Forward Command - Company Level WWII Rules (Playtesters Sought!)

[Gazza]

Battle report is now up on my blog:

https://we-stand-and-fight.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/forward-command-battle-report.html

[bigjackmac]

Stupendous!!!  I gave it a scan: looks great!  Great action, terrain, and minis!  I'll give it a deeper look this evening.

Thanks Gareth!

V/R,
Jack

[paulr]

A good report and a good looking game

I was a little surprised to see the German infantry assaulting an armoured car in the open

[Gazza]

I was a little surprised to see the German infantry assaulting an armoured car in the open :-

Well, let's say they crept close enough to throw grenades and snipe at driving slits! In ForC armoured cars get +1 to Assaults and tanks get +2, so it is rather risky for infantry, but this is May 1940 so the Germans were pretty keyed up! Given the dearth of anti-tank weapons available to infantry at this time getting up-close-and-personal was often the only way of dealing with AFVs. Also, the main armament of the Morris CS9 was the Bren, so they were hardly bristling with automatic firepower. In retrospect they probably should have shot at it (most armoured cars can be shot at by small arms fire, with a -1 modifier) - far less risky! Actually, I've just seen an organisation chart which suggests that, like their BEF counterparts, the Germans had one anti-tank rifle per-platoon (either the Panzerbüchse 39 or Panzerbüchse 35 (polnisch)). Will have to updates the army list to reflect that.

[paulr]

Sounds like the rules give the player a sensible set of options, you took the most aggressive
I like rules that allow players to take the risky choice

I have heard several stories of Boys getting 'lost' fairly early on a long march, the same probably happened to the Pzb 

[bigjackmac]

Gareth,

First, sorry for the delay, but I'm on vacation with the family. But we're at the hotel, all showered up, and the kids are down, so finally got a chance to give it a good read.

Second, you're killing me! As much as I love posting my batreps, I like reading other folks' at least as much, so I'm not shy about requesting guys post batreps!

Lastly, I loved it, and it looked like a roaring success with regards to play testing for realism AND fun.  The team I thought was going to win ended up winning, but not a sure thing and certainly not a walkover.  I wasn't bothered at all by the infantry close assault of the Lancers, I just figured they were focused on the German armored cars. And like Paul, I enjoy the full array of options being available to the player. And I'm with you: I think troops in 1940 didn't have much choice against armor of any sort.  Run or go get them.

At first I wasn't keen on armor receiving 'cumulative' damage (like infantry) when facing anti-armor weapons, but I think I'm there. I believe there will be folks that won't be able to get past that (which is fine, to each his own, we all draw our line on what expect/can put up with where we want), but I can see it as a combination of near misses and non-penetrating hits that are having morale effects (ergo the 'regroup' option to remove 'hits') and otherwise taking the crews' minds somewhere other than where the platoon/company commander wants them. The 4th 'hit' isn't conceptually the fourth time the vehicle was struck and then knocked out, it's just the vehicle suffering the effects of enemy fire, and the fourth is the round that actually puts the vehicle out of action.

Anyway, thanks for posting buddy, I enjoyed it and am looking forward to more.

V/R,
Jack

[pierre the shy]

I have heard several stories of Boys getting 'lost' fairly early on a long march, the same probably happened to the Pzb 

I could tell you a story about gettiing "lost" in the Tararuas some years ago while doing the Southern Crossing but I wasn't carrying a AT rifle (though my pack felt like I had the weight of a AT rifle in it after 2 days  )

Anyway to get back on the track so to speak...

Very interesting set of rules Gazza.

Having read several books featuring company level actions in France by BEF units I'm rather tempted to add them to my (already far too long) to do list at some point in the near future, especially after reading your very well written 1940 batrep. 

[paulr]

Oh good, now I can blame Pierre the Shy for introducing another ruleset to our group

I wasn't thinking about trying them, no, not at all

[Gazza]

Thanks for all the comments guys. As I keep saying, if you try 'em out let me know what you think!

