No End in Sight for asymmetrical games

[alan]

Just wondering how suitable these rules are for totally asymmetrical games such as US against VC in Vietnam, Rhodesians against ZANLA/ZIPRA in the Bush War or US Marines against Insurgents in Fallujah?

Do they include armoured vehicles and air support from the like of helicopter gunships and strike aircraft?

[Rod Robertson]

Alan:

NEIS is a very good set of rules for small unit actions in an asymmetrical milieu. It is ideal for actions from fire team to platoon level (3-30 figures depending on the side with the technological advantage). The rules set have abstracted rules for vehicles and for helicopter fire during airborne assaults but these are simplified in order to not eclipse the soldier on soldier action and the command and control friction which are the core concepts of the rules set. I highly recommend these rules for infantry actions. If your focus will be more about the armour or the aircraft on the battlefield then you might be disappointed. But the infantry rules are top-notch.

Cheers.

Rod Robertson.

 

 

[Ivan Sorensen]

I need to get Rod to write my advertisement copy 🙂

As he suggests, rules for tanks and IFV’s are included but they are a bit “broad strokes” since the focus is on infantry actions.

If you want to run, say, a platoon of infantry with their M113’s and a M60 in support, you definitely can though.

Irregular troops are handled and operate different from regulars (based mainly on Iraq/Afghanistan but adaptable to Vietnam too)

The focus is on the toil and trouble of the infantry platoon commander and trying to deliver a “dirty and gritty” view of that.

I also included campaign rules for “domino effect” and “peace keeping” campaigns.

[alan]

Many thanks.  Sounds very good for infantry supported by a couple of IFVs.

Alan

[Ivan Sorensen]

The forces most used in the play tests were cold war mechanized infantry platoons 😉

[Author]

Posts