开云体育

Richard I notice Amazon have a book titled "German Flamethrowers 1914 - 1945" by F.C.Koch priced at ?7.95. A very hot topic (Ho Ho). As well as being cheap this book has the added benefit that

The lone ranger is a well documented historical figure, as indeed is Pocahontas although somewhat out of period, this rubbish about Irish sergeants, however, is simply Hollywood. I reckon you

So, let me get this straight. In Bad Medicine, You think the Irish sergeants brawling in the ranks to be a little ridiculous and then, almost in your next breath you suggest that the Lone Ranger

Okay. After a laborious search of just about every source I could find, along with the internet, ans postings on several modern discussion groups, the answer on flamethrowers seems to be......no

Thinking more about the cards, I have refered to an article I did on wargaming the Maximilian Adventure, where we had random events cards. Looking through that the following seem appropriate. 1.

I thought that the initial playtest for Bad Medicine. The injuns were encouraged to use historical tactics, ditto for the US. To go further I feel that the close combat should be taken to

I take your point. For petrol bombs the issue would be how the tank killer team got into position to deliver their attack, in Finland the Russian tanks suffered heavily when their tanks operated

Richard, The other side of this also needs to be considered. If it takes guts to face a flamethrower in a tank it takes significantly more guts to stand around infront of a tank with a blinking great

Aynsley, Haven't got any hard facts or figures to back it up, but my gut (and I've plenty of that) feeling is that you are greatly overestimating the killing power of flamethrowers/petrol bombs

Okay, so under the rules a flamethrower firing at a tank would need 6 or more to hit on 2D6. So, its likely it will succeed. Then it has a 50% chance of knocking it out. This reflects the fact

A conversation with a list member who is clearly too lazy to post his findings for the benefit of all would suggest that in conversation with a WWII veteran he discovered that flamthrowers would be

Richard I agree with Alan morale first and the threat of permanent (in game terms) damage as a secondary consideration. I am pretty sure that even well trained and disciplined soldiers will have a

Richard First a site that you probably know - www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html this explains that the Russian tanks had a 50 gallon fuel tank on the rear deck, not something that you would wait around

A quick idea... We played an interesting game the other evening, with the Rifle Brigade attempting a fighting withdrawal through a built up area of Calais. To reflect the abilities of these

I am putting together the supplement covering the Russo Finnish War of 1939/40 and the 1940 campaign in Norway. As such I am looking at petrol bombs and their effects. In Finland the Finns

The Fat Lad mentioned "skirmish", I would wish to point out that IABSM is not a skirmish rule set. We are not interested in the actions of individual men, other than Big Men, or what they are armed

use recce and Well, yes and no. We are not wanting to game the initial recon. of every engagement. So, we need someway of feeding the results of that recon. into the engagement we do want to game.

The illustrious PhD bloke wrote "The other way of doing this is to use the "skirmish factor" ideas from Napoleonics- if there would be recce units in the organisation, don't represent them". Sadly

Well, you've stolen my thunder. I thought "I'll just read the latest reply from Rich" before bringing up those fond memories of WRG "lose a dice roll and lose the game"! I agree with the umpire

Nick and Al To reply to you both. I thought about spotting idea when contemplating the French and German motorcycle troops that I have to paint. I thought "Rather than paint these bloody figures,