Help support TMP


"Incoming !! New rules from David Brown & Reisswitz Press" Topic


28 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Getting Started with WWII Message Board

Back to the Game Design Message Board

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Back to the WWII Rules Message Board


Areas of Interest

General
World War Two on the Land

1,879 hits since 25 Feb 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Teppsta25 Feb 2019 7:27 a.m. PST

First details of David Brown's new WW2 rules now posted on the TFL blog.

I have been involved in a play test or two – and they give a great game (like General d'Armee and Picket's Charge).

toofatlardies.co.uk/blog

advocate25 Feb 2019 8:50 a.m. PST

Interesting.

Viper guy Supporting Member of TMP25 Feb 2019 10:04 a.m. PST

Any idea when?

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP25 Feb 2019 10:07 a.m. PST

I will be following this closely! Thanks for the heads-up!

Big Red Supporting Member of TMP25 Feb 2019 10:29 a.m. PST

Does look interesting, thanks for pointing this out!

Nick B25 Feb 2019 10:47 a.m. PST

I saw these on Lard Island they look great. I've been looking for a set of rules that plays at this level for ages.

Do you know if the initial book will cover all theatres/periods?

Will it facilitate multi player games easily?

Any AAR available?

Will play okay in 6mm?

Many thanks – sorry for all the questions!

Mark 125 Feb 2019 11:54 a.m. PST

I've been looking for a set of rules that plays at this level for ages.

Me too. Kind of …

This is the level I play at. Or seek to. Battalion level. Kind of …

Well, digging down a bit deeper … for me more often I think in terms of a battalion (plus support) per side, rather than a battalion (plus support) per player. Although I have in fact had multiple battalions per side in my games, then never seem to go well.


Will it facilitate multi player games easily?

Will play okay in 6mm?

The write-up describes a very deliberate attempt to create a ruleset for multiple players per side. How well they succeed I can not judge.

From the write-up in the link:


BASING & SCALES.

Basing: Actual model base sizes have no bearing on game mechanics whatsoever, thus its irrelevant how any of the figures or models are based, as long as the individual unit types, i.e. rifle sections, SMG sections or anti-tank sections, are recognisable and perhaps that the opposing armies are based reasonably similarly, simply for convenience sake.

Figure Scale: One model figure = 2 to 3 men. One model AFV = 1 AFV. One model gun = 1 Gun.


Looks like exactly the unit scale I play at today in 6mm. Kind of…

That is, my unit basing is 1 = 1 for vehicles. My modelling is 1 = few for figures, leading to 1 = squad for infantry basing (with typically 4 figures on a base to represent a full squad, and 2 figures on a base to represent a sub-squad sized team).

Again from the write-up in the link:


The standard tactical wargame units in Battalion HQ are infantry platoons, supported by individual tanks, AFVs and artillery. … So, your units deployed in the game are:

Infantry units are platoons made up, typically, of three infantry sections or squads, e.g. a British infantry platoon of three rifle sections.
Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Guns and Heavy Weapons deployed in the game are either individual sections or platoons made up of two to four sections, e.g. a "platoon" of four British Cromwell tanks.

In the rules I currently prefer, Mein Panzer, the standard "formation" is also a platoon. But in MP that is true for both infantry and vehicles -- even though they are made up of infantry that is squad based, and individual vehicle models, you typically build your force and play your force by platoons.

I am skeptical that individual squad stands will allow a game where each player runs at battalion, but I'm not against trying. If they can succeed in making it playable at battalion-per-player, more power to them!

We will watch these rules with great interest!

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

vlad4825 Feb 2019 1:25 p.m. PST

As a convert to David's Command and Control approach in General d'Armee – and with a large under-used 15mm collection – I am really going to watch this with great interest too!

Fred Cartwright25 Feb 2019 4:21 p.m. PST

I am skeptical that individual squad stands will allow a game where each player runs at battalion, but I'm not against trying. If they can succeed in making it playable at battalion-per-player, more power to them!

Me too. With vehicles at 1:1 and infantry at a stand to a squad does that mean an armoured infantry platoon has each track carrying a single stand? That's a lot of half tracks for a battalion!

thomalley25 Feb 2019 4:24 p.m. PST

Battlegroup Panzer-Grenadier 3?

Teppsta25 Feb 2019 4:47 p.m. PST

Battlegroup Panzer-Grenadier 3?

Not really – I'd say it feels quite different.

David Brown26 Feb 2019 2:36 a.m. PST

Mark/Fred,

The basic infantry tactical unit is the platoon.

Players will manoeuvre and fire as a platoon and do not issue commands to each individual section. You give an order to the platoon and then it undertakes those actions. (We have three sections to a platoon so it both looks like a platoon and can suffer attraction/casualties. A bit like a Napoleonic battalion consisting of a number of company bases.)

Tank and gun "platoons" also operate as a single tactical unit but can be "split up" to operate as individual sections BUT this becomes very expensive in terms of orders, and once they are split up it becomes difficult to regroup them and players will generally operate as complete platoon.

Hope that helps.

DB

Fred Cartwright26 Feb 2019 3:09 a.m. PST

Thanks for the clarification David. How do the rules handle small numbers of heavy weapons attached or integral to infantry units such as mortars, AT guns or MMG's attached to an infantry company? Do they require seperate orders or do they share the orders for the comapny?

