acctingman1869 | 03 Jun 2015 2:08 p.m. PST |
I cannot find anywhere on the net examples of how combat is handled (mainly armor vs armor). If anyone can please explain it or send me a few scanned pages, anything would help. I'm looking at Battlegroup Kursk as my rules of choice but I want to see how Jagdpanzer handles armor combat before I plunk down my money. Thank you |
Extra Crispy | 03 Jun 2015 4:49 p.m. PST |
I'll dig up my copy tomorrow and post a short summary here |
acctingman1869 | 03 Jun 2015 7:45 p.m. PST |
Thank you so much Extra Crispy!! |
specforc12 | 03 Jun 2015 10:57 p.m. PST |
Jagdpanzer by Kevin Cabai is a better game than Battlegroup Kursk, though "Battlegroup" is definitely better than the very bogus "Bolt Action". Bolt Action is probably the worst conceived "armor – infantry" game of the genre, on the market. The author "Alessi" freely admitted that he really didn't know anything of the period, but crafted a game anyway. The lack of knowledge of the materiel, the technology, the style of warfare, especially tactics, etc. shows how unsubstantiated it all is!!! Technically it's so off base that it's laughable. It's all about eye candy and so far from simulating anything authentic of WW2. His new book "Tanks" to flesh out that aspect is just more "eye candy" and almost no substance. Having played Jadgpanzer at this years "Little Wars" with the author was a pleasant fast moving game that represented reasonable, justifiable action. I recommend it over Bolt Action, Flames of War, Chain of Command, any day. At least, the "Battlegroup" series, i.e. "Kursk", "Overlord", and "Fall of the Reich", are reasonably decent. But, it too, suffers from the current trending of "initiative" based turn sequencing. This causes serious lapse in action for any given unlucky unit when there should easily be action executed. It's worse than the IGO-UGO that this style of play was supposed to replace and make "more fair"?!? Well, it doesn't. |
specforc12 | 03 Jun 2015 10:59 p.m. PST |
BTW the best advice is contact the author directly and he'll let you know. His email is as follows: kcabai@aol.com Also: Jadgpanzer.com (don't know if this illucidates your question on the website or not?!?) - Tibor |
Steve Kachman | 04 Jun 2015 7:29 a.m. PST |
|
Dynaman8789 | 04 Jun 2015 9:47 a.m. PST |
> It's worse than the IGO-UGO that this style of play was supposed to replace and make "more fair"?!? Well, it doesn't. Incorrect. Saying any more would go round in circles though. |
warhawkwind | 05 Jun 2015 11:52 a.m. PST |
Wow, glad to see someone still plays it! The turn sequence can be done quick (IGOYOUGO) as is done at conventions I think, or it can still be played the original way: Side A moves/Side B moves:combat (simultaneous). Side B moves/Side A moves:combat (simultaneous). If you play IGOYOUGO the artillery will be more powerful because it falls twice as frequently, IMHO. As for armored combat, its a D20 roll to hit, modified by the usual factors, then a D20 roll to kill based on gun strength and target's armor strength. So just two rolls required. Very quick and decisive. There are no hit locations, just front, side, rear, and top. For those who havent seen the Jagdpanzer 2nd Edition rules, the infantry rules are much improved over the original printing. They work very well and results tend to be more suppression than outright kills. The armored combat is the same as before, just streamlined to eliminate a little math. I cut my teeth on these rules 30 years ago and they're the only ones I use for company to battalion sized games.
|
kcabai | 05 Apr 2016 8:32 p.m. PST |
Thanks all for the kind words, I will be doing a couple of games at Gencon this year. |
DanLewisTN | 24 Aug 2016 8:51 p.m. PST |
These are very nice rules and make for a good game. Playability is there without hyper simplification that seems to surface in many rule sets. |
acctingman1869 | 24 Aug 2016 9:20 p.m. PST |
Been thinking about these rules over IABSM. Seems like the armor rules are a bit more complex than iabsm? |
DanLewisTN | 01 Sep 2016 7:34 p.m. PST |
IABSM tank rules are very simplistic and are designed to accomodate tank vs tank at fairly short range. So it ends up being an infantry centric rule set in my view. Thats not a bad thing if thats what you want. Jagdpanzer on the other hand allows tank combat at all ranges. The tank combat resolution is not complicated at all, but certainly requires more effort than IABSM. Still I found the games easy to resolve with 3 companies of tanks on the board and a couple companies of infantry. And unlike many rules which are armor centric, the infantry rules played very well. I can easily run a small to medium size battle with any combination of infantry and vehicles. I recommend the rules highly. They are not nearly as detailed as Tank Charts or Panzer War but As a result they rate higher in playability without resorting to a total dumbed down approach for armor that I personally dislike. Some times armor rules get so watered down that all the complex details of the many different armored vehicles ends up getting broken down into something like 6 armor ratings. King Tiger is a 6 and Panzer II is a 1. Or they ise letters like A thru G. May as well be using pieces of wood instead of historical AFV miniatures. I also recommend Mein Panzer for all the same reasons. I personally like the tank combat resolution with a higher scale of accuracy but it frequently causes the game to be slower thus limiting how much you can put on the board before it gets out of hand. |
DanLewisTN | 01 Sep 2016 7:39 p.m. PST |
@specforc12 Good comparisons and observations. |
acctingman1869 | 01 Sep 2016 8:04 p.m. PST |
Dan Thanks a lot! I'm really liking Chain of Command for skirmish gaming, however, for larger company size fights I'm not sold on IABSM. I do want a little more for tank battles than simplistic. I have Schwere Kompaine rules too, but it's up to a company max and I'd prefer to have a little more than that, but I might pick up Jagdpanzer rules and possibly Mein Panzer if I can find them on the "cheap". CoC for skirmish and SK or JP for company + Thanks again |
DanLewisTN | 02 Sep 2016 9:07 a.m. PST |
Cool thing about Mein Panzer is that there isn't a vehicle weapon or country they don't cover in their rules… But then again, Ive never gamed with Hungarians or Finns. I also have Schwere company rules but haven't tried them. How are they to play? You say no more than a company, is that because of rules complexity or something else? |
acctingman1869 | 02 Sep 2016 11:25 a.m. PST |
Dan I haven't played them yet (read them a couple times), but the that's from the author's mouth :) They seem crunchy enough, but a little more depth than IABSM for sure. |
kcabai | 13 Jun 2019 2:23 p.m. PST |
|