(11-08-2015, 10:53 PM)leonard Wrote: (11-06-2015, 09:57 PM)vince hughes Wrote: I see you have a War Storm series counter from the SCW as your Avatar. That is also a platoon based game. I've bought LBF40 which like earlier PG has a few rules issues that need addressing IMO. How are you finding the two compare?
I didn't know LBF40 was eventually available. After a close look at the system, it seems indeed very similar to PG with interesting command rules. Maps are OK even with plateau-like hills (hmmm) and good-looking counters.
However, the historical background is rather ... light. The duration of the scenarios and the order of battle are generally not correct. Even the stats on the counters are a bit strange : they seem to be confused with gun calibers and tank firepower, for example.
Leonard,
Yes, I bought it a while back. Read through the rules and initially thought it EXTREMELY similar. However, armour warfare is very different as are 'Assaults' and the way DF is worked out. I found the assault rules very poorly written and have been the subject of quite a few enquiries. This relates to contradictions in various rule sections as to how it should be carried out. Despite these numerous enquiries from gamers stating that the wording does not make sense, the designers are adamant that they do. Unfortunately, I think it is coming down to a language issue and for all their willingness to help on the various forums, the level of English I think is hindering the explanations. That was the last time I looked around a month ago. Perhaps its changed since then and somebody has been able to make them far more cogent.
The map art is suspicously akin to recent PG efforts, but the WSS maps are on thin glossy paper and for me in that respect were very disappointing in component quality. The command rules are not bad but I would describe them merely as a 1pt level (in a score of out of 10) higher than the PG activation rules. In other words, similar, but added to. Unit cohesion AND 'formation' morale in WSS is a good idea via this command system and something that a PG gamer so disposed could add to theor own PG games.
As a series, after experiencing PG, there is not enough in each box per £££ spent when it comes to scenarios. PG has 'gotten' very expensive lately, but there are usually 40-70 scenarios per box. WSS only has 10-12 scenarios for around 60% the price of a PG game. Gamers will have to decide their own values there. Having not played out the scenarios but only dabbled, I am unable to say how play-tested those 12 scenarios are. Are they at zero level as per most PG was until very recently, or are they at intense level as per ASL? As you say also, historicity is brushed over at best. By this I mean that when reading a PG scenario book, one at leasts gets a flavour of the on-going campaign in the view of the writer of those scenarios. That's because the combined PG scenario book will tell a story and give theme as it progresses. Not so with the 10 or 12 scenarios included in the WSS. There is not the flow of that theme that one gets in the AP scenario books. Counter art is good IMO as is the quality of their construction, but they could have had a few extra variations of poses. Marker counters are so-so but easily recognisable in red. That said, I am not keen on the Leader counters having real-life pictures of combatants. Maybe I could be accused of hypocrisy by being a wargamer as of itself, but 'killing' counters with real soldiers faces on them I'm not really happy with. Silly old fart I maybe, but it is just a taste issue for me. I guess its the same as others having objections to sickles and swastikas and other depictions? I'd prefer badges or 'drawn' pictures for leaders as per those in the Napoleonic Jours de Gloire series or combat commander leaders as an example.
To summarise, I would say to somebody looking to buy it - "Give it a go". But just buy one in the series first and see what you think. Just as PG has had 4 attempts at the rulebook, I believe WSS will have a few editions. Rules missed out or too abstract are writen off in most explanations as not wishing to add to complexity. I felt some were simply missed out. I think for the series platoon gamer, they would be better off to stick with say TCS for example if they want complexity and detail. WSS is very similar to PG and therefore I don't think would add much to the fare of gamers already into the PG series. It will never reach the amount of scenario coverage either. Then again, there will also be rules within WSS that PG players would see an opportunity of incorporating into PG too.
Hopefully this is seen as a fair if personally honest resume of 'what's in the box' when speaking from a PG comparison. Not playing PG for over a year or more now, I hope nobody will accuse me of bias in favour of PG. I was looking for something new in platoon level from the WSS and didn't really find that. It definately had PG relatives in its genes. That's why I mention TCS as an alternative example, as that is undoubtedly different in its flavour from PG in platoon warfare and therefore a different experience whether for better or poorer for each gamer's personal taste.
Its amazing PG has not yet produced an SCW set yet despite some other 'dodgy' themes being introduced. 
Dream of playing Finnish troops to.
I think I have to wait for a reprint of GMTs Red Winter or get MMPs Karelia 44.