"Tell me about Battlefront WWII" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleNow that the 20mm Finns are painted, how to base them?
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Achtung Minen | 17 Jun 2016 6:39 p.m. PST |
I am thinking of starting up 6mm WW2 and wanted to know a little more about BF WWII. I played it a couple times at conventions over a decade ago and remember enjoying it, but I cannot for the life of me find a thorough review of the game's mechanics. The overview on the Fire & Fury website was helpful but it did not go into much depth. A few questions for starters: 1) What are the rules on cohesion distance for the units in a maneuver element? Are they free to wander off on their own (like IABSM) or do they have to stay within a certain distance of one another (like FOW)? If the former, are their penalties for units that are a long distance away from the HQ unit? 2) How strict are the formation rules? Can I, for example, take a company of German infantry with a couple of StuG III in support, or must I take an entirely separate StuG III company? 3) How does it play in 6mm, and do you have to stick to the recommended basing instructions? I have limited space (part of the reason I am interested in BF WWII, since the weapon ranges are so short) and intend to play "company plus" sized games on a small 3'x3' GHQ terrain maker setup. Will this work well with 6mm? |
Saber6 | 17 Jun 2016 8:22 p.m. PST |
I'll double check Q1. Q2 is scenario specific, a lot of options are "realistic". Q3, Yu could try with 1/2 size stand and halving ranges. |
(Leftee) | 17 Jun 2016 9:58 p.m. PST |
They use centimeters and specific basing and templates for 6mm. Think 10mm would be sweet spot for game. Bill Slavin does great work in 20mm though. Check out his blog and posts here as well as Jemima Fawr and all the scenarios, TO&Es and AARs on the website. In fairness can't wander all over place in IABSM without nasty penalties. I believe there are command restrictions in BF. Someone else will have to answer that. No field what you want within historical parameters. Your company can be understrength, you may only muster a platoon (1 tank) of stugs that day. They have great TO&Es, but these are best case so feel free to modify based on history or scenario design. Base how you want as long as both sides similar Really enjoyed the game in 15mm but think that 6mm would work great at this scale. 3x3 would be good for probably battalion to regimental actions- not sure as haven't played at that scale- and it depends on how close the terrain but if 1" =1cm an 8' table becomes 3 feet, I think? |
Achtung Minen | 18 Jun 2016 3:45 a.m. PST |
Thanks so far, more details are always appreciated! How does the game handle things like urban fights? Or prepared defensive positions? |
Achtung Minen | 18 Jun 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
Oh, I had just assumed the range bands on the cards were in centimeters to start with (so the max range for most units, 60, came out to 2 feet). Is that the standard for micro armour? I would much prefer that, as I have very limited space to game (and infantry firefights at 2 to 4 inches away sounds just about right to me for 6mm models). |
Achtung Minen | 18 Jun 2016 8:59 a.m. PST |
Great, thanks. Could you please clarify the comment about basing conventions and "aiming point"? I am not sure that I know what the latter are. To be honest, I have never perfectly understood why some rulesets are strict about basing conventions in the first place. Is it because smaller base sizes would make artillery templates less powerful and larger ones would make artillery too powerful? I have always done all of my measurements for games from the center point of bases, which meant that it would make little difference if my opponent came with much larger or much smaller bases than mine (i.e., artillery would only hit a stand if the template covered the center of the base). I noticed on the Fire & Fury website that 6mm scale infantry should be on 5/8th inch by 1/2 inch bases. I am going to use round bases, which means an 16mm diameter base covers the same area. I don't actually have any such bases though, and might just use the pile of 20mm round bases that I bought from Litko ages ago. Hopefully this is kosher! |
Greg G1 | 18 Jun 2016 12:05 p.m. PST |
I also play F&F Battlefront WWII in 6mm, and I use a 25mm x 20mm base for Infantry, and heavy weapons and a 15mm x 20mm base for LMG's, 2"/50mm Mortars, and Infantry anti-tank weapons. This was how I had based my figures when I used WRG rules, and it looked OK, and I have no intention of rebasing them all just because I have changed rules. Like noddyholder I play 6mm with the 15mm scale as I have the space to do it. Also it is worth playing a couple of the introductory scenarios from the F&F Battlefront WWII website., just to get a feel of the rules. link |
Achtung Minen | 20 Jun 2016 10:53 a.m. PST |
