2nd Edition Rule Changes
Hi DB, These changes seem to be adding up now, any chance of a pdf WIP, or a peek of the changes so far? Regards, Dave

I'll second that request ! Just got the rules and I like the look of them. It's time for a change as I keep losing with Rapid Fire ! I lost ALL my artillery (British Sextons) on the run into Gold Beach recently , my Naval gunfiire hit absolutely nothing, and I only managed to take out two german pill boxes. The Hamshires eventually took out the 88mm , and the E Devons a 75mm anti tank gun. One (yes one) Sherman made it off the beach ! :(

All, I'll tempt you with the intro: :twisted: 2nd Edition Battlegroup Panzer-Grenadier remains firmly based on the original fire and movement mechanisms however there are differences in several areas, especially command and control. New Command & Control!Completely new command and control rules permit players to attempt wider activation of units and Combat Groups within their Battlegroups, now influenced directly by the presence of command units, national ability and “command pressure” from the Battlegroup HQ. The 1st Edition’s sole reliance on Command Points for Combat Group activation has been replaced with an Activation Table which now relies on Command Units to activate Combat Groups and to allow for HQ Command Points to assist with these activation attempts. Those units without command may now only be activated as individual units (with the required assistance of a Command Point if they are not specialist troops), thereby placing a heavier emphasis upon the importance of command and the chain of command within the rules. Thus the more flexible and well lead German army will have the ability to activate a good number of Combat Groups, while the less effective armies, such as the Russians, will find it harder to activate multiple Combat Groups. These armies will need to rely more heavily on activating the fewer Senior Command Units to move large numbers of troops, in order to achieve their aims. Command Decisions!Players should not expect all their units to be activated each turn and are still forced to make command decisions as to where to concentrate command effort. Thus unrealistic situations where every single unit on the wargames table is permitted to move and fire without restriction are still avoided within the 2nd Edition. Uncertainty is also introduced within the game turn, as any double one activation attempt automatically generates a Command Confusion result which provides the opponent with an opportunity to seize the initiative and immediately end the current players phase. New Rules for Artillery; Machine Guns & AT Guns! Greater emphasis has also been placed on the historical differences between armies, for instance the revised artillery rules reflect each major nation’s artillery doctrine and unique usage, while new rules covering MG area fire have also been included. Other new aspects include an intensive fire option for anti-guns and self-propelled guns, this increased fire rate now gives greater consideration to the threat such weapons posed to tanks on the battlefield. This greater emphasis on weapon and national differences will require commanders to play to the strengths of their particular Battlegroup, accepting that while they may be weak in one area they can take advantages of their strengths in other areas. Japanese!Finally new rules and equipment lists have been introduced for the Japanese, enabling players to expand into the Asian and Pacific theatres.

The amendments sound very promising - will look forward to 2nd edition!

Having discussed with my colleague - we came up with a few things that might do with clarifying with the move to 2ed? (apologies if I've missed them in the current rules) Why are cavalry easier to shoot hit than tanks? How come cavalry can't move in bogs/marshes (when they were frequently used for this purpose) How come 'small' armoured cars are harder to shoot at than infantry and/or cavalry Having taken their 'discipline' checks - do soldiers in a human wave have to take any other checks (ie to assault an AFV) or do they do what they're bloody well told? Can we force a randomize system on shooting at infantry groups to stop 'unit sniping' of LMGs, MMGs and officers etc.? They're only concentrated up into stands as a function of simplicity afterall...

A, 1. Why are cavalry easier to shoot hit than tanks? A. Don't think "easier to hit" think more on the lines of "far more vulnerable" to any kind of incoming fire. 2. How come cavalry can't move in bogs/marshes A Horses tend to sink in bogs - but they can traverse paths thru bogs. Simply allow for one or two pathways through any bog/marsh area. 3. How come 'small' armoured cars are harder to shoot at than infantry and/or cavalry A. I refer you to my previous answer to Q1. 4. Having taken their 'discipline' checks - do soldiers in a human wave have to take any other checks (ie to assault an AFV) or do they do what they're bloody well told? A. That is a good point. I'll go with no other checks are required once in Human Wave. They'll do as they are told or be shot! :twisted: 5. Can we force a randomize system on shooting at infantry groups to stop 'unit sniping' of LMGs, MMGs and officers etc.? A. This is difficult to enforce as officers and esp. MG's were targeted more than most! However you may wish to enforce a house rule that only permits units to engage those units that are closest to them. Hope that helps. DB

Ah, the Cavalry thing is easier to take when you phrase it that way :) It just struck us as odd that 'to hit' rolls were modified such that a squadron of tanks at a given range would be harder to hit than a squadron of horses. The human wave question arose from experience whereby a number would get killed forming the wave, only for a further percentage to fail on their AFV morale checks, with a large human wave amounting to nothing! In the end the penalties were so big (risk of death, larger target) we tended to wonder what the point was! WRT to the shooting at infantry targets - I don't know, it just seems that the fact that the 'specials' are so centralized is just a function of the game system, and made it far too easy to 'snipe' a certain infantry stand (when facing down a charge for example, would you really order your men: 'only shoot at the officers'?), when in reality all those men are distributed throughout various sections. Will have to consider possible house rules - perhaps infantry at long range (where they are difficult to distinguish and small targets) will be randomised, and within range you shoot the nearest first, or have to roll a morale check to target other than the nearest first. Or: infantry can always pick who they shoot, but everyone else must shoot nearest infantry only - then it's up to you to place your men carefully!

Cheers DB sounds good, Any more?! Alex, I like your casualty allocation as MGs in particular would be high priority for remanning

Hi Dave et al Any news on publishing date from Caliver ? Cheers Gary

'Remanning' is nothing more than the owning player choosing where the hits are allocated under certain circumstances. Gotta keep it simple (KISS)! Cheers,

Ah, I read that as guns having their crews killed, and then being re-manned. Stupid language...

A, when facing down a charge for example, would you really order your men: 'only shoot at the officers'? Officers/NCO’s lead assaults and charges and as such were in a particularly vulnerable position. They would be targeted as a priority or targeted simply become they are the most prominent target as their leadership role makes them far more conspicuous. In all other circumstances officers can not generally be "sniped" at by standard fire other than by snipers, as this would not conform with target priority - All units must fire at either their greatest or nearest threat. DB