Thanks, and I'm glad you liked the video. I agree about the artillery. The only issue with the artillery is with all these short lines of sight (dense woods), your forward units tend to be in close contact with the enemy. With the nice spotting round rules and drift rules in Battlegroup, it's distressingly easy to hit your own units in such cases.
Another excellent battle report. Quick and snappy with just enough detail. As an aside a friend of mine wrote the system and I was one of the play testers 😊
Awesome! Thanks, glad you liked the video. Are you talking about Warrick Kinrade? I'm friends with and have worked with Piers Brand on another website, we even interviewed him on the channel once (I think when NORTHAG was first coming out).
@@andyedwards9222 Nice! Hopefully we didn't make twoo many rules mistakes (much better than in past Battlegroup games like our one during the Anzio Breakout in May). True, we do have some minor intentional "house rules" but outside of that we try to stick to the books, especially when it comes to video publication.
Aha, I used to think the same thing. I was corrected by the Battlegroup community on Facebook. I think it's a "Second Edition" change. Or maybe that was just a modifier after moving added in the new edition?
@@SITREPPodcast hmmm… now you have me confused. I consulted two different recent Quick Reference Sheets which both skipped the -1 for obscure targets using direct HE. But… the FAQ has an extremely confusing paragraph on the subject. Which implies you have the choice to play is either way. (And the target has -1 to the cover save.) That said… I am pretty sure that there is no modification when using small arms, auto cannons and MG’s.
@@matthijsclaessen8152 In first edition, yes I agree. There is no Small Arms or Machine Guns listing for modifiers at all. Maybe you're right. But the way we look at it, it's a question of "Cover and Concealment" COVER is the reflected in the cover save units get. What STOPS the incoming lead. CONCEALMENT is the Observation check and ... at least for us, the -1 for if obscured targets. But you're right, it's nowhere in the official rules. Someone told me this was updated. But I haven't seen it in print first hand.
Thanks very much, Jeff. Yeah, I just wish we had more trees for a real "Hurtgen Forest" vibe. Battlegroup is a great system, best for smaller- to mid-range engagements in World War II. Not very big battles, as this is a pretty detailed system. It is not "point and shoot," the figures don't always do as you command them. Breakdowns in communications, orders, and morale are very big factors here. Also, the "Fog of War" is strong with this one. Just because you can see the enemy miniature on a pretty map table doesn't mean the gunner in your tank can see it through smoke, dust, and through his tiny vision port. Or that the commander of your tank even identifies what you're yelling to him on the radio. Also, because of the Battle Rating Counter mechanic, you never know when the game will actually end, or how close you may or may be to winning. History is full of stories ... "if they only knew how close they were to victory ..." OR ... "They thought they could do it, they thought the enemy was on the verge of breaking. They were wrong." This kind of thing happens ALL the time in Battlegroup, where you can never really be certain of the enemy's state. He may look strong but be dead on his feet, or vice versa. This kind of thing happens ALL the time in Battlegroup, where you can never really be certain of the enemy's state. He may look strong but be dead on his feet, or vice versa. We should definitely get you at one of these tables soon!
OK this feels like a weird comment in the middle of all this hard core history/military talk, but the buildings look great. Are those a kit you buy or scratch built?
The buildings are all scratch built, although to be honest some of them are in 20mm. Originally built for a 20mm table recreating the Battle of Trenton. Hey, that's kind of a "Christmas Craft" isn't it? :D
G'day, guys. Hang on, did I make the party on time for once? Do I need to produce an ID or something as this is not me. This is one of those games I prefer to avoid as the game is not the game. It's a twilight nightmare version, and it's not the first time we abandoned a game for doing this. Now, that's out of the way. It's a great game so far, guys. In our group, this is called Hurt Them forest for good reason. We prefer to play deeper into the forest. It provides really intense pure infantry actions as the muddy fire trails make armour next to useless. We've had a few that insisted on bringing tanks, which were a disaster. In this terrain, a German 50m or US 57mm are deadly as the tanks must use the trails, and these guns can be set up entrenched on the flanks. Did you know there is a strong Finnish connection to this battle? The German units that fought in Finland were taught by the Fins to more accurately use mortars in dense forests. All German units that fought here were trained in the Finnish method by returning units from Finland. It was devastating to the US infantry units. Mike briefly displayed why I love the M4 75mm. It is just so universal. I know a lot of people hate them because they are so easily knocked out by a Panther or Tigers. But used carefully and supported, they can hold their own. You 88mm demonstrated why we copied the smoke rules from FoW. I've spoken at length with Piers about this, but he insists that smoke was only used in assaults and is built into the game. We find that giving US tank destroyers a shoot and scoot ability truly lift them from being a soft target. That is, move, fire, and half move for the cost of 2 orders. After all, this was core to their training. However, above all, each to their own. The Jagdpanzer IV are favourites of mine a sort of Gen 2 StuG, but I believe the Russians made better StuGs in the end. So part 2 is going to be interesting in a twilight way. I've played some games like this when you get all the good tokens first. Then it turns nasty, and then both armies are suddenly about to break. But your heads up seems to suggest this doesn't happen. So I'm looking forward to part 2 and hoping this game stops acting so bizarrely. On the other hand, the Hurt Them forest has a brutal reputation.
