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

[richvalle]

I have to say I like the idea of armor being able to move and fire. I've not played a huge number of PG battles but it seems like too often the armor stalemates each other where neither side wants to be the first to move into range and give the other side the first shot. So being defensive and letting armor sit still is better then moving it. It's a 15 min turn, why is it move OR fire? Not sure how much it would unbalance old battles though. I'd defer to Hugmenot for that.

What about the Modern PG rule of being able to assault from 2 hexes out with APC's? I thought that was a interesting rule. If horses can do it it seems that vehicles could.

I really have a hard time with the idea that clear hexes can be seen though for 12 hexes out but once it starts going up hill you can't see into it.

That being said, I enjoy the 3rd Ed rules as they are.

Oh... and I never bought into the ASL system after Squad Leader.

rv

[Hugmenot]

The Surrender rule needs to be clarified.

Something like Modern PG equivalent would work in my opinion if it was changed to something like the following:

"In some scenarios a force is designated as subject to surrender rules. In that case, during the Marker Removal Phase if one or more demoralized units of a side/nation subject to surrender are in a hex without any other udemoralized combat units, and they are stacked or adjacent to an good order enemy combat unit with a Direct Fire or AT fire strength, roll two dice for each such unit, subtracting the moral modifier of any single leader in the same hex. On a result greater than its current morale, the unit surrenders and is removed from play. If surrender leaves a leader alone in the hex, he also surrenders."

It would be an improvement over the various Surrender rules we currently have.

The important points in my opinion:

• Ony demoralized units can surrender
  
• Demoralized units will not surrender if stacked with a good order or disrupted friendly combat unit.
  
• Demoralized units in an assault hex can surrender to enemy combat units in the assault hex.
  

I am ambivalent about AFVs surrendering to enemy infantry in an adjacent hex but I wanted to keep the above simple. Maybe someone can come up with a better rule.

[Hugmenot]

Movement Costs
If mechanized units were to pay 1 movement point per clear hex, it would double their effective speed in clear terrain.

If mechanized units were to pay 1 1/2 movement point per clear hex,

• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 3 could move 2 clear hexes instead of one (100% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 4 would still be able to move 2 (0% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 5 could move 3 clear hexes instead of 2 (50% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 6 could move 4 clear hexes instead of 3 (33% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 7 could move 4 clear hexes instead of 3 (33% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 8 could move 5 clear hexes instead of 4 (25% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 9 could move 6 clear hexes instead of 4 (50% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 10 could move 6 clear hexes instead of 5 (20% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 11 could move 7 clear hexes instead of 4 (40% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 12 could move 8 clear hexes instead of 6 (33% increase)
  
• mechanized units with a movement allowance of 14 could move 9 clear hexes instead of 7 (29% increase)
  

Now my question for existing scenario designers/developers is how much a factor was movement allowance was when trying to determine the scenario length? The above may or may not be a big issue, and maybe even less so if the new value was 1 2/3.

[Hugmenot]

Disorientation in jungle hexes needs clarification.

I would prefer the rule would be more severe in the sense that I would like to affect every move from a jungle hex to another jungle hex except for assault movement. Currently, units are not subject to disorientation if they move next to an enemy and I believe this makes it too easy to close with the enemy.

I like the Modern PG disorientation chart (6 or 8 move in the intended direction, 7 stay put, etc).

[Hugmenot]

richballe, this is how it changes strategy.

A Panther (Armor Value = 6, Movement Factor = 8, AT Factor = 8-8) vs a Soviet RKKA T34/85 (Armor Value = 5, Movement Factor = 9, AT Factor = 7-7). The Panther could close to 8 hexes and get a shot off in the same activation (would need 9+ to hit) without the T34/85 being to react until after the Panther shot (its opportunity shot is guaranteed to miss at 8 hexes). The RKKA T34/85 is not efficient and thus could not move closer within its range and get a shot off in the same activation.

