"Barbarossa - the poorest relation ?" Topic

Why o why do so many modern rule sets seem to neglect the Barbarossa campaign ?

FOW – Nothing
BGK/BGN – nothing for at least another year

It actively stops me buying and playing these rules.

Barbarossa is often seen as a walk over for the Axis against lots of Soviet armour that wasn't used again…not enough follow on sales for t34's!!!

There are of course plenty of rules which do cover 1941, but late war has always been more popular as long as l have been gaming.

It isn't hugely hard to retrofit 1943 to 1941 as most of the weapons and many of the vehicles are identical, and it is easy enough to figure out the data for those which aren't.

Erm… We have only released Battlegroup Kursk so far, with Overlord due in April, so give us a chance!

Is only two of us doing it all!

Actually next years releases are not confirmed as yet. We have 'Fall of the Reich' due in October this year, but are still yet to confirm what 2014 will see.

Our intention was to cover late-war first, and then the rest. Certainly Barbarossa will be done. At present we are polling our players over on The Guild to see what people would want, and Barbarossa is one thats mentioned… Its also one I really want to do.

The main thing stopping us is time. Its only Warwick and I working on the books,and that everything – Developement, writing, testing, models, layout… The works. Plus the usual distractions of families and real jobs!

So, while we would love to cover all things far sooner, we just cant do more than two books a year, and the popularity of late-war will hopefully give us the means to thus do the earlier periods of the war.

Any student of the period knows that there were many places where Barbarossa was far from a walk-over, but that doesn't excuse the lack material for the '42 campaign.

Even if the German hardware was better – which it clearly was in most places in '41 – that's why we have points values isn't it ?

I suspect what is really going on is a self-perpetuating promotion to support the SS/Tiger/Panther fanboys …

Piers, I know Warwick personally, so lets not blame him please …

What I find most frustrating is the lack of commitment by anyone to confirm that the period WILL be covered in book # X.

All I see is endless T-34/PzIV/Tiger/Sherman stuff …..

I suppose I'm used to the idea of a set of rules that covers a war or a whole historical period.

Why do you need specific rule sets for a campaign ? To me its just a device to get you to spend more money for old rope.

Yer, I know him personally too, we work on the Battlegroup books together, can you tell me where 'I blamed him', your words… Cos, really I'd have to blame myself too.

Methinks you didnt read my post correctly.

As I said, the 2014 release schedule for Battlegroup is not as yet confirmed.

I agree Gildas. We curently play TAC, which covers the lot.

Maybe Piers can explain why most modern rule sets ONLY cover one small period ? Could it be purely so they can sell us lots of books ?

Is that the true legacy of GW and FOW ? Rulesets who's primary function is to force you to buy multiple books ?

Pete – cynic mode on full blast this morning :-)

Well two books out aint 'lots' and I cant comment on the practices of FOW.

For Battlegroup the books contain the army lists and stats, plus any rules needed for that specific period.

We took the view that each theatre of WW2, and even parts within that theatre, had a different flavour from one to the other, especially at a nominal 1 – 1 level.

The flavour, tactics and terrain of say, the Russian Steppes is far different to the jungles of Burma, as are the troops and their equipment.

So our way of doing it is to do books that bring out the specific nature of a particular theatre and time period.

That doesnt appeal to all, some prefer higher level rules that cover the enitre war but at a more vanilla flavour.

As the mini rulebook is out in April, you are not 'forced' to buy books, just those you want for the period you want to play.

Though Ive never understood how anyone can be forced to buy anything anyway…

The point Piers, is that according to what you post here, you are up to 4 books already and still no commitment to the 41-42 Russian campaign. If the tactics and environment is really the issue, why not simply produce one book for Russia, one for Western Europe and one for the Desert ?

Why does the same theatre need multiple books ? Even taking the Russians, who had a simply enormous range of vehicles over 4 years of war, the equipment stats will not fill more than a handful of pages ….

