"Platoon-Level Rules Megatest" Topic

Back in late 2018 I did a megatest of around 15 WW2/Modern Section Level Skirmish rules, all using the same scenario (http://newconverj.blogspot.com/2018/12/skirmish-rules-testing-summary.html).

This year I'm doing a Platoon Level rules test on just under a dozen rule sets. Rather than using one scenario I'm working my way through TFL's Operation Martlet Pint-Sized Campaign, playing each scenario with two different sets of rules.

I'm just over halfway through, so you can read all the AARs to date and my assessment at:

link

I'm including Modern as well as WW2 rules as to me they should all fit in a category of "mechanised" encounters. Scale is 10mm, with roughly 10cm = 30m, but varies by rules.

Of course any comments and rating are purely as they seem to me, and mostly based on one game. Your mileage may vary.

Wow, how have I never seen your blog before? Especially another 10mm gamer that bases them individually ;) This is fantastic!

I have not gone through all of these yet, but I'm working on it, and I see you did the same for skirmish rules back in 2018, so I'll be going through those, too. As well as anything else I can find.

Your troops and table look great, I'm really excited to dig in to these. My one complaint: you don't have a "followers widget" on your blog, so I can't follow it! If you're not familiar, a followers widget will put a button on your homepage for people to 'subscribe' to your blog, so every time you post something follower will be notified.

**EDIT: Holy crap, even KR-16? And I thought I was the only one that had the crazy idea to use them for WWII/Modern ;)

V/R,
Jack

I think this is a really good idea. I have been doing something similar with a number of different rules, but I am using it to determine if a set of rules has an issue. In all cases the scenario is the same, although troop's types and nationality varies as I am using points. My standard scenario is an attacker with a 2-1 advantage against a defender, with the defender allowed to dig in. Then at some point in the future the defender gets to conduct a counter-attack with a force the same size at the attacker.

I had some initial issue working out the best tactics to use for attacker and defender, but once I sorted that out I am able to determine when the counter attack should come in, based on different rules. I create a video on my analysis of the typical game flow using this scenario here. Game-Flow example

I have only tested this with Corps Commander, Korps Commander, Korps-Kommandeur and LWRS and while the flow was similar, the time to make the breakthrough varied a lot. Korps Commander took a long time, but at 30 minute game turns it still worked out. Corps Commander was my biggest issue, as at 60 minute game-turns I only had 6 game-turns to break through, roll up the enemy flank and prepare for the counter-attack. I was never able to do it. Korps-Kommanduer was a simplified version of Korps-Commander and that works well, even though it also used 60 minute game turns. LWRS also worked well, but at 120 minute game turns for those rules the counter-attack occurred on the following day.

I did some preliminary testing with spearhead and FFT3, spearhead sort of worked just, I need to work on the rules a bit more. I had real issues with FFT3, I think because the game-turn lengths were so short. I found I could break through, roll up the flank and prepare my position well before mid-day, which is when the counter-attack would occur. I think I need to not worry about the time of day, and just look at the number of game-turns.
I think this is a good way to test a set of rules, but does take a lot of effort.

Very cool project!

I like your youtube videos pfmodel but I don't like the computer generated voice. Why use it?

I use to voice these myself, but unless you have good acoustics in the room you are speaking, there is too much echo and it sounds awful. Thus i went to Balabolka. I must admit the english voices are not as good as the German voices. I am uncertain why. I will look at trying to improve the acoustics of the room i create the videos and start doing it myself one day.

My wife also thinks i have gone mad if she finds me talking to my screen?

So I read all seven of the platoon tests, and went back and read all of the skirmish tests, still need to read the play tests of his own rules. I've played a lot of the same rules David has gone through and can't say I disagree with his comments; it's a pretty cool undertaking and I'm glad he shared.

It's also got me to thinking on my own games, and how maybe it's time for me to strike out on my own again, give writing my own set of rules another shot. Probably screw it up ;)

V/R,
Jack

While I have to admit I have written my own rules at times, the number of different rules around is astounding. You are probably better selecting an existing set and after studying them, make any modifications you deem necessary to achieve some specific objective.
My aim is always to make the game move quicker, two lines of elements firing at each other for 6 hours and barely advancing or retreating is an example of something I do not like. Getting a game, by highly experiencing players, completed in 2-3 hours is a good objective, as is ensuring the front line moves along most of the playing area.
The methodology described in this post is a good way of fine tuning a set of rules to achieve whatever objective you deem necessary.

