Simple Panzer Grenadier system (variant)

[Matt W]

Jason,

"how do you know? You've never tried it."

Oh, but I read it.  

I've played over 500 published PG scenarios and hundreds of others in development.  I understand the systems in PG pretty well.  I read new rulebooks for games on the order of 1 per week.  I have read many that, upon finishing, I have no intention of playing as I understand game systems and would not find the play enjoyable. I can see the impact that your rules will have on the play of PG and the net effect is such that I am not interested in playing it. 

Specifically:

I find the initiative to be too powerful, especially when considering a FTF play.  I also dislike the fact that the initiative player can do everything they want to before their opponent can activate anything (reaction fire and opportunity fire excepted).  Something that makes PG a good game is the alternating activations.  Why did you feel that change was necessary?

Tortured LOS rules tend to make a game unplayable for me (for example I find the TCS to be nearly unplayable, especially if two players have a dispute about the LOS).  I don't want to have to negotiate mid-game whether I can see your unit or not. Yes, it is more realistic but what is not realistic is disagreeing in the middle of a fire action as to whether a target can be seen or not.

I don't find the revision of the morale system (disrupted only) or the increased likelihood of losses (which you specifically highlight in the rules) to be a positive adjustment from a playability standpoint.  I don't think that there are many of the current PG scenarios that could be played in this system without massive rebalancing. 

The substantial changes to many of the subsystems make the title "Simple Panzer Grenadier Rules" a misnomer.  I think the game will play faster since you have eliminated all situations where a player will be interrupted by an opponent's activation (except when they voluntarily cede the activation), have made the combat results far more bloody thus ensuring that in later turns there will be far less to move and fight with, and the global morale rules appear to cause a cascading failure, especially in combination with the higher losses.  These are not necessarily bad ideas but they are not "simple".

The resulting game play of your system seems to be likely to lose some of the chaos of the current system.  That chaos provides for an immersive gaming experience.

There are things I like.  I actually like the global morale concept.  I also think the "spent" concept is one that has promise.

The dedication to complete such a task is tremendous and I applaud your effort.  I just don't feel drawn to play it.  If others have played some of the scenarios you provided (and thank you for that) I hope that they would post their experiences.