Discussion Forum>

Need good rule system

djzurk 1 post Mar 23, 2003 1:39 AM	I'm new to modern micro armor gaming, and was wondering what is the best rule system for 1990 - current battles and why? I'm looking for larger scale battles such as battalion, brigade, ect. Thanks for your opinions.
warfighter2190 15 posts Mar 23, 2003 6:56 PM	You'll get about a thousand responses on this one. Almost as many opinions as there are rule sets and all saying theirs are the best. Start by asking yourself what are you looking for in your game? Fast action? Lots of trivial detail? Big action lots of vehicles? Big action few vehicle? I picked my set of rules because they are obscure and few people have read them. Then when I run a game I tell the gamers I will give advice on to&e but no advice on rules. The games I run are decision games. I keep things moving fast and furious. I even run the dice throws. So I would suggest selecting your rules based on you becoming a game master starting a micro armor group not micro armor player forming a special rules group.
djzurk 2 posts Mar 24, 2003 11:07 PM	Thanks for the comment warfighter2190. Like I said I'm very new to this, and I'm even having trouble finding any systems out there. If you had any recommendations I would be glad to research them. I want to focus on very modern battles 1990's - Now. I prefer a fast playing system that still maintains a moderately high aspect of realism. It has to cover battalion, brigade size elements, so lots of models, and it has to have updated unit stats. I actually found one system called A fist full of TOW's, have you tried it?
warfighter2190 16 posts Mar 25, 2003 5:00 PM	If you had any recommendations I would be glad to research them. >>I own about 20 rule sets and none really meet what I want in a game. I like my games to have lots of stress but I think that is more a gamemaster function than a rules function. I want to focus on very modern battles 1990's - Now. >>I prefer that period also. In fact the majority of my collection reflects vehicles of that period. I gave away most of my late 60's to mid 70's stuff. I prefer a fast playing system that still maintains a moderately high aspect of realism. >> fast play comes more from how well you understand the rules you chose rather than the rules themselves. My rules of choice are Challenger 2K. most foolks I've heard avoid them because they theink they are to cumbersome and only get through a few turns. When I run the game we easily get past 20 turns. It has to cover battalion, brigade size elements, so lots of models, >> Actully this is leaning more towards the operational level of things. Lots of rules cover this aspect but they are what I call "icon" games or 1 vehicle represents a platoon. and it has to have updated unit stats. >>Finding accurate stats is part of the fun of the hobby. An easy source of TO&e's and vehicle stats would be Janes or Brassey publishing. After that find a local military book store and see if you can find to old field manuals. I actually found one system called A fist full of TOW's, have you tried it? >> read it but didn't grab me. But I avoid icon games.
Hauptmann6 9 posts Mar 25, 2003 7:20 PM	Join the Command Decision mailer, and ask for the modern CDruleset. It isn't published yet, but it follows along the CD path... I love CD for that scale. Right Bob?
davB52 1 post Mar 26, 2003 2:31 PM	you can download Fistful of tows 2 for free from http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm it does not include alot of vehicle stats but does include enough to get a feel for the game I also like Mein Panzer from old dominion games it is a good armoured warfare game and is 1:1 scale though, I like both game but that is mho Last Edited on 26-Mar-2003 2:31 PM
Bob Mackenzie Guest Mar 30, 2003 2:41 AM	Join the Command Decision mailer, and ask for the modern CDruleset. It isn't published yet, but it follows along the CD path... I love CD for that scale. Right Bob? If that Bob is aiming at me, I have a confession to make. Ive pretty much abandonned CD and exclusively playe Fist Full of Tows and the WW2 version Where Panzers Dare CD is a very good rules system and is somewhat more detailed than FFT/WPD. This means that to do it justice a player can realy only command a battalion in CD (yes Ive done more but you have to ignore the nuances). With FFT a player can comfortably control about 3 times as much stuff. CD takes about one and half times to twice as long as FFT with equivalent stuff. Given I usually have limited playing time FFT suits my needs admirably The other reason I play FFT is that Ive never found anyone who didn't tink they were a good set of rules, however one person in my current gaming groups hates CD and wont play it Cheers Bob
Hauptmann6 12 posts Apr 01, 2003 7:45 AM	Yup you were the Bob... I will check out FFT although I don't do moderns(most modern game I played was early 60s)
