"Game vs Historical TO&E Scope" Topic

A common issue in WWII small unit gaming is game scope vs historical scope when it comes to TO&Es. Whether a company-level or platoon-level game, the player's role often has access to assets far more diverse than their historical equivalents.

That doesn't mean that 155mm batteries didn't fire in support of companies! They did.

It's that mere WWII rifle company and platoon commanders usually didn't have DIRECT control over the vast menagerie of attached armor, artillery, AA, recon, and air assets at the same time as presented in these and similar games.

Historically, a rifle company might have a tank platoon or AFV section attached. But Captain Jones didn't routinely command a combined arms force of air, arty, and armor. Nor did Lt. Williams routinely lead a mixed platoon-sized force of tanks, AA guns, and heavy mortars!

Games such as Command Decision tried to address the desire to lead combined arms forces by moving the player's role up to battalion level or higher. It could do so only by increasing the level of abstraction so that 1 tank model represented a full platoon, at least in name.

Meanwhile, 40K's approach seems to have heavily influenced the historical community so that now, asset mixes historically seen only at the combat command level and above is present at platoon and company level! The maneuver elements are individual teams or squads and the player has direct control of ALL arms.

Do you embrace this approach or reject it? Why or why not?

The point of the topic is to explore personal likes and dislikes and not to argue over the merits or historical accuracy of specific games. Clearly this is a matter of personal preference so let's give each other the opportunity to express those preferences as freely as possible.

One potential approach: don't even reply to specific posts by others expressing support for their own game/approach. Just express your own preference and reasons for it. Show love for your own preference, don't hate on others. :-)

This is why I tend to stay away from points based games and stick with scenarios. Want to play with Air Support, or direct support of a tank platoon, find the specific action where it occurred and your off to the races.

I reject the approach, because I am primarily interested in the historical decision making processes and A company commander almost never had decision making capability when it came to air strikes or heavy barrages. For a platoon commander, those things are, practically speaking, acts of God which can help or hinder the platoon in its pursuit of its objectives.

By the way, a single tank model dos not explicitly represent a tank platoon in Command Decision. Rather, 3-5 tank models represent a Tank Company. The same is true for infantry and other units.

I prefer the limited support option. The Lardy approach in their pint-sized campaigns is to provide likely support options for a specific set of games. Being forced to work within these limits is a challenge, and after half-a-dozen games you can play in a different environment.

When I did Five Men at Kursk, I actually thought about this, which is why support units can end up encumbering your command process.

Basically the extra action dice you get for having support elements are less than what it'd take to full activate the support units.
I wanted to, in a roundabout way, reflect that an infantry commander with 2 or 3 attached units is going to be a very busy guy indeed.

But most of the time? I'll be honest, I don't really mind the "strangely amazing combined arms platoon leader". If the game runs easy, all well.
Im sure that makes me a bad gamer :-)

I like the combined arms approach. I play FOW and even though I know a company commander doesn't have access to all of those assets, I mentally just call it a battalion with supporting elements, not a company.

Now, in your opening explanation, you are implying that going to battalion level for combined arms means that 1 tank = multiple tanks and you have to deal with that abstraction. Why? In my book, playing 1 tank vs 1 tank is no different than 4 tanks vs 4 tanks. I found it annoying moving a tank sideways while it still pointed forward because it represents a whole platoon. Why even have a tank? Just go back to playing chits on a map rather than setting up a table.

If it makes you feel more comfortable, call it a "floating perspective": it's battalion level when the mission is determined and the units are placed but I zoom in to company level when the models move or actual combat takes place. Based on my gaming experience, I think this is the way a lot of people play it (at least FOW players).

I've ranted about "realism" in other threads before, so it need not be repeated here. But I just don't see why assembling a combined arms force at battalion level & then treating them as individuals is taboo. Operating at a squad level gets boring very quickly (men, support HMG, mortar and a radio for artillery support… That's it).

