kmahony111 | 13 Feb 2013 6:54 p.m. PST |
Hi all My search for a playable Moderns set of rules in 1:1 scale is becoming harder so I'm thinking about writing my own. What do you think a moderns set of rules should have and what would be good to include? I mean the rules not army lists or TOEs. Cheers Kieran
|
GROSSMAN | 13 Feb 2013 9:08 p.m. PST |
Why not write the perfect set of Napoleonic rule while you are at it. That's a big bite to take I wouldn't even know where to start on that. I assume using micro armor you would want a ton of lead on the table and taking idividual actions for each model seems like it might take forever to complete a game. You might try giving us a thought line or approach so we may expound or revise you ideas. Good luck. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Feb 2013 9:47 p.m. PST |
how many models per side, and how much table do you have? If you really want to go 1:1, a 1/300 groundscale works out to 12"=100yards. The typical infantry engagement range, even in Afghanistan, was 300m. Drawing sniper fire? Drop a mortar/artillery round on him. Now, 300 yards is 36" on the table. How much detail can you put on your terrain? |
kmahony111 | 13 Feb 2013 10:10 p.m. PST |
I'm thinking 1-3 companies per side with support weapons. Mostly a mechanised game rather than a foot game like Force on force. 1 tank = 1 tank, 1 base of 3-4 = a fireteam, so unit are sections with a 1mm = 2 metre ground scale, and on a 8x6 ft table or maybe 6x4 table. I'll probably pull ideas from a number of games such as FoF, WRG moderns (and the previous set), CWC, FOW and KGN and maybe some Crossfire. Cheers Kieran PS I'll write the Napoleonic set next week ;-) |
normsmith | 13 Feb 2013 11:15 p.m. PST |
I think at the 1:1 level, the two main areas that will provide flavour, good narrative and differentiate forces will be the command system and weapon effectiveness. Even at 1:1, if you have 3 companies per side, then the player is the battalion commander, so some ofthe finer tactical stuff that you can have at 1:1 should be beyond the players direct or strongly controlled influence. |
Extra Crispy | 13 Feb 2013 11:35 p.m. PST |
I agree with Norm. If I command a battalion I should not be making decisions on what ammo tank 3 is using. I hope my gunners know that! |
UshCha | 14 Feb 2013 12:34 a.m. PST |
Writeing a game is FUN. Is about deciding what you want precisely. A set of rules is precisce. If you only have a wooly idea of what you want you get wooly rules. Idealy go for a walk in an area you know you want to fight or google and area and go for a walk. To get an idea a company in a hard fought attack will cover about 500m, may be twice that in open "tank" country. Walk round and look for the key terrain features and how you would attack them. Having done that look how you would model that on the tabletop in your chosed sacle. If not all the features are reproduced, wall, houses, garden sheds, air raid shelters (I have one in my back garden) how will you simplify them to get what you want. The tell yoursels a story of how you would describle that fight. When you have done that you will have some idea of what you want to model. That will then let you produce more detailed requirements. Would your game improve overall if you had lots of range bands aor just 1. Are you going to account for canted trunion error on basic sights. Are you realy going to calculate angulat crossing rates to allow for real accuracy rates or ignore it ( we do!) for basic weapons. How many catorgories of complex terrain will you have. How will you depict the widest stream, waddi etc to be crossed. How will you define dead ground. The whole fun poart of writing rules is to help you get an understanding of why battles generally happened and how. There are loads of free US field manuals from rifle platoon to river crossings. Read and get some understading of what they cover they are a mine of information for wargamers. Look what is defined as minimum proficiency for an infantry man. When you have that you will undertand you task and start writing. We wrote MG and it took about 2000 hrs to define if fully. Army lists are odd. Realy you should not need them for armies that exsist as yours should reflect the real ones. Theoretical ones just need derameing. However we ended up writing lkists becuse customers could write tham but many prefere to buy ready made. Gome on in Have fun. This forum is great if you hit a problem or want to bounce an Idea of someone. |
nickinsomerset | 14 Feb 2013 2:36 a.m. PST |
Good advice above: "To get an idea a company in a hard fought attack will cover about 500m, may be twice that in open "tank" country" Speak to some serving or ex soldiers who have an understanding of equipment, use of ground and tactical doctrine and have done it! Tally Ho! |
Badgers | 14 Feb 2013 5:45 a.m. PST |
So calling all serving or ex-soldiers, what are the real-life factors involved? |
jdeleonardis | 14 Feb 2013 5:59 a.m. PST |
