Optional Rules

[JayTownsend]

About once a year I reread over the rules again just to see what little things I might be missing or forgot. Many of the optional rules I am glade they are not standard rules, a few like: Overrun, Smoke and Illumination, Tank Riders, Strategic Movement, Ruins and Efficient Move & Fire I wouldn't those mind being standard, as I really like them, the rest I could do without.

But I guess that is just my opinion and gamers can pick which optional rules to use or not.

Vote for which ones you like the best?

[JayTownsend]

About once a year I reread over the rules again just to see what little things I might be missing or forgot. Many of the optional rules I am glade they are not standard rules, a few like: Overrun, Smoke and Illumination, Tank Riders, Strategic Movement, Ruins and Efficient Move & Fire I wouldn't those mind being standard, as I really like them, the rest I could do without.

But I guess that is just my opinion and gamers can pick which optional rules to use or not.

Vote for which ones you like the best?

Remember, playing solitary many of these optional rules would suck!

[cjsiam]

But I qualify the FoW "like" with the requirement to roll ALL Demoralized units for recovery if FoW strikes before one chooses to do so...

[JayTownsend]

That is why I don't like FoW, it gamey to not have to try and recover demoralized and disrupted units.

[Schoenwulf]

I don't like or use the logistics & supply rule. Most of the scenarios are less than a day, and one would think that most armies are well supplied enough to handle that amount of time. I tried it a few times, and maybe it's my bad die rolls, but it always seemed to kick in for both sides well before anyone would be running out of materiel, so I bagged it.

[JayTownsend]

I don't like or use the logistics & supply rule. Most of the scenarios are less than a day, and one would think that most armies are well supplied enough to handle that amount of time. I tried it a few times, and maybe it's my bad die rolls, but it always seemed to kick in for both sides well before anyone would be running out of materiel, so I bagged it.

I agree, I will never use that rule.

[plloyd1010]

Logistics is interesting, but as a game consideration it kills a scenario pretty quickly.
Efficient move and fire can be dicey. Mostly it seems to amplify advantages a side has in armor performance.
FoW almost always, but I would like it to be easier to scale to large scenarios. I still use it a lot.
Drum fire is interesting, not used much. It adds an interesting option.
Rubble/ruins just make sense.
Random events are should be used with caution. I like them because most are not game changing and still unpreditability to a scenario.

[waynebaumber]

FOW is a must for me.
Smoke gives you some tactical decisions  to make though not sure some of the less developed nations should have the same capability as the US/Brit/German.
Agree with Peter that Rubble/Ruins make sense.
Tank riders ok, though I use the dates guidelines from ASL chapter H if solitaire
The mire rules are awful IMHO.
A lot of the rest seem to favour AFV's and I don't use them, perhaps would do so for scenario balance considerations

[leonard]

I’m playing face to face, most of the time, and using all optional rules except for Logistic shortfall and Formation activation.
Logistic shortfall should be used only if made mandatory by special rules, I think. Otherwise, it usually kills the scenario.
FOW is essential for some loss of command control.
Random events are an excellent way to introduce random historical events in the course of a scenario. See the Road to Dunkirk scenarios. I’ve used the same trick in the Fire & Sword scenarios.

I’ve also used the Mire rule intensively with no real issue. It seems to me that Woods shouldn’t be so easy to cross as it is the case if you don’t use Mire.

Overrun. Interesting option. It was funny to see PG newbies instantly using overrun rules in their very first armor scenario in a tournament in Brussels.

Extended assault. Very interesting too. But beware of last turn extended assaults when hex control is a victory condition.

[Blackcloud6]

(pumping some life into this thread)

I am thinking about smoke today.  I always play with the smoke optional rule when I paly solo.  However, I've just set up the first scenario from C&CV2; it is the Italians vs. brits in the desert in Sept 1940.  The Afrika Korps game was , what, a first edition game?  So smoke was not even played then, right?  So, for scenario design and balance 9and "balance" was not an important thing back in the early days of PG), adding smoke might give the Italians, who are attacking in this scenario, an edge, maybe a significant one.  But that is OK, I'm playing solo.

That said.  Did the Italians have smoke for their guns in the desert in 1940?  Maybe, and I would likely say yes they did because it was not a new technology nor hard to make.  maybe supply issues would matter in the desert but then this scenario is at the start of the campaign.  But it does beg the question of how does one find out about smoke use of the various forces in WWII.  back some years ago, I looked into that question for an ASL discussion of smoke.  I thought smoke was too plentiful in ASL and often used.  One does not find a lot of mention of smoke use in tactical descriptions.  But I came to realize that smoke may have been a common thing in tactical use during WWII that it just simply was not always mentioned in writes ups... it was just used.

maybe, the Smoke optional rule has it right by seeking middle ground with the limiting of each gun/artillery with one available smoke use per ten turns.