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.

Hello Dakka Dakka! This is my first time posting on dakka. I am looking for any recommended 15mm/20mm or 1/72 scale (not sure of the accepted term is) american civil war, early imperial rome, and eastern front ww2/ww1 wargames. Hopefully some simpler to understand systems as my only wargaming experience is with games workshop products.

From what I hear, Hail Caesar is good for ancient battles, and if you convert the " to cm (I think that was it?) then it works in 15mm scale.

Unfortunately Warhammer Historical have closed down, as that would have provided a painless crossover. There are some rules out there that are heavily influenced by GW though.

Ancients: Clash of Empires, War and Conquest and Hail Caesar (the latter being closer to Warmaster that Warhammer).

WW1: The Great War if you can find a copy!

WW2: Rules of Engagement and Bolt Action for platoon level gaming, and Battlegroup Normandy for company level gaming. Personally, I would avoid Flames of War, but they do have a large and enthusiastic following. So you may wish to take a look.

Sorry, I've not much advice to offer on ACW.

Good luck

The most popular ACW rules are Johnny Reb III and Fire & Fury. Volley & Bayonet can also be used though it is not a specialist set for the period. They are all reasonably simple to understand.

15mm is a popular scale for ACW with a good number of manufacturers in the market. Nearly all rules can easily be played with 28mm or 6mm as alternatives.

http://theminiaturespage.com/rules/acw/land.html

For Eastern Front WW2 it is hard to beat Battlegroup Kursk. For Ancients I like Hail Ceasar and Warmaster Ancients. Civil War is Fire and Fury and BlackPowder.

However, tell us a bit more about what type of games you have liked in the past and that will help guide us to help you decide for now.

Sorry, I meant Battlegroup Kurst, I was getting confused with Kampfgroup Normandy (the first version of the rules)

The Battlegroup series for WW2 and Longstreet for ACW are my choices.

Though Im biased to both!

 Durfast wrote:
Unfortunately Warhammer Historical have closed down, as that would have provided a painless crossover. There are some rules out there that are heavily influenced by GW though.

Ancients: Clash of Empires, War and Conquest and Hail Caesar (the latter being closer to Warmaster that Warhammer).

WW1: The Great War if you can find a copy!

WW2: Rules of Engagement and Bolt Action for platoon level gaming, and Battlegroup Normandy for company level gaming. Personally, I would avoid Flames of War, but they do have a large and enthusiastic following. So you may wish to take a look.

Sorry, I've not much advice to offer on ACW.

Good luck

Having not played FOW why would you avoid it?:

Hail Caesar would get my vote for the ancient stuff, i play it in 6mm which leads to some impressively large looking armies. For any scale where you want to truly represent large numbers of men 6mm is worth looking into. And Hail Caesar translates just fine.

https://www.baccus6mm.com/

As for WW2, i have tried just about every ruleset under the sun, and for 15mm / 20mm scale i really don't think you can beat the Battlegroup series of books.

Battlegroup Kursk is excellent, and never really feels unbalanced, you feel you stand a good chance with both soviets and Germans.

The good thing about the battlegroup series for me as well is the small rules they put in that give the sides a little flavour without changing to much. Fall of the Reich that landed on my doorstep a few days ago really does seem to have the 'period' feel just right with a few little tweaks.

Also over at the guild http://www.guildwargamers.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=303 you will get quick answers to rule queries of problems from those on the design team, always a very good thing with a set of rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:

 Durfast wrote:
Unfortunately Warhammer Historical have closed down, as that would have provided a painless crossover. There are some rules out there that are heavily influenced by GW though.

Ancients: Clash of Empires, War and Conquest and Hail Caesar (the latter being closer to Warmaster that Warhammer).

WW1: The Great War if you can find a copy!

WW2: Rules of Engagement and Bolt Action for platoon level gaming, and Battlegroup Normandy for company level gaming. Personally, I would avoid Flames of War, but they do have a large and enthusiastic following. So you may wish to take a look.

Sorry, I've not much advice to offer on ACW.

Good luck

Having not played FOW why would you avoid it?:

I would avoid it because for me its WW2 'light', fast and loose with some history and some huge balance issues at the moment. Other systems have much more depth, it also seems far to much like 40k for me

Thank you. I haven't played it so was curious. Bolt action sounds really interesting with its activation mechanic but not many people seem to play it.

bolt actions activation systems is what got me into playing it.

