"My quest for the perfect Company level ruleset" Topic

I admit that rule set preferences are subjective. I have listed my criteria over a year ago and am still trying to find/make the perfect set. My biggest sticking point compared to most players is command and control.
So I have been on this quest for a year now and it has been a bit rocky:
link

Enjoy or commiserate.

Joe

Panzertruppe is an excellent WW2 ruleset that our group plays frequently, exclusive of most other WW2 rules!
Inexpensive here:
link

The rules are easily modified! The auther even discusses this in his notes!
The webhost has a decent preview of the rules!

Thank you for the suggestion. On the website they seem a bit armor centric for what I am looking for. My goal is to command an infantry company with attachments. Perhaps a mixed task force that would still have a heavy infantry component. Am I off base here?
Thank you for the suggestion.

Joe

Can you be more specific about your command and control wants?

I've written a lot of detailed WW2 rules summaries here:

link

It is true that Pt. is a tank game, but he wrote the rules with combined arms in mind, instead of tacking on a sub-system! Our group enjoys infantry centric rules and this system fulfills this!
In our last game (12mm, France '44, Brits vs Germans):
5 guys commanded a recce company with a dozen Bren carriers (with dismounts), 4 M5 halftracks, 9 armoured cars, a battery of Sextons (with their spotters) in support, and the command element (oh and 3 6pdr ATG's)! The Brits also had 2 Typhoons flying around in support-airstrike or off-table recon!
They were to proceed along 3 roads, to find the best route and ferret out any enemy resistance!
A buddy and I controlled a patchwork German defense:
Elements 12th SS; 1 platoon Grenadiers, an MG42 squad, a platoon of Mardars and a battery of 8cm mortars in support!
To keep things tense, I littered the fields with two broken down Tiger Is (they didn't know that they were abandoned and expended quite a bit of ammo until they noticed they weren't firing back), a Stuka parked on a road, fake minefields and suspicious looking haystacks! I also kept a platoon of Panzer IVs near the edge of the table and did not explain their presence!
It was glorious!

Thank you both for your replies.
Mark, I have used your list in the past; thank you. I have blogged about C + C multiple times but here is a quote from 2024 when I first considered moving up from platoon to company,
"Command is a great privilege/burden/test. You have to use the tools provided to accomplish the mission. This not only includes the material, but time and your people. All your people will have strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully you have trained your people and minimized their weaknesses. So my perfect ruleset will make me feel like I am in command of a company of people not automatons. I myself will have limitations of situation, time and danger which with to grapple. Platoon Forward can provide the characterization. But the ruleset will have to allow me to differentiate between Lt Smith the aggressive super star that I have to hold back and Lt Jones the barely adequate that I will have to keep an eye on an potentially step in."

So much of my work is done in the planning; setting my platoons up for success. Once the battle starts I won't have much control over how the platoons function unless I send a runner, walk over to them or have a radio link. Flowing down, the platoon leader can keep his platoon together for great control or spread them out and trust in his NCOs. Most games I have played allow the commander way to much control of his forces which are all generic. Platoon 1 acts exactly the same as Platoon 2. There is no Sgt Steiner or Capt Stransky, Dick Winters or Lt Dike. I am not saying this experience is for everyone. I am not saying this is the right way or the only way to play. It is just what I am trying to recreate on the tabletop. This dovetales nicely into my campaign rules Platoon Forward.

D 88 Sounds like you had a great battle! What is the infantry base in the game represent? Commanding a recce company in that situation would have been a challenge. Radio links would have helped a lot if they were all working. But if the scouts disembark how does the game handle their actions?

I might steal that scenario if you don't mind.
Thank you both again for your assistance. I realize what I am looking for is different. PBI seems the closest. Hence I am attempting a homebrew mix. But am open to PT or any other suggestions.

Joe

Many rulesets use leader ratings to get at what you describe. For example, Grande Armee, a grand tactical rules set does so for Brigade Commanders. Each has a general rating from 2 to 5 (low is good). The player gets Command Points they use to activate a leader based on their rating. In this case they do what you wish. OR they can roll for it. You have to roll OVER the rating for them to do as you wish. BUT if you roll a 1 they charge if within 6" of the enemy, and on a 6 they pull back. Some leaders are Valorous, some are impetuous and some are laggards.

