"''Contact!'' wargame rules?" Topic

''Contact!'' wargame rules.

Assured by the blokes at Caliver books that these were the 'best' rules for modern skirmish, I bought them.

Unfortunately, I can't make head nor tale of them. With four pages of play tables, they didn't seem too onerous, but the rules themselves are so mixed up with explanations and pithy comments about modern war that it's difficult to focus on what's really supposed to happen. Jargon like 'stress' or 'reaction test' are used freely in the rules but never cross-referenced, making the rules impossibly hard to scan.

But maybe it's just me and my brain – perhaps they appeal to others. Anyone else tried them out?

never heard of them.

Bought, read, disappointed, filed away, never used.

Cheers
Mark

Try Ambush Alley.

Cac,

I would say that the test of a rule set is to actually play them!

I've played a couple of games and they are pretty good and represent modern combat effectively.

I wouldn't complain or worry unduly that the rules are mixed up with explanations- after all that's the mark of good rule writing!

DB

I have them, never played them, but they do look interesting. There is a Yahoo! group for them, you might try asking questions there. Last I looked, the group wasn't that active though.

Dropship Horizon,

Glad it's not just me then. People take in information well in different ways: sometimes narratives are best, other times more tabulated forms are good. Sometimes you want to read rules from cover to cover, but other times you need to look things up and scan over text quickly.

But it's an English norm, that presentations, letters, newspaper articles, rules and even you-tube videos are prefaced by a short explanatory introduction, telling you the basic 'who', 'what' 'why' and 'when' of what the hell you're talking about: and in formal presentations you expect references in the next paragraph to justify what you're saying. Other languages prefer other methods: French and Slavic peoples often prefer a narrative introduction with the 'who', 'what', 'why' and 'when' left to an end summary.

These rules obviously contain some accurate simulations of real war, but the language used just seems to show the worst of both worlds: narratives which first talk about real life then alter their subject and switch to game examples without making it clear what is happening and refer to rules tangentally and then rules tables with no explanation. It makes me think they weren't written by a native English speaker.

David Brown,

''I would say that the test of a rule set is to actually play them!''

If I could get that far, I would!

''I wouldn't complain or worry unduly that the rules are mixed up with explanations- after all that's the mark of good rule writing!''

Ah – after a compliment, eh, DB? Shame I missed you at Excel. You going to be putting on a game at the IWM anytime? Anyway, it's a bit sad I know, but I have even caught myself reading your Panzergrenadier rules for……..pleasure. Oh yes. Visual descriptions, er, interesting facts about equipment and stuff…they encouraged me to persevere with them, despite the minor gripe of redundant categorisation (tanks are listed with an 'armour category' called 'D', for example, which has to be looked up; rather than just being called '4/2':-)). Mainly, you have clear introductions, points have clear titles and all that. Excellent rules. I've tried writing my own, so I know how difficult it is to get right.

Ok, I'll give 'Contact!' one more chance then, but I'm warning them, one more headache and I'm going back to Dadi & Piombo's 'Breaking News', so there!

Try tracking down a copy of Charlie Company. It's nominally a Vietnam era game but works very well for anything 'modern'. Clearly written and plays very well.

I play 'contact' regularly at my local club and we have some excellent games using them. I prefer them for smaller scale skirmishes than large battles tho. They do take abit of getting use to but once you know the basics they are a good set of rules. I use then for modern, vietnam and soviets in Afghanistan mainly and they all play well.

Is the "Contact" ruleset still available?

Duckers…

Edited- Please disregard. "Contact" is still listed on Cavalier's site.

I don't know anything about the rules, but if they use terms like "Stress" then they must be modern. In the Napoleonic period, soldiers either stood firm or routed; in WWII they were pinned or suppressed; today, they undergo psychological counseling before deciding whether to advance or not.