A WW2 Rules Revolution (part 2)

Almost exactly 4 years ago, in February 2021, I wrote a blog post about developing my own version of the WRG 1973 World War Two rules. I've continued the work on and off for those four years, resulting in the Startline set of rules that can be found in the Files section of my Facebook page. I've had a lot of fun developing the rules and the associated data tables, and I've learned a lot. I believe I can claim that the rules as they now stand are a new and quite different set from the original booklet.

Now, don't tell me, you're waiting for the 'but'. Hmmm. But.

But, looking through them recently, I started to wonder if they hadn't grown a bit too, well, large for my current tastes. The games were easy enough to actually play, but it seemed like there was a lot of stuff to wade through for a player new to the rules. I believe the current phrase is barriers to entry. My recent use of the Age of Hannibal rules for my ancient games was a factor here - it was evidently possible to have a set of rules for a complex historical period where the actual playing rules were just eight pages. So I started to think about simplification.

I actually went right back to 1963 and Donald Featherstone's second book, Tackle Moel Soldiers This Way. At the end of the book there are 3 delightfully simple and old school rule sets, one of which is for WW2. Interestingly it includes infantry on group bases, a quite modern idea for that time which I presume Mr Featherstone picked up from Joe Morschauser.

Anyway, I knocked up a really basic set of rules on less than 2 pages of A4. They were clearly far too simple for modern sensibilities, so I made them a bit more complex. After a solo game or two, I upped the granularity a bit more. My number of armour classes, for example, had gone from three, to five, and then to six. There I stopped. I now have a set of rules that takes up 5 pages of A4, along with a two page QRS. I'm really quite pleased with them, and I've called them Line of Departure. I'm getting the feeling that they might end up replacing Startline as my main WW2 rules. 

The good thing is I can tack on all the background stuff from Startline to fill in the detail for all the various odd situations that WW2 gaming creates, and furthermore the data tables from Startline are easily adapted for Line of Departure. The turn sequence is exactly the same as for Startline - it's the mechanics which have been stripped back. Anyone who's interested can find the rules to download in the Files section of my Facebook wargaming group. Just be aware they're under development, and therefore incomplete in some areas, as well as being subject to change.

So, How Long Does a Turn Represent?

This is a question I was asked about Startline, and of course it has been a nagging question for all wargames rules for many decades. Rules writers have taken a number of stands on this question, from 'I don't really care' to something like 'exactly 30 seconds'. Personally I'm in the former category these days. One particular problem was that the guys who insisted on a 'correct' time scale had to admit that their battles only lasted for about 10 minutes or less of game time, which was a bit of a thorny issue. However, one of the best answers to this question came in the 1980 book by George Gush, A Guide to Wargaming. 

   "when the fighting starts [...] the model soldier [...] never rests; if not feverishly loading and firing at top speed, or hacking away in a melee, he is marching flat out for some point where he can carry out these activities, or just possibly running rapidly to the rear. He never waits for orders, hoping they will not come, or falls out to take his boots off, for a rest or some other physical need; he never smokes a cigarette, straggles or drags his feet on the march or gets lost.

His commanders, too, show an almost uncanny grasp, down to unit level, of the overall battle situation, and direct their men in the best way to achieve the general objective without requiring 'O' Groups, addresses from Caesar or whatever the contemporary method was..."

How true. And in a game, how can it really be otherwise? The guys at WRG used to get told off for saying that each turn could be considered to contain "a variable amount of delay', as this was all rather too vague for the time and distance fanatics. But in fact the WRG were right. 

This question has been brought home to me recently, as I have been reading George Bernage's Battle of the Odon (the Battle of the Odon may be more familiar to some of you as Operation Epsom, June 1944). The interesting thing about George's book is it goes right down to company, platoon and even section level, with some 'then and now' sections showing detail of where and how the various small unit actions took place. I've only just started the book, but straight away it's facinating to see how half an hour or an hour could just waste away as units lose their way, are pinned by enemy fire, or just stop when uncertain and wait for someone to tell them what to do - only to find that their leaders have all been killed or wounded. Or maybe the leaders themselves find they don't know what to do, in the confusion, fear and chaos of combat. So the unit just does nothing for a while until someone gets a grip

This kind of thing could be represented on the tabletop, I suppose, but it wouldn't really make much of a game, would it? It's interesting to reflect, in this regard, how frustrated some gamers can be when the command and control rules in use mean a particular unit does nothing for a couple of turns, or even longer. "This would never happen in real life!", they lament. Well, it seems it did. All the time. Those using a variant of the Warmaster command system (for example, in Black Powder, or Blitzkrieg Commander) will know this issue well.

So, I conclude that 'how long does a turn represent' may not be as relevant a question as some people think. In Line of Departure, I am deliberately not bothering with such things. The only relevant scales are what moves and firing distances make a company-level game work on a 6' x 4' table, and the only time-scale worth worrying about is how many turns a game lasts. Somehow, as most of you will know, the results of such an attitude have an uncanny similarity to the mechanics of those who continue to insist that time and distance scales really matter.

