CSW gives me a headache but I'll take a look at BGG. What prompts your comment on the rules editing, if you don't mind my asking?Looks good, rules are poorly edited, I've not had a chance to play it yet, some have and posted on BGG and CSW, too early to tell, but the price is right
Thanks.We did have the Brits 'spawn' from the town hex in question, and ignored the stacking limit for their initial entry. If I remember correctly, having one of the waves of reinforcements enter from the edge of the map would make it impossible for the infantry to ever get into battle (since they cannot ride AFVS, and do not have carriers to bring them forward), so that was another reason we went with the literal interpretation of entering from the middle of the map.
Unfortunately, in HOD1, no such SN does give that type of precision.There was a workaround to the chit-entrance issue, and I believe one of the SSRs had the Brits entering without chit pulls on the first turn...?
The scenario cards are full of omissions and of approximations, I am afraid.The 'enter at', 'enter on', etc, differences seem to be a lack of consistent rules-verbage and not subtle rules distinctions.
Hmm, I had the same issue with TDC where the chit drawing started to goggle up the game. :angry:Now that I've given it a good 4 plays, I have had my fill. The game has the initial look-and-feel of the old PB, but the one major change (the chit mechanic) took away any chance of coordinated maneuvers - probably the most interesting aspect of the original series - and replaced it with a highly reactive and maladroit engine.
Because the scenarios were not very engaging, and the chit mechanic restricts any compelling decision-making situations, I'm not sure if it will truly appeal to anyone other than the casual armchair wargamer.
The last game Dick Mitchell and I played, we decided to simply do away with the chit-pull and use the rest of the system as typical IGO-UGO. Although we had to improvise some (ie, the timing of artillery, rallying, etc.), we felt the game played out much better.We should find a way to mitigate its effects
Likewise. Last Wednesday we played a PB scenario. This Wednesday, Dick requested to play (I think his words were) "a more stable and complete system" - aka, ASL.I packed back my PB HoD setup, and shoved the box next to my other wargames... and set an ASL scenario at its place on my playing table.
What I fear, is that many players could be discouraged about this "first try", which could lead MMP not to develop the "generic" (aka modular) version of PB2.I won't get rid of my PB box just yet...
I might be wrong, but I think that disruption IS supposed to be disrupting the flow, hence the etymology of the term. :clown:Comments : Chit drawing crucial and erratic. Distruption is disrupting the flow as it reduces chances to move on and make some losses. Maybe should be allowed to recover in the same Phase.
There is a difference between a unit being disrupted and a process. At one point almost all units were disrupted trying to get out of it. Could happen but with only 6 turns it was too much to get forward with the Germans.I might be wrong, but I think that disruption IS supposed to be disrupting the flow, hence the etymology of the term. :clown:
I was wondering with what was being meant by not in the same Operation. I don't see how that can happen since it is an Enemy one, so do they mean the whole of the Operations, meaning the turn, or like you say, just your next Operation.And by "same Phase" what exactly do you mean? Same operation? Meaning the same operation that you became disrupted? That doesn't seem much impairment to becoming disrupted at all, and does not allow the opponent to react to your change of status. Or do you mean same turn? Nothing prevents that. You can rally a unit on the same turn it was disrupted, as long as it's activated by another Operations chit. That's what the +3 is on "spent and disrupted markers", it means you must add three to your die roll to recover them on the same turn they became disrupted. Just because a unit is spent doesn't preclude him from being activated for recovery. And being activated for recovery does not leave a unit spent.
To some extent, it is conditional now and with a +3 quite difficult.Within the scope of a turn, a unit in the old PB/PL was either disrupted or not. It did not recover until the end of the turn and was out of action for all obsensible purposes. In PB:HoD a unit can start the turn disrupted, be recovered by one operation, and then move or attack by another, all within the same turn. Coupled with the fact that you also have a chance of recovering on the same turn that you become disrupted, I would say that overall the game in it's present form is LESS restrictive in regards to the recovery and re-engagement of units than the original. In other words, disruption is, if anything, less...disruptive than in PB/PL.
Lot of praying it seems, planning becomes very difficult and so the whole operation becomes very reactive from both sides. A way to minimize this is to keep all your troops together, so at least there is just 1 or 2 surprises. Not ideal, the whole concept is very much in vogue but I have not seen it work to simulate command issues.The rub for you I might surmise is in utilizing the limited number of operation chits in an optimum manner, and perhaps the overall departure from the more chess-like IGO-UGO system. In the old system, you could plan attacks to the "T". Now you have to plan, hope, and pray.
Than I'm glad I never bought any of those...As stated by a few others, the chit system in PB:HoD seems to run smoother than in the similarly scaled Panzer Grenadier, balancing some simulation of command and control with playability.
Than I'm glad I never bought any of those...
I think that when the correct errata and clarifications will be published, PB2 is an interesting improvement over PB.Are there redeeming aspects of this game that really make it worth getting over anything else out there at this platoon-level scale?