Platoon Pricing.

[Uncle_Joe]

I very much like the idea here. A lot of care has to be taken to make sure it doesnt get out of hand. The units included in Platoons should be those that are less likely to get bought otherwise. It wont do much good to make a Platoon of SS-Pgr or Shermans and make them cheaper as well.

Personally I would keep the number of potential Platoons per nation fairly limited. Dont go hog wild here or else the result is simply going to be more units on the table for the same price and a little less freedom as to how you do your build.

[OldBloodandGuts]

Agreed...great idea, and one that started on these boards, if I'm not mistaken.

[warspite]

I like this idea, too, and have been kicking around some ideas of OB's. But, I don't think the Red Devil or Haupsturmfuhrer are right for platoon-sized units. Company, yes, and so could be attached for the normal 7 pts, or incorporated into a company-sized "card" of some kind. But, they are too powerful in themselves to simply slap onto an already discounted force, much more than the other commanders shown.

Instead, since there is no Lt for Germans or Americans (ignore Wehrmacht OLT), give their platoons an automatic +1 initiative for unit integrity and implied Lt commander bonus, but nothing else, if no other commander present. Replace Red Devil with either a third Garand or a Thompson, and the Haupsturmfuhrer with a light mortar. The others seem reasonable as is.

[Allxmen]

Hooray. Outstanding Idea. All of the otherwise "non usable" units should be grouped into platoons. Its an great idea. It gets around the cost and everything. Its perfect for this game. They should continue with preset platoons.

[shadowhooch]

I'm a bit undecided about this. I'm not sure if it can solve all of the problems it is promising (using more of the units). As it stands now, it simply makes some of the standard infantry cheaper (which was never much of an issue).

It is the specialty units and vehicles that have the most costing problems (spotters, transports, heavy tanks, Nashorn, Axis vehicles in general).

How will platoons solve each and every one of these mis-costed units? There clearly is a better or worse with each one. I'll wait to see what further platoons are proposed as I can't put my arms around this project yet. I don't see using these platoons as much incentive for me using a Nashorn. I'd still choose the Panther D due to it's cost effectiveness.

Isn't there something simpler than listing out dozens of platoons?
On second thought, if they authorized and released new platoon combos each week, that'd be cool and would breath new life into the game over and over again. They could publish books of them or put new, additional platoons in the pamphlet with each set.

[Qmark]

Here's an idea: Conscript cards
Simply take piles of really bad units like Mauser or worse (IHF infantry, etc) and package them as a value pack or something. Hell, even relax the unit limit while we're at it.

For example:
Mauser Concripts
15 points
6x Mauser Kar 98k
Conscripts - These units only count as five units against your unit limit.

KMT Meatshields
12 points
7x Kuomintang Rifleman
Conscripts - These units only count as five units against your unit limit.

[shadowhooch]

Here's an idea: Conscript cards
Simply take piles of really bad units like Mauser or worse (IHF infantry, etc) and package them as a value pack or something. Hell, even relax the unit limit while we're at it.

For example:
Mauser Concripts
15 points
6x Mauser Kar 98k
Conscripts - These units only count as five units against your unit limit.

KMT Meatshields
12 points
7x Kuomintang Rifleman
Conscripts - These units only count as five units against your unit limit.

I like that. Kind of like "Sam's Club" for miscosted units. The tricky part is how to address the vehicles.

[Lagduf]

I'm not familar with how Tanks and other AFVs are organized into groups.

By company I assume? (i'll have to check this).

But I definitely think we need some Tank groups (mainly to make the standard PzIV more viable)

[Vikingwarrior]

At quick glance the German platoon seems like the best buy. Take out a Mauser and put a light mortar in the platoon build. There is a unit that doesn't get used normally.
Didn't Der Leiter put together platoons?

[Uncle_Joe]

It is the specialty units and vehicles that have the most costing problems (spotters, transports, heavy tanks, Nashorn, Axis vehicles in general).

As long as they dont take the concept of a 'Platoon' too literally, they possibilities are pretty open.

For example:

German Mortar Platoon:

1x 81mm Mortar
2x 50mm Mortar
1x German Spotter
18-19 points

or

German Pzjger Platoon:

1x Nashorn
1x Marder
45-50 points

or

German Close Support Platoon:

2x sIG-33
1x StuGIII
36 points

Potentially, there might be multiple infantry platoons as well.

