GHQ Ruleset vs The Other Guy's

[BattlerBritain]

Cheers, jb - good comments.

Reply to Mobius:
2 different aspects to a game, the rules (how to play the game) and the game setup. I find that if the rules are more than 1 piece of paper big then even experienced players spend more time reading the rules than actually playing.

And if your rules are good enough then 'simple' rules often end up with the same result as very detailed rules that take an age to play. That's why I like the early Squad Leader rules - simple, but effective.

As for 99 pages of TO&E, you could have a 1000 pages for all I care, but how many would you actually use when setting up a game? Probably not more than 1 or 2?

And Tiger 2's in 1942 - hmmmm, there's an idea for an interesting scenario

Cheers,

battler

[jb]

Cheers, jb - good comments.

Reply to Mobius:
2 different aspects to a game, the rules (how to play the game) and the game setup. I find that if the rules are more than 1 piece of paper big then even experienced players spend more time reading the rules than actually playing.

And if your rules are good enough then 'simple' rules often end up with the same result as very detailed rules that take an age to play. That's why I like the early Squad Leader rules - simple, but effective.

As for 99 pages of TO&E, you could have a 1000 pages for all I care, but how many would you actually use when setting up a game? Probably not more than 1 or 2?

And Tiger 2's in 1942 - hmmmm, there's an idea for an interesting scenario

Cheers,

battler

Remember Panzerblitz. One sheet of paper folded up were the rules

[BattlerBritain]

Funny you should mention Panzerblitz.....

I just happened to be going through some boxes in my attic when I came across my old copies.

The counters are also useful for Dummy markers on the tabletop.

[Ritter]

Interesting topic!

My experience is that its all about the balance. Its pretty easy to include all aspects of war in a rulebook but if you do I can bet that there wont be anyone beating down your door to play a second game. Too much data - not enough excitment.

Wargames are a simulation and if a rule can be witten to 'simulate' multiple conditions at once - that works best. It doesn't matter if a gun is out of ammo, jammed, too hot to fire, etc..the simple fact is it cannot fire. What is physically done to rectify the condition doesnt really matter either unless you want to simulate that too ( although resupply can give you a reason to use all those trucks, I feel that most players are busy enough moving combat units around the map to move support elements too).

Squad Leader had it right, roll boxcars, it's broke; roll a '1', its fixed. Simple and beautiful!

Troy

[jb]

I wish things would be archived here

[Mobius]

Cheers, jb - good comments.
Reply to Mobius:
2 different aspects to a game, the rules (how to play the game) and the game setup. I find that if the rules are more than 1 piece of paper big then even experienced players spend more time reading the rules than actually playing.

And who is playing those rules these days? No one.
They just leave out too much interesting stuff. You play it a few times a shrug as its all the same.
After awhile you read history books. At least some of us do. And you want to see and touch what you have read about in miniature. That's why we add it to the rules. There's plenty of easy play rules out there. Good for beginners. Boring for others.

Some rule systems are books and books of mostly lists.

Thanks jb for saving this thread from the bit bucket.

[jb]

Cheers, jb - good comments.
Reply to Mobius:
2 different aspects to a game, the rules (how to play the game) and the game setup. I find that if the rules are more than 1 piece of paper big then even experienced players spend more time reading the rules than actually playing.

And who is playing those rules these days? No one.
They just leave out too much interesting stuff. You play it a few times a shrug as its all the same.
After awhile you read history books. At least some of us do. And you want to see and touch what you have read about in miniature. That's why we add it to the rules. There's plenty of easy play rules out there. Good for beginners. Boring for others.

Some rule systems are books and books of mostly lists.

Thanks jb for saving this thread from the bit bucket.

