"What is the most popular unit size to play?" Topic

In your experience of WW2 wargaming, what is the most popular unit size played in WW2 rulesets?

By this I mean, are most popular WW2 rules centred around platoon or section-level actions? Company? Battalion?

From what I have seen and experienced, there seems to be popular interest for everything from a platoon per side to division per side (and more limited interest to squad or corps per side).

However, thinking of the most commercially succesful games, they seem to be around a platoon per side (Bolt Action) or a reinforced company (Flames of War).

I'm a big fan of Rapid Fire. It has the feel of a skirmish game, but calls it's basic unit battalions.

The most important factor in choice is the size of the figures. The 28mm figures are almost always platoon/squad down to micro tanks at battalion and above. The size determines what looks best on a table.

My guess is reinforced platoon – Bolt Action and Chain of Command. I've played the latter, though I'm more into O Group – each side a reinforced battalion – for the last few years.

From my observations, Bolt Action and FoW are the most popular.

How popular would you guys say O Group is?

I am I rapid fire guy.

We play a lot of PBI. That gives each player a company plus some support stuff. About 100 figures per side. That is 15mm on a 4x4 foot table.

WW2 gaming for starter players will probably become more skirmish type with about 20 figures a side because that is the gaming trend?
Few figures which is easy for players to build,

martin

I think now (maybe considering the past 10'ish+ years), like Advocate and 79thPA mentioned – a reinforced platoon at a 1-to-1 representation is the unit size most seen on home tables, at the shops, or for tournament-organized events – and a btw – what we see in all the game magazines too – a couple of squads battlin' it out on their pages (despite what command level the article might be detailing).

'Skirmish actions', where what happens beyond a few platoons fighting doesn't factor into the scope of the gameplay. These collections are called 'armies', all as borrowed from the fantasy/scifi genres, with gameplay style re-ported back into historical periods (not just for WW2 either).

Example of the latest 're-port' – Achtung Panzer by Warlord, a tank skirmish game with big 28mm? scale tank models recommended, without any infantry or AT weaponry to be found on this empty fantasy battlefield. Remember, the skirmish gamers have for years been told their army of 30 some odd 28s, and a few big tank models is all they were needing, now how to convince this fan base that's been true-----well, just create a fantasy WW2 world of close-combat tank skirmishing so you can fight WW2 with that handful of tank models, that were really ever meant for being displayed on model shelves.

It's been quite the marketing phenom – but it's worked wonders for many bottom lines I imagine.

In our group we mainly play brigade sized actions, maybe up to division and occasionally down to reinforced battalions. I also occasionally run large operational games (generally from 6-15 divisions).

I solo play platoon-company level stuff, but also mainly brigade level.

No idea if that is typical or not. I've heard that Bolt Action and Flames of War are quite popular, but that may be an unsubstantiated rumour;)

The Great Wargaming Survey asks which rules people play.

What games are played in your area? If none then a simple game system is what you want.

Bolt action for 28mm and Flames of War for 15mm are both good.

Have not played O Group. Last played Rapid fire 15 years ago but it still is a good set of rules.

Perhaps try U-Tube to get a better feel?

I don't know why the WW2 battalion level is not more commonly played. 15mm figures are relatively cheap, no? We have lots of detailed regimental histories for scenario inspiration. You can field a lot of different supports as well. The only significant drawback is that you might have to paint a lot of figures but that doesn't stop people from playing Napoleonics.

Our gaming group has great fun with home brewed scenario-based rules where one stand may equals a battalion, a regiment, or even a division. We have played the Buna campaign, the Sicily Campaign, the Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, and Normandy. Our games are on the abstract side but yield very believable results.

We do Bolt-Action in 54mm with at least 3+ 10 man Infantry Squads, a few team weapons and maybe some light or medium AFV's on a 12&1/2 X 6 foot table with lots of terrain.
Most games are WWII but some Mexican and Russian Revoluton.

I've got a 3mm battalion-level game planned for this Saturday.

The Task Force/Kampfgruppe-level of WWII wargaming is really the sweet spot of tactical warfare, but because this command level involves combined-arms concepts, it can be more challenging to present well (to prepare a scenario for), as well as require participants to apply their ideas about maneuvering formations, coordinating firepower, and managing battle tempo.

