"Miniatures rules comparable to GMT's Panzer?" Topic

What set of miniature rules do you think are similar to GMT"s Panzer (and not Panzer Miniatures)

Thanks

My pick would be Z&M's Angriff rules.
Long OOP but copies are on eBay quite often.

If you like the boardgame why not just use their rules and convert hexes to inches?

Schwere Kompanie
Panzer War (nothing to do the Panzer Miniatures rules)

Both of those have Crunch and armor location is part of the to-kill process.

I thought that in the 90s the designer did a set of miniatures rules for that series. GMT's is the second iteration as they were originally done by Yaquinto as three boxed games long, long ago.

He did aegisg47, Panzer Miniatures which captaincold69 references.
link

The designer was James Day who did the original set of Panzer, Armor and 88. He developed a miniatures rule set based on them to include a series of add on modules. He then is responsible for design of the new update, GMT's Panzer series.

The issue I see with Panzer miniatures rules is each country is another buy of info from Wargames Vault. Of course the current GMT game only covers the Eastern and Western fronts and the original Yaquinto Games (not to be gotten for love or money) were in three versions. Myself I would like to get western desert or 88 but no such luck. Out of curiosity how well are infantry handled? I like Chain of Command and Conflict of Heroes for their handling of infantry but Squad Leader less so (in this case mostly the charts and somewhat the combat results). Thank you in advance.

I am curious about the Panzer rules. Has anyone played them?

@ccmatty: If you mean the Panzer Miniatures system by James Day, no. This is a super detailed one shot at a time system, with detailed firing arc templates, 5 or 6 differing area affect templates, and variable track damage etc.

captaincold69,
What is it you like best about GMT Panzer that you'd like to see in another game?

Wolfhag

Tigers and Stalins.

I designed them as a "Panzer, Armor, 88 Lite" system for convention gaming. Each tank is a tank. A stand of Infantry is 'Infantry'. Various models of tanks have armor values divided into 5 angles. Each gun has a graduated 'To Hit' number. The angle of the target yields a number that is subtracted from the 'To Hit' number. Roll a D20, if you hit you penetrate, if you miss, for some reason you missed. You then roll to see if you scored a Kill, turret or track hit.

Infantry, Anti-tank guns and aircraft are included, but to be honest, the rules are tank-centric.

They were written for 6mm (1/285th) because that is what we played at the time. But there is no reason why they can't be played with 10 or 15mm. The farthest gun ranges are longer than Flames of War ranges.

If you search here on TMP you'll find favorable reviews of the rules. I still have copies, $6 USD for one, 2 for $10. USD That includes shipping.

If interested you can reach me at PzGeneral_AT_bex_DOT_net

@ Wolfhag

I've only attempted Panzer twice so I'm not sure I can really offer a detailed reason why I like the rules. I LOVE the "crunch" with all the dice rolling. I'm not a fan of rolling 1D6 to obtain results. Something about rolling d100 that has more of a statistical accuracy to me. I could be way off on that, but it's what I like.

captaincold69,
Do you like the idea of detailed data cards and rolling for hit location and damage? Is that the "crunch"?

Wolfhag

Yes, but I know it's not everything. That alone doesn't make a good set of rules.

The thing that always bothered me about Yaquinto Panzer is that there was not any acquisition time or distance before shooting. I don't seem to remember a first shot penalty either.
It seemed whenever a tank stuck it's nose into sight it could receive full immediate attack.

There is a penalty for overwatch fire. Not a large penalty and not variable based on time in site but it does exist.

captaincold69,
Any 1:1 scale game is going to have to overcome the timing issue between units with abstracted engagement, activation, orders, plotting movement, etc. As Mobius said, the acquisition and engagement timing is missing. Overwatch could have a bonus for faster engagement or a penalty, it depends on the threat aspect. This seems to be where designing a game gets tough having to design abstractions to fit split-second timing between units into a 15-90 second game turn.

Wolfhag

The old Tank Charts is similar. Jadgpanther as well.

I keep hearing about the Jadgpanther rules, but I've never seen a write up or summary of their combat rules.

Mein Panzer is similar too.

Mein Panzer….another set of rules that I can't seem to find any details/example of combat.

I have played multiple 6mm games with three of the rulesets discussed so far: Panzer War, Jagdpanther, and Mein Panzer.

I have also played many 6mm wargames with other rulesets no mentioned so far (OK, Tank Charts was mentioned early on, and I have played those rules too, but not in the last 20 years). I won't go in to those other rules because, quite frankly, the three above are my favorites, and I don't have too much that is good to say about others.

All three are 1 model = 1 vehicle unit scales. That is my preference for miniatures.

I view Main Panzer and Jagdpanth as addressing about the same level of game play. They are relatively fast-play rules (at about the same level of abstraction as the original WRG Armour and Infantry rules from the 1970s). I was a beta player for the Jadgpanther II rules (the reasonably recent update from the original 1980s rules).

