Hi everybody! I'm looking into rules for modern and WW2 micro armor and am curious whether anyone has experience with Firefly and/or Challenger 2000. Like 'em, hate 'em, somewhere in the middle? So far I've tried Panzer War and Schwere Kompanie and like the 1:1 scale and detail, and I'm curious what Firefly and Challenger have to offer.
Thanks in advance!
Logan
Firefly and Challenger
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
I moved to the Challenger rules from Combat Commander / Battlefield Commander / GI Commander in the mid-1980s. Played Challenger, then Challenger 2, and finally Challenger 2000 up through the mid-1990s.
The Challenger 2000 rules, as I bought and tried them, were to my experience an un-finished set. The author passed away before completing them, and another fellow tried to put them to rights and published the results. While it all fit into a booklet that was as nice and as professional as the prior versions, there were gaping wholes in the rules that I only found as I played them.
There is a Yahoo! group in the UK that has continued developement of a complete set of moderns rules derived from Challenger 2000, which I recall is called Battlegroup or some such. I think they offer the rules as a free download to members of the mailing list.
I have the Firefly rules, and I did read through them any number of times in that period, but I don't think I ever actually played them. I was doing moderns then, and really didn't do much WW2 gaming.
I gave up on the series in the mid 1990s. Downloaded the Battlegroup rules in about 2002, and read through them. Never bothered to try playing them.
I had high hopes for these rules. I really wanted them to work. I thought that the slowness of gameplay I suffered through was a result of my poor familiarity, and that as I became more familiar the games would speed up. But they never got to the point that I was satisfied.
The biggest problem I saw with the Challenger rules was "die-role creep". It seems that every time the author added some new factor into the game, it was added by putting in another die-role. It might have been tolerable early in the development of the games, but as the series progressed it became untenable.
I'm going from memory here, so pardon me (and feel free to correct me) were I get it wrong in the details, but as I recall, when you came to a shooting opportunity, you went through a sequence that was something like this:
1) Role for spotting
2) If you have spotted, role to see if you can take a shot.
3) If you have a shot, role for the hit.
4) If you are shooting an ATGM, role to see if the target spots the shot.
4a..n) If you are shooting an ATGM, role for each of the target's buddies to see if they spot the shot.
5a..n) If the target or his buddies spot the shot, role to see if they also spot the shooter.
6a..n) If they spot the shooter, go back to #3) above and adjudicate shots against the shooter by cannon, auto-cannon, HMG and MG before you resolve the result of the ATGM shot.
7) If buddies spotted the shot or the shooter, but the target did not, role to see if they successfully warn the target.
8 ) If the target is aware of the shot, and the shooter is not incapacitated by return-fire, role for target's evasive actions (saving role).
9) If you hit, role for hit location.
10) Role for projectile's performance against the armor type at the hit location (HEAT vs. slope, etc.)
11) Role for penetration given the round's performance and the hit location.
12) Role for damage given penetration and the hit location.
13) Role for degradation of penetration from ERA. (saving role)
14) Role for target crew survival (saving role).
15) Role for target crew morale.
Each one of those roles has a table you use to resolve it, as well as one or two tables of modifications to go through before you throw, and sometimes after you throw. The modifiers don't always take the same approach ... sometimes you are adding to some value of the target, sometimes you are adding to the number that needs to be rolled on the dice by the the attacker, or the defender, sometimes you are adding to or subtracting from the other modifiers you have made to the value or the needed die role, and sometimes you are adding or subtracting from actual die role, etc.
When you are done, you have resolved one shot against one target. Repeat for any other shots.
Oh, and there is no place in the rules where you'll find a list of the sequence to go through for a shot. You just take the steps you know about, or find the footnotes that refer you to some further step (that you didn't notice on your last shot, which your opponant now wants to go back and re-adjudicate), and flip through to find the tables somewhere in the book.
The way the games played out for me was about like this: About 2 or 3 hours of maneuvering. Then one round of shooting by the screening units, which takes about 5 or 6 hours to adjudicate. Then while we pick up we talk about how the game would have proceeded if we had time (and willingness) to continue.
The PanzerWar rules seek to achieve a similar, and in many ways a better, level of detail. There are more details on armor facets and projectile types, and the research into actual historical performance is better. But, importantly to me, the rules mechanisms have been very well thought out, and as new factors have been added to the game, the game mechanisms have been re-thought and re-architected (rather than just adding yet another die role with tables). The total number of throws is still kind of high, maybe 6 or 7 roles to resolve a shot (rather than 9 to 15, depending on if an ATGM is involved, and not including ATGM overwatch return-fire). With PanzerWar the ratio of detail taken into consideration for complications in the mechanics is notably better than with Challenger -- you get a lot more detail for little more complexity. To my view, at least, the PanzerWar system is better for that level of detail.
