Command Decision Test of Battle: Allied Order of Battle for Market Garden

I have still been swamped with work and family obligations, but along the way I thought about doing some sort of Market Garden Campaign (1944). I looked at all of the 1 stand = 1 company rules, but I’m not so sure that they are at the level I am most interested in. Instead, I’ve been thinking about trying Command Decision: Text of Battle. In the past I have played a lot of games using the first and second editions of Command Decision and a few games with the third edition, but not many with the Test of Battle edition. Here is the Allied Order of Battle for the Market Garden Campaign in terms of Command Decision: TOB organizations. I have roughed out the German Order of Battle, but that still requires a lot of work given how chaotic the German organizations were. This is a big file (50+ pages), so you can see where my little free time has gone over the last couple of months.

CD TOB Allied Market Garden web

Advertisements

5 Responses to Command Decision Test of Battle: Allied Order of Battle for Market Garden

  1. jdglasco says:

    This is for a Market Garden Campaign. It would be a big campaign, much like the Barbarossa 25 campaign in terms of size. I’m looking at doing some big campaign that would last some time as a solo or possibly two player campaign. Looking at the Market Garden campaign, it is often a weak brigade or two per side and not really a campaign where full divisions fight. So it is about the right size for CD:TOB (but maybe not CD2 or CD3). There are lots of division size battle campaigns like many on the Russian Front, D-Day and breakout or The Battle of the Bulge that could be fought with the division battle rules.

    Like

    • Bill Owen says:

      Isn’t Barbarossa 25 a re-scaled variant so what looks like a CD battalion on the table is representing a corps of the East Front campaign? What on the CD forum they call “bath-tubbing”. As a kid with 2 toy ships thinks of them as a fleet.

      I have never been a fan of that concept because the scales of time and space are so warped in such a Little Prince sort of world & strategic considerations of supply etc need to be researched and created whole cloth. Or worse ignored and you wonder why the Germans didn’t win it in 5 battles!

      The *only* tubification advantage is one doesn’t have to learn new rules. But it seems to me then play a purposefully re-scaled game like High Command which may account for these considerations. I say *may* because Frank may have omitted supply etc. Most gamers are just not interested in such boring, limiting factors but as my buddy Bob used to say, “limitations make the game”. And explain the constraints the commanders worked under.

      But a 2-player (as both can make it) or solo (when the other can’t) is indeed more playable as you said for this particular operation. And *you* have a wargames room to leave it up. I don’t have that luxury currently but might again.

      Like

  2. Bill Owen says:

    Oh, and I should have said: THANK YOU for the great OB. Even if I just use it to upgrade the Great Battles of WWII version, it is much appreciated!

    Like

  3. Bill Owen says:

    CD:TOB is better suited for this sized battle than the earlier versions. It dispenses with minutia like step losses for a given platoon. And part of how it justifies that is the Advanced Rule allowing 2 eliminated stands to be Regrouped back to the Commander as 1 (with the other permanently elim).

    Having said that, this sort of scenario really is a multi-table many player sort of game isn’t it? And really I think that Frank Chadwick’s High Command: Fast Attack (I’ve heard both names so I just use both) and Sam Mustafa’s Rommel are being designed because gamers obviously *want* to play bigger, more well-known battles. Otherwise they wouldn’t make such giant scenarios. As John Holtz said to me during a CD Pegaus Bridge scenario I had made up, “You damn microarmor gamers with your cheap kit, you buy a lot and make the game too big.”

    I just heard from a guy who played in Frank’s demo of HC:FA at Little Wars and he said that the 2×2″ battalion stands have a range of 2″. And in a sense that is a bit more the traditional wargame meme of ranged fire while Sam’s Rommel has no range but you move your “several” companies into a square defended by enemy stand(s) and the “stack” of troops fire a big Attack Factor at them (simultaneously or in some cases one side fires first).

    In a sense, Rommel is also a “battalion” game too albeit with fluid components.

    Back to CD:TOB, I tried a game where I moved 3 platoons (usually) on a company sabot stand (either being magnet, other steel), and the thought was that might speed up the game a bit. While allowing a platoon to be plucked off the sabot and either be left behind on overwatch or move ahead of the other 2 platoons still on the company sabot.

    Result? It was okay but not sure if it made enough of a difference. I have some of this at my blog:
    http://wargamecampaign.blogspot.com/search/label/CompanyStands

    PS and perhaps 1 playing is not enough. And 3mm is just too dang small and even cheaper than Micro.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: