I haven't been able to field a proper game with toy soldiers on the table due to my ongoing re-basing efforts and my desire to spend time painting (a rare thing for me, so strike while the iron's hot and all that), but I have run through quite a few play test games "on-line" using a very DIY grid surface and block armies and I believe the results are ready for sharing with the world before the inevitable next round of revisions/layout changes begins (might add some pictures to jazz it up).
What changes did I make? I probably should have tracked that.
Mostly, I have made the document wordier in an effort to provide clarification, as well as some rearranging. There are a few tweaks throughout, but it's not wildly different from its predecessor. Importantly, it includes a two-page QRS (print double-sided for single sheet) which should be all you need in most situations.
Vehicle rules have not really been touched - there is much more testing to be done there, but with a little interpretation, they are functional. Do note again, they are far more beer + pretzel, emphasis on the beer, than detailed.
If I can offer my own criticism of G Company, it's what appears to be a borderline obscene list of modifiers that apply to the Fire Result Table and the Close Combat results. That said, there is a lot of overlap between the lists, and after a few goes they aren't hard to recall (says the person who wrote them). The one I have trouble remembering is the bonus for Veteran/Elite units because I forget the units are such.
I still don't have a points values system for those looking to create their own scenarios (I rely on the hard work of others for my scenarios generally), but it's coming and, spoiler alert, it owes everything to Morschauser and Bob Cordery.
And because blogs are as much an image-based medium as a text-based one, here's a picture from a recent outdoor game with my son (based on this game, but using multiplication and basic division instead of spelling):
 |
| This has been my favorite "army man" pose since I was a kid. I seem to recall my army men standing up rather easily but these have very narrow bases and fall over easily. |
The G Company revisions look good and have greater clarity (if containing a few more words). The QRS looks like a good reference summary for tabletop consultation. I'll print it out and try giving it a spin over the weekend.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much Peter. If you get a chance to give them a try, please let me know any issues you encounter with the rules.
DeleteCheers!
- John
I am going to bite and ask where you are regarding grid and base size? I only ask because I am in the process of figuring out what direction to go with my own 54s and was curious. My board for the last four (?) years has been a 12x12 grid of 3” squares with infantry on 3” bases. I will try your rules this weekend if I get a chance too.
ReplyDeletePlease pardon my rambling reply :D
DeleteI have, as witnessed by this blog, vacillated between 3" squares,4" squares, back to 3" squares, to 3"x2" rectangles, back to 3" squares. I settled on the 3" square, for now, primarily because I am a Morschauser fan-boy and that's what he suggests. I also think they can fill in as a platoon base alone,if a little small, or in pairs (for a 6" frontage a la One Hour Wargames) and look good representing either of those formations on and off a grid, with 2 or 3 figures per base.
As for grid space, the rules, both G Company and Company Fire, came from a desire to somewhat replicate hex-and-counter play, without the complexity, and so allow multiple units per space (2 bases/vehicles and a single mounted figure - honestly though, it's intended to be an infantry game, and so my own grid does not support two vehicles per space). There are intended decisions to be made about stacking or not - advantages and disadvantages to be weighed - so for these rules there should be some way to do that.
As my grid was already 6" squares (from early dabbling with Bob Cordery's Memoir of Modern Battle and Portable Wargame: Modern and because they fit a CTS tank) I've just gone with it - I prefer to fit rules to what I have than the other way around.
So, in your case, I'd just use the existing board, and treat it as a 6 space x 6 space grid (representing 300 meters across).
Although I can field a larger table, many of my games have been played on a 6 space x 6 space grid, with a platoon or two per side with support (7 or so stands + 2-3 SMFs).
As a caveat, I tend to use terrain heavy tables (adapted from some Crossfire scenarios) so if you prefer a more open table, you may want to shorten weapon ranges. The benefit of sticking with a 3' x 3'board, too, is that converting One Hour Wargame scenarios is a no-brainer.
If you get a chance to try the rules, any critiques or questions are most welcome.
Thanks and cheers!
- John
For this game (and most of Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame offerings) I use a 9x9 grid of 4-inch squares. (My abortive efforts at 3-inch squares yielding a 12x12 surface occupy the opposite side of my three-foot-square green felt.) I'm using 15mm figures (mostly Battlefront Flames of War) on medium bases (about 1x2 inches). I've found the 9x9 board size works well for this game and other Portable Wargame-style fare; the base size work nicely for this, too, especially when fielding about 6 units per side. I save my 54mm figures for larger play surfaces (6x4 feet) and primarily skirmish-style games (and, alas, I have no suitable 54mm figures for WWII).
DeleteI find the only way for me to reliably remember Elite (etc) units is to have them look different and then ALWAYS use THAT unit as Elite(etc) and never as anything else.
ReplyDeleteAsking me to remember midgame that the stand with the guy waving is Elite today is an ask too far.
I almost never use such rating distinctions in my WW2 gaming - regardless of the rules used, which may be a deficiency of my character - so some kind of visual distinction is an excellent idea.
DeleteCheers!
- John
great suggestion Ross - I sometimes paint up one stand / unit in a force to be different for just that reason. Or they can be the Light Infantry stand, or the stand low on ammo, or...etc
DeleteSorry in advance for the longish comment, but I wanted to provide some substantial feedback and, if you manage to get that far, share a scenario write-up.
ReplyDeleteI only managed to play one game this weekend using the updated G Company rules. Everything went much more smoothly, probably because I was already somewhat familiar with the game (despite setting it aside for weeks) but also thanks to the QRS and some clarified rules (particularly about SMFs).
I did find a few mostly minor issues/corrections:
In the artillery rules “For HE missions” “Fring” should be “Firing.”
