Mark, is this why you chose Mein Panzer instead?
As I said, I have read the SK rules, but never played them. I could see that they would not scale gracefully to multiple players per side, and that was, for me, a requirement in my rules. So I put them aside.
That's why I didn't chose SK.
Now why did I choose Mein Panzer? My selection criteria were about the same as I described for SK. I don't know if MP is better than SK on some of these issues, because I haven't played SK. But SK would not have managed the scaling, and that is done very well by MP.
MP has a very interesting game turn mechanism, that really works well for keeping multiple players involved all the time. It is reasonably fast-play -- OK this one is a hard one for me because I just LOVE all the details, but in reality you just can't game a company + each if your rules worked at an "all the details" level. MP has a nice balance of details vs. playability. Is it the best? IDK, but it's balanced enough to play pretty fast and still give me a rewarding feel that I'm learning how Pz IIIs would have to fight to win vs. T-34s.
I really like the infantry combat in MP. Really. Infantry combat has a feel, some characteristics, that makes infantry something other than slow, fragile, weak tanks. Infantry formations are HARD to kill. They take casualties, and they fall back, but they don't disappear. And when they fall back, it's usually because you, the gamer, pull them back. You pull them back because you just can't stand up to the firepower you are taking. You feel the pressure, and eventually you give in to the pressure and pull them back to the next covered position, hoping to get them back ahead of the enemy's advance, so they get a few moments to recover their wits before they have to fight again. This is SO different from pulling them back because you got some die role on a table with 23 modifiers told you you had to pull them back.
Artillery is fast and interesting. How it occurs within the game turn sequence rewards the thoughtful approach.
Almost everything in MP starts with troop quality. I like that. If your troop quality is better, it's a little easier to spot the enemy, to hit your target, to survive being hit, to call artillery, to have the artillery be on target, to perform engineering tasks, to remove suppression, etc. etc. Not a lot easier, just a little easier. But across several platoons of your force, and across all the things you want your troops to do during a battle, it makes a difference. Better troops get better results.
The rules are scalable to greater depth and detail, too. The core rules are pretty straight-forward. But there are MANY detailed expansions. So you can make the rules more complex if you'd like. I tend to stick mostly to the core rules.
The commercial terms aren't too bad either. Yes you'll want the full rulebook and WW2 equipment handbook (if you're doing WW2). That sets you back a few bucks. But then you get access to download a bunch of freeby stuff (extra game tokens, scenarios, optional rules, etc.) and you get free updates. The ODGW forums are adequate for questions to the rules authors, and among users. (Although not nearly to the level of TMP in terms of daily interactions.)
I also play JagdPanzer 2 rules, as others in my area had chosen this ruleset (and we provided feedback to the owner of the rules / author of the update as beta testers). These rules also scale to more players for battalion-sized games, and are reasonably fast play as well. But they don't have the innovation in the game turn, or the simple but robust troop quality issues that MP does so well. So while I'm happy playing JP, if I get to chose the rules I go with MP.
Just my thoughts. Your tankage may vary.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
examines another pre-painted building for WWII.