Note: Several caveats apply. I played Challenger for moderns, and PanzerWar for WW2. Never played Firefly (Challenger-like) for WW2, nor AirLand Battles (PanzerWar-like) for moderns. Also, I played the Challenger series a long time ago, and time, as well as my own tendancies to embellish in my story-telling, may have amplified some of my frustrations with those rules.
Hope that helps.
The Challenger 2000 rules, as I bought and tried them, were to my experience an un-finished set. The author passed away before completing them, and another fellow tried to put them to rights and published the results. While it all fit into a booklet that was as nice and as professional as the prior versions, there were gaping wholes in the rules that I only found as I played them.
There is a Yahoo! group in the UK that has continued developement of a complete set of moderns rules derived from Challenger 2000, which I recall is called Battlegroup or some such. I think they offer the rules as a free download to members of the mailing list.
I have the Firefly rules, and I did read through them any number of times in that period, but I don't think I ever actually played them. I was doing moderns then, and really didn't do much WW2 gaming.
I gave up on the series in the mid 1990s. Downloaded the Battlegroup rules in about 2002, and read through them. Never bothered to try playing them.
I had high hopes for these rules. I really wanted them to work. I thought that the slowness of gameplay I suffered through was a result of my poor familiarity, and that as I became more familiar the games would speed up. But they never got to the point that I was satisfied.
The biggest problem I saw with the Challenger rules was "die-role creep". It seems that every time the author added some new factor into the game, it was added by putting in another die-role. It might have been tolerable early in the development of the games, but as the series progressed it became untenable.
I'm going from memory here, so pardon me (and feel free to correct me) were I get it wrong in the details, but as I recall, when you came to a shooting opportunity, you went through a sequence that was something like this:
1) Role for spotting
2) If you have spotted, role to see if you can take a shot.
3) If you have a shot, role for the hit.
4) If you are shooting an ATGM, role to see if the target spots the shot.
4a..n) If you are shooting an ATGM, role for each of the target's buddies to see if they spot the shot.
5a..n) If the target or his buddies spot the shot, role to see if they also spot the shooter.
6a..n) If they spot the shooter, go back to #3) above and adjudicate shots against the shooter by cannon, auto-cannon, HMG and MG before you resolve the result of the ATGM shot.
7) If buddies spotted the shot or the shooter, but the target did not, role to see if they successfully warn the target.
8 ) If the target is aware of the shot, and the shooter is not incapacitated by return-fire, role for target's evasive actions (saving role).
9) If you hit, role for hit location.
10) Role for projectile's performance against the armor type at the hit location (HEAT vs. slope, etc.)
11) Role for penetration given the round's performance and the hit location.
12) Role for damage given penetration and the hit location.
13) Role for degradation of penetration from ERA. (saving role)
14) Role for target crew survival (saving role).
15) Role for target crew morale.
Each one of those roles has a table you use to resolve it, as well as one or two tables of modifications to go through before you throw, and sometimes after you throw. The modifiers don't always take the same approach ... sometimes you are adding to some value of the target, sometimes you are adding to the number that needs to be rolled on the dice by the the attacker, or the defender, sometimes you are adding to or subtracting from the other modifiers you have made to the value or the needed die role, and sometimes you are adding or subtracting from actual die role, etc.
When you are done, you have resolved one shot against one target. Repeat for any other shots.
Oh, and there is no place in the rules where you'll find a list of the sequence to go through for a shot. You just take the steps you know about, or find the footnotes that refer you to some further step (that you didn't notice on your last shot, which your opponant now wants to go back and re-adjudicate), and flip through to find the tables somewhere in the book.
The way the games played out for me was about like this: About 2 or 3 hours of maneuvering. Then one round of shooting by the screening units, which takes about 5 or 6 hours to adjudicate. Then while we pick up we talk about how the game would have proceeded if we had time (and willingness) to continue.
The PanzerWar rules seek to achieve a similar, and in many ways a better, level of detail. There are more details on armor facets and projectile types, and the research into actual historical performance is better. But, importantly to me, the rules mechanisms have been very well thought out, and as new factors have been added to the game, the game mechanisms have been re-thought and re-architected (rather than just adding yet another die role with tables). The total number of throws is still kind of high, maybe 6 or 7 roles to resolve a shot (rather than 9 to 15, depending on if an ATGM is involved, and not including ATGM overwatch return-fire). With PanzerWar the ratio of detail taken into consideration for complications in the mechanics is notably better than with Challenger -- you get a lot more detail for little more complexity. To my view, at least, the PanzerWar system is better for that level of detail.
