"First Game of Chain of Command is in the Books" Topic

All,

I finally got a game of Chain of Command in, finished up this morning. This was Brit Infantry Platoon vs. German Infantry Platoon, Normandy '44, played solo using Pendraken 10mm. The report is at:

blackhawkhet.blogspot.com

I played out the patrol phase and set the jump-off points yesterday. both forces started off with a 9 for Force Morale (FM), so I rolled to see who would go first in the Patrol Phase. I probably screwed this up, but I rolled to see who would start off with the command dice, and the Germans won again.

The Germans got two section deployed in the center to two opposite them, but managed to shoot up a Brit rifle group and wound the Platoon Commander.

The Germans also got a squad out on the right flank with their Platoon Commander, though I split the squad into two teams, allowing them to get chewed up piecemeal…

The Brits are taking some casualties in the center (left of photo) but decide on a right hook of their own, led by their Plt Sgt.

Situation in the center: German squad at top (MG tm on right, rifle team on left), smoke on left that was supposed to block the German MG LOS but missed… Brit rifle group and wounded PC behind well at center.

Some textbook fire and maneuver brings about the demise of the rifle group and PC in the center.

Germans keeping up the pressure in the center (top), where another rifle team has moved up, and on the right (bottom). But splitting all these rifle teams from their MG teams will prove costly…

In the center, the German rifle team that eliminated the Brit rifle team/PC moves up and enters into a protracted firefight with the Bren Group.

Adding to the headache for the Bren Group is the German 2nd Squad (bottom center), which has kept its MG and rifle teams close enough together to support each other. The Bren Group is behind the wall at the very top, while the rifle team that won the close combat is in the building on left.

Brits on the right (a whole section with the Plt Sgt) are about to overwhelm an isolated MG team (their rifles are in the building shooting it out with the Bren Group).

The German PC and 3rd Squad advance on the German right, but are met by 1st Section.

Ultimately, the Germans have a rough time on the right…

And the Brits a rough time in the center.

While the Brit Plt Sgt and Third Section send one MG team running for the hills, and guns down another one that shifted from the left to the center to counter them.

The Germans move a rifle team back to pressure Third Section's flank, and so the Plt Sgt decides it's go time, and leads the charge to clean the MG team out of the building…

The aftermath. I rolled the Brits first, and they wiped out the four Germans (exactly 4 kills on 15 dice) in the building causing two morale checks (Jr Ldr KIA, team wiped out), dropping the German morale to 3. And then I rolled for the Germans and Armageddon happened: the Germans rolled seven 5s and three 6s, for a total of 10 kills, wiping out the Brits in the street. Inconceivable! 10 hits on 15 dice… As near as I can tell, the Plt Sgt got nailed right after he tossed a grenade that got the last German gunner.

I knew it was over, but for fun I rolled up the morale tests. Ultimately, the Brits lost another 6 points (2 pts each for team wiped out, Sr Ldr killed, and Jr Ldr killed), leaving the Brit Force Morale at exactly -4. Game over, Germans carry the day.

Regarding the game, I was kind of surprised the Germans got beat up as much as they did, as it seemed like they got off to a fast start. Tactically, I learned a lot about the rules by making mistakes. I can tell you that if you're used to splitting sections up for fire and maneuver, you'd better get over it because it's a bit mistake in these rules. You will make it very difficult to coordinate action between the two, and you make them both much more vulnerable, particularly the smaller gun groups (don't misunderstand, it says all that right there in the rules). The German 2nd Squad and the Brit 1st and 3rd Sections were much more successful and much more resilient because they were kept together, while the Brit 2nd Section and German 1st and 3rd Squads got eaten up piecemeal. I was probably too timid about using the German CoC dice, but I really wanted to have it for some super move that never really presented itself.

I also learned about deployment, that is you can't leave our guys out in the open when enemy troops are still off table as said enemies will pop right onto the table in the worst possible spot and eat your lunch, which is exactly what happened to 2RG, resulting in the PCs death and the elimination of the team.

