General de Brigade

[Keithandor]

Hi all
I just got the rules , and then I got the 2nd edition changes.

To start off , would you recommend just playing 1st edtion ?
Is the command "pips" way of doing things in 1st edtion no good ?
Too random ?

[Keithandor]

I have been reading the rules a bit more.
The 1st edition command "pips" idea seems like fun , what are the problems with it and why the change ?

[DCRBrown]

K,

That's the sort of discussion for the pub!!

Very basically though you have hinted at it - its not that PIPs are no good – they are a great wargame concept - it's just that they do lack flexibility and at times can be too random.

As one review very succinctly put it - PIPs are a double edged sword for rules - many wargamers love them but also many loath them.

I 'll happily admit to being swayed by the WRG, (DBM - of all things - shock horror! ) PIP system at the time of writing the first edition. But I think one has to move on with wargames rule development, and I just feel that while PIP's do work, that individual unit or combat group activation gives a more accurate feel and better command and control for WW2 wargaming.

The downside is that’s it more complicated - but that’s something I'm happy to accept - as I'm prepared for more complications in some areas but am also trying to simplify other areas, (such as Artillery and Air strikes - see my separate rule change suggestion) to compensate and keep the game flowing at a healthy rate.

DB

[Keithandor]

Thanks DB
I will give the rules a go with the pip system as written in the rulebook I have , see how it goes , and then can upgrade to the command roll later.

[Keithandor]

Thanks DB
I will give the rules a go with the pip system as written in the rulebook I have , see how it goes , and then can upgrade to the command roll later.

[eoghan_mor]

Hi

Having recently played using both methods, I think overall I prefer the command pips approach. With the command roll proposed for 2nd edition, it seems too easy to activate most or all of your combat groups. I think I prefer the uncertainty of command pips.


Cheers

Euan

[Alexb83]

Pips can be very random, and very punishing to certain armies (I'm looking at you, Russians).
We played a rather large scale game recently where a very broad russian advance (two whole battallions of Infantry) was constantly stalled by a lack of activations - at one point we rolled up 1 for the battle group, and 1 each for the batallions.
As a result, an overwhelming force of infantry had real problems bringing forward enough men to deal with a single company of Germans.

Constantly a. losing initiative (welcome to Russia) and b. not getting enough activations does generally leave you on the defensive and playing at a handicap in supressed units.

That being said, I found it far quicker and easier to get my head around than the activation roll system. On the hit and miss aspect, I found the rolls just as bad!

[eoghan_mor]

I certainly agree that those armies which don't get a modifier can suffer under the pips method. Playing Poles or Hungarians against Russians helps to avoid this, but we've also played Russians, British and Americans against Germans in 1944 as well.

However, I have not played a really large game yet so I have not seen the problem on the scale you describe. For the moment I'll stick with command pips most of the time, but I'll try out command rolls again in a larger game, or see if the system can be refined further.

Cheers

Euan