CincyBattletech

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reactor: Online.  Sensors: Online.  Weapons: Online.  All systems nominal.

Poll

What is your preferred WW2 Skirmish Ruleset?

Battlegroup
- 1 (20%)
5 Men in Normandy
- 0 (0%)
Operation Squad
- 0 (0%)
Poor Bloody Infantry
- 0 (0%)
Chain of Command
- 0 (0%)
Bolt Action
- 4 (80%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: September 02, 2016, 08:21:07 PM


Author Topic: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion  (Read 2042 times)

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4868
    • View Profile
Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« on: August 30, 2016, 08:21:07 PM »

OK, so it's pretty bloody obvious that WW2 skirmish is the preferred option for the group.  Now we just need to narrow down a ruleset.  We've had 9 voters in each previous pool, so once I see 9 voters, or 3 days have passed, we'll lock down the poll having made a decision.

Here are the most easily accessibly WW2 skirmish rulesets, with a short blurb about each one, plus a download link.  BEFORE you vote in the poll, please take some time and read over some of these, so you're making an informed decision.

Battlegroup  http://www.mediafire.com/download/wq6bcia6jwe51yz/Battlegroup.pdf

Battlegroup is a variable-sized game (ranging from a squad of 6-10 men up through battalion-size, though platoon-scale and company-scale games are clearly where it shines) employing an "I go, you go" turn order and a d6 basic mechanic.  It is intended to be played either with 15mm miniatures, or with 20mm (1/72nd scale) miniatures.  Each player recieves a random number of orders each turn (at platoon-scale, it would be 2d6 orders per turn), and spends these orders one at a time to activate units.  When all orders are spent, it's the opponent's turn to randomly roll for the number of orders, and so on.  It does include the option to make Reactive Fire (that is, firing during your opponent's turn in response to an action).  It is unique in that it's core system include a suppressive fire mechanic which is separate from general fire orders.  It is also relatively unique in that vehicles track ammunition during a game.  This system is intended to be used in a combined-arms fashion at levels above "squad"; having a platoon of tanks supporting a platoon of infantry, and having a few squads of specialists (engineers, commandos, AT guns, etc) at the same time is par for the course.

Five Men in Normany/Kursk  http://www.mediafire.com/download/lvhspeqenq3ibwv/Five+Men+In+Normandy.pdf

This is actually two different games; same system, different settings.  It is a FAR more small-scale system than the others, intended to represent a squad (5-10 men) of unique soldiers, each of whom as special quirks.  If you've played GW's Mordheim or Necromunda games, it's very similar.  For purposes of the group, we would each create a minimum-sized squad, playing a 2-sided multiplayer game, with each person handling only their own guys.  Individual guys gain experience and special abilities from game to game.  The game really requires 20mm (1/72nd) or 28mm miniatures, and has essentially no meaningful vehicle component (1/scenario, generally).  The system largely uses a d6 resolution system, where 1s and 6s matter, and everything else usually doesn't.  This is by far the least expensive option (especially in 20mm), but it also is by far the most restrictive system insofar as what the group can do with it; as we've seen, competitive "every man for himself" leagues don't work well in Cincy, and that's exactly what this sort of game - like Mordheim - is built for.

Operation Squad  http://www.mediafire.com/download/uimb90m98vn2q9m/Operation+Squad.pdf

Operation Squad is another squad-sized skirmish game using 20mm or 28mm miniatures.  It comes highly recommended, but I'm unable to find out a lot about the system in practice.  Skimming the rules, it has a very late 80s wargame feel.  Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

Poor Bloody Infantry  http://www.mediafire.com/download/vmxrr48bg9sbr67/Poor+Bloody+Infantry.pdf

