GHQ Models Forums

As there are a good few of us working on 1 to 1 versions, I was quite intrigued to find out what people were aiming to produce/producing and why, so I thought I'd start a discussion on the topic.

To get the ball rolling, I am working on a modern 6mm game using d6. Currently I am at about 16,000 words with most of the rules in a playable draft form (though it needs play-testing and seriously rewording in places).

GHQ and others seem to have the market fairly well catered for when it comes to playing a simulation that is primarily concerned with realism and what I wanted was something for the non-military focused casual player. I wanted it to be accessible, by which I mean: fairly easy to learn, fairly easy to play and tangible. The aim of the simulation wasn't to work out if 3 T90s could reliably kill an M1Abrams in one volley of shots, similar to the story teller system, it was about producing something fun to play where creating a compelling narrative was one of the primary aims of playing.

I went for 1 to 1 as I felt that it allowed the casual player to be more cognitively connected with the movement, shooting and death of his units. Among other things, 1 to 1 presents problems with scale though as if one is slavish to real world weapon performance you start to require a massive playing area. In order to reconcile this I have steered the simulation away from ultra realism. WH40k for instance can get away with super advanced civilisations only having an effective range of 100 feet, mainly because the story makes the suspension of disbelief easier. Thus real world performance differences between an m4 and an SA80 were canned. I realise this won't necessarily be to the taste of many of the players here who want to see a significant difference between a BTR80a and a BTR90 in terms of table-top performance, but I'm not primarily writing it for you. (sorry).

Controversially, I have almost ignored real world countries and instead gone for factions. Each faction represents a way of fighting and could in theory be played as any number of real world countries. Similarly I haven't tended to use specific examples of real world hardware, choosing instead to utilise more generic kit. For example an advanced main battle tank could be represented by an M1, a challenger 2 or a leopard 2 depending on what you want your force to look like and unless you were desperate, it would make no difference to how the game is played.

As stated above, the factions I have created roughly represent some of the prevailing fighting styles of today's modern armed forces but they don't have to be rigidly associated with any one country. Working titles for the factions I have chosen to represent so far: Coalition Forces, Russia, China, Rebels, Insurgents, Peace Keepers, Ind/Pak, and ME/NA. (Of course if you want to use a tweaked Middle east / North African Rule set to represent Columbia for instance, the system makes this easy.)

Turn Order is as follows:
Resolution Phase
Movement Phase
Kinetic Phase
Assault Phase
Plotting Phase
Reserved Movement phase

I currently need to write up and create the individual units and work out an air strike system that is not horrible.

That'll do for now.

I'm in the works of playtesting a meta-computerized rule set that aims to take the complexity of a realistic simulation and streamline it using computerized calculations. The primary software tool for this rule set is Microsoft Excel, where I use macros and functions to create realistic engagements between hundreds of different types of units. Hitting the "calculate" button will replace the players' die role in many situations (but not all, since my local gaming club loves to roll dice).



Ground and model scale is 1:1 with the infantry operating scale being 4 man tactical fire teams and 2 man special weapons and service support teams.

Currently building an ultramodern WWIII ruleset that will take current and only the closest near future tech to pit allied factions against each other.

Primary Factions:

NATO:
US Army
USMC
UK
Germany
France
Netherlands
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Canada
Poland
Czech Repub.
South Korea

CSTO/SCO:
Russia
China
Iran
North Korea
Belarus
Ummah Al Khalifa (Nation Of The Caliphate -- Speculative collective Middle Eastern revolutionary insurgent faction)
Saif Al Islam (Sword of Islam -- Speculative global terror network to replace AQ)

The game is based on a semi-plausible but definitely worst case scenario involving economic recession, dwindling resources, middle eastern revolution, and economic/strategic alliances. I originally came up with the story in 2008 and updated in 2009-10. The parallels between the story then and events now is more than frightening to me.

Depending on how successful the game is, I may add additional factions or modify the game to fit older periods such as 'nam, cold war, 90s moderns and WWII.

I have been working on a rule set for WW2 and Moderns. It started as a project to rewrite WRG to reflect all of the adjustments and house rules that we were using and kind of took on a life of its own. Now the rules don’t resemble WRG at all. I have had 4 play tests and so far the game is playing 85 to 90% the way it was envisioned.

The focus of my system is the small unit action at the point of contact. Command and control is where the flavor of my game is different than other games I’ve played. You are in the role of a Company Commander (or Battalion if Soviet Armor). You don’t have control of decisions that are made above you. Artillery and Air Support allocations can change on you mid-game, and there are rules of engagement that reflect national interest; not the interest of the table top. Reinforcements may not show up exactly when they are supposed to etc. You also don’t have absolute control of your troops. You may decide you don’t want to engage the enemy until you have concentrated your force. If your point-man meets an opponent’s point-man he will take a discipline check, if he fails, he opens fire. As his squad responds the modifiers favor they will fire to support him. A firefight can grow in a full pitch battle that you may not have wanted.

Mechanically I have developed a “windowâ€￾ dice roll. This reduces die rolls. In my artillery and air support you roll one die, you can be on target, over, short, left of right all in one roll. I’m trying to expand this concept throughout the game. (Working on the math.)

The working title is By Other Means but may change it as I get closer to publication.

If you are in North Texas shoot me a line. I need play testers with various back grounds.

Thanks for starting this thread it gives me a place to ask for opinions on design.

Loving the calculator, Apple's numbers doesn't really seem up to doing what I want.

Voltigeur: Currently in my version, the player takes control as the commander one tier up from the highest represented as a stand on the table and I was hoping to incorporate national priorities. Was wondering how you have incorporated national priorities as a mechanism? I was thinking about using a card system or something but developed a phobia of using cards from creating simulations at Kings as it can make them a bit too 'gamey'.

I’m not sure what you mean by national priorities. In my rule set you research the armies that you want to play and set them up historically. In my rule set you only have to have an organization and if the commo net is different jot that down as well. (This can be as complicated or simple as you want it to be.)

Usually organization will dictate how you fight, but we also try to emulate national doctrine and characteristics. There is a lot of info on Soviet and most NATO armies, other parts of the world require more research. I try to get out of the European theatre for Cold War. Also you have a Morale value assigned to an Army as well as a Discipline value. The Discipline number represents proficientcy as well as their willingness to follow orders.

I have always played the highest commander on the table. One of the things that will cause you to do is keep yourself alive. I’d be interested in how you play the command level that is not represented on the table.

Regarding national priorities:

Because I am using a sand box type approach rather than trying to model specific theatres, I am looking for a way of influencing play as a result of the world outside of the playing table. Currently I am just tempted to leave it up to the moderator and give them guidelines or meta-rules that they can apply as/when needed.

We used to play having yourself on the table, the problem was that it seemed to encourage players to use player knowledge, miss guess ranges or to focus disproportionately on the enemy commander.

The way we work is currently is that although you aren't on the table itself, most orders effectively go through the highest commander on the table and eliminating him thus does make life significantly more difficult for the enemy.