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

[richvalle]

Hi Vince. Thanks for the replies.

I'd think a simple move half and shoot is pretty abstract. I do think it would change the feel of the game, I'm not sure if it would be for the better or worse. I am willing to defer to you guys with greater exp with PG though.

I do hope someone that has tried the rule chimes in.

Having just bought 6 PG games after playing with the 3rd ed rules I'm hardly going to pack up my chits and go home if some rule doesn't make it into 4th ed. I'm pretty easy going when it comes to rules. As long as I can have fun with the game I'm happy. I had just read about the rule in the Modern rules and thought it sounded good.

Laters,

rv

[Matt W]

Richvalle,

I have playtested the rule that you have suggested and it terribly unbalances the game if one side is efficient and the other not. In addition, it fundmentally changes the game. There is one unit that is provided with exactly the move and shoot ability and that is the M-18 Hellcat which shows up in Battle of the Bulge/Elsenborn Ridge and other supplements of that era. It is a very, very powerful unit as a result, in recognition of its very high speed. If you haven't played with the Hellcat, seek it out and play a few scenarios - then imagine your battlefield if every units had that ability.

In looking at such rules there are a couple of issues:

1. Scenario balance, there are 1,800 existing scenarios in the PG universe that have been developed without the rule. In any where there are AFVs on both sides (a large bunch of them) this rule will completely consume play, providing the larger AFV force an insuperable edge, even more so if the rule is held to efficient AFVs only.
2. Ease of play. As Vince has suggested the game has become a refuge for those who want this level of treatment. Change that and the base of players may well change as well, causing a economic issue for the publisher.
3. Granularity. The awkward dance of AFVs that you reference would continue with the number of decisions squared, dramatically slowing down play. In the case of solo play the play will slow to resemble a chess match with no clock. "If I move that Sherman forward, the Panther might shoot, or move then shoot, or shoot then move and set up a crossfire for that StG if it moves and shoots while I am moving and shooting at the Panther." It also forces one to move AFVs separately as opposed to as a formation, that way you can keep some of your shots in reserve. This dramatically increases the number of activations in, for example, a Kursk scenario with tons of AFVs. If you play with FOW, as you should, this has obvious ramifications.
4. Abstraction vs. Reality. Why stop at AFVs? Couldn't foot units perform similarly? Of course, they could and did, probably more successfully than AFVs, especially early in the war. Design requires some level of abstraction or we will end up with ASL and instructions on how to organize binders for your rules. As a remarkably successful WW II tactical series, major changes should be done with great care and an investigation into the cascade effects of the changes desired. Is move and shoot in fifteen minutes more real? Of course it is. However, one of the joys of PG is that the initial rule set is 16 pages long and can be well understood by a newbie in the first 3-5 plays. Another is that it takes less time to play a scenario than most scenarios actually took (some of the larger force scenarios excepted). Changes in rules that make play more complex in order to model reality take us into the area that, again many players fled (e.g. ASL).

I actually like the fact that Modern Grenadier is more complex than Panzer Grenadier. The more modern battlefield became a significantly more intense environment and the complexity of the rules for that period make sense. I can even make myself believe that such rules in 1945 might make sense, especially against elite forces. But as a rule set spanning 1936-1952 I feel that the current AFV rules work reasonably well. There are specific complaints about speed, ability to engage from distance and vulnerability to foot troops that are being looked at seriously but the idea of move and shoot will probably be offered as an optional rule only.

My suggestion, if you want to use it at all, is to reserve it for truly exceptionally trained units (say GD or "some" Guards units but not for the run of the mill Heer, RKKA, Commonwealth or US units).

[Matt W]

AFV speed:

I agree with Daniel that a MP cost of "1" for AFVs in clear is too fast. I have also playtested this and found that the increased speed makes it possible for AFVs to form a fire brigade on the battlefield moving from sector to sector in time to participate in three significant assaults in sectors a mile or so away from each other in a three hour scenario (and this was an early StG in a Fall of France scenario where roadblocks precluded using the roads.