When I started back in the 1980s, the attitude taken then…and it still persists…is that what model kits are available? Put them on the table.

I am happy with both strictly historical orbats and with putting funky stuff on the table. I play enough WW2 games to indulge the strictly historical and the based-on-history approach. I don't see the need to pick sides on this one or to look down my nose on the other side.

I love the Lardies WW2 rules, but sometimes they just don't scratch that combined arms itch. I play Flames of War and that satisfies that, but that doesn't satisfy the fog of war itch so the Lardies rules are there for that. Many moons ago, WRG 1925-1950 was combined arms and you had a shopping list of everything you could want at 1=1 level. Shame the ground scale for 20mm was rubbish.

I don't really like operational level WW2 games in miniature. I have ASL and Panzerblitz to satisfy those needs in board game format. Indeed, operational WW2 is more suited to board games in my opinion. I like my WW2 miniatures games to be 1=1 and I will play scenarios, pointed games, strictly historical and based on history games. Happily. Enjoy it all, gang.

I like to play FoW and get around this issue by having 2-3 people per side with 1500-1750 points on a 4x8 table. One person commands the Company (close to full platoons required) while the other 1-2 people control the tanks and air/artillery support. This adds a level of unpredictability. Sure the player commanding the company could tell the player commanding the tanks what to do, but that doesn't mean he has to follow orders!

It is pretty funny because I have seen some times where the company commander has asked the player with the tanks to essentially act as a metal shield so he could move in the infantry and the tank player wouldn't do it because he didn't want to lose his tanks. We take this approach with DBM as well and it works the same. Makes for some very interesting and IMO a little more historically accurate games. The only downside is you have to trust others with your models usually and I am pretty apprehensive about that.

Maverick-

I like it! That's a great way to handle it. And you get used to,other people handling the figures. I've been doing that way for years and I only get nervous when they start throwing them in piles 😕

I embrace the approach from a "more toys is more fun" angle for most games. If I want to do an actual battle (or part of a battle) it's just a matter of trying to match a real TO&E or finding out what was there in what quantities and then fudging the command structure a bit.

For WWII gaming, I personally think the sweet spot is actually the "multiple company" level, which is below full battalion strength and above a single company strength.

So, if you're fielding a company of armor and a company of infantry, as is usually common in most Flames of War lists, regardless of whether it's labeled infantry/mech/armoured, then really you're running two companies and therefore the support can really be more varied (the support one can expect to receive can differ than the support the other can expect to receive)

Just my two cents!

Historical scenarios mostly not a fan of points games but I do like 'variable attachments' (or removals) as rarely do units reach full TO&E.
I've used the 'Maverick' approach too, splitting command amongst players, two infantry platoons and a tank platoon, each with individual commander/players and a CO with the 3 red reserve platoon…………….always a hoot when someone 'won't/don't' follow the plan…..tanks not crossing bridges, infantry not crossing open 'killing ground' etc……..hanging back a bit to let the others catch the brunt……..

Another method with multiplayer games is to give a variety of objectives and let them choose one secretly……..

That's why I've always preferred Battallion-sized Battlegroups/Combat-Commands.

I've used the 'Maverick' approach too, splitting command amongst players, two infantry platoons and a tank platoon, each with individual commander/players and a CO with the 3 red reserve platoon…………….always a hoot when someone 'won't/don't' follow the plan…..tanks not crossing bridges, infantry not crossing open 'killing ground' etc……..hanging back a bit to let the others catch the brunt……..

Another method with multiplayer games is to give a variety of objectives and let them choose one secretly……..

I give the Attacking players a basic force then they can ask higher command for some attachments. Defender start out with a small force and hope reinforcements show up. on the Defenders table there are all sorts of Vehicles set out that they most likely will never get . But the Attacker thinks they are out there somewhere. you roll good dice you will get good stuff. Bad dice you get a guy on a bicycle.

I also believe multi-player is a solution, because lack of a staff and a chain of command in what is after all just a game, is what creates the problem in the first place.

