"Does Anyone Ever Get Sick of the Churn?" Topic

My kids are now of age to enjoy skirmish WW2 wargaming so I am breaking out my old favourite Battleground WW2 and rediscovering how much I love this game. I looked for some old discussion on BGWW2 here on the TMP forums and found only a small number of old posts from the early 2000's when the game's publisher Easy Eight had gone defunct. Most of the posts are recommending players switch to the "latest, greatest!" game instead, games which are lauded (in these twenty year old posts) as "much more realistic!" and better in all ways than BGWW2… games like "Arc of Fire" or "Baptism of Fire" or "Face of Battle."

I'll wait for the laughter to die down…

Of course, all of those games are long gone themselves, dead as a doornail! And for what? Why do we keep recommending the latest thing when we know it too will one day die a lonely, forgotten death? I see the thread celebrating Bolt Action 3rd Edition… twenty years from now (if TMP is still a thing then), future readers will have their own laugh because Bolt Action will be long gone by then.

So is anyone sick of the churn? Does anyone get sick of recommendations to constantly buy buy buy the latest rulebook? When is a game a Classic, good for all time, like Battleground WW2 so clearly is in my eye? When is enough enough? Why dont we recommend players look backwards to older rulesets (rulesets that are actually finished, complete and 100% supported in their final form) rather than newly released rulesets that will not have all of their supplements, errata and support complete until several years from now (when they themselves are on their last leg)?

Does anyone ever get sick of the churn? Why don't wargamers calm down and just play some great games instead of worrying about jumping on the latest fashion and wasting their money?

Oh shiney…..

LOOK A SQUIRRL!!

I think the question you are asking could also be applied to lead piles……

I also think it has to do with the quest for the perfect rules. It least that is what applies to me….

Dave

Ps….yes, I'm sick of the churn too, but I have no answer…

I see the Churn but don't participate.

I don't have to play along. Honestly, it takes time away from me having fun with friends, or – like you mentioned – playing games with my kids. (grandkids, in my case)

I agree with Dentatus: churn is optional. Clearly some people enjoy it, but I am not one of them. If you avoid long rules and weird basing, there are generally plenty of options.

I read through new rules from time to time, but don't feel the urge to move up the East Side or anything. I usually just "borrow" an idea or two and go back to my tried and true rules from the 70's or 80's.

Agree – I pretty much stick to what I like – takes a lot to get this old dog to change rule sets (although it does happen time to time)

I'm in agreement. Our local club has members that want to try just about all the new rules that come out. I say find a set of rules that the club enjoys and modify them if necessary.

My copy of TRACTICS seems to work fine

Yes and no. On the one hand I'm one of those people who likes the familiar, and hates change, it takes me a while to get used to new things. Having said that I have to ask the question. How stagnant would the hobby be if nothing new ever came along? Not everything old is replaced by better but at the same time plenty of older rules (and miniatures) have been improved on over the years.

I still use the WW2 rules I had in the 1980s 😀

I've seen guys dump all of their FOW stuff because they didn't want to go from 3 to 4 or, maybe, 4 to 5.

Bolt Action has been arond 12 years, so it may very well be around 20 years from now.

Wings of War is 20 years old. It revitalized WWI air gamimg, and it is still going strong as Wings of Glory.

I play Old West with a 30 year old set of rules.

The Sword and the Flame is 45 years old and still has plenty of fans. It was 'the latest thing' at one point in time. You never know what is going to have staying power.

I don't participate in the churn, but I don't see the need to. Some players are always looking for something better, so they will continue to buy whatever new set is published, especially if they aren't satisfied with old rule sets. Old does not equal good and new does not equal bad. Rules are like icecream flavors -- there is a reason there are more choices than just vanilla or chocolate.

Arc of Fire is still my preferred skirmish set followed by Force on Force and then NUTS. I don't bother with the latest publications.

I still use DBA 2, never thought of getting #3.

The churn is literally GW's business model.

And to be fair, many other game publishers do something similar.

But no one has a gun to your head either. So……

AM,
Agree with you and what others have said. Agree churn is a business model. There are a limited number of players and once they buy your rules what do you do? You need more product.
Plus people enjoy new things, part of the " shiny syndrome".
People don't watch old movies they want new
Again, as others have said you don't have to participate which sounds like most of us don't.
Great question. Enjoy the games with your kids. I can still get my son to play SAGA sometimes. It is just busy when he is home.

