How often do you re-read your rules.

Discuss the society, wargaming, and other topics of interest
Posts: 258
Joined: 25 Mar 2012, 03:05

Re: How often do you re-read your rules.

Post by cartfc »

I don’t claim to have an exhaustive knowledge of WW2 rules, certainly in terms of playing them all, but of the ones I have had more than a couple of games of I would select the following.
For operation level with a corps per player Megablitz is good. Really need multiple players and have some command structure.
At divisional level not really played anything I was happy with.
Battalion to Regiment/Battlegroup Command Descion I thought gave a good game. Although I did say to Frank Chadwick that I thought the detailed stats for AFV’s were a waste of time. Particularly different movement rates. As each model was a platoon of tanks it is the speed of the formation that is important not of the individual tanks.
Company level I like PBI, but then I was on the development team. Crossfire is also very good and a very innovative set. I have heard good things about IABSM, but never played them.
Platoon level heard good things about the new Disposable Heroes and also CoC, but not played either.
For squads I would go with Nuts! Have also had good games with Force on Force. Particularly good for asymmetric warfare I thought.
As for Rapid Fire I have played it a few times and thought it was a company/platoon level game where you call the the units battalions. In fact in the first set there was a scenario where they did just that and took it down to 1 model = 1 tank.

Cheers Fred.
Posts: 192
Joined: 21 Sep 2016, 12:41

Re: How often do you re-read your rules.

Post by UshCha »

I thought crossfire was excellent in its original conception and was a very plausible set. However to me it went to pot once they introduced artillery. The original conception was that most of the board was within effective rifle range, if you could see it. By definition that meant everywhere would be in the danger zone of artillery. However that was not what was represented. To me it left simulation and whent to a game, which to me removes any interest whatsoever. To be fair crossfire was an excelent demonstration in its early form, that an excessive pre-ocupation with range is uneccessary to reproduce actual tactics at close quarters. It also did very well in encourageing urban terrain more like the real world than many wargames.
To be honest there are some merits to Phil barkers old 1925 to 1950 set. Through is its obsessed with range and does not reflect well on the performance of machine guns except when using area fire, its use of Modes was ground breaking. Unfortunately I bought it because it said it was for upto battalion level. That became quickly evident for a typical game, at most a company was the limit and again the terrain system fell apart above about a platoon level. Unfortuanately I was not then a wargames designer so had no idea of how to fix it.

Even the points system had merit above todays drivel, it allowed for more plausible scenarios allowing an actual attacker and defender and balenceing resourses accordingly.
Post Reply