To The Vistula!

A Comparison of Three Recent WW II Rule Sets

Battlefront

by Bill Rutherford

BF is a quick-playing game that's possessed of a couple of unique features. As previously noted, models and stands represent sections of vehicles and guns and squads of infantry. There's an interesting message hidden in this simple statement of scale, though. For example, a German or American armored platoon is represented by two model tanks, one for each tank section in the platoon. A Soviet tank platoon is represented by a single model; the platoon is smaller, of course, but more importantly, the Soviet platoon consists of only a single maneuver section, so it only gets a single model. This distinction forces Soviet players to focus their attention at a command level one higher than their German counterpart. Germans maneuver companies; Soviets maneuver battalions! This reflects the way (I understand from what reading I've done) the opposing commanders looked at their forces, and without saying a single thing about German or Soviet doctrines, encourages players to follow historical tactical methods. Oddly, given the scale, though BF details unit organizations down to the squad/section and platoon details are provided, during game play platoons, unless independent, really don't matter. All command control and morale is tested for at the company level.

The sequential play order was straightforward. BF was the only set of rules to play using a traditional "You do your thing and then I'll do mine" sort of sequential play sequence but it seemed to play pretty convincingly for all that. The rules use a Maneuver Table similar to their publisher's earlier Fire and Fury American Civil War rules. A roll on this table governs how well each unit follows orders during the turn. Integral to this roll is each unit's discipline rating, a factor that is provides a modifier to every die roll the unit makes during a turn, based on the unit's organizational state, i.e., is it in good order or is it pinned - that sort of thing… As a unit's organizational state deteriorates, it's discipline modifier gets worse and everything it tries to do becomes more problematic. It has the feel of battle friction, as worn-out and damaged units simply get less efficient at carrying out orders…

The spotting rules are, as noted on the comparison table, deterministic. However, two factors make them quite workable, given the primary concern for speed of play. First, spotting ranges are conservative - it's just plain hard to see anything that's in cover. Units may fire on suspected targets but do so with a penalty to the die roll. Second, the spotting table, though simple to use, has enough numbers on it to discourage players from internalizing it in order to pre-calculate spotting ranges. In summary, it works.

Fire combat is straightforward, with all combat being resolved with a die roll against the same game table, using a set of die modifiers appropriate to the type of combat (direct, indirect, air, etc.). Direct fire is ranged and incorporates armor penetration and armor thickness into the results determined by a single die roll. These rules (as do the others played) focus on the "soft" aspects of combat - morale, non-killing results, etc., and NOT on detailed armor penetrations.

Indirect fire must successfully be called to be used and a table provides the necessary die rolls for each type of forward observer for a given type of off-board artillery (e.g., organic, direct support, etc.). If called, the indirect fire is resolved as noted above, on the common combat table. Close combat is simple, requiring a single contested die roll to determine who won; the loser generally dies.

To the Vistula! WWII Rule Sets Reviewed

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #82
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com