"Chain of Command: Verdict on the Videos...Very Exciting..." Topic

As I've mentioned in the past here I've always loved Toofatlardies' (IABSM & TW&T) emphasis on the role of leadership on troop unit effectiveness…IMHO this component in squad level or platoon level (at least) is the most important and yet one of the most neglected and overlooked elements of many rule systems…

Up to video 2 in the new "Chain of Command" series (on Youtube) I really admired the conceptual shape the game was taking but I was slightly concerned that the actual core system would use similar mechanics encountered in IABSM that I personally found off-putting…"fire tables" been my favourite hate …and I admit while it may appeal to others it's just not my thing…

I played IABSM for years but never overcame the jerky, choppy feel I felt it gave to what should be one of the most thrilling and dramatic determinations of a game…the third video in Chain of Command shows a very simple but effective method of firing resolution that really appeals to me…

I have to say though I am very excited about what I've seen so far in the three vids: the system's interpretation of how the command dynamic can be applied seems elegant yet effective…

I believe there needs to be careful navigation and consideration in the design of a game's command mechanics; while it needs to effectively represent the influence of the troops leaders this should not compromise the actual players input …it the point where their decisions might almost seem impotent…there a fine line…

And while its difficult to say for sure; but after watching the videos I'd really imagine the players decisions should ultimately dictate how effective their plans are; but perhaps how effectively their troops carry it out will be influenced by their respective leaders…

If you haven't seen them yet…

Chain of Command Video 1

Chain of Command Video 2

Chain of Command Video 3

Loving how these rules are developing – I had been playing with Troops Weapons and Tactics from the Lardies but will almost certainly switch to these.

Yes – totally agree. The clever use of dice for activation instead of cards will make for a fast flowing game. Really looking forward to these. I believe Rich has a demo table at Salute.

I've umpired two games so far, both times with complete newbies. Both times everyone caught on and were more or less running the game themselves before the end…and these were club night games of a few hours, not game days.
The Recon markers make the advance to combat an exciting mini-game in itself, gives you a degree of control over your own deployment and a chance to mess things up for your opponent…and it can all be done in ten minutes!

I definitely like that they have moved away from card activation to dice activation. Call me lazy, but I could never muster the energy to build all the custom decks and then sort through them for a game (of Sharp Practice).

(I understand that custom decks for IABSM, which my gaming buddy bought, but he never broke it out. I think he ended up selling it all on eBay.)

I have bought Bolt Action rules, and have some singly-based 28mm figures, but it has not grabbed me enough to really give it a go. With dice activation for CoC, I may just have to get these when they come out. I like that they are breaking the mold on this one.

I saw part 3 yesterday and can say that the explanation and examples shown were very clear. The rules appear to be very straightforward and easy to absorb (They seem to be something I have been leaning towards the last few years--fewer charts and quick play). I like the aspect of the recon portion of the (pre)game so that the miniatures can start almost in fighting position rather than the usual set ups I am accustomed to--mini's at opposite ends of the table and moving them towards each other--which looks like it speeds up game play. I just have to get over the "saving rolls" I find common to rulesets from across the pond (I'm in the USA). It's never been a favorite aspect of mine. The rules I am used to are- a hit is a hit; then determine how much damage it caused, and not the- it's a hit but maybe not- saving roll system. I guess I'd have to look at it (saving rolls) as a substitute for all the modifiers I'd otherwise have to check for before rolling a d100 or d10.
Otherwise, I am very interested in this ruleset.

Looks and sounds like a fun game. These guys do have a great sense of humor.

I will be buying one when it becomes available.

Gentlemen, may I say how grateful I am for this thread being posted. Parts 1 and 2 of the series were, I felt, introducing new concepts. Part 3 I was concerned could be viewed as a somewhat mundane as it really does deal with the least innovative part of the rules. Moving is, well, moving, firing is just firing. So, it is most helpful to get feedback here from people who do find those details important.

Let me address BuckeyeBob directly. There are two sorts of effect of hits in Chain of Command. Kills and Shock. The former is entirely tangible, your mate is dead; the latter is less tangible but no less important; you are scared. The combination of the two, added to the principle of a lucky miss, means thay nothing is predictable.

If I fire at you with 8D6 in a system where ever hit is a kill the you can predict just what the result is likely to be over a number of phases or turns. With the effect rolls you cannot be sure in any such predictions. And I believe that is a far more realistic outcome. It also makes for a more unpredictable and therfore more fun game.

It is my hope that Part 4 will link together all of the aspects of the first three bits with some kind of animated overview of a whole game. How I do this is problematic, as the game sees each phase packed with action, but I will do my best.

I should also thank Dale for his comments about breaking the mold. It is my hope that the use of standard 6-sided dice allows all gamers to enjoy the game without any barrier to entry, which cards can result in.

Thanks all.

Richard

Interesting but not for me stylewise I thinks

Rich – you'll be pleased to know I have money put aside (well mentally) already for what ever bundle you offer.

Only gripe is I REALLY like making the cards for games!

Oh, one last point. Can you please do what no-one else does- add an alphabetic index at the back. With modern word processors its not difficult, honest!

"Only gripe is I REALLY like making the cards for games!"

Yeah I've lots of cards too but from what I've seen I think this might speed things along but I'd imagine I'll still add in some random event cards to mix things up a bit.

"I like the aspect of the recon portion of the (pre)game so that the miniatures can start almost in fighting position rather than the usual set ups I am accustomed to--mini's at opposite ends of the table and moving them towards each other--which looks like it speeds up game play."

Yeah I agree that's such a clever idea …"game within a game" …the slow motion build ups in some games can be a real drag especially if you're like me and have a young family and your playing time is extremely limited…

It looks like it is a two player game. Can it do multiple players?

