“Battlegroup” WW2 Tactical Wargame Part Two – Fire & Movement
May 23, 2016 by crew
Good day, Beasts of War! @oriskany here, welcoming you to another instalment in our article series about what has got to be one of the most underrated historical wargames on the market today. I refer, of course, to the epic masterpiece that is Battlegroup, presented by Ironfist Publishing and Plastic Soldier Company.
For those just joining us, please take a moment to review Part One of our series (presented in collaboration with Piers Brand, BoW @piers), where we introduce the game and review its fundamentals. For now, however, it’s time to hit the gas and thumb off that safety … as we look at some of Battlegroup’s rules on fire and movement.
Movement
Movement in Battlegroup is deceptively simple. Units of different classes (infantry, cavalry, towed guns, and man-handled gun) have rates of movement in inches, one rate for on a road, a lower rate for off-road. There are even rates for bicycles. Don’t laugh, many early-war armies made great use of bicycles in light infantry or recce units.
Each type of vehicle has its own movement rate, based on its historical speed. The differences between road and off-road movement are typically much higher for wheeled vehicles than for tracked vehicles, but each vehicle type is individually listed so players can see how these actually vehicles moved in combat without a lot of memorization.
Battlegroup also has elegant rules for moving through “difficult terrain” or over obstacles. Usually, you just roll a d6 and take that many inches off the movement rate. This ensures that not all hedgerows are equally thick or dangerous, and you won’t really know until the driver hits the gas and actually tries to plough throw it.
So-called “dangerous” terrain is worse, it leaves vehicles with only d6 inches LEFT to their movement. In either case, however, vehicles are never completely stalled, and they don’t lose their shot if they were given a “move and fire” order. Similar rules, by the way, are also employed when a vehicle tries moving in reverse gear.
Opening Fire
Finally, it’s time to pull some triggers. In actual combat, however, it’s never that simple. Small arms fire, high-explosive fire, armour-piercing fire, indirect fire from howitzers and mortars … all affect armoured, soft-skinned, infantry, building, and area targets differently.
Fortunately, Battlegroup presents a system that retains the nuance of different kinds of fire against different kinds of targets, all without overloading the player with complexity. The player simply has to choose what kind of fire he’s ordering a given unit to apply against a certain target. These choices are briefly outlined below.
Area Fire
“Area Fire” is the first option for firing on an enemy unit in Battlegroup. Put most simply, this is when you spray a target area with as many bullets and shells as possible, trying to pin down an enemy unit. Casualties can be inflicted, but usually the idea is to suppress the enemy so that other friendly units can safely move.
Area fire can be undertaken with small arms, machine guns, or high-explosive shells. Players find a “Rate of Fire” (what type of weapons are firing and how many), and consult a chart, cross-referencing the range and the type of target. High explosive rounds from artillery and mortars use a similar system (see below).
If this Area Fire check is successful, the target unit gets to roll a cover save. The probability of this save depends on the type of target and the type of cover it has (if any). Obviously, infantry in the open are more prone to being pinned than dug-in tanks. If this save is failed, the unit is “Pinned” and gets no actions until the pin is removed.
Aimed Fire
Keeping the enemy pinned is all well and good, but when it’s time to actually inflict some casualties, “Aimed Fire” is usually the preferred option. The rules are slightly different for small arms, high explosive shells, and armour-piercing shells, but Battlegroup’s design keeps the complexity down while retaining tactical option and realism.
Small arms, machine guns, auto cannon, and flamethrowers again use the “Rate of Fire” measurement described above, and have different difficultly numbers they have to beat at different ranges in order to hit infantry, deployed guns, or soft-skinned vehicles. These targets get a save, but for every hit that is not saved, a casualty occurs.
Aimed Fire using high explosive shells is usually delivered by assault guns or tanks using some of their high explosive (as opposed to armour-piercing) ammunition. You only get one roll to hit, and it’s usually not easy. If you score that hit, however, the potential damage against infantry, deployed guns, or soft-skinned vehicles can be a horrible glory.
Aimed Fire using armour-piercing shells is widely considered (well, considered by me, anyway) to be the apex a Battlegroup game. Tanks fire supersonic bolts of metal at other tanks, enough said. Of course antitank guns and even infantry rockets get into the mix, but in end it’s about killing that steel beast before he does the same to you.
This kind of fire makes similar observation and to-hit rolls. If a hit is scored, however, the effects are handled differently. Each type of gun has a penetration value at various ranges, which is cross-referenced against the target’s front, side, or rear armour. A target number to penetrate the armour is revealed, to be beaten on 2d6.
Indirect Fire
In World War II, death could be a supremely impersonal affair, delivered from dozens of miles away by a man armed with just a map, a protractor, and a radio. This is indirect fire, one of the deadliest killers on the battlefield. Many World War II games have indirect fire, but in my opinion Battlegroup comes much closer to “getting it right.”
First of all, as a lowly captain, major, or (at most) lieutenant-colonel, you don’t usually command the artillery. You REQUEST it. The likelihood of whether you’ll get it on a given turn depends on your communications check, spotting team, and especially on your engagement’s command priority in the regiment or division’s larger context of battle.
Battlegroup also has you drop a spotting round, just like a real artillery mission. Depending on where that round lands, you can commit to the full “splash” fire mission or abort, especially if that spotting round drifted closer to your men than the enemy. Blind targets can be hit behind buildings or on reverse slopes, just like in actual combat.
