"Recommend your favorite grand tac rules!" Topic

What is your favorite grand tactical rule set and why? What is the figure scale? IE: One stand represents how many men/tanks/guns? What's the ground scale?

I have played a lot of Command Decision but I don't like it enough to own it and build forces for it. This is going to be a strictly 3mm or 6mm project, because I don't want it to get as expensive as my skirmishing in 28 ;/. I'd like to hear your thoughts!

What didn't you like about CD?

I play Spearhead originally in micro- armor scale, but I found I was spending more time working up the scenery for each battle than the tanks themselves… That, and as I am aging I'm having a lot of trouble seeing those 6mm tanks.

So, now I am playing Spearhead in 15mm (yes, Flames of War scale). The rules are simple and battlefield outcomes always reasonably realistic (unlike my experiences with FoW).

Oh, regarding the rest- 1 tank represents a platoon on a standard org chart, so I play with 2 battalions + attachments per side. I like it because it allows a lot of variety in choosing your forces while still maintaining tank-to-tank combat. The rules have some sticky points about treating 1 tank as a platoon (not allowing it to change facing more than 45 degrees per turn), so you find yourself moving vehicles sideways.

We've chosen to shrug off those limitations & just place it as a tank-to-tank, or squad to squad game once we hit the table.

Wouldn't grand tactical be at least Divisional level?

Wouldn't grand tactical be at least Divisional level?

Not necessarily.

As far as Command Decision goes: I do enjoy it. I like how it is morale focused. I like the 1 infantry stand = 1 platoon 1 tank = 5 tanks (platoon?) I feel the armor values are "right".

I don't care for the BUA rules, or the air rules, or the obscure artillery rules only people who've memorized the book would know.

I like playing it but I don't like it enough to invest in it as a ruleset. Want to try out some new grand tac games. Not to mention it's the ONLY game my buddy runs anymore, despite having thousands of figures. He just loves CD. I'd rather not buy it if I can play it there.

I use 3 different rule sets for skirmish to keep it interesting, and am probably getting Chain of Command at HAVOC this year, so that's 4. One or two grand tac couldn't hurt to spice things up further.

Blitzkreig Commander. Not that I've tirelessly compared it with other Grand Tactical rules, you understand, its just what my group uses and it works. Not without faults, but these are easily remedied with house rules (one reroll on the first failed activation test, for example)

"Recommend your favorite grand tac rules!"

Megablitz

Major – I've been trying to get hold of megablitz, but the web page only seems to give an overview

I've played all the old standards, Command Decision (all versions), Blitzkrieg Commander (both editions), Spearhead, Rapid Fire, etc.

For my part I keep coming back to CD as the best simulation that is also fun.

Spearhead

That being said, it is part my favourite because it is the only WWII grand tactical rule set I own!

I seem to have spent the last 35 years playing various one base = one platoon rules, and have yet to find the perfect one. (the likes of Megablitz I would call operational, not grand tactical).

If forced to chose one, it would be Spearhead, if only because it has a very effective planning and orders mechanism, although it can be a bit kit heavy for larger scales.

I had a lot of fun playing smaller games with TAC:WW2, albeit with 15s at double ground scale.

Currently working on a hex based set which seems to be turning into a wierd amalgam of Phil Sabins 'Fire & Movement' and Jim Wallmans 'Stonk'.

I went through the same exercise with CD and in pulling the mechanisms apart to re-present them in a somewhat less verbose and obscure format, I realised how dodgy much of the mathematics behind the combat model in particular are. It really is just a skirmish game with the bases labelled as 'platoons'. Shame really as I've spent four years doing it, on and off. Oh well.

If I could figure out a way to make the chess like simplicity, predominance of manouvre and excitement of Panzerblitz work on the tabletop within the constraints of not having to buy ten boxes of Hexon, I'd do that instead.

Fistful of Tows for me. Spearhead/MSH being a close second.

FFoT is a 5 to 1 game (5 tanks is 1 stand, 50 men is one stand) – so a Russian company with 10 tanks ends up 2 stands (which might drive some nuts since it is not a stand per platoon).

Unit quality is a major factor in the game. Command and Control is not emphasized as much but is rolled up into the unit quality.

Finally the indirect fire OBA rules take some getting used to but flow very quickly once learned.

Spearhead is pretty good.
Megablitz might be good but we've never managed to actually figure the rules out by reading them; I'm sure they work fine if run by someone who knows them, but they read more like a set of notes than a set of rules. Lots of vague areas and fundamental stuff never explained.

I'm a fan of 1=1 figure/model ratio but there's no rules set out there that is the definitive one for me. As for the abstracted 1 stand = squad/platoon/company scale, the best I've played is the old TAC rules but only because the command and control rules are very good; the rest is serviceable but not particularly rewarding. Rapid Fire is adequate, but too simplistic and leads to too many lopsided games: You see it, you hit it, you kill it. Like the OP, tried CD but don't like it enough to invest in it.

Major – I've been trying to get hold of megablitz, but the web page only seems to give an overview

auction

Ditto, it's a pretty ambiguous term to say the least. Typically, in my mind anyway, when people say Skirmish they are referring to a rule set that represents itself as 1 figure = 1 person. 1 afv = 1 afv. Maybe even 1 stand = 1 squad.

When people say Grand Tactical, they move up to 1 stand = 1 platoon/company/battalion. 1 afv = 3/5/10 afvs. You typically see huge groundscales in grand tactical.

In my skirmish games, the LMGs average 48" range. In Command Decision, there are "Weapon Stands" which represent a platoon of heavy weapons. In this instance, let's say HMGS. They have a 18?/20?" range. Difference in that is in my skirmish game that man is shooting maybe 100-150 yards. In CD 1" = 50 yards. So its really like 800-900 yards.

Big difference in AFV fighting too. In CD there are only 3 armor values: front, back, and side. These are represented by 1 number, usually 1-10 (with some exceptions of course) It's to simulate a platoon of tanks engaging each other, vs in my skirmish game where each tank has to draw LOS, fire, what facing did you hit? Ok what location on that facing did you hit? How much dmg vs how much armor? Cool, what's the effect?

Yes, it is wargamerism to label different levels of game. Military science generally only distinguishes between tactical and strategic (plus operational in some armies).

Whereas for wargames we have skirmish (1 figure = 1 man and resolved at that level), tactical (elements are teams/sections even if not based that way), grand tactical (1 base = 1 one platoon and up) and operational (usually 1 base = 1 battalion, but sometimes not) and maybe strategic (1 base = 1 one division/corp/army?, not seen too many of those).

But they are just somewhat random labels which there isn't really a standard definition for.

I use 'Rommels Battle' by KISR Publication. One model on a base represents a Tank Company or other equivalents. Its fast play, comprehensive and well researched, maybe better presentation and layout is needed. found on the DBN web site dbnwargaming.co.uk