More thoughts about Battlegroup Overlord - Devon Wargames Group

Yesterday I had a break from Napoleonics and put on a WWII scenario using Battlegroup Overlord. The last two occasions we played these rules we used a scenario from the book "First Battle Honour, Breville" then we played out the Lardies scenario "Assault on Pegasus Bridge" and yesterday I took another Lardies scenario, "Bas de Ranville" for which there is a full game report on the Devon Wargames Group Blog



21st Panzer Division in action yesterday at the Devon Wargames Group meeting

 

Whilst putting together the scenario for this game and playing it yesterday, I think I have finally made my mind up about this set of rules. Back in May of this year I posted my thoughts and impressions of them. At the time I made it clear that I didn't feel qualified to call my thoughts a review as I really hadn't seen enough of them to make any conclusions.


 

I was clear in my mind where these rules fitted in to my thinking about game versus simulation and that this set fell very much on the game side of the spectrum or though less so than other sets like "Flames of War".

 

The "fun" side of the rules are very well catered for in the morale/event chit draw system and I think this is for me is the most attractive aspect of the whole system. That being said I think I have a "love - hate" feeling towards these rules and I can't seem to get past the aspects that irritate me with them.

 

Namely the units and orders of battle as constructed in the books seem to me contrived to fit the rules, and I find myself continually wanting to make changes based on the historical orbats and/or likely effects of combat attrition. These changes are not made easy with the Orbats having attached morale ratings based on the importance to the force as a whole. Up or down grading them affects this overall calculation and is not easy to assess as with a simple points system or no points at all.

 

After yesterdays game I now think that I should have defied the orders of battle in the source book and given the Germans their historical set up of two MG42s per section instead on the one listed. The MG34 is given as the standard weapon for Panzergrenadiers in the Normandy book, where, in most sources I've read, the MG42 was the standard by June 44 and if anything it was the MG34 that was the unusual weapon, particularly amongst Panzergrenadier units.

 

The ammo load outs for AFVs have been mentioned by other commentators and like the number of machine guns in a platoon, I find myself using them out of concern that leaving them out or changing them will alter radically the game balance that the designer intended, I then think that this is a contrivance to give a game rather than a simulation and I want a simulation.

 

My compromise has been to set up the HE/AP numbers myself to at least add a modicum of reality. So for example, in yesterdays game I gave the 105mmSP a load out of 5 rounds of HE, figuring that this gun is a mobile artillery piece so would be carrying that kind of ammunition. However the 75mmSP AT version also carries 5 rounds, which could be either AP or HE. If I were the German commander I would want 5 rounds HE for that scenario, but in reality the vehicle was designed as a tank killer so a mix of 3AP and 2HE seemed more appropriate. All well and good you say, but this number of 5 rounds is a contrivance and bears no reality to the number of rounds carried or the firepower potential of the vehicle. That 75mmSP had only two rounds to fire in the game and I find that a bit silly.

 

You could then argue for the inclusion of an ammunition truck to reload the vehicle as the rules intend, but this is a contrivance too far for me and so I left the ammo waggon out.

 

Finally, the drawing up of the orders of battle are a chore made easier by the Greg Farrell orbat generator, but even here I find myself producing the list of forces for each side, then converting the word document into a PDF so I can take a JPEG into Paint and put in the Gun and Ammo stats together with any tweaks to the units that I just have to make. Then I put these revised orbats into my briefings.

 

This wouldn't be half as bad if Greg Farrell were authorised to allow his brilliant orbat programme to load up the weapon stats as well as the weapon itself instead of the empty boxes that I have to fill out manually. This surely isn't a problem, even the guys at Battlefront allow their stats to be used in their equivalent on line orbat organiser.

 

I have really tried to love the BattleGroup rules and see them for what they are. At the end of the day I guess I am a bit too old school and I want my rule sets to at least fool me into thinking I have a simulation set up and its probably me and not the rules that is the issue. These are small examples I know, but they really wind me up and so I think I am in the camp of happy to play if these are the rules being used, but they will not be my turn to set, and so its back to "I Aint Been Shot Mum" where I can play the period not the rules and hopefully after next month Chain of Command, which I have the rules but haven't played them yet.