I agree totally with what BattlerBritain states above. As for Panzerblitz,dunno who's playing it,but it still gets bought on ebay,and other places(Knoble Knights.com). So I would assume somebody does,alot of people still play board games- I haven't in a while, And I do believe it's not from lack of detail in the games(or Boredom as you state).
History books have always been read by me,thats what got me into Wargaming.(OK maybe it wasn't all reading,pictures maybe?). As for wanting to recreate what you read about(or in my case what was seen in a picture),I FIRMLY beleive in EASY play. NOW lets review easy play. Easy play doesn't mean to eliminate pertinant detail,in my book it means to get rid of alot of stuff that is so questionable of happening that you waste time trying to replicate.
For instance I feel there is no room for angle of a round in our tank battles. If the target is moving isn't the angle of the point of impact moving and of course changing? For instance a tank is moving and is the target,even on flat desert the vehicle has to be "bouncing" a few degrees. This should then also be determined in your firing stats if doing detailed things. How many times can you change the angle on your tuuret side armour in 10 seconds by rotating?Just too much garbage to deal with. Sure I'm sure you have a "chart" for this (i.e. target moving 20kph slightly bouncy terrain with 40cm rocks pointing north-add 2 or is 3 to die roll,if turret moved add 4 ),but why?These are just 2 examples of many. To me this is boredom. Definate crap for beginners and worse than "worked-for" boredom for most others! Some rule systems are lists and lists of modifiers that make a book.
As for this minute type of detail afore mentioned,I now relpace with the computer.I just think about in the foreseeable future,games that take that data up another level of realism...
Don't get me wrong,I will ALways play the minis,one to one scale,using units up to battalion in size on a side,NOT sacrificing detail,and definately not with rules sytems that take ALL day (and sometimes the night) to recreate 71/2 minutes of real time.I believe this kind of game is what is on its way out. Sure there will always be some that will play them ,maybe using one vehicle or a fireteam of troops,but even these players will wise up or be shown something more dilectible

[Mobius]

For instance I feel there is no room for angle of a round in our tank battles. If the target is moving isn't the angle of the point of impact moving and of course changing? For instance a tank is moving and is the target,even on flat desert the vehicle has to be "bouncing" a few degrees. This should then also be determined in your firing stats if doing detailed things. How many times can you change the angle on your tuuret side armour in 10 seconds by rotating?Just too much garbage to deal with. Sure I'm sure you have a "chart" for this

Your tank battles maybe. If you are using 10-20minute turns. But within the bounds of a minute or so the deflection angle isn't going to change that much.

However we don't eliminate the angle, we confine it its effects to within limits. The exact effect of the angle will be something. What it is at any instant is a probability problem not an impossibility problem. We let the effects be determined by a random die roll. But to eliminate entirely because you don't know it second to second is flight from reality.

You might as well say that there is no room for morale or cohesion, because it can never be known as it changes from day to day and minute to minute. Troops may be sleep deprived, didn't have breakfast, lost an inspiring leader or dear comrade, be low on ammo, weren't trained well in the particular type of fighting or shocked by battlefatigue. In fact a cohesion factor is the most ridiculous as it is something that's isn't even measurable any second let alone every second, it simply pops out the rules writer's head.

[voltigeur]

I have to agree with JB's points. War gaming is role-playing and most of us role-play Military Commanders. For me the best games re-create as close as possible the command situation. The technical aspects show one commander’s technology advantage or disadvantage in relation to his opponent. Hence why a NATO company can routinely deal with WARSAW Pact Battalions.

What is important is how do I playing the role of a NATO or Israeli commander deal with 3 or 4 or even 5 to one odds. Conversely how do I as a Soviet or Arab commander stay out of long-range shooting matches that will decimate my forces? Get in close and overwhelm the defenders and take objectives. How do you read and use terrain? How do negate or reduce the problems of enemy controlled airspace? How do you keep your battle plan from turning into a cluster when facing a thinking opponent?

A good set of rules gets accurate results. A good set of rules doesn’t administrate historical outcomes. It forces you to learn the tactics and techniques that get you historical out comes. For example: 73 Sinai. The technical aspect: Western tanks can depress the gun 14 + degrees where Soviet made tanks can only depress 4 degrees. The significance is Soviet tanks cannot use defilade to get a hulled down benefit. On a battlefield strewn with Sand Dunes this can be very significant.

