Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 417 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • madman
    Participant

    Well, the problems here are those inherent in all written order systems. But they work fine if you do them as declaratory in the manner of Black Powder.

     

    Alternatively, if you want to keep the surprise in, write all the orders and objective types on bits of card and keep them face-down, revealing them only when you change them (i.e. when you put down new hidden orders, your opponent gets to see the old ones – if the unit has violated its previous orders at any point, they automatically rout or surrender. This encourages a sensible caution in keeping within the confines of the orders). I haven’t done this latter with WRG, but I have done it with other systems (notably “Schlachtenbummler” (forgive spelling!), a Richard Brooks’ set for late C19 warfare) and it works perfectly well.

    Please elaborate. I do not know either of these rules. How, other than what you stated briefly in the second section, does this work? Thank you.

    madman
    Participant

    OK john

    Read the second part of your treatise and agree wholeheartedly BUT;

    1. How on earth would you implement any small part of that in a game. Even given my penchant for two platoons to a couple companies plus support I should have some form of plan in mind before the game starts (read SHOULD!). You would either have to give written orders to every platoon or squad or just assume your will and the way to handle the individual units reflects your battle plan.
    2. That was the method WRG used to impose on all it’s “WWII to modern rules” back in the day. (I only had those rules so can’t comment whether they used the same approach in any other rules). To me it was the most useless part of the game. Unless you just write the orders then give them to an umpire who interprets and performs all the actions of those units I could not see how that aspect could be played out.

    So to me a great idea which cannot be implemented in game terms. Please prove me wrong and I could see this being implemented in a computer game (since I don’t play computer games this may be a common item in some).

    madman
    Participant

    John

    This is big and maybe difficult to address as separate areas but I will give it a try.

    Stephen Madjanovich wrote:
    1. Command and control which requires the player to deal with an inability to do everything with perfect knowledge of the situation and your own sides performance and the enemy’s disposition and to a lesser degree their capabilities.
    2. Real world unit organizations and command structure.
    3. An easy to deal with sequence of play. (my words based on his points)
    [snips]
    I would rather find or slightly modify an existing game but like many of you I am sure I have very specific aspects I am willing to compromise on and ones I want.

    Arriving late into this thread, let me annoy everyone straight away by suggesting that the three points listed are all aspects of the same big point: Modelling command and control, henceforward C2. The real world organization and command structure exist only to support the ability of the commander to get their forces to do what they want them to do, and confirm that they have done it. The sequence of play exists only to limit the ability of the player to get their toy soldiers to do what they want them to do, which is then usually confirmed instantly, apparently by lossless telepathy.

    So the question boils down to “how do we wargame C2”?, which is not a question with a short or simple answer. However it might be helpful to keep that question in mind when looking at different sequences of play — is the turn sequence/activation scheme/set of command radii intended to model C2, or provide a game mechanism for the fun of mechanism?

    As Phil Barker points out, the function of a C2 system in a wargame is to limit the players’ freedom of action, whereas the real life one is supposed to enhance the commanders’, so they are doing approximately opposite things.

     

    I agree wholeheartedly. This conflict between real world C2 and game play C2 is perhaps the hardest part to put into livable game play. Almost all rules ignore it, and IMHO, are lesser for it. But some rules (CoH) allow all units to activate but by their use of mechanism(s) enforce a limit to how much each unit can do. While others (CoC) limit how many units may activate but again by the imposition of their rules may allow continuing activations (roll double 6s for another go). So which of the methods you choose to “live with” is based on either your interpretation of “reality” or, more likely, which provides better game play in your mind. This will affect rules choice. If there is another possibility provided by another rules system please bring it forth. Myself I kinda like the idea of every unit being able to activate but then being limited, by luck as well as opponent’s actions, to how much they can achieve in a single turn. The alternate, limited units activating, I take as a good second. Just my opinion.

