"Barbarossa - the poorest relation ?" Topic

Rapid Fire not only cover many Barbarossa scenarios in their Eastern Front scenario supplement, but also have tank formation books for both Germans and Soviets from 1941-42! Lots of scope for Barbarossa in there!

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

Simple rules have worked for me for getting on for 25 years. The key was reading the history and finding a willing group of gamers to play. The campaign has such a rich narrative that it has a life of it's own.

Frank Chadwick successfully "bathtubbed" the Eastern Front to make it fit a much smaller orbat.

link

Clearly it's not true to say that simple rules cannot cover Barbarossa, but I think it's worth noting that the rules systems that do allow for the equipment disparity in this campaign are not used for competition gaming.

What I think some people are trying to say is that there is no way of constructing a points system that will allow PzI's and PzII's etc to engage T-34's and KV-1's in a competition game format.

As far as I am aware, the rules systems that do allow for this equipment disparity are not used for competition gaming.

What I think some people are trying to say is that there is no way of constructing a points system that will allow PzI's and PzII's etc to engage T-34's and KV-1's in a competition game format.

I think it's worth noting that the rules systems that do allow for this equipment disparity are not used for competition gaming.

Ummm the rules have PII and KV now and just like real life the PII or III cannot deal with the KV – so you use art and air and inf – works fine

I cannot beleive this is the reason for 5 years of delay
Yes 5 years is being genrous – I think Hammy has the exact date carved in stone somewhere :)

What about 'insufficient interest to warrant developing a way for early Panzers to engage T34s and KV1s'?

ie, we haven't figured out how to make money off this campaign!

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?

It is bizarre that 40 years ago when I started wargaming we would have given a right arm for a wargaming book that had campaign background, painting details and organisations. Getting such information was difficult. The Purnell campaign series were good for the background, but there was very little information from Russian sources – this all predated Glantz' works. I remember the excitment when I got a copy of Jac Weller's "Weapons and Tactics" and copying out the platoon organisations, only the major powers of course. Nothing on Hungarians, Finns, Romanians etc. These days when you can get the information in 10 minutes on the internet they start producing books with it all in! As for modern marketing and multiple books there seems to be 2 approaches – cover one campaign and then do seperate campaign books as Battlegroup Kursk and FoW have done, or do a basic book and then do seperate army books as Warlord have done with Bolt Action or Iron Ivan with Disposable Heroes. Of the 2 I guess the campaign book is probably the best – at least you get the stats for all you need in one go. I doubt Warlord will get round to a Hungarian book anytime soon.

For those who want to do a specific era or campaign why not try and construct your own ruleset or even modify an existing ruleset and adapt it . I think in modern times we have got used to being spoonfed everything .

I am currently involved in a group of guys constructing a modern rules set because we can't find one that covers the areas we want to do . It is quite hard work and like Piers from Battlegroup has said harder when you also have proper jobs to hold down as well.

I also want to add that Piers lot are doing a mighty fine job and 2 books per year in rules book making IMO is motoring. Any more than that then gaffs and Ommisions tend to start raising their ugly heads and lets be honest nobody wants that .

"I think it's worth noting that the rules systems that do allow for this equipment disparity are not used for competition gaming."

Blitskreig commander?

PBI?

They are the only other competition rules I can think off and both accomodate these

What I think some people are trying to say is that there is no way of constructing a points system that will allow PzI's and PzII's etc to engage T-34's and KV-1's in a competition game format.

A points system is not "rules." Rules are what tell you how to simulate moving, shooting, etc., and the effects of fire.

I suspect that the points mentioned are to produce a balanced competition style game so that forces are "equal" with and "equal" chance of willing.

Rarely happened in RL one reason why my group play scenario games.

But each to his own

I think a lot of the reason historically (in wargaming sense of the word), is not the lack of rule set but the scarcity of hardware to make those rules work, especially for those of us on a budget. Pegasus jumped into the void with their BT7's, BA 10's and Pz 38(t)'s, and S Model have brought out a Pz II, but we still don't have a T.28 or the ubiquitous T.26

I agree with what you are saying. Its a bit like chicken and the egg scenario ie what comes first. The hardware so that it would encourage a commercial set of rules. Or Commercial rules first to encourage the hardware .

Incidently in 20mm Ian at Shell Hole Scenices does a T28 and T35 in 20mm.He also does 3 versions of the T26. Unfortunatley he doesnt have any pictures but I have seen is stuff at shows and its quite decent.

I've always bought rules for an entire war. Big fan of Barbarossa too. All the wierd Soviet hardware is out there in 20mm-1/72-1/76 if you look for it long enough. You know you're a fan if you have a Tachanka…

Murvihill is correct. I'm currently running an online Barbarossa campaign set in AG Center. I had no trouble coming up with plenty of 20mm toys for both sides.

I can't say I've had any difficulty with the period specific hardware in the smaller scales either (my 1941 Eastern Front stuff having been 6mm for the last sixteen years).