I don't participate in the churn, but I do like to try new things from time to time. It partly depends what your regular gaming group likes to do.

It is a hobby, not a job, Noone forces us to upgrade (or to no upgrade).

I think it is part of the Hobby. Some people like to collect new rule sets. They want to try new things. Not me, I find I rule set I like I stick with it. But to each their own.

What churn. I use Command Decision, Volley and Bayonet, Ancient Glory, Pulp Alley, and Men Under Fire. That's it. And that's all there will ever be.

Rich, those are some very good rule sets! I understand that completely. I have sets that are decades old that I still use. Generally, I look at something new if it is an upgrade or fits a gap that I have. Or somebody else runs it and I really enjoy the rule set. I'm open to new things but I am not much for the shiny just because it's shiny!

Thanks,

John

You know, for maybe the first 5-6 years of my retirement, my regular opponent and I played a different game every year. As many times and as many different battles as his schedule permitted, but only one rules system per year. I'd see what I had for castings, use common basing systems and then look around for rules on hand or free downloads. Neither of us cared what the current hot rules were. We often tweaked them a bit, but I think I only worked from scratch once, and that was because all the choices were too long, not because I couldn't find any. (The system never failed, but eventually the opponent wore out.)

When you completely ignore wargame fashions, a whole new world opens up.

But I think there are two or three reasons for churn. One, of course, is commercial--worst when the company making rules also makes figures, because the new rules will always require/encourage rebuilding armies. Another is length. The longer a set is, the more likely there is to be some slippage between how things are done on page 17 and page 35, or some other opening for cheap tricks. So the commercial set tends to be revised to fix those gaps--and in the process make fresh ones. Sadly, the third is the number of wargamers who value something new over something known to work. You can fix the first two with relatively simple play-tested rules. I don't think there's a cure for the third.

" The churn is literally GW's business model.
And to be fair, many other game publishers do something similar.
But no one has a gun to your head either. So……"

Battlefront, Warlord, WRG, DBA…
Unless you're doing tournament gaming, what's the issue?

Here's a fake Chinese "Confucius say" saying:
"This is good because it is old. While this is better because it is new."

There are so many games out there with 3rd Edition, or 2.4 or whatever for one simple reason. Or two…
The initial print run has run out. It doesn't make sense to do another one, unless you can force the previous customer to pay again. That was WRG's model for years with "WRG Ancients", DBA, DBM, etc.
In the case of GE, it's because all of the models for V-n have been made and it's time to make another version to start the new sales cycle. How many times have you seen a unit get dropped for the latest "codex"?

Find what you like and stick with it. Modify or tweak to heart's content.
Forget the stupid concept of "dated" or "not supported". You want to game the Japanese invasion of Luzon in 1941-2, but Flames of War never issued a Codex for it? Aren't you an intelligent gamer? You have enough other material to "make do". Why can't you?

I have at least six different sets of ACW rules…
I still play the oldest one "Rally Round The Flag".

I have 4 sets of Modern Armor rules.
I still play "Close and Destroy".

I didn't buy the latest version of AK-47 Republic. I still play the older one.

I currently have three sets of colonial rules but play none because I'm waiting for the updated TSATF.

I have numerous WW2 Rules including BGWW2, but don't play them as no one here plays WW2…except for FOW…

Self admitted rules junkie (OMG do I have a problem…). I guess I am searching for the holy grail. But my interests are in skirmish (1:1) or at the very most platoon level. I have a ton of WW2 skirmish rulesets.

I think that there is also an element of oneupmanship in the whole thing. "Look at me, I've got all the best shiny new toys!". It reminds me a bit of this local council ceo here who would speak at every conference about the latest wonderful new management tool or system that he had adopted for his council, while implying, none too subtlety, that everyone else was an idiot for not rushing to adopt it too. After a few years of that, people were openly laughing at him.

Here is the new boss, same as the old boss.

Wolfhag

I am playing our rules (which are published) for 16 years, we even updated them (note Issue 2) not a new version this year. The issue 2 includes some better writing and presentation compared to Issue 1 but no significant changes from Issue 1. So rules can have a decent life.

I do read reviews of new rules I even steal a view if someone has a copy. Most to me are no improvement, more Gimmick and fashion than improvement. However I dream of a new set, better, faster and more accurate from today's but that is not the trend nowadays, Gimmicks and over simplification over fidelity. So like others I watch in disbelief at the Churn, but over me it has no hold.

