"Interest in simpler rules for lots of toys on the table?" Topic

This isn't an announcement and should not be construed as me working on anything in particular, for reals.

That being said, I am curious:

Is there a market and interest in a "simple rules for huge battles" type of WW2 game, probably directed at 6mm and 10mm?

I'm thinking rules about on the complexity of the old Space Marine/Epic game from GW (not a clone of that game just in that ballpark, complexity wise) aiming at battles with a large amount of figures potentially playing quick and relatively painless.

Or does Flames of War pretty much cover this for people?

Pz8 WW2 Divisional rules:
panzer8.weebly.com/rules.html

So are you saying that you feel there's no room in the market for this?

I'm not looking for recommendations, I'm looking for opinions. :)

More specifically I guess, what would a new game in this style need to do, to interest you?

Fast playing is what I'm after. For Moderns and WWII I use Fistful of Tows. Not a "simple" set of rules by any stretch but very fast playing for those that know the game.

I would not be interested in anything "simpler" that FoW. I'm comfortable with it now, but that is the limit of abstraction for the sake of a quick game that I can handle.

So are you saying that you feel there's no room in the market for this?

No, I was just citing an example of what I think you are talking about.

I'm not looking for recommendations, I'm looking for opinions. :)

OK. Bit difficult to give an opinion since you haven't provided much detail on what you are trying to achieve other than "simple rules for huge battles". The example I cited does exactly that IMHO, where "huge" means players controlling several divisions.

More specifically I guess, what would a new game in this style need to do, to interest you?

Well, first of all, I would need to know what representational level you are planning on? 1 figure = 1 man? 1 base = 1 squad, 1 base = 1 platoon … all the way up to 1 base is 1 battalion (as in PZ8's Divisional rules).

If you're talking about 1:1 vehicle representation, I agree with 21e Reg't that Flames of War is about as abstracted as I want to get, and you can pretty easily field a battalion per player of Americans/Germans/Brits, Regiment per player of Russians/Italians.

For what it's worth, Flames of War could just as easily be 1 stand = 1 squad.

Personally, I don't know how I would abstract a higher level of representation properly/'accurately'.

Just because the game is relatively simple doesn't mean that I don't want some approximation of historical accuracy and an appropriate level of detail for the level of command I'm asserting as a player.

Like MajorB says, we need a few more parameters to judge it by. Does 'huge' refer to the number of toys or size of engagement? I've done Army (as in multiple Corps) sized battles for WW2 with figures, and battalion sized skirmishes (tiny engagements compared to e.g. the Battle for Normandy) at 1:1 with quite a few toys on the table.

I can't see FOW scaling beyond a battalion sized engagement so presumably you have something else in mind. Mind you, I've seen a Corps sized battle using WRG 1925-50, that was something to behold….

Sorry, let me elaborate a bit more.

I am thinking primarily on the number of toys on the table, rather than the scale of battle.

I was thinking "1 stand equal 1 squad/vehicle" when I posted but that's not a given. I personally tend to lose interest a bit when the units are abstracted beyond that.

The idea would be games that, as Rapier says, look spectacular with hordes of tanks and infantry on a large table but play reasonably quickly.

Holy hell, $40 USD for a pdf of FFT? I was interested in those rules, until I saw that.

If it's simple as in PZ8 rules, you could get many many units on the table and probably complete it in 4 hours or less.

Personally, I think there could be room if the book came with a fair bit of support material (army lists, scenarios and such) but probably not if it was in the usual form where you get the rules, some samples and then have to fork out more money for more army lists and scenarios.

I think that yes, there are several options available for mass battle WWII, and those seem to satisfy the current market demand. Is that what you are asking?

Take a look at Blitzkrieg Commander. It was originally written with 1 stand is a platoon, but is just as playable at 1 stand is a squad or vehicle. Fast to learn. Uses the same command mechanism as Warmaster and Martian Empires. Keep a scenario simple and a new player can run up to a battalion after 1-2 turns.

I think the answer is no.
Wrg 1925-50 is still a reasonable choice if i wanted such a game.
There are a couple of club variants.
We did a dbm-ish ww2 game for a while which was fun.

As I love playing Epic and I love WW2 gaming, my answer is yes. Normal, assault, heavy weapons infantry is enough distinction for me, with a training/morale level.
More time spent moving figures and rolling dice and less time spent looking at rule books equals good game to me.

Yes – something like Epic for WW2. I've been thinking that this could scratch my microarmour itch. Although one could argue that Blitzkrieg Commander / Pz8 / FFT are there already. However, I would want it to be each element = squad / vehicle scale.

Jagdpanzer 2nd ed is also designed for lots of units/fast play.

DColtman / JezEger – Something along the lines of Epic for WW2 but obviously not a straight clone or anything like that.

Jagdpanzer 2nd Edition is a great game, but I believe the Original Poster was asking specifically for SIMPLE rules.
Jagdpanzer is a pretty detailed game. I play multiple- companies to battalion sized games with it.

There is definitely a market and I would possibly stock them if they were available. More rules is like more 15mm Romans. The nay-sayers will and moan about "do we really need another _______?!?!"