I'm very interested too.

Last Hussar, you'll just have to pour that energy into making nice Recon and Deployment markers instead of cards.

Grey Panda, I agree completely. We played at my office after hours and the recon phase allowed us to get into the thick of the action in a few minutes, while still retaining a feeling of having some control over our deployment.

Thomas Nissvik. You have the rules already? I ddn't think they were available yet.

Tin Soldier, I've played the play-test versions using infantry. The latest version contains vehicles, I hope to get a chance at playing that solo in the next few weeks while recovering from surgery and then get the group together for some games after that.

Well for you Thomas…is there an actual release date yet?

Nope, play testing is still going on so no date yet.

Ummm… Do you need play testers from Aylesbury…

The 'recon game' is bloody clever.
Bet this will gain some traction at our local!

toofatlardies wrote "…Part 3 I was concerned could be viewed as a somewhat mundane as it really does deal with the least innovative part of the rules. Moving is, well, moving, firing is just firing. So, it is most helpful to get feedback here from people who do find those details important…"

Well Richard, it is the core rules for moving and shooting that really make or break a game generally. All 3 vids are great at outlining the system, but I actually started with No.3 because of the core mechanics (I am not that familiar with your systems) I wrote my own WWII platoon skirmish set over the past 3-4 years, and there are similarities between how you hndle relavtive volumes of fire from the different weapons, so the Bren gets 6D6? the MG34/42 gets 8D6, rifles one a piece, very similar to how I approached the Rates of Fire and puts your rules set in a strong position for being bought over other systems.

Between this and Battle Group 'whichever' by Piers and Warwick (I am thinking I will get both maybe for my birthday in July) I am spolied for choice, so well timed on your part :)

This seems to be hitting many of the right spots for me, but I'm interested in seeing how troop quality plays a part in the game (apart from the number of command dice rolled for the entire force), and what kind of reactive gameplay is included.

Glad to see separate LSW / Rifle elements being a possiblity, and at least the firepower difference between a rifle and a MG42 is close to as it should (interested to see if you can establish corridors of fire with them, I really want to "cross the MGs on the tabletop for once"!)

Hi chaps

I was very lucky to be invited to Lard island on Wednesday for a couple of games of CoC hosted by Rich and Nick from Lard HQ, this was part of a planned interview Neil from the Meeples and Miniatures podcast had arranged (look out for a podcast on our grand day out very soon)

In my view the game is a real winner; it challenges players to make the right decisions from the start and allows people to concentrate on the overall objectives of the game rather than the rules.

The mechanics are simple enough to not get in the way of the game but still give a very realistic outcome to play and it rewards good command decisions and punishes bad ones in a way I've never seen before. The entry point for the game is just right, after all all you really need is a platoon and a few support weapons and you have enough for a good game, you can use armour in the games but they don't dominate it and in fact if I had a choice I would take a small recon vehicle over a tank any day.

I think if you a player who likes a realistic game that makes you think you will love this game, I know I do already

Oh and Zelekendel yes you can set up corridors of fire using MG's and by placing your fireteams in strategic places on the table you can lock down whole areas (well until you get flanked or someone drops HE on your units)

Cheers

Mike

Fire corridors are in, that's very nice to hear. I wonder how it's done mechanically. It's high time someone decided to emphasize find-fix-flank instead of just shooting them all dead in their cover!

hi Zelekendel

ah sorry you were talking about an actual mechanic to simulate corridors of fire

the game doesn't have that (well not in the version we played) but by placing your troops on opportunity fire you can cover large area of open terrain and give anyone who wanders into that area a nasty shock.

in the game we played on Wednesday Neil was able to set up interlocking fields of fire with his MG's which kept my troops cowering behind a hedgerow whilst he worked troops around my flank. so not an actual mechanic but the rules allow you to use this tactic in play and it works

Well, opportunity fire is usually different in that you can shoot anywhere, and usually only once. But maybe this is different. By corridors of fire I mean real suppression and area denial. But I understand it's a bit of a hassle to model in game, in any case this looks like a real fun game and the basics are right. Much moreso than Bolt Action, anyway!

So what about troop quality? That's something I did appreciate having in BA, but has this game done away with it?

The next 3 videos are available now. These follow a game from beginning to end.

I will definitely be buying these.

I've been trying to set up city fights, with people concealed in doors and windows. Part of that fighting is the (theoretical) ability to stay hidden, do ambushes, be hard to see once shooting, etc. I've found this hard to accomplish with any rule set.

Does CoC deal with such concealment really any differently than does TWT?

Rocketeer, my suggestion as to the the best way to do that is have attacking units advancing towards pre-determined objectives, and they may not deviate until they either reach their objectives, or they encounter the enemy by spotting them. Enemy models would be considered hidden or represented by blinds that the advancing units would have to roll to spot and identify (possibly two rolls needed, one to spot, one to identify)

Once the requisite score has been reached, the game reverts back to a 'normal game with both players playing as they wish. The key is that the attackers are advancing without being able to deviate until they know the enemy are there.

The attacker could then have the choices to have their troops running, waling or advancing cautiouosly etc so that when all hell breaks loose there is some influence on the outcome.

As for the rules in CoC I can't comment. Hope that helps, cheers,

Ark3n

Rocketeer – we use a two stage system in TW&T and IABSM- Defenders start hidden. If they fire or move, or the hiding place gets a successful spot- the blind goes on. A second spot or fire means it is revealed

Richard, really good job in presenting the core concepts in these videos – would that more rules were explained in this way!

Looking forward to the release – any target date on that?

Al