GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's

SemperFi2382 · Post by **SemperFi2382** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:57 am

Well, I finally convinced my buddy to go from 1/35 Wargaming (WWII) to 1/285 (Modern). The thing is that for the moment, I have been using a different ruleset than that of GHQ. I believe the ruleset is from a game called Tactical Command and used miniatures from CinC which is a bulk of my limited 1/285 miniatures collection at the moment.

After recently buying a set of units and getting the Tank rules, I noticed that the scale for the tanks are not 1:1. In fact, the rules state that one unit should represent 3-6 armored vehicles.

My question is that I'm used to playing 1:1 and would like to keep it that way using the GHQ ruleset. The old set I had didn't have rules for air support, artillery and infantry. However, I'm curious how the rules can be adjusted to be 1:1 or if it makes a difference at all if it is played as 1:1. Admittedly, I don't yet have the full ruleset (it's the next thing I'm going to order) so I don't know if there is that kind of adjustment already written.

So, I guess it all boils down to is if I can play 1:1 using GHQs rules, or is there some accepted "optional" rules that I need to adopt. At some point, my friend and I will want to play against others and so while we learn a new ruleset, we would like to learn what the rest of you guys are using for the most part. Hopefully, GHQs rules does have 1:1 play as I already like many of the rules better than the old rules.

predator06 · Post by **predator06** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:21 am

I Asked about GHQs rules set a while back. And I got some verry favorable opinions.

But its NOT a 1/1 scale system. I Have heard rumors that GHQ may come out with a 1/1 scale system, but then Ive ben waiting 2 years for GHQ to come out with there Naval rules, and that hasnt happened yet either.

Harlan · Post by **Harlan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:20 am

Not counting my own house rules, I recommend Tank Charts (out-of-print) which was sold by GHQ many moons ago. It is a great set of 1 to 1 rules, unfortunately it only covers WWII. The set of the rules is pretty straight forward and is easy to add additional vehicles or weapons. However, you will probably only find it through a friend or ebay. My next recommendation is Jagdpanzer (out-of-print) or Mein Panzer (Old Dominion Games). I own all three and plan all three pretty regularly.

SemperFi2382 · Post by **SemperFi2382** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:43 am

Harlan wrote:Not counting my own house rules, I recommend Tank Charts (out-of-print) which was sold by GHQ many moons ago. It is a great set of 1 to 1 rules, unfortunately it only covers WWII. The set of the rules is pretty straight forward and is easy to add additional vehicles or weapons. However, you will probably only find it through a friend or ebay. My next recommendation is Jagdpanzer (out-of-print) or Mein Panzer (Old Dominion Games). I own all three and plan all three pretty regularly.

How well does that translate to Modern Warfare?

Harlan · Post by **Harlan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:02 am

It is workable.

Steel Arrows · Post by **Steel Arrows** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:31 am

My group uses Challenger 2 but slightly modified to refect ongoing technical changes. Challenger 2 was written by Bruce Rea Taylor. The system is very detailed in most aspects to movement, armor protection and firepower of various types of vehicles used today. It is a 1 to 1 system and also has expansions for national TOEs as well as improved weapons as well as aircraft types.

Harlan · Post by **Harlan** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:10 am

I have nevered played Challenger 2. I am going to look for a copy so I can see how it compares.

Vorster · Post by **Vorster** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:15 pm

I use the battlegroup rules which is an adaption of the Challenger 2000 rule set. It is very detailed and all of it is up for discussion. If you have a problem you post your problem on the yahoo group and Ian gets back to you within a day. So the rules are very dynamic and fluid being updated regularly to take into account peoples expierence and observations.

