ubercommando | 26 Nov 2013 9:07 a.m. PST |
I've been looking for years for a decent set of 1=1 ratio company level wargames rules for 20mm, to replace WRG 1925-1950. I opted for I Ain't Been Shot Mum based on a number of recommendations but have found that it's not popular with many gamers, despite the fact that I think the rules are pretty darned good, and I haven't been able to get in a game of it so far. Now Battlegroup Kursk/Normandy/etc are the in thing at the moment with rave reviews. So, to those in the know, which one is better? Did I waste money on IABSM or is it the better value game (as Battlegroup will go down the path of separate campaign books)? Which have the better rules and leads to a more interesting gaming experience? |
PiersBrand | 26 Nov 2013 9:21 a.m. PST |
Both are good rules and both will appeal to those who like them
Bear in mind you dont need to buy all the Battlegroup supplements, only those that you want to play and the little core rules book. Neither are traditonal straight IGOUGO games, and both have mechanics that limit a players god like control. The bonus for me with Battlegroup is thanks to the morale chit system, im also blind as to exactly what state the enemy forces are in
its a nice difference from other games. Other than that I will leave it to others to voice their opinions, as well, I write parts of Battlegroup! But for me, they are both good games, and though my chosen set is Battlegroup, I dont think you will have wasted money on IABSM. TFL make good games. Why not play both
I know I have plenty of rules to choose from! |
ubercommando | 26 Nov 2013 9:42 a.m. PST |
because my bank balance and my wife restrict me buying loads of different rules sets. I have a hard time as it is convincing her that Flames of War and IABSM are completely different games to suit 2 different scales (it's all WW2 with impossibly small figures to her). Thanks for the feedback. |
PiersBrand | 26 Nov 2013 9:51 a.m. PST |
You could always ask here too; Www.guildwargamers.com I know we have a few guys that play both. Id say that BG might be an easier game to get a FoW player to get involved with as its easy to understand but if you know IABSM already you might not need to worry about that. |
Nick B | 26 Nov 2013 10:01 a.m. PST |
I play both and enjoy each for different reasons. Both also have (IMO) some short comings but I feel these are the best two sets on the market at the moment. IABSM you know – BG gives a good degree of Historical feel (to the same degree as IABSM), has a truly great moral system and great mechanics to equal IABSM. I, personally, feel that the card system in IABSM is a little too random making it difficult to keep up the momentum of attack but I love the Blinds. BG has some fog of war – you roll for initiative points/orders which allow you to activate a single unit (section, vehicle, gun) for each point so you may not get enough to activate everything, but has no hidden deployment. So I feel that they are of equal quality and as such the most important factor really comes down to how many people play either set in your area. You say IABSM has no traction so I would give BG a go. No point in sticking with a set of rules no one else wants to play and not getting your toys on the table! |
ubercommando | 26 Nov 2013 10:14 a.m. PST |
It's not FoW players who I can't convince about IABSM. It's mostly Rapid Fire players. |
Dynaman8789 | 26 Nov 2013 10:28 a.m. PST |
Sounds like buying another rule set would be throwing good money after bad. If you group is stuck on RF then you probably will not get them to switch, especially to a more chaotic rule system. I play IABSM and love it, never played Battlegroup so I can't comment on it. What you might want to try is slowly adding IABSM like bits to RF, card activation by "unit" for instance, to see how much chaos your players would accept. Perhaps after a while they would try other games. |
PiersBrand | 26 Nov 2013 10:59 a.m. PST |
I find RF players take to BG well
it was our groups set before BG. I think most of our 20mm gamers play or played RF before BG. It has a similar 'old skool' feel but with added extras. But I gotta agree with Dynaman, if they dont wanna try something new, they may not try anything
|
War Panda | 26 Nov 2013 1:22 p.m. PST |
I have played both IABSM and BG (and still play both) with various groups and individuals and while I really enjoyed both I have found that IABSM can be a little more divisive
people either loved it or couldn't get into it (I found the same thing with Crossfire) BG is a great game with very interesting and effective morale system, a very enjoyable shooting mechanism which allows for a choice of direct precise fire or a more suppressing fire effect. Very straight forward rules that don't take very long to learn. I find that you spend less time thinking about the actual rules and are quickly involved in the battle itself. From my experience BG appealed to just about everyone I played it with; so I would have no problem recommending it to anyone. While despite some of my best gaming experiences have been with IABSM (including a game very recently) I have found on average more people are less approving of how certain things are handled. Hope this helps a little
|
Who asked this joker | 26 Nov 2013 4:45 p.m. PST |
From my experience BG appealed to just about everyone I played it with; I could see that. It is a very straight forward game. Even if you didn't know the rules to well, you would pick them up easily after a couple of turns. |
cmdr kevin | 26 Nov 2013 7:29 p.m. PST |
Try Disposable Heroes by iron Ivan Games. link Its inexpensive, easy to play and expandable. |