medic 1 post Apr 06, 2003 10:34 AM	in response to djzurk, looking for rules for gaming. you can try "modern spearhead" or even "combined arms". the first rule set is available now, i don't know if the second set combined arms is still available. it was published by GDW in 1988. i bought modern spearhead rules for 24.95 i have older rules like "challenger" ; "combat commander"; "engage & destroy"; but my favorite so far has to be modern spearhead. Last Edited on 6-Apr-2003 10:38 AM
Left2Write 4 posts Apr 08, 2003 12:40 PM	I am working on an update to the Centurion rules, in the process I noticed a few inequities. One of the most obvious is the incongruity between historical, modern, and scifi systems. One of the changes I am working on is the incorporation of historical and modern armored and infantry combat. Would anyone be interested in play testing the rules and offering opinions and suggestions based on thier existing units. Dennis ---------- Dennis Patrick Michels left2write@lycos.com www.left2write.net Author Cavalry Scout Beyond The Rift ANIMO ET FIDE
guest Guest Sep 03, 2003 6:23 PM	hello eveeeryone, i was net browsing and found the c n c web page. i am new at micro armor gaming, but did some ho wargaming back in the 80s. i am now getting back into wargaming in the 1/285 scale. my favorite time period is wwll, especially the western front. i have collected so far about 210 vehicles and have about50 infantry stands. i am starting with wwll micro armor the game and am using ghq terrain system. is there a better set of rules, i like small unit actions along with big battles, but because my collection is small i am just trying to do skirmishes. also i live in the detroit area and was wondering if there are any gamers in the area. thanks
glenn Guest Sep 30, 2003 12:28 AM	Hello you were looking for a rule set try the WRG modern rules from 1950-2000 the guy who wrote them(phil Barker) was given access to the data collected in the first Gulf war by the British forces and he has used this to give A set of rules that although seeming simple are actually fairly realistic as they are based around orders and real troops reactions to things. I realise that the american way is to believe that the M1 is the best and nothing else comes close and this is the basis ofr most modern american rules but if you have an open mind try the wrg ruleset. it is made for convention play and even has terrain rules and everything.
Le Scronge 1 post Dec 15, 2003 8:56 PM	I’ve been looking for playable rules for many years. During that time my collection has grown to over 100+ miniature rule sets and board games adaptable to micro-armor. I’m not really happy with any of them. Judging from the lack of a dominant rule set, nobody else is really happy either. This is where I’m coming from: · The game should aspire to be a simulation · Percentile dice allow for detailed combat results · A 1:1 vehicle scale is a must · One minute turns and simultaneous movement are best · The contoured terrain boards should measure at 6’ x 8’ · The ground scale should be 1:2000 (or even 1:1000) · A referee or game master should run the game The best games I’ve ever played were refereed and used a derivative of a US Army training simulation. The only documents were several detailed combat results tables. Every “game minute” firing and moving were resolved in two phases: 1) artillery and 2) simultaneous direct fire & movement. Regrettably, no hard copy of these rules was ever written. The above having been said, if I had to choose one set of rules from all the games I have, it would probably be one of Frank Chadwick’s (GDW) First Battle Series games like Team Yankee or Test of Arms. Using terrain based on 4” hexes would make for a very simple board-to-miniature game conversion. Comments?
chrisswim 74 posts Dec 17, 2003 7:22 PM	Le Scronge since you like and recommend the rules or the system from the training center, why don't you write some using that system as the basis to play. I would enjoy to see what you come up with, i would like to read, try to provide insightful commentary, and play test.
Paul 48 posts Dec 18, 2003 6:10 AM	I too would like to see the rules and could play test them against Chris. He needs to have his units wiped out.
chrisswim 75 posts Dec 18, 2003 8:10 AM	Paul, you may think that my unit should be wiped out; however, you are unable to effectively pressure a brigade of mine, much less wipe it out.... But you are welcome to come up and try. Perhaps in late Feb or early March in Jacksonville, FL. The 2nd, 3rd, 10th Cavalry Regiments are ready to deploy, with 200 M-2 Bradleys and 100 M1A1 Abrams and screen my main force structure with hundreds more. The U.S. Marines want to get involved in this one. to LEFT 2 WRITE: i am willing to play test some modern rules. perhaps i may be able to get Paul and some others that have contributed to cinc-pfc's discussion forum to help out. Last Edited chrisswim on 18-Dec-2003 12:08 PM
Paul 49 posts Dec 18, 2003 8:56 AM	I welcome the challenge and will probably attack your forces with a NATO force of my own. I think the 1st Armored Division will blow a hole large enough that a oil tanker can drive through.
