[OT] Spearhead

Anyone on the list have experience with Spearhead (or Modern Spearhead)? If
so, what's your opinion of it?

[quoted original message omitted]

Spearhead is the greatest thing since sliced bread! Some real trackheads and
Panzerphiles may not like them, claiming they are too simple or unrealistic.
They don't like the "you must fire at the target that is the same type as the
firing unit" (tanks and ATG's at tanks, Infantry at Infantry, etc.) rule and
the "shoot at the closest thing to you rule". Although this does lead to some
"gamey" tactics, it does not allow the Uberfuerer kitty kats to dominate the
game (although they are still very powerful) and these two rules are also a
elegant way of making you intermix
your infantry with your tanks and vice-versa.

Modern Spearhead is heavily based on Spearhead, but has some very nice
"improvements" which have made there way into my WWII games!

I've played a lot of Micro Armor in my day, and at the end of the day, I can
actually field nearly a division
(at one tank/infantry stand equals a platoon) a side
with 4 to 6 players on a side (an experienced player
can easily run a regiment/Brigade) and still reach a
conclusion in four hours. And my head doesn't hurt afterward!!!

Amongst some other favorite mechanics is the "Command Arrow", which has you
draw you movements on a map. It sounds tedious, but really isn't that bad.
Plus, it makes one feel that the units are truly maneuvering and that you are
commanding as a real Major, Colonel or General would (at least it feels that
way).

My take on the rules is you really, really like them or you really, really
don't. Personally, I love them.

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

There was some discussion about Modern Spearhead on the list right before I
got back. I had a chance to flip through a rulebook yesterday, and I have two
comments:

1)The engineering rules are completely bogus. Obviously no one in that company
has ever put in a minefield or bothered to check a manual to see how long it
takes. They want to tell me an engineer platoon takes 3 hours to put in a
minefield 125 yards square. That's only the most glaringly bogus rule in that
section.

2)Whoever wrote the US Army TOs was under the
influence of some serious mind-altering chemicals.

IIRC, this is the game I once played at a con where I lost because I didn't
realize that tanks with turrets could, under this ruleset, not fire at any
targets other than straight ahead.

> John Atkinson wrote:

So, John, how long *does* it take for an engineer platoon to put in a
minefield 125 yards square? ("how many licks
does it take to get to the center of..." ;-)

John, thanks for the comments, it is clarifying my search for rules for armor
games between 1918 and 2100 (just around the corner...) While a low priority,
it is a matter of simple economics that i try and buy the rules that have the
most fun while having a modicum of connection to reality (or at least the
appearance of same.) And the lack of influence that Supply (in campaigns,)
reconnaissance, and engineering tasks have in
many rules (especially commercial and/or new sets) is a definite minus.
I don't want WRG style lists of lists but it should have some affects (or
is that effects?) at least in scenario design/set up!

Gracias, Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships are my
main interest. But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:54:37 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

You may want to check out Command Decision or its Modern (late 80's) version
Combined Arms. Should be able to find these on Ebay. One thing to remember is
that in CD each player is a Battalion or Brigade commander, stands are
platoons and morale and command is by company. With a 1"=50m scale, you should
not see more than a US Battalion or Soviet MRR on a typical table (regardless
of the size of the miniatures). More than that and the mechanics start to bog
things down. From my experience, CD is a good model of 20th century warfare.

Spearhead is at the same level, but I find that you need to make house rules
to bring it back in alignment with reality and history.

Both of these can get "fiddley" as each stand may have different modifiers for
morale and fire.

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:

I'll post the engineer work estimates when I have some more time.

Unsolicited endorsement: Mein Panzer, Old Dominion GamesWorks, www.odgw.com
seems to be a pretty good system. I've read the rules and talked to the
designer at some length yesterday at Fall In. Looks pretty good. He's only got
the WWII module out so far, is expecting to start putting modern modules out
next year.

Also, for a simpler system, Micro Armour: The Game by GHQ also looks
promising. And you gotta love a company that puts out Wolverine miniatures.

Havn't played either of 'em, so I'm just going off first impressions of the
rulebooks.

I'll post the engineer work estimates when I have some more time.

Unsolicited endorsement: Mein Panzer, Old Dominion GamesWorks, www.odgw.com
seems to be a pretty good system. I've read the rules and talked to the
designer at some length yesterday at Fall In. Looks pretty good. He's only got
the WWII module out so far, is expecting to start putting modern modules out
next year.