Greetings, James. I agree about the tank destroyers. The system does allow them to shoot and scoot. Any "Fire and Maneuver" order can be taken in either order, you can move and shoot (usually the case) or shoot and THEN MOVE (for some reason many people don't do this). So the system allows players to use tank destroyers and assault guns in the doctrinal manner you describe. And I agree with you about the borderline uselessness of armor in this setting. By the end of this game EVERY SINGLE piece of armor was burning or crippled. And the Americans never really got much use out of theirs. The Germans on the other hand, will do a little better with theirs in Part 2. This aligns with the historical record, where KG Bayer of 116th Panzer Division actually did pretty well with their tanks and assault guns in their November 4th counteroffensive, which is what we're recreating here. Buth other than that it's gonna be a lot of artillery and up-close infantry, as I hope you'll see in Part 2 (we're not even through Turn 02 in this video).
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Looking forward to part 2. Eisenhower said about fighting the Germans that anything approaching 1 to 1 that they will win. I don't think he was taking Allied Air Power into account and that the Allies had the numbers for attritional warfare. Once the fighting moves deep into Hurtgen Forest, air power becomes useless, but US numbers eventually carry the day. I also believe this battle dispels the myth that by this time in the war, Germany only had second-rate old men and small boys left. What I think Eisenhower was referring to was German training, doctrine, and moral. I can never really get over the number of good US divisions that get chewed up here, and was it worth it. While the Battle of the Bulge becomes a celebration but it seems that Hurtgen Forest is to be forgotten. At least there is still a lot of information still out there, but it rarely gets a mention in Normandy to Berlin style articles or documentaries for mass consumption. I've always believed sacrifice should be remembered, and it's not just Omaha and the Bulge.
@@jamesevans886 Yeah, it was definitely quite a few American divisions thatget badly mauled in here. This video focuses on the 28th, but the 9th was in there first, along with the 4th Infantry, the 5th Armored, and even the 82nd Airborne eventually. I'm sure I'm missing a few in there as well. Worst if all, the 28th was beaten up so bad it was withdrawn from the Hurtgen Forest and sent to the Ardennes to "rest" . . . and of course wound up being one of just four divisions initially struck by the Wacht am Rhein offensive. Some guys can't catch a break. I also agree 100% that the Hurtgen Forest is often forgotten and overshadowed by the Bulge, which it damned sure shouldn't be. One of the reasons I wanted to feature this content.
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Totally agree, mate. It should never be pushed aside or forgotten. It's been about 2 years since I last took a serious look at the Hurtgen Forest, but from memory, it was 5 full divisions chewed up there not including attachments from other divisions as that could add up to another division. There were a small number of US divisions that you should avoid being assigned to. Another was the (Un-) Lucky 7th Armoured division. Chewed up at Arracourt and moved to Holland for rebuilding. Finally, the US searches for the safer place so the division can be fully rested and rebuilt. It was assigned to the quiet Ardennes Front.
@@jamesevans886 - Oh, I haven’t even gotten into all the divisions torn up in the Ardennes. I just mentioned the 28th that probably took the worst of Hurtgen and was then transferred to “rest”, absorb replacements, and train in the Ardennes. We’ll get into the Ardennes soon enough, I’m actually traveling there next month. 😅
Great battle and AAR! Artillery and long-range gunnery proving fairly effective for boh sides so far.
Thanks, and I'm glad you liked the video. I agree about the artillery. The only issue with the artillery is with all these short lines of sight (dense woods), your forward units tend to be in close contact with the enemy. With the nice spotting round rules and drift rules in Battlegroup, it's distressingly easy to hit your own units in such cases.
