Battlegroup from Iron Fist Publishing...

Battlegroup, a review...

A picture stolen from Iron Fist Publishing site...

What is Battlegroup, well this answer is simple it is another 1 to 1 WW2 miniatures game... it is aimed at 15mm and 20mm miniatures and the author, Warwick Kinrade, claims that it is not just a simple generic World War Two system, but, instead, a common base using a set of specific supplements to recreate specific episodes of the second world war. Well I would say this is a big claim. As described in the rules introduction the generic "core mechanics" produces a rather bland game, one that will be unsatisfactory for the majority of players. Well people plays Bolt Action so there are evidently players that are not put off by bland games, but let focus on Battlegroup. What make the game interesting according to Mister Kinrade is the combination of special rules, units, scenarios, and campaigns unique to a theatre (p. 5). I happen to agree with him. Too often world War Two rules tend to be just a very generic 1930-1950 (or even later) mish mash, and getting their feel more from the statistic of the vehicles than anything else. Some are even so generic that they claim you can use the same base to represent a team, a squad, or a platoon...

To achieve this stated end Battlegroup was at start published as Battlegroup: Kursk, focussing on... well Operation Zittadelle including both the Core Rules and the Kursk specific material. To avoid repeating the core rules again and again and charging customer for the same core pages... they had been removed from subsequent books and instead offered separately (looks, it makes sense, if you like the system you will end up buying several of the period books thus you could have ended with the same rules over and over). At the moment, beside Kursk, Normandy, the Fall of the Reich, and Early Barbarossa are covered with a Blitzkrieg volume coming out next month. 

Battlegroup has also an interesting story. It started as Kampfgruppe Normandy published by the now defunct Warhammer Historical. It was a massive and lavishly illustrated book desinged for 20mm figures. Toward the end of the death throes of WHH It was offered at a very cheap price but... well while being a Salute when it was done... I completely missed it... ah... ah... ah... enough of history and self commiseration, back to the rules.

As I have said this is a big claim, and one I cannot yet analyze because I got only the slim rule booklet. So this review will be incomplete by default. I am sorry, I am poor and jobless...

I will not provide a step by step analysis of the sequence of play, it is not my job today. I would say that it is quite conventional; the Attacker takes his turn followed by the Defender. In their turn the two players total their orders, then there is an execution phase, followed by a rally phase. IT is very simple.  But there are twists and interactions hidden. The total number of orders available to each player in each turn is variable. You have a base number (the number of your officers alive) plus a variable die roll. Bigger games (more on that later) give you more dice to roll, smaller ones... well less! The order are quite straightforward: Move,  Fire, Fire/Move (and Move/Fire), plus all the funny things you expect in a WW2 games (loading, unloading, calling for fire, unlimbering...). There are also supply and engineering activities. An important thing to remember is that each single unit can carry a single order per turn, you do not have chain activation of a single elements. Here a turn is a rather specific amount of time, rather than a more fluid "action sequence". Trust me, the rules are quite complete here. There is infantry and armour combat, engineering, artillery, and also air attacks. What I really like here is that the mechanics make sense from a procedural standpoint. There is an underlining logic in what you do and how you do it.

Fire is divided in two types, area fire (you make the enemy lowering its heads) and aimed fire (you kill the bad guys). The two types of fires are handled in different ways and produce different results. Combat is basically you roll to hit, enemy roll to save. With some added twists, like the fact you have to spot (not requiring an order) before firing. I would say it is a system I do not overly like (I do not like to roll so many dice every time), but seems quite standard and well accepted by the community.  Differently from other systems the number of dice rolled are manageable and the score required to hit depends on factors (well I will be honest, I dislike bucket of dices hitting on 6). Ordnance fire, as you surmise, requires first a roll to hit and then rolls for effect based on the weapon, followed by save (ok here I think it is too prone to randomness). Armour piercing hits are resolved (after the customary to hit roll) comparing penetration and armour on a table and rolling two dice to see if the shot penetrates. You know I love TFL games, but this way to resolve penetration is much more to my liking. One peculiarity of Battlegroup is that your ammo is not unlimited so before firing ordnance think twice (avoiding the gamey but customary extreme range shots and reducing a bit of wristage).

