Rules I realky like in PG

[campsawyer]

Opening a new thread for those who woukd like to give a plug for the rules that you like in PG. Please limit this to just PG rules or SSRs.

To start, I like the activiation system of movement. Although it is igo-ugo you only move one group of units at a time, but it give a very good flavor of simultaneous movement without the paper logs. Adding the command structure allows for players to make choices for larger movments in an activation. Compared to other games, I feel this is one of the best qualities of the game.

Let us know others that you think are the best...

[Brett Nicholson]

So far, with solo plays, I really like like the random events optional rule for 'Eastern Front' as it can add a little more mystery to a scenario and in the case of where one side is at an incredible disadvantage due to balance of play, particularily the Soviet Union in a lot of the early EF encounters. Though a random event may not ultimately turn the tables it is nice surprise when one side may receive an airstrike out of nowhere or be able to activate units in a hex a second time in a turn. Of course these aren't used in any of the shared plays but it helps make many of the many solo plays of mine more enjoyable. Also like some of the SSRs for EF as well. For example, in the ongoing solo play of EF#8 -Hammer of the Proletariat, the Soviets have some very powerful armored units, notably the T-34A and the KV-1 but only have a 50% chance of actually being able to move any group of tanks during an activation. Though it appears that the Soviets have a good chance of winning this one this SSR makes it a little more challenging.

[vince hughes]

For me too, the whole activation system and the way activations are 'won' or allocated via the initiative system are probably the most elegant.

I think some credit must also be given for managing an AT system of fire using quite the minimum of modifiers and rules.

The 'spoiler' in all scenarios or great leveller if you like is the OBA. Quite cleverly, this is another system that has been introduced here which is designed to be a game disrupter. By this I mean that any player can 'fancy-pants' around carefully advancing his units in full command. But the OBA smashing down in hexes perhaps otherwise untouchable adds that bit of battlefield chaos that can shake up many a scenario.

[Matt W]

For me it's the morale system for both units and leaders. In a very simple, playable way it gives a feel for the gradual wearing away of combat effectiveness. I may not lose a lot of steps but I can lose a ton of combat effectiveness through the gradual demoralization of my force. I also enjoy the concept that the absolute morale level of a unit or leader encompasses training, doctrine, personal courage, societal fanaticism, etc. in a single number which has meaningful effects no matter which rationalization you choose to apply!

Plus, it leads to Kommissars and ultimately the Rule of the Beast. How can you not like that one?

BTW, I enjoy the random events as well in the earlier games. Not only do they add variety but also replayability!

[campsawyer]

Matt, you hit on my number two favorite rule, morale as a gradual but increasing harsh damage to units. At the platoon level it is very hard to eliminate an either platoon in one attack. It is the gradual wearing down that is key.

Hope other chime in, I like all the thoughts so far.

[Michael Murphy]

Who can forget Fog of War? That one rule can change momentum in a heartbeat. It forces you to choose your activations wisely.

[Brett Nicholson]

Now that I understand it correctly I also really like the crossfire rule and finally, after almost a year of using it wrong. I have it set-up correctly in the ongoing scenario where the Germans have a chance to use it against some T-34As. Fast moving armored cars with an AT rating are good for this and that's how I've done it this time. Of course, next turn, if the Soviets do get the initiative it will likely backfire. If the Germans do get two actvations before the Soviets then they may have a chance of knocking out at least one step of the T-34s before their remaining armor units get hammered. I may have just jinxed that one! Crossfire is tough to set-up and getting the initiative the next turn with the attackers is essential. It also makes you pay closer attention to where all your units are. I'm pretty sure that in more than one case I did have crossfire set-up but didn't realize it until after the fact and when it was too late to use it.

[Matt W]

Also, if you happen to be Soviet, Polish or Finnish, the Antitank Rifles are almost useless except for setting up crossfire.

[armyduck95]

There is little doubt for me what makes PzG a superior system for me is the confluence of activation, morale rules, and fog of war. I like how initiative levels and the activation rules combine to account for tactically superior units or situations and can set conditions for a rapid succession of high tempo and synchronized actions. I like how morale and the combat rules depict how difficult it really is to eliminate a unit, but yet have a systemic impact of causing a formation to become combat ineffective. Finally the fog-of-war rule really is a stupendous way of adding friction and uncertainty to even the most lop-sided of scenarios and keeping game play moving.

[enrique]

I especially like the Subordinate Activation rule (3.2). With proper placement of leaders and units is possible in the same activation, for example, bombing a position with mortars and artillery, to spray it with direct fire from HMG and even AFV units and finally assault it.