"CD version 4.1 " Topic

OK, I will take the plunge and post something relevant to this board that has nothing to do with computer games or compact disks.

I have been a Command Decision skeptic since I read the first edition, but I recently picked up the new version (4.1) which is a lighter edition of 4.0 that includes the core rules, a few lists but minus scenarios, for a lower price point ($30). I also picked up the Market Garden book which is a good product as well.

I think this quite a good ruleset for battalion level games, it is much more streamlined than earlier versions, therefore more playable, and also is very well presented. It is still crunchier than fast-play comparators such as BKC, and will take a bit more time, but I give it thumbs up and it is worth looking at as an alternative.

Testofbattle.com were also prompt and efficient, really good to deal with.

Would be interested what others think of 4.0/4.1.

I think this quite a good ruleset for battalion level games

Played CD many years ago, is this version at company level ("much more streamlined") or still platoon?

TIA

Elements (stands) are typically platoons.

I'm very fond of it. I've been playing CD since before the first edition and think the new set is the best of the bunch. Much easier to play and still gives a good game.

I have been playing since version 2. I think this version (Command Decision: Test of Battle a la CD IV) is the best yet. Plays the fastest out of the bunch, and has far better rules for battalion level games (each stand is a platoon). I highly recommend giving these rules a try, and not just for one scenario. Play two or three before making judgement. The nuances and combined arms integration is great.

Mike

I like it but none of my group really wanted to try it. They want lighter rules. BKC, Rapid Fire, and FFoT being the most used rules.

I'm going to have to pick these up and see if they can compete with BKC for my WWII playing time.

Doug

Having played since the first, this new version is not only streamlined but introduces concepts that improve the simulation: like HE suppression. Compared to other systems, CD is mature and elegant.

Had missed the new 4.1 edition – and wanted something a bit more handy to carry round so have just ordered it : )

Played CD2 many years ago using 20mm figures and vehicles. We had fun but the players went their separate ways. Having just discovered the existence of CD4 and especially the book of 1914 scenarios, I'm interested. A main concern is how well it works with 25/28mm since I want to use those *really* nice Great War Miniatures. If viable, how does one base 28mm?
TIA

Howdy,

Duncan Adams plays with 28mm figures. There are some photos of his figures on the CD forum.

Command Decision – Test of Battle Forum Index -> CD-TOB – WWI in the Longlier at Historicon thread.

He based two figure per stand.

Merry Christmas,

JAS

The game does look impressive. It looks very 1914-ish. What's his base size-2"x2"? How large was that table? The biggest I can count on around here is 5'x9'. It looks like the Longlier game featured 2 regiments (6 battalions), so I'm worrying that a 5'x9' table will accommodate a game this size? TIA

Howdy,

I don't recall his base size, 2"x2" seems too large. The two figures on a stand were mounted close together. I've sent him an email asking, so he may chime in here.

The table was 6'x8', the Longlier scenario shown was from the Death of Glory – France 1914 scenario book. No modification to ranges or other was made to play with 28mm figures.

Ponder on,

JAS

Long time CD player but greatly prefered CD I & II to CDIII.

Had lots of players for I & II but interest dropped off for CDIII due to increasing complexity.

Took a long look at CD IV (TOB) but complexity seemed to have increased and we found many "shots" being modified off the chart (even with d10s).

Does CD4.1 address complexity – is it a stripped down rules or just less stuff than original version (which I have)?

TomT

Howdy,

I disagree on the complexity issue. I'm not sure what you mean by increasing complexity; I believe there has been a reduction in complexity over time. There was a clear goal in developing Test of Battle (CD IV) not to add additional rules. In my opinion, Test of Battle is much smoother and flowing overall.

It is possible to "move off the charts", but should only occur at longer ranges where the likelihood of a hit is reduced anyway. Modifiers have generally remained the same over time, so I don't understand your comment here. Though there were some changes to them for supression and hasty advance.

Even with d10??? The game has always used d10s.

