Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another weekend, and another playtest of 'Platoon Leader', this time with a revised deck structure and upping the game size to see how it copes.

This week it's Poland 1939. A reinforced German infantry platoon, supported by tanks and a mortar battery push forward to secure a road and rail junction. Preparing to meet them is a Polish infantry platoon, supported by a 75mm field gun and TKS tankettes. Interesting game this one, the Poles suffered from a lack of command and control, the Germans having more units with 'command' traits and a wider command ability that really helped to keep things moving. The Germans kept on the firepower as much as possible and the Poles took quite heavy losses and many units got pinned down. The German advance across the table was well coordinated and allowed support fire from each flank.

The Poles were always playing catch up as their officer tried to rally units but ended up getting killed before he could do much. But the Germans took a few losses too, but around half as many as the Poles. But the actual loss of 'Platoon Morale' was even, the Poles proving rather resilient in the face of the assault, while the Germans took fewer casualties but suffered just as much. The Germans finally got lucky, and clever use of their cards saw them wipe out several units in one turn to break the Polish Army. In the end the Germans finally won with only 4 Platoon Morale left out of 18.

Close run thing really. Lots to do with the game though...

The miniature painting looka great for a historical game, what scale are you doing?

20mm

Beautiful table and shots.

Is this a 'side project' from Battlegroup then Piers, or a standalone effort, or do you see any kind of synergies (If this is designed for a smaller level game?) Also, does this mean that the Battlegroup rules are nearing completion (as a project to produce a number of books)?

 eddieazrael wrote:
Is this a 'side project' from Battlegroup then Piers, or a standalone effort, or do you see any kind of synergies (If this is designed for a smaller level game?) Also, does this mean that the Battlegroup rules are nearing completion (as a project to produce a number of books)?

The game is my own work and not related in production terms to the Battlegroup series that I work on with Warwick Kinrade. Though I will no doubt make him playtest it for me!

The concept is to offer a game that plays in a small space, with limited model count, last for a couple of hours, is fast and fun but gives a feel for the period and offers the players constant tactical choices to make that reward play in a historical manner. It's aimed at 20mm and 28mm figures. This test was to find an upper limit to the force size, hence a larger table than previously.

The core of a force will be an infantry platoon plus a variety of support options that a player can pick from with various limits and some restrictions.

It shares some similar traits with Battlegroup, but is a new design and players will have a hand of cards to modify actions, either in their turn or their opponents. Each card has a ‘reaction' and an ‘action' option on them so careful thought is needed as to what to use and when. The cards vary with things like ‘Rush' giving double movement and ‘Mad Minute' allow two fire actions. Reactive cards have things like ‘Hit the Dirt' which gives re-rolls to cover saves and ‘Well Laid Ambush' that boosts the firing of a unit on Ambush status. The fact each card has both actions and reaction modifiers on them really forces a player to make hard decisions on what they use, and when.

The system aims to reward period tactics, so suppressive fire is a key mechanic in pinning down enemy units, which have to be rallied by discarding cards or by ‘officers'. So far it's worked well and in all tests those adopting a historical manner of play – interlocking fields of fire from section MGs to pin units, followed by aimed fire from rifle groups or assaults – have won against a more ‘gamey' style of play.

It's been nice to see officers moving about behind the forward lines to rally units, while units lay down smoke to cover advances and MG teams being real area denial weapons.

But overall, hopefully a game that people will enjoy and most WW2 gamers can play without the need to buy any further figures and can get cracking on straight out of the box.

Long way to go yet, lots of testing to do, but if I do publish it the idea will be to have the rules and platoon lists for the entire war in one single book, supplied with a card deck, to make it a standalone system.

Card Driven mechanics are the thing lately.

How does activation/turn sequence work?

At present each player takes seperate turns, rolling for the number of units they can 'order/activate/' in a turn. Currently its 2d6 plus a number of modifiers dependant on certain unit abilities and national traits, but players can also use certain cards to boost this number or throw away any card in their hand to add in an order.

A player then uses their orders to get units to perform actions, which can then be modified by cards.