Once an artillery mission starts landing for real, it effects targets starting at the epicentre of the strike and working its way outward. These shells “have no friends,” so be careful of friendly fire. Infantry, deployed guns, soft-skinned vehicles, and open-topped AFVs beware, but enclosed tanks can usually weather these storms with little trouble.
There’s even an illustrated on-line tutorial for artillery fire mission rules in Battlegroup, which you can find HERE. In this walkthrough, Piers takes the player step-by-step through the process, using game table photos, displaying dice rolls, and referencing pages and rules in the Battlegroup rulebook. Even I can get it right!
Of course, there are plenty of other ways for you to ruin your opponent’s day on the battlefield … airstrikes, anti-aircraft fire, mines, and so on. We’ll cover some more in the articles to come, but if you really want the details, head over to the Iron Fist Publishing or Plastic Soldier Company sites and see what’s on offer.
That’s it for now, Beasts of War. Please drop your comments, questions, and suggestions below, and keep the conversation going on this tremendous game.
By James Johnson & Piers Brand
If you have an article that you’d like to write for Beasts Of War then you con get in contact with us at [email protected] to find out more!
"There are even rates for bicycles. Don’t laugh, many early-war armies made great use of bicycles in light infantry or recce units..."
"Keeping the enemy pinned is all well and good, but when it’s time to actually inflict some casualties, “Aimed Fire” is usually the preferred option..."
Another great article. Really can’t wait to play.
This looks quite straight forward. When I compared it to what I have read in the rules it is really simple. I like the area/aimed fire distinction. It makes sense since you not always shoot to kill. I am finding myself more and more intrigued by Battlegroup
Looking forward to seeing a demo video in the future.
Thanks, @cbrenner and @yavasa . 😀
I find that I use area fire on infantry or other soft targets, before assaulting the pinned enemy units with other friendly units that are close by, classic “fire and maneuver.” A little cliche, perhaps, but’s its a cliche because it works. 😀 It requires a bit of finesse, though, to have your own maneuver elements close enough to take advantage of the pin after your fire / overwatch element does its thing. You also have to watch out for enemy units that may be waiting with “ambush fire” orders.
Aimed Fire is probably most commonly used by tanks vs. other tanks (at least on my tables). It’s really tough (but certainly not impossible) to “pin down” a tank.
Aimed HE fire is kind of rare, not many AFVs carry dedicated “blast” weapons like the ISU-152, SU-122, StuH-42, or 105mm-armed Sherman. Sure, most tanks can elect to carry HE rounds as part of its ammo load, but that’s just less antitank ammo it can carry and the blast from these small-bore guns (usually something like a 75 / 76mm) just doesn’t back the same infantry-killing punch as a big 152mm howitzer shell from an ISU-152. 😀
There is a reason my Fall of the Reich Soviets never leave home without my 203mm howitzer for those tricky dug in Germans…
B4 howitzers? Ooof … you’re not messing around, are you? 😀
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/203mm-model-1931-b4-self-propelled-howitzer.jpg
It deals nicely with fortified buildings…
“Private Ivan!”
“Yes, Sergeant Pavel?”
“That building over there offends me. Remove from this space-time continuum!”
“Da, Comrade Sergeant!”
A demo video, @bwanajoe ? That’s not a bad idea … 😀 I’d be afraid of getting some of the rules wrong, though, @piers is naturally the real expert on the system.
You could play Piers!
How does the jump to 28mm affect range since the game is designed for 15mm? I’ve tried to check on thier website, but to be honest, these articles do a much better job of explaining the game than anything I’ve found officially. Nice work.
Thanks very much, @bwanajoe – but if I played @piers I would lose every game! 😀 There’s also that whole Atlantic Ocean thing … 🙁
The game is originally designed for 15 or 20mm, I think most people play with 20mm. I prefer 15mm just because I have most of that already from my old Axis & Allies 15mm days and I always use a smaller scale so the battlefield itself is larger by comparison to the units (most miniature games put way too much hardware in way too small a space IMHO).
Honestly I’ve never played this game in 28mm. I would think that if you just adjusted the range brackets by +50% or so …
** 0-5″ range bracket = 0-8″
** 5-10″ range bracket = 8-15″
** 10-20″ range bracket = 15-30″
… etc, you should be ace.
But honestly, I think Piers can answer that better than me.
All the people I know who play in 28mm don’t change anything.
Consider the beating to be character building… Plus, you can write-off the trip as a “business expense”.
Thanks for info. I own all 28mm from BA and I don’t have the room for an all new scale!
losing, that would be for demonstration purposes off coerce @oriskany ?
This is all just about people wanting to see me get my ass kicked, isn’t it. 😐
no its all educational.
damnit @oriskany you are determined to bankrupt me by making me want to play games i cant afford to get into right now lol!!!
Cracking work though, this is definitely on my need to give it a go list!
Hey, @nakchak – it’s not my fault that these games are all so awesome, or that we don’t get a winning lottery ticket along with our “gamer’s gene.” 😀
Thanks very much, though. Again a hundred thanks go to @piers for all his epic photos. 😀
@oriskany “There’s even an illustrated on-line tutorial for artillery fire mission rules in Battlegroup, which you can find here.”