Another excellent battle report. Quick and snappy with just enough detail. As an aside a friend of mine wrote the system and I was one of the play testers 😊
Awesome! Thanks, glad you liked the video. Are you talking about Warrick Kinrade? I'm friends with and have worked with Piers Brand on another website, we even interviewed him on the channel once (I think when NORTHAG was first coming out).
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs I've been friends with Warwick a long time now (30+ years). Games and reenactment.
@@andyedwards9222 Nice! Hopefully we didn't make twoo many rules mistakes (much better than in past Battlegroup games like our one during the Anzio Breakout in May). True, we do have some minor intentional "house rules" but outside of that we try to stick to the books, especially when it comes to video publication.
Holy smokes!, does that map look good !! Outstanding !!!
Thanks very much. I just wish I had more trees to present more of a dense forest vibe.
Really nice map, lots going on with this system. What are your impressions?
Thanks very much. Actually Battlegroup is my favorite World War II miniatures system.
Nice game (and table!), thanks for sharing.
Rules check: I think obscurement -1 to hit is only for AP, not for small arms or HE.
Aha, I used to think the same thing. I was corrected by the Battlegroup community on Facebook. I think it's a "Second Edition" change. Or maybe that was just a modifier after moving added in the new edition?
@@SITREPPodcast hmmm… now you have me confused. I consulted two different recent Quick Reference Sheets which both skipped the -1 for obscure targets using direct HE. But… the FAQ has an extremely confusing paragraph on the subject. Which implies you have the choice to play is either way. (And the target has -1 to the cover save.)
That said… I am pretty sure that there is no modification when using small arms, auto cannons and MG’s.
@@matthijsclaessen8152 In first edition, yes I agree. There is no Small Arms or Machine Guns listing for modifiers at all. Maybe you're right.
But the way we look at it, it's a question of "Cover and Concealment"
COVER is the reflected in the cover save units get. What STOPS the incoming lead.
CONCEALMENT is the Observation check and ... at least for us, the -1 for if obscured targets.
But you're right, it's nowhere in the official rules. Someone told me this was updated. But I haven't seen it in print first hand.
Great game so far. I can't believe the number of special counters drawn. Looking forward to part two.
Yeah, this game was pretty wild with the special counters for sure.
Beautiful table and excellent AAR! Looking forward to part 2. Based on your AAR I’d really like to try out these rules.
Thanks very much, Jeff. Yeah, I just wish we had more trees for a real "Hurtgen Forest" vibe.
Battlegroup is a great system, best for smaller- to mid-range engagements in World War II. Not very big battles, as this is a pretty detailed system.
It is not "point and shoot," the figures don't always do as you command them. Breakdowns in communications, orders, and morale are very big factors here.
Also, the "Fog of War" is strong with this one. Just because you can see the enemy miniature on a pretty map table doesn't mean the gunner in your tank can see it through smoke, dust, and through his tiny vision port. Or that the commander of your tank even identifies what you're yelling to him on the radio.
Also, because of the Battle Rating Counter mechanic, you never know when the game will actually end, or how close you may or may be to winning.
History is full of stories ... "if they only knew how close they were to victory ..." OR ... "They thought they could do it, they thought the enemy was on the verge of breaking. They were wrong." This kind of thing happens ALL the time in Battlegroup, where you can never really be certain of the enemy's state. He may look strong but be dead on his feet, or vice versa. This kind of thing happens ALL the time in Battlegroup, where you can never really be certain of the enemy's state. He may look strong but be dead on his feet, or vice versa.
We should definitely get you at one of these tables soon!
OK this feels like a weird comment in the middle of all this hard core history/military talk, but the buildings look great. Are those a kit you buy or scratch built?
The buildings are all scratch built, although to be honest some of them are in 20mm. Originally built for a 20mm table recreating the Battle of Trenton. Hey, that's kind of a "Christmas Craft" isn't it? :D
G'day, guys. Hang on, did I make the party on time for once? Do I need to produce an ID or something as this is not me. This is one of those games I prefer to avoid as the game is not the game. It's a twilight nightmare version, and it's not the first time we abandoned a game for doing this. Now, that's out of the way. It's a great game so far, guys.
In our group, this is called Hurt Them forest for good reason. We prefer to play deeper into the forest. It provides really intense pure infantry actions as the muddy fire trails make armour next to useless. We've had a few that insisted on bringing tanks, which were a disaster. In this terrain, a German 50m or US 57mm are deadly as the tanks must use the trails, and these guns can be set up entrenched on the flanks.
