GHQ Models Forums

Greetings from a new form member.

I just noticed the GHQ WWII micro armor rules are in sale and thought to ask a couple of questions about them as the sale price is VERY attractive and it seems I'm forever getting new rulesets.

1) Are the rules a development of the old Tank Charts from 1980's? I have taken a look at the free version of the rules and they seem very different (as is the game scale) but just thought to ask.

2) To quote the cataog page:"Everyone’s forces are represented". Yet Finland is missing from the list. Is this a typo (as I hope) or is Finland really missing from the game?

3) To those who have played it: what do you think about the game?

Thanks in advance.

Mojarn, good question.


I have a copy of the old Tank Charts and have used them for a while (don't ask) but I am another one who would like to know difference in other people's opinion of the 'new' rules.

BTW for moderns I still use Challenger 2000, so go figure.


michael

Mojarn Piett,

Some answers to your questions: I have a copy of rules.

1) I don't know how they compare to Tank Charts. Never seen these rules.

2) Finland is missing from the Weapons Data and the T.O.E. pages.

Here is a list of what is included however:
Weapons Data:
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Hungary
Rumania
Germany
Italy
Japan
Poland
UK
US
USSR

TOE pages:
Belgium 1939-1940
Czech 1938-1939
France 1940
Germany 1939-1945 (Europe), 1941-1942 (Africa) 1943 (Africa-Italy)
Hungary 1941-1945
Italy 1936-1943, 1940-1941 (N. Africa)
Japan 1941-1945
Poland 1939
Rumania 1941-1942
UK 1939-1943, 1943-1945 (Italy), 1944-1945 (NW Europe) 1942-1945 (Asia)
US 1942-1943 (n. Africa), 1943-1945 (Italy), 1944-1945 (NW Europe)
USMC 1943-1945
USSR 1941-1945

3) I like the flow of the rules. Each phase is a "Joint" phase, not you move and shoot all your stuff, then I move and shoot all my stuff. Also, the "Initiative" can change from turn to turn so you may not get to go first every turn. The other thing I like is the "Cohesion" level of the units. You may have the most powerful tanks on the battlefield, but if you can't make good "Cohesion" die rolls then your opponent can out manuever you. Some of your best laid plans don't come to fruition. Also, the rules are easy to understand. Only 15 pages. Also included is a scenario generator that you can use to create your own "balanced" games. It takes into account what type of scenario you want to design, i.e., meeting engagemant, hasty attack, recon in force. There are also 8 scenarios included.

The only thing I don't like is the game charts. They are on 4 pages. I remedied this by reducing the font size and typing them up on just 2 pages. The weapons data sheets can also be cumbersome flipping back and forth, so when I create a scenario I type up the weapons data on a spreadsheet for each side so you only have the units that are in the scenario. I found a website that has a unit builder where you can select the units in the scenario and it will print out a good looking spreadsheet or individual cards with pictures of the vehicles.

Fellow gamers,

Just the other day I was thinking about starting this topic which would only address questions specifically on GHQ's WW II Micro Armour-The Game rule set.

Could we focus this topic on GHQ's rules and not just another thread on comparing rule set to rule set?

I know I periodically have some questions concerning the rules.

One which comes to mind is: Why does the Sherman M4 105mm HOW have to obey facing restrictions in the weapons data chart since it has a turret
I can understand why in conducting indirect fire missions because of laying in a battery with barber poles, but when firing direct it shoud be able to fire in any direction when having a clear LOS to the target.

Thanks,

Mojern another possibility is to hunt up the ASL module for Finland. The last I heard the guys were almost at the stage of having it published, and that was a couple of years ago now. I did some proof reading for them and their research for TOE's etc looked pretty good.

Hope this helps.


michael[/i]

Thanks for replying, everybody.

I ordered the rules so soon I'll see how I like them.At ~$15 they were too cheap to let go.

Mojern another possibility is to hunt up the ASL module for Finland. The last I heard the guys were almost at the stage of having it published, and that was a couple of years ago now. I did some proof reading for them and their research for TOE's etc looked pretty good.

MMP still hasn't published it. The last module out was Armies of Oblivion. EDIT: I just checked and it's not even on the preorder list so I gess it won't be availale for a while.