Note: Several caveats apply. I played Challenger for moderns, and PanzerWar for WW2. Never played Firefly (Challenger-like) for WW2, nor AirLand Battles (PanzerWar-like) for moderns. Also, I played the Challenger series a long time ago, and time, as well as my own tendancies to embellish in my story-telling, may have amplified some of my frustrations with those rules.
Hope that helps.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
SSgtBuck
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:45 am
- Location: Maine, USA
I was just flipping through my copies of Challenger II and Firefly. Firefly, I feel, is an excellent set of rules. Realistic yet not too complicated. Roll to spot, roll to hit, roll for penetration. Various modifiers. The to hit modifiers modify the table not the roll, if you don't like that just change the +'s to -'s and vice versa and modify the roll. The T,O & E's in the back are worth the value of the book. There is a modified version of Firefly online somewhere...
I liked the original version of Challenger myself. Challenger II gets a little more complicated, especially with HEAT rounds and Active/Reactive armor. I had Challenger 2000 once, never played it. Looked way over complicated and as the previous poster noted, was incomplete. Battle Group Moderns is the online version. I have it printed out but have never used it.
Essentially the sequence of combat is the same as Firefly above. HEAT rounds add an extra die roll. ATGW targets roll to spot and depending on the success of that and their subsequent course of action a modifier is applied to to the die roll for the direct fire table.
I can't speak for Challenger 2000 but I disagree that you have you have to search for the combat sequence. In Challenger and Challenger II it is pretty clrearly laid out in the text of the rules. There are rules errata in the front cover which I would suggest you transfer the corrections to the actual text. A good thorough reading of the rules, a couple of times, is probably a good idea. If there is something in the rules you don't like, change it!!
Start off with small, simple games and build up to bigger battles, but that can be said for all rules systems!! Most of all, have fun. That what this hobby is all about.
I liked the original version of Challenger myself. Challenger II gets a little more complicated, especially with HEAT rounds and Active/Reactive armor. I had Challenger 2000 once, never played it. Looked way over complicated and as the previous poster noted, was incomplete. Battle Group Moderns is the online version. I have it printed out but have never used it.
Essentially the sequence of combat is the same as Firefly above. HEAT rounds add an extra die roll. ATGW targets roll to spot and depending on the success of that and their subsequent course of action a modifier is applied to to the die roll for the direct fire table.
I can't speak for Challenger 2000 but I disagree that you have you have to search for the combat sequence. In Challenger and Challenger II it is pretty clrearly laid out in the text of the rules. There are rules errata in the front cover which I would suggest you transfer the corrections to the actual text. A good thorough reading of the rules, a couple of times, is probably a good idea. If there is something in the rules you don't like, change it!!
Start off with small, simple games and build up to bigger battles, but that can be said for all rules systems!! Most of all, have fun. That what this hobby is all about.
Rock is dead, long live paper & scissors
-
Desert Hare
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:19 am
Thanks for the info!
I have looked at Firefly Outgunned and the Battlegroup rules. I noticed that Firefly Outgunned doesn't provide vehicle data or TO&Es, but I like the look of the rules. I think I'll order a copy, at least to try out. I haven't read through the Battlegroup rules yet, but they look fairly complex - not sure if they're as complex as Challenger 2000 or not.
I have played Airland War as well as Panzer War, and while I was fairly happy with it, it seems like it doesn't deal with newer technologies (ERA, etc.) quite as thoroughly as it delt with World War II technologies. It sounds like it is still probably a better bet than Challenger, though - I'll have to read through the Battlegroup rules to be sure. Alse, Airland War is free! Free is good. Much thanks to Mobius for providing his rules free of charge.
I think I'll order up a copy of Challenger as well. Worst comes to worst, its only $15 and I can probably use those to modify/add to Airland War as well if I decide I want to.
Thanks again for your help.
Logan
I have looked at Firefly Outgunned and the Battlegroup rules. I noticed that Firefly Outgunned doesn't provide vehicle data or TO&Es, but I like the look of the rules. I think I'll order a copy, at least to try out. I haven't read through the Battlegroup rules yet, but they look fairly complex - not sure if they're as complex as Challenger 2000 or not.
I have played Airland War as well as Panzer War, and while I was fairly happy with it, it seems like it doesn't deal with newer technologies (ERA, etc.) quite as thoroughly as it delt with World War II technologies. It sounds like it is still probably a better bet than Challenger, though - I'll have to read through the Battlegroup rules to be sure. Alse, Airland War is free! Free is good. Much thanks to Mobius for providing his rules free of charge.