chrisswim 76 posts Dec 18, 2003 12:12 PM	Paul, the NATO force from Denmark with their 1st Armored Division will not be enough to even take on any of the following: Canadians, South Africans, Chile, Brazil, Eygpt, Kuwait, or Spain, etc. So if you are bring on the U.S. 1st Division, let's go. Paul, what is your TO&E for that force? Last Edited chrisswim on 18-Dec-2003 12:12 PM
Paul 50 posts Dec 18, 2003 5:13 PM	I am using Combined Arms's armored division TO&E. If I remember correctly around 70 tanks and 40 Bradleys. From Mick and Andy I learned just how lethal my force can be. I welcome any challenge to take on the Danish or even better Germans or French. March would probably be better for me. Last Edited Paul on 18-Dec-2003 5:14 PM
Paul 51 posts Dec 19, 2003 7:08 PM	I think I only have about 100 M1A1s and not sure about the Bradley, but it will be enough to hammer you.
Le Scronge 2 posts Dec 20, 2003 4:24 PM	For chrisswim and Paul I mentioned in my prior post that the modern rules that I’ve played were a derivative of the rules that were used by the US Army Manual Simulations Center at Ft Riley. Army personnel who were also hobby gamers ran the games. A few of the games I played were on the terrain model at Ft Riley (a 6.5 x 4 meter set of boards that depicted the Fulda gap area in Germany at 1:2000 with an approximate 2:1 vertical exaggeration). Most of the games were held off post. Every game had a referee. He set the scenario, the forces, victory conditions, and generally conducted the game. This was a rotating position among the more experienced members of the gaming group. Having three to five players per side was typical. Each side had about a regiment to maneuver. Before the start of the game, each side developed a battle plan. Then the commander of each side briefed the referee privately about his plan, after which the game began. The referee’s briefing and opponents battle planning happened on the evening prior to game day (Friday 7pm to 9pm). Game setup, play, and teardown followed (Saturday 9am to 4pm with a one hour lunch break). We normally completed 25 to 40 game turns before the referee called time and debriefed each side on how well they achieved their respective victory conditions. The referee, whose decision was final, settled any disagreements arising during the game. The game scales were as follows: · vehicle scale was 1:1 · Infantry scale was 1 counter or stand = a half squad, fire team, or crew-served weapon. · ground scale was 1” = 50m (about 1:2000) or 1’ = 1km (about 1:3000) · Turns were one game minute each Each turn was divided into two phases. The first was an artillery phase. Artillery fires called in or carried over from previous turns were plotted (and adjusted for drift, D10 for direction and another D10 for distance) and laid down on the game board (we used oval vacu-formed artillery pattern markers appropriately sized to the firing unit). Casualties (determined by a dice roll (D100) and found on an artillery effects table) were applied to any unit that was under the artillery pattern. Calls for new artillery fires were given to the referee at this time for resolution in a subsequent turn. Simultaneous direct fire and movement comprised the second phase. Movement was a simple Distance equals Rate times Time calculation. If the unit’s speed was 30kph, it could move up to 10” (on a 1’ = 50m board). Any unit had to establish a line of sight and pass an observation test (D100 roll, results found on a table) before it could engage a target. Infantry units fired once per turn. Crew served weapons could fire multiple times according to their rate of fire (ROF). Likewise, AFVs shot up to as many rounds per turn as their ROF allowed. For AFVs an initial D100 roll determined a hit (found on a table). A second D100 roll determined the damage (again from a table) to any unit receiving a hit. In a nutshell, the last three paragraphs above were our rules. They are written here for the very first time. As noted above we did use a set of tables for determining observation, movement rates, and combat results. The tables were about 12 pages long. Wherever possible, the data in the tables was taken from real world information. The numbers used in the combat results tables were probably arbitrarily determined, but they did “feel about right”. I should elaborate a bit more on the lineage of the above rules. Mike Norris and Gary Mills (who posts on this site as GaryM) authored the original set for use in their micro-armor games while off-duty during their army tours in Germany. These rules were a comprehensive set of combat results tables they titled “Threat”. When Gary was posted at Ft. Riley he became involved with the fort’s simulations center. The center adopted a modification of his Threat tables for their use. Subsequently, Gary and a group of hobby gamers in the Junction City/Manhattan KS area formed the Manhattan Maneuver Group (MMG). They gamed Civil War, WWII, and modern periods. For the modern period games they used an unclassified derivative of the army’s modification of Threat. It must be noted that while the game system the army used at Ft. Riley was fairly realistic, realism was not an important concern. The number one priority was having a fast playing system. The army’s games at Ft. Riley were