O Group
review
April 2025
I’ve dabbled with lots of rules over the years but sent a
long time playing FoW (though not in the past decade) and my review probably reflects
my experiences with FoW and the feel of the game compared to that.
However, to put this into context I’ve not played any of the
Lardies rulesets (Chain of Command, I Ain’t been Shot Mum” etc. The guys in my previous
gaming community who liked those rules tended to be gamers that I didn’t enjoy gaming
WW2 with so have avoided playing any Lardies rules, maybe to my own detriment.
But when it comes to gaming my two overriding requirements are as
follows:
1. Keep
it simple
2. keep
it fun
Can I can fire smoke missions in O Group?
Yes.
Excellent. I like it already.
But lets dive a bit deeper into the game.
Things I like
Spotting dice
To see or not to see that is the question. Is that tan over there in the open or is it concealed? If a unit is in cover then roll a d6 and on a 4+ the target counts as spotted (and this affects the save, okay morale check), if you don’t succeed the target is obscured and so harder to hit and saves on a different line on the relevant table.
Combat patrols- simple
At the heart to the game and as far as I am concerned its most
elegant mechanic is the combat patrol system. Rather than deploy most units on table
as in FoW the table usually starts almost empty apart from a few company HQs,
the odd platoon though often on table platoons will be in ambush anyway) but there
are a few random figures scattered about the table (we use 25mm bases for
combat patrols).
Usually the first few turns consist of pushing these patrols
forward, probing for wekensses, or gaps in the enemies lines. Combat patrols
canot come within 8” of each other so you can also use them to screen your
forces. Cool, so they are a screening/ picket line? Well, yes and no. Their
real job is to act as forward deployment markers for your units. Rather than stoically stomp across the tabletop
being showered by artillery and tank fire, you sneak forward via the combat
patrol mechanism And until you deploy on table are immune to all such inconveniences.
.
As more units are deployed the Battalion commander (i.e you!)
starts to form a better picture of what is going on and can react to the situation…
or could unless they were somehow constrained. Such as by having a limit to how
many orders they can give out each turn! See below for my thoughts on the
orders systems.
So for me the Combat patrol mechanic is at the heart of the
system and is without a doubt the part of the game I love the most. It creates a
real sense of uncertainty and fog of war which is often missing in table tops
games where the 1000ft general can see all.
Company &
Battalion orders: At the start of each turn you roll 9 dice to
determine how many orders you get for the turn. A 1 = no order (three 1s= a hesitant
company which means one company basically can’t move), 2-5= company orders
while 6s give you battalion orders (orders you can save from turn to turn but
you can never hold more than 6 of them at any one time).
Linked to this is the FUBAR mechanic which means for every 4
losses sustained you sue one order die each round so as losses mount your battalion becomes harder
to use- an elegant command and control mechanism.
Often though there are not enough orders to go around. As the overall commander you neeed to keep an eye on what is happening as can quickly burn through them, and so need to prioritse what you will do each turn.
MMGs- they are nasty- 6 dice per section. I rally feel like
they are effective (as they were) unlike some games where they seem very underwhelming
and as a result are rarely fielded.
Artillery- again nasty. I like the feel mortars, t sucks to
be in the beaten zone but again feels right for the period and not just an add on.
IIRC most infantry casualties in WW2 were caused by artillery and mortars, O
Group is a game where you hate being under a barrage, and to my mind that is a
good thing.
The way the battle unfolds
As I’ve said as you take FUBARs you get less orders and so
can do less on the tabletop impacting what orders you can make. Thus the battle evolves in a way which feels right,
decisions matter and I like the way the battle unfolds.
Why does every game feel the need
to reinvent names of core terms?
Pinned vs Suppressed: A failed save, er morale check, equates to a team getting shock, which affects how easy it can hit. 3 shock = suppressed (can’t move or fire). Once you are suppressed then you can start rolling to kill a unit/section with any future hits.
