Tanks or no tanks?

[Tony M]

One quirk I have is that I generally don't like tactical games with armor. i realize that I'm missing out on a lot, but armor rules just mean more rules for me to deal with and get confused by. Too many moving parts. Infantry, infantry guns, mortars, artillery, leaders...yes please. But tanks...I'd rather not. So, as I play through the scenarios in my copy of Eastern Front I will probably cherry pick the infantry-only scenarios.

Does anybody else out there prefer infantry-only scenarios?

One reason I like PG is that there are so many 1-map or 2-map scenarios. My game table measures only 32 x 21 inches, so playing most wargames on conventional maps has always been difficult.

[plloyd1010]

Does anybody else out there prefer infantry-only scenarios?

I don't know about infantry only scenarios, but I don't like armor dominated scenarios. Just a few tanks is best for me. I also don't like the really big tanks either. PG works well as a combined arms game, not so well as tank game.

[treadasaurusrex]

Hmm, no tanks or AFVs in a scenario = no fun!

[goosebrown]

Hmm, no tanks or AFVs in a scenario = no fun!

i think you mean ANTI Tank guns...

[wleonard1]

No tanks? Look at Parachutes over Crete or Conquest of Ethiopia.

[treadasaurusrex]

Hmm, no tanks or AFVs in a scenario = no fun!

i think you mean ANTI Tank guns...

I have to admit, those Satanic devices, are indeed, fun to destroy.

[treadasaurusrex]

No tanks? Look at Parachutes over Crete or Conquest of Ethiopia.

Yep, both are seriously boring to play, although there are a handful of AFVs in both.

[Grognard Gunny]

We don't need no stinkin' TACTICS! (To paraphrase...)

GG

[Tony M]

Having bought Black Panthers recently I've had no choice but to face my fears and try to deal with the PG armor rules. And you know what? They are not that bad.

[Schoenwulf]

Compared to ASL, the PG armor rules are a piece of cake.