As you can see the skeleton of the game is quite tradition and does not have surprises. The mechanics are typical. Yet in almost every case they make sense. I also like the ability to suppress the enemy with area fire. I also like the fact that, despite having a standard Igo-Yugo sequence, the game not only allow for reaction but force you to plan your reaction. You can issue Ambush Fire and Reserve Move orders to your units. These orders allow you to carry action in the opponent turn, provided you have thought about it in advance. It follows the time segmentation I mentioned earlier. In this context it forces you to plan quite well rather than do things safely assured that your units will always be able to do some reaction against enemy moves if necessary. It also avoids the usually fire advantages of the defender. In a lot of game defending forces can use their own action to fire and then fire again as reaction fire in the enemy turn. Here because of the order system the defender cannot magically fire twice.

Morale is handled in a particular way. Units get pinned and forced to pull back (or rout, or surrender!) as usual, but your force morale is handled in a particular way. You get a battle rating (based on your force) at the start of the game. When bad things happens (kills, panic, and so on), or when you rally your pinned units you pull a marker with a number from a bowl. These markers have different numbers on them from 1 to 5. When the sum of the values of the drawn markers is equal to your original battle rating... well you are withdrawing from the field. Now larger forces are evidently more resilient, but you have also a luck factor represented by the number and, even if I cannot still confirm it, probably the ability of different forces to sustain different level of punishment could also be represented by the value of the markers put in the bowl at start. More 1s will make a force less brittle than more 5s.

The game is scalable. You can play small actions with reduced platoons ro larger actions with full battalions. No this is not done with naming tricks. This is done increasing the table size  and, more importantly, using a system that allow you to roll more dice for orders based on the size of your force.  I will say upfront here that I do not think playing a battalion action in 1 to 1 scale is a good idea. Command levels, concerns, and time will be different. You can do it in a well organized multiplayer game, but the larger games are better crowd has never done for me. I think that if you have a 1 to 1 representation fielding a company is more or less the top level, bigger forces requires different considerations, yet someone will do it, if not, just to show how many big guns on big tanks they have. In this light considering how to adapt the game to different force size is a good idea.

Now I have some minor gripes. Minor thing bear with me , but still things that puzzles me. The first one is about fire. You can do two fire actions when you play the "Open Fire" order.  Yet the rules are unclear on the issue if you can use area and aimed fire together. Rules wise this is my main gripe. It is unclear, I assumed an answer (you can),  but in the small rulebook I could not find a foolproof answer. It could cause problems if people assume answers but it is just a minor gripe.

I do not like the artillery system. It appears logical and functional, but I think it is very realistic. There is a common approach in rules that you have to roll for deviation. Battlegroup allow for a single spotting round to be fired and based on its fall the mission resolved. It is common in a lot of rules, but it is wrong. The idea of spotting rounds is that the observer walks them on the target and then switch to FFE. Better system had lees time wasted in corrections, crappy one had a lot of time wasted into it. I would have liked a system were inaccurate shot force you to spend another order to adjust  rather than having the usual deviation system (shades of 40k here?). Battlegroup version is not as absurd as the original version in Rapid Fire, but still it does fail to reproduce artillery.  I could live with the system but I found it more gamey than accurate.  Yet this is the only area in the rules I really do not like.

The last problem, linked to the format of the "common" rules is that I am not really sure of how the Battle Ratings, BG morale, and force selection works. I know they are supposed to be explained in the supplements and the small softbound booklet is more a way to avoid to repeat the basic rules everywhere, but I would have liked to understand these aspects of the game, especially in the light of the of the statement made by the author that Battlegroup aims to be a rule set relevant to each period rather than a generic WW2 set (in the end I got hold of the way the Battle Rating and the Marker realyl works from examples on Iron Fist Publishing website rather than the core rulebook). I know, Will has been even too kind in giving me the softbound for free just to write this review, but, well, if you hope to get an impression of the game from it you miss a key part. Also having the general rules there for reference would have been nice in my view. The rule book provides generic scenarios but no way to build a force. I would have appreciated to sample forces and the battlegroup creation rules being present.