Kieran, are you the same guy with the 6mm Wargaming site? If so, I still look at your site for inspiration from time to time. Cant wait to see what you can cobble together for some 1:1 micro armor rules! I would love to see a company sized game. I think with that many tanks, you will need to make sure it moves quickly
possibly take out rules for 'damage' to tanks (ie, tank gets hit, its dead?). Id like to see some helicopters in rules in this as well. |
Wartopia | 14 Feb 2013 8:33 a.m. PST |
I believe there's a modern version of FoW floating around the inter-tubes. Nothing more playable than that. The infantry isn't 1:1 in that you don't consider individual figures, just the stand, but it's definitely 1:1 in that the figure ratio is 1:1. And you count each vehicle model as one vehicle. I once saw a 6mm FoW game at Siege of Augusta IIRC and it looks very nice. |
Cincinnatus | 14 Feb 2013 9:26 a.m. PST |
I think you need to really think through the ground scale versus table size for a game at that scale. The ranges of modern vehicles are pretty long so unless you have a lot of terrain blocking line of sight you may find the game to be a lot of shooting and very little movement. Unless of course you are playing on the floor in a gym. |
BattlerBritain | 14 Feb 2013 9:28 a.m. PST |
Depends on what you want to do really. Sounds like you've chosen your unit scale so what about your time and ground scale? Then do you want your game to be fairly realistic or just an easy game to play? Do you want it to play quick or are you more interested where that last tank round hit? Could you use bits of games already in existance, eg use Squad Leader (say) for the infantry part and MBT/IDF for the tank part (say). All good stuff. Keep us posted on how you're doing. |
John D Salt | 14 Feb 2013 11:29 a.m. PST |
I think a modern armour-centric tactical game should show the effects of defensive aids suites in MBTs and attack helos, model all sorts of battlefield obscurants, show the difference between different generations of C3I kit, and include the possibility of blue-on-blue engagements. If an existing set has addressed these points, I haven't seen it. All the best, John. |
(Jake Collins of NZ 2) | 14 Feb 2013 11:50 a.m. PST |
One problem will be deciding how effective all the things John mentions actually are on a modern full-on battlefield (rather than the testing range). Same for UAVs and the like. As all we've had is assymetric war for a decade its rather hard to judge what a genuine top drawer engagement would turn out like. You'll need to make a call Kieran – will a DAS suite work 50% of the time? 75%? 90%? And what you decide will have a huge impact on game balance. |
nickinsomerset | 14 Feb 2013 12:10 p.m. PST |
And what period? Most of what we have been doing recently, as Collins says, is Asymmetric. There were big changes in NW Europe, decade by decade, crudely – Extra heavy tanks 50's, Medium size MBTs, ATGMs, Helicopters 60's, Sov IFVs, Heavier Tanks 70s, Attack Helicopters, Drones/UAVs, Better MBTs, IFVs, ERA, 80s, Even better stuff 90s etc. A very basic and by no means a comprehensive list at all, but plenty of people here to help and advise, Tally Ho! |
Cold Steel | 14 Feb 2013 1:20 p.m. PST |
If you want realistic outcomes from modern (last 20 years)mechanized/tank battalion level operations, the biggest challenge is the leathality of modern weapons and how fast an engagement will last. A company of M1s or a few attack helicopters came exterminate a battalion of 30-45 targets in as little as 1 minute. Take a look at the Battle of 76 Easting in Gulf War 1. Add in air and indirect fires and it can make for a short game. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Feb 2013 2:39 p.m. PST |
Well, as far as the CAS game goes, Helos without air dominance are an endangered species. You'd need to include fighter cover, fixed-wing CAS, and helo CAS. Fighter cover can trump fixed-wing CAS, and fixed-wing CAS beats helos. I suppose you could ignore air support, but that might not feel right. Let's see here, you'd need 2x fighter cover. One to counter the opponent's fighters, one to counter their fixed-wing CAS. Then your fixed-wing CAS could counter their helos, leaving your helos free to shoot things. But you really do need to include indirect fires. Stryker brigades are supposed to be the 'light' counterpart to mechanized infantry, and the 'heavy' counterpart to the actual 'light' (ie, leg) infantry, and have indirect fire capability organic to the company (2x 60mm or 120mm), let alone BN (4x 81mm or 120mm) or higher. |
kmahony111 | 14 Feb 2013 3:00 p.m. PST |
