Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Chain of Command Rule Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 08. 2024
- Did you watch our dramatic Foy wargame last week and wonder how the rules work? This week, the guys at Little Wars TV review "Chain of Command," a 2010 set of platoon level rules, published by Too Fat Lardies for skirmish actions in World War II. We score rules based on five categories, then offer a final total score at the end.
Visit us at www.LittleWarsTV.com to see how other members of our club scored the rules. We also encourage anyone who has played this rule set to leave your own review here in the comments.
For more information about Chain of Command, you can visit Too Fat Lardies at toofatlardies.co.uk
And if you haven't seen our Foy battle, be sure to check out the video at • Dramatic Foy Wargame
A generally fair review even if I disagree with a lot of it. While the dice rolling for activation is random, smart use of your leaders gives a player a the ability to overcome that randomness. I don't understand why people prefer fixed movement rates, especially in a skirmish game. people just don't move over ground, even the same ground, at a steady rate that can be predicted ahead of time. In my opinion fixed movement rates is the most unrealistic thing in most rules. Should have mentioned that you can get a PDF copy for just under $20.
Certainly the question of fixed vs. random movement rates is a topic of debate even within our club. A number of us--myself included--are big fans of variable movement, but the cost of doing it is, of course, slowing down the game as you add more rolling. Trade offs in every case. It's all a subjective question of where you want to add detail and granularity and which parts of the rules you want to simplify and streamline. Fixed movement is a case of streamlining.
I tend to not mind random movement. I think it can add some nice randomness to movement that can account for the friction of men moving across ground in the face of the enemy. I don't mind if a system doesn't have that element either, though. I tend to dislike randomness when it comes to whether a unit is activated or not. Not because I think every unit should always be under the control of the player at all times, but because I think the friction should come from the actions of the enemy. So I'd rather see the randomness of activation on the other end when trying to activate a suppressed unit, for example. For that reason I really dislike the randomness of card activation. I think CoC does a decent job of meeting in the middle with the dice Activation and being able to add dice together and what activates on certain dice etc. It works, adds some uncertainty, but leaves the player with being able to formulate and plan and react to the enemy. Friction, not randomness.
Personnaly I also like the random movement. I have also like the command dice. A nice thing with it is the value of the commander. Adding your officer to a section means that if I need that MG rocking, I can get it going on a 1-4, giving good command on cintrol in that position.
Good point about the commander. And random movement is a hotly debated topic here within our club. Some of the guys love it, some don't. I personally think it makes a ton of good sense as wargames get higher and higher in scale/scope with units representing larger formations. But at the platoon/squad level, it seems a bit less necessary. Again though, even within our club guys disagree!
@Alien Alien it's a platoon level game where, if the dice gods are with you (fat chance), you would move 5 or 6 units at the most, assuming none of them would fire ot remove pins etc... rolling a couple of D6 is really going to slow the game down... Have you ever played the rules?
Liked CoC when I tried it. Found it to be ALOT better and more enjoyable than Bolt Action.
Good video 👍
Hear, hear! Personally not a big Bolt Action fan. Maybe we'll review it one day....
CoC is the main game I play now. Things work like they are supposed to. I am not having to consider the rules when moving, I consider what would really happen, and what would I do. None of the "well, that unit has already activated" mentality, or "the enemy can't get to me in one turn" due to the combination of reserve forces and jump off points, as well as multiple phases massively adjusting where the enemy might be.
Keith, what company level game would you pick over IABSM?
@@WARdROBEPlaysWWII I haven't settled on any yet, but I really like Crossfire though it is a higher level system. For now I'm mainly running company level games by playing multiple player platoon level. I recently finished a company of Germans and Soviets for Kursk, so I've been doing DHII for company level with multiple commands.
bolt actions mechanics aren't bad, but they don't scale up well at all, and the game has only the merest resemblance to a historical game, as the army building system is insanely loose. the last bit really kills it as a game system for me. One platoon build list per theater is not nearly restrictive enough.
