"Manoeuvre Group Rules?" Topic

Hi all,

Does anybody tried Manoeuvre Group rules? What's your opinion about this set?

Thanks,

Vaggelis

You mean Bruce Reas' old OMG rules?
Ive got them (still)but never played em – they were ahead of their time in some ways and you can see bits of them in CWC.
Not much help I know.

No, I mean: Manoeuvre Group – All Arms Ground Combat for the period 1942 to 2010 from Manoeuvre Group.

link

I read a very interesting comment about it and I'm looking for more info…

Thank you anyway!

You could ask me! I wrote them with Paul Hancock.

I would think the best thing is to ask and I will try and answer fairly. Me spouting on is not realy on.

I would say get the free stuff particularly Bulletin 1. This is about fighting tanks as per the US manuals (hull down, turret down full hide etc). If this is not your thing then its proably not for you.

While I haven't played them, from UshCha's comments about them they're very high-detail.

And high-detail really isn't my thing. Is the tank on fire? If not, shoot it again.

Not sure I would say very detailed. You have very simple rules that stop infinite impobability drive and diffrentiate between buttoned and unbuttoned but that not detail thats just basic tank tactics. Some folk don't want hull down, buttoned up un buttoned if thats too complicated then its a fantasy game you want. Thats ok by me but MG would not suit in such cases.

Intersting point, how can anybody contact me off list? It would be innapropriate to past too much on the board (Folks may get bored) ;-).

Well, there isnt much info available on MG at all, so I think you can speak a bit about it in a thread about your game without anyone getting bored.

I personally would like to read an AAR since that gives a good overview of the mechanics and the feeling of a system.

Im not bored; these are totally new to me. What size force are we talking for a typical game – company, battalion?

I used to play BGMR (a free updated version of Challenger rules set) which is a battalion level set for modern combined arms battles. I think is too complicated. So I'm on the run to find a simpler set using real tactics as possible. I thought that what I'm looking for is not possible but when I discovered (recently) the CrossFire rules I changed my mind! The easy way is to play Xfire in its modern version but I always prefer an original concept about the era I'm going to play. UshCha, I read some very good words about your rules but I still have some questions. Is MG about tank tactics or combined arms battles? I already have the Bulletin No1 which is very interesting but I would like to play with infantry supporting the tanks or infantry and some tanks for support. Inside out you know…Please share with us some info about the game.

I own the rules but have not played them. From reading it (some time ago) MG has some interesting mechanics which are a bit different from the norm. For example, infantry miniatures are not removed as casualties are taken. Instead, each unit in the game has a morale/cohesion value and as the infantry take damage or are suppressed their morale/cohesion number goes up, making them increasingly inefficient.

I especially liked the way that tank combat is handled in the game. The system is easy and provides some information to the player about what has happened to the vehicle without getting bogged down in detail. You roll to hit, then roll for damage. There are about five different damage results depending on if the attack hit the turret or the hull. The damage effects range from superficial damage to a brew up. Kinetic energy and chemical (HEAT) rounds have different damage effects.

A player would typically command between a reinforced platoon and a company on table. Units are individual vehicles and infantry squads/fire teams. The rules are definitely combined arms, and (if I remember correctly) contain rules for artillery, reconnaissance, and engineering tasks in addition to infantry and tanks. I don't recall off-hand how the play sequence works, but I do not think that it is IGOUGO. I would describe the rules as moderately detailed; there are no lengthy lists of modifiers, etc. The rules contain a handful of army lists (from memory – WW2 US, Britain, Germany, USSR; modern US, Britain, Russia, France). These provide stats for the most common vehicles of the army, but are not exhaustive by any means. The rules contain guidelines on how to stat up vehicles which are not listed in the rules.

As I've mentioned I have not played them, but would like to try them some time. Overall, I'd recommend them if you are looking for something a bit different. The only complaint I have with them is that the writing is not very easy to understand.

On a related note, their TO&E lists are really useful and are helpful even if you do not play MG. Much more detailed than the MicroMark lists, for example.

Hope that helps,

Mike

It still sounds interesting Mike! Thank you! I think UshCha that it's time to upload a video on youtube or at least an After Action Report with photos!!

Thanks delta, sounds like they could be worth a punt

I think UshCha that it's time to upload a video on youtube or at least an After Action Report with photos!!

I'd certainly take a look at it.

