4th Edition Rules / 3rd Edition Scenarios

[triangular_cube]

That depends on whether you are playing for the reality aspects or the "balance" aspects of a "game". If laying back and "pummeling" the objective is a closer reflection of reality.... "So let it be written. So let it be done!" (Well, I  say anyway.  )

GG

Well the problem is you are altering what is written, and the effect is that the defenders MUST counterattack, or die. Which is both ahistorical, and imbalanced even further. Which raises the question of why you were altering what was written in the first place. 

Its not even remotely the same scenario anymore.

[Grognard Gunny]

It could be that you have me at a disadvantage! Since, except for my earliest one or two "games", I have used ed. 4 rules and charts as far as my little wars go. Having never had the advantage (????) of playing with both sets of rules, and wishing not to confuse the situation by "going back" to play the ed. 3 rules... I figure the fact that the scenarios just might be unbalanced.... might be moot.

Balance IS but a perception..... for you they might be unbalanced....For me, one side MUST try harder. .....and I never know the difference.

Perhaps, if and when an ed. 5 set of rules comes out, I'll be here talking about the "Good old rules" too. 

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

On the other hand, with the advent of ed. 5 rules, I could just go with the flow and continue to overcome!

GG

[triangular_cube]

It could be that you have me at a disadvantage! Since, except for my earliest one or two "games", I have used ed. 4 rules and charts as far as my little wars go. Having never had the advantage (????) of playing with both sets of rules, and wishing not to confuse the situation by "going back" to play the ed. 3 rules... I figure the fact that the scenarios just might be unbalanced.... might be moot.

Balance IS but a perception..... for you they might be unbalanced....For me, one side MUST try harder. .....and I never know the difference.

Perhaps, if and when an ed. 5 set of rules comes out, I'll be here talking about the "Good old rules" too. 

GG

I'm certainly not trying to pick on you   .

I've played 36 AK/Desert Rats scenarios in the last year, and even with 2nd/3rd edition terrain the VCs sometimes force the "attacker has no reason to attack" problem. Not having to get within 3 hexes for a general engagement makes the problem all that much worse and more prevalent though.

[Grognard Gunny]

Given the wide open "desert terrain" involved, isn't that how it would go?

.....and we are discussing, not "picking". I merely point out an alternative point of view. Nothing more.

GG

[triangular_cube]

Well if the hills provided no benefit in real life, they wouldn't be sitting on them. And if faced with the situation in real life where they must attack and be cut down, or sit on their hill and get cut down.... they'd probably just walk the other way. Withdrawal is rarely an option in PZG. 

In real life these PZG in AK/DR are generally of attackers attacking. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have made a scenario about it. 

Well unless you are designing Jungle Fighting, but thats another story 

[Grognard Gunny]

.....and that in and of itself might be flaw in the scenarios. If, in an untenable situation, you can generally retreat..... (Let's call it.... repositioning!),  but NOT in PG. You is stuck with what you gots!  

GG

[triangular_cube]

.....and that in and of itself might be flaw in the scenarios.

GG

Yes, but we are diverging from the point a lot here.  This is a flaw, in these instances, only when playing with 4th edition terrain rules. When playing with 3rd, the attacker doesn't get to leverage their range superiority to the absolute superiority of 4th edition. So an engagement follows from the scenario. The only engagement that exists in these scenarios as played with 4th rules is that of the defender attacking the attacker. 

In 3rd, AK/DR engagements on open ground are night and day different from engagements on against hills. In 4th they play exactly the same. They are fundamentally different scenarios when you pull out the terrain rules and stamp new ones on.

[joe_oppenheimer]

Which is exactly why I said I normally play with 4th edition but make an exception for those two North Africa games by treating hills as limiting terrain.

[Grognard Gunny]

The point I was trying to make was that I don't notice the "irregularities" you cite. I play it out given the rules as given to me and (If there IS an unbalance) try to overcome any extra headaches that come with the rules as written, be they be in ed. 3 or 4.

Before we got into this "tangent" of which rules are the "Best!" for which scenario..... you have good points as do I. 

For the original poster, I would say ed. 4. It would be easier in the long run for him to learn one set of rules rather than two sets. Just sayin'.

GG