"I'm looking for the most deep and detail WWII rulebook" Topic

Hey fellas,

I posted this on the BGG forum but i thought i'll also post here.

I'm looking for a WWII miniature rulebook that is very detail and deep, like ASL is too boardgame. It has to have very detail data info on units, charts, etc. I'm not looking for quick and simple. Simple games are not for me. There is a wargame out there called "High Tide" which i have and it is very detail with the data. I like to have that kind of data but for WWII units. The more complex, deep, and detail the rules the more i love it.

I'm looking to play large scale battles and smaller battles.

Is there anything out there like what i'm asking, or the best bet for me is to convert ASL, and Panzer into minature rules?

Thanks

Panzer started out as miniature rules, so a search may get you an old copy of those, plus their scenario modules ……. I think one was called PAK.

Here is a link to two of the modules available for sale.

link

I have the Panzer rules and ASL.

I wanted to know is there a more detail rulebook out there for WWII?

You will not find a rule book packed win more useless detail than ASL. It is the Ultimate in bottom up "simulation"

Ultimate in detail has to be Final Combat by Britton Publishers. You track what happens to individual rounds from a burst of MG fire for example.
Firefly from Table Top Games is quite detailed although never played them.
Grey Storm, Red Steel, Firebase Games would also qualify, but I have not seen these.
Finally Fist Full of Tows, which is a modern wargame, but the latest version has data for WW2 units is very detailed on the tech stuff, but playable. I have used the modern rules, but not played WW2 with them.

Schwere Kompanie or the free Panzer-war rules

panzer-war.com

Scwhere Kompanie is the closest thing to ASL in miniatures form I have ever seen. Though it is by no means a clone.

Final Combat came to mind for me.

Rapid Fire?

(runs)

Battleground WWII. Each tank facing has 20 different hit locations.

Hah, Battleground is fast play compared to several sets listed here. Detail focused I agree that Final Combat is very detailed while still being playable. They have excellent Game reports on YouTube with the Dulles Wargamers using the rules. Be careful. Those videos can be addictive!!!!!!!!! They got me into 54mm WWII.

Their scenario books are also OUTSTANDING! I own most of them.

Thanks,

John

For infantry, I'd say Face of Battle.

We never dared to touch the armour rules, but its got a ton of things account for, when it comes to infantry combat.

Things like the distinction between partial hard cover and extensive soft cover.

Tractics.

Fellas,

Thank you for the help and advice…

…

Why don't you use ASL? A number of people use it with miniatures.

Phoenix Command. Hands down ridiculous detail.

Why????

Why indeed.

Heaps of detail only guarantees heaps of detail.
It's extremely difficult to balance everything out and make a realistic system when designing bottom up. Even harder to make it practical.

As a result, most highly detailed wargame systems are inherently flawed. Many players find swathes of detail unattractive.

I think "detail" is really about what a player wants to experience or simulate. If it's what you and the other players like then who cares. Simple and detailed can be fun.

I compare it to taking a journey. Some people want to experience the trip and stop off along the way to sight see (detail oriented). Others are only concerned about getting to the destination as soon as possible (results oriented).

For 1:1 tank-infantry combat I don't like IGOUGO or random activation. I think that realistically engagement is determined by situational awareness and reaction that is somewhat predictable and not entirely random.

For gunnery I want to see graphical results of what the round does in comparison to the target, not a per chance % to hit or miss. With one die roll it determines where the round lands and hit location with armor value. While it is no more complicated than other to hit + DRM systems some people like that level of detail and some don't. If the level detail is complicated and painful it's no fun.

I agree with AOneill that additional detail does not mean a more accurate portrayal or simulation. I think it is more about what the player thinks is important and wants to experience.

There are many people satisfied in playing a game that uses one or two D6's with the few modifiers they can remember. Nothing wrong with that. Then there are some people that are willing to spend an hour to determine the action that would take 10 seconds of real time. To each his own.

Wolfhag

Also, complexity does not equal realism, and playability has to be a fact surely? In fact, maybe the most important factor.

Just as complexity does not equal realism playability does not equal simplicity. Once you know the rules Schwere Kompanie is quick playing and easy, same for Fistful of Tows. ASL not so much.

Tractics, if you can find it.

[Poster seemed to ask for most detail. Did not seem to be concerned with realism or playability which are two other cans of worms].

Sometimes a more complex, involved game can be fun too.

I play ASL and I play 1HourWargames. No contradiction there.

Who wants to eat cheetos every day?

I would second the recommendation of Panzer-war.

But with the caveat that they have all the delicious detail you want for tank combat. But they are comparatively "light" on the infantry combat.

I have not seen a set of rules that does a better job, with more thorough research, on tank vs tank action.* The detail on the armor facings, and the penetration and destructive power of not only guns but the various types of ammunition used by those guns, is exceptional.

Mobius, the author of those rules, is active on this forum. I know his research and his participation in discussions with tank experts on many fora. He also provides ongoing support for the rules. Oh, and did you notice the mention that the rules are free? Really now, such a deal!

These rules provide superb detail and very smooth and well-thought-out gameplay for small scale actions, but they don't scale up past about one company per side. Start at a platoon, and work your way up as you learn the rules. We tried to push to battalion per side and more, and even with a core of guys who had already played the rules two or three times it was not possible to make the games flow.

