| Blake Walker | 03 Jun 2009 2:48 a.m. PST |
Hi, I've had good luck running Chain Reaction 2.0 from Two Hour Wargames with the modern figures from The Assault Group. I own about 30 painted Taliban with AK47's and RPG-7's to fight two full squads of USMC, a Humvee with a 50 cal from Britannia, and a downed Black Hawk and Helio crew for Afghanistan (I use my Middle Eastern buildings from my British Colonial games for terrain). Has anyone else had luck with Chain Reaction 2.0? I tried playing Face of Modern Battle several years ago and had little luck with it. However, I'd prefer to find a modern skirmish set with some more "teeth" (i.e., realism), but Chain Reaction seems to work OK. I'll be running it at a convention in the St. Louis metro area this weekend for anyone locally who'd like to try it… |
| Col Stone | 03 Jun 2009 3:00 a.m. PST |
I'd use it, great flow :)
or maybe one of the ambush alley games. |
| advocate | 03 Jun 2009 3:42 a.m. PST |
Blake, by "realism" do you mean "detail"? Or is there some specific aspect to the CR 2.0 rules that you find "unrealistic"? |
| 14th Brooklyn | 03 Jun 2009 3:48 a.m. PST |
We have had great results with Face of Modern Battle, both at our club and participation games at shows. Cheers, Burkhard |
| PapaSync | 03 Jun 2009 6:05 a.m. PST |
You can now get a updated copy of Chain Reation 3.0, free, at THW website. THW has great support online at Yahoo groups with all sorts of good stuff. 8) |
| Blake Walker | 03 Jun 2009 6:41 a.m. PST |
Hi, I meant to say "detail". Having the assault rifle and LMG ranges being the same (48") is good for playability, but LMG such as SAW's (i.e., M249) should have a much longer range than M16's. Just a gripe of mine with Chain Reaction. Anyway, I guess I'll have to take a look with CR 3.0 |
| bobstro | 03 Jun 2009 7:38 a.m. PST |
Chain Reaction 3 cleans up a few things that may make the game flow better. One of the significant changes is that only the inactive side takes In-Sight tests now. The THW games are, if nothing, easy to tweak. Ask around on the group for suggestions on lengthening LMG ranges. You might want to check out the 'Nuts 2.0 QRS' in the files section. It contains the quick reference for Nuts (WW2 skirmish) updated to be closer to CR 3.0 mechanisms. I'm using it for my WW2 games now. It certainly seems to be a lot easier to explain to newcomers! I'm finding it relatively easy to simply adapt mechanisms for specific things that I find in other games to THW rules rather than convert to yet-another set of rules and mechanics. - Bob |
| Arrigo | 03 Jun 2009 7:48 a.m. PST |
Considering the usual table ranges (and the susual engegement range nowadays) there is no difference from and M249 and an M16… more detail doesn't equate realism… also it is more important how you use your weaposn and how good are the guys firing them. Also all AAR I have read from Iraq or Afghanistan never talk of "much longer SAW range"; what they point out is the difference in sustained firepower. |
| lugal hdan | 03 Jun 2009 8:16 a.m. PST |
CR2 and now CR3 are great games for doing modern skirmishes. Re: "Teeth". It's true, CR considers all assault rifles to be pretty much the same. Being hit by an AK or an M16 will take you out just the same, though you could make after-battle recovery difference to represent HOW you were taken down. (that is, wounded/unconscious or killed) You will find the game much more enjoyable with plenty of terrain, like maybe a crowded street intersection. Figures left out in the open will die, and a squad holed up in cover with no avenue to flank them is almost impossible to get out so plan your map accordingly. There shouldn't be any perfect "camping" spots that have great field of fire or your opfor player will get frustrated. Of course you could give him a grenade launcher or RPG, which might solve the problem. |
| Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 03 Jun 2009 8:45 a.m. PST |
Having the assault rifle and LMG ranges being the same (48") is good for playability, but LMG such as SAW's (i.e., M249) should have a much longer range than M16's. The ranges were made to reflect the distance that the shooter felt he had a good chance of hitting the target and not the maximum distance the weapon could fire.
Also with 48" it's not too often that someone would game on a table that had open areas over that distance.
And yes, CR 3.0 is much better than 2.0 and is free as well. link |
| Weasel | 15 Jun 2009 3:48 p.m. PST |
I wouldnt get too worried about ranges. In an urban type of fight, LOS will restrict you more than weapon ranges will. Its easily tweaked though if you really want it. Or maybe take a rep test to spot a target outside "max" range ? |
tackles two subjects from his favorite sculptor.