Now, regarding the rules. I'm hesitant to write this, because overall I like the rules, I greatly respect the Lardies and what they do, and I don't want anyone calling for my head. I'm just a knucklehead that plays with toy soldiers, and I've only played one game, so please keep that in mind, but I do have some critiques that I think are relevant, in my humble opinion. And, because I'm so brave on the internet, I'm going to save what I like/love about the rules until after I write my critiques…

Philosophically, the rules aren't a perfect match for me. First, I am a very simple man in terms of rules, which you can see from all the batreps here on my blog. The rules I've been using are one page, front and back. It took me three nights to read these rules, cover to cover. I printed off the QRS, which is two pages (front and back), and then made another two pages (front and back) of notes. Even then I spent a lot of time flipping around for charts or explanations. Additionally, there were three times I went to the pdf to look things up, and there were another two that I should have but didn't feel like it (and another three or four I didn't even know I screwed up). So the rules, to me, are pretty complex; that's not to say any of the concepts are complex. I salute the Lardies as everything is laid out in a straight-forward manner and it all makes sense intuitively. To me, the concepts are simple, but man, there are a lot of them. I would also like to mention that I am talking about the rules in their entirety, not just the rules I played with (what I mean is, when I say complex I'm including the tank rules, the anti-tank rules, the guns, the bazookas, the transport, the softskin, the mortar barrage, medium/heavy machine guns, etc…, even though I only played this game with 'standard' infantry squads and their associated rules.

Again, I'm a simpleton, so I'm used to stuff like "Sr Ldr +2, Jr Ldr +1," whereas here there are several paragraphs laying out Sr and Jr Ldrs. Again, everything makes sense as to way the author is doing it that way, but it's a lot of stuff to remember. I will also state that I would guess that a lot of this complaint is centered on the fact I'm a solo gamer, meaning I have to remember, look up, decide, move, and roll everything, which is making it tougher for me than your 'normal' gamer (I don't want to hear from any of your ten pound brainiacs that are also solo gamers and had no problem!). Even from my initial reading I was thinking this would be great to play against a 'live' opponent, but might be too much for my limited intellectual capacity when going it alone.

So, aside from it being too complex for my simple self, I'm not sure about the scale of the game (for my taste, and Lord knows everyone that wargames has their own idea of what they think war on the tabletop should look/feel/taste/smell like. My issue is not being able to split squads/sections. We can talk all day (and we have on TMP) about whether it was done, how it was done, how much it was done, etc…, but I personally like to split my squad, half firing while the other half moving. To me, it just feels right. And of course you can do that, but the authors say and my experience suggests it's not the best idea, and the squad that stays together in this game is the one you can control effectively, has an effective weight of fire, and shakes off the shock. Please, please, please note that I am not in any way suggesting this is not realistic; actually, I am freely admitting I like a more "Hollywood-ized" version of WWII than most. I like having a Sgt lead the maneuver element and a corporal lead the fire element, and let's get it on!

I will also point out that not splitting sections means you only have three maneuver elements on the table. From a purely gaming standpoint, I have found that games that have between 8 and 12 maneuver elements are my sweet spot in terms of having enough to play around with but not so much that I get bogged down. Again, just a personal preference. Having said that, I'm going to play at least one more game with the rules as written, this time keeping my sections together and see how that works out. On the one hand that might make things go faster as there are less elements to take into account for the command dice, but on the other hand, not having a lot of units to play with might not be as entertaining, and I'm a little worried the sections may prove impervious as all shock and kills will be split between teams, with more leaders covering fewer teams to take care of shock. Who knows, but I'll find out. It may be more workable casualties-wise with slightly smaller squads (maybe seven or eight guys), and keep the game moving. If that keeps the squads from being invulnerable it may speed up the game quite a bit, which would be more attractive to me personally.

So, that's it, those are my complaints: a bit complex for me (I'm a one page, front and back kinda guy), and not enough maneuver elements on the table. If you're thinking I'm screwing it up because I didn't have any support elements on the table, I'd submit 1) you still only have 3 maneuver elements as vehicles and MGs/mortars/guns/infantry AT weapons are support elements, not maneuver elements, but even if you count them, 2) you're still talking about only having maybe five (three squads, a tank, and machine gun, for example).

