"The S78 Standard Unit" Topic

Anyone remember the Series 78 Standard Unit? If you recall it with a smile, then you might also recall the 1950's-80's rules Angriff.

I've found a new rules set that combines the utter playability (okay, simplicity) of Angriff with the strictures of WRG and Tactical Commander.

Is all this of any interest (other than for posterity)?

my first modern army was built based on McCoy's standard unit with plastic airfix figs and roco minitanks and vehicles. lot of fun.

what is the rules set you found?

You bet I remember those rules. I also remember the series 78 units from wargamers Digest. I would be interested in the rules. Brings back many memories (generaly of getting my butt kicked) but good times.

While the Angriff rules were fairly basic in most aspects, the armor penetration charts were a pain. But then, that's all we had at the time.

I seem to recall that there is a Yahoo group for Wargamers Digest that discusses this topic among others.

I have a three-ring binder with all the Battle Stations scenarios somewhere around here.

What are these newfangled "old school'ish" rules you speak of?

Wow, this board is alive.

I should say, I was mainly hoping to find people keen on reviving the types of battles S78 made possible in WD. And then I was hoping someone would be in my vicinity, which, because of my remoteness vis-a-vis the home of Wargamer's Digest, seems unlikely.

And then correction and explanation are required: the rules are based on Agriff, WRG, Combined Arms and Tactical Commander --- a kind of "best-of" --- and I can't remember how playable they were.

Importantly, I now realize, the rules were my own compilation --- long forgotten after 20 years of ups and downs. But I've been in the publishing business for 20 years, too, so they're respectable-looking and I called them Battlefront.

Sounds good to me, other than the selection of the name for your rules, unless you just happened to copyright it.

If so, I imagine you will be owed a hefty sum from a certain miniatures manufacturer, and other rules producer.

I'm interested.

I think I printed five copies for the lads. I found three. No copyright, so Battlefront could --- if mass produced from the office --- become something else. Thanks for the tip on existing titles.
Next question: Anyone keen on S78-type battles and living in Northern Europe??

I'll post again about the rules when I get an electronic file ready for production. Thanks for the interest.

Great, so I can look forward to arranging a S78 battle ahead of visiting … Texas? Toronto? Illinois?

Angriff's problem was the infantry rules. MG fire was very weak.

Armor rules were pretty simple you penetrate X at a given range. If that was more than the location it was a penetration. This is the same idea as most modern games except modern games use artificial numbers. Where in Angriff you could important any vehicle you could find the armor for. The downside was that slope wasn't factored into the armor at all.

The genius of Angriff was the to hit chart. The conversion of 2D6 to percentage was very well done. The one colored die being the hit location was a great mechanic.

wargamersdigest-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

This is the Wargamers Digest Yahoo Group. I post there sometimes. There is a lively group and several visit TMP too.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Thanks all.
I'll be sure to use your observations in trying to get Battlefront operational (perhaps under a new name), with credit due those who used their minds to devise whatever charts survive the final cut.

"There is a lively group and several visit TMP too."

Roger that!

Complete collection from Vol 1 Issue 1 in 73 to 1985!

Great stuff.

It seems, if I'm willing to travel, I could enjoy a host of S78 battles under the banner of Rules Roadshow.

Thanks Canuck Cmmdr. This Canuck Kid (old enough to have bought those WDs new) is bogged down in Northern Europe for the moment.

I'll keep the respondant's of this post in mind during my annual, spring-summer cross-ocean offensive. There's little hope of even a foray across the North Sea until spring.

Is there any source for the "Standard Units" themselves on the web?

The genius of Angriff was the to hit chart. The conversion of 2D6 to percentage was very well done. The one colored die being the hit location was a great mechanic.

There were some problems with that, though. At low probabilities there were only certain parts of the tank you could hit. If I were still playing it nowadays, I'd roll separately for the hit location.
--
Tim

Thanks Lentulus. Ditto Ditto Bird.
Glancing through my compilation, it seems I spliced something likely from the other rules in a separate hit-location roll. I think I need a weekend for a closer look at just what it was I did 16 years ago.
Little rules --- like, if it's in the open, no need to acquire --- help balance realism with turn speeed during aim and fire. Any doubt --- smoke, rapid movement, obscurations --- require a sight check. So while Angriff had no "did I acquire the target" roll, a simplified acquisition table exists for far fewer necessary sight checks.
I'm having a great time with this.

William

Web? Hmm. Dunno.
The standard units, as I recall (I'll do more than recall when I get back home this spring), were losely based on one vehicle equals five, if only for AFVs. And McCoy, it seemed, also found a sensible "divided-by-three" unit mix that somehow balanced overall firepower by applying the equals-five to a larger unit's "thirdling" frontline force. So, some should agree, the regiment (of men) was really a 1/5 battalion. One of tanks --- the real thing (1/5)!
The battalion was company-size (especially if Russian), and divisions were fielded relatively easily (whether 1/72, 1/76, HO or 1/295-1/300) for that great command feeling of three nice regiments. Why, even I fielded Russian divisions, German battlegroups and U.S. Combat Commands.
It was great.