ubercommando | 27 Nov 2013 3:38 a.m. PST |
Disposable heroes isn't a company level game; it's a skirmish game and thus doesn't have the scope the other games I mentioned have. |
nazrat | 27 Nov 2013 7:24 a.m. PST |
Yep. Although it's a fun game DH really has nothing to do with the OP's criteria except it's a WW II game. |
toofatlardies | 27 Nov 2013 1:44 p.m. PST |
I must admit that, having just come back from a few days walking the battlefields of Normandy, I am slightly perturbed by all this. I would never say that IABSM is "better" than any other rule set; the rules we like are the rules we like. However, it does seem to me that wargamers are divided into two camps. On the one hand, we have who like to be a General who can control everything. His fight is against his enemy. His focus is entirely about defeating his opponent through better strategy or tactics. On the other hand we look at a quote from Eisenhower which I picked up yesterday at a museum on Omaha beach where he said that "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything". To me that sums up perfectly what we are trying to achieve with IABSM and any other set we have created. This is an imperfect model of command and for a reason. Our rules mean that you must fight against the enemy but also the elements of friction which interfere with the perfect application of a plan. So what? Well, so if you think you as a commander you should have absolute command of your troops, then don't buy our rules; you may find them irritating – pretty much in the way that real commanders found that real life messed up their plans. However, if you fancy a challenge where you need to not only beat your opponent but also deal with the bigger issues of Clausewitzian friction then IABSM may be the one for you. Read a book, of just colour it in. The choice is yours
|
ubercommando | 28 Nov 2013 6:24 a.m. PST |
Thanks for that comment, Lardies. I do like the rules and would like to get more games of it in, if I can persuade people! I have no problem with the card mechanism and the rest of the rules seem easy to follow. I like the Eisenhower quote; I can use that as an excuse when I next lose a game. |
Grimr460 | 19 May 2019 7:31 a.m. PST |
I too love the Too Fat Lardies rule sets. The old saying we have in my neck of the woods is " no plan makes it past initial contact ". That's the polite version of course. |
GGouveia | 23 May 2019 12:26 p.m. PST |
Ubercommando I think you need to get some new gaming buddies. IABSM is an outstanding set of company size ww2 rules for gamering groups as well IMHO it is also the Best solitaire set out there as well. Battlefront is also a great set of rules. I use both and enjoy both systems. use what ever set you enjoy using. If you want to try Battlegroup with the lads then do so if you want. IABSM is also great solitaire. |
Sgt Steiner | 24 May 2019 4:46 a.m. PST |
Having played both these sets I would rate them both equal. Battlegroup has excellent Morale/Random events system via the chit pull tied into Suppression/Rallying of units. The AFV stats/combat systems etc are all plausible. It has great 'army lists' (and competition friendy if thats your bent) if you are in need of such. That said it includes a scn generation system and some excellent historical scns (although ofcourse most within varied supplements) The rules are pretty tightly written by which I mean very little unclear or ambiguous. The game plays and flows quickly. Downsides for me are the ammo tracking for AFVs (I see why its there from gaming perspective but can be a pain in bigger games) and the associated Ammo trucks appearing in the front line seems odd. I dislike that a standard German section needs 2 orders just to advance whilst others need but one (again I get the gaming idea behind this ie flexibility). Also with AFV firing it seems to be a 6 to hit all the time unless up fairly close (ie under 20") IABSM is a less tightly written set (sorry TFL) with some less intuitive systems. Am still not 100% sure we are operating Blinds correctly. The card system is great generating a nice chaos/I cant do everything when I want background. Again Stats/Combat systems are fine (a bit odd at first rolling say 12 hit dice then 8 save dice when using Tanks but it works). Morale system built around more attrition based model but again perfectly workable No points systems and therefore firmly scn based as such but not an issue for me but understand some players disliking this. Downsides mainly for me the lack of clarity in some rule sections, which has led to several head scratching moments in games. I will happily play either set as the mood takes me. Of course my favoured WW2 set (at present anyhow) is Panzer Grenadier Deluxe (by Dave Brown) :-) If as you say your group is rooted to RF I would agree that BG is possibly best fit to wean them off it although both it and IABSM are lower level simulations (not word I like) than RF with 1 vehicle/1 man equals just that. BTW your wife checks your rule books !!!!!!???????? Do what a mate did with golf clubs and send them to a friends to collect later and sneak into house. Of course he is now separated so be careful :-) |
Marc at work | 30 May 2019 5:54 a.m. PST |
BG has been our go to set. Players get a game, but one they are not fully in control of. Lots of great kit choices are encouraged, so no uber armies. Simple and effective mechanisms. Well written so not too many disagreements mid game. Bought IABSM and couldn't get them to work. Just my failing, I appreciate others enjoy them You pays your money… |