Help support TMP

" WRG 1973 1925 to 1950 Armour and infantry " Topic

46 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 WWII Discussion Message Board

903 hits since 5 Nov 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Jefthro305 Nov 2018 4:39 a.m. PST

Does any one have any house rules for the above game or updated / extra armour classifications . I've noticed on searching TMP that there seems to be a lot of expearience of these old rules in the TMP community . Currently owning most suitable micro tank rules im quite taken by the simplicity of this system and it's suitability for our own small gaming group . I have some changes I mind but Am keen to benefit from the expearience of others .

Mobius05 Nov 2018 6:23 a.m. PST

We'd had problems with ESP artillery. Someone would call in artillery on a point that they could see and had no targets at that point but had hidden units behind a hill or in woods and hope it would scatter on them. The solution was to allow the defending player to allow no scatter. Before the scatter roll the defending player lets the artillery fall where it was called.

Personal logo Whirlwind Supporting Member of TMP05 Nov 2018 6:36 a.m. PST

My house rules:

All forms of infantry MG can shoot at multiple targets no more than 25m from each other (this one gets used in all games)

Spotting range for infantry in cover is 25m (sometimes use this one: this change allows infantry with bazookas etc. to stalk tanks properly).

The wording in one of the reaction test results is particularly awful, as recently discussed here on TMP.

If you have a particularly sharp rules lawyer in the group, then consider ignoring the backblast rule for bazookas (in case the player decides to fire them away from the enemy in close assault…)

If you want a format for updated/extra armour classifications, you cannot do better than this thread (about halfway down): link

Martin Rapier05 Nov 2018 7:47 a.m. PST

Limit the amount of smoke ammo or the battlefield will turn into a blinding smudgepot.

Andy ONeill05 Nov 2018 10:55 a.m. PST

I've seen a table literally covered with cotton balls.

We just didn't allow any smoke other than pre game and as part of a scenario.

Some groups redid the armour to add more classes and dice roll variation in the range bands.

Jefthro305 Nov 2018 4:24 p.m. PST

Hi Möbius
I'm not sure what you mean by ESP artillery. I've as read the rules if you can see it you hit it. The only chance of using a scatter effect is if you use map firing .please explain as I may be reading the rules wrong .

Jefthro305 Nov 2018 4:27 p.m. PST

Hi whirlwind,
Might of been me who started the reaction test thing. But thanks to the reply's I think I might if worked it out….hopefully.
The link you have given me is really interesting, I will feed back when I've looked at it in more detail.

Blutarski05 Nov 2018 4:30 p.m. PST

One of the house rules we employed from time to time was to eliminate the -2 direct fire ranging penalty for any AT gun starting the game dug-in, or any heavy Flak starting the game either dug-in or otherwise unlimbered and ready to fire.

The logic was that emplaced AT (or Flak) when setting up would have taken the trouble to mark preliminary ranges to landmarks (or the famous "white stones" in N Africa). Flak crews also typically included a member of the gun crew equipped with an optical range-finder.

Made dug-in towed AT considerably more dangerous.



Jefthro305 Nov 2018 4:39 p.m. PST

Thanks Andy/Martin
Yes a lot of smoke can be a problem and can soon cover the table limiting Rounds is a must

Wolfhag05 Nov 2018 9:06 p.m. PST

I concur. I like anti-tank guns.


Personal logo Whirlwind Supporting Member of TMP06 Nov 2018 2:16 a.m. PST

One of the house rules we employed from time to time was to eliminate the -2 direct fire ranging penalty for any AT gun starting the game dug-in, or any heavy Flak starting the game either dug-in or otherwise unlimbered and ready to fire.

That is a good idea.

Mobius06 Nov 2018 7:10 a.m. PST

I'm not sure what you mean by ESP artillery. I've as read the rules if you can see it you hit it. The only chance of using a scatter effect is if you use map firing .please explain as I may be reading the rules.

You can use map fire on a hill top or some other map feature and try to get the artillery to scatter and land on units not in sight.

