- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by Ivan Sorensen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
30/11/2017 at 00:08 #77359Ivan SorensenParticipant
..one infantry stand is a squad or half-squad, while vehicle stands are one vehicle (basically, the same scale as Squad Leader).
I am familiar with: Flames of war, Crossfire, any game I wrote myself, Firefly.
Anything else to suggest that you can personally recommend?
30/11/2017 at 01:56 #77361WhirlwindParticipantWRG 1925-1950.
30/11/2017 at 02:42 #77362Don GlewweParticipantIsn’t IABSM that way?
30/11/2017 at 04:21 #77364zippyfusenetParticipantJagdpanzer, which was intended for play with micro-armor:
http://jagdpanzer.com/firstEdition.htm
You'll shoot your eye out, kid!
30/11/2017 at 06:39 #77368MartinRParticipantWRG 1925 to 50 was the first (and arguably one of the best).
Cambrai to Sinai used section sized stands but was classic 1970s bloatware.
Among more modern sets, Fireball Forward and Iron Cross. FF is basically Squad leader using CF mechanisms and is excellent.
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke
30/11/2017 at 07:43 #77375Not Connard SageParticipantWRG 1925 to 50 was the first (and arguably one of the best). Cambrai to Sinai used section sized stands but was classic 1970s bloatware.
I have not heard of C to S, but the “bloatware” comment made me literally laugh out loud and I’m grinning as I write.
Newbury Rules. That’s all you need to know about C2S. All of their rules were the same. I’m sure someone, somewhere, must have played a game with them. They’re probably still playing the same game, if death hasn’t provided a merciful release 🙂
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
30/11/2017 at 09:02 #77377Shaun TraversParticipantI got Cambrai to Sinai when it first came out. They are individual figure-based, not 1 stand = 1 squad A friend and I played it once. The keyword is “once”. And Martin, I thought I have mentioned a few times that I have completely managed to forget about these rules, until you bring them up on some thread or other 😉
Rules that have not been mentioned and ones I have seen positive reviews of are:
Mein Panzer
Micro Squad: The 1:1 Scale Game- WWII, 2nd Edition
Panzer Miniatures Rules
Schwere Kompanie
Tigers and Stalins
Here is the list of all the rules I knew about in 2015 that are 1:1 vehicles and 1:squad (it includes those previously mentioned in this thread, the occasional one may be just out of period but may easily be used for WW2):
CrossFire
Fireball Forward!
Overlord
Ambush Blitz
Combat Action Commander
FireFly
Flames of War
GI Commander
Grey Storm Red Steel
Jagdpanzer
Jagdpanzer Second Edition
Mein Panzer
Micro Squad: The 1:1 Scale Game- WWII, 2nd Edition
Panzer Miniatures Rules
Panzer Tactics
Panzer Truppe
Panzer War
Panzer Warfare
Schwere Kompanie
Storming the Reich
Tank Battles in Miniature 1
Tank Battles in Miniature 2
Tank Battles in Miniature 3
Tank Battles in Miniature 4
Tank Battles in Miniature 5
Tank Charts
Tigers and Stalins
War Game Rules 1925-1950 1st
War Game Rules 1925-1950 2nd
A Leader of Men
Manoeuvre Group
HellFire
Combined Arms
Micro Melee
Fields of Honor
Metal Storm
Mechanised Warfare Rules
Dunn Kempfe
MicroTank Warfare
Hell and Fateful Decisions
Armies in Crisis
A clear and present madness30/11/2017 at 18:04 #77447Ivan SorensenParticipantBoom, the master list!
I was familiar with WRG, not sure why I forgot about it on the list.
I think we want a little more “meat” to the tank/anti-tank mechanics though.30/11/2017 at 23:08 #77481John D SaltParticipantBoom, the master list!
I was familiar with WRG, not sure why I forgot about it on the list.Mr. Picky points out that the WRG rules (and as far as I can recall Firefly and Combined Arms as well) use elements of team, rather than section, strength.
I think we want a little more “meat” to the tank/anti-tank mechanics though.
What sort of meat did you have in mind?
Oh, and I am horrified to discover that “Cambrai to Sinai” have appeared in a second edition. IIRC Newbury Rules it was who coined the wretched term “Fast-Play Rules”, to draw attention away from the fact that most of their rules were played in geological time. Before Newbury Rules, “Fast-Play Rules” were called “Rules”.
