"Spearhead Rules" Topic

This has been on my mind for some time.

I play WWII at the club I go to and some of the concepts within Spearhead I like.

However, how did the Allies win under this ruleset?

It's got to the point that I won't play the Germans as I like a challenge.

Help please, my therapist says it'll be good for me.

The answer is to play CDIII.....far more realistic than Spearhead. The only thing I like at all about Spearhead is the concept of creating a battle plan and sticking to it, even when stuff goes wrong! However, that isn't totally realistic in the WWII era either. Spearhead's rules that address target priorities are just stupid.... e.g. Infantry is about to overrun your 88mm gun, and there is a tank way behind them...target priorities make you shoot at the tank and let the infantry swarm you....that stinks.

Is that Command Decision 3?

Played a bit of Command Decision, (probably 1st edition), has it got rid of ammo depletion?

Agree with you re creating a battle plan but then you can't change a thing (as the Allies), "Before the battle planning is everything, once it is joined it is useless.)

Is that Command Decision 3?

Played a bit of Command Decision, (probably 1st edition), has it got rid of ammo depletion?

Agree with you re creating a battle plan but then you can't change a thing (as the Allies), "Before the battle planning is everything, once it is joined it is useless."

I think of Spearhead as the 'game that comes after the real game'. The 'real' game in this case is the pre-game planning session. You MUST think things through. Sometimes you must plan for failure too. In my experience, the actual game of Spearhead either validates your plan, or reveals the holes in it. Having said that, I've rarely seem the Allies win and usually seen the Germans crush the opposition. Still, its a fun game for large scale battles.

I too am a long time Command Decision 3 player. I rarely use the ammo rules unless a vehicle will obviously survive long enough that it could expend its ammo load in a game (AT missiles come to mind). Command Decision provides a good level of command a an exciting game.

ARG

I think the Spearhead bits off more than it can chew. CD has its advantages, but gets messy when a player/command gets larger than a Battalion.

Clean up some of the modifiers and Spearhead might get a chance. The few times I've played SH later re-reading of the rules makes me think we did something wrong.

CD at least tries to play fast. CD does not appear to have a built in bias as SH does.

Okay now for the other side....Spearhead causes you to plan your attacks not play them by what you can see. Spearhead doesn't force you to roll for whether you can see something, sighting is deterministic. The combat system and casualties are simple. The rules and charts are simple enough that they can be easily modified, for example the late war Germans and especially the Volksgrenadiers are given too high an ability to change orders. I agree with the target priority vs target proximity rules problem and the simple modification is to make them equivalent... that is a higher priority target has precedence unless a proximity target is nearer. That means that you must shoot the ememy's tank with yours unless his infantry closes, then you can shoot the infantry. The multiple rounds of fire of CD are avoided in Spearhead. Sure some of it's simplified, like the range bands but they also make for a fast realistic game. If you are looking for historical results then either rules set will give it to you. If you are looking for a fun set at the level of 1 stand = a platoon then Spearhead is it.

On the other hand...I can also recommend Battlefront WWII for the lower level of command and Crossfire as another option.
Mike

I will admit that CDIII is a bit too complex sometimes. However, it is a great game once your players have become experienced. Seems that a CDIV might be on the way...it promises to be more playable....can't tell you yet if the balance between playability and realism will be correct. I am curious though.

The Allies win in SH by:

a) having historically accurate amounts of artillery ie a regiment or more per battalion seems to work quite well. It is also a good idea to use British field regiments as six stand 'battalions' as you can handle the large number of guns more efficiently.
b) having a good plan (this is even more important for the Russians of course). Having a good plan means you have thought about the game beforehand, which in itself is a huge advantage to the seats of the pants approach taken by many German players. Pre-planned fire is your friend (I even use this for the Germans as it is guaranteed to arrive).

If you can't come up with a good plan, then be willing to make liberal use of the 'break off' move and keep as many reserves as possible.

CD is more aimed at seats of the pants play, as units have so many command assets they can effectively do what they want every turn anyway (apart from the long suffering Russians of course).

Cheers
Martin

Mr. Rapier is correct here. We regularly play Normandy battles (US vs Wermacht) and we balance the games by allowing the Americans to field significantly larger forces supported by plenty of artillery and "Jabos". I feel this setup does a rather good job of simulating the conflict.