I think I'll order up a copy of Challenger as well. Worst comes to worst, its only $15 and I can probably use those to modify/add to Airland War as well if I decide I want to.
Thanks again for your help.
Logan
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
Mk1 - love your write up of Challenger rules - spot on 
I've played both sets of rules. I even played the UK WW2 Nationals with Firefly, but only once.
Can concur that you have to roll dice for everything. Firefly is probably the better of the 2 rule sets but there's better out there. I use Fire+Fury Battlefront for WW2 - it plays well and there's not too much dice rolling.
Firefly is worth getting just for the ToEs in the back. They're probably the best you can get and I constantly refer to them.
I wouldn't mind checking out the online versions. Do you have to jon the Yahoo groups or is there a link to the downloadable versions?
Thanks,
Battler
I've played both sets of rules. I even played the UK WW2 Nationals with Firefly, but only once.
Can concur that you have to roll dice for everything. Firefly is probably the better of the 2 rule sets but there's better out there. I use Fire+Fury Battlefront for WW2 - it plays well and there's not too much dice rolling.
Firefly is worth getting just for the ToEs in the back. They're probably the best you can get and I constantly refer to them.
I wouldn't mind checking out the online versions. Do you have to jon the Yahoo groups or is there a link to the downloadable versions?
Thanks,
Battler
-
SSgtBuck
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:45 am
- Location: Maine, USA
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
Ok - found the Firefly Outgunned at: http://fireflyoutgunned.150m.com/
The rules seem very familiar but it appears that you have to e-mail someone at a .ru e-mail address and get the weapons data etc 'for a small fee'. Yeah right.
The rules seem very familiar but it appears that you have to e-mail someone at a .ru e-mail address and get the weapons data etc 'for a small fee'. Yeah right.
-
Garf
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:12 pm
- Location: Superior, WI
- Contact:
First time poster here, but long time reader. Just wanted to weigh in on this topic. When I was first introduced to micro-armor in the early '90s, it was by playing Challenger. At the time I had the benefit of playing with a group that made use of a ref that compiled all the information off of all the charts and made the rolls for us. We just made the battleplans and pushed the lead and looked to him when results for an action were needed. This made for some fantastic games and the system seemed to move fast since the ref usually had an excellent grasp of the rules and charts.
We purchased Firefly and had plans to conduct games in a similar fashion with the use of a Ref, but then that fell through and we ended up moving on to Korps Commander instead.
We purchased Firefly and had plans to conduct games in a similar fashion with the use of a Ref, but then that fell through and we ended up moving on to Korps Commander instead.
-
Desert Hare
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:19 am
I've received my copies of Firefly and Challenger 2000, and looked through them. I am impressed with Firefly - it seems very well put together, and I especially like the orders and communications rules. The vehicle data is extensive, as are the organizations provided in the back. I have one question so far (not having played a game yet): it appears that the rules are intended for battalion strength battles - 3 or more companies per side. Is this a playable level? Again, I haven't played a game with them yet, so I'm not exactly sure how playable they'll be.
Reading through Challenger 2000 (again, haven't played a game with these rules yet) I think Mk 1 is probably right in that they seem incomplete and loaded with extra die rolls. My set didn't even come with vehicle data (though it did come with weapons data). I might use the rules for ERA, electronic warfare, etc. to modify other sets, but I doubt I'll be using this one. I can't even figure out what factors are used for vehicle armor - Firefly states that its factors are in cm of vertical steel equivalent, but Challenger 2000 lists the armor of the T80 (in an example in the rules - no vehicle data!) as 15. Any ideas on what this could be? If I knew, I could probably come up with some stats and at least try the rules out before deciding against them.
Again, thanks everyone for your help!
Reading through Challenger 2000 (again, haven't played a game with these rules yet) I think Mk 1 is probably right in that they seem incomplete and loaded with extra die rolls. My set didn't even come with vehicle data (though it did come with weapons data). I might use the rules for ERA, electronic warfare, etc. to modify other sets, but I doubt I'll be using this one. I can't even figure out what factors are used for vehicle armor - Firefly states that its factors are in cm of vertical steel equivalent, but Challenger 2000 lists the armor of the T80 (in an example in the rules - no vehicle data!) as 15. Any ideas on what this could be? If I knew, I could probably come up with some stats and at least try the rules out before deciding against them.
Again, thanks everyone for your help!
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
Hi Desert Hare,
Glad you got a copy of Firefly and Challenger.