     

    madman
    Participant

    “I always used to say that miniatures wargamers will not take any of these matters seriously until there are little metal castings available representing tasks, boundaries, objectives and engagement areas. With the rise in popularity of neat plastic markers and game accessories such as those made by Litko, maybe the time is not so far off.” John, insightful as always. This may be my next 3d printing project. I can see printing unit boundaries, phase lines, and engagement areas easily.

    I have seen pictures of game play for a game I have picked up but, based on the amount of questions and answers, I am waiting for a newer living rules to be made available. Since opponents are not as abundant presently that may take a while and allow more updates to Q&As and living rules. In any case the point is in some of the pictures of the game play front lines are represented by coloured sticks (I assume 1/4″ square). Since as far as I know this is not a part of the game I assume the player(s) are using this for their own ease of game play. If being used by two players gaming through some on line method this looks like an ideal solution to assure themselves each is on the same map. So I guess that is boundaries. Engagement areas works as well but I am sorry, what is meant by phase lines? Lines of attack, movement or the push of forces as modified by the reactions of their opponents? Thank you.

    madman
    Participant

    John. A long and insightful post. I will go through the others then come back and try to address your points and ideas one at a time. Thank you for the input.

    madman
    Participant

    Glad you found FBF looked interesting. It’s a good clean fast game and realistic enough for my taste. The firing dice system is clever and not too involved once you get the hang of it. I don’t think it needs a referee particularly, does it? My only reservation is that only one player can act at a time, thus the more players you have in a multi-player game, the less game time each player gets. But for up to four players it’s excellent.

    They mention the use of a referee a lot in the rules I read and the videos, that is why I assumed. When I get a chance to look at them closer ways to eliminate the need for a referee may become obvious. I have a hard enough time finding opponents even before covid so extra players, even a single guy acting as a referee, is highly unlikely. As I said earlier (or thought) I have played multi player games of Bolt Action whose only purpose is everyone doesn’t sit around too long before it is their turn again. One big bug for me is armour. I came into this hobby with a totally armour centric set of rules (Tractics) and it has taken me decades to find the infantry action more intriguing. So I can see having no or very little armour for most scenarios but still will have a penchant for some primarily armour engagements. To that end I have no illusions and feel I will in all likelihood incorporate very detailed armour rules into anything I play. My bad!

    In my group, we often have a plumpire (player-umpire), who acts as referee, but not in the sense of umpire as in a football game, but as director of a play. IMO, that’s a much better way of looking at the notion of using a referee in a wargame. The referee as director has to make sure the games moves along, and change/adjust/interpret the scenario as the game progresses.

    If the rules can be managed with one of the players being the balancing factor I am all for it. Between friends just wanting a fun game and no aggravation I love those kinds. As I said just finding an opponent has been enough of a challenge. Some are very “go with the flow” while other more opinionated and strict in their interpretation and application of the rules. Variety is the spice of life and while I like to go with the flow a lot I also like opponents who both keep me on my toes and by so doing assure me I am interpreting the rules correctly.

    madman
    Participant

    Good scenario design stops that.

    What aspect(s) would help alleviate this issue? Not trying to be combative but curious, especially wrt NEiS as I liked a lot of other parts of that game. OK I see you modified your post. That is what I had in mind. Thank you.

    Sorry, your answer and my edit must have crossed each other. But anyway, any ruleset assumes (often implicitly) a specific genre of scenario, density of troops, density of terrain, etc. for the ruleset to ‘work’ properly. Crossfire works best with dense terrain. Other rulesets such as 18th century with a focus on regiment manoeuvre assumes a lot of open terrain. Some rulesets are specifically written with the point values/army lists model in kind. Finding a good ruleset that suits your needs also often means asking yourself what type of scenario you like to play or what your favoured approach to wargaming is.