Pegasus Bridge - Battlegroup Overlord

Yesterday at the Devon Wargames Group, I was able to do one of those "must do before I die" games.

Until yesterday I had never gamed the Pegasus Bridge, and a combination of the fact that the action took place three days previously, sixty nine years ago and an opportunity to play another game of Battlegroup Overlord just added to the memory of what turned out to be a very enjoyable afternoons gaming.

 Pegasus Bridge, at the Devon Wargames Group

This post is intended as an addition to my after action report posted on the Devon Wargames Group Blog .

As mentioned on the blog I put together a scenario based on one written by Richard Clarke of the Too Fat Lardies for "I Aint Been Shot Mum" (IABSM). As Richard pointed out in his article on the battle, the one sided nature of the action can make it a rather boring game to model if following the historical performances of both sides and the set ups. The challenge for the scenario designer is how to make this battle interesting for both sides.

As a scenario gamer by nature, I love this kind of challenge and so set about tweaking some of his ideas based on my own reading on the battle and offer my suggestions here for you dear reader.


I should say this battle has a few, be it small, connections to myself for two reasons. Firstly the battle preparations leading up to June the 5th required extensive training on a bridge similar to the one in Normandy. After a massive search throughout the UK, the unit finally came to base itself near Exeter in Devon, to practise on the Countess Wear Bridge. A plaque commemorates this fact today. The bridges at Exeter, because there are two, one stone bridge over the River Exe and the swing bridge pictured below over the Exeter canal, closely resembled the two bridges in France.

The swing bridge, Countess Wear, Exeter

The people of Exeter in early 1944 were treated to the bangs and pyrotechnics of the Ox and Bucks Light Infantry as they practised again and again to get their drills perfect for the night itself.

I always remember to say a silent thank you to the heroes of Pegasus Bridge each time I use the Countess Wear bridge.

The other link I have to this battle is that on a June day in the early nineties my wife and I paid a visit to Pegasus Bridge when the veterans were there to celebrate the anniversary. We were walking over the actual bridge, which has now been replaced by a modern version, when I noticed an elderly gentleman walking towards us who seemed familiar.



Major John Howard

It suddenly dawned on me that it was John Howard, heading towards the Gondree Café, probably for a well earned coffee. I introduced myself and my wife, and I engaged him in a short conversation about his war service and his time in Devon practising for the battle. He was the perfect gentleman, and I treasure the anecdotes he shared with us that day.

Major Howard in later years

 So to our game.

Richard Clarke's map of the positions

The battle itself is well documented and so I will briefly run through the orbats and set ups with the tweaks I ran.

The table set up was as per the map with the wire perimeter surrounding a pedestal 50mm fortress gun, an HMG bunker guarding the approach road, and trenches on both banks of the canal. A light railway line ran parallel to the canal on the café bank.

Point A marks the landing point of the first glider, B the second and the third slightly behind off table. We ran this as per the night itself, having the first glider penetrating the wire.

The contending forces consisted of an Airlanding Company of three platoons with a section of Airborne Engineers with the defenders being a platoon of infantry spread about the defences, mostly asleep.

The original scenario has the defenders sleeping soundly with sentries patrolling the bridge. I modelled them with the two snipers in the orbat. The British player was unaware that his landing was not detected and that the German sentries would only spot his men when they closed within four inches. The German commander would roll a die after each turn of shooting requiring a 5 or 6 to wake a section on the first shots moving to a 4, 5 or 6 on subsequent firings.

The British player was informed that one of his sections was an Engineer unit tasked with checking the bridge for explosives, requiring a turn on the bridge to complete. There were in fact no operational charges, but the British didn't know this and so I forced our players to spend time in the open under fire checking this out. In addition, his men carried satchel charges for knocking out the MG bunker near the road.

Once the bridge and its perimeter was in British control, the defenders could prepare their perimeter by positioning the sections anywhere within plus occupying the nearest buildings to the bridge. I allowed them to place d6 sections on ambush.