I know a couple of excellent websites about Finnish TO&E in addition to owning both Talvisodan historia (the history of the winter war) and Jatkosodan Historia (the history of the continuation war) so I'll be able to make them myself. I just hoped somebody had spared me the trouble...

sfcgreg29er wrote:Fellow gamers,

Just the other day I was thinking about starting this topic which would only address questions specifically on GHQ's WW II Micro Armour-The Game rule set.

Could we focus this topic on GHQ's rules and not just another thread on comparing rule set to rule set?

I know I periodically have some questions concerning the rules.

One which comes to mind is: Why does the Sherman M4 105mm HOW have to obey facing restrictions in the weapons data chart since it has a turret
I can understand why in conducting indirect fire missions because of laying in a battery with barber poles, but when firing direct it shoud be able to fire in any direction when having a clear LOS to the target.

Thanks,

Just going through some older threads,and noticed an unanswered question..the question about the facing restrictions is a good one. It would seem according to the rules it is more of an indirect weapon,even with the full rotating turret.
I guess if you want to use it as direct fire you just better point it where its needed...
As to why it is this way in the rules I can only guess.
JB

sfcgreg29er wrote:Fellow gamers,

Just the other day I was thinking about starting this topic which would only address questions specifically on GHQ's WW II Micro Armour-The Game rule set.

Could we focus this topic on GHQ's rules and not just another thread on comparing rule set to rule set?

I know I periodically have some questions concerning the rules.

One which comes to mind is: Why does the Sherman M4 105mm HOW have to obey facing restrictions in the weapons data chart since it has a turret
I can understand why in conducting indirect fire missions because of laying in a battery with barber poles, but when firing direct it shoud be able to fire in any direction when having a clear LOS to the target.

Thanks,

Gentlemen:
Your pardon, but I've been thinking the same thing, especially since the campaign idea came up; and with the use of GHQ rules. I like the rules, but I think the data and maybe org. charts will give people "fits" ; maybe even make some not want to participate.
Some of us get strange about weapons data/specifications and TO&E's...
I just wrote a long list of questions about things in these charts that go against very much that I thought I'd learned over the last 35/40 years or so.
I deleted because I don't want to offend the author or get myself kicked off GHQ's board over it.
So for now, I'll ask just one question-
In the rules, Jagdpanzer 4 has a defense value of "4".
This vehicle has over 3" of well sloped frontal armor...
JgPz.4 is rated for defense on par with a Puma armored car or an Italian M-13/40...
What can this be based on???

BTW, I have pretty good reason not to believe SturmTiger was a "muzzle-loader"...

Anyway, I think the rules would be good; but a couple "experts" involved in running the game should go over all the charts very carefully and make amendments available before starting.
Respectfully,
JR.

Righto,Cama. I am willing to play the rules as is,just so everybody is on the same sheet of music,so to speak.
I personally play my own set of rules that I've designed,but I decided to do this GHQ thing just to get more recruits. The GHQ game is well advertised ,and is marketed. If I go elsewhere the chances are better that someone has, or has played GHQ,as compared to my "Micro Panzertruppen". I would like to spread the hobby around as best I can. This campaign is hopefully one way of doing it.
There are things in the rules I don't agree about,but they are a set of rules. The rules apply equally to everyone that is the playing the same set. Things get way out of kilter If the rules are amended,and someone doesn't get the message. Kind of like playing 40k and you don't pick up the white dwarf issues, with amendments, for a couple of months.
So I'm with Cama,no amendments to GHQs rules.
We never did get an answer to the question about the M4 105 yet. Not that it would change things,just nice to know why.
JB

WoW...!

Never noticed the Jagdpanzer

A StuG is rated as [8], even a Nashorn beats it as a [5].

I can sympathize with GHQ and the author of 'The Game' as my own rulebook is currently in its 10th revision! It is very hard to get everything right.

I feel that the Game is a good rulebook for Platoon level gaming but there are some errors which may simply be typo's. The costs involved to re-print the rulebook would be huge - and the cost would be passed on to the customer - goodbye 15.00 price tag.

A PDF or similar publication would be better. Maybe even with GHQs blessing?!

Cama makes a good point on the two different camps of gaming. My experience in the gaming community agrees with his observations although I fall into a 'middle ground' camp of a little of both.

