Rules I dont like

[Chas]

I am thinking this may be interesting to discuss. I know they will never be changed so this is just for discussion, but there are two rules that are 'ahistorical' and I dont like them.

1) Schuerzen. I went round and round trying to convince Curt to change this for ASLRBv2. This was developed specifically for the East Front to add extra protection for the high density of small calibre AT weapons, namely ATRs. The current rules are exact opposite of this. There is no reason to put Sch. on a tank on the East Front as they get no benefit (unless you add a SR stating such).

2) OBA. Yeah, yeah, I know. But I have one small point that I dont like, different from the usual gripes. That is the +1 hindrance DRM. That is a good rule, however, a unit underneath the FFE has the same hindrance as a unit shooting through it. A unit with a FFE on them should probably incur a +2. Then again, the fact they are taking attacks may be what replicates this.

Chas

 

[The Purist]

Chas,

Schurzen was developed to detonate hollow charge projectiles before they struck the main armour, thus greatly reducing the effect of the impact. The weapons in mind were Bazookas, PF, Psk, and anything else that might come along. Events would show that the Russians would not make a large scale use of lend-lease Bazookas so the skirts were not terribly useful in Russia. Being only a 1/4 in thick (3/8?) and made of lighter metals (not real armour) they were not all that effective at stopping kinetic rounds. In fact, by late 1944 the skirts on many PzIVJs were made of a wire mess, even less effective against KE rounds.

The Germans had a knack for inventing 'counters' to weapons the enemy never used. Here I am talking about the Zimmerit anti magnetic paste applied to German tanks. Great idea, only the Allies and Russians never used magnetic AT mines.

 

[paulkenny]

what I have read is that the Schuerzen were developed to defend against teh Russian ATR from targetting the tracks on their tanks and immobilizing them.

 

[The Purist]

Never read anything about that. Why then the Schurzen rings around the turrets? Besides, the road wheels, front sprocket and rear idler wheels were all still exposed, only the 'return rollers' were covered. Also, when you shoot at a 'track', you do so from the front or rear, not the side. From the side there is no real track to shoot at. A DI shot at the flank would be directed at the 'running gear', those same road wheels, idlers and sprocket drives mentioned above.

 

[Pitman]

Rules I don't like:

1. Slopes. Added complexity not worth result.

2. Barbed Wire. Indestructible.

3. Panjis. Way too complex.

4. Rice Paddies. More complex than they need to be

5. Self Rallying Finns. Ridiculous.

6. Beaches. Too complex.

7. Platoon Movement. Obviously abusable.

8. Foxholes. Units too vulnerable in them.

 

[Pfc TAZ]

Snipers: Never liked 'em. My usual ftf buddy and I don't even use 'em when we play each other.

The game has enough randomness in it and the scale is large enough that it is not really needed (I realize it is a judgement call on that). It's just "one more thing" to think about during dice rolls and adds to the complexity of the basic game.

MG ROF: I've never been comfortable with the breakdown of manchine gun ROF. HMG's have high firepower, AT capability (compared to LMG) AND a higher ROF.

I've always felt that the ROF should be switched. LMG ROF = 3 and HMG ROF = 1.

I read somewhere that the designers made a judgement call on this one, a wrong one in my opinion.

 

[sgtono]

Rules I don't like:

1. Slopes. Added complexity not worth result.

2. Barbed Wire. Indestructible.

3. Panjis. Way too complex.

4. Rice Paddies. More complex than they need to be

5. Self Rallying Finns. Ridiculous.

6. Beaches. Too complex.

7. Platoon Movement. Obviously abusable.

8. Foxholes. Units too vulnerable in them.

With the exception of slopes and the addition of snipers, this would be my list. I would not do away with snipers but restrict the activation to just rolling a 1 and then rolling for type of effect.

My biggest beef with the rules is the that majority of Chapter F and G need to be put into their respective places in Chapter B and Chapter A. Also since many geo scenarios are using HASL rules, would be nice to have those respective rules formatted for the rules section they belong and leave just the very specific CG rules standalone.

Ah, let's see where was that slope rule in B, R, P,...???

Keith

 

[Jack Dionne]

Hand held Anti-tank weapons

I think manhandling guns should activate booby traps. It seem very unrealistic to me that it doesn’t.
I think all shaped charged weapons should be handled the same way as PF, with the obvious range for whatever weapon determined. Cuts down on counters and more fog of war. What the hell lets through in the ATR too.