Woah thanks for all the great comments. I'll try and answer all your questions I'm looking at a game which will be slightly higher level than a skirmish so dont want to get too bogged down with details. The period would cover 1950-2000 and I would like to be able to field at least 1 tank company, 2 mech/mot companies and supports, and be able to play larger games as well. I'm not planning to write these to play asymetrical warfare as I think there are other rules out there which cover this well. I want to allow for the changes in technology such as Armour, ammo, training and comms, and build that in. Eg A Russian tank tended to be less accurate at longer ranges than western tanks, a M60A3 has better armour penetration than a M60A1 becuase of the introduction of modern APFSDS rounds and so on. I'm happy with the ground scale of 1mm = 2m as I have played WRG moderns for 20+ years using this scale. Obviously Ultra modern equipment is very lethal and if you can see something and shoot at it, it will generally be killed. Then this comes down to scenario design and table layout (and I will include terrain laying rules) for different regions. Timescale I dont know yet but I would imagine 5 minutes or so per turn. Infantry would not be indvidual based but would be in fire teams/ support weapon bases. NO individual basing! I'm trying to get one currently serving person to help out. To be honest my experience is from a gaming perspective so I want it to feel "right" for gamers and what gamers think is "historical". So a lot of decisons will have to based on that and also it is very difficult to get accurate data for this period (eg Defensive systems like Arena, armour vs guns). Yes I created the 6mm Wargamming site and I want to use this as an excuse to play with more toys! Thanks all and keep the comments coming Cheers Kieran |
kmahony111 | 14 Feb 2013 3:02 p.m. PST |
Yes it will include Air and helicopter support and control, on and off table Artillery, Basic engineering tasks, smoke and so forth. Cheers Kieran |
nickinsomerset | 14 Feb 2013 3:14 p.m. PST |
Just in case you did not see them here is a link to some UK Trg films, late 70s – 80s: YouTube link Some give a good insight into the UK tactics at the time, and there is a good one on the effects of Arty fire, again bear in mind their age! Tally Ho! |
jdeleonardis | 14 Feb 2013 3:16 p.m. PST |
I think this thread is proof lots of people will be interested to see how this goes! |
kmahony111 | 14 Feb 2013 3:55 p.m. PST |
Cool. I will keep everyone informed. I've written some movement, orders, infantry fire and artillery rules already but they need more work. I dont think I will set the wargaming world alight with inovative mechanics and rules, but I hope to provide a solid playable game. Cheers Kieran |
Zephyr1 | 14 Feb 2013 3:56 p.m. PST |
I think the terrain is going to play the biggest part at that scale. If you hold battles in the open, the game isn't going to last long, but if players use cover, you could get some intense games of "hide & seek" while players try to get shots at each other
. ;-) |
UshCha | 15 Feb 2013 12:35 a.m. PST |
You need to be very certain what you are writeing. Apopealing to players implies sticking to the traditional. Many Wargaming traditions are counter realistic. As an Example take artillery. Most wargames rules see it as to Kill the enemy. The US Field manuals quote to Suppress and Fix in place. This means in the real world the pratical limitations of killing an entire fore are not preactical. This is a problem with wargaing rules generally. Remember from Brassies Tank and Anti Tank intervisibility is down to about 1500 yds. In general you terrain need to have tanks fighting in terrain with views of 500 to 1500 yds and infantry do best at lower terrain ranges. This will mean more than "classical" wargames figures. While the Theoretical perfect modern weapons have asstonishing kill rates real weapons have all sorts of fun. We watched a Documentart of a Challenger where his actual hit rate was more like 70%. He did note some problems but it was peactime! To be honest the Bells and whistles of Battle management can be modeled. We do in our rules Mneouver Group. However it is not just hit rate it changes strategy. A lot of wargamers cannot cope with a fast play simulation as the planning demands are high even though no written orders are required. You need to decide whether you |
UshCha | 15 Feb 2013 12:41 a.m. PST |
You need to decide whether you are re-writing a set of rules for commecial gain or writing a simulation. It is impossible to do both. Gamers do not want the complexity of a simulation even if the rules are more simple. MG will nebver be a world beater as in the words of even a devotre. The trouble with MG is you have to understand at a very basic level how a platoon actualy fight. He agreed the rules were simple. but that was not the point you still had to unnderstand how to fight a platoon to fight. What do yo actually want to write. |
Milites | 15 Feb 2013 3:35 a.m. PST |
The first question you need to ask, I would think, is, what is it about existing sets of rules you don't like? We did this for our 1/300 Vietnam games, adapting and modifying existing rule sets. |
John D Salt | 16 Feb 2013 5:34 a.m. PST |
kmahony111 wrote:
I'm looking at a game which will be slightly higher level than a skirmish so dont want to get too bogged down with details. The period would cover 1950-2000 and I would like to be able to field at least 1 tank company, 2 mech/mot companies and supports, and be able to play larger games as well.
