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

[enrique]

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.

Matt,

Panzer Grenadier, Heroes of the Soviet Union, Battle of the Bulge, Airborne (1st and 2nd ed.), Afrika Korps, Desert Rats, Beyond Normandy, Eastern Front, Sinister Forces, Tank Battles, Arctic Front (1st ed.) and Jungle Fighting have been designed and supposedly playtested according to the 1st and 2nd ed. rules, that is to say, with AFVs in assaults immune to "M" and "M#" results.

I've been pretty comfortable playing these games with the current rules.

My modest opinion is that I would be just as comfortable playing recent games (Cassino, Elsenborn ...) with the old rules regarding AFVs in assaults.

I have reviewed very hastily the PG folder in CSW and I have not found between 2000 and 2006 any opinion on AFVs/assaults according to the old rules were inadequate or ahistorical.