Home Forums WWII How late would you use a WW2 rule set?

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #195869
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Participant

    I was watching a video about French Indochina last night and it seemed that you could easily get by with WW2 rules there. Likewise for the Chinese Civil War and Korea (the latter of which is not uncommon in WW2 games with both Panzer Grenadier and ASL having Korea box sets on the board game front). But after that, how late would you be comfortable using a WW2 game as a basis?

    If the answer differs by scale of game, elaborate as much as you like (I suspect man to man skirmish games will have a different answer than regimental level combat f.x.)

    #195968
    Avatar photoJohn D Salt
    Participant

    If the rules include assault rifles, which were in service in WW2 (and WW1 if you count the Avtomat Fyodorov) then they can go to the end of the last century for infantry combat. Later than that you might want to allow for combat body armour and personal role radios, and thermobaric rockets, but I don’t know any rules that do. Most people don’t bother with fighting at night, but night vision equipment has come on a good deal, and although IR systems were available at the end if WW2 I don’t know any WW2 rules that include them.

    Technological developments are most obvious in terrestrial warfare for tanks. Things change a good deal once one sees rangefinders, battlesight shooting, worthwhile gyrostabilisers, and anti-tank guided missiles, and again with smoothbore guns, composite armour and gas turbine engines. You could still get away with WW2 rules for Korea, or the 1948 and 1956 Arab-Israeli wars.

    Another big change for terrestrial warfare is the use of helicopters, which start making themselves felt at the tactical level in Algeria and the Suez invasion.

    Aeronaval warfare has changed pretty much beyond recognition with the arrival of jet engines, guided missiles, and, again, helicopters. One might perhaps be able to use coastal forces rules for small boat actions in the Indonesian War of Independance and for some actions as late as the 1972 India-Pakistan war.

    #195977
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    But, but, but.

     

    As there are so many WWII and ‘Modern’ rules out there, with loads of overlap, why would you want to? 🙂

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #195979
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Participant

    This is really more of a philosophical question I suppose 🙂

    #195980
    Avatar photoWhirlwind
    Participant

    More-or-less what John said. Structurally there isn’t very much difference, forces largely think in ways recognizable to 1944-45.

    I think the reverse question is also interesting: take a modern set (Force-on-Force, No End in Sight, Black Ops, WRG) – what is the latest date in history they wouldn’t be suitable?

    #195982
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Participant

    For No End in Sight, once bolt actions become the norm the “implied reaction fire” probably starts struggling to work.
    I only played the 1e of Force on Force but I think that covered WW2 as well as moderns. That may have been intentional for them to be a bit more diverse, but I think I’d take that back as long as you have small unit tactics.

    Some of the real “cool operator” type games I think only work in the ultra modern era and maybe back to like Vietnam.

    #195988
    Avatar photoMartinR
    Participant

    I’d randomly pluck mid 1950s out of the air. Korea etc.

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #196003
    Avatar photoDarkest Star Games
    Participant

    I don’t know if using WW2 rules for later 20thC battles is as much a rules thing as a mindset thing (both the players and real life force commanders).  Most ww2 rules are aimed at larger battles with a couple of companies, usually in an attack/defense type game with a jump off point and pre arranged barrages, etc but that doesn’t really work for conflicts like Algeria or Vietnam.  Those conflicts didn’t really have these set piece battle lines, generally used smaller sized units of maneuver and attack, but also were backed by a public that was casualty avers.   Big battles with lots of blood and guts spilled for a little gain were not popular and that shaped doctrine, not to mention the lethality of more modern weaponry and explosives.  That makes me play a game differently than I would a WW2 game (where I admit I am more tolerant of taking casualties than I would in a Vietnam game)

    That all said, as people put above, for me WW2 ruled would only really apply to WW2 like conflicts, so ya Korea for sure, maybe Indochina (there are special cases there, with the riverine actions and some of the raiding that most WW2 rules don’t cover).

    "I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

    #196004
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Participant

    This is probably also complicated by the fact that tabletop commanders often finish scenarios with 75% combat ineffective as a grand victory 🙂

    #196005
    Avatar photoDarkest Star Games
    Participant

    That doesn’t help!  But also the objectives are often totally different in a post 1950’s conflict.  Things shifted from owning and controlling territory absolutely to much looser control and the want to stamp out the enemy fighting forces until until they stopped or would come to the table to a collective agreement.  Add to that that the political unrest and new weapons and vehicles and they are totally different conflict types from earlier wars.

    Not a lot of people like a game where the objective is to destroy the enemy but also not let your guys get hurt in the process or you lose even if you “win”…  (not to mention those kind of situations do not lend themselves well to the tournament game type mindset)

    "I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

    #196006
    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen
    Participant

    That raises perhaps a parallel question:

    What is the first “modern war” then?

    #196009
    Avatar photoDarkest Star Games
    Participant

    Modern is a term that is relative to which point of history you are speaking of.  What was modern in 1874 is not the same as what was modern in 1918 or 2024…

    That said, if WW2 is the time point we are using as the reference point, then perhaps the Algerian war or the Suez Crisis?  (some of the stuff in Nicaragua in the early 1900s could have qualified, at least in tactics)

    "I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

    #196019
    Avatar photoMartinR
    Participant

    In the current era, for me ‘modern’ starts aro nd the very late 50s and early 60s. The 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame was very much based on WW2 and Korea, with added nuclear weapons. The 1978 version was far more based on the 67 and 73 Arab Israeli Wars.

    Ultra modern is anything after 2000 or so when you have GPS, radios and computers which actually work under combat conditions, PGMs, drones etc.

    So Vietnam, Six Say War, yes modern. Suez? WW2 with jet planes and Centurions.

    India Pakistan? Hmm, take your pick, although I did the invasion of Goa with a WW2 set.

     

     

     

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.