Peter,

"You are probably better selecting an existing set and after studying them, make any modifications you deem necessary to achieve some specific objective."
I agree, and that's where I'm at. I don't think I've played any set of rules as written more than once, I can't help but start tinkering, and though I've had (and am having) a great time with various modified rulesets (currently I'm in the midst of posting a 10-fight campaign in WWII Greece using Too Fat Lardies' "Chain of Command," heavily modified to play faster and at company, vice platoon, level), I'm still not exactly where I want to be.

My desires:
-Play a game with 5-12 elements (be they individually-based troops, fireteams, or squads, making it squad, platoon, or company-level) in 60 to 90 minutes.

-An activation system that throws some chaos into the game, doesn't allow the commander (player) to do everything he wants to do, and forces/features a constant stream of tactical decisions.

-Handles troops under fire in the open better (most rules seem to just whack them, when I believe, particularly if it's a fireteam or squad base, that they should most often survive but be forced to go to ground), and even if you don't kill the unit you force them down and then keep shooting at them until they're knocked out, which doesn't seem right to me.

-Handles troops under fire in hard cover better. My opinion is that most rules allow the shooter to just keep shooting until he gets lucky and rolls that '6' and knocks them out.

-Has dynamic maneuver, no more moving 3" per turn!

-The dynamic maneuver is the 'maneuver' part of 'fire and maneuver,' so most infantry units will be taken care of via close assault, not fire. And when I say 'taken care of,' I think mostly the end result should be the defender pinned by fire, attacker moving to envelop, and defender falling back to avoid annihilation. Right now all my tabletop fights seem to feature very Hollywood-esque close combat sequences ;)

-Something novel to encourage the use of reserves. I know a lot of rules make that claim, but I'm still not seeing it. My personal belief is that units in contact are incredibly difficult to control once engaged, therefore higher headquarters (at whichever level we're discussing) must keep a reserve as that's the only unit(s) they'll actually have control over once the gunfight starts.

I'm sure there's more, but that's my short list ;)

And I was hoping Mr. Burden would be back, he seemed like someone I'd be interested in discussing this stuff with as well.

V/R,
Jack

Your objectives are very good. I have not attempted to restrict the numbers of elements down to 12, for example, having focused on a game which involved an average of 100 elements total, over the length of the entire game. But I must admit the 12 element idea has a lot of merit and sounds like DBA. There is a WW2-DBA set of rules, but I must admit never looking at them in detail. That could be something you could look at.
The other set of rules which may be suitable are the BBB series, these rules use an uber base, which contains up to 6 elements and is a 9 cm, or 3-inch, square. The strength of your uber base can be determined by seeing what in it and when it suffers casualties you remove individual elements. Bob Mackenzie is writing a set of rules along those lines, this can be found in Big battles IO:Group site. There is an early version on the site and if you send Bob a message he can send you his latest version. He is play-testing it right now, as was I, but as I am unable to travel those plans are on the back burner. My guess those rules involve about 12 uber bases per side.
At the squad level you could look at the squad level rules from GHQ, they are free, and while complex do not involve a lot of elements per side.

Thanks Peter, I'll have to take a gander. Having said that, I will say that I'm familiar with DBA and that is not what I'm looking for.

The ~12 element concept was borne of the idea that a rifle company would have 9 rifle squads and a Weapons Platoon, maybe some attached tanks, a platoon 9 fireteams (at least for US Marines, 6 for everyone else) plus some attachments.

V/R,
Jack

As a scale of 1 element = 1 squad (4-6 men) it sounds like I Ain't Been Shot Mum! is your best option.
While a bit of a wild card, you could try the old WRG WAR GAME RULES 1925-1950, there are free copies around. If you stay with a single company you can change the ground scale to get more movement, as the standard infantry movement is too slow. I do suspect you would also need to make a lot of other changes to the rules, as they are rather old and use very old fashion game systems. I tried to update the game system, but my main focus was to change the ground scale to 1 element = 1 platoon. I also gave up as Mein Panzer achieve a lot of what i wanted.

Peter,

Regarding the WRG rules, I've not played them but my buddy ("Whirlwind" here on TMP) really likes them. I don't think they're for me.

Regarding IABSM, yes, I've played quite a bit. This set of fights was probably some of my most rewarding wargaming, and best battle reports, ever! If you've got some time on your hands, take a gander at these:

link

link

link

link

link

link

But they took forever! I believe those fights lasted 5-6 hours, each! And IABSM does put you in some situations where certain units are helpless (despite the 'Big Man' concept) due to the cards not coming out.