not played to teach tactics. They were conducted to generate combat data useful in training battalion commanders and their staffs. In fact the people really “playing” the game never saw the micro-armor or the terrain boards. The players (commanders and staff officers) communicated and issued orders by radio to the simulation staff (who were the ones who actually “pushed lead”). Referees resolved any observation tests and combats. The results were radioed back to the real players. At the time the Manual Simulations Center at Riley was most active, computers could not generate the training data needed quickly or economically enough. Eventually, the manual sims were supplanted by a computer program named Battalion/Brigade Simulation (BBS). I realize that this lengthy message doesn't really answer your request to develop a rule set based on the army game. I just finished looking through my stacks and discovered that I don't have a complete set of the combat tables we used. Drat! I didn't have the foresight to steal a set when I had the chance. However, Gary Mills (GaryM) might be able to provide something for you. Last Edited Le Scronge on 21-Dec-2003 7:01 PM
GaryM 3 posts Dec 22, 2003 9:53 AM	Thanks for the writeup on those THREAT rules. You don't have the complete set because you don't know where I keep them! I've seen you prowling around when you come over... Threat has not been updated for about 10 years. It's a good rule set..no it's a set of charts that guides you in play. It doesn't "rule" you. But it lacks a good infantry chart. I've been thinking about another way to give realism to the infantry (with their various weapons)but not bog down the game. When I get that worked out I'll add that and update the charts for THREAT. THREAT is unique because it is based not on vehicles but on weapon systems. For instance, I don't need to update the set every time a new vehicle is developed i.e. the Stryker. The basic Stryker uses a .50 cal M2 that performs exactly like the one on an M113. Its not remoted but that is not a gaming factor. The 120mm gun on the M1A1 is the same gun on the M1A2 and the Leopard II. If any of these vehicles have different speeds that is reflected in the movement charts. Different protection levels are shown in the PH/PK adjustments. Threat "rules" require a deeper military knowledge because they were developed for the military. The PH/PK charts were the basis for the Army's tactics simulation called JANUS computer wargame simulation. The original THREAT grew to be too cumbersome because of the number of pages. So I split the charts into two sets, OPFOR and BLUFOR. That worked real well, but nowadays BLUFOR and OPFOR are blurred in the military environment we find ourselves in today. So I find myself rethinking the format. LeScronge, you might want to help me with this. THREAT is fairly quick and simple. We've been using a very simplified version of it at conventions around the country in the past years and had a great response.
Paul 52 posts Dec 22, 2003 5:15 PM	Le Scronge, Thanks for the write-up. I like the concept of D100. Gives a higher degree of chances. Chris, we should consider starting to write a set when we get together in the next couple of months.
CBW 1 post Dec 23, 2003 12:27 AM	Hello, I am Curt Warner and have just registered with the site. I have been collecting CinC since 1977, also GHQ an what ever other manufacturer was making what the others were not. But I started with primarily CinC as they were the best at the time and continue to be top of the line. During the mid 80's I was stationed in Hawaii, I'm retired USN now, and belonged to a war gaming clup centered at Wheeler Field. You name it an it was gamed their, but I was mainly into WW I, WW II and Modern naval and WW II and Modern armor. The group used the Corps Commander rules by Bruce Rea-Taylor. We used the OMG set for our big games. This would be what someone refered to as an icon game, but for the big battles it was ok. We did one game with close to four thousand miniatures on the board, We had eight players, four per side, one judge and one referee. The gqme lasted over two or three weekends starting at 8 am and lasting until wives and girl friends started calling wanting to know where we were. We had naval battles that lasted for two weekends in there a time or two also. We affiliated with a local hobby store, Just For Fun, which gave our group things to try out such as Terrain Maker when it first came out plus another terrain set up based on 8" precut and painted hexes. Whish I could find a set of those today. We experimented with OMG fionding that you could make it as complex or simple as you wanted. The only four hard requirements were a large playing surface, several D6 and D10 die, loss markers and your scale vehicles. I was a last minute arrival in the big game so the judge assigned me to NATO forces and I was to be the only USMC unit involved, and it was a tank unit at that with only a handful of infantry. I tried to talk him into letting me be a reinforced Rgt. I wanted to be the Walking Dead, better known as the 5th Marine Regiment. The Judge, an Army attack helo pilot, would not budge on it though. Those were some fun games. Now that I am retired I live in Arlington, WA where I am a substitute school teacher.
