"Taking the Gembloux Gap CoC mini-Campaign: Battle 2" Topic

Please see link for the second battle of the Too Fat Lardies' Gembloux Gap 1940 campaign, as the German 3 Schutzen Regt tries again to take the forward positions of the 110 Infantry Regt, using the 'Farquhar Variant' of the WRG Modern Rules adapted for WW2 and 6mm figures.

Again, what is the "The Farquhar Variant" and where can I find it?

I am so sorry, did you ask before and I missed it? My apologies.

So…WRG released two WW2 battlegroup-level rules: Armour & Infantry 1925-50 (1973) with a second edition (1988); but it released three modern sets: 1950-1975 (1974), 1950-1985 (1979) and 1950-2000 (1993). The 'Farquhar' variant is the 'missing link' in WW2 rules, i.e. the 1979 Modern set reverse-engineered into an equivalent WW2 set. I know same gamers used something like this in the early 80s, with the target acquisition and 'actions' of the 1979 modern set bolted-on to the first edition of the 1925-50 set, although this variant has more to it than that. The rules aren't published yet, although one could ask for a playtest version…more details here: link

Thx!

Any chance I can get a playtest version of the rules?

dalebley@gmail.com

They aren't mine to give but if you read this link it explains how to get hold of a copy.

I've always thought of these WRG editions as being company+ level rules. That's how we played them – and not really for platoon-level skirmishes. (the Lardy scenarios presented are reinforced platoon rosters – the company and parent battalion are awol)

There's so many skirmish-level rules available.

I've always thought of these WRG editions as being company+ level rules. That's how we played them – and not really for platoon-level skirmishes. (the Lardy scenarios presented are reinforced platoon rosters – the company and parent battalion are awol)

The designer notes in the first edition of the WRG 1925-1950 rules recommends starting with an infantry platoon, a bit of heavy weapons support and a tank or two.

Yes, and that quoted sentence does continue – "; get the feel of the rules first, and bring in the other features and enlarge the scope, after a few games."

You'll find on page 1 in the first sentence (January 1975 publication edition) the game level 'recommendation' "this set of rules is equally suitable for combat between infantry companies."

Certainly feel free to play it with a platoon on a side, but unless this "lost" variant adds a ton of new detailing, the rules are still focused on company+ gameplay, and that's probably where playtesting will reveal any new benefits likely gained.

In the meantime, Mike Reese (author of Tractics) spent a good amount of time modifying the WW2 and Moderns WRG sets with a host of gameplay changes and technical corrections. He published these editions in game mags during the 70s & 80s, and also played them with groups here in the Midwest (when I got my copies of these mods). The changes further defined and improved WRG into a highly plausible and playable set, even above their initial elegance, without requiring the size of games to be reduced.

For sure and I will get around to playing it with a reinforced company plus; I have a couple of battalion minus scenarios in the to-do list also.

I don't want anyone to think that I believe these rules are better at the reinforced platoon level; that is just the level I happen to be playing them at going through these Too Fat Lardies' pint-sized campaigns.

Lookin' forward to those scenario reports too Whirlwind.