V/R,
Jack

Just jack nailed it. I'm working on a 15mm company combat system that does exactly these things. I've been frustrated by the idea that suppression and move and fire tactics are always talked about but actually absent in games. I also think attrition rates are silly on the table. Most combat centered around morale and breaking a units will to stay in the fight. This happens when individual soldiers die but units are not entirely wiped out this way. The attrition rate before troops get pulled out or retreat was usually around 10-20% not 100%. Lastly, most casualties where caused by mortar and artillery not bullets. The idea that you could wipe out a whole squad in cover with an MG34 is silly. Bolt Action, Battlegroup and even Chain of Command don't reflect this dynamic well in my opinion.

Jay,

Indeed! Nothing really to add to that, just the idea that something's gotta be done! ;)

So, what do you have so far in your 15mm company combat system? Have you got a blog?

V/R,
Jack

I'm using the Rally mechanic in my "Blitz Action" mod as a choice that can be selected for the extra order dice that I allow Platoon or Company unit leaders to apply to their units – this enables players to use their platoon HQs to keep their squads (or platoon tanks) functioning in a firefight, by removing PINs.

Here's a graphic of my modded dice mechanism showing a tank platoon unit as an example (it's the same mechanic if the unit were an infantry platoon w/HQ element) -

TMP link

This simple mod to an existing set of rules allows the intervention of Platoon leaders to buck up their squads morale during combat, and higher performing platoon leaders can be granted more order dice by choice or scenario design, and thereby can potentially generate more staying power to their troops.

Sounds cool man, and that is a helluva good looking game there!

V/R,
Jack

Thanks Jack!

Back playin' with the friends seems like so long ago….

-Handles troops under fire in the open better (most rules seem to just whack them, when I believe, particularly if it's a fireteam or squad base, that they should most often survive but be forced to go to ground), and even if you don't kill the unit you force them down and then keep shooting at them until they're knocked out, which doesn't seem right to me.

-Handles troops under fire in hard cover better. My opinion is that most rules allow the shooter to just keep shooting until he gets lucky and rolls that '6' and knocks them out.

Is the thinking here that once the targets are in cover and suppressed, that simply adding more fire just extends the suppression rather than increasing the chances of hitting someone – all the targets have found that little bit of ground which means they are more or less invisible/invulnerable to direct fire?

FlyXWire – Indeed! No big deal to me, though, most of my gaming is solo, and most of gaming that's not is with my boys ;)

John – That's the thinking with troops that are pinned/suppressed, it should be almost impossible to destroy them by fire as they've gone to ground and should be pretty impervious to fire. This assumes the firing element is not in some super position, such as firing down on the target, negating any cover, as the target most likely wouldn't have gone to ground in that case, the men would have moved off the 'x' to somewhere that provided cover from the fire (or into close combat, if it was a near ambush), even if it meant casualties in the near term.

My issue with troops in hard cover is that the chances of knocking out a squad in hard cover with small arms/machine gun fire should be a lot harder than rolling a 6 on a D6, more like rolling a 100 on a D100 ;)

I believe that fire in those situations could certainly pin or suppress the target, maybe even compel them to abandon a position by falling back, though that's an interesting notion, as I'm assuming they're making an orderly withdrawal and not a panicked route to the rear, which means it was a tactical decision, not something they were 'forced' to do.

That's my opinion, in any case! ;)

V/R,
Jack

Indeed backatcha Jack, as some of the "to-hit" numbers (those which we have quantified data for) are even above D100 factors.

But, then the need for "the game"…..

This is where I believe some of these occurrences can become player decision-points (or part of the game friction that can be looped into the management of suppression and losses as they're occurring).

So the game 'friction' entails where a player needs to apply his command decisions on-board, and requires managing too few command opportunities in a struggle that is starting to overwhelm his command structure.

I've used one of the scenes in the Band of Brothers TV series, where Lt. Winters instructs Private Blithe to start shooting his rifle and to pour in the fire on the attacking 17th SS and 5th FJR troopers around Carentan, as an instructional reference. It helps illustrate a rifle platoon or company leader 'managing' during a firefight. Of course if Winters is having to walk the foxhole line to get his soldiers to engage the enemy, he's not issuing other orders to flank, reinforce, call in supporting fire, etc.

This time/order management requirement is where players' can start to feel actual gaming friction, but the rules need to have some ability to loop players into the suppression/loss process too.