Meanwhile, the buds down at the shop are happily playing any manner of skirmish gaming that just empties out some trays onto the table to get the dice rolling asap.

So likely the audience and/or their expectations don't much support the in-depth preparation and execution effort for this higher-level of game presentation anymore?

Guys on the forum here likely do it because they still enjoy the research and exploring history to create wargaming scenarios for – much of that seems incidental to the hobby now……personally, I started to get lost when words like codex, format, and points became vogue…..still haven't found any of those words mentioned in the history books or manuals read over the years – as if there's been a new coded language interjected, and to embrace for joining in – no thank you – I'm going out the way I came in. :P

"I don't know why the WW2 battalion level is not more commonly played."

I don't know why you think it isn't? It has been the staple of WW2 wargaming since Lionel Tarr, Charles Grant and WRG 1925 to 50. There have always been people who prefer skirmish games though. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

As for the popularity of platoon and company sized games, it might have something to with the desire to have 1-to-1 representation between combatants and models on the table top. So single infantry model represents a single combatant, single heavy weapon team on a base represents a single heavy weapon, and a single vehicle represents a single vehicle.

The higher level game you go to, the harder it is to do that – not just due to the number of models involved, but also due to the size of the table and number of bases/models you will need to move around.

Once you start abstracting things from the 1-to-1 representation into the level where a small number of models on a base represents a squad, section, platoon or company, you can pretty freely pick whether you want your game to represent battalion, regiment/brigade or division action.

Good points – and Griefbringer brings up the scale issues too with bigger models (and my insertion – that those models need to look right for the firing distances they use on-board (note: FOW – fender-to-fender distortion), and then when compared to the need to compress game distance into smaller board spaces as ground scales increase while moving up the chain of command (aka to battalion+ level gaming).

On 1-to-1 representation [advantage], I'll defer a bit off of that – most skirmish systems still create factoring based on volume of fire, and/or with firepower ratings. These are often and likely just relative abstractions of weapons effectiveness. Really, many popular skirmish systems even avoid expressing their actual (a finite) time scale, so 'relative' differences in firepower is all that can be surmised anyway.

Relative firepower ratings for game units played at higher levels of command are expressions of the same design process, just done for a different game level, or by a different rules designer – and they all have their own pet factoring deemed most important to emphasize. ;) So Griefbringer's last point still has good resonance, for most all gaming, and for that 1-to-1 figntin' too.

"Abstraction" – so is it wrong to call a 54mm figure a squad? What about a tank company represented by 3 fine-looking models or castings?

Getting closer to the skin (my own), having a 3mm stand with maybe 4 strips of tiny little figures being called an infantry platoon?

Almost forgot – 5 beautiful-looking scale buildings……that's that famous so-and-so "village" now.

It is just from my own impression of what I seen personally. I have no trouble finding battle reports on YouTube or online for Bolt Action, Chain of Command, and Flames of War. But I hardly ever see battle reports for battalion level games, apart from Storm of Steel Wargaming who seems to regularly play O Group.

O Group seems to scratch the itch for me the best as I like fielding a historical order of battle, but I find that it could be somewhat limiting sometimes. Ideally, I'd like something like a battalion version of Bolt Action. Battlegroup offers a lot more flexibility and diversity while still giving me the opportunity to field a historical battalion. However, it doesn't seem popular in my area and online I haven't seen anyone play it battalion sized.

Totally valid observation – it's what has been pushed the past dozen years.

If you search here for Blitz Action, you'll find my conversion of BA to company+ level gaming. I uploaded pics of my early rule conversions to the forum (as, or within game reports).

I got a few forum replies about these – but it wasn't all Bolt Action, or Chain Of Command, so…..

A few of the last Blitzin' gaming done (some on my 3mm combined-arms rules adaptation too) – I'll have new game report for the 3mm scale stuff coming in a few days.

TMP link

TMP link

Do read that last comment on this 2nd (bottom) thread linked – so MapleLeaf, don't be feeling like the Lone Ranger. ;)

I have no trouble finding battle reports on YouTube or online for Bolt Action, Chain of Command, and Flames of War.

