It's Thanksgiving weekend here on the West Coast of Canada. In an otherwise terrible 2020, finally seeing O Group take the table at least gives gamers something to be thankful for. Also, nice to see a campaign that included Canada's substantial contribution to the war effort. (Can't wait to see how Armour works in Pt II) Good job David and Rich.
Perfect timing, I jsut ordered some 10mm German and Soviet tanks to paint up, I just need to wait until the rules are released! Looking forward to this level of play in WW2.
Very useful video. Just bought the rules so this is a very valuable resource and I hope it stays up on UA-cam. My only comment so far is you guys keep telling me how 'simple' everything is. To me, some of this seems quite complex - or to put it another way, place enough simple actions end to end and you get something complicated. But it's early days for me yet! Lots of original and fresh-feeling mechanics here.
Very much a step up from IABSM I think. Going to stick with 6mm scale for IABSM, but for O-group I believe 2/3mm will look fantastic. Great video guys thanks!
Crikey. I gave up on 6mm for WW2 because I couldn’t see the bloomin’ troops. Reducing them to 2 or 3mm would make the problem even more extreme. Each to their own I suppose. Personally, I would go 10mm or higher in scale for WW2, relegating the smaller scales to mass armies where you still have troops advancing in large compact battalions, so 1914 and earlier. The great attraction of a period like Napoleonics or Seven Years War is the uniforms, so there too I would never go smaller in scale than 6mm.
Looking forward to these rules. Long time player of Dave's rules including General d'Armee and GdB and it looks like these will be of the same calibre. Be good to see further games involving AFVs to see how they compare to our current WW2 set, Battlegroup.
I picked the rules, it definitely peaked my interest after watching this video, but the Scale of it kinda has me scratching my head a bit. Curious to know why a base of guns, tanks or other AFV represents 2-3 per base, when a base of infantry is a section/squad? IABSM has the same infantry basing, 1 base per section, 1 vehicle or gun = 1 vehicle or gun. O Group seems to be different in that aspect which doesn't quite sit right with me. The 1 tank = 2-3 would make that a platoon of tanks. Could making it so that 1 gun, tank or AFV = 1 gun, tank or AFV?
I agree. Dave and I discussed the importance of allowing more than just the initial objective but also the possibility of having a second phase to the action, so really modelling the depth of battle. I think he’s done a truly great job.
Just getting into O Group now, thanks to Plastic Crack Podcast and Storm of Steel, and really thankful for this video and the follow up videos. Really helpful.
Just got the rules here in Toronto...look very interesting. One question...why are British infantry battalions shown with 3 companies...I always thought they had 4
I am a big fan of Chain of Command, which I played most weeks for years and have had the pleasure of playing with Big Rich as umpire at Partizan in 2019. I looked forward to this game, but having watched the video here I have to say I'm not convinced yet. It strikes me as battalion-scale CoC, which is no bad starting point, but the game didn't seem to translate into an equally convincing representation at this level. My first issue would be that a battalion attack consisted of most of the rifle companies advancing as whole companies and usually quite close together as well. In this video we see a couple of *platoons* and some tiny patrols going in and then the players taking it from there in an ad hoc way. Now I know us lazy wargamers don't like to write big plans and maps down, with boundary and phase lines and all the rest of it, even if that's how it really worked. But we need some mechanism that commits us to some sort of plan from the start. My second realism issue is the role of artillery. WWII infantry attacks relied on massive artillery preparation, with rolling barrages and all, in order to avoid the attacking footsloggers being massacred the minute the defenders see them coming. The artillery preparation did not merely reduce the defenders' numbers a bit as we see demonstrated. Mainly it supressed, blinded and pinned the defenders, plus cut their communications with two further effects: their HQ didn't know what was happening within their positions for some time, and it was hard to call in defensive fire missions form mortars and so on. With a battalion-level game it ought to be possible to address these issues and still have enough player involvement to make it fun. Anyway, there's my bit of constructive criticism, lard-fans!
Well, I have to say that my companies making the attack both worked as whole companies. In both cases two platoons served as a base of fire and the third platoon undertook the attack. I had two phase lines and my two companies had clearly defined operational boundaries.
