wwII rules

[rgtriplec]

Whats a good set?

[Lars Porsenna]

Command Decision. If you actually want to find pickup games, Flames of War, warts and all.

 

Damon.

[Doug Sundseth]

As noted, Command Decision is decent, though it's fairly slow moving. Spearhead is faster and I think it works better for larger-scale battles (up to maybe divisional level). If you're looking for a lower level game, ASL (Advanced Squad Leader), though primarily a board game, works well with minor conversion as a miniatures rules set as well.

 

If you're interested in a small-unit infantry battles and are willing to accept a (very) non-traditional paradigm, Crossfire is pretty interesting as well. It fails fairly miserably (at least in the edition I have) when you add vehicles, though.

 

Flames of War is popular, but I cordially despise it. You should probably try it, though, since it has a significant player base and there's obviously something there that works for lots of people.

[Heisler]

We definitely need more direction than what's a good set, because it depends so much upon what scale you want to game in; skirmish, company lvl, battalion lvl, divisional, corps, etc.

 

I like Spearhead a lot because its larger scale actions (battalion level) that's fast and easy to play (meaning I can go without playing for six months and pick the game back up in 20 minutes) and I love the command and control rules.

 

I enjoy Command Decision a lot, but it is slower but we play it often enough that it moves pretty fast for my group.

 

Another entry here that I'm thinking of trying is "Look Sarge, no charts" their WWII version

Edited October 26, 2009 by Heisler

[sethohman]

Mongoose World at War is pretty good, too. Uses the Evolution rules - so point balance, plays like a cleaner 40K, almost.

 

Not as 'simulation' as some games, but play is pretty fair and balanced.

 

[MikeD]

Unlike some of the other posters, I actually like Flames of War. I think it has a generally easy to learn set of rules and lots and lots of support from both the company and from the players. Its a fun, easy to play, points based, 1:1 system designed primarily for tournament or pick up game style play, but still usable for historical scenarios or campaigns. The only thing I see as a potential downside is that they follow the GW buisness model of releasing a rules set, then a continuous stream of army books and supplements. Some players, used to more traditional historical wargames (where you get one all-in-one book and its years or even decades between revisions) don't care for this, while many people coming to FOW from GW games are much more accepting of the system. Your choice.

 

I have played Command Decision a bit, but could honestly never really wrap my head around the rules. I suppose its really no more complex than any other set of rules I have used, but it just didn't work for me.

 

The only other WWII game I have spent much time with is Blitzkreig Commander. This is a very nice WWII rules loosly based on the GW Warmaster system. It works great for larger scale battles, as it used a game scale where one stand generally equals one platoon (so three stands generally equal a whole company, whereas in FOW a company would be represented by a dozen or more stands). I highly recommend these rules if you want something different than FOW.

[Heisler]

Flames of War suffers from a lot of things including the GW sales model. I play it because I can at least play WWII games at my FLGS. Any game that has to artificially reduce the ranges of some weapons in order to have play balance has some problems. Not the least of which is that my heavy artillery battery has to be deployed on the board when it should be 2-3 miles behind the lines.

 

That being said they can be fun with the right opponent, but as an actual WWII simulation they are sadly lacking.

[Lars Porsenna]

Not the least of which is that my heavy artillery battery has to be deployed on the board when it should be 2-3 miles behind the lines.

 

This and lack of reaction fire are my two biggest issues with the rules (thus warts and all). I think if they could resolve these issues, I'd like it more.

 

Damon.

[Heisler]

Not the least of which is that my heavy artillery battery has to be deployed on the board when it should be 2-3 miles behind the lines.

 

This and lack of reaction fire are my two biggest issues with the rules (thus warts and all). I think if they could resolve these issues, I'd like it more.

 

Damon.

 

 

The whole artillery on the table thing is an excellent example of a game requirement designed only to sell miniatures.

