Help support TMP

"Any Ultra-Modern Rules Sets that are kept "Up to Date"?" Topic

12 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Gaming (2008-present) Message Board

763 hits since 26 Jul 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Cold Warrior26 Jul 2017 4:48 p.m. PST

Okay, while I can find a number of rule sets for 1980's Germany, with GHQ's new releases have embarked on a buying binge for ultra-modern Pacific. US, PLA, South Korea, Japan and Australia. Any rules sets that are regularly updated with current equipment? Sabre Squadron would fit the bill, but the scale was a bit smaller than what I was looking for.

Lion in the Stars26 Jul 2017 9:59 p.m. PST

The problem with large-scale (as in, player in charge of battalions and more) ultramodern rules is figuring out the relative power balance.

Not much evidence to work with!

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Jul 2017 3:35 a.m. PST

Fistful of TOWs III covers WW1 thru today. Plays equally well at 1:1 or 1:5

Queen Catherine27 Jul 2017 9:03 a.m. PST

I think you're getting good advice here: I second FFT.3 and Sabresquadron.

The tricky thing is playbalance, as LitS mentions.

We're solving that problem by using the above sets as tech guides for a roll-off combat version [DBA style] of our "One-Hour Wargames WWII" variant.

As we have to self-confess to being newbies to modern gaming, and it is SOOOO tech-driven, our only solution is to do fast-play games, then switch sides in the same sitting.

Besides…modern combat is just plain silly deadly. You can wipe out a battalion of tanks in two minutes with the right plan and firepower – which gamers love to do! So fast-play is also more REALISTIC than a slow-play game, taking the same amount of time, or so, as the reality.
Our logic is amazing!

Anyway, we're just getting started with this. Our BLogger has already started posting on the theory:

Cold Warrior28 Jul 2017 7:12 a.m. PST


Own FFT3 PDF, will gave to print it out and give it a go.

womble67 Supporting Member of TMP29 Jul 2017 6:56 a.m. PST

I would recommend Cold War Commander Rules. Hope it helps.

As always, comments are appreciated.

Take care


Cold Warrior29 Jul 2017 10:03 a.m. PST


Own CWC, so it's definitely on the "to try" list. However is there not a new edition due out soon? I know BKC is on version III (though apparently that was a bit of a botched release). If CWC is going to be updated soon will likely wait.

Queen Catherine30 Jul 2017 7:15 p.m. PST

One way to approach the tech is also realistic – abstract it.

If side rolls well, they did well with their gadgets, may get a bonus in combat, movement, whatever. If they fail the roll, they did a poor job integrating poor tech into their op plan.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to game it in detail. One can only game a theory – in this battle [that one is gaming] who will have the edge on / jamming / UAV / smoke – laser sighting, etc.

It's about the entire package – gear, implementation, training, incorporation into the plan, Soldiers understanding its use, etc. If the whole package doesn't work, then the latest tech is just a 'maybe' and that's all.

Rick Don Burnette01 Aug 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

For 22006 and after, yes itis mostly theory, indeed have there been any conflicts involving T 14 or the latest generation of US armor. Besides, if there are models of T 14 and post 2006 weapons systems, well they are not in 6mmm
And the aforementioned rules do not address post 2006 things involving the up to date weapons, electronics, aviation and other. Drones, anyone?
And just "updating" these rules, such as using the Cold War Commander template for this centurys war would be like using say a WWI rules set for WW2, especialy regarding air, artillery and armor.
as an example, Team Yankee as it stands would be a poor model of post 2006 war. And yet, TY is only a thinly disguised WW2 game.
So who cares

twawaddell Supporting Member of TMP04 Aug 2017 11:51 a.m. PST

Yeah, FFT3 is probably your best bet for up to date rules. CWC and GHQ's rules both suffer from the issue mentioned of being somewhat out of date. GHQ's rules are undergoing an update but don't appear to be available any time soon. I suspect the issue of getting data on modern systems and figuring out how to model some of them is an extremely difficult process.

Rick Don Burnette06 Aug 2017 8:35 a.m. PST

Nah, we will do what we always do. We shall use a WW2 rules set, modified, for Cold War conflicts, and then modify that set for 21st century war.
Yet, a lot of new technologies and politics has made the world of WW2 and the cold war obsolete.
The last massed tank battle was in 1991. Since then the opposing forces are using guerrilla and terrorist tactics. The big bad USSR with its large force is gone and Putins Russią is no subştitute. The North Koreans?? The Chinese?? Onlu in novels. But wait. Thats where Team Yankee came from, using perceptions of combat disproved by the reality in the desert a few years later. So we can either use another fictin or so called update an out of date rules set
AND claim it to be some sort of simulation
note. There are some Tom Clancy novels of the 21st century that will do

BenFromBrooklyn14 Aug 2017 8:58 a.m. PST

FFT3 is very good, I have only serious issue with it.
The use of a D6 for everything leaves little room for modifiers.

For example, if a real life commander is attacking a poorly trained infantry force, he will have part of his force lay down suppression fire. In FFT3, if the target unit is poor it already "maxes out" with negative modifiers. They already have a rate of fire of 1 and need a 6 on a d6 to hit. Nothing you can do will give them more negative modifiers- they will still get an ROF of 1 and need a 6 to hit, whatever. Instead, throw everyone into the assault!

Because the die range is 1-6, maxing out with positive or negative modifiers can happen much too easily. I can deal with simplifications and abstractions, but when it causes game tactics to grossly diverge from real tactics, as in the example, that's bad. There, I've said it, that is my beef with FFT3!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.