Blutarski06 Nov 2018 8:40 p.m. PST

Could you perhaps require that any map fire be pre-plotted before opposing troops are placed on the tabletop?


Wolfhag06 Nov 2018 9:47 p.m. PST

I think that the way it was "ideally" done is that there were Terrain Reference Points (normally two letters like AP – Alpha Papa) plotted on the map and the artillery batteries would fire rounds to get zeroed in on those points. Even without a map, you could call in a FFE artillery based on the TRP and an offset without the need for a lot of spotter rounds. In an emergency, you could call in an immediate Fire for Effect based on the TRP if the target was within 500m or so.

The command might be "Fire Alpha Papa -1, +2" which would be a Fire for Effect on TRP AP 100m left and 200m right. You needed to make it quick and easy because if you were calling it in meant you were probably being ambushed or had a fleeting target of opportunity. Less talk is always better. The response might be "Splash 20" meaning the rounds would be impacting in 20 seconds to take cover.

When we'd go on patrols we'd get with the fire support battery and let them know our patrol path and times in advance and establish TRP's along the patrol route. That way we could call in an immediate Fire for Effect with the TRP and an offset on the map. Even if the enemy was listening in and had a map it would be worthless without knowing the TRP's marked on the map and each patrol used different ones.

The idea of the artillery barrage, normally 5 rounds, was to disengage. While on the run (recon runs a lot) we could have a barrage follow behind us if needed.

How accurate could artillery be under ideal circumstances? Fire Support Bases in VN would keep updated fire tables in every grid square infantry would be operating in and fired them enough to keep them current.

I knew an FO that called in a single 105 round on an NVA walking down a trail towards an intersection that was a TRP. The shot was timed so well the FO called back and said the 105 round hit the guy in the head right in the middle of the intersection. 105's and 155's were very accurate, 175's not as good.

I think Mobius means Extra Sensory Perception – ESP.

In an assault, you'd use a rolling barrage that is kept about 400m-500m in front of the advance so you could end up blasting a hidden enemy.


Martin Rapier06 Nov 2018 11:27 p.m. PST

Tbh, you can use exactly the same tactic Mobius describes in Panzer Leader.

I can't recall anyone doing it in WRG, perhaps we weren't imaginative enough. In any set of WW2 rules there will be arguments as to what you can and can't call artillery fire down on, and any sort of artillery scatter system can produce silly results.

Jefthro307 Nov 2018 1:23 a.m. PST

Thanks again for the reply's .
The one house rule I tend to use is the ground scale of one inch equals 50 metres. Barring specialist ammunition the tank anti tank effectiveness is reasonable more the amount of vehicles I try to use . It also seems quite easy to scare ground attack aircraft off if you have a couple of multibarrelled anti aircraft guns

Andy ONeill07 Nov 2018 2:12 a.m. PST

Try attack defence games with map deployment for defenders and no speculative fires.
You can limit a defender's artillery to a few pre planned fires.

Jefthro307 Nov 2018 8:59 a.m. PST

Have a game organised for tomorrow tonight . Quite a big affair 1944 Germans mainly stugs and panzer lV s about 40 tanks with supporting artillery and about 40 half tracks with panzer grenadiers. Against a prepared Russian defence consisting of hull down kv 85 mm s anti tank guns dug in infantry goodness knows how many T34s ready to counter attack and Air support . Am expecting Germans to get pinned down but maybe the main effort is to entice the the Russian tank brigades out will use smoke I just hope my directional dice that I use for wind direction points the right direction. This is why I want reasonably easy rule mechanisms . I like spearhead but like – 1:1 games from time to time do also play advanced squad leader but that's a difference beast to together

Personal logo Whirlwind Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2018 5:38 p.m. PST

Good luck. It seems quite a big game for WRG 1925-50 to handle, I hope it goes well.

Mobius07 Nov 2018 5:43 p.m. PST

I found the biggest tank problem is that the turret does not have a separate armor from the entire tank. If it turns its turret to the side the front turret armor doesn't count.

