Pedro Santos - Feb 22, 2005 2:54 am (#7148 Total: 7163) can't believe I'm here again Hello gamers. I am new to Panzer Grenadier and to this forum. I have read back a few hundred posts here and as it has been interesting, and useful. In fact I am returning to war-gaming after a very, very long break. I played my last hex game over Christmas 1980 and then miniatures until 1986. No war-gaming since then. It has been very exciting to spend the last few months checking out my old hobby again. I bought PG and HOTSU as a starting point back into board war-gaming. I think I made a good choice, although I didn’t remember how intense hex and counter war-games are and the level of concentration required. I can’t believe I used to hold and juggle various sets of rules in my head at once when I played board war-games regularly in 70s. These games are hard! I was going to try this on my 12 year-old boy but I will need to find a much easier introduction for the poor chap - he has enough hard stuff to remember at school. After playing about six EF/HOTSU scenarios twice each and messing around with some experimental games of my own I thought I’d share my initial impressions. Firstly it is usually very hard for the Russians to win. The better morale and leaders of the Germans is seriously difficult to overcome. Secondly it is very hard to attack a good defensive position (especially woods and towns) without powerful artillery support. In both cases this is pretty historical I suppose, although I would have thought woods are a bit over rated for defense. The game seems very realistic throughout in its appreciation of the characteristics and relative importance of the different arms and their interaction. The tactical challenge and general flow and tempo of proceedings , while perhaps not incredibly exciting, has a very convincing feel to it and I find it ultimately very rewarding. I love it when a position finally begins to give way - usually only after a lot of pressure. There is a very good balance here and a lot of subtlety I am only beginning to grasp. The leadership and activation system and the rolling interplay between both sides is spot on. and I really like the way the structure of each turn can be quite different and often unpredictable, depending on activation decisions - their size, their order, their interaction through opportunity fire. Really excellent. I am looking forward to playing against a live opponent one day as I think the openess and fluidity of the mechanism must really shine face to face. Its very good solitaire as well however. Some things I do have trouble with, most of which are probably not specific to this game in particular. Firstly I had forgotten how fiddly hex and counter war-games are (and how susceptible to sudden disaster - don’t wear loose-sleeved clothing while poring over the board!). I am using a set of pincers and a blob of blue-tac on the tip of a pencil - has anyone discovered any magical system for manipulating the counters in the last twenty years? (apart from moving everything on to a screen) This problem now is even greater than I recall with the large number markers and gigantic stacks in Panzer Grenadier (and other games no doubt). I totally agree with recent posts about markers. They make far too much clutter and detract so much from the visual pleasure of the game - which is considerable ( at least to me ). They can make inspecting stacks very laborious. I don’t mind the moved and fired markers so much as these at least are removed at the end of every turn to let me look at the situation “clean” and take everything in. Even here, however, I am experimenting with some home-made transparent markers that allow me to see the what and where at any moment. For order/morale I find it is more functional (and it looks much better) to use the facing of the counters to indicate current state - north (or right way up) = good order, east/west (or horizontal) = disrupted, south (or upside-down) = demoralised. Maybe most gamers have better memories than me but in large scenarios and crowded situations I am always forgetting what is underneath all those disrupted and demoralised markers. In some complicated situations I actually think an extra indicator would be useful to show all the units/stacks that are being activated as a group. Sometimes after a leader or two has moved and is no longer adjacent to hexes he was activating I find hard to recall exactly which units are activated. The rule about having to indicate exactly which activated units are firing or moving at the beginning an action segment I find too difficult and time-consuming (checking stacks) to implement, and I just allow myself to decide what each unit is doing as I come to it - not so realistic (too much close control and coordination), but more practical and playable I think. Does anyone else have these problems or am I just too out of the groove? Also, I sometimes think that the process of unit degredation (disruption, demoralisation and step-loss) could perhaps be portrayed in a simpler manner without loss of realism and feel. Did I read a post here that someone was trying a system which did away with some of these states? T he rules in general are becoming second nature much quicker than I would have imagined and hence the game is becoming more enjoyable every play. I do have some specific rule questions if anyone can comment or help clarify. 1. 