More home grown house rules

[RLW]

Here are some more of  some home grown house rules for PG that I have been thinking of play testing. I haven't as yet tested them but plan to do so as part of my current test game for the  hybrid interpolation rules that I described in my other thread. Now the impetus behind  coming up with these house rules is that even though I consider PG to be the best tactical board game  on the market (at least those I have played) it still is not perfect and might could benefit from a few  additional choice house rules. And as i said in my other thread, I like  rules that add chrome if that chrome  adds to the narrative and doesn't clutter up game play too bad.

AFV house rules.

1. When an AFV moves and is fired upon by AT OP fire treat the direction it is moving as if it also were receiving fire form that direction (and hence may make it subject to the +2 modifier. I am calling this virtual fire in that it is not real AT fire but serves that purpose  in regard to determining if the  AFV  That is to say if the tank is moving north and gets fired upon from the being fired on  by real AT fire gets its +2 flanking fire bonus.

However, if that north moving   AFV spends an addition 2 MP in that hex that it is fired upon (and declares that before any OP fire declarations)  that it is zig zagging  ether with a left  face offset or a right face offset to its direction of travel, it can enter that hex using that zig zag motion where say  it moves north by moving  north east (or toward hex aide 2) then turns and moves in reverse NW =(i.e toward hex side 6 but in reverse and thus is still facing toward hex side 2)  or vice versa and declare that it is moving with its face offset to the left of its direction of travel. Thus it is zig zagging east with forward motion and west with reverse motion  all the while still moving north, or vice versa if it is offsetting its facing to the west . 

And this is done of a hex by hex basis. So an AFV moving north (i.e across  hex side 1 it could either  movie directly to that hex adjacent hex to the north (via hex side 1) and thus that  virtual fire would be  from the north, (i.e hex side 1), or it could pay the  2MP and   declare that its facing (while moving north) is either offset to toward the right and thus the virtual fire  would be from hex side 2 or to the offset left  and the virtual fire would be from hex 6. . 

Also a player could move similarly and declare reverse motion (which would cost 2MP just as forward motion). So if the AFV is  moving across hex side 1 using reverse motion the virtual fire would be from hex 4 and not hex 1. And if the AFV declares reverse zig zag motion  offset to the right then the virtual fiore would be  from hex 5 and not hex side 2 as for forward motion. Likewise, if the AFV delres  revrse zigzag offset left then the virtual fore would be from hex side 3 and not hex side 6 as for forward  left zig zag motion. 

 Thus and AFV in moving to the next hex has six facing option, 

1. face the direct that it is moving (which does not cost and extra MPs, or
 
pay  an extra 2MPs penalty and  

2. move  in reverse to that hex and thus it is moving in the direction  toward hex side 1 buts its facing is  toward hex side 4. 

3. offset its facing to the right of the direction of motion and  thus if  it is moving across hex side 1  its facing would be toward hex side 2

4. The same as 3  but using reverse movement so that  it is moving toward the direction of  hex side 1 buts its facing is toward hex side 5.

5. the same as  3 above but rather offset to the left of the direction of motion so that it is moving toward hex side 1 but its facing is toward hax side 6.

6. The same as five but in reverse so that it is moving toward hex side 1 but is facing hex side  3.

Once the move ends all facing is no longer in effect  for any  other fire it might then reciive otehr than  the normal +2 flanking fire rule against and no Op firing AT fire.

Now this may sound a bit complicated when reading through all this but is really quiet simple in that when moving an AFV on can  either have it face the direction it is moving) or (by paying 2 extra MPs for that hex) offset the facing in any of the other  5 directions from ist motion in regard to  defining where the virtual shooter is.  One really doesn't (unlike the actual tank crew)  have to worry about whether this is  left forward or right reverse but merely needs to say which  hex side  the virtual shooter is shooting.


