Forum Replies Created
Really enjoying it! Interesting approach and well written, even if you don’t agree with some on the conclusions.
I have Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader, Arab Israeli Wars, and Hill of Death all in my collection. Panzer Leader is still a good game. I haven’t ever tried Hill of Death, don’t know how it plays. Funnily enough Arab Israeli was my first one, still quite enjoy it for a change after first playing it around 1978!
To be honest it’s never appealed to me and I have been playing for forty years.
I have individually based figures to play Chain of Command or the old WRG skirmish Rules in 15mm. I also have armies for Crossfire.
Sorry I find that level doesn’t appeal, I do like platoon level games as they have more support and varied elements.
Very good game that, despite its abstractions simulates the problems of company level combat at the sharp end. The armour rules are the weak point. I used to play a lot. You need to take time to learn the subtlety. It’s different with a good narrative.
I go along with David. I have tried LOTS of modern rules. I worked on Challenger years ago, also on TankWreck. Played a lot of Modern Spearhead, at a higher level but always went back to WRG to play 1:1 scale games. If you stick to early to mid 80’s they are fine.
Whatever you use enjoy!
I play a few.
Shipwreck, Naval Command, and Go in and sink, which is basically Sea Strike.
Dave Mandley has a Modern GQ version that looks fun.
I played Harpoon years ago but it was too involved for me. It tried put you at every level, Captain, Warefare Officer, navigator etc. More accurate? Thank God I was never put in harms way to find out.
It’s a pity Phil Barker never got to finish Subs and Sams. What he had was playable. Now if anyone has tried to finish it please let me know!
Thanks for the description it has certainly helped. Starting to make some progress.
To clarify, a stonk is different to say three packets concentrating? Just thinking in terms of modern Soviets here, as stonks are more lethal. Representing better ammo supply and more intense fire for example?
I like the recon units. They do have a purpose unlike many rule sets that don’t allow you to use them as in real life practise.
Thanks Ivan I would really appreciate that!
A big thank you to everyone who replied.
With support like this how could I give up!
Really appreciate the comments
not me I am afraid😕
I agree packets and off table assets regarding indirect fire weapons is a bit confusing.
<p style=”text-align: right;”></p>
Firstly let me say I really enjoy your blogs!
A few years ago you sent me a modern update idea with stats for Modern Company Commander, after we had been discussing Team Whiskey. My stalking goes a long way back😆
I still don’t know how you find the time to do what you do, AND write about it for our pleasure. Enough grovelling!
interesting you are talking about Cuban Brigade level games. I, having lived in South Africa for years, have been looking at the wars in Angola for 5CBC. Manageable in terms of technology, close terrain and limited air power.
I think I need to look at them again. I tried them using standard 1980 British and Soviets. They may work better at a lower scale conflict. Less infrastructure, roads, built up area may be a better setting, see comments to Ivan.
Either way I can go up to four feet square which should be enough.
Thanks for the rapid response!
I think it’s the packets and Off table asserts that confuses me. I understand packets are say a PSAM group or mortar section say. But you can combine these for counter battery fire? Not the PSAM group obviously 😃
The Assets are not represented usually but you can have a counterbattery asset as well? Sorry I know it’s my age but I am a little confused.
Road movement isn’t in but rough ground is. So roads through such terrain just regard the terrain in a column I feel. However Road nets determine a lot a brigade level so should be shown. I am not having a go! I have Company Commander and enjoy that. Maybe it’s the translation up two levels I am not making?
Yes it is Mike