"TFL Chain of Command - National characteristics" Topic

Hi,

I followed with great interest the demo videos on Youtube as well as the demo during past Salute of the yet to be released Chain of Command WW2 skirmish game.
I really can't wait to play this game!

Only a curiosity: in IABSM the different national tactical characteristics are modeled using different cards in the card deck.
How is this feature reproduced in CoC, that, as far I can know, don't foresee any card?

Thank you!

Marco

There are some "National Characteristic" special rules. I can't go into detail but Germans get a bonus to MG fire if a leader is directing, and US units with Garands can use advancing fire. There was something for the UK as well but I have not used UK troops yet.

I love the sound of this game, I am also willing to play it too!

However it sounds as if they have fallen into the 'US troops get to move and shoot with little/no penalty' trap. US troops were taught to walk at a steady pace towards the enemy and use their rapid firing SLRs to pin them until they the reached the enemy position. This got a lot of men killed as they were not using cover. Also the way that Bolt Action simulates the move and fire doctrine of the US is misplaced too IMO.

Personally they should get either a rapid fire bonus due to being able to pump out more shots (not necessarily the same as being able to move and fire with less penalty) and should get a slight bump in combat (the US troops will have an advantage over bolt action armed models, but not SMG/assault rifle armed) troops. The bonus should apply to German (or another) troops armed with an SLR. Ideally one squad is able to pump out the shots for suppression while another maneouvres (the combined unit volume of firepower balancing out not having an integral squad LMG)

That aside I have watched all the vids on YouTube for CoC and I really like the way the system looks and appears to play, is it availible yet? I thought it was out in June?

Cheers,

Ark3n

My less-then-expert take on the US infantry firepower: the excellent Garand cancels out the outmoded BAR.

The garands get to reroll ones (on a D6). The BAR is a junker compared to belt fed LMGs as well. US troops using advancing fire WILL get chewed up if the enemy is in an op-fire position. Advancing Fire also requires a Big Man to initiate it.

The game I played on Saturday consisted of lots of back and forth grenade throwing since neither side wanted to initiate CC, the US Paras being outnumbered and the Germans being lower quality troops.

Sounds good then Dynaman8789, and I agree with you on the BAR, so many refer to it as an extra-light LMG rather than a rifle with more shots. When is the game for sale?

I believe it's due early August.

Yes, looking forward to this one.

Morning chaps.

Chain of Command does indeed incorporate national characteristics. Chiefly the difference is in the composition and armament of the various platoons. So, for example, the Germans tend to be more of a firepower force due to their MGs, whereas the British rely more on fire and manoeuvre due to their two team section composition and the smoke their 2" mortar can deliver. The US platoon has again a very different composition and their firepower is supplemented by having a semi-automatic rifle which, as said, does compensate for the lesser firepower from the BAR.

To add to that other tweaks are available which reflect the tactical ethos and doctrine of the specific nations based on the way they were trained to operate.

Looking at the Germans. Their squad leaders were taught that in a firefight their place was with the MG directing its fire. If they do that and spend their command initiative on that then the MG fires more effectively due to their presence.

On the other hand the British drill means that their Corporal is with the rifle team in a fire and movement situation with the Lance Corporal directing the Bren. If he is present they have the option of "five rounds rapid" when he is directing their fire.

The US do have a "marching fire" option which really just reflects the greater rate of fire of the SLR M1 Garand and allows them to move and fire slightly more effectively than other troops armed with a bolt action rifle. However, this does not happen all of the time, and it does mean that if they are using it they need to have a line of sight to the target, and therefore are more of a target themselves. As Ark3nubis alludes to, we have avoided simply saying US troops can do this. It is more sophisticated than just a simple bonus and does reflect the pros and cons of that tactic.

Other characteristics are available, some of which represent the characteristics of weapons, others tactical doctrine. We have made a pretty comprehensive study of WWII tactical manuals for various nations in order to reflect their methods of fighting and then distill that into some simple characteristics which reward them when they fight as they were trained to fight. Nobody is penalised if they do their own thing, you just get rewarded when you do it right.

We are planning an early August release.

Cheers all for your interest.

Rich

Thank you, Rich!

Marco

Great stuff Rich, just watched another CoC vid on YouTube, excited…

Ark

Ark,

are there any new video???

Does this only cover Western Europe ?

"National characteristics" is known as "combat effectiveness" in military discussion.
This paper is a good intro to how thinking on WW2 combat effectiveness has changed over the years. link
If you read it, bear in mind that combat effectiveness of the individual soldier is not the same as combat effectiveness of a unit and it does seem to be preaching to the converted to a certain extent. But from a gaming perspective it is possible a glean quite a few good ideas. Some suggestions -
Expect German leaders to be combat veterans.
German troops will have higher unit cohesion (sub-units operate in a unified manner).
US leaders will vary in quality by unit and period of war.
US units should be up to strength but post initial contact should always contain some green troops as a result of the replacement system.
Allied forces should have extra firepower afforded by attached special units.
My own view agrees with this story:
link

Well, if we are going to get into a strengths and weaknesses type thread (for 1944);

German Strengths – Much more at the tactical level, very weak at the Strategic level
- Absurd amount of LMGs within the squads (so at least 2x allied platoons to match one of the Germans)
- Great variety of squad types compared to the allies (who were much more standardised in terms of composition and weapons, giving possibly more tactical flexibility (but no doubt more logistic problems as a result)
- Auftragstaktik – The ability to let the mission dictate tactics and a German strength throughout the war until nearer the end. Although the allies caught up the Germans had this ingrained from the start
- touching on the Auftragstaktik, having the very flexible command structure (ie any rank was taught to fill the requirements of at least two levels above their standard expectations)
- Indoctrination. All german/Nazi forces personally pledged an oath to Hitler himself. This made them very reluctant to betray their sworn allegiance, hence why so many were compelled to join in all manner of atrocities for fear of retribution.
Weaknesses in my opinion would be very strategic; Resources, very dubious leadership above Battalion level when Hitler would get personally involved.
- Filling the ranks with 'Hiwis' and others that were not intrinsically loyal to the 3rd Reich
- Communications were starting to lack behind the allies in the later war, giving a poorer ability to react and coordinate.
- Intelligence was very poor and left a massive advantage to the Allies.