 

[AdrianE]

I don't like any rule that isn't consistant with the rest of the rules.

Platoon Movement is the prime example of this.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

1. A12.15: the "assault-bump" "clarification". I have always felt the limited occurences of this rule between concealed units could have best been dealt with by an ambush roll; no new rules added and just a little uncertainty to the outcome.

2. Alpine Hills: I really want to like this rule, always thought it should be more wodely used...until I played The Last Roadblock and saw it morph into skulk central.

3. Smoke: I think the auto +3 should be handled more like the extra dr a la light dust (dr/2)

4. Platoon Movement: specifically the no DF until a new hex entered; this creates a seperation from the rest of the DF rules which are MF/MP expenditure dependant.

5. AT ditches: the inability to 'connect' to ADJ terrain (like roadblocks) is a serious error.

6.Bailing out: specifically, the farcical TCA dance. Just say the guys are bailing out and take the MC. Should the AFV be more vulnerable (slight chance, I know) just to get the infantry off the deck?

7. Hillside walls & hedges: just a Pain in the Arse.

Funny, though, things like OBA don't bother me. I don't mind the Finnish SR ability either, particularly up to, say, March 1940, but afterwards there may need to be additional squad types available. One area of contention popping up has been hillocks and their relationship to same _base-level_ hindrances not typically encountered in the desert. For example in OtO, the elRR hexes. There was quite the discussion on whether a unit ON the RR could see past an intervening orchard hex or only into the first orchard hex. IIRC, the rules do say that the latter would be the case, but it is inferred as opposed to specifically stated (something to the effect of 'same base level for LOS', though that -would- be specifically stating, wouldn't it?)
Leaving entrenchments in LOS of enemy units is a pain, perhaps it can be mitigated by placement-I know it's always bugged me as well, but given the MF mechanic, is there really an alternative? I think the vulnerability of moving units was always a recurring theme-like the prohibition of unloading passengers in the Aph.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

OBA OBA OBA OBA

SMOKE placed in the Defensive FPh is dispersed, yet a FFE is resolved with full power. I understand and (partially) agree with the philosphy of why the SMOKE is dispersed, but shouldn't this same idea apply to a normal FFE mission?

I also think that a unit shooting out of a non-SMOKE FFE should have a higher penalty. Units in a FFE would be more interested in seeking cover than shooting at or looking for potential targets.

 

[Jazz]

:bored:

Rules I don't like:

1. Slopes. Added complexity not worth result.
.

Well, short of having something like 15-20 or more levels on the board, it is the only way we can have the effect of a "hill" as opposed to a mesa...

2. Barbed Wire. Indestructible.
.

Yeah, maybe.

3. Panjis. Way too complex.
.

Yup.... See the discussion on Rice Paddies

4. Rice Paddies. More complex than they need to be
.

Probably true. I mean, how many scenarios use rice paddies and who much rules verbage is spent on them?

5. Self Rallying Finns. Ridiculous.
.

Probably added so that the Finns could actually win a scenario with something approaching historical forces. It don't make it into my "Least Favorite" category....

6. Beaches. Too complex.
.

Agreed

7. Platoon Movement. Obviously abusable
.

Yeah, ain't that the truth....

8. Foxholes. Units too vulnerable in them.

I guess I wouldn't say they're too vulnerable while in them (+4 vs OBA), but the mechanics of entry/exit can turn them into a trap in game terms that I don't think is pleasing or satisfying. I find myself looking for placements based on how will I get out of them and how will my opponent not be able to use them, as opposed to where do I want protection.

I guess I try to be Zen about the whole rules thing. It ain't reality. It's an abstraction codified in a set of rules that we agree to play under. It don't bother me when sleeze or some wierd nuance in the rules (e.g. Platoon movement) is used against me. I will use it against someone else with no qualms of conscience.

It's cardboard....

Jazz

 

[Tycho]

Allowing AFV crews to voluntarily abandon their vehicles without an SSR.
"Hop out of the Panther, boys - we need to occupy that crossroads with infantry!"
Puh lease... :argh:

 

[Commissar Piotr]

:bored:

I guess I try to be Zen about the whole rules thing. It ain't reality. It's an abstraction codified in a set of rules that we agree to play under. It don't bother me when sleeze or some wierd nuance in the rules (e.g. Platoon movement) is used against me. I will use it against someone else with no qualms of conscience.