Now I have reached the limit of my ability to do a review based on the available material. It is only a partial review; I cannot really play a game until I get one of the full supplements. Said that I am quite impressed by what I saw. Certainly Warwick Kinrade had been able to articulate his viewpoint and provide a game that reflects it. What Battlegroup is not is a 40k on tracks. It is not even a Flames of War clone. It does not appear to be swamped by special rules; it does not appear to be swamped by special rules and abilities. It appears to provide you with historical limitations and plausible options.  I do not like artillery, but the game effect is reasonable.

From a book stand  point I have nothing to reproach, the writing is good, there is an index, rules are properly numbered to help you (sorry EvilleMonikeigh I think having rule sections numbered is a critical part of rules writing, not some sort of aberration!). There are plenty of examples, and nice illustrations. Except from the confusion about the ability to use two different types of fire everything is properly explained with examples. The graphic presentation is also nice.

Will I play it? Well at the moment I am satisfied with IASBM and CoC, but I can certainly see Battlegroup gracing my table soon, possible with some house ruling for the artillery call procedure (very easy, if the barrage is inaccurate you have the option to ask for another spotting round, and when it is accurate you do not roll for deviation). What really piqued my interest is the order and reaction system and, for the little I have read off, the battle and morale rating. The rules have ptential and, differently from other games the author has given though about scaling the battle based on the forces you field. I am also curious to see  how Warwick's claims about the game being able to represent specific battles and areas rather than being a generic 1930-1950 ruleset will turn out. At that time I will be happy to post a second chapter.

Normandy, A bloody Summer and a Bloody Review...

Bloody Normandy,

A review of Normandie 44: Une Ete Sanglante…

Normandie 44 is a… game on the battle of Normandy. One standard map, two sheets of 5/8” counters.  The game has been edited by a French publisher both in French and English (but the English rules are poorly translated, the translator had simply forgotten some key elements…). It covers the battle for Normandy from 6 June 1944 to end of August.  This is a barebones introduction of a rather interesting game.  Before discussing the component as I am used to do I want to point out that this game is not a new one. It is a second, expanded, edition of a game included in Vae Victis Magazine several years ago. Said that it is a really expanded edition with bigger map, more (and die cut oppose to mount and cut yourself) counters and several revised mechanics. After a long dithering I ordered it last July, just in time to refight the bloody summer of 1944 70 years later.

We are about to land in France...

Once you open the ziplock you end up with colour rules, a really nice map and counters, and a quite sturdy play aid. The map is definitely pleasant and has really big hexagon. It is also clear and well laid out with a lot of helpful things around, like landing boxes and a big turn track with space for renforcements.  The counters in my copy, were a bit difficult to remove from the frame, but rather pleasant. You have a mix of NATO and German symbols and division patches to identify the units. Units vary in size from full divisions to some battalions. 

The rules are a mixed bag, the French ones are fine, the English translation included in the bag is not. Noe even the English update is at the same level of the French version. I do not know if this is a problem with the translator (rumoured to be Charles Vasey... this will explain a lot of things Addenda: the final version of the translation is not his work), or just an effect of time pressure, but there are several inconsistencies and omissions. Probably the English version of the rules is the biggest let down. Of course I know French and can use the original rules, but the game is advertised in an English edition so... ok complain aside the rules are quite logical. Everything is covered, from airpower to ships (albeit in an abstract fashion). The focus of the game is land warfare. Turns are divided in two halves (thus being in effect only 3.5 days long). They have provision for reserves and exploitation. Supply plays a key role, you need to spend supplies to attack, thus showing the importance of the logistical build up. 

I think the logistic section is where the game really shines. you need to stockpile supplies to get thing moving, (supplied HQ modify the initiative roll), but you need to spend supplies (attacks) to use this "movement" to do something useful. There are also little tricks there and here. An HQ can have only 2 Offensive (supply) markers. You spend one for each combat phase. Each turn will have two combat phases per player (plus you can spend these offensives also to provide defensive support). Seems quite straight forward... but is not, sometime you have the ability to perform an exploitation immeditialy after your combat, but you need to spend the offensive marker to have a second combat thus, first you have to have two... second the HQ will be done for the turn. Also supplied HQ can provide offensive support for one (and only one) combat. Will yuo have a lot of supplied HAQ, maybe with only one marker each to provide more supports... or concentrate your supplies in few to provide more offensive push? Of course... offensive markers are in reasonably short supply anyway...

