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

[Airlifter]

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.

I agree--after some consideration. The original haste was due to me taking a cruise with my wife soon, and hoping to wrap up before then. I've decided to let Alan guide this while I'm off the net, then plug back in. Also Dr. B was hoping to match it to a game release that's coming up. In any case, i agree we should do this right. my plan is to vette all these suggestions, work out some options for those that are complex, ask some of the folks in my dev group to playtest the options and report on findings. Then, in consultation with the dev group, i'll make the final decisions. Final draft will go out again to the dev team to review/edit. then off to Mike.
John S.

[Airlifter]

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.

Are you a volunteer to make that beast? Anyone? I will admit to having insufficient knowledge and books of the various armored vehicles to make this kind of thing.
John

[Airlifter]

Somewhat late, but anyway, and I've already addressed nearly all of what concerns me with my house rules. Those are in my previous post PG 3+ or What we play. But on to the list:

• The new rules must be backward compatible. Otherwise AP will need to rebuild the PG customer base.
  
• Mechanized units/formations need to be able to outmaneuver foot units, especially in the open. The game does not reflect this very well right now. The problem is mechanized units are soooooo ssslllooowww. Being slow also contributed to other omissions, I will address one later.
  
• Wheels and tracks need to be different. In the real world they were, and mostly still are, very different. That was why the WW1 British & French developed tanks when they already had armored cars. In the game as is, there is no real difference, unless you like driving in the woods for some reason.
  
• There needs to be a decision as to if LOS is hex based or image based. PG tries to do it both ways. That has caused issues in the past. I'm sure it will again.
  
• Decide if moving vehicles are easier to hit or more difficult. Historical and practical evidence says more difficult. PG goes both ways.
  
• Loading/limbering/unloading weapons and mortars needs fixing. It is incongruous, especially vs. personnel, which mortars are supposed to be.
  
• Mechanized overrun/charge rules would be good. Mechanized units are way too slow for this. So where are Soviet decent tactics?
  
• Better vertical obstacle rules. Jay and I seem to like the PB2 rules for this. Something similar would be good, after the hex/image question is decided.
  
• More smoke. Good idea Ottavio! Liked the Little Saturn rule.
  
• Rearrange the modifiers for weapon units. Things like infantry guns are too exposed, AA guns under exposed.
  
• More national character in the game. I'm not sure how to address it, but the armies seem blase.
  
• Turreted/non-turreted/one-man turret distinctions. Gordon Mosher has a good rule, I added to it. Seems to work fine after several years.
  
• Less reliable off-board artillery.
  
• Scalable fog of war rules.
  
• A generic scenario builder.
  

That should be a good start.

Not sure what you mean by "backward compatible". However, I can promise you that we will NOT make a change that makes previous games unplayable. We will NOT change the counter functionality or the maps in this process. We are trying to smooth your gaming process and enhance your experience.
John[/u][/b]

[Airlifter]

Somewhat late, but anyway, and I've already addressed nearly all of what concerns me with my house rules. Those are in my previous post PG 3+ or What we play. But on to the list:

• Loading/limbering/unloading weapons and mortars needs fixing. It is incongruous, especially vs. personnel, which mortars are supposed to be.
  
• Mechanized overrun/charge rules would be good. Mechanized units are way too slow for this. So where are Soviet decent tactics?
  
• Better vertical obstacle rules. Jay and I seem to like the PB2 rules for this. Something similar would be good, after the hex/image question is decided.
  
• More smoke. Good idea Ottavio! Liked the Little Saturn rule.
  
• Rearrange the modifiers for weapon units. Things like infantry guns are too exposed, AA guns under exposed.
  
• More national character in the game. I'm not sure how to address it, but the armies seem blase.
  
• Turreted/non-turreted/one-man turret distinctions. Gordon Mosher has a good rule, I added to it. Seems to work fine after several years.
  
• Less reliable off-board artillery.
  
• Scalable fog of war rules.
  
• A generic scenario builder.
  

That should be a good start.

