Mr Steel's initial overview of these new rules from Sam Mustafa is really good and well worth your attention.
I have to say that these rules have awakened me from recent slumbers. Having heard news of their development I checked out the introduction videos on Sam's website.
I don't have any of Sam's other rules. I have pondered them over the years but have not adopted them. They are obviously very good rules, concise, complete and integrated. Everything that you need is built in. I think that is one of the reasons for my not getting into them. I am not a rules as written person and I much prefer something that can be hacked.
This is the difference with Eisenhower. It is a corps level game which gives great scenerio possibilities, Op Epsom is covered in the rules. Units are battalion, initiative is by division. The combat rules are very simple (just roll some dice, unlike the complex table in Rommel). It is played on a square grid (12 by 8), which could just as easily be a hex grid. It can be played with miniatures of any scale or using counters. Therefore it is very hackable.
I have purchased the POD version via Amazon. As Mr Steel comments, the paper and the binding are poor. PODs can be produced with far better quality than this. However, the layout of the book, diagrams and illustrations are great. Pity it wasn't on nice heavy shiney paper like Helion does.
I really, really tried to like Rommel. Sam's rules are generally quite hackable, so I converted the tactical options into the cards, I also deconstructed the CRT (it is basically just 2D6 rolled against the combat value of the stand, which I assume is how it was generated in the first place) and modified someof the extreme silliness like the laser guided airstrikes. In the end though, I was just too much of a game for me and I gave up on it. I will probably end up buying Eisenhower too, but I'm actually having lots of food nwith NQM at the moment, and I have high hopes for Frank Chadwicks forthcoming operational rules. I'll be interested to see how you get on with Eisenhower though.
ReplyDeleteHi Martin, Yes, Rommel baffled me too. I have my eye on NQM but I think that will be a slow burner while I ponder Eisenhower. I'm interested in whatever Frank does so that will be a nice surprise.
ReplyDeleteI'm in two minds about Eisenhower; my biggest concern is that it's a bit bland. There are some odd things too like completely ignoring recon, assuming, like engineering it goes on in the background.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how you simulate LW German armoured where often through losses, only the Recon battalion was functional and used as a "fire brigade" (Normandy) or main strike force (Market Garden) - numbers are small, armoured cars have little punch.
Also, taking Crusader, here the CW had 3 recce regiments and each infantry division had its own recce btn v 2 German and 1 Italian battalions. No benefit to te CW?
Neil
Hi Neil, I agree entirely. There is a risk that this will feel like Axis and Allies. Still, it looks like much can be done to make it more situation specific. Cheers
DeleteJay