Andy ONeill08 Nov 2018 3:03 a.m. PST

I think wrg can handle that size of game.

It's a lot if you don't know the game well though
A much smaller scenario would be advisable for someone new to the rules.

Blutarski08 Nov 2018 8:49 a.m. PST

As an above post reminds me, one issue encountered in Barker's rules was the ability of a Russian player to field a brigade of 40+ T34s fully endowed with immediate real-time psychic coordination in terms of opportunity maneuver, reaction to fire, etc. This was especially troubling in early war scenarios when Russian tanks should have suffered from desperately inadequate internal radio communications.


UshCha08 Nov 2018 11:06 a.m. PST

Used to play it but now have my own rules.
Great advantages are it's mode system, way better than many current rules which have stepped back. Generally it's too range obsessed like many rules. However for machine guns the line and area fire rules go some way to making it better. As always the points system is by no means perfect, neither is the terrain system which really only copes with small areas. Artillery is always problematical, calling fire on areas where there are no visible targets should be banned, simple. Like a lot of games the artillery is allocated by battery and not ammunition supply, rationing by die call is not ideal. Bit surprised by the smoke thing. Too much smoke keeps troops isolated from there support weapons and so is a two edged sword. Probably an issue with too much range effect.

Martin Rapier08 Nov 2018 12:02 p.m. PST

"As an above post reminds me, one issue encountered in Barker's rules was the ability of a Russian player to field a brigade of 40+ T34s fully endowed with immediate real-time psychic coordination in terms of opportunity maneuver, reaction to fire, etc. "

Well, each subunit was supposed to have written orders, and order changes would go up and down the chain of command. A bit challenging with few radios.

But we just ignored all that boring stuff. If you use points based forces it comes out in the wash anyway as they are mainly rated on gun/armour, not soft stuff like C3.

WRG can easily handle 40+ tanks per side as they blow up so fast, but not 40+ infantry sections:) (aka 120 individual stands, plus HQ, support assets and a pile of transport).

It works better for company level infantry actions where the element count is manageable.

Andy ONeill08 Nov 2018 12:08 p.m. PST

The modes came later.

Hornswoggler09 Nov 2018 4:14 a.m. PST

The modes came later.

Confusion always arises between


Martin Rapier09 Nov 2018 7:21 a.m. PST

Indeed, the mode based rules were a horrific example of how to break a perfectly decent set of rules which worked fine if played between sensible players.

We never did the cute tricks with using bazookas backwards etc, but we did commit the unpardonable sin of allowing direct fire HE templates to overlay each other.

This meant that even Tiger IIs and Elephants (and who didn't have at least half a dozen each of those) could fall prey to a pile of Shermans or T34s firing HE. If you were good at rolling 6s. But if you've got enough Shermans….

UshCha09 Nov 2018 1:34 p.m. PST

I always thought and still do for some things a basic D6 was never good enough and his how to roll a "7" was easy to confuse if you were in the heat of battle. No game is worth playing if it's not against sensible player. You only play non sensible players once and that is too much. Rear firing bazookas, to me that is just making a mockery and so against the whole ethos of trying to approximate a real world situation. The rules do not specify you cannot walk upside down or that gravity is in effect at all times so such abuse is just the same idiotic would be a polite term and not one I would use in person.

Jefthro309 Nov 2018 3:29 p.m. PST

Thanks for the comments. The game went ok but to be honest the infantry might as well have not turned up but this did not diminish the game as it was really a tank fest. I do play infantry based games like cross fire etc and enjoy them but I'm looking for excuses to get my numerous GHQ tanks out.
The German assault stalled as expected but as part of the scenario my opponent had to commit his two T34 Tank brigades on a predetermined turn come what may and of course lacking radios so they have to stay within 50metres of each other and with the plus 2 in morale for being Russian they tended to keep coming on.
The infantry were either behind cover (Russians) or in half tracks (Germans) and they were numerous but the Germans got seriously bogged down by Russian artillery and anti tank guns. I didn't quite know what to do with infantry in an half track that was knocked out by an antitank gun as opposed to an artillery strike so just regarded them as destroyed. . Also didn't know how to classify the armanment of my henschel hs 129 or how Stuka s and sturmovicks dropping bombs were meant to damage tanks.

