4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Shad]

Shad, you are good with the graphics, could you whip something up?

I'd be happy to make print-quality graphics similar to the versions I did for our Annotated Rules provided someone first creates agreed-upon mock-ups with real counters and sends over photos. That saves time.

[campsawyer]

Shad, you are good with the graphics, could you whip something up?

I'd be happy to make print-quality graphics similar to the versions I did for our Annotated Rules provided someone first creates agreed-upon mock-ups with real counters and sends over photos. That saves time.

AgreedI would think John S. would make this call.

[Matt W]

On assaults with AFVs, I think that they are appropriately vulnerable to close action and therefore M, M1 and M2 are all reasonable. It would vastly increase their effect on the battlefield to make them much more significant in an assault. If it's a vote I vote for keeping assault combat as it is with one exception.

If units(s) activate with a fire mission with the intent to assault a hex (noted at the time of activation) but other activities performed during the same activation (e.g. preparatory direct fire) vacates the hex, the assaulting units may still enter the now vacant hex, and that such entrance does not trigger opportunity fire as it is not "movement" but rather a fire action.

[vince hughes]

May I ask, does anybody know why there needs to be a rush with this ?

Its probably the single-most important thing in the system and it would be nice to make sure time is taken in the cogitation, re-writing and correctness of what is laid down.

So those in the know .... Lets not rush this and therefore do it properly. If done that way, there will never be a need for a 5th ed.

[zaarin7]

A summary like the old Unit Function Chart that was in PB/PL/AIW that showed what qualified as an AFV, APC, open topped, TD and anything else like that for vehicles. List the aircraft rules in one place. Clarify all guns that can be dragged and who can move them. Clarify the terrain rules.

Format wise print the rule book loose with three hole punch. That way if there are any updates they can be put up as a pdf and down loaded.

Not trying to turn this into ASL but some of the functionality of that rule book would be nice since this system covers so many nationalities and era's.

[Matt W]

Vince,

I mentioned on another thread that the plan is for a substantial number of scenarios to be published throughout the rest of the year. I believe (and this is speculation) that the goal is to have the 4th ed. to come out as part of those products (at least some of them).

[mike perryman]

I wouldn't change the assualt tables to give tanks any advantage other than the modifier for combined arms. Most senior commanders were hesitant to send their armor against towns or fortified positions while many armor commanders would withdrawn when enemy infantry was encountered (supporting infantry or not) especially when hand held antitank weapons became widely avaliable. Thanks, Mike

[mike perryman]

I believe that infantry should have to pass a morale check to assualt enemy armor. Maybe a -1 modifier to the die roll if friendly armor is also assualting. Thanks, Mike

[Matt W]

I am very uncomfortable with the large number of suggestions relating to improving the performance of armor vs. nonarmor assets in the game. At the same time I understand the desire to use the armor to its greatest effect.

At this point we have almost 1,800 scenarios in print, most of which would experience severe balance issues (even with the ones that are already precariously balanced!) if armor suddenly became substantially more effective. I think the damage to the existing product of such changes would be substantial (having played enough of it to get a feel for the whole span of the system).

Others have raised the fact that the current rules, with certain exceptions, adequately support historical decision-making vis a vis armor management. Indeed, for the most part, armor was a support weapon and attempts to use armor independent of combined arms typically failed abysmally.

Of course, I hate it when a Panther/Tiger or Stalin blows up because some dweeb of an INF gets a "6" roll on the 9 column. I fuss and fume when my carefully planned assault goes haywire because the armor fails its "M" check in first fire and I lose the combined arms bonus and the firepower. But that is sewn into the fabric of the game and it reflects what really happened.

My response on such an issue for Modern would be substantially different as armor came to be used in a very different fashion.

[Matt W]

Something that does bother me, however, is the use of infantry anti-tank weapons. In the SSRs this usually requires the infantry unit to be activated. That means that the defender in an assault hex can't use the AT capability. I would expect that such weapons could be used once per turn where the units are involved in assault combat (if neither player assaults at all I could see not firing the weapons).