A major river case to think about

[Blackcloud6]

No, I don't think that.  I'm pointing out that that the tank simply cannot enter the hex, nor can it assault the hex as long as the Polish unit is in the hex.

[Grognard Gunny]

This whole disagreement could have been avoided if the "management" (read: designers) had placed river lines along the hex side edges instead of in the hexes. (Just sayin'.) As it is, another "special rule" is needed.

GG

[plloyd1010]

No, I don't think that.  I'm pointing out that that the tank simply cannot enter the hex, nor can it assault the hex as long as the Polish unit is in the hex.

That is incorrect. Rule 5.75:

Units in a river hex (whether they're crossing or not) can be attacked normally, even by Assault (12.0). If units assault into a Major River hex, the attacker suffers a -2 column modifier on the first assault round IF neither side has an ENG in the hex.

[Blackcloud6]

OK, I missed that, thanks.  

Then the issue is, what is the "assault" in PG depicting?  I suspect that many of think it is  the close in hand-to-hand, with guys bayoneting each other and climbing on tanks and dropping a grenade down the hatch, likely thanks to all the unrealistic WWII movies we watched growing up.

But what it may be depicting is closing with the enemy with small arms range, just under 400 meters and close in fire-fight occurs.   Or a combo of both notions.  So, in the case of assault on the river hex where one side assaults from the opposite side, it suffers the -2 because it cannot keep closing from the 350meter firefight to the close in hand-to-gland fight.    So, the rules cover the situation.  What's the issue?

[leonard]

I think Assault combat may occur between units on opposite river banks even if these units are not allowed to cross the river. The rules support it and the distance is < 200 m. And there are special markers to record which side the units are on.
However, the ENG restriction to the -2 assault modifier is often strange. And... if the Polish infantry destroys the panzer, one can wonder how they did it...

[PANISTA]

Yes, board game maps SHOULD be designed with rivers & gullies (arroyos) on hex sides.

Also, there should be NO shading on geomorphic maps, or on counter images.

The more you play with others, the more stuff you notice and must account for. This is why shared play with another human is the best way to learn to play PG, and to learn how best to interpret the sometimes confusing rules. By comparison, solitaire play is boring.

These discussions in the Forum are very helpful!

[Grognard Gunny]

In reference to your "...solitaire play is boring." comment:

1) While I will admit that paying another thinking human being is interesting, I'm not necessarily into attempting to "Out think!" my opponent.

2) My original purpose in "getting into" PG was to see if the tactics for play match those for the Nationalities involved within the confines of the rules. For the most part PG rules achieve this very well. Unfortunately, these "rules" are not exactly what everyone wishes.. and thus is born the "house rules". (Which, for various reasons, I am not particularly fond of.)

3) Games go faster when playing solitaire. (Much faster.)

4) One does not have to explain, understand each and every movement particle of each and every move. (...and there is none of the hen pecking of "marginal rules". Once it is solved.... it is solved forever.)

5) ....and finally (and this is more for me than everyone), my patience, attention to detail, and nose to the grindstone attitude is not exactly what it used to be and I find "scheduling" more than I can bear any more. I'd much rather play when I feel like it... not when I am forced to.

I tend to have more fun playing on my own these days. That's the long and short of it.

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

In reference to your "...solitaire play is boring." comment:

1) While I will admit that playing another thinking human being is interesting, I'm not necessarily into attempting to "Out think!" my opponent.

2) My original purpose in "getting into" PG was to see if the tactics for play match those for the Nationalities involved within the confines of the rules. For the most part PG rules achieve this very well. Unfortunately, these "rules" are not exactly what everyone wishes.. and thus is born the "house rules". (Which, for various reasons, I am not particularly fond of.)

3) Games go faster when playing solitaire. (Much faster.)

4) One does not have to explain, understand each and every movement particle of each and every move. (...and there is none of the hen pecking of "marginal rules". Once it is solved.... it is solved forever.)

5) ....and finally (and this is more for me than everyone), my patience, attention to detail, and nose to the grindstone attitude is not exactly what it used to be and I find "scheduling" more than I can bear any more. I'd much rather play when I feel like it... not when I am forced to.

I tend to have more fun playing on my own these days. That's the long and short of it.

GG

[Sonora]

Pleased to know that some folks prefer solitaire game play.

I think that solitaire play is not really engaging and is truly boring. Glad that it available, but it's just not my cup of tea.

It's like watching paint dry, or viewing pro golf on TV.

Scheduling Vassal time can be challenging for those of us that have 40-hour-a-week jobs and family responsibilities, but, to me, the joy and excitement of playing an unpredictable human opponent is what makes PG an interesting and fun-to-do past time. I look forward to online, shared play sessions with others.

[Miguelibal]

Heck yes, solo play is like dancing with your sister!