Where, here? There doesn’t seem to be a link 😉
Gotcha. The copy / paste from my draft doc must not have translated into the web page layout.
Here is the link @piers sent me.
http://www.guildwargamers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=321&t=30869
Again great article, thank you!
“Don’t laugh, many early-war armies made great use of bicycles in light infantry or recce units.” – Singapore was captured by the Japanese infantry on bicycles, which allowed troops to carry more equipment and swiftly move through thick jungle terrain. Obviously they used other troops as well but the ‘bicycle infantry’ gave them a great advantage and surprised the British troops.
I have one questions in BG are the players basing there 15mm infantry on single bases? If I would use FoW 4 models per base approach do I need to mark wounds on them?
Some use singles, some use multi bases and other use a combination of the two… indeed Warwick does that with his 20mm.
You need to track casualties on multi bases, I have seen it done with dice, counters and dead figure markers.
All my 20mm support weapons are multi base vignettes and I either stick a dice on it or mark it with a casualty model.
Absolutely, @donlou , who can forget the “bicycle blitzkrieg” down towards Singapore?
As I remember it, the Japanese didn’t ride the bikes (the had something like 20,000 for 60,000 men) but slung their heavy packs over them and wheeled them alongside, allowing the Japanese to out-march the British through the dense jungle terrain of the Malay Peninsula.
We use the FoW bases with little dice as markers to track casualties until the last hit removes the base.
One of the greatest things about Battlegroup: the ability to use miniatures that may have originally been purchased, built, and painted for other systems. No big investment in cash or hobby time, for gamers who already have some WW2 forces built up.
20mm isn’t really the favourite scale of mine to be honest but I’m more and more tempted..
@piers and @oriskany are not helping either!
Another article like this and my inner defence ring will crumble completely. Surely there are tons of cheap-ish plastics around in 1/72..well, I might pop over to eBay and have a look. Not to buy, just browsing of course.
(Yeah, right!)
Plastic Soldier Company…
@oriskany : great article 🙂
I’m looking forward to the rest, but my wallet doesn’t …
Is the difference between the Bren and the German equivalent in this game more than rate of fire ?
This video by LindyBeige claims that the German equivalent was less accurate and had a more defensive role within the unit when compared to the Bren which was (supposed to be) more useful during an assault :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQygRVvEmM
ie : would the Germans have an easier time pinning the English in your example ?
Yeah, I would say that MG34s/42s on a tripod mount would be closer to a “defensive” weapon (company support rather than squad / platoon support).
These kinds of weapons are very useful in assault, but admittedly not by “kicking down the door and firing from the hip.” Pin down the enemy with these things (not too tough given their high ROF) and rush with infantry with MP40s, etc.
It would certainly pin easier as the bipod MG34 has a ROF of 6 compared to the 2 of a Bren…
I have to say though I don’t agree with his assumption that the German weapon was a more defensive weapon. It was well used to provide aggressive fire support in assaults. Interestingly Fallschirmjäger units late war tried to retain and find MG34s as it was seen as less accurate than the MG42 and able to provide a larger beaten area. My Grandfather was a Bren gunner and he used to loosen his bipod screws to get what he called ‘wobble’ when firing to spread the fire over a wider area.
But I’m not sure Battlegroup is a game that is at a level to reflect weapon minutae like that to be honest. It’s more something to be brought out in a very detailed skirmish simulation.
From even pre-war the MG was the main attack weapon of the Germans. It supressed while the others in the squad prepared to occupy. So like yourself @piers I don’t really think of it as a defence weapon.
@limburger most MG’s were made to be inaccurate. Their function is to lay down a beaten zone a little bit like a shot gun spread. I have spoken to a number of Bren gunners who served in the Australian army during WW2 and most disliked the Bren as it was too accurate and they had to wiggle it in an attempt to create a beaten zone. As one guy put it. Its no good killing the same guy 6 times. Its much better to take some of his mates with him.
Little bit off topic… when ordering the rules (pdfs) it states theyre pending…do they email you the pdfs?
They do.
Thanks!
@piers love the pictures, they add a lot to @oriskany s text
@rasmus – Those awesome photos also added to my sanity and possibly lifespan … taking and gathering photos are always the toughest part of putting these articles together. Getting someone else to do the hard part, I do the easy part … I might be on to something there! 😀
Nice article again
Couple of questions if you dont mind
Is there hidden movement and spotting in the game?
Can you fire inti an area where you think an enemy might be?
Thanks, @torros – I can take a swing at that …
Hidden movement – NO, not to my knowledge.
Spotting – YES. “Observation checks” must be made before any aimed fire. I don’t think you need it for AREA fire (just rechecked the core rule book – yes I brought it to work in case we got any questions) 😀 You also don’t need observation checks for close assaults. But any AIMED fire, even if its two tanks at 2″ distance, needs an observation check (granted, that’s gonna be a pretty easy observation check, but not automatic due to smoke, dust, fear, etc).
Hitting blind targets – SORT OF. I’ve learned you can bombard general areas, even areas you can’t see, with certain artillery weapons. Say you’re approaching a slope or a hill or a town, something that obstructs line of sight. You “know” enemy units are behind the obstacle. You can call in artillery on the furthest point you can see, and once that spotter round lands, you can call in the full fire mission depending on where it drifts. Also, artillery effects a wide area. So yeah, you can sort of call in fire on targets you can’t see, if you have a lot of artillery, there isn’t anything else for them to do at the moment, and you’re halfway lucky with the dice. 😀
Thanks Jim
No worries, @torros , although I feel I do have to add one correction to my response. I’ve been playing a Barbarossa game this week and was reminded that there ARE sometimes automatic observation checks.
