|
Funny you should mention that, as I just bought the rules and received them last week.  I haven't played them yet, but I've done a read-through and can give you my impressions.
IC is a fairly simplified ruleset.  The booklet itself is 24 pages long, printed in simple Times Roman black-and-white with a minimum of artwork.  Each page is 5.5" x 8.5" (or a standard letter-size folded in half), and the first five or so are the history of the IC fluffyverse.  You can read through the core rules in under 15 minutes and be playing a basic game in under a half-hour.
The mechanics of the game are orders-oriented, much like the first edition of Space Marine.  Players issue orders by putting order chits upside down next to their units, and can only issue the number of orders that they have command/HQ vehicles;  this explains why the Iron Cow army packs on the Brigade Models website are so heavy on HQ vehicles!  When I was in the Army, our company had one command vehicle, an M577 armored Tactical Operations Center;  In IC, each platoon or section must have its own. ÂÂ
This may not make for a very futuristic feel, as I imagine future combat formations dispensing with a dedicated TOC/C3 vehicle altogether and going to a "cloud computing" model of decentralized command/control.  However, it fits the mechanics of the game just fine, as killing off HQ units results in formations freezing up as their chain of command is decapitated. ÂÂ
It also lends itself to the system's simple-yet-elegant electronic warfare rules.  In IC, you may have from one to four "jammers" that conduct EW ops against the other player, by attempting to stop or subvert orders being sent to the enemy's subordinate units.  This very much reflects real-world "MIJI" operations (Meaconing, Intrusion, Jamming, and Interference) and seems to be a fairly straightforward way of introducing MIJI warfare into the game setting.  For instance, if your jamming roll is of a certain level, you not only block the orders being sent to an enemy unit, but you can substitute your own, sending them to places the enemy commander doesn't want them to go!
Quite honestly, electronic warfare is one of those places that most rulesets have difficulty in replicating, and at the level of simplification where IC operates, the EW rules work quite well, and I can see where they will add some spice to the game.
After placing order chits, the players attempt to jam each other's orders, resulting in chits being removed or even replaced as mentioned above, after which the chits are turned face up and the orders executed.  The system is similar to IGOUGO:  the player that wins initiative (Player A) moves all his units and fires whichever ones he likes, then waits while Player B moves his units.  Then Player A has the option of firing any units that haven't fired yet this turn, after which Player B gets his turn to fire.  I suppose this gives you an "overwatch" effect without actually having an overwatch order category.
Orders come really in three flavors:  Advance, Cautious Advance, and Static, with two additional orders being Regroup (after a morale failure) and Aircraft (which simply calls in an airstrike).  Advance allows full movement, with a minimum of moving 60% of the unit's speed value, with corresponding penalties to firing rolls.  Cautious Advance splits the difference by allowing a lesser amount of movement with a lesser firing penalty, and units that take the Static order are considered to be digging in and thus get bonuses to both defense and firing in return for not going anywhere.  There is no Overwatch or Assault order, and the abstract nature of the rules makes anything more specific (Breach Obstacle or Emplace Obstacle, for instance) unnecessary and most likely somewhat out of place anyway.
Unit integrity rules are pretty standard, as are the movement and terrain rules.  One oddity (to me, at least) is that everything is measured in millimeters, not centimeters, so when it seems impressive that your vehicle has a speed of 240 and a range of 750, just remember to convert that to centimeters or inches (i.e., divide by 10 to get centimeters or 25 to get inches) to get a more visualizable sense of your vehicle's capabilities.
I think one reason that the game is largely measured in millimeters is that it's also percentage-based.  The to-hit rolls use percentile dice and a vehicle's accuracy is expressed on a percentile scale;  likewise, the terrain modifiers to movement are expressed in plus or minus a certain percentage.  For instance, "Woods" reduces a unit's movement by 25% and makes a unit hiding in them 15% harder to hit.  So, a Zhu De MBT with a speed of 240mm moves through a patch of woods;  its speed is thus reduced to 180mm (75% of 240mm) for that action.  Now, a Baumann infantry fighting vehicle spots the Zhu De in the woods at a range of 90mm, which puts the Baumann's required to-hit score at 65.  However, since the Zhu De is in woods, the Baumann's to-hit score is reduced by 25% to 49 (rounded off).  So the Baumann has to roll a 49 or lower on percentile dice to hit the tank hiding in the woods.  Pretty logical and straightforward.