    Agreed, but a set of rules which impose specific conditions for the terrain is just a game. If playing in North Africa doesn’t suit the game then it can’t carry over to different theatres and is therefore limited, not by the nature of warfare but by the conditions imposed by the rules. I have printed crossfire out and will be reading it this weekend. Thank you.

    in reply to: Starting Afresh – Urgency #146442
    madman
    Participant

    Gawd no. I paint 6mm WWII to modern. I usually have 100 to 300 on the go at a time. My base coat is the most common colour on the mini (usually the primary uniform colour). I do not prime, just the base uniform colour. Even the “simplest” figures have 6 or more colours, usually 8 or 9 and some go as high as a dozen. I work and often a unit will take months to be finished.

    madman
    Participant

    Thank you for all the input guys. I try to read each day but may not reply as I have a 1.5 hour each way commute and fall asleep early so weekends are the best time for me to reply with some coherence.

    madman
    Participant

    Glad you found FBF looked interesting. It’s a good clean fast game and realistic enough for my taste. The firing dice system is clever and not too involved once you get the hang of it. I don’t think it needs a referee particularly, does it? My only reservation is that only one player can act at a time, thus the more players you have in a multi-player game, the less game time each player gets. But for up to four players it’s excellent.

    They mention the use of a referee a lot in the rules I read and the videos, that is why I assumed. When I get a chance to look at them closer ways to eliminate the need for a referee may become obvious. I have a hard enough time finding opponents even before covid so extra players, even a single guy acting as a referee, is highly unlikely. As I said earlier (or thought) I have played multi player games of Bolt Action whose only purpose is everyone doesn’t sit around too long before it is their turn again.

    One big bug for me is armour. I came into this hobby with a totally armour centric set of rules (Tractics) and it has taken me decades to find the infantry action more intriguing. So I can see having no or very little armour for most scenarios but still will have a penchant for some primarily armour engagements. To that end I have no illusions and feel I will in all likelihood incorporate very detailed armour rules into anything I play. My bad!

    madman
    Participant

    When I was playing ASL the main issue was that it was all consuming, there simply wasn’t time to learn or explore new systems (and you tend to think, why should you, you are playing the pinnacle of WWII tactical systems, aren’t you??). While I had grown tired of the system and its limitations it was playing Crossfire when I realised not only the limitations of ASL, but that a good abstraction/game can achieve without hundreds of pages of rules. I still have a lot of time for Crossfire, while it’s not perfect it has a simple elegance that captures much of the issues of tactical command. I heard Richard Clarke talking about how he approaches rules writing and his starting point is to set up a table and have units from the period and then asks the question, ‘so what happens now?’. I like this approach as my interest in military history stems much from trying to understand how anything actually happens on the battlefield. How do leaders lead units? What makes men stay on the battlefield and fight when every human impulse is to look for safety? The starting point is the training manuals of the period. This is what commanders wanted their men to do. All well and good but that’s the theory. The next step is to look at first hand accounts, unit diaries etc to see what actually happened. So we have on one hand, this is what men were trained to do, and on the other, this is what men actually did and how it happened. Any rule set must work at finding some sort of balance between the two. Armies did try to fight as trained but friction, the unknown, bad luck and the enemy all worked to make that as difficult as possible. I don’t have an answer but I do think the starting point is not so much, what rules mechanics work best for the period? As, what happened in the period and how do I find or create rules that best reflect it.

    I was in the exact same boat with Air Superiority. I did play a few other games, some wargames and RPGs but if anyone said anything about alternate modern air games it would go nowhere. We played one or two games during the week and at least an entire day each weekend.

    That is what I am looking for. A game which may or may not worry about how many rounds each of your troops in a company are carrying and exactly how many they have expended to that point, but one that gives a good feel for the period and theatre. With ASL you are concentrating on game mechanics as opposed to the scenario. With CoH the scenario quickly (I had to become comfortable with the rules first, realistically) become the goal. With AS, as you were usually only playing a single plane, your skill and knowledge of the equipment and rules was important.

    Thank you for the input.

    madman
    Participant

    Good scenario design stops that.

    What aspect(s) would help alleviate this issue? Not trying to be combative but curious, especially wrt NEiS as I liked a lot of other parts of that game.