And BTW, for the purposes of  any AT  Op Firing  it gets only one shot per hex regardless of how the AFV moves into that hex. And (obviously) an AFV can't use zigzagging movement but can do so and declare reverse movement (at a total movement cost of 2 MPs and not and additional 2 MPs). Also  the AFV would receive its -1 for OP Fire as normal. partly canceling out any +2 it might also get for flanking fire.

So the way one could  declare this is declare the extra 2MPs (if not facing in the direction of over all movement)  and then point on the hex which the AFV would like the virtual shooter to shoot. Then any AT OP ire could use that direction to  assess whether its gets a flanking shot or not for the movement into that hex. 

I have more house rule but let me  add them as subsequent post to keep these short.

[RLW]

Here is another homespun house rule that I am now testing in my test game., the bug out rule.

When a defender (in real life)  is attacked it can do what is called in military lingo, not accept the attack. This rule allows one to do just that and if an assault is made on a hex all or some of the units capable of moving (e.g. they haven't already fired or moved and are limbered and such)  in that hex can not accept that attack and withdraw to an adjacent hex.


[edit] The assaulting unit gets a free shot at it just as if it were withdrawing  from that hex  just as in the the standard rules. 
[edit] except good order AFVs are exempt from this free shot, but the assaulting force can fire AT fire (but not bazooka fire, etc) at the them but  if so they cannot also fire AF at the bugging out non AFVs.   

Bugging out good order  AFVs  do not have to place a disrupted  counter but use half their MPs  but can continue their move... it pays to be mobile, especially  when bugging out. However it in doing so it uses all its MPs then it too becomes disrupted. Disrupted or demoralized AFVs bug out using the same rules as non AFVs except they too can be shot at using AT fire, including bazookas too since they are slower to get out of dodge than their good order AFV companions..

[edit] Non AFVs (or non good order AFVs) bugging out units  have two choices. They can either place a moved/fired marker on them in that adjacent hex that they moved during their bug out or  become disrupted but will still able to move in a later segment. This choice  reflects  an orderly bug out vs  hasty bug out where the orderly bug out takes more time (and hence the move/fire counter) but the hasty  bug out causes more disruption(and hence the disruption country)  but allows the bugged out units to move one more hex (or attempt a rally, though if that was what they originally planned it would have been better to do the orderly bug out. 

BTW, the difference between bugging out and a normal withdrawal is that a unit that bugs out does so before the assaulting units have time to close in to close range, hence no bazooka fire and such where a normal withdrawal occurs where the assaulting units have closewd the range and thus it is harder to disengage form that assault. The penalty that a bugging out unit takes is that they cannot return their AF fire.

Any unit already disrupted (it was already disrupted of became disrupted by the free shot) becomes demoralized for the hasty bug out and   can attempt to rally in some later impulse as a normal demoralized unit  or (for the orderly bug out places a moved/fired  counter on it. If already demoralized it can  choose to stay behind  as a rear guard and accept the attack or do a MC and if it fails it is eliminated and if it passes it can  bug out as well but is placed with a moved fire counter for doing so.  A demoralized unit cannot make a orderly bug out and thus must eventually make a subsequent moral check unless the turn ends via fog of war before that.

These units can also leave behind a rear guard that  suffers that assault as a normal assault in lieu of the free shot against the bugging out units. 

[edit] If that rear guard is demoralized it must pass a morale check  their on the spot and if it paases it can defend that hex with the  improved moral  but if it fails it must bug out as well and place a moved /fired counter on it in contrast for it having just bugged out and not trying to serve as a rear guard. thus in doing so giving the assaulter that free shot after all.

If the attacker was conducting an overrun then it may move into the hex either pre designated of into a hex that the bug out unit moved (if it has enough MPs to do so and could enter that hex normally). It must end its movement there and does not get another AF shot but is considered a normal assault hex and any enemy units in that hex that do not have a moved/fire counter (including the units that just bugged out if they are not demoralized... though they would be by necessity disrupted if they did not have a moved/fired counter) can conduct their own  assault fire  in a subsequent impulse.