Their support is incredible - it makes the price worth it.
Little wars is rapidly becoming my favourite CZcams channel. Keep up the good work guys!
Thanks for the support!
I second that
Nice review guys, for me a little underscored it plays quickly and simulates fog of war really well. There are some fabulous videos explaining how the game plays and others demonstrating the fun nature of these rules. What I really like is the real world simulation of platoon commander decision making of which there is a lot, such as committing reserves or himself at the crucial moment. The Chain of Command dice really helps bring those critical moments together and can swing a game in a sides favour. Its about timing, position and luck. Keep up the great work!
I'm really enjoying Chain of Command. Perhaps in your review categories you could think about adding narrative, the story telling of the game. TooFatLardies rules are anchored in that that story telling. That feeling of being 'in the game' marks their rules as special IMO
I myself think CoC rules are by far the best platoon level rule system on the market, not long after it was releasted, Big Rich did a four city tour, one in each part of the U.K. England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, he came to the club that back then I was a member of UWSNI ( N.Ireland ) we play all the Lardy games, so a full day with six different games on the go, it was a privilege to meet him and have a good chat, I spent the day playing CoC just Fantastic
Great set of rules, have used it for WW1, SCW and WW2 frequently in our group. Have had lots of fun with Lardies rule sets over the years, always a good time had.
Chain of Command is my favorite of the Lardies systems and it's certainly quite popular here in the US, as well as in the UK.
Great review. I agree at 3:08 - I had difficulty with it at the beginning as well. I had to try a few times to go over things and grasp them.
The one thing that still boggles my mind is: when you score a hit on a target in the open, roll a die. On a 1 or a 2, that hit is a miss. Now maybe there's a different meaning to "hit" and "miss" in British English, but here in the States they are _antonyms_ .
I think they meant the shot Bounces on a tank, is superficial damage or very near a target
Whilst overall a fair review, I did find it curious that Keith chose to be part of a review of a game which some may argue rivals his own ruleset. One might be tempted to question whether this review can be considered as completely impartial, especially given some of the lower scores given.
CoC is, I believe, generally considered as one of the most accurate depictions, at platoon level, of ww2 combat. It rates highly in the usual places, I e. TMP and lead adventure. I certainly rate highly in this area.
Stuart Stapleton Who ever said we were trying to be impartial? These are reviews by our club of the rules we've used. I have never hidden my connection to DH II nor am I in any way trying to pass off my review as anything more than my opinion. On our website, CoC was the only rules set to get a 100. He even admitted that it is a ridiculous score, but that he simply loves the rules. And he's a friend. That's what this club and this channel is about. Friends talking about wargaming.
My own review doesn't give any score lower than a 5 and the final score is a 65 out of 100. Pretty high for someone being accused of giving it "lower scores".
What's funny is, I find CoC to be ok. That seems to make its fans unhappy.
I get the same reaction when I tell people I don't get excited about pizza.
Thanks, Stuart. We felt that as a fellow designer, author, and industry member, Keith would, in fact, be the ideal person to review CoC. And the rest of the club's scores appear on the website. Probably also worth adding that no one here claims to be impartial--we're just some wargamers who sit around and play games and talk about rules, with each of us bringing our own subjective opinions to the table. CoC got pretty solid marks from all of us in this club for "Historical Flavor," so I'd agree with your last assessment!
I actually feel like a published game rule author is a better judge. You have to have some game design skill to release a published ruleset, and that can certainly help understand some deeper concepts. It doesnt bother me.
I wish you would compare mechanics between rule sets. How does Bolt Action or FoW handle C&C, artillery, etc.
I Play it in 15mm, which works really Well, especially if you want to include more vehicles.
I used to not be a fan of random movement, but it works with this game. It adds a fog of War element, and makes the game more fluid and less like a chess game. I disagree with the statement that it is totally random. You have the opportunity to either roll less dice for movement and possibly not get to where you’re going; or, you can roll more dice and not be able to shoot. There are tactical decisions all through this ruleset, without the cumbersome rules to go along with them. There is a bit of a learning curve, though.