“Deployed Gun in the Open – Firing”
“Vehicle in the Open – Firing”
“Aircraft”
These observation checks are automatic, according to the quick reference sheet.
So I guess everyone can see that Tiger parked in the open field, slingin’ out 88s. Kinda hard to miss, I suppose. 😀
Sounds like a great game with easy rules to vary things.
The Japanese used bicycles that much the tyres came off many of the wheels so when the attacked Singapore the British thought tanks were coming. @oriskany
or was that just a story?
Could be. I haven’t heard this. It may be more likely that when the Japanese army covered the distance from their Malay landing sites all the way down to Singapore so quickly, the British commanders must have assumed they were mechanized, which they really weren’t (something like 600 miles in a matter of weeks??) Don’t really know, and I’m not taking time to look it up right now. 🙂
I will get back to you if I find anything.
This system is my favourite go to WW2 wargame. The battle rating system is great game within a game. Many a game I’ve pulled my last chit and blown my BR only to find out after the game my opponent was only one chit from going as well. I also love the flexibility of the size of action you can put on. I’ve played games of 4000 point a side multiplayer games which last the whole day to little 250 point games which can last about an hour. Both give the players interesting problems which are best solved by trying to employ real life tactics. Great game!
Thanks, @vine022 – I’ve got a 550-point game in progress in my dining room table right now, Barbarossa – Germans vs. Soviets. 😀
Great read!
Will you guys be doing a battle report at the end of the series? Looking forward to the next part 😉
I have the third game in our Ardennes campaign to post up tonight… Still not stopped Peipers advance, but he took a pasting last night on the road to Stavelot (had 1 BR left!)… Stavelot this weekend, need to slow his advance in order to get the campaign bonus for my Yanks for the next game. Not sure it will happen though…
@piers where did you post the Ardennes campaign, I would like to have a look at it especially because the Ardennes offensive is right now the theater I’m most interested in?
Part 1
http://www.beastsofwar.com/groups/historical-games/forum/topic/breakthrough-at-lanzerath-16th-december-1944/
Part 2
http://www.beastsofwar.com/groups/historical-games/forum/topic/ambush-at-ligneuville-17th-december-1944/
Another great series @oriskany ! Some nice models and photos @piers !
Thanks very much, @cpauls1 ! 😀
@oriskany I wonder if this might be my vehicle for near future human/alien combat. Seems like the system is able to handle larger formations (I’m thinking combat team max), and is not overly complex. I realize, of course, that it would require a fair bit of number crunching to extrapolate on future weapons and armour, but I’m good with that.
@cpauls1 – There would probably be some much simpler / more suitable venues through which to drive that kind of project, perhaps Force-on-Force “Tomorrow’s War.” I only say that because Battlegroup is so fine-tuned on specific dynamics of a World War II battlefield.
Some of the skeletal mechanics might work, such as orders dice, aimed fire, battle rating counters, and armour vs. penetration.
Other maybe not … such as indirect fire and area fire. In a setting like the one you’re describing, wouldn’t most weapons be “smart” of some kind or another? Some kind of structure would also have to be built for electronic dominance / cyber warfare, perhaps some kind of mechanic where the winner force opponents to draw BRCs.
Sci Fi… We have a Sci Fi game in the works.
I’m guessing there would be a plethora of smart weapons and drones, and efforts on both sides to achieve dominance and neutralize them. I’ve been stockpiling bits for those systems for some time now (erm… the plastic stuff. No need to call the authorities), as I anticipate that unmanned systems will come to represent not only recce clashes, but also ‘first contact’ between ground forces.
I would imagine greater drone capability right down to section level, and unmanned weapon systems controlled as low as platoon level. Also, there are already plans in the works to automate resupply and other echelon functions (companies of bin rats being re-treaded to infantry… makes me giddy).
Electronic and cyber superiority is already the first priority in controlling the battlespace, and that conflict is being waged long before the air superiority phase. That should be beyond the scope of a combat team scrum, but there would still be a layer of complexity and conflict at the tactical level, with modifiers added to represent strategic initiatives.
I’m guessing FOO’s, FAC’s, FCO’s, or whatever you call them within your military organizations, would have a greater suite of weapons systems to draw from, including orbital energy weapons, etc.
And then there’s sensors…. and masking… oh dear.
@cpauls1
Yep… you got it. 😉
a futuristic version of these rules ?
Cool.
It’s definitely interesting to see how modern/near future warfare would evolve.
@piers I’d be happy to help with that rules set. I’m a 26-year int op, and a contractor beyond.
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, @cpauls1 – this whole “day job” thing is really starting to wear thin … especially after swimming through an unceasing tsunami of petulant, whiny, entitled, condescending self-importance like we had to today … and no, it’s not my boss, by boss is one of the coolest people there right now.
Anyway …
(deep breath)
Okay, for smart weapons, precision ordinance, etc … I think you and I are both familiar with Arab-Israeli Wars, where they introduced the beginnings of guided tactical weaponry. Other GDW-based 1980s tactical games like Assault give said weapons have a maximum and minimum range, but the penetration and accuracy values were always the same … i.e., if you’re in that range bracket and the target is acquired (by whatever means appropriate for the delivery system in hand) the chance to hit the target and defeat the armor is pretty much the same.