Instead of the one listed, how about

German Early Infantry Platoon:

4x Mauser
1x 50mm Mortar
11-12 points

Compare that to 2 SS-Pgr and it looks fairly attractive.

The real trick will be making sure that the units that are being packaged and discounted are ones that need the 'help'.

[Zeus[BTY]]

Buying by the platoon could help to encourage a bit more historical formations, and could indeed also help to see more use out of the many unused soldier units - but just giving away free commanders, as in the examples, seems like quite ridiculous to me!

Include at least one lesser used unit in a platoon, and pay a few points less for it than normal. If there's no fitting unit to include, just cost the whole platoon 1 point cheaper than the sum of its units, so you encourage the more realistic formation without giving away too many points for free.

[warspite]

the problem is that platoons count fully towards the 15-unit limit, regardless of the costing change. so, putting 10 soldiers, at any cost, is most of your stuff, right there.

Tank platoons were usually 4-6 vehicles of that type, or with a specialty mixed in, such as a '44 British Sherman platoon, with 4 M4's and a Firefly. Unless understrengthened intentionally for 100pt games, tank platoons won't often be practical. especially German late war platoons, unless they're not SS, in which case they're pretty much always at about 60% of nominal strength. Maybe a few Panzerjaeger platoons, with Hetzers and Marders and such. But, you aren't going to see a Tiger "platoon" any time soon. :)

[Uncle_Joe]

They cant interpret 'Platoon' literally. No one is going to field a Tiger Platoon of 4-5 AFVs in any reasonable game.

But how about Heavy Panzer Platoon:

1x PzrIVg
1x Tiger I
70-72 points.

Still probably too high for a 100 point game, but maybe not.

Add in my above Infantry Plt (4 Mauser, 1 Mtr for 12) and perhaps an SS Haupt at 7 and an MG42 for 10 and you've got a pretty nice force assuming you werent going to fight a preponderance of Rangers/Paras.

[warspite]

How will platoons solve each and every one of these mis-costed units?

Maybe not all of them, but what it can do is make logical combinations easier to put together, like spotters, mortars, and maybe transports for the spotters. I've seen many good combinations that are just too expensive, and then too fragile if any of them are lost, to risk actually fielding. Making them cheaper as a unit, while having plenty left over to field stronger support or front-line units, will give these specialty units some new life.

I like the idea, but agree play balance becomes the issue. But, who better to decide these things than us players, eh? ;)

[warspite]

I just had a thought. If platoons are purchased together more cheaply towards the 100pt limit, will they still count full value for kill points? That had better be balanced REALLY well, if that happens.

Big bean-counting gamey-ness on the horizon... :eek:

[shadowhooch]

I just had a thought. If platoons are purchased together more cheaply towards the 100pt limit, will they still count full value for kill points? That had better be balanced REALLY well, if that happens.

Big bean-counting gamey-ness on the horizon... :eek:

Yeah, I agree. This seems to be a vary dangerous and long road to go down.

Seems like it is trying to address the problems of miscosted units and unplayed units. As others have said, wouldn't it be easier to simply recost the units? Isn't that the true problem? It may not be perfect; but neither would these platoons (and recosting each unit would be a lot easier).

[Uncle_Joe]

Seems like it is trying to address the problems of miscosted units and unplayed units. As others have said, wouldn't it be easier to simply recost the units? Isn't that the true problem? It may not be perfect; but neither would these platoons (and recosting each unit would be a lot easier).

Yup, its a band-aid fix for a deeper problem. And it opens the door to other potential problems.

Still, if its choice between the band-aid and nothing, I'll take the former. But I definately agree that it would better to actually fix the horribly mispriced units instead.

I know that no two people will agree on what units are mispriced and by how much, but I think getting perhaps the dozen worst offenders would help considerably AND probably be a heck of a lot less work than the Platoons would be.

Simply offer .pdf files of the updated cards and blammo!l....problem solved.