Ah, that's a bit bigger scale than I had imagined. This would mean each side fielding something like a battlegroup (for NATOish forces) ora combined arms reinforced battalion (CARB) (for the more Warpaccy folks). In that case I's suggest representing infantry as sections rather than fireteams. Obviously Ultra modern equipment is very lethal and if you can see something and shoot at it, it will generally be killed.
True. This makes me think that the best way to handle a BG-level game is to concentrate on the command aspects. A British BG commander will make a plan knitted together from a relatively small selection of control measures (CMs) -- Named Areas if Interest (NAIs) telling people where to look, Tactical Areas if Interest (TAIs) telling people where to shoot, routes and waypoints (WPs) and objectives telling people where to move and what to seize, and boundaries telling people where not to go. Finally, there are decision points (DPs) based on which different possible contingency plans (CONPLANs) can be executed. All this planning stuff is done before the fighting starts. Given the destructiveness of modern weapons, there is going to be very little opportunity to influence an engagement once it has started. The point is to make sure that your plan puts your folks into contact in the most advantageous way, so that any individual engagement is rigged in your favour before you start. Putting emphasis on the command and planning aspect would aslo provide an opportunity to show the difference made by modern command systems; a digitized force should, allegedly, if one believes the sales brochures, on a good day when everything works, be able to arrange its "panzer ballet" quicker and better than the other side, thus winning. All the best, John. |
nickinsomerset | 16 Feb 2013 9:29 a.m. PST |
John, agreed, but things have changed somewhat over the period 1950-2000! My first time in an Armd Bde HQ was 1986, things had changed the next time in 2002. As we sat in Kuwait in 2003 all of a sudden we had a whole lot more "Assets" bolted on so from Jul 2002 – Mar 2003 an Armd Bde HQ changed again! Tally Ho! |
Milites | 16 Feb 2013 12:29 p.m. PST |
An excellent series of articles that condense the rather dry military manuals, from the aptly entitled, 'Armchair General's Tactics 101.' link Trouble is how many gamers will want this level of pre-planning? Most want to issue vague orders (A company to defend the hill, B company will attack the hill etc)), not sit and draw up lists of TRP's NAI's and have virtual O groups. The art would be to include those in the actual games mechanisms for combat, so that players can pit their various forces against each other but also have had an opportunity to second guess their opponents. If, of course, you have a group of gamers dedicated to the realistic planning and execution of those plans, you are a lucky man and can really create a game where the planning is key, not the flukey die rolling! |
Ascent | 16 Feb 2013 1:28 p.m. PST |
I must admit I'd like something like this for 3mm gaming so I'll be keeping my eyes open. |
UshCha | 18 Feb 2013 12:37 a.m. PST |
Milites, As always it comes down to what you want to simulate. O groups if they worked perfectly would instill the idea of what,when and how there part of the task was to be carried out. Therfore If the O group was perfect it would be no different to the commanding genral operating it perfectly. Therfore the player doing it all, is no different, as the player has to get it perfect down to the last role on the die, as he has to play down to the section level. On that basis he must have a detailed plan in his head, no need to write it down. However the model (rules) needs to make changing stance (for example packing up and moving somwhere else) a job that takes some reasonable time. If he wants to change from pre-determined targets for the artillery to other targets he should have an approriate time delay for the system as the guns will have to physically re-lay in some cases. Give a model that is reprentative, where deployment is more sophisticated i.e. where movement speed on road is significantly faster than across country and the cross country move has representative densities of difficult areas, obsticals (i.e built to at least approximate a Google map) you get all the friction of war you could want. The commander will have to clear the road before his unit re-locates or be stuck in traffic. The key is to look realy hard at a system to see what the key drivers are. A traffic jam is easy to model and can cause deays far longer than a brifing. In your model which delay would be worse? In our rules failure to allow free traffic down a road can be fatal as you cannot exchange units in combat quickly and efficently. It is easy to overlook such items so the player does have a very high workload and he is only one man not a team and hence it is permissable to have simplificatons to make the work load representative but manageable. It is critical to not look at the implementation too hard but what are the key drivers. Just because its there in the real world it does not mean it has to be in a simple model. |
John D Salt | 19 Feb 2013 3:12 p.m. PST |
Milites wrote:
The art would be to include those in the actual games mechanisms for combat, so that players can pit their various forces against each other but also have had an opportunity to second guess their opponents.