Le Scronge 4 posts Dec 30, 2003 9:25 PM	The wargames played at Ft. Riley are only part of the story. I’ve also had contact with gamers at Ft. Leavenworth. As in my previous post, the Ft. Riley simulations were not conducted with the intent to train tactics. This is not to say that tactics were unimportant. If a commander’s tactics were unsound, he’d get hammered. However, it was assumed that the commander and his staff had already been schooled in sound tactical principles. They got that schooling, in part, at the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Ft. Leavenworth. Years ago Wargamer’s Digest (Feb & Mar 1978) reported on the miniature wargame the CGSC used for their training. The CGSC developed a game system they called Battalion Analyzer and Tactical Trainer for Local Engagements (BATTLE). They built a huge (18’ x 32’) terrain model (in 4’ x 6’ sections, on rollers) upon which the micro-armor was placed and moved. BATTLE was computer assisted. The computer kept track of bookkeeping and logistical issues and was also programmed to provide some analysis. The game was presented as part of a weeklong course of tactical study for six to ten students. Two days were devoted to play the game, and despite computer aid each 30-second game turn took 15-20 actual minutes to resolve. A year later Wargamer’s Digest (Mar 1979) had a report on Dunn-Kempf. Cptns. Hilton Dunn and Steve Kempf modified WRG’s Wargame Rules: Armour and Infantry 1950-1975 while they were students at the CGSC. Ft. Leavenworth packaged these rules, micro-armor, terrain boards, maps, and a variety of other game accessories into a boxed set named after the authors. 500 Dunn-Kempf games were distributed throughout US Army commands. This game was developed to teach tactics. The game used alternating fire and movement and was divided into 30-second turns. Vehicles were represented 1:1. Infantry stands were fire teams. 1 inch was 50 meters on the ground. The vacuformed terrain model was 8’ x 10’ (in ten 2’ x 4’ sections) and was based on actual topography in Germany (maps included). One of the better features of these rules was a strict one-minute time limit to move any/all units. Eventually, The Leavenworth staff constructed one of their large terrain models in duplicate so that they could have a double-blind style game. I was visiting Leavenworth with a friend one Saturday in '95 when we heard that the fort’s terrain boards had been taken to the dump. All we found in the mud were a few wooden buildings, some trees, and a bit of z-gauge railroad track. The sight of a pile of twisted iron table frames in a salvage yard on post confirmed the board’s destruction. We found a similar sad tale at Ft. Knox. In the early 90’s the Armor School built a really huge (20’ x 40’ 1:3000, my guess) terrain model based on the local Kentucky landscape. They also had a smaller terrain set depicting part of the National Training Center (NTC) at Ft. Irwin, California. These were used in their breaching laboratory for developing and practicing (in miniature) the tactics used to penetrate prepared defensive positions. We saw both setups in ’97 while attending the Armor conference. [Note: On the desert boards we found a single 1/285th scale T-72. It was painted with a clear red lacquer. ummm, red metal-flake, cool.] A couple years later the terrain, the warehouse in which it was stored, and most local knowledge of either had vanished. I was very fortunate to make the acquaintance of some of the people running wargames at Ft. Leavenworth in the mid 90’s. One of these games, Janus, appears to be the tactical trainer that replaced games like Dunn-Kempf. Janus is a computer game. When I first encountered it is was mini-computer based. I understand that now it can be played on a mid to high end Linux PC (or LAN). Graphically it’s rather unsophisticated. On the screen the battle area looks like a topographic map on a black background. The units are simple line drawings of vehicles and infantry (Think Steel Panthers meets the original arcade Battlezone). The sophistication is within the program. Janus uses a comprehensive unit and terrain database to model just about everything and present it in a real-time-strategy fashion. I ran across a rule set that was published by the Advanced Military Studies Department (AMSD) at CGSC called Firefight and Wargame Rules. I don’t have a context for this game. However, the introduction indicates that these rules were designed as a battalion staff trainer. In fact, the intro claims that “Firefight is not a battle simulation or wargame in the strictest sense”. This disclaimer not withstanding, Firefight and Wargame could be a decent game with a little rewriting and updating. It’s a 1:1, 1” = 100m, 1min/turn game system. Notable are the unique systems for determining combat results (collective fires/no die rolls). Also, 20 of the rules’ 77 pages