I haven't been watching them, but I doubt that YouTube battle reports are particularly representative of the genre at large – it is likely quite marginal group of gamers doing such videos (and probably from the younger end of spectrum, to whom 1-to-1 representation might feel more attractive than higher level abstractions).

Also, video battle reports might work better with larger models, which show up better on the video – making good reports with 2, 3 or 6 mm models might require more technical effort to ensure that audience can recognise the models.

It has been the staple of WW2 wargaming since Lionel Tarr, Charles Grant and WRG 1925 to 50.

Not sure I would call either Battle or WRG 1925-50 rules battalion scale. Battle always struck me as a company level game where you called a platoon a company. Ditto for WRG. Elements were fireteams, not even sections and a company was about as much as a player could handle without slowing down the game or a lot. Command Decision seems to me as the first proper battalion level game I played, all be it with skirmish elements like very detailed armour and spotting rules.
I had another set of supposedly big battle rules about the same time WRG came out. Imaginatively called "Wargaming Rules for WW2" by John Traynor of No 1 Wargames Command. Again these were 1 tank is 1 tank model, infantry were squad bases IIRC, but basically speed bumps for the tanks, which were the focus of the rules. You got to play with a division by bath tubbing 1:3.

We used to play battalion sized games with WRG, a motorised company, a couple of tank companies and supporting arms in the main. Grant certainly called his formation a battalion – it was just done at a 1:3 representation. Same sort of thing as Rapid Fire (or dare I say it, Command Decision, does).

As for uTube, I don't know anyone who puts game reports on there. I do put them on my blog though.

I get the 1:1 representation thing. I used to slavishly base my WRG teams at 1:1. Only later did I realise it was completely pointless. Even for company level games I go with section basing or teams now, usually at 1:2 or 1:3 figurewise.

Proper skirmish games are done in 54mm:), as per the old Paragon Skirmish Rules. We used those to play tank battles on the lawn with 1/35th scale tanks.

Martin, enjoyed hearing about some of your old skool gamim' – and just loved the sound (in my head, while laying on my own Monty Python-style accent) to your line -

"Only later did I realise it was completely pointless".

So much about this hobby fits into that short, classic phrase (Monty Python or not). :)))

We used to play battalion sized games with WRG, a motorised company, a couple of tank companies and supporting arms in the main.

Oh you could play them it is just took a long time. My brother and I played WRG a lot, but the games took us all weekend. Fortunately we had all weekend in those days and could leave the game set up overnight.

Grant certainly called his formation a battalion – it was just done at a 1:3 representation. Same sort of thing as Rapid Fire (or dare I say it, Command Decision, does).

I see your point, but Grant played like a skirmish game to me. Individual rifleman firing, the MG cone, 1 minute turns and deviation of individual artillery rounds. Fine for a skirmish game, but jarred a bit for me when it supposedly represented multiple weapons firing. CD in contrast did seem to be trying to represent combat at a platoon level, despite the super detail stuff. Things like force back results and pinning which weren't in Grant were trying to model combat results at a unit level instead of my guy shoots at yours, roll a dice and your guy is dead or not.

One issue about the popularity of platoon or company sized games might be the influence of movies and TV series, which often focus on relatively small level units and actions when it comes to WWII. So players who get inspired by these sources may be drawn initially to small level games – and with some effort you may be able to put together a platoon or so without having too many duplicate figures (multi-part 28 mm kits help with achieving individuality, if you have the interest and patience).

On the other hand others may be drawn in by reading historical accounts of large scale actions, and thus might be interested in representing larger units and actions from the start.

I think "skirmish" is most accessible, because it's closest to "1st-person" (make those decision on "see, point, and shoot").

Many of us started the hobby there – (Fast rules here, with Airfix WW2 figs). We had played Armymen as kids, so could see doing that with toy soldiers too, after we discovered there were written rules to knock down the enemy with.

Hmmmm we wondered, what's actually a "Platoon", how does a tripod MG work in a fight, and mortar fire – they call that "support", and using something termed as indirect fire……and this all still continues……now as then…….

Oh gosh – and it was the series Combat on TV! I watched a few episodes again a few years back – I've been ruined over time, and can't enjoy those anymore (I guess this is why militaries do recruit youngsters to do the real fighting).