I'll even take a shot in the dark as to why the rules are too complex. I say this because I think the complexity is out of character for the Lardies when you take a look at their other sets (at least the ones I have). I think it's a response to criticism from people that wanted them to make their rules more like other folks' rules. The perfect example of what I mean is the firing tables from IABSM. I saw so many complaints about that, i.e., "what am I supposed to do? I simply can't figure out what the difference is between a fair shot, a good shot, and a bad shot!" I suppose what was never heard was the vast majority of folks that bought the rules that had no problem figuring this out. So I think the 'complexity,' i.e., length of the rules was an attempt by the Lardies to placate those folks that had to have someone spell out, in detail, every single thing. Who knows, but that's my feeling on reading the rules.

Now, what did I like, or, more appropriately, what did I love!? And I don't just say that to try to make you like me, I really did absolutely love a lot about the rules. First and foremost, hands down this is the coolest system of Command and Control I've seen in a game. I love the command dice concept, I love the Leader concept, and I love the Force Morale concept. Those three ideas tie together in a seamless manner that, in my opinion, introduces just the right amount of friction. You, the player, are in control so far as your command dice and leaders allow; you actually make the decisions, as opposed to having cards dictate the decisions to you. I never got to do everything I wanted when I wanted, but I never once felt like the command and control system was running me or that I was just a spectator in the game (which has happened to me with some card-based activation games).

To further expound, everybody's talking about the dice, but that's not it (or not nearly all of it). The Command Initiative concept is fantastic, and meshes perfectly with the command dice concept. Ditto for Force Morale, which I think is perfect in how it models the 'wearing down' of your platoon (in terms of losing the ability to command them) as casualties are suffered. With the way those three things meld together, I can see why the play-testing took so long, and boy did they get it right.

The other thing I absolutely loved was the Patrol Phase, even though I screwed it up! The idea of pushing ahead to establish jump-off points and then deploying troops onto the table is pretty damned cool. You're probably surprised I say that as, in the above game, I rally rushed to get everything on the table, but the reason I did this is because I wanted to get to the fight and test out the command roll system, having already been impressed by the Patrol Phase itself. In future games I can tell you that I think the where and when of deploying troops onto the table will be a much larger consideration, having a huge impact. I think it also will be a huge factor in terms of making players actually hold a reserve to deal with things that just 'pop up,' just like in real life. Hope I didn't let anyone down, but I was really pushing to get everyone on the table and fight it out. The only issue I saw with troop deployment was with the Germans only having one Sr Ldr in their platoon. This means they're either going to not have their PC on the table for most of the game or their going to have a rule tough time getting guys on the table (assuming they don't take an adjutant from the support list). I can foresee in my games either 1) giving the Germans a Plt Sgt, 2) giving them an adjutant at no charge, or 3) not penalizing them for not having a Sr Ldr off-table (not making them roll, or reducing the chance of failing the roll).

The rest of the game is, in my opinion, is as you'd expect. I thought movement, cover, firing dice, terrain, etc…, were all on point. No one really talks about this stuff unless they have a problem with it, and I didn't have any problems.

So, what next? I'd like to play another game with the rules as written, this time keeping my sections together, and see where/how that goes. But, I am a renowned rules tinkerer, and I can see myself continuing to use these rules but shrinking down the rule book quite a bit. Obviously the Patrol Phase, Command Dice, Fore Morale, and Leader Command Initiative mechanics stay, they're awesome. But I will look to pare everything down to its bare minimum built around those mechanics so that I get the game I want. I hope you don't mind ;)

Also, as a solo gamer I'm looking to use Platoon Forward with these rules. I personally have had some issues in figuring out how to go about doing that, but Mr. Joe Legan has been kind enough to share a batrep and some thoughts on how to do this on his blog: link

Lastly, a thanks to the Lardies for imaginating and ideating and publicationating these rules out to the rest of us, they're awesome!

V/R,
Jack

Jack,
A very interesting and honest description of your first experience of the rules.
I would encourage you to persevere and play more games. Like you my first solo game involved a lot of looking things up mainly for reassurance I'd remembered them right. Playing a couple of games with other people also helped get the core points into my brain. Now on my 3rd solo game it is definitely easier, but like you I have stuck to the basic platoons with minimal support for now thus avoiding some of the complexities you refer to.