It's true I'm not 'forced' to buy anything, and I certainly won't be buying your rulebook until the period that interests me is covered – if it ever is.

Well the Russian army of 1941 performs in a vastly different way to the army of 1945 dont you think?

The books also contain scenarios and background for that given period along with the lists, specific rules and stats. The aim is to give each book, and thus games using it, a feel for that particular time period. Also the books have to be kept within a certain page limit to make them viable.

So a game in Normandy will feel different to a game set at Kursk in 1943, as it should.

So far we have Kursk out, Normandy due in April followed by 'Fall of the Reich' in October, all going well. The mini rulebook is just coming out so player who dont want to buy the Kursk book dont have to to get the rules to play Normandy. Bought with the Normandy book, the mini rulebook is £5.00 GBP The idea is that once players have the mini rulebook they can pick and choose what expansions they want that appeal to them.

Next year, we havent decided on whats coming, but 'Barbarossa' is one thats being considered for 2014. Certainly it wont be anything late-war as thats pretty much done.

What rules you buy is entirely up to you Pete, as it should be, hopefully you will find one that gives you what you are looking for.

Our approach may not appeal to all, and I dont think any set of rules can appeal to everyone, but a few people seem to be playing and enjoying it.

If its Battlefront their biggest markets are the US and The UK so they think that Barbarossa won't sell as well as something more on the Western Front in 44/45. They are probably right too. They know how much Russian stuff they sell and it probably is not a lot.
Mind you any company that can do Hungarians and Rumanians cannot be all bad.

Well the Russian army of 1941 performs in a vastly different way to the army of 1945 dont you think?

Not really. In general the overall quality of the Soviet army was better late war than early, but there were still some good units in '41 and some awful ones in '45. So your rules for both "periods" would need to cover that. Operationally the Soviet army was much better in '45, but in a ruleset that's a nominal 1:1 you are not really bothered about that.

"Even if the German hardware was better – which it clearly was in most places in '41 – that's why we have points values isn't it ?"

Where'd this come from? The Germans had huge advantages in training, maintenance and tactics, but their equipment wasn't necessarily better than the Sov's…

I bought Battlefront/FOW Blitzkrieg and French forces for the invasion of France/early war. The rules are so slanted for the Germans that it is no fun to play. I would not invest in early war Soviets for the same reason.

French armor can either move or shoot, so they become sitting ducks….

Thank you Fred, that's what I thought as well.

Murvihill, my understanding is that the PzIII and IV (The bulk of the PzCorps) were definately superior to the BT's and T-26's.

The early KV's and T-34's were in turn definately superior to the III's and IV's and caused the Germans serious problems where they used, but they were the unusual case rather then the norm.

I'm sure intrepid gamers have been playing Early War East Front for quite some time regardless of whether their rules set of choice has or of has not published any specific material for that theater/period yet. I know of folks playing West Front Late War using "Battlegroup" rules already and there is a substantial Yahoo Group dedicated to Flames of War in the Pacific wargaming.

BTW, Command Decision had a "Barbaossa 25" campaign supplement in the late 80's.

That all being said, I understand BF has been at work on EW East Front for FoW for some time.

Even if the German hardware was better – which it clearly was in most places in '41 – that's why we have points values isn't it ?

My understanding is that has been one of the problems holding up Barbarossa in FoW. Apparently designing values systems that keep KVs and Pz-IIs all playable in the same range has been difficult. I suppose they are not rushing in-order to not repeat what happened with the Early War British Armoured Regiment, we later corrections were required.

What I find most frustrating is the lack of commitment by anyone to confirm that the period WILL be covered in book # X.

I'm quite sure BF has stated the FoW Barbarossa book is currently under development.

All I see is endless T-34/PzIV/Tiger/Sherman stuff …..

People are going to play what people are going to play. A new Barbarossa book for FoW and/or Battlegroup may not impact that much.