The reason for this rule is that it seems really hard to turn and run in the existing assault rules and once presented with overwhelming force they  take a last stand instead of bugging out. This rule also allows for a leap frog withdrawal in that a unit behind that unit can block for the units bugging out, since the bugging out units can make one more hex move to move behind the screening unit.
. 
One other rule here that is in the same vein as the above bug out rule is that any disrupted unit can  voluntarily become demoralized. If it does that then it is assumed to have failed its moral check and the is free to flee. That way it to can bug out and move further than the one hex limit for being disrupted. Also a demoralized unit can voluntarily fail its moral check and flee as well.  These rules are designed to  better allow units to turn tale and run when the occasion  warrants  such actions. 

BTW, on play testing this I made a few changes to it (see the edit paragraph) in that there seems to be a few rough spots in this rule to still to work out.

[RLW]

This next homespun house rule I call  added fog. When making a fog of war  dice role use the sum of the two higher die rolls as a moral check (MC) for the highest ranking unit (i.e. over all commander) for the side whose turn is coming up. If that units fails its MC  then make a new  initiative roll. If the  side  looses that initiative roll it in effect passes and looses that segment (a tie for this rule is considered a win). However that pass does not count in regard to making two passes in a row ends the turn in that it is an involuntary pass. The player does not need to do that if the  other player passed on his segment. Note that if the leader is demoralized its moral is reduced by one and thus  that leaders ability to win the next  impulse is  diminished.  Finally, if that player has any saved initiative they can use that to counter  a  involuntary pass result.

[edit] This adds to the above rules to better reflect the state of the over all commander as his ability to Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (ala John Boyd,s OODA loop). 

One more rule. If a commander is lost then  the next commander suffers a permanent  +1 to his moral check in addition to any other additions due to having a move/fired counter of being demoralized.

If the initiative level is  0 then 1 is added to that sum of the two highest die in the fog of war role  and that is used for the MC. Also, if the. over all commander  has a moved fire  counter an addition 1 is added to that sum (thus it pays to not use one's over all commander to micro manage local situations and leave him to looking at the big picture which in game terms means not having a moved /fired counter on him . 

When making that initiation roll (as a result of losing that MC)  if the commander is disrupted that would lower the initiative of his side by 1 for that roll and by 2 if he is demoralized (so it also pays to keep one's commander in good order as well, and especially not demoralized in that hurts both on the MC and the subsequent initiative roll).  

The purpose of this over all rule is to further penalize a side that has low initiative beyond just the start of the turn but all through out that turn in that the side with lower initiative will more often loose those additional spot  initiative roll.  Thus there is this added fog reflecting a diminished command and control. Also it causes one to always be aware who is the boss in that one has to be cognizant of its moral level. Also it adds a bit more drama to the fog of war dice rolls other than  does this turn end or not t but do I get my next segment. also the fog of war rule can hurt both sides but this rule just hurts the side  that  fails that extra fog condition and thus is forced to do an involuntary pass.

[Shad]

The purpose of this rule is to further penalize a side that has low initiative beyond just the start of the turn but all through out that turn in that the side with lower initiative will more often loose those additional spot  initiative roll.

That's just cruel!

[RLW]

Another of my homespun  house rules (and yes, I do in fact have a lot of them) is a rule to bring back snipers. Earlier version of PG had snipers via special events table. But this features seems to have been dropped in later games. 

This sniper rule is that for day turns  if  a unit with a leader in its stack/FG makes a DF (but not op fire) or a rally attempt (but not self rally)  if it rolls doubles for that DF roll or for each rally roll, then the other side can choose to roll two dice  as well for each leader in the stack/FG for the DF or for each rally roll. If that roll gives doubles as well then an effective sniper event has occurred that effects either that leader and/or the sniper.  Who wins is determined by making a sniper triggered initiative roll. 

