Rethinking Smoke

[Grognard Gunny]

I think the point I am trying to make is that it is discouraging to a player to have to "learn" a new "house rule" or two for every new player he runs across, in face-to-face, Vassel, etc. Also, if you think about it, "new" rules, no matter how simplistic or basic gives an advantage, no matter how slight, to the new rule originator. Think about it.

GG

[Reconquista]

Maybe we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Since the PG rule sets change periodically, and are often poorly written, or tested, some players create their own. By mutual agreement, I have used house rules in shared play with others many times. They usually make playing easier. Never noticed them favoring the originator, since, once agreed upon, they affect both sides equally.

A good example is playing without the clumsy 2/3 movement point cost per mechanized or foot unit that's moving down a road. Using 1/2 a movement point per hex for foot & mechanized units makes things simpler, easier to learn, and game play faster.

[Grognard Gunny]

I agree with the 1/2 vs 2/3, but it is in the best interest of the overall hobby/hobbyist to keep the rules as standardized as possible.

How's about having this forum becoming the definitive place for collecting, arguing and setting the "standard" rules package and coming out with a new "revision/edition" of those rules, say, every three years or so.

The cost of such a "revision" COULD be shared by this forum along with APL, would allow us to have a "say" in the PG system, would keep interest up in the overall game. THAT might be a "Win! Win!" situation!

Feedback? Chad?

GG

[Shad]

My feedback is I think you should play more rules as written before trying to develop changes.

[Grognard Gunny]

It WAS worth a try..... and would keep the rules within reason. (I DO tend to agree with you but.... since there seems to be quite a lot of "griping" about some of the rules.....) 

GG

[Shad]

It WAS worth a try..... and would keep the rules within reason. (I DO tend to agree with you but.... since there seems to be quite a lot of "griping" about some of the rules.....) 

GG

I encourage you to experiment, but do it rationally.

For example, if you think the urban assault modifier is suboptimal, play a dozen or more scenarios with urban assault RAW to fully-understand the current modus operandi over and above any variability due to dice or nation/forces involved.

Then think through your desired adjustment, and play another dozen or more that way and compare the outcomes.

"I tried it once and it was weird" is no basis for establishing a sane set of rules.

[Greyfox]

It WAS worth a try..... and would keep the rules within reason. (I DO tend to agree with you but.... since there seems to be quite a lot of "griping" about some of the rules.....) 

GG

I encourage you to experiment, but do it rationally.

For example, if you think the urban assault modifier is suboptimal, play a dozen or more scenarios with urban assault RAW to fully-understand the current modus operandi over and above any variability due to dice or nation/forces involved.

Then think through your desired adjustment, and play another dozen or more that way and compare the outcomes.

"I tried it once and it was weird" is no basis for establishing a sane set of rules.

Shad,

       Like your recommendation for a comparison of RAW with proposed house rule.  I do however believe that one can read the rules and, at a glance, identify potential problems - an example being this rule.  When there is ambiguity I always try to approach using the "common sense test."  I ask myself about how real world or historical leaders approached these issues.
       In this case, limiting smoke to only 10% of turns instead of 10% of the ammunition allocation for a unit doesn't pass the smell test.  My experience is that all artillery and mortar units have a mix of rounds (it may include HE, Smoke, illumination, etc).   To be fair, this is not true of all armies in all time periods.  For the American Army and the British Army this is certainly true during WWII.  Those rounds are husbanded for use when needed.  Limiting the use of those rounds to 10% of turns isn't logical, nor does it provide much in the way of flexibility to the commander on the ground.  In that case I am not sure you should or would have compare and contrast over 20 scenarios.
       Ideally, use of smoke should be covered/constrained in the the scenarios special rules.  As an example smoke is available for side 1 and side 2, or is available for side one for all mortars 81mm and above, and artillery 75mm and above.  Another way to limit is that smoke is limited to OBA.  Then the commander could figure out how and when he should use smoke and how to integrate it into his fire plan.   

Mike

[Blackcloud6]

Then the commander could figure out how and when he should use smoke and how to integrate it into his fire plan. 

Well, I had a long post all typed up in response to this and it simply disappeared as I was writing it.  There was an auto correct and I clicked on it and the browser simply closed.  That has never happened before.

The key here is "fire plan."   And, a smell test, may not always work.  Take that notion and then apply it to the rule writer's intent.  What is intended by this rule?  What kind of smoke mission is being replicated?  There are generally two types: Immediate Smoke and Deliberate Smoke.   The former is a quick mission called to quickly obscure a target.  The latter is well planned and time/ammunition consuming mission that takes planning and the right conditions.  If the designer intended it to be immediate smoke, then he should have written the rule to express the times a gun can fire "number of turns per gun/mortar."  However, if he wanted to replicate the deliberate mission, then limiting smoke to just a number of turns is a simple way of replicating the planning that goes into such missions.  If both, then we are back to "number of turns per gun/mortar" concept of the rule.   But without knowing the intent, we can only surmise.   Who wrote this rule and can he be contacted.

Personally, I like the "number of turns per gun/mortar" notion, but, the rule as written does not say that; the "per gun/mortar." portion is addition by players, not the designer.  Until we know more, we should play by the rules as written.

PG desperately needs a rules arbitrator, but AP is unwilling to do so.  I will say, my hat is off to Perry Cocke of Multiman Publishing who has been arbitrating ASL rules for a couple of decades.  ASL has had only minor revisions over the years and is an extremely stable rules-set.   PG rules are much smaller and should be relatively easier to arbitrate.   But...

If someone were to step up, they need to be disciplined to not use their authority to change the game to be what they want it to be.  This person would need to be able to keep rules decisions from being platforms for grudge rules, pet rules, perception rules and so on.  he/she must have the ability to contact designers and gleam their intent.

In my post that deleted itself, I was going to address optional and house rules but I'll do that in another thread.

[Grognard Gunny]

The idea of a "supreme court" of rules (kind of) appeals to me, but..... In a world of hobbyists, all with different ideas as to how the rules "should be".... perhaps it IS an unlikely scenario. Then again, if we let everyone develop their own "Rules" (options/additional/variants, et al.), we end up with a set of "rules" that are "standardized" only in so far as the two players involved at the moment say they are standardized. In short, an "Anarchist" approach to the "rules". (Or maybe it should read, "rules" that I don't like and therefore don't play as written".  ) (One and the same, if you look at it objectively.)

Yes, they are finical, time draining, frustrating.... all this (and more), but they are the "rules" and we should bide by them as they represent the basis of the game(s) we play and everyone has in common. Which is why there should be a review process AND an amendment process by which we can all ascribe to.

Just sayin'. 

GG