Cotentin Close up

Movement and combat are quite straightforward, with some interesting airdrop and landing rules and off map movement and combat to represent the larger theatre of operations (a plus in my eyes). 

Apart from the poor writing in rules one thing that has not persuaded me was the stacking value of some units and the stacking limits. They simply does not make sense…  a British independent tank brigade with three battalions is 3 stacking points, ok one SP per battalion… but a full British infantry division is also 3….  Does this sounds right to you? More to the point, in the rules the maximum stacking point per hex is 5, thus you cannot attach a tank brigade to an infantry division to support it during an assault. Well the independent tank brigades were designed to do just that. This frankly does not makes any sense. Also because a full standard US Armoured division is also 3 stacking points, thus with three tan battalions, three armoured infantry battalions, Recon, artillery and so on…

If you then look at the German panzer division you will discover that each of their regiments/battalions is only 1 stacking point… thus because each German Panzer Division is represented in the game by 4 counters (2 Panzer Abteilung and two panzer grenadier regiments) you have them at 4 points.. thus 6 Germans battalions (with their attached reconnaissance, artillery, panzerjaeger, and pioneers occupy just 25% more space than three British Tank battalions. Not his does not make any sense. It is the same with the two “heavy” US armoured divisions. Again stacking values do not make any sense. IF I can cram a whole panzer divisions and at least something else in an hex I can do also the same with the 2^nd and 3^rd armoured. In my last play I just upped stacking limits to 6 per hex and thing worked a bit better… with the caveat you cannot put two full infantry divisions in a single hex. I think that 5 stacking point is reasonable if you reduced the independent tank brigades and the Heavy combat command to 1 stacking point. Anyway this is the major design issue in Normandie 44. One that Eric Teng, the designer, has to address and explain.

Well I have told you I like the graphic, got a headache with the rules, and have some problems with some of the design decisions. But what I made of the game overall? Well after I ditched the English version of the rules and switched to the original one, after I made my own interpretations of the (few at that point) unclear rules and decided to consider the stacking points for the tank brigades just 1... I was able to play the game reasonably smoothly and was given a quite nice experience in return. 

There is a lot of elements to like in Normandie 44. The first good point is represented by the combat system. I already mentioned the supply factors, but there are more nuances. You have elite units, and you can have air and naval support. I like the ability of allied airpower not only to support combat, but to make retreats more difficult. Even more I like the wat combat results are used. There is a combination of permanent step losses, and temporary disruptions. The temporary results gave much more granularity to division sized counters.  You can see attacking forces slowly deteriorate and defending forces collapsing and the utility for rotations in and out of the main line. Of coruse there are replacements points (and usually these things have been always dealt with replacements rate) but... but recycling whole divisions on and off the dead pile in weeks always seemed artificial. Here you pull units away from the line, rest them, and put them back. I know people nowadays are often all hyped up about results, but something showing processes is indeed important.

Another key are doing rather well is the replacement system. Allied units have infinite replacements, you just pull out of the line, and absorb replacement, replacements for the German side are more hapzard, and few. This perfectly captures the big dilemma the German command faced. It was easy to send unit to Normandy, not so easy to keep them operational once there. While the Allies can take losses and, if given time, be back in full strength, the German army cannot take too many casualties each turn before holes develops. If the process continues unabated sooner or later simple holes will be replaced with gaping ones and the flow of allied forces will start. Yet the German has to keep some form of pressure because he needs to slow down the enemy... trade off. 

The British Beaches, look at the German tactical symbols!

In conclusion… well in conclusion Normandie 44 is an excellent game marred by a subpar rule set, an awful translation (again, if Charles is the responsible of that debacle I would understand a lot of things… Addenda repeated: he was not responsible), and a couple of quirk points. Yet it is an excellent game that allows you to explore the campaign in reasonable detail and in a reasonably short time frame. The critical elements of the campaign, namely the bloody stalemated in June and July, the sudden manoeuvre phase in August, and, finally, the race between German and Allied reinforcements are extremely well captured.  The casualty system is eminently successful in representing the severe attrition of the battle and the ability of the Allies to over-replace the Germans.

