+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Panzer Grenadier Rules (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: [House Rules] Command system (/showthread.php?tid=434)
Command system - G. K. Zhukov - 12-28-2012
Now that I am (timidly) starting to play PG solo after several years, the history buff in me is rediscovering there is something "gamey" in the rules, something that reminds me a lot about ASL and the "bunch of counters" syndrome.
I mean in every scenario you get a pile of counters (INF, CAV, tank, artillery, you name it) plus a handful of leaders. Your troops and leaders, while obviously comparable to battalion- or regiment-sized real life formations) are usually not organized according to the TO&E of a military unit (be it paper strength or real life), like it happens in miniature games like Command Decision, Spearhead, Fistful of TOWs 3, etc.. That is, basically any leader can command any combat platoon of the appropriate type and any subordinate leaders, not caring about the chain of command.
That unfortunately reminds me a little about ASL and my never ending quest of a realistic command system that is not too cumbersome.
Let me give you an example: instead of
Battalion X with:
9 x INF
3 x HMG
2 x 81mm mortar
1 x MAJ, 1 x CAPT, 2 x LT, 1 x SGT (or whatever)
You would have:
Battalion, with:
HQ:
1 x LTCOL
3 x Infantry companies, each with:
1 x MAJ/CAPT/LT
3 x INF
1 x Weapons company, with:
3 x HMG
2 x 81mm mortar
1 x MAJ/CAPT/LT
NOTE: units from the weapons company can be subordinated to the leader of any Infantry companyin the battalion.
I mean the CAPT in Company B should not be able activate units from Companies A or C (another CAPT's business) unless the LTCOL above him orders him to. Likewise, he shouldn't be allowed to give orders to a LT in another company, no matter the seniority difference, unless he has been appointed to command that company.
I am starting to create some unit cards (yet to be tested) for the scenario I am playing at the moment (PzGr-20 "Debut"). I am attaching a work-in-progress pdf file for your review and critique.
My intention is removing leaders from the hexboard (thus eliminating some clutter) and abstracting leader functions and activation by means of "formation cards" similar to the ones in the attached file.
This is a rather hazy idea that may well end forgotten in a few days (likely) or might lead to some serious houseruling project (not likely).
How do you feel about the above? Has any of you got the same feelings about the PG leader system? Do you know of any house rules in the line of my comments?
Thanks!
RE: Command system - campsawyer - 12-28-2012
I understand your statements about the command and the OoB's and please continue to experiment with the command structure, I would like to see some new. But I must point out that the leaders represent more than just command, but how the units will activate throughout each turn, so I am a bit concerned about the removal of these units and changing unit activations. In PG, the chain of command for the units is more for activations rather than their table of organization.
Beyond Normandy and possibly one other has attempted formations and leaders only activating their units, which adds a bit of complexity to the game. Possibly some modifications to this. Also, have you seen the formations in some of the campaign games in the supplements? These may provide some help too. Either way good luck.
RE: Command system - G. K. Zhukov - 01-02-2013
(12-28-2012, 07:41 AM)campsawyer Wrote: I understand your statements about the command and the OoB's and please continue to experiment with the command structure, I would like to see some new. But I must point out that the leaders represent more than just command, but how the units will activate throughout each turn, so I am a bit concerned about the removal of these units and changing unit activations. In PG, the chain of command for the units is more for activations rather than their table of organization.
I am in fact very much thinking about removing leaders entirely and going for a Western company/Soviet battalion organization. I must say that I am getting inspiration from miniature platoon-level rules like "Fistful of TOWs 3".
Initiative rolls and multiple activation number at the start of the turn would remain the same, but once these parameters are determined, players would alternate activating formations. In order to be activated, a unit (platoon/battery) must remain within a certain distance of the rest of their formation (usually 2 hexes). Imagine the leader of a company with every one of his units in his hex or in adjacent hexes. Now remove the leader. Everyone is within 2 hexes of one another, right?
The above could be achieved by designating a particular unit of the formation as the "command unit" for the current activation (i.e. the now abstracted leader moves among his subordinated units at will).