Rather than a ballistic weapon’s steadily decreasing probability and hitting power based on increasing range, what affects the probability to hit for guided ordinance would be are the quality of the target acquisition (and in some systems, the terminal guidance system) of the weapon, any ECM measures the enemy might have, and any ECCM measures you might have in return.
I guess some weapons also have a measure of skill or nerve, if we’re talking about the old AT-3 Saggers or TOWs, etc.
Sorry to ramble. I guess the short version is that I’ve seen them in a game and they might not be too hard to replicate. They can add a lot, depending on who’s designating the target. It might not be the firing unit, as I’m sure you know, but a friendly infantry squad, loitering aircraft, drone, or (in a sci-fi setting) some kind of satellite.
“Bin Rats?” 😀 Excuse me, Bin Rats? Are we referring to the two most glorious MOS fields in the United States Marine Corps, the perpetually under-appreciated magnificence that is the 3043 Supply Admin/Logistics Clerk and the steely-jawed icon of testosteronized manhood that is the 3051 Supple Warehouseman? I assure you, sir, we proud “Supply Poags” and “Box Kickers” had plenty of infantry, antitank, MOPP, MOUT, Amphib Assault and support weapons training, and during 1988-1992 (the tenure of General Alan M Gray as USMC Commandant), every single Marine (regardless of MOS) went through a not only basic recruit training (itself head and shoulders above what most “soldiers” go through) but also Marine Combat Training phases of USMC School of Infantry. So even a Marine “bin rat” probably has more combat training than the full-blown infantry of friggin’ over-teched, under-trained, under-deployed Cub Scout brigades that comprise most Western … (ahem) … “armies.”
But I could be biased … 😀 And the aforementioned was all typed with a huge smile on my face, of course.
You write: “Electronic and cyber superiority is already the first priority in controlling the battlespace, and that conflict is being waged long before the air superiority phase.
Amen to that. Couldn’t possible agree more. This is one of the big things I like about Battlegroup (yeah, remember when we were talking about that? 🙂 ), where you don’t really have command of assets above your pay grade like regiment, division, corps, or even army-level artillery … much less air strikes. I’d imagine that cyberwarfare and EW would be much the same, almost like “electronic weather” that would favor one side or the other, depending on the scenario (and which side had electronic dominance in the larger scheme of things).
Man, that’s what happens when a response is delayed. Like a bad bowel movement, it just keeps building up. 😀
FLUUUUUUSH.
Remember to wash your hands. 😀
So I went to buy the rule and a supplement PDF bundle at Plastic Soldier. At checkout, shipping was 15 pounds.
I’m guessing that only part of the bundle is a PDF (mini rules) and part is a physical book (Campaign book)?!?
The only PDF supplement at present is Kursk.
If you have any problems ordering email Anita on [email protected] as I know they were having issues with shipping rates on the hard copy rulebook.
I have played a number of Games of Battlegroup and as far as I can see it is falling into the same trap as other Modern rules (Flames of war and Bolt Action especialy) in that it has no Hidden movement. I cannot see how Modern warfare can be historically recreated when the players always know where the enemy’s troops are and can react to any of their opponents actions immediately. I know that Battlegroup have spotting roles but this is just treated as another die roll as part of the firing sequence, which just over complicates firing without any of the benefits of hidden troops.
Well those spotting rolls stop you reacting to the enemy whenever you want… You may know where the figures are, but your boys on the ground may not. Also as your ability to order troops is limited you may also not get to do everything you want.
Also Battlegroup generally has rolling reinforcement in most scenarios so not everything is on the table from the start.
We are of the view that if you spend time painting your toys, for a game, then it’s best to have those toys on the table to show them off! 😉
That said hidden movement can easily be introduced by any players wanting it. Either use ‘blinds’ or map out locations. It does however add a layer of bookkeeping and preparation that some don’t feel is required. So we have it abstracted in our mechanics. Horses for courses though, Battlegroup ain’t for everyone of course. But for those players who want an entertaining and exciting game that plays out quickly in an evening with the feel of the period and your toys on the table, Battlegroup seems to suit.
Has there even been an effective miniatures game with hidden movement? For example, I gotta say I’m no fan of Flames of War’s “magical teleporting antitank guns,” for instance.
Those who know me on the site know I’m not a 100% dyed-in-the-wool miniatures wargamer in general. As such, I would totally agree that hidden movement is great in other mediums of wargaming such as hex-and-counters, computer wargames *(no, I’m not talking about RTS “wargames” or MMOs, they’re nothing of the sort), etc. I just don’t see hidden movement working in a miniatures game.
As @piers says, it is possible. Double blind with duplicate tables in different rooms and a referee (good luck with that), or with players marking down locations, facings and speeds on a hidden sheet of paper for their units. Problem is, you’d need some kind of grid or location reference system on the map for that to work …
… a-a-a-a-and you might as well be playing hex-and-counters by that point.
