FUBAR rules for bush wars (and modern) ?

[sundayhero]

Hi,

Is there anyone playing Bush wars (or any post WW2) games using FUBAR ruleset, and if the answer is yes, do you use it "stock" or with tweaked rules ?

I'd like to play games with casual players (friends who are not into our hobby), but there is no chance to keep them interested into a 50-100+ pages ruleset I'll have to explain before playing. Not speaking the fact that, as a solo gamer, I don't play much so I will necessary lack of rules knowledge to be a good (and fast) teacher...

 Long story short, the game has to be explained in a few minutes, easy to keep the rules in mind during the game, and fast, without necessary just playing 5 or 10figures, but even platoon level forces...

FUBAR seems the perfect candidate, but there is so many house ruled versions of it...


thank you for your ideas and advises

[Arlequín]

I've never played FUBAR, but if there are a lot of house-ruled versions, that implies to me that there is something wrong with the original.

Our own Akula has a fairly uncomplex set of skirmish rules available here for free*, which might give you what you're looking for though. Otherwise most rule sets require varying degrees of time investment before playing.

* A donation to Combat Stress is asked for though.

[smirnoff]

Be interested to see these rules, but the link does not work Arlequin.....try this one:
http://akulasrules.blogspot.co.uk/

[sundayhero]

thanks for your answer,

I took a look on akula's rules, if you're talking about badarse, I'm not convinced (juste a matter of personal taste), the random activation is too...random, in FUBAR best troops have more chances to be activated, wich is also the truth in real life (especially in modern assymetric conflicts).

I've never played FUBAR, but if there are a lot of house-ruled versions, that implies to me that there is something wrong with the original.

Funny you say that, it's also what I imagined seeing all topics about it on TMP. Is it false or true, I still don't know. Maybe it's not an issue, but a feature, with a system good and versatile enough to be adapted to a lot of universes without (too much) breaking it.


Well, maybe the only solution is to try it myself  I also have Force on Force, but I can't imagining explaining it properly to casual gamers, especially since they can't read english (so they will never be able to refer to the rules themselves). And I believe it's a too "big" game for the kind of games I want to play (but maybe I'm wrong, we can discuss that).

[sundayhero]

Just to inform you that I bought Bmaso, a supplement from Too fat lardies for their games of ww2 (platoon and company scale). It's a terrific source book for african modern conflicts  

I'm still not sure what ruleset I'll use. FUBAR, Force on Force, NUTS, or even a too fat lardies game, if their games are as good as their supplement books !

Any opinions or advises will still be appreciated

thanks

[S_P]

I've used NUTS! for African skirmishes and it worked well, just class assault rifles as SG44s, FN MAGs and PKMs as MG34s and RPKs as BARs and you are good to go.

[Mako]

Some people dislike how often troops cannot be activated in FUBAR.

I guess it all depends upon what you want out of a game, and how often you think various groups can do what they want, whenever they desire.

As in real life, I suspect, better trained troops with higher morale can do more things, more often.

If you think the rules cause troops to not be able to activate too often, there are a few easy tweaks, e.g. use a D10, or D12 instead of the D6, and run the activation values back from there, e.g. elite troops only fail one out of 10 or 12 times, instead of 1 out of six; veterans 2 out of 12 or 12; regulars 3 out of 10 or 12, etc.

I think the real strength of FUBAR are all the various different customized rules, which permits them to be used for different historical periods, genres, and types of combat.

Rather than being a negative, I see that as a positive, since they can easily be tweaked to your liking, and/or to replicate historical and fictional backgrounds.

Plus, the price is right.

Given that they are free, you don't have anything to lose by giving them a spin.

[sundayhero]

thank you for your help.

As in real life, I suspect, better trained troops with higher morale can do more things, more often.

I agree, for me it makes perfectly sense. I think activation in FUBAR is a feature, not an issue. As a solo gamer, who prefer narrative games instead of competitive, this activation system should be a fun thing to test.

[Froggy the Great]

I've played a LOT of FUBAR, and it's really solid.  It only starts to break down if you have too many vehicles on the table.

[Arlequín]

Rather than being a negative, I see that as a positive, since they can easily be tweaked to your liking, and/or to replicate historical and fictional backgrounds

Now that is indeed the sign of good rule mechanisms and a very different thing to having to 'house rule' a set to make them work. 

[sundayhero]

I agree with you both. I think I'll test all of them, first solo than with my friends. I'll see the one wich clicks with us. Another important feature I forgot is to not have text to read, since my relative doesn't read english. So NUTS with the tables will not match our needs (I'll keep it for my own solo WW2).  FUBAR, once again, seems a good candidate. Not sure for Force on Force, since I still never played it, even if I own it for about a year.

[Stepman3]

Maybe try out "Bolt Action"...though FUBAR is solid and easy to grasp...

[mellis1644]

Now that is indeed the sign of good rule mechanisms and a very different thing to having to 'house rule' a set to make them work. 

I have to agree on this. FUBAR works well and is easy to understand. This means that very quickly you'll adapt it to what you want out of a game. The framework is very solid IMO and it's easy to change the bits you want to reflect better what you want out of a game.

They are not the 'word from upon high and it shall be obeyed' type of rules. They are much more a framework to use and adapt as you like IMO.

[sundayhero]

I just had a funny idea for activation in FUBAR. The....FUBAR DICE  

You know what FUBAR acronym means. I had the idea of using it in the game. Here's my house rule idea :

When you try to active a unit, you can throw as much dice as their activation number. For instance, green unit can throw 5 dice, and if ANY of the dice reaches the activation number (5+ for green), you can activate the unit. BUT if you obtain AT LEAST ONE double dice result (1-1, 3-3, 6-6...) you loose this unit activation, but you finish your whole turn (things goes FUBAR... ). Now your opponent can try to activate all his remaining units, and if he misses an activation, he just goes on the next one until he finishes his own turn. 

This way, it's a poker try : the weakest the unit is, the more chances they will have to try to activate...But also more chances to go to complete disaster too. Throw two dice and you double your chances of activation...But also may loose everything if a double appears (abstraction speaking, we could imagine that this faulty unit sends bad intel to HQ, or shoot friendly fire by mistake, blocking the whole combat group).

It would be also a good way to make sure that your special forces teams apply a complex assault (first unit activate normally, but to be sure the 2d team will be in the right place in right time, double dice attempt, hoping for luck).

Remember Napoleon, when officers were introduced or recommanded to him, he always was asking if the man was not only a good officer, but also a lucky one...  


Just an idea, not tested, but imagining it, it sounds  a lot of fun, and a wicked way to deal with the activation of green units  

[Arlequín]

The logical progression is that if a double is a minor FUBAR, triples, quads etc, result in increasingly bigger FUBARs. The odds against rolling them are high enough for them not to be a game breaker (although once you make them a rule, you will of course find you roll more of them, the wargaming gods are fickle like that).