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2019 3:15 a.m. PST

So do I understand you can change the orders (attitude, formation – what formtion?- direction..) for a tank company in 2-4 minutes, in a fight? Every 2-4 minutes.
Dbm pips re branded or I did not understand well. Hopefully.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2019 4:09 a.m. PST

I think it shows with the number of WW2 rules available that we havn't yet found that perfect set of rules that has a balance between playability and realism, without being overly complex.

deephorse26 Feb 2019 4:35 a.m. PST

Not really I'd say it feels quite different.

Well there are echos of Panzergrenadier Deluxe about it to my mind.

Durban Gamer26 Feb 2019 5:30 a.m. PST

If platoons are going to be broken into squads, this means a lot of small bits on the table to move each turn. I'm guessing that will probably lock the game into actions on the lower scale.

Nick B26 Feb 2019 5:51 a.m. PST

@JCFrog – I'm not sure where you got 2-4 minutes from? The write up says

"Time Scale: The game turn is variable, with each turn representing a period of anything from 2 to 10 minutes or more."

so the time scale is pretty flexible and a turn could even maybe mean 20-minutes – I guess it represents the ebbe and flow of battle.

The vast majority of the order appear to be Platoon orders – "Fire & move, assault, rally etc" – I see no reason a Platoon commander shouldn't be changing these every few minutes in reaction to the situation.

Company/Battalion orders, according to the article, relate to artillery support or enabling combined actions by 2 platoons etc

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2019 6:18 a.m. PST

Right.
But your companies in that case have nothing but player control… Every 2-20 min. Radios, no radios, German inititive, Russian post repression dumbich, etc.
Very hard to find the slow command and fast fighting compromise. Has to be read and seen in action anyway, the rules. Funnuy how 2FL have put aside their past aims, for C3 up to a point.

Big Red Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2019 7:20 a.m. PST

This will be a game published by TFL not a game designed by TFL. If General d'Armee and Pickett's Charge, again games written by David Brown and published by TFL's Reisswitz Press, are anything to go by, they should be interesting and fun.

FlyXwire26 Feb 2019 7:46 a.m. PST

I like what I'm reading so far as long as there's not great disparity in Battalion HQ command rolls for scoring orders. It's understood that mods for command elan might be incorporated, but to emphasize player command decisions [skill], I really hope there's not too much luck swing via the dicing.

Lastly, please no "Tea Break" turn ending 'mechanism', or I'll pass on considering these rules immediately!

acctingman186926 Feb 2019 8:11 a.m. PST

@FlyXwire

I'd be interested to know why you dislike the "teabreak" mechanism.

FlyXwire26 Feb 2019 9:07 a.m. PST

To me, it's an artificial turn sequence intervention.

As I read this initial article on Battalion HQ, the introduction seems to be placing emphasis on command management, and the intervention within a turn sequence for players to make impactful command decisions [at important moments]. This is one of the most enjoyable, and I think relevant reasons many of us play wargames to match our wits against our tabletop opponents, and I do want good opponents, and care that they be able to make good [salient] decisions which will provide myself, or my teammates with a challenging game. I have far less fun in "winning" a game if my opponent(s) have had a string of bad luck just getting the chance to activate (and being unable to make their relevant command decisions), or worse, have their time to act ended by a randomly occurring event like the turn's time limit suddenly, and abruptly coming to an end.

So, I see randomly-occurring turn endings as artificial interventions into this decision-making competition between opponents, or sides, and for no other reason than it "occurs". This randomized "happening" I've felt is having the game play the players, rather than the other way around. The game "narrative" often produced by this artificial game intervention "just when Player A was ready to act (to match his wits), he couldn't".

Again, I know I can have a great gaming experience without this, and particularly so if my opponents are unimpeded to make their best command decisions too, and to be matching mine.

Finally, I choose not to play rules incorporating this basic "turn ending" philosophy within, and will not spend my gaming time with them.

David Brown26 Feb 2019 9:19 a.m. PST

Fred,

Infantry platoons have integral AT capability and can also have an extra A/T section as an attachment, increasing the platoon's anti-tank potential.
Heavy weapons such as MMGs and anti-tank guns can operate in unison with an infantry platoon either by issuing separate platoon orders or utilising a company commanders HQ Order to synchronise both under one order.

FlyX,
There is no "Teabreak" turn ending mechanism.

DB

FlyXwire26 Feb 2019 9:26 a.m. PST

DB,
TY!

Btw, the discussion on bidding for turn initiative sounds good….."cost and effect"…..and something the players themselves therefore have the potential to impact (and understand, and/or for accepting the consequences).

YoungDave16 Mar 2019 4:07 a.m. PST

Yes the game always feels like you are competing against your opponent at both command and platoon level
The strategic and resource management decisions really effect your coys and platoons in the field
Every game has a tension that is almost palpable and leads to many arm crossing or air punching moments
Your careful plan if poorly timed can be interrupted and all of a sudden you find yourself facing a dynamically changing situation, facing a problem posed by the tactics of your opponent not a twist of a card or roll of a dice(although it definitely helps to have the dice gods on your side- appropriate offering pre battle helps I find!)
Good job

FlyXwire16 Mar 2019 4:49 a.m. PST

@YoungDave (and from an old Dave), this sounds like a juicy endorsement!

Is this from some of your play-testing experiences?

YoungDave16 Mar 2019 9:27 a.m. PST

Yes I'm afraid so :)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.