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

[Dean_P]

Part of what I like about the system is that the rules are straight-forward. I don't care for a lot of scenario specific rules, as I'm not real good at remembering them in the heat of the battle.

As for hidden rules, I agree with Jay that they kill solo playability, and thus I personally figure a way to do without them (some sort of random placement procedure, given the hidden units). Not sure how you do that in the rules, as hidden units are different for each scenario. For example, Panzer Lehr has hidden units. How would the 4th edition rules apply to those scenarios and not fundamentally change the balance of the scenario?

[Matt W]

Since I have played the bulk of my scenarios solo but have had the luxury of being able to play many with hidden units ftf I can tell you that they dramatically change the game play in a very, very good way. I have gotten better at the style of play necessary against hidden units and use it now when I play solo against "hidden" units. I, of course, stumble into ambushes and there are losses which might not happen otherwise but they add a feel very different from "the enemy is there and I will strike him there" routine without hidden units.

[Airlifter]

Having been out of the UK for some time and deliberately not taking the laptop with me I arrive late to this discussion. I will not add any new suggestions to those that have been posted on this thread but I will add a note of caution.
Like Dr's, John's main rule should be "do no harm". The 4th edition rule book should be more about clarification than whole scale rule changes. This in it's self is a challenge eg The Hill LOS controversy which has has engaged our minds since the beginning of time (well since I started playing PG).
I agree that some Scenario special rule should be included in the main rule book e,g pushing guns, Inf A/T capability etc. However I do not believe that making AFV's stronger in Assault and faster would be a welcome rule change for most players.
That said I am looking forward to seeing the 4th edition rule book and the numerous threads on this forum and others which no doubt will appear bemoaning various aspects of it.
The very best of luck John S.

Thanks Wayne. A very good perspective.
We definitely don't want to alienate a segment of players with the new rules. Please engage on any specific issues that are of significance to you.

[Airlifter]

Plenty of commander's have sent unit after unit to destruction. If you do, you lose. But, we don't currently have a mechanism that directly affects morale of an army. Sure, you lose initiative after losing xx number of steps, and that gives the opponent the chance to mop you up, but that's not the same as everyone getting jittery because their division commander keeps sending battalions forward in dribs and drabs to destruction on a battlefield littered with corpses.

Does anyone use a house rule for this? Say every two initiative steps lost = 1 morale step loss? What would the implications be on games? Would this make players more sensitive (too sensitive?) to losses, much as if in a campaign where every step lost hurts you for the rest of the campaign?
John

Maybe you could apply the special rule 14 ("Formation Morale") of Beyond Normandy:
"The morale of the units belonging to a formation is affected by losses. Each step loss or leader lost counts as a step. All units of the formation have their morale reduced as follows when the losses equal the noted number:

Lost Steps 8 Morale Reduction -1/0
Lost Steps 15 Morale Reduction -1/-1
Lost Steps 23 Morale Reduction -2/-1

Thus a Regiment that began a scenario with a morale of 8/7 would be reduced to a morale of 7/7 when step and leader losses totaled 8, to 7/6 when step and leader losses totaled 15 and 6/6 when step and leader losses totaled 23".

This rule would be easily applicable in scenarios where in the same side are various formations (eg German SS and Heer, Heer and Luftwaffe...), or in large scenarios (eg units in sector A begin the battle with 5 losses and units in sector B without losses).

This might work well. I would venture that many commanders who "retreated" or "called off their attack" really did not. In fact, the tactical units either began retreating on their own or firing without advancing and the commander, upon recognizing this, just "made it official" and gave the order.

[Airlifter]

Since I have played the bulk of my scenarios solo but have had the luxury of being able to play many with hidden units ftf I can tell you that they dramatically change the game play in a very, very good way. I have gotten better at the style of play necessary against hidden units and use it now when I play solo against "hidden" units. I, of course, stumble into ambushes and there are losses which might not happen otherwise but they add a feel very different from "the enemy is there and I will strike him there" routine without hidden units.

Huzzah!

[Airlifter]

Some ideas offered up by Ottavio Ricchi for consideration.