So how does a bad set of rules handle this? Well we could just make the Arabs take a severe “to hitâ€￾ modifier against Israelis. We could be really “Flames of Warishâ€￾ and Give the Israeli’s a great “saving throwâ€￾. Or dare I suggest make the Israeli commander use terrain and learn how to fight with his units.

Figuring out the physics and mathematical details of every single shot and making sure that every single freak occurrence in possible is just BS. On some level it has to be there but I wouldn’t “playâ€￾ even in skirmish gaming. As a former infantry man I can tell you we never thought of any of that, EVER! I was only concerned with keeping under cover. Making myself as hard of target to hit as possible and putting steel on target.

[jb]

[

For instance I feel there is no room for angle of a round in our tank battles. If the target is moving isn't the angle of the point of impact moving and of course changing? For instance a tank is moving and is the target,even on flat desert the vehicle has to be "bouncing" a few degrees. This should then also be determined in your firing stats if doing detailed things. How many times can you change the angle on your tuuret side armour in 10 seconds by rotating?Just too much garbage to deal with. Sure I'm sure you have a "chart" for this

Your tank battles maybe. If you are using 10-20minute turns. But within the bounds of a minute or so the deflection angle isn't going to change that much.

How many times does the angle of the side armour of the target change,just by rotating the turret for 10 seconds? Answer: too many to figure in reality (rolling with dice)
And no,You don't need to play 10 minute turns or more to eliminate it. Besides elimination is too harsh a term,I like to actually state that it IS figured in the shooting secquince,but is such a WILD factor that to even mess with just wastes prescious time.

MobiusHowever we don't eliminate the angle, we confine it its effects to within limits. The exact effect of the angle will be something. What it is at any instant is a probability problem not an impossibility problem. We let the effects be determined by a random die roll. But to eliminate entirely because you don't know it second to second is flight from reality.

Are you talking about an exclusive die roll? And if so, this gives you reality compared to other systems?

You might as well say that there is no room for morale or cohesion, because it can never be known as it changes from day to day and minute to minute. Troops may be sleep deprived, didn't have breakfast, lost an inspiring leader or dear comrade, be low on ammo, weren't trained well in the particular type of fighting or shocked by battlefatigue. In fact a cohesion factor is the most ridiculous as it is something that's isn't even measurable any second let alone every second, it simply pops out the rules writer's head

I nver mentioned anything about morale,but seeings how you brought up the subject... I use morale as something that happens in the imediate area where something has happened,basically- Death. Also subjective overwhelming firepower etc. I don't do ,well, I've lost 75% of my platoon,lets go..
I use morale as an immeadiate possibility of the participants leaving the spot they are on,due to the afore mentioned. This usually applies to anybody within sight/sound/effect of the incident that triggers a morale roll.
Cohesion,thats something that sticks together,etc,etc,etc...

[Mobius]

The technical aspects show one commander’s technology advantage or disadvantage in relation to his opponent. Hence why a NATO company can routinely deal with WARSAW Pact Battalions.

I agree they can but it can't just be by definition. It has to be a comparison of technology, tactics that use that technology. You can't start with the accepted outcome and work backwards. You'd be like the Japanese Navy which wargamed the Midway invasion and accepted the fact that they'd win. Then when they lost more carriers than the US the admirals changed the rules to get the outcome they liked. You have to work upwards to find outcomes you don't already know.

A good set of rules gets accurate results. A good set of rules doesn’t administrate historical outcomes. It forces you to learn the tactics and techniques that get you historical out comes

As I was saying.

For example: 73 Sinai. The technical aspect: Western tanks can depress the gun 14 + degrees where Soviet made tanks can only depress 4 degrees. The significance is Soviet tanks cannot use defilade to get a hulled down benefit. On a battlefield strewn with Sand Dunes this can be very significant.

Yes, it can but in a gully the deperssion only needs to be 0°. The depression gives the firer a better hulldown on a reverse slope but the NATO tanks are taller so some of that advantage is lost. I don't see where you and I disagree. Jb is saying that angles are things that can not be gamed.
{In '67 Sinai the Isreali tank's had better performing guns where they could knock out the T-54/55 at ranges where the 100mm AP was ineffective.)