Ok,
Well just to get things straight. It is IGOUGO so that it is proably better as a one to one game. You can do multi player but is not that easy as with any igougo system.

What might help is if I post up the basic intro into how to play which is in the back of the rules. However not sure where this is best put.

The reason tanks get mentioned by us rather than infantry is because Infanry are easyer (Ducks for cover ;-) ).

It is most definitely combined arms and to be honest the infantry rules play well but for me they are not what "sells" the rules. That is command and control aspects and vehicals as Delta6ct implied. Vehicals in particular are delt with in a more credible way. If buttoned up they see only a relatively narrow view in the direction of the main gun and straight in front of the driver. Crude, but better than most rules. Unbuttoned and therefore vulerable to small arms in range they see and shoot over a much wider arc. You musat select the speeds Fast, slow, Halt, Reverse and Transit which is VERY FAST but makes you Very vulnerabls, normally out of sight type movement only. This is captured by a discreet marker by the vehical (infantry use the same marker for ease but its not quite used the same). This also, by use of a dry wipe maker records the "leadership" which degrades (increases) as the action heats up and they take effecive fire. It avoids taking infantry off which is not very relistic anyway. It is better if you are that way inclined, to consider it as a crude measure of Fear, fire, fatigue and ammo. Beter troops start lower as they are better trained, more effective in use of ammo and respond better to command and difficult situations.

With a PHD in hindsight its proably best played at 1:144 or real 15mm. This is simply because for a true game of maneouver you idealy want to be out of tank gun range at the start. In ten moves in an evening you will have more than enough time to get across the board.

Tanks will die if not supported close to infantry (250m or less type ranges). We still pay 1/72 but the tanks are vulnerable due to short ranges or on a big board.

The key innovations as we see them in MG are the marker, the sequence of play and dead ground.

Dead ground does require an agreed definition of ridge lines. its easy wiuth our hills but again they are not required.. Once you have agreed that you get a very simple but generally credible dead ground definition without lots of rules, I hate lots of rules they get in the way.

Oh and for the gamblers, its just a D20 and occationally you have to roll it twice. Infanry weapons only have effective range.

What it does need is quite a lot of terrain to be realistic. Like the real world urban areas slow the tempo of a battle significantly. 10 houses is a reasonable minimum number of houses and more than 20 and it can get boreing. We do fold flat houses, they are a way of doing this that is not that expensive and takes up minimal space after the game. You can use your own, they are not a mandatory requirement.

AAR we can do perhaps even with photos but I'm not sure what you want. Blow by blow is a bit much. Running a company is hard, ignoreing rules. Working out when, where and how hard to hit a spot with artillery in not a rules issue. Tactical posture of the vehicals is not a rules issue its a standard tactical issue. Is that what you are asking for?

One complaint from a testor who actually still playes and likes it was "the trouble with these rules is you hgave to have some understanding of what a platoon leader actually does and how troops should fight". That is a valid.

If I may chime in, I would categorise MG as a "tactics simulator." The rules are fairly simple, but the tactics required to play are..not so much, because they pretty closely emulate real-world tactics. (At conventions, where I have been with UshCha, they have had tankies positively comment on the it being quite close to the real thing tactically.)

It does require a different sort of thinking than many "simple" wargames that are… more gamist than simulationist, if you follow. MG's main advantage is – being created by a professinal mathmatical modeller – it manages with fewer rules, intelligent abstraction and some elegance what other games like Squad Leader manage with several books full of rules.

It's less of a case of "I shoot that tank with my best gun" and more "if I move through that gap there, that tank'll shoot me in the side, so I need to get all three of my tanks in position ready to roll up to that ridge to take that other tank out, so, with the advantage of the higher ground where he won't be hull down, then I can force that first tank to back off and then that'll clear that gap for me to move my infanty platoon through so they can start taking the BUA…"

(I myself use MG for sci-fi, with barely any changes other than a few new toys like shields, so I treat the "to 2010" part of the subtitle as being rather more of a guideline…)

Though I concur that some sort of demonstration would be useful; I have wondered about how to go about it myself for the denizens of other boards I frequent, but not found a suitable method for which to do so. Video is out, since neither UshCha nor I (nor anyone else at the local wargames club) has a suitable camera or venue available at the time suited to filming such an endevour).

A more static demonstration via write-up with photos (or outright CAD images) might be plausible, but again, this is somewhat limited by time (especially in the latter case). (Also, the local venue is great, but not well suited for photoes outside of summer time daylight hours.)

