I am about to take a plunge into Eisenhower, but has anyone else tried rules on this scale, and what did you think of them?
I've played Eisenhower quite a bit since the rules came out, and really enjoyed the games. It is clearly an iteration of the Rommel rules, but by stepping up a level it removes a lot of the fiddliness of Rommel.
Probably my key recommendation would be to be liberal on the interpretation of what the few terrain types in the game represent, otherwise you can end up with rather open tables.
I've found that building a historical force is pretty easy, and the army building rules in the game align pretty closely to historical formations too.
I've tried a version of the "Breakthrough!" rules that Frank Chadwick has been developing for maybe 15 years and not yet published. I liked them and wish I could buy them.
I went down this rabbit hole about 10 years ago.
I tried games with exotic names such as Assault Gun, High Command, Hurrah Stalino and Divisional Rules.
I then shelled out for Megablitz which was the "Next big thing" according to all the blogs.
I describe it as a rabbit hole for a number of reasons:
* One could pore over organisation charts for ages, and decide whether the presence of a fast reconnaissance battalion, military police, or independent anti tank battalions deserved an advantage weighting.
* No need to fuss about who has the best light machinegun.
* But gamers being gamers, that "machinegun fuss" levelled up to "AT and artillery fuss".
* No game appeared to properly capture the heiracrchy of commanding a division, corps or army. - Most had you pushing lots of individual bases about and making lots of individual rolls to hit.
What I liked:
* Ability to field big organisations and some of the more specialised kit of the age.
* Could pretend you were doing proper operational stuff based on real maps and locations.
What didn't appeal:
* Felt like being 40 or 50 Lieutenant Colonels instead of one General.
* In the absence of other factors, the lack of distinction for armour felt very band.
* Rules that put artillery and logistics on table suffered "M25 rush hour" levels of control and appearance.
Eisenhower fixes a lot of the gripes in clever abstract ways.
Some readers will hate the fact that their heavy artillery reserve isn't visible, or their infantry don't gain "always wins" levels of bonus because their machinegun has a high cyclic rate of fire.
Others will appreciate that combat by "teeth" units is important, but there's a lot to gain from agile use of manoeuvre units.
I haven't played against an opponent, and aspects of Eisenhower's command post are intended to remain secret.
So I can recommend giving it a try (Parhaps with counters first) to see how you like it.
One thing that will set Eisenhower apart form most WW2 rules is the proportion of vehicles.
You'll typically have a lot of foot units and relatively few tanks (ratio anything form 1:5 to 1:20).
If you're a hardcore petrolhead, you can add vehicles to your lorried and mechanised infantry stands.
It's worth noting the Motor Pool rule which enables UK and USA forces to lorry up all their infantry if they desire.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 28 September 2025, 06:49:34 AMI've tried a version of the "Breakthrough!" rules that Frank Chadwick has been developing for maybe 15 years and not yet published. I liked them and wish I could buy them.
Can you describe a couple of key points that set them apart?
I do fear that they are probably in the "Winds of Winter" category as far as being published go :'(
With most WWII rules one of the big advantages is that you can use most figures with most rules (often with a split between single based vs multi based figures - but even this isn't that hard a split in practice).
Quote from: lentulus on 28 September 2025, 12:08:07 PMCan you describe a couple of key points that set them apart?
3 turns a day (3rd is a night turn when units recover).
Basic element is a battalion. These are OK, damaged or dead.
Bns are grouped into bdes or divs.
These groups have an HQ and a Cohesion number.
Cohesion = saving rolls.
Cohesion goes down as bns take hits.
Combat and movement pretty clean and simple but with enough differentiation for flavour.
That's all I can remember, it's been maybe five years now.
Chris
QuoteI am about to take a plunge into Eisenhower, but has anyone else tried rules on this scale, and what did you think of them?
Recommend them. They have been well received at the clubs as much better than
ROMMEL. However, some struggle with the switch from lower level gaming to the big picture; with battalion level elements you become a genuine
General with Army/Corps level command, not a platoon leader. A lot of detail gets lost with tanks being not much more than tanks (well the German cats become superior tanks, Churchills infantry tanks, Italians generally inferior tanks but otherwise tanks are simply tanks). You have to be happy using a grid, which many people are not.
I tried games with exotic names such as Assault Gun, High Command, Hurrah Stalino and Divisional Rules.Yep, tried these and can sympathise with you experience! :'(
QuoteRecommend them. They have been well received at the clubs as much better than ROMMEL. However, some struggle with the switch from lower level gaming to the big picture; with battalion level elements you become a genuine General with Army/Corps level command, not a platoon leader. A lot of detail gets lost with tanks being not much more than tanks (well the German cats become superior tanks, Churchills infantry tanks, Italians generally inferior tanks but otherwise tanks are simply tanks). You have to be happy using a grid, which many people are not.
I tried games with exotic names such as Assault Gun, High Command, Hurrah Stalino and Divisional Rules.
Yep, tried these and can sympathise with you experience! :'(
There was no single problem with those exotic games.
* Some put logistics on table, resulting in a massive transport traffic jam.
* Some put divisional artillery on table. It proved to be very difficult to safely locate in a turn based game.
* Some over or under complicated the business of divisional command.
* Some reduced all combat units to a straight number.
I think it's fair to suggest that most showed a strong Avalon Hill type heritage.
In Eisenhower, I think Sam Mustafa has found a goldilocks zone.
That game designer's art of knowing how much is enough, balancing between abstraction and tabletop reality.
For example:
* Logistics are handled in a game phase, as opposed to flooding the rear zones with loads of truck models.
* Artillery is abstracted, available within a few zones of friendly units, as opposed to creating a second line of guns.
* There are enough armour variants to create an impression if different types, without creating a whole stat line and penetration table solution.
I particularly like the way that certain tank variants are specific to certain armies (I think).
* Superior tanks mostly German.
* Infantry tanks exclusively British.
* Tank Destroyers exclusively American.
All good points
I've posted a few Eisenhower battle reports on this site.
Fundamentally it is a very playable set of rules, which does feel like you are commanding divisions.
QuoteAll good points
I've posted a few Eisenhower battle reports on this site.
Fundamentally it is a very playable set of rules, which does feel like you are commanding divisions.
I agree it's good.
I feel the biggest challenge is managing movement, combat and supply on a squared grid.
If you'll excuse the pun, using squares creates a lot of "corner cases" which Sam has identified and ruled on.
Al of them make sense, but they're a bit of a chore to remember and act upon.
I'm sure players get used to the specifics in the end.
Maybe I should play a few more games of Go.
It taught my younger self to recognise patterns on a grid.
It's a while since I've played, but I think most of the corner cases boil down to you can't sneak through the gap between two diagonally adjacent enemy units. But one unit on its own exposes its corners (so to speak!)
I went to have a look at the Eisenhower posts you made fred - they are there but the images won't load - I did a bit of poking and they are Imgur hosted - Imgur are blocking UK access because of regulator threats over some content.
One or two other people appear to be affected.
Anyone know if this is likely to be permanent?
(Or is it just me!?)
Yep, it seems Imgur have geo blocked the UK due to some threat of fines from a uk regulator. There is a BBC story with more details.
I don't know how permanent it is. I was already thinking of moving from Imgur as it had recently made linking to images harder.
Finding long term photo hosting that allows linking to forums seems to be an ongoing challenge