All interesting answers!

I admit I was also lured in by Bolt Action and platoon-sized actions.

Then there are those who really want to get into the boots of generals of various types and command divisions, corps and armies, or even larger formations. Higher up in the hierarchy you go, the harder it gets to represent the actions on tabletop due to the time and space involved in the operations – at some point it becomes more convenient to transfer over to board or computer gaming.

I cannot think of many WWII miniature games that involve pushing more than a division around the tabletop – then again, I haven't really been paying much attention to that level of representation either.

Great topic TMLF!

We wouldn't have this discussion unless it were on a forum space like TMP.

(and what comes to be played, isn't always what's 'superior' to be played, in spite of popularity)

Hey, as Griefbringer relates, if you keep an eye on board gaming developments too, you'll know of the Undaunted series……but now, seems like that title makes it onto as many boxes as the commercial rights allow it to be printed on (it's become a label, unrelated to some potential innovation).

Innovation – that would be another interesting forum topic……Strength & Honour would get my recent vote.

Another btw (sorry rambling today) – Battle Masters, that old Milton Bradly fantasy game from the 1990s – I'm 'labelling' it on my up-coming game day description as "America's Warhammer".

It's old (30+ years), and better, it's unchanged – it's not new Oldhammer, of this or that edition of something, and was sold by the thousands (millions?). Maybe it was one of those perfect innovations.

So far there's not been a remake (look out) – sort of hope that never happens – maybe we want to enjoy something that might have been one of those perfect things? These days you might have to do some digging to find it (sets and pieces are still much available), but to dig it, you sort of earn that right of ownership.

Maybe this applies to a lot about this hobby – (maybe something Martin above would have an excellent line to relate upon).

Thank you FlyXWire!

I think the main appeal of the battalion size for me is just reading all the historical accounts of so and so regiment and they can be rather detailed, not to mention interesting!

It all still looks pretty nice on the board despite it not being exactly 1:1/

If you are interested in playing battalion sized actions, then go ahead and play them – it does not really matter what the rest of the world at large are doing. There are numerous rules for that sort of games (for something less conventional, you could even try Crossfire).

And if you are into computer games, Steel Panthers WW2, available for free through Shrapnel Games, makes for a very enjoyable game when commanding a reinforced battalion.

TMLF,

I thought I'd post a pic from my Battalion-level game go yesterday here (you would dig this I think).

On the flip side, there's been a loss of institutional knowledge to pull off this type of game now.

I looked around the shop to catch what else was going on at the other tables – the closest thing to 'real' was World Of Tanks.

I'm getting old, and real history is getting old and stale too.

Looks brilliant! Remind me what rules were you using?

My own, that started as a 3D conversion of the hex-based Tank-On-Tank board game -

Lots of design tweaking this past 10 years, and moved from the hex grid to making better looking mats using areas to do the ranging and movement by, and for 6mm and 12mm size minis also.

The original mats were printed on vinyl, a winter version -

Now I've transitioned to fleece, and did one teddy bear fur mat along the way for Normandy hedgerow country -

With this recent 3mm iteration (so have gone full circle), eliminated the need for the areas grid altogether.

Western Front mat for the 3mm w/o grid design -

Been posting AARs and discussion about this Tank-On-Tank modded system on the forum for a long time (way too long in fact). :)))

In my experience it tends to be 28mm skirmish (Bolt Action) or 15mm "company" (Flames of War). I rarely see like actual battalion level or higher, maybe because in my area there are no real gaming clubs and stores don't really do historical so people aren't interested in finding esoteric, sometimes 20+ year old rules online and then getting models from stores that look like they were created with Angelfire in the late 90s.

The general lack of "mainstream" games (BA/FoW notwithstanding) means that people are left confused when it comes to finding games, since there's nothing like Warhammer where you can go into any game shop and find it, and more importantly, people to play against. It is very hard to find a set of rules that fit and then encourage people to play it.

Just my two cents.

-Wayne

The general lack of "mainstream" games (BA/FoW notwithstanding) means that people are left confused when it comes to finding games, since there's nothing like Warhammer where you can go into any game shop and find it, and more importantly, people to play against. It is very hard to find a set of rules that fit and then encourage people to play it.