Sounds interesting, think I 'll pick up a copy next week,
Cheers Guys

Well, color me interested in a copy!

Now I just need to find some $$…

I downloaded a pdf from wargame vault. UshCha, is there a supporting forum for the game or a personal email for Q&A?

Sounds like a really cool set. I'd like to see an AAR before picking it up though…

Ok RTJEBADIA Lets have a bit of fun. I have managed to pursuade a frient with a camera and the ability to use it to do a photo shoot. I can gett Paul to play s small action at 1:144 on the hex so we can plaot the positions and then re-create in a position to allow photos afterwards.

So it needs to be simple and you have to have a senario so suggest one (or more). The defender should not be more than a weak platoon and preferably only a few (minimum say 4 sections) and the attcker as you see fit. Describe the ground and the scenario. I will then set it out in detail for the troops we have and have a go.

Thre are a couple of scenarios in the book. We tend to give beginners a few tanks only (4 to 8) depeneing on attackee and types of tanks. One side then has to kill off the other but its in a veriety of terrain so there is a lot of maneouver. Not normal as the infantry are not there. However once the tanks are masterd infantry is easy and most of the novel concepts have been covered.

Sounds great Aorts Commander! By the way, I still need an email or a forum for support! :)

If you have the rules there is my e-mail at the end.

PS I have lots of scenarios and most will play any period with a bit of care ( free of course), The only trouble is the 1/72 scale ones use MG terrain and the 1/144 uses Hexon II. However you can use something else if you have enough. Just send an e-mail to me.

Yes, you are right about the email Brian! I found it at page 99 of the pdf. Sorry about that. I will contact you soon -for sure- after my first game with my mate John!

Thanks,
Vaggelis

I am interested too, but would like info on it.

gregoryk – Ask away. Thre is a fair bit here already. Salinet points are. No points system, this is a set of rules for real world forces on real world terrain. Army lists are not required as we tell you how to r#write your own spec, saves monel and you can have the fun of doing it, but we do produce them if you cant be botherd.

OK so we had a try at a demo game. Oure intention was too show a picturues updating the battle every so often with general comments on the action. It was a bit slow having to take pictures so did not quite finish it. Is that what was wanted? At two platoons on the attacker and one and a half platoons in a hasty defence it was an interesting game. Too big to go bound by bound. If bound by bound we would have to use a lot less, a fair bit goes on in 11 bounds in MG.

Is an AAR game to show tactics, how the rules work or just some pictures?

UshCha—

I bought the rules based on the above discussion. I need something to handle the Falklands war. Hopefully MG will do the trick.

Cheers,
Gregory

I would prefer a "combined arms" demonstration. Photos (not exactly of every bound) and comments about the tactics. Falklands War is one of my priorities too…

Vaggelis

I would say that a good AAR shows a bit of everything. Fancy pictures always helps sales, but more importantly I would say a good AAR shows the tactics employed and -why- the rules promote that behaviour. From a "sales" perspective, one might want to show more interesting or varied events than typically happens in a game to show different aspects of the game.

I would say that Too Fat Lardies are a prime example of how to do an AAR or rules explanation in their Chain of Command youtube series, and on their blog. Giving a good feeling for what the game is about mechanics-wise rather than just saying it's a platoon-sized game for WWII, focused on fire teams, leaders and vehicles.

OK so we have started the Demo game. Its tacking longer than we expected as recording the moves took a long time and after a bit it was obvious it was not usefull and took too long, so a picture every few bounds was what we opted for. However it did raise a question. Paul (the better player) asked if he could defend the village with the infantry using an external defence, I said no as I thought not everybody would understand the term or the tactic. So, how familaiar are folk with an external defence? Too late to change this demo game but an interesing issue anyway. It is the correct tem as we were schooled in th art (i.e wupped) the had way by a proper platoon commander.

I would say that you should always assume that people are'nt at all familiar with real world terminology (especially since it is somewhat of a local thing, depending on language and doctrine). However using that terminology seems to go well with the feeling you want for the system.
So explain any "advanced" military terminology and tactical descisions, and use them as you go along, bringing people -with- you in to a more complex use of terms and tactics.

Any news from the demo game guys?

It's harder than I thought. Got the pics done but stringing together in a useful way is not easy. So many options and not clear to me how much detail is required. I am on holiday in Australia for next 3 weeks but when I get back I will try and sow an overview of the game and ask what is missing.