|
Extended Assault in PG (M) v. PG
I finally played a PG (M) scenario after a long long time not doing so. I do find the system translates well to a more modern era, at least by the 1960 and i suspect it could go further too. This is a result a good, no-so-complicated rule set that i think is one of the best features of the PG system and its spin-offs. I do like having a rule set that can span many eras without major changes. Thus, PG is one of my go-to games when I want to play something, especially solo (as it solos very well) and not fry my head.
In PG (M) has extended assault as a core rule in the game for APC s and helicopters, and transporting an efficient personnel unit, efficient personnel rules are another good innovation in PG (M) to make the game a bit distinct from PG. To me the notion is, not only, in order to conduct efficient assault, not only do the infantry have to be in APCs, but they have to be well trained in the tactic, thus the need to be efficient. This good because then the scenario designers can distinguish between well trained and not-so-well trained troops.
In PG, extended assault is an optional rule with no guidelines on how and when to use the rule, and it is for units loaded in APC and AFVs activated by a tank leader. So, when do you apply it? Is it used when the attacking player proposes to do so because he wants an advantage? or should this rule and other optional rules be only applied by scenario special rules? Unfortunately, I don't think many designers considered such us of optional rules in scenario design. So, taking how PG (M) applied the rule, somehow players should only apply the rule if a force in the game was well trained enough to conduct, and importantly had the communications and ability to coordinate such assaults. But then, how would you go about doing so? This would imply the players need good knowledge of the capabilities of the forces actually involved in the fight.
Thoughts?
|
