Modern Rules

pdxs3t · Post by **pdxs3t** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:00 am

Thank you for the link, very helpful!

redleg wrote:Check this website out as well. it has a lot of detailed info about the US Army units for that time period. No pictured though, just straight TO&E documents:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/

pdxs3t · Post by **pdxs3t** » Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:04 am

This is very cool! Will the rule set be playable at the 1:1 level?

cama wrote:
microgeorge wrote:I have taken over revising the modern rules for GHQ. Some big changes coming. Looking for some help out there for updated TO&Es s well as new weapons stats.There have been a lot of new weapons and TO&Es appearing since the publication of the first edition. I can probably tackle those two tasks myself but it would dramatically effect the publication date.
-George Chrestensen (WWII Microsquad designer)
Hey George, I'd be happy to help. Send me a PM and we can exchange emails. I can definitely sort out modern Canadians, eh ...

microgeorge · Post by **microgeorge** » Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:08 am

Sorry. This will remain a platoon level game. Designing it for 1:1 is a whole new can of worms.

pdxs3t · Post by **pdxs3t** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:39 am

Bigger is always better.

You painted Su-24 didnâ€™t you? Nice job if youâ€™d! And from the looks of several other of the new releases, you painted those too?

cama wrote:
microgeorge wrote:Sorry. This will remain a platoon level game. Designing it for 1:1 is a whole new can of worms.
I like it at the scale 1:5 as originally designed - allows for larger games.

pdxs3t · Post by **pdxs3t** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:03 am

You have mad skills my friend. When I first looked at the carrier, it was a Big Wow! Iâ€™ve been following your work for several years. And just recently inspired me to start gathering up all my metal, plastic and all the supplies out of storage.

cama wrote:
pdxs3t wrote:Bigger is always better.

You painted Su-24 didnâ€™t you? Nice job if youâ€™d! And from the looks of several other of the new releases, you painted those too?

cama wrote:
microgeorge wrote:Sorry. This will remain a platoon level game. Designing it for 1:1 is a whole new can of worms.
I like it at the scale 1:5 as originally designed - allows for larger games.

Thanks! Yep, Su-24 to Argus, all my work! The dazzle camouflage on the Argus took about 6 hours to get right. It was so interesting.

And no decals anywhere. I had to hand paint everything.

Sudwind · Post by **Sudwind** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:04 am

Combined Arms is based on an earlier version of Command Decision. I love CD, but that is because I love operational level games. Each stand is roughly a platoon. You get it all, aircraft, helicopters, armor, artillery, infantry. Updates with new rules and new equipment can be found on the forum for Command Decision Test of Battle site. Great rules for troop quality, morale and issuing orders. But....younger players donâ€™t seem to dig this kind of game system......

PolishGI · Post by **PolishGI** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:57 am

Sorry, late to the party. Been caught up with the kids' club volleyball...

Need to get back on track.

I play a lot of Command Decision. I tried Combined Arms a long time ago and it wasnt bad.

I've played CD 1, CD 2, CD 3 and CD4. I like the level of detail in CD3 and do not care for the "streamlining" of CD4. So I took CD3 and CD4 and blended them together for my own fun.

CD4 dropped some of the details like ammo count and individual ranges for guns. Instead of tracking ammo (i use excel files), I believe there is a die roll now. I prefer the count... it comes into play with the heavier AFVs. Their support vehicles are their Achilles heel.

With CD 4 ranges, every gun/weapon has the same short, medium and long range. blah... Certain guns/sides should have a range advantage. Germans in North Afrika, or the Germans on the eastern front. Terrain plays into effect, LoS, ranges, ammo...

So I kept most of the CD3 detail rules, incorporated a few CD4 revisions and then used the revised CD4 data charts but with CD3 gun ranges. If that makes sense.

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:48 am

PolishGI wrote:Sorry, late to the party. Been caught up with the kids' club volleyball...

Need to get back on track.

I play a lot of Command Decision. I tried Combined Arms a long time ago and it wasnt bad.

I've played CD 1, CD 2, CD 3 and CD4. I like the level of detail in CD3 and do not care for the "streamlining" of CD4. So I took CD3 and CD4 and blended them together for my own fun.

CD4 dropped some of the details like ammo count and individual ranges for guns. Instead of tracking ammo (i use excel files), I believe there is a die roll now. I prefer the count... it comes into play with the heavier AFVs. Their support vehicles are their Achilles heel.

With CD 4 ranges, every gun/weapon has the same short, medium and long range. blah... Certain guns/sides should have a range advantage. Germans in North Afrika, or the Germans on the eastern front. Terrain plays into effect, LoS, ranges, ammo...

So I kept most of the CD3 detail rules, incorporated a few CD4 revisions and then used the revised CD4 data charts but with CD3 gun ranges. If that makes sense.

I used to have Close And Destroy (both 1 and 2) many years ago. Same with Tactical Command. All of which I sold off years ago as well...lol.

CD4 I find to be quite enjoyable, when I was playing it several years ago. Different take on the aspect of wargaming when compared to Spearhead, FFT3, GHQ- WWII. But never tried out CD3 at all.