However the opposing player can interrupt if they have units on 'ambush' (basically like Overwatch in old 2nd Ed 40K) or with 'reaction' cards that do various things.

This keeps play in seperate turns, but allows both players to be involved throughout the bound sequence.

Of course, as all cards contain an action and a reaction option, a player has to be mindful of what they use and when. Players draw new cards at the end of their opponents turn, giving most options for their own turn, but forcing players to decide what reactions they may need to keep to deal with their opponent.

At the end of a players turn they can throw away a card to unpin a unit.

The hope is to maintain a simple and fast turn sequence but one that keeps both players involved throughout play.

Thanks for filling me in! Sounds cool.

The Decks add a bit of resource management and risk/reward strategy.

Will keep an eye out - I admire all your output!

The obvious competitor for this game is Bolt Action. Can you comment on similarities and differences between the two games?

Eumerin wrote:
The obvious competitor for this game is Bolt Action. Can you comment on similarities and differences between the two games?

Nope.

I dont play Bolt Action and dont own any of the books so I dont have a clue how it works. Sorry.

I write rules I want to play, not as competition with other rulesets.

Big P wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
The obvious competitor for this game is Bolt Action. Can you comment on similarities and differences between the two games?

Nope.

I dont play Bolt Action and dont own any of the books so I dont have a clue how it works. Sorry.

I write rules I want to play, not as competition with other rulesets.

You've never seen it played, or read a game walk-through? Pity.

I would have found a comparison useful.

Eumerin wrote:
I would have found a comparison useful.

The heart of BA lays in (a) its pinning system and (b) its randomly drawn order dice activation. By contrast, BG is IGOUGO with interruptions (sort of like ambush in BA) but you have a certain number of activation available each round based on your officers plus a die roll. Sometimes, you will have too many activations and at other times you will have too few and need to prioritize carefully. Unlike BA, BG distinguishes between fire for effect and suppressive fire. Finally, BG uses the concept of force strength, which your opponent does not know. When you take losses, you randomly draw a chit and secretly subtract the number on it from your force strength (chits can have other effects as well). So the opponents only have a general idea of how close to broken each other's forces are. Obviously, there are loads of differences (for example, you need to spot before firing in BG) but these are the most distinctive factors of each, relative to one another, IMO. BA is my favorite miniatures game currently but I also really, really love playing BG. I think BG will likely overtake BA in my affections as I develop a more extensive collection of 20mm WW2 armies and terrain.

 Manchu wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
I would have found a comparison useful.

The heart of BA lays in (a) its pinning system and (b) its randomly drawn order dice activation. By contrast, BG is IGOUGO with interruptions (sort of like ambush in BA) but you have a certain number of activation available each round based on your officers plus a die roll. Sometimes, you will have too many activations and at other times you will have too few and need to prioritize carefully. Unlike BA, BG distinguishes between fire for effect and suppressive fire. Finally, BG uses the concept of force strength, which your opponent does not know. When you take losses, you randomly draw a chit and secretly subtract the number on it from your force strength (chits can have other effects as well). So the opponents only have a general idea of how close to broken each other's forces are. Obviously, there are loads of differences (for example, you need to spot before firing in BG) but these are the most distinctive factors of each, relative to one another, IMO. BA is my favorite miniatures game currently but I also really, really love playing BG. I think BG will likely overtake BA in my affections as I develop a more extensive collection of 20mm WW2 armies and terrain.

But he stated above that this isn't Battlegroup.

Depending on price for the rules, I'd potentially be interested in a second ruleset to never get around to using with my unpainted and unassembled 28mm WW2 models.

Eumerin wrote:
But he stated above that this isn't Battlegroup.

LOL sorry I automatically assumed BG.

Eumerin wrote:

Big P wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
The obvious competitor for this game is Bolt Action. Can you comment on similarities and differences between the two games?

Nope.

I dont play Bolt Action and dont own any of the books so I dont have a clue how it works. Sorry.

I write rules I want to play, not as competition with other rulesets.

You've never seen it played, or read a game walk-through? Pity.

I would have found a comparison useful.

