"Chain of Command "Easy to learn, hard to master"" Topic

That's how a friend described it to me. Would gamers who have played the rules agree with that?

The tactics series has been interesting, but I am wondering about just starting playing. Is it easy to get into?

I would absolutely describe the game that way. The rules are not difficult at all to learn. After a two or three plays of the rules they drift into the background and you are thinking like a section or platoon leader. You are telling your section to run for the corner of the building, you're setting up your MG42 in the second story window of the cafe to give covering fire while you prepare to assault, you're sending out a two man scout team to recon that barn.
The mastery of the game comes from learning how to execute small unit tactics practiced during World War II.
Above all TFL makes the game fun while you learn something at the same time.

Every game I have run for my group has ended with the players saying, "I'm seeing what I need to do, now. I can't wait to try this again!" Especially the pre-game set up.

I would agree with the easy to learn lifetime to master tag, too.

I've only played one game and for me the jury is still out. I would say that the Othello Principle, i.e., easy to learn hard to master might apply. Chain of Command does have one of the most unique and perhaps more innovative methods of creating friction and deployment of forces. Because it takes such a different approach in regards table top war game mechanics it can be a bit intimidating. I want to give it a few more games before I decide if I prefer it to other systems I use for 28 mm WW II war games. Currently my favorites are Disposable Heroes, The Battlegroup Normandy and Kursk rules, and I am about to give Bolt Action a go.

It's easy enough to learn: the mechanics are fairly simple.
Working out what to do each phase – and over several phases – is the tricky part. As it should be. Fire and movement tactics are more likely to suceed than banzai-like charges.
As with all small-unit games, probably best played as part of a campaign – but then that's available too.

So where can I get them in the US?

I have found it takes a game or two to get gamers out of the standard "just charge" mindset. You really do have to lay down some fire and get some shock on units before advancing or you'll get cut to pieces, as you should.

Don -- You can get the rules from Brigade Games and On Military Matters.

Mechanics aren't too hard. The only thing we ran into, when I've introduced the game to people, is that it takes a bit to remember which dice does what, when you activate units.

Keeping an index card or something with the activation dice rolls on it helps a lot.

The scouting sequence is what is the hardest tactically to really get good at, because most of us (at least) are used to playing "one move at a time" instead of planning ahead.

PDFs are available too, as I recall.

I would say it is not as easy to learn as either Battlegroup or Nuts. As Weasel mentions remembering what each die result allows you to do can be an initial stumbling block.

Very easy to learn, as has been said after one or two games they become second nature. The patrol phase is one of the most innovative mechanism I have come across in forty years of wargaming. If you are looking for a set of rules to simulate commanding an infantry platoon CoC is probably the best available. I own and have played Bolt Action but have to admit that while fun it is not a simulation of warfare at platoon level anymore than Monopoly is a simulation of Property development.

All of this said my rule set of choice for Platoon level is Troops Weapons and Tactics. No real reason I just like them. ;-)

Fatman

I've not seen battlegroup so can't comment but I found NUTS to be much harder to learn than Chain of Command. Having played other Lardy rules helped in this regard of course.

I have a friend who is a Bolt Action Demonstration guy and we both agreed that the games are of equal complexity.

The Hobby bunker in Malden, MA has them in stock as of last Saturday although I don't see them with a quick search on their web site hobbybunker.com

So far I've just used the tablet PDF version on my Android NExus 7 and have found that works quite well, especially after printing the quick reference charts from the TFL site.

Chris

I started 28mm WWII with Disposable Heroes and my friends all switched to Bolt Action when it was released. I have been intrigued by CoC ever since it was released especially for the deployment aspect. Bolt Action is fun enough and good enough for my ex- 40k playing friends but I always worried they could be turned off of CoC for having "too many" or "too different" rules.

I do find Bolt Action to be somewhat rudimentary (I do not mean that in a derrogatory way, I do enjoy the game). Can anyone opine to CoC, if it is easy to pick up for the Bolt Action/ 40k minded and is it suitable for larger game, ie. 1500- 2000 point games in Bolt Action ?

Some Bolt Action players will balk at CoC, some people balk at any kind of change.

I do not know how big of a game a 2000 point game would be but base Coc is made to handle a platoon vs a platoon and there is an official expansion (free on the web) to handle up to a company (or more) on each side.

My opinion is without having played Bolt Action or even read the rules.

Chain of Command's actual mechanisms are very simple and they way they fit together gives a very innovative outcome.

As said, it is relatively easy to pick up, but it rewards real-world tactics.

As others have said, they appear to give (and once again I have no first hand experience) of the problems of being a platoon leader in WW2.