Most of our games have only 1 person per side playing, and someone needs to move the troops. This makes it look like a lowly captain has the resources of a colonel. I look at it differently, the captain isn't in charge of the supports – the colonel is, the player is merely moving them. What we're seeing is merely a small portion of a much bigger battle.

I've gamed many periods, and swore for many years I would never game anything in the twentieth century…and just recently for the last year I was bitten by WWII skirmish – like level gaming. I was introduced to the BA gaming system and it didn't really grab me as there was a point system in which players were fielding crazy combinations of troops/vehicles which didn't seem historical. Thus sounded and played like a convention game…just not my cup of tea.

Later I was introduced to Chain of Command which gives you a realistic-like platoon to field and some potential options which can provide support to the infantry. TFL did this system really well. I like the free-bee down load call BIG CoC..which takes the players a bit farther into fielding vehicle platoons. This works well as some have already stated, a player controls their own platoon…the vehicle platoon has no influence over the infantry and vice-versa. Each player (platoon commander) works independently.

Bottom line, I like doing some research/reading about the different periods I game, and always looking to get it right.

P.

I generally prefer historical scenarios, so as far as possible I try and use the historical orbats.

In WW2 this generally means battalion level engagements and up, given the granularity of most historical accounts.

I could cite a few examples of magic platoon sized combined arms units (Foleyforce for one), but they were certainly the excption, not the rule.

Thanks for the detailed replies, all are very thoughtful and much appreciated!

Now let's look at the other side of the coin on this issue.

Can a platoon-level game designed to accurately reflect platoon-level assets be as popular as games that are nominally platoon level but inlcude unrealistically diverse assets?

Let's use 40K and Infikity a examples since this is a WWII board and we can let each supporter of a given game speak purely for himself without my example influencing things directly.

In 40K each force has a number of squads about equal to a 20th century rifle platoon but all manner of assets from armor to massive arty andd air support on the table!

Infinity is tightly focused on squad level combat with some forces approaching understrength platoon size. You won't find masssive war machines in Infinity, just some slightly larger than man-sized bots and power armor.

Can a historically oriented game as tightly focused as Infinity do as well as one that takes 40K's approach? Would players really be happy with just rifles, MGs, and maybe some halftracks?

Or is the siren call of 88s, Tigers, Typhoons, and Sherman 76s just too powerful?

I've played some seriously intense infantry games without Germanies menagerie of Tigers, Panthers, and Hornets. But I jusy can't see gamers being routinely and fully satisfied with a pure infantry platoon.

Wizbangs is correct that you should just consider games like FOW Battalion level games where one tank really represents a platoon etc. This is the correct level for combined arms in WWII. But you don't need to some how roto scope the action so it becomes 1-1. Platoon games play just fine with plenty of tactics etc. Also tanks do not move "sideways" in platoon games but generally must end facing the direction they moved. Ironically in FOW they can move sideways ending facing in any direction – so this is generally a fault of 1-1 games not platoon level.

1-1 multi-players games or OK but defeat the combined arms concept – one player has just the INF one the tanks etc. A WWII battalion commander often had battlegroups of both so one player gets to use combined arms. It also keeps games down to reasonable size if you don't have 12 hours to devote to a massive 1-1 game.

Gene McCoy (WWII vet) and latter Frank Chadwick pioneered the Battalion (really battlegroup) level game and nothing yet has produced better historical (or just one off) games for WWII.

Manuver and combined arms is what makes WWII unique and endlessly interesting.

TomT

Define 'popular'. Are you taking about a lot of people buying the rules, playing the game or buying a lot of the miniatures?

I think the 'popularity' of the WH40K style stems from individuals trying to stay on top of the competitive environment and buying the latest "exceptional" vehicle/unit/army. After the game evolves several times, it becomes about who can put together the force which best exploits units exceptional abilities.

Conversely, those players who approach things more "historically" are unlikely to ever be attracted to that model.

Manuver and combined arms is what makes WWII unique and endlessly interesting.

