Which rule do you want to change?

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
So there is no possibility that an important SW can be dropped when half a squad is eliminated.
This seems absolutely improbable.
OTOH all smoke grenades are automatically lost in a similar case.
That said, I live perfectly well with the RAW.
But I don't think that reality generates as absolute results as you believe.
No REAL argument here, but simply trying to rationalize the rule as it is. I do tend to like some of the ideas you expressed in post #59, perhaps even a MF penalty could be envisioned for those units effected during the MPh by D1F. Ive been in several circumstances where two or three of my guys were taken out trying to recover a critical weapon system (thankfully in training), so I can certainly see some merit in your suggestion. Hey there comes a point at which diminishing returns for efforts expended outweigh the probable gain. :eek:
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
I would like to see DF vs moving vehicles based on a percentage of the total movement in the firers LOS rather than the number of MF. It should be harder to shoot an armoured car zipping through an open spot at 60 kph than an Elefant lumbering though at its slow speed.
 

Spencer Armstrong

Canard de Guerre
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
8,624
Reaction score
1,682
Location
Gainesville, FL
First name
Spencer
Country
llUnited States
I would like to see DF vs moving vehicles based on a percentage of the total movement in the firers LOS rather than the number of MF. It should be harder to shoot an armoured car zipping through an open spot at 60 kph than an Elefant lumbering though at its slow speed.
Oh come on. Math is hard. ;)
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I would like to see DF vs moving vehicles based on a percentage of the total movement in the firers LOS rather than the number of MF. It should be harder to shoot an armoured car zipping through an open spot at 60 kph than an Elefant lumbering though at its slow speed.
I made a similar suggestion in 1991, writing to the French Tactiques magazine - as well as ideas about stuck turret and half immobilized tracked vehicles.
I was answered that the RAW were fine.
Things never change.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I just want to add one simple rule: A.19 INTERPRETATION OF RULES: All rules are to be read as meaning their exact opposite.

See how much more interesting the game has become?

JR
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
I would not like to see any rule changed for something that makes the game flow slower, like adding bookkeeping or complex calculations. I'm even fine with the non-geometric blind hex rules.
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I just want to add one simple rule: A.19 INTERPRETATION OF RULES: All rules are to be read as meaning their exact opposite.

See how much more interesting the game has become?

JR
Ugh, thanks a lot, Gödel.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I just want to add one simple rule: A.19 INTERPRETATION OF RULES: All rules are to be read as meaning their exact opposite.

See how much more interesting the game has become?

JR
jrv = RuleBook XOR -1;
 

StevenMiller

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
51
Reaction score
8
Location
Katy, Texas
Country
llUnited States
Having just struggled with trying to figure out the EmRR = hillock rules in Hatten, I would change the EmRR rules to just calling the damn thing a half level high wall you can stand or drive on!
 

Nineteen Kilo

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
795
Reaction score
323
Location
Fair Oaks CA
Country
llUnited States
Wall advantage. Get rid of it completely.
How would this work if two adjacent squads are in open ground hexes with a wall in between? Both get +2 wall DRM, or neither gets +2 wall DRM?

As for me, I'd have the Panji rules reduced to a 4 sentence paragraph. What those sentences are, I leave to those more learned than me.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Eliminate the "Motion/Non-stopped" DRM in CC for vehicles in bypass...

This ought to be enough to slow down the use of the VBM Freeze...which is just a tad to powerful in my book, particularly vs forces that don't have a lot of LATW/SCW.
Yes this part (esp 1942 +) is pretty "unreal". I haven't read any books yet where the grunt says. " Yes we saw a tank and Bob got up and ran towards it and
it was touch and go but then the tank blew up.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
ACQ rules on targets with no units.

In this case roadblocks. Somehow even though the target is less than 50m away a vehicle (freshly washed)
cannot get a full FP ( 75 HE) on it but must use AREA target. Dumb !!