Martin Rapier09 Nov 2018 11:49 p.m. PST

Bombs are large calibre area fire. 5 or 6 to neutralise armour, another 5 or 6 to destroy it. (from memory).

We never really bothered with ground attack planes. A waste of good points which were better spent on tanks.

Jefthro310 Nov 2018 3:27 a.m. PST

Thanks Martin.
Ground attack Air craft if they get past the anti air guns. Get to shoot their auto cannons / rockets (if they have them ) from 500 metres and the tanks protection is lowered to one class than its side armour if possible. My problem was I wasn't sure what the Henschel I had was armed with I know that it had some sort of 30mm cannon and 2 20mm cannons and later in the war an impractical 75mm cannon making it difficult to fly.

Tend not to use points in World War Two games apart from when using Blitz krieg Commander prefer scenarios if possible based on real events but often not.

Jefthro313 Nov 2018 4:02 a.m. PST

Hi Martin
Concentration of Artilleryshould be allowed as it was a known tactic used by the British against German heavy tanks in Normandy . I must have misread the rules as I didn't think that area fire could touch armoured fighting vehicles other than cause passengers to get off and prevent any one firing externally attached weapons . But on a more careful reading although it isn't spelt out it does appear that AFVs can be neutralised on a 6 and destroyed on a 5 if fairly weak armour or hit by a gun of 130mm or more or on a die roll of 6 . I was led astray by the statement on page 20 " AFV cannot be neutralised in the full sense " and I thought that the were "neutralised "in less than a full sense on a did roll of 5 or six if weak armour or big gun and of a 6 if not .now I know how to destroy a tank within the rules with an air attack . Which just goes to show how beneficial these forums are . Firing lots of HE by tanks at German heavy tanks also has historical precedent especially against inexpearienced tank Crews can't quote instances other than I've read that American tank crews used to do this against the Germans in Western Europe.

Blutarski13 Nov 2018 9:00 a.m. PST

I'm skeptical of small caliber HE having much of an effect on a reasonably armored tank, other than to cause it to button up and perhaps seek cover or retreat as the result of a morale test.


Jefthro313 Nov 2018 5:07 p.m. PST

I recently read three accounts by tank commanders two of which kept personal diary's during the Normandy campaign one in a Sherman one in a Cromwell and one in a Churchill tank . The main issue for them when under artillery attack ( mainly mortars) was thier inability to leave the vehicle and loss of crew when suddenly fired upon when out side the vehicle . some times a direct hit would cause attached baggage to catch fire as well as camouflage netting things like a radio being damaged or a commander being hit could keep a tank out of battle also many AFV are open topped . It's reasonable to knock a tank out with Artillery in a game as long as it isn't too easy it doesn't have represent a write off just not fit for purpose for a while. The Germans in Normandy hounded the British tanks with mortar fire it was very unnerving and stopped them from being able To cook effectively or take a dump etc and many were killed and wounded when taken by suprise . The chance of damage is far too Generous in WRG but it's abstract and requires a hit with a 6 followed by a five or 6 on the dice depending on shell size or / and armour . Also you don't need to destroy an enemy tank you just have to persuade them to bail out or go away.

William Ulsterman13 Nov 2018 7:16 p.m. PST

The 1925 to 1950 rules as a core system worked really well, but lacked any sort of army lists, force structure or basis for even setting up a game.

The second edition which came out in 1988 and gave you excellent army lists, points values that worked and a really awesome artillery rule set and a great pre-game strategy planning and posture dynamic. This was really good.