[NorthernRommel]

Actually the use of platoons that make units cheaper when you buy them in a historical organization was my idea. I put forward cards for it, and contacted WOTC about it (but they rejected it). I did it to help encourage historical play. Some folks tried it and liked it, others I gather didnt like it. Having to print the cards too people didnt seem to like :confused:

Der Leiter also does some platoon type stuff with his scenarios, but I do not know what is the idea behind his different designs. I am not sure if his are done to reduce overall costs, or to make scenario buliding and bookkeeping easier. You will have to ask him.

For one thing "Fixed Formations" do not typically get officers with platoons (except russian and company commander based units). In a 100 point game you may use upto 75% of the costs to buy fixed units, but officers or other equipment must be bought at regular price. Typically cards should be used with larger games.

Vehicles are divided into sectional and platoon units based on year and theatre of operation. Some SAs can even be given to that platoon or section if you like, but that requires marking the units with stickers on bases or similar practice (again some folks just dont like that).

Below is a sample of one of those unit cards. I am sure some folks have seen the basic ones before.

http://www.geocities.com/opmgames/RHR/RML_CardCanada1.jpg

[Zeus[BTY]]

Yeah, I would happily print out a new card set :) .

Of course, once you start down this road, you might as well check each and every card, and fix all problems! I for one would love to see cards without any crew quality SA's and without the gamier, unrealistic SA's. Crew quality SA's could be bought (like proposed by many sources, including myself as the first :p ), both the conscript (command dependent)/experienced/veteran types as well as the crack shot (less powerful version though) types.

Basically, I only want SA's for stuff which actually shows on the model, ie extra cannon/MG's, and for historical purposes (highly flammable, but for the right units). But then, I don't need SA's for flavor, just for accurate in-game representation.

[Zeus[BTY]]

Actually the use of platoons that make units cheaper when you buy them in a historical organization was my idea. I put forward cards for it, and contacted WOTC about it (but they rejected it). I did it to help encourage historical play. Some folks tried it and liked it, others I gather didnt like it. Having to print the cards too people didnt seem to like


I like your platoon formation rules, and in fact, I was working on a similar set of rules, but then at the squad level. I think the problem for many people (for me at least :D ) is getting unofficial rules to be accepted by your gaming buddies. They will only accept them if they like everything in them, because if you don't like part of it, why use it? And even worse, what if some like it, and some don't? You can't enforce anything like this.

Now, official errata's and new rule sets are much easier to introduce, with everybody far more likely to accept them, the good and the bad.

[DocD]

I like the idea of having cheap platoons and have used it in a couple homemade scenarios (very Leiter-like).

I don't see the purpose of having the officers included, except with the Russians. There is no reason for giving away a SS-haupsturmfurher or Red Devil Captain. Hopefully, this will be changed.

[Muenchausen]

I would like to see these rules. I'm particularly interested in heavy weaopons platoons for all factions since these pieces (Bazooka, Mortars and Flamthrowers) seem to get ignored. i like the idea of a mortar platoon that was posted earlier.

And Yes. I want AH to produce these cards and sell them in packs. Say a complete pack of X amount of cards for XX amount of $$$'s. If they also want to make them available for download at no cost thats fine with me. But my preference is to have a professionly produced set of cards and I'm willing to pay for them.

[TIGGERR]

My play group has been doing this from the start. But we try very hard to make it real which makes it hard because every nation has different size units and all are equiped different. But over all I love the platoon idea. Now we can play recon units and spec op kind of games.

[Vikingwarrior]

German mechanized unit 40pts:
2x Panzergrenadier
1x Panzerfaust
1x BMW
2x KFZ 251

[Autarch]

I always liked Northern Rommels idea of platoon cards and am glad to see such an idea adapted (adopted?). But my platoons have more units than the examples posted in the expert rules. I thought each figure represented fewer men, ie a US platoon has 3 rifle squads of two Garands each for a total of six. :confused:

I dislike that all the units in the platoon still count towards the 15 unit limit. They should also get a break on that, particularly the Japanese and Russians. One drawback I think should be incorporated into platoon rules would be that it couldn't move or attack (other than defensive fire/overwatch) the turn after it loses its commander ("Where's Apone? Where's Apone!?").

I agree with shadowhooch and others, I would rather see across the board recosting and revamping of units capabilities toward historical performance to correct the "small problem." New cards with new costs and data labled as EXPERT would be aces in my book.

