The weeks reinforcements

The Russians are coming !

Following on from my post "Building Russian Platoons" the figures were duly ordered and arrived a few days later. As always the service and turnaround times from Peter Pig are top notch. I did however weaken and add a pack of Russian Scouts with SMG's to the order. As I mentioned in the previous post these are  wearing the two piece amoeba camouflage uniform. The figures as sculpted are wearing high boots and so I have added a little green stuff to each to blouse the trousers over the boots and add bulk around the sleeves.

Paint test on the first figure complete as I work out my palette for the Scouts

In games terms a section of Razvedchiki can be purchased as a support option in addition to the main platoon being fielded. This scout section comprises of a Junior Leader with a SMG and two teams each of three men with SMGs. As such one pack of Peter Pig scouts is sufficient for the section.

The section costs four support points and has an enhanced version of the Razvedchiki National Characteristic - when located in or behind cover the section can act as a Jump Off Point (JOP) for any other Infantry Units at the cost of two CoC Points. This strikes me as a very powerful tool in the Russians armoury. 

What makes Chain of Command so special - Part Four

The last of the articles discussing why I consider CoC such a special set of rules. The previous articles can be found here.

Part One - Scale and the empty battlefield

Part Two - Friction, Chaos, Command dice and Chain of Command points

Part Three - Historically based

Thematic rather than competitive? 

While players obviously compete against one another when playing CoC, the rules are designed less around creating a perfectly balanced contest and more around recreating the uncertainty, confusion, and character of small-unit warfare. As I mentioned in Part Two players do not have complete control over their forces each turn. The Command Dice and Chain of Command mechanics ensure an element of uncertainty, meaning that a player cannot simply execute an ideal plan whenever they wish. Units may be unable to act as expected, while opportunities can suddenly appear—or disappear. This creates the "friction" as previously discussed and encourages players to react to events rather than simply follow a predetermined strategy. As discussed in Part Three opposing platoons are not necessarily symmetrical, and scenarios can deliberately give one side advantages in numbers, deployment, terrain, or objectives. This reflects the historical reality that battles were rarely fought between perfectly matched forces. 

In a strongly competitive game, players generally expect symmetrical conditions and carefully controlled variables so that victory can be attributed primarily to skill and knowledge of the rules. Asymmetry and uncertainty are core concepts within CoC because these elements contribute to its simulation of warfare. Historical scenarios may even produce situations where one side is clearly in a difficult position—and that can be entirely appropriate if the purpose is to explore how that situation might unfold. These situations can of course on occasion be frustrating as a player, but perhaps that is part of the challenge of the game.

However CoC is competitive in the literal sense that two players are trying to beat each other, but its design philosophy can be considered thematic more so than competitive. Its emphasis on friction, asymmetrical forces, historical circumstances, and campaign play encourages players to experience a battle as a developing story rather than as a perfectly balanced test of competitive skill.

The result is a game in which the most satisfying outcome is not necessarily a decisive victory, but the stories that emerges from the battle: the squad that held on against impossible odds, the Leader who made a crucial die roll at the right moment, or the unit who somehow survived to fight another day. In that sense, Chain of Command is less about proving who is the better player and more about enjoying the narrative of two small units pitted against each other. I can play and lose and it does not matter because I had fun.

                                                             

Lends itself to a high aesthetic

The small scale of the CoC battlefield, in terms of both table size and the number of units in play means that there is no requirement to paint hundreds of figures or vehicles in order to play. This means time and effort can be spent on battlefield terrain and scenery alongside the required figures and vehicles. In my opinion the look of a CoC game, particular in 15mm, is primarily driven by the look of the terrain so it makes sense for buildings and terrain elements to be completed to a similar standard as figures and vehicles.

The games ground scale and 1:1 representation of figures and vehicles means there is no need to abstract or reduce the scale of terrain elements and the games emphasis on friction, uncertainty, and the tactical importance of terrain means that the table is not simply a playing surface: it becomes an essential part of the game. This creates a strong incentive to build terrain that is not merely functional, but visually convincing. A beautifully modelled farmstead or carefully landscaped hedgerow can have genuine tactical significance, rather than existing purely as decoration. The result is a table that can resemble a small section of a real landscape.

I would also argue that the game's mechanics encourage scenery to be believable. Since troops in game depend heavily on cover and concealment, terrain should make visual sense. Dense vegetation ought to obscure movement; substantial walls ought to provide protection; buildings should feel like places troops could realistically occupy. Good modelling therefore supports both immersion and gameplay. The battlefield can be aesthetically ambitious without becoming disconnected from the game.

