| cturnitsa | 21 Mar 2017 7:33 p.m. PST |
I have recently written a review of the old (but excellent) Myers and Zimmermann ruleset, Angriff! Take a look, if interested. link |
| mghFond | 21 Mar 2017 9:00 p.m. PST |
Played that as a kid, the tank charts were excellent! The infantry rules bad. |
| raylev3 | 22 Mar 2017 8:03 a.m. PST |
Angriff was my first every WW2 miniatures game (1/285). Enjoyed it for the time, even if infantry were virtually useless…but it is definitely "old school" and has seen its day. Fond memories, though. |
| Weasel | 22 Mar 2017 8:24 a.m. PST |
A lot of games of that era tended to be basically tank games :) |
| ScoutJock | 22 Mar 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
Angriff was my first war games rules back in the day. GHQ Shermans vs MkIVs with Squad Leader counters for infantry and guns on the guest bed… I still have my copy on the shelf. |
| dmebust | 22 Mar 2017 12:27 p.m. PST |
These rules still used on a regular basis in my neck of the woods. |
| Grimmnar | 22 Mar 2017 11:36 p.m. PST |
My 1st WWWII rules I played. A bit modified but still love it to this day.
I have the photocopy I used way back then plus several real copies and even a Banzai or two. Thx Joe's Shop. And I will continue to grab more copies as I see them.
Yes, a ruleset I do really enjoy. Been far too long since my last game. Gtimm |
| cturnitsa | 23 Mar 2017 2:29 p.m. PST |
The group I played with actually abandoned Angriff for Overwatch, but kept the Angriff infantry rules… |
 Doctor X  | 23 Mar 2017 7:49 p.m. PST |
I guess we must've played it wrong because infantry was definitely a huge part of our games. But then again I played with the authors. Move/Counter-move system was innovative for the time as it broke the IGO/UGO mentality of most other games had at the time. Still a decent set of rules IMHO. Banzai as well. |
| Mobius | 25 Mar 2017 8:22 p.m. PST |
They were unplayable. The tank armor had no angle. The Panther's front is listed as 80mm. At least in the 4th edition. In 1979 I had been playing WRG modern for 6 years and knew the angle of the armor of the likes of T-55 and T-62 added much to their armor value. |
| Major Bloodnok | 30 Mar 2017 4:01 a.m. PST |
If I remember rightly the Artillery fire grid was completely random, there seemed impossob;e to coreect one's aim. |
| Marc33594 | 30 Mar 2017 9:28 a.m. PST |
As to artillery they discouraged use of "Barrage Fire" stating: "The use of artillery pieces firing indirect or barrage fire on a 5' X 9' wargame table is discouraged because of the close range involved. See BARRAGE FIRE section in the Appendices for its use on large battlefields or in campaign games." Angriff liked to use 5' X 9' because that is the size of a ping pong table and was very popular "table" for many gamers. They did encourage the use of individual field pieces firing over open sights. Barrage fire was just plain weird. You used a 3 X 4 cell grid numbered 1-4 down first column, 5-8 down second and 9-12 down third. You centered the grid over the target and in direction of fire (there is an arrow mid way through the bottom line of the 6 cell pointing towards the left. You rolled two die 6. Fire then fell in the two cells (so if you rolled a 2 and a 4 you looked for casualties under those 2 cells). If you rolled doubles you take casualties only in that one cell. If your guns were over 135mm you took the 2 cells AND their total. So if you rolled a #2 and a #6 you would look for casualties under the 2 cell, 6 cell and 8 cell. The total of the roll, in all cases, was also used to determine casualties. And you are right Major, there was no mechanic to adjust subsequent barrages, you merely did the same random process again. All of this is covered in the excellent review |
returns to 