You may have missed the section where I briefly covered company sectors. In the Deployment Phase both players outline the Battalion Commander's Plan, allocating each Company its sector, and any attacking objective or phaseline. Additionally the plan includes any battalion reserves, both Rich and I held one company back as the Battalion Reserve, while Rich also held back the Armour as a reserve. Not covered in the video was the Interdiction effect of the opening barrage upon the deployment of the German reserves, representing the pinning or suppressing of reserves and/or cutting comms with the Battalion HQ. Hope that helps.
I’d second everything in that post. I guess this is just a learning game. A more competitive game between experienced players might start with the defenders already partly deployed and carrying plenty of shock/suppression while the respective HQs would have much restricted pools of Orders. Certainly the rules lend themselves more than CoC to the Attackers vs Defenders type of game, with more historical proportions of attackers (usually outnumbering defenders at least 3 to 1).
Very nice Dave , passes the pub test i.e can you play this after lunch in the pub! with 4+ for nearly everything it's a yesh. Seems to to be a reasonable amount of friction and decision points. Not sure if there is enough difference between the forces due to weapons or moral etc. yet - looking forwards to seeing more esp when vehicles come into it.
Each battalion has three bespoke training or other chracteristics. There are also opportunities for addtional bespokse rules depending upon theatre or scenario, etc.
Will this work in 20mm? Would then simply use my CoC armies. There’s a lot of empty space on that table. Surely enough to fit the same number of 1/76 or 1/72 scale tanks and minis? Only prob I’d foresee is when modelling infantry sections. Would three (or maybe six) minis on a sabot base adequately represent a section?
I suppose buildings might be an issue, specifically their size. But as Dave says in the vid, they represent a BuA rather than a single object, and at a guess they will be heavily abstracted as in General d’Armee.
Sorry if this should be obvious, but does this game system involve a degree of abstraction, meaning a single tank mini for example represents many actual AFVs?
6mm would be great. I’m doing 12mm. I think the ground scale is 1”=25m. I’m sure that’s what Dave told me. I had set the table up using period maps with 12” to 250m and it was only just out. So that makes 1m = 1km, so 1:1000.
@@toofatlardies what are the basing conventions please? Is it 1 section =1 base? Platoon being 2-3 bases? Do platoon leaders have a seperate base? Thanks in advance
@@davemitchison6798 1 infantry base = 1 section, a platoon being 3 bases. No need for platoon leaders, they are incorporated into the plaltoon, though I use the ones I have as a "rifle section" as part of a platoon.
The main rules have the mid-late war Big Four (Ger/UK/US/Russ.) and later supplements will include other armies/eras. Having said that you can still play an early war scenario, as most tanks and guns are covered, without the bespoke battalion list.
So is this meant to be like a step up from Chain of Command in scale then? I don't currently play those (I play Flames of War) but they seem very interesting and are definitely something I want to look at some time if I can get the locals interested.
Battle Range is the maximum units can see on flat ground, though can be blocked by terrain. Once elevated, even on slight rises of the ground, such as a berm, etc, then units use the longer Elevated Ranges.
“Elevated range” is a most excellent and innovative rule concept. Brings to life the crucial importance of high ground. Strange that it’s not been seen (much) before. I can see it being successfully retrofitted into all manner of commercial rules and periods, perhaps even into CoC.
The Spotting die is rolled on each occasion a unit fires so, even if you "spotted" the enemy last phase or turn the die is still rolled. This is because even if the target was seen last turn consider the confusion of battle, smoke, return fire and of course, the enemy ducking down out of sight and shifting position, which all lead to confusion and an inability to completely fix an enemy position.
That’s great to hear. Definitely looking forward to getting this set. It has just enough CoC flavor to be easily learned; but, definitely a different gaming experience regarding command and control! Meant to ask previously - is there a projected release date? Also, do you plan on doing scenario books like you did with GdA? As an aside, I would love to see on for PC as well! I know - too many things at once. That’s how my “detail - oriented” brain works! I know they have meds for that...🤪
I suppose it’s just a learning game but I’m a bit worried by the amount of dice-throwing and also the number of counters needed to track patrols, shock, etc. It’s beginning to look like a board game.