So how does a bad set of rules handle this? Well we could just make the Arabs take a severe “to hitâ€￾ modifier against Israelis. We could be really “Flames of Warishâ€￾ and Give the Israeli’s a great “saving throwâ€￾. Or dare I suggest make the Israeli commander use terrain and learn how to fight with his units.

That's why I brought up cohesion. That is basically a fudge-factor to try to get a wanted result. You start with the desired result then crank up the cohesion to a level where it is the most likely result.

Figuring out the physics and mathematical details of every single shot and making sure that every single freak occurrence in possible is just BS. On some level it has to be there but I wouldn’t “playâ€￾ even in skirmish gaming. As a former infantry man I can tell you we never thought of any of that, EVER! I was only concerned with keeping under cover. Making myself as hard of target to hit as possible and putting steel on target.

Of course, but where to draw the line makes a game interesting but able to be played or slam-bam fast but bland. You don't have to figure out all the shots but some place you have to represent the realistic effect of at least one shot. Otherwise you have nothing but BS.

[jb]

Jb is saying that angles are things that can not be gamed

I think you misunderstand me..I was talking about the angle of the target in relation to the ROUND that is striking it.
Talking about gullies and 0 degrees,how do you figure? Depending on the gully, if you have to park anywhere on the slope of the gully to shoot out of it, then you are going to need PLENTY of gun depression.
PS on the Japanese Midway wargame-maybe Yamamoto was rolling good,real good!

[Mobius]

Are you talking about an exclusive die roll? And if so, this gives you reality compared to other systems?

'Exclusive'?
Hopefully we did our math right and get closer to what may be happening than other systems.
I accept all the 'facts' and data are mostly probably averages. Even data from military tech and field manuals and tables are compiled by physical tests. The US Naval Ballistic Limit proof test on penetration of shells actually is a 50% criteria. So when something in a manual is said to penetrate 10cm of armor at 1000 meters this means that 50% of the tested shells did NOT penetrate and 50% did. And this is for just one angle. If you have a frontal arc you may have horizontal angles from 0° to 30-45°. And this is without the vertical rolling you mention.
Instead of trying to figure out the exact angle at any particular instant we just have a die roll that varies the penetration. Sometimes more (critical hits), but mostly less. This seems to cover the most probable outcomes without too much burden on time. But it does cost time to do.
This is not my exclusive roll. Anyone can do it too. It just takes a little more time. but you might think of it as a kind of saving throw.

[jb]

Are you talking about an exclusive die roll? And if so, this gives you reality compared to other systems?

'Exclusive'?
Hopefully we did our math right and get closer to what may be happening than other systems.
I accept all the 'facts' and data are mostly probably averages. Even data from military tech and field manuals and tables are compiled by physical tests. The US Naval Ballistic Limit proof test on penetration of shell actually is a 50% criteria. So when something in a manual is said to penetrate 10cm of armor at 1000 meters this means that 50% of the shells did NOT penetrate and 50% did. And this is for just one angle. If you have a frontal arc you may have horizontal angles from 0° to 30-45°. And this is without the vertical rolling you mention.
Instead of trying to figure out the exact angle at any particular instant we just have a die roll that varies the penetration. Sometimes more (critical hits), but mostly less. This seems to cover the most probable outcomes without too much burden on time. But it does cost time to do.
This is not my exclusive roll. Anyone can do it too. It just takes a little more time. but you might think of it as a kind of saving throw.

Does this mean you have an exclusive die roll for the different angle of the target?

[Mobius]

Does this mean you have an exclusive die roll for the different angle of the target?

You mean for each angle? no. For most of the angles we use just one die. For within 15° of the diagonal we subtract 1 from this die so the results usually are even less penetration.
On the other hand sometimes if you roll this really, really good you can get a critical penetration.

August 1944, 18 hits on a King Tiger from 2 M10s. One penetrated the frontal arc.

Where?

Through the ball mount hull machinegun.
You can do it in PW by rolling the variable die of a '6' backed by another '6'.
That's what I want in a wargame. Something that reflects the probable but also once in awhile allows the improbable.