"Interesting Features of Battlefront WWII" Topic
7 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.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleLatest N-scale German armor from GFI.
Featured Workbench ArticleBeowulf proves that you don't need to be a master painter or invest hundreds of hours working to get good results.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Achtung Minen | 25 Apr 2022 8:09 a.m. PST |
I've been enjoying cycling through my various hobbies lately and just managed to come back around to Battlefront WWII last night. I played a quick solo game set in France during the Winter of '44. I used very small forces for this game—just a platoon of American mechanized infantry and two platoons of Sherman tanks against two platoons of German Volksgrenadiers and a reduced section of Panzer IV H. It's been a bit since I played BFWW2 so I am sure I got things wrong… for example, I realized after the game that I forgot about the Maneuver penalty for nearby enemies, which would have likely made a difference. I also played with my set of house rules for morale. Basically, instead of the fixed "25% – 50% – 75%" casualty breaking points, I assigned different morale levels to the two forces. The Americans were "confident" (which meant they had 20%/40%/60% casualty thresholds) and the Germans were "reluctant" (which meant they had 15%/30%/45% casualty thresholds). I also increase the morale penalties for reaching these casualty levels from -1/-2/-3 to -1/-3/-5, so that badly damaged maneuver elements will generally withdraw from the field. I noticed (or was reminded of) a few interesting features of the BFWW2 rules: • Firstly, the definition of "cover" changes a lot based on context. For maneuver rolls, the only type of cover that matters is intentional fortifications… pill boxes or improved positions. Simply being in a building does not help you. That makes sense, since the soldiers are likely ordered to hold those intentionally improved defensive positions. Against direct fire attacks, almost any kind of cover helps infantry (including a tree line or bit of shrub), while vehicles only count harder forms of cover. Against indirect or air attacks, though, only structural and intentionally developed forms of cover count for either. When visibility is concerned, however, all forms of vegetation and structures provide concealment, but improving your position or occupying a pillbox further decrease visibility. Finally, for close combat, any type of concealment (basically anything that is not wide open ground) will benefit troops vs tanks, but otherwise only improved and hard cover benefits infantry or tanks (and even then, only the defender). There's no advantage for defending a forest against attacking infantry (nor higher ground, oddly enough)… not sure how well this would represent the brutal fighting in the Hürtgen Forest. In any case, it's a lot to keep track of (most games simply define "cover" in one standard way for all game mechanics), but the nuances are interesting. • Secondly, visibility really shaped the game quite a lot. The Volksgrenadier platoons deployed in a battered French village, with the Panzer IV H section hanging back in a keyhole position at the edge of a forest (mixed pine and deciduous… since this was winter, I decided it counted as a "cleared woods"). The Panzer IV position couldn't be seen on the approach because it was initially too far away (beyond 20") and then the visibility was blocked from the road approach by buildings until the American tanks had rolled up within 10 inches. Crack, one Sherman section in flames right from the start. The Volksgrenadiers also had no reason to open fire till the Americans were very close… the +1 Ambush modifier and the range bonuses incentivized close range ambushes. And until they fired, the Volksgrenadier could only be seen within 3 inches. The American infantry rolled up and deployed their troops just within 120 yards of the buildings (while the remaining Shermans dueled with the Panzer IV) and the Volksgrenadiers laid into them. The result was that there was a lot of uncontested moving (as the Germans remained hidden) and combat only happened at very short distances (3" or less). • Thirdly, there was a yo-yo effect once each side had been brought to around half strength. At one point, the entire American force packed up and drove back down the road they came on, only to rally and return the next turn. Likewise, the Germans seemingly quit the field, only to rally at the edge of the village and attempt to retake their previous positions. My house rules may be to blame here, but the result was very swingy, with each side yo-yoing multiple times, even when they weren't under any pressure. On the other hand, I really got the feeling that my little lead men had no clue what was going on… maybe there were rumours that the enemy were getting reinforcements or that they had all routed for good, resulting in a sequence of rather ambivalent and sometimes contradictory commands from the top. The result of the last point was that there was very little fighting in the last few turns, as each side was spooked by shadows in the ruined village and fled on their own accord, only to bounce back again. Eventually, the Americans advanced one final time and the Germans failed their maneuver roll and fled one final time, now being close enough to the map edge to properly exit from the battlefield. If I had kept playing, no doubt the Americans would have failed a later maneuver roll and abandoned their hard-fought control over the village, even though there was technically no enemy any longer on the field. I am not sure how realistic that is, but it was interesting to see. |
