|
RE: More home grown house rules
My last homespun house rule is to give AFVs an Op Fire capability for being shot at by other AFVs using AT fire, i.e. they can duel with the shooter. They can only do this against the AFV shooting at them. and not against an AFV shooting at someone else. For AFVs with turrets they can swap shot for shot with other AFVs targeting them with AT fire (limited to how many shots they get i.e. 2 if they are efficient or only 1 if not). AFVs without turrets can only return OP fire against the second shot but not the first of an shooter. So in effect non turreted AFVs can only Op fire as a duel with shooters than have two shots. But an turreted AFV can op fire shot per shot. AFVs can mix these dual Op fire shots with normal Op fire but not with non op fire. They can also take their second Op fire shot against a different target.
For example a tiger tank shoots at a T-34. Both are armor efficient. The tiger fires the T-34 and then the T-34 can fire back. Then the tiger fires at a different target so that T-34 cannot return that fire (but the other target could, if it had a turret (for from its perspective this is the first shot fired at it). But later that turn a MKIV fires at this T-34 and it can then return fire. If instead the MkIV moved the t-34 could have used its second shot as normal Op fire on it.
Lets say that instead of a T-34 this was a SU-100 (which does not have a turret). The tiger fires at it and it survives the first shot. having no turret it cannot return the fire. If the Tiger firs at it a second time it can return fire.
This rule plus my rule for giving turreted vehicles a plus die role only for interpolation for assault fire gives AFVs with turrets some advantage over not having a turret. There surely must be some advantage to having turrets (or else armies of the world would not incur the cost of proving them) so these rules try (even if a bit abstractly) to give turreted AFVs some advantage over non turreted one (in addition to any possible advantage that might have been baked into the AFV's combat values). This rule also somewhat mitigates that huge advantage where say a stack of 3 AFVs that are armor efficient get to fire 6 shots before the defender can even fire back... and it could be even more if there are adjnt AFVs.
BTW it would have been nice if AFV counters had say a circle around the movement factor if it is a wheeled vehicle, a box around the armor value if it is an OT vehicle and a box around the AT numbers if it is a non turreted vehicle (or something like that) so one would not have to remember which is which.
And in summary (since this is my last homespun house rule) that none of these rules really replace the existing ones but rather extend them to new cases. Thus movement, combat, rally, etc all work the same with just added nuances. As such the game stills plays like PG, it just has a bit more variations in regard to its outcomes, these reflecting factors not expressly considered in basic rules. My thesis is that by adding these rules one can give a dense to those non PG players that say PG is too simple and say that no, it models most all the things that their favorite tactical wargame models but perhaps at a more abstract level, but one that does not require page after page of rules by doing it smartly. And other than having to remember a few pages more of rules I am finding in my test game that these really do not bog down play and seem quite natural and (for me) add to the over all drama and fun level, which was my goal in coming up with these to begin with. And obviously whether anyone uses any, all, or none of these, or makes their own version is totally up to them. I post them here mainly just as food for thought and/or discussion.
That pretty much finishes my house rules. I will try to edit these post if I make any changes to them as I continue my test game but other than that (or if I think of some new ones or get any additional comments) this pretty much wraps this up.
|