Jack et al

So is there any set of rules which come close to your needs? If not an you are "rolling your own" can these be accessed by us?

A lot of what you are saying you want in a set of rules interests some of us. Since getting back into the hobby a few years ago I have tried to find the set of rules I could live with. What exists mostly is either quasi skirmish where you are rolling for each individual in a team or section or where each miniature represents a platoon. Neither is ideal to me but I figured adapting one of the skirmish based ones was the most likely.

My past experience with Tractics and Squad Leader has coloured my idea of optimum, or at least what I like, unit size and ground scale. I also would prefer single rolls for each squad, part squad, weapons or fire team and vehicle. Units would be suppressed, maybe partially reduced or break. So some method of identifying their present status is unavoidable. I am not keen on tracking ALL of this off board, too awkward. Also since getting back into the hobby I have seen much better mechanisms than in the past, for instance Conflict of Heroes replaces SL's array of combat results tables with a much more elegant roll two dice and add modifiers for range and the firing unit's attack factors. The compare that to the target unit's defense strength modified by the terrain it occupies. If the modified attack roll exceeds the defense the unit is hit. If hit a second time or if the modified roll is four greater then the target is eliminated. A hit target pulls a chit which shows the effect of the hit. This can be recovered by passing a morale check

Another system I like is used in Hind & Seek, a modern Soviet Afghan war set of miniatures rules. Here a target takes both damage, represented by a morale number, and can be suppressed. Since every unit has two actions suppression usually is never total. The downside is as morale is increased to the maximum value of 6 (7 means unit eliminated) there is no mechanism for reducing the morale by leaders or self rallying. Also units reduced by morale become increasingly fragile but are in no way less combat capable.

Any thoughts or advice is welcome form everyone. Thank you.

"The downside is as morale is increased to the maximum value of 6 (7 means unit eliminated) there is no mechanism for reducing the morale by leaders or self rallying. Also units reduced by morale become increasingly fragile but are in no way less combat capable."

Stephen, in my mod of Bolt Action – which transitions the game to squad-size elements (squads are individual stands), with each basic unit being such a squad or weapons teams that have platoon affiliations, and then their organic platoon HQ leader base for each, all these basic units have expressed strength amounts (step reduction numbers). This strength factoring gives most units minimal longevity, and an ability to absorb (accumulate) some punishment – the importance being, facing opposition elements that require accumulated damage to destroy sets up the dynamic of requiring an enemy to concentrate their targeted firepower to ensure destruction potential (so overkills will occur, while 'under-kills' will also be a possibility).

Overkills and under-killing becomes part of the player calculus when they order their units to engage a target (or targets), and since the scored and converted Hits that accumulate reduce the effectiveness of an engaged unit when it attempts to fire, the dynamic of suppression fire is present in the rules, and this calculus is presented to players to contemplate.

Now the additional tactical layering – since my mod allows HQ Leader elements to program orders to Rallying-off accumulated strength damage from the units they command, there's the expressed possibility that squads and teams that haven't been destroyed can return to greater effectiveness after suffering this damage.

The game effect – targeting firepower must be weighed for its potential of enemy unit destruction vs. an intention of spreading out maximum suppression results among more enemy units (this the choice/benefit calculus that must also be considered when an enemy platoon is ordered to engage). Conversely, if/when an attrited unit is ordered, and if its platoon leader [or player] has programmed a Rally order(s) for the turn, the controlling player may decide if that Rally order should be applied asap, or whether it is mindful to use another of the unit's programmed and available orders (instead like Fire [back], or Advance [perhaps used as an retreat out of the current line of fire], etc.).

These order decisions must be considered and anticipated when players set down their platoon unit orders, and any platoon Leader orders available (in my mod this ordering is done during a beginning turn phase for all players, and are kept secret by order dice caps until used – see my graphic above in this thread).

So the third dynamic layering – players must anticipate the orders they may need, or think they can potentially execute – these potentials will change as they close with the enemy, and as they begin to engage in firefights (making some programmed orders obsolete, or in the least unhelpful with the changes occurring as the turn unfolds).

The fourth game dynamic – players can choose the sequence of which platoon unit they wish to activate at a time (IGOUGO side "competition" in effect) – allowing activation decisions on initiative and reaction to occur during the turn. Maybe a unit is getting the hell beat out of it, and its squads being eliminated or reaching those strength thresholds – do you as the player activate one of that platoon's placed orders or risk activating another platoon elsewhere, and hope the opposition doesn't have the chance to finish off the attrited platoon in the meantime – then, when the firefight becomes more "general" – players will be struggling just to maintain some combat effectiveness across the zone of engagement between multiple platoons in their commands…..