    OK I see you modified your post. That is what I had in mind. Thank you.

    madman
    Participant

    Watched the Fireball Forward videos (6 in total each only a few minutes if you bypass the enclosed documentary) and have the following abservations about the game. Please correct if my interpretation or the way it was handled in the video is incorrect.

    Lessons from the you tube videos;

    1. a referee is desirable but I assume either a method could be worked out to avoid this need or the players may be able to trust each other in order to function.
    2. Fire is only one roll per element firing (I like that level) BUT very involved and requires the use of quite a few dice.
    3. Fire can be through extensive intervening terrain without adverse effect. Multiple squads fired through large swaths of woods without adverse modifiers.

    madman
    Participant

    I’m not sure you will actually like it (so awaiting your closer definition of what you want), I think according to your initial criteria that Phil Barker’s The Sharp End should work. It has basing as you suggest, scaled as you suggest, very infantry-based, has activations based on real sub-units that don’t allow you to activate everything but do allow you to choose what is activated.

    Just had a very quick scan of the rules. Looks more like a set of ideas and concepts more than a complete rules set. Almost halfway through the “rules” (12 of 30 pages) before I start seeing game mechanics. Up to this point I see mostly definitions of units and how to set up a game. This will take some reading but I like the looks of a lot of it and can see incorporating much of it for modern and asymmetrical actions such as in Hind & Seek. Whether the core game mechanics cover my interests I am unsure of but thank you for pointing these out.

    madman
    Participant

    Chris

    Had a quick read through the activation section of the rules of FF I have. Very interesting and I like the approach. I would need to read more of the rules to determine how useful the initiative chip part is. I did not read all the remaining rules on movement, combat morale etc. as at this time I am trying to find systems to address my concerns first. Plus the way units activate definitely keeps you following your unit organization.

    I like it an will keep going on this one. One consideration, perhaps it is covered later in the rules, but I can see each player running between a couple platoons and a couple companies each. Based on typical chances a small force would be more likely for all units to be able to activate every turn or phase. I also need to read more closely the opportunity activation section. Thank you for pointing out that set of rules though.

    madman
    Participant

    Anyone know lock N load tactical. Again I have heard of it but no access or experience so I have no idea if it would be applicable.

    madman
    Participant

    Whirlwind. Not a set of rules on my radar so I have downloaded them and will give them a read. Thank you.

    madman
    Participant

    If anyone has a link to potential games please post it. There was some interesting aspects, such as although individuals they operated as teams and squads and there was some unit based command requirements. i cannot find my saved link now and would like to revisit these rules. Thank you.

    Is this the AAR you were looking for? System is Disposable Heroes II. http://disposableheroesii.blogspot.com/2018/07/welcome-to-disposable-heroes-ii.html

    Bingo. This is for larger scale games but I wanted to compare these rules with Chain of Command. There may also have been some points to steal. Thank you very much.

    madman
    Participant

    One aspect from, I think, crossfire is the idea that units will tend to sprint between areas of cover. So no requirement for movement distances but what is needed is a very “busy” game board/table with lots of terrain for units to sprint between. An interesting idea and I assume there are rules to allow engaging those units “in the open” as they move from cover to cover. No End in Sight (NEiS) uses a different mechanic where you roll movement for each trooper to see if they make across those gaps. If they don’t and the enemy has LOS then there is hell to pay. After playing a couple games this led to a lot of turns where units did nothing rather then risk getting stuck and we kept re-starting the game after adding still more terrain. Not satisfactory in the end. I would like to hear if crossfire degenerates into stagnant units when faced with crossing open ground in LOS of the enemy and if not what mechanism solves that.

    madman
    Participant

    It is a boardgame, but the Old School Tactical system by Flying Pig may interest you.

    I like the impulse idea. Looks well thought out or well play tested easy and simple. I like the idea of the luck cards, but having only the rules I do not know what possible results there are. They remind me very much of the assets from Hind & Seek, which are as stated assets which can be used to improve a gamer’s situation, create additional resources or defeat an opponent’s asset.