Well, it's a start, but it would be more useful if you could explain some of your statements. To me they are not obvious.
"Wheels and tracks need to be different." How would you change the rules to make them different?
"There needs to be a decision as to if LOS is hex based or image based." I dont' know what you mean. please explain how you'd do it differently/better.
"Decide if moving vehicles are easier to hit or more difficult. Historical and practical evidence says more difficult. PG goes both ways." My look at the AT chart shows harder to hit moving vehicles. On the DF chart its easier to hit moving unarmored stuff. That's probably not exactly right for trucks and the like, but certainly true of foot.
What needs to be fixed about mortars and limbering?
How would you describe overrun in game terms if you were to add it?
Please explain "better vertical obstacle rules".
I like smoke too, which is why I've added it to almost every games we've published since 2011.
How would you "rearrange the modifiers' for weapon units?
More national character? If you can't explain it i can't add it. I think that one is going to have to fall on the player. You want to know what the commanders were thinking? What their motivations were? the historical context? read a book, then play. I will NOT make a game like Flames of War where every country has ten pages of special rules for their gear that is functionally really nearly identical to every other on the field.
I don't know Mr. Mosher but if you have a turreted/non-turreted rule write it out for us to read and critique.
how would you make OBA different?
Scalable FoW--how?
What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Bottom line folks: I can't do all the work, and I can't read minds. If you want something new or different carry some of the water and spell it out like Enrique did with his proposed changes.
Example-Rule x.x: When it snows all wheeled vehicles not on roads are immobile while tracked vehicles can move normally."
John

[Dean_P]

I won't promise you a rose garden

I beg your pardon ?

Don't you know the song? Geez i'm old.

along with the sunshine, there's got to be a little rain sometime

And Lynn Anderson's hair was EPIC!

[tlangston28]

all AFVs are immune to "M" and "M #" results. They are only affected by "1", "2" and "3" results.

I am not comfortable with this one. I believe tanks are vulnerable in assault and a DIS/DEM result means more than being frightened by the enemy but damage that might be repaired over a short time.

If any change is required, I would be inclined to allow leader morale mods in assaults for tanks rather than diminishing results.

I think I agree with you here - I am not an armored expert by any stretch but I would imagine that the restricted view from within the tanks coupled with a limited close range direct fire (and here, I am assuming that the DF on tanks represents .50 Cal or equivalent MGs and possibly HE rounds) would make them susceptible to infantry that is able to get inside the defensive "fire" perimeter so to speak and drop grenades, attach satchel charges, sticky bombs or whatever else they would use.

I'd like to hear Duane wade in on this one.
John

Ouch! that hurts saying that to a guy from Chicago!

[Airlifter]

I won't promise you a rose garden

I beg your pardon ?

Don't you know the song? Geez i'm old.

along with the sunshine, there's got to be a little rain sometime

And Lynn Anderson's hair was EPIC!

LOL.

[emperor_nero]

I suppose I am asking for something akin to a hand-holder type thing to introduce new players into the ruleset. Wargames are really a tough nut to crack and they usually take someone with experience in playing them to learn how to play. A set of introductory scenario or something like what ASL did with their starter sets but on a smaller scale. You take the rules, cut out some of the more complex issues, and gradually build a new player up to the full ruleset. I got my hands on a copy of Battle of the Bulge and it has a very easy (or so I am told) first scenario that is good to start off with, but for someone with no wargame experience it is difficult to dive into.

Lessening the learning curve will encourage people who haven't play the game to play. Some people can jump in and in a game or two have the rules down pat and some people will need a whole campaign of games to get the most simple rules down. I suppose the suggestion is a Quick-Start Rule Set. A couple of pages of rules that are the bare-bones basics someone needs to play that a new player could use to slowly introduce themselves to by just plugging rules in as they feel comfortable.

I guess that is probably too much to ask, as I don't think this game is aimed at new players I don't suppose. Though the more interest you can build in the game by making it easy for people to get hooked, the more business it can generate. Like a drug dealer giving away samples of crack to get someone addicted... Well, maybe that isn't a good metaphor or at least not a family friendly one but I can't think of something more appropriate.

[tlangston28]

7.63 Assault
I would apply the rule of the first and second editions: all AFVs are immune to "M" and "M #" results. They are only affected by "1", "2" and "3" results. Under the current rules AFVs are the weakest units in assaults: they do not take advantage of the leaders' morale modifiers and also suffer the effects of the small and portable AT arms (Panzerfäuste and bazookas)

This statement intrigued me so I went to my Battle of the Bulge rules (which is Second Edition) to look it up and I don't know if I am missing something here.. There is no specific rule that says that AFVs are immune in assault.

The rule says: " If a 1, 2 or 3 result is rolled on the Assault Table, the fire eliminates that many steps of personnel, APC or AFV units..." This sounds similar to the 3rd edition rules but it doesn't specifically say who is affected by "M" or "M#" rolls.

Also, under Rule 7.25 it states "AFVs and APCs are immune to all but an X or X# result on the Direct Fire or Bombardment Fire tables." It does not mention immunity on the Assault Table.

I think the 3rd edition cleared this up but I believe it was always intended to be this way.

I am not trying to start anything, like I said, this intrigued me.[/u]

[Shad]

What is a generic scenario builder? Can you give an example of a game that has one?

Combat Commander: Europe.