[Colonel_Coo]

I always liked Northern Rommels idea of platoon cards and am glad to see such an idea adapted (adopted?).


Either actually.

Adapted from Fan rules to official rules
Adopted from locally players into the family of rules.

[gstrand]

And Yes. I want AH to produce these cards and sell them in packs. Say a complete pack of X amount of cards for XX amount of $$$'s. If they also want to make them available for download at no cost thats fine with me. But my preference is to have a professionly produced set of cards and I'm willing to pay for them.

AMEN! Us too. The sooner the better. ;-)

I'm about to pull the trigger on a HBF 10M France map as well.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I like the idea of platoons (I have my units already organized in platoons and Companies 8even some batallions ;)).

Captains (HSF equals a captain) should not lead platoons...

Some examples from my builds

French Rifle Platoon (13 points)
4* MAS Riflemen
1* Lebel Grenadier

Russian Medium Tank Company (89 points)
3*T34/76
2* PPSh-41 SMG
1* Cossack Captain (ok here I have used a Captain, but I assume its a Cossack sergeant ;))

Russian Mortar platoon (37 points)
3*Russian Mortar
1* Red Army forward observer

US Armoured Rifle platoon (83 points)
3* M1 Garand
1* BAR Gunner
1* Mortar M2
5* M5 Halftrack

Marine Mechanized platoon (65 points)
1* LCM (for getting to the shore)
1* M7 Priest
1* Marines M2-2 Flamethrower
1* marine riflemen
1* Thompson Gunner
1* Jeep
2* M5 Half-Track

German Grenadier-Kompanie (65 points)
Company Command (18 points) 1*WM OLT+1*Panzerfaust 30
3* Platoon (12 points) of 1*Light Mortar and 3* Mauser
1* MG-Platoon 2* MG-42 (18 points)

For elite platoons subtsitute Panzerschreck for Panzerfaust and Wehemacht Veteran Inf for Mauser for 88 points.

[DirtyDog35]

I rearly post on the forums (cassual reader by trade), but I like many of the advanced rule ideas. The depth of tournament play and army builds with the proposed changes is very exciting. With Platoons I would like to see a few dedicated bonus cards per set of future expantions for AAM. The cards could give the Platoon a different point cost and a unique extra ability that may only function as long as certain criteria are met. A simple example for the American Infrantry Platoon could be a shared Pinpointer ablity that would end if the Red Devil Captain was eliminated.

The point cost for a Platoon Card does not have to lower the units cost either. It could increase the cost lets say the same American Infrantry Platoon but with all units sharing Grazing Fire untill the Red Devil Captain is eliminated instead.

The posibilities are endless and with the next expantion it would only mean the addition of a few extra cards that could be randomly inserted in boosters or included in monthly league kits. If a new starter is in the foreseeable future it could come standard with a few Platoon cards.

[NorthernRommel]

Either actually.

Adapted from Fan rules to official rules
Adopted from locally players into the family of rules.

You know I would not mind so much having the stuff I have done used as part of the new rules. I would even put up the old unit cards for download if people wanted (like the one shown above).

What erks me is that every single advanced rules change they have put forward looks like it is lifted verbatim from my rules set, yet when I showed those rules to some of the folks on here and from HHR they didnt like it. Now WOTC claims to have done it and all of a sudden everyone thinks they are inventing sliced bread :mad:

A lot of these are rules I have already tested and found and eliminated the flaws in months ago. There are some problems with what they have suggest so far but I will let you figure them out, or you can read back through old posts where I mentioned some of it. I refuse to give them any more suggestions until my own system is ready and packaged.

But I do agree with the other posters on here about larger rewrites being required in order to better deal with the issues like Aircraft Rules, and general future expandability of the overall rules. IF WOTC does not allow these changes in tournament play then the changes are useless. Reworking or Removing the 15 unit limit is also a mandatory need. Forcing people to use tanks in a army build might have helped sell boosters in the past, but it severally hampers historical builds.

Cheers.

[Colonel_Coo]

You know I would not mind so much . . .


. . .
A lot of these are rules I have already tested and found and eliminated the flaws in months ago. There are some problems with what they have suggest so far but I will let you figure them out. . .

. . . Reworking or Removing the 15 unit limit is also a mandatory need. Forcing people to use tanks in a army build might have helped sell boosters in the past, but it severally hampers historical builds.