Much as I am no lover of the game, I believe Rapid Fire is largely unchanged and is still in print and it's quite old I think, so not all fall to the Churn.

I'm an old fart gamer as well, but here's a counter question.

I'd guess that most of us in this thread are grognards who own those older rules because we got them when they were new… how do noobs get those 30 year old rules you'll clutch when they bury you?

Sure, TSATF keeps reprinting, but how many others that are called out in this discussion?

"But I am not dead yet!"

ARC of FIRE is not dead, long from it. It is still in print and sold by vendors.

Cheers
Scott😀

People don't watch old movies they want new

Apparently they do watch old movies. By far the greatest watches on streaming services are old stuff. And judging by Hollywood viewing figures they don't watch most of the new movies, not they I blame them most of them are dire!
The main problem with OOP rules is introducing new players. You can put on a great game which everyone enjoys then comes the question "Where can I get the rules?"

One, of course, is commercial--worst when the company making rules also makes figures, because the new rules will always require/encourage rebuilding armies.

Of course the GW way. Can't understand why people invest in it when you get vids on YouTube like "I spent 3 years making and painting this army and now I can't use it." It also sounds a pretty toxic environment.

Fred,
I don't know about you but anytime I make a suggestion of an old movie to someone younger than 35 yo they probably won't watch it on their own. My kids, nieces, nephews and students want "modern, new" stuff. Maybe I am unique here. I don't have the streaming data to see the demographics. I could be wrong and your experience may be different.
Sgt p. Your right many of the old rulesets aren't around but there are some. Battlefront WW II and arc of fire for example. I just think newcomers to the hobby want newer stuff. As you said, they were newer when we started playing them!

In answer to your question, Sgt Paper--well, of course there are "aftermarket" copies, and one hears rumors of photocopies, word documents and pdfs of long-dead rules. But my understanding of American copyright law is that one copy is always permitted for scholarly purposes--"scholar" being nowhere defined. (And a good thing too, when you consider some of our professorate.) But also damages max out at lost potential revenue. Hard to imagine someone who concluded the rules weren't worth reprinting trying to collect enough to pay a lawyer.

I think if you find even a regular player, let alone a group, getting a copy of the rules shouldn't be a major obstacle.

That said, I've long suggested that HMGS ought to set a formula based on popularity and longevity. If a set of rules has been used for, say, up to five games in any one convention over a period of 10 years (not sponsored by the publisher) or up to 10 games over five years, HMGS should offer to buy the copyright if the rules go out of print, then not enforce the copyright. We've spent more money on worse ideas.

I'd also like to note that if you keep your basing sane--that is, either mounting each individual figure, or basing to a common frontage or fraction thereof, as in "infantry and cavalry bases are 60mm wide; artillery are 30mm"--lots and lots of rules are available to you. The guys who get really stuck have followed some quirky basing system or very precise OOB (with copyrighted figures) down a rabbit hole.

Does anyone get sick of recommendations to constantly buy buy buy the latest rulebook?

I suspect there are two drivers for new rules, the first is that sometimes game system fashions change so much, older rules may become unplayable. This is less of an issue for WW2 or Cold War, but is a big issue for ancients. A good example was the move from simultaneous movement to sequential movement in a sequence of play, or the use of umpires to no umpires, or the use of orders and reaction tests to the use of command points, or other simple command rules.
The 2nd issue is supporting material. These days' players want a set of rules to also have an extensive army list, equipment list, scenarios and other game aids. This was less of an issue in the 1970-1990's, but is critical today. Saying that rules such as Spearhead maintains is position because players across the world create a lot of the supporting material you need.
However, saying all of that, the rules I most commonly use for ancients, Napoleonic's, WW2 and Cold war were all initially published in the 1970's to 1980's. However to achieve this I have had to spend a lot of time and effort creating supporting material. I do this because I liked the simplicity and playability of those older rules and never found anything better, although I have found other rules as good.

Maybe someday someone will develop an intuitive "Universal" type game system. Otherwise, the churn is here to stay with larger game publishing companies. It's a necessary part of their business model. Publish or Die.

Wolfhag

I would prefere such publishers to fail utterly, they are a hinedrance to the hobby not a gain. That is the bit I dislike ambout moderen "busisness rules" they are not optimised for the player thay are optimised for giving the worst value to the customer they can get away with. This is not neccessary, Battletech has managed an open and resonavble association for many years witjhout the negativity of many "business" annti wargameing enterties.