Something like this could work for your game, but when the action is too thick there's less control, so Go Get Em Gary solves everything with a charge, while Leadfoot Larry spends the day "evaluating."

Mark, thank you. That is exactly the stuff I am talking about. That is one part of the equation.
Another part is how do you activate? In most games you take your action points and activate your commanders. If only it were that easy! Let's take WWII, I shouldn't be able to activate my platoon leader if he is more than 30 yards away. I can send a runner but that takes time and the message must be simple. I am forced to rely on the platoon commander trying to carry out my orders.
Take D 88 s example above. If the brens carriers encounter something and dismount I should be in the dark as to what is happening unless I move up, send a runner or they get back on the radio. How do those men react while I am not there with my sage advice and helicopter view?
Complicated stuff to model. My first model worked but as you can guess was way to slow to play.
Thanks for the discussion!

Joe

I am forced to rely on the platoon commander trying to carry out my orders.

Isn't that historically what the CO is supposed to do or relieve him of command or take over?

I look at it more as you the LT and SL attempting to use their initiative, tactics and training to order his squads to accomplish the CO objective and intent. The LT may put himself with the squad leading the attack so he can shorten the command loop and/or do it himself, so can the Company Commander.

The Platoon Leaders have probably met with the CO before the battle to plan tactics and alternatives and what to if things bog down. The CO may be the one to call for mortars and artillery.

In the scenario that can be determined:

2nd Platoon will carry out a deception attack. Then 1st Platoon will take the objective after prep fire using X, Y and Z assets. 3rd Platoon will be in reserve.

The LT calls the CO for progress reports, problems, artillery, etc.

Don't forget. The LT has a Platoon Sgt. with 5+ years experience he leans on. The CO has an XO and 1st Sgt. to take over for him at the HQ or lead from the front.

Then the player just worries about maneuvering his squads which he is going to do any how unless you roll a die to see what they do.

You can give leaders a rating which would be a die roll modifier to improve their chances to move under fire, improve firepower, rally, morale, be heroic, do something stupid, etc. IF they are attached to that unit.

In a skirmish game if your CO is having to give an order every turn or your LT does not know what to do you have some real problems.

How do those men react while I am not there with my sage advice and helicopter view?

Relieve them of command and find someone who can.

My first model worked but as you can guess was way to slow to play.

Why?

Wolfhag

Wolf, agree with your comments. I can't find a ruleset that does all of that hence my post.
My first attempt had too many pins, not enough loss of cohesion. In addition I didn't like close combat; too fiddly. Finally I got too in the weeds with some commands. Automating several NCO functions will speed up the game.
How is your game coming along?

Joe

It would seem I am very fortunate in the fact I have the ultimate Company set of rules. However as I have a set, that does not mean they are anybody's else's ideal set.

Mine have an alternative IGOUGO set but it varies between element by element to unit by unit movement system.

It is really not at it's best with occasional players and assumes that the player has a basic understanding of strategies and tactics of the period. If you don't know how to site a machine gun in the right place you are at a massive disadvantage to a player that does. Whether you see that as a gain or a loss is a personal issue.

Never understood the helicopter view issue. Seems like more a rules failure to me. A few hidden (physically) units screws up the attacker quickly. Or causes Analysis Paralysis in occasional players, again its what your ideal set of specification is.

We have a much wider range of movement and limitations to those movement modes. This makes for far faster games, but does upset folk who want to move fast down a treelined road, rounding a hairpin bend while simultaneously firing perfectly at 90 degrees to the movement with zero risk of a barrel hitting a tree seen to late.

As retired modeler of systems I suggest you define exactly what you need to model and then and only then start writing rules. Modding an existing set does not work. Your command and control system needs to match you movement system. Instant response other than close in impossible in our rules as it takes time to reform to move down a road, but it also requires you have a real terrain where it is rare to have long stretches of terrain without obstacles. Bocage being the worst at perhaps 1 un-crossable hedge evet 100 to 160yds. Similarly road movement needs to be fast for vehicles 15mph+ most of the timer.