No, never really paid much attention to BA I'm afraid. Woz wrote the German book but doesn't play it. So I don't know anyone who plays it in my imediate gaming circle.

I wouldn't feel happy offering a compare and contrast appraisal on a game I hadn't played as I don't think you can offer anything of substance and it's not really fair to the game in question.

That said as I do more tests I will try and offer some insights into how the game plays that may allow you to make your own degree of comparison and once finished I do have a beta test group that are BA players so perhaps their comments may be of use.

Really interested in having a hand full of cards to mull over while I look at the board. Could very nicely stack another fun layer over top other wise "basic" table top mechanics.

Edit: oh s**t. Will this accommodate 28? Can't bring my friends to play that scale for the life of me. Love my warlord modEls just isn't the most practical scale to game in.

You could play it in any size... 15mm, 20mm, 28mm.

BIG P- can you comment on weapon ranges. That is frequently a sticking point in games like this for many people.

Also, I second the idea of building games you want to play first, and worry about making money on them second.

Apart from SMGs, all weapons will easily cross a 4' table. MGs on sustained fire mounts are particularly useful for long range suppression. But it's a game to play with plenty of terrain cutting down line of sight.

 Strombones wrote:
Really interested in having a hand full of cards to mull over while I look at the board. Could very nicely stack another fun layer over top other wise "basic" table top mechanics.

Edit: oh s**t. Will this accommodate 28? Can't bring my friends to play that scale for the life of me. Love my warlord modEls just isn't the most practical scale to game in.

Scale is usually flexible for these sorts of games, unless there's an overriding reason why it shouldn't be. For instance, Bolt Action encourages players to use Warlord's 28mm figures. But Force on Force, which is the exact same scale, uses photos of 15mm figures in its books. Both scales will work for both games, as will the intermediate 20mm scale.

Alot of the pictures in Force on Force books are 20mm, I did them. Used to work with Shawn at AAG. Great fella.

Hmm not sure how this rule set would be meant to counter Bolt Action. Seems quite different even from the superfluous info we've gotten so far unless we consider dice and miniatures as a standard.

Again, I'd like to reiterate my interest in the deck of action reaction cards. I am convinced it will deduct that much more luck from the game.

 Strombones wrote:
Hmm not sure how this rule set would be meant to counter Bolt Action. Seems quite different even from the superfluous info we've gotten so far unless we consider dice and miniatures as a standard.

Perhaps you mean 'superficial' rather than 'superfluous'?

 Tailgunner wrote:

 Strombones wrote:
Hmm not sure how this rule set would be meant to counter Bolt Action. Seems quite different even from the superfluous info we've gotten so far unless we consider dice and miniatures as a standard.

Perhaps you mean 'superficial' rather than 'superfluous'?

Indeed I did TG.

As far as complexity goes are we talking a true platoon level ruleset with many differant aspects of a unit depicted in detail [like Warmahordes] or a Bolt Action style "make a few changes to a company level set and call it simplified platoon level" ruleset?

Not sure I follow you as I don't play those...

The game works with a set points value, 100 points. Out of this you have to buy a platoon of infantry as the 'core'. You then use the points left to buy additional troops such as light mortar teams, sustained fire MGs, a sniper, a medic, a forward infantry patrol, a vehicle or another platoon. That sort of thing. All these have limits as to how many can be taken. Some of the platoons will also have additional equipment choices that can be purchased, but ones that increase the cost.

The lists are very restricted in terms of choices, and reflect what might be available to a commander on the ground... so no artillery pieces or the like. The focus is firmly on the sharp end, but does allow players some degree of choice in what they take. Some units will have specific abilities that reflect their role, such as a sniper who is a better shot and more adept at remaining hidden. Some armies have troops that perform better at certain things, for example British 2" mortar teams can put out more smoke than others as historically this was their main role and were used prodigiously for this, especially to cover platoon and section attacks. The flip side for them reflects the lack of HE rounds they carried so this is taken into account.

The idea is that the player takes the role of the platoon commander to fulfill his mission objectives.

I'll rephrase my question... Are you aiming for simplified and streamlined set for a short game or a more complex and involved ruleset for longer games?