GHQ Models Forums

So I'm on duty at my squadron bored to tears and I thought I'd run down a list questions I have about micro armor in general.

1. Why is WW II the most popular era? Its seems like vietnam and modern gamers make up an extremely small percentage overall, atleast on this forum. I'm not complaining, just curious.

2. What is the most widely used rule sets out there for the different eras? Are GHQ's rules the way to go? I notice WW II era has a plethora of rule sets while modern rule sets are few and far between.

3. Whats the best type of wash for desert camo pieces? Black or brown?

4. Does anyone else have issues with scale in regards to infantry when compared to vehicles and especially aircraft when compared to everything else, ie. aircraft seem a bit small and infantry seem a bit big.

5. Modern Gamers, if you where playing a game with guerillas or insurgents how would you go about "hiding" your stands to keep an element of suprise while still keeping the game "fair"? The placing of blank squares of paper just doesn't work for me. You still know that something is there you just don't know what exactly...airstrike anyone?

6. Has anyone ever used helicopters in a scenario to externally transport vehicles or cargo? Heavy and medium lift helos can transport arty and vehicles but the ghq rules seem to only allow for troop stand transport.

7. GHQ's rules for figuring points for getting equipment seem overly complicated, especially when making your own scenario. Is there an easier way to "purchase" stands and still be fairly matched?

Well, I suppose that is it for now. Gotta love a 24 hr post, atleast I have access to a computer.

I'll take a stab at a few of these.

2. What is the most widely used rule sets out there for the different eras? Are GHQ's rules the way to go? I notice WW II era has a plethora of rule sets while modern rule sets are few and far between.

My favorite type of modern wargaming combines conventional forces and guerrilla forces. No single ruleset dominates modern gaming and none really cater to unconventional warfare specifically except for "AK-47 Republic" which takes a very unique/humerous approach to the subject. GHQ's rules include 5 pages of reference charts/tables/lists and a check list for the turn sequence. Maybe it's the presentation but my eyes glaze over when I try to figure it out. I ended up building a homegrown set.

4. Does anyone else have issues with scale in regards to infantry when compared to vehicles and especially aircraft when compared to everything else, ie. aircraft seem a bit small and infantry seem a bit big.

GHQ's infantry is oversized and some gamers dislike this. Since I prefer infantry-focused combined arms games (insurgents usually don't have AFVs!) I actually prefer the oversized figures. I have no idea if the the aircraft are too small scale-wise but even if they are, that's ok by me. For my 15mm WWII collection I use 1/144 scale aircraft instead of 1/100. Smaller aircraft are more stable when perched atop a flight stand.

5. Modern Gamers, if you where playing a game with guerillas or insurgents how would you go about "hiding" your stands to keep an element of suprise while still keeping the game "fair"? The placing of blank squares of paper just doesn't work for me. You still know that something is there you just don't know what exactly...airstrike anyone?

Our modern games are set in Dilbert's Elbonia (at least in the area with less mud!). In my homegrown rules I use 4" x 4" squares to define the tabletop. I place civilian vehicles (from Microform) and civilian counters (cardstock mostly...still painting my GHQ civilian figures), one per urban or road square. These markers are printed on two sides. The top just shows a crowd and the bottom indicates what's present: just a crowd, insurgents, IED, informant, etc.) When a conventional forces stand enters a civilian marker square it's revealed and resolved (eg ambush, boobytrap, informant which allows one to reveal nearby counters, etc.) In most cases insurgents may voluntarily reveal their own troops while in some cases a leader stand must move among the markers and gather his forces together.

Conventional/western forces are not permitted to fire into/through squares with civilian markers. This means that even insurgent stands in full view can maneuver freely among the crowd markers and can't be fired upon. Such squares containing insurgents and civilians may only be "close assaulted" which gives the defending insurgent stand the advantage, at least for the initial encounter. If an insurgent stand fires any civilian maker in its square, the target square, or in between is removed as the civilians flee.

