Anyone used these and could recommend them?

Chad

sell you a copy for £15.

They give a reasonable game but do have some oddities. I would play again, but club uses CWC.

IanS

Ian

Is CWC better in your opinion?

Chad

Hi
Helped play test them with my pals.
Loved them.

jim

Jim

Which? CWC?
Chad

I really like MSH - the focus is very different from CWC, as it's written/drawn orders, limited movement options till in contact when unless you're top end NATO you're down to local manoeuvre only as opposed to CWC where you can do anything with anyone but are subject to the vagaries of the command rolls.

MSH platoons are really just strength markers for the battalion, whilst CWC platoons take quite a lot of killing!

The Commander series recce rules are really good, but MSH is "recce by death".

CWC works oddly at times for targeting things and I really like MSH target priority rules; others hate the restrictions!

They're actually pitched at different levels IMO - CWC is about battalion to regiment, MSH regiment to division - despite the same nominal one model/stand is a platoon-ish!

Different strokes for different folks, but I prefer MSH - which I haven't played for years! But have played CWC much more recently as others prefer it and I'm more than happy enough to play it

I haven't played CWC but have played lots of MSH, I agree with toxicpixie's comments on MSH

Simple to play once you get use to it and lets you play BIG games One player can handle a Division if you have enough table space

Keith McNelley provides some very useful pages on SH and MSH https://modernspearhead.wordpress.com/an-introduction-to-modern-spearhead/

And the Scenario Generation System is brilliant https://modernspearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/

I prefer CWC - but then I dislike the national biases built into Spearhead and Modern Spearhead. The do give a good game however.

IanS

The scenario system does an excellent job of balancing the national advantages - it's a very good piece of kit

Another good and easy twist on the command ratings is to apply them whole to different formations - eg the '44 Panzer Brigades might be treated as UK or even Russian command types whilst their American opponents are treated as German command to reflect their experience and flexibility. It's a great tool box when you're comfortable but 'vanilla' it's the same issue as all Arty Conliffe rules - some one is the "defining nation" of the period and super whizzy, everyone else is varying shades of bad

Hi

Play tested MSH in 97-98.

Having played challenger a bit MSH were like a breath of fresh air.

Haven`t played them for years but I rate them more than CWC.

Jim

Thanks all.

Chad

I have literally divisions worth of 6mm MSH stuff in my cupboard and an on-going interest in modern period. I was hooked on MSH from the first game I played many years ago. Yes SH and MSH do have their critics but I have had so many great games using both rulesets that, to me, overide the concerns such as "super Germans/NATO" national characteristics.

I would also concur with Toxicpixies comments......I have played a couple of games of CWC but prefer MSH myself as they focus on more brigade/divisional level. Some years ago we played most of a campaign using SPI's 5th Corps to manuvere units then MSH to resolve some clashes:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rbatch/little/fulda.html   

I like Fistful of Tow's 3...gives a good game, probably the same complexity level as Modern Spearhead

I've never actually played FFT - people keep mentioning but actual games never materialise...

Shame, they look decent.

But yes - I'd recommend a bash with MSH a couple of times, using the scenario system and see what you think.

FFT is very expensive and very large in terms of pages. A PDF is $39.50 or roughly £26. Then there is the cost of printing, although I suppose you only need to print the rules you need ( ignoring nuclear for example) and the data sheets you need.

Chad