vicvolta queried:
Surfing the web trying to find a rule system that works best with my particular demands is'nt so easy.
I hope I'm not wondering too far off topic, but have you narrowed your search down to those two candidates for any particular reason?
Different rules have different emphasis. Over the years I have bought and played at least a dozen microarmor rulesets. Some were really poor. Others were quite good -- for what they emphasized. But that may not have been what I wanted to emphasize.
From the two you have listed, I am quessing that you have already determined you want to go with a 1-to-1 unit scale. Is that correct?
Do you want to emphasize fast-paced armor-vs-armor, or are you hoping to game with more balanced ("realistic") mixed-forces, or are you hoping to emphasize infantry action?
Do you want to play at a company level, or a battalion level? Do you want multiple players per side, or only one or two?
Do you like to emphasize the detailed performance of sub-varient vehicles, and model detailed aspects of gunfire, penetration, and damage? Or do you want to emphasize command/control, decision-processes, or unit morale?
Any of these will affect which rules you may like. Most rules at least touch on all of these issues, but clearly emphasize one or two of these issues over others.
I have not played the Schwere Kompanie rules, but I do own them and have read through them. The rules I have (I think its v.9) looked pretty good. I would characterize them as rules optimized for platoon to company -level forces, and few players per side. There is an emphasis on the fluidity of combat operations, the sequence in which events are likely to unfold (and so how the game flow occurs) that I found interesting.
I would not recommend them for doing regimental-engagement scenarios, where multiple players per side are pushing re-inforced battalions.
Troy Ritter (of this forum) can give you more details, but those are my independant impressions, offered with the caveat that I have read, but not played, the rules.
Another set of rules that address this same company-level is Panzer War, by Mobius (of this forum). His rules also best address a company, or less, per player. Maybe only a re-inforced platoon for the first few games. I have played it many times, and my primary regret is that I didn't have the discipline to keep my forces small enough to keep the games fluid.
Panzer War is rather remarkable in the level of detail it models for the firefight portions of any engagement. I am an avowed minutia-buff on tanks, and I very much enjoyed the exceptional level of research provided, as well as the gaming results of taking a shot knowing that I have some chace to penetrate the mantlet, but not the rest of the turret, or I can punch through the lower nose but not the glacis. I have seen several rulesets that sought to address this level of detail, but none that addressed it with as much fluidity, nor that had such high-quality research in its tables.
And its free. Free is good. I like free. Good stuff, for free, I like even more!
There is also Mein Panzer. These are the rules I currently play. So far I like them. By switching to Mein Panzer I have given up the delicious armor and gun-performance details of Panzer War in favor of a set of rules that allow larger formations and engagements. Mein Panzer seems to work reasonably well at the battalion-per-player level, and is particularly well suited to games with many players per side. That is what I was looking.
With the new squad-per-stand infantry rules it seems that these rules really do work well for mixed forces. That's also something I was looking for. Lots of guys like to have huge tank-only slugfests. I'm not one of them. I really do want to have infantry supporting the armor, and even some players with infantry forces, perhaps with some guns in support. Mein Panzer seems to work for that.
I would rank those three rulesets as the best I've 1-to-1 unit-scale games I've seen, and I've seen many. (But not Panzer. Haven't seen, and don't have a view, on that one.)