Modern Micro Armour Gaming

[WargameHub]

I play the GHQ Modern rules exlusively now. They play well and are easy to learn (18 pages of rules total). I have ColdWar Commander but like most GW games I get frustrated with how a lot is presented and have tried some of the others like Fist Full of Tows and Modern Spearhead. I had some trouble with both of those also, but would put Spearhead in second place (although the time scale is screwy).

[Panzerleader71]

"I have ColdWar Commander but like most GW games."

I just feel I need to make one thing very clear. BKC/CWC/FWC may have things in common with the Warmaster system they are most assuredly not a GW product! If nothing else Pete listens to his customer base, and doesn't try to bleed us dry with endless rules re-writes, and supplements needed to play the game as the Evil Empire of gaming continually does.

Sorry about the rant...I just don't want another misconception about the Commander series to spring up.

[WargameHub]

My apologies for the poor wording, I didn't mean it is a GW game, however it is very directly based on the game and in many of the sections the rules are almost a direct copy.

However, my point stands. It's a fun quick game, but the command and control aspect doesn't fit modern warfare as well as it does ancients.

[whenimaginationfails]

"I don't care like its mechanic of stands having hit points. "

A common point of contention I've heard about the Commader series. Something that isn't realized is most units in wargames have "hit points" they just aren't called that. Even GHQ has them; 2 S results=(S), 2 (S) results=D, etc. It is just BKC/CWC doesn't have the outright "Eliminated" result.

All the options above are good ones, what is important is how much complexity you wan in your game. If you are looking for something dead easy then I would go with CWC, if you don't mind wading through some charts then GHQ or Challenger might be more up your ally. It is all personal taste.

Certainly rules like Challenger/WRG/FFT have suppressed, neutralized/killed status, but they never seemed like hit points to me. In most of the games I have played, we might have a few suppressed stands, but either a stand was killed or not. Having a few potential states has less record keeping.

[WargameHub]

I've never felt like GHQ had had points.

And as a clairification, two S results in nothing happening. It's the (s) on a S that becomes a D. And it's a simple you have been suppressed by fire, or damaged by fire.

The big question is what are you really looking for? If you want realistic tactics and results some games are far better than others. The same with wanting a fast game, and if fast what scale are you looking to play. Since most of these rule sets are 1 stand equals 1 platoon do you want a battalion, or a brigade?

For me it's been a balance of quick play, realistic tactics, and realistic results. I want the charts to be easy to use and quick to find the rules. I also find that I want a new player to be handle a battalion (12-18 stands) easily without any trouble and to start picking up the rules by turn 3.

On the flip side, I will avoid anything that doesn't accurately reflect appropriate tactics or some part of it makes no sense. I also don't like it when the different parts, say aircraft, artillery, shooting, movement, etc all use different rule mechanics.

Sadly, this mentality has made me realize how many rulesets I have that I don't play anymore.....

[Panzerleader71]

My apologies for the poor wording, I didn't mean it is a GW game, however it is very directly based on the game and in many of the sections the rules are almost a direct copy.

However, my point stands. It's a fun quick game, but the command and control aspect doesn't fit modern warfare as well as it does ancients.

No need to apologize. My remarks were not aimed "directly" at you; I just wanted to make sure a misconception of the game did not spring up. If other gamers like myself who despise GW were to make that direct link they may walk away from the BKC/CWC out of hand. I was just clearing something up. My dislike of GW may have made my statement look a little more forceful then I had intended.

Your comment on the C&C in the game fitting Ancients better then modern wargaming is interesting. I've always been of the reverse frame of mind. I've never liked the system in WMA as I feel it doesn't reflect the slow nature of battlefield communication at the time, which was "speed of the messenger’s horse". But, I feel it reflects (in very simple terms) the speed of modern comms between units on the field very well.

"If you want realistic tactics and results some games are far better than others."

True and I agree that BKC doesn't really fit into some scales "accurately" particularly 1:1. It then does become a case of vehicles having "hit points", but the hits system in my mind works well to describe a units current level of combat effectiveness at the 1 stand=1 platoon level of game (if a unit becomes suppressed and takes further damage it will be driven back, and if driven back far enough it is "KO'd"). A person not familiar with the rules can easily step in as a battalion commander without problem. As to "realism", well we are talking a game here not simulation (BKC/CWC never pretended to be anything other then a game) either way everyone I have intro'd to the system always commented at the end on how "realistic" the battle was for such a simple system, and these are players with the same level of experience in gaming and "real world" research as myself. As to tactics, when my group plays BKC we use the same tactics we would use in any other WWII wargame.