Totally agree! Which is why I believe that a true platoon level WWII game is a non-starter. It's just too limiting.

It's also why company level games include such diverse assets and why battalion/battle group games have a very low level/skirmish feel to them. We want the maneuver and combined arms but not at the expense of details such as a guy firing his Panzerfaust at a T-34 as it overruns his fox hole. True battalion level games which lock players out of tactical details don't work either.

I have these theories of cheeseburgers and wargames which go hand in hand.

At the end of the day, if you take ground beef, tomato sauce, cheese, and a grain such as wheat or corn you end up with The Amazing Universal Food Product Love By All. Call it Cheese burger, taco, burrito, spaghetti, whatever. It's all the same stuff that we love together.

In WWII gaming you have infantry, tanks, artillery, and aircraft models on a tabletop filled with miniature terrain that relates to the models pretty much in the same way no matter what the rules author says. Call it battle group level, company level, or platoon level, whatever. It's all the same toys that we love together.

Therefore, maybe Cheeseburger = Combined Arms Gaming

8-O

:-)

I like that cheeseburger analogy!

I think the 40K comparison is a false one. It ignores the history of WW2 rules sets and how they dealt with combined arms.

The old style, typewritten, pastel cardboard covered rules of days of yore: WRG 1925-1950, Firefly, Tactical Commander, From Cambrai to Sinai etc, all were at 1=1 ratio and all of them gave you the shopping list of basic infantry elements plus all the support options you could think of. And they all had points values attached to them. Gamers quite often would source kits from Airfix, Matchbox, Revell, Esci and Skytrex and if it was available to buy, gamers would buy them with a view to using them in their games at some point. I bought 3 Matchbox Churchill bridgelaying AVREs at that time because….well, because.

This was all looooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggg before Flames of War was even dreamt of.

Rapid Fire and Command Decision changed a lot of that. They went operational and justified all the support weapons options because the games were now battalion or brigade level, not platoon or company. And there was more of an emphasis on historical TO&Es in games.

Now Flames of War, Battlegroup and Bolt Action are here and it creates some tension in the minds of some WW2 gamers; between scale and realism, fun and simulation. This debate is nothing new and, frankly, I find it pointless. The era and the hobby is big enough to accommodate both styles of gaming. As I said before, I don't see a need to nail my colours to the mast as to whether I should play strictly historical battles with little or no support units or else give in to the fun side and have all the kit on the table. I will play both…I just won't play Rapid Fire.

And there are no accurate WW2 rules. It's all about subjectivity. Many extol Chain of Command as one of the most realistic sets of WW2 rules around. However I know one gamer; someone whose historical knowledge of the period is extensive and who designs games himself, who played CoC and said "well it's appears to be WW2, but not in any form I recognise". So choose your rules and the scale you want to play and enjoy the experience.

Yup Uber, they're all Cheeseburgers, from typewritten rules to PDFs sold on Wargame Vault!

I think that the differences are on paper, not so much on the table. 3x tank models in my friend's Tom's rules are usually spaced about 1 to 3" apart and their most effective range is up to 12". 3x tank models in FoW occupy a similar area and their most effective range is 16". In Tom's case thats a company. With FoW, a platoon. In both cases they're supported by infantry and arty. Cheeseburgers! :-)

However, in your list you won't find the Unicorn of 20th Century wargaming: the pure platoon level game. There might be a couple roaming around out there, too skittish to be gazed upon by crowds. Only a few souls believe in them enough to see them.

Your early army building process mirrored my own. My first armies were a weird melting pot of periods and nations because a. I didn't know the difference and b. I bought what I could find at the local shop.

As for rules, my brother and I used a hybrid of "Little Wars" with 1/72 plastic figures and tanks. We had two of the Britains guns and simply placed them behind a squad or tank that was to fire! When playing with our larger green plastic "army men" we used dart guns, the kind with the red suction cups.

