Which rule do you want to change?

Futbol

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
61
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
units laying down fire just to put residual FP in a hex to deny entry should be TI, this reduces that sleaze tactic,
 

Futbol

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
206
Reaction score
61
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
allow units placing a DC to claim assault movement, this represents a small unit or SMC "creeping up" on the target as opposed to the Hollywood charge and throw method.
 
Reactions: PTY

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,459
Reaction score
3,978
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
allow units placing a DC to claim assault movement, this represents a small unit or SMC "creeping up" on the target as opposed to the Hollywood charge and throw method.
Not understanding. This is allowed, as long as the unit does not expend ≥ its Movement Allowance. Are you trying to say that placing a DC should not be concealment loss?

JR
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
15,516
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
units laying down fire just to put residual FP in a hex to deny entry should be TI, this reduces that sleaze tactic,
Except for the odd case of Spraying Fire (which does not happen very often), you still need a moving target to attack in order to place Residual FP in a Location. So I am not sure what you are referring to.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
855
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Incremental CC results:
One squad-equivalent (RS applies) is killed per integer below the final Kill number. It would not make much of a difference in most cases, but would limit the carnage done by a lone Japanese SMC armed only with his sword.

Some may like it, but hey it's just Hollywood
 

Aaron Cleavin

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
504
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
Incremental CC results:
One squad-equivalent (RS applies) is killed per integer below the final Kill number. It would not make much of a difference in most cases, but would limit the carnage done by a lone Japanese SMC armed only with his sword.

Some may like it, but hey it's just Hollywood
Nice rule change almost a no brainer

I even think the final kill number is a CR and one extra HS is killed for each number below the kill number may work
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
19,459
Reaction score
3,978
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Incremental CC results:
One squad-equivalent (RS applies) is killed per integer below the final Kill number. It would not make much of a difference in most cases, but would limit the carnage done by a lone Japanese SMC armed only with his sword.

Some may like it, but hey it's just Hollywood
I am not sure, but I think Japanese leaders had access to grenades too.

JR
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
Only problem is ethernal Melee if enemy dies slowly.. to enter with lot of units may hold a mele two or three turns..
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
I will add no melee for units in excess of enemy units.. or automatic withdrawal.. I mean a Leader may not hold in melee three enemy squads..
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
Even a guard have some limits to the prisioners may guard.. and they have no weapons... why not in melee?. Twice the US#?. and I think the same for CC vs vehicles.. IMHO it’s absurd an AFV may hold in melee at any enemy infantry..
 
Last edited:

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
Eliminating at all the capacity of enemy AFVs to freeze friendly infantry will have a fantastic effect in the game and it will give to infantry the advantage they had at close range vs AFVs, specially to BU AFVs with very límited vision
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
We have been playing accordying to rules as written for years never thinking about the absurdity of a big lot of them.. at this point, with so many years playing and the fantastic level of researching about lot of battles, weapons, vehicles.. we just deserve a serious rules improvement..
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
To be honest, I really think all fire limits to closest enemy units favour a lot to the moving player (attacker usually) and it gives excessive importance to timing in a movement Phase is teorically recreating simultaneous movement....
 

Philippe D.

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
466
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
At some point, some rules change just mean a different game. Any wargame has to be an abstraction, with some design decisions made. Change enough of them, even for "more realism", and you end up playing a completely different game.
 

Swiftandsure

Robin Reeve
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
16,137
Reaction score
1,718
Location
St-Légier
Country
llSwitzerland
At some point, some rules change just mean a different game. Any wargame has to be an abstraction, with some design decisions made. Change enough of them, even for "more realism", and you end up playing a completely different game.
Ditto.
Our tactical skills are not to reproduce historical manoeuvres, but to make the best of the game system.
The only changes that I would find useful should be ways to reduce or eliminate inconsistencies within the rules system.
Some well spread house rules could reach the official optional rule status - but, as the wonky IIFT option, with its last minute, non mandatory CTC thing, those additions should require some thourough thinking and testing.
Some of Steve Pleva's Gorgor heretical rules would be good candidates.
 

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,471
Reaction score
922
Country
llLithuania
We have been playing accordying to rules as written for years never thinking about the absurdity of a big lot of them.. at this point, with so many years playing and the fantastic level of researching about lot of battles, weapons, vehicles.. we just deserve a serious rules improvement..
You can play with whatever rules you can talk your opponent into playing with.

If you think they are *really*that*bad*, change them....and convince someone else to play with your rulz changes.

<shrug>
 

mgmasl

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,891
Reaction score
186
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
I don’t think they are bad.. I think they could be better.. and that we know the way to get them bettered..
 
Top