+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: PG Siblings (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Modern War General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Thread: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI (/showthread.php?tid=1725)
Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - leonard - 04-29-2018
It's our second SOI scenario, played face-to-face as usual.
Nice night scenario using map 66, a large plateau hill in the center of the board. I set up my Jordanian infantry (+ big AA gun + halftracks and APC + Egyptian commandos) in towns and entrenchments behind minefields and barbed wire. The Israelis will arrive piecemeal from 3 sides of the board to assault the hill.
I decide to set up one of my strongpoints, separated from the rest, in the east, to force the Israelis to split their force.
A good start for me : the entry of the Israeli player was delayed two turns in a row and he has only 12 turns to conquer all town and entrenchments...
When they finally pressed on the Jordanian defence, Israelis took many casualties (many Jeep106, in particular) from adjacent fire ; most of the Jordanian APCs were also lost to the fire of the super-shermans. As anticipated, the Israeli player diverted a part of his attack against the eastern strongpoint but the 3.7 inch AA guns stationed there ruined his efforts and caused more casualties to him. The assault stagnates under the burden of disruption, casualties and demoralized units. And then the Israeli player takes more losses from failing to recover (this is specific to PG modern: when demoralized units fail to recover, they lose one step).
And then, on turn 8, the Israeli player rolls Logistics shortfall and right after, critical shortfall. He concedes.
Some comments: the scenario is interesting. However, in SOI, the Israeli firepower is generally so high that most of the victory conditions turn the game into a race against time. A bit too repetitive.
Rules. PG modern rules were written before PG 4th Ed rules. In the end, PG 4th Ed rules are more modern in some ways and there are some differences between the two that I feel unnecessary.
Examples:
* Terrain movement costs for vehicles. Clear terrain is 1.5 MP in 4th Ed and 2 MP in Modern (for Mech)...
* Fire charts are different (assault is bloodier) but modifiers are aswell. +2 when targeting artillery is absent from modern direct fire chart...
* Modern introduced the Mire rule (16.6) but the 4th Ed rule is more specific listing the terrain affected. No mention in modern of the necessity to roll for Mire in Barbed Wire, for example.
* In modern, the wreck rule (16.71) does not list Wrecks on roads.
* Smoke drifts and Illumination duration in Modern rules are rather old fashioned compared to 4th Ed Rules.
* Extended assault in Modern is limitated to helicopters and APC...
* Logistics shortfall/Critical shortfall is mandatory in Modern scenarios and optional in 4th Ed. I think this particular rule should remain a scenario special rule.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Modern rules should be re-written and updated relative to the standard 4th Ed rules.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - JayTownsend - 04-30-2018
>Rules. PG modern rules were written before PG 4th Ed rules. In the end, PG 4th Ed rules are more modern in some ways and there are some differences between the two that I feel unnecessary.
I have always thought all three systems should use the same rule set, it would be so much easier to jump right in and play a game from any of the three systems that way.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - Coniglius - 04-30-2018
(04-30-2018, 12:45 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: >Rules. PG modern rules were written before PG 4th Ed rules. In the end, PG 4th Ed rules are more modern in some ways and there are some differences between the two that I feel unnecessary.
I have always thought all three systems should use the same rule set, it would be so much easier to jump right in and play a game from any of the three systems that way.
I tend to agree, however, that in itself leads to a LOT of SSR's to properly represent the differences in technology and doctrine from the WW1 period through to the Modern period. It's not a new concept... there have been many rule sets that cover huge swathes of time, but they tend to be more era specific and make great use of scenario specific rules (SSR's). I'm thinking along the lines of The Complete Brigadier and pretty much anything written by WRG.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - Blackcloud6 - 04-30-2018
(04-30-2018, 12:45 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: >Rules. PG modern rules were written before PG 4th Ed rules. In the end, PG 4th Ed rules are more modern in some ways and there are some differences between the two that I feel unnecessary.
I have always thought all three systems should use the same rule set, it would be so much easier to jump right in and play a game from any of the three systems that way.
+1
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - plloyd1010 - 04-30-2018
(04-30-2018, 12:45 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: I have always thought all three systems should use the same rule set, it would be so much easier to jump right in and play a game from any of the three systems that way.
In the direct sense I don't think this would be particularly workable. The problems come with the notions of communication, personal firepower, and other technological adaptations. The discussion reminds me of how Greg Novak & Frank Chadwick tried to make the Command Decision system work from WW1 up through the modern era. Working through a matrix of who can be doing what when could become quite cumbersome and confusing.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - leonard - 04-30-2018
(04-30-2018, 07:04 AM)Blackcloud6 Wrote:The core of the PG Modern rules is already the same. The main differences (stacking, leadership, combat charts and recover) are OK with me. It's just that SOME differences are totally unnecessary because of outdated rules (i.e written BEFORE PG 4th Ed rules) : see my post above. That's why I feel these rules should be updated. They will never be identical, for sure.(04-30-2018, 12:45 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: >Rules. PG modern rules were written before PG 4th Ed rules. In the end, PG 4th Ed rules are more modern in some ways and there are some differences between the two that I feel unnecessary.
I have always thought all three systems should use the same rule set, it would be so much easier to jump right in and play a game from any of the three systems that way.
+1
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - leonard - 04-30-2018
[attachment=1038]Still good looking.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - Hugmenot - 05-01-2018
(04-29-2018, 09:39 PM)leonard Wrote: In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Modern rules should be re-written and updated relative to the standard 4th Ed rules.
I am all for changing the mechanized movement rate in Clear terrain but that would mean all the TEC AvP has currently in stock would now be recycling material (pun intended) as would be the rulebooks on hand. I have no clue whatsoever about their inventory levels so not sure what would be the financial impact is, if any.
Personally, I would prefer Living Rules but that's unlikely based upon AvP's stance on that subject.
RE: Latrun. Scenario 33 SOI - J6A - 05-03-2018
I would like to see Modern have a rules update with its 2nd release (if that ever happens) much like IA is being updated in its second game.