The two main stumbling blocks for the BA/40K crowd are likely to be that not everything can move/act in each turn and variable movement distances (roll 1D6, 2D6 or 3D6 for move distance depending on whether you're moving with maximum cover or firing and moving, moving normally, or moving flat out.

One of my favorite mechanisms is the morale system: firing not only kills, it also creates 'shock'. When the amount of shock exceeds the unit size, they are pinned. When the shock equals twice the unit size they break and run.
Shock also affects movement and firing. Simple and elegent and avoids 'morale checks'. Once a firefight starts, a leader's role includes removing shock.

There is no points system, you start off with a 'standard' pplatoon of whatever type you select, and your support elements are variable (roll 2D6 for the attacker, defender gets half is typical and select support elements from a menu)

There is also the patrol/jump-off point mechanism which is radically different to any other game I've played. It gives a very playable hidden movement/deployment system. Best way to think of it is units are only placed on table when the enemy is in a position to see them.

It also rewards scouting to force the enemy to deploy so you can feed in your forces at a hopefully weak point.

There is even a big battle supplement as a free download allowing you to run multiple platoon battles. (works best as a multiplayer game as it's hard enough to run one platooon properly)

Overall, it is 'different', but the individual systems are simple.

It's also inexpensive as a PDF download which includes generic 1944 lists and there are a growing amount of other army lists as free downloads or in campaign books (two sets so far : winter 42 russian front and two specific organisations for D-day)

Hard to learn, in the way most "tactical" WW2 rules are: small arms vs soft-skin, small arms vs AFV, HE vs infantry, vs soft-skin, vs AFV, etc.

But once you got it, it's easy to remember, or at least remember where to find the rule.

Mastery… I guess the rules are not very "game-able" in that you can't have a cheesy killer-tactic that always works. Real world tactics seem to work best, which is why the rules are so popular, I guess.

Here's a playlist of games/tutorials

youtu.be/6QEkWH85rHg

As you can see the opinions vary – my 2 quid:
Enjoyed a tad more than I enjoyed Bolt Action
Found it a tad easier to learn than NUTS!
Little more variety, though as easy/hard to learn as Rate of Fire.
Prefer over FUBAR.

All that said, I've got no major issues with any of these rules, just preferences.

I always like watching people used to other rules play TFL WW2 games, and the shock on their faces when charging MGs head on gets them killed.

Someone at my club had a activation cheat sheet, and I was surprised- its the bit I find easiest to remember.

Haven't played TW&T for sometime, I enjoy it, but opponents find the difficulty activating units frustrating- they don't dispute the 'realism' but more the effect both sides sit there not being able to move because the cards aren't out.

My favourite WW2 remains IABSM. my gripe with CoC is the lack of short term pin result- I know there is a Pin in there, but that's not what I mean. I mean the temporary keeping heads down, no matter how little shock you have.

In my experience most people get the order dice fairly quickly, especially if you remind them of the various options in their first games.

The Patrol Phase and deployment points solve so many things like hidden deployment, ambushes, reserves etc. Compare it the ambush rule in FOW, which is my favorite "sheer genius/utterly crazy" rule ever. CoC takes it to the next level, makes it less arbitrary, while still allowing for big surprises.

The key to the game are the leaders and how they affect the troops around them. Without leaders your troops will shoot and move adequately, but if you want them to perform, they better listen to the sarge.

The CoC die is another factor players tend to underestimate and go for the most straightforward option first.

CoC is a rewarding game that gets better the more you play it.

Now the rules themselves have a few clarity issues. They are somewhat informal and some terms can be very confusing to first-time players, I needed some time to wrap my head around the various definitions of squads, teams and which die will activate exactly what.

CoC is like all TFl rules a set for gentlemen gamers who like to play the spirit of the rules, I'm sure a ruthless rules lawyer will find more than enough room to abuse them in the most horrible ways possible, but I keep the M1911 handy for such cases.

Schogan: Thanks!

In the BrigadeGames.com webstore here:

link

I'm enjoying CoC. I do like simpler rules. These are basically simple, but a bit messy. That may be because I like "system" games, where there's fewer game mechanics, and these rules prioritize making historical tactics over that, with which I can't argue. I think that can make it a bit messier. The fact that shock from regular shooting and covering fire have similar goals but different rules strikes me as odd. I'd wondered if you could trade off accuracy (every kill result gives a shock instead) for volume (double dice) to represent the same thing. But while mine reuses a mechanism, the real rule is simpler. And represents it better, since shock stays around, but covering fire only matters as long as you're doing it. Also penalizes all shots from affected cover, not just some from shock. So why change?