The "layering" of the sequencing results forces players to contemplate these risk management decisions. The orders programming allows for fog of war, requires anticipation, also presents competition dynamics within a player team over the activation of units (if the scenario is being played multiplayer), and also creates competition between the sides to which units they think they need to be activating successively to create the biggest 'bang for the buck' (and to stymie the enemy's potential).

Sorry but my exposure to Bolt Action was tainted by the fact I basically ran an artillery unit which HAD to be on board to function. So I had A 122 mm howitzer, A 120mm mortar and A Katyusha, one figure of each in the middle of a city! And my opponent took Tigers and SS Panzer grenadiers because that is what the points said he could.

No responses from David Burden but I question his dislike of CoC due to the activation method. It gives a random activation of the size(s) of units you get but gives you the choice of WHICH of your units get to activate. Then in later rules he likes similar chances of activation but you have no control over which ones activate while he states liking limited activations but likes controlling the units which activate. I am confused.

Stephen, I'm an old gamer who never played tournament-style, points-based, army-build matches…..and so grew up playing and designing scenarios as battle problems, and hopefully over all the decades presented interesting and as-balanced-as-possible scenarios for the players involved (hundreds if not thousands of games).

We here (my gamer group) never played Bolt Action as a tournament system, but just as a rules system for playing WW2 games with. I decided to mod Bolt Action not because it's the end-all rules system, but because of it's market penetration (and now because of its availability, and as a vehicle for modding).

Perhaps it's understandable, the – "I like BA" or "CoC is better", or fill in the BLANK set here dynamic, and this is a Megatest thread too – so opinions included.

Don't know, rules are just tools?

Sorry trying not to be negative. I have been gaming since the early '70s. This "tournament" as opposed to real world forces is one of my turn offs. I only mentioned the activations as to me they are pretty much the same, but like me similar still feels different I guess. And yes everyone has a favorite.

Me, I haven't found that favorite. Between the weird mix of lots of new rules, but not in my idea of an "ideal" scale, the choices seem to go away. Those that do it has been hard to learn what their mechanics are and without lots of opponents except for those "popular" systems the chances of exposure is further reduced. Lots of whining and I am hoping to follow David's reviews but keeping n mind my preferences for his analyses.

I agree with a lot of your and Jack preferences but what rules work that way?

Stephen, you've restored my faith! :)))

But you should never expect to find your favorite.

(a joke in my area – the buds have required me to put a month/date notation on any particular QRS we're currently using – they can never keep them straight if I don't)

Ok, obviously I'm feelin' real chatty here lately – hope you all don't mind, and we're still waiting for David's (the OP's) next rules test entry anyway……

A few days back I enjoyed watching a particular wargaming/history TV show from years past from Great Britain on YouTube (we never had anything like this in the States….and certainly not too long after Vietnam).

Magnificent episode it was!

Still, the rules we're obviously dated from my current point of view, but the TV set, the terrain table, and the game's minis had worn very well (they still looked grand even by today's standards I thought).

Another interesting impression, it seemed the rules results were far less important than the game's visuals themselves, and that's probably because the production was meant to hold the TV audience's interest as much as possible.

Lastly, I did chuckle a little with the esteemed importance of the undertaking (during the same time here, we were just trying to get miniatures wargaming "out of the closet" so to speak, again post-Vietnam). Similar, but different worlds I think.

Stephen, you've restored my faith! :)))

But you should never expect to find your favorite.

(a joke in my area – the buds have required me to put a month/date notation on any particular QRS we're currently using – they can never keep them straight if I don't)

Ok, obviously I'm feelin' real chatty here lately – hope you all don't mind, and we're still waiting for David's (the OP's) next rules test entry anyway……

A few days back I enjoyed watching a particular wargaming/history TV show from years past from Great Britain on YouTube (we never had anything like this in the States….and certainly not too long after Vietnam).

Magnificent episode it was!

Still, the rules we're obviously dated from my current point of view, but the TV set, the terrain table, and the game's minis had worn very well (they still looked grand even by today's standards I thought).

Another interesting impression, it seemed the rules results were far less important than the game's visuals themselves, and that's probably because the production was meant to hold the TV audience's interest as much as possible.