    Leaders have less effect as part of their usefulness, IMHO, falls into the impulse system. Either giving each leader an impulse point value, which sounds good but may cause slowing of the game, or requiring leaders to remain with units under their command would help with the issue of command and control wrt unit cohesion. Again this is intended to bring up ideas as much as find “the one true game”. Thank you for the idea.

    madman
    Participant

    SL/ASL and Conflict of Heroes are both hex and counter board games. In some ways I like the result playing on a fixed game board can decrease arguments over positioning. It is also why I like CoH’s approach where the entire hex is composed of the terrain while SL/ASL uses the image of the building itself to determine the line of sight. I have OST downloaded and will look it over.

    I kept thinking of rules I have, have played or have read and should I define the “issues” I see with each. It felt like I was being whiny and not really solving my problem just being negative for negative sake.

    madman
    Participant

    Assuming you’re not averse to card-based systems, you could have a look at Combat Patrol. It’s pretty easy to add modifications to get it to work how you want. There are extensive designer’s notes here: http://www.bucksurdu.com/combatpatrol/designers-notes/

    So units activate randomly and all will activate fully in each turn. Which and when you have no control over. One of my bugs I like to decide which units activate and when but don’t mind not all being active (CoC) or not each can do a full activation (CoH). Reading the BGG write up the use of cards for combat results seems interesting, but changing from a common set of charts available to everyone to each player having specific ones, but smaller, just seems to move the inevitable charts from one form to another (with lots of “look my bright idea” added in). Sounds like it could work so I will look into these rules closer.

    A few months ago I saw an AAR of a WWII skirmish game which led to a blog. The scenario was early war Germans vs French with the Germans attempting to capture a farm held by the French. The French were dispersed between various buildings and the Germans chose a poor very direct attack down the centre road. I know this probably matches dozens of possible AARs but if I remember correctly it was a different set of rules. They had a lot of the flavour of CoC but weren’t. I am sure they were in 20 or 28 mm. If anyone has a link to potential games please post it. There was some interesting aspects, such as although individuals they operated as teams and squads and there was some unit based command requirements. i cannot find my saved link now and would like to revisit these rules. Thank you.

    madman
    Participant

    As stated in a couple other threads where I have gone off on a rant I have been suggested to write my own. Frankly I would rather find something close and just tweak it. I know it will never get done, mostly as I am a crow and too easily distracted by the next bright shiny object. I have also looked at so many rules they are running together in my mind (remember still only have the mental capacity of a crow!) and many are skirmish (individual figures which is very hard to keep compatible with 6mm) or larger in scale (one unit equals a platoon of something which never appealed to me, which is why the Panzer Leader series never clicked). Sigh. I hope we can keep going with this discussion and people don’t throw up their hands and say “this guy is an a–hole” and go away.

    madman
    Participant

    Ugagitsuki

    Thank you for the suggestion. I will review it. Looking quickly it seems to be a skirmish level game though. I am trying for something larger but will review it. I am playing skirmish but less so for WWII, I prefer modern or imaginations for that scale.

    madman
    Participant

    I have an idea of the mechanisms I like but am also hoping to find something innovative.

    I agree buckets of dice are a turn off, and frankly the differences between bolt action rifles of different armies (for example) are too small to bother modeling.

    I want the effects of command and control in so much as units are subordinate to certain headquarters and either not all units are available every turn or if they are then they may be limited in how many actions they can perform. As an example of the latter CoH (in the 3rd edition and the solo expansion) has a chance after every action of causing the unit which activated to be exhausted and no longer perform that “turn”. Now you can use your leadership pool of activations to keep that unit activating but that is a limited number and will not or have less available for other units. Similarly CoC’s leaders only supply so many activations as well. So you can either activate a few units or allow one or two units to perform more or better.

    Many people play Flames of War and yet the entire game mechanics are all out of the ’70s if not earlier. There are so many “missed opportunities” to introduce newer mechanics, but that would alienate the players who can analyze and optimize their pre game purchase, resulting in (horror) randomness. ASL shows it’s age but I think SL & ASL’s mechanics are too structured to implement many friction based changes. Certainly the players are structured against it.

    madman
    Participant

    I also have IABSM. The version I have uses cards dice and some other mechanism to determine activations. That turned me off on page 3.

