> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard of Micro Armour, but what is is like (rule wise)?
...it varies from the sublime (eg WRG) to the ridiculous (Challenger 2000).
There are large numbers of sets of rules, some quite awful, some pretty
good. The most popular amidst techno-freaks is Challenger 2000, a very
complex set of rules that's quite innacurate as a simulation, but is very
believable since it deals with so many variables.
The rules question is complicated by the fact that under some sets, 1 tank
model = 1 tank (ie tactical scale), while in others it equals anything up to a
battalion (operational). Oh yes, and the WW2 vs Modern
vs SF periods (DS-2 is but SF Microarmour)
> Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
(snipped)
> The rules question is complicated by the fact that under some sets, 1
> I prefer the tactical, and Wargames Research Group rules (flawed, but
Alan, I've been trying to locate the WRG rules off and on over the last year.
Are they still in print? If anyone has a line on an extra copy please let me
know.
Thanks,
I like the WRG as well, showing their age but still enjoyable.
Buck
A Serving infantry Cpl and wargamer I know swears by 'Crossfire' a company
level WWII game.
Buck
As you said there are a number of options depending on taste. 1-1 scale
is
fine if you don't use more than a company of armor. Due to the
distances tank and AT guns can fire, larger units need more space to maneuver.
Command
Decision and Spearhead use @ 1-5 scale for vehicles and players are
Battalion and Regimental commanders. Both are reasonably well supported on the
web.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Donald Hosford wrote:
> I take it that there are rules sets for just about every taste?
Very much so.
> Any good sets for the WW2 period? (My friend has a few german and
Take a look at the WRG (Wargames Research Group)'s 1925-1950 rules set.
WRG have put out a total of 5 rules sets for micro-armour. The first was
the 1925-1950 rules set (version 1), way back in the early 70s. They
then made a 1950-1975 set, which was Modern/SF then (covered future
weapons), and which was used by various armed forces for training. It used the
same mechanics as their pervious set. They then made a
1950-1985 set, heavily re-vamped. Then a new 1925-1950 set, using
different rules mechanics which heavily emphasised _troop_ rather than
_technology_ capabilities. So US replacements straight from the Repple
Depple had less tactical flexibility than their "Alte Kameraden" opponents,
even if they did have more and better equipment. Finally,
ther released a 1950-2000 set, using the same mechanics as the 1925-1950
set. The join is seamless, so you can pit a Tiger vs a T-55, or even an
M-1, if you so desire.
But there are many more, and more popular, rules sets. Most USAians dislike
the WRG set as it rates the US Army in WW2 as being rather less
tactically flexible than they'd like - as bad as or worse than the UK.
To the "Serious Historian", it's accurate (but the "SH" knows what the
exceptions were - some US formations were at least as competent as the
average Wehrmacht force, others less so than most Italians). In any event, I
like playing with forces that aren't telephathic
supermen, where you have to decide upon a forming-up point, a line of
departure, make sure your troops don't become entangled, make sure objectives
and attack routes are easy to recognise etc. Others just find
the above frustrating and boring. The morale rules - rather than the
troop capabilities rules - are also flawed, as is the system for
deciding who's won. Despite this, IMHO the best system around.
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/minipage/rules/ww2/land.html is a good
link for some other rules sets. Have a browse through some of the links
> Kevin Walker wrote:
> Alan, I've been trying to locate the WRG rules off and on over the
All I can do is refer you to:
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/minipage/ref/man/wrg.html
In a message dated 11/17/99 5:03:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> geofferyr@hotmail.com writes:
> A Serving infantry Cpl and wargamer I know swears by 'Crossfire' a
I second that one--the game sequence is a little strange, but the
results are
both fairly realistic and true to the tactics of WW2--but Crossfire is a
game
more designed for 15mm-25mm figures than micro-scale and is basically
limited to use in "close" terrain. Definitely NOT for gaming Steppes, Prairie,
or Desert...
Rob
> Kevin Walker wrote:
Thanks Alan, I appreciate the info you've provided.