WW2 using One Hour Wargames

The World War II version of Neil Thomas’s One Hour Wargames is slightly more complicated than the Dark Age version (see 448 AD Battle Report). So Chris Harrod and I gave it a go. We played two games in an evening. I’m not a fan, of the WW2 variant and OHW in general. I tried. I really tried. We played four games in total, but I think I’ll give up on OHW now.


Battle 1: Scenario 3: Control the River

In the first battle we played “Scenario 3: Control the River”. We lined up, shot each other across the river, although I started shooting first, and probably because of that, I won. It wasn’t a very interesting game.

OHW 101 Soviets face Germans across a river

OHW 101 Soviets face Germans across a river

OHW 102 Soviets roar towards left hand bridge

OHW 102 Soviets roar towards left hand bridge

OHW 103 First German Destroyed

OHW 103 First German Destroyed

OHW 104 Second German Destroyed

OHW 104 Second German Destroyed

OHW 105 Soviet Tanks Destroyed

OHW 105 Soviet Tanks Destroyed

OHW 107 Third German Destroyed

OHW 107 Third German Destroyed

OHW 108 German ATG Destroyed

OHW 108 German ATG Destroyed

OHW 109 German Tanks Destroyed

OHW 109 German Tanks Destroyed

OHW 110 Soviets Secure Bridges

OHW 110 Soviets Secure Bridges


Battle 2: Scenario 4: Take the High Ground

In the second battle we played “Scenario 4: Take the High Ground”. The scenario was more interesting than the three previous ones, because I started the battle with an outpost far forward of the rest of my troops.

In this battle I had a Mortar unit, something that was missing from the first battle. The Mortars fired over the top of the hill at the approaching Germans. This added a slight touch of interest to the game.

The deciding factor was that Tanks take half damage when on hills. Presumably this is to simulate Hull Down position. I benefited from this as Chris approached my outpost. But he concentrated on my Tank unit, destroyed it, and drove his two tank units onto the hill, and shot up my Mortar unit. That is when the Tank on a Hill rule went a bit weird. Hull Down makes sense if the enemy is ahead and on the flat. For the second half of this battle I had infantry on the hill with the German tanks, and to either flank to boot, but Chris still received the Hull Down bonus and wiped me out. It seems, in One Hour Wargames, the best troops for mountain warfare are tanks. Sigh.

OHW 201 Germans approach Soviet outpost on hill

OHW 201 Germans approach Soviet outpost on hill

OHW 202 Soviets are too spread out

OHW 202 Soviets are too spread out

OHW 203 Soviet Tank Destroyed

OHW 203 Soviet Tank Destroyed

OHW 204 German tanks roll onto hill

OHW 204 German tanks roll onto hill

OHW 206 Soviet infantry attacks up hill

OHW 206 Soviet infantry attacks up hill

OHW 211 Last Soviet

OHW 211 Last Soviet

OHW 213 German Victory

OHW 213 German Victory

9 comments to WW2 using One Hour Wargames

  • Rocco

    Thank you for the report. I really appreciate your site/blog. Your battle report hit the nail right on the head. Not a big OHW fan. For me it’s Rapid Fire although I hope with their new release they use either a 1d10 or 2d6 for their charts as this will give more needed modifiers. More importantly they go from 6 gun classes to maybe 10.
    Anyways keep up the great work.

    • Steven Thomas

      Glad you like the site Rocco. I’ve only ever played on Rapid Fire game. It was okay but didn’t grab me enough to try again. Not when I have Crossfire. 😉

  • I have to agree with your assessment, Steven. The OHW rules, to me, don’t “scratch the itch” that Mr Thomas’ other rules seem to scratch (Wargaming: An Introduction and Napoleonic Wargaming come to mind). The scenarios in the book are probably more useful than the rules themselves in this instance.

  • norm

    Two issues for the WWII rules. The anti-tank guns have a mobile capability that are perhaps more akin to assault guns and since the tanks can take 15 hits (like everything else), I really think that a tank unit needs to be represented by more than 1 model, so that visually it looks more like a platoon that is getting degraded by fire.

    The rules are clever in what they can do in two pages, but would be much more-so in 4 to 5 pages and could still be classed as light and fast. For my own money, the mechanisms can rightly be thought of as having have been striped far enough back to still actually work, but too far to give me a satisfactory game.

    • Steven Thomas

      I agree that 4-5 pages would make them better, and perhaps satisfactory.

      I don’t understand your point about two models for a tank unit. Please elaborate.

  • Jose Manuel Ventura

    Nice report, albeit on a little boring type of rules. I believe you must stick to CrossFire 😉

    • Steven Thomas

      Don’t worry Jose, I’m not looking for a Crossfire replacement.

      We tried OHW as a variation on DBA. So for ancients and medieval.

      The WW2 games were Chris’s idea. I thought, if I were lucky, they might make an okay set for operational level games. But I don’t think so.

  • The World War II rules from “Wargaming: An Introduction” have some very ingenious concepts in them (I love how HE fire from mortars, guns, and artillery is adjudicated) and give a decent game IMHO. They have a slightly old school feel to them, but they’re slick and they play quickly.

    Mr Thomas’ Napoleonic rules score big with me as they deliver roughly the same results without as much fuss as other rules, although he leaves the reader to decide on certain things. The Wargaming: An Introduction have Napoleonic and ACW rules in them (as well as Ancients, and Pike & Shot).

    My recommendation is to give that book a read through. You may be able to find it at the library without having to buy it?

    And of course they are no replacement for Crossfire 🙂

Leave a Reply