I view Panzer War as being at a different level. Less abstraction, more details. When you talk about the "crunch", it causes me to expect that these rules will be more to your liking. The mechanics take into account VERY substantial details of armor, giving you a tangible different game experience between, for example, a Pz IIIj and a Pz IIIm. Sometimes. Depending on who hits you where, with what. Not that you'll see much difference a 6pdr hits your turret side, but certainly when a 2pdr hits your hull front. Unless it hits your tracks, in which case the tank sub-model won't matter. But it's hard to hit the tracks from the front, and any hull down will eliminate that possibility all together, and … details details details.

But all of that is handled efficiently in the game to-hit mechanisms. So complexity of game play does not grow as much as the details the game handles. Sorry, that's a lot of words to say that I think the details are handled elegantly.

Think of it like Tank Charts, with the same focus on tank armor aspects vs. gun (and ammo choice), but with better research, better support, and more efficient game mechanisms. You won't find a better price-to-value ratio for any miniatures ruleset, period (IMHO). Really, these rules are worth the price just for a reference on armor -- the quality of the research is that good, and the lists are that complete.

If you want to push 5 or 10 tanks around and experience all of the delicious details of the tanks you study so fervently, you can hardly do better. If you want to push 15 to 30 tanks around it might be too much. Jagdpanther or Mein Panzer would likely do better, although you'll give away many of the details to speed up the gameplay.

For my gaming I prefer to have a battalion or more for each side on the table. Even if this is done with multiple players pushing a company or two each, and as much as I love the details of the tanks in the Panzer War rules, they were just too much for that size of game, in my experiences.

Also in my games I like to see infantry, AT guns, artillery, recon, all mixed in with the tank action. For that combination I have come to prefer Mein Panzer. Not that their game mechanisms are outright the best for each component in the combined arms arena, but their components are at about the same level of abstraction, so combined arms games play in a balanced way. With other rulesets (not the three in this posting explicitly) I have too often had battles where the tanks swirl around trading shots, getting kills, then the infantry gets out of their trucks AND THE GAME GRINDS TO A HALT and everyone goes home after 2 more turns -- because a company of T-34s is 10 models, but a company of Motor Rifles is 43 stands, and every time the player tries to do anything at all he has to role for activation, morale, spotting, rate-of-movement, stance, C&C, firing, damage, saving roles, rashes, trenchfoot, whatever for 43 stands while everyone has wandered off looking for food, drinks, or the exit.

For examples of Mein Panzer gameplay you might check out the AARs on their forums on the Old Dominion Gameworks (ODGW) Website.

All IMHO. Your tankage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark

Thank you SO much!

Mark

I can't find anything anywhere showing an example of armored combat for either Mein Panzer or Jagdpanther.

I did see a couple AAR's on the ODGW forums, but nothing that really gave me any idea how armored combat is dealt with.

Hopefully I'm not asking for too much here, but I'm not buying any set rules unless I see at least review them which is shocking in this day and age. Maybe it's because these rules are a little older or, dare I say, just not that popular?

I'm thinking Panzer converted to mini's might be that "bogged" down issue you've mentioned, but while I understand abstraction is necessary, I do not want something overly simple.

I've played a little IABSM, and while the Lardies make some nice rules, I found the armored combat very basic.

Thanks (to anyone who might share with me how these two rules handle armored combat)

cc69:

I can't find anything anywhere showing an example of armored combat for either Mein Panzer or Jagdpanther.

Yeah. Specific to MP, I went through several of the AARs on the ODGW forums (including my own) and I agree, while they may describe how the games flowed and general opinions of the results, there are no specific accounts of how the combat is conducted.

I expect the higher level opinions / conclusions in the AARs, and even the specific detailed questions and answers in the various topics in the Core Rules section of the forum won't make a lot of sense if you don't have any access to the rules, or experience with the basic mechanics of combat.

There was a call on the forum some years ago for a "boot camp" topic and set of postings. I've nosed around a bit and it doesn't look like anything ever happened with that.

I vaguely remember some boot-camp level turn sequence tutorial from a few years back. But I'll be d@mned if I can recall where it was located.

I'm not buying any set rules unless I see at least review them …

You might want to download the free version and try a simple table-top engagement between two forces.

Check this link for the free download: link

Please understand that this version is simplified in many ways. So you won't get all the issues on the table. But it might give you enough experience to at least track some of core rules questions and answers.

Basic issues that provide the unique flavor of these rules, to my thinking, are:

1) The turn sequence, with activation by "unit". I've discussed that enough already.

2) Every vehicle, during the "activation" of it's unit, gets an "action" and a "bonus move". The bonus move is just that -- you can move. The action can be whatever action that type of vehicle (or gun, or infantry stand) can do. Can be taking a shot, or going on overwatch (for a shot later in the turn if some conditions are met), or spotting, or communicating, or unhitching a towed gun, or unloading infantry, or performing an engineering task, or trying to remove suppression … whatever actions that type of element might take, they can do one when it is their activation. This can even include moving. So if you are not shooting or spotting, etc. you can move twice in one activation.

