Miniatures vs Mech War '77 & Firefight / Mike Doe

I am particularly interested in fighting hypothetical modern tactical
armoured warfare, so I was very pleased when SPI released Mech War '77
in April 1975 and Firefight in August 1976. I have now played both of
these games extensively and in this article I want to try to compare
these games with gaming with 1/285 - 1/300 minatures.

In these days, cost is a very important factor in anything and wargaming
is no exception. The economics of miniatures wargaming can vary
enormously according to which firms micro-tanks you prefer. For example,
these are the current prices for a US M60A1 tank:

Company     Price   Scale   Rating
Skytrex Ltd 8p      1/300   4
Heroics     10p     1/300   6
GHQ         16p     1/285   10

(Ratings are out of 10; 10=best)

I think GHQ represent the best value for money because they are superb
miniatures and when painted well look very effective - true micro armour
not micro-blobs.

Therefore 17 M60A1 (a company) would cost œ2.72p. Add to that the cost
of supporting infantry and APCs, SP Mortars and Anti-tank vehicles and
the cost becomes quite formidable - then there is always scenery -
although being in a wargames club can help a lot in this area. Anyway, a
figure of between œ5.00 - œ10.00 would be reasonable for an Armoured
Company plus support elements. This compares with œ4.99 for Mech War '77
and œ7.75 for Firefight, assuming you don't subscribe to S&T.

As for complexity, both Mech War '77 and Firefight are rated between
6-7. However, when the basic rules are grasped and their implications
understood the games do become an exercise in tactics.

However, most beginners to modern gaming tend to prefer miniatures to
the boardgames because it is easier to think in terms of miniature tanks
rather than cardboard squares.

Now, which is the most realistic/accurate? It is difficult to make
objective conclusions here because the war in which these games are set
has not yet been fought (luckily!).

When talking to die-hard miniatures gamers about Mech War and Firefight,
many of them displayed the attitude that because they use small tanks
and trees their games are automatically more realistic and accurate
simulations than a coloured map and cardboard counters. In my opinion,
however, this is a wrong attitude.

The big advantages of miniatures are the visual impact of the vehicles,
and the point that it is obvious on which part of a target vehicle a
shot fired at it is likely to fall, i.e. the 100mm gun of the T55 has a
very much better chance of knocking out a heavily armoured Chieftain on
the side armour than the heavily armoured glacis plate,

On the other hand, an umpire is nearly always needed when using
miniatures to settle any arguments about off table fire, or which
terrain blocks line of sight and which doesn't. Also, one side will
usually be emplaced on the board already and will want to carry out
movement which the enemy cannot see. This means that every move must be
written down in detail and given to the umpire. When there are a lot of
men and vehicles in use it can become quite a slow process. One thing
that spoils a lot of miniatures games I have watched is an
unrealistic-looking ground scale, which is usually used to offset the
vast "killing ranges" that are offered by today's weapons systems.

The advantages of Firefight and more particularly Mech War '77 are that
the battles are fought over a larger area allowing more opportunity for
manoeuvre and secondly very little book-keeping is required. This can be
speeded even more by writing with a chinagraph pencil on plastic-covered
card the indirect fire and game-turn tasks.

On the whole, the boardgames require less set-up time and less playing
time (especially Firefight): both are easily finishable in an afternoon.

The indirect fire system in Firefight is highly detailed and is quite
the best system for off table fire I have seen.

An advantage, or disadvantage, depending on which way you look at it, is
that on the whole you require less 'luck' in the board games, ie at +8 a
D-2 is assured, therefore plotting two fire tasks at +8 is certain
destruction, whereas a series of low scores with miniatures can make a
superb tactical deployment worthless - I do not believe in a certain
hit!

One disadvantage of the boardgames, in my opinion, is that the morale
(panic) rules (totally absent from Firefight) are decidedly inferior to
those in the miniatures rules I have seen. Units only have morale tests
when they come under fire and you do not have units in a column away
from the main battle area suddenly driving in all directions, as is
possible in Mech War '77.

Fixed scenarios are another disadvantage of the boardgames. The opposing
player only has to look at the O.B. to see exactly what forces his
opponent has. In miniatures each vehicle can be allocated a points value
and each side given a total number of points. Then each player is
allowed to choose vehicles and weapons up to this maximum value. Perhaps
the method could be adapted to Mech War and Firefight (see Designing
your own scenarios for Mech War '77, Footnotes, Moves 27).

Also, when deploying forces it is immediately obvious that players can
see at a glance what they would never know in a real situation. Dummy
counters help but where there is no counter there is no unit! Short of
using a method the same as miniatures with an umpire there is no
solution, and using an umpire would slow down the game a lot and mean
that it would lose one of its advantages, in that it is a TWO-player
game.

I have briefly given a few advantages and disadvantages of each system.
In the end it is down to personal preference - I play boardgames and
mimatures and enjoy both.

I should like to hear the views of other gamers, perhaps from other
periods, on the miniatures v. boardgames issue.