[House Rules] admittedly insane: adding chit-draw to determine activation

[Matt W]

Don't forget to include your tank leaders when picking chits for the cup.

The problem that I see in this process is that heavily outnumbered troops will rarely get the chance to do what they need to as their chits will be overwhelmed by the mass of chits from the larger force. I could see situations where scenario specific rules would need to be developed to correct the imbalance thus created (i.e. "free" activations for the outnumbered force after a certain number of opponent's activations, etc.). This certainly wouldn't be impossible but each scenario would need to be rebalanced/redeveloped to use the chit pull process.

An experiment using one of the ten scenario packets (presumably one that has been played enough to permit comparisons) might prove useful.

[Blackcloud6]

I'm with campsawyer on this one. Chit draw tactical games already exist. Also, to add one to PG is a form of rules creep; although it may not take many rules to implement chit draw, it nevertheless would be adding more rules. The goodness of PG is that it is really a fairly simple game system that accomplishes much. The chaos of combat is there in PG and it is done by combat: "Oh darn, that stack I wanted to activated next to assault just got demoralized." Plus, the optional FoW rules adds the element of pressure on the player/commander by forcing him to make tough choices on who to activate next because he may not get to do so further on down the line.

It may also give more of an edge to higher initiative units. Right now the initiative system give a subtle advantage and the subtle parts of the game are a great part of PG. Furthermore, it would add time to the game play; although not a huge amount, it will add a pause between each activation to pick up the cut, pull the chit and then the player will have to rethink his move.

In the end, I think chit-draw activation would not really change anything worth the addition of the new rules and severe changing of the game system.

[Shad]

Good topic.
It does seem -- at first glance -- a weakness of the PG system that a unit activates just as easily to move and fight on Turn 1 as it would after hours of combat on Turn 31.

But somehow I think adding that layer of activation "friction" could make the game agonizingly slow and throw off the whole system. Not sure. It seems like the existing limits on activation and types of activation put just enough brakes on being able to move any unit anywhere, so that we end up with simple mechanics and reasonable results.

I devised a house rule system for activation that uses leaders' morale ratings to set up their starting/maximum level of "action points" for the battle:

A fascinating idea that deserves its own thread!

Am I correct in assuming that a leader failing to activate doesn't end my activation? I can try another leader? Or potentially retry the first one at high AP cost?

[Michael Murphy]

Interesting discussion, but I'm going to stand pat. I like the game's activation system as is. If I wanted something different I'd play something else. As others have mentioned, the addition of FOW adds enough uncertainty to the game for me. Interesting discussion, though.

[broadsword]

Good topic.
It does seem -- at first glance -- a weakness of the PG system that a unit activates just as easily to move and fight on Turn 1 as it would after hours of combat on Turn 31.

But somehow I think adding that layer of activation "friction" could make the game agonizingly slow and throw off the whole system. Not sure. It seems like the existing limits on activation and types of activation put just enough brakes on being able to move any unit anywhere, so that we end up with simple mechanics and reasonable results.

I devised a house rule system for activation that uses leaders' morale ratings to set up their starting/maximum level of "action points" for the battle:

A fascinating idea that deserves its own thread!

Am I correct in assuming that a leader failing to activate doesn't end my activation? I can try another leader? Or potentially retry the first one at high AP cost?

Correct assumption. You can keep trying that first leader or any others you want, as long as you pay the AP costs. Your phase only ends once you actually make an activation and an action, or pass.

[vince hughes]

Interesting discussion, but I'm going to stand pat. I like the game's activation system as is. If I wanted something different I'd play something else. As others have mentioned, the addition of FOW adds enough uncertainty to the game for me. Interesting discussion, though.

I'm with you Michael. No need for this clutter. Keep the game clean. Its current activation system is absolutely fine. I'm outta here !

[broadsword]

Even though I proposed a system for randomizing leader activations, I'm not in favor of using it -- yet -- because PG as it is seems fine in that department. I think it's another case where we're already getting the EFFECT of command-control-energy issues in the existing game, even though they're not modeled explicitly. So we may be addressing a problem that -- fortunately -- doesn't exist.

[upintheattic]

Interesting discussion, but I'm going to stand pat. I like the game's activation system as is. If I wanted something different I'd play something else. As others have mentioned, the addition of FOW adds enough uncertainty to the game for me. Interesting discussion, though.

I'm with you Michael. No need for this clutter. Keep the game clean. Its current activation system is absolutely fine. I'm outta here !

Yeah, I'm just here on this thread because I like to play with variants. I'd only use this kind of system on an experimental basis to jazz up an old scenario I'd played a lot before.

[Michael Murphy]

Yeah, I'm just here on this thread because I like to play with variants. I'd only use this kind of system on an experimental basis to jazz up an old scenario I'd played a lot before.

I'm not with you on this one. I have so many unplayed scenarios that I've only managed more than two replays on less than five of them. Not that this is really a problem, you understand. I've got too many on my "to play" list that doing a repeat takes last place with me.

[Shad]

I'm very much enjoying reading all of these proclamations of undying loyalty to the Rules as Written. I'm sure Lady 3rd Edition is most impressed.

I like this chit activation idea specifically for solo play, since it destroys the typical tit-for-tat rhythm that playing with yourself can create. If even you don't know which side is going next things are going to be more interesting.

I will try this next time I get a solo scenario in and see how it goes.