Probably okay for people from a Lardies games background but or me I struggle with the terminology and have been programmed to automatically think “pinned” rather than “suppressed” as that is what it is in almost very other WW2 game I play. A small thing but one that fits in my keep it simple mantra of gaming. So I'd like tosee these terms changed but that is a minor grie and is defeitnely a from my point of view kind of thing.
Q: When is a morale check not a
morale check?
A: When it is a saving throw.
A similar gripe to above. You get
hit by a weapon a section/gun etc needs to make a morale test or suffer shock/
become suppressed or become KIA. To me this is a different meaning of “morale
test” to almost every other game I have played. I equate it to a saving throw
and so find the terminology confusing. If I am rolling to see if I am dead/pinned/suppressed
or not call it a save and move on.
To my mind a morale test is when
a unit (not a section in this case a platoon for instance) checks to see if
they remain on table after taking lots of casualties and so I find the use of
the term confusing in the context of O Group.
I can kind of see where Dave is
coming from but in almost every other game I can think of (okay, not that many)
to keep the game accessible just use
common terminology, call them saving throws like everybody else does. Simple!
At its heart O Group uses a few
similar mechanics. Infantry (with a few exceptions) tend to save (see what I did
there) on a 3+ or 4+; to range in artillery or mortars or to hit a target with
AT fire you tend to need a 7+ (again a few exceptions) on 2d6 after modifiers.
So far simple, straight forward, pretty
reasonable/intuitive.
Well, it was until I tried to damage
a tank! Now I roll high to hit but low to damage a vehicle. WTF? Just reverse
the table and make high good to knock out a tank. Just like everything else. Rolling low is counter intuitive and pisses me off each time I look at the
chart. My solution? I have done my own Quick Reference Sheet that has high=
good (destroyed). But I shouldn’t need to… and more on that in three…two…one:
Quick Reference Sheet (QRS)
Speaking of QRS. I struggle to
find info I need with this one. I hate the way it is formatted, my eyes glaze
over and I struggle to find relevant information. I have rewritten it in a way
that is simpler for me to find information, explains the steps for the different
types of firing (and to dice rolls needed), added references to the table or
section of the rules the table is found in and now find it actually is a quick…
reference… sheet. A bit more time on layout rather than cramming everything in
might have been in order here.
Nothing I find more frustrating
that finding rules that are not easy to find/ intuitively located in the rulebook.
I’ll give some examples:
Example #1 Panzer grenadiers.
How many bonus dice does a panzer grenadier section get at close range? Answer:
2d6. Where do I find this information? P58 hidden in the infantry and HE firepower
modifiers table obviously.
Is it located (or rewritten) with
the German Infantry Training Characteristics (also known to me as the German
special rules!) in the info about the German Battalion on p89-90? Of course not,
it is buried in that friggin table half a book away. It is stuff like that that
annoys me about rule sets.
Regimental/Divisional artillery
beaten paths. Bascially the rules says that a unit that is hit by regimental or divisional barrage units in
the open or cover must retreat or take an additional shock to stay in place. A
pretty important rule you would think but is buried at the bottom of a table and not referenced
in the main rules!
Yes, it is now explicitly
highlighted in an FAQ in the Normandy book (any maybe others) but the rule
should have been clearly located in the first place.
The tank game version seems to be
a bit of a quick add on and not sure how well thought out/ balanced it is. How many
points is a tank battalion? No idea. If we assume the same as a core infantry battalion
(5 pts) fair enough but a battalion of panthers is far more deadly than a battalion
of panzer IVs or Shermans. Yes, I am going to have ot sort out my own points
system!
We’ve not played any tank games yet, nor likely will we. But even so!
A platoon of Shermans that do 5d6
FP (dice) costs 6 pts yet a platoon of M8 Scotts which also has 5d6 FP damage costs
3! Yes the armour is different but in game terms, high firepower (damage dice)
weapons are more powerful and so the points don’t seem to align very clearly
with on table usefulness for some weapons systems.
