"Battalion level games" Topic

Finally got back to land combat after several months in the skies. Got a chance to think about how I want to represent battalion level actions. Musings found here:
link
Thoughts welcome

Joe

interesting. well worth the read. I'm fond of the sets you mention and also 0f the PK WWII divisional rules.

You looked at Chain of Command but you didn't consider Bolt Action. I never played CoC but I assume it is the same level of command as BA and both are skirmish games. Commanding a company or a single platoon.

What ruleset did you decide on? A mixture of rules?

We find Battlefront:WW2 perfect for this level. Enough detail, plays very smoothly. O group has a bit too much detail for quick play.

The "plenty of orders" problem with "O Group" is a problem of scaling. You're likely to get 7-8 orders a turn. That works for a battalion+ force with nine infantry platoons, mortars, and a few support platoons. You can usually do a lot, but not everything. It doesn't scale up or down very easily.

Rapid Fire

Depends on level of complexity you are looking for of course but I am with Serge69 take a look at Rapid Fire or the newer Rapid Fire Reloaded.

Command Decision works very well with a Battalion per player

I'll join in on the chorus – Rapid Fire Reloaded and a bargain price.

I will be honest, It was not really about battalion games. Some of the rules you mentions don't really have even a credible gun range to ground scale relationship and the pictures you do show seem to have far too little amounts of terrain features to represent terrain density, certainly in northern Europe.

In the real world you get about a platoon every 500m if you are lucky in defense, twice or more on the Normandy coast.

In attack you may get about a company attack in 500m. Now a battalion attack will have 3 companies up assuming you are representing something like a regimental attack where it may be say 2 Battalions up and one back. To be honest you scenery does not seem to represent going to have to represent at least 1500 yds given that the optimum is often not met, you are probably looking at more like 2000 to 2500m fro0ntage. That is a lot of ground, with a lot of terrain. The pictures you show don't really seem to represent the level of terrain you would expect in a battalion operational area. Inm musing on battalion attacks this seems to be missed as the fact that by the time you get to battalion level much of the commanders time is taken up by logistics decisions like who gets the artillery support and to what level. You may need to invoke phase lines after which the artillery may switch from supporting one company or another. None of this seems to get mentioned in your rules assessment or even how you accounted for this in some way.

UshCha,

Some very interesting points but in a bit of a killjoy fashion. Do I presume correctly that your rules cover these items?

Thank you all for the comments.
Gavan, sounds like we are of the same mind!
OC, I have never played bolt action so couldn't comment. I went with my mash up I mention at the bottom. Battlefront/o group/ field of battle.
Dexter, agree. I guess the old school turn sequence of battlefront don't bother you at all. Do you play solitaire?
Advocate, that is what I initially thought. I went down to six dice but still have that problem.
Serg,marc and Col, have never played rapid fire. What do you like about it? Does it play well solitaire? Are individual leaders and units important?
Sabre, thanks for the suggestion. Same questions as above if you don't mind.
Little red, don't worry, UC is always like that. He doesn't mean any harm :)
UC, sorry I didn't go into enough depth for you. It was musings not a paper for command and staff college. It is one thing to quote frontages but much more important to know your personnel and who can do what. Frontages are easy, leading people is the hard part. That is what I am looking for in a battalion game. BTW the pictures were all from an ambush scenario.

Thanks again all.

Joe

The old school turn sequence in Battlefront (very similar to that of Squad leader), is a strength, not a weakness IMO. I did add some rules for blinds, but really the rules are very good as they are. We find that many scenarios designed for I Ain't Been Shot Mum (of which there are loads of excellent ones) play better using Battlefront:WW2. IABSM is a good set but it is quite slow. A Battalion a side might take 4 hours or more.
Don't get me wrong, the command friction provided by IABSM or Chain of Command or any of the Piquet stable of rules is great, and if playing solo I would use those for that reason, but for games with an opponent I prefer Battlefront:WW2.

Nice comparative analysis. I would like to do the same with Rapid Frire and Fistful of TOWS 3. I am working on a Battle of the Bulge game in 6mm to cover a large area of the campaign.

Dexter,I forgot about IABSM. Agree, good set of rules but a little slow; same for TWaT. Interesting that you find the rigid sequence a strength but against an opponent where it isn't about the story that makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
Shark, shucks, but as UC will point out it wasn't really an analysis, just what I like best about each of the game systems. Fistful of TOWs looks really interesting and I have almost bought it twice. I am a sucker for anything battle of the bulge; talk about a leadership challenge!

Thanks

Joe