"Right Size Rules?" Topic

Reading up on France 1944, and I keep running into task forces from US armored divisions which consist of a company of armored infantry, a company of medium tanks and support elements--light tanks or TDs--at about platoon strength. This looks too small for a player to command in Spearhead of Command Decision, but too much for a single player in some other systems.

Can anyone recommend a set of rules in which such a command would be reasonable for a single player? As always, back of the envelope preferred, but longer rules certainly considered.

Try Battlefront their base unit is a company with attachments.
fireandfury.com

Why would that be too small for Command Decision? That's four bases of infantry, four tanks, a TD or two and maybe a command or command infantry stand.

10 or 11 bases for a player isn't too small I don't think.

Thank you both.
Short answer, wpilon is that I was guessing. Usually when units are "quantum"--they're either there or not, and no formations or reduced strengths--I figure an absolute minimum of 12 bases for a command. CD does not seem overly blessed with scenario books, but even the smallest stuff I see for Spearhead calls for substantially larger forces.

Battlefront WWII is indeed ideal.
1 stand = 1 section. 1 vehicle = 2

Battlegroup panzergrenadier is this scale

I think that would work in Combat Patrol. You might also consider Fireball Forward.

The attrition rate for company/battalion level games swings right at that point where some rules move towards the abstraction of vehicular destruction and/or with levels of degradation like in Command Decision, or try to stay with 1-to-1 vehicle kill results (and with some detailing), which can bog down the gameplay when component element numbers start to approach battalion strengths (even if they're organized within team/task force formations).

I'll propose that at this level of command there's a "tipping point" [opportunity] where players can transition their thinking away from the tactical (simulation) level of gameplay, towards the coordination of combined-arms units and the integration of supporting fire elements. So then a player or gamer group considers which emphasis they're desiring to play – "command" or "sim".

There's always been debate whether one needs to give up the tactical detail to get to the "command level" gaming (to the Bn./Task Force level of gameplay for WW2), but it's been my experience that rules overload becomes the issue as vehicle and unit numbers increase – and the point being, dynamic mobile warfare, and the command decision-making about it comes to a crawl in games if some transition hasn't been made away from the "sim-level" rulesets. Where that comfort level is, depends on the player or group. As an aside, when I was a youngster we thought the detail was the thing. As a wise old fart now…..:))), I believe it's mostly about the command decision-making, and much of the detailing was/is just chaff.

As a commercial set, I'd say Combat Command by forum member Thomas Thomas (Fame and Glory Games at Wargames Vault) has come as close to the "tipping point" sweet spot in my eyes.

Now of no help, but what my group uses for playing this sweet spot command level, is an adaptation of the Tank On Tank boardgame with our own take of acceptable detailing layered onto this elegant game's mechanisms -

TMP link

TMP link

After viewing 8 or so players around my Foy game linked above, a question might arise if the system can be played at this command level by a single player per side……it can, but there's also enough decision-making involved for commands to be further sub-divided to allow for more players per game (and much depends on the scenario's suitability for multi-player too).

As noted above, a TF HQ, two companies and some support platoons would be fine for one player in CD. The manouvre unit in CD is the company.

It wouldn't work in SH where the manouvre unit is the battalion and really you want players to be commanding short regiments/brigades.