"Battle front WW2 Rules" Topic

I am wondering what people think of these rules by the Fire and Fury guys.
Anything would help, such as largest force someone could use battle mechanics or anything else you can think of to help.
Joe

I haven't played them, but have looked them over, and recall discussions during development.

Seemed to me like they were quite good indeed.

I suspect they are similar to FoW in terms of the size forces you can use with them.

This is about the largest game I've seen using these rules.
Link: PDF link

I think they are a fine set of rules. The scaling of vehicles and heavy weapons as a section of two or a platoon of 3 is odd especially when infantry is a squad/section per stand. The cards make combat resolution easy. There is a lot of good information on the website and the player forums. Link: fireandfury.com

The rules are good. The games is based at the squad level, where you build up platoons to company and battalions. It gives you artillery, AirPower , engineers ect. One tank or armored car is counted as two, four tanks make a company. A platoon of three squads are made up of nine stands of two infantrymen each not counting a machinegun. Artillery is not present on the board but anti-tank guns are. Every troop type armor, gun, plane has its own card with its stats. It's a good set of rules that you can use for modern warfare, 6 day war, WW3 ect.

I played it years ago several times. They were fun and gave good results. I bought them, never played and sold them. Then I played again, enjoyed it and bought them again. Never played again. I recall calling in artillery was a bit clunky but the cards were nice to use.

I really enjoyed the games I played. In fact, this post make me want to dig it out again.

I have the rules and have played them a number of times. The F&F website has a large number of scenarios but most are at battalion or greater number of units and from what I have read, take a full day+ to play out.
The games I have played have been much smaller, a few maneuver units(ME) for each side, a mix of infantry and armor which gives a good game in under 2 hours.
Ebay has a few listings for the rulebook and the unit cards packages. You need the unit cards to play the game but they are not that pricey. One rulebook covers the mechanics of play for the whole of ww2 so no additional books to buy.

I must say I never liked them back in the day

greenknight4,

I must say I never liked them back in the day

What aspects of the rules did you like or dislike?

Wolfhag

Watches a few games and asked questions, credibility is not there strong point, falls in the same slot as Rapid fire and Team Yankee, games not simulations and some big flaws.

#Wolfhag

I just saw your reply. I must admit it has been at least 10 years since I played or looked at them. I really don't recall now it is just a memory I have. Sorry

Chris

greenknight4,
Thanks. I think they are better than most but not what I'm playing.

Wolfhag

Very good rule set.

I agree. BFWWII is an excellent rules set for WWII. What I like about it is the following.

1. It is a complete rules set. Everything is covered. Not only a good system but the supporting rules are all there. This is something I really appreciated about Fire and Fury as well. People can come up with good systems but very few rules writers have a completely developed set of supporting rules.

2. BFWII is an elegant system. Easy to follow and figure out. Just add or subtract one number and roll a d10.

3. Comprehensive.

4. I like the subtle differences between troop grades. I remember fighting Canadians versus German paratroopers in Italy. The paratroopers were that small notch better than standard troops and that made all the difference in their ability to just hold on under great pressure.

Well… I remember having fun with them and they were rules for 15mm gaming, but some parts were un-historical. The melee factor on vehicles could lead to very strange outcomes.

I have these rules in my collection, and have read them at various times, but never played them – unlike Fire and Fury, which I have played but do not own.

The scaling of vehicles and heavy weapons as a section of two or a platoon of 3 is odd especially when infantry is a squad/section per stand.

I found this a bit odd too, especially since such a heavy weapon stand only rolls a single attack dice. I guess this is fine for an anti-tank gun section (single stand) engaging a tank section (single stand), but it leads to a bit odd results when engaging infantry – MG section (2 or 3 guns) on defensive will not be able to suppress more than one infantry squad per turn. Though perhaps their other advantages make them more powerful – should probably try how things work in actual play.

A platoon of three squads are made up of nine stands of two infantrymen each not counting a machinegun.

I think this is statement is in error. Individual stands represent infantry squads, and infantry in game is usually organised with companies (rather than platoons) as manoeuvre elements, with a single infantry company consisting of a commander stand, nine or more infantry stands, and perhaps a heavy weapon stand or two (with possibly more attached from battalion level assets).