I guess what I’m saying, @tompenn – is that I don’t totally disagree with you. Hidden movement is awesome for some kinds of wargames. I just don’t think miniatures wargames are a fit. The strength of miniatures wargame is its visuals. Why hide it? The strengths of other mediums of wargames (which are usually flat and boring from a visual standpoint ) are much higher degrees of scale, flexibility, and realism … like hidden movement. 😀
Hidden deployment/movement option: Couldn’t you just set out tokens in the deployment area, numbered 1-50, or 1-100 and then write down what’s positioned on a number on a separate sheet of paper? Most of the tokens would be decoy, of course, which would simulate you knowing roughly where the enemy is, but not knowing exactly where he is, and how he is deployed. You could even move from one token to another just by annotating your notes. Only ‘spotted’ units would be put on the table.
Of course, that would not work as well in a meeting engagement.
@cpauls1
And then you’d keep the counters hidden until the enemy or you succeed at a ‘spot check’ …
What would happen if your token meats an enemy token and the team succeeds at a spot check ?
ie : the enemy sees you but you don’t ?
However at that point you would be playing a hex&counter game with 3D terrain.
I think there’s basically 2 options that would result in minimal book keeping while sort of simulating “hidden” movement :
(1) “Chain of command” by ‘two fat lardies’ has a hidden movement phase at the start of the game that’s used to simulate the initial recon phase of an encounter. IIRC all units are initially represented by tokens and you basically get to move them until the first enemy token is encountered.
(2) Infinity style : limit it to a few specialist units (like snipers) with a points cost that allows you to add additional decoy tokens to represent a combination of skill and preparedness.
Computer games and traditional hex+counter games are the only ones that make proper fog of war viable.
I’ll admit that some games I’ve played (albeit hex-and–counter ones) make fantastic use of “dummy counters.” – GDW’s series of WW3 1985 tactical games (Assault, Bundeswehr, Boots n’ Saddles, BAOR, etc) comes to mind.
All counters look exactly on the same on the reverse, with only a broad arrow to show their heading and formation (formation = orientation within the hex). When a successful spotting check is made, the counter is flipped, revealing whether it is a real unit or a “D” for dummy. 😀
There was an art and style to using these dummies that was friggin’ crucial to their success. Obviously they don’t have movement rates or types (leg, tracked, wheeled, etc). So it was up to the player to move them “realistically” on the table top. There was a certain degree of showmanship in pretending to count hexes, make adjustments for terrain, etc, and move these dummies “carefully.” Moving them carelessly was a sure tip-off to your opponent that these were “phantom” units.
Like bluffing at poker … but with stacks of T-80s. 😀
I suppose the same system could work in a miniatures game. Again, the “Showmanship” with which you played the “dummy” counters would be crucial. The table would look a little boring in the early phases, with just a bunch of counters laying around. Only when the battle got hot would more than a couple miniatures be on the table.
Again, I suppose it’s a matter of taste, especially if the game is particularly modern or lethal. The rule in modern warfare is: “if you can see it, you can hit it … if you can hit it, it’s already dead.” So miniatures would often appear on the table only after they’d been killed, making them glorified wreck counters more than units into which you’ve put time, effort, and money.
The age-old balance between realism and enjoyment / playability, I suppose.
But the ‘poker’ element of using ‘blinds’ and hidden movement is one of the main fun elements of ‘modern’ warfare. Having all the figures on the table and being able to see everyone’s move is just playing Chess on a prettier board, with different pieces.
Well that’s some people’s fun Tom… not everyone has the same tastes and opinions.
Be a boring world if we did.
For me it’s pretty toys, on pretty terrain and a fun game with my mates. 🙂
I agree with you that we play wargames rather than Boardgames to get our nice toys out on the table, but where I have a problem is that these rules are being sold on their historical ‘accuracy’ and without a form of hidden movement this cannot be the case.
The problem is that the players have a God like view of the battlefield and units can quickly react to things they cannot see, off table artillery suddenly comes down on troop concentrations that none of the troops on the table could have seen, and tanks amazingly always manage to avoid the ambushing anti tank Guns. I think what disappointed me was the fact that the rules writers had gone to all the trouble of writing spotting rules and they used them only to over complicate the shooting sequence by adding another die roll and set of factors every time you fire.
The issue would have been easily addressed by adding Blinds (as others have already mentioned) especially as the spotting rules already exist. And this is something we introduced after our first game. For those players who like to see figures on the table rather than blank cards they can use individual figures as blinds and then put the actual units on when they fire or they are spotted. I would also say that for me one of the best reasons to fight figure gaming is good terrain and this can look good even when all the figures are not deployed.
As to your question about rules that have addressed this issue, there are a couple of second world war games that do address hidden movement each in their own way ‘Chain of command’ by Two Fat Lardies which has a scouting phase where individual figures are manoeuvred to define the areas where troops can be subsequently deployed. Another set is ‘Armour Battles- Combat HQ’ by Wargames design, these have a system of Blinds and hidden units. The first set is designed for Platoon level, and the second is for larger Battalion level games.
Another Point I have with Battle group is that for a ‘historically’ based game it does not address the differenced in command control very well. Germans do have the flexibility of having their sections split into two groups which is great, but then the German command does not get any additional command dice to let them use this flexibility effectively.
My apologies for sounding negative but this was a set of rules for which I had great hopes, (unlike others like Bolt action and Flames of war which I have little time for) and with a little extra thought could have been great.