Interestingly nobody save me has even hinted that new rould could (generally they are worse) but they could be better. I guess rules ar not now now acta of dedication as in the 80's but written soley to make monney from figures and overproduced rules. I still trawl the adds for somthing better but have not fouldn anything beytter. I guess the longet lasting rules have some genuine lasting appeal.

Funny I thought support material was real history! That seems to stay in print no problem.

We do produce army lists but you don't need them you can create the spects from real data. |really all rules should be like that.

We are fortuinate nowadays, with the rise of 3D printing we are completely independant of the "Grubby" end of our hobby. This will let the passionate writers improve rules not churn out indiffrent rubbish just to get money.

UshCha,
For the most part, business rules are optimized for their investors, not the consumers. Investors will put their money into a successful business and pull it out of failing companies. Nothing is going to change that. No one is forcing people to buy their products.

Investors will pump more money into the company if people keep buying the products. If people stopped buying products from companies you despise, maybe something would change. There does not seem to be much of a demand for what you desire.

Don't blame the company, blame the consumers and the demand.

From my observation, it appears players like playing the non-historical "game mechanics" and a balanced game as opposed to real historical tactics (unit activations are not historic) and unbalanced historical scenarios which are more "gamey" than historical. Evidently, the visuals make up for it.

Boardgame players will play unbalanced historical scenarios where one side has an almost 100% chance of losing. I rarely see that in miniature games.

Ideally, a set of game rules would allow a military vet to be familiar with the terminology and game mechanics and come up to speed quickly with a minimum of memorization and use the same tactics as he did in the military.

Unfortunately, a 14-year-old who has been playing a set of rules for over a year will beat the pants off a real military vet with combat experience. I've seen it happen many times.

Wolfhag

+1 Murphy! Glad to hear there are still some other "Rally…" fans out there.

Wolfhag, we do that, use much real terminology and require real world tactics to win. But such things don't generally appeal to the 4 games a year type who have no real interest in the period and tactics and most especially the 14 year old only interested in winning by throwing die. They also tend to have a pathological hate of thinking, not good for a game that requires thought. Mind you we do escape having to play that sort of teenager so it's for a win..

Wolfhag,
Have you really seen that? Sad. Do you remember the rules?

Joe

Joe,
IIRC it was a FOW game where a father and son (14) had been playing the game for quite a while and knew all of the special rules. The military guy had to learn a game system that was completely unfamiliar to him.

Even Squad Leader has some of the same issues. I spent some time as a squad leader and when I opened the game I was surprised there was no historical squad TO&E or a squad leader counter.

Evidently, John Hill had a different approach. A game does not have to meet my expectations to be successful.

The Italian guy Alessio Cavatore, who helped Priestly design Bolt Action somewhat bragged on a video he knew nothing about WWII tactics. However, he did a great job porting a successful system from WH40K into a WWII game. Osprey has done a great job at supporting it.

Warlord Games have been at Connections held at the US Army War College a few times and I didn't see any military or civilians interested in playing their game. But then most attendees were boardgamers and not miniature players.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, we do that, use much real terminology and require real world tactics to win. But such things don't generally appeal to the 4 games a year type who have no real interest in the period and tactics and most especially the 14 year old only interested in winning by throwing die. They also tend to have a pathological hate of thinking, not good for a game that requires thought. Mind you we do escape having to play that sort of teenager so it's for a win..

When I first designed my game I was faithful to the terminology in the manuals. I quickly found out that unless you were an experienced tank crewman it was a steep learning curve even though the overall system was very playable. Tank crewman knew exactly what I was talking about.

I had to change the overall design nomenclature and data cards so new players could make the same decisions and get the same outcome in the "civilianized" version.

I did run a game at a convention that was a tank-infantry engagement in a town (28mm). A 14-year-old with no wargaming experience signed up. He had played tank video game so I explained to him my game is like a video game where actions like turret traverse and aiming take time. Rather than real time think of the game stopping every second so you can make a decision or change your order. As soon as you shoot, determine how long it will take to shoot again or move.

His German tank hunting team knocked out an American tank because the infantry escort was not watching their rear and he waited until they moved past him for a rear shot from a Panzerfaust. Now the Americans started pounding every building as they advanced down the street, slowing them down. This gave the kid time to redeploy to a building on the corner and hit them again as the tank turned to go down the street. We were using those new 28mm buildings that you can hide troops inside.

