Micro Armor the Game Rules W.W.II

[BrianH1]

I am dusting off my MATG II rules (squad level, although I have both) to try again. One recollection I have from trying them about 5 years ago was that tanks were not often destroyed by single fire but instead you ended up with a lot with S and a few with D markers. The way to KO tanks was to concentrate fire, so for example 4 or 5 Sherman tanks might all fire on one Panzer IVH in an enemy platoon rather than spread their fire among all the enemy tanks. This concentration of fire does not seem to be historically accurate from what I have read and kind of gives you an attrition like feel to game as tanks accumulate markers. Tank action in rules like Spearhead seems more decisive. Did I misinterpreted the rules and is my opinion unique?

Thanks,
Brian

[dougeagle]

Well, I remember the same thing when I played the GHQ rules. But I also found that sometimes having a Suppressed or Disrupted enemy tank was a good thing. However, having two Sherman tanks fire on one enemy Panzer IV H was good. Why? Well, if you look at the GHQ CRT chart, if you get a Disrupted on the first shot, then another on the second shot, it's classed as Eliminated.
That being said, it's luck of the roll. Even during my Spearhead battles, a Sherman tank firing at a Panzer IV H is at a -1 die roll...so can only Suppress the Panzer on a 6. But the Panzer IV H firing at the Sherman is a +1, so a 5+ is a Kill. Again, it's all luck of the roll.
The way I see it, each game system is unique in their own way.

[BrianH1]

Thanks Doug.

I am not necessarily saying Spearhead is better than MATG, they are designed for different sizes of games. I certainly don't see a problem when the rules system encourages f2 Shermans to fire on one Panzer IVH or Panther, but when it seems to encourage you to fire 4 or 5 Shermans on one at one Panther or Panzer IVH to get a kill that seems a little non-historical. For example if a platoon of 4 Shermans encountered 4 Panzer IVH or Panthers I don't think the Shermans would all target just one of the enemy tanks with AT fire to concentrate their fire (unless one of the German tanks was closer or had its flank exposed)..
That being said I am going to give MATG another try in a couple of months.

[microgeorge]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I've been busy the last few months working on a 3rd edition of WWII Microsquad. I'm making the the Combat Results Table a bit more lethal as well as adding an addtional combat result, a cohesion check. The Movement Phase will now precede the Standard Fire Phase making the Fire/Move posture (now Move/Fire) more useful. I've also removed some rules that were not scale appropriate such as engineers and artillery fire reducing minefields, etc..However, mine clearing tanks will now be included. The airstrike rules have also been overhauled. New weapons have been added as well. There a many other changes that might take the rest of the day to cover. I hope the 3rd edition will cover everything that needs addressing.

[BrianH1]

Thanks George that is great news about the 3rd edition, is that for the main rules or squad or both? .
If I can make a couple of suggestions.

1. The artillery rules seem to be more detailed and less abstracted than the other combat rules, almost like artillery rules for a skirmish or 1 to 1 game. Could the artillery rules be more abstracted to match the level of abstraction as the direct fire rules?

2. These are really good rules and work for larger scales also as a review in Wargames Illustrated pointed out, see https://www.leagueofaugsburg.com/warchest/pdf/43.pdf
A brief section on converting them for use with 15mm or 20mm scale would be a great idea.
Personally I use the rules for 6mm (1/285) and 15mm scale.

Thanks,
Brian

[microgeorge]

Brian,
I definitelythink I need to make the off-board artillery fire more abstract. I want to leave the on board artillery fire as is but I'm open to suggestions on how to simplify that as well. As is, I don't include much artillery when I host convention games since it really slows down play. I'd like to change that. I do play the game with both microamrour and 15mm figures but don't include this option in the rules since GHQ only manufactures microarmour. Thanks for the Wargames Illustrated review.

[microgeorge]

Brian, I 'm only working on the squad level game. The platoon level rules are currently being managed by Lief Edmondson, known as RedLief on this forum.

[BrianH1]

George,

Thanks for the reply. It was mainly the off-board artillery I was thinking of that needed to be more abstract. The writing down of grid references or other methods to record when and where artillery will fall does slow the game down, and unless you have built in girds or allow per-measuring it also favours those who are good at judging / estimating distances on the table. Which is not necessarily the same as rewarding good tactics.

Hopefully you were able to find all 4 parts of the review in the Wargames Illustrated, they are all on the League of Augsberg website. I understand about the 15mm aspect not being in the rules, maybe we can share ideas here on that.

I hope Lief Edmondson sees these messages and what you are doing on version 3 of the Squad level game as I think it would be a good thing to keep as much commonality between the two rule sets as possible. For example if artillery is being abstracted more at the squad level it certainly makes sense that it should at least be abstracted as much if not more for the platoon level MATG rules.

[BrianH1]

Any update on the 3rd Ed. rules?

Also I note that some of the front armour values are different between the squad and platoon level games will they be reconciled?

Thanks,
Brian

[microgeorge]

The 3rd edition of WWII Microsquad has been put on hold for a while.I have volunteered to compete the 2nd edition of Modern Microarmor. Some big changes coming to this set of rules.