| Whirlwind ||31 Dec 2015 12:29 p.m. PST|
Since I have been using them quite a bit recently, here is a review of the old, and now free, WRG 1925-1950 rules aimed at company-level actions: link
|Pan Marek||31 Dec 2015 12:42 p.m. PST|
Nice review. Have you played WRG's "moderns" set? If so,are they fundamentally similar?
| Whirlwind ||31 Dec 2015 12:49 p.m. PST|
Thanks. I'm afraid I have never played the "Moderns" set link I may give it a go one day.
|Old Smokie||31 Dec 2015 1:24 p.m. PST|
are the QRS sheets available in black and white
|HidaSeku||31 Dec 2015 2:15 p.m. PST|
That's a nice review, Whirlwind. Makes me want to give the WRG 1925-1950 rules a try!
|sebastien||31 Dec 2015 2:37 p.m. PST|
Thanks for a very helpful review! I have a copy somehwere and might give them another go!
|Trierarch||31 Dec 2015 2:50 p.m. PST|
The original moderns set – 1950-75 – were very similar to this set, same alternate shoot/move sequence, same deterministic spotting, etc. It did differentiate infantry a little more and that could be ported back to the WW2 set if one felt the need.
The later modern set – 1950-85 – used probabalistic spotting and a quite different player turn sequence, though still alternate play. The artillery and air systems were more complex/sophisticated as well.
WRG's most recent modern set – 1950-2000 (I think) is very much the same as the newer 1925-50 set with a plethora of modes and deterministic morale.
|Winston Smith||31 Dec 2015 3:03 p.m. PST|
Sounds like troops based for Flsmes of War can be used with little trouble.
|Weasel||31 Dec 2015 3:18 p.m. PST|
Winston – yeah, without much problem.
It's a solid set, though infantry will either crawl or tanks will all be point blank. They took distances in a pretty realistic sense.
Well worth checking out at least.
|Veteran Cosmic Rocker||01 Jan 2016 3:36 a.m. PST|
Nice review – my very first wargame was with these rules…WW2 Germans v Brits (Airfix), mid 70s and against my Uncle. Happy, happy days.
|Doug em4miniatures||01 Jan 2016 4:10 a.m. PST|
We played massive battles with these in the seventies (Market Garden fought over 4 tables in different rooms, Battle of the Bulge – also multi-table, D-Day etc etc). These were in 1/300 scale and we didn't use the morale rules – such issues were left to the umpires to rule on. Fantastic games and the rules (only intended for company level) held up very well.
|alexjones||01 Jan 2016 1:07 p.m. PST|
I played these a few years back and really enjoyed them. Haven't played since though.
Supposing I have 3 bases of 3 figures and 1 base of a single figure to represent a platoon. Would that be 10 dice rolls when firing? I would be playing at 1/72 scale.
Just thinking how I can get my crossfire based figures working for a game of this set?
|ubercommando||02 Jan 2016 2:18 p.m. PST|
I never liked the way it treated infantry, which were largely ineffective. The rules were written by tankies, and it shows.
Still, with a bit of modification, it could still work. I think the armoured combat rules were simple, but good and the A-E armour ratings were a good feature which was simple to understand and use, and it had the bonus of everyone using those rules being able to rate the armour of vehicles not listed in the book themselves.
|Weasel||04 Jan 2016 6:15 p.m. PST|
I sort of think they were written for battles just using tanks :-)
I do like the "break points" in weapon ranges.
Within X range, you kill, within Y range, its a 4+, etc.
Nice and simple.
|blankfrank||05 Jan 2016 7:01 a.m. PST|
Here in the UK they were played to death at the then National Wargames convention. In the games some unsavory gamey practices seemed to evolve. I remember once two players got through to the finals by only fielding observer elements as their off table artillery assets were so strong. What happened next? They shook hands and agreed a draw before the game. This was not a fault of the rules but the army lists and victory conditions put out by the organisers.
Anyhow they are a solid set of rules were I to 6mm I would still use. However as folks have pointed out infantry having only a 50mm move means they are very static in game terms.
The follow up set was far too complicated with its various combat and tactical modes. Uncle Phil has since written a new called 'Arrows and Goose eggs' these use the platoon as the basic unit of resolution and very simple ….. I doubt these will ever be printed….
|ubercommando||05 Jan 2016 1:03 p.m. PST|
Ah, the 2nd edition. I liked the idea of the tactical modes, but in practice they were very clunky and didn't achieve what I thought they set out to do. Some modes seemed irrelevant and a couple seemed to replicate each other. A contemporary rules set, TAC, did tactical modes a lot better.
I know the rules in both editions said they were suitable for miniatures from 6mm to 20mm but there's a definite bias towards 6mm and mostly armoured combat. There are many concepts in the rules which I think are good and I have been experimenting with making them better for 20mm and for use with infantry.
Also, it should be noted that it had a points system even back in the 1970s. The 2nd edition even had a way of generating the number of points each player could use based on what combat mode they chose.
| Whirlwind ||08 Jan 2016 11:12 a.m. PST|
I never liked the way it treated infantry, which were largely ineffective.
How much more effective do you think they should be? I'm not averse to trying out a few mods on these rules although I sometimes think that infantry can be made too effective in modern rules. And I like their invisibility in these rules!