Mike O'Brien has a point when he points out that the rules seem to persume that all Germans are veterans. For example Volksgrenadiers become very resilient since they receive a rather substantial morale bonus from proximity to the BHQ.

Generally I feel that SH gives a good game as long as you are willing to spend some time to contruct sensible scenarios (with accurate maps!) and plot out your strategy beforehand. Just my two cents, of course...

The problem with most WWII rules sets and scenario designs is that air power is rarely factored into the mix in its proper proportion. The air supremacy of the Allied forces in 1944 France is probably the determining factor of the campaign, and yet air power almost is never depicted to its full effect. Most games that I've played never use air power at all!! There is no way to simulate accurately the 1944 Western Campaign with out it. Spearhead has the abstraction of air power with "Jabos" but I'm not convinced that it accurately represents the air superiority of the Allied powers. The game/scenario design should threaten the German player with crushing air power. Not that is will always occur but it should be a major consideration in German decision making.

To add to Mr. Rapier's comments:

Another minor modification you might try is to the artillery response chart. This chart shows the German artillery as equal to US artillery, which it clearly wasn't (example: average time for a German fire mission to be on target = 12 minutes. US = 2 minutes). This reflects a simple-minded belief that the Germans were simply better at everything.

Better would be to make British and US artillery use the first column, and lump the Germans in with the 'average' artillery. Then give, as Martin says, the Allies a realistic amount of artillery. The problem with this is, of course, that lots of artillery can make for a rather dull game.

Many thanks for your comments, this thread is going to be printed out and presented for consideration as house rules.

I am glad to read that others have had "issues" with some of the mechanics and scenario set ups. My paranoia feels a lot better.

To add to my own comments ;).....

I don't bother with the printed numbers for order changes, artillery fire etc but instead assign a C3 rating to individual units (which is essentially their base chance to change orders etc) based on my entirely subjective opinion about their historical performance. Veteran US paratroops are going to get rated a bit better than a bunch of late war Volksgrenadiers...

I also let artillery battalions fire templates for observed fire ie 3"x3" for normal artillery battalions, two 3"x3" templates for British field regiments with six firing stands. This speeds up the resolution of artillery fire no end if using a lot of guns and is also more realistic IMHO. Woe betide players who adopt the 'Napoleonic' deployment so favoured of SH gamers when artillery is firing templates...

Another bit of fiddling its with unit ratings, typically increasing or decreasing attack and defence factors to reflect differences in quality, equipment etc. This means that apart from heavily armed types like Panzergrenadiers, most normal German infantry in 1944 end up with an AI of 4.

Finally I'd adopt CD style organisations for the Russians (2 stand rifle companies) rather than the excessively fat OBs given in the rules.

Cheers
Martin

The major effects of air power are in the logistics and transportation of troops. Most rules SH included are not in that range and air power shouldn't be that almighty. Close air support in ETO WWII was rare, most air ops where in support of major operations on pre-planned targets. Even when it wasn't it's main effect was in immobilizing troops while they waited for the attacks to stop.

Air power rarely destroyed major amounts of tanks, guns, or troops (despite their claims evidence is on the contrary)What air power does is it prevents units from being where they are needed and when they are needed (worse then destroying units IMHO). Artillery was the major killing in WWII.

OK, I'll now add my own comments to my original post, I love the set up, line of attack, planning, of Spearhead. It is good, (honest).

Thank you Martin R, Mserafin, Mike O Brien, fredrik, and Marcus Brutus.

The responses confirm my analysis that it isn't a "bad" set of rules, but the scenarios are unbalanced, thank you.

My therapist will be pleased!

I have also become a real fan of Spearhead, it's a very well balanced and structured set of rules. I have created an overview video of Spearhead. Most balance issues could be resolved by a robust points system and well tested scenarios.

I think Spearhead does what it intended to do – put large numbers of miniatures on the table with the battalion as the maneuver element – well.

The "super German" aspect of the rules has been discussed many times, and there are two basic remedies (which are not mutually exclusive):
1) Design the games such that the Germans are outnumbered (as was often the case historically).
2) Relegate the "super Germans" to their best units, e.g. panzer divisions; make their infantry divisions more like the others when it comes to things like changing orders.