"CompanyBattalion level rules for WW2 to Moderns" Topic

Can anyone recommend some rules where the player controls a battalion or even a company and each squad is one base only.
I like Crossfire but i am in search of something a little less ground breaking and easy to play with big groups of players.
Any suggestions?

this should be fun

this should be fun

Couldn't agree more, Cardinal. Any set of rules you play should be fun, otherwise what's the point of playing! :-)
As for what fits the criteria. I think Spearhead has squads as single stands. Not sure what else. Command Decision and Fist Full of TOWS are platoon to a base IIRC.

You might want to take a look at Mein Panzer. The rules cover WWII to moderns and infantry squads are one base, AFVs are individual vehicles.

Blitzkrieg Commander for WW2.
Cold War Commander for moderns.

Spearhead has a one stand, one platoon ratio. And you handle, a least, several battalions

Fire & Fury Battlefront WW2 – as an aside the roots are a US army training game from the Cold War that the authors adopted for WW2. We have played them for Arab \ Israeli and Angola and they still work fine

Fireball Forward. Free intro version is available to try on their website. Battalion size would be the high end but many scenarios have 21 or so squads on each side.

I Ain't Been Shot Mum – 1 unit/base is a section 8-10 men. You can play with individual figures, or bases and keep track of men left on the base.

We play 2 bases of 3 figures make one 'Game Base'. This is 8 men. When the Section loses 4 men we remove 1 base to show the weak section. Individual teams (mortar etc) is one base

What Pilgrim said:

Battlefront: WW2 by Fire & Fury Games uses the 1 base = 1 section/squad scale. Vehicle and gun models represent 2-3 actual items. There is an active discussion here with all the links: TMP link

Another one to consider, which uses exactly the same scale as BF:WW2 is Battlegroup: Panzergrenadier by Dave Brown (a new edition of which is about to be published).

For what the OP actuallty asked for, which is one base = one section, company to battalion size games, the field is a bit thin. All I can think of are:

Battlefront WW2
Battlegroup PG
Crossfire

(all mentioned already)

plus

Fireball Forward
The old Newbury 'Cambrai to Sinai' rules
Squad Leader, easy enough to play with figures and not counters

err, thats it.

For some reason it isn't a very popular level of representation, unlike 1 base = 1 team, 1 figure = 1 man and 1 base = 1 platoon.

Tankwreck is a 1 base = 1 platoon game, but states it can be used as 1 base = 1 section. As far as I can see this involves calling bases sections rather than platoons. It's a fairly simple ruleset, focusing on armour, that's easy to pick up, but is nonetheless comprehensive in its take on modern warfare. There's a Yahoo group at

link

I'd also echo Last Hussar on IABSM, you can easily use 1 base for a section and record casualties. Ditto the Vietnam version, "Charles Don't Surf".

Eh, that's "CHARLIE Don't Surf".

But we think he should.

"One Doesn't Surf"

"Surfing is for those outré Americans."

Anyway, another vote for Battlefront WW2. The first non-skirmish WW2 game I ever played and still my favorite.

LT

I am a great iabsm fan, but i think that, being a company level game (at its best wit an infantry company and a tank platoon), a battalion game it would bee too much for this ruleset. The smaller maneouver unit is the squad, but you must track not only losses in a squad, but its moral and loss of firepower, too; and taking in account supresion and pinned status
Too detailed for a battalion game.

I would choose a game were either the squad is in good order, pinned, supressed or destroyed. Thats enough detail for an infantry game, as a battalion can have between 20 and 30 rifle squads, plus several weapons squads, thats a lot of independent units to track

Pilgrim, i am curious about that us army training game for cold war. I know they used a game based in a wrg modern ruleset.

What Pilgrim and R Mark Davies said:

Battlefront by Fire and Fury

Greg Lyle was the man who developed the original version as a training game for the US Army. BF:WW2 was then developed from that. Greg sadly passed away about a year ago. I'd have liked to have seen the original game, but nobody seems to have a copy.

FM,

PanzerGrenadier Deluxe is exactly that – it will be out next month.

See

link

for some Battlegroup PanzerGrenadier background.