There is a template for grazing fire on the F&F web site that might address your issue with MGs.

link

I thought two stands represents a platoon (so a stand is basically one and a half squads, or about 15 men) and a vehicle model represents two tanks? My memory is that the unit scale is not actually stated in the rules, but you can infer it from the TO&Es (i.e. six infantry stands in an infantry company, four or five vehicle stands in a tank company).

Thanks. I think they are better than most but not what I'm playing.

Oh go on, Wolfhag, don't be coy. Do tell us what you are playing?

I like BFWW2 quite a bit, but I remember the turn sequence to be somewhat laborious and with perhaps twice as many steps as it needed.

AM, I think you may be confusing BFWW2 with some other set …

Infantry Platoons are not explicitly modelled, but a Company is generally nine stands plus a command stand. So each Stand could be thought of as equating to a Section/Squad, but they are not specifically grouped as Platoons and no Pl Cmd stands are modelled.

Platoons/Troops of Armour are indeed often two vehicles where the historical originals comprised 4-5. But the rule ToE place the emphasis, as above, on the Company/Squadron as the primary tactical handful. Vehicles and on-table guns attached in support of Infantry are likely to be found in smaller packets.

The turn sequence strikes me as fairly conventional, but the list looks long if Air and Air Defence assets are being used in a Turn. My Normandy Germans don't have an air force, which makes matters much simpler.

Perhaps. I still can't seem to find it spelled out in the rulebook, but in the end I suppose it doesn't really matter. What matters is that a Maneuver Element has X number of units, regardless of what that may or may not represent in real life numbers of troops, vehicles and guns.

I actually broke this out tonight and played a quick solo game to remind myself of the rules. It was a simple battle: one maneuver element per side and a few attachments to reduce the disadvantage of the attacker. The Germans (attacking) had a Motorized Infantry Company (9 infantry stands and 1 HMG stand) and a small additional Maneuver Element of 3 Panzer IIIE tanks. The French (defending a town) had a Dragon Portés Squadron (a company-sized formation with 12 infantry stands and 2 HMG stands). I played the game with 6mm figures and centimeter measurement. The Germans came around the bend in the road and advanced on the town with little trouble. They massed up about 11cm away (out of the range of the French infantry and the French HMGs were quite ineffective, given the -3 penalty they suffer beyond 10cm). Next activation, the German force maneuvered en masse and assaulted the French troops that were lined up against the row of bushes that marked the edge of the town. Defensive fire put down two German squads, but they paid the French back four of their own. The Panzer III's were a huge asset in the assault and their +3 vs Troops made the difference every time. I wrapped up the game there as I ran out of time, but it looked like the French would likely rebound and counter assault the Germans' newly seized positions. That said, perhaps the Germans would have sent them packing… not only would the French need to deal with defensive fire, but the tanks were still very much a threat. I was actually quite surprised that this gung-ho approach of storming the defenses at first contact was so successful. It made for a quick and bloody game. Game lasted about 3 turns, so 30 simulated minutes to travel the mile and a half to the town edge and break the initial defenses of the French. The Germans are nothing if not efficient.

My memory is that the unit scale is not actually stated in the rules, but you can infer it from the TO&Es

It is stated somewhere in the beginning of the rulebook – unfortunately I do not have my copy at hand so cannot give precise page number.

However, depending on the unit type, one stand is equal to:
- 1 infantry squad OR
- 2-3 support weapons OR
- 2-3 vehicles

What a great set of rules! I played a game with a friend who had never played a wargame before and we finished within 3 hours and he had a blast. I wish the tank combat was a little more granular, but it is solid enough to work with.

I'm curious how people who play these, or other similar rules, put on a game with a group of players. If following period tactics, an attacking battalion might place two companies in an attack, with one on reserve. The likely weakened defender would likely find himself defending against such an attack, with one weakened company. You can't use anything like equal numbers or the attack will get slaughtered. Thoughts?

Or, let me ask the question another way, if you had four or six players, how would that look in terms of who plays what in the game?

I would give each player command over one company and perhaps assign an overall commander on each side. The game multiplayers very well and is better suited for convention games than most of the rulesets I have ever seen. Part of the reason for that is the scale (you can easily give players enough forces and supporting assets that every player feels like he has a small army), part of that is the near complete absence of "friction" in the rules (contrary to many popular rules today, your units will do won't ever just "sit around" turn after turn), part of this is the game turn sequence (fixed IGOUGO, which works so much better for facilitating convention play) and part of this is that the force components (called "Maneuver Elements") breakdown into individual player control so well.