This initiative sniper's roll is like a regular initiative roll modified by two other factors. First, there is a the shift by any DF modifiers that would apply  if that hex occupied by the leader were fired upon by DF fire. Thus if the sniper attack was against a leader in a woods hex the sniper initiative roll would be factor or  moral by that -2.  Second, if that leader used  either it's combat modifier or its morale modifier that is added to the sniper's to the sniper's roll as well (i.e would  help the sniper by the extra exposure incurred from modifying the combat or morale of the other units in that hex/FG. However if the combat modifier is 2 and the leader only is using 1 then only that 1 is added to the  sniper's initiative roll. Similarly  a leader can opt to not employ its moral modifier or just a portion of it if he so desires by declaring that up front before making any dice roll. Thus it is only the modifier that is used for that impulse that is added to the sniper initiative roll.

Thus if a leader acts the hero and uses its moral modifier to rally the troops or its combat modifier it is taking more risk of being a victim to that sniper shot by adding that modifier to the snipers initiative roll. So it pays to be in  good cover in regard to sniper fire but there is a risk cost of being a hero and applying a combat or morla modifier. 

Note that having a higher initiative  gives an advantage to either side in that that higher initiative reflects that any sniper's have  a better chance of getting off a good shot or the  target side having sanitized the  area of lurking snipers. 

If the sniper wins the leader is effected. If the sniper loses the sniper is killed and that cost 1 victory point which in turn contributes to further  lower its initiative. If the leader suffers the effect then a single die is rolled (or one could use the number rolled for the second doubles if they remember it) and  for a 1 or 2 the leaders is disrupted, a 3 or 4  the leader is demoralized, and for a 5 or 6 the leader is killed. An effect against the sniper is always a kill (unless  the shot is against a commissar, see below), i.e. it pays that 1 VP. As such the sniper  needs to choose wisely when to shoot.

A sniper can decline to take a shot but does so after the roll of the first  double, but once that second roll for doubles is made there is no turning back and someone will suffer if doubles are rolled in that second roll. 

[edit] For DF if the first  double that was  double 1's, 3's or 5's then if the the second doubles is rolled one  unit that is firing (sniper's choice) is also disrupted in addition to any effects on the sniper and the leader. For rally roll induced sniper fire if the leader is affected by the sniper fire the unit that is being rallied fails it rally roll regardless of what that roll is. A leader that initiated both DF and rally rolls that leader is susceptible to sniper fire for both DF the DF roll and each rally roll it makes. 

BTW, this rule may discourage units from taking low probability DF shots in that there is a cost (beyond  the possibility ammo depletion) for doing so. Thus this rule can speed  up the game rather than bog it down in that these mechanics are only invoked on a roll of doubles but can reduce the number of low probability shots. Plus it puts a risk of being a heredit above even a FG that has no leader may be effected by sniper fire.

BTW this rule applies for commissars as well but with some modifications in that  they must  add to their sniper initiative roll an additional 1 factor signifying that the "sniper" that takes them out was perhaps their own  men (that took exception for being shot. by him)  If the sniper triggered initiative role is a tie for a commissar this is  assumed the have been the case and the "sniper"  (i.e the  units  turning on the  commissar, become  disrupted, i.e they pass the moral check, and the commissar dies with no chance to roll that third role to see if instead he is  disrupted or demoralized. For a non tie the sniper resolution is the same for any  regular leader.

BTW, there are a lot of these house rules to remember. I am finding they do not bog down game play ( as per design) but do make one have to think harder to remember them. This should get easier as one becomes more familiar with them but even so  it will be easy to forget to apply them from time to time. When that occurs one assumes that the rule was employed but the resulting die roll led to a no effect. So the rule was not forgotten but rather the default die roll gave a no effect. 