I add in a house rule to help level out the random in the move.
A leader can use one command point to reroll a single movement dice ("MOVE IT!").
Leadership reducing friction.
I play CoC a lot and it's really taken off at our club. As was mentioned the support from the community and from the author is incredible and that makes all the difference. There is always something new to look forward to (such as the new Blitzkrieg 1940 theatre handbook).
There is one very important aspect of CoC that was missed though - the campaign side of it. The campaigns change the whole dynamic of the game, as you must always keep the next game in mind and think how each scenario affects the campaign objectives. Keeping your force effective and avoiding the "interview without coffee" being key. Games are rarely balanced in the published Pint Sized Campaigns but the campaign objectives always are, which helps to move away from the stale balanced pug you often see with other rules. The campaign dynamic is where CoC really wins over other rule sets in my opinion.
The support offered by TFL is truly the best in the business. I think almost everyone in our club rated it a perfect "10." But you make a great point about the campaign rules. We didn't discuss them in the review and I know TFL has a large number of Pint Sized Campaigns that create a whole additional layer of strategy and game-play.
@@LittleWarsTV As well as the pint-sized campaigns, the lardies also offer a blank template campaign supplement called "At the sharp end" which allows players to design and run DIY campaigns for any theatre.
Very flavoursome.
Ps, Love your work. Subscribed.
It's amazing that any of us play anything after watching reviews. I've got to quit watching them. I'm sitting here spinning my wheels, not knowing what rules set to play and regretting the purchases of the ones I've bought.
Like what you play and play what you like. ;)
As someone who is interested in the Early War, this is one of the few options I have. Flames of War dropped their support. Bolt Action you have to pay through the nose for their miniatures and books.
I would agree with D E CoC seems a lot more realistic than Bolt Action
You wondered about the 'Too Fat Lardies' name. I suspect it's a play on 'Two Fat Ladies', which is both the bingo call for 88 (perhaps relevant to a ww2 game?), but also a TV series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Fat_Ladies
Did the TV series not take its name from the Bingo call?
Any chance you guys will review Sharp Practice?
We've played it in the club several times, so I'd say there's certainly a chance for a review!
Too Flat Lattes
Best in class. No real close second for me.
Still a Tracktics fan
I bought it but have no one to play with 😞
I concur
You must use tender love and care to grow a "tabletop gamer friend". Truly, you can find yourself a tabletop gamer... if only you sprinkle a little water on the local soil... Networking. Networking. Networking. Don't be abashed. ;)
I love the patrol phase.
It really sets the game up for an empty battlefield.
Also the same table can provide several really different battles.
It's worth watching some of the TwoFatLardy videos showing the game.
They do illustrate the pinning power of massed shooting, and the friction as opposing forces exert pressure on each other.
Is that a kar 98 on the wall???
Sure is!
65%????? I don't understand that low score, CoC is very popular and quite successful.
It is a review, not a representation of how successful or popular a product is. It is meant to show how a certain person likes or dislikes the product, in this case a set of wargame rules. And as such, just like any other review in the world, it is subjective, as it presents an opinion of a person writing the review. So while they may give it 65%, many other people may give it higher marks just because they love it.
A 65 is actually pretty good their weighted scoring system, and I believe anything over a 70 falls into the “highly recommended” category. I assume 65 then means that they do like and recommend the game, but not as much as a few others.
McDonald's is the most popular and successful restaurant in the world, but that doesn't mean it will get good scores in a culinary competition.
One gives a 100 rating(Jon) , another gives it a 44(Steve). Huge difference in opinions. (ratings from the Little wars Site)
That's how opinions work ;)
@@HeadHunterSixThanks Captain Obvious, a year late, yeah, but doesnt much help when people are looking at the reviews to pick a game....
@@shockerck4465 understanding that fundamental truth is the only way that the review is useful. If that were obvious, you wouldn't have felt the need to express it.
People are still looking at the reviews but your comment didn't influence my choice.
