Page 1 sur 1

Not yet a Landships player but interested

MessagePosté: Jeu Fév 21, 2008 1:54 pm
de Scott

I'm currently a big fan of AP's Panzer Grenadier series, and am looking forward to the release of their "Infantry Attacks" series, which will cover WW1. But I have always been interested in Landships, particularly since with the IM and proposed Real Weapons games it cover the very interesting interwar period.

Can anyone with experience in both systems (Landships and PG) compare them, in terms of ease of play, rules simplicity, and fun?

As a point of reference, I consider PG to be very easy to play, simple to understand and fun!


MessagePosté: Ven Fév 22, 2008 8:58 pm
de Arnauld
Hi Scott, and welcome

I don't play PG but a french player gave me those informations :

Scale :

PG 1 hex = 200 m, 1 turn = 15 min
L! 1 hex = 100 m, 1 turn = 5 min

In the two games, infantry is platoon-sized (30-40 men).
Vehicles : platoon-sized for PG (3-5) / 1=1 in L!
Artillery : 1 battery (PG) / 1 gun (L!)

L! covers the years from 1914 to 1941 (including the 2 expansions). WW1 (L!), Russian Civil War, and other theaters as Chaco (IM) Spanish Civil War, Poland and the start of the Blitzkrieg ... (RW)

Complexity : It seems that L! is a little more difficult. (Artillery is detailed in L! and more detailed in Infernal Machines. It gives something very accurate). According to me, once you have understood the way it works, it is not difficult.

In PG, a lot of details are included in the rules. In L! there are maybe more details, especially for vehicles and airplanes (dogfights above the trenches are possible) but no rules concerning command while it is a key point in PG.

Graphism : I prefer counters from PG (I prefer L! ones, I dislike "3D" view. By the way, there are 2 versions of Central Powers counters. We'll discuss again about them next time if you want.)
Maps : it depends but, generally, L! ones are better, CoA rulz !!

I liked L! games I have played. But I didn't like the poor movement allowance of infantry (Infantry has 1 PM per movement phase - there are 2 movement phase in a turn. WW1 is not a war of movement but is relatively static. That's the reason why there are tanks. The goal of L! is to make us discover the new weapons [it is subtitled "Tactical Weapons Innovations"]).

I hope it will help you. It's more objective than subjective because it is a PG player who said that, and he is not a active Landships! player. If you want to know more, don't hesitate...

(sorry for my english :wink: ) Arnauld

MessagePosté: Sam Fév 23, 2008 11:04 am
de Arnauld
From another player :

Complexity : L! is more complex and its rules are less well-written than PG ones. In L! artillery is more realistic. Rules are indeed sometimes poorly written. But the forum is here to help players

Command and activation : the BIG difference IMO. In PG chain of command is represented in an elegant manner and formations are alternatively activated based on the placement of officers and initiative chits. In L! it is a basic I Go You Go.

Graphism : PG counters are bigger (and then more "playable").

The price of a L! copy is not high, even rather low. So the risks are reduced. You can find some replays (in english) on the web, or on our website if you need more informations.

MessagePosté: Mar Fév 26, 2008 8:15 am
de Arnauld
An interesting point at Comsimworld :

Does "Landships" can teach me something about WWI tactics and their evolution?

Stephen Rawling :
The focus of Landships! is all about the introduction of new weapons during WW1 and their impact on the battlefield, each more terrible (and hopefully, more reliable) than the last.

So most armies start off simply, little more than "running men with rifles," and find even a single armored car is a dreadful foe to face. As the war and scenarios evolve, aircraft, tanks, artillery, and even new infantry weapons become more common, more integrated, and ever more useful.

But there's not a terrible amount about tactics per se. For example, cavalry are less, and Stosstruppen more, effective on the battlefield, but you can't really see "why" up close - the game scale does not permit that. Similarly, players can't invent new ways to "get through" barbed wire.

The expansion kit, Infernal Machines does allow units to adopt more postures to meet the needs of the battlefield, but at its heart deals more with weapons technology as well.

Re: Not yet a Landships player but interested

MessagePosté: Mar Avr 22, 2008 4:15 pm
de Tichy
Scott a écrit:Can anyone with experience in both systems (Landships and PG) compare them, in terms of ease of play, rules simplicity, and fun?

As a point of reference, I consider PG to be very easy to play, simple to understand and fun!


Well, I have to admit that I have not touched PG - however I have history of about 100 or so other wargames, systems and other tweaks to compare with.

Landships (and IM in that matter) is simple, straight forward game. Basic system itself is not much different from generic wargame systems nor hard to learn. If we overcome some not so userfriendly sections of the rules, Landships becomes extremely playable and - most important if you play against live opponent who is not yourself, it is engaging. You do not have to wait ages for opponent to make his moves.

Now, fun comes because of these elements (and I truly recommend you Infernal Machines):

- Spotting (it is not obivius that unit actually sees the target at given time, be quiet, sneak over the no mans land and terminate strongpoints...)
- Unreliability of tanks
- Gas
- Artillery
- Machine gun
- Flame thrower
- Armored cars, trains etc.
- Cavalry

And the fact that your victorious advance stalls and turns in retreat at the moment your opponent seemed to have no hope.

It is stalemate - so tough to overcome that something new is needed - weapons and tactics. There is plenty to explore. :)