GHQ Models Forums

I am sure this question has come up before, but I have gone back a few threads and just can't seem to find it.

My question is what is the most common rules do you guys use when playing Modern Micro Armour (inclusive of Infantry)

Do you guys get the GHQ rulebook that they sell for $29.95 online or some other private press release rules?

Let me in on it and what would be the most fun one without having to take a whole lot to teach interest people to play it?

Just getting my GHQ Micro Modern Armour running and I want to play test it soon.

I have the Modern GHQ rules, and have read most of them but never played them. They seem to be a good set of moderate complexity. Personally, I use the Cold War Commander rules for modern gaming, very easy to learn and you can get a good sized game done in a couple of hours.

Thank you for ur recommendation, but I think that book is sold out.
But yeah, I mean if the Standard of most GHQ collectors and wargamers use GHQ Modern Micro Armour book, I guess my best bet would be to buy that too right?

So far 2 things surprise me about this thread. First, CWC is sold out...Wow! As a fan of the system it is good to hear, not so much if you are looking at it as a possible system to use, however. Second, no else has replied, yet.

As I said Modern GHQ rules are a good choice. I think alot of the guys around here also still use the Firefly/Challenger rules (Don't quote me on that I'm working from memory here.) Modern Spearhead is also quite popular from what I have seen, as well.

CWC here as well, although I also enjoy FFT, Modern Spearhead and a host of others....

Without mentioning vendors, which would be rude on this forum, I am fairly certain you can find CWC.

Mienpanzer has some modern vehicles with their rulebook. You can also go to their website and download a much larger list of modern and cold war equipment. It is pretty easy to add other vehicles. The rule set is the same for WWI, SCW, WWII, AIW, CW, and modern. The rules are very through covering everything from combat to engineer operations to airborne operations to tranportation and railroad armored trains. Harlan

error

Hmm all seem really appealing. Not sure which to choose.
I mean like.. I'm still stuck between GHQ main rules, Modern Spearhead, and CWC.

Real tough decision choice here :/

Anyone else can provide insight to clear my mind on a good choice for me?

I have been collecting GHQ stuff for close to 2 years or more. I want to start playing the game but really am not quite sure since so many ppl use so many rules.

...At the time MSH (Modern Spearhead) ruleset is quite unavailable anywhere. Theres been a lengthy discussion and search for it on the SH forum...

I like Fistful of TOWs 2. Version 3 is said to be nearly complete and it will cover WW I to ten or more years out from now. It is a fistful of dice game, but not too onerous.

I have played Cold War Commander with my local club, and while I like some aspects of its command & control system, I don't care like its mechanic of stands having hit points. The club seems to have moved on to GHQ's rules.

I would love to see versions of Kampfgruppe Commander II or Crossfire for moderns, though.

I would love to see versions of Kampfgruppe Commander II or Crossfire for moderns, though

Zaevor2000 on this forum has actually done that! Pretty cool system. He has added a few features. I'm helping him with Airpower and research an a few specific weapon systems.

I use my own rules as well. Starting second round of play testing. Mine is a 1:1 working title is: By Other means. Zaevor is about a year ahead of me in having a finished product. As soon as life gets out of the way we will be finishing up our projects.

"I don't care like its mechanic of stands having hit points. "

A common point of contention I've heard about the Commader series. Something that isn't realized is most units in wargames have "hit points" they just aren't called that. Even GHQ has them; 2 S results=(S), 2 (S) results=D, etc. It is just BKC/CWC doesn't have the outright "Eliminated" result.

All the options above are good ones, what is important is how much complexity you wan in your game. If you are looking for something dead easy then I would go with CWC, if you don't mind wading through some charts then GHQ or Challenger might be more up your ally. It is all personal taste.

Well, I really like the old Command Decision set for bigger WW2 battles. I own the modern set, Combined Arms. I have not used it for a game yet though....but if it is based on Command Decision, then I would wager the rules are good!

Lately though, I have been drawn to using Panzer Leader/PanzerBlitz rules with miniatures in place of the counters and the GHQ 4" hex based terrain for the board. I use the modifications to the rules that came along with Avalon Hill's follow-on game, Arab-Israeli wars. There is a lot of good stuff on the Internet to support these old games and update them. There is even a set of '70's-'80's era OOB's and such to game the Cold War conflict using the system. The rules are great for quick games that are still somewhat realistic. Sound tactics are rewarded and the game can be taught fairly quickly to newbies. The nostalgic value of using the old rules can't be discounted either!!!

I have always thought the Panzerleader system would work well as a miniatures game as well. Never had an opportunity to try it, however.

I don't care like its mechanic of stands having hit points. "

A common point of contention I've heard about the Commader series. Something that isn't realized is most units in wargames have "hit points" they just aren't called that. Even GHQ has them; 2 S results=(S), 2 (S) results=D, etc. It is just BKC/CWC doesn't have the outright "Eliminated" result.

I used to think the same thing till I got involved in design. If the "hit points" or steps is well thought out they are an essential part of a good 5:1 or 1=platoon system. If you use an American M60 tank Company vs. a Soviet T62 battalion you can see how steps preserve the real odds.

In the real world the M60 Company has 17 tanks, The Soviet battalion has 31. In a 1= a platoon you have 3-1 odds in favor of the Soviets. In truth if you take out command tanks you have 15 vs. 30 which are really 2:1 in favor of the Soviets.

Using 2 steps for an American platoon and 1 step for the Soviet platoons you now have 9 steps for the Soviets and 6 for the Americans. Now mathematically you are much closer to the 2:1 ratio that actually exists. The logic is that if you destroy a portion of the 5 (or 4) tank platoon you still have a section that can operate effectively. So if a platoon takes one “hitâ€￾ it means there is still has a section fighting in real life. Research has shown that a 3 tank platoon will cease to operate effectively if even one tank is destroyed. 3 tank platoons tend to hull down and shoot until they are consolidated into other units again. Part of this is doctrine, communication etc.

I’m not familiar with the rules systems mentioned above but if the system is well thought out it keeps your historical numbers more correct.