Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
House Rules What we play redux
#1
In the mists of the 3rd Edition, I and my primary opponent worked out, tested, and codified a series of house rules. This eventually led to modified charts and a reworked rule book. I post the results in the thread "What we play". The 4th Edition debut addressed some of our ideas and changes, but ignored many others. We started pulling parts of the 4th Ed in, then pushing our rules on the 4th Ed, and finally got it all written up and recodified.

The basic philosophy has been to use the system to create a better simulation. Better meaning to reflect probable historical outcomes as described in many books, historical AARs, and the conclusion section of the scenarios. We approached the ideas from the standpoint of not wanting to change the system, just reapply the rules so as to have a more diverse and historically representative game. The one deviation was the antitank system. Still recognizable, but obviously different.

Something which may be confusing. Our use of d6d6 dice to produce a 11-66 result. This method was used at first to smooth out the AT results. My opponent wanted to use the 11-66 idea across the combat tables, so they are. The probability of the Direct Fire and Bombardment tables has not changed. The Assault table has had some probability tweaks, but is still pretty much the same.

I've included commented version of the reworked rule book. Be wary of peeking into the tangle of my mind.


Attached Files
.pdf   4th Ed rules reworked.pdf (Size: 1.49 MB / Downloads: 9)
.pdf   4th Ed rules reworked and commented.pdf (Size: 1.55 MB / Downloads: 13)
.pdf   Combat Charts.pdf (Size: 1.1 MB / Downloads: 18)
.pdf   PG4Ed_Terrain reorganized modified.pdf (Size: 129.58 KB / Downloads: 12)
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply
#2
Last time I got questions. There must be at least 16 of you out there with opinions.
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply
#3
(08-08-2017, 03:11 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: In the mists of the 3rd Edition, I and my primary opponent worked out, tested, and codified a series of house rules. This eventually led to modified charts and a reworked rule book. I post the results in the thread "What we play". The 4th Edition debut addressed some of our ideas and changes, but ignored many others. We started pulling parts of the 4th Ed in, then pushing our rules on the 4th Ed, and finally got it all written up and recodified.
Peter, this is truly a wonderful work. Most of your ideas are very interesting especially for those of us who mainly play face-to-face. And that's my case aswell.
Although I have only zapped through your documents, I want to try some of your ideas (AT fire for example) in my next scenario before discussing them further.
As a more general comment, this could be a first step to 5th Ed rules and, in this case, I might suggest other changes.
A few examples :
* Rout rules/Fleeing (14.31). The first sentence of the rules is OK : "Each demoralized unit and/or leader that fails to recover must move away from enemy units that could hurt it." However, it goes on with "It must move toward the nearest town ... etc where enemy units can no longer spot it and fire on it with Direct or AT Fire...". Why do they exclude Bombardment ? I don't understand that : if a demoralized infantry unit spots an enemy artillery unit capable a hitting it, we don't have to care because it is ONLY bombardment !
I've played Go for Broke scenario nr 13 "Hard go" where a horde of US infantry is advancing against a few German units including 1 X 88, 3 X 81mm, 1 X 120mm and 2 X 75 MTN , all bombardment units with long ranges... And my task was to slow down the US at maximum. Impossible to do if the enemy units don't have to rout ! 
As some players have noticed recently on this forum, PG Modern rules  state in 15.3 Demoralization : a demoralized unit that fails to recover takes a step loss and then flees. Good rule. Your rules just state : if unable to flee, the unit loses one step or is eliminated.

* 5.4 Combat movement. One of the best rules of PG needs some rework, in my opinion. First, because of the same reasons : 5.4 excludes Bombardment fire. Curiously enough, PG Modern rules are different and do not exclude Bombardment units...
Second, in some situations where LOS is short (in jungle, by night,...), a unit without leader could advance towards the enemy since it is impossible to spot and eventually stop when it is adjacent to the enemy and when it finally spots it. To justify the move, a player could pretend that, until the very last hex, the unit failed to see anybody. As a house rule, we have forbidden that kind of move (can't move unvoluntarily adjacent without being activated by leader).

* I'm still missing the old BanzaI rule...

* 5.5 Night movement is too difficult to apply. Change to something like : At night, units not activated by a leader may only enter road/town/tracks/creeks/rivers/railway hexes.                                       
Reply
#4
Thank you Philippe. That is quite high praise. I do hope you enjoy experimenting with them.
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)