To simulate the eventual arrival of reinforcements from the Paras landing in nearby drop zones we had a dice clock. The game was set to last for 30 pips. Each turn we rolled a d6 and crossed off that number of pips, thus making each turn variable in time duration and giving the game an average length of 10 moves. If the bridge and its perimeter were in British hands at game end then the victory would be complete. If it was contested then the British commander had failed in his mission.

Once the perimeter was in British control I allowed the Germans to roll for reinforcements. In the original IABSM scenario, Richard suggests rolling a 5 or 6 to release the arrival of a section of German Infantry. I changed this to a small recon battle group from 21st Panzer Division.

I told the German commander that their arrival was dice controlled but in fact I decided when they would appear, as the German infantry were able to put up quite a fight on their own, once they were awake, and so I let the two sides battle it out for about seven turns before the German force morale broke.

The British player was then allowed to set up his defence after which I announced the noise of tracks could be heard approaching. The German player then rolled a d6 and that was the number of turns remaining for him to get through to the bridge. If he was contesting it at game end he would have succeeded in preventing the British mission. In our game the Germans rolled a 2 and were thus forced to charge towards the bridge. With six failed PIAT shots, they actually made it and the British commander could see himself snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory. That moment alone makes this game for me unforgettable.

As you can see I played this scenario with a lot of built in flexibility. I wasn't sure if I had the balance correct, and based on yesterdays game I think I would play it this way again as the battle swung throughout the afternoon. Both my player commanders seemed happy with the format and as an umpire you can often get away with a lot of flexibility, especially when playing these kind of raid/coup de main scenarios.

Anyway that concludes my suggestions on putting together a well known action and making it fun to play. If you have a go yourself please do drop me a comment as I would love to hear how your game went, after all that's what this hobby is all about.

Battlegroup Overlord - Thoughts and Impressions

Yesterday I got my WWII collection out to try out the Battlegroup rules that I picked up at Salute. I have posted a report on our game on the club blog, so check it out to find out how the game played.
Devon Wargames Group Blog

I should preface this post by saying that I don't intend this as a review of "Battlegroup Overlord" and the rules. That is because, having only played them twice, I don't really feel qualified to give that kind of assessment.

That being said, I do feel happy to give my thoughts and impressions, as someone who has bought both Kursk and Normandy books and is the proud possessor of the mini rules book, and having played them, set up a scenario with them, and had to thumb through the rule book to find answers to game situations can at least give an experienced wargamers view on how they work or don't.

 

 

So Jon, why did you get into this rule set? Well the simple answer to that question is that I was looking for a set of rules that I could play WWII Company level games, in a fast moving set up that was more simulation than game, and that was fun to play.

 

My turn to set of rules for this kind of game has to be I Aint Been Shot Mum (IABSM) by the Lardies, and they just about tick all my boxes, save one. That box is the one marked "fast moving". The card system in IABSM is great for simulating the friction and uncertainty of warfare, but it does slow the game down to a certain extent. I look on with keen interest at the new Chain of Command game currently being tested by my fellow club members Jason, Nathan and Gus, which has been reported on at Jason's Blog, which uses dice instead of cards to capture this friction element. It does strike me as a quicker system.

 

So I am in the market for looking at other games for WWII Company battles and have been happy to try out the Battlegroup rules, and I find myself in the same position with some but not all boxes ticked and liking these rules for different reasons. I think that my view of these rules is "fast moving" YES, "fun to play" YES, "more simulation than game" NO.

 

So why have I rated this game the way I have.

Well as fast moving goes, in both games we have rattled on through the turn sequence with little or no problem all adding the appeal of a game that can easily give a result in an afternoon of gaming at the club. I couldn't always say that with IABSM. 