Sorry a typo made that difficult to understand. I meant to say:

…the near complete absence of "friction" in the rules (contrary to many popular rules today, your units won't ever just "sit around" turn after turn)…

I.e., ignore "will do."

Regarding "following period tactics," I would also add that BF WWII does better in this regard than almost any ruleset I have seen. When I need to know how to field a US Infantry Battalion in BFWWII, my best bet is always to check the period field manuals that were actually given to Battalion Commanders in the ETO. The game was developed with military historians like Charles Sharp and Greg Lyle and the game has been built from the ground up to mimic historical methods for prosecuting attack and defense.

Just by way of example, compare overwatch/ambush fire/opportunity fire between BFWWII and IABSM (another game that I absolutely love). In IABSM, all of this is simply handled by "reserve dice" and it all basically means the same thing: shooting at the enemy during the enemy's move. In BFWWII, however, these are three different things with different mechanics. Overwatch is a specific stance a unit adopts while it watches for enemy fire (for example, to support bounded movement) and tries to suppress any enemy that pops up to fire defensively. Ambush fire is not an attack but rather a modifier (a bonus) for attacking when you are not spotted or if the enemy has just chanced upon you (spotting rules, and hence proper reconnaissance, are very important in this game). Opportunity fire on the other hand is only when the enemy does something that exposes himself to an opportune attack. Moving directly towards the enemy at normal pace does not trigger opportunity fire because it is assumed you are advancing carefully and using cover. Advancing rapidly, however, or turning your flank to the enemy does incur opportunity fire as you are unusually vulnerable in that moment.

Another example is the use of reserves, which really must be an important part of any battalion-level game. In a game like O-Group, which was designed in part around the idea of using reserves, reserves are useful because they allow you to dump new troops in a critical point on the battlefield (you move your deployment markets, called scouting patrols, constantly throughout the game, allowing you to deploy dynamically wherever your markers are at that particularly point in the game). This is fine, but it is also quite an abstraction… how your reserves got halfway down the table and onto the enemy's flank is completely abstracted. In BFWWII, your reserves are on the table and have to move as normal, which means your opponent can use interdiction artillery fire to prevent their avenues of approach. Reserves are necessary in BFWWII not because they are a dynamic method of applying sudden pressure to a weak spot in the enemy line, but rather because the Maneuver Roll mechanic is incredibly dynamic and a bad roll with wavering troops could see an entire company abandoning its vital defensive positions in the town that is your mission objective. Only a player that has maintained nearby reserves will be able to rush them into the gap in your line. Because the Maneuver Roll in BFWWII can be so variable, you can never be absolutely certain that your various Maneuver Elements will hold their position when put under pressure by the enemy. I find this is a good representation of how historical manuals convey the importance of maintaining reserves.

In general though, BFWWII is an old school game compared to all the high-abstraction games that are quite popular now. BFWWII is much more literal… your units are on the table, they are mostly under your control but even when they go out of control, they're not sitting on their hands… they fall back and charge forward and the battlelines can change constantly from turn to turn. BFWWII carefully folds in lots of modifiers directly into the tables and game mechanics… it's not a game where all medium tanks are the same: even individual variants of the same tank are detailed very carefully and precisely in comparison to the scale of the game. It's a battalion-level game, but it can scale up to regimental and yet it also gives you some aspects of company commander decision-making and even slivers of platoon and squad leader decision-making. BFWWII can even be considered "crunchy" in certain respects… the variety of artillery patterns you can use for example… but I wouldn't call it complex. Usually you apply no more than two or maybe three modifiers to any given roll and the tables typically have only half a dozen outcomes or fewer to consider. Likewise, there are only four tables commonly referenced (maneuver, spotting, fire combat and close combat) and they are quite easy to memorize after a couple games.

My memory is that the unit scale is not actually stated in the rules

Getting back to this topic, I managed to spend time with my copy last week, and now I can point out that the game scale is quite clearly described on page 3 of the rulebook.

I believe 1 inch equals 40 yards.

Joe

I have positive memories of these. I liked them but can't really be more specific.
I think they're worth trying.

I think they play well for their age the the combat sequence is slick. If you add the optional maneuver chart the morale is even better.

Joe