The other players were old-timers used to IGYG and unit activations and had a hard time coming up to speed on a new system or thinking ahead. Their tactics were very poor too.

There are players of all ages interested in just throwing dice to blow things up and there always will be. They don't do well in my system. After you execute an order, you immediately, during the same turn, determine your next order, and how many turns it will take to execute it and record it. Then you need to pay attention because when the turn for your next order is announced you must announce your intention to pause the game to execute your order and determine the next one. Many experienced IGYG gamers sit and wait for their next turn rather than doing what any crew would do which is immediately issue your next move or shoot order.

We had a guy that had a bad attitude and was on his phone most of the time. When his turn to shoot was announced he missed it. A few turns later he was notified he was being shot at and realized missed his turn to shoot. I told him too bad but if you survive this shot you can immediately return fire at the target. He didn't and then told me how much the game sucked. I just smiled. You can't please everyone.

Wolfhag

"You can't please everyone" noe shopuld you. Clearly the 14 year old had a brain and knew how to usue it. I too have met diyed in the wool "wargamers" so imbued with the "Traditional" wargame where real wold tacyics were even directly forbidden. They are really bad "You must shhot at the nearest target regarlesss, with wepons" rule does not exsist in the real wolrd, often the opposite applys. Weapons that cannot use real worldd tactics as there range and accuracy are as far as I can see deliberately, corrupted to ensure a brian free game.
Now each to thir own, if thats what you want then you are welcome to it but don't darken my doors with your lack of even my VERY limited inderstanding of real warfare.

As for the ignorant souls, I am less tolerant, if you don't pay attantion having been told onece you are asked to leave. Ruining other folks pleasue is not to be tolerated.

Wolf,
With FOW I see that as well as bolt action. So sad. SL isn't as bad but ASL certainly moved in the wrong direction a lack of chain of command always bothered me about SL though
Great story about your game.
UC,
Firing at the nearest target might not be in the manual but it IS in human behavior. Only overcome by a lot of training. Not everything works like it says in the manual when the shooting starts.

Joe

Not everything works like it says in the manual when the shooting starts.

Of course not. But you train according to the manual. When the SHTF and chaos ensure good troops fall back on their training and drills and don't need to be activated or ordered. Poor troops panic because they don't know what to do. Even lower-level troops can take charge.

During the VN war era, we trained and drilled for patrolling, ambush combat, and fire & maneuver. If need be, the PFC walking point could decide to halt, withdraw, or signal for a hasty ambush when making contact. You don't always have the time to do everything by the book.

Regarding firing at the the nearest target: Normally an engagement starts with one side having the initiative to shoot first. It's only natural to react and shoot back. Once you hit the ground and return fire, your situational awareness of your surroundings and enemy intention is greatly reduced.

The Squad Leader ideally does not engage in combat because he's looking around and ensuring each team is covering their frontage of the target or ordering one of his teams to maneuver and flank the enemy. You don't get to shoot at whatever you want. If a target is closer to you and is not firing you probably would not detect it.

It's difficult for a Squad Leader in the middle of combat to move around to all three of his Team Leaders (covering a frontage of 20m-40m) to get them to engage a new threat and then get the other members of the team to spot and engage, but there are exceptions and a Team Leader could make the call for his team if need be. I think this is why you see so many combat AARs of unit leaders acting on their own out of desperation. They just don't have time to communicate and coordinate. I allow that to happen in my rules too.

If all of a sudden you are getting assaulted at close range on your flanks guys that are now threatened will naturally take action with their survival instincts kicking in without being ordered to survive.

In my system, when two units are engaged in a firefight they are "locked" into shooting at each other. If a new threat appears, they take a Situational Awareness Check (rule replaces reactions and spotting) to engage the new threat.

However, being in a firefight is a level of suppression that increases the amount of time (it's a Time Competitive game) to observe/react, shoot, move, and communicate which I think accurately reflects the Friction in combat because everything takes longer when under fire. If you take too long to respond to an assault they will get to you first.

From my personal experience, in woods or a jungle, when you are taking cover and firing back with the noise, dust, and sweat burning your eyes and your helmet (we had the WWII ones) sliding over your face it's all you can do to fire in the direction of the enemy and hope for the best. Just trying to look through your rear peep sight on an M16 to aim for is difficult. In a long-range firefight in open terrain, you have better SA, better cover, and suffer less suppressive effects which means quicker reactions.