As for splitting up sections for fire and movement, yes you can and should do it when necessary. However, for the reasons you give you shouldn't send them off too far from each other. Ive found the hard way that it is far better to advance in bounds with each team covering the other, bringing them together for mutual support if either come under serious fire. Wider fire and movement is best done by section with one section covering the movement of another based on my experience so far.

Like you I am not quite sure of the balance between the British and German basic platoon. The extra Senior Leader and the 2" mortar firing smoke are very useful, but so too are the extra dice of the MG42s on the German side. To date that has led to the Germans playing more defensively while the British are freer to attack. If the Germans were the attackers I would certainly want that Platoon Sergeant or the adjutant at least.

John

Yeah I agree very informative and honest review. I've been "biting at the bit" to try out these rules after just ordering the PDF version.

Interesting point made about the rules not favoring splitting teams/squads. As Just Jack points out I believe it is mentioned by the Lardies themselves. I've always been extremely impressed by the apparent depth of knowledge and research that the Lardies put into their games and without an extensive knowledge on the subject myself I wonder what is the general consensus concerning this? ?

I would have thought in platoon sized engagements it would have been quite effective to break up squads in certain circumstances…

Anyway as I said I'm pretty excited about to trying it out myself very soon …

Archdukek and Grey Panda,

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read it. I'm so worried that I sound too critical, but I really like the rules and intend on playing them some more 'as-is,' and at the very least adapting them a bit and continuing with their basic framework.

Regarding complexity, something else I didn't mention regarding the reason I like simple rules is because I like/need quick games. I have megalomaniacal dreams of massive campaigns consisting of dozens, hundreds of separate games. If I'm going to have any chance of getting along with that and writing it all up on my blog, I need some rules that are 'close enough' and move right along. Yes, I said it, I am willing to sacrifice some realism for playability and game duration.

Back to the topic at hand. Splitting sections. After some more pondering if the subject, the perfect example of the way to handle it (I think) was the German 1st Squad's elimination of the Brit 2nd Section Rifle Group (with Platoon Commander). I kept them together for C2 purposes right up until the end, laid down fire with the MG-42, then sent the rifles forward into close combat. The mistake I made was consolidating the rifles forward (even further away from the MG team) instead of consolidating the MG team forward to rejoin the rifles. Later in the game both teams were destroyed (or nearly so), the rifles through attrition and the MG team just overwhelmed by a whole British section.

As you mention, Fire and Movement/bounding overwatch, should be conducted (in this game) at the squad/section level. But the problem is, you only have three squads, and one should be in reserve. Not having a reserve certainly played into my decision to leave the German MG back there; in the event, it was whacked because it didn't have the rifles to suck up hits, but if I moved the MG team up I wouldn't have had anything there. I kept thinking that these tactics would be perfect for an IABSM (company)-scale game, if only the C2 stuff could be scaled up.

Yeah, the balance issues between the platoons are a bit worrying. On the one hand, I'm not going to take a PzGren Plt and have two MG-42s, they are way too overpowered (or at least overpowering) to go straight up platoon vs platoon. I was pretty happy with how things went, in that I didn't see that big of a difference between the Bren and MG-42, and if I do I'll even them out a bit (I'm definitely more of "an LMG is an LMG, rifle is a rifle" kind of a guy). Not having that Plt Sgt is rough for the Germans.

I can't wait to get it back on the table, probably not until next weekend though. I'm sure I'll be thinking about the mistakes I made, rules-wise and tactical, all week…

V/R,
Jack

Jack

That is an extremely positive "critical" review!

I think you have a real point about "complexity" in rules. I have people telling me that there is too much clarification in the rules and people telling me there is not enough. And, of course, I have people telling me it is just right. It's a bit of a Goldilocks issue I think.

As a generalisation, it seems that many people are seeking greater clarification in rule sets. So we have tried to provide that. In truth the rules started off at about ten pages and haven't changed much. The other 50 pages are diagrams, examples and other forms of clarification just to try to cross all of the i's and dot the t's.