Why do you need specific rule sets for a campaign ?

The answer is you don't. Any dedicated gamer should not be limited by publications when he has the means to develop stats and rules he sees as required on his own to game in the period/theater he wants.

To me its just a device to get you to spend more money for old rope.

I certainly don't begrudge anybody making and living or supplementing their income through their skills and hard work. But here's the deal, they really don't create the need for follow on books/supplements. That need for something new is already there for most of us. They are just tapping in to it. This is how their systems remain fresh and exciting.

Cheers, VB

Too Fat Lardies has a supplement to "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" called "Blitzkrieg" that covers the invasions of Poland, France and Russia.

They also have another supplement called "Vyazma or Bust". This is a scenerio book of 19 linked scenarios for the invasion of Russia. How you do in one scenerio determines which scenario you do next.

I don´t know if you consider "Rapid Fire 2" a modern rule set but last year they have released two great full-color supplements about German & Soviet tank units in 41-42 period and the 2nd supplement covers very well all early and mid war period in the East front.

But yes, you have a point.

Fanboys can´t field their beloved Tigers in 1941 and instead they have to use "crappy stuff" like Panzer III which doesn´t have supermegabunkerbuster guns and adamantium armour.

Why do you need separate rules for 1941? What works for 1944 should work for 1941. Or is it the weapons/vehicle data that you need? (As opposed to actual rules.)

I honestly think Barbarossa is 'too difficult' for simple rules to work.

The reasons the Germans achieved huge advances are just not because of equipment match up.

If one sides tanks are all broken down before they reach the battlefield you have a problem.

Frankly – simple rules struggle even showing the adbantages of more mobile mass produced AFVs like the Sherman and T-34 compared to fewer 'super tanks' that were never available in enough numbers and often broke down or ran out of fuel.

Barbarossa (and I contend all early war WW2 campaigns) are more difficult to design rules for and they have less density of AFVs – ergo a bad marketting move.

"I honestly think Barbarossa is 'too difficult' for simple rules to work."

I really don't think so. Miniature wargames rules have covered the early war period since the mid 1970s, some better than others admittedly. Among more modern sets (none of which are particularly complicated) Command Decision, Spearhead and TAC:WW2 all do a fabulous job of modelling the asymmetries of 1941.

Command Decision 2 came out in 1992.

Barbarossa ….they have less density of AFVs

Some of the largest tank vs tank battles of the war were fought during Barbarossa.

Von B , how is a KV 1 much different from a Char B1bis? To take either out you need field artillery, 88s, bunker flak, or Stukas. As the KV would be slow, prone to breaking down, with poor visibility and very expensive … Well it's just like a B.
Poor gun too.

Guthroth, I have Battle Group Kursk and am very satisfied with it even though we wont be using it for Kursk.

Why not find a rules set you like and come up with your own stats and special rules for Barbarossa?

From what I understand Piers started out as a fan of the rules and his feedback, playtesting, ideas etc…turned him into a partner. Who knows maybe if you worked with Piers and Warwick your name will appear on the cover of Battle Group Barbarossa?

I think it is a misunderstanding about the Germans having the majority of their tanks being PzIII and IV in 1941. This is from Wehrmacht Panzer Divisions, as of June 41:

3 Pz Div:
58x PzII
29x PzIII (37mm)
81 x PzIII (50mm)
20 x PzIV

4th Pz Div:
44 x PzII
31 x PzIII (37mm)
74 x PzIII (50mm)
20 x PzIV

7th Pz Div;
53 x PzII
167 x Pz38
30 x Pz IV

So roughly:
25% are PzII
10% are PzIII(37mm)
25% are PzIII (50mm)
12% are PzIV
28% are Pz 38

Considering a T26S and BT had a 45mm gun and the T28 had a 76mm gun and they had T34 already – not sure you can argue the Germans had a huge advantage in equipment.