So even if one never uses any of these one can never the less assume that they were all used and that the player was just lucky and always rolled a no effect. In fact at any time (if both players consent) one can assume that to be the case and not apply the rule to speed up game play. Thus one can only apply these on he more interesting or critical  situations or when one is in the mood to plus up the crunch level of the game. One does this by simply asking the other player, skip? If they say he says yes then assume a no effect die roll.

[edit] BTW, this rule is design to further penalize sides with low morale in that they are more likely to lose a sniper duel. Thus units with low morale may need to be careful as to when to shoot and only do so if they get a juicy shot like against  leader with a +2 modifier. Now the shooter may not know that if  that leader is not placed on top of the stack. But once a leader uses that super power then the cat is out of the bag and if that leader ever rolls doubles the sniper may indeed risk the shot even if he has low initiative.

[RLW]

My last homespun house rule is to give AFVs an Op Fire capability for being shot at by other AFVs using AT fire, i.e. they can duel with the shooter.  They can only do this against the AFV shooting at them. and not against an AFV shooting at  someone else. For AFVs with turrets they can swap shot for shot with other AFVs targeting them with AT fire (limited to how many shots they get i.e. 2 if they are efficient or only 1 if not).  AFVs without turrets can only  return OP fire against the second shot but not the first of an shooter.  So in effect non turreted AFVs can only Op fire as a duel with shooters than have two shots. But an turreted AFV can op fire shot per shot. AFVs  can  mix these dual Op fire shots with  normal Op fire but not with non op fire. They can also take their second Op fire shot against a different target.

For example  a tiger tank shoots at a T-34. Both are armor efficient. The tiger fires the T-34 and then the T-34 can  fire back. Then the tiger fires at a different target so that T-34 cannot  return that fire (but the other target could, if it had a turret (for from its perspective this is the first shot fired at it). But later that turn a MKIV fires at this T-34 and it can then return fire. If instead the MkIV moved the t-34 could have used its second shot as normal Op fire on it.

Lets say that instead of a T-34 this was a SU-100 (which does not have a turret). The tiger fires at it and it survives the first shot. having no turret it cannot return the fire. If the Tiger firs at it a second time it can return fire.

This rule plus my rule for giving turreted vehicles a plus die role only for interpolation for assault fire  gives  AFVs with turrets some advantage over not having a turret. There surely must be some advantage to having turrets (or else armies of the world would not incur the cost of  proving them) so these rules  try (even if a bit abstractly) to give turreted AFVs some advantage over non turreted one (in addition to any possible advantage that might have been baked into the AFV's combat values).  This rule also  somewhat mitigates that huge advantage  where say  a stack of 3 AFVs that are armor efficient get to fire 6 shots before the defender can even fire back... and it could be even more if there are adjnt AFVs.

BTW it would have been nice if AFV counters  had say a  circle around the movement factor if it is a wheeled vehicle, a box around the  armor value if it is an OT vehicle  and a box around the AT numbers if it is a non turreted vehicle (or something like that)  so one would not have to remember which is which.

And in summary (since this is my last homespun house rule) that none of these rules really replace the existing ones but rather  extend them to new cases. Thus  movement, combat, rally, etc all work the same with just added nuances. As such the game stills plays like PG, it just has a bit more variations in regard to its outcomes, these reflecting factors not expressly considered in basic rules. My thesis is that by adding these rules one can  give a dense to those non PG players that say PG is too simple and say that no, it models most all the things that their favorite tactical wargame models but perhaps at a more abstract level, but one that does not require page after page of rules by doing it smartly. And other than having to remember a few pages more of rules I am finding in my test game that these really do not bog down play and seem quite natural and (for me) add to the over all  drama and fun level, which was my goal in coming up with these to begin with. And obviously whether anyone uses any, all, or none of these, or makes their own version is totally up to them. I post them here mainly just as food for thought and/or discussion.

That pretty much finishes my house rules. I will try to edit these post if I make any changes to them as I continue my test game but other than that (or if I think of some new ones or get any additional comments) this pretty much wraps this up.

