4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Matt W]

Richvalle,

I have playtested the rule that you have suggested and it terribly unbalances the game if one side is efficient and the other not. In addition, it fundmentally changes the game. There is one unit that is provided with exactly the move and shoot ability and that is the M-18 Hellcat which shows up in Battle of the Bulge/Elsenborn Ridge and other supplements of that era. It is a very, very powerful unit as a result, in recognition of its very high speed. If you haven't played with the Hellcat, seek it out and play a few scenarios - then imagine your battlefield if every units had that ability.

In looking at such rules there are a couple of issues:

1. Scenario balance, there are 1,800 existing scenarios in the PG universe that have been developed without the rule. In any where there are AFVs on both sides (a large bunch of them) this rule will completely consume play, providing the larger AFV force an insuperable edge, even more so if the rule is held to efficient AFVs only.
2. Ease of play. As Vince has suggested the game has become a refuge for those who want this level of treatment. Change that and the base of players may well change as well, causing a economic issue for the publisher.
3. Granularity. The awkward dance of AFVs that you reference would continue with the number of decisions squared, dramatically slowing down play. In the case of solo play the play will slow to resemble a chess match with no clock. "If I move that Sherman forward, the Panther might shoot, or move then shoot, or shoot then move and set up a crossfire for that StG if it moves and shoots while I am moving and shooting at the Panther." It also forces one to move AFVs separately as opposed to as a formation, that way you can keep some of your shots in reserve. This dramatically increases the number of activations in, for example, a Kursk scenario with tons of AFVs. If you play with FOW, as you should, this has obvious ramifications.
4. Abstraction vs. Reality. Why stop at AFVs? Couldn't foot units perform similarly? Of course, they could and did, probably more successfully than AFVs, especially early in the war. Design requires some level of abstraction or we will end up with ASL and instructions on how to organize binders for your rules. As a remarkably successful WW II tactical series, major changes should be done with great care and an investigation into the cascade effects of the changes desired. Is move and shoot in fifteen minutes more real? Of course it is. However, one of the joys of PG is that the initial rule set is 16 pages long and can be well understood by a newbie in the first 3-5 plays. Another is that it takes less time to play a scenario than most scenarios actually took (some of the larger force scenarios excepted). Changes in rules that make play more complex in order to model reality take us into the area that, again many players fled (e.g. ASL).

I actually like the fact that Modern Grenadier is more complex than Panzer Grenadier. The more modern battlefield became a significantly more intense environment and the complexity of the rules for that period make sense. I can even make myself believe that such rules in 1945 might make sense, especially against elite forces. But as a rule set spanning 1936-1952 I feel that the current AFV rules work reasonably well. There are specific complaints about speed, ability to engage from distance and vulnerability to foot troops that are being looked at seriously but the idea of move and shoot will probably be offered as an optional rule only.

My suggestion, if you want to use it at all, is to reserve it for truly exceptionally trained units (say GD or "some" Guards units but not for the run of the mill Heer, RKKA, Commonwealth or US units).