All the best,
John.
01/12/2017 at 02:39 #77494Ivan SorensenParticipantThats what I meant when I mentioned squad or half-squad in the original post 🙂
As far as tank combat, something a little more detailed than WRG but not quite as hairy as Firefly probably, if that makes sense?
01/12/2017 at 09:07 #77505MartinRParticipantI got Cambrai to Sinai when it first came out. They are individual figure-based, not 1 stand = 1 squad A friend and I played it once. The keyword is “once”. And Martin, I thought I have mentioned a few times that I have completely managed to forget about these rules, until you bring them up on some thread or other
I only mention C2S as I still recall the crushing disappointment when I realised they were unplayable. I don’t recall them being 1:1 though, the infantry manouvered and fought in sections, which was why I bought them in the first place – to avoid fiddling around with massive 12 element WRG platoons.
IABSM and Rapid Fire similar, although in principle they are played with single based figures, the troops manouvre an fight in groups, which can just as well be represented as elements (which is what I did rather than rebase everyone!).
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke
01/12/2017 at 12:25 #77520Shaun TraversParticipantHello Martin,
You got me to open the Cambrai to Sinai rules for the first time in 30+ years. There are two scales you can play the rules at: 1:80 and 1:300. At 1:80 figures are individual, at 1:300 a section is two bases. Firing is done at 1:80 by picking a firing group of 1 or more figures (up to a section) and adding up combat factors. The target can be 1 or more figures. Not quite like IABSM/RF where, as you indicate, a single unit of figures fires. At 1:300 any number of bases fires at a single base only, also adding up combat factors for the firing bases. While I really only looked at the first few pages for scale, unit definitions and also the infantry firing procedure pages, I did notice the rules are often split into at 1:80 follow this process; at 1:300 follow this one instead.
03/12/2017 at 02:37 #77628Ivan SorensenParticipantIronically, Command Decision always felt like it wanted to be at this scale, what with tanks taking “damage” and firing individual guns, despite ostensibly being platoons.
And now you guys are making me want to see these Cambrai to Sinai rules just to see what all the terror is about 🙂
03/12/2017 at 09:24 #77650MartinRParticipantDear me, it sounds like I’ve had C2S false memory syndrome! Im half tempted to go and look in the loft for them as I don’t recall there being two different game scales at all? Perhaps Pandora Box is best left unopened 🙂
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke
03/12/2017 at 09:35 #77651Not Connard SageParticipantA random page from Newbury ancients rules (I wasn’t daft enought to buy C2S). Don’t say you weren’t warned Tim 😉
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
03/12/2017 at 11:43 #77661Shaun TraversParticipantMartin, I had forgotten that there was two different scales in the Cambrai to Sinai rules as well. I had no idea until I went looking and it is everywhere in the rules. It just goes to show how much you can forget if you put your mind to it, or even if you don’t!
I see that the ancient rules are formatted the same as Cambrai to Sinai – from a distance you would not know which set of rules they were from.
03/12/2017 at 19:37 #77731Ivan SorensenParticipantThe whole “rule 18.4” structure is super 80’s.
I tried writing like that once, because I kinda like it, it makes referencing easy, but it’s a massive amount of work to pull off.
03/12/2017 at 19:55 #77733Not Connard SageParticipantThe whole “rule 18.4” structure is super 80’s. I tried writing like that once, because I kinda like it, it makes referencing easy, but it’s a massive amount of work to pull off.
Rules shouldn’t need that much cross-referencing. How many are on that single page, I’ve got well over a dozen?
On. A. Single. Page.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
03/12/2017 at 19:56 #77734Ivan SorensenParticipantI was more thinking in terms of players discussing it or asking questions.
At least that sample page has reasonable spacing 🙂 I have some older games that are just ungainly walls of words that never end.
03/12/2017 at 20:05 #77736Not Connard SageParticipantI was more thinking in terms of players discussing it or asking questions. At least that sample page has reasonable spacing 🙂 I have some older games that are just ungainly walls of words that never end.
The type is about 9 point in the original, the page size is A4. There are 42 pages of rules. Every page contains cross-referencing – including the explanatory section at the beginning.
It gets a bit…overwhelming.
🙂
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
03/12/2017 at 20:06 #77738Ivan SorensenParticipantYou can tell you’re off to a good start with the introduction requires you to cross-reference something later in the book.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.