Pete the Wargamer | 02 Feb 2017 2:44 p.m. PST |
What level is the game aimed at? It has a sliding ground scale, so is it another Rapid Fire/Flames of War game where it's just an excuse to get as many models on the table as you can? |
RetroBoom | 02 Feb 2017 3:17 p.m. PST |
Mostly Platoon to Company per side. You can totally go bigger but i feel like its way to cumbersome to get enthusiastic about. And just like like the games you mentioned, battlegroup or any other set can have tabled filled with models on the table if thats what you want. That's up to you.. |
pzivh43 | 02 Feb 2017 5:00 p.m. PST |
Agree that platoon to company is main level. It has several things I like: * An engaging order system that forces you to think about what needs to be done rather than move and shoot everything, hoping for the best * Two different types of fire ( suppression and aimed ) * The army morale system. Recommend you go to the Guild Wargames website--- guildwargamers.com ---they are a friendly, helpful group. |
Extra Crispy | 02 Feb 2017 7:27 p.m. PST |
The army morale is also a random events generator. very inventive mechanism. We found the die roll activation very problematic. For example, doing Western Desert some platoons (Indian IIRC) were 8 "squads" but you only got a D6 worth of orders. So you pick the 2 or 3 for a mission and just abandon the rest. Small teams (like support weapons) are very fragile. We found it paid to take longer odds shots on HMGs than decent shots on infantry. You kill a unit with just a loss and a good morale roll, and force a chit draw. The ground scale is funky but no more so than FoW or most other games. |
PiersBrand | 02 Feb 2017 8:24 p.m. PST |
Sorry Extra Crispy but… Not quite as easy to kill as that as you need to spot first and the unit has to be pinned before it fails the morale test for casualties and then only on a certain number. Small units, like MGs are also harder to spot. Not sure on your Western Desert example as we havent released that book yet. And there isnt eight units in our platoons. So if you had a single British platoon, which is four or five units and one is an 'Officer' giving a +1 to orders. But only very small games use a single d6 for orders. |
War Panda | 02 Feb 2017 8:29 p.m. PST |
Hugely entertaining game. The others have expressed my feelings well: The highlights: how the overall Army Morale is handled. In built spotting. Options on Fire actions: suppressive fire or more concentrated and focused. Clever Order system. |
Privateer4hire | 02 Feb 2017 8:45 p.m. PST |
You should look up a play through that Warwick K. takes Model Dad through on youtube if it's still available. Helps you see the rules in action and lets you hear some thoughts behind design decisions. |
Festerfest | 02 Feb 2017 11:17 p.m. PST |
All I can really add is that while I own quite a few WW II rulesets, this is the one I actually play. For me, it hits the sweet spot on complexity while the order and morale systems provide enough variability to make solitaire games worthwhile. |
Pete the Wargamer | 03 Feb 2017 5:11 a.m. PST |
Thanks, that's all useful info. |
M1Fanboy | 03 Feb 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
It is my go to rules set for WWII..and games never play the same way twice..nor are they decided on the first turn. Many games go to the last roll of the dice or chit draw. It is a tough minded, elegant game that does a damn good job capturing the spirit of WWII on the table. |
PrivateSnafu | 03 Feb 2017 10:34 a.m. PST |
I can't get over my bias and distaste at having to spot before firing. The same net result can be achieved with a single roll. There are some flaws in the TO&E's and it is unclear sometimes what is a "unit" and how to activate tanks. I never found unit coherency rules clearly spelled out. I haven't given up on it but it hasn't taken hold as a "go to" game either. Decent sets of chits for the morale bag are not very readily available in the US either. You'll need a bunch of markers, good recall, or much practice and experience as what units did on the prior turn affect it on the current turn. |
PiersBrand | 03 Feb 2017 11:36 a.m. PST |
Well you 'spot' twice as you fire twice. And I'm of the belief that when you have fired at someone once, you will need to re-aquire the target as he will be doing his best to take cover, dodge and avoid your second fire. You of course may disagree… but if someone fired at me, I'd be moving! :) Thus the second roll to 'spot' abstracts the target diving for covet etc. |
Thomas Thomas | 03 Feb 2017 4:31 p.m. PST |