I feel things are handled in the book a bit at a time in multiple places, and I have to find the right part. And there are rules for lots of little things I wish were factored in to other parts. (See above, and how that is probably not really better.) But simplicity has a lot to do with familiarity.

And I'll say that the phases went by really quickly, even playing against my wife, to whom I had to explain a lot. That goes a long way towards the fun level. And I've only played two games so far.

It seems to me there is more cloudiness about how teams and squads work than I'd expect, even among people on the forum who have played a while.

andy

Andy, one thing that covering fire allows you to do that 'normal' fire doesnt is 'speculative' fire: you can pre-emptively suppress an enemy who you can't see (hasn't deployed)

Say there's a perfect spot for a HMG or 'Shreck that would threaten your advance : suppress it with covering fire before they even show their heads.

Teams and squads is a little difficult to get your head around, but most of the time (Russians and Poles excepted), a squad is made up of a number of teams who can to an extent share the shock each team is carrying, and a team is the smallest individual unit/building block, and is the 'carrier' of shock.

Being on overwatch only lets you fire on a newly spotted/deployed enemy (or ambusher) AFTER they have opened fire.

Andy, that's almost exactly my feeling. Really great set, but while the individual systems are simple, there are so many of them that it becomes harder to learn and remember. Not a knock against the game, but I do think it's harder to learn than most people imply.

I wargame with two friends, one of whom was a longtime WWII reenactor, and the other who designed a series of highly successful WWII boardgames years ago. Both are very knowledgeable about the era, the weapons, the tactics, etc. I am more of a Civil War-era gamer. Both these guys have tried various miniature wargames, and both feel Chain of Command is the best game they have played for a platoon-level game. As for me, I had some hard knocks the first few times I played – charged into machine guns, etc! – but I then started reading about actual WWII tactics, and applying them in game play. Now, I have success in the game – or at least I don't get chewed up so badly. It really rewards covering fire, covering smoke, grenade assaults, etc. And I learned that the MG42 is a nightmare no matter what you do against it.
It is a great game, and I applaud the creators. The patrol phase is a game unto itself, and can make it difficult to win if you place markers poorly. Anyhow, it is not hard to learn, it is just different. I would agree, easy to learn the rules, hard to master the tactics.

cheesesailor77, you put it well. The individual parts aren't hard, but there are a lot of parts. I still have to bring in vehicles, and they work very differently. Of course, especially at this scale, they should _be_ different. But I wish the systems could have a bit more in common.

I do appreciate the Covering Fire rule, and used it successfully last game.

andy

The rules are quite easy to learn once you get your head around the diffrent teams, sections and squads.
However after just a few games these become like second nature and everything becomes very realistic. Frighteningly so in fact.
I don't think there is another rule set that comes as close as to what a WWII platoon leader must have experienced.
Admittedly I've been using them almost exclusively for SCW games, but have started acquiring a small early WWII platoon ( well , two actually) just because of these rules.
Cannot recommend them highly enough.

Can anyone explain what us meant by multiple mechanisms? I'm not sure I understand.

Monkey, what I mean, at least, is that most "actions" in the game use very different mechanisms from each other; different procedures, different types of rolls, different sets of modifiers, etc. So when people for example say the "patrol phase is a game unto itself" they really aren't kidding. While fairly simple, it still has several pages of its own rules, none of which, mechanically speaking I mean, relate to anything else in the game once that part it over. Shooting troops is very different rules than shooting tanks, with virtually no overlap mechanically. Assaults as well. It's as though they were systems from other games, from different designers, but because they worked so well and produced the desired results, Rich and co coopted them and glued them together into this set (I'm obviously not suggested they stole the rules).

this criticism doesn't make the rules sub par, it's just simply the only criticism I can think of ;)

By the way, I'm not saying that CoC is a relatively complicated game compared to others. Each bit is simple enough. The patrol phase is simple and deep. Jump off points are mostly clear, with any questions coming from grasping teams/squads/leaders, plus a bit that interacts with other rules. And I don't have any problem with command dice. If I did, a card would handle it. These things (plus leaders and command initiative) are the heart, and none of them is itself difficult.

But the parts I haven't gotten familiar with yet look hazy. As said above, shooting at vehicles doesn't resemble shooting at infantry. There is a rule here or there for special things to remember, and I'm just not good at that.

CoC isn't trying to be elegant abstract boardgame. And these things are not holding me back. The parts I've been through are getting clearer as I play. I won't even try with a game I really think is complex--too much work. But I will have to flip through the book some. That relates to something I think maybe could be simpler. Some things are covered in pieces in multiple places. I'll think I've got the part that covers something, but that's in a separate part. But I'm learning, and familiarity is all I'll need to get more comfortable.

andy