The system needs integration across all aspects of your wargame definition. Our command and control system is not useable in a convectional 6 bound D6 game. It's fast play when you know the rules and understand the tactics of the time, but not otherwise

That may not even be your target audience. Our target was us (the authors and folk like us) not the more US oriented games must be playable for all at a drop of a hat and regardless of period understanding. Nothing wrong with that but the rules for the two sets will not be the same.

PS the game needs to have credible scenarios, encounter situations are not that common, attack/defense are far more common, so two companies playing and encounter is not a great way to start and should in reality end up as a boring stalemate unless one player is REALLY REALy POOR, in which case it would not be a fun game for either side.

My first attempt had too many pins, not enough loss of cohesion. In addition I didn't like close combat; too fiddly. Finally I got too in the weeds with some commands. Automating several NCO functions will speed up the game.

I think you're on the right track.

Suggestion: Pre-game Company planning session/scenario notes issuing Frag Orders to Platoon Leaders.

link

Objective: Hill 331.
Intelligence: Overall enemy picture, unit names, strengths and expectations.
Maneuver: Movement to Contact using tactical formation from Jump Off Point.
Fire Support: 81mm mortars from Battalion if needed
Command & Control: Designate radio frequencies and who has a radio. XO stays at Company HQ. Set up Causality Collection Point behind 1st Platoon.
Air Defense: None

Frag Orders:
1st Platoon: Establishes base of fire on objective. Assigned 2x MGs from Weapons Platoon. CO will be attached to observe and coordinate and call in 60mm mortars firing HE and smoke.

2nd Platoon: Maneuver on flank to assault accompanied by the Platoon Sergeant. When in position for final assault fire smoke to stop mortar and suppressive fire. If assault bogs down call for 81mm smoke and WP fire mission.

3rd Platoon: Held in reserve behind 1st Platoon to reinforce or exploit as commanded by the CO.

The Platoon and Squad Leaders (you the player) determine movement, formations, etc. as the CO cannot do this. The CO is observing to support, issue or change orders.

Platoon Leaders can stay at an HQ or attach themselves to a Squad, player decision.

It's up to the player to carry out, maneuver and execute the CO intention (restriction) and any movement or orders by the player must be to carry it out.

I'd use 10-15 second turns. Simultaneous exchange of fire in a fire fight (no initiative). If units must react to enemy actions such as an ambush they should follow the immediate action drills or course of action determined before the game. If a Leader is attached perform any order or action.

Units attempt to carry out their orders until interrupted by the enemy. Of course this vastly changes your activation rules as units are always active and don't need to be ordered each turn.

Pins: Historically, once a unit was not under small arms fire they recovered pretty quickly, even poor units. Recovering from the concussive effects of artillery can take time. Suppression can mean different things depending on the game and designers intent.

Cohesion: I allow units to freely fall back out of the enemy LOS to rally/consolidate.

I think by establishing tactical and maneuvering outlines and restrictions for players guides them to make the right the decisions and should speed up the game.

How is your game coming along?
I had to step away from it for 4 months. I'm finishing the intro version (not as much detail for the gunnery and damage) now and will have the first intro version available soon. We've played the infantry version a few times and it's progressing and integrates with the AFV version.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag- you have taken all the fun out of the game . The whole point is for the company commander to do most of that work, noyt all of course the mission is a higher level definition..

To me the baqsic scenario will covere any allocated battalion or higher level attachments including engineering support like bridging equipment, attacched observers and ammunition allocated for the mission, be it for pre-planned or at call support and by who.

The plan, at compasny level, who has the artillery and when, who can call the artillery (battalion level mortars, particularly) and when for how long and realistically how much ammo is available to him (so he know's how to prioritise targets) is all in the company commanders remit, so the player acting as company commander has to do that.

You suggeation seems more like a muti platoon level game. Not really a company game but 3 semi independant platoon games. Thats fine, but its not really a company game much of the company function has been done in yor "orders" without the players being part of the O group.

The diffrence may be, we play single player games at company level so we are our own O group and we have to decide all those key decisions. Radio net configuration cannot in our game, be changed rapidly, yes we could actively change the radio net configuration during the game (not add radios) but in many cases rthe length of time to do so would be too long to be effective. You cannot allocate more radios so any changes will have an impact on command and control elsewhere.