All rules where spotters are revealed ( other than by enemy MC/Pin).
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Boy, if there was ONLY one rule?
I guess I would go for the ability to (not) target buildings as a valid target in and of themselves and being an eligible target selection circumstance for a CH. It just seems too weird that one must have a target (gun, vehicle, infantry, etc.) or a lack thereof with an attendant DRM to effect a building. It just feels wrong that a current target-size/concealment makes it easier or harder to hit a structure regardless of the size of the structure. In as much as a C3.41 does mention that a building is a valid target, it seems a little circumspect that it cannot be selected for a CH if other targets are in the location/hex attacked as well.

.:rolleyes::eek::nod::D
Yes on the same subject. Very wrong. Does eyesight just not work when there are no enemy about??
 

robh91

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
98
Reaction score
67
Location
Melbourne
Country
llAustralia
I'll probably get "flamed" but the three rules I would change are as follows:
1. I would only allow units to "advance" if they are trying to go into close combat. It would slow down the tendency of units to move too quickly and end "skulking".
2. I would abolish all bypass movement. I think it adds very little to the game yet adds a ridiculous level of complexity when mixed with other mechanisms (eg bailing out, snap shots, wreck creation etc etc). It would also neatly "end" the VBM sleaze.
3. In a similar vein to 2. above, I don't think double time really adds all that much to the "game" (basically every second turn you can move a little further), yet it add some complexity (albeit not too much) and more counters.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
OK OK you have forced me to suggest a rule I'd like to see changed. I want tanks to not lose special ammo so fast.

When you fail a special ammo roll say A-6, it isn't gone, it just lowers to A-5, then A-4

You can't try another shot with that ammo on the same phase, but you can take one on the next phase you can fire again.

It's a bit book keepy.
OK OK you have forced me to suggest a rule I'd like to see changed. I want tanks to not lose special ammo so fast.

When you fail a special ammo roll say A-6, it isn't gone, it just lowers to A-5, then A-4

You can't try another shot with that ammo on the same phase, but you can take one on the next phase you can fire again.

It's a bit book keepy.
Most counters have text ability ( as do acq counters). May help...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
871
Reaction score
35
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Absolutely agree!

In addition the Germans and Japanese started the trend to regard the LMG as THE squad weapon, everyone else was to support that. Even among the nations who regarded the LMG more as a support weapon, keeping that working would have still been essential.
As I understood it ( certainly to early 1942) all German defense plans relied on the HMG. This is how they massacred so many Russians.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,595
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I'll probably get "flamed" but the three rules I would change are as follows:
1. I would only allow units to "advance" if they are trying to go into close combat. It would slow down the tendency of units to move too quickly and end "skulking".
2. I would abolish all bypass movement. I think it adds very little to the game yet adds a ridiculous level of complexity when mixed with other mechanisms (eg bailing out, snap shots, wreck creation etc etc). It would also neatly "end" the VBM sleaze.
3. In a similar vein to 2. above, I don't think double time really adds all that much to the "game" (basically every second turn you can move a little further), yet it add some complexity (albeit not too much) and more counters.
Those are so basic rule changes that they would wreck most scenarios, as they would require very important changes - needing to add turns would be the first one.
I don't know what your playing experience is, but I would suggest that you played SK only. At least there would be no bypass.
Limiting the APh to entering CC only, without allowing some more mobility during the MPh (perhaps a last "cautious movement of one hex") would severly slow down manoeuvres.
Eliminating Double Time is strange, unless you believe that soldiers will keep with a Sunday stroll rythm and ignore any forced march (or running) tempo.
I don't think that you have measured the real consequences of your modifications.
You won't be flamed for your suggestions - this thread is a joke anyway.
Rationally opposed certainly.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I would like to see DF vs moving vehicles based on a percentage of the total movement in the firers LOS rather than the number of MF. It should be harder to shoot an armoured car zipping through an open spot at 60 kph than an Elefant lumbering though at its slow speed.
Oh come on. Math is hard. ;)
FRU or FRD? We could include gas points in EVERY scenario too :) One Gas Point == 1 MP. Go ahead, move to higher ground. -- jim
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Re the suggestion of DRMs based upon the percentage of MP used, the worst realism aspect is whether the MP are used directly to/from the firer or across the firer's line of sight.

For a target moving across a firer's line of sight, a miscalculation may mean the shot passes before or behind the moving target, while for a shot moving directly to/from is more likely to be a few inches above or below the intended point of aim, but still hits.
 
Top