Newbie: Playing at Company Level

[Snowcat]

Hi, new here!
So I have the BKC-IV rules, and they're designed for battalion level games but are adaptable for company level games where 1 base = 1 squad. So...

Let's say I'm putting together a Motorised German Infantry Company for 1941 Eastern Front (because I am), and I have my CO representing a Hauptmann (Captain) of the overall company.
Then 3 rifle platoons, each with 3 squads commanded by their own HQ's (Leutnants).
All paid for as per battalion level army list costs but with company level units.
So far so good (I think)...

But how do attached heavy mortar and MG platoons work at this level?
Pay as if buying a platoon of each, and this gives you one base of each support type, representing an attached section of mortars or MG at the company level. If correct, presumably you still also purchase a separate HQ base to lead this section (mortar or MG)? (You don't purchase 3 sections of heavy mortars or MGs, right?)

Tanks and armoured cars etc. are just paid for normally, with each model presumably representing fewer vehicles at this reduced company level game.

Do I have this about right? Or are some of these supports not available at company level?

Looking forward to your replies. (I've been stumbling around asking AI these sorts of questions and oh boy what a rabbit hole of useful and useless responses!)

Cheers!

[Snowcat]

The following is how it apparently worked, so how do you do this (incl. paying for it) when playing at company level where 1 base = 1 section/squad:

In 1941, a German motorised infantry company (Schützenkompanie (mot)) could call on assets from heavy machine gun (HMG) and heavy mortar platoons, as these were organic to the battalion's Heavy Company (schwere Kompanie).
Command and Support Structure
While a motorised rifle company had its own light support, heavier assets were centralized at the battalion level to be distributed by the battalion commander based on the tactical situation.
•    Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) Platoons: Each motorised infantry battalion typically contained one Heavy Company with three HMG platoons (each with four tripod-mounted MG 34s). These were frequently attached directly to rifle companies by platoon (four guns) or section (two guns) to provide long-range sustained fire.
•    Heavy Mortar Platoon: The same Heavy Company also held a mortar platoon equipped with six 8cm GrW 34 mortars (referred to as "heavy" relative to the light 5cm mortars found in rifle platoons). These were often attached to rifle companies by sections of two mortars to provide indirect fire support.
•    Organic Light Support: Every motorised rifle platoon within the company already contained its own 5cm leGrW 36 light mortar and light machine guns (LMGs) for immediate, integral support.

I understand the 50mm mortar is already subsumed into a platoon's firepower stats, but can be modelled on the platoon leader (HQ) base or alongside it for eye candy.

[Ithoriel]

Firstly, "Hi! Welcome to the forum" and secondly I play BKC at 1 stand equals a platoon so if I'm misunderstanding what you are having a problem with put it down to that! :-)

Using the army lists helps keep forces relatively historical. All my BKC forces are imaginary but aim to represent formations that would have been possible. So I use the army lists as a guide. My mid-war battalions have a pair of HMG stands and a mortar stand in their heavy weapons company for example.

That said, if you are using a historical OOB then it is more down to the player to decide how to represent that and the army lists may go out of the window. Though they may still give a feel for the relative power of both sides.

In your case buying (possibly multiple) single stands of HMG's or mortars makes sense. They can be commanded by their own HQ or by the HQ of the company they are attached to. It probably makes more sense if you think of command stands as a nexus of power rather than an individual officer. The Germans have excellent officers, well trained and disciplined troops and good staff supporting the officers. So, in game terms, they have high command values which means you can get away with fewer command stands. Though "just because you can doesn't mean you should!" Extra command stands can be very handy.

Does all of that waffle make sense? If not please feel free to ask further questions. Also, there are probably others who can put it more succinctly than I've done. They will no doubt be along shortly to simplify things!!

Have fun whatever you wind up fielding.

[fred.]

You seem to be on the right lines.

The key bit when converting historically OrBats to BKC is deciding on what ratio of guns/vehicles represents a base (for infantry it is easy as it is given 1 stand = 1 platoon or 1 stand = 1 section). But for guns and vehicles these terms don't directly map across.

At 1 base = 1 section, you are either choosing 1 or 2 guns per base. I suspect for AT guns and vehicles most people go with 1 gun per base. For HMGs and Mortars perhaps some more variation between 1 or 2 per base - but all this really affects is the theoretical maximum bases you can field.

Your German company seems very well Officered with a Captain and 3 Lieutenants - not sure even in the early part of the war the Germans managed this - but again it is just a label of who is in charge of the platoon command base.

As to support weapon command bases - I'd say if depends how you field them, if they are fielded as a heavy platoon then representing their organic commander is fine. If you have decided they have been parcelled out to the rifle platoons then they can just come under the platoon commander.