Cheers.

Two thoughts can be had at the same time by divergent peoples. Take my osicallating wing for ship propulsion. Who knew that MIT had the same idea. (too bad it doesn't work well enough).

Please review my questions & opinions thread. PM me if I missed somthing (other than enfilade with both units in same hex).

Their platoon cards could overcome this while maintaining balance. Just state on the platoon card what the unit count is: see my questions 7 opinion thread.

[NorthernRommel]

Two thoughts can be had at the same time by divergent peoples. Take my osicallating wing for ship propulsion. Who knew that MIT had the same idea. (too bad it doesn't work well enough).


If they were not already aware of the rules I did and the card work I could believe that. But I understand your sentiment.

If it helped contribute to forcing changes then the work and effort was not a total loss.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Did anybody check the pricing on the platoons?

I did!

US Platoon costs 69,6% of the cost of the single units.
Russia 70,6%
UK 72,4%
Germany 73,1
Japan 74,1

If the cost of the US platoon was 1 higher it would be 73,9 - more than Germany, but less than Japan.

Must I say more?

[CaptainHans]

Platoons if done carefully. Can be the fix to most 3 point infantry. Most 3 point infantry is not worth 3 points and definatly not worth 2. With the platoon we can get the price closer to what it should be 2.6 or 2.8 with most infantry.

I also think comand should not be part of these package deals. I want to take more than one but I don't want to be stuck paying for 3 comanders.

[FlyingDutchman]

Many of the platoon suggestions I have seen jsut lump units together without any historical justification (and would not be playable in historical games taht are limited to certain years!).

Better get cards with proper costing instead of silly platoons...

[XAos]

Platoons could solve the problem of overcosting (compared to defense-5 infantry) that nerfs most of the standard rifle units.
But the problem with the Arisaka Rifle, is not that it's overcosted. It's that every unit available to the Japanese is so cheap that. It's almost impossible to fit 15 units in a 100 point force. The platoon rule actually makes that problem worse. The Japanese need a "platoon" which instead counts as less units than it actually has.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I would agree, but the platoon as listed is something I would field every day as a Japanese player - so making something good better ? - I am nozt sur eif thats the intention of advanced rules...

[fifleche]

Did anybody check the pricing on the platoons?

I did!I did too. If the cost of the US platoon was 1 higher it would be 73,9 - more than Germany, but less than Japan.

Must I say more?Well, it IS American, after all. :rolleyes:

But I would not simply look at the USA platoon, I would rather comment that ALL Axis platoon are "worse" than their allied equivalents...

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, it IS American, after all

Some times I think they should quadruple the cost of all American units, halve the cost of all German units and throw in 6 added SS-Pgr to every German build for free. But I dont think that it enough. Perhaps the Germans should have a special 'We are cool' SA that they can use that automatically wins the game for them if they roll a 1-6 on one die! :D

But I'm sure that somehow, somewhere someone could complain that the Amis are still better....

[fifleche]

UncleJoe, no matter your irony, people DID complain that there is an above-average quantity of above-par US units. And, IMHO, the Garand & the BAR are amongst them. That they are in a "platoon card", no problem there, as that is how they were deployed. But where the sparks fly is when you see those units available at a discount, yes, but at MORE discount than the other nations.

Red Devil: average.
2x Garand: above.
Bazooka: average.
BAR: above.
-->pay 69,6% of the total price.

So, please, lay off the irony and actually look at what I'm saying: Axis platoons have LESS discount % than Allied ones. Fact.

And YES, the USA is the BEST, again.

[Autarch]

Did anybody check the pricing on the platoons?

I did!

US Platoon costs 69,6% of the cost of the single units.
Russia 70,6%
UK 72,4%
Germany 73,1
Japan 74,1

If the cost of the US platoon was 1 higher it would be 73,9 - more than Germany, but less than Japan.

Must I say more?

Yup, the Japanese get screwed again lol.

[Uncle_Joe]

And YES, the USA is the BEST, again.

Except that the GenCon tourneys proved otherwise. Not only did a GERMAN build win, it went undefeated! I cant see how anyone can look at that evidence in the face and say that US have been the best.