Well the Germans do get more orders earlier in the war to reflect their better ability at that point so I have to say that difference is reflected. Later in the war it’s a matter of historical perception if you think they should still be receiving such a bonus… personally we don’t. As rule designers we have to base our rules on our historical assumptions and how best to reflect that in a game. Sadly opinions and perceptions don’t always match between individuals.
In Blitzkrieg the Germans have more access to officer units, giving +1 orders per turn and also to a Comms network that allows command dice to be re-rolled each turn which is a huge tactical bonus and reflects their ability around 1940 to be more tactically flexible. So the flexibility of German low level command and initiative is reflected, depending on the time period setting.
I’m not sure any game will ever give an ‘accurate’ portrayal of WW2 combined arms warfare. Above all else, Battlegroup is a game first and foremost. It’s doesn’t aim to be a simulation of combat, but a game with period feel and one that gives a good fun evenings gaming. It’s not to everyone’s taste and that’s grand so don’t worry about being negative, it’s a game that not to your personal tastes and that’s fine, but all games make abstractions and assumptions.
Again, in Battlegroup the spotting roll is thereally to remove a players ‘god like’ control. Combined with the order system and the scenario design, you will never be able to do all that you want. Also we assume a narrative is ongoing… perhaps that tank crew spotted something in the woods where the AT guns are hiding and used caution as the better part of valour to avoid it (though if those AT guns are well deployed and on Ambush fire they should be placed either to engage or deny an area, so that by pang them funnels the enemy tanks into something else…) so for us it’s all part of a bigger picture and in Battlegroup you rarely have the ability to make full use of your ‘God Like’ view of the battlefield.
But at the end of the day, and myself and Warwick have stated this from the start, Battlegroup is a game. It’s historical in its feel, it let’s players utilise a sense of historical tactics and it’s main aim is to give players a fun and exciting evenings gaming.
As for a little extra thought… well nearly two years development, on top of a previous four years for the precursor Kampfgruppe Normandy, plus around 12 months playtesting per supplement… we put a fair bit of thought into it. It may not be to your taste, and that’s fine as rules preference is a very personal thing, but we have invested a lot of blood, sweat and tears in the rules and they reflect what we wanted to create and play. They may not suit your preferences, but that doesn’t imply we didn’t spend alot of time to think how to create a game that suited our set of preferences. It is after alll game whose development is driven by our desire to play it. We are supremly lucky that others enjoy it too and that allows us to continue.
But yer… we did put a fair bit of thought into our game. 😉
I’d like to chime in, @tompenn , and say that again I agree with … about half … of what you say. Either way, however, your points are very well put. 😀
The problem is that the players have a God like view of the battlefield and units can quickly react to things they cannot see
Agree, but I think this is more an issue with miniatures wargaming in general rather than Battlegroup.
Off table artillery suddenly comes down on troop concentrations that none of the troops on the table could have seen
Disagree. You’ve got to call in a fire mission on a spot on the board that is visible to the unit making the call (within 70″). Whether or not the subsequent drift or 10″ blast pattern hits a unit that you cannot see is a matter of chance. Sure, you can call in a fire mission NEAR a unit you can’t see and hope you get lucky. But this was a gargantuan part of WW2 operations. Could the Normandy Task Force “see” the Germans at Caen from the decks of their battleships? Could Zhukov’s gunners “see” Henrici’s defenses at the Seelowe Heights? Blind, massed artillery missions are a gigantic part of WW2, and I don’t have an issue with the way this kind of thing can sometimes happen on a Battlegroup table.
and tanks amazingly always manage to avoid the ambushing anti tank Guns.
Partially agree. I would point out that a “shot” in Battlegroup is in fact a series of shots (a quick look at the ammo loads for tanks will show this). Enemy tanks are only surprised by the first one, and given hit-rates for antitank guns in WW2 (German tank gunners for example, registered an average kill after five shots, StG gunners after three – source: James Lucas “War on the Eastern Front”). End result, that first “ambush” shot is probably going to miss, and after that the tank is no longer surprised … ergo, the widely-held image of the “antitank sniper” is in my opinion more of a fallacy borne of History Channel reruns more than actual research.
However, I freely confess that with an antitank miniature on the table, even if under cover, the opponent can simply move his tanks the other way. No argument there. But is even this that bad? It forces the defender to use his antitank guns more as area denial weapons, channelizing enemy attacks that don’t want to prompt fire from antitank positions he “magically knows about.” The defender has accept the old maxim “he who defends everything defends nothing,” rather than relying on assumed invisibility.
there are a couple of second world war games that do address hidden movement each in their own way ‘Chain of command’ by Two Fat Lardies …
Honestly can’t say. I saw a few demo games of Chain of Command on YouTube and wasn’t that impressed. However, I have never played a game and so in all honesty I cannot say. I know Two Fat Lardies is a great company so it may have just been a crappy demo game I was watching?
And I’ll have to check out Armour Battles – Combat HQ.” 😀 Especially since you say it’s for larger battalion games (my favorite kind).
Another Point I have with Battle group is that for a ‘historically’ based game it does not address the differences in command control very well.
Moooostly disagree. As @piers mentions above, the Germans have better access to officers and command dice in Blitzkrieg. Their enemies also come up shorter by comparison, thanks to rules like French Command Chaos in Blitzkrieg, Soviet Command Chaos (even worse) in Barbarossa, one man turrets in Blitzkrieg (for those CharB2s everyone things were so amazing), Communication Breakdown in Barbarossa, Panzermarsch in Blitzkrieg.