This is very accurate. While every survey I have ever seen indicates WW2 is the most popular figure gaming area period, I rarely see any consistent gaming of the period. There is a Lot of Napoleonic's, some ancients and of course FoW and WW2 skirmish games. There are lots of individuals with an interest in the period, but it does not seem to translate into gaming.

This is why I've seen board game conversions as my main, future plan.

ATM, I'm working on a pre-release, 3D-izing project to an upcoming Cold War tactical board game (which is also solo-compliant, and therefore has OPFOR AI, if needed) -

TMP link

link

Also readying the Commands & Colors Battle Cry 3D game kit to hit the table once again (using 12mm ACW stands) – there's dozens of scenarios for this venerable game system, and lots more user-created battles available for it too.

Then a year or so ago, I thought I'd try to convert the old Milton Bradley Battle Masters fantasy board game to 3D – started first with a 3mm conversion project -

TMP link

Was so happy with the result, and how fun it was to play, that I painted up an original big set (btw, putting this on today in fact, with a new 'Castle Keep' custom-made fleece mat to try out for the occasion) -

TMP link

There's the WWII Tank On Tank conversion I spammed about above.

Most of these board games are still available, either on retail shelves, by online purchase, or as used buys. They of course play out of the box, but if you're a miniatures hobbyist, they can be embellished – some needing just painted pieces, but all beg for greater 3D-izing.

What's the lure in the 'plan' – these games already work, there's no 'overhead' needed to play them – just punch and play – and hundreds, if not thousands of gamers do play them – they have reach, and that reach translates into familiarity, pedigree, and approachability >>>>>> common ground.

With pure miniatures wargaming, what pedigree does your buddy's scenario or setup bring to the table……more than likely it's a 1st-run (2nd.3rd run….), and might end up being a good playtest experience, if lucky. If not, after a while, you might just have to 'miss' ole Joe's next game, because you need to mow the lawn.

Free-form miniatures wargaming can take a lot of prep time to get onto the table. That's discouraging for many gamers – why not just play board games instead, and be playing something in 'RT' with that precious spare time, right! That's as far as many wargame enthusiasts feel they need to go – get the game on.

If you're that miniatures fan though (or wannabe), it's easy to start from the board game, and work up from there, especially if it's a game you already admire.

Free-form miniatures wargaming is also so 'freelance' – but yes, with all the personal independence of choices allowed – now those interests, choices, might not have much weight behind them when you show up at your local club or that hobby shop, and try to convince others to get interested enough to play 'your thang'.

This is very accurate. While every survey I have ever seen indicates WW2 is the most popular figure gaming area period, I rarely see any consistent gaming of the period. There is a Lot of Napoleonic's, some ancients and of course FoW and WW2 skirmish games. There are lots of individuals with an interest in the period, but it does not seem to translate into gaming.

I think a big reason for that is, at least in the US, since most gaming happens in a game store rather than a club, historical wargaming isn't really "supported" by the store, that is there isn't a place to both buy products and play games. And for whatever reason in the US at least that seems to be the #1 factor people want, hence why Warhammer stays so ubiquitous.

Hence why FoW/BA is also popular because those come from a single manufacturer (the "GW Approach") and a game store can stock and place orders for them. Despite Warlord having other periods, they don't seem to ever be stocked like Bolt Action is. So those remain the "big players" because it's easy; you buy rules from Warlord/Battlefront, you buy models from Warlord/Battlefront, and there's no thought involved in where you are getting the rules from or how you are getting models or if the rules are too complicated for a 2-3 hour game on a Friday night.

-Wayne

That's how I see it here too, in the Midwest Wayne.

FoW/BA/Warlord sell you the package.

No history required, you game the package – the WWII packages of late – World Of Tanks, Achtung Panzer….(maybe the upcoming BA 3 to kickstart sales again).

If wanting to play something different in WWII (aka non-skirmish), then the packages are board games (they can have add-ons too), as the "GW Approach" of selling lots of models falls apart for "supported" historical miniatures gaming at these higher levels of command (or just choose PC gaming).

