"Why not use battle-group rules for skirmish games?" Topic

Having bought some new figures for a company vs. company-sized game,I started wondering about basing some of the ones I don't need on individual metal washers, so I can use them for WW2 skirmishing. I was going to ask you gentlemen if you've got any rules to recommend.

And then I thought, what a shame the battle-group rules I love don't have a skirmish version. After all, they already have all the weapons and armour defence factors listed that I need. What if I write my own rules and use the same lists? But do I need to? After all, reducing the number of weapons a figure-base represents isn't going to alter the distance they can fire. But defence?

So converting the battle-group game to skirmish means a base will represent one soldier instead a 2-4 man section. A tank represents one tank, not 2-3 in a troop and an aircraft is one aircraft, not a flight of 2-3. So the reduction in representation seems proportional. The only difference I see is that the new skirmish group can fire a wider variety of weapons at more targets.

I have the sense shells getting a "hit" on one figure spells the end rather faster than getting a hit on 2-4. But then again, you were just showing a "hit" that was worth registering from 2-3 shells; the scale remains proportional. Same with artillery or air-power beaten-zones.

Target acquisition? Your spotter having to find four tanks has an easier job than just having to find one. Then again, in the larger game, you're factoring in that not every tank might get spotted, and maybe one spotter-base is three spotters; who knows. So perhaps its all proportional. If it isn't, it's too complicated for such an incremental thing.

I've thunk my way out of seeing any problem at all in playing skirmish with company-company rules. I mean, all I'd have to do would be to write some character cards with variable morale or effectiveness factors for the hero and the coward and maybe some granular event cards, like "tank runs out of petrol", "rainstorm reduces visibility" and for the English, "tea-time"… and we're off.

Must have forgotten something. What do you chaps reckon?

Go for it! I don't myself, but plenty of people do and are happy with the results.

robert piepenbrink
"Go for it! I don't myself, but plenty of people do and are happy with the results".
You're giving me confidence. Odd, then, that more large-battle rules-writers don't do skirmish game versions since all the hard work is already done.

Cacadoress, If I recall correctly, Blitzkrieg Commander does offer a skirmish level variant in addition to its two main command levels. So as an idea it's already out there for exactly the reasons you have stated.

Oh, any pause in the fighting is time for a brew for UK troops.:)

I think a lot of rules can move up or down the representational scale.

To add to the conversation Bolt Action came out with addendums to their (squad level) rules to convert to man to man skirmish. I have watched a few youtubes videos and it appears it works.

I also echo you could probably do this with most rules. Some things would not of course fit but movement, firing, morale… the wargaming basics would work.

With a little ingenuity very possible.

Oh one more thing not quite in line with OP but related; I am currently playing the @#$% out of Combat! volume 1 & 2 (by Compass Games). It is a man to man solitaire skirmish board game. This would easily port to miniatures.

The only downside I see is using alot of administration counters to achieve the same results as the board game. I will be trying this in the near future.

RittervonBec,
"Blitzkrieg Commander does offer a skirmish level variant"

We've been using a very similar game, Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier, written by an acquaintance of mine, Dave Brown. After I suggested it, he worked out a variant where hits are done using both weapon and armour factors together, with one dice roll – so it's kind of nicely set up for fast gaming. He's had the Napoleonics bug for some time, so if it needs any tweaks for skirmish, I'll do it. But I'll see if I can find the B.C. game you mention.

"Oh, any pause in the fighting is time for a brew for UK"

Pause? We have two hands!

79thPA
"I think a lot of rules can move up or down the representational scale".
Seems so. The time I've spent learning new rules… Tsch.

I don't see why you can't go the other way – from skirmish to battle-group. Or do it with Napoleonics, or anything. I guess Moderns would be the most seamless, as independence at small scale is the philosophy nowadays, anyway.

I guess for skirmish, most of the problems are worked out in planning the squad, like, would a patrol have a F.A.C. or a radio and so on? And maybe just checking some morale differences dependant on which armies were best able to use initiative at section-level, which would freeze when the plan fails and so on.

I mean, most of the fun, random stuff I like in skirmish games set in other eras – such as weather, food breaks, running out of ammo, soldiers diverted by finding a keg, having a medical officer and so on, often aren't in the rules anyway and I add 'em.

I'd have said that periods like Napoleonics, in which troop formation can be critical, were the ones least suitable for using the same rules for skirmish as for mass combat.

That said, I do keep a pair of 28mm "horse and musket" forces based individually--because it makes for a table with fewer markers, and lets me use a wide variety of rules. I could use them for skirmish combat, but to my way of thinking horse & musket skirmish is less interesting than Ren/fantasy or Moderns/SF. And of course sooner or later using skirmish rules for muzzle-loader combat means clocking off turns while Rifleman Dodd reloads his longarm. Have I mentioned how I feel about record-keeping when I'm not paid for it?

The original Rapid Fire had which switched the scale to skirmish, with no changes other than 1 figure equals 1 soldier etc. so certainly the authors thought it possible.

My understanding is Rapid Fire originally started life (prior to the first commercial version) as skirmish level rules which were upscaled for publication. One reason why you found, for example, grenade rules for battalion level game in first edition. Easy to switch scales with Rapid Fire including "bath tubbing".

robert piepenbrink
"I'd have said that periods like Napoleonics, in which troop formation can be critical, were the ones least suitable for using the same rules for skirmish as for mass combat."

I guess you mean firing lines and squares and things. The only extra rule I found needed for that, was to say you need ten infantrymen or six troopers to get modifiers their formation.

"Have I mentioned how I feel about record-keeping when I'm not paid for it?"

Not a big fan either, but making markers is fun. I even made two little wipable blank maps for white-board markers for players to plot their orders on.

Fred Cartwright 08 Jun 2026 8:00 a.m. PST
"The original Rapid Fire had which switched the scale to skirmish, with no changes other than 1 figure equals 1 soldier etc. so certainly the authors thought it possible"

Makes you wonder why more publishers haven't thought of it. Rules tied to models, like Flames of War and the various Perry incantations you can kind of understand, since they want you to buy more figures. Conversely, it's not laziness got me thinking about skirmish, but the more personal nature of the game. Certainly once you get into sword and shield battles, you start needing little additions that don't fit into the large-battle "missile" and "melee" stages, like being poked with a pike! But they're not that complicated.

Marc33594
"Easy to switch scales with Rapid Fire including "bath tubbing"
Sounds like stopping for a wash or a fiendish torture.

I'd recommend taking a set of rules as a basis and adapting to taste.
I started with stargrunt 2 for my own ww2 skirmish rules.
By starting with a set you know well and is kind of what you want you hugely reduce the amount of work before you can game. By not sticking with the rules as written you can put together something much more to your taste.

YMMV but I enjoy the test adapt, test adapt process and it saves forever buying new sets only to find you like this and that but some other bits are not so good.

Andy ONeill 1
"I'd recommend taking a set of rules as a basis and adapting to taste."
I find it useful to rewrite rule books myself onto one page. Not only so I don't have to wade through pages to look something up during a game, but it helps both players to memorise them.

As to adapting them, I'm loath to alter rules because I suppose there's some integrity about them. It's nice spending the time adding things like event cards or ways to begin the game so their armies are hidden.