"Do you prefer CoC or TW&T?" Topic

Now that the Too Fat Lardies have 2 sets of platoon level WW2 rules out, interested to know from those who have tried both which they prefer and why?

I have not played TW&T but I gather it has similar mechanics to IABSM. I tried IABSM and really din't get on with it. OTOH the videos of CoC have really impressed me and I plan to buy the rules.

I keep reading this a "Call of Cthulhu"….sigh…

I keep reading this a "Call of Cthulhu"

Whew! I thought I was the only one doing that!

I find reasonably equal amounts of CoC and TW&T make for an enjoyable evening…

I keep reading this a "Call of Cthulhu"

Whew! I thought I was the only one doing that!

I think a lot of us read it that way. CoC was tone of the biggest RPGs ever after all.

Bit like "Alien Squad Leader" – ASL will always be "Advanced Squad Leader" to me.

It's only when the CoC and the TW&T combine does it get really interesting…

OTOH the videos of CoC have really impressed me and I plan to buy the rules.

Where are the videos to be found? Googling "videos of CoC" might not get the right thing!

I find reasonably equal amounts of CoC and TW&T make for an enjoyable evening…

Things must be over very quickly then if you have time for both?!

There are videos on the Lardies' YouTube channel:

YouTube link

I really like playing with TW&T but I think the missus may prefer CoC.
Some fellas like both but that's fine with me.

…….ahem!

I have been pondering the Chain of Command vs Troops Weapons and Tactics debate and feel any action involving more than a platoon each plus support may be easier to run with the latter. So if I have a British company plus tanks attacking an entrenched German platoon with supporting pak or panzer, it seems less cumbersome to use the card activation method.

The ladies may prove me wrong, especially after a few more games of Chain of Command as I get more familiar with it, and I know Rich Clarke suggested a multi-platoon method on another thread, but for now I prefer reserving the newer set for platoon vs platoon.

Can you clarify Munchhead (as I have never played IABSM and TW&T) the card activation that's mentioned, I take it that there's a card for each unit and each named to match each unit? So if you have 3 infantry Sections A, B and C, a 6pdr AT gun and a tank, you will have 5no. cards named Section A, B and C, AT gun and tank, as would your opponent? These cards, are they then shuffled together to allow them to be drawn individually and randomly to determine unit activation? Please clarify old chap.

I have been pondering the Chain of Command vs Troops Weapons and Tactics debate and feel any action involving more than a platoon each plus support may be easier to run with the latter.

I also have been pondering. This is where I struggle with the subtle variations in games as they creep up the various gaming scales.You say you would go up a scale and I am speculating that TW&T is more like FOW scale, just shy of having individually based minis. Either way if you replaced all those lovely minis at whatever scale with a non-descript marker (such as pennies or plastic tiddlywinks and just used the rules as the 'variable' wouldn't you still end up with each player (one at 28mm, one at 15mm) both would end up pretty much with 10 chits rolling 10-14 dice at another 10 chits. So in he end isn't it really the same thing and so just down to your imagination really, to differentiate between the scales? I have only ever played 28mm gaming and a dabble into FOW about 5-8 years ago so my knowledge of how other games work is vague at best.

Ooh, am I too late?

I prefer CoC when solo, TW&T for multiplayer.

Ark3nubis

Basically right with the card idea, with additions.

Troops you do have what you describe. IABSM it is per platoon, with the twist that some things, like A/T guns, there is one generic card per gun, and when you draw a AT gun card you can activate any unused gun.

There are also the Big Men, each with there own card- Troops these are Section leaders and up, IABSM its the platoon leaders.

This is where they start to differ. In IABSM (and CoC) the 'level' of the Big Man is the number of actions he has. In Troops you put 2 Tactical Initiative cards of his level into the deck. When these are drawn they are placed to one side. When a BM card is drawn he gets 1 TI inherent, plus can use any of the TIs on the table that are his level or lower(no matter which side put them into the deck).

Sunjester went off Troops because ONLY BM can get a unit to move – they will fire on their own card, but men have to be ordered to move- 1 TI for 3d6 if not under fire, 1 TI per d6 if they ARE. This can be very frustrating if there are no TI's on table when the BM is drawn.

CoC uses a dice system, you roll 5 dice at the satrt of a phase. 5s add to your CoC point count – 6pts gets you a CoC dice, which is really a special action thing, 6s determine if the turn ends and who gets next phase.

1 – activate a Team (1 MG, rifle part of a section etc)
2 – activate a Section
3 – Junior Leader (S/L)
4 – Senior Leader (Lt or Plt Sgt)

Although I'm a Lardie the description of how TW&T worked did not appeal to me, CoC on the other hand has become my default set of "Skirmish" level rules.

Sorry been away, but Last Hussar clarified the card activation nicely. Both sets handle 'end of turn' differently too. In TW&T you can draw a 'Tea Break' card which means you reshuffle the deck so some units do not get an opportunity to move/act (sort of reflecting hesitant troops under fire and adding a nice unpredictable element to the turn) in Chain of Command, a double 6 ends the turn and allows the opposing player to go.

The lardies essentially have a system for simulating troop motivation on the table top without grinding the action to a crawl. Although you can have turns where very little happens the system still feels better than rules where everything activates on every turn.

Umm- slight error Muncehead;
0 or 1 six, Next phase opponents
2 sixes Next phase yours
3+ end of turn, you get 1st phase of next turn.

The rules note that 2+ isn't a double go, as you have lose 2 or more of your 5 dice. What is interesting is 'The curse of the single 6'. It acts as a No Six roll, with the disadvantage you lose 20% of your activations. 1 six is the worst dice you can throw. Effectively what you get is between 4 and 7+ orders to hand out from 5 dice over 2 'gos'.