I think you will find representing the company commander, 3 platoon commanders, and a heavy weapons platoon commander, will be far too many commanders to the troops.

At battalion level I tended to go with 2 commanders for an infantry battalion along with their supports - thinking of this more as two forces, perhaps one commander by the battalion CO, and one by his Major, or a senior Company commander, rather than strictly by the OrBat.

There is a definite balance between playability and strict on paper equivalent representation

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Hello and welcome

[Snowcat]

Thanks gents!

Ithoriel (very Tolkienesque name there): your idea of 1 mortar stand and 2 MG stands is very akin to what I was imagining, but representing 1 section of each combined in an ad-hoc platoon under their own HQ platoon leader fighting alongside the motorised infantry company.

I would possibly base 2 mortars + crew per base; similarly 2 MMGs + crew per base. I'm not sure about this yet, as I'll be using 5 10mm figures per squad base, on a 25mm frontage. As I don't want my mortar or MG bases to be wider than the infantry bases, perhaps just the 1 mortar / MG + crew per base would be better. And then the base could even be a little narrower, such as 20mm square vs the infantry squads on 25x20mm bases.

Fred: you think having 3 platoon commanders is overkill? I'm not sure how else to do it at this level, as I am trying to simulate something reasonably realistic, even if it is for imaginary Eastern Front games between the bad guys vs the bad guys. I'm not sure who else other than the company commander himself could command the 3 platoons...?

Thanks for the ideas and thoughts. Much appreciated!

[Techno 3]

Welcome from me as well.

[Ithoriel]

Thanks gents!

Ithoriel (very Tolkienesque name there): your idea of 1 mortar stand and 2 MG stands is very akin to what I was imagining, but representing 1 section of each combined in an ad-hoc platoon under their own HQ platoon leader fighting alongside the motorised infantry company.

I would possibly base 2 mortars + crew per base; similarly 2 MMGs + crew per base. I'm not sure about this yet, as I'll be using 5 10mm figures per squad base, on a 25mm frontage. As I don't want my mortar or MG bases to be wider than the infantry bases, perhaps just the 1 mortar / MG + crew per base would be better. And then the base could even be a little narrower, such as 20mm square vs the infantry squads on 25x20mm bases.

Fred: you think having 3 platoon commanders is overkill? I'm not sure how else to do it at this level, as I am trying to simulate something reasonably realistic, even if it is for imaginary Eastern Front games between the bad guys vs the bad guys. I'm not sure who else other than the company commander himself could command the 3 platoons...?

Thanks for the ideas and thoughts. Much appreciated!

Ithoriel was my High Elf commander for Warmaster, the game from which BKC descends.

On the commander thing. As said before, don't get too hung up on the real world officers. Think of each stand as a nexus of command.

BKC abstracts many things. I often say that it "gets all the right results for all the wrong reasons!"

An HQ ordering a unit or group of units may actually be an officer giving commands at the moment but may also be troops responding as the commander would want as a result of excellent training and leadership before hand.

When it comes to the sausage machine of war BKC is more interested in the sausages coming out than the meat and skins going in. It is interested in outputs not inputs.

That help any?

[Snowcat]

Ithoriel was my High Elf commander for Warmaster, the game from which BKC descends.

On the commander thing. As said before, don't get too hung up on the real world officers. Think of each stand as a nexus of command.

BKC abstracts many things. I often say that it "gets all the right results for all the wrong reasons!"

An HQ ordering a unit or group of units may actually be an officer giving commands at the moment but may also be troops responding as the commander would want as a result of excellent training and leadership before hand.

When it comes to the sausage machine of war BKC is more interested in the sausages coming out than the meat and skins going in. It is interested in outputs not inputs.

That help any?

Makes sense re Ithoriel. I think Tolkien's was Ithuriel - is that right?

I was planning on modeling each platoon commander with a little 50mm mortar just for eye candy...but if 3 platoon commanders is too much, perhaps 1 platoon commander could be modeled (instead of 3) and he looks after the 3 platoons. Is that more like what you're describing?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Played at company level. The only change was to make the Tank platoon officers commanders who could still fight

[fred.]

I think 5 infantry on a 25mm x 20mm base will be a squeeze. 3 is more likely - which is probably then a bit thin for a squad. 

If you are going with 20/25mm base frontages then you will only get 1 MG or mortar on the base. 

I'd suggest you model everything - it's only a couple of figures for a platoon command stand. But then when you play you may well find you need fewer commanders represented on the table. 