11.0 - only units with armour value and trucks may be targeted by AT fire. Why not wagons - seems strange. 2. 11.3 Does increased range for units with AT value only apply to AT fire or can they also use DF at 150%? 3. DF modifiers - does +1 target unit is mortar/aa/at and +2 target is artillery unit apply if unit is loaded? 4. Fire/Assault tables - do APCs count as AVF? i.e. are they not affected by M results? 4.3 says APCs are not AFVs but then says their armour value “gives them immunity to most results on the DF and Bombardment tables” (clearly not true if they don’t qualify as AFV on fire table results) 5. AFVs firing twice in same turn. Have I got this correct? - AFVs that qualify under 11.2 “armour effeciency” can : in own action segment - fire AT x 2 or DF x 1 in opportunity fire mode - fire AT x 2 or DF x 2 AFVs that don’t qualify under 11.2 can : in own action segment - fire AT x 1 or DF x 1 in opportunity fire mode - fire AT x 1 or DF x 2 6. Opportunity Fire. Is this correct? Opportunity fire can’t be directed at the initial hex the target unit moves from, only the first and subsequent hexes it moves into. Does loading/unloading count as movement? 7. 5.63 - It costs all MPs to limber and load so “a transport unit may not move and load a weapon unit in the same action segment”. But what is the cost just to load the weapon unit if it is already limbered (which it took all previous turn to do) and begins action segment in same hex as a transport unit. If there is no difference and it still takes whole turn what is the point of having limbered and unlimbered sides to weapons units? 8. Am I correct in thinking it is impossible for a normal leader to order infantry and armour to assault a hex simultaneously (because of combat movement restrictions) unless the assault hex cannot be targeted by any enemy unit with AT fire? Finally a couple of thoughts. Shouldn’t it be possible to voluntarily retire demoralised units instead of having to try and recover them in the close presence of the enemy, where at best they can become disrupted (except on a very rare 11) and therefore almost useless if confronted with plenty of good order enemy units. This would allow the next wave through to close contact without having to face the devastating 1-hex opportunity fire (because the enemy has already fired this turn). I am often in this situation as an attacker and find I am hoping for my demoralised units to fail their recovery tests and taking them early in the turn to get the units out of the front line. I would only allow unactivated leaders to spot for artillery (although this would not count as an activation). This seems more realistic to me and avoids having to find leaders underneath moved/fired counters. It would be good to have more opinions and advice on tactics on this forum. thanks for your patience. It’s great to be wargaming again. I am enjoying this game a lot and this forum has been a great help. petermc - Feb 22, 2005 8:55 am (#7150 Total: 7163) We were stones. Your light made us stars. 1. 11.0 - only units with armour value and trucks may be targeted by AT fire. Why not wagons - seems strange. I can't answer design questions. 2. 11.3 Does increased range for units with AT value only apply to AT fire or can they also use DF at 150%? Only AT fire. 3. DF modifiers - does +1 target unit is mortar/aa/at and +2 target is artillery unit apply if unit is loaded? Ah, good question. I have always played as if the answer were "no" because there is already a +1 for being transported. Of course a towed arty unit is a fat target. I don't know honestly. But I would guess "no" (a loaded unit is a loaded unit). 4. Fire/Assault tables - do APCs count as AVF? i.e. are they not affected by M results? Correct. 5. AFVs firing twice in same turn. Have I got this correct? - Yes, but only AT fire and only for certain countries and times. AFVs that qualify under 11.2 “armour effeciency” can : in own action segment - fire AT x 2 or DF x 1 in opportunity fire mode - fire AT x 2 or DF x 2 Correct. AFVs that don’t qualify under 11.2 can : in own action segment - fire AT x 1 or DF x 1 in opportunity fire mode - fire AT x 1 or DF x 2 Correct. 6. Opportunity Fire. Is this correct? Opportunity fire can’t be directed at the initial hex the target unit moves from, only the first and subsequent hexes it moves into. Yes. Does loading/unloading count as movement? For opportunity fire, "no," but you could certainly modify this by house rule. Of course the transport will usually enter a hex before unloading...you don't just sit tight loading and unloading all day in one hex. So shoot at them when they enter the hex...you will still get a +2 iirc. 7. 5.63 - It costs all MPs to limber and load so “a transport unit may not move and load a weapon unit in the same action segment”. But what is the cost just to load the weapon unit if it is already limbered (which it took all previous turn to do) and begins action segment in same hex as a transport unit. If there is no difference and it still takes whole turn what is the point of having limbered and unlimbered sides to weapons units? It costs all...you can limber/load or unlimber/unload all in one turn. There is no advantage to limbering ahead of time. 8. Am I correct in thinking it is impossible for a normal leader to order infantry and armour to assault a hex simultaneously (because of combat movement restrictions) unless the assault hex cannot be targeted by any enemy unit with AT fire? Yes.