Now what happens with units outside this operational zone (due to lagging behind, former adverse combat results, etc.)? They do activate as well as their "in command" partners, but must move to close the range with them by the most direct route.
Units in close assault should be inside the "command zone" of their formation in order to activate as attackers in the assault hex. Otherwise they should stay put until their formation gets closer to the assault hex (just limiting themselves to defend) or try to retreat from the assault hex and close the range to their formation (with the usual penalties).
There should be an exception in the case of fire support units belonging to the company/battalion (mortars, HMGs, AT Guns, etc.): they might be left behind when closing the range to the enemy, but should they later move at all, it should be towards their formation.
A comment on armor leaders: the change to integral tank leaders in every Soviet Guards tank platoon from 1943 on, for instance, would imply that Guards tank battalions can be split into companies instead of activating as a whole starting in 1943. Just another idea...
What happens at higher levels (Western Battalion/Soviet Regiment or Brigade)? For the moment I am indeed thinking that those headquarter units from the original Panzer Grenadier game should come in handy, but for now I have just but a hazy idea about how to insert them back in the game.
Other thoughts generated from my latest solo plays:
1) Connected to the command system change above: morale for full/half strength units would become morale for full/half-strength formations. For instance: a German infantry company includes 3 x INF + 1 x HMG units, all at full strength. That's 8 steps of units. Morale for the scenario in play is established as 8/7. That means that every unit in the company, full or half-strength, would check morale against a value of "8" until the company has suffered 4 steps of losses, when the formantion's units would have a morale of "7". Maybe the penalties should be harsher, like reducing a formation morale for both total step losses AND demoralized steps (formation morale could improve if enough units recover morale).
2) Removal of soft transports from the map as soon as their transported units are unloaded (the trucks/wagons are sent to the rear). This would further reduce clutter factor as well as limit the chances that these type of units are used in an unrealistic way (merely remaining up front as a fire/overrun magneto seems a little absurd).
In order to be able to remount, a formation must be activated out of known enemy Direct/Anti-Tank Fire range.
Note that prior to unloading, players might enter enemy kill zones with soft transport if they so desire.
3) Limiting artillery ammunition so that a side does not spend the full 20, 30, 40 turns of a scenario delivering devastating barrages on their hapless visible enemies. I would like to check "Command Decision 2" for this (similar unit and time scale). I know this would imply some record keeping, but I feel some sort of restraint is needed.
BTW, given the leader removal outlined above, any good order unit in sight of the target hex could be Forward Observers for artillery (we would assume the implicit leader is stacked with said undisrupted/undemoralized combat unit).
(12-28-2012, 07:41 AM)campsawyer Wrote: Beyond Normandy and possibly one other has attempted formations and leaders only activating their units, which adds a bit of complexity to the game. Possibly some modifications to this. Also, have you seen the formations in some of the campaign games in the supplements? These may provide some help too. Either way good luck.
I admit I have pored over those campaign rules, but have not studied them in detail. Anyway, I have seen that they include leaders belonging to battalions (who would not be able to give orders to any other units, I assume), and my intent is, as I stated above, to remove leaders entirely.
Lastly, please note that I am not changing any morale, initiative or unit stat in the existing PG games. I am merely thinking about introducing these modifications in order to:
1) Limit what players can do, in a way thet complies with real tactics.
2) Remove counter clutter from the board.
3) Reduce gamey uses of playing pieces.
Once again, comments will be highly appreciated.
RE: Command system - rmakowsky - 07-15-2013
Have you looked at Eastern Front Tank Leader (or Western Front Tank Leader)? They have a very similar activation system and an additional card based formation activation.
I find that it becomes a bit too cumbersome given the time scale of these games. I like the idea of having unit integrity, but also allowing platoons to act as events warrant. EFTL did not allow that. Your command rules do look interesting and I wonder if you have done any more with them.
Thanks
RE: Command system - rmakowsky - 08-27-2013
I have picked up beyond Normandy and am using the formation rules there and thinking long about abstracting leaders out altogether. I do not want to though as I am doing a campaign with 3 Lieutenants and I want to see their progress.
Still wondering how this went, hence the bump...