[RLW]

The purpose of this rule is to further penalize a side that has low initiative beyond just the start of the turn but all through out that turn in that the side with lower initiative will more often loose those additional spot  initiative roll.

That's just cruel!

I thought so too! But with my sniper rule I rubbed  salt to the wound!

[RLW]

This is more of a special scenario rule than a standard rule but I am finding that when both sides have nearly equal armor that both sides tend to keep their armor in limited terrain and not fire waiting for the other guy to fiore first. Meanwhile the infantry are fighting and dying. And I have read accounts where this is what indeed happened where the armor stayed back and waited for the infantry to clear the way. But I imagine that the infantry commander would not look favorably on such  tactics and might insist (or order if he has the authority to do so) those tanks forward to help out the infantry. This may particularly be the case when the commander does not know for a fact that there are even any enemy tanks  out there to begin with.

So this  house special scenario rule is what i call, no tankers, you can't just  stay back and let the infantry fight it out rule. So a way to give a player impetus to do this (when he, himself, might totally agree with those tankers and choice to keep his armor back so as not to risk loosing them (and thus allow the enemy armor to maul his infantry with no armor to stop them)  the rule might be something like this.

After turn x (where the scenario would define what turn x is)  the player will be penalized  n  VPs for each turn that his armor does not fire at the enemy or move closer to them (and not just move other tanks up forward to the lead tanks but actually close in the range between the lead tanks and the enemy). 

However, every turn it fires that n VP penalty could be  reduced by 1 or more factors. If enemy armor is spotted n could be reduced to 0 or some other  value. Once  the first friendly armor loss  n could then be  reduced  to zero. HTs may  exempted from that as by the special scenario rules.

So yes, one may need to send out a armored car or a junk tank (and maybe in doing so giving them an actual useful purpose)  and risk it dying or find some spot where the tanks can shoot at the infantry without being shot back with deadly AT fire to satisfy that commander bent on having the tankers share in the dying along with his poor infantry. 

So this rule in effect imposes role playing via VP penalties to reflect either a dare devil armor commander or an indignant infantry commander or such that is not content for the armor to hold back most if not all the game or too chicken to stand up toa  high command that thinks that it is cowardness or such to hold back some of one's forces until they can be best employed. And maybe the  player may just take the VP hits and employ his armor when he thinks best or i good and ready to do so... one more tactical decision backed into the game full of many such decisions.

BTW (as a matter of humor), one might also call this The Americanization of Emily rule, if one has ever seen that movie, where instead of the line from the movie as said by the Admiral wanting  the public relations stunt for the Navy, "the  first casualty at Normandy must be a sailor"  it is "one of the early casualties in this battle must be a tanker". 

BTW, my rule  that allows gun duels can somewhat compensate for having to do this in that at least his AFVs with turrets can swap shot for shot.

[RLW]

OK, I do have one more house rule. I still think that there is not enough distinction between turreted and non turreted AFVs. This rule attempts to further distinguish them. A turret vehicle has much more freedom as to which direction faces., especially when firing. This rule tries to reflect that. Rule 11.1 states that to qualify for cross fire the second or subsequent AT fire must  be traced through a non adjacent hex and not just the spin between an adjacent and non adjacent hex. 

My house rule would be that when firing on a non turreted AFV that even firing along that splice line would qualify that AT fire as cross fire. Also, assuming that the target AFV is facing the first AT at it until it moves that non turreted  AFV can only fire at that a target whose LOS passes through that  firer's hex or if  the target is more than 3 hexes away one LOS falls one to the left for right of the first firer's hex.

The idea here is that with no turret the  AFV pretty much has to shoot in the direction that it tuns it hull. Once the non turreted AFV moves this restriction is relaxed so if it is an efficient AFV and the move and fire rule is used it could move, even  in place (i.e. not leaving that hex) and thus cancel both the cross fire modifier and the  targeting restrictions  though it still must pay the -1 for moving and firing.  A turreted AFV could also move in place to cancel the cross fore restriction but need not do so to for targeting purposes. BTW, moving in place does trigger Op fire but does not cause  the -1 penalty to it..