It then ruined all playability by having to draw maps, write orders, keep track of a radio net and communication links, effing "modes" of endless variety, including exigency and NO WAY OF ENDING THE GAME WAS EVER INCLUDED – aside from running out of time. Not to mention having to roll a die to acquire a target in the first place. And all this for turns that last 30 seconds or so of real life. As a simulation it might work (even this I doubt – it seems more of a simulation that a war gamer thinks would be real), but as a game it just sucked.

You should simply combine that good second edition stuff about the pre-game and force posture and force structure with the good solid rules that existed with the first edition and ditch all the rest, I reckon.

Jefthro314 Nov 2018 4:22 a.m. PST

Hi William
Tend to agree I have two copies of the later edition and find them very frustrating to use. I have tried but didn't find the results worth the mental effort.

Andy ONeill14 Nov 2018 4:28 a.m. PST

Almost any game is a lot better if you incorporate a ref or trust.
Map deploy defenders and don't allow units to act on info they don't have.
Defending infantry then suddenly appear to throw a wrench in the attackers plan.

Wolfhag15 Nov 2018 12:57 p.m. PST

In the book, "Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day" it describes 36 Churchills moving through a 25lb barrage of 600x200 with 3 guns firing 5 rounds per minute would suffer 7 causalities with no rounds penetrating the Churchills. It was thought this was a better way to attack through anti-tank gun defenses and the causalities were allowable.

Dumb artillery versus tanks: link


Jefthro315 Nov 2018 1:16 p.m. PST

Hi Andy
I agree , that's why I try and play games based on scenarios as tanks weren't, always fuelled up , artillery wasn't always available and the weather didn't,t allow air cover etc

Mark 115 Nov 2018 2:19 p.m. PST

The 1925 to 1950 rules as a core system worked really well …

I think they worked well for fast-play armor. So put a bunch of tanks on the table and shoot 'em up.

But I don't see that as a good core system anymore.

Three weaknesses that I saw were, I think, endemic to the core system.

1) D6. Sorry, but the whole use of D6's just fails for me. A result with a 1-in-20 chance should NOT be dismissed by the rules. In a battalion-sized engagement there will be more than 20 instances of many, many events. So 1-in-20s will happen. And the rules should include them.

And throwing the dice more than once was just a half-broken way of addressing a basic issue. A 6 followed by a 4 equals a 7? Oh please give me a break! A 7 should be a 1 in 7 chance. A 6 followed by a 4 is a 1 in 12 chance. Why are we even doing these mental gymnastics? Use some frikkin' decimal dice and get a 5% chance based on a 0+5 or less.

2) Too deterministic. Partly due to the mindset of the D6, I expect. A gun striking a particular armor level has a 100% chance of killing under 250m range, a 50% chance at 250-750m range, and no chance at 750m+ ? No, I don't buy it, not a bit, not at all. Almost NO gun should have a 100% chance at any range against an armored target. I have read personal accounts of a Sherman being shot by a Tiger are a range where the muzzle flash charred the tank, and the round bounced. And I've read accounts of Panthers being penetrated and taken out of action by Shermans frontally at 250m+ range.

Didn't happen those ways often, but it happened. It's that whole 1-in-20 thing.

3) The whole combined arms thing was just not balanced well.
Arty was too abstracted and powerful against tanks, and infantry was at the wrong unit scale.

Shermans could not kill Tigers by direct fire, but were deadly against them in area fire. Huh?

A company of T-34s was 10 pieces for the player to move and shoot. A company of soviet riflemen was 38 pieces. Guess what? If you ever let your infantry out of their transports, the game ends in the next turn, because you've switched from 20 minutes of UGO (before the next IGO), to 1 1/2 hours of UGO … and everyone on my team has now wandered away to find something else to do.

… but lacked any sort of army lists, force structure or basis for even setting up a game.

Compared to my needs, the development of miniatures wargaming rules was inverse to the development of me, as a wargamer.

When I started using WRG in the mid-1970s, the gaps that William the U describes above were very real. I had no idea how to set up a scenario, what units combined into what formations, etc. Rules for miniatures wargaming were a much more basic -- how you play the game, not how you set up a tournament that will stand up in a court of rules-lawyers.

