Not much progress on the modelling and painting front since the last post. Did clean up and prime some more figures for the Swiss, but that's as far as I got. Work has left me drained last couple of weekends.
I have recently purchased a couple of rule sets. In older posts on this blog, I have hinted at a move towards "Operational" level rules. Well two sets have recently been published , and both Frank Chadwick and Bruce Weigle have WW2 operational sets due for release at some time.
First, we have Not Quite Mechanised or "NQM" by Chris Kemp.
https://notquitemechanised.wordpress.com/chris-kemps-not-quite-mechanised-rules-nqm2-latest-draft/
A4 softbound, print on demand, 63 pages including playsheet. These rules have been a long time in development and I've followed Chris several versions published free on the internet. These have the benefit of having been cleaned up and organised for publication (previous versions were difficult to understand in places).
They are comprehensive and cover, well everything as far as I can see apart from Naval / amphibious landings. Several different levels of play are possible, some more tactical than operational it has to be said. I think this is a hang over from previous versions, but does allow games at a smaller level using the same basic rules.
They are written for hexes which may put some people off; also squares are possible. Originally, no grid was used, then squares and now hexagons. All arms are represented, including medical and repair. The reconnaissance rules are clever and give a use for such troops. Markers are required and it can get busy in this respect. Base sizes are agnostic, although some suggested sizes are mentioned. It's worth noting there is a stacking limit of 7 SP# (or 9 if using optional rules) per hex. In practical terms that will limit how you base and the size of hex used.
#As corrected by Martin in comments below. SP per stand is normally 3 for fighting stands but what this represents varies according to level, front, corps, division or regiment. 9SP is where quality is tied to SP on base, not the command stand.
I have found myself quite inspired by these rules, not only for WW2 but also AIW and SCW.
Then out of the blue comes another set, Sam Mustafa' s Eisenhower.
https://sammustafa.com/eisenhower
Somewhere between UK A4 and A5, softbound, print on demand from Amazon. 112 pages.
I was unaware this was in development and its publication came out of the blue. It clearly follows Rommel by the same author and like that set uses a square / rectangular grid. Bases are battalion sized and a player controls a "command" of roughly corps size comprising 2 -6 division sized units. Thus, the scale is much larger than Rommel whic itself was originally aimed at having battalion, not company size stands.
Only infantry (leg, motorised and mechanised) and armour stands form a division, with cavalry and tank destroyers being specialist versions. Artillery are represented by dice and recce, engineers, flak etc are not represented but are assumed to be part of other stands "getting on with their job". The website has downloads for command sheet and cards for advanced game and several scenarios.
I have not finished reading these, but find them a bit "bland" so far. I'm puzzled by some of the decisions; German reconnaissance battalions were equipped for fighting and were used as ad-hoc combat fire brigades in Normandy. Lots of German kampfgruppes were depleted remnants, but which took on battalion sized combats. For example, much of the German forces for Market Garden would not be represented in Eisenhower - Graebner' s Aufklarungsabt for example and the cobbled together armour formations, flak detachments etc.
It may be the advanced rules cover this, but to me, it seems that a decision to restrict the type of stands is flawed. I could not see any recommended base sizes; the standard 6' x 4' layout uses 150mm / 6" squares with a stacking limit of 3 units - a battalion sized stand per square which will limit base size. Some of the terrain is odd - no roads for example, it being assumed a campaign will only take place where there is a road net.
I will continue reading and it may be only playing will reveal how they work, but so far I'm unimpressed with some of the decisions taken.
tb I thought Rommel was a lousy game although there were a few interesting ideas in there. Eisenhiwer sounds much the same. The main issue I had with Rommel was it ended up playing nothing like a WW2 battle, I'll see how other people get on with Eisenhiwer but I'm disinclined to splash cash on it right now. The stacking limit in NQM is strength points, not bases, unless you use one base per SP. I'm ignoring that and just going with two battalions and one company (or equivalent ) per hex or the maths goes all wonky in various ways.
ReplyDeleteMartin,
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with Eisenhower; I think he's decided what he thinks worked in Rommel and brought it into this game. I suspect playtesters are uncritical; I saw some of the discussion in Rommel and it was all how great this and that was. Anything remotely critical was ignored or jumped on by the fanboys.
Neil
Neil, you have two new rulesets to digest. I look forward to a compare and contrast between the two. Like you, when I first saw NQM it was non-gridded, then squares, and now hexes. Do the Design Notes explain that transformation? As for Eisenhower, this was a new blip on my RADAR as well. Having watched Mustafa's rules publications over the years, there is a definite pattern to design/development/release. A pattern that I would not recommend. I agree with your comment about lack of critical, objective review and thought. Not all designers are welcoming of critique.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jonathan.
Delete"Squares then hexes appeared much later in deference to my friends and play testers, who wanted grid boundaries and a compass in the trackless wastes of the Eastern Steppe and North Africa."
I have to say I'm edging more to NQM but I really want to see Frank Chadwick 's set.
Neil
usually when I hear the word 'Operational" I think of board games. Not just the one with the buzzing light up nose.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with finding a good rule set. 😁
Stew, interestingly, most people dismiss operational games with miniatures as "no different from a boardgame" or " a boardgame with figures".
ReplyDeleteIt's the scale that seems to produce this reaction.
Yet, the same people will play a "moderns" set where tanks are deployed "track to track" and guns that can fire over a mile shoot 12" or 24" without a qualm, or a Napoleonic game where 24 or 36 figures represent a battalion of 600.....
I understand the reason, having been there, steeped in wargames orthodoxy.
If you can free yourself of your preconceived aesthetics and ideas of what a wargame should be, it's very liberating.
Neil