Personally, I believe it is the Ranger that puts the US 'over the top'. Because now they can out-cheese the cheesers at their own game. But before that, victory was simply a matter of massing up SS-Pgr. And that has been that way since Set1 (although most people didnt really catch on to that until much later).

And no, I'm not really disputing the fact the US discount is a pittance more than the poor Germans. But simply that people take that and run and continue with the 'US gets all the best stuff 'while poor Germany has to suffer with only the most broken unit in the entire game bar none (at least until the Ranger came along, although even there its still not AS good).

But really, think about what you are complaining about here. That is a 3.5 percent more discount...on 19 points, that equals about half of a POINT of difference. IMO, WHO CARES? If it comes down to that type of splitting hairs, people are NEVER going to be happy.

[mikoyan]

If there is such an American bias, how come there isn't an American equivalent to the Veteran Tiger? I mean, it throws like 15 dice and has a +1 on those dice. It pretty much can one shot a Sherman and can almost one shot the heavier armor.

[Khayman7]

If it comes down to that type of splitting hairs, people are NEVER going to be happy.

I've come to this same conclusion about some people on these boards a long time ago.

[fifleche]

Except that the GenCon tourneys proved otherwise. Not only did a GERMAN build win, it went undefeated! I cant see how anyone can look at that evidence in the face and say that US have been the best.

Personally, I believe it is the Ranger that puts the US 'over the top'. Because now they can out-cheese the cheesers at their own game. But before that, victory was simply a matter of massing up SS-Pgr. And that has been that way since Set1 (although most people didnt really catch on to that until much later).Yes, as you point out, the SSPG is the "brokenest" piece there is, but this is not what I was talking about. Yes, massing SSPG increases dramatically your chances, no one is disputing that. What I pointed was that USA has more units that are -better- (not "TEH BEST") than average, in relation to other nations. And this opinion of mine goes hand-in-hand with the following:And no, I'm not really disputing the fact the US discount is a pittance more than the poor Germans. But simply that people take that and run and continue with the 'US gets all the best stuff 'while poor Germany has to suffer with only the most broken unit in the entire game bar none (at least until the Ranger came along, although even there its still not AS good).It is AXIS, not Germany, that has a worse deal, point in case: it's the "poor Japan" that gets the worse deal out of the proposed platoons. I am not, nor ever have been, anti-US pro-germany. Please.

My beef with the proposition as-is:

1- That, of the proposed platoons, all use the basic 3-pointer as the building block. USA, being bereft of a 3-pointer unit, uses the Garand, a 4-pointer.
2-The Garand IS considered better-for-points than regular "vanilla" 3-pointers, BUT:
3- The USA gets the biggest discount, while being the side who should "need" it the LEAST. Let's face it; why are platoon cards proposed? Let me quote the text verbatim:

Platoon Pricing:
There is a small problem with balance in the current game. The number of ‘playable’ figures, the ones that are worth their cost is a lower percentage than we would like.

So, by giving some units a discount in "platoon cards", it is supposed to help them see more play. So I get the message that the Red Devil cpt, the Garand & the BAR don't really see play often? Really?But really, think about what you are complaining about here. That is a 3.5 percent more discount...on 19 points, that equals about half of a POINT of difference. IMO, WHO CARES? If it comes down to that type of splitting hairs, people are NEVER going to be happy.Cost of US platoon w/o discount: 23
Cost of Russian platoon w/o discount: 17
Cost of UK: 29
Cost of Germany: 26
Cost of Japanese platoon w/o discount: 27

Now, applying the SAME discount as the proposed US platoon gets, we have:
Russia: 11.832 pts, right on!
UK: 20.184, 1 pt lower, more-or-less, than what is offered.
Germany: 18.096 pts instead of 19, like UK, 1 pt, more-or-less
Japan: 18.792, thus 1.2 pts lower.

Why the lower bonus for USA :confused: Those pieces are ALREADY seeing play! Give a discount on M3 Lee's, Hellcats or whatever, but not the BEST discount on the BEST pieces proposed! This system actually, as is, goes OPPOSITE to the stated intent...

If, as stated in the article, the purpose of "platoon pricing" is to encourage less-often played pieces to see more play, it's DEFINITIVELY the SMLE who should garner the greatest "discount" IMHO. In tournament play, it doesn't even see "3-pt filler" role!