Very interesting—the artillery tutorial is an impressive piece of research! I've signed up for the BFWW2 forum and even contributed a bit of my own research regarding Gebirgsjäger companies: link I am a little surprised that the Panzergrenadier order of battle breaks the companies down into six squads and three independent LMG groups (presumably with two LMGs in each). Is there any historical evidence that the extra LMGs were fielded in this way? I always assumed that they remained in their squads so that each squad had two LMGs (which would necessitate a Panzergrenadier card with slightly improved firepower stats). |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Jun 2016 11:20 a.m. PST |
1. The cohesion rules are simply a +1 on the manoeuvre roll for being within 5" of a commander in the chain of command (10" in the case of command vehicles). So it's fine for units to wander off… Until they start getting shot up, at which point you REALLY miss that +1… Obviously, the better troops will be able to deal better with being on detached duties. 2. The rules are scenario-based rather than points/competition based. The TO&Es should be used as far as possible, though there are always historical oddities and disparate units being thrown together. 3. If it were me, I'd play using the 15mm scale but 6mm models! It actually plays better, as you don't have to deal with the enormous scale footprint of 15mm tanks. Re basing – the base sizes are only suggestions and don't matter, as all ranges are measured from the 'aiming point', which is always half-way along the base-edge. I use 25mm squares for my infantry and whatever fits the model for vehicles and guns. One critical thing however, is that you might find circular bases difficult to deal with in game terms. The Front/Rear of a unit is defined by a straight line drawn across the front base edge of the unit. A curved base edge would therefore make this problematic. Re the German LMGs – this was a 'fudge' to reflect the extra ration of LMGs in panzer-grenadier units (i.e. swap out every third infantry unit with an LMG unit). It doesn't bother me, though as you say, an infantry unit with better ranged firepower might be a better solution. |
dice gunner | 21 Jun 2016 3:15 p.m. PST |
What does BUA and BUS stand for? |
Achtung Minen | 22 Jun 2016 5:10 a.m. PST |
That makes sense to me (regarding the LMGs). I don't need absolute fidelity to small details of squad composition at this scale, and the distinction between rifle and LMG sections allows me to make tactical decisions about where and how to deploy the company's extra machine-guns (so as to form a Schwerpunkt, for example). I am sure 15mm scale (is that "measure in inches"?) would look excellent with 6mm models, but unfortunately for me it is as much a question of gaming space as anything else. I will probably be playing on a 32" x 24" game board, so centimeter measurement is ideal to still allow some maneuvering options. If I expand onto a proper table, I will certainly give the larger ground scale a go! That's a good point about the bases. I haven't received my copy of the rules yet so I wasn't aware of this. Maybe I will go with the square bases after all (it looks like Litko will cut some for me quite cheaply too, which certainly helps). @dice gunner, I believe BUA stands for "built up area" and BUS stands for "built up sector." The latter is used to designate specific building structures, possibly those with more than one level, while the former is more like a terrain template for an area with many, small buildings. Not quite sure how else they are mechanically distinguished, but I assume a small Russian village would be a BUA and the large, Orthodox church in the middle of town would be a BUS. They might have different rules for destruction, for example. I assume that kind of language was adopted in order to facilitate large, "Rattenkrieg"-like battles games, since I do not know many other games that distinguish between two levels of buildings. That way, in a Stalingrad game, the entire map might count as a BUA, while certain fortress-like strongpoints (bombed out tractor factories, massive grain silos etc.) would count as BUS. When I get the rules, I'll see about giving a thorough review for prospective buyers. |
(Leftee) | 22 Jun 2016 11:04 a.m. PST |
I believe BUS is a little easier to traverse and allows for easier LOS along roads. There are rules on the Website that cover the differences. BUS was not in the original rules. Actually if defines levels of buildings better and larger structures. PDF link |
Achtung Minen | 30 Jun 2016 11:42 a.m. PST |
Brucka, thanks for that clarification! I have now received the rules and can say that I am very impressed. The game reminds me a lot of the old Combat Mission computer games, only translated to the tabletop. I will have to let it all soak in and give the game a few play-throughs before writing a review, but I really like what I am seeing so far. Although there is a lot of detail, I was actually quite surprised with how simple the game is at its core—all attacks and maneuver checks basically follow the same format for every unit type, and the rules for attacks and maneuvers are basically 80% of the game. I did have a question about spotting (which is basically the remaining 20% of the game). It strikes me that you could end up with weird situations that are difficult to keep track of, especially with regards to remembering which units are suspected by which enemies. Is there any way to keep track of this easily? For instance, a dug-in Pak 38 