A few notes: Good system overall. Nice PIP based command system. Drawback is that you must use PIPs to do anything (including fire) and few mechanisms for "mass" order. So as stated many units just sit around esp low powered ones you don't want to waste PIPs on. Some armies (German) handicaped by having squad weapons as seperate units requiring more PIPs to shoot/move. Fire. Nice matrix system for armor v gun (could be improved by listing guns rather than abstract code). Uses 2d6 so avoids small range of 1d6 rolls. Extra spotting roll is really just a double "to hit" roll brought on by tight d6 range. Shooting at small MG units a great tactic while bit harder to spot they die quick and force enemy to draw a "death card". Overall as stated good – command control, some integration of turn sequence, a least some attempt to deal with tight d6 range of results. But a few bugs to work out. TomT |
PiersBrand | 03 Feb 2017 5:02 p.m. PST |
Not quite a double to hit roll as suppression fire doesn't need to spot. As I have said before… it's more acquiring a target in order to put an Aimed shot on it. It's why we have two fire modes – Aimed & Suppression. And as I've also said before… shooting MG teams isn't easy as smaller teams are harder to spot… The squad split for Germans isn't a hindrance, but an advantage once you understand the relationship of Suppressive fire and Aimed Fire and how that acts with the morale table. It's a huge advantage when used correctly to perform cover and move/fire. But like all tactical advantages, it comes at a price. German troops are not supermen. So… no. After several years playtesting, for us, we squished any bugs… in our opinion of course! YMMV But like any game, some like it, some dont. Some get it, some dont. Only way to know is to play it and find out. I'm sure you appreciate that now Tom, especially with your own WW2 rules have been released. It's a long road making rules… and myself and Warwick divest alot of time into it as we play it. It was really a game born from a desire to play and we are just very lucky that other people seem to enjoy it and that in turn allows the two of us to keep making new books and exploring new campaigns. It's why we direct so much of our free time to it and supporting the player base. Plus nothing beats attending shows and hosting events with our gamers. Just wish we could do more! Of course if anyone wants to pop over for a demo game… they are more than welcome. Tobruk next, then Eastern Front, then Westwall and after that we will be looking east to the Pacific… Oh and a set of Cold War rules. That's if the two of us can manage all that while still having normal jobs and those family things that get in the way of a hobby! ;) I shall stop rambling now… :) |
War Panda | 03 Feb 2017 10:51 p.m. PST |
First off I'm not sure if I have a definite "go-to" set of WWII rules. I enjoy playing a lot of different systems but I do very much enjoy Battlegroup Kursk and it is one of my favourite rule systems. I think the OP has been given a pretty decent and fair impression of the game. Some like it more than others and that's hardly surprising when evaluating anything from a set of WW2 rules to the new local Pizza Hut. The reason I'm responding again to this thread is this statement from Thomas Thomas: …but a few bugs to work out. Now it's one thing to say that you don't agree with the way certain things are handled or perhaps dislike a mechanic, or that combat results don't seem to make sense etc…but it's very unfair to declare an opinion as a fact and an absolutism when stating the rules have a "bugs to work out." I've played it over 20 times (low estimate) solo and with various opponents and I have to say that its one of the few sets that anyone who is introduced has nothing but positive things to say about it (which is quite unusual when introducing a new set to that critical bunch.) I certainly haven't experienced anything that could be even closely perceived as a bug. At the very least it seems to me that Thomas has made an unfortunate choice of words in the context of giving a subjective opinion to someone who has never played the rules and is curious how they play. That's my opinion and I'm sure the OP has read enough diverse opinions to realize that for many people these are a real gem and others not so much but to give the impression that they're 'broken' or bug ridden is grossly unfair. My turn to stop rambling |
Powermonger | 05 Feb 2017 4:40 a.m. PST |
Battlegroup is the best platoon+ / company-sized WWII ruleset to date. |
nazrat | 05 Feb 2017 2:11 p.m. PST |
|
JJMicromegas | 06 Feb 2017 2:56 p.m. PST |