Lastly, I did chuckle a little with the esteemed importance of the undertaking (during the same time here, we were just trying to get miniatures wargaming "out of the closet" so to speak, again post-Vietnam). Similar, but different worlds I think.

I am feeling chatty as well. Been making diner and painting companies of 6mm guys this week and last. They aren't fast when each gets 8 to 12 colours per figures.

Had to laugh about noting versions of QRSs. I was a playtester of JD Webster's second edition of Air Superiority almost thirty years ago which was released as The Speed of Heat. A couple years back my oldest son wanted to try air gaming, he was into RC planes with me then, so I dug out my box marked "air games" which contained most of my AS stuff. I figured we should play the last version before TSOH. I have 6 packages of rules updates from JD all marked things like "latest revision" or "current rules" but NO DATES! Arg.

Just from the various magazines back then it was obvious the UK and North America had different views. Nowadays it seems to be a case of looks over substance. I see lots of pretty pictures and wonder how shallow the games are.

My first convention was Origins '78, what a way to start. The Next War was released that year and Terrible Swift Sword the year before. Seemed like 10% of the board tables had TSS on them. Mind you as far as differences of opinion outside of the USA the ACW barely makes a dent. Oh well to each his own.

:)))

I've been 'compelled' to collect 28s these past years (discounting the fact MiniFig 25s were our first step-up after playing with Airfix figs and when we moved to metals and did the AWI back then).

Like you Stephen, these biggins sure produce pretty pictures, but aren't always enablers of the best games. However, those pretty looks do help hide lots of internal wrinkles (aka the dumb blonde syndrome – hey, can I say that today?).

We also were inflicted with the opposite of the dumb-blonde pursuits, and attempted Terrible Swift Sword and Drang nach Osten, and having them set up seemed to exude a sex appeal all of their own, but they really weren't that satisfying in retrospect.

What do I know, I attended Gencon when Gary Gygax introduced his preliminary D&D presentation. Didn't interest me in the least, but a friend played it and raved on about some dungeoning thang – "oh, please" I imagine was my impression back then, and probably even rolled my eyes – that'll never amount to anything!

Stephen, I've enjoyed our chat buddy – stay safe, and enjoy your Holiday!

Stephen,

"So is there any set of rules which come close to your needs? If not an you are "rolling your own" can these be accessed by us?"

I haven't found any that do what we're talking about. As per usual, I've got some other projects in front of it, but I'll be getting some stuff painted up (I'm thinking company-level in 10mm) and working on some home-brew rules, then start play-testing them and will share.

V/R,
Jack

This video‌ contains and overview of squad level rules, but only 3 use a scale of 4-6 men per element.
I also have copies of "The Complete WW2 Wargames Manual", by Marc G. Glasby, PanzerFaust Armoured Fist, By Scott Nicholas and Peter Stone, Panzer war and Panzer 8. I have not studied these rules, but they are all free rules which can be found on the internet.

This video is actually quite a series. I am working my way through the start which concentrates on differing scale of units. The first where each base equals a squad, the second where the base represents a platoon and am no won the third where a base represents a company. Since only the first is the scale I like the other two are going slower.

Thank you for the link though.

@ Just Jack

Is that 10mm you're using for your IABSM games? I'm currently thinking of 6mm on a 8'x4' table for room to maneuver, but that 10mm stuff looks like it would work on a table that size.

CptCold,

If you're still considering your collection scale, then besides "10mm", there's also "12mm" (1/144th scale), and these two scale sizes have been fairly interchangeable (especially for infantry figs and weapons teams).

For the past half year, Victrix has been previewing their upcoming WW2 line of vehicles and infantry figures as they ready their launch of this new scale offering from them – primarily West Front '44-45 initially.

The Victrix Facebook page where they've been previewing most of their updates -

link

Some examples -

I have a nice 1/144th scale gaming collection, that's taken me a decade+ to organize from across at least a dozen or so manufacturer's, in metal, plastics, and resin….now Victrix is looking to do this most completely in plastic, at least for models and infantry that could be used for say late 1943 from Sicily, till the end of the war on the Western Front. For some gamers interested in the scale and the time period, this Victrix line maybe something to keep an eye out for.

My apologies, Captain Cold, but yes, those are 10mm.

Everyone else: I haven't figured out the reserve part yet (maybe ever), but I've been working on these, doing all the stuff I discussed above. Right now I'm building them out as a platoon-level set of rules using singly-based troops on a 4' x 4' table, though I can't imagine they'd be hard to convert to a company-level game using element-based troops.

V/R,
Jack