With respect to the gaming level 3 companies on a table is about right, but ideally you need a table about 8' x 6'. 6'x4' seeemed a bit of a squash but may be more fun.
As far as how long it takes to play I seem to recall only getting 2 moves done in 2.5hrs with Firefly. With Challenger I suspect it'd take you that long to do 1 move.
I seem to recall the armour factors in Firefly being in cm plus 50% or an extra 5cm, to allow for the D10 hit effects determination. I also seem to recall going through the Armour penetration stats for the guns in the table in the back and finding that most needed a tweek here and there.
With Challenger you also needed to purchase seperate Equipment lists that detailed what each vehicle had and how many points it was worth. There were also seperate Modern Army lists that gave the TOEs.
Let us know how you get on with them. I'd love to see an AAR
Glad you got a copy of Firefly and Challenger.
With respect to the gaming level 3 companies on a table is about right, but ideally you need a table about 8' x 6'. 6'x4' seeemed a bit of a squash but may be more fun.
As far as how long it takes to play I seem to recall only getting 2 moves done in 2.5hrs with Firefly. With Challenger I suspect it'd take you that long to do 1 move.
I seem to recall the armour factors in Firefly being in cm plus 50% or an extra 5cm, to allow for the D10 hit effects determination. I also seem to recall going through the Armour penetration stats for the guns in the table in the back and finding that most needed a tweek here and there.
With Challenger you also needed to purchase seperate Equipment lists that detailed what each vehicle had and how many points it was worth. There were also seperate Modern Army lists that gave the TOEs.
Let us know how you get on with them. I'd love to see an AAR
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
-
Panzerleader71
- E5
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:16 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
See, now this never made sense to me. Spending 2.5 hours of real time to represent, what, about 10 minutes of gamee time?:shock: Why would anyone do that to themselves?BattlerBritain wrote: As far as how long it takes to play I seem to recall only getting 2 moves done in 2.5hrs with Firefly. With Challenger I suspect it'd take you that long to do 1 move.
-
BattlerBritain
- E5
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:00 pm
- Location: Somerset, UK
Yep that's why the game died a death.
I spent all day rolling dice to see if I'd acquired a target. Now I use a set of rules that when my troops are within a certain distance they can spot the target and fire at it. Easy.
With F+F Battlefront I played a game at the club the other night with 3 newbie players on one side and 2 newbs on the other. The 3 players were playing Ivans: 1 with an SMG Battalion (yep - whole battalion at 1 stand to 1 squad, all with 'shrunken-heads'
); 1 with a Recon company of Lt tanks, armoured cars and m/cs; and 1 with a T-26 Company and a few KV-2s. They were given orders that the last one to get to the other side of the table would win a free, no expenses incurred holiday with all their family to Siberia. That speeded the game along nicely
We played 6 moves in 2 hours, with a bit of mayhem in between. Great. Jobsa-good'un.
I spent all day rolling dice to see if I'd acquired a target. Now I use a set of rules that when my troops are within a certain distance they can spot the target and fire at it. Easy.
With F+F Battlefront I played a game at the club the other night with 3 newbie players on one side and 2 newbs on the other. The 3 players were playing Ivans: 1 with an SMG Battalion (yep - whole battalion at 1 stand to 1 squad, all with 'shrunken-heads'
); 1 with a Recon company of Lt tanks, armoured cars and m/cs; and 1 with a T-26 Company and a few KV-2s. They were given orders that the last one to get to the other side of the table would win a free, no expenses incurred holiday with all their family to Siberia. That speeded the game along nicely We played 6 moves in 2 hours, with a bit of mayhem in between. Great. Jobsa-good'un.
-
Oberst
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Idaho
Hi everyone. I have played Firefly since 1987 and have never had trouble with turns vs time. Weve gotten at least 4 turns an hour on our larger games. Yes the game size can be played upto battalion strength battles. At this size there should be 1 to 2 refs and about 6 to 12 players on a 4x8 or 4x10 table. Each player would be in charge of a company(s) or a spiceal unit and answerd to a (in my case) Generaloberst. The person in charge had no modles to push around. He just gave the others their orders and they did what was needed to do their job and full fill their orders. Since most of us was in the military, a chain of comand made things go faster. When ever we played a group that did not have someone in charge and they did what they thought was best for their own unit, they tended to be slower and would most likly loose no matter how good their odds where. Firefly is ideal for 2 to 4 players at company level or smaller without refs on smaller battle feilds. So I say give Firefly a chance, you'll find you can do a lot with it that you can't do in other rule sets.
Happy shooting.
Happy shooting.
Kelly