All of this means that the insurgents usually get the first chance to fire and must then break contact or get pummeled with overwhelming firepower. We also include temple squares (Elbonians are Orhtodox Unitarians) which are usually off limits to western forces (local allies can enter these squares and western forces can't fire into them unless they take fire from them...even if an insurgent stand flees into the square after firing!).

The result of all this is that while western/conventional forces have huge firepower advantages this is usually negated (initially) by insurgents using urban terrain as protection. When the shooting begins or if the conventional forces can catch insurgents in close assault then the balance shifts. We've played several games along these lines and it's interesting to see the western players struggle with restrictive ROE and a lack of knowledge of insurgent positions while the insurgents must be very patient in timinig their actions and then willing/able to give up space for time as they try to avoid western firepower. They must also carefully place their boobytraps and ambushes to slow the western advance (my scale is 1 stand = 20-40 men or 2-4 vehicles...boobytrap markers won't eliminate a stand but will put enough "hits" on the stand to pin/suppress it for awhile.)

When insurgents deploy in the countryside such troops are still difficult to locate but still subject to prep fires. I've merged my spotting mechanic with my shooting mechanic so that even if you "see" an insurgent stand in a wooded or rough terrain square (each square is 400m x 400m) if it's not moving or firing (ie "ambushing") it will be very difficult to hit. So, you can prepfire it all you want but odds are you'll be wasting your time and slowing your advance for no gain. On the other hand it also encourages defending troops to NOT defend on the leading edges of terrain features such as woods and towns precisely because such areas are subject to prep fires. Apply enough firepower to the square and the defender might suffer, so the defender is better off deeper in the terrain feature.

Stephen,

I understand your concern about blank counters. The trick is to use extra counters, lots of extra counters. The effect is that you're on patrol, you hear something or see a curtain in a window move - is that a bad guy, a civilian or just the family cat? Do you storm the house, recon by fire or just keep moving? Sure you know something is out there but until its identified there's no telling what it might be.
Couple that with spotty or just plain wrong intelligence - "Hey you didn't tell me they had technicals, where did that come from?" Nothing gets the attention of dismounted troops like a HMG that wasn't supposed to be there.

Paul

av8rmongo wrote: I understand your concern about blank counters. The trick is to use extra counters, lots of extra counters. ... Sure you know something is out there but until its identified there's no telling what it might be.

Paul has put it very well.

You can hardly imagine how the gaming experience changes until you try playing blind to your opponent's force using paper "chits" with some blanks mixed in.

I have had games where players spent half the game chasing down a small column of blanks, or maneuvering key assets to counter a threat from some flanking blanks. On the other side I've played in games where a player convinced himself that some chits were blanks, and wound up having a position overrun when they suddenly turned into real units at VERY close range.

Even a ratio of 1 blank/dummy chit per 3 real unit chits will add a very significant "unknown" factor to every decision a player makes during the game. For an insurgency or guerrila game I would go to an even higher ratio -- maybe as high as 1:1. But try experimenting with various ratios. There is a balance between the amount of doubt you want to inject, vs. the game-play hassle of moving so many chits with some sense of purpose.

I have also seen the chits sow confusion into the C&C of units. On one occasion (oft repeated here in these fora) in a cold-war battle, my opponent diverted a set of blank chits at the back of a road-marching column to occupy a small town. His thought was to fill the town with some chits to convince me that his flank was defended, when in fact it wasn't. Except when his primary force went in on the attack, he turned over a set of BLANK CHITS! "WHERE THE H3LL DID MY TANKS GO?!?!" He had made a mistake in moving his chits. Evidently his sole platoon of M60s had made a wrong turn on their approach, and were milling about in some side town that was not one of his objectives.