Just so. I would say that the outcome of modern warfare, with its firecely destructive weaponry, depends even more on the initial conditions of an engagement than it did when weapons were a bit less lethal -- but even at that, Weiss in the US and Gee in the UK independently concluded that being the first to fire was a dominating factor in success in tank combat in NEW in WW2. The trick, I think, would be to design a game so that the decision granularity was not about making minute-to-minute or second-to-second driving and shooting decisions for individual tanks, as many rules do; by the time you are trading shots, the importnt decisions have been made. These decisions, about where to commit sub-units, are made on considerably longer time-scales, and depend for their quality critically on what you know about where the enemy are. So perhaps the game-turn should be more like an hour than five minutes, even for this low tactical level. If the game-turn is chosen to match the battle rhythm of decision cycles, then players should be making decisions that matter every turn. All the best, John. |
Milites | 19 Feb 2013 3:50 p.m. PST |
Would most players sacrifice the intense die rolling micro- perspective for a more cerebral macro-game? Simulating traffic jams, oh, boy, I have enough real traffic jam experience, un-simulated, to want to go there. How about a simple die roll to determine effectiveness of traffic management by adding on penalties, as though going through difficult terrain? |
UshCha | 20 Feb 2013 12:41 a.m. PST |
Milites, I think you missed the point. If you get it right (the model not your plan) the traffic jam occours naturally if/when you screw up you plan. What we have done is allow high speed movement (at great risk if it is observed). That is akin to longer bounds. Once the fighting starts it usually goes on in a flurry of activity within that bound, if one or both sides have got it together. In that case typicaly a lot of one side of that exchange will be dead or have run off at the end of that flurry. Therefore you need to ensure you have cleared the road by the time sombody else wants it. As you can imagine moving at off road speed can take time to clear the road if they all need to come off at a similar point so that they have to leave in a cross country speed column. Again all this depends on not having a clasic 3 builings and a hill type terrain. Realistic modest density terrain is what its primarily designed for (Northern European Terrain) intravisibility ranges. For infantry tpically sub 500m and tanks etc typically in the 500 to 1500m range. An interesting question on rule writing is should a set of rules tell you how to play. Ours certainly do not. There are explanations as to how the turn sequence works, who talks to who and how and how fast. As an analogy I guess. its a box of lego bricks that allows you to build complex builings but does not give more than an illustration of what you might build and some idea of things that cannot/should not do. We have no rule for example for tanks being weary of being in built up areas on their own. They just die in that situation. The players lerans to make that "Morale test". That is like lots of simulation code. A CFD code just tells you how to operate the code but does not say what you should use it on. Just a set of limitations. |
John D Salt | 20 Feb 2013 7:52 a.m. PST |
Milites wrote:
Would most players sacrifice the intense die rolling micro- perspective for a more cerebral macro-game?