Meanwhile I sell new rules and new 15mm Romans very well, thank you.

Like Extra Crispy says, there will always be a market for more new rules. People like new things.

Gigantic 1:1 scale rules, hell why not. Just don't call them Rapid Fire:)

Also how many players involved.

I run games from 4 to 12 players with loads of kit an have not yet found a fast system that copes with more that 6 players.

I keep looking for this type of set for 20mm

Dear Weasel

Well my "the Shattered Century" is an army level game with LOTS of toys on the table. It's set for Between the Wars till mid WWII.

This is a battle between those ----XXXX---- lines you see on maps in books. Also, the game is pitched at top level command. The best way to envision the table top is NOT as a representatiion of a battlefield in a stop-action picture but as a tabletop-- in a chateuax 25 miles behind the lines. Everyone in the room is a general or field marshall and the only colonel there takes the coffee order. The toys are as markers on a battle table or sand table, being pushed around by nattily dressed WACS with croupier stiks and the only connection to the muddy, blody, gassed over hell your men are fighting in is the delicate tinkling of the chandelier as the barrage reaches it's crescendo.

I just FINALLY completed editing, and redesigning the rules booklets, and am about to mail them out to many who have asked for them. if you'd like a copy Weasel, let me know and send me your snail mail at sigurd@eclipse.net. No electronic copies, so I need your postal address.

The tactical rules are only five pages (six with the full color art) and there is a campaign set of rules and the how to set up a battle folder and the Game Designer Drivel . All of it comes to about 12 pages.

If you bump up to 1 stand = 1 platoon, there is "Spearhead". I believe that was designed for microarmor at the divisional level, ie; battalions as maneuver units and an experienced player could run a division.

FFT is expensive but you get highly detailed TOEs and equipment lists for WWII to the present. The charts alone are easily worth the $40 USD for the PDF.

I might be down for epic40k-esque wwii rules. I'm only interested in 1:1 personally, like epic. That's one of the reasons I wasn't as into pz8s (admittedly awesome) set.

The Newquay megagame rules are spearhead derived but massively altered to be unrecognizable as such, they allow multi division games to fought on one (admittedly large) table in a day or 2 with 1 stand representing a platoon. Typical size might be a 20 x 6 with 3 divisions a side plus corps assets, a division per player is possible for some highly competent individuals, or with small divisions but big beasts like a Brit or US infantry divisions with support (200 stands possibly) tend to require at least 2 players. The games would rarely have everything on table at the start, as the rules focus heavily on reserves and the methods and abilities of commanders to commit them.
Lots of emphasis on operational boundaries for brigade/ divisions, making a plan then sticking to it.

I'm interested in this and have been working on such a rule set. The idea is to have a 1:1 representation of something like a battalion a side. This means the rules have to be very streamlined for things to not bog down. I'm still not sure if in the end it would be fun or boring though!

Theron, that sounds interesting – we'd love to have a look at it.

Yeah, about a battalion in one to one seems about a right fit. I'd love to see what you come up with Theron and share some ideas.

If things go well, maybe I'll race you to the finish line in a hypothetical future :)

I honestly don't see Flames of War as being any more complex than Epic:Armageddon.

Most of the issues with Flames of War seem to come from the extreme difference between groundscale and figure scale.

Sorry it's been a few days but here are some of the ways I'm trying to keep the game clutter free and moving smoothly:

- large ground scale resulting in unlimited range for all weapons, with no range bands except for "close range" where SMGs, etc can be used.

- close combat uses the same mechanism as ranged fire but with advantages that reward getting in close. hopefully this will make CC easier to keep straight in players minds.

- an almost complete absence of modifiers. Most advantages are qualitative rather than quantitative. For example instead of having a stack of modifiers that make infantry in hard cover very hard to hit I just say they are invulnerable to lighter weapons. This removes the tendency to take a low odds shot just because you don't want to throw it away.

- only one die roll per attack. There are no saving throws.

- only one action per unit in a turn – you either move or shoot, not both.

I've just recently started play testing and that's bringing up a lot of issues so any of these could change.

Memoir 44. Odd I know. But for some years I've used the criteria: can I finish the game to a conclusion in less than 3 hours and can I use every toy I own in the game? We have a huge 15mm collection that was gathering dust. I hexed out my table top with 6" hexes and away we went. You can fit a lot of toys in a 6" hex and not have the tanks look wheel to wheel.
We also play a lot of the Kampfgroup/Battlegroup Normandy rules. I love them and we can fit our games almost always in the 3 hour window. But we can't use all our toys. Sometimes you just want all the lead you collected and painted out there. Memoir can scratch that itch….and be fun too.
BC

Uh-oh, looks like interest is waning rapidly in this subject. I better get on it before it dries up altogether! :)

I'm very keen to see your rules…they sound like just the thing we're looking for.

If I get a chance this week, I'll post up my thoughts so far.

I'm very keen to see your rules…they sound like just the thing we're looking for.

In a week or two I can probably send you a copy to check out as a play test.

Excellent! We can try them out at our club as well as domestically and I'm sure you'll get some useful feedback.