The German advantages in 1941 lay with their superior Command & Control and tactics.

At the very tactical level, differences like radio's in tanks and the Germans having a dedicated tank commander (rather than a duel role as per Soviet and some French tanks) mattered.

Likewise, at the next level up, the application of Blitzkrieg, accurate and responsive artillery fire and close air support mattered.

It is an issue of capability. Dedicated rules can specifically deal with that. More generic rules can as well via special rules in the scenario instructions if the rules have a command and control element to them.

Yet Kursk gets covered,over and over, even though the bulk of the German Army has PZ-IIIs and the Russians are using T34/76. Not that anyone seems to play using them.

Kampfgruppe Commander is also very good covering the C-in-C issues of early war.

One way the Germans would handle KV1 was with smoke. They'd cover the Russian position with it. The crew fearing an infantry attack, would abandon the position.

I love CD's Barbarossa/25. That's a really awesome resource for campaign games.

Von B , how is a KV 1 much different from a Char B1bis?

Lewisgunner – I probably should not have specified any vehicles above. I was only trying to convey that I have heard that there has been some difficulty getting things balanced out and playing properly for EW East Front in FoW. I'm not a playtester. What I've heard is definitely in the rumor category.

I suspect what is really going on is a self-perpetuating promotion to support the SS/Tiger/Panther fanboys

If you think that's the case in FoW these days you'd be sadly mistaken. For example take a look at this thread where German players are talking about how more capable APDS ammo is driving them to drop Panthers in preference for more numerous Panzer-IVs: TMP link

Add into that the newer US Tank Destroyer rues and other US LW Tank Upgrades and you'll find that most "SS/Tiger/Panther fanboys" you'll find are very much less happy about how things are working out for their "favs" in FoW these days.

Late War is still far more popular in the FoW game system overall I'd say…but it's not because SS/Tiger/Panther fanboys. Seems to me it's only against the Soviets that LW uber-tank syndrome really has any application these days.

Cheers, VB

Just play Barabarossa using BKCII ;-)

Bluntly, I'm not all that interested in Barbarossa. If lots of people don't really have much interest in Barbarossa, it makes sense that companies will not make it a priority.

I mean, my entire impression of Barbarossa is the Germans driving the Soviets back until the Krauts had overstretched their supply lines. Not really an interesting tactical game.

yuo just like the allies driving the krauts back from Nomandy to the Rhine
Totally boring

Well, yes, it is quite tactically rich with attacks and desperate defensive actions all round.

I did mini-campaign based on 6th Panzer Divs adventures in Lithuania and they spend as much time defending as attacking. One regimental KG vs three entire infantry divisions anyone?

But where else can you have such fun with Rumanian cavalry, K18s firing over open sights and waves of mighty T-28s rumbling around (and breaking down)?

Lion, as Martin said, that is just so wrong.

Strategicaly it is a one way street until the end of November, but tactically it offers an outstanding range of engagements with the most wide range of troop types and vehicles you could possibly imagine.

The Normandy-Rhine campaign is just as one-sided in a strategic sense, and the 1944-45 eastern front is – if anything – even more one-sided than that.

The most one-sided campaign – Poland – is covered in an astonishing depth, so one-sidedness has nothing to do with it.

Kursk should be the the most boring 'campaign' ever ! No real tactics, just charge big tanks at each other while being blown to c r a p by AT guns !!

I still reckon it's the big tank/SS fanboys driving this preoccupation with the later period. All the really interesting stuff is early war.

yuo just like the allies driving the krauts back from Nomandy to the Rhine
Totally boring

Yeah, I'm not too fond of NWE either. The desert, however, back and forth as one side gets new toys before the other.

I still reckon it's the big tank/SS fanboys driving this preoccupation with the later period. All the really interesting stuff is early war.