I've played several of the latest wave of WW2 games at platoon and company scale and have decided on Battlegroup as my ‘go-to' game. It hits a sweet spot for playability/fun/realism for the following reasons: - It can be played as a platoon level game to introduce players to the rules and provide a good tactical experience. - It really shines at the company level which is my preferred size game for the period. - It provides a plausible representation of WW2 combat while remaining playable and fun. - The morale system and activation pips provide just enough friction without getting in the way. I didn't find the pips activation problematic or limiting at all, it just meant having to make difficult tradeoffs if you rolled poorly. - There are a lot of subtleties and depth that you will learn with more plays (ie: when to do direct fire vs suppressive, fire & move tactics, combined armour and infantry, etc.) Having said that, there are a few things that I think could be improved or should be considered: - The terrain rules are provided in the separate section of each supplement and can be hard to find. - The rules do require reference to charts for the different methods of firing, although it's not cumbersome a quick lookup is required. - I find it odd that some of the chits pulled benefit you and hurt your opponent, this is easily managed by removing those chits from the bag though. - The gun data on tanks could be cumbersome to find, so I highly recommend the recent data cards that have been released. - You'll need to purchase several books if you want to cover the entire war. When compared to other WW2 systems that I've played recently (I hope this won't be too controversial): - BA and CoC are strictly platoon level games and don't scale up well. If I was only interested in a platoon game CoC would likely be my go-to but I prefer to have more options on the table and to go up and down in size of game as I wish. - IABSM was too restrictive and chaotic and can get bogged down with the activation system. - FoW is a great alternative-history 20th century Space Marines game if you are interested in that. - Iron Cross is a close second for me, while it plays well and is intriguing, BG has a bit more of the crunch and depth that I'm looking for. Lastly, regarding the German squads mentioned above, I just allow the German player to either move the squad & LMG together or split them up. I'm not sure if this breaks the game balance but it gives them the tactical flexibility without the hindrance and has worked well for our games. |
Burdie smith | 07 Feb 2017 5:33 a.m. PST |
A wonderful set of rules. Also really enjoyable when you play on squad level!! Great community who responds very quick on questions you might have regarding the rules. Very nice and clear rulebook with tons of great pictures of wargaming tables, an inspiration on its own. In my opinion a must have or should try it out ruleset… you won't be disappointed. |
number4 | 26 Feb 2017 7:52 p.m. PST |
Well now, what else can I add? I was at first a little dubious about the order mechanism, but having tried a few games, quickly realized it is rarely all that onerous on the player unless one easy really unlucky at rolling the dice, and consistently so. It does happen that you will have not enough orders to do what you want, but quite rarely and does simulate rather well the 'fog of war' where a breakdown or misunderstood communication means someone isn't where they need to be at the critical moment. The same comment applies to those few morale chips that benefit the other side, in war, 'stuff' happens, and it does add an element of fun to the grim business at hand. It's generally well presented, but really needs an index as there will be a lot of flipping through charts when you first get started. But this system is really easy to learn – literally pick up and play. The neat combination of possible actions (move/fire, fire/move, fire or move twice) per order enables you to do a lot in your turn, even if you roll low, while there is also a reserve order which lets any of your units move or ambush fire in the enemy's turn. Yes, if you want to kill something, you need to spot it every time. If you've ever fired a 20th century weapon, you know what recoil and muzzle flash will do to your sight picture, even when the target is not hitting the dirt or shooting back ;) The only way to win a Battlegroup game is to use the correct historical tactics of suppressive fire and movement: you don't need to kill everything in front of you, just keep their heads down long enough to move in and take the objective. The unique army morale system means you have to conserve your troop's lives or lose everything. Basically, if you want to play the period,not the rules and have a fun time doing it, Battlegroup is for you. Oh, and the fact that you can get an answer to any question from one of the authors, usually within the hour is a definite plus! |
RetroBoom | 26 Feb 2017 8:56 p.m. PST |
"Basically, if you want to play the period,not the rules and have a fun time doing it, Battlegroup is for you." oh, SNAP! |
number4 | 26 Feb 2017 9:40 p.m. PST |
Oh, and there isn't a 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition that makes each previous one obsolete….. |
PiersBrand | 02 Mar 2017 11:45 a.m. PST |
£5.00 GBP in the post Number4 ;) Tobruk headed off to the printers today… |