    Just to be clear, you don’t like IABSM because it uses card activation, so don’t suggest other games which use cards?

    I have no aversion to card systems. The version of IABSM used BOTH card and dice and I think something else. Too many methods.

    Frankly cards are similar to the method used by Bolt Action in the games I played in. In BA dice were drawn from a bag. The colour of the dice indicated which players’ unit was activated that phase. The player chose which of their not yet activated squads would then activate. After they placed the die beside that unit also displaying what action it took. I don’t remember why you did that except if the unit was placed on an overwatch action.

    To me the best use for cards is when playing solo. Then randomizing which unit activates helps with game play. In the case of MY units I would rather choose. Also the point is not all units can and will activate. All this does is activate everyone just in an uncoordinated way.

    in reply to: Panzerblitz at fifty #146171
    madman
    Participant

    Tactical Painter

    As I stated in a couple other threads in this part of the forum I have been looking for rules for WWII similar to ASL in scope but with many of the aspects inherent in Chain of Command. You mentioned changes to ASL in your blog but the only ideas put forward were from someone else. I find Conflict of Heroes solves many of the sequence issues but still without the command aspects of CoC. I would like to start another thread to take this further. Would you be willing to input your ideas? Thank you and sorry for hijacking this thread but it seemed to best way to get contact with TP.

    in reply to: 6mm Traders #146112
    madman
    Participant

    News?

    in reply to: Battlespace -Ultra Modern Solo Skirmish Game #145514
    madman
    Participant

    Just like I said in the other thread this game can be used in so many ways. Seeing Nathaniel’s post the first thing I thought was aliens vs colonial marines. Hand to hand only for the aliens, maybe faster speeds for face huggers or chest bursters. Colonial marines don’t seem near as omnipotent so maybe only two wounds to kill. Change the sitrep cards around to match your ideas. Either the aliens from the Alien(s) movies, see above, or bugs from Starship Troopers, in which case they may have ranged weapons. Of course you could play it “straight” and just have a unit of troopers against a band of local upstarts, swap things around and make the player’s team any number of military or quasi-military forces beset by irate locals or irate local fauna. For the former, remember in Traveller the idea(s) of military mercenary units (expanded in Striker) or just some scout team which causes the swarm of bugs to pour out while just checking out the newly discovered planet.

    Now that I think of it this game may be the way in for an idea I have had for a while now but can’t figure out how to start… Tremors. The problem with treating it too close to the source material is we already know how to defeat the graboids and their kin. How to infuse some randomness or unpredictability. I think a variation on these rules may be the answer.

    in reply to: Thoughts on Tactical Assault: Combat Cards? #145278
    madman
    Participant

    Battlespace(If you don’t mind me taking this off topic)

    I printed it all up in colour and full size (make sure to pick actual size or 100% not “fit”. Then I folded each card so one side is the info and the other is the “generic” type face. These can be sleeved into standard game card sleeves (make sure to get clear as some have colour on one side where the type face would be). Presto. Mine fit in a hot chocolate tin (thin square and tall) but I also have some hard storage boxes (plastic) similarly shaped which hold cards in sleeves.

    What gets me is how you could easily change out opponents in any asymmetric game environment like Soviet Afghan war, many colonial actions or zombies. I haven’t looked too hard at it but increasing the unit size may also work. I would have to consider whether to enlarge the opponent forces size or make them more numerous (cards per game) or just how to balance. I could see the good balance of the game being put out of whack very easily by the wrong attempt to keep balance while increasing the friendly unit size.

    in reply to: Thoughts on Tactical Assault: Combat Cards? #145233
    madman
    Participant

    Doesn’t really tell you much does it?

    I have this;

    https://www.wargamevault.com/product/216959/Hostile-Tactical-AI

    Which seems pretty good. I haven’t played it yet but the AI responses look reasonable.