Tank Porn (Rivet Counting for some), Leader Personality figures (Big Men), and RPG enhancements you can buy for your army, or even for your tank crews.

But back to small -

So moving up the chain of command, you lose the need for rivet counting (who could tell these 3" coasters mount T-72s T-80s, T-64s, or BMP-1s or 2s)?

I'll use them for any of these, and my players, as long as they have the right unit spec card, will never know the difference, nor likely care.

Decidedly the antithesis of the "GW Approach"…….

No history required, you game the package – the WWII packages of late – World Of Tanks, Achtung Panzer….(maybe the upcoming BA 3 to kickstart sales again).

I have to admit this is an issue with historical gaming, players have to roll their own, which takes a lot more effort and may seem daunting to many new players. These days I spend a lot of time and effort in trying to create supporting material for rules. The objective is to allow player to download one set of pdf's, which shows them what to buy and provides ad-hoc or historical scenarios which can be played in 2-4 hours. My main issue is finding simple easy to learn rules which can give me 2-4 hours games, but its possible.

PF, we can refine our media, and continue the welcoming of new gamers to wargame at this Battalion/Kampfgruppen level of command, but there has to some desire to seek it.

we can refine our media, and continue the welcoming of new gamers to wargame at this Battalion/Kampfgruppen level of command, but there has to some desire to seek it.

Very true, there needs to be something driving new players to give it a go. Perhaps clubs, demo games at conventions, even movies?

Maybe if it was titled "Relevance". ;)

As a relative newb to historical gaming, the blessing and curse are the myriads of rules ranging from simplistic to incredibly complex, not even counting people using out-of-print rules from decades ago that you can't even get anymore because their club has existed since the 80s and that's what most of the old grognards still play.

It's overwhelming for many people, especially those who come from GW where everything comes from a single company and can be bought at a shop without looking online or, worse, eBay or forums to get stuff. But games like Flames of War and Bolt Action tend to over-simplify or make their games too competitively focused (FoW seems to have done that and ruined a lot of the good parts) because younger/more modern gamers want tournaments and balance for pickup games, not historical refights or hypothetical scenarios.

It's less of a deal, I think, if you have a gaming club but most of us sadly have to game at stores, so on top of the mainstream aspect you have people who feel you need to buy at the store (I've actually seen a fight break out because someone said they ordered most products online).

-Wayne

As a relative newb to historical gaming, the blessing and curse are the myriads of rules ranging from simplistic to incredibly complex, not even counting people using out-of-print rules from decades ago that you can't even get anymore because their club has existed since the 80s and that's what most of the old grognards still play.

When I re-entered the hobby back in 2013, after a 20 year break, I also found it very confusing. I spent a lot of effort in trying to create material to assist new player as I had a hard time and I was reasonably experienced. Part of the content i created included a video on why people war-game, which I hope can assist new players enter the complex world of historical gaming. youtu.be/4EIseV59TfI

FWIW….fairly large club evidence:

- 28/20 mm is typically BA or CoC (Skirmish, reinforced platoon), also for 20mm older rules like Rapid Fire (calls itself Brigade sizes but small forces for that).

- 15mm at the moment is O Group and IABSM, FoW was popular a few years ago. O Group is reinforced Battalion scale but could easily be brigade scale with same model setup, IABSM is more company level.

- 10mm – Club homebrew rules based on older rules, c reinforced battalion level.

- 6mm – Fistful of Tows mainly. Can play up to Division level but up to Brigade level in a few hours. IMO has a better "Cold War" than "WW2" feel.

X Commander rules were popuar a while back and people are forever trying out new (or newly discovered old rulesets)

I will also say that for some reason platoon/skirmish level feels odd for WW2. I can't really put my finger on why but when I think of WW2 battles it's larger engagements, not like a squad or two trying to capture a chateau.

Maybe too many years playing games like panzer general.

- Wayne

I will also say that for some reason platoon/skirmish level feels odd for WW2.

While most of my early gaming was WRG where i had a few companies to command, i agree with you. These days i normally use a one element equals one battalion scale with 6mm and that works rather well. I am toying with 10mm and using a set of rules where an element equals a regiment. I suspect that may be a bridge too far, but i will give it a go.