"Battlegroup WW2 use of NORTHAG rules?" Topic

How many of you are using NORTHAG and or adapting the rules to make larger games for Battlegroup WW2.

I've seen some discussion on FB for use of the fireteams, and or squad stands versus regular Battlegroup WW2.

I use 28mm. And considered this to simplify combat for large games, and have a team represented by fewer figures on a unit stand.
I have considered going to 10mm for WW2 with adaption of these rules.

Any thoughts, feelings, and input would be helpful.

I have had the exact same thought – Northag is more streamlined than BGWW2 and would make a great platform for bigger WW2 games in smaller scales using squad basing.

Have not progressed beyond thinking about it though.

I've moved away from 28mm for 15mm instead. I think these smaller scales represent WWII far better. 28mm just doesn't make sense on a tabletop. It's fun to model but looks out of scale on a table. Plus, 28mm requires far more storage than I prefer to give.

There is a movement 'afoot', no, maybe that's too drastic a statement, so just a realization that the big figure scales aren't the best for all levels of wargaming.

However, not to hijack the thread here, but I bought and read the Battlegroup Kursk rules set, and it led me to believe the focus of the game system was meant to allow gamers to play "battlegroup" games with their single-mounted [skirmish-based] miniatures…..along with a lot more tanks and guns. However, there's a problem in this premise that just doesn't scale…..a squad or platoon of infantry figures with a few tanks is not a battlegroup, and if you have lots of tanks in-game, a platoon of infantry is a grossly unbalanced representation of combined-arms warfare groups typically employed in WW2.

The issue is, how do you get a couple handfuls of single-mounted infantry figures, translate into becoming a "battlegroup".

Doc, has highlighted discussions for making the Battlegroup rules look more logical I guess, by expanding the scale of each individual infantry figure to become a fireteam or squad stand instead. Yeah, that's what should have been the scale mix of the system to start with IMO…..but again, who was the target audience of the rules, but gamers with a platoon of the bigger size figures who wanted to play bigger engagements, and with a lot more tanks on the tabletop…..

Well, I'd say go for this visual conversion, where a group of figs equals a larger sub-unit instead. If there's anything that skirmish-level rules do often allow, is the ability to convert that single figure in the rules, to be assigned the relevance of reflecting a larger grouping of troops. I've done this with the Muskets & Tomahawks v.1 rules for playing the AWI & ACW where a stand (but with 10 & 15mm figures now) is being conveyed as a company of troops grouped into a regiment each, and the games we play are now between regiments maneuvering in formation, and these being deployed within brigades.

So guys, you're probably the tip of the spear here. There IS a realization growing, or being reinforced within the hobby that the big figures don't do battles or battlegroups all that well – with a normal gamer's budget and on the typical size tabletop. (just look at the companies now jumping on the 10-12mm scale with new product lines coming out).

And does this sound like fan-boy talk too for these mid-to-lower scale sizes, yep, and no apologies either (I could never get pass the idea of someone calling a platoon of 28s "an army" anyway).

Ultimately, the size issues brought on by this scale creep resurgence and the dominance of skirmish-level rules and tournament-match gaming of the last 20 odd years (of which I fell into also), will leave a lot of gamers wanting……games that have more battlefield relevance.

What's intriguing, so I must ask you guys to expand on your gaming impressions here……did Battlegroup Northag do this rules "scale-up" for what the basic infantry stand equals (which would make sense for a system sold along for 10mm models)?

If and when PSC announces their new 10mm WW2 miniatures, perhaps they will also have a compliant version of Battlegroup (or some other ruleset), that's designed for this new scale line.

…..Simon Hall's and Mark Bevis' upcoming Divisions Of Steel rules.

Thanks for the feedback, FlyXwire

I have been using Battlegroup on and off for about 6 years, including a couple convention games I ran at Hurricon in 2015, in 28mm. Two infantry platoons per side on a 10 x 6 table. With the FJ Germans having a platoon of 3 tanks and ATGs, versus British AB with standard support, and a couple 6Pdr ATGs. That size of a battle worked well, as a two part game over 8 hours.

I find that the rules work well with skirmish size games, and up to large to a reinforced company on a side, but one needs a big table, for 28mm, and time is not a constraint.

I have generally company sized units in 28mm of two or three platoons with support, and lots of tanks of at least a platoon for most common types. This is after 20 years of collecting, and painting.
It's my preferred scale due to the asethics of the scale.

I recently had gotten Battlegroup NORTHAG, and thought about adapting the infantry rules to Battlegroup WW2.
I have individual mounted figures, but team stands for crew weapons. However even before NORTHAG, had made a whole bunch of magnetic unit bases to group fireteams for movement with the 28mm scale, with steel paper labels for each unit, And experimented with using less figures on a base to represent a team, with a casuality marker. I built a 10 x 6 table in my game room/garage, with storage. All of my terrain, and figures are at 28mm for all eras of play, so there is that.

I play other skirmish games in 28mm so this works well if I play other games.

However, NORTHAG rules seem to simplify the above, easing the gameplay for large games (which the club likes).

The idea of not purchasing more and more 28mm which is expensive, and going the route of 10mm for large games is appealing, and more cost effective.

Waiting for PSC's 10mm WW2.

Sounds appealing.

I will look for Divisions of Steel rules.

Regards

Doc

Doc,

Thanks for your in-depth info here.

It sounds like you've approached Battlegroup aiming at high-fidelity, and towards full [scale] realization.

Your mentioning the Northag rules got me wondering if the core rules could be adapted to a modern Ukrainian Conflict setting also.

I'll dive into some Northag reviews, to see what the basic maneuver elements are……that'll be the first/easiest consideration towards [a desired style of command] adaptability.

Hey Doc, if you, or the Facebook group(s) do a implementation of taking Northag to WW2, please update us here if possible?

And, when we do finally get together again, like to try the rules out at Recon or Hurricon