Help support TMP

"Thoughts on GHQ's "Modern Micro Amour: The game" rule set " Topic

15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Modern Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board

Back to the Micro Armour: The Game Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Recent Link

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Christmas Stocking Stuffer for Armor Fans

These "puzzle tanks" are good quality for the cost.

Featured Workbench Article

Featured Profile Article

Featured Book Review

4,071 hits since 15 Apr 2017
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Zookie15 Apr 2017 11:07 a.m. PST

I was wondering what peoples experience has been with GHQ's Modern Micro Amour: The game. Also if anyone has any links to reviews that would be greatly appreciated. I am surprised not to find much on it on the internet considering it is supported by GHQ.

MadMax1715 Apr 2017 11:17 a.m. PST

Played it many many years ago, dont remember a whole lot except that i didnt care for it at all.

The one thing i seem to remember hating was the artillery rules, where you weren't allowed to measure for your call for fire, you had to estimate the length and width from the table corner (i.e. 48 inches up, 25 inches left). I understand what they were trying to do to make artillery less accurate to compensate for the wargamer omnipotence. I felt like this was too far though. I may be misattributing this to the Micro Armor THE GAME (awful title by the way) though, like i said its been at least a decade and a half.

The main thing i remember was everyone making fun of the arrogant title of THE GAME. I'm much more partial to MSH and FFT3 for what it's worth.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian15 Apr 2017 12:06 p.m. PST

Has there been a new edition yet? I believe the WWII rules have gone to 2nd edition already.

Zookie15 Apr 2017 12:29 p.m. PST

The 2nd edition is not out at the moment and I don't know the ETA. I have looked at the WWII rule (2nd) and they look good but I am not sure how similar they are to the 1st edition modern rules

CorroPredo15 Apr 2017 2:34 p.m. PST

Haven't played it for awhile, but I loved it. Don't remember the artillery rules being that way, though.

MadMax1715 Apr 2017 3:07 p.m. PST

Like I said it's been a VERY long time, I might be misattributing those to the rule system, but I'm rather confident it was them. Was soon after they came out, so must have been first edition, have no idea about newer editions.

Tony S15 Apr 2017 3:45 p.m. PST

I just skimmed through the rules again. When you write your off table fire missions, the rules state that you must be very clear and precise, and that the target must be in sight of your FAO. Doesn't mention anything about estimating.

MadMax1715 Apr 2017 3:54 p.m. PST

Ah my mistake, i dont know what rule set that was then, they say the memory is the first thing to go, my wife would agree with them!

14th NJ Vol15 Apr 2017 5:37 p.m. PST

WW2 rules are now 2nd edition. Played them today.

mghFond15 Apr 2017 10:38 p.m. PST

So what did you think of them then? 14th NJ Vol

14th NJ Vol16 Apr 2017 7:55 a.m. PST

Liked it. We've played the early version since the mid 1990s. Cleans up the overrun close assault rules.

thedisgruntledfusilier17 Apr 2017 9:48 a.m. PST

Played the introductory scenario "Fulda Gap" in the rulebook. That was a full Soviet Tank Regiment vrs a US Mech Battalion and Tank Battalion.

Wasn't bad, but was slow and ponderous, especially with allowing more modern MBTs to fire and move (some of the phases are much longer now since those MBTs can move AND fire).

You could get the same result from CWC or FFT3 in half the time. Just my opinion.

The rules themselves worked just fine though.

CptKremmen20 Apr 2017 3:06 a.m. PST

Slight aside here but we are using our 6mm GHQ models to play Team Yankee. Everyone agrees the rules work better with 6mm than they do with 15mm.

Mako1120 Apr 2017 3:23 a.m. PST

Yea, I must agree on TY, at least on a standard size table, those short weapons ranges, and with 1/100th minis.

Saw a battle report the other day with a bunch of Hinds (6 I think), plus a few US helos mixed in, all vying for airspace in about a single square foot of the board.

Surprised they were able to get them all jammed in that close, without breaking stuff (perhaps they didn't).

Michael Farley Supporting Member of TMP13 May 2017 9:00 p.m. PST

Does anyone think GHQ make a 1:1 like the WWII squad battle rules?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.