Forum Replies Created
I’m currently using Pz8 for 3mm Cold War games.
I’ve tweaked weapons to differentiate a little more because they were a little too generic for my taste.
I’ve added rules for things not covered, like combat engineering. Pz8 is only two pages, so can’t cover everything.
I’ve also re-written them to use hexes. That was mostly translating ranges.01/08/2017 at 00:16 in reply to: Why Missiles (e.g. Katyusha, Nebelwerfer)? Plus Other Questions #68973
I believe one reason the Soviets used rockets in WWII was because it was relatively easy to set up manufacturing facilities after half the country got over-run by the Germans. During the Cold War, when Khrushchev was in charge, another reason was that it was easier to get funding/approval for development and manufacture of rockets and missiles. Khrushchev thought rockets and missiles were the future, so would back them over guns.
As for rules, I’ve seen at least some rule sets give multiple rocket launchers a larger area of effect than standard tube artillery.
It helps, but it’s one factor among many, so I’m not sure how much it influences my decisions.
On the other hand, sometimes I go to a trader’s website because of how they act on forums etc, and am then disappointed to find they don’t cover periods/scales that I’m interested in :/
And a possibly even stupider question, is the gun removed for rail transport?
I’ve seen modern tanks with their turret rotated to the rear when on rail cars, probably because it’s easier to get on/off without a long gun sticking out the front. If you’re referring to tank destroyers without rotating turrets of course, that won’t be an option.
I found this image of a Jagdtiger on a railway car, with gun in place:
Also this (ISU-152?):
Would you use airdrops or switch it to airmobile forces?
I’ve never got close enough to making it a reality to really consider that question. I’d probably have paratroopers at Arnhem and helicopter forces at the others.
The Anti-Tank Platoon of a Motor Rifle Battalion (BTR) had two of them, with each being allocated a BTR-60PB for transport.
I think I knew that, and knowing they had a wheeled carriage, assumed they were towed rather than carried inside. Thanks, it’s always good to get better information.
I find myself wondering if this began with GW. From what I remember of Warhammer 40K, rust and the like would be entirely fitting on at least some vehicles (orks, for instance, probably wouldn’t put much effort into vehicle maintenance).
Mostly, though, I’m of the opinion that if the owner is happy, that’s all that really matters.
Thanks for the suggestion. The big problem with Collection Calculator (for me) is that there’s no way for me to download/backup my data. I get paranoid about trusting my data to other people and not having my own copy, so I’ll stick with a simple list.
I probably should have been clearer.
There’s not much value (to me) in you posting news articles on social media, because I do it myself. I have no objection to you doing it as well, since it costs me nothing in time or money. It’s a nice bonus, but I’d not pay for it.
For what it’s worth, I’d say the news posts on the front page are the most valuable to me, followed by the adverts.
I don’t think there’s a lot of value in the posts to social media, so I think I’d prefer you didn’t do that.
This might help you increase site visits, though (and other traders with Facebook pages should take a look too):
I’ve been following the advice in that post for a couple of months, and I can honestly say that the reach of my Facebook posts is now three to four times what it was.
I keep everything in a spreadsheet. Works for me. I have columns for a description, number of figures, manufacturer (if known), link to a photograph if I have one, and some notes for use in games or painting. What I do not keep track of is game-specific information. Several years from now rulesets will have rotated out and others in, but the miniatures will still be there.
I’ll probably end up with something like this. If nothing else, keeping it simple is a good thing. I’ll probably keep wondering about ways to make it better, but if I can keep that urge in check I should be OK 😉
Right now, my collection is pretty small. About 10-15 years ago I decided I wasn’t going to be wargaming any more, and gave everything away. Last year I finally accepted that I’d made a big mistake 🙁 So, if I’m going to do it, now is the best time, before my collection grows much more.
Simple one for me, the tanks that go with my Cuties.
That has made my day 🙂
I think my best purchase was probably a bunch of 20mm AFVs from The Works at £2 each. Some were swapped for other vehicles and infantry, some I’ll keep, and some I’ll probably put on eBay when I eventually get around to it.
That’s a great post. I found OHW an interesting read, but I doubt I’d use any of the rules as my main set. The idea of using them for periods that I’m not interested enough in to buy large armies for is a good one, though.
I’m indebted to OHW for giving me a set of rules that I can use to introduce my young son to wargaming. I had been intending to write my own set of simple rules, but never quite got around to it. I suspect it’s just as well that I didn’t, because I don’t think they would have been simple enough 😉 OHW do the job very well, though.
They do look like the same ones. The pack my son got has those four, plus some other vehicles. Having seen them, I don’t think I’d want to pay any more than 45p per tank 🙂
The “W-12” is some sort of self-propelled AA vehicle, might be their representation of a Gepard.
Yes that was the argument at first. However, in fantasy contexts, and in many historical contexts, some of the figures represent women and in skirmish games grammar makes a difference when you must refer to them too.
My point was that no-one has argued about how figures should be referred to in this thread (unless I missed it – I did a lot of catching up before writing my post), and so Rod seemed to be arguing against something that no-one had said.
For the record, in any context where the figures may represent men or women, I’d support gender-neutral grammar when referring to the figures.