RE: [OT] Spearhead

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

-----Original Message-----
From:	warbeads@juno.com
Sent:	Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:41 AM
To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject:	Re: [OT] Spearhead

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:
>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
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
>http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!