Thanks very much, @templar007 – yeah, the game was of course originally designed for 1943-44 Eastern Front (PanzerBlitz), then expanded to 1944-45 Western Front (Panzer Leader), and then 1956, 67, and 73 (Arab-Israeli Wars).  Expanding into the 1990s+ is doable, but the firepower, defense, range, and other factors are now so huge that great care has to be taken in the design of the counters and scenario.

There are whole groups that do little else, NE Atlanta Gaming Club is a good example.  And of course Tosasch Miniatures who came up with Tactical Combat: Middle East expansion … which I used as a starting point for some of these counters.

What really makes it wonky is, predictably, technology.

Defense used to  be easy to figure out.  Thickness of armor, throw in some +/- for size of the unit (the bigger, the worse the defense), armor slope, training, etc.

Now you have to account whether it’s homogeneous steel, laminate, chobham, or reactive (blazer, etc).   Holy headache, batman.

Firepower is even worse.  New weapons classes like “G” – “I” class weapons that can attack armor at 2 hexes (RPGs, LAWs, Javelins, etc).  AA has to be broken out between AA and SAMs.  And forget tank guns.  What used to be a formula based on (size of the weapon) x (caliber of the weapon … yes, that’s something different) x (rate of fire) +/- some windage for how it’s mounted (fixed, turret), optics, crew training, etc … is now massively complicated by ammunition type, which is a MONSTROUSLY huge factor.  Discarding Sabot is said to easily double the armor penetration properties, compared to a standard AT round fired from the same weapon … at  most ranges.

So yes … it’s adaptable and flexible.  But like most games, the further you take them from “home” so to speak, the more care must be taken by the expansion / scenario designer so the game plays “hands free” and it “looks simple” for the players.  😀