GHQ The Game

[jb]

Does anybody here play the GHQ micro Armour game? If so what do you like and dislike about it?
I have the game ,but have not yet really played it. Even though I'm a die hard 1 to 1 scale player, I like the concept it uses.
Please let me know your oppinion.
Thanks,
JB

[dnichols]

I have been playing the GHQ rule system since it's playtesting stage and continue to play at least a couple games a month.

Basically, I like the rule system because it accurately models WWII combat.

Like a real world military formation as it take casualties, has stragglers etc. it becomes more and more difficult to continue the mission and maintain order. This rules system is the only one that I have played that accurately models that battlefield reality.

I love the limited # of orders available each turn. An excellent mental exercise each turn..."I have two orders and 5 units I want to move...hmm, the piority has to be to get those AT guns into positon...but..."

Cohesion. A simple elegant system that with one number models a unit's ability to shoot move and communicate on the battlefield.

Infantry are not just speedbumps with this system. They can be a game in themselves. Some of the best nailbiter games I have played had only a few tanks and were infantry centric.

Those are few of my likes. (There are many more)

Dislikes? Nothing significant...really. I made my own roster sheet in excel for scenarios, same data but with a different layout that I prefer.

Play a few games, and see how quickly they flow and the realistic results. I have introduced the rules to quite a few new players over the years and new players are amazed at how quickly the game moves along.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask there are number of regulars here on the board as well as the designer who will answer questions.

---Daryl

[jb]

I do like the concept of the cohesion rule. It takes into account numerous morale factors. Thats one thing I get rid of in my games -the % loss of a units strength,ruling morale.
Sure when a unit loses a number of combat effectives,it's morale may wane,but I feel a % is a poor choice way of doing it. Random roll is a great way of determining a "morale".
I use a morale roll whenever there is a loss, the more of a loss,the more dice you roll to determine what the losing unit might do. I almost always play on a 1 to 1 scale game,so the loss of one might effect a whole unit. I do need to look into getting something like this "cohesion" role into my game too. Sometimes a unit will "skeedadle" without a loss!
JB

[Luca]

Hi, I mostly play with the WW2 rules of "The Game", but I also own a copy of the modern rules, wich i didn't used for more than 2 years. Today I was looking at the weapons list, and I noticed that the infantry in the modern game, move 4 inch each turn, instead of the 3 inchs of the WW2. Why please? (I'm sure this issue has been explicated yet, but I missed it).

Thanks!

[jb]

Hi, I mostly play with the WW2 rules of "The Game", but I also own a copy of the modern rules, wich i didn't used for more than 2 years. Today I was looking at the weapons list, and I noticed that the infantry in the modern game, move 4 inch each turn, instead of the 3 inchs of the WW2. Why please? (I'm sure this issue has been explicated yet, but I missed it).

Thanks!

Bonjourno Luca,
I'm pretty sure that it has to do with the fact that there were not any energy drinks or Mountain Dew in WWII
But anyways good point,I don't have those rules yet. I feel that 3" (300yds/m)is too much for grunts to move!

[dnichols]

This difference in movement rates for infantry is an intresting question.

Here is the game designers, John Fernandes' take on the question.

"Here's the math. 300 yards per turn for movement equates to 2.55 MPH (Taking an average Cohesion of 15 into account). This is an easy walking pace. Since the average game is about 15 turns long, The movement rate is well within the parameters established by the US military in WWII.

In the Modern Rules the standard Infantry movement rate is 4" per turn. Given an average Cohesion of 15, this equates to 3.37 MPH. This corresponds to Current march rates. I increased the movement rate in the modern rules for a simple reason. Given the fact that MATG games never run longer than 20 turns (1 hour), The 3" movement factor was simply too conservative. Any infantry unit that can't cover just under three and a half miles in an hour is seriously out of shape, especially since this rate assumes a three minute rest period after every nine minutes of marching.

This, of course, assumes the stand moves steadily throughout the game, resting one turn out of every four. This makes the stand an absolutely GREAT target. Advancing by bounds allows a company to advance at the rate of 1.25 MPH.

John F. "

---Daryl

[jb]

All of the above might hold true ,considering different factors.On the same token,take vehicular movement now. I feel that the rate of infantry in a combat environment move too fast (if using 3" and 4") compared with vehicles.
I see that the vehicle rates on the ones I know about are pretty close to an average type of ground to cover in (3 approximate min) a turn. But I feel that the infantry need to be decreased on their speed. Just my ideas on the issue...

I will still play the GHQ game as it is,because those are the rules for the game,and I like everybody to "play on the same sheet of music".
JB

[Rusty]

Hey JB

Well as of yet im to play a game

But i am painting the models though. This is for WW2 mind you, and i will be taking the models to the club once i have got both Germans and UK painted (Africa)

I like the concept of the cohesion rolls, and im normally one for buying the rules that match the minis (In this case GHQ:WW2)

I am trying to get some space at the expo this year to try and get them shown off too, so will have to get back to you on that one.

Will post my thoughts and a review when i have gamed with the rules