I have suggested 1.5 for clear but would also agree with 1 2/3. The StG in my example would move 5 clear hexes in my suggestion or 4 in Daniel's suggestion. Either is faster than foot units (the basic complaint of those raising the issue of "slow" AFVs), yet don't turn the AFV into a teleportation device for weaponry. It is important to realize that some of the weapons that we are modelling are nearly 100 years old as of today (an FT-17) and the very newest in the PG environment are still over 60 years old and represented the very early prototypes of the weapons that will be used in MG.

[waynebaumber]

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.

Hear Hear

[vince hughes]

The Surrender rule needs to be clarified.

Daniel,

I'd written this somewhere before, but Doug McNair stated that the South Africa's War version of the Surrender rules were the set to use.

There is however one piece of errata in there also. I don't have them in front of me at present but where it states "A unit surrenders if it rolls higher than its current morale" It should then be followed with "if it rolls EQUAL TO or less than its current morale it does not surrender"

[richvalle]

Thanks Matt! I bow to everyone's greater experience with PG.

I do have Battle of the Bulge and I did notice the Hellcat rule. I've not had a chance to play it yet but will endevor to do so.

rv

Richvalle,

I have playtested the rule that you have suggested and it terribly unbalances the game if one side is efficient and the other not. In addition, it fundmentally changes the game. There is one unit that is provided with exactly the move and shoot ability and that is the M-18 Hellcat which shows up in Battle of the Bulge/Elsenborn Ridge and other supplements of that era. It is a very, very powerful unit as a result, in recognition of its very high speed. If you haven't played with the Hellcat, seek it out and play a few scenarios - then imagine your battlefield if every units had that ability.

In looking at such rules there are a couple of issues:

1. Scenario balance, there are 1,800 existing scenarios in the PG universe that have been developed without the rule. In any where there are AFVs on both sides (a large bunch of them) this rule will completely consume play, providing the larger AFV force an insuperable edge, even more so if the rule is held to efficient AFVs only.
2. Ease of play. As Vince has suggested the game has become a refuge for those who want this level of treatment. Change that and the base of players may well change as well, causing a economic issue for the publisher.
3. Granularity. The awkward dance of AFVs that you reference would continue with the number of decisions squared, dramatically slowing down play. In the case of solo play the play will slow to resemble a chess match with no clock. "If I move that Sherman forward, the Panther might shoot, or move then shoot, or shoot then move and set up a crossfire for that StG if it moves and shoots while I am moving and shooting at the Panther." It also forces one to move AFVs separately as opposed to as a formation, that way you can keep some of your shots in reserve. This dramatically increases the number of activations in, for example, a Kursk scenario with tons of AFVs. If you play with FOW, as you should, this has obvious ramifications.
4. Abstraction vs. Reality. Why stop at AFVs? Couldn't foot units perform similarly? Of course, they could and did, probably more successfully than AFVs, especially early in the war. Design requires some level of abstraction or we will end up with ASL and instructions on how to organize binders for your rules. As a remarkably successful WW II tactical series, major changes should be done with great care and an investigation into the cascade effects of the changes desired. Is move and shoot in fifteen minutes more real? Of course it is. However, one of the joys of PG is that the initial rule set is 16 pages long and can be well understood by a newbie in the first 3-5 plays. Another is that it takes less time to play a scenario than most scenarios actually took (some of the larger force scenarios excepted). Changes in rules that make play more complex in order to model reality take us into the area that, again many players fled (e.g. ASL).

I actually like the fact that Modern Grenadier is more complex than Panzer Grenadier. The more modern battlefield became a significantly more intense environment and the complexity of the rules for that period make sense. I can even make myself believe that such rules in 1945 might make sense, especially against elite forces. But as a rule set spanning 1936-1952 I feel that the current AFV rules work reasonably well. There are specific complaints about speed, ability to engage from distance and vulnerability to foot troops that are being looked at seriously but the idea of move and shoot will probably be offered as an optional rule only.

