in reserve (no one wants to be the company not on board yet).

To expand the frontage attack, to a regimental level, that would be four companies attacking roughly two (with two attacking companies in reserve). That equates to 6 players today, and would need to be on a pretty big game table. I am fairly well read on the tactics of the time, and this was pretty much SOP for all armies of the period. Of course, company sizes would vary with losses preceding the attack, but still, this is a regimental level attack – four companies up, two back, one battalion in reserve. Defender gets what he gets on line, usually less than the attacker.

Soooo, this is my point – that is still only a 6 player game – at least of active players. An attacking force of less than 3 to 1 doesn't stand much of a chance, especially against a dug in enemy.

Nigel:

If I understand your post, and hopefully you have read mine, what you propose is only two attacking players – most likely against one, or two very depleted defending companies (platoons by any other name?). That is three players.

So let me rephrase the question since my use of historical doctrine seems to have stopped the discussion.

What force structure do you guys use to get 7 players into a game? I am assuming on one wants to be the reserve force either, especially at a convention game.

Wow, introduce a little historical thread into a discussion and it just kills it. :-(

"What force structure do you guys use to get 7 players into a game? I am assuming on one wants to be the reserve force either, especially at a convention game."

For a convention/participation or even a club night game attack vs prepared defence game I will often run all the players as the attackers with the defenders run by umpire(s) (usually me or a willing helper).

The largest number of players managed in this way so far is fourteen, one army commander, two corps commanders and eleven division commanders.

But for a company assault you have three platoon commanders, possibly attached tank troop commander, company CO and possibly a.n.other (CSM, FOO or whatever).

Vs a defending platoon. If the defenders are hidden and dug in with wire, mines and pre registered mortars etc that is still quite a tough proposition. The main thing is 'hidden' whcih havign umpires run the defenders lets you do easily without mucking around with split tables.

Just want to make sure what you are saying. So you are using Battlefront WW2? I am not sure, given the ranks associated with your game. My question was in reference to BF rules.

Company assault – two platoons forward, one back. I wouldn't want run much less than a company in BF.

Again, I'll wait till you clarify your post, as army, corps, and division are way above any BF game I am familiar with.

Missed the bit about the number of players you want to cater for. That sort of size is beyond my experience of the game. Presumably you have checked the scenario page on the website;

link

There are a number of medium and large scenarios aimed at the size of game you are looking for. Hopefully RMD will be able to comment further has he has run a number of these at conventions in the past.

HG, I've been on holiday and there's no need to get shirty because someone takes a few days to reply.

As Nigel says, have a look at the BF:WW2 scenarios page. It's replete with historical scenarios, almost all of which are based on historical maps and scale frontages. As mentioned above, you might be surprised/shocked at the small amount of space many commanders had to work in.

Re allocating players; the key is to be flexible. I would never, ever allocate players to units that aren't likely t turn up until later in the game, or which are going to sit around as reserves. Just allow the senior commander to move reserves/reinforcements and/or allocate them to players as they get into action.

In a typical battalion assault, you can allocate a player to each of the two leading companies (left & right). These players can also happly take on the two reserve companies as they arrive, plus attachments from Support Company, etc. Supporting armour I find is best allocated to a third player, as it serves to disjoint the attack slightly and reduces the incidence of 'perfect' combined-arms armour-infantry assaults. Finally add a fourth player to command the lot and control artillery/air support and reserves.

RMD – Wooha, rein in your horses there, Hoss. You are responding like I was solely addressing you, or waiting for your reply. Neither is a correct assumption. My posts have been addressed to all and everyone who has played BF, and perhaps had 8 or 9 friends to fit into their game.

Perhaps BF was not written for accomodating so many players – at least with actual commands of units. I do like your thoughts of giving the armor to another player.

I have looked over the BF site before. I have run several of the scenarios there. My problem is that I get a lot of guys showing up to play in my games, want to push figures – so I am trying to figure out how to accomodate that.

And all you other BF players, quit waiting for one guy to reply. I wanted to hear your experiences, thus why I asked here. The rules are great – no doubt about that. Just curious if others have had so many players pushing units using them.

Have a look on the pictures page and look at the annual Bovington games and see the size of those games, they are catered quite easily for gamers dropping in and out (shopping for more toys).

HG how many players you looking at using or accomodating?