My over all point is you can have a realistic "game" without all the complexities of ballistic charts. All-in-all each to his own, what counts is that everyone is happy with the system they use and have as much fun as they can.

[exodusforever]

Dear God... I have been reading intricately on each of ur reviews.

AS a noobie with completely no idea whats going on in detail.

I really have a tough time to decided.

Modern Spearhead is hard to find.. and well i think I am going to make a pass on it.
I am just now stuff between GHQ main rules and CWC.

As for the CWC rules largely being affiliated to GW games.. What do u mean by tht, Wargamehub?

I am a GW Warhammer player.. but i can't see how the aspect of playing Warhammer is link to GHQ or modern war gaming.. :/

[WargameHub]

While it isn't a GW game it is very heavily based on the Warhammer Ancients rules. Basically if you know one you know the basics for the other. Your CO gives orders and if he fails he and the unit he was giving orders to are done for the turn. If it was your overall Hq and he fails you can't give any other orders that turn. Without an order the only thing a unit can do is it's once a turn op fire.

[WargameHub]

Oh, and don't get me wrong, CWC is a good game, but good in the same ways as the GW games it was based on. For ancients I'm fine with troops not moving the whole game since they can't get an order. I do have a problem with an Abrams unit sitting there across from a T-72 unit and it fails orders every turn and doesn't do anything until the T-72s either move or shoot at it.......

[Panzerleader71]

"As for the CWC rules largely being affiliated to GW games.. What do u mean by that..."

BKC/CWC use the same Command model as used in WMA (ie to move a unit it must pass a command roll for either an HQ or CO unit.) It also uses a similar combat system each unit has an attack rating (ie number of dice rolled), you need to get over a target number to "score a hit" then the target rolls to save the hits. Suppression and drivebacks are also figured similarly. They are not affiliated with GW Pete was able to secure Rick's permission to modify the WMA system on his own.

" I do have a problem with an Abrams unit sitting there across from a T-72 unit and it fails orders every turn and doesn't do anything until the T-72s either move or shoot at it......."

I keep hearing this, some people out there must really have bad luck at roll making their command rolls. I have never seen a unit miss everyone of its command rolls in a game. It should also be noted that if the T72 was within 20cm of the Abrams it could have acted under it's own "initiative" and opened fire on the T72.

"I am just now stuff between GHQ main rules and CWC."

If you are looking for an easy game to leran and run after one reading of the rules then CWC would, IMO, be the best choice. If you like a little more detail to rules set then GHQ would be your best bet.

[WargameHub]

I keep hearing this, some people out there must really have bad luck at roll making their command rolls. I have never seen a unit miss everyone of its command rolls in a game. It should also be noted that if the T72 was within 20cm of the Abrams it could have acted under it's own "initiative" and opened fire on the T72.

You should meet several of our club members.......

What was better was when T-80s were hosing the Abrams with missiles while the Abrams couldn't fire back.

If you are looking for an easy game to leran and run after one reading of the rules then CWC would, IMO, be the best choice. If you like a little more detail to rules set then GHQ would be your best bet.

I think we are agreeing to argue between CWC and GHQ I would have called GHQ easier to learn!

Thanks for clarifying which command system it was, too many rule systems at home........

[Baphomet69]

Personal opinion:
I love Modern Spearhead, but forget trying to find it currently.

GHQ's Modern Micro Armour and CWC are both great systems. All three of the above are pretty easy to learn.

Sounds like you are also looking for some compatibility with others. You might want to search your area for gaming groups and see what is the most common rules set around you.

Other than that, I would say it comes down to either GHQ or CWC. If you can afford it, you might get both and give them both a read through and see which strikes you more before you decide which to teach others. Just a thought...

[Panzerleader71]

"What was better was when T-80s were hosing the Abrams with missiles while the Abrams couldn't fire back. "

was this because they were surpressed? I would think the Abrams should have been able to get a few opportunity fire shots off if they were able to.

[WargameHub]

T80 with ATGW has 150 cm range, Abrams is only 120 cm and kept failing orders so the Russians just sat out at range.

[Panzerleader71]

"T80 with ATGW has 150 cm range, Abrams is only 120 cm and kept failing orders so the Russians just sat out at range."

Did the Abrams unit(s) try to evade the ATGMs?