    I also have this and am very pumped by it;

    https://www.wargamevault.com/product/314447/BATTLESPACE-ULTRA-MODERN-SOLO-SKIRMISH-GAME

    My son and I have played a game, made mistakes but still had a lot of fun. Downside is you only play 4 soldiers. You have a set mission with definite objective and that defines your general actions. The AI driven opponents have their own objectives but may react to you actions. It plays a lot like the card game Warfighter by DVG games as far as fell goes. He has a Youtube presence where he plays through a few scenarios which helped my identify and correct mistakes we made.

    in reply to: Heroic & Ros – shopping cart down #143202
    madman
    Participant

    If you check out the news section it shows what lines are available and gives some background as to how he is handling things. In a nut shell he is slowly bringing all items back and they will remain up. But he is doing it a product line at a time. If you are looking for something not yet available you may have to wait a little while. If you want to order from what is available and some not yet you will have to either wait or get a partial. It looks like he is bringing back about a line a week.

    in reply to: Wanted: H&R East Germans #143118
    madman
    Participant

    H&R shows modern figures back in production now.

    madman
    Participant

    Here you go. The squadron markings is too small an image to read so I wasn’t sure about dates but the image from google has a date.

    https://www.squadronprints.com/item/2284/OV-10A-Bronco.html

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OV-10As_601st_TASW_over_Germany_1982.JPEG

    in reply to: First play of Battlespace #142729
    madman
    Participant

    So I had a few questions and needed to re-read the rules after our first game. I have some questions and assumed answers based on my reading of the rules and the cards. Robert Salters has a presence on facemess but I don’t and have been shut out when I tried to join. So if anyone has a way to contact him with these questions please do. Thank you.

    in reply to: Project Slow Burn #142719
    madman
    Participant

    Fun(?) like always. Sort of reminds me if Johnny English actually met a Bond villain. Where did you get the Kamov from?

    in reply to: Force on Force – Interwar Modifications #142657
    madman
    Participant

    Sounds like you have the hands on experience. It also sounds like reality, not necessarily a fun game. Thank you for your insights.

    madman
    Participant

    Are CWC and BKC scaled at one vehicle represents a platoon? There are so many rules sets out nowadays that if they are not ones I am playing or considering then they tend to run together.

    madman
    Participant

    Sorry but in my mind, and most people I have talked with, I consider 1/300, 6mm, 1/285 and a few other similar sizes as all the same beast, or at least interchangeable. Differences in size, proportion, quality, heavy handedness of and amount of detail are what define various manufacturers. Differences in what is covered wrt to prototypes if historic or topics for imaginary forces play a point for some items. As in if a specific unit or vehicle is available from brand X and no one else and is scale Y, which is close to scale Z then the fact I can get it and from X then that is what I buy. As soon as that item is further than 6 inches from one of another scale you can’t see the difference. Matching with existing figures or forces may have a greater impact for most gamers than cost.

    My opinion and how I buy. But with input from many gamers I have met or known over the years.

    madman
    Participant

    CWC? I am not familiar with that acronym.

    Been buying their stuff since, probably ’74 or so as I started in ’73 with GHQ. I really like their infantry as they have the best balance between sturdiness and sufficient detail to identify the figure before painting. The newer or reissued infantry is very good and while I still buy GHQ for specific forces not covered by H&R they are still my go to source.

    I know, how can you really identify between various miniatures at this scale? When doing the painting there is identifiable differences. A bolt action rifle is not a M-16 is not an AK-47 and each is identifiable as such on their miniatures. Mind you once on the table it is the paint schemes as much as any unit ID associated with the mini or base which is present on the table with which the specifics of that unit are determined or the unit is identified by.

    Still I can tell the difference when painting and I guess the personal satisfaction is what matters.

    Just listening to the podcast now. I hope in his quest to interview as many 6mm manufacturers he doesn’t ignore or miss GHQ and CinC even though they are on this side of the pond. GHQ MAY be the originator of the “scale”. This assumes I have not missed him interviewing them already.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 417 total)