Casualtie collection points, great but it adds too much demand on game time as if you define it it has to be of use or its pointless. We we do not include medics in our lists for that reason, the figure is left out of the OOB as he is doing none game stuff, still it is prsonal choice.

It does seem like you need a good definition of what your intended rules are to cover. For instance in your suggestion, fine if it's what you want, much of the company work is done outside of the game in the scenario but than its difficult to call it a company game then.

UC,
thank you for your thought provoking post. I don't remember which rules you have but I am glad you like them!
: ) I did look at them once but there was a reason I didn't look too closely. I think it was scale of base, time or ground.
Thanks for the reminder to design the system around the goals. It is easy to forget! I hope to just modify PBI but you are probably right, I will end up designing a new game.
Wolf,
Thanks for the link. I was actually a platoon leader in Berlin before I went to Medical School on the Army's dime!
[I hated having the shiniest boots in the platoon! No NCO was going to outshine this college boy]]
So I don't think you have Platoon Forward but yes. As the company commander you don't pick your mission or pick your support forces. You are assigned a mission by your commander and told what support forces have been allotted. Then you come up with your plan and brief it to your platoons. They then execute "commander's intent" with you adjusting as the situation warrants. Here knowing your folks and personalities come into play. An example of the flow is here:
link
It is interesting that you suggest simultaneous exchange of fire. I go back and forth on this. I like it but for some reason it slows the game down because now I need complicated rules for op fire.
Agree with pins and cohesion. That is what I am working on in V2.
Am going with a longer game turn than seconds though. Am thinking 2 minutes perhaps. This way you can take the company through a somewhat complex battle so you have a couple of decisions to make.
UC
as to your second post, not sure I understand it. What Wolf describes is how most [western at least] companies would prepare for a set engagement. The platoons aren't semi independent but coordinated. They need to know the plan before the shooting starts; "commander's intent".
Also, I don't use casualty collection points in WW II games but they are important in vietnam on for the west and for the Russians in Afghanistan. The stomach for casualties was low by then and combat medicine has advanced. I do use a medic for all my games. "Doc" is an important member of the company. Just ask someone.
thank you all for the discussion. It helps talking through things!

Joe

UshCha,
I gave Joe an outline/example for C&C as he requested. He's smart enough to fill in the details and write the rules himself if he wants to.

Depending on the mission and planning time would determine assets assigned from battalion level and above as good C&C between units at different levels takes time.

A surprise meeting engagement may have to use only company level assets. A hasty attack maybe only battalion level. A planned attack could use assets up to Corps level.

You suggeation seems more like a muti platoon level game. Not really a company game but 3 semi independant platoon games. Thats fine, but its not really a company game much of the company function has been done in yor "orders" without the players being part of the O group.

I'm unsure of what you mean here. Three platoons normally make up a company, four if you include the weapons platoon whose weapons are normally attached to the rifle platoons.

Depending on the game, a single player could play all of the platoons or one player for each. They are not separate as they are coordinating and working together under a unified command.

For some players any level of tactical and historical detail will be too much as all they want to do is roll the dice and blow things up and insensitive to causalities. To each his own.

Causality collection and evacuation were of utmost importance in a battle and for morale but is sadly overlooked in games. In large games it's not as important. The only one I really use it is for WWII island fighting.

A walking wounded can stay with the platoon and defend but not attack. If sent back to a medical unit it can come back later at full strength later. A WIA needs to be evacuated or eventually die. An attached Corpsman/Medic has a chance of converting a WIA to WW and a WW to recovered. As a Marine I can't imagine playing a tactical level game without a Corpsman but that's just me.

much of the company work is done outside of the game in the scenario but than its difficult to call it a company game then.

Not sure what you mean here. What I described could be part of a scenario write up or the player/players could decide it as a pre-game activity just as a real company would plan it before the battle.