DB

Another vote for Battlefront:WW2. A very well written set of rules with lots of scenario available.

We have tried IABSM as battalion game, with multiple players, and though fun, it was not something we could easily play to completion in a reasonable time.

Except for the fact that Flames is team-based instead of squad/section based, I honestly think Flames of War is a good choice for the company to battalion, and actually gives a very good game with a couple infantry companies and maybe a tank company (a couple tank platoons, anyway) per side.

Under the 2-down model, the player is aware of the status of infantry platoons (roughly where they are, morale/pinning, are they engaged), which is right where a Battalion commander should be.

Field Marshall,
Lots of rules listed here but its not clear what you want. "Big groups of players" what do you mean? My experience is that there are few players who can really play a battalion commander. His job is covering where companies go. Who is going to get the artillery support. Who gets FDF's only. allocation of engineering and Bridgeing equipment etc. In a big group you are likely to get the cluless who understand little of any "modern" game and proably has no clue how to even lay out a section defensive position never mind how to deploy a company defensive position, with the neccessary planned fires.

You may be best running just a lot of platoon games in parallel. The general player is not likely to want to play defensive on a quiet bit of the front anyway. They will all want to be actively engaged. We just split up the front and the opposing players play there own section in there own time. If they want to take pot shots outside there sector they do so in there ordinary turn.

Thank you gentlemen
@ushcha I am looking at about 4 players per side. I am thinking one player as the battalion commander and the other three as company commanders.

All the rules sound good so I might buy them all and give them all a try.

If you think you have folk that can play at that level you could look at us:-

link

But it is demanding at that sort of level.

Hey Field Marshall, sounds like a fun game you are trying to do, good luck with it.

About 10-12 years ago there was a programme on TV here in the UK called Time Commanders. They had teams of 4 people with 2 as generals and 2 as Lieutenants. It was using the Rome Total war PC game but adapted for the TV. The generals would have a large map showing the disposition of their forces and then of any known enemy forces and they would then shout instructions from their command table at the middle/back of the studio down to the 2 Lieutents describing who to attack and where. It was then up to the lieutenants to direct the units in detail as they saw fit to meet the orders of generals, but without the privilege of seeing the larger map, just the PC screen in front of them (they were standing next to a trained person each who was sitting controlling the units for the lieutenants) and a main huge wall screen (I'd guess about 2.5 x 3m, or 10' x 12' in old money) that would capture the main combats, enemies attacking etc and show off the progress of the game in a more entertaining way than just watching 2 guys or gals sitting on their PCs.

All the time they were playing there were two historians and experts in ancient warfare narrating and giving their opinions on what they thought of the battle plan of the 4 players, how well they thought they would work as a team, how they performed in 'the heat of battle' etc etc. Every programme had Areh Nusbacher (or however you spelled his name (he has since had a sex change) who was REALLY irritating although knowledgable) and one other expert who was usually really good to listen to.

It was a really fun programme and resulted in me getting Rome total war, playing Warhammer Fantasy initially without magic and just Empire units then saying 'stuff this' and moving to ancients, and then opening up to historicals altogether.

The main point of all this waffle though was the interaction and way that the 2 generals worked with (and sometimes against) the lieutenants who had to do as they were told of course. Let us know how you get on as this sounds like fun!

A

Aryeh (Linette) Nusbacher is very knowledgeable about classical warfare, but if you want to read something really irritating, try his/her Bannockburn book….it's just absolutely dreadful.

"The main point of all this waffle though was the interaction and way that the 2 generals worked with (and sometimes against) the lieutenants who had to do as they were told of course. Let us know how you get on as this sounds like fun!"

I generally try and structure all my games like that, depending on player numbers of course.

I'd like to run a game of LaSalle for a convention one day, where each player controls a full LaSalle division. I might give the commanding General some forces of his own, for the reinforcements. I'd need ~8 players per side for most of the battles I am considering.

All of our games are multiplayer with one cinc on each side…it is amusing to see the reactions of some of these commanders when it is reported to them that player X has just thrown his reserve cavalry away attacking some cannon front on. Players always do what they want or how they interpret their orders. Its always fun!