Important Note:  I have been told that Charles Vasey has nothing to do with the final translated version despite the rumours. so I apologize for my bad guess.  Yet I stand by my comments that his rulebooks are not so user friendly and I want also to point out that the same shady figure of our hobby, instead of explaining the situation, sent me two e-mail calling me little shit... go figure. Of course I will never buy a game designed from him again.

I am not dead... yet

Well it was weeks if not months that this blog was silent, if you were worried for me fear not, I am alive and reasonably well. I was just "deployed" and busy in a gaming way. I had the pleasure to work for around two months back in my rightful position of CONSIM teaching assistant and also do another batch of military related simulation work... including an historical test  involving the Falklands War and none less than General Julian Thompson and Commodore Michael Clapp... no it is not a joke... as you can see...

The eagle eyed between my reader maybe will also identify the location based on big boxed games in the background...

I have also delivered a couple of interesting seminars... including one on inter-war Chinese navy...

 

Also do not tell me that military historians are all boring and ugly (I am not referring to me!)

Anyway I have also been busy painting and gaming. So without further ado I will move to meatier and wargaming related posts...

 

HIJMS Mikasa and a thanking note

Well,

while I was at warfare my eye caught glimpse... (oh my god) of Paul Sulley new range of pre-dreadnought ships in 1/2400 scale. I am a supported of Tumbling Dice miniatures and I like Paul sculpting style. I am also a Naval Historian... furthermore recently I am dwelling in the period thanks to some friends and their research... so I got hooked and bought some ships.

The first one I painted is the iconic HIJMS (His Imperial Japanese Majesty Ship) Mikasa. It is not for me (I will do the one in the fleet starter pack I have on order for myself), but it is for a realyl good friend who, beside being a talented naval historian, has decided to gift me of a new digital camera. I will paint some more ships and then send them to the land of the Rising Sun as a way to say thank you.

But because I am quite happy with the result (and quite impressed with the sculpting style) here are some pictures for the public:

Lads, there are the casemate guns!

 Deck planking is here... and before you wonder about the strange scribbling... handwritten Hiragana saying: Mikasa

The base is plasticard textured with Vallejo water effects.

Now some historical note on the ship.  The Mikasa was ordered  with three other battleships in Britain in the period 1896-1897. with the two ships already completed, Fuji and Yashima they were to form the core of the new Imperial Navy and of the 6-6 fleet, 6 battleships, 6 armoured cruisers. The Mikasa was the last one to be ordered and built ( the other three being Shikishima, Hatsuse, Asahi in that order). She was armed with two twin turrets with 305mm (12") guns and 14 6" quick fire guns in casemate mountings on her sides. The main turrets were electrically operated (with manual emergency system) and could be loaded on any elevation, her rate of fire was three round per minute. not that bad. The armour was of KC homogeneous steel. When Vickers shipyard completed her (1902) she was the most powerful battleship afloat. she fought at the Battle of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima.

Her combat record was mixed. At yellow sea one of her turret was disabled and the Russian ships pounded her quite a lot, in additioan the explosive powder used in her shells (called Shimosa) was highly unstable creating a lot of troubles. she sank in 1905 weeks after the Treaty of Portsmouth due to a combustion of Shimosa filled shells. Of course having been Admiral Togo's flagship she was raised again. Re-rated as coast defense battleships she served in WW1 and then decomissioned and transformed in a memorial in 1923. she was scheduled to be broken up according to the Washington Treaty, but every signatory country agreed to save her. In 1945, she was in awful condition but a certain Chester W. Nimitz sponsored a fund raising campaign to save her again. Again in 2009 sailor from the CVN-68 USS Nimitz helped repainting her.  she is still existing and open to the public. So if you happen to wander around Yokosuka, have a look! she is the only original existing pre-dreadnought  around.

no I have not disappeared... and I have some Marines to prove it!

Well, despite not having posted here for little more than a month I am not dead, well my old digital camera was... but thanks to the kindness of a good friend i have now a nice new one capable of much better shots (at least in theory, there is always the same crappy guy at the controls... me). Anyway I have also been away from more than two weeks doing what I am supposed to do in my daytime job, teaching and advising. I cannot talk on the latter, but I am pleased to have been able to meet the new crop of Conflict Simulation students, nice, motivated, and, probably, a bit better than some of the past years.