[Lars Porsenna]

Yeah, but they could put in the rules that players need to setup an "artillery park" off to the side, to show the other player what indirect artillery assets you have, and to represent an area for counterbattery fire. They could call it for "fairness purposes" or somesuch. Thus, they get rid of the dumb rule that artillery MUST be on the table, and still sell the minis... :)

 

I solve the artillery issue by taking mortars (for my Germans at least) instead... :)

 

Damon.

[Heisler]

An excellent solution, one which we used for artillery in other WWII games for those that like to have everything for completeness sake and gives you the opportunity to do a little diorama building.

 

Mortars are a good solution too, although sometimes its hard to get enough of them depending on what you take.

[MikeD]

Any game that has to artificially reduce the ranges of some weapons in order to have play balance has some problems.

Well, they didn't really reduce the range of any weapons in the game. What they did do is use a "telescoping" scale for ground distances. At the longer end of the scale, a 4x6 game board is actually several miles across. Its kind of an odd abstraction, and it does have some flaws, but it helps fit weapons with a range of several thousands yards on the same table as weapons which only reach a couple hundred .

 

Not the least of which is that my heavy artillery battery has to be deployed on the board when it should be 2-3 miles behind the lines.

There was actually some discussion of this in the game's design notes. They did this deliberatly because they thought it was more fun to acutally have artillery miniatures on the gaming board, rather than just have them represented by a table you roll artillery batteries against. If you are cynical you could say it was just to sell more miniatures, and I suppose there may well have been an element of that to the decision, but I think that the fun of having the miniatures to play with was at least part of the reason.

 

That being said they can be fun with the right opponent, but as an actual WWII simulation they are sadly lacking.

Which means their game design was a success. They were trying to create a fun game based on WWII combat, not a historical simulation of WWII battles. If you want the simulation I would agree that FOW is probably not going to satisfy you, but if you want a fun game with WWII tanks and troops, it hard to beat.

[Heisler]

Like I said it can be fun with the right players. I have played more than my fair share of bad players, and its so tournament driven now that I'm very selective about who I even will play anymore.

 

And yes there are weapons whose ranges are much shorter than they should be. Its awful hard to justify a full battery and sometimes two of artillery for a what amounts to a reinforced company either. Nor do I like a WWII game that ends up looking like a mass of Napoleonic era troops which is usually the effect I see in most games.

 

I play because its here and I can get a game. Otherwise its Command Decision and Spearhead which do a much better job of simulating actual tactics than FOW.

[MikeD]

Like I said it can be fun with the right players. I have played more than my fair share of bad players, and its so tournament driven now that I'm very selective about who I even will play anymore.

Well, I see the same thing with 40K and WHFB. I like the games when I can find the right player, but there are a lot of bloody-minded, win-at-all-cost twits who play it, too. That's why I'm generally selective in who I play with just about any game. FOW certainly does not have any monopoly on jerky players.

 

Its awful hard to justify a full battery and sometimes two of artillery for a what amounts to a reinforced company either. Nor do I like a WWII game that ends up looking like a mass of Napoleonic era troops which is usually the effect I see in most games.

I would agree that the rules are a bit too generous with divisional support. That was true from the first and some recent changes they have made shift even further in that direction. I think its mainly a case of the game designers bowing to pressure from the players, most of whome seem to want to take as much divisional support as they can (kind of like most 40K players seem to want to pack their lists with Elite and Heavy Support choices). Personally, I almost always max out my "combat platoons" (for those unfamiliar with FOW terminology, these are the basic units of any company; the basic infantry platoons in a Rifle Company, or the basic tank platoons in an Armored Company. Sort of equivalent to Troop choices in 40K or Core choices in WHFB.) before I even start looking at Divisional Support.

[SaintRigger]

Whats a good set?

 

What level of operations? I'm kinda fond of Disposable Heroes and Coffin for Seven Brothers from Iron Ivan Games for more of a skirmish level game.

And how in depth? Are you looking for beer and pretzels or simulation?