are devoted to the designer’s rationale behind the game rules and tables. In 2000 I rewrote the direct fire section for a technical writing class. Eventually, I’ll complete that project. Here follows a few other US Army wargames that have come to my attention: * First Battle - A battalion to corps battle simulation/command post exercise (CPX) published by the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth. This was essentially a map exercise, not a miniature game (read “the mother of all board games”), used for training high level commanders and their staffs. * CAMMS – Computer Assisted Map Maneuver Simulation was another CPX. It was for battalion/brigade command staff training. * CBS – Corps-Brigade Simulation (?) is a computer-based driver for command/staff training. This has replaced First Battle and CAMMS as a battle staff trainer. * JSIM – Joint Simulation is a massively networked all-service computer/simulator wargame. It’s not currently online. * COMBAT – Company Oriented Maneuver and Battle Action Trainer was used at Ft. Knox and Ft. Benning prior to the distribution of Dunn-Kempf (I think this game may predate micro-armor.). * Dunn-Kempf USAIS Modification – The US Army Infantry School (USAIS) at Ft. Benning, GA tweaked the Dunn-Kempf rules for their own use. Essentially, the Infantry School reduced the scope of the game to infantry squad/tank platoon level while retaining the Dunn-Kempf game components. * Combined Arms 1960-1985 – This game was a collaboration of Army, Air Force, and civilian micro-armor wargamers. The project began at Origins ’78 and was completed in 1981. The hand-me-down copy I have came from Ft. Benning. The scales are 1:1, 1:1000, and 30 sec/turn (vehicles, ground, time respectively). * CAABS – Computer Assisted Airland Battle Simulation was another USAIS product. It’s basically Dunn-Kempf with computer support. When considering using a wargame produced by our military keep in mind that they don’t develop these games for recreation. Very often the data will be twisted to suit some training goal or suppressed due to classification concerns. For example AMSD’s Firefight has an ambush rule that would cause howls of distress from any gamer victimized by its provisions. Also, most Army simulations degrade the Abrams’ capabilities and inflate the performance of Soviet armor (just to keep things balanced?). Today, most of the Army’s training wargames are computer driven and hosted by civilian contractors (most of those guys are retired officers and CGSC alumni). Apparently there is still some miniature gaming remaining in the Army. I spotted some micro-armor sitting on a 1:4000 terrain model of Ft. Irwin’s central corridor in the CGSC’s newest classroom building about three years ago. That’s the part of Army wargaming of which I am aware. I must assume that it’s only a tiny slice of the military’s overall gaming activities. Just the above implies that every major command has its own home-brew game of some sort. Is there a Marine out there who knows what they’re up to?
chrisswim 83 posts Dec 31, 2003 7:08 AM	To Le Scronge: Thank you, good insight as to the military 'war game' tactical simulation. do you have/can you get any rules or assumptions or mechanics of how game is played, etc? Thank you.
CBW 16 posts Jan 10, 2004 10:53 PM	Back in the mid 70's GHQ had a contract with the army to supply miniatures. After their contract expired they had some stuff left over they put up for us general market people. I was able to get some bridging units in whixh the bridges were unfolded and came in two parts. Really added some to the games whe were playing.
Mark Smith Guest Jan 27, 2004 3:43 PM	I'm surprised to see so many 70's-era gamers (like me!) I saw a Dunn-Kempf setup once at a con. I wished at the time that they made stuff like that available to civilians. Wargamer's Digest! I took that mag about as long as it ran. Had an article in it once. My favorite set of microarmor rules (WWII) began as a set of quick & playable rules put together by John Hill (later to be somewhat incorporated in his Squad Leader game) largely as a means of exciting interest in microarmor among the Purdue Wargamers Group and generating sales at his hobby store. I know I got captivated and spent bundles there! Over the years, I've modified and extended what we played with back then, and taught the rules to several wargamer groups I've been part of. Looking at the "ideal" presented by one person's posts, this game also runs 1:1, 1 game minute/turn, originally artillery followed by simul move/shoot (but this has had to make way for stuff like air-ground attack, etc.), and terrain at 1" = 50m. So it has a lot going for it. Looks a lot like the game discussed, but uses 2 x D6 instead of percentiles. Anyone here gaming in South Carolina? My microarmor has too much dust settled on it, while my computer games get daily workouts!