WIth blanks on the table, I allow any reaction to the chits. You want to drop some arty on those chits? Go ahead. As gamemaster I've probably allowed a limited number of fire-missions. Or perhaps a slow comms channel. Or maybe only one battery for your side. You want to expend some of your precious resource on a suspicion? You go right ahead. I'll play the chits just as if they were real units, I'll tell you different kill numbers for different chits (as if it were a mixed unit), I'll lament and curse and stomp my feet when you kill off one of the blanks, and I'll quietly refer to the "damage to structures or terrain" rules to add fire and smoke to your strike where appropriate.

Couple that with spotty or just plain wrong intelligence - "Hey you didn't tell me they had technicals, where did that come from?" ...

Again, great advice. Such a clever fellow!

I am a big fan of faulty intelligence, half-information, and unbalanced forces. You kind of have to get in with the right gang of gamers to make this work, as some guys get all huffed-out when they perceive that it was not a "fair" game. ("Fair" meaning they had every advantage they could milk out of the rules.)

But I just love unbalanced games, and games with surprises. Several of my very favorite gaming memories were highly unbalanced games.

As an example, CGErickson (who occasions this forum) and I set-up a pick-up game at an open table at a con a year or two ago. Our goal was to play a primarily infantry battle, as a test of the infantry rules in the Mein Panzer ruleset. We have played many battles together, and have a very compatible gaming style. So we set some basics for the game, and leave each other to make it interesting.

We set up some terrain with a river bisecting a board, with a single bridge. We said he would defend with a re-inforced late 1943 German infantry company, and I would attack with two re-inforced Soviet infantry companies. "Re-inforced" meant two units -- batteries of guns, or platoons of armor, each. Then we also said we would set-aside two or three other re-inforcing platoons, and any walk-ups that wanted to join us could bring one on the board.

I took a platoon of SU-76s and an 82mm mortar battery to support my infantry. He took a battery of 105mm howitzers and Pak40 ATGs. But neither knew what the other had.

Three fellows eventually walked up to join the game. The first guy joined the German side. CG had him throw a die to figure out which platoon he received. He wound up with a platoon of "something" (in fact a battery of StuGs). But that guy brought them on and took up a position off to the side, then wandered off (happens at cons), and so CG now had more forces than he was "supposed" to. Then a pair of fellows walked up, and joined one to each side. We decided to give the guy on my side TWO platoons, to balance out the guy who had come and gone on the German side. I had set aside several platoons. I had him throw a die, and he got two platoons of T-34s. Cool. Now we had some mobile striking power.

The other guy on CG's side threw a die. As I had, CG had prepared several platoons. This guy threw a 6 -- CG laughed, and gave him something. What it was was completely unknown to me.

So the other guy comes on with some painfully slow moving chits. I assumed they were infantry.

I used my mortars to drop smoke on CG's positions, and surged my infantry up to and across the bridge. Then my re-inforcing teammate's T-34s swarmed across, and made a dashing advance around the flank of the German infantry position, loosing several to ATGs, but then got behind a hill and fell upon the howitzers. Exciting.

And then, from out of my smoke screen, some FRIKKIN' ELEPHANTS CAME WADDLING OUT. Oy! I screamed and shouted, stomped my feet, pulled my hair. What the heck was I supposed to do? I had all of 3 AT rifles at the bridge! My SU-76s, those that were alive after some long-range dueling with the StuGs, were far away. Like they would do any good against those behemoths anyway!

But then the Elephants turned back-sides towards me and waddled off back into the smoke. Too many chits facing them, and the T-34s behind the hill beating up the guns, and the newbie player could not muster the clarity of purpose or resolve to carry through with squashing me like the bug I was to him, and went off to chase the known force of 3 or 4 remaining T-34s. Of course he would not catch them. And I would hold the bridge.

These are great gaming memories. Tons of fun.

Chits, blanks, really do add to a game. Then put in a dose of imperfect information on the opponent's forces. It isn't a perfect simulation of the fog of war, but it provides a significant dose of fog, and is eminently playable.

Question.....how about the use of "maps"? If I have a gaming table, based on those TerrainMaker hexes, and each player has graphic representation of that table, seems to me that might work...at least if both players trust one another.