Take care and look both ways before crossing the street.
Re-watching the Foy game, I am not sure that all that subtleties of the rules were fully understood - though to be fair, much may been lost in editing. For example, scouts are an important US National Characteristic. They should have been pushed up to locate the German positions and force him to deploy and perhaps threaten his jump off points. Once that's done, the rest of the platoon can be deployed to the best advantage, using the mortars to pile the shock on the selected point of attack.
I was also perplexed that Steve called the Foy game "Exciting" and but then called the rules "tedious" in his review and his support rating is far out of line from the rest of the group. Not his cup of tea and that's fine but some elaboration might clarify his message.
Oh and Bois is pronounced more like "bwah" ;)
Overall though, I love what you are doing with the channel.
Pat G The game was exciting because the situation was tense and we're a great group of friends playing a good scenario together. I find the rules tedious as well, but the game was still fun.
We didn't use the US national characteristic because of the specific situation of the historic battle. Crossing that much open ground we felt negated a characteristic like that.
I'm always amused by how any time someone doesn't enjoy CoC it has to be because they don't understand the rules. It can never be because they simply don't enjoy the system or they have legitimate criticisms of it.
It's a fine system. Not everyone that has a criticism of it is missing something about the rules. Some times it's because they actually know the rules.
Different strokes and all. But I find that reaction quite common for any less than fawning opinion of CoC.
Thanks, Pat! We skipped the "scouts" characteristic due to the specifics of the scenario. Historically, Easy did not throw out any advance elements toward the town and we wanted to try and simulate the difficulty of the attack. Turned out to be...quite difficult indeed. The German players used the Chain of Command Dice very, very effectively to lift the American smoke at the perfect moment.
That explains a fair bit - thanks.
Yes I am an unrepentant fan boi. ;) You don't like the rules - I have no issues with that at all.
On the flip side , it is very common to see players coming from other systems trying to get all their toys on the table as quickly as possible and then suddenly realizing that they can't move them all exactly as they want every phase. Then they get spanked hard and claim the rules are flawed.
If I ever get down your way I'll buy you a beer or three and we can play Disposable Heroes or whatever rules you prefer.
Not a big fan of the dice rolls. That would end up frustrating me in the end when I roll bad.....which I do quite often.
If you don't like dice rolls, best to avoid most wargames, and stick to a game like DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatis)!
@@DerekHohls DBA is too unbalanced.....some armies will always win, some will always lose.
@@1teamski That misses the point I was trying to make; DBA is a diceless system unlike most other wargames. The fact the CoC has *lots* of dice rolls is actually in its favour! Games with just one or two die rolls at key points are more likely to frustrate you.
@@DerekHohls I find that more and more games (not necessarily this one) are becoming dice fests that replace actual decision points. I love dice, but not when they are used to replace good mechanics. Warhammer and Flames of War come to mind. You line up troops and roll dice.
I found these rules very boring.
Several members of our club would agree with you. Others really enjoy them. I will say that there's another rule set we review later in the season that really divides our club with a wide range of strong opinions. Generally we tend to agree on what rules we like.
pbeccas I agree & the learning curve was difficult for me.
I have found these rules to be very complex and difficult to understand.
65% is an unjust and unsubstantiated score. CoC is easily a 90% rating. I think these Little Wars TV gents should expand their tabletop gaming experience/horizons. A gaming review should not be comparing/contrasting CoC to any other game system for they are uncomparable. Too Fat Lardies stand alone in all that they do and that is why we enjoy their products.
If you go to our website you'll find other scores, several of which are certainly higher. One of our guys actually gave CoC a 100%--the only rule system to ever get such a score.
@@LittleWarsTVNice to know. I think you gents rock. Yes, I know we humans have our biases/subjective opinions. That is why makes humanity GREAT... variety. That said, I felt the rationale for a sixty five percent rating was not firmly grounded. We (our gaming group) feel the CoC system adds entertaining variety to what otherwise is a straight forward tabletop genre.