OMG, has it been that long? Am I really that old? but yes I fondly remember the McCoy standard units and Angriff. I also remember a few adjustments of my own such as halving the penetration vs. sloped armor, and changing certian scenarios so that they could fit on a 4'x6' table. (the series 78 scenarios were for a huge table)

I thought Angriff accounted for armor slope. At least that's what I read in my 1979 copy. Also -- what was the effect of a hit on tracks? I can't find anything now, but I thought I read a default thickness and possibility of immobilizing.

oilandgas, are you saying you have an actual complete set of McCoy's rules? If so, PLEASE join the Yahoo group. Many there apparently ordered but never received a set, and all attempts to reconnect with the family have failed.

Oh, and Supergrover made an appearance!

- Bob

Good to see these comments on Series 78 (S78)units!!!

I have made up all the Series 78 units over the years and have collected most of the old Wargamer's Digests that I missed when I was subscribing. I used the "Angriff" rules for many years but recently tried out "Rapid Fire!(RF)" and "Rapid Fire 2!(RF2)". RF/RF2 uses the same basic principle as McCoy used on the S78 units but is updated and available with a lot of supplements. So, your S78 units will fit into RF/RF2 real easy.

Check them out. Compare them to 'Angriff' and see what you think. It would be good to hear your comments.

Ah yes, Angriff! Have several different copies of the rules, 5 editions were eventually released with the last being the 1982 one.

Unfortunately, no, Angriff did not account for armor slope despite claims that armor thickness reflected that slope where available. For example the T-34 shows 45mm of armor on hull front neglecting to account for slope and the Panther shows 80mm but neglects to account for the 55 degree slope.

One interesting note is in earlier versions, under the armor for some vehicles, it lists the slope of the armor. This wasnt retained in the final version.

No, tracks werent part of the equation.

Marc33594 wrote:

[…] No, tracks werent part of the equation.

Tracks are listed as a possible hit location in my copy. I can't find a reference of what to do about such hits though. I assume they immobilize, but should every weapon have the same odds?

- Bob

Bob;

You are correct that "track" is given as a hit location on the firing matrix (and by the way there are differences in that matrix between the 72 and 82 copies)but it isnt further explained hence my statement it isnt part of the equation. For example if a 20mm gun fires at a Tiger II and gets a track does it disable the Tiger II? While they tried to keep things simple they also leave some things out. Once again, for example, one assumes that if you get a hit and if you exceed the armor value at that point the tank is destroyed. What happens if you equal it?

Further under engineers they allow you to repair tanks. Is this just for immoblized or does it include destroyed?

I apologize if I left the impression that tracks were not a viable hit location, my sentence was poorly worded.

Marc

It seems all agree Angriff was fun as hell but frustrating for leaving things out (easily corrected by agreement on rule add-ons).
While McCoy brought us S 78, I'm not sure he built Angriff.
Anyway, I've just taken a bit of job leave after 20 years of struggle and country (and Canadian province) changes. Lifting things out of boxes is what brought about this outburst. Seeing Angriff and other rules, as well as unbuilt kits brought a swell of something like emotion.
I better check out that Yahoo Angriff/S-78 list. Thanks McCoy fans, esp. Bob

I'm under the impression for the WG Digest group on Yahoo that McCoy published, but never or rarely shipped actual copies to paying customers. Apparently nobody there has seen a copy in the wild. I understand he said S78 would work with Angriff well, but I don't think he participated in the development of those rules.

I've scrounged up S78 articles for a smattering of US, German and Soviet organizations (3, maybe 4), but far from anything comprehensive. Does anybody know exactly what he did publish?

Apart from nostalgic value, I am just a bit underwhelmed by the articles. In terms of building up unit organizations, there are some far easier to find resources out now (not surprisingly). When I asked about the impact of S78, I was informed that the ability to scale for games of different sizes was (somewhat) new, but that was about it. I did find the ability to store stands representing infantry in their respective vehicles neat, but that would tend to be model specific. I'm wondering *why* you'd use S78 these days.

oilandgas, let us know when you've got those rules put together. I'm always interested in rules and game mechanics for WWII.

- Bob

Will do, Bob.
The point of asking about S 78 and Angriff on this board was obviously to seek out the like-minded and those of similar experience.
There's little to argue vis-a-vis Angriff and S 78, but it would be great to fly or drive into a city for a game and know a group of miniatures enthusiasts were ready and waiting to go at it roughly S 78 and very much a la McCoy's scenarios in WD Magazine.
This is a great board. Thanks to all.
William

You said it tovarischdavid.