I'm sure some definitely wouldn't, as they enjoy lots of dice-rolling, revel in detail (whther accurate or not), and do not welcome the prospect ofhaving to sit down and think for three minutes together, or make decisions they have to stick to. For this sort of player I recommend the boardgame "B-17: Queens of the Skies", a massive dice-fest in which the player has practically no decisions to make at all, but just acts as dummy operating the game rules. However, for players who like to get on with the action, or relish the idea of out-foxing an enemy, or "love it when a plan comes together", it might perhaps be made to have some appeal. All the best, John. |
UshCha | 20 Feb 2013 10:44 a.m. PST |
Me I loathe lots of die rolls. A wargame to me is about moving troops. The faster and easier you can resolve the situation the better, as you can get back to tactics and moveing. |
Milites | 20 Feb 2013 12:15 p.m. PST |
Don't knock Queen of the Skies, kept me sane when I was abroad, though the designers notes do say the unique nature of the combat (fly, die or survive, no other choice) made it ideal for a solo game. I think you are also missing a vital reason some love the die-rolling minutiae, it wastes time and does not punish tactical ineptness and vitally is hostage to luck. Resolving combat quickly, exposes this lack of a tactical mindset, as luck is replaced by skill in dynamic manoeuvre and basic appreciation of the correlation of forces. |
UshCha | 20 Feb 2013 11:57 p.m. PST |
Milites, So what you are saying is that the one thing a wargamer does not want is a set of "reasonable" rules. All this stuff about getting it right is just hot air! ;-). In reality its a case of gimme another bucket of dice and hope for 300 sixes. |
Milites | 21 Feb 2013 12:18 p.m. PST |
Some do yes, not all, These gamers hide their tactical failings behind rule sets that emphasise combat over movement. I move my tank company forward and attack, 10% of the game, I now spend hours determining each individual combat, where luck can trump real-world probabilities. Reinforcements are decided by dice, so, like the combat, any failings can be blamed on the 'lord of the cubes', as my friend used to call dice, grandiosely. It's no accident that the military adaptations of existing rule sets dismiss combat with % lost figures, plus or minus a random modifier. The emphasis is on the planning preparation and execution of orders, through a properly realised and restrictive chain of command. Note also the scale these gamers play at, even in 1/300 scale their game boards are restricted in frontage, and or depth. Avenues of approach are obvious and the more 'tactically fragile' gamer, often picks the weaker side, so any loss can be discounted and any victory hailed as testament to their superior skill (read dice throwing ability). So some pleas, for getting it right, are genuine, in fact given die-rollers are well served with tactically-lite rules, most calls I would think are genuine. Although TOAW III has some serious flaws it's large scale, emphasis on supply, and coordination of forces requires real skill. Either that or I'm crap at it, but good at making excuses! |
Last Hussar | 21 Feb 2013 12:49 p.m. PST |
1:1 Battalion games ! I believe general agreement is the best place for a to 'sit' is two levels up (one above where real officers command from) eg 1 base = section/vehicle =>subordinate is Platoon Leader=> Player is Coy Commander Platoon =>subordinate is Coy Cdr=> Player is Bn Bn =>subordinate is Brigade => Player is Division This gives you 12-20 units to keep track of. |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Feb 2013 1:12 p.m. PST |
I honestly prefer to keep less than 12 units under my control. |
UshCha | 22 Feb 2013 12:22 a.m. PST |
1:1 Battalion gam1:1 Battalion gameses You have to loue them. The point is as a wargamer you have typicaly a team of 1. You have no bachk uo expert terrain analysists, or cadre of platoon comanders are all pontentially experts in their tsk. On that basis you have to do that. Take a look at a real map of say the Normandy landings. Even as a general you need to understand at least in reasonable detail all the potentaial choke points in your area of operations. They will be the key shapers of the battle. That could be upwards of 100 bridges including those on side roads. So you want to e a general. Battllions will take about 20 min to pass a point if it all goes well. so that proably 1 mile if they are danerously close. Now tell me how you intend a base of a couple of figures is going to represent 1 mile as it oves out to its forming up point. To be hoest you do not need any friction making lots of decisions like that as 1 player you are going to struggle. Just programming a battalion at MG level. That is all linear features and sight lines (we never attempt real elevations) and simplified Urban gives loads of issues. Traffic jams are thers just becuse you are trying to get 2 miles of coloums into a 12 mile area. I you were a general you would be tring to make sure there were enough roads to supply what you need and how and whem. We are looking at thsi but even simp0lified to the extreeme as a one man band a diveision may be the limit for part timers wjho only do this a few hour a week. You cannot possibly stage more than a battalion game without a map. Fighting a battalion game on a board with ranges and terrain that look like a platoon is not a battalion game. It does the hobby a diservice to pretend otherwise. Mappless games that do not realistically detail is equally farsical. The maps shoew in spearhead begger belief. Massive agemes with a few hedges as the only terrain? |
Echo 092 | 06 Dec 2013 9:22 p.m. PST |
Hi, Just found this thread and wondering how the progress is going? Really interested in your rules. |
OmniJackal | 06 Dec 2013 10:19 p.m. PST |
I want this but 1 base of infantry = 1 fire team is a bit too detailed. I'm perfectly happy with a base representing a squad. I've yet to buy a Fistful of Tows or Tacforce so I don't know how they play. |
kmahony111 | 10 Dec 2013 12:28 a.m. PST |
Sorry I haven't done much on it as I started a new job and that has been busy. Cheers Kieran |