Gregg Farrell's excellent Orbat creator

Greg Farrell Organiser Builder

Are they fun to play? Emphatically, absolutely, YES. The feel of the game, with the clever use of the Battle rating counters, degrading your force morale over time and occasionally throwing up the odd special event like an air strike or random mine attack is an absolute pleasure and is the "cumin, coriander and turmeric base to this interesting curry".
I recall with a smile, in yesterdays game, as the British players were forced to draw yet another counter from the box due to a well placed German artillery strike, then themselves smiling with glee as they pulled out a Mine Strike counter and were able to cause the German player much concern as one of his Marders reversed over an un-spotted mine.
So yes, fun is something this game has in abundance.

One of my Marders lurking in the hedgerows around Breville

Simulation rather than game? Here lies the rub of the matter for me. I look for the Lardies principle of playing the period not the rules in games systems I like. This principle has been a guiding factor in my choice of rule sets for ever and leads me to question where Battlegroup fits in to the rules I have considered using over the years.

I too, don't subscribe to the school of thought that says, "a good simulation can't be fun". That school of thought tends to point to the Newbury Rules systems of copious factor sheets that one had to work through to decide whether one force could shoot at another at a given range etc, etc.

The Lardies with their clever use of combined morale and casualty results table, and the design principles that reward the historically tactical use of the weapons systems available to the troops of the period. The ability to influence the randomness of the cards system by adding to or taking out cards based on the quality of the command system applicable to your force. All this points to a rule set that can combine a simulation with a fun game.



British Paras under artillery fire at yesterdays game

With Battlegroup I found myself a bit confused with what the designer was trying to achieve.
The rules are trying to be appropriate to play games from Section/Squad level to Battalion. This is a tricky spread of detail to manage, and I found myself wondering why as a Company or Battalion level commander I would be counting up how many rifles, SMGs and LMGs my sections were armed with rather than working in groups of these weapons as most rule sets at the Company/Battalion level tend to do. Thus casualties are based on individual men rather than groups of men, a seemingly low level of detail for a game looking to cover battalion scale clashes. There are arbitrary ammo load outs for armoured vehicles with assault guns and tank hunters having much smaller allowances than tanks.
This necessitates the requirement to record ammunition used by individual vehicles, a throw back to Donald Featherstone and WRG. Surely modern gaming systems have moved on from these kind of rules?

Then with artillery there appears to be unlimited strikes available to troops of guns, where most rules today try to model the restricted access to higher lever artillery by limiting the number of strikes in a game. The lack of rules covering smoke seem strange. Then there is the requirement to place a spotting round when setting up an artillery strike, which can end up being moved 4d6 inches in any direction, possibly ending up with the round moving out of sight of the OP who called it in. This does not stop the barrage going ahead! Surely the whole point of a spotting round was to be able to see where the fire would fall and to, if necessary, correct the fall of shot back onto or nearer the target before firing for effect. The artillery rules don't seem to model the efficiencies built in to American and British systems which allowed multiple assets to be co-ordinated by one OP, or the more cumbersome often WWI systems used by the Axis nations which often forced them, particularly in the later years of WWII to rely more on their mortars for rapid response than their heavier artillery.

These issues with the rules have caused me to think of Battlegroup more as a game than a simulation. The "Game" category, for me includes rules such as Flames of War and Bolt Action. I think Battlegroup are more simulation, less game than them. Many of the aspects I have highlighted are easily changed with house rule adaptions. I, for example, will limit artillery missions in my scenarios. I will allow smoke and design my own rules to cater for this. I will not allow a barrage to be fired when a spotting round is quite clearly out of sight of the OP who called it in. I will allow allied OPs to call on multiple units of artillery in missions.

One final point that is not only applicable to Battlegroup but seems to have become a common omission in most rule sets published today. Please, please, pretty please, can rule designers include, as a matter of routine, a subject index to help speed up the process of finding what it is you want to look up. The new Battlegroup rulebook is a welcome addition and even more so as I found the ready reference card poor given the lack of information on it. However the lack of a subject index can drive one to distraction when you simply want to find out something in particular without wading through the sections in the book.

I plan to play more games with these rules, starting with Pegasus Bridge, next month at the club. Why? Because they are fast, fun and I think adaptable to allow me to make changes to the base system to improve the simulation I want. If you haven't tried these rules yet I would suggest you check them out.