Presentation: 5/5
The rulebook is well presented
good use of headings and subheadings. Typical
eye candy we’ve come to expect and love with clear to read tables and charts (in
the main rulebook, NOT on the QFS)
Accessibility 3/5
Some of the terminology is
confusing, some important rules are not easy to find or are hidden in the text.
I would seriously consider using what I consider to be more mainstream terms such
as saving throws or infantry/ armour saves, pinned rather than suppressed.
Maybe a minor thing but can make it easer for people transitioning from other
more mainstream systems.
Furthermore, it would have been
good to see more guidance in the rules for pick up play. To attract the FoW or
even Bolt Action type crowd, having some objective based scenarios might have been
an idea. We’ve sorted out our own and now there are several supplements
available it is easier to do. Often we assign objective locations such as a
Built Up Area 1 or 2 points towards a battalions break point. But again maybe a
little more thought in the initial rules could have been an idea to get “casual”
gamers onboard.
Although well organised with clear
headings for each section there are a number of rules that are hidden in various
places that can be hard to find, or at not always located where I would expect
them to. For example. Where to find information about how to win the game? Is
it under Shock and morale (section 17?). No actually it is buried as a smaller
heading under FUBARs in the Command And Control section on page 28 (S7.7)
Mechanics 4/5
There are some truly elegant mechanics in the system especially the combat patrols which nicely replicate fog of war. It is one of the few WW2 games I’ve played where you really don’t know that the opponent is up to as until they deploy onto a combat patrols you have no idea what is probing forward, or possibly flanking your force. It forces you to invest time and resources (orders) to counter such probes into your position, or to probe the enemy positions. I can’t say enough about it.
Similarly the obscured/cover mechanic
of simply if I doubt roll a die to determine of the target is spotted (not
considered obscured/ in cover) simplifies things and also determines which line
on the “Morale Test/ AT damage tables) keeps things simple. I like simple!
The orders mechanic is great too,
it creates a great feel for the game and suddenly the game focuses on a small apart
of the table at the detriment of other areas. Not being able to do everything
means decisions matter. But at the same time being able react to opponents
moves allows for a nice amount of fluidity that make sit much less of a
straight forward IGOUGO style of game.
What stops me giving this a 5 is
the sometimes less intuitiveness of some of the mechanics such as the less than
elegantly worded 14.8 Table 5 Anttank
damage table (why to simply call it the armour save table FFS!) where rolling
low is good 9unlike everything else in the game!)
I love the way the game unfolds
and the fog of war aspect the Combat Patrols give the game. It feels right both period and the
games don’t get state. I always enjoyed running infantry armies (aggressively)
in FoW but with each iteration of FoW rules it got harder and harder to run an infantry
based force. Same with Battlegroup, in my limited games of Battlegroup so far
infantry seems a waste of time and far too vulnerable. I think Dave has got a nice
balance with the robustness/ survivability of infantry in O Group vs artillery,
guns and tanks.
I like the feel/vibe of the game. It feels right for WW2 and battalion sized gaming. Each turn there are multiple decision points and there never seems to be enough orders to go around. Vehicles tats are pretty standard with regards to a Sherman III vs a panzer III or Panzer IV. Nothing jumps me out as a bit of WTF were they thinking.
Furthermore, the game rewards
using proper infantry tactics, and these are somewhat baked into the game.
Overall Score: 25/30
Don’t let my petty gripes put you
off. This is an elegant game that rewards use of WW2 tactics. So far all our
games have been very enjoyable, close and luck has swung one way then another.
The thing I love about O Group is that it is the infantry focused style of game I loved in early FoW but that ruleset evolved further and further way from as it became more popular. O Group feels right for the period for me and I love the fact iinfantry matters.
So, I am having an absolute blast
playing O Group and can’t recommend it highly enough, especially if like me you
like infantry centric style of games. The orders mechanism and Combat Patrols make
it fantastic and it plays really, really well. It has given me an excuse to
dive back into 15mm WW2 gaming after more than a decade.
Interesting review of these rules, thanks Craig! The recon aspect does indeed sound neat :)
ReplyDelete