As Ithoriel says - think of nexus of command, rather than literal OrBat - another way is to think of force organisation for an attack. A couple of HQs will be plenty for 9 infantry stands and a few support weapons. 

If you are building both sides then it matters much less. But if you model Coy, 3 x Plt and Heavy Weapons HQs in BKC terms you will find you are massively over the battlegroup limits for commanders (which again are guides for generic forces, rather than absolute must conform to rules). 

Some old photos and OrBats that may help (they are at 1 stand = 1 platoon level though) http://www.kerynne.com/games/BritishInfantry.html

[Snowcat]

Fred

Yes I am tempted to build everything so that it's legit (albeit with 1 figure representing 2ish men).

Re the 25mm base width, I'm using mostly 10mm Minifigs (sorry Pendraken!) which are slender and extremely realistic. 5 fit easily on a 25mm wide base. 3 forward, 2 back.

Re how many MGs or 81mm mortars + crew to fit...well, given that each base would be representing a section and my rifle squads are already at 1:2 ratio (figures:men), perhaps it should be 1 MG/mortar + crew per base, and that base could then be a smaller 20x20mm size which would be plenty. This keeps the rifle squads looking like they're occupying relatively more space which seems right.

The Russians will be done the same way, so if I end up with too many commanders, it'll either be the same for both sides or I may just remove 1 or 2 for game purposes as you suggest.

Thanks for the link to your Brits. It's always great to see other people's forces, and I'm confident there will be some basing combinations that will inspire me in that sizeable contingent you've assembled.

Cheers

[Ithoriel]

I used 40x20mm bases for BKC because I had scores left over from basing things for Warmaster.

6  infantry or a pair of heavy weapons fit nicely and stands of infantry have 6 hits so it satisfies my CDO.   

You can see some older photos of my Germans here:

https://imageshack.com/a/oblr7/1

[Snowcat]

I used 40x20mm bases for BKC because I had scores left over from basing things for Warmaster.

6  infantry or a pair of heavy weapons fit nicely and stands of infantry have 6 hits so it satisfies my CDO.   

You can see some older photos of my Germans here:

https://imageshack.com/a/oblr7/1

Thanks for those. Looking fine.

6 figures for 6 hits eh? Sounds good.

What got my interest in WW2 gaming fired up again was a photo I came across of a 10mm game (using Pendraken figures) on a 2 ft table, probably 2 ft square. Squad bases were 30mm wide with 4 figures per base. Now my 6 x 4 ft table is reserved for my 17thC 50mm toy soldier gaming, but I do have an 80 x 80 cm table for smaller scale games, so I thought I could do something similar for WW2 on that.

This is where the 25mm wide base idea came in. It's not set in stone yet. I could go for 30mm wide, but the goal is to have enough room for company + support level games with some terrain on the 80 cm board in 10mm. (My logic was that as the Minifigs figures are a bit slimmer, I could still get 5 or so on a 25mm wide base.)

I shall experiment. Thanks again for the photos. I find that kind of thing very useful.

Cheers

[Snowcat]

PS .. Fred mentioned that the 25mm x 20mm base might be a bit tight for 5 figures.

He was right. While I can get 5 figures (3 forward, 2 back) on a 25mm x 20mm base, it does look like a bit of a rugby scrum. It looks better on a 30mm x 20mm base.

(I don't want to go with 3 or 4 figures per base for some reason; 5 gives me a 1:2 ratio which is nice and also looks better IMO).

I initially chose 25mm to give the squads and the company more room to maneuver on the 80 cm board, but at this smaller force level it probably doesn't make much difference than using 30mm frontages for squads.

[Steve J]

All of your ideas seem sound so far Snowcat, so maybe do some simple games with just base sizes (sans figures) to see how things work for you. I play a base equals a platoon, which just works for me. The infantry are on 50mm x 25mm bases, the HQ's, support units on 25mm square ones, with larget ATG's in 25mm x 50mm ones. See below for one of my BKCII games on a 2' x 2' table:

https://wargameswithtoysoldier1685-1985.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-battle-for-heimsdorf-1944.html

[Snowcat]

Steve J:

Wow. What a setup for 2' x 2'! Stunning! That is a lot of terrain: I thought I was looking at a game of Crossfire for a moment. (Thanks for that - very inspiring.) And solid advice re the bases too.

Probably close to the opposite end of the spectrum to the photo of a game that inspired me to try the WW2 thing on a small board...




Cheers

[Steve J]

Well I'm glad you liked it and any game that inspires another gamers, is always a 'win' on many levels:)! The base sizes are those recommended in the rulebook, but I have seen games where everything is on 25mm square base where possible, which sort of has a Rapid Fire! aesthetic to it.