On the second page of the QRS under “Fire Results Table” I have two concerns. One, a correction, comes under “Results,” where, to be consistent with the rules text, the last section should read “2 or less” for “combat ineffective” results. It could also do with an asterisk after “Combat ineffective (remove)” linked to an asterisk beginning the note below so readers know those conditions apply only to “combat ineffective” results and not the mid-range “disordered” results. (Note you fully explain that in the note at the bottom of the “Close Combat” table.)
I’m being picky here, but I don’t know how you feel allowing a weapons team to move and fire in the same round. Not sure how you could concisely note that in the rules text and movement chart; I’m probably just splitting hairs here.
Just for shiggles I wrote out the scenario I’ve been running. In my rampant enthusiasm I cleaned it up and ported it as a two-page PDF to share:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s3gPcVIcCNWXH1n4Wl1VvbOvqkZ2u-S_/view?usp=sharing
My most recent effort running this scenario brought a marginal British victory: the engineer left the “British Exit” zone with two squads after disabling the radar, but they lost four other squads plus the company commander. Germans lost two squads. Despite the “elite” status, the British units suffered greatly for dashing across the open fields toward the house and radar installation, while the Germans sat in the cover of the woods (or later the house) and kept them under constant fire. Only after the British reached the radar did German squads advance out of the woods. The pillbox MG never got a chance to fire (it’s meant to hinder escape) but fell in close combat. I have to say close combat is satisfyingly brutal, an all-or-nothing approach. As a player I found myself loving it (some units charging into close combat to force a result) and hating it (some units deliberately keeping their distance, since close combat is mandatory for adjacent forces).
Given my interest in various WWII theaters, I wouldn’t mind seeing rules for bocage (affecting movement, shooting, and line of sight) and minefields, though I suppose enterprisingly independent gamers could establish their own rulings for such terrain.
Thanks again for a great game. The rules tidied up nicely and offer some good alternatives to other rules out there for gridded wargames of this period.
Peter, thank you so much! Please pardon what will no doubt be a lengthy, rambling response where I brainstorm as i go.
DeleteI will make the corrections to the rules you noted (misspelling, typo and clarifying when a unit is removed).
There's a a sentence under the Shooting section in the rules that notes heavy weapons can't move and shoot in the same turn but it's just tossed into a pile of bullet points and easily overlooked as a result. It's not even mentioned at all in the movement section, which is clearly an oversight. I'll add it to the QRS via an asterisk.
Your scenario looks great and I will have to give it a go (but alas, I don't have sufficient British forces, so probably will change the Allied troops). Your summary sounds like it played out like I would anticipate:heavy losses for being in open ground, but maybe too heavy for elite units?
I'm wondering if elite shouldn't give more of a bonus - perhaps as a negative on the enemy's to-hit roll, reflecting their experience of anticipating where an enemy will shoot, and at using every last millimeter of terrain to their advantage (Thus even in the open they would be -1 to hit). Conversely, a green unit would be easier to hit as they lack the experience necessary to eek out every last advantage from the terrain or to anticipate where shots are coming from and when.
The real problem of course is that if they are disordered, they get stuck that way a bit (assuming they survive subsequent attacks in the same turn) because rallying, even with the +1 bonus for elites is still difficult. Maybe too difficult?
I could adjust it to +2 for elite , but I hesitate to use +2 there, and only +1 on the Fire Result table, if only for the fact that it requires remembering two modifiers for the same benefit. So, I'm starting to think 5+ is too great a target for rallying. I noticed in a game I played last night, rallying some units took forever - even with their PL present - especially in the open.
4+ might be a better option as it would give elite units a 66% chance to recover in the open, and 83% in cover. In cover with a PL or CC and they'd recover 100% of the time (which doesn't seem wrong, if somewhat cinematic). I'll need to play test this a bit.
I'm surprised the MG in the pillbox didn't get to fire, but then, if the British approached it from outside of it's fire zone, it was something more of a commando raid, silencing the gun before it can be put into action.
I was so inspired by your scenario, I setup and began testing one of my own based loosely on a historical scenario that also involved troops in the open. It needs more tweaking but I'll post a little about it shortly.
As for minefields, those are coming sooner rather than later, as I need the rules in order to play the 2x2 Crossfire Scenarios that I use with these rules and with Company Fire. There are some suggestions for mines in Company Fire (link also on the side bar), if you want to see where my thinking is kind of at.
Ditto for bocage. For Company Fire, I forced bocage to be edge terrain and in my games with those rules (if you look in my June posts for the D-day related campaign, you'll see games played using them), they worked well enough. However, the idea, taken from Advanced Squad Leader (or what I could find online about how ASL treats bocage) looks fine on hexes, but makes bocage look *really* weird on a square qrid (kind of like a dungeon map of greenery). My current thinking is to maybe treat it more like linear terrain, to have it look more natural. I'll break out my US troops at some point in the near future and work those up.
Thanks so much again for giving the rules a try and most importantly for your detailed feedback.
Cheers!
- John
I vaguely recall reading something somewhere in the rules about weapons teams moving, but obviously that got lost in the "Shooting" section. A note on the QRS and in the Movement section might help me remember.
ReplyDeleteDon't overthink the "elite" bonuses. I think you have them right where they belong, especially since they combine at times with having the company commander bonus. I played the scenario (this time and earlier) without any rules accounting for night operations; if I had, even with an extra MG, the commandos would have done way better and the Germans would have been forced out of the woods to engage.
The pillbox MG is, indeed, a commando close combat objective; I found when I gave it a wider field of fire the British just got cut down.
I'll have to check out the relevant sections of Company Fire for mines and bocage for future scenario ideas. Looking forward to seeing more discussion of the game and playing some new scenarios myself.