GHQ Micro Rules FOO Query

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Barry

Just for your info I placed a query ref the FOOs in these rules at the GHQ Yahoo Grp and got answer from game designer (via 3rd party) so thought you might like to hear the 'offical' line


Question : FOs are 'attached' to Inf stands prior to game but can they
transfer during a game ? one does not like to see FO stuck in stand
with D marker ! also if 'parent' stand is Suppressed and/or
Disrupted does the FO suffer the +3/+4 cohesion mod for calling in
Arty ?

Answer : Subject: FO Rule Clarification from the Designer

Yes. FO's are "Attached", but not always to Infantry stands. They can
be attached to tank, HQ, or recon stands, etc. as you like.

Yes. If the parent stand is suppressed or Disrupted, the FO's ability
to call in fire is effected. If the parent stand is Eliminated, make
an unmodified Cohesion die-roll. If you succeed, the FO may be
transferred immediately to any other friendly stand, otherwise it too
is lost.

Yes. You may transfer the FO to any other stand on the map regardless
of distance. (This was done to prevent your enemy from knowing which
stand it was transferred to by limiting the distance.) Transfer is a
movement action requiring an unmodified Cohesion die-roll. You may
consider the FO team to be a Recon unit for this purpose (no penalty
for not burning an order).

So there you have it, straight from the designer.

Cheers

[barr7430]

Thanks for that!

I'll take note and roll it into the amendments that I carry. I increasingly feel that two aspects of WW2/Modern warfare are glossed over in gaming terms:

Recon &
Artillery planning/plotting/observing/effect

Why? I think most gamers want fast action, brewed up tanks and machine gun fire. It gives an excuse to paint said toys and is more obviously `managable' on table. The subtle stuff may require extra thought, relatively unexciting models - jeeps, armoured cars and lots of skulking which does not transfer too well onto the table top.

The GHQ principle of misdirected fire is very good although the plotting and planning is not to everyone's taste and can slow down and otherwise very fast moving game. The artillery rules in Rapid Fire are not in my opinion realistic in any way and their only saving grace is their relative simplicity. I did enjoy the FoW artillery and observation mechanisms if a little artifical. So I'm a little betwixt and between onthese two hugely significant issues. I am loathe to try and write yet another method as the efforts of these system designers are in at least two cases,well thought through and I am not dillusional enough to think I could do any better!
Don't know what everyone else thinks???

cheers


B

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Barry

First up tried a Solo playtest of GHQ rules (using the Intro scn) with my 6mm stuff and so I only needed a 2' x 4' setup (quite a change for a WWII game in my experience).
Rules are straightforward enough (FOO queries not withstanding) and I really like the cohesion rolls system. I also like that Arty/Support wpns always cause at least a Suppress result (just seems right).

Ref Arty in WWII games I agree the FOW 'Ranging Shots' system (whilst not new) is 'nice' abstraction (IIRC C.Grants venerable Battle! rules had similar system ?).
The BattleFront WWII (ie Fire & Fury blokes set) have a system with National variations and a most comprehensive list of types of indirect fire (Random Shelling, Shelling, Concentrated Fire, Barrage, Rolling Barrage) conversely their Call For Fire rules are a simple D10 roll modified by usual stuff and oddly no drift rules.
Most rules are a variation on a theme and I agree most Wargamers (myself included) see Arty as a nessecary evil that gets in the way of 'proper' fighting but then the same applies to such bread and butter items such as minefields/trenches and other such items designed to cut down on manouevre warfare.

Cheers

Gary Barr