I have been to CONs where some gamers would rather chat and trade knowledge of penetration values and velocities of .50 caliber rounds than game! To me it seems as if these individuals really don't come to game at all but to prove they are the most knowledgable of folks on everything military!

Others come to game. Period. Any game. Even games that suck. Realism? Hah! These are usually the folks with the biggest smiles on their faces!

Should the Jagdpanzer IV be a [8] - probably - The one thing about all rulebooks is that they will never make everyone happy all the time so get out your white out and repair as you see fit!

Troy

"WOW" indeed!
I noted the Nashorn as well...
I ran into another problem in Poland, with the Bofors 37mm ATG, and the 7TPjw tank-
supposedly armed with the very same Bofors gun... One rated at "5"-the other "2"...
The Renault UE and a Romanian Malaxa have different speed and hauling abilities.
Again- they are the same vehicle-in many cases quite literally so...
Why is a Skoda 47mm ATG rated better in Czech hands than on a German JgPz-1?
This gun is really important to the Germans early on; their best ATG. And they supplied it with ammo that improved the origional penetration; not the other way around.
And so on...

Ritter, I've got your rules & think highly of them.
We also needed something for " large actions" and "casual" players;
I think you know what I mean. So I bought the GHQ rules to cover that...
When the "anomallies" started showing up, your data charts are one of the first things
I compare the GHQ info to. If it still looks odd, I go to my "library" and the web...

I also consider myself a "middle of the road" type; not a "rivet counter"
(a dreadful insult to some in my "other" hobby; like "authenticity n*zi" in re-enacting )
I'm not trying to impress anyone- the info is out there; I just read it & compare.
(but I'm very impressed with the modelling I see here; even though I'm not bad myself)
I just want a historical game to reasonably reflect facts and known information.
That's why I sited the JgPz-4 example- it seemed way too far off the mark.
And the SturmTiger- that isn't a simple misprint-more a very old misconception.
There are a lot of other "numbers" I have to question too. Take a closer look...

I guess part of my problem is seeing the "rules" and the "data" as two separate things.
I've no problem playing the rules "as is"; too often I just can't believe the "data"...
To me, an amendment sheet seemed a reasonable thing for an undertaking of this magniture; but I guess not. If people are content or allowed to use their own rules or modifications, it just doesn't matter anyway.

As to the TO&E's, I realize that when you put things on a platoon or even company level
(in some other rules), you have to make many compromises and interpretations.
I don't have a problem with that. You can go nuts trying to make it work right; done that myself. GHQ is probably as good an interpretation as most in that light.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to go on the single page supplied to play the Hungarian army for the entire war, for example.
And on some lists, the equipment used is open to question, or maybe things are just left off the lists that should have been included.
Again, seemed like a suppliment/errata sheet would help out. Wrong suggestion. My bad.
Regards,
JR.

Have a few questions regarding Close Assault against improved positions in the GHQ rule set.

I had set up a Siegfried scenario and had German infantry in Light positions, infantry support in Medium positions and some 75mm AT guns in Heavy positions.

I had infantry and engineers close assault these positions after suppressing them with some arty.

Question is, it says in the rules that all terrain effects are ignored when close assualting. Does this apply to improved positions?? It seems any unit in the position would have no advantage of being in said postion if close assaulted only an advantage against direct or indirect fire. It would be the same as close assaulting infantry in woods or any other type of terrain.

Next question, the rules state you can add a -3 to engineers in close assaulting. Is this in addition to the normal -3 an infantry unit would have?

A unit TO&E has always been the optimum personnel and equipment level expected. Only one army in WW2 was at TO&E most of the time, ...the US Army, which was at times over provided for by the supply and replacement system.

Almost every Army is short of equipment or personnel most of the time. Using a TO&E literally isn't realistic, but insisting on accuracy appears to be normal for many gamers. Any time you get a report of a units TO&E it will apply to the moment it was written down, and only that moment. Anyone who has been in the field knows that... or should know that, ...and gamers need to know that.

Will

Agreed, BUT - with all due respect to 1ComOpsCtr, I almost hate to write this but - what the heck does that have to do with the discussion?

We are talking about rules and their clarifications.

Troy