A high-aesthetic Chain of Command table is therefore not simply a beautiful backdrop—it is a visual expression of the game's central idea: that terrain, uncertainty and human decisions combine to create the battle.

In recent years some absolutely stunning CoC tables have been seen at wargaming events. Joe Bilton is perhaps the foremost exponent of this and he has generously allowed me to use some of his photos of recent award winning tables. 

Inspirational stuff indeed.

This weeks reinforcements

The Forgotten War: First Indochina War 1946–1954

Something a little different this week. A couple of figures from the current Indochina 1946-1954 Kickstarter - Keith at Armybits was kind enough to let me have a couple of files from the project to print in FDM at 15mm to see how they would look. Decent enough, but his figures printed in resin at 20mm look even better.

Kickstarter: The First Indochina War 1946–1954

Well worth backing imo.

Just in case anybody reading this is not aware of the annual survey carried out by Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy Magazine (WSS)

This is now live and always fun to complete and then read the results later on once all the data is compiled and analysed 

The Great Wargaming Survey

Well worth five minutes of your time

Hotchkiss Geschutzwagen 39H - Painted

 

In an earlier couple of posts I talked through the process of prepping and printing a STL file of the Hotchkiss Geschutzwagen 39H

Printing a 15mm STL file - part 1

Printing a 15mm STL file - part 2

and after a few false starts (and repaints) I've got a camo' scheme and look that I am happy with - and now hidden behind foliage.

Need to order some figures so I can add a crew, but otherwise pleased with this. As always 15mm (1/100) printed in FDM.

Building Russian Platoons

 

Russia has three platoon types included in the CoC v2 rule book, the Rifle platoon , the SMG platoon and the Motor Rifle platoon. The first two each have 31 figures plus a sniper team (that can be a token or one or two figures) while the Motor Rifle platoon has 25 figures (with no integral sniper team)

The structure of the platoons differ and so each needs a different selection of figures to create in game, however they do include elements common to all. If each platoon is put together separately from the others a total of 89 figures is required, however if figures are used across the three platoons where possible this number can be reduced to 45 - almost half. The biggest impacts of this saving is cost and a reduction in the number of figures that have to be painted. Over time I will aim to build each platoon as free standing units not dependant on sharing figures with other platoons, but to get started I will purchase the minimum number to figures required to build the three platoons. 

Peter Pig have an extensive range of Russian WW2 infantry, and a slightly smaller range of scout (Razvedchiki) figures which provide a wide choice of figures that can be used. As far as I can tell Forged in Battle (FOB) offer a Russian platoon with a total of 40 figures in the box, and a Russian SMG platoon again with 40 figures. The latter does not include any LMG's and so is not a good fit for the CoC SMG Platoon despite the name. Flames of War (FOW) look to offer a Rifle Company (if it can be found in stock) which seems to include 135 figures (including 18 LMG's, and 54+ riflemen, along with 50mm mtr teams, anti tank rifles, Maxim MMGs and flamethrowers). Neither firm offer packs that are a good match for the CoC platoons, and so again I will stick with Peter Pig whose figures (in the main) come in packs of eight with three differing poses per pack.

Based solely on the number of figures in a pack and the poses available six packs are sufficient to create all three types of platoon. This is because the "Prone LMG" pack includes an observer figure with binoculars rather than being armed with a LMG, and so that pack will provide five or six LMGs and two or three crew figures depending on the make up of the pack. When these figures are combined with the spare leader, rifle and SMG figures there are sufficient to provide the LMG crews required. (In game these crew figures do not use their personal weapons and so it does not matter what weapon they carry). However Peter Pig offer an "Observation Team" pack with four crackin' poses, and so I can't help but add that to the mix. This means seven packs will provide 56 figures, of which 11 will be redundant. I can live with that as I always find it handy to have spare figures knocking around as they will likely help man heavy weapons when I get hold of them as well as be the basis for the required sniper team. While all this might seem a bit anal (hey we are all wargamers here) I find it helps me determine what figures to order and avoids the frustration of being a figure or two short.