Having played the game, I can honestly say that it didn’t feel like a board game. What I’m doing for my combat patrols is using a base with a couple of figures on. As for shock, I’m just using micro dice, as I do with chain of command. As for rolling dice, that doesn’t strike me as unusual in a wargame. No more dice than in any of the games I’ve designed.
I’m sorry to have to say this but for the first time ever I have struggled to watch a Lard TV video, to put it bluntly this video is boring! The game doesn’t look very exciting either, so far coming across as an alternate version of CoC but in 15mm. And that’s just part 1! I will watch part 2 and hope it gets better, I was hoping O Group was to have more tanks and armoured vehicles?
The rules allow you to have as many tanks as you want to include. As a learning film, we decided to start with the basics rather than jump straight in with the battle of Kursk. The game is at a completely different level to Chain of Command, has completely different mechanisms, is designed to cover very different sized operations. However, if you like a game with lots of big tanks, may I suggest What a Tanker.
@@toofatlardies I understand what you’re saying and I’ve always enjoyed watching your videos and rules demos, particularly the ones for Infamy x2. But the first part video for me was difficult viewing, hopefully the other parts will be better.
@@adrianmist6681 I think the first part was the most explanation heavy part. Remember that we are attempting to describe all of the mechanisms rather than just play a game through, so it’s a trifle artificial in that respect.
Fear not; purchase is not compulsory. I’m somewhat intrigued by your comment though. I don’t the the number of dice rolls, nor the number of dice being rolled at any point in time, as unusually high. No more than Chain of Command, by way of example.
@@toofatlardies Maybe it was just the way it came across - it seemed that it was dice for this, that and the other before the troops did anything and then it was dice to spot etc.
@@andrewbeasley I don't think so, in common with many WW2 rules, there are command dice, then just dice rolls to hit followed by opposing dice rolls to "save". The spotting die is not rolled separately but always with your to hit dice.
It's Thanksgiving weekend here on the West Coast of Canada. In an otherwise terrible 2020, finally seeing O Group take the table at least gives gamers something to be thankful for. Also, nice to see a campaign that included Canada's substantial contribution to the war effort. (Can't wait to see how Armour works in Pt II) Good job David and Rich.
instablaster.
Perfect timing, I jsut ordered some 10mm German and Soviet tanks to paint up, I just need to wait until the rules are released! Looking forward to this level of play in WW2.
I was thinking of doing the same thing.
Great looking table and excellent video as always. Looking forward to these rules.
Been studying blog posts and images to try and get a headstart on some O Group forces! Looking forward to this one guys!
Very useful video. Just bought the rules so this is a very valuable resource and I hope it stays up on UA-cam. My only comment so far is you guys keep telling me how 'simple' everything is. To me, some of this seems quite complex - or to put it another way, place enough simple actions end to end and you get something complicated. But it's early days for me yet! Lots of original and fresh-feeling mechanics here.
Always a joy seeing David join in with his take on rules. Good fun as always. Thanks for posting.
~Fritz
I would love to hear what you think of the game on your channel! Thanks for all your other content! Really great stuff!
Very much a step up from IABSM I think. Going to stick with 6mm scale for IABSM, but for O-group I believe 2/3mm will look fantastic.
Great video guys thanks!
Crikey. I gave up on 6mm for WW2 because I couldn’t see the bloomin’ troops. Reducing them to 2 or 3mm would make the problem even more extreme. Each to their own I suppose.
Personally, I would go 10mm or higher in scale for WW2, relegating the smaller scales to mass armies where you still have troops advancing in large compact battalions, so 1914 and earlier. The great attraction of a period like Napoleonics or Seven Years War is the uniforms, so there too I would never go smaller in scale than 6mm.
Amazing ruleset and enjoying the game a lot. How do you think this game would manage at 20mm and what size table would you recommend for that scale ?
Looking forward to these rules. Long time player of Dave's rules including General d'Armee and GdB and it looks like these will be of the same calibre. Be good to see further games involving AFVs to see how they compare to our current WW2 set, Battlegroup.