The best thing is that it is free and can be downloaded here:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/BGMR/

The only requirement is to become part of the group. These rules are in my opinion the best around. I have compared them with the Challenger 2000 set and they are alot simpler without sacrificing accuracy.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

The main difference is that a true 1:1 game will have things like a the turret can face in a different direction than the hull. Armor protection will be on front, side/rear of both hull and turret. Also damage may include a mobility hit or other non-elimination effect.
This won't happen to a 3-8 tanks per stand game.

jb · Post by jb » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:59 pm

Like Mobius said. I also feel that a certain "flair"is gained by playing a 1=1 game

SemperFi2382 · Post by **SemperFi2382** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:58 pm

Mobius wrote:The main difference is that a true 1:1 game will have things like a the turret can face in a different direction than the hull. Armor protection will be on front, side/rear of both hull and turret. Also damage may include a mobility hit or other non-elimination effect.
This won't happen to a 3-8 tanks per stand game.

Nothing like your enemy scoring a mobility hit on you, only to have that immobilized tank turn around and take out 2 of their tanks before it's finally KO'ed.

I also enjoy seeing my units as a 1=1. At a glance, I can see what is operational and what isn't. If it's been tracked, I have a marker on it and such. Also, on the terrain if you have a single marker behind a building, you can't honestly say that a platoon of tanks is back there. If it is 1=1, you can spread out that platoon as well. With it to scale, you can't do such risky manuevers or even flank an enemy with members of a platoon that isn't being pinned by weapons fire (a personal favorite with my T-72s vs M60A3s, a tactic my friend isn't always expecting, especially in open terrain).

...but I'm just rambling.

GMills · Post by **GMills** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:52 am

http://axisdomain.0catch.com/Threat_main.html
You can download my rules for Modern Combat. Its called THREAT. It is different than most rules but it was designed for the U.S.Army. (But even a Marine can figure it out). HAHA.

I am currently working on updateing it, but that takes a lower priority for me. Questions on it? just email me.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:15 am

A couple more good things about 1:1.

Small bits of terrain or depressions are more important to individual tanks. They may get some sort of hull protection for a single tank where a platoon really couldn't fit. I've seen some large scale games with 5 tanks crowd into Mrs. Jenkin's flower garden to hide behind the fence.

Another thing is mixed platoons and individual tanks. In NW Europe '44 the British put a single firefly in their tank platoons. Individual tanks that operate maybe with others of a different kind are Jumbo Shermans, Flamethrower tanks or Petard mortar engineering tanks. Or 2-3 tank command sections with a CS tank as one of the tanks. You might not really see 3-8 of these type tanks together.
Larger scaled games either have to raise the factors of the platoon to account for one of the tanks being a more powerful tank or have to unrealistically make an entire platoon of these special tanks so players can put the model on the table.

According to one of the players of Panzer War who also was a Colonel in command of a US armored company, PW is probably is a little too complex for the average army tanker.
For those above average it is available here.
http://www.panzer-war.com/

Speaking of modern tactics. Isn't the method of advance for armor is two covering two M-1s? So 2 will overwatch as the other 2 in the platoon advance. This doesn't get represented very well on a 3-8 tanks per base game.

GMills · Post by **GMills** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:37 am

Yes, you are correct. Plt ldr plus 1 wingman and the other is Plt Sgt and 1 wingman. One pair watch the other pair advance Bounding Overwatch. With aggregated rules only 1 platoon can bound while the other two overwatch then he overwatches and they bound. Anytime you aggregate your units, you lose tactical fidelity. Might as well play with paper icons instead of miniatures.

jb · Post by jb » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:56 am

Mobius wrote:A couple more good things about 1:1.

Speaking of modern tactics. Isn't the method of advance for armor is two covering two M-1s? So 2 will overwatch as the other 2 in the platoon advance.

During the '70s this was called overwatch. We had bounding OW ,where 1 section would be stationary while the other section would move to a position,become stationary and watch while the previous stationary section moved past and started the whole thing over.
We also had OW where 1 section would be stationary while the other section would move completely on to an objective,of course being covered by the stationary section-We used to get a lot of side shots on our opponents using this last one!
This could of course be done mostly by platoon,and company. We had 5 tank platoons then. Heavy section Plt Ldr 1 element,2 element and 3 element-Light section was Plt Sgt 4 element,and 5 element.