"I also include a few more suggestions, i.e.:

-The rules about rubble generation as a result of bombardments as included in France 1940 module should be added.
-Drumfire from Infantry Attacks rule (or a slightly modified version) should be used. This kind of bombardment fire was very common also in WWII.
-I quite like the cold steel rule from Infantry Attacks
-Strong point rules from PG are fine, however there is not really any reasons why such units should not get a -1 modifier against direct and indirect fire. … they are static units placed on map at the start of the scenario and there is no reason why they should not have had the time to dug in!
-Additional suggested rule changes:
-Mortar capability to hide. Mortars of 82 mm and lower calibers do not become spotted if they fire from concealment terrain. This simulates the capability of this unit to remain under cover when firing at the enemy.
-Armored units get first fire against personnel units assaulting them. This occurs if all the following conditions are fulfilled: the armoured unit is not already engaged in assault; at least either the assaulting or the assaulted unit is on open ground. If the armoured unit has not been activated gets a positive one column shift modifier.
-Finally, concerning the new countersheet, I have no big ideas. However it might be worth it to make a few changes even to the existing one. For instance disrupted counters should always have on their back the demoralised information. It much easier to find them in the pool and it saves time when you use them."

Ottavio

Thoughts everyone?

[Matt W]

- Lots of support for "rubble" probably a leftover from watching too many Flintstones episodes as a kid.
- I usually dig in the strongpoints anyhow so this is how I virtually always use them
- I really like the mortar suggestion as they tend to be a little brittle as things stand now
- I have actually suggested wording for the first fire for AFVs already

As to the suggestions from Infantry Attacks I have to admit a lack of "feel" for those rules

[rerathbun]

Speaking of mortars, that reminds me. The way Rule 9.52 is written, it is possible for a mortar/artillery unit firing on an enemy in an adjacent hex to accidentally fire on themselves with 'friendly fire.' I believe most players have a house rule that 'friendly fire' is not possible when firing at units that are adjacent. I myself have a 'house rule' that goes a bit farther.

I'd like to offer for consideration an addition to the first paragraph of rule 9.52:

There is no friendly fire on adjacent hexes when the target hex is spotted by the firing unit. (Note: Rule 9.51 still applies when firing at hexes containing both friendly and enemy units.)

My reasoning is that if an artillery unit is spotting for themselves, they might land one or two rounds on a friendly unit, but will make any necessary corrections before doing enough damage to affect an entire platoon.

[vince hughes]

Some ideas offered up by Ottavio Ricchi for consideration.

"I also include a few more suggestions, i.e.:

-The rules about rubble generation as a result of bombardments as included in France 1940 module should be added.
-Drumfire from Infantry Attacks rule (or a slightly modified version) should be used. This kind of bombardment fire was very common also in WWII.
-I quite like the cold steel rule from Infantry Attacks
-Strong point rules from PG are fine, however there is not really any reasons why such units should not get a -1 modifier against direct and indirect fire. … they are static units placed on map at the start of the scenario and there is no reason why they should not have had the time to dug in!
-Additional suggested rule changes:
-Mortar capability to hide. Mortars of 82 mm and lower calibers do not become spotted if they fire from concealment terrain. This simulates the capability of this unit to remain under cover when firing at the enemy.
-Armored units get first fire against personnel units assaulting them. This occurs if all the following conditions are fulfilled: the armoured unit is not already engaged in assault; at least either the assaulting or the assaulted unit is on open ground. If the armoured unit has not been activated gets a positive one column shift modifier.
-Finally, concerning the new countersheet, I have no big ideas. However it might be worth it to make a few changes even to the existing one. For instance disrupted counters should always have on their back the demoralised information. It much easier to find them in the pool and it saves time when you use them."

Ottavio

Thoughts everyone?

I agree with the strongpoint request. They should all get the -1 DF col and be classed as dug-in

Similar along the lines of Ottavio's mortar request, our group play that AT guns that 'set-up' on board at start can be hidden.

HOWEVER, they do not use the same HIP rules as 'special hidden' units as per 3rd ed rules. They are spotted normally, but it does mean that for example, if they were placed in a woods hex, the enemy would not see them until 3 hexes away and therefore not placed on the board until that moment,, unlike now, where although they can not be fired at, the enemy armour know their actual locations and can move around to avoid them accordingly.

Also agree with Robin re FF but would word it different. No bombarding unit can land friendly fire on its own hex (How stupid would you have to be to fire straight up in the air and then they plop down on you ?)

[otto]

Me being stupid.
Sorry folks if my proposals arrived like from above. I did not realize until yesterday that the this forum was used for sharing our views .
From tomorrow I will stay tuned here.
Ottavio