I picked the rules, it definitely peaked my interest after watching this video, but the Scale of it kinda has me scratching my head a bit. Curious to know why a base of guns, tanks or other AFV represents 2-3 per base, when a base of infantry is a section/squad? IABSM has the same infantry basing, 1 base per section, 1 vehicle or gun = 1 vehicle or gun. O Group seems to be different in that aspect which doesn't quite sit right with me. The 1 tank = 2-3 would make that a platoon of tanks.
Could making it so that 1 gun, tank or AFV = 1 gun, tank or AFV?
Good video, and just what I needed to keep me plugging away at my 12mm WWII. Eagerly awaiting the next installment.
I wasn't sure about O group but having watched this I'm keen to get into it. I like the idea of a battalion level game that can fit onto a 6x4 table.
I agree. Dave and I discussed the importance of allowing more than just the initial objective but also the possibility of having a second phase to the action, so really modelling the depth of battle. I think he’s done a truly great job.
I love the structures, and table as well. Very well done. Thank you!
Just getting into O Group now, thanks to Plastic Crack Podcast and Storm of Steel, and really thankful for this video and the follow up videos. Really helpful.
Simply love all of the lard content. Keep it coming!
Still collecting and organising forces, but have to play this soon.
Thanks. Been looking for multi company/battalion level ww2 rules that covers tanks, recee, reserves and artillery right. This looks great
Just got the rules here in Toronto...look very interesting. One question...why are British infantry battalions shown with 3 companies...I always thought they had 4
D Company is shown in your Battalion supports.
Will this rule book include pacific/Far East lists and rules?
I am a big fan of Chain of Command, which I played most weeks for years and have had the pleasure of playing with Big Rich as umpire at Partizan in 2019. I looked forward to this game, but having watched the video here I have to say I'm not convinced yet. It strikes me as battalion-scale CoC, which is no bad starting point, but the game didn't seem to translate into an equally convincing representation at this level. My first issue would be that a battalion attack consisted of most of the rifle companies advancing as whole companies and usually quite close together as well. In this video we see a couple of *platoons* and some tiny patrols going in and then the players taking it from there in an ad hoc way. Now I know us lazy wargamers don't like to write big plans and maps down, with boundary and phase lines and all the rest of it, even if that's how it really worked. But we need some mechanism that commits us to some sort of plan from the start. My second realism issue is the role of artillery. WWII infantry attacks relied on massive artillery preparation, with rolling barrages and all, in order to avoid the attacking footsloggers being massacred the minute the defenders see them coming. The artillery preparation did not merely reduce the defenders' numbers a bit as we see demonstrated. Mainly it supressed, blinded and pinned the defenders, plus cut their communications with two further effects: their HQ didn't know what was happening within their positions for some time, and it was hard to call in defensive fire missions form mortars and so on. With a battalion-level game it ought to be possible to address these issues and still have enough player involvement to make it fun. Anyway, there's my bit of constructive criticism, lard-fans!
Well, I have to say that my companies making the attack both worked as whole companies. In both cases two platoons served as a base of fire and the third platoon undertook the attack. I had two phase lines and my two companies had clearly defined operational boundaries.
You may have missed the section where I briefly covered company sectors. In the Deployment Phase both players outline the Battalion Commander's Plan, allocating each Company its sector, and any attacking objective or phaseline. Additionally the plan includes any battalion reserves, both Rich and I held one company back as the Battalion Reserve, while Rich also held back the Armour as a reserve. Not covered in the video was the Interdiction effect of the opening barrage upon the deployment of the German reserves, representing the pinning or suppressing of reserves and/or cutting comms with the Battalion HQ. Hope that helps.
I’d second everything in that post. I guess this is just a learning game. A more competitive game between experienced players might start with the defenders already partly deployed and carrying plenty of shock/suppression while the respective HQs would have much restricted pools of Orders. Certainly the rules lend themselves more than CoC to the Attackers vs Defenders type of game, with more historical proportions of attackers (usually outnumbering defenders at least 3 to 1).
@@toofatlardies Good answers, guys.