Anonymous Guest Feb 08, 2004 6:18 AM	has anyone here heard about TacOps? Is a computer game, able to run in any old pc system and able to reproduce very interesting cpx's
Andy Hasara Guest Feb 12, 2004 4:23 AM	Mark Smith,I played a Micro Armor game with the Purdue Wargamers in the late '80's and early 90's called Combined Arms Tactics - is that the same game? They said it was derived from a WWI game, but now the cards included modern Elements. The version they played used percentile dice and the time scale was 1 turn ~ 1 minute, but the ground scale was 1 in ~ 75 meters -Andy in Indy
Le Scronge 7 posts Feb 12, 2004 1:38 PM	Mark, Good points! Here’s how we handled close air support (CAS). First consider our battlefield’s dimensions. We normally played on an 8’ x 16’ terrain model with a 50m per inch ground scale (20” = 1 km). In game terms that’s a little less than 5 x 10 km or about 3 x 6 miles. Usually the front lines were oriented along the short axis of the board. Relative to an overall offensive, that’s a pretty small section of the total battle area. In terms of the units involved it’s about a regimental or at most a brigade frontage. It’s very unlikely that CAS would be dedicated to an area that limited or a unit that small. Therefore, CAS for a given unit becomes almost a random event. All of our games were refereed, and the judges ran the air strikes. During the pre-game briefing the player-commanders were told what air assets they could generally expect. During the game itself the refs would take note of the players pleas for air support and at a point in the turn sequence of their choosing they would resolve an air strike. If the attack were called on enemy front line units, as often as not, this would cause casualties to both friend and foe. We always agreed that the results were very realistic. The judges did not conduct ground attacks on a whim. We had combat results tables (CRT’s) that covered lots of little stuff (like CAS) as well as most of the major weapon systems. Die rolls would determine if CAS would arrive, where it would appear, and what damage would be done. If one of our scenarios called for a weapon that wasn’t in our CRT’s, the judge/player that wrote the scenario would write a specific CRT for it using our basic tables as a template. That way we covered all our bases without having to write an encyclopedic rule set.
LTC B 1 post Feb 13, 2004 7:44 PM	Howdy, We are somewhat new to WWII Micro Armor battling and have a few questions. I am very familiar with real world aspects of these issues, but not with the gaming applications. 1. Does anyone have any data tables for the M4 Calliope T34 rocket launchers? I have range, but need Points, Firepower and Speed. 2. Can any troops call in artillery fire, or must it be forward observers? 3. We want to emplace hastey mine fields not included in the scenario. How long would it take to emplace them, who could do it, and how much transport would be required? 4. Is the defensive armor value of the Panzer IV(H), with side armor plates increased in the game? 5. Is there any requirement to have transports, or limits to the number of fire missions artillery can fire without being resupplied, or does it just get to fire forever? Thanks for helping us with these issues. LTC B
tbeard 1 post Dec 09, 2004 3:35 AM	The site for my modern wargame "A Fistful of TOWs" is gone, but will be replaced at some point in the future. Currently, you can get the free versions of FFT in two places: Ty's FFT Weblog (look on right hand column): http://fftows.blogspot.com/ (This is the "official" site where you can download free versions of the game and order the full version). FFT Yahoo Newsgroup Files section: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fistful-of-TOWs/ --Ty
Anonymous Guest Dec 14, 2004 10:19 AM	LTC B It depends on what rule system you are using, The amount of time in each turn and the size of the units involved can vary substantually. As a general rule of thumb though, if my rule system does not cover the subject I usually just approximate a time that everyone (or mostly everyone) agrees on and run with it.
Mobius 12 posts Dec 14, 2004 2:24 PM	LTC B 1. a. We don't use points. If we did they'd be 49 pts. b. You mean number of rockets? 60 x 4.5". c. Most models had to jettison the launcher to fire the gun. 2. Depends on nationality. A FO has a better chance but some allow for command units to call for fire support. 3. Probably not practical in a tactical timed game. 4. Slighly but is effective defense against bazookas. 5. Nothing lasts forever. Artillery fire is allocated per target importance so you will only receive so many turns of fire per target per request.