3) When you shoot, your to-hit number starts with your troop quality (TQ) rating. The type of gun, type of ammo, range to target … these are all just modifiers to your TQ when you take the shot. This is interesting. Lots of things in Mein Panzer start with your TQ rating, not just morale (as in many other rules). So better quality troops do lots of things better. Engineering tasks start with TQ, spotting starts with TQ, breaching a wall starts with TQ, infantry close assaults on tanks start with TQ, infantry melee with other infantry starts with TQ, AND morale checks start with TQ.

4) As to guns vs. armor, the rules are rather basic. You get front, side, rear and top armor ratings. No distinction between aspects on each facing -- no turret vs. hull, much less gun mantlet vs. turret face vs. glacis vs. lower hull. Gunnery gets a few range bands (short/medium/long) which is varied by gun (the distances for medium range for a Russian 76.2mm M1942 gun are different than those for a German 75mm PaK40). So your to-hit modifications, and your penetrations, get some variances with range, but not a high level of granularity (short vs. medium, not 50m / 100m / 250m / 500m ….). There are provisions for special ammo (HVAP, APDS, HEAT) and special types of armor (spaced).

5) Armor ratings are a simple number. For example a given tanks' front armor might be 7. So also a particular gun, with a particular ammo, in a particular range-band, will have a penetration rating that is a particular number. So an opponent's gun, firing it's typical AP round, at the range band they are now facing off at, might have a penetration of 9. If you get the hit, you now have a +2 advantage over the armor. You go to the To-Kill table, and find the +2 column, and roll for destruction. You might get a full kill, or a mobility kill, or a firepower kill. Or you might just suppress (stun) the target. With MP the likelyhood of a full kill goes up quickly as your penetration advantage over the armor increase. A +3 or +4 is very likely to kill. A +1 less so. Even when you have less penetration than the armor you might damage or stun the target.

This last part is an advantage I see in MP over Jagdpanther. JP has a similar concept of a number for armor, number for penetration, and a + or – value. But in JP you just take the +2 or +3 number and try to make that number on a die roll. There is no table. This makes the kill likelyhood go up in a fairly linear fashion, and makes it disproportionately hard to kill in early war combat, where armor and penetration are both at the lower ends of the scale. A 2 armor rating hit by a 5 gun penetration rating -- well a gun that can penetrate 2.5x the armor on the target should easily get a kill. In JP with a +3 it is only a little easier to get the kill compared to a +1. In MP it's a LOT easier to kill with a +3.

Hope that helps.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark

Thank you very much. Your assistance and time are greatly appreciated.

I did manage to find this on someone's blog about Mein Panzer:

Here are some typical unit values, using a Pz III J (special) as an example. It can move 4" per turn cross country, or up to 8" if you include the Bonus Move. Its offensive modifiers are +1 if stationary and -4 if it used its Bonus Move. It cannot fire on the move since it doesn't have a stabilized gun. The offensive value (i.e., penetration) of its 50L60 gun is 7 with regular AP ammunition and 13 with APCR. It has no size modifier, and its armor values are 6, 3, 5, 2 for front, side, rear, and top, respectively.

Now for a quick example of fire combat using the basic rules. Lets assume our Pz III is firing at a British Grant tank 20" away. German regulars have a TQ of 12, so the base to hit value is 12. The German tank is stationary, so its offensive modifier is +1. At 20" range, there are no range based modifiers. The Grant has a target size modifier of +1. Lets assume that its in the open and not moving, providing no other target based modifiers. The final to hit number is 12 +1 +1 = 14, so the German player must roll a 14 or less on a d20 to hit. Lets assume that he hits the Grant on its front armor. The OV for the Pz III J is 7, and the Grant's front armor is an 8. To find the effect of the shot, you would roll a d20 on the -1 row (7 OV – 8 DV) of the Kill Table. A 6 or less would kill the tank, 7-10 would result in some damage, and 11 or higher would result in no effect. If the panzer used APCR instead, he would be rolling on the +5 row (13 OV – 8 DV), which results in a kill on a roll of 16 or less. The APCR makes a big difference.

I like the rules a lot. The core game is very straight forward, and once you understand the basic rules, the advanced rules can be added on an as-needed basis. The combat results tables seem to be a bit deadly, but I think that forces the players to be a bit more crafty in how they maneuver their troops. The activation system works very well, and I do have to admit that I'm a big fan of alternating impulse systems. I have not tried any of the drop-in rules, and I'm looking forward to doing so. One final thing to consider, the game is easy to teach and plays very quickly. This is a great benefit when introducing new players or if you are interested in playing a large scenario. I would definitely recommend the rules set.