I bought a copy of the RAPID FIRE! rules when they were first published in 1994, …
…but although I enjoyed reading them and the associated supplements, I never persisted with using them and never bought the second edition.
Recently I watched the videos on Ken Hanning’s YouTube channel and he persuaded me that I ought to take a look at the most recent iteration of the rules, RAPID FIRE! RELOADED: FAST PLAY WARGAMING RULES FOR WORLD WAR TWO LAND BATTLES ...
... and RAPID FIRE! RELOADED EXTRA: ADDITIONAL RULES FOR WORLD WAR TWO LAND BATTLES.
The first of these is split into thirteen sections:
- What is Rapid Fire Reloaded?
- Assembling the Forces
- A British Force
- A German Force
- Will they Fight?
- Can You See the Eenemy?
- Moving the Troops
- Firing at the Eenemy!
- Smoke Shells
- Close Assault
- Ambush Firing
- Multiple Rocket Launchers
- The Battle for Mouen 28th June 1944
The second contains additional rules and is split into fifteen sections:
- Paratroops and Gliders
- Ground Attacks by Aircraft
- Boats and Amphibious Vehicles
- Minefields & Engineering Tasks
- Artillery Options
- OP Variants and Air OPs
- Command
- Supply
- Vehicle Repairs
- Amphibious Landings
- Concealment Markers
- Large Tank Battles
- Night Fighting and Snow
- SMG Companies
- Solo Games
The books only cost £5.00 each and particularly liked the user-friendly layouts of these conveniently A5-sized booklets. I'm not sure if I will actually use the rules for my own wargames, but even a cursory glance through them has made me realise that the have lots of potential ideas that I can tinker about with and incorporate into my own home-brewed rules.
RAPID FIRE! RELOADED: FAST PLAY WARGAMING RULES FOR WORLD WAR TWO LAND BATTLES and RAPID FIRE! RELOADED EXTRA: ADDITIONAL RULES FOR WORLD WAR TWO LAND BATTLES were written by Colin Rumford and Richard Marsh and published in 2022 by Valiant Miniatures Ltd.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI have a copy of Rapid Fire- 'Reloaded' and found the Rules interesting- though I won't be using them as I prefer the Featherstone- Grant style WW2 Rules. One thing which I cannot think about is that with 'Reloaded' one figure represents 15 men and a Tank model represents 5 Tanks....I cannot relate to this type of organisation for gaming. Regards. KEV.
Kev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteI know what you mean, although it’s fair to say that scaling down forces is a very common element of many sets of rules. At least RAPID FIRE! has been consistent and used the 1:15 and 1:5 ratios from the very beginning.
All the best,
Bob
Same, mixing the figure ratio never really feels right. I much prefer small games with small scale 15mm or 12mm in nice terrain at 1:1 figure ration.
DeleteScarlet,
DeleteIt’s not something that troubles me but I know that it’s a deal-breaker for quite a few wargamers.
All the best,
Bob
When my youngest brother was 'into' war gaming, he used his own 'one man one gun' rule set, but scaled things down by something like 10-man platoons, 35-man companies and 100-man battalions. Come to think of it, I believe this is the sort of scheme Lionel Tarr used in his WW2 game system. It is similar to what I had in mind for my Army Men games -
Deletehttp://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2015/12/inconclusive-experiment.html
In that 2015 posting I mention a rule set 'Panzer Marsch', which had a brief period of popularity down at t'Club 20-odd years ago. That's a 1:1 system - pretty complicated, but quite playable. A company of infantry, a platoon of tanks and a few support weapons... some exciting action there!
Cheers,
Ion
Bob, mixing ratios seems never to have bothered black powder era wargamers, who reduced the number of guns in a battery by 1:6 but the number of men in a battalion by 1:25 or even more. Of course, they could consider the area of ground occupied by a gun battery or a battalion in column or line as the crucial aspect to get in proportion or scale, rather than the number of pieces/figures. The number of figures of artillerymen in a battery can, if so desired, be determined using the same figure:man ratio as for a battalion, but I think the number of men in a wargame gun crew is often used to denote whether a battery is composed of heavy or light guns, or to indicate how many of the guns are still in action.
ReplyDeleteIn later periods, where troops are often dispersed over greater areas when operating tactically, but can still fill the same, small area as the redcoats when doing close order drill on the parade ground, that is not so easy to achieve and also be aesthetically pleasing to the wargamers' eyes.
Best wishes, Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI could not have summed it up better!
I’ve never had problems with scaling down … as even the briefest look at my published rules would indicate.
I think that wargames about more recent conflicts tend to concentrate on lower-level fighting and the rules reflect this. There are exception to this: MEMOIRE ‘44, COMMAND DECISION, MEGABLITZ, HEXBLITZ, and NOT QUITE MECHANISED are prime examples.
All the best,
Bob
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteCoincidentally, I was reading the ‘History of Wargaming’ Project book about Lionel Tarr’s wargame rules, and the scale-down ratios that you mention are similar to the ones that he used … although it is apparent that his rules and ratios did change over time.
