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.

I was wondering if there are any competitive historical rulesets out there. I dabble in Saga and it scratches an itch for Dark Age (and Lotr/GoT gaming) but what else is out there? I've tried Bolt Action and Flames of War but both felt a little meh (not sure if Tank expansion changes Bolt Action much).

I'm not a typical historical player, I have a passing interest in much of history and I'm aware of big events but there's not a period I love finding out all the nitty-gritty ins and outs. I just like my rulesets tight and balanced, and I don't really want to go down the re-enactment route or agreeing with opponents. Just something we can throw down, play and not feel as though one army list sucked or is overpowered. What might interest me?

Clash of Empires or War and Conquest might do it for you. Both are written in the general style of WAB which was a good tournament type rule set.

I rather like Hail Caesar & have played it many times in 1v1 battles as part of campaigns. However, not everyone agrees that HC can make for a good competitive game.

Battlegroup is about the most balanced in terms of list building that I have ever come across. It is specifically designed to negate über list building. It is not however designed for the rules lawyering tournament type, so sometimes it takes just bit of friendly agreement.

That being said the rules are tight enough that many of our games have gotten a bit competitive in nature.

Depending on what is meant by "competitive," I am not sure it makes sense to look for such a game from the historicals genre. After all, actual warfare is not balanced or situation-neutral. Now how clear and comprehensive a rule set is, that is a separate question. I score BA very high on those marks and I also think it strives to be situation-neutral. "Balance" (again, depending on how one defines it) does not seem to be a real concern, as it proper for a historical game. I have only played Battlegroup once but the rules seem to also be clear and comprehensive. My impression, as I was being taught the rules, is that it was not designed for tournament play but maybe someone else knows better.

Field of Glory was written primarily with competition play in mind.

DBA and DBMM are also widely played.

FoG has Renaissance and Napoleonic versions too.

No, Battlegroup was never designed as a Tourny set. You dont have non historical match ups for example.

Its for scenario or points based pick up play.

We ran a BG campaign weekend last year, with two teams of 12 players playing three games with all results deciding the campaign.

Big P wrote:
No, Battlegroup was never designed as a Tourny set. You dont have non historical match ups for example.

Its for scenario or points based pick up play.

We ran a BG campaign weekend last year, with two teams of 12 players playing three games with all results deciding the campaign.

In the 100+ games of BGO we have run in the past year we have never even come close to writing a "power list" even though I'm sure some have tried. Wanna take Panthers out the wazoo? Do it but don't expect to stick around long. Want heavy arty blasting guys to shreds? Go for it but good luck holding objectives. Every game with the exception of the outlier extreme bad dice rolling has come down to the wire.

I would like to formally challenge all BGO players to suggest to me a legal list that is "overpowered".

Edit: or "undercosted"

Bolt Action has tourneys. There is one coming up in March at the Cold Wars convention.

Zond wrote:
I've tried Bolt Action and Flames of War but both felt a little meh (not sure if Tank expansion changes Bolt Action much).

It doesnt change it at all. The rules for tanks remain the same, you just get to put more tanks on the table and they have their own command. Frankly, its a pretty poor book. Its total content could have been covered in a 5 page PDF.

 Pete Melvin wrote:

Zond wrote:
I've tried Bolt Action and Flames of War but both felt a little meh (not sure if Tank expansion changes Bolt Action much).

It doesnt change it at all. The rules for tanks remain the same, you just get to put more tanks on the table and they have their own command. Frankly, its a pretty poor book. Its total content could have been covered in a 5 page PDF.

Well, the rules were a free PDF (and still are). The book adds a gak load of scenarios, experience/campaign play, tank aces, new rules for ARVs, etc.

Back to the OP's question, Bolt Action with all the errata is pretty tournament friendly. The errata all came from WAAC tournaments attempting to break the rules; those fixes make it a stronger ruleset.

 Strombones wrote:

Big P wrote:
No, Battlegroup was never designed as a Tourny set. You dont have non historical match ups for example.

Its for scenario or points based pick up play.

We ran a BG campaign weekend last year, with two teams of 12 players playing three games with all results deciding the campaign.

In the 100+ games of BGO we have run in the past year we have never even come close to writing a "power list" even though I'm sure some have tried. Wanna take Panthers out the wazoo? Do it but don't expect to stick around long. Want heavy arty blasting guys to shreds? Go for it but good luck holding objectives. Every game with the exception of the outlier extreme bad dice rolling has come down to the wire.

I would like to formally challenge all BGO players to suggest to me a legal list that is "overpowered".

Edit: or "undercosted"

Once, during initial playtesting many years ago, I ran what my mate Garry called 'The Tiger Unpleasentness' list.

It had alot of Tigers in it... Four plus a platoon of infantry and that was it. Did it purposely to see how such power gaming worked. Didnt really. One game it flattened the enemy, the next it fell apart due to a Katyusha barrage and a 'Mine Strike'. It lost another game thanks to a passing Sturmovik taking out the command Tiger... and another game when two of the Tigers broke down. I averaged just below a 50% win rate I reckon, but often due to the enemies bad luck.

Compare that to my German win rate with my usual 'balanced' force of tanks, infantry and artillery and its well over 85% as its often more capable of coping with setbacks.

The way the system is designed, with a battle rating and morale chits, means no list is a dead certainty and the lists have inbuilt restrictions that force players into accepting some degree of historical limit on the forces they choose. Finally the scenario system can throw a spanner in all plans at times.

To paraphrase, no list survives first contact with Battlegroup.

Hoplon is a decent set of rules that get excellent play (based upon, and vastly better than, DBM/DBA).

And Field of Glory is good as well.

I also recommend Command Decision, for WWII to Modern.

They present a very different perspective to play than the typical rules.

And the old Traveller Miniatures Rules, Striker, make for excellent Historical Rules for Civil War Era to .... The Far Future, excelling at Modern and WWII combat. But they require a GM to really play properly, as there is considerable "Fog of War" involved with the game (it takes the Command Decision style of play to an extreme)

MB