Very nice Dave , passes the pub test i.e can you play this after lunch in the pub! with 4+ for nearly everything it's a yesh.
Seems to to be a reasonable amount of friction and decision points.
Not sure if there is enough difference between the forces due to weapons or moral etc. yet - looking forwards to seeing more esp when vehicles come into it.
Each battalion has three bespoke training or other chracteristics. There are also opportunities for addtional bespokse rules depending upon theatre or scenario, etc.
@@ruckandmaul5018 That's good to know - look forward to reading the lists in due course
Finally, a use for my FOW figures.
Hmmmmmm. Do I need another WWII rule set? Silly me, of course I do!
Thanks for the demo of these rules. Keep them coming!
Will this work in 20mm? Would then simply use my CoC armies.
There’s a lot of empty space on that table. Surely enough to fit the same number of 1/76 or 1/72 scale tanks and minis? Only prob I’d foresee is when modelling infantry sections. Would three (or maybe six) minis on a sabot base adequately represent a section?
I’d use three. I can’t see an issue with 20mm.
I suppose buildings might be an issue, specifically their size. But as Dave says in the vid, they represent a BuA rather than a single object, and at a guess they will be heavily abstracted as in General d’Armee.
Hello, can you give me some advice on how you design a map for a game, like for chain of command? (maybe it's an idea for a video)
Tank you!
I'm looking forward to these rules - I really like General D'Armee and am looking for a better set of WW2 rules - these may be it
Sorry if this should be obvious, but does this game system involve a degree of abstraction, meaning a single tank mini for example represents many actual AFVs?
A figure base = a section of about 10 men. An AFV/Gun model represents 2 (or very occasionally 3) actual guns or tanks.
Who plays the orange bass leaning in the corner?
Is this scenario in the Normandy supplement
This looks like it could get me back into ww2. Question will their be lists for mid war have always wanted to do Tunisia and italy.
Woo! Very exciting! I’m ready to add to my large stack of Dave Brown games!
Out by Easter? These rules look very interesting, I’m thinking 6mm though. Is the ground scale the same as 15mm?
6mm would be great. I’m doing 12mm. I think the ground scale is 1”=25m. I’m sure that’s what Dave told me. I had set the table up using period maps with 12” to 250m and it was only just out. So that makes 1m = 1km, so 1:1000.
I’m doing 12mm as well. I really like that scale for this level of game. Looking forward to part 2, as well as the release of the ruleset!!!😀
@@get_the_lead_out With Victrix putting out gorgeous new 12mm minis, it seems like a no-brainer to do O Group in that scale.
@@toofatlardies what are the basing conventions please? Is it 1 section =1 base? Platoon being 2-3 bases? Do platoon leaders have a seperate base? Thanks in advance
@@davemitchison6798 1 infantry base = 1 section, a platoon being 3 bases. No need for platoon leaders, they are incorporated into the plaltoon, though I use the ones I have as a "rifle section" as part of a platoon.
👍🏼 getting this! Will the rules have lists for all armies and eras or will they be available separately?
The main rules have the mid-late war Big Four (Ger/UK/US/Russ.) and later supplements will include other armies/eras. Having said that you can still play an early war scenario, as most tanks and guns are covered, without the bespoke battalion list.
Mr. Rumpole playing O Group? Faacinating
So is this meant to be like a step up from Chain of Command in scale then? I don't currently play those (I play Flames of War) but they seem very interesting and are definitely something I want to look at some time if I can get the locals interested.
A couple of steps up. This is a battalion plus supports.
Great video, as always!
Is there going to be a preferred size for bases? I'm thinking of using FOW bases for 10mm figs.
O Group is basing agnostic, so you can use any base size you wish, as long as both sides are reasonably similar.
@@ruckandmaul5018 cheers i have to admit rules and rule developers today have evolved massively from the robber baron days of the 80's - 00's.
@@davemitchison6798 - “some” developers. Don’t worry, the robber barons are still there on the sidelines, furtively gnashing their teeth.
Is the 14inch battle range affected by terrain or lack of it? Will these rules work well for n Africa?
