Proposed New Rules/Campaigns

[dnichols]

I am getting ready to pitch 4 new rules/campaign books to GHQ and would really like some feedback from players as to which one would be of the most interest to you.

1) American Civil War 2.0. Faster and easier game play with an emphasis on the impact of leadership on the battlefield. D6 based cohesion and combat. Included with this new version would be a campaign system for refighting Gettysburg.

2) Campaign system for ~ Division size battles for WWII GHQ Micro Armour: The Game. A flexible and actually playable campaign system. I had multiple conversations with the author, John Fernandes about his ideas on a campaign system and how do create a system that minimized bookkeeping.

3) Campaign system for ~ Division size battles for Modern GHQ Armour. Using the same principles and ideas as the proposed WWII campaign system with minimal book keeping.

4) Napoleonic Rules. A fast playing, simplified system, with an emphasis on the impact of leadership on the battlefield and D6 based cohesion and combat. GHQ Napoleonic figures are amazing in their detail and quality and we need an official rule set to get them on the table top.

I would very much like to get your feedback on which one is of the most interest to you and any thoughts/feedback you would have on the proposals.

Thank you!

[PolishGI]

I am getting ready to pitch 4 new rules/campaign books to GHQ and would really like some feedback from players as to which one would be of the most interest to you.

1) American Civil War 2.0. Faster and easier game play with an emphasis on the impact of leadership on the battlefield. D6 based cohesion and combat. Included with this new version would be a campaign system for refighting Gettysburg.

2) Campaign system for ~ Division size battles for GHQ Micro Armour: The Game. A flexible and actually playable campaign system. I had multiple conversations with the author, John Fernandes about his ideas on a campaign system and how do create a system that minimized bookkeeping.

3) Campaign system for ~ Division size battles for Modern GHQ Armour. Using the same principles and ideas as the proposed WWII campaign system with minimal book keeping.

4) Napoleonic Rules. A fast playing, simplified system, with an emphasis on the impact of leadership on the battlefield and D6 based cohesion and combat. GHQ Napoleonic figures are amazing in their detail and quality and we need an official rule set to get them on the table top.

I would very much like to get your feedback on which one is of the most interest to you and any thoughts/feedback you would have on the proposals.

Thank you!

Hi Daryl,

Can we assume that #2 is WWII, right? Forgive me as I play a different set of rules than GHQ.

If WWII, then my order would be=> 2, 3, 1 and 4 as last.

[Beagle]

ACW and Napoleonic. I feel like those subjects are under represented.

[BurtWolf]

WW2 and then moderns would be my pick (2 and 3)... depending the scale, I do think that supply is a critical factor in something as easy as being within a certain distance of a supply unit comp column or depot would affect the play.

I love the idea of campaigns where losses are gradually replaced but you never seem to be made whole again. That may be offset by their experience gained by your surviving troops.

Good luck!

[CBoy3]

It seems like we have been hearing about an updated set of moderns for awhile. That is probably my biggest desire. I have e-mailed a few times over the years, and have gotten replies that they were being worked on, but there were some personal issues with the people doing the rewrite.
The current rules are good, but would benefit from the writing being clearer, and faster play- like the WWII 2nd edition. With that being said a fast play ACW would be nice. A set of Napoleonics would also be nice, but I'm not sure what the market for it would be.

[dnichols]

WW2 and then moderns would be my pick (2 and 3)... depending the scale, I do think that supply is a critical factor in something as easy as being within a certain distance of a supply unit comp column or depot would affect the play.

I love the idea of campaigns where losses are gradually replaced but you never seem to be made whole again. That may be offset by their experience gained by your surviving troops.

Good luck!

That is exactly the intent, supply being a critical factor. As a unit moves further away from their supply chain or are cut off, their cohesion would drop making them less and less effective

Agreed BurtWolf, I also love the idea of campaign losses that are never 100% making you have to set priorities for your forces. I like your idea of maintaining an experience level where maybe you are down on quantity but up on quality.

[dnichols]

Appreciate everybody's input and thoughts on the question.

Thank you.

[BurtWolf]

Great to hear! Maybe GHQ will then make supply dump packs!

[DeadLlama]

I don't know how relevant it is but for some ideas how a campaign system could work might be found in the flames of war campaigns. I don't know that much about it other than it's a similar point system and map generation as micro armor. A brief look at the rules seems to have supply points allocated for attack and defense with some units using up more supply than others with some kind of penalty for being out of supply.

[Brigade Commander]

I don't know how relevant it is but for some ideas how a campaign system could work might be found in the flames of war campaigns. I don't know that much about it other than it's a similar point system and map generation as micro armor. A brief look at the rules seems to have supply points allocated for attack and defense with some units using up more supply than others with some kind of penalty for being out of supply.

All this discussion around supply makes me want to start rooting around through boxes for my Simulations Publications (SPI) Strategy & Tactics game of North Africa. Great game for supply being in the forefront. Axis or Allied player I ruled that game against my Junior High classmates. I learned to look for the affects supply had on battles and campaigns from an early age. Amateurs talk Tactics and Professionals talk Logistics. That game showed it. Miss those games.

[Brigade Commander]

A Modern set that has a conversion factor to enable it to be played at 1:1.

[BurtWolf]

Avalon Hills ** CENSORED ** was simple yet effective with its supply rules- Japanese and Americans had a limited amount of artillery rounds and they could save them, accumulate them, ration them or blow their wads in one turn. It affected the gameplay in a pretty cool way.

[dnichols]

A Modern set that has a conversion factor to enable it to be played at 1:1.

A number of years ago I started working on some 1-1 modern rule conversion rules.

The real design issue is the ranges of modern weapons that just make it impossible to realistically play a game.

Here is an example of the problem with 1-1 scale.

A US M1A1 tank is 32 ft long so ~10 yards. The model is about 1" long. So 1" = 10yds.

The main gun can fire 3500m or ~3800 yards.

This means that at 1-1 scale an M1A1 can fire 380" or roughly 31ft!

On an average size game table 6-8', means that you could put as much as company, 8-12 tanks with actions all taking place at ranges less than 1000m.

Given the lethality of modern weapons at those ranges the play testers and I quickly found out that games lasted just a couple turns, had no real movement and just were not very fun.

I would certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you would want in a 1-1 Modern Conversion rules.

[rdenman62]

dnichols, I’m trying to understand your issue with 1-1 and movement and weapon ranges. Are you playing or trying to create rules that “visually “ look like 1-1 scale? If that’s the case I don’t think that’s possible . However , if vehicle scale is 1-1, why can’t ground movement and or weapon ranges use centimeters or millimeters for distance? I’ve played a number of games where 1-1 vehicle scale yet used mm for ranges and movement. 5x9 table size..like a ping pong table. Add plenty of terrain like hills buildings trees etc.. and your engagement ranges shrink dramatically. I’ve read in the past the average engagement range in most parts of Germany was under 1000m. So I think using 2 scales may work..your thoughts?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

That's the exact reason why I will collect and paint microarmor forever, but have only been playing CM for many years.