If I were playing a pure platoon game, I wouldn't choose Flames of War as that's a company level game. Like I wouldn't use Sharp Practice to recreate the battle of Waterloo. I choose the rules that suit the level of battle. I use Chain of Command for platoon games but I haven't played Bolt Action so I can't compare them; I suspect their support options are similar, ie, you can have some.

Actually, FoW was run as a platoon-level game when Phil Yates initially demoed it at HMGS conventions. Each side had an infantry platoon with a tank or two in support. The basic maneuver element was the squad of 2-3 infantry stands or individual vehicle.

I think the point this discussion has reached is this: if presented with a unit of 3x tank models and two units of about 3x infantry stands each, a tabletop of model terrain, and rules with move rates in the 4" to 12" range and typical effective ranges of 6" to 24" or so you'd have no idea if those units were platoons or companies or squads in the case of the infantry!

Now that I think about it, whether playing Command Decision, Flames of War, or any other 20th century game, one of the first questions most observers have when walking up to such a table is, "What do the figures represent?" Just watching the game it's impossible to figure that out!

I don't think platoon level games would be as popular because of the limited choices and, let's face it, limited tactics you can use with those choices. We all know the basic elements: MG fire or smoke from the mortar to cover the advance, get close enough to assault, toss the grenades & follow up with SMGs or bayonets.

You might get more variety playing platoon level in Vietnam since you had helicopters and a platoon could be in a position where it needs helicopters, air support & artillery.

I played Wahammer Ancients for a long time, but often jumped to Fantasy or WWII battalion level games because I like the choices you get. Although Ancients armies differ, the general principle of how the units move and what they do doesn't change much.

Let's face it, without stretching the TO&E for combined arms, warfare is kind of boring.

I think this comes down to hitorical play or just put nice models on a table and play. Neither are wrong but they are oposite ends of the spectrum. On a historical game an aircraft wil "never" appear on a table. In the real world it would be on for a few seconds at 120+ mph its covering 2 miles a minute. I think Goodwood is the widest battle at 3000 yds. so the plane would have done its job in about 2 to 3 minutes which is less tha most bounds represent overall. Hence having a model is pointless. even if you model its effect. Of a company fighting, actuall at any one pont proably only a platoon is figting in a assult at one time maybe 2 (1 up 2 back etc.) and only over about 500 yds front if its a stiff fight. Threfore a "platoon on table" could reprent at least a company and hence as the spear head could call for support at at least at company level and get mortars etc. Higher level assets may be available at that level if specific threats are identified and communicated up the chain of command. The only problem is all troops need to be outside the danger area which can be fairly large if its a big weapon far away. However having big guns on table is generally not sensible they are too close to be tacticaly correct. Most games at bigger than company become pure fantasy as the ground represented becomes a pure fantasy (except strange places in the dessert perhaps). In the real world there are far more roads, ditches, hills and woods which canal movement in a way that is completly diffrent to the layout of a platoon game and the timescale are much longer In this GOOGLE maps is your friend.

So you can have high level asses sensibly if you plan a sensible scenario even with a historical game at low level. It needs thought but pays back 1000 fold in a credible game. Having planes on for more than a bound per game may look nice but at the expence of reality. You pays your money and takes your choice.

A platoon level game is just a long winded way of saying skirmish. Surely what we are supposed to be recreating is the tip of the spear, where junior commanders actually DO have some level of support available to them? All that stuff has to get use somewhere, it's not kept in the parking lot in case GHQ gets attacked………..

The basic building block of modern armies is the combined arms combat team of infantry and armor companies with artillery support (and its big brother the Battle Group)that was developed in the latter part of WWII.

I prefer historical scenarios anyway as points based games lead almost inevitably to boring and bloody stalemate with the attacker never having enough resources to achieve local superiority and instead relying on good die rolling. If I want to play lucky dice, I'll go to a casino, not Monte Cassino. That's why I play Battlegroup which are the only WWII rules I have ever found that reward real world tactics and give realistic results.