Battle Range is the maximum units can see on flat ground, though can be blocked by terrain. Once elevated, even on slight rises of the ground, such as a berm, etc, then units use the longer Elevated Ranges.
“Elevated range” is a most excellent and innovative rule concept. Brings to life the crucial importance of high ground. Strange that it’s not been seen (much) before. I can see it being successfully retrofitted into all manner of commercial rules and periods, perhaps even into CoC.
Liking what I see so far.
Looking amazing chaps!
Where can an American buy a copy of these rules?
On Military Matters
What if you spot 1st time why have to spot again ?
The Spotting die is rolled on each occasion a unit fires so, even if you "spotted" the enemy last phase or turn the die is still rolled. This is because even if the target was seen last turn consider the confusion of battle, smoke, return fire and of course, the enemy ducking down out of sight and shifting position, which all lead to confusion and an inability to completely fix an enemy position.
Guys - in one of the videos would you please go over whether you can play OG with multiple players on a side? Thanks!
You can. Before lockdown we played with multiple players, each commanding their own battalion. It is designed to do that with no local if speed.
That’s great to hear. Definitely looking forward to getting this set. It has just enough CoC flavor to be easily learned; but, definitely a different gaming experience regarding command and control!
Meant to ask previously - is there a projected release date? Also, do you plan on doing scenario books like you did with GdA? As an aside, I would love to see on for PC as well! I know - too many things at once. That’s how my “detail - oriented” brain works! I know they have meds for that...🤪
Knife Hand! "WAIT FOR IT,.. WAIT"!
Scott - that took years of training to perfect!
Looking forward to the second deposit!
Anyone think this is doable in 15mm on a 8x4 table? I just started some IABSM using 15mm. Rather not have to invest in another scale.
Our vane was in 15mm on a 6 x 4 tabla. So yes, it is absolutely fine with a larger table.
@@toofatlardies Thanks Lardies....keep the good stuff coming. We yanks appreciate your love for the game.
Oh boy, a set for me to consider.
I suppose it’s just a learning game but I’m a bit worried by the amount of dice-throwing and also the number of counters needed to track patrols, shock, etc. It’s beginning to look like a board game.
Having played the game, I can honestly say that it didn’t feel like a board game. What I’m doing for my combat patrols is using a base with a couple of figures on. As for shock, I’m just using micro dice, as I do with chain of command. As for rolling dice, that doesn’t strike me as unusual in a wargame. No more dice than in any of the games I’ve designed.
This looks interesting 😁
I’m sorry to have to say this but for the first time ever I have struggled to watch a Lard TV video, to put it bluntly this video is boring! The game doesn’t look very exciting either, so far coming across as an alternate version of CoC but in 15mm. And that’s just part 1! I will watch part 2 and hope it gets better, I was hoping O Group was to have more tanks and armoured vehicles?
The rules allow you to have as many tanks as you want to include. As a learning film, we decided to start with the basics rather than jump straight in with the battle of Kursk.
The game is at a completely different level to Chain of Command, has completely different mechanisms, is designed to cover very different sized operations. However, if you like a game with lots of big tanks, may I suggest What a Tanker.
@@toofatlardies I understand what you’re saying and I’ve always enjoyed watching your videos and rules demos, particularly the ones for Infamy x2. But the first part video for me was difficult viewing, hopefully the other parts will be better.
@@adrianmist6681 I think the first part was the most explanation heavy part. Remember that we are attempting to describe all of the mechanisms rather than just play a game through, so it’s a trifle artificial in that respect.
Initial thought is way too many dice rolls...
Do not think this is for me.
Fear not; purchase is not compulsory. I’m somewhat intrigued by your comment though. I don’t the the number of dice rolls, nor the number of dice being rolled at any point in time, as unusually high. No more than Chain of Command, by way of example.
@@toofatlardies Maybe it was just the way it came across - it seemed that it was dice for this, that and the other before the troops did anything and then it was dice to spot etc.
@@andrewbeasley I don't think so, in common with many WW2 rules, there are command dice, then just dice rolls to hit followed by opposing dice rolls to "save". The spotting die is not rolled separately but always with your to hit dice.
Yes he is that kind a guy haha