I needed more guidance than WRG gave me.

Today, my interest level in rules telling me how to set up a game may be described as about 2 degrees K (ie: close to absolute zero). I know army lists, and if I don't, I know how and where to find them. I create my own scenarios, with my own victory conditions. I just want rules that adjudicate the mechanics of moving, spotting, and shooting.

And it seems most rulesets are moving towards tournaments-in-a-box, complete with 24/7 mediation-on-demand subscription services.

When my children were younger I discovered that dogs age the wrong way for my needs. The best match for a 2 year old child is a 12 year old dog, and the best match for a 12 year old child is a 2 year old dog. Seems like the same was true for rulesets vs. my own wargaming needs.

The second edition … then ruined all playability by having … effing "modes" of endless variety…

I have been told that the modes worked well, enhancing the feel of the various armies in the game.

But I never experienced it myself.

I tried, a little. But the modes never worked for me. At all. Even in principal. I mean, I read it all. I did some solo-play sample moves. I played a couple small sized games. And the modes just seemed like a set of personal prejudices layed on top of a ruleset. Modes that give unique and distinguishing characteristics to Highlanders, Yeomanry, Anzacs, Maoris, Ghurkas, South Africans … but ALL American infantry are green … period. Really? Wow, it's kind of hard to invest time and effort into learning that construct.

I invested years in both versions. For me they were formative years, helping me understand what I did, and didn't, want in my wargames rules.

(aka: Mk 1)

William Ulsterman15 Nov 2018 4:06 p.m. PST

Umm Mark – sorry to be a complete WRG Nerd about this, but a Sherman could take out a Tiger frontally with direct fire – it just needed to be within 500m and throw a six.

I never really minded the "7" idea – seemed like the only way to represent the fluke sort of hit that sometimes happened. Interestingly Flames of War has just returned such a system in the Fourth Version of their rules.

Arty powerful against tanks? Nope – in the 1973 version they needed to roll a 6 to neutralise and then a 6 to kill, unless they were humungus guns or the tanks armour class was I or II in which case it was a 5 or 6 to kill. That was never that easy.

Infantry – could only move 50m a turn almost irregardless of circumstances – that meant it wasn't that hard to move you infantry en masse – you just had your trusty 50mm piece of card and shuffled everyone forward. It didn't actually take that long. Bazookas, PIATs and Panzerfausts shooting 250m was always a bit of a gripe though. The 1988 second edition infantry rules tried to be an improvement, and they did achieve this somewhat with better movement rates, but with those bloody modes they take even longer to use!

Blutarski15 Nov 2018 8:42 p.m. PST

I played a lot of one-on-one infantry based scenarios – usually reinforced company strength attacks on defended positions. We used historical terrain reproduced from 1:50,000 WW1 era AEF maps of northern France on table area up to 12 x 6 ft @ one inch = 25mm. The detailed terrain made a lot of difference to game play – especially in the presence of no edge of the table flanks.

I found that the infantry rules, for all their admitted (minor) imperfections, proved to be rather subtly layered. In one case, an American platoon following a road through a large forest was ambushed in a small clearing, pinned down by LMG fire and ultimately rendered totally combat ineffective after successive turns of mortar fire – I recall saying to myself that things went just as written in the history books.

It is (IMO) still a decent set of rules that has, for all its compromises in terms of game mechanics, stood up well over time.

Strictly my opinion, of course.


Jefthro316 Nov 2018 5:55 a.m. PST

It is quite shocking that the American infantry are all classed as green in the Later version of the rules . It's quite wrong . Fighting in Tunisia ,Silicy then Italy made them tough and intelligent fighters .

Mark 116 Nov 2018 12:10 p.m. PST

Umm Mark – sorry to be a complete WRG Nerd about this, but a Sherman could take out a Tiger frontally with direct fire – it just needed to be within 500m and throw a six.