It's cardboard....

Jazz

I cannot agree more, the only rules I truly dislike are the ones that queries to MMP about do not get posted on the MMP webiste. Probably takes a lot of energy to do it as it can be made automatic.

 

[paulkenny]

As for Panjis and Rice Paddies, I wish they were redone to simplify em cause they are interesting unto themselves, just bad rule writing IMO

 

[rdw5150]

hi!

Rules that are used in a lot in scenarios that I play that I cannot stand (this pretty much eliminates Patties, Beach, etc at I find them just not worth the complexity):

1. Slopes-hate 'em not worth it
2. Barbed wire
3. Platoon Movement


Peace

Roger

 

[WaterRabbit]

Foxholes wouldn't bother me so much if the cost of enter/exit was waived for units using assault movement -- they would be less of a death trap that way.

OBA works fine -- for DYO. But most scenario designers don't implement OBA correctly. I think that scenario designers need to take more control over how many fire missions are allowed, the timing of those fire missions, and how they can be brought down. The NOBA draw piles are a better compromise -- especially if the designer controls the number of fire missions. After all if the designer is representing a historical situation, he should know what assets were available and how important a role they played.

Platoon Rules don't bother me per se -- however, they need to add an Infantry equivalent (besides Human Wave/Banzai) to allow a multihex group of infantry take part of an armored assault. The impulse sleaze is a hole that should be fixed.

I definitely second the idea of combining the various rules into the proper places. Cavalry should be moved out of Chapter A into D. The terrain rules from F&G should be moved into B as well as terrain rules introduced in historical modules that have wider usage. It is only a matter of time before someone makes a debris overlay.

I think the Finns, while good soldiers at that point in time, are overpowered in the system. It almost seems the Step Reduction system of the Japs would be a better model for Finns in the Winter War. Afterward, they should either be represent by German or normal Axis Minors.

Slopes, while chrome, are not that big of an issue for me.

What mostly bothers me is design by randomness. There are many rules/scenarios that use randomness as a proxy for balance. I believe that it more interesting to use an expendable resource mechanic instead. In general the expendable resource for the attacker is time. Give the attacker 6 turns for example, but if he doesn't use a particular resource he gains a 7th. VPs are another expendable resource. For example, it cost so many VPs every time an Air Support or OBA mission is used.

While this mechanic might add more control to a player than his historical counterpart might have had, in my mind it makes the game more interesting. One of the reasons CGs are interesting is because of the expendable resource of CPPs. You have to choose where you will spend them and there are trade-offs on how they are spent. The ER CG makes good use of this with certain RGs costing VP if purchased.

 

[RobZagnut]

>Snipers: Never liked 'em. My usual ftf buddy and I don't even use 'em when we play each other.

>MG ROF: I've never been comfortable with the breakdown of manchine gun ROF. HMG's have high firepower, AT capability (compared to LMG) AND a higher ROF.

Interesting. These two rules (Snipers and ROF) are two of my favorite rules. I hated the SL Sniper and MG (Penetration?) rules. The changing of these two rules with the addition of the Japanese and Red Barricades were the reason I switched to ASL.

The Sniper rules are so unique and completely unexpected in their effect. To play without them is just plain silly. Especially, if a particular side in a scenario has a SAN of 4, 5 or 6. You're not going to take many 2+2 or 4+3 shots with a high SAN. Refusing to use Snipers changes the game and the balance of many scenarios. Reminds of the guy who refused to play with the DM rule, because he didn't like it. It's not ASL if you don't use the rules.

The ROF rules feels perfect to me. The bigger MGs should have a higher ROF, because they have a larger punch and are the much bigger threat. Changing the ROF of a HMG to a 1 completely weakens it and doesn't make it much of a threat when you are attacking a position.

 

[Roy]

C8.9

Well, anyone who knows me knows I hate C8.9 Ammo depletion. No matter how anyone has ever tried to explain it to me, it still just seems like you get a free shot if you miss the first time.

But I have learned to accept it, because it's in the book.

 

[alanp]

Just the other day I tried to use APCR vs. a T-34. Depletion # was 5, I rolled a 6; OK, no shot: try the AP. Next DR is a 3. Now, as you can see, if I'd skipped the APCR try there'd be one dead tank. As it was, the next DR -the TK - was a 9 or something. I used to like the 'freebie' shot; am beginning to hate it. . .