Yes, these are all early-war campaign supplements. By mid-war I feel the Germans no longer held so great an edge (although it’s still slightly reflected deep in the math of the army lists, the size of most given Allied units are bigger but they get the same orders dice, i.e., less order dice per figure on average). And by Fall of the Reich comes out, they have definitely lost it, which FotR reflects with “War Weary”, “Disheartened Enemy,” and other features. Man, am I tired of the “cult of the late-war German.” For every grizzled PG or FJ or Waffen SS veteran who started the war in Poland, now standings tall armed with his StG-44 and panzerschreck, there are a dozen terrified 12-year olds with their grandfathers Mauser K-98 and a panzerfaust. Another thing Battlegroup gets right.
(unlike others like Bolt action and Flames of war which I have little time for)
Ah, there it is. We finally 100% agree on something. 😀
Great posts, by the way.
Well you can’t fire ‘blind’ in Battlegroup as your observer has to have a line of sight to where he wishes to place the ‘spotting’ round… So if you are relying on scatter to hit a blind target, most of the time you will be wasting alot of orders…
Right – as I write: “You’ve got to call in a fire mission on a spot on the board that is visible to the unit making the call (within 70″).” Not the best sentence I’ve ever written, admittedly. 😀
Indeed, this tactic uses up a lot of orders, and too many artillery / mortar assets. I’ve only done it once or twice. The “good news” is that you USUALLY get a 2d6 accuracy on that spotter round, which averages (naturally) a 7. And since the radius for effects is typically 10″ – odds are good you might catch the target in the radius.
So if the target is hiding too close behind, say … a building you can’t see through, call it in on the building itself (which you can see) and you have a decent shot.
If memory serves, I pulled this stunt against Soviet 82mm on-mortars that were shelling … a command section? I can’t remember, but it was an important, vulnerable unit. I wanted to pin the Soviet mortars just long enough to have these guys rally and get the hell out of there. In retrospect, I can’t remember if I just forgot the “Tactical Coordination Rule” (to rally these guys early and have them pull back). or if I didn’t have the required officer to use the order, of I just didn’t want to draw an extra BRC.
Morale of the story: Yes, the “use case” for this tactic is kinda small. 😀
There are a couple of points to pick on.
Firstly, I know the Germans have access to more officers and in general rolls more command dice, BUT because their infantry squads are split into two they need double then number of command points to make them do anything. Therefore if playing playing games with a proper proportion of infantry to tanks the germans are significantly lower of effective command to other nationalities.
Secondly with Off table fire, again I understand that the point of impact must be seen by the observer, my point is that because their is no hidden movement the troops that just happen to be in that spot may not actually have be seen yet, so the player is using information he only has because of his ‘god’ like positionin looking down onto the table.
Also as others have pointed out you can lay down suppressive fire on troops you cannot see, but because they are on the table you CAN see them. So without using blinds units are only going to use suppressing fire actual troops. With Blinds and dummy blinds they could be ‘suppressing’ an empty peace of ground or a couple of scouts.
My other point is that if all the troops are on the table why have a spotting roll before you fire why not just build this into the firing factors and simplifying the whole shooting process. Especially as many of the ‘factors’ in the shooting and spotting tables are almost the same. If there is a 50% chance of spotting and a 50% chance of hitting why go through two sets of factors and two die rolls why not just roll with a 25% chance of a hit? But I do understand that some players enjoy the die rolling element of the game and many games are designed especially to take this into account.
Again these are only my thoughts. I have published several sets of rules myself in the past so I do understand that all rules writers have their own ideas on game design and what they want their final game to look and feel like. And I do understand the work that goes into this so in no way would I want to want to take away from the amount of effort it has taken them to write and publish this set of rules.
Honestly those Ats were there all the time, you just didn’t see them. Honestly. 😉
…and it’s got to scatter in the right direction too…
Lot of ‘ifs’ with that tactic. I can think of better options for three orders. 😉
It’s easy enough in real life to hit a blind target after the spotting round has landed where you can see it: “Add 100, drop 100,” and left or right corrections by the FOO to approximate where your FFE lands. I suspect it wasn’t much different during the ‘Big Exercise.’
@limburger it was a quick suggestion that I thought would work well in a defensive engagement. In the Canadian Army we wargamed that way while training young officers in Micro-Armour scenarios… long before computers offered better simulations (dating myself in the worst way). Perfect? No. But it got the point across, and provided a reasonable simulation.
If you’re like me, your models are on display in cabinets, and don’t need to be laid out in all their glory if the aim is to realistically simulate an important aspect of warfare. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Which would you like?
Also, those models won’t look any worse with a flickering battery-powered tea light candle and smokey cotton marker placed on top.
You mentioned chess, one of the most engaging games ever created. How could something that emulates it be bad? 🙂
@oriskany and @piers You are both spot on in your responses.
Oops, sorry @limburger . I just realized some of my response should have been directed at @tompenn .
I think it’s worth adding that for anyone gaming WW2 or any part of the 20thC then joint SOTCW is worthwhile. It has interesting scenarios and an articles and quite a few companies give a discount for members
http://sotcw.co.uk
Wow, definitely sounds like an interesting organization, @torros . I had never heard of them, thanks for the heads up. 😀
I think they have been around for about 30 years