PBI is a company-scale, skirmish ruleset intended for 15mm miniatures (bigger minis would be almost impossible to use).  The intended game scale is roughly 80 men per side, and 3-5 vehicles (ie, a battle-worn company).  It's unique amoung minis games in that it actually divides the play board into a 64-square grid,and uses THAT for measurements instead of fungible rules like "true line of sight" and arguing over a 1/16" of a move.  You move into a square, and you gain whatever terrain effects are in that square.  Note that while this is a 1-to-1 skirmish game, it does use group bases.  A base of 3 men is a base of 3 men (as opposed to a squad of 10 in something like Flames of War).  This is also one of the few minis games which includes a reconnaissance element (which acts as an on-the-fly scenario generator) as a minigame prior to the actual game.  This is probably the most overall complex game we're looking at, and least like a "traditional" miniatures wargame.  But it's certainly unique and a MUCH more "realistic" game experience than most.

Chain of Command  http://www.mediafire.com/download/f472hrhuda8l7of/Chain+of+Command+%28TFL%29.pdf

CoC is a platoon-scale skirmish game which is usable for any minis scale from 10mm-28mm (based originally in 15mm), in which you're commanding a platoon of 30-40 men, with a few small attachments (a mortar team, a sniper team, an armored car, etc).  The game setup system is interesting, using a series of markers which advance toward one another until they get close, which then informs your initial deployments (ie, you don't have to move to contact, you generally start the game already in contact).  This game functions similarly in principle to Napoleonic wargames in that your officers each have a command radius, and they can activate units with that radius easily.  Getting a unit outside your command radius to do stuff is hard, so managing your Chain of Command (hey...) is a major tactical point in this game.  It has an EXTREMELY esoteric initiative system that is likely one of the things that's going to be a PITA to read but works reasonably well in practice.  Interestingly, the army lists are partially determined at the time of the game; your support elements much be taken from specific lists; which lists you can choose from are affected by your scenario choice, which would necessitate a larger available miniatures pool.  As a side effect, this means that unbalanced games are VERY common, as is true to life.

Bolt Action  https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n7jmdnlv1n0ju/Bolt_Action  (this is a folder; Bolt Action (digital) and Polt Action.pdf are the standard rulebooks)

Well, Bolt Action is the primary WW2 skirmish game on the market right now.  It must be played in 28mm, and at its main point level (1000pts) represents roughly one short platoon of infantry and 2-4 attachments from the company level (At guns, mortars, snipers) or battalion level (armored cars, tanks).  Of all the systems here, this one is the most "gameable" - that is, it actively rewards you for deviating from history, so there'd have to be a serious conversation between everybody about what we want out of the game and how we're going to conduct ourselves.  With that said, it's a VERY easy-to-learn system.  The basic firing mechanics are not at all dissimilar from Warhammer 40K, and the initiative system is quite nifty.    It also has the bonus of being able to find opponents outside our group, which is not a given for any other system.  My primary issue with this game was that of cost, but after doing some more research, it's possible to get minis for this system for a relatively reasonable cost from non-Warlord sources.  As long as we cap the points values of games (much as Warhammer's "standard game size" went from 1500, to 1750, to 2000, to 2250, and is now in the 2500-3000 range), I'm fine with having this game as an option.  Additionally, there is a 2nd edition of this game slated for mid-September; I've looked, and point values aren't supposed to change much, so buying things now shouldn't end up as a mistake.  Finally, this game is likely the easiest one to do a "slow-grow" group with; that is, people start playing at 500 points, the next time we play we play at 750 points, and the next time is at 1000 (the other rulesets don't seem to break down into this sort of game as easily).
Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4868
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2016, 01:39:21 AM »

bumping the thread
Logged

Riegien

  • Unicorn Clan Triumphant
  • Administrator
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2016, 02:22:39 PM »

Are we looking at primarily combined arms style games and or infantry?
Logged

phlop

  • Painting God
  • Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2016, 03:20:49 PM »

I am guessing infantry, primarily. I think it is the cost of vehicles and miniatures ( infantry).
Logged

Riegien

  • Unicorn Clan Triumphant
  • Administrator
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2016, 04:02:34 PM »

Ok, that makes sense.  There is at least 1 tank only skirmish game, and probably more.  So just wondering what people are wanting out of the historicals.  I'm decidedly on the more gamey side of things (insert bathing joke here).  The big appeal for me for historicals tends to be the vehicles and armor, as its a shift from my normal infinity and warmachine stuff.