It's the free shot at no risk which bothers me; it makes efficiency units even stronger (by comparison) to non-efficient units. My favorite theater is the East Front and I believe this rule helps the Germans far more than it helps the Soviets.

[vince hughes]

Comparing MG to PG is a misnomer anyway.

Stablisers on tanks are far more advanced in modern times. In WW2, most tanks would have to fire with the turret and gun bouncing around every where with no technological gadget holding its aim in place.

[richvalle]

Hey Hugmenot.

Wouldn't that be more of a factor of the T34 not being able to penetrate the Panther's armor at long distance?

I think it would encourage more aggressive movement with armor vs the weird dance I see now.

I do agree the Germans would feel more powerful in the early part of the war but also more mobile vs a more static non-mobile Russian force. And it would allow some movement to armor instead of both sides just stopping and blasting away at each other until one side is dead.

I guess I'd be interested in hearing from someone that tries playing with the new rule in a game they had played without it and seeing now different it feels.

rv

richballe, this is how it changes strategy.

A Panther (Armor Value = 6, Movement Factor = 8, AT Factor = 8-8) vs a Soviet RKKA T34/85 (Armor Value = 5, Movement Factor = 9, AT Factor = 7-7). The Panther could close to 8 hexes and get a shot off in the same activation (would need 9+ to hit) without the T34/85 being to react until after the Panther shot (its opportunity shot is guaranteed to miss at 8 hexes). The RKKA T34/85 is not efficient and thus could not move closer within its range and get a shot off in the same activation.

It's the free shot at no risk which bothers me; it makes efficiency units even stronger (by comparison) to non-efficient units. My favorite theater is the East Front and I believe this rule helps the Germans far more than it helps the Soviets.

[richvalle]

Comparing MG to PG is a misnomer anyway.

Stablisers on tanks are far more advanced in modern times. In WW2, most tanks would have to fire with the turret and gun bouncing around every where with no technological gadget holding its aim in place.

I agree that would matter in a game where the turn is 30 seconds to 1 min or so. But 15 min? Did armor really just stop and blast away for that long? No platoon shoot and scoot?

It could be, I'm hardly an expert at platoon level WWII armor tactics. I don't THINK it was like that though.

I think it would make armor feel more mobile...

[vince hughes]

Rich,

Of course it didn't but this is design for effect and therefore a move shoot game complicates the system to an extent not worth the trouble. As you say, its fifteen minute turns, so then we would have to ask "How many times can an infantry unit, AFV unit etc" move and shoot in a 15 minute cycle ? Why not split the turns to 5 minutes each and still allow more move/fire options. The point is, its all built into a game-system that at present works. We don't need to break working parts. If somebody retorts that it does not work for them, then I would suspect they should be looking at another gaming system such as Panzer or such like.

Like many brigade, divisional level games out there. that have whole divisions being removed from play as a counter in combat rounds. Did this happen in real-life everytime, no, but its design for effect as its the only way to simulate casualties.

Also, such a radical change in the game play changes the game to where its not PG. If its not PG, then some (many) will cease to play.

Rich, You also write

"I guess I'd be interested in hearing from someone that tries playing with the new rule in a game they had played without it and seeing now different it feels"

This was tried and the result was a game far removed from the simplicity of current PG. Maybe an APG could be released in the future, but it is the games's simplicity that has had its draw on people and actually taken some others away from more complex games.

I'm sure the ones that played the move shoot option will chime in here soon enough

[vince hughes]

It could be, I'm hardly an expert at platoon level WWII armor tactics. I don't THINK it was like that though.

I think it would make armor feel more mobile...

Just saw that line.

Remember this is an abstract level game of platoon combat and not the gnats knee detail of some other games. Getting around that abstract mantra makes the whole system a lot easier to chew and swallow. I just accept that its designed for ease and thank God it was or I'd probably still be searching for WW2 system to buy into.