Artillery and air are the most dense portions (and least intuitive portions) of the rules. The fire, movement, & morale portions are very straight forward.

I think the morale driven nature of the game is a very strong aspect of the game.

Ponder on,

JAS

I think fighting in BUA rates up there with Artillery and air as the most dense and least intuitive part of the rules. I use Bob Mackenzie's simple street fighting rules in preference.

I have no issue with the Built Up Area (BUA) rules.

JAS

I should note that in comparing CDI&II to CDIV (TOB) that TOB imporved game play by adding deterministic spotting and elimintating true simultaneous movement from CD. As we had already house ruled these issues long ago for CDI&II, these substantially improvements in playability in CDIV do not figure into my comments as we had already incorperted them.

Even with these factors considered though I (and virtually every long time CD player to whom I've spoken) consider CDIII & IV far more complex than the original CD concepts. These versions added modifiers to To Hit numbers based on movement (a very conventional rule) rather than prior editions inovative fire phase methods. A lot of other chrome rules were added that may appeal more to pure CD gamers than just those looking for a good fast game. Artillery has become almost a game in itself perhaps needing one player as an artillery commander.

I'm aware the game has always used d10s (I played the pre-release play test verion of CDI). To Hit numbers are now modified off the chart by the "suppression" rule that a single Inf stand within 12" (giving a suppression "circle" of 1200 yards in ground scale) of an AFV gives a -2 modifier to To Hit, added to the "Stationary" modifier of
-1 this gives a typical -3 modifier which takes many troop classes off the chart even at reasonalbe range (since they need a "3" to hit). Stationary shooters increase ROF not To Hit so if modidfied off chart this does not help.

I believe Bob Mackenzie has also elinanted the suppression rule for Inf.

TOB has also added an out of sequence "Suppresion fire" which further complicates matters.

As I've said many times the original Command Decision and DBX are both huge breakthroughs in game design – true genius but over the years both have been steadily brought down to earth by creeping complexity. Both now resemble Guliver tied down by the Liliputions.

Would love to see Frank go back to the original concept (any thing that slows the game is rejected), clean out the attic and produce a "fast play" CD. (Leaving CDIV in production for purists of course).

TomT

Tom. In order to suppress, the infantry must be in cover. So it isn't always applied. The he suppression fire is in my opinion one of the best new features. Just shows we're all looking for different things!

I like the suppression mechanism, artillery, and some other minor touches in the 4th version. The command/maneuver rules are great for battalion/regimental level combat.

But what I most liked about CD was the great detail and differentiation between the weapons systems. The 4th version blurred them all to be simple vanilla. Too many weapons systems have exactly the same performance. If I'm going to play something that simplistic, it may as well be BKC.

Yes I know the infantry has to be in cover, they usually are, however, and with a 12" range pretty much always suppress tanks.

At least in my parts it was one of the principle reasons interest in CD has died out.

Looks good in theory by a game killer in practice.

TomT

It works for me. A simple mechanism. You can always use infantry to support tanks, tank-infantry team (TITS).

Who can be opposed to TITS?

Ponder on,

JAS

On increasing complexity. I'd agree that CD3 was more complex, although they trimmed some complexity the spotting and handoff rules in that version of the game turned me off from trying to play it, keeping track of what had seen what would be impossible.

I have never heard anyone say that CD4 is more complex then CD2 though, one of our players complained about the loss of the 3 fire phases however…

Having played since CDI, I liked the change from CDI/II to CDIII that brought similar systems for resolving heavier weapons and infantry combat.

And the original artillery IDF rules were so complex I made a flow-chart that ran in convoluted patterns all over the page. So I really like the CD4 artillery rules -- and the fact that a stand doesn't have to spend its whole turn just calling artillery but can actually do something else was well.

All in all, I consider the rules to have become less complex but more complicated -- that is, the mechanics aren't as convoluted as they were before, but the combined-arms possibilities and subtleties are there to be exploited -- or not -- by the players.