Also, for a simpler system, Micro Armour: The Game by GHQ also looks
promising. And you gotta love a company that puts out Wolverine miniatures.

Havn't played either of 'em, so I'm just going off first impressions of the
rulebooks.

John

You might want to try A Fistful of TOWs

http://www.cox-internet.com/tbeard/fft.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/

> At 3:30 AM -0800 11/16/03, John Atkinson wrote:

Microarmor has been a very good system for years of company and larger scale
combat. Similar to Dirtside but with more detail, so it goes a tad slower.

Great for WarPact/Nato or WWII Axis vs Allies actions on fairly large
scales.

> At 7:03 AM -0600 11/16/03, Don M wrote:

FFT looks pretty nice actually.

I played Micro Armor: The Game at a con last year and was not impressed. In
addition to the gentleman running the game, the designer of the rules was
present to add comments and clarification. All I can say about the rules was
that the Russian side was supposed to force their way across a stream, and set
up positions before German reinforcements could arrive. Unfortunately the game
uses a dice based system for issuing commands, and due to bad (not that bad
but bad enough), the Russian force could not even enter the table for the
first two turns. This may of course have affected my opinion of the rules
system, but for the most part I was not impressed.

IMHO I think that Command Decision is the best of the large scale rules sets,
at least as far as I have seen so far.

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Don M <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com> wrote:

> You might want to try A Fistful of TOWs

I've played that a couple of times--the time that made
the biggest impression wasn't a real workout of the
system--NATO hasty defense vs. Sov hasty attack.  Sovs
screwed up and dropped smoke all over the NATO positions, and I turned on my
thermal sights and ate their lunch without loosing a single stand except for a
few casualties caused by artillery.

I've played that a couple of times--the time that made
the biggest impression wasn't a real workout of the
system--NATO hasty defense vs. Sov hasty attack.  Sovs
screwed up and dropped smoke all over the NATO positions, and I turned on my
thermal sights and ate their lunch without loosing a single stand except for a
few casualties caused by artillery.

John

Well thanks to those books you lent me to read, I've been wanting to give this
FFT scenario a try......)

http://www.cox-internet.com/tbeard/dixie.htm

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, John Atkinson wrote:

> --- warbeads@juno.com wrote:

A friend was on the MeinPanzer Modern playtest list a few years ago, and
we played a bunch of small-medium games. I really liked the system
overall, although DS2 has better Morale/Confidence rules.

Overall detail is a step above DS2, so it goes a bit slower, but even with
beta playtest rules it was a good system. I've been waiting for MP MOdern to
be released; guess I'll wait a bit longer!

We even kicked around ideas for "Mein HoverPanzer" SF varients, and that
looked possible.

The Battlefront authors are also working on a Modern version. Go to
www.fireandfury.com and follow the links to get the beta version of the data
cards and rules extensions to bring Battlefront WWII into the modern era.
[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Dances With Rocks <kochte@stsci.edu> wrote:

> So, John, how long *does* it take for an engineer

Never put in a manual one that deep. Probably not
much more than an hour or so for surface-laid AT
mines.

You want extras, those cost more time.

Extras are AHDs, Tilt-rods, burial, camoflage, a frat
fence, AP mines. All can be dispensed with if time presses.

Something about most wargames--they want to rate
minefields as AT, AP, or mixed, with the mixed being
less effective than the pure.  That's bogus--the
density of AT mines is actually higher in the more common mixed minefields
(Block, for instance) than in
AT-pure disrupts.  It just has AP mines _also_.

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 05:24:05PM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:

> Something about most wargames--they want to rate

I would assume this is for game balance - otherwise players are going to
use mixed all the time.

Why doesn't the US Army use mixed all the time? (I can guess some possible
answers, but I'd like to hear it...)

> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

Time constraints. If you can do the job with an
AT-pure field, then you do because it saves time.  I
mean, if you have a choice between putting in 500m of
mixed block or 1500m of AT-pure fix, then the choice
is less obvious.

Oh, and some idiot put out an executive order saying we wouldn't use AP mine
except in Korea and Middle East.

> At 9:31 AM +0000 11/18/03, Roger Burton West wrote:

That's easy, if you have a cost system, you make a denser, mixed field cost
more and take longer to enplace.