Did you know there is a strong Finnish connection to this battle? The German units that fought in Finland were taught by the Fins to more accurately use mortars in dense forests. All German units that fought here were trained in the Finnish method by returning units from Finland. It was devastating to the US infantry units.
Mike briefly displayed why I love the M4 75mm. It is just so universal. I know a lot of people hate them because they are so easily knocked out by a Panther or Tigers. But used carefully and supported, they can hold their own. You 88mm demonstrated why we copied the smoke rules from FoW. I've spoken at length with Piers about this, but he insists that smoke was only used in assaults and is built into the game.
We find that giving US tank destroyers a shoot and scoot ability truly lift them from being a soft target. That is, move, fire, and half move for the cost of 2 orders. After all, this was core to their training. However, above all, each to their own.
The Jagdpanzer IV are favourites of mine a sort of Gen 2 StuG, but I believe the Russians made better StuGs in the end.
So part 2 is going to be interesting in a twilight way. I've played some games like this when you get all the good tokens first. Then it turns nasty, and then both armies are suddenly about to break. But your heads up seems to suggest this doesn't happen.
So I'm looking forward to part 2 and hoping this game stops acting so bizarrely. On the other hand, the Hurt Them forest has a brutal reputation.
Greetings, James. I agree about the tank destroyers. The system does allow them to shoot and scoot. Any "Fire and Maneuver" order can be taken in either order, you can move and shoot (usually the case) or shoot and THEN MOVE (for some reason many people don't do this). So the system allows players to use tank destroyers and assault guns in the doctrinal manner you describe. And I agree with you about the borderline uselessness of armor in this setting. By the end of this game EVERY SINGLE piece of armor was burning or crippled. And the Americans never really got much use out of theirs. The Germans on the other hand, will do a little better with theirs in Part 2. This aligns with the historical record, where KG Bayer of 116th Panzer Division actually did pretty well with their tanks and assault guns in their November 4th counteroffensive, which is what we're recreating here. Buth other than that it's gonna be a lot of artillery and up-close infantry, as I hope you'll see in Part 2 (we're not even through Turn 02 in this video).
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Looking forward to part 2. Eisenhower said about fighting the Germans that anything approaching 1 to 1 that they will win. I don't think he was taking Allied Air Power into account and that the Allies had the numbers for attritional warfare. Once the fighting moves deep into Hurtgen Forest, air power becomes useless, but US numbers eventually carry the day. I also believe this battle dispels the myth that by this time in the war, Germany only had second-rate old men and small boys left. What I think Eisenhower was referring to was German training, doctrine, and moral. I can never really get over the number of good US divisions that get chewed up here, and was it worth it. While the Battle of the Bulge becomes a celebration but it seems that Hurtgen Forest is to be forgotten. At least there is still a lot of information still out there, but it rarely gets a mention in Normandy to Berlin style articles or documentaries for mass consumption. I've always believed sacrifice should be remembered, and it's not just Omaha and the Bulge.
@@jamesevans886 Yeah, it was definitely quite a few American divisions thatget badly mauled in here. This video focuses on the 28th, but the 9th was in there first, along with the 4th Infantry, the 5th Armored, and even the 82nd Airborne eventually. I'm sure I'm missing a few in there as well. Worst if all, the 28th was beaten up so bad it was withdrawn from the Hurtgen Forest and sent to the Ardennes to "rest" . . . and of course wound up being one of just four divisions initially struck by the Wacht am Rhein offensive. Some guys can't catch a break. I also agree 100% that the Hurtgen Forest is often forgotten and overshadowed by the Bulge, which it damned sure shouldn't be. One of the reasons I wanted to feature this content.
@JamesJohnson-wq6bs Totally agree, mate. It should never be pushed aside or forgotten. It's been about 2 years since I last took a serious look at the Hurtgen Forest, but from memory, it was 5 full divisions chewed up there not including attachments from other divisions as that could add up to another division. There were a small number of US divisions that you should avoid being assigned to. Another was the (Un-) Lucky 7th Armoured division. Chewed up at Arracourt and moved to Holland for rebuilding. Finally, the US searches for the safer place so the division can be fully rested and rebuilt. It was assigned to the quiet Ardennes Front.
@@jamesevans886 - Oh, I haven’t even gotten into all the divisions torn up in the Ardennes. I just mentioned the 28th that probably took the worst of Hurtgen and was then transferred to “rest”, absorb replacements, and train in the Ardennes. We’ll get into the Ardennes soon enough, I’m actually traveling there next month. 😅