Pack 623 - Russian NCOs

Pack 638 - LMGs Prone

Pack 644 - Observation Team

Pack 625 - Russian rifles advancing

Pack 627 - Russian kneeling rifles pausing

Pack 621- Russians advancing under fire.  SMG

Pack 662 - SMGs pausing

All photos from the Peter Pig website

The seven packs mean that I will have a total of 56 figures, with no figure being duplicated more than three times which really helps with the aesthetic when on the table. I have deliberately chosen one advancing pack and one kneeling pack for both the rifle and SMG figures as this allows greater flexibility for how the figures are used. The advancing figures will be the bulk of the rifle and SMG teams, while the kneeling figures can be used with the prone LMG teams as crew, as snipers or other specialist roles. Its just a shame that I can't bring myself to mix infantry and Razvedchiki in the same platoon as I do fancy painting some amoeba camouflage. 

What makes Chain of Command so special - Part Three

 

Historically based - Platoons & Doctrine

Infantry platoons are the core fighting force in game, with each side fielding one platoon. (The exception being Big CoC which I'll look at  another time as I don't yet have those rules, but my understanding is they allow for the fielding of more platoons per side). In all cases except the US Paratrooper platoon at Normandy which only has two these platoons all have three sections, although in some cases the third section is a "heavy" or machine gun"  section and differs in structure from the other two. Regardless -  the platoon structures in game reflect very closely their historical counterparts. 

The official British infantry platoon for the period comprised of one officer and 36 other ranks.  The game platoon matches this, although the Batman and ordely are dropped from the official platoon HQ and are replaced with a two man PIAT team. The PIAT was officially held at company level to be issued to the rifle platoons at CO's discretion. We therefore end up with the following in game.

British Infantry Platoon

Plt HQ - 2x Senior Leaders

1x 2" Mtr Team (3 men)

1x PIAT team (2 men)

3x Infantry Section - comprising 1x Junior Leader, 1x Bren team (3 men) and 6x riflemen.

37 men in total with a Force Rating in game of zero. 

The German equivalent was one officer and three sections each of nine other ranks. In addition there was a Platoon Troop, consisting of two messengers, a stretcher bearer, and a horse driver and horse leader. This troop has been dropped from the game in the same way that the Batman and orderly have been dropped from the British platoon as non combatants, and so we get the following.

German Infantry Platoon

Plt HQ - 1x SL 

3x Infantry Section - comprising 1x Junior Leader, 1x MG42 team (4 men) and 5x riflemen plus a Panzerfaust that can be allocated to any man in the section.

30 men in total and so substantially fewer men than the British platoon and with no integral light mortar. Anti-tank capability is much the same with three rounds of HEAT ammunition, but these are tied one PF to each squad while the British team is independent of the sections and so can manoeuvre separately either under its own Command DR or that of a SL.

The -1 force rating for this platoon reflects that it operates at a slight disadvantage when compared to the British platoon. (The gap widens when fighting against the likes of the US Armored Rifle Platoon or late war Parachute Infantry Platoon, both of which have force ratings of +6.)

The disadvantages for the German Infantry platoon can be summed up as 

• Only one senior leader 
• No light mortar 
• Less manpower

These differences reflect the reality on the ground, the German platoon did have seven men less than its British counterpart and so would feel the impact of casualties sooner. They only had one Senior Leader who could either administer the deploying forces into combat, or lead and issue orders from the front, but could not do both in the way the British can with their two senior leaders. There was no integral light mortar and so no platoon level indirect fire (either smoke or HE)  These differences had real impact and were a result of how each nation chose to fight.

There are 15 different platoons structures in the v2 rules  (including the two US Parachute Platoon options) Each has it own nuance, and these need to be understood in order to be played well. For each force it is worth understanding their respective real world doctrine and  also what within the rules help them achieve this in game.

Doctrine  

Military Doctrine as – “a formal document that outlines how military forces should operate in a given situation"

This page  provides  a comparison between the British and German WW2 doctrines at platoon level as best this can be ascribed.  
 

In game terms this translates into a player having a thorough understanding of the rules and their impact on each nation and platoon type.

For the Germans the one support point, as a minimum, usually gained through the difference in force rating allows for the purchase of an Adjutant to offset the lack of a second Senior Leader. The National Characteristics of "Machinengewehr" and "Handgranaten!" are powerful and designed to reflect the German doctrine, and so need to be fully understood so as to be used effectively and appropriately.

For the British the realisation that using the 2" mortar to lay smoke (using the Smoke Screen national characteristic) is generally more beneficial than using HE and ties in with their doctrine of fire and manoeuvre. 

All of this results in a game which feels, at least to me, historically authentic, and reflects the strengths and weaknesses of each force and encourages and rewards use of the historical doctrine and tactics of each. I'll have a look at the American and Soviet doctrine in a future post. I am no where near an expert in any of this so let me know if you agree or I'm getting stuff wrong.

Part One

Part Two

Part Four