7 is two 6's, giving you 3 orders plus next phase. If you roll 2 x 6 a second time you get 9+ orders.

What is interesting is getting 3 orders plus the fact you know you get the next phase, so you can plan slightly ahead.

I stand/slouch-on-the-sofa corrected, Last Hussar. Must have not had enough coffee.

I now own both. In fact, I've owned TW&T for years, but never played it because I only recently deciphered how initiative dice are supposed to work with regards to small arms fire. So, keep in mind that I've never played either, but have only compared the rules side by side as written.

With that said, if I was forced to choose one to be the only rule set I was allowed to play for the rest of my life, I would choose TW&T.

Some tastes include both snails and oysters.

Only thing better than TW&T is having multiple copies/editions…and possibly different bindings.

They are both very good games and approach the subject slightly differently. I would consider CoC more "mainstream". TW&T is more subtle in how you have to use leader initative.

They differ primarily in :
CoC has the patrol phase-- people really like this. It is certainly novel. TW&T can't touch this.

Game engine-- TW&T use cards, CoC use dice. Both are valid engines; the thing I find interesting is people will accept rolling dice as luck-- but shuffled cards are predetermined. (I don't know if that is psychology, philosophy or lack of mathimatical understanding.) As a scenario designer cards give me more flexibility.

Use of Leaders-- TW&T as played by most people including Rich [ not as written] does away with the unit cards. So relys more heavily on leaders than CoC. Each leader has to use variable iniative as described above. It is harder to coordinate a squad movement in TW&T than in CoC. Big men are important in CoC but they are even more critical in TW&T.

Combat-- CoC uses a variant of Mud and Blood while TW&T uses a Combat results table. Both systems work, I personally think CoCs is more intuitive but much more bloody. I myself dislike the TW&Ts CRT so developed my own system which Rich modified for Mud and Blood. My system is called "Lazy TW&T". I am biased and still like it better than both :)

I can not speak to having multiple platoons as I have never gamed that large.
In the end it depends on what the gamer is looking for. If you like dice better than cards than CoC is for you. If you will get easily frustrated by a junior leader not being able to move your whole squad than CoC is for you.

For me it is all about the Big Men. Big Men are more central in TW&T than in CoC. CoC is a great game and there are parts to steal and incorporate into TW&T, but it was the focus on leadership that brought me into the Lardie fold and TW&T epitomizes that for me.

Cheers

Joe

"Although you can have turns where very little happens the system still feels better than rules where everything activates on every turn."

In my couple games of CoC, you're right in that you might not be able to do a whole lot, based on the command die rolls. But to me it has never felt like nothing or little happened because YOU, the player, get to choose what happens with your limited resources.

It's a different scale (company vice platoon), but that was always my knock on IABSM with cards attached to specific unit. I don't have the rules and I've never played it, but I think TW&T is the same way. I (and my opponent) got very frustrated with the feeling of the game dictating to us as opposed to us making decisions.

I say all that simply to say that CoC is the one for me! I mean, I love the CoC. Boy, we really need better acronyms…

V/R,
Jack

Joe – I agree that Troops concentrates more on the leaders – I prefer this to the CoC approach. But as I said it is so frustrating where turn after turn you can't move because the TI cards aren't there. Men stood in the open under fire not moving.

I say all that simply to say that CoC is the one for me! I mean, I love the CoC. Boy, we really need better acronyms…

Rumours that the first supplement for CoC will expand the battlefield leadership system with a specific focus on the British army may or may not be accurate: Officers, Rifle Groups and Sergeant Majors

Jack,

TW&T as we play doesn't have cards for units; it does have cards for leaders. It does "dictate" the order that leaders go in but that is so leaders don't have more than one go in one turn. It models leadership in that good leaders should be able to do more in their turn than less good leaders on average.

Last Hussar

I have modified three things that may help. First I play with two tea break cards in the deck so more folks get to move each turn. Second, since everyone who didn't fire at the end of the turn gets to I also allow everyone already moving to move 4 inches as well. ( In Lazy TW&T pinning is very easy to achieve so this movement is relatively rare.) Third I use the TI cards differently. I place one TI card in the deck per grade needed per side. When drawn it is place face up and can be used normally. What is different is after use it is not discarded but remains to be used by as many different leaders as can use it during the turn. Thus TI cards are slightly more available in the deck. You might want to try those rules and see if you get a more mobile game. Leaders are still criitcal, but now they have the tools they need.

SC

Interesting. Maybe, after all, Rich is the one that cook up TW&T and CoC!

Cheers

Joe

Both soumd like what I am after, but are they adaptable for WW1?

Through the Mud & the Blood should be what youre after

There is a WW1 adaptation of CoC in the last Winter Special from Too Fat Lardies.

andy

I prefer IABSM to CoC. If I started playing TW&T again I think I prefer that to CoC, especially with Joe's suggestion on TI cards.

What I don't like about CoC is how hard it is to pin – you have to accumulate shock. I feel pin should be more of an immediate response to a short term situation, so a result if weight of fire is high enough. In Troops and IABSM you can be pinned even if there are no on going effects (shock/kills), with CoC it is an accumulation. I particually like the TW&T 'fire to pin'/Suppression fire. You announce before you fire – it halves the effects, but increases the chance of pin/suppressed.

I always thought the acronyms were funny but it does make it hard (oh God), sorry, I mean difficult to get serious information out of this matron fest..
I blame the OP :)

CoC is a quicker game, TWAT are card driven, CoC uses dice to determine moves.