At first I wasn't keen on armor receiving 'cumulative' damage (like infantry) when facing anti-armor weapons, but I think I'm there. I believe there will be folks that won't be able to get past that (which is fine, to each his own, we all draw our line on what expect/can put up with where we want), but I can see it as a combination of near misses and non-penetrating hits that are having morale effects (ergo the 'regroup' option to remove 'hits') and otherwise taking the crews' minds somewhere other than where the platoon/company commander wants them. The 4th 'hit' isn't conceptually the fourth time the vehicle was struck and then knocked out, it's just the vehicle suffering the effects of enemy fire, and the fourth is the round that actually puts the vehicle out of action.

Bear in mind too that the 25mm Hotchkiss was a pop-gun. Ordnance QF 2-pounders or 47 mm APX anti-tank guns will make mincemeat of most early way German armour (providing the controlling player rolls moderately well!). I have thought about adding an additional damage table for AFVs, but pooh-poohed it as deviating from the spirit of the game (ie. simplicity). Still, I am as ever open to suggestions. Enjoy the rest of your holiday.

[Ithoriel]

The armour rules seem fine to me.

Crews can be stunned, shaken or lightly wounded and then recover. Vehicles can stall and be restarted, guns jam nad be cleared, vision blocks may need replaced and so on.

[paulr]

Seconded

[Gazza]

Well that seems fairly unanimous! For the time being the armour rules in relation to damage shall remain the same. I will sit down over the coming weeks and rewrite the rules to iron out any creases and generally make it intelligible.

[ronan]

(...) the spirit of the game (ie. simplicity)

+1 !
( I was able to test early, as you noticed, but now I had less spare time.)

(...)so I'm not shy about requesting guys post batreps!

And you'right ! 

[pierre the shy]

I had a chance to read the rules a bit more throughly tonight - really like them.

Had a couple of design questions about HQ's Gazza:

Is the decision to make the CHQ itself fairly "passive" a deliberate one? OK it can defend itself and lend its CP's to PHQ's etc but it cannot not directly issue orders to its subunits.

Given that the CHQ is in overall command wouldn't you allow a CHQ unit to issue an general order directly one or more of its platoons (e.g. "10 Platoon defend that farm") once a turn (purhaps depending on what Tier level that the HQ is rated at) or am I too used to playing rules such as TFL's ITLSU with card driven activations that allow "early" activations of units by HQ units if their card comes up before the unit card itself does?

Have to fit in a small test game with PaulR seeing he is keen on the idea 

               

[Ithoriel]

I mooted the idea of CHQs being able to directly order any unit it was in base-to-base contact with.

The other two pointed out you could just allocate the order from the CHQ to the relevant PHQ and achieve the same thing.

I can't give an exact quote (partly due to my increasingly flaky memory and partly down to language unsuitable for the delicate sensibilities of this august forum ) but the gist of it was,"Don't tinker! It's a nice simple set of rules, stop trying to make my head hurt with complications!"

I would commend this attitude to you Gazza!

[paulr]

Have to fit in a small test game with PaulR seeing he is keen on the idea         

I have Late war German and British infantry companies wondering what ruleset to use...

They were used with the original Flames of War rules to introduce my son to wargaming and some of his Grandfathers history

[JeffNNN]

Well that seems fairly unanimous! For the time being the armour rules in relation to damage shall remain the same. I will sit down over the coming weeks and rewrite the rules to iron out any creases and generally make it intelligible.
[/quote
Sounds promising. I'd be interested in doing a play test with my local group (Crosby Wargamers), we've got plenty of both 15 and particularly 20mm figures.
Jeff

[terry68]

Down loaded the rules and lists, they look to be just what I am looking for at Company level!
I have just started doing Late War British for Normandy, with Germans to do next!
I'll play test using just infantry, then add a few 'late war' tanks.

Looking Good, carry on that man!

Terry.

[bigjackmac]

Gareth,

What's the latest man?  I'm looking for more batreps

And I'm still working on clearing out my backlog so I can get to these, though I did get a bit sidetracked by International Naval Wargames Day 

V/R,
Jack

[Gazza]

What's the latest man?  I'm looking for more batreps

I redid my terrain boards last week so have been without a playing area for a while and I have re-started a WWI project I abandoned several years ago, which had destracted me somewhat. However, I have an operation on Monday (nothing serious - repair of an inguinal hernia) and should have plenty of free time to devote to such things in the coming week. Watch this space!