Not a criticism, just a recognition of where the rules work, and where they don't.

* Note: OK, in fairness I am also quite impressed by Wolfhag's rules, but those are at an even more detailed level! With Mobius you get a platoon up to a company, with Wolfhag you get one tank up to a platoon.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Final Combat – each turn is a second of time – everything is whatever ground scale the figures are etc…

Final Combat and Tactical Commander are the most detailed I've seen short of ASL.

My main gripe with Face of Battle is that despite the detail, there's not a ton of tactical options for each soldier.
Does Final Combat do better on that front?

Brucka knows his (or her) stuff. If you want detailed and involved get phoenix command and the WW2 supplements. Only downside (I'm not going to include complexity as you, like me, can appreciate it) is the numbers of chaps you'll get on the table. Familiarity and preparedness (tokens) will make it easier.

Final Combat came to mind immediately.

I also agree that more detail or precision does not lead to more accuracy. It can sometimes mean less.
Panzer War panzer-war.com uses a probability model for gunnery (as almost all nations did) and to try to cover the most probable out comes of the shell vs. armor contest.

When the US tested small scale projectiles vs. various armor plates they thought they had a precise model of shell vs. armor quality. But when full scale shells vs. armors were tested they found they could not predict the outcome beyond a certain range of values. In effect it was a die roll if the shell or armor was properly made or set at the correct angle for the test.

The goal of detail isn't always accuracy.

3.5 Dungeons and Dragons is a horribly unrealistic game but its also a very complex one.

Final Combat – each turn is a second of time – everything is whatever ground scale the figures are etc…

So you play an infantry skirmish across a basketball court, tank skirmish on a football field, and that's at 15mm (1/100 scale)?

Just received "Firefly" in the mail today. Looks pretty deep in detail on the data which i like a lot. Need to run through the rules still. Also downloaded "Panzerwar" which also has deep data which i was looking for.

Still waiting on:

Tractics
Tank Charts
Final Combat

I might also check out:

Arc of Fire
Face of Battle
…

Steel111,
While I would never play ASL I have read bits and been guided through a game. It is proably the most detailed set ever while having some merit in the detail. The gypsies warning is however, every thing else has to be that detailed. Your terrain will have to be as detailed as the rules. A traner once said getting troops to see cover less than 6" is hard. You will hit that problem/challenge. Like Wolfhag says whatever floats your boat. It would be grate to see how your terrain looks.

3.5 Dungeons and Dragons is a horribly unrealistic game but its also a very complex one.

Yeah don't you just hate when they get human vs dragon combat so wrong! Don't these people do any research?! :-)

Steel111,
Specforc12 has written a very detailed/chart filled rule set called "Prowling Panzers" which is pretty much a rewrite of Tractics. If you PM him on TMP he may send you a copy.

Panzer War allows a single tank to engage multiple targets within a 75 second turn. It's not just based on an abstracted ROF value. In 75 seconds a tank could realistically engage 4-5 enemy tanks in a target rich environment under good/ideal conditions. I don't know any other games that can do that (except mine).

Thanks for the plug Mark1. I've played the game with up to a reinforced company in micro armor and 1/144 scale on each side. If you do a search on TMP for Treadheads you'll see some discussions and links.

Detail seems to automatically mean complicated mechanics. I've found any game that uses a 1-5 second time scale and reaction to the enemy when they come into LOS gives more detail for 1:1 games and can be easier to play. Nuts! has a good reaction system. Using 1-5 seconds and reactions to the enemy eliminates the need for complicated over watch and opportunity fire rules. It also eliminates the need for things like unit activation, command interrupts, chit draws, etc which are not really detail but an artificial answer to somehow have units interacting with each other in a turn where a unit can perform multiple actions.

Another advantage of eliminating special over watch and opportunity fire rules and unit activation is that it frees the players from concentrating on playing the mechanics and allows players a decision on how to react when something happens rather than waiting for their turn (which sometimes may not come). Like someone else said, scale is important and also what level of detail you want to portray.

I have all of the Phoenix Command WWII books. They are detailed and chart heavy with 2.5 second turns. The small turn lengths allow more decisions for player like taking more time to aim and get better accuracy or hurry your shot and fire with less aim time. There is a better recreation of an engagement using historic turret rotation rates too. I've borrowed some things from it but it's over my head to play it as written.

You would not refight the shootout at the OK Corral using a 90 second game turn when the fight lasted only 15-20 seconds. Most tank-tank shootouts are over after firing 1-3 rounds with the one getting off the first shot normally being the winner. It's my opinion any game using a turn over 30 seconds is going to have to use some real complicated activation and opportunity fire rules. Like some others have said, detail for details sake does not lead to more accuracy.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag – I'm glad you appreciate PC aswell (I'm never sure people realise it existed). I bought it from a very strange model shop aged 10 and whilst I've played it a number of times over the years and love it (nostalgia has strange effects), I've mainly used them for reference and as a toolbox of ideas.

Taoism would suggest complexity can be found in simplicity – this may explan why Chain of Command and the Battlegroup series are some of my favourite WW2 rulesets.

BALM