Of course, there are ups and downs to a percentile system.  On the one hand, it allows for far greater differentiation than the Epic d6 system or the Dirtside system of dice shifting.  However, it also means that you pretty much have to have a table of unit stats sitting next to you the whole game, as well as a calculator, because it would be next to impossible to remember the various stats for the various units without it.  The different to-hit values at various range bands are also not linear or proportional, but rather have been assigned in a manner to reinforce a certain flavor for certain units, so there's no rule of thumb that can be used to guesstimate what the necessary to-hit value would be for the next higher range band.  That's one area where Dirtside shines, with its system of shifting die types up and down the scale.
Rolling to hit is a percentile roll, but determining damage is a simple matter of comparing the firing unit's penetration value to the target's armor value.  The PEN value falls as the range opens up, which makes perfect sense in the case of solid projectiles (losing velocity and thus kinetic energy) or lasers (being attenuated as they travel through the atmosphere).  But it makes no allowance for anti-tank guided missiles, which carry the same explosive warhead at 4000m as they do at 40m.  Still, it makes for a simple and straightforward mechanic. ÂÂ
In my example above, the Baumann IFV fires on the Zhu De tank as it emerges from the woods and hits it.  It's a flank shot, so we check out the Zhu De's side armor value, which is 10.  The Baumann, firing at a range of 90mm, has a PEN value of 8, so there is a resounding *clang!* as the Baumann's autocannon or whatever bounces off the Zhu De's thick armored hull.  There is no lasting effect to the Zhu De tank other than a bad headache and ringing ears, unless you're using the optional Morale rules, in which case there might be a Morale effect.  If you're not using the Morale rules, then damage is a binary set of either Dead or Not Dead, with nothing in between.
Anyway.  There are rudimentary aircraft and anti-aircraft rules which are pretty simple and straightforward, and artillery rules that use blast templates, much like Epic or Dirtside.  The artillery rules include provisions for counter-battery fire, but not for forward observers or different types of munitions (such as HEAT vs. DPICM, which will have varying effects on tanks vs. infantry, dug-in vs. units in the open, etc.).  There are no rules for combat engineering or infantry close assault;  the second one seems like a major oversight in my mind, since that's where infantry earn their paychecks in an armor-based game.  Crunchies should be what make tanks fear to enter urban areas alone!
This brings up another point, which is the lack of a balanced vehicle and unit design system.  As in, there isn't one, and there really isn't any possibility of making one, either, since the unit stats have been assigned arbitrarily to fit the flavor of the Iron Cow fluff (much like GW has done with Epic and 40K).  Is this a bad thing?  Not necessarily.  As a light pick-up game, IC probably doesn't need vehicle design rules.  If you want something deeper, best to turn to Dirtside, Future War Commander, or Wardogs (in development by MJ12 Games).
There is also a lack of granularity present in the vehicle stats.  This sort of harks back to the late 90's edition of Epic 40K, wherein a vehicle or unit simply had an attack value, as opposed to a variety of values for a heavy plasma gun, two heavy bolters, a Class-5 hyperkinetic penetrator, a Class-1 direct-fire fusion gun, etc.  Iron Cow has only a single attack value per unit, so you can't model your beloved Merkava VIIc grav-tank with a 90mm powergun, twin-linked repeaters, and antimatter mortar (*sniffle*).  Each unit has one, and only one, attack value, which is then adjusted for range.  On the other hand, each vehicle has front, side, and rear armor values, so there is some attention paid to the urgency of not getting flanked.
Overall, I'd say that this is a good introductory rule set.  If you have someone who is entirely new to wargaming and would be intimidated by the complexity of Dirtside or the expense of Epic, then Iron Cow would be a great way to bring them into the hobby fairly gently.  They would come away from a few games with a better understanding of how wargames generally work and would probably be ready to graduate to more complex games.  Plus, the Iron Cow starter pack from Brigade Models is a pretty darn good deal;  $60 for the rules and two starter forces which each represent a basic armor company is a pretty nice way to start off someone new to the hobby.  And I really like the Brigade Models minis, personally.
So, in a nutshell:
Strengths:  Simplicity, ease of play, ease of reading, short learning curve, price.
Weaknesses:  Simplicity, heavy emphasis on HQ units, lack of design system, lack of assault rules, production values.
Once I actually get the chance to play the game, I'll let you know how that goes!
Thanks,
jav98
_________________
Set phasers on "fun"!
|
  And something I noted, Jav mentioned about TOC/C3, in the Slammer stories, there is no Bn HQ/TOC. Companies are directly under the BDE HQ's command ... Which in the future, I think with improved C3, that will be the case.  Jav you did a great AAR on IC ... And it appears to me it's SM1 + EW ...  But that being said it probably plays well.  Also something can be said about a certain amount of simplicity ...  
 However, I'll stick with SoW and/or FWC !  