By the way, did I send you the link to the Zoom presentation my son and I did for Origins about combat and tactics in Ukraine? Two weeks ago he did a 3.5-hour talk at Quantico to all of the military branches and intel on combat tactics, drone operations, and EW warfare in Ukraine. He was there for 18 months mostly in the Kharkov AO.

As for the ignorant souls, I am less tolerant,

I agree. However, when running a game at a convention where people are paying you need to be polite and entertain them.

Wolfhag

When I first designed my game I was faithful to the terminology in the manuals. I quickly found out that unless you were an experienced tank crewman it was a steep learning curve even though the overall system was very playable. Tank crewman knew exactly what I was talking about.

Always a problem when you are dealing with a technical subject which inevitably has it is own language and abbreviations which are impenetrable to someone on the outside.

@Wolfhag. While military experience can be a help in writing Wargames rules it is not a guarantee of success. Quite the worst set of rules I ever saw were written by ex military, who shall remain nameless. The rules unfortunately were a mish mash of bits cribbed from other sets and put together in such as way that they didn't really gel together to produce a playable game. The authors compounded their error by stating in the forward that if you wished to comment on the rules please state your military rank and experience. Puts me in mind of the saying "You don't have to be a master carpenter to complain that the table wobbles!"

Wolf,
Agree with all. I have recently switched to units firing at an area rather than a specific target for the reasons you mention. Through leadership/luck or calming they can start to fire at specific targets.
No I never saw the presentation; just you all were going to do it. Would love to see it. Email me.
Fred, good one. : )

Fred,
Always a problem when you are dealing with a technical subject that inevitably has it is own language and abbreviations which are impenetrable to someone on the outside.

Yes, but we are playing "historical" games, aren't we? So unfortunately, you need to design a game down to the lowest common denominator or players will have a steep learning curve, something you don't want at a convention with first-time players. If not, you can limit the number of players that will play.

While military experience can be a help in writing Wargames rules it is not a guarantee of success.

I agree. If you have a good amount of military knowledge and experience and you use the same rules and mechanics as used in the past by non-military experienced designers like John Hill, Dana Lombardy, Frank Chadwick, and the Warlord Games group your design will add to the "churn."

How would you measure success?

"You don't have to be a master carpenter to complain that the table wobbles!"

But it helps to know why it wobbles if you want to fix it.

So why is there a churn? My opinion is that everyone is using the same rules and mechanics in a slightly different manner based on what they perceive combat to be and what is important. Most of these were developed in the last millennium.

Add to that the designer attempting to make the system fair and balanced of which combat is not. A Russian IS-2 gun takes 25-30 seconds to reload. During that time a German tank can fire 3-4 rounds. Is that fair? Of course not. However, in most games, they both fire once per turn which makes it fair and balanced but unhistorical. Design an unfair game and limit the number of people who want to play or will pay.

Maybe that's the reason the Russian command told IS-2s to stay out of tank-tank combat.

Remember, this is a hobby and we are playing a game. With miniatures, the visuals mostly create the "realism." It seems to me that a large % of players want a system that is highly abstracted, fair & balanced, and simple to play with their toys and take pictures of their work while in the company of friends. There is nothing wrong with that. I think the commercial game publishers understand that very well. That's why 25%-30% of their rule book contains close-up color photos.

Wolfhag

So, I don't write rules for convention games, that is something that does bot occour in any significant way in the UK. So instant pick up by players is not covered or desired.

Our game are definitely written for the interested, not just for the "I fancy painting something new brigade" a definitely diffrent emphasis.

In out rules if there is a big diffrence in reloading time, typicaly, to 25 to 30 seccompatrd to 7 sec, would mean we msy need to have a reloading time. It' a compromise but thats always the case.

Shooting at the nearest, I proably should have qualified. In our set it would be rare that infantry would not shoot at the nearest unless on fixed line or area fire. However in the tank/anti tank role selecting a more distant target for a flank shot where a frontal shot would be unlikely to penetrae is valid, despite the stupidity of some "Classic" rules. Words to this effect were even in the early M1 tank platoon manual.

Interesyting, none of our small group take photos during th game. It would be frowned on, stopping a basball game while the players were in a match would be as absurd, at least to us.

This never happens in competition wargames. You might say in some ways we are closer to the wargames competitor approach, though not playing for the title.