Right you are. My mistake. Too many memories, too many individual issues I was trying to bring together.

No path for a Sherman (or Churchill) to kill at Panther frontally under WRG. AARs show it did happen, though it was not the norm.

Never read an AAR of a Panther bouncing a round off of a Sherman from muzzle-blast range. That AAR was a Tiger.

In my own wargaming experience it was Tiger IIs, not Tigers. With no unit or scenario guidance from the rules, I wound up with an opponent who would take a wall, make a semi-circle with ends on the edge of the game table, and put Tiger IIs behind it. I fought against that with my Russians.

Using the points system in the rules for "balanced games", there was effectively nothing I could do. Use my points to buy lots of T-34-85s for the cost of his 10 Tiger IIs? No number could ever hurt a Tiger II frontally. There were no rules for a tank knocking down a brick wall, so no way I could ever get a flank shot. Use my points to buy JS-IIs and SU-100s? The 50% reduction in hit probability from the Tiger IIs being hull-down behind the wall (because we all know that 100mm/122mm AP rounds don't penetrate a brick), and the movement penalty on shooting, and the 50% penetration probability for the Russian guns from close range, versus the 100% penetration probability from the German guns against the Russian tanks, with no hull-down to-hit penalties against the Russians, and no movement penalty, meant that 10 Tiger IIs could easily kill 30 or 40 JS-IIs or SU-100s, while the points system only allowed about 15 – 18 to be bought.

Then I discovered that I could take 10 Lend-Lease Shermans, hide behind a hill, and hit him with area fire him turn after turn forever. (Rules said Shermans can fire indirect. Didn't say who did or didn't have the doctrine or training.) Eventually I'd get enough double-6s to kill his tanks. Just as there was nothing I could do to kill him by direct fire, there was nothing he could do to stop or withstand the indirect fire.

The games were preposterous. I was learning nothing about WW2 tank warfare, only about rulesmanship.

But that was the play style that the rules seemed to reward.

Today, knowing how to set up reasonable scenarios, with reasonable victory conditions, reasonable OOBs, and reasonable terrain, it just wouldn't be a problem in my games.

But back when I was just getting started …

I found that the infantry rules, for all their admitted (minor) imperfections, proved to be rather subtly layered.

Other than the "American infantry is green, period" issue, I will grant that the rules may well have provided interesting infantry battles. As I recall (been a while, so IIRC only) the forward to the updated rules even described how playtesting had shown the rules could generate rewarding infantry-only battles.

But the unit scale issue, to my experience, meant that WRG was in effect two different rulesets in one. You could do pretty sophisticated infantry battles, with maybe a company of infantry and a few AFVs or arty pieces in support. Or you could do fast-play tank battles with multiple battalions swirling about without any shading or nuance (dead or alive, nothing in-between). But there was no way to productively mix those two.

I like to do combined arms battles. A battalion of tanks should NEVER be on the table without infantry support, in my way of thinking. You can't even begin to understand why Sherman tanks had a place on the battlefield if you never face infantry opposition.

I have no objection to detailed infantry rules, nor to fast-play tank rules. How good WRG rules were, in either case, is a fair topic for discussion. But putting those two together into one ruleset seems kinda mixed-up.

Anyway, for me, 10 years with the first edition, and maybe another 5 years trying to get into the second edition, left me well educated on what I want, and don't want, from my rulesets.

(aka: Mk 1)

Hornswoggler17 Nov 2018 4:31 a.m. PST

Some really interesting observations here.

Anyway, for me, 10 years with the first edition, and maybe another 5 years trying to get into the second edition, left me well educated on what I want, and don't want, from my rulesets.

That is a summary which closely coincides with where I would place WRG in my own wargaming experience.

Blutarski17 Nov 2018 6:55 a.m. PST

I would be lying if I said that we had not appended various "house rules" even during the heyday of the WRG rules. Such rule modifications are, of course, permitted under the Hague Convention rules governing miniature wargaming.


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.