TCM60A3 Guest Jan 08, 2005 12:40 PM	I have seen many game systems played, but I still have nothing I prefer better then the old Panzer, 88 and Armor systems. They are being cleaned up and reissued. The scale is one vehicle and 50 meters to an inch. Orders are placed on each vehicle or squad of infantry. I have run a event with almost 100 vehicles and the system ran smoothly. Gazala the first engagement of the Grant in the desert. The system just feels right. I have been looking to replace them for quite a while and found nothing that I enjoyed more. They are being done by Lost Battalion Games and can be seen at HMGS east events. They have done the eastern front. I have seen the vehicles for the US forces also. For modern 1967+ I use IDF and MBT by Avalon Hill. The ATGM rules are simple but do work. Once again one vehicle or squad of infantry are one miniature. There are enough vehicles presented to do 1965 Indian Pakistan war with using some Armor cards to fill in the few holes (M-24, M-36B).
wolf351 1 post Jan 08, 2005 2:20 PM	Interesting to read these posts, obviously a few old timers like me, have been gaming since the 70's and the mention of "Wargames Digest" got me to doing a little digging and low and behold I still have issues from 1980 through 1987. Speeking of rules, just purchased GHQ's New Modern Micro Armour: The Game, rules seem good have'nt had time yet to try a game but will either use these or take bits a pieces from this and others and combine them. If you can't find what you want try to create your own from what you know or by a combination of what you have, not a perfect solutions but it works. Wolf351 Ontario, Canada Last Edited wolf351 on 8-Jan-2005 2:21 PM
Team Yankee 5 posts Jan 12, 2005 6:25 PM	I haven't played much Micro Armor yet, but I did have the pleasure of getting to play with Gary Mills at a convention last year using his Threat ruleset. His ruleset is great. There isn't a lot of details to keep track of like some sets of rules. It's just a great set of accurate charts and guidelines that make for a fast-paced enjoyable game. There are some more advanced charts for those who want to get into some more detail such as moral. But at the base level the games are fairly simple for even a beginner. As a matter of fact there was a young, maybe 12 year old kid, and his dad playing when me and a friend arrived at the convention. I was surprised to find that they had just started playing yet they were both in command of about 100 pieces! I do need to mention that Gary has the most incredible terrain boards. He got them when the Army was scrapping them and they are amazing. He had, I think, eight sections on legs with wheels that were probably 3'x4'. So the entire table was 12' x 8'. We had to roll the tables around to get into the middle areas. The detail that the Army put into these boards is incredible. There must have been thousands of little trees and the roads, buildings, and railroads were great. The only thing is I wish I had brought a digital camera to take some pictures. I've been keeping in touch with him to see when he will be at another convention. Either that or if I can arrange it we might get a bunch of us together to play a game at someones house. I did get a chance to see his vast collection and it is quite impressive. He does probably have some 20,000 pieces of Micro Armor! Luckily I happened to be there at the right time since he had a pile of broken barrel M-1's and T-72's that he was wanting to get rid of. I put them to good use. http://axisdomain.0catch.com/Image5.jpg http://axisdomain.0catch.com/Image8.jpg I have been checking with Gary about being able to post his rules and he seemed to be fine with it. He said that he was in the process of making a new update so maybe after he is done I will try and post the Threat ruleset to my website.
turn sequence Guest Jan 14, 2005 9:23 PM	I just downloaded fistful of tows and have been learning it with a friend. I don't like the sequence of play. It's the same as the old Avalon Hill MBT - move, fire, overwatch, blah blah. Is there any other microarmor ruleset out there with an innovative sequence of play that would do away with all this? What I think would work would be a Harpoon style time division where out of combat the turns were long, like 5 minutes but dropped to something like 10 seconds on contact. Firing could then be based on how many 10 second turns it took to transition from one activity to another. like 40 seconds (four turns) to stop and aim. 20 seconds (2 turns) to reload. This woul get rid of all the overwatch garbage that all games are loaded down with and would make the game more realistic. Each turn would have just one phase and you could do whatever you wanted - as long as you had the time. Any games with a turn sequence like that?
Mobius 13 posts Jan 15, 2005 8:16 AM	"Is there any other microarmor ruleset out there with an innovative sequence of play that would do away with all this?" Airland War, the modern supplemental to Panzer War has the traditional phases of move then fire, but the turns are semi-simultaneous as to movement and fire. Overwatch would just be fire from stationary vehicles that did not choose to move. It is written for 1/285th scale and has a well defined time and distance frame. Based on a 1:1 vehicle or squad infantry scale. Not jury-rigged off a 1:5 or 1:10 scale system. Tanks fire at realistic rates not once every 1-2 minutes as in some games.
ShugartVa 1 post Oct 26, 2009 12:19 AM	I just started using Cold War Commander and its GREAT.... Chesk it out.