(09-10-2013, 11:59 AM)Shad Wrote: Word has come down from the mountain that a 4th Edition set of PG rules will be created. This is your chance to provide input into what should be changed, improved, clarified, etc. in the new edition. John Stafford from AP will be monitoring this thread.

• The new rules must be backward compatible. Otherwise AP will need to rebuild the PG customer base.
  
• Mechanized units/formations need to be able to outmaneuver foot units, especially in the open. The game does not reflect this very well right now. The problem is mechanized units are soooooo ssslllooowww. Being slow also contributed to other omissions, I will address one later.
  
• Wheels and tracks need to be different. In the real world they were, and mostly still are, very different. That was why the WW1 British & French developed tanks when they already had armored cars. In the game as is, there is no real difference, unless you like driving in the woods for some reason.
  
• There needs to be a decision as to if LOS is hex based or image based. PG tries to do it both ways. That has caused issues in the past. I'm sure it will again.
  
• Decide if moving vehicles are easier to hit or more difficult. Historical and practical evidence says more difficult. PG goes both ways.
  
• Loading/limbering/unloading weapons and mortars needs fixing. It is incongruous, especially vs. personnel, which mortars are supposed to be.
  
• Mechanized overrun/charge rules would be good. Mechanized units are way too slow for this. So where are Soviet decent tactics?
  
• Better vertical obstacle rules. Jay and I seem to like the PB2 rules for this. Something similar would be good, after the hex/image question is decided.
  
• More smoke. Good idea Ottavio! Liked the Little Saturn rule.
  
• Rearrange the modifiers for weapon units. Things like infantry guns are too exposed, AA guns under exposed.
  
• More national character in the game. I'm not sure how to address it, but the armies seem blase.
  
• Turreted/non-turreted/one-man turret distinctions. Gordon Mosher has a good rule, I added to it. Seems to work fine after several years.
  
• Less reliable off-board artillery.
  
• Scalable fog of war rules.
  
• A generic scenario builder.
  

(09-12-2013, 08:28 AM)Airlifter Wrote:

(09-10-2013, 11:59 AM)Shad Wrote: Word has come down from the mountain that a 4th Edition set of PG rules will be created. This is your chance to provide input into what should be changed, improved, clarified, etc. in the new edition. John Stafford from AP will be monitoring this thread.

I'm not sure I'd call Alabama "the Mountain"--more like "the Swamp". Nevertheless, Dr. B has asked us all to put our heads together and polish up this game we love so much. I will be sorting through your ideas and relying some members of my development team to decide what the gems are and how to cut some difficult Gordian Knots. Please be open and detailed with us about the changes you'd like to see, both in the rules and the standard admin counter set that goes in every game. I won't promise you a rose garden when we are done, but I promise to give you the best game me the team can develop. you have about a week to pass along your ideas to the "good idea fairy" so get writing.
Cheers,
John Stafford

(09-12-2013, 08:28 AM)Airlifter Wrote: I won't promise you a rose garden

(09-12-2013, 07:09 AM)Matt W Wrote: 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.

(09-13-2013, 06:36 AM)vince hughes Wrote: Tell me. When a '1', '2' or '3' result was achieved in assault what type of morale check did AFV's take ?

Was it an M2 ?

Also, lets say there was an AFV & friendly INF in the assault and a '1' result was inflicted on them. Lets also say the INF absorbed the step loss. Did the AFV take an 'M' check or an 'M2'

Thanks