Anyway I have also had my birthday and got some new games that I will soon review (yes for the people who cannot wait: Kim Kanger's Dien Bien Phu, D-Day at Tarawa, Carrier Battle Group Solo). I have also been at Warfare (ahhhh my wallet is still screaming). Anyway I am doing several things at once (as usual).

First of all let's fill on the post title... I did another USMC fire team using the excellent Empress Miniatures... contemporary USMC. It is an in action fire team, 3 M16A4 (one with M203) and an M27 (The return of the automatic rifle as in 1960 with the automatic M-14, better I do not start another tirade on the silliness of the Corps...) and instead leave you to see the troops...

Here we are, the Team leader is pointing while his troops are firing. I like the poses, probably it is one of the best mix of poses in the USMC range.

 Flash! I used (actually Miss Canon) used the flash but the colors are still good.

A bit off center, but I want to zoom on the kneeling rifleman.

Well I have to say that...

1) I am extremely satisfied with this little pack
2) I think there is a little improvement in my ability to take pictures... thanks to the new camera.

Are we approaching censorship?

Well, another non eye-candy post. Today I am non plussed by some of my fellow wargamers and by the German law... As some of you, my dear readers know, I am regular lurker and occasional poster on the honorable Lead Adventure Forum. I have decided it is a much better place than some silly ethereal locales like the frothers or the miniatures page. The only downside of LAF is that,  being hosted in Germany , there are some strict rules on symbols to follow. I have always followed them (slipping once, not realizing on of the picture  posted contained a view of the tail of a German WW2 plane...) but, frankly I think that the law:

1) is stupid, not displaying the symbol has not prevented the resurgence of extreme right movement there.

2) that smacks of gestapo... (ok controlling the thought of people...)

3)  it is a law enacted by an hypocrite government... at least one of the officers of the honour guard at Adenauer funeral was an SS battalion commander involved in the suppression of the Warsaw uprising. 

Said that it is the law of an European Country where the forum is hosted and I have no qualm in following it as disgusting in principle and application is. Yet... now something else happened. ISIS/ISIL/Those Pesky Mass Murderer has been declared illegal in Germany (great thing). Nothing bad, they are terrorist and declaring them an illegal organization was overdue (and not a terrorist bastard is not someone else Freedom Fighter, he is still a terrorist bastard). But the law seems also to imply that displaying images related to them is illegal so, to avoid problems the moderators of LAF have decided to...

completely close any discussion on wargaming of the whole contemporary (after the fall of the Berlin's Wall to... well to the future) period. This has been done both to safeguard the forum agaisnt possible legal trouble (unpleasant but understandble move) and to appease people that were claiming 

Well, I think the decision has been unwise, unsound, and hypocrite. Historical wargaming is about real warfare. Too close too home my ass, it is war. WW2, Afghanistan, Punic Wars... what have they different? People died everywhere. Warfare has been always here. To the moderator of LAF I can only say honestly... cut the crap... war is not getting closer to home right now, it has been for the last 13 years if not more, all this thing was just caving in to some people that were just trying to impose their own view on the whole community. I have friends and acquaintance who fought in Vietnam, they knows I am gaming and writing about Vietnam. I have gamed middle east with people who fought there, and they had no problem. In January I will game Falklands with the British commanders... close to home? Close to home my ass. We are treated to countless SS on the WW2 board... but discussing contemporary warfare is close to home and thus forbidden. 

As much I can understand the legal issue in the decision (but they could have solved in a much less nazist way) I think LAF has lost a battle about  freedom of speech and also has set an extremely bad precedent, both in democracy and in wargaming.

As parting shot I have a thought to these people who were bothered about contemporary wars... well you bunch of idiotic, hypocrite jerks, not only this world has been at war for at least three millenniums, but I do not care one inch if you are offended by my wargaming, I just hope that you bastards will soon rot in hell... I will not stop to play my games just because you feel offended, as I will not stop to study and teach military history. Also wars will not stop just because you think they are too close to home.

I would says that the moderators have acted in a manner to, in principle, different from the bastard terrorists. Well... I would suggest that they qualify for the same answer:

Joint Direct Attack Munition.