I have to say i enjoyed bolt action for small scale action, the activation system is about all i miss. For me though the minute you go to large with it, introduce more then a couple of vehicles it breaks, certain heavy tanks being utterly useless for the points compared to even a puma.

Anyhow Battlegroup is not straight up I Go You Go, the amount of orders you can give varies from turn to turn with officers that are alive giving you a bonus (also makes them worth protecting). Its very rare that you ever get enough orders to do everything you want to in a turn, so you have to prioritize. I much prefer this to the move everything of say flames of war.

Plus the morale chit system is probably the most interesting mechanic i have seen for a while for winning and loosing a game.

That sounds a bit like Valkyria Chronicles (PS3 game)

Where you get x amount of actions and you can use them on whoever you want. You could even move the same person multiple times if you want.


Whats the Morale Chit system?

When you build a force everything you buy gives you a BR (battle rating) number, these all add up to the total Battle Rating of your force.

Every time you kill an enemy unit or take an objective or the like you force your opponent to take a moral chit, and vice versa.

These chits are basically a bunch of tokens you draw from randomly, they are numbered 1 to 5 with various amounts of each one. There are also special chits that do other things, such as bring in aircraft, breakdown vehicles, affect ammo supplies etc as well as allowing units to do a beyond the call of duty (act out of turn or make a second action).

You keep this chits aside and keep a running total, once that total exceeds your BR you are beaten, your force has lost the will to fight.

It makes a nice end to things, but also the random nature adds another level. Your opponent might have a whole bunch of chits so you throw forward your attack to try and push him over the edge, though it might turn out that he had been lucky, got mostly small numbers and was much further off than you thought.

Works a lot better then i have probably managed to explain, adds a random element and gets rid of weird victory conditions like turn limits and things i never liked.

That sounds like a cool implementation of Morale. It may be a little less random if say more important units such as generals allow you to take 2 chits when you kill then as killing a leader would have a bigger effect on morale.

Senior officers, so your major HQ units do actually force two chits to be taken when they are killed.

You can also take chits to unpin 1D6 units etc, so sides without the armoured punch like the Americans but with plenty of arty can try and win by forcing the enemy to keep having to unpin units.

Again i like this, i like the idea a battle group could fall apart through heavy bombardments and the like even if it had not taken to many actual casulties

That sounds great tbh.

Battle group kursk/fall of the Reich for ww2 eastern front.

Someone asked for my wargaming experience. So my wargaming experience is basically two years of 40k guard and a year of fantasy ogres and lizard men. I didn't really get into either of them mainly do to cost and in fantasy the battles always were decided by magic and monsters not infantry or any semi-realistic means. Being a history student i figured lets try a historical wargame. Thanks for all the feedback guys.

 carlos13th wrote:


Having not played FOW why would you avoid it?:

Due to its popularity at my old club, I played it for a year or two, including the odd tournie. So I'm not some FoW-hater. I just accept it for what it is. If one accepts that it is not aiming to be a historical game, but a game using historical miniatures, then all is fine.

In my opinion, a strict I go you go system is deeply problematic in trying to recreate a period where the tank v anti tank balance is so crucial. Most WW2 rules have some form of mechanism to deal with this, such as allowing units to fire in an opponents turn, or having a variable activation system. If the rules get it wrong, then they encourage players to use tactics that are the exact opposite of those employed in the period.

In FoW, for example, a tank troop can drive out of cover straight through a carefully constructed anti tank matrix and back into cover without risk. To make it vaguely historical, opportunity or defensive fire is a must. There is an Ambush rule designed to overcome this, but it just leads to even bigger issues, such as a large tank platoon seemingly teleporting into battle.

Another issue is the lack of variation, such as between tank types and ranges for shooting.

The game is designed for playability first, history second or third. I enjoy 40k, but when I want to play a historical game then I like it to be vaguely historical

That said, it is very well supported and enjoys a large following. So if you enjoy 40k and basically want to replace an Imperial Guard army with a Soviet one, then these are the rules for you

On Bolt Action. I recommend anyone check the sort of discussions on these rules on their forum before jumping in. They will seem painfully familiar to anyone who isn't a fan of the 40k tournie scene. Not that that will be an issue if you either a tournie player or just intend to play with some friends

Edited for biff spelling!