It might be important to note that BF has already released two full size books for Early War and is working on at least two more…a "Winter War" Finn/USSR one and a Barbarossa proper. I've even heard rumors of some Early Manchuria work. However, I'm not sure Early War will ever be more interesting/popular to the masses and I don't think you can say BF has been trying to steer players aways from them. I'm quite sure BF would love to see all of its customers game in all periods in as many theaters as possible. Seriously, what do you get the "tank/SS fanboy" to buy for LW after he has his half a dozen "uber-tanks?" Seems like a game company would be all too happy to steer folks to other periods as well, especially those that have more smaller tanks.

Kursk should be the the most boring 'campaign' ever ! No real tactics, just charge big tanks at each other while being blown to c r a p by AT guns !!

Some may rather like that…and just maybe that's how a few gamers' battles payout anyway…so why not do that in a more historical context? Seems better than playing "Kursk like" battles where they are not appropriate.

Yeah, I'm not too fond of NWE either. The desert, however, back and forth as one side gets new toys before the other.

I think I've been quite successful finding something interesting and appealing in just about any period/theater of WW2 for wargaming.

So to each their own…and don't feel limited to any period/theater just because your preferred rule set has not got around to your favorite campaign/theater quite yet! And don't lament the strong popular interest in LW or dismiss it as just a "tank/SS fanboy" artifact. It may just be that the Hollywood take on WW2 has focused many on LW as most WW2 movies I've seen seem to focus on the later events. Fortunately study as brought other periods and campaigns that I find just as interesting to bear for me. My job now is, through wargaming, help show others some of the really cool aspects of less well known campaigns.

Battlefront WWII has several scenerios covering early Ostfront battles, plus the stats for all units involved can also be found on the site as well.

Please, I don't understand

If you want early war stuff why not just make it up on your own? T34 76's are the same in 1941 or 1944, or close enough and it's only a model. Make up scenarios on your own. We did this all the time up till 1980 or 1990 when these scenario books came out.

This is such a bizarre topic to me, because I am old.

It's only recently that WW2 rules have packaged themselves by campaign. So FOW does Normandy one year, and releases all the toys and rules for that, and next year it's off to Operation Bagration. Then there's the Battlegroup Kursk folks, who have obviously decided to adopt the same strategy.

But IIRC, back in the day, WW2 rules were WW2 rules. They were assumed to cover the whole war. The conditions of combat did not change that much between 1939-45, mostly a matter of how much firepower was available at any given time. I've quite successfully played 1939 Poles vs Germans and 1945 Soviets vs Germans using any number of rules (Command Decision, Battlefront, Tractics, Angriffe, Kampgruppe Commander, TAC), usually by jiggling the unit ratings and such.

So why is it now considered "standard" to pitch rules at one specific slice of the war? Is it because gamers now expect to be able to find all background info, rules, and unit stats in one place? I understand that very few people have the sort of library I do, but can't they be bothered to do some research on their own? Or is this just how modern marketing works?

Mark the Luddite

"Is it because gamers now expect to be able to find all background info, rules, and unit stats in one place"?

Which I find really funny since back in the 70s and 80s you had to hope you had a really good library or book store to find any information, while today to do a google search and you get details even the most obscure fronts and units.

Dear Mark the Luddite and Thomally

Exactly! Not to get into an old farts speech, but I remember back in the 1960's and 70's articles by Pat Condray on all the wild and wonderful ways you could carve plastic Airfix stuff into 19th century Cavalry, or Romans or Goths. Today if you want a huge line of the Guano Wars of South America someone's got it. All I recall was those great WWII games from the 60's to 80's where we used any old tanks and loved it.

Yah-- I remember- back then WWII rules were WWII rules.

I suppose next someone will be making up campaign booklets for the 7 Years War for 1758, which you couldn't in a million years use for the battles of 1957 or 1759!

"Why do you need specific rule sets for a campaign ? To me its just a device to get you to spend more money for old rope."