Splitting your sections into Teams is neither universally right or wrong as a tactic. There are situations where it is appropriate and then it works to good effect. Putting in fire with your Bren before charging in with your riflemen who throw grenades en-route is almost always going to be better than charging in as a full section.

Believe me, as you come to play the rules more you will find that the Platoon Sergeant is worth his weight in gold. Much more powerful than an MG42. Ditto the 2" mortar.

Rich

Very informative, thanks!

Fantastic! Thanks Rich, I am honored to have a bona fide Lardie comment on my comment! The rules are great, and I've got so much more to mess with, can't wait to get back on the table.

I agree with our "Goldilocks" analogy, and I'm sure the better option is for you to put too much in as opposed to not enough. I'll say that I think you guys nailed down every single aspect of every single thing that could possibly happen anywhere at anytime ;)

Regarding splitting sections, after kind of doing a mental after action review of my own battle report, I think you can (and should) split squads/sections in these rules, it's just that a lot of times I split them too soon and then failed to consolidate them afterwards. In my mind it was a matter of groundscale; I split them at a distance of what I thought looked right on the table, but was in fact too far away from the target. And then, even after carrying out a successful close assault, I didn't bring them back together. So, having a better understanding now, and maybe a bit more discipline on the tabletop in the future should have my guys performing like a well-oiled machine.

I'm got a little bit of a worry about how to pull all this off while playing solo, because (just like real life) success will likely come down to someone making a mistake, such as splitting sections too soon/failing to consolidate, and the other guy taking advantage of that to pick off the isolated team. However, I'm not too worried as I think the command dice will add enough friction to help force an error or two, and the CoC dice could help with a surprise (ambush or interrupt).

Regarding the Plt Sgt for the Germans, I may cheat and give them one because I agree with you, another Sr Ldr looks to be worth a few MGs. Not for free mind you, but maybe someting akin to the adjutant, but allowing him to come on the table later. Not sure yet, we'll see what happens.

Thanks again for taking a look and commenting.

V/R,
Jack

Jack,

Good review of CoC. Agree with your comment about splitting teams but suspect that it is historical. As you play I think you will find the trick is in the timing of the split for the Brits. You have to get in reasonably close, have Jerry pinned and then move your team!
I am glad Platoon Forward is simple enough for you. I too am a simple man as Rich can attest!
Regarding playing Platoon Forward with CoC here is how I have been doing it:
Type A blinds are considered squads and enter on 2s.
Type B blinds are considered teams and enter on 1s.
type C blinds are considered vehicles and enter on 1s.
3s allow you to pick what you want to activate.
When you bring blinds on bring on two blinds with each activation except Cs. ( Keep track of your modifiers per PF, odds are one will be a dummy or something else. There are times you will get surprised; that is part of the fun of PF!) This way you are not "wasting" your activations and the enemy force should arrive at the same rate as your force.
Play out the patrol phase per CoC rules. It is pretty easy to figure out which Platoon Forward scenario goes with which type of Patrol Phase rules, patrol, raid, attack, flank attack ect. If you have questions ask. I will also write up an article for the Christmas special.
When you get a random event use the ones in Platoon Forward.
Does that make sense? Questions? Let me know how that works for you. There are several other ways to play it.

Cheers

Joe

Joe,
Man, thanks a bunch, that's great stuff. I don't have any questions right now/yet, but let me meditate on it ;)

I will certainly be giving these a test, but not yet, I've still got a few more 'learning the basics' games ahead of me before I start messing with Platoon Forward.

As a solo gamer, Platoon Forward is the coolest piece of gear I've ever seen. I've never used it 'out of the box,' but I've used various concepts and scenarios/set up from it than I can count. Now with CoC, I'd like to play it straight out of the box for a campaign. I keep talking about complex, but it's not that the rules are hard to understand, it's just that there are so many of them. So, not just playing solo, but also wanting to get through games relatively quickly (to get through campaigns), I want some real streamlined rules to get me in and out and on to the next game.

I hadn't realized you were the brains behind "Lazy TWAT." I think what I need is a "Sleepy CoC." Oh, I kill me…

Thanks again, and once I get through my learning games and am ready to move into a Platoon Forward campaign, I'll certainly be in touch.

V/R,
Jack