GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's

[jb]

Clearly you miss the point...I've just got to say it... Anybody can pile on true statistics,the real skill is which ones to suppress and still have a real feel for the simulation,to include being able to use genuine tactics.

I think the last part is a fallacy. If you mean genuine accepted tactics of the day. If so you will never learn anything new. If you will start with a realistic game system some call a simulation then what works should work in real life. But maybe a different tactic will work better. You can try something new rather be stuck with what is the accepted way of the day.

It we had games that used what the general's thought were genuine accepted tactics in WWI then charging machineguns with waves of men should have been the way to win. But machineguns had those high ROF that come with extra die rolls.

I don't know if any of you have played the 'Chinese farm' scenario of the Arab-Israeli wars but it is an interesting lesson of why the results were what they were. Not as much tactics as you might have thought. Sheer tank and gunnery superiority. Things you find out when the underlying pillars are realistic.

Jb ,you are correct about skill in suppressing superfluous factors. Trying to keep just enough to get the real feel is the ideal. That is why game design is an art rather than a science.

I believe it is both (art and science),actually! Some things like malfunctioning weapons,falling angles of projectiles,different penetration factors of rounds every 25m etc are not really warrant to a game throwing dice. Unless of course you have nothing more than a squad ,maybe even a fire team,or a vehicle or two. Things just get tooo carried away,easily. I've seen it and been there a hundred times. BTW ,on the "chinese farm" I'm not too familiar with it,but I bet you it took tactics to get both those forces there. You see I also play tactics on the map that generates the engagement areas. I learn every time (mostly what not to do again!) and,not just on a 4'X6' "BOXING RING"
tac·tics
The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy
A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.
E Pluribus Rul'em

[Mobius]

I believe it is both (art and science),actually! Some things like malfunctioning weapons,falling angles of projectiles,different penetration factors of rounds every 25m etc are not really warrant to a game throwing dice. Unless of course you have nothing more than a squad ,maybe even a fire team,or a vehicle or two.

We can do all those things and it works with a company or more of tanks each. (But I don't think a new player could handle that many.)

Falling angle= In some cases firing down on tanks improves the penetration. Some think Michael Wittmann's tank was knocked out by a 17 pdr fired down onto his tank engine compartment grill. Tactic.
Not different penetration @25meters but different to-hit values at 50meters at some range band in some guns. That's the way the ballistic curve fit a digital table. Science.

Malfunctioning weapons or lack of ammo = an undamaged weapon stops firing.
Just unlucky to-hit die roll.
That's how we handle it. No magnets. No bullet counting.
That was the question Vorster asked.

[jb]

We can do all those things and it works with a company or more of tanks each. (But I don't think a new player could handle that many.)

Falling angle= In some cases firing down on tanks improves the penetration. Some think Michael Wittmann's tank was knocked out by a 17 pdr fired down onto his tank engine compartment grill. Tactic.
Not different penetration @25meters but different to-hit values at 50meters at some range band in some guns. That's the way the ballistic curve fit a digital table. Science.

Malfunctioning weapons or lack of ammo = an undamaged weapon stops firing.
Just unlucky to-hit die roll.
That's how we handle it. No magnets. No bullet counting.
That was the question Vorster asked.

Using falling shot on a target as a tactic is not worth risking your position or wasting ammo on. This is of course considering that you are trying this to circumvent hitting and trying to penetrate armour that you really can't. Too many variables to even think about adding in a game. Mobius

Malfunctioning weapons or lack of ammo = an undamaged weapon stops firing.
Just unlucky to-hit die roll.

I'm confused I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

[Mobius]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

[jb]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

[Mobius]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

quod erat demonstrandum

[jb]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

quod erat demonstrandum

or..Q.E.D. "Question Every Detail".
I prefer "Qualitatively Extracted Deduction." myself,Now that describes my version of wargaming!

[Mobius]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

quod erat demonstrandum

or..Q.E.D. "Question Every Detail".
I prefer "Qualitatively Extracted Deduction." myself,Now that describes my version of wargaming!

We just say "Quite Easily Done". That's my motto.

[jb]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

quod erat demonstrandum

or..Q.E.D. "Question Every Detail".
I prefer "Qualitatively Extracted Deduction." myself,Now that describes my version of wargaming!

We just say "Quite Easily Done". That's my motto.

Bravo! I still say you do too many rolls... I would really like to salute you for putting your work on line for free. There are not a enough people in the world that do things like that. I know the work you put into it. Now if I could just make it read for me...

[Mobius]

I thought you stated you rolled(and rolled) for such things

Oh, maybe I didn't make this clear.
When rolling to-hit if the roll is a '1' then it may be a jam (and a miss).
You have to roll again.
If this roll is bad as in a '1' or '2' the gun will be a jammed.
There isn't a separate jam roll each turn.
This is like a fumble in role playing.

E Pluribus Rule'M

quod erat demonstrandum

or..Q.E.D. "Question Every Detail".
I prefer "Qualitatively Extracted Deduction." myself,Now that describes my version of wargaming!

We just say "Quite Easily Done". That's my motto.

Bravo! I still say you do too many rolls... I would really like to salute you for putting your work on line for free. There are not a enough people in the world that do things like that. I know the work you put into it. Now if I could just make it read for me...

Thanks jb. They used to be commercial. But as I like the design part more than the selling part I just do that now.

