Simple Panzer Grenadier system (variant)

[Matt W]

"In existing Pz Gdr, it is relatively straightforward to arrange chained activations, group moves, fire groups, and so forth so that very large portions of one's force can act as a single impulse"

Initially this is correct, however it is rare that such chains will survive intact after contact.  Perhaps you have had a different experience.  It is the disruption of that command ability and the requirement it places on the player to adjust their command structure on the fly in order to continue moving towards the goal that is at the center of the activation system.

An example of what hits me the wrong way about "Simple" is, I find the unrestricted ability to establish large fire groups to be consistent with your desire to have combat be both predictable and decisive, but to be counter to what I want to play.  It should be hard to put together a coordinated fire action covering 600 meters of troops given the technology and training of a late 30's through late 40's army, especially some of those modeled in the system (Ecuador, anyone?).  Another example is that the ability to string together actions (with only a 1/6 or so chance that any particular fire or opportunity fire may stop the planned sequence of actions) provides the player with the ability to ensure that a greater percentage of his force becomes engaged than in standard PG.  In standard PG there is often a constellation of disrupted and demoralized units which, if you are playing with the fog of war optional rule (which you should), may never enter the battle again. You are forced to prioritize each activation and consider whether recovery of a leader is more important than an 8 factor mortar shot at a unit in town.

What comes out clearly in "Simple" is your desire to have; control over the process, predictability of results and fast, decisive outcomes.  "Simple" seems to be designed with the focus on being able to quickly resolve combat situations, usually with losses.  Step losses in "Simple" will be greatly increased over the same number of turns in standard PG.  While there have been complaints over PG's lack of immediately decisive combat in the past I have found that most of those I have spoken to who continue to play the system and buy the new products, do so in part because the unpredictability of the combat system (and indeed the force management process) is attractive.  For solitaire players it is virtually essential. 

When the 4th edition rules came out there was a significant change to the assault CRT, moving from 1d6 to 2d6.  There were also key changes to the results.  Whereas previously if one attacked on the 30 column there would only be a 1/6 chance of having anything other than a step loss.  Now there is a 10/36 chance.  Reflexively at lower strength levels the results were improved so that now an attack on the three column (usually in defense) has a chance to cause a step loss.  These changes made assault combat, the one decisive type of combat in PG far less predictable and significantly less bloody. 

I thought I would hate it.

After play, however, I found that it forced me to be more deliberate in preparation of target hexes and careful to establish local reserves.  I enjoyed the thought process it enforced.  The net result of the change ended up reinforcing what I like about standard PG.  This change, instead of turning the system 180 degrees from its focus, reinforced the focus.  "Simple" takes the system in a totally different direction.

In summary, "Simple" reads to be a much more deterministic system, with too much control and too high a loss level to be something that I want to try.  The game resulting from "Simple" is quick and decisive, but seems to be far more predictable than I like.  I expect that there are people who would like it, but those are the types of people who were not attracted to PG in the first place.  "Simple" appears to be a system that has little in it for the solitaire player (look at the statistics about solitaire vs. ftf plays on the main site and you will see that the vast majority of plays that have been logged are solitaire) and will require careful scenario construction for each player to feel that they have a good chance in a ftf play.

In the end each player has their own taste.  I'm sure you have picked up rule books, perused the system and decided that it wasn't your cup of tea.  I have reviewed your system and have found it isn't my cup of tea.  That doesn't make the system bad and that doesn't make me wrong.  It just means that, with a limited amount of time to spend on my hobby, I don't choose to do more than read the rules and make an assessment.  I do, however, know that over the past several weeks I have spent more time on "Simple" than I want to.  

Again, kudos to you for a substantial effort.  I hope you find an audience for your work.