I'll be updating the LoD rules in the near future, so if you're interested keep an eye on the Facebook page. I hope maybe a few of you may get some value from them, or even feel able to make some constructive criticisms.

Anyway - 'til next time!

'Age of Hannibal' Ancient Wargaming Rules

In my previous post, I wrote about my adoption of the 'Three Ages of Rome' rulebook by Philip Garton. Over the Christmas period I had the chance to play a game with my eldest son using these rules, and this went rather well. 

Father in 'head down' mode.
A 4' x 4' table worked fine, and was easy to set up.

But wargamers can be fickle. Whilst checking out the latest on the Little Wars TV website, I was brought to remember that they had a set of ancients rules available, which were designed to be simple and straightforward to play. I delved a little deeper and was quickly hooked.

I have a high regard for the rules that various members of LWTV have developed - they tend to be simple and to the point, emphasising quickness of learning, but also quite clever in capturing the historical character of their period. I had already been impressed by their 'Live Free or Die' rules, written for the AWI but perfectly applicable to the SYW and other mid-18th century European wars - you can check out my playtest here. Gregg Wagman was the main man on 'Live Free or Die', and was also the main author for 'Age of Hannibal', so I had high hopes. The printed AoH rulebook is a bit pricey at around £30 in the UK, but fortunately a PDF version can be acquired for about £13.50, so I went for that. 

I immediately had the feeling that these might be for me. The actual rules are just 8 pages (including examples of play), although the whole book extends to 44 pages, with additional rules for seige warfare, three historical scenarios, and various other stuff such as terrain and strategem cards to print for use in setting up the game.

The first thing to say is that, like 'Three Ages of Rome', these rules are suitable for most periods of ancient warfare, not just the Punic Wars. Data for all the troop types you need are included in the book. Maybe 'Age of Hannibal' wasn't the best choice of title if LWTV wanted to maximise sales, but that's just my opinion. I won't go into the details of how the rules work as there is a rules review video available to watch which gives a pretty good overview. 

The rules are designed for big battles (i.e. Cannae) using small (6mm/10mm) figures, with units on 40mm x 40mm bases representing about 750 infantry or 500 cavalry. Not a good start, you might think, for someone using 28mm figures, but in fact the rules say double all measurements for this size of figures. This made sense straight away as my 28mm units are mostly on 80mm wide bases. Doubling the distances is not really an issue, as moves, for example, are quite short in the basic rules, just 4" for formed infantry and 8" for light cavalry. Doubling these actually equates quite closely to the normal movement in 'Three Ages of Rome', so a 6' x 4' table is quite big enough for most games. Missile ranges in AoH are a bit longer than in 'Three Ages of Rome', but again this was no problem. If you wanted to do Cannae in 28mm, a table at least 8' x 6' would be needed, maybe bigger, but this was not my ambition.

Anyway, why the switch, if 'Three Ages' was working fine? I'll list my reasons:

1. To make 'Three Ages' work for me, I had to do quite a bit of alteration to the original rules. This was interesting to do but a bit frustrating. 'Age of Hannibal' felt like only the odd tweak would be needed. The rules are in their 2nd edition, so most of any problems have already been ironed out.

2. Support for 'Three Ages' is non-existent. My Facebook page had attracted some members but not much was going on - in fact, as far as I could see, none of the members were actually current players of the rules. 'Age of Hannibal' has the various useful bits and pieces on the LWTV site, and also has an existing Facebook Page which is reasonably active, and provided somewhere to ask rules questions.

3. AoH are even simpler and easier to grasp than 'Three Ages'. One particular example of this is that 'Three Ages' is quite table heavy, with lots of modifiers. AoH is very different. Modifiers are kept to very low numbers, and the only stuff that is occasionally tricky to remember are the troop characteristics, or 'traits', that you need to apply, mainly in close combat.

4. I was also attracted by the terrain set-up method in AoH, which uses the terrain cards system mentioned above. LWTV have a tutorial video on this if you are interested. Something a bit different. 

Terrain card examples. I needed to buy the little plastic sleeves, 
which you can find HERE, for example.

5. No re-basing needed. The rulebook says any base sizes are OK, provided both sides are the same. This is not strictly true, as square bases work best with the rules as written, but only the odd tweak and bit of common sense is needed if your bases (like mine) are rectangles.

So, here we go again. This is the fifth set of ancients rules I have seriously tried. Previously I have used my own rules (abandoned years ago),  DBA, 'Kings of War Historical', and 'Three Ages of Rome', quite apart from dipping into various other rulebooks along the way: 

Dipping into 'Armati' with friends Roy and Keith.
A most interesting set, but just not to my taste.

So let's not get too excited. But I'm looking forward to more solo learning games, and then trying them out on gaming friends. Should be an enjoyable journey.

'Til next time!