Thus in summary it is a bit easier to get a cross fire shot against a non turreted AFV (in that spline LOS counts, even two splines would count as well)  and that once  a cross fore situation occurs against a non turreted AFV its targeting options are limited. This rule plus the  dueling restrictions against non turreted AFVs plus the assault interpolation condition  help differentiate  between  turreted and no  turreted AFV capabilities  giving turreted AFVs some advantages.

Now it is funny in that if one makes up some house rule to solve (perceived) problem x it can also  help problem y as well. And in this case this idea of an AFV moving in place (i.e with its hex)  can help solve another problem (or at least one as see as such)., that is how to cancel a spotted marker. For the current rule says one has to leave that hex and then move back to remove a spotted marker .. which seems a bit overkill to me. But with this  idea of moving in pace then that too can remove a spotted marker. But such movement would still cause op fire and the +1 penalty for DF but for AFV it would remove any spotted marker trigger  op fire but not involve the -1 penalty. Thus moving in pace is a variant of normal movement one  exception, no -1 for AT op fire. But at the end of any op fire the spotted marker comes off, regardless of the outcome of that op fire. Also moving in place would cost 1MP regardless of terrain  in regard to loading and unloading  passengers and such.

[RLW]

Now I came up with these rules (as I said elsewhere ) not so much as a gamer but more as a history buff that likes details, nuance, and crunch factor. But it just occured to me if one approaches it as a gamer and enjoys that aspect of  playing the game as a way of demonstrating one's mettle as being a more superior, skillful, or accomplished player, these rules (or comparable ones of one's own design)  have the potential to benefit both that serious gamer and the serious  history buff by  employing these in that mastery of these rules could cause one to have an advantage over those that have less mastery. of course  for anyone who is  more in the mood for a quick playing or casual gaming experience or one with less a demand for mental gymnastics in having to remember and apply more  they can just play with some of these or (most likely) none of these as I imagine would be the case for the vast majority of PG gamers.   But for any those hearty souls (or maybe just gluttons for punishment) that might want to dabble with these rules or their own variants  I have tried to write them up so they are not too convoluted though some may in fact be a bit so just that. 

BTW, I have thought of these more in regard to solitaire play but imagine that they would worked just as well for multiplayer games, and I imagine that for those even additional   twist to these rules could be added to further enhance that multiplayer gaming experience. The main thing that I see would be needed for multi play games is a better write up so as to make it easier for two players to agree on what the rules are (with minimum haggling or having to be a rule lawyer) and which ones to use or discard. But for a solitaire game one need only agree with themselves, generally an easier thing to do than with having to   reach such a agreement with others.. though maybe not always in that  having a consensus can help one make up their minds. 

But it is not my goal here to  write up such clear and concise rules in that I am making these more for myself and would leave that task to others (who I imagine would have their own ideas as well how best to reflect the factors these rules address) if anyone should ever so desire to do so. For I am quickly reaching that point where am more inclined to use these rather than keep refining them, though new ideas do seem to be  pooping up as I start to use them, but these are mostly minor tweaks to the existing rules rather than new ones. So it does seem that this project seems to be winding down... and thus time to move on to my next project.. whatever that might be.

And I might conclude this by saying i have been a wargamer for probably about 55 years, my first wargame was AH D Day when it was new. And I have played many a tactical wargame, both board games and computer  as well as having played PG for many years and these ideas have been percolated over those years where only now i have taken the time to write them down and refine them a bit. For PG is a great game! But  the intent here is see if it can be, if not made to be even greater, at least present  these  rules that  might   inspire others to help make it so... not to mention that I can use them myself to add those things to the game that I think might make it so.