16/01/2022 at 07:55 #167166
For the next action in this campaign, the Germans send in a fresh Platoon of Panzer Grenadiers to try and push the pluck Paras back from the outskirts of Le Bas de Ranville, in the Too Fat Lardies’ pint-sized campaign Kampfgruppe von Luck – please see here for the write-up. It also contains a better explanation of the rules which I have been using for these recent refights.16/01/2022 at 12:29 #167180Guy FarrishParticipant
Ahhh! All is revealed!
Good report again. Difficult balance to strike between distanced sections doing different things because of spotting rules. The MG42 missing what was going on was a godsend by the look of what happened when they did open up. Maybe some sort of tactical move rules – we could call them ‘modes’!
Thanks for the rule set explanation.
I have never seen the ’79 set. Had no idea they existed. I don’t know how I missed them. I played the ’73 set from when they came out until, well, now! But in the 70s very intensively (the page edges are so fluffy they are almost impossible to open at particular pages!). The Intro to the 88 set makes no mention of the ’79 set- saying ‘They [the 88 set] replace our previous set covering the same period, which since publication in 1973 has been and yet remains the standard set used for the period by wargamers…’
Was the ’79 set a straight follow on from ’73? A halfway house to ’88 or a sidestep? I have a ‘draft’ 2nd Edition prototype of the ’73 version marked ’75, and they are hardly changed. I also have a copy of the Infantry Action 1925-75 (which does allow for some armour) set at platoon level but which we hardly ever played for some reason.
Thanks for opening my eyes. I’m not surprised John Salt had a hand in developing an improved set. I’ve only played a couple of John’s games but they were always winners.
Whatever the rules being used, the campaign is fascinating and I look forward to more reports.
Guy16/01/2022 at 12:40 #167181John D SaltParticipant
Since the cat is out of the bag, a few words from the introduction might help explain the intent behind these rules, included below.
I should add that these rules are mostly a straight rip-off, aaah, an hommage to Phil Barker’s 1985 set, and I have no intention of circulating them generally until I have obtained Phil’s permission. He hasn’t replied to my e-mail, but I plan to pin him down at COW this year.
For the moment I am using the dreadful pseudonym Bill Farqhuar to show that these are not published by Phil, nor an official WRG product, although the cover art is supposed to make their origins obvious. Much of the text of rules is, however, straight from Phil’s 79 set; as John’s playtests have yet to involve much in the way of armour or arty, it might have been possible to fight these actions with the unmodified 79 set.
If anyone would like a copy, not for further circulation, and on the undertaking to report playtesting results to me, please PM me.
All the best,
– – – – – – – – – – – – cut here – – – – – – – – – –
Between 1973 and 1993 the Wargames Research Group (WRG) published a very successful and influential series of tactical wargames rules, designed mainly by Phil Barker, covering WW2 and the post-war period. These were:
1. War Games Rules, Armour & Infantry 1925-1950 (Jun 1973)
2. War Games Rules, Armour & Infantry 1950-1975 (Jan 1974)
3. Wargames Rules for Armoured Warfare at Company and Battalion Battlegroup Level, 1950 to 1985 (Jun 1979)
4. Wargames Rules for All Arms Land Warfare from Platoon to Battalion Level, 1925-1950 (Jun 1988)
5. Wargames Rules for All Arms Land Warfare from Platoon to Battalion Level, 1950-2000 (Jan 1993)
The Jan 1974 set were, I believe, the first published set of miniature wargames rules to cover present-day warfare; in doing so, they spawned a whole new branch of the hobby. The astute reader will notice that there are three sets of modern (1950 to 1975, 1985, or 2000) rules, but only two (both 1925 to 1950) covering WW2. Some wargamers still play using the original 1925 to 1950 set of rules, and the middle set of modern rules remains the favourite of others. This set, then, is intended to fill the gap left by the “missing” set, using the same rules approach as embodied in the 1950 to 1985 rules, but covering the earlier time period. Almost the entire body of the rules has been shamelessly cribbed from the 1950 to 1985 rules, with modifications as necessary to suit the WW2 era. Rules for guided missiles, helicopters, and night vision equipment have been removed, and the categories of anti-tank guns below 100mm in calibre refined to give more differentiation. Anti-tank rifles and SMG-only infantry groups have been added, and a few oddities such as the Püppchen, the spade mortar, and the Kartukov ampulomyot. While the armour classes are much the same, the vehicle listing is somewhat complicated by the relation between frontal and side armour being less regular during WW2 than later.
Some changes have been made; the artillery rules have been amended to prevent non-linear effects from increasing the number of guns firing on a target (often increasing both area hit and danger within that area disproportionately). Suppression is no longer automatic, but there is also a hazard outside the intended beaten zone. The anti-aircraft sequence has been simplified, and air defenders who wish to use flak and fighters simultaneously must risk fratricide.
Thanks to John Hetherington for typo-spotting and play-testing.16/01/2022 at 12:49 #167182
Just to make clear, there was no WRG WW2 set to match the 1979 Modern version. But this ‘gap’ was John’s inspiration to write his set, I believe.
EDIT: Ah, simultaneous posting, apologies. Just read John’s thing above.16/01/2022 at 13:35 #167183
What you can’t see, because John H cropped it from the bottom of my cover sheet image, is that I am for the moment using the dreadful pseudonym Bill Farqhuar to show that these are not published by Phil, nor an official WRG product,
Whoops! didn’t spot that when I was converting it from pdf to jpg. Will sort that out later today.16/01/2022 at 14:03 #167184Guy FarrishParticipant
Thanks both, my sanity feels vaguely restored!
It’s like the end of Tinker, Tailor… where Bill Haydon is revealed as the mole.
I wondered why I’d never heard of the ’79 ed!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.