Last convention game I ran using BF, I had 9 players. Too many, but I hate turning friends away. I will have 8 players at the next upcoming con, but, am running a musket period game – which perhaps is easier for so many players.

At one con I tried the same game using BF, then RF. Of course, most players end up running a battalion in RF, so that means I have 8 or so battalions – which isn't how the rules were written to be played.

I undertand that most rule sets have an optimum numbers of players and units in mind. If this number exceeds BF's (and I suspect it does) intention, then fine. But I thought I'd ask if anyone else has had this situation, and if so, how they handled it.

RMD, made some good suggestions, but I am not sure giving someone an overall command is a very fun slot to spend your time doing at a wargame convention. Forgive me too, as perhaps I should have stated this is convention play, not club. That (I think) makes a big difference in player expectations.

No worries. I think you might be underestimating your audience. While the 'convention game' concept is very different here in the UK (in the UK the players are generally the organisers and their friends, whereas in the US the players are 'customers'), I have managed very large games where all the players were paying customers (including a Waterloo game with 30+ players).

Some players actively want to be the Big Boss – we had no shortage of players wanting to be Wellington, Napoleon, Bluccher or Corps commanders, even though they wouldn't have any models to shove around the table other than their own personal model. In our BF: WWII games I've been brigade and even a divisional commander and it's still hugely enjoyable – your job is essentially to ensure that the other players maintain the aim of your overall plan and to allocate artillery and reserves to the brigadiers and battlegroup commanders. There are always plenty of models to shove around and dice to roll.

However, in my convention games the majority of players are experienced BF:WWII players and are each controlling a battalion or so. Where you've got inexperienced players or unknowns (such as in the US convention games), I'd keep the scope limited – no more than a battalion of infantry and up to a couple of squadrons of armour in support, with each player controlling no more than two companies/squadrons.

As for player expectations… Sod 'em. You can play-test scenarios to death, but it still might not work on the day due to bad luck, bad tactics or just an arse of a player. If the players don't enjoy the game that you've spent vast amounts of time, money and effort putting on, that's their problem. If they think they can do better…

historygamer,

It would appear you are stuck between rock and hard place, you'd like to go with historical doctrine but prefer not allocate players according to that doctrine?

I've run one of the BF scenarios at club night exactly in the manner RMD suggests, 4 on the German side, 1 CO and 3 players with a company each, CO got attached elements to play with. The Brits had 4 players, CO with support elements and 3 commanders each with a Troop.

Worked well.

Thanks for the feedback guys. Good things to consider. Another idea that dawned on me is to run two tables. Just a thought.

You are right about differences of conventions from here to there. These guys are all friends though, not paying customers per se, but many of them drive several hours to attend. I'll keep in mind all you said. Again, thanks for the feedback. I'll incorporate what I can. :-)

Something we do is to ask the experienced players in advance if they want to be senior commanders – on the understanding that they will be providing overall control and might not have much to do in the way of rolling dice or shoving units. You can then perhaps give them their half of the scenario in advance and ask them to come up with a plan, based on limited knowledge of the enemy.

I had great fun as the British Brigadier in our very first BF:WW2 mega-game ('The Scottish Corridor' – it's on the BF:WW2 Gallery page), writing artillery barrage plans and then realising that a whole AGRA (four regiments of Medium artillery, a regiment of Heavies and a regiment of Field, plus three divisional Field regiments) wasn't going to be enough!!! :o)

The Germans then totally wrecked my nice, neat plan and it all ended in a Great British Military Balls-Up, but I had a fantastically enjoyable game, despite barely touching a single die or model.

RMD,

The Germans then totally wrecked my nice, neat plan and it all ended in a Great British Military Balls-Up

You should be used to this by now…..

DB

I have only two words in response to that foul calumny, Dr Brown…

Eggmuehl Bridge. ;)

Anyway, as you're here and as the author of many a mega-game (including the Waterloo game mentioned above), would you not agree that some people like command roles in games and don't necessarily need to be shoving models and dice around?

RMD,

would you not agree that some people like command roles in games and don't necessarily need to be shoving models and dice around?

Absolutely – some players positively prefer the planning, and command & control role as opposed to moving figures, etc.

Most of the fun comes from struggling to keep your plan together and actually get players to obey orders & do as you wish!!

DB

So that's where you and I have been going wrong…