Wolfhag

OK I re read you post 12 Jul 2026 12:50 p.m. PST
Seems I misinterpreted it. Pre game to me is the stuff you do the day before what I call pre-game. The gane starts for me on the evening and that to me includes the fun bit you call pre-game but to me is a part of the game as much as moving the models. hence to me its not pre-game. Hence the apparent difference of opinion.

UshCha,
No problem.

Joe,
Am going with a longer game turn than seconds though. Am thinking 2 minutes perhaps. This way you can take the company through a somewhat complex battle so you have a couple of decisions to make.

What ground and unit/figure scale are you going to use? For an infantry game on a 5 foot table and up to 15mm figures I'd have it represent 1000m so one inch = 15m. For figures over 15mm I'd use 500m and one inch = 30m. My AFV game uses 1 inch = 25m.

My system uses seconds as timing, not a traditional IGYG turn so it's completely different. It's somewhat like a computer simulation that stops each frame and allows players to to react, issue/change an order, or execute an order. If no player action is required for a turn the next frame is immediately shown. The game is always moving to the next action based on timing and not rules, that's what makes it different and in many ways easier to play.

It works for 1:1 (infantry teams) up to a reinforced company per side but is not really suitable for games with platoon stands and a battalion and above.

IGYG attempts to fit all of the movement, combat and decision making artificially within a set game time. Op fire rules attempt to parse the action within a turn of a set amount of time using various turn interrupts, command points, etc. because it does not use timing. These present interesting strategies and decisions for players but have a hard time portraying the action as it really unfolds during a battle lower level tactical battle.

In a 2 minute turn a foot unit moving at the Quick March can potentially move 150m-200m. A vehicle moving at 30kph can potentially move up to 1,000m. A typical 75mm gun can fire 8+ times in 2 minutes.

In 2 minutes at the 1:1 tactical level you can have units performing unrealistically like moving unhindered to fire point blank into your flank. Thus the needs for Op Fire, turn interrupts, etc.

The problem I ran into in attempting to use traditional rules was that the more I tried to recreate historical rates of fire and opportunity fire I just kept going down the rabbit hole. I think you are experiencing that too.

Example: How do you determine opportunity fire if a moving unit moving 200m+ can go into and out of your LOS multiple times and how many times can you shoot at it in 2 minutes? You need a high level of abstraction.

With 10 second turns infantry move 15m at 3.5 mph (Quick March). A vehicle moving at 30kph moves about 85m. I think this is more manageable for low level tactical 1:1 interactive fire and movement in the game using Op Fire and reaction rules.

What can make games complicated is layered rules and multiple die rolls to determine what a player can do, when and how often. I think the shorter the time frame the fewer rules you'll need.

You could allow a unit to react 1-3 times in a 10 second turn determined by the troop quality minus suppression level or pin markers with additional reactions if a leader is attached. It could go to zero.

At the start of a 10 second turn players place a movement or shoot marker (over watch is default order with no other restrictions) counting for one reaction (that may be all poor or suppressed units can do for the turn). At the end of the 10 second turn, determine small arms fire results. Units that still have a movement marker are moved. At the end of a 10 second turn you can have an Administrative Phase to cover rally, morale checks, communications, smoke dissipation, etc. I think you could go through turns pretty quickly.

For infantry, that's what they do for the entire turn unless they react and change order. For guns > 40mm you could have them fire once. Once the order markers are placed you could have units react to change their order. If a moving foot unit is being shot at it can react by "Hitting the Deck" (suppressed) to reduce causalities.

For indirect fire the round lands a certain number of turns after firing because the time of flight can be from 15-25 seconds for a medium mortar firing from 1000m. You have more realistic portrayal of artillery rather than it landing immediately when called for. Of course these actions and timing is hidden from the opposition.

Attached leaders can allow additional reactions, increase firepower and morale, etc. and any other characteristics you want to give them. Players can attempt to execute any order they want but it can be stopped to a degree by enemy reactions. I think you'll spend more time ordering, decision making and shooting and less time trying to figure who can do what, when and how often.

I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind or not. With my system I can get through a reinforced company per side in a 3 hour game running the game with new players. I think you could do just as good with 10 second turns and fewer rules and die rolling.

You may want to look into how Ushcha does his unit activations too.

Wolfhag

This is why I am getting out of the period.