Well said. Just get yourself a set of Battlefront WW2 or Rapid Fire! and get stuck in. If Carlsberg made wargame rules………. these would be them!

If you need scenario support, I'm pretty sure both of these rulesets have supplements that include the early campaign. An 88 is consistent in firepower across all campaigns! So is a 2 pdr. Just switch in the factors you need. Especially at a battalion commander's level of play.

Mark, it's all down to the way in which rule sets are written and marketed nowadays.

Old time sets – like Tac – and some new ones – like BKC – are written as complete units. Everything is covered in the original book, no need to buy the next one.

FoW, HC and BGK belong to the new wave whereby the plan seems to be to produce a glossy 'hobby' guide but deliberately restrict the information to a tiny portion of the period so that any expansion into a different theatre means you need to buy another £30.00 GBP book.

The first book panders to the SS/Tiger/T-34 fanboys and then the other campaings which have already be covered ad nauseum. Only if all goes well will they deign to cover the less 'important' campaigns. (Less important here meaning they don't generate enough cash.)

BTW, the SYW example isn't as daft as you might think. Look at the new edition of Konig Krieg …..

Or is this just how modern marketing works?

Mark the Luddite

Exactly

It might be important to note that BF has already released two full size books for Early War and is working on at least two more…a "Winter War" Finn/USSR one and a Barbarossa proper.

Three EW books: Blitzkrieg, Hellfire and Back, and Burning Empires.

FoW, HC and BGK belong to the new wave whereby the plan seems to be to produce a glossy 'hobby' guide but deliberately restrict the information to a tiny portion of the period so that any expansion into a different theatre means you need to buy another £30.00 GBP GBP book.

No need to buy books for period you are not interested in and with FoW at least, EasyArmy.com gets you cheap, and in many cases free access, to the information you may be after for periods/campaigns that are covered and you may be interested in.

More importantly we've got players playing in all kinds of periods in many game systems long before their preferred game/rules system releases a book for a specific camping, and when that game company finally gets around to covering said period so what? If you have already figured it out, who needs further assistance from a game company? Anybody who thinks that they cannot game in a certain period/campaign simply because their game company of choice has not published supplements for a preferred periods really does not have much confidence and faith in their own ability.

Only if all goes well will they deign to cover the less 'important' campaigns. (Less important here meaning they don't generate enough cash.)

I don't begrudge anybody trying to make a living, so if these guys can support or supplement their incomes by publishing new material for their game systems…more power to them! But You and I don't "need" to buy anything beyond the base rules if I really don't want to. We are fully capable of filling in the banks ourselves. So if their supplements don't "do it for me" I'll skip them and just drive on like I always have. No big deal.

I will tell you though when I do choose to buy supplementary books/material, I generally feel I've got my money's worth. In just about all cases I learned more about the given campaign as they almost always seem to touch on a something I've never heard about before. That then often spurs me to do further research on my own to become more informed. Many of these supplements I choosen to buy have really helped to expand my horizons in WW2.

I have and enjoy BKC which is listed above as one of the "all inclusive" sets that gives me everything I need in one source. Great! It's a fine game system and you've got to love one stop shopping! But because it's a single source it does not really go into depth and detail in any one area. Ok, fair enough….but at least I got all the stats I need…right? Ok. So then get the "Burning Empires" supplement for FoW. The next thing I know I'm learning about some really cool raiding operations by the Free French against the Italians in southern Libya. I had no idea that the French attacked Libya from Chad and now I'm exploring a whole new area of the WW2 conflict that I might have never come across otherwise.

So take them or leave them as you will. But do recognize that a lot of good in terms of general education of the wargaming masses can come out of supplemental books. It "ain't all bad" and it's not some sort of "trap." You should be able to get by on your own with your own research and abilities to push your gaming into areas not covered by your rules system just yet. There is no real "need." And maybe, just maybe, you might find that a supplement does have something to offer that you otherwise may not got from a single source book.

Cheers, VB