 Durfast wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:


Having not played FOW why would you avoid it?:

Due to its popularity at my old club, I played it for a year or two, including the odd tournie. So I'm not some FoW-hater. I just accept it for what it is. If one accepts that it is not aiming to be a historical game, but a game using historical miniatures, then all is fine.

In my opinion, a strict I go you go system is deeply problematic in trying to recreate a period where the tank v anti tank balance is so crucial. Most WW2 rules have some form of mechanism to deal with this, such as allowing units to fire in an opponents turn, or having a variable activation system. If the rules get it wrong, then they encourage plays to use tactics that are the exact opposite of those employed in the period.

In FoW, for example, a tank troop can drive out of cover straight through a carefully constructed anti tank matrix and back into cover without risk. To make it vaguely historical, opportunity or defensive fire is a must. There is an Ambush rule designs to overcome this, but it just leads to even bigger issues, such as a large tank platoon seemingly teleporting into battle.

Another issue is the lack of variation, such as between tank types and ranges for shooting.

The game is designed for playability first, history second or third. I enjoy 40k, but when I want to play a historical game then I like it to be vaguely historical

That said, it is very well supported and enjoys a large following. So if you enjoy 40k and basically want to replace an Imperial Guard army with a Soviet one, then these are the rules for you

On Bolt Action. I recommend anyone check the sort of discussions on these rules on their forum before jumping in. They will seem painfully familiar to anyone who isn't a fan of the 40k tournie scene. Not that that will be an issue, if you either a tournie player or just intend to lay with some friends

Thats a good summary. It may be worth noting to the OP that while its less historical FOW is likley the game you are most likley to get a game of.

I quite enjoy FoW.. completely understand where Durfast is coming from with the interupt/activation mechanic though. If you've come from GW games and not ever known any different (well.. post 2nd edition 40k in any case) then I suppose it doesn't matter, but if you've played games that use alternate activation you can definitely know what you are missing!

That being said 15mm seems a great scale for WW2, and there is a great and expansive range of miniatures from various manufacturers for it which means there is probably a choice for most tastes. The German force I'm currently working my way through has bits from 4-5 different companies IIRC.

Not as much choice as 20mm WW2 though...

OP its worth finding out who plays what in your local area among your friends or people at your FLGS.

Oh yeah, when you go historical, be prepared to get forces for BOTH sides of any battle. It is easier to get other people in. Sounds daunting, but it maybe cheaper getting both side than 1 WHFB army. Especially if you use a scale like 6mm to 20mm.

Sinc eyou currently play WHFB, keep in mind most Ancients systems are similar only minus the magic. Arrows are arrows, swords are swords, and shields are shields.

Warhammer Ancient Battles will give you the smoothest transition, but it is OOP and I'm not sure how "different" you want your first Historical attempts to be.

If you want something completely different, than I recommend playing a WWII 15 to 20mm model range using Force-on-Force rules for Platoon on Platoon scenarios. That is about as far from WHFB as you can get.

I actually only know of one historical wargamer in my area my bible teacher and his family him and his sons play. I asked him for the rule sets he used and well he just throws a bunch of rules he likes together and plays with that. I am looking for a slightly more structured approach and I plan on building two armies for whatever game it is so when I have my wargaming buddies over they can play as well and I like building armies. My bible teacher though does play battlegroup Kursk without much modification to its rules so that is what I am probably going to start with then for ancient hail ceaser looks pretty good I may keep it in its regular scale even though I dont really want to just due to the range of Miniatures available for it.

BGK is an awful lot of fun, and an easy game for a beginner, especially if they're playing someone with some experience. While I prefer ancients I'd advise you to stick to one era for a while, and if WW2 is handier for you then go for it.

If you want to play ancients, go on ebay and get yourself a copy of WRG 6th or 7th edition.

AH! The golden age. Though I know people who regarded 7th edition as heresy.

I believe that Warrior is still in print. Basically an Americanised version of WRG 7th.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AH! The golden age. Though I know people who regarded 7th edition as heresy.

I believe that Warrior is still in print. Basically an Americanised version of WRG 7th.

6th edition was great fun.

7th edition killed my love of Ancients for a decade, it was a horrible set of rules imo.

DBA was a good step forward - affordable and fun with credible results in a managable timeframe, and I still play that.