Rommel Rules (Sam Mustafa)

[steders]

Picked these up as a pdf the other day. Look very interesting BUT;
Its a grid system,
The figures bases all have stats along the back edge (not compulsory obviously)
The rules mention stacking and limits on number of units in a square.

Its a board game.

I don't mind boardgames and I've tinkered with boardgame rules myself for miniatures.
There are some really interesting ideas and I personally like the lack of 'crunch' in the rules (the differences in tanks are fairly minimal) I'm just not sure the way terrain, movement, combat is handled will suit everyone. I'm going to have to play a game. The one thing that really furrowed my brow on first read through is that if a unit uses road movement rather than tactical movement it is 'tilted', it can't do anything else this go. I don't get the rational behind it. Is it a carryover from Blucher?
User avatar
Steders  Posts: 3671Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:22 pm




Top

[steders]

Didn't know I couldn't express an opinion. Plus I wasn't having a go just making a statement.  And as I said I think there are some things I find really interesting and an awful lot to like. I also want to play a game.

[Belisarius]

Thanks Steders , I,m also interested in these rules and would welcome any comments you may have as you play through them. I believe they require a grid system and that the author recommends a gridded mat in the rule book. We play Blucher, Maurice and Aurelian all by Sam Mustafa and are fans of his rules. I intend to use card counters for my units , we already use them for Maurice, it's almost like moving on a map at times .

[Belisarius]

Pic

[meninobesta]

also bought the rules the other day

I think the rational of tipping some units is to show that they aren't available for tactical action and in the case of road movement is to show the vulnerability of troops in column order (you can almost go from one edge of the table to another but you don't want to leave your troops near the enemy) - at least this is how I've "read" the meaning of it

I think I welcome the square grid, I was tinkering with the idea of converting some rule sets to a grid format for casual games, so that I don't need to hassle about micromanaging the miniatures placing or so that I don't waste that much time with measuring and checking ranges - personal opinion. As an option instead of marking the 4 corners of a square you could dot only the centers an place the miniatures loosely around them, its only a 12X8 grid

I don't like the idea of playing with cards and having the stats like counters of a board game (once again a matter of personal taste) and regarding tipping, I will use some kind of marker to note this instead of treating my minis as magic the gathering cards

all and all the rules seem good and simple and I like the idea of the more loose troop classification: a sherman is almost the same as a t34 or a panzerIV 

I think the fun part of this will be to recreate some zoomed-in zones of the campaign maps of the old PC game Panzer General

another possible use for these rules is to play them with 6mm miniatures on a very small table (portable game for the holidays)

[Commander Carnage]

 I picked him up as well. I am over halfway through reading them and I find them very interesting. I'm looking forward to getting a game in soon.  I do wish it had included more scenarios with historical lists in the book. The website looks like it will add files to update scenarios and historical lists.

[MartinR]

As above, I think the idea of 'tipping' units in march mode is that they are not able to operate tactically the same turn. Victory Games 'Hells Highway' uses exactly the same mechanism for admin movement, and my copy of the Sandhurst Kriegspiel also differentiates between tactical and non tactical modes at battlegroup level (although I note Rommel doesn't have mech units travelling ten times as fast in admin mode compared to tactical mode!) 

Looking forward to reading them and see how they measure up against other operational sets. Big fan of grids, particularly for his level of combat.   

[fred]

Played my first game of Rommel on Friday night. Playing the introductory Operation Brevity scenario with my 10mm figures.

It was an enjoyable game - its certainly more towards the board game end of the spectrum than the some free format wargames. But its still a wargame - its not what any of my family (who are keen board gamers) would call a board game.



The tipping mechanism works well to indicate units that have done actions that make them vulnerable - it could just as easily be called 'Disruption' and marked with a counter or similar. Its a common mechanism in many games, and makes sense for units to become tipped after they use Road Movement to move a considerable distance (especially as this is close to the enemy).

The game certainly gives the feel of a large scale action. The main downside is that it didn't feel totally WWII, its quite abstract (due to the scale). It may feel more WWII with more of the Advanced rules to differentiate units.

There is a full AAR over on the Honour forum if you want to peruse it.  http://www.sammustafa.com/honour-forums/general-discussion-and-announcements-46/operation-brevity/msg27154/#msg27154

[fred]

We played Rommel again this week, and we all found it a lot better game than the first one last week - I think partly as there are a lot of new concepts and abstraction in the rules, in the first game you spend a lot of time thinking about how things need to work, and probably over-think things.




But in this second game, we just were able to get on and play. The rules make the game seem strategic. Units that go careering off, end up isolated, hard to activate, and generally not that much use. Which all feels right. But a steady attack with infantry and tanks supporting each other, while unspectacular does keep on grinding forwards and is much more effective over a number of turns.

Definitely glad we gave it another go.

[robh]

Any more thoughts on Rommel as a figure wargame yet?

I like the concept and most of the mechanics but find it really lacking as a figure game. We have had a few short situation tests so far but no full multiplayer games (which is where it needs to be for our group). Each time has left the "why are we bothering with the figures?" question as paramount as actually they don't reflect the composition of the armies

I don't like the lack of variety in troop types, not the fact that a Sherman is a Panzer IV is a T34 etc that works well, but in the fact that you cannot represent anything that is less than a company in strength, so no AA or AT or Engineer platoons to stiffen or support the combat units, No recon armoured cars, no mortars. You just get a standard "oh they are included in the Infantry stats" dismissal.

I am wondering about scrapping the rigid "stacking limit" and using a combat strength per platoon type of approach, similar to that in PanzerKorps. Using the very slick Rommel mechanisms with more realistic feeling and looking armies, or conversely using the lovely PanzerKorps force lists with a user friendly accessible set of game mechanics. I would really like to find a way of playing WW2 games one step higher up the command chain than Spearhead as I have not yet found one that I like and it is the only "gap" I have in WW2 gaming levels from squad skirmish right up to army corps operations.

Somewhere in Rommel I am sure there is a superb Divisional scale game, just can't yet decide how to stop it feeling like a boardgame.

[fred]

In our last game we added in Pioneers, Infantry Support tanks and Massed AT units, and this helped.

Also I think that playing helps - initially we were rather hung up on similar issues, but after playing a couple of games 'got it' as written and where much happier.

It also makes a great multi-player game.

I'm sure you can add in smaller scale stuff, but it would probably complicate and overwhelm the slick mechanisms.

[SteveBurt]

Rommel works fine as figure wargame.
At the 1 stand=1 company level,  there isn't much difference between a T34 and a Sherman.
Armour differences are modelled, and the tactics board reflects the different armies nicely.

[fred]

Played again - I think our groups 4th game in 5 weeks or so.

Back to the desert - and this was a really good game again. I do think my (and some of the others) misgivings over the first game, where just down to over thinking things as we got our heads around the rule mechanisms, which are naturally a bit different to games representing smaller scale actions.

[steders]

Played a game and I like the mechanics. After a couple of failed attempts to dig out some infantry in a town we just left them and went round.
I Like everything but the squares and the stacking limit which feels very artificial. The squares Make it feel too cold and clinical. 
Had a thought about uneven 'squares' like the ones in close combat pc game and the iPad battle of the bulge game. You'd need to make custom sheets or get one of the manufacturers to make one. Would also limit the use of them.
Can't help feeling there is a way to play this game without the squares

[SteveBurt]

You probably could play the game without squares, but why would you want to?
You would be slowing the game down and complicating it for no real gain.
The stacking limit and the attack reflects real unit frontages - 3 companies per km is about right.
If you want to attack with more units, you need to do so in waves (and you'd better plan your tactical phases so you can do that).