I remember the Panzer Marsch rules. I tried them once … and gave up after about two hours! They were a bit too tedious for me to enjoy as a solo wargamer.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteI've never tried 'Panzer Marsch' solo - ours were always competitive games - even to the extent of Club Competitions (I won the first one with a German battlegroup that included a platoon of 5 PzIVH; if I was facing other Germans, I called my guys Bulgarian).
That was 20 years ago. Ran the next years' comp, and the year after that my performance was rather less stellar. Personally, I think the 'competitions' thing rather killed the interest, quite apart from people simply moving on.
One of the last Panzer Marsch games played at the Club was this one...
http://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2011/05/unfinished-projects-some-ww2-action.html
Not a great day for my Russians...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI don’t know how unusual I am, but I have never taken part in a wargame competition. It never appealed to me, although I know plenty of people for whom it is the meat and drink of their involvement in the hobby.
Thanks for the link. Your battle report was interesting to read but did not convince me to give the rules a second tryout.
All the best,
Bob
A set of rules that has a lot of exposure this year on a variety of Blogs. Not for me as I'm happy with BKCII. The infantry to armour ratio reminds me of comments people have made with 'O' Group, which has similar 'issues'. Each to their own though!
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteI’ve never had a problem with scaling down forces, and the 1:5 and 1:15 ratios seem to be reasonable ones to me … and not that different from the ones used in some of the early, ‘old school’ wargame rules from Featherstone, Grant, and Tarr.
All the best,
Bob
PS. I’ve never tried BLITZKRIEG COMMANDER or ‘O’ GROUP, but I have read about them.
I had a love hate for Rapid Fire (played a handful of games) .. anything Fast Play is on the right lines IMHO .. if it has been reloaded .. my only concern is that it is added to a large pile of WW2 rule sets
ReplyDeleteGeordie an Exile FoG,
DeleteI know what you mean. Do we really need another set of WW2 rules? Well, if you’re writing or rewriting set (as I am!) then the answer is ‘Yes!’. ;^)
All the best,
Bob
The figure ratio doesn't bother me In the least, especially as I usually ignore such things. A stand is a platoon, it my have a tank on it, or some infantry figures, or a gun. Job done. As you say, RF has at least been consistent.
ReplyDeleteMartin Rapier,
DeleteYours is a similar approach to the one I’ve taken for some time. I’m more concerned about the ratio between the various arms being fielded and hate WW2 tabletop battles where players field wall-to-wall tanks and a token number of infantry.
All the best,
Bob
I found a digital copy of this online and gave it a look over. It's fairly simple and I can see it moving quickly when the players, or at least a referee, gets the hang of the rules.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to like in this:
Random penalties for moving through obstacles? I love it!
Simplified hit and casualty systems? Woot!
I like how weapon ranges are broken into thirds to determine short/medium/long ranges.
There's a lot more to dig into and I look forward to that.
As many have said, the scales of the units DOES seem a bit odd, but it's nothing I haven't seen before. Games Workshop successfully put 5 troops per base in their epic scale games (Space Marine and Titanicus) to bring full scale sci-fi battles to your dining room table so it can work.
What I'm having a bit of trouble rectifying is the bathtubbed units to the terrain features. If 8 troop stands make a company then BUAs are equally small or a village of a 5 buildings is the equivalent of a large-ish town?
I'll have to play around a bit with this.
Overall the rules remind me of a set I found online and adapted. The action takes place on a map and the players control a squad of troops while the referee controls the enemy. Players must make arguments for their actions and the ref then rolls on the "The Universe Hates You" chart. It was a simple 1 = "Everything goes against you in the worst way possible" while a 6 = "Hey, it actually worked!" with a graduated scale in between.
I even found a link to a 2 page version of Rapid Fire! For Rookies that boils this game down to its essence and the rules include some of the features of The Universe Hates You.
I can mail a PDF if you'd like to see it.
Thanks for the heads up on this game, I look forward to digging around in it some more.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteI think that your analysis of the strengths of these rules is spot on.
On the subject of weapon ranges, I prefer short range to be 1/6th of the maximum range, medium range to by from 1/6th to 1/2nd of the maximum range … but that’s just my personal preference.
As to the relationship between units and terrain items, I’d regard two buildings as being a village, three to six as being a small town, and seven and more as being a large town or small city. For examples of what I mean, have a look at some of my earliest (i.e. 2008!) blog posts. (http://wargamingmiscellany.blogspot.com/2008/09/red-flags-and-iron-crosses-tarred-and_30.html).
The game you describe sounds very like a hidden movement, narrative wargame of the type that the late Dr Paddy Griffith demonstrated at some of the earliest COWs. It’s an interesting way to fight tabletop battles … but you need an umpire who knows their stuff!
I’d like to see a copy of RAPID FIRE! FOR ROOKIES, and I’d very much appreciate a PDF copy if you can send one to me.
All the best,
Bob
I am using them for my Barbarossa campaign. They are easy to play solo and gave a great game.
ReplyDeleteRich.
Rich,
DeleteThat’s exactly what I want to do, and these rules are in serious contention for me to use.
All the best,
Bob