Saber6 | 25 Apr 2022 9:03 a.m. PST |
I need to play these more! |
Dexter Ward | 26 Apr 2022 1:31 a.m. PST |
I suspect your house rules contributed to the odd stuff at the end. The rules as written don't suffer from this problem |
Achtung Minen | 26 Apr 2022 5:23 a.m. PST |
I suspect your house rules contributed to the odd stuff at the end. The rules as written don't suffer from this problem Well I'm not convinced of that. Under the rules as written, the Americans would be suffering a -5 on their maneuver roll (commander was killed, -3 for disordered experienced troops, -2 for 50% casualties). That means they would be panicking or falling back 50% of the time, holding position 10% of the time and rallying and/or moving 40% of the time. Essentially there is a 50/50 chance for them to retreat or advance. It's true that, once they rallied, they would act much more regularly (only panicking or falling back 20% of the time), but until then there was a lot of potential "bounce" in their maneuver roll. The reason I introduced the stricter penalties in the house rules is that I was finding maneuver elements were quite often fighting to the death, to the last man. An experienced formation can literally take 75% casualties and still be 70% likely to hold a position and 60% likely to advance aggressively upon the enemy. This problem is compounded when you factor in gamers, who are naturally inclined to abuse their little lead men to the extreme and throw them into the meatgrinder with abandon if it offers them a sliver of a chance of contesting some minor objective. WW2 armies did not fight this way (generally speaking) and company commanders, battalion commanders and on up were personally responsible for their men and preserving the fighting condition of their formations. Thus I wanted the maneuver elements to have a real breaking point somewhere around 50% casualties, after which they would likely quit the field. It's somewhat arbitrary and I am sure there are historical precedents to the contrary, but I generally feel like 50% casualties is a good average breaking point, after which a commander decides that this mission is no longer achievable and the strategy must be rethought. I used the "morale levels" idea to add variability to this number, so that break points could be as extreme as 90% and as fragile as 30%, with the majority of formations falling between 45% and 60%. I should note, however, that my house rules make heavily damaged maneuver elements have less swingy maneuver roll results, not more. Under the normal rules the above unit had basically a 50/50 chance of falling back or advancing when disordered. My house rules are very similar to the rules-as-written in the mid-ranges (and basically identical for light damage): a -2 penalty merely becomes a -3 for moderate damage. At 50% casualties, the same unit (under my house rules) would thus only be one point different on the morale roll, so basically the same (although trending more towards 60/40 ratio on retreat/advance). The house rules really kick in when you get to heavy damage. Once the same unit hits 60% casualties under my house rules, they would only be rallying 10% of the time, holding position 10% of the time, and retreating 80% of the time… so much less swing there. They would therefore generally act rather predictably and just withdraw. Both the rules as written and my house rules are thus pretty stable for light damage and swingy for moderate damage. The real difference is that the rules as written remain swingy for heavy damage, whereas my house rules level off and become stable again (stable towards retreat rather than rallying, an inverse of the case with light damage). Since moderate damage is a transitional state (it will end as soon as the unit takes more damage) and heavy damage is a more permanent state (the unit will remain in this state until every last model is removed), the more permanent condition applies to stability in my house rules (as opposed to swingy-ness). |
Joe Legan | 07 May 2022 4:00 p.m. PST |
AM, I agree with you I think these rules are great. I dislike the igougo but otherwise they are primo. I like your changes to make some forces more brittle. I have changed both the combat and maneuver table table to try to decrease swings but still allow forces to collapse. If you are interested I will post with my next aar. Thanks Joe |
Achtung Minen | 10 May 2022 8:57 a.m. PST |
Yes Joe, that would be great, I'm looking forward to that. I think the game works perfectly without house rules; I just add house rules to get the flavor I want. I didn't mean to suggest I was "fixing" the game as it doesn't need anything of the sort… in my opinion, as written, it is probably the best set of WW2 rules out there. That said, stopping people like me from house ruling things is like trying to stop an avalanche with a snow shovel… it's just not going to happen! : ) |
Joe Legan | 11 May 2022 5:18 a.m. PST |
Am, I get it, I am the same way. It is a tribute to a good set a rules that they are simple enough to be messed with. It is much harder to write a simple set of rules that are good then a complex set. Battlefront is such a set. Cheers Joe |
|