(09-01-2022, 07:04 AM)Schoenwulf Wrote: So why are we trying to take this system and make it closer to ASL? One of the beautiful things about PG is that there are not a lot of complex situational rules.
I tend to agree. The system already incorporates most of what is talked about in broad strokes representative of it's scale. Smaller close support guns already have direct fire ratings instead of indirect ratings. Those smaller yet, including all of the mini mortars mentioned above (outside of the few oddball cases) are already rolled into the INF and HMG units. You can still simulate the infantry screen you guys seem to want by screening from one hex away. Depending on how crucial your big guns are its probably already worth it to do so. If you want to leave your arty vulnerable to close assault to get the open sights column shift its a tradeoff, otherwise safely put them in the back of the town.
You guys are theory crafting about custom rules specifically for 75mm guns at this point. To what effect? Every unit in the game could have a special rule about something or other. Its unneeded chrome that is trying to force a squad level game out of PzG, which is fine, I guess, but why not play an actual squad level game on a squad level map if you are hyper focused on the intricacies of assault combat in one single hex?
Mini rant over. I get you all can play your games the way you want and that's okay. Its certainly the opposite of what I enjoy about PzG though.
Question though, since you are proposing a 2 for 1 exchange between bf and df. Aren't you just introducing as many if not more distortions to fine tune around a 75? An M-7 is now just as combat effective in assault as a StugIIIG? The crew from a 105 battery is more combat effective than a platoon of late war US Armored Infantry?
Assaulting is hard enough on the attackers in this system, I'm pretty okay with leaving the big guns vulnerable in close combat. its up to you to keep them safe before the enemy closes to 100 yards.
