One of the more popular WW2 skirmish rule sets is TFL's Chain of Command, at least in terms of visibility on wargaming social media. However, I'm not really a fan of the set, I often get asked why so I thought I'd do a review here to refer people back to as necessary.
There are a few spurious reason I don't like CoC (and Lardies' stuff in general), firstly the humour grates after a while.* Secondly, the cult- like behaviour of the fans based on interactions I've had with them amuses me. As I type this (Sept, 23) there is talk on social media of the very issue that I've joked about with friends for a while.**
There are a few things about the rules that I think work very well, sometimes too well, and other bits that I don't like, and some its I'm not keen on. Sadly, the overall effect is a ruleset that doesn't work for me on several levels. Before anyone thinks I've not given the game a fair chance I have tried to get on board with it, between my own house and the wargames club I've probably played it ten of so times now.
Firstly, I'll look at the patrol phase. This is a great idea to represent the patrolling build up to a platoon level attack, the scouting forward to gain an advantage for your troops is very well represented. However, it brings with it two problems… It is entirely possible to lose the game in this phase, if your opponent is better at this segment of the game than you, you can end up so out manoeuvred that there is no point in giving battle or indeed playing the game. Secondly, whilst it does mean that when you get your figures on the table there are closer to the action it does mean that a significant part of the table rarely gets used, physically waste of time setting it up and gets in the way as you reach into the middle to where the action is. Which leads on to my next point of winning the firefight.
With the bucket of dice mechanics, something I have no problem with, and the accumulation of shock, a great mechanism, the game always seems to boil down to whoever gets the most fire, mainly the MGs in the best position and cover wins the game as they just blast the opposition away or suppress them into complete ineffectiveness. Both this and the patrol phase I think are quite realistic, they make complete narrative sense to me, but they don't make for a fun game on an evening. Too much effort to go into to just to have the game end in minutes.
The same is true with mortars, they are very well represented in the game, far more effective than in most rulesets I've seen and rightly so.*** Again the problem is the game can be over in a highly realistic manner that succeeds as a simulacra of a platoon level action- the mortar fire suppresses the defenders so much that the attackers overrun them with little difficulty- but fails to provide a satisfying degree of entertainment for game night. Speaking of the defence. As the defender has to deploy onto the table it means that due to the vagaries of the activation system and its not fixed turn structure a good run of luck means that the attacking platoon can easily defeat a defending platoon as it never gets the chance to fully deploy on to the table. Whereas a more realistic prepared defence would have a dug in and camouflaged platoon with lines of fire prepared being able to fend of pretty much a full company of attackers. **** I know that there may be a situation in reality where a defensive position has been taken by surprise as the defenders weren't at their posts', but I again refer back to it being an unsatisfying game.
I know that the TFL fanbois at this point will be bellowing "FRICTION" at the screen and I fully agree that that is a major factor in warfare and dealing with it, overcoming it, should be the point of the commander but the rules have so much randomness, chance being lumpy after all, added in that the game just doesn't work for me. At least it is better than the earlier TFL game Troops Weapons and Tactics, that has so much friction put in it that the game engine didn't turn over at all. The one thing that both rule sets have going for them however is the fantastic depth of historical data baked into them.
Minor niggles with the system are the random movement, I know that movement isn't constant but the massive 6 factors it can vary by seems far too wide for me. The platoon organisation builder is a points system with all of the negatives that come with it. Also, that every platoon in the game is at full strength is highly unrealistic, any veteran's account will disabuse you of that notion. The Chain of Command die is an interesting concept, and a very powerful one in the game, but I don't get what it is meant to represent and why it randomly accumulates the way it does.
Fundamentally I agree with a lot of what the designers believe happen in warfare, but I disagree with how they have gone about modelling it. I do also acknowledge that I seem to be a in a minority with my criticism for Chain of Command… so I await your comments.
Cheers,
Pete.
* I know my sense of humour can be truly terrible, but my jokes are ephemeral once I've said them they are gone rather than being written down for ever.
** I refer to Richard Clarke of Too Gat Lardies as the 'Jim Jones' of wargaming. It is not meant as a dig at him in the slightest, I've never met him and everything I've seen of him online makes him look like a thoroughly decent gent. Rather, it is his fanbase with their mantra of #spreadthelard and bellowing friction at you as they think it refutes every criticism of their rules….
*** Look at Rowland's Stress of Battle Operational Research found mortars three times more effective than LMGs which are themselves nine times more effective than a rifle.
**** I know that the 3:1 ratio needed for a successful attack has come in for a degree of re-examination recently as it is mainly concerned with fighting potential rather than a simple head count of both sets of protagonists but for the purposes of the debate and all other factors being even it makes my point.
No comments:
Post a Comment