As for die rolls I try to combine as much into one roll as I can. Multiple hits from a single roll if the roll is very high so one doesn't have to roll 3 times to get 3 hits. A gun jam from the same roll if it is very low.
But a location die can't be combined with the next step of penetration, nor can penetration and damage be combined into a single die roll though some rules try. If the amount of damage a shell does to a tank and its occupants were correlated to its penetration then large caliber shells that penetrate as much as sub-caliber would be the same. A hit by WW2 Russian 152mm AP would be same as British 6pdr APDS. And there would be no need to use HEAT on APCs and sabot on tanks. Besides it seems to D&Dish.

[BattlerBritain]

One way to simulate high rates of fire and supply in a tabletop game:
a) Each 'shot' requires rolling of a separate die and each model on the table has a set of die with it
b) You can only 'shoot' as many times as either your ROF allows or the number of die your model has , whichever is less.
c) When your model has run out of die, it's out of ammo.
d) Use tabletop trucks to bring up new die to your models. If your die are small enough you can even fit them in the back of the truck.

This approach has a few advantages:
1) It gets the players to look after their supply trucks.
2) Players tend not to shoot off a years supply of ammo in 2 nano-seconds.
3) It uses lots and lots of dice, which is always fun.
4) You can use different coloured dice for different ammo types, eg white for tank rounds, red for small arms, blue for arty etc.

I have found this thread rather interesting wrt to the talk of simulating a battle down to what happens to the nearest second on a tabletop.

Having played Combat Mission I suspect that most people must think that a battle can be fought and won if you plan it down to the last second.

Total cobblers in my (humble) opinion.

OK, so on a range a crew might be able to get off 3 rounds in 11 secs, but it's who shoots first that generally tells who wins. The ones firing first are generally the ones stationary and in defence who can also see first and furthest.

Ok, so GW1 was a bit different - the Allies could see furthest there so they generally shot first, but how many battles are fought on a billiard table with unlimited visibility and no cover whatsoever?

Other points I can think of? I remember visiting a battlefield museum at Overloon in Holland and seeing a Panther and 5 Shermans surrounding it, all in the positions they were in at the end of the Battle. I remember counting 5 neat holes in the front of one Sherman, with all holes big enough to fit my fist through and all touching each other. One round might have been enough to finish that Sherman, but 5 all at the same place? When in doubt, empty the magazine?

And the Sherman was 10 yards from the Panther.

I think if your rules simulate a battle down to "it takes 10 seconds to do this" you're barking up a gum tree.

So long as your rules 'feel' right, you're onto a winner. So far, for me, the original Squad Leader game (not ASL) had the best feel, with Fire and Fury's Battlefront also having a comfortable feel to them.

And any rules bigger than one piece of A4 are too complicated

[Mobius]

Having played Combat Mission I suspect that most people must think that a battle can be fought and won if you plan it down to the last second.

The cost in seconds was not in any game play but real life. It was simply to see what time real actions were taking and if this could be modeled in a game.

So long as your rules 'feel' right, you're onto a winner. So far, for me, the original Squad Leader game (not ASL) had the best feel, with Fire and Fury's Battlefront also having a comfortable feel to them.

If you mean feels right in terms of amount of play detail I would agree with you. If you mean feels right as to facts I would not. As long as it 'feels right' should 1942 German tank platoons have 7 King Tigers in them? People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

And any rules bigger than one piece of A4 are too complicated

Does that include Army lists? For some reason these easy-play simple wargames have 99 pages of Army lists. Why isn't 99 pages of Army lists too complicated?

[chrisswim]

Well, what we do is this. my opponent get an air gun, if he misses, he misses. I get a .22 cal handgun and if necessary a 4-10 shotgun when I miss. No question as to who/what is destroyed and mine are only disabled temporarily... I think that works well....

What say you?

[Mobius]

Well, what we do is this. my opponent get an air gun, if he misses, he misses. I get a .22 cal handgun and if necessary a 4-10 shotgun when I miss. No question as to who/what is destroyed and mine are only disabled temporarily... I think that works well....

What say you?

Play a game with Cheney.

[jb]

I have found this thread rather interesting wrt to the talk of simulating a battle down to what happens to the nearest second on a tabletop.

Having played Combat Mission I suspect that most people must think that a battle can be fought and won if you plan it down to the last second.

Total cobblers in my (humble) opinion.

OK, so on a range a crew might be able to get off 3 rounds in 11 secs, but it's who shoots first that generally tells who wins. The ones firing first are generally the ones stationary and in defence who can also see first and furthest.

Ok, so GW1 was a bit different - the Allies could see furthest there so they generally shot first, but how many battles are fought on a billiard table with unlimited visibility and no cover whatsoever?

Other points I can think of? I remember visiting a battlefield museum at Overloon in Holland and seeing a Panther and 5 Shermans surrounding it, all in the positions they were in at the end of the Battle. I remember counting 5 neat holes in the front of one Sherman, with all holes big enough to fit my fist through and all touching each other. One round might have been enough to finish that Sherman, but 5 all at the same place? When in doubt, empty the magazine?

And the Sherman was 10 yards from the Panther.

I think if your rules simulate a battle down to "it takes 10 seconds to do this" you're barking up a gum tree.

So long as your rules 'feel' right, you're onto a winner. So far, for me, the original Squad Leader game (not ASL) had the best feel, with Fire and Fury's Battlefront also having a comfortable feel to them.

And any rules bigger than one piece of A4 are too complicated

I whole heartedly agree with you. Also I don't think you can ever simulate what goes on in a warriors head from one second to another- if you do you are a cobbler (whatever the hell that is!) (but I have a good idea). Like I have previuosly mentioned to make a "game" playable you need to know what not to keep rolling for,and realise that some die rolls may represent more than one thing. I like that if it has a good feel to it then thats what its all about. Personally if I want to do gaming in real time you can't beat Battlefront 2 online. No rolling there...