My suggestion, if you want to use it at all, is to reserve it for truly exceptionally trained units (say GD or "some" Guards units but not for the run of the mill Heer, RKKA, Commonwealth or US units).

[Hugmenot]

Change the definition of Transport units in (1.2) to "Vehicles used to transport personnel units and leaders, or tow crew-served weapons. This includes wagons, trucks, prime movers, and sledges. APCs are combat units which can act as transports as well."

[Hugmenot]

Add an exception like "16.23 Cavalry and transports can't dig in" for APC which explicitly states whether APCs can dig in.

My interpretation is an APV is a combat unit and thus can dig in but as they can act as transport, one could argue 16.23 applies. One sentence would remove the confusion.

[rerathbun]

I'd also suggest we change the wording of the definition of AFV to differentiate Armored Transports from AFVs. As written, an AFV is "Any unit with a printed armor defense value (even a value of 0)." That was never changed from the first edition of the rules, despite the addition of (armored) prime movers in later games.

Perhaps
Armored Vehicle (AV) -- Any unit with a printed armor defense value (even a value of 0).
Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) -- Any Combat Unit with a printed armor defense value (even a value of 0).

[Note: in the Definitions Section, Combat Units are defined as "Units possessing a direct fire, bombardment fire or anti-tank fire value. Unarmed transports and leaders are not combat units."]

This would clarify which rules apply to which units, such as:
Units with direct-fire values only do not impede the movement of AVs (5.41)
Only trucks and AVs may be attacked with anti-tank fire. (11.0)
Regular leaders can activate Armored Transports and APCs, but cannot activate any other type of AFV. (6.83)
Cavalry and transports can’t dig in. AFVs can. (16.23)

(Changes to the rules in bold)

The Soviet KMS would still require a note that it is an exception to the rule, since it is Prime Mover (not an AFV) despite having a Direct Fire value.

[Airlifter]

A few random thoughts. I apologize if they are just repeat of issues covered earlier in this thread.

1. Clearly define what is a unit (combat unit + transport unit + leader?).

2. Examining Stacks. I like the rule from Modern PG: "A player may not examine an opponent’s stack (look under the top piece) unless the whole stack is adjacent to his own undisrupted/undemoralized unit or leader, or the stack is marked with a Spotted marker". Matt and I have been playing with a similar house rule for the past 6 months and I enjoy the tension it adds to the game. I do believe a clarification will be needed for Skype games because ftf can see how high the stack is while Skype opponents cannot.

3. Other Leader Moves. I like this rule from Modern PG "One leader may move with any other unit type (except fast mover aircraft) at its movement rate if faster than a leader’s four MPs. Place such a leader underneath the unit with which it is riding" because it covers leaders moving with motorcycle units for example.

4. Strategic Movement. It's currently an optional rule and I would prefer it remains an optional rule. My problems with this rule is twofold: (1) it would unbalance many of the existing scenarios, and (2) I have questions about its realism. Did AFVs favor moving into woods unseen at a faster clip than in the open but in sight of the enemy. I am even less certain when it comes to light woods.

5. Clarification. Fleeing units can be targeted by opportunity fire. This clarification would have helped me when I started playing.

6. Smoke. I hope smoke capability will continue to be limited by SSR and not become standard fare. An hex is a really big area to cover by smoke.

7. Preplotted Bombardment. I would like the Modern PG rule become an optional rule.

8. Armor Efficiency. The PG Modern Armor Efficiency rule whereas a AFV unit can move and fire is something I definitely do not want in PG except by SSR because I believe it invalidate many existing scenarios. My very strong preference is that older scenarios are not invalidated by the new rules.

9. Movement Costs. Care should be given before changing the movement cost of clear terrain as this would have a very strong impact on existing scenarios. For example, changing Clear terrain to cost only 1 MP for mechanized units would seriously affect the play balance of existing scenarios.

All good thoughts. You will likely be pleased with what we've done.