For example, Player A is on the attack, Player B on the defense. B gets a few minutes to distribute his forces. He does this on his map, noting their positions there, not as chits on the board.

As Player A moves, he gets some sort of observation roll I assume? He rolls, and essentially Player B would have to do all the figuring of range, cover, etc. to see if he's been spotted. Once spotted, he places the base on the board.

Of course, I just thought of a hole in my theory.....Player A might have advancing units not within eyesight of B's defenses....so how do you do that? Maybe a map full of unknown chits is the way.

skypig53 wrote:So I'm on duty at my squadron bored to tears and I thought I'd run down a list questions I have about micro armor in general.

1. Why is WW II the most popular era? Its seems like vietnam and modern gamers make up an extremely small percentage overall, atleast on this forum. I'm not complaining, just curious.

My guess is because this war has fleets of tanks and 100 times more infantry to go along with them,airplanes, ships, nuclear bombs, etc,etc. Couple this fact with things like "cool" German "stuff" and cool allied stuff to tear them apart. It was also a war still in somewhat memory that had a real defined purpose.
Modern games just don't have all the "real" data yet. For instance whos got all the real armour protection stats for the newest M1s,Leos,T-90s,etc. Its all classified. Anybody that puts it in game form is just using guess's,maybe good guess's but still a guess...

skypig53 wrote: 2. What is the most widely used rule sets out there for the different eras? Are GHQ's rules the way to go? I notice WW II era has a plethora of rule sets while modern rule sets are few and far between.

I use my own rules and lately a very modified version of Modern Spearhead. MSH straight up on its own has definite flaws to reality. I do like MSHs vehicle or should I say PLatoon stats. I also use the MSH game mechanism but switched it to a D10 from a D6 play.
As for the GHQs rules ...well I think the WWII set is OK ,but the Moderns are just not for me and our group.

skypig53 wrote: 4. Does anyone else have issues with scale in regards to infantry when compared to vehicles and especially aircraft when compared to everything else, ie. aircraft seem a bit small and infantry seem a bit big.

I use to not like the Scale Creep,but found that the figures are so much better detailed AND more "game" durable because of the larger size. BTW I was putting some GHQ infantry up next to a Stryker. Is the Stryker by GHQ larger scale ? Seems to be the same scale as the infantry?? Dunno..

skypig53 wrote:5. Modern Gamers, if you where playing a game with guerillas or insurgents how would you go about "hiding" your stands to keep an element of suprise while still keeping the game "fair"? The placing of blank squares of paper just doesn't work for me. You still know that something is there you just don't know what exactly...airstrike anyone?.

I'm with you on "chits" and blank counters. If I was to use blanks I would just use printed ones for vehicles too. So I would suggest maps,thats what we play. Now if i was to play COIN type games I would place metal mounted stands of GHQ's civies and use a vinyl magnet tag that said Insurgent,IED,etc -underneath to only be uncovered when neccassary...

skypig53 wrote:6. Has anyone ever used helicopters in a scenario to externally transport vehicles or cargo? Heavy and medium lift helos can transport arty and vehicles but the ghq rules seem to only allow for troop stand transport?

Not yet,but I always thought about doing it for my Vietnam games. It really is not that hard to figure out regardless of which rules you have...

skypig53 wrote:7. GHQ's rules for figuring points for getting equipment seem overly complicated, especially when making your own scenario. Is there an easier way to "purchase" stands and still be fairly matched?

No matter what rules you have take all the pertinent stats like armor ,gun penetration or attck values ,speed or movement etc,add them up and multiply by .10.

Thanks for the gouge all.

skypig53 wrote:So I'm on duty at my squadron bored to tears and I thought I'd run down a list questions I have about micro armor in general.

3. Whats the best type of wash for desert camo pieces? Black or brown?

Well, I suppose that is it for now. Gotta love a 24 hr post, atleast I have access to a computer.

What is the best way to do this...I would like to know also

Cheers
Anthony