Allies – Main strengths were strategic and in terms of resources. The US alone could likely have toppled Germany with her resources, never mind giving Japan the boot.
- For the Brits Ultra was a real boon
- Standardisation of weapons and mass production. Better to have an average tank every where it was needed on the battlefield as opposed to an Uber tank in only a few places
- Ever increasing battle experience when the Germans were being bled white.
- US had the Garand which wasn't entirely a game changer in itself, but would give the average rifleman a firepower advantage over bolt action armed infantry and in combat where the enemy didn't posses SMGs.
- US ability to adapt and learn, the real embodiment of the US 'can do' spirit.
- Weaknesses would be as mentioned, would be the US replacement system, this severely hampered US units in the field, constantly compromising the battle effectiveness of units.
- British were hampered a little by not wanting to lose any men unnecessarily, making them generally a bit more cautious. This was offset a little by near brash over extensions such as at Arnhem IMO.
- The Russians, well, run up and at em and get mowed down. OK, they got much better at fire and manoeuvre, but either with such huge resources, why would Stalin care?…

Any rules-set that reflects the above reasonably well, even down to a Platoon sized game (such as CoC) would be a thumbs up in my book.

Now I have read the first link 'thehawk' I agree with it. Your second link is awesome, and I will grow a beard for my summer paintballing excursion.

Remgain: I don't know old chap, I just clicked on YouTube and watched the vids, I don't know which are new or not relative to when you saw them,

Cheers,

Ark

Some comments:

Absurd amount of LMGs within the squads (so at least 2x allied platoons to match one of the Germans) – not every German squad had 2 LMGs

Auftragstaktik – and yet the Germans also very predictable at times. Following an Allied attack, the Germans would immediately try a counter attack. It got to the point where the Allied forces would gain their objective, dig in, and have the artillery ready to slaughter the Germans as they attacked. Even the Allied squaddies were aware of this predictable behaviour.

The flexible command structure also worked against the Germans from time to time. Frequently, they would rush to attack and end up with uncoordinated assaults.

Indoctrination – This was only mandatory for German soldiers after the July plot. I think most of the German army never actively participated in atrocities although I think there was more willful blindness as you climbed the ranks. Of course, I claim no expertise in the matter. Also, on the Western front, many German soldiers, particularly ones not from Germany itself, was quite willing to surrender when the tide obviously went against them.

Tactically, the German intelligence was pretty good. On a strategic level, the Allies were mile ahead, but on the battlefield, the Germans were probably equal.

For the Allies, Ultra really didn't play that much or a role on the battlefield. None of the guys who co-ordinated units on the battlefield had any access to it. They were just told where to go and what to attack.

For the British, they did have real manpower concerns but they also had a heavy artillery doctrine. You missed that last bit.

Hey Siggan,

Yeah I'd agree with your points overall, and as follows;

Typically Heer would have the one LMG, Panzer grenadiers and some SS would have 2 LMGs, per section. However the support weapons available to the average platoon taken from the Company heavy platoon (ie; additional 8cm mortars and/or LMGs, plus the spare LMG or 2 per platoon meant that there was a proliferation of LMGs per squad, giving much higher amount of LMGs per squads available over what the allies could muster.

Auftragstaktik – Agree totally. Many accounts of the Gerries changing tactics very quickly to adapt to the situation. However their execution of the tactics would be predicatable. I recall accounts of the DAK making fire and manoeuvre assault on a UK position, and they would run for the count of X, then lie down for the count of X, then run, repeat. All very predictable. I think the key time for them would be the initial change in tactics that would give intial superiority over their enemies, but battle experience would soon teach negate that advantage.

Indoctrination – I understood this was mandatory for ALL members of the armed forces as Hitler was their leader regardless of the individual soldier's political alignment. As such even those that would want to work against their comrades would struggle to achieve this as it would be in effect being a traitor to their oath. Not to mention all their training as a solider to obey. I think the July plot had more the effect of making it mandatory for all to give the Nazi salute in place of the army salute, I admit I don't know the full extent.

Tactical Vs Strategic – Overall agree, although I would still maintain that the average German platoon facing off against an allied one would have the slight edge due to the flexible command, tactics and indoctrination, but compensated fro due to the resources and strategic resilience of the allies.

Ultrs – I would agree, and more of an over view comment really. It would fall firmly into a strategic advantage, so game mechanics or whatever that would effect the out come (ie, those battalions of relief troops didn't turn up would be due to intelligence finding etc ) You are right though for defo.

Yup, arty the hell outa the enemy, then move in, not great against an enemy that would do a tactical withdrawl of 800m then reposition back prior to the assault. That reposition obviously not effective once Hitler's 'Not one Step back' (or whatever it was called) order was in play though.

Ark3n