at the edge of a dense woods might fire on an advancing company of M5 Stuart tanks, but only some of the tanks would suspect the Pak position since half of the tanks are behind the crest of a hill. Once the company traverses the hill, however, it seems like you would have to remember which tanks were suspecting the antitank gun position and which were not. The same thing for ambush fire—it would be important to remember which units you could ambush (because you are hidden to them) and which you could not. I think you could put colourful pipe cleaners between every unit to show lines of observation, but this seems like it would quickly get out of hand with too many units on the table. One alternative (if, indeed, I am not misunderstanding the rules and positing a problem where there is none) might be to come up with a house rule to simplify suspected enemy locations. For example, when a unit fires, it gains a little token by the stand to indicate that it can be suspected for the remainder of the turn. All tokens would be picked up in the upkeep phase at the beginning of the next turn (or perhaps before each player turn instead, since both sides have an opportunity to return fire each player turn anyway). That way, it doesn't matter if you happened to have line of sight to the unit when it fired, and hidden units that fired could be suspected by every enemy on the table. It cuts out a little of the realism, but it might make the bookkeeping a little easier! |
Achtung Minen | 06 Jul 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Just out of curiosity, do any of the BF WW2 vets want to comment on whether the problem I identified in the previous post actually exists? I.e., how complicated is it to remember which units had line of sight to an enemy when it fired earlier in the turn? |
pnguyenho | 02 Sep 2016 2:09 p.m. PST |
Hi Achtung, An enemy unit once spotted or suspected by a friendly unit becomes automatically suspected by all friendly units of the same maneuver element. The assumption is that the first unit that spotted or suspected the enemy has communicated that info to its companions. Note, however, that each friendly unit still must spot the suspected unit in order to avoid the -2 fire modifier. Phong |
Achtung Minen | 24 Sep 2016 8:31 p.m. PST |
Ah ok, that makes things clearer! Thanks Phong! |
laretenue | 10 Dec 2016 6:27 p.m. PST |
Just to pursue this thinking about generalising infantry/LMG stands … Partly because of the fiddly nature of micro-scale miniatures, I'd been wondering about standardising vehicle stands within armoured coy/sqns. Specifically, I have been thinking about representing British Sherman.Cromwell-equipped subunits with standard M4 and factoring the greater AT firepower of the 17pdr tanks into the stands stats. This might equally apply to similar stands using other rules. I also confess that I'd been trying to limit the number of stands, pushing the troop ratio closer to 1:3-4 from 1:2-3. You might ask why I wouldn't just use Spearhead rather than Bf-WW2, but I'm more impressed with the latter's mechanisms and I'd like to see how it handles Brigade/Regt levels. Can anyone help me develop this thinking? |
christot | 12 Dec 2016 8:22 a.m. PST |
yes, thats one reason why BFWWII is attractive because it deals with the section lvl rather than the platoon. The platoon = 1 stand rulesets are all somewhat unsatisfactory because things like fireflies get aggregated into 3 platoons of M4 +1 platoon of fireflies, or, say German infantry companies that have a section of mortars or machine guns at company level which in turn become platoons available for the entire battalion…none of which is quite right… |
sausagesca | 12 Dec 2016 6:16 p.m. PST |
We played BFWWII for years and I think it is an elegant design -- and really quite simple as far as WWII games goes. However, we stopped playing it because it took too long to get a result. Too many pins/suppressions etc. and not enough removal of elements. Unfortunate, really. We could have applied a double effect means the next up approach, but instead of tinkering we went to Rapid Fire which also appealed because of the bath-tubbing potential. RF has rules for everything and is simple and…deadly. Less 'realistic' and rather old school of course, but fun and RF3 is coming. BFWWII is excellent though. |
laretenue | 13 Dec 2016 4:51 a.m. PST |
Interesting responses, gents. Part of my reasoning is that at 6mm – or more to the point, at 1mm to the metre or yard – moving around rifle/LMG sections must become damn fiddly. BFWW2 actually suggests this ground scale for this size of miniatures; I can completely see why others use the standard ranges/distances with 6mm, but I have maps/terrain etc on this setting for other periods (F&FF, AoE etc) and this is how my eye reads the miniature landscape. So: Platoon/Troop stands for me, with a certain smoothing off of granular detail. But I figure that what is good about BFWW2 is probably capable of being ported up one scale … |
Garth in the Park | 18 Dec 2016 2:36 p.m. PST |
we stopped playing it because it took too long to get a result. Too many pins/suppressions etc. and not enough removal of elements. That was our conclusion, also, after about a year of valiant attempts. |
|