Of the options here I am leaning towards bolt action or battlegroup.  I already own some pieces for a small BA German force, but the ability to ramp up the size of the game to company size seems interesting for battlegroup.  The increased granularity on the armor also sounds different.  I'd need to look into it more to see if the system seems decent.
Bolt action has a neat take on the initiative system, though it seems a bit swingy.  Especially when it comes to assaults.
Logged

phlop

  • Painting God
  • Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2016, 05:09:34 PM »

Travis, go to Warlords forums and there is some discussion about the new rules. Officers are going to have the ability to activate units and the assault rules are changing a bit also. It will be in the general discussion thread.

Also, talked to Tom last night. We could run a demo for all, if people would like to see the game and how it is played.
Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4868
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2016, 05:12:00 PM »

Are we looking at primarily combined arms style games and or infantry?

I'm generally staying away from the vehicle-only skirmish games.  Talking with people at Sci-fi last time, there was MUCH more support for games that look like this:

HQ section
Rifle Squad
Rifle Squad
LMG section
LMG Section
AT Gun
Assault squad w/Transport
Tank


Over games that look like,

Tank section (2 vees)
Tank section (2 vees)
Light tank section (2 vees)
Infantry squad with transport


I'd call the first list a combined-arms list.  The second list is an armor list.  Obviously, all-infantry lists could be a thing instead of combined arms...the trick is that in practically every game system, it's easier to deal with an all-infantry skew list than it is an all-vehicle skew list, by virtue of the fact that *everything* hurts infantry, but only a very limited number of things hurt tanks.  If, for example, I were to run two historically accurate 1942 British Rifle platoons against that all-vehicle list above, the only things capable of hurting the vehicles are the pair of PIATs in the HQ sections.  Literally nothing else in either platoon is capable of doing *anything* to the vehicle list.

Running systems which reward combined-arms (or asking people to deliberately limit themselves to that list style while playing in this meta), avoids that entire issue.
Logged

Riegien

  • Unicorn Clan Triumphant
  • Administrator
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2016, 05:16:39 PM »

Ah. By tank skirmish I was meaning something like GF9s Tanks! Game, which is effectively xwing and levs meets girls und panzer.  3 to 6 independent tanks fighting at 15mm. 
Logged

Death or Glory

  • Showers
  • Command Master Sergeant
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2016, 10:20:50 PM »

For 28mm WWII Skirmish Games, I think Battleground WWII does a very good job with infantry combat without becoming overly burdened down by rules.  The vehicle rules for it are a bit complicated, but if we're only going to have a few tanks/halftracks on table at a time, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Also, although its been awhile since I've played Bolt Action, both times I tried it out I remember being fairly lukewarm about it.  Its always seemed a bit too 40k-ish for me.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 10:23:23 PM by Death or Glory »
Logged

Darrian Wolffe

  • Hazen
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 4868
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2016, 11:34:42 PM »

I will say at this moment - with about 15 hours left in the poll - that I'm leaning toward Bolt Action to begin with. Battlegroup and Battleground (2 different games!) can both be played with 28mm minis, so if we want more complexity, we can always pick up one of those systems.  But given we're looking at WW2 skirmish rules in the first place, a 28mm game seems to be the way to go, and as much as I didn't want to see it at first, Bolt Action seems to be the easiest and most accessible gateway.

We'll wait for the poll to close tomorrow afternoon for a final decision.  But that's the way I'm leaning now.
Logged

Timberwolfd

  • Administrator
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 2953
  • Kibitzing from the sidelines
    • View Profile
Re: Historical Wargaming, System Discussion
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2016, 05:42:36 PM »

I don't have a strong feeling at the moment (and have not voted), but I would prefer diverse unit types and whatever rules will work best with diverse unit mixes.
Logged