[Uncle_Joe]

Japan is always going to be hosed in open purchase play. They simply didnt (historically) have enough material to compete outside of specialized jungle and island environments.

I think the problem is going to stem from the way they are stating the 'platoon' concept and the way they are implementing it. I agree 100% that the Garands and BARs dont need the help. Then again, neither does the SS-Haupt or the MG42. Yet all of those units are included in these package deals.

Do I think that the Garands and whatnot should be heavily discounted? No I dont. But unfortunately, they HAVE made the assinine Ranger unit almost requiring them to price the other units lower or else they wont get used. When you get right down to it, there is NOTHING WRONG with the Mauser either. Its about right when compared to other non-Elite infantry. The Garand is better, but it costs 33% more too.

The thing that kills the Mauser is the existance of the SS-Pgr. If that didnt exist, the Mauser would seem fine for its cost. The Mauser isnt not used because the Garand is so good, its because the SS-Pgr is so good! So, since they apparently refuse to fix the real problem, they will package the Mauser and lower its price instead. The same forces are going to be at work with the Garand as well. Sure, they can give it only a 10% or 15% discount, but then people will still just buy Rangers instead.

Not to mention the fact that the Mauser and the Garand are actually balanced against each considering their relative cost (you pay 33% more for 1 more firepower at Medium and 1 more CA with the potential for an additional firepower if adjacent to a leader). That seems rational to me. The Russian Mosin gets +2 CA, but needs to be adjacent to a leader. His +2 CA would rate a 4 cost, but his disadvantage brings it back to 3. So, if they heavily discount the Mauser groupings but not the Garand, then they are upsetting a balance which is already present.

Look at this way. You say that the Garand is already useful. That was true until Set5. Now all of a sudden those Garands are going to be replaced by Rangers in tournament level builds (and thus become unused). Does that suddenly make the Garand a bad unit? Of course not. Just because a unit isnt used doesnt necessarily mean that ITS cost is not correct. That is the deal with the German infantry. The MAUSER is priced correctly. So, since the Garand and the Mauser are BOTH priced correctly, their discount should be similar. Now consider the other units in the platoons. Both the RDC and the SS-Haupt are fine and present in many builds. The MG42 and the BAR are also fine. But the Bazooka is a little subpar. Dont you think that could warrant that half of a point of difference in the percentage?

I'd like to think that they actually went through an analysis like that, but my guess is that they more or less just put things together based more of 'feel' and flavor.

[mikoyan]

Even thought it's going in the opposite direction that things seem to be going, I would like to see a US Springfield unit. That could probably cost 3 and be a pretty close match to the Mauser unit. It could also be a US 1941 unit.

Personally, I'm not going to exchange my Garand units for Ranger units. The Garand to me is the stereotypical GI that slogged through most of the war. As such, it's a good backbone for a US unit. I will use a couple Ranger units in my builds but mostly because it will make a better spotter than the stupid FO Jeep.

[Thunderjp]

I love the platoon idea, but I think a lot of caution has to be given against making sure the platoons co-exist with the perverbial 'Ranger Swarm' armies intead of simply replacing them. That is, a lot of consideration and play testing should go into platoon design to ensure that they are balanced, and not 'better' or 'worse' than playing with a swarm of superior units.

[Colonel_Coo]

I love the platoon idea, but I think a lot of caution has to be given against making sure the platoons co-exist with the perverbial 'Ranger Swarm' armies intead of simply replacing them. That is, a lot of consideration and play testing should go into platoon design to ensure that they are balanced, and not 'better' or 'worse' than playing with a swarm of superior units.

Platoons that add MG teams for the cheap are going to be dominate. Lock down with the trash units (the free Mauser, Garand and 99 rifles) and then mow them down with the MG team.

[Cpt. John Miller]

Personally, I'm not going to exchange my Garand units for Ranger units. The Garand to me is the stereotypical GI that slogged through most of the war. As such, it's a good backbone for a US unit. I will use a couple Ranger units in my builds but mostly because it will make a better spotter than the stupid FO Jeep.

What do the US need spotters for? Planes? Priest?
Their mortar sure doesn't need em. And I don't think the Rangers can spot for planes because they have Spotter subtype, not the spotter SA. And you don't need a priest I can tell you that much. I like both the Garand and the Rangers myself, but for different uses.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I have been play testing the US and German platoons posted on the WotC site and I have to say the US just shreds those Mauser Kars. Even with the Haup they get chewed up by garands w/ RDCapt. I think there is no making the Mauser Kar worthwhile even in a platoon format. They are cannon fodder and not worth the cost, even with a discount.
MK has 6 dice at medium range vs. 8 Garand w/ Commander bonus.
No contest.
They can't hold the objective, they can't roust anything off the objective. Strictly a filler piece.
I don't think the SSPG will be going anywhere anytime soon.
It's very unfortunate but Germany just SUCKS without them.:(

[Vikingwarrior]

"I don't think the SSPG will be going anywhere anytime soon.
It's very unfortunate but Germany just SUCKS without them."

I think that sums up the problem very well.

[Vikingwarrior]

Where the US has units they can put on the battlefield other then the Ranger with good AI the Germans do not have units with good AI without the SS-Pzgr.

[Uncle_Joe]

EP4 is better at killing infantry than a Sherman.

MG42 is better than a Quad 50 at killing infantry.

Brummbar is about as effective as a Sherman 105 considering blast and the massive frontal armor that means that it will spend less time dodging (and is a few points cheaper).

The thing that made the Amis so good in previous editions was that you never knew if you were going to run into a armor swarm or a parabomb. And any army built to deal with one would be usually be wiped out by the other. The Germans were never really able to pull that trick off until the Vet Tiger, but even there its not as quite as good as the Sherman swarm in many cases. THAT was the real power of the Amis...not any one particularly powerful units, but the ability to have completely different armies that require completely different counters.

HOWEVER, if SS-Pgr were to be limited, then you'd have to believe that Paras (and godawful Rangers) would have to be limited to. Then its back to a one-dimensional threat. Germany has plenty of options for killing infantry (StuG, EP4, MG42, Brummbar, 81mm mtr), but very few dual-role pieces. The removal of the potential to run into a Para-bomb will do wonders for Germany's viability even without mass SS-Pgr.

I have been play testing the US and German platoons posted on the WotC site and I have to say the US just shreds those Mauser Kars. Even with the Haup they get chewed up by garands w/ RDCapt. I think there is no making the Mauser Kar worthwhile even in a platoon format. They are cannon fodder and not worth the cost, even with a discount.
MK has 6 dice at medium range vs. 8 Garand w/ Commander bonus.
No contest.
They can't hold the objective, they can't roust anything off the objective. Strictly a filler piece.

The Mauser is fine. You just cant use it like an SS-Pgr and expect it to work. Kill off the Ami COs and the Garands becomes very expensive for their stats. When we play nowadays, I rarely use SS-Pgr (and none of use Rangers) and I rarely have undue trouble with Garands. Bring a few StuGs and they'll die pretty quickly. StuGs are actually better than Shermans vs infantry in cover. Try out their Vet infantry as well. Just dont expect to go toe to toe with Rangers or Paras with 'non-cheese' units either.

Again, Germany's problem was their shortage of dual-role armor. Limiting elites obviates the need for dual-role armor quite a bit because all of sudden the units that were MEANT to kill infantry can actually do it.

[Cpt. John Miller]

Again, Germany's problem was their shortage of dual-role armor. Limiting elites obviates the need for dual-role armor quite a bit because all of sudden the units that were MEANT to kill infantry can actually do it.

I have started a thread on this subject(before I read this) and I would love for you to post there. You have basicly answered my question of the MK as well as it could be answered. You have the issue on lock and I would like to hear more.
Thanks for dropping mad knowledge on a newb.;)

[mikoyan]

What do the US need spotters for? Planes? Priest?
Their mortar sure doesn't need em. And I don't think the Rangers can spot for planes because they have Spotter subtype, not the spotter SA. And you don't need a priest I can tell you that much. I like both the Garand and the Rangers myself, but for different uses.
I like the Priest.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I like the Priest.

Sorry.:o

I just don't. I would always take 2 mortars and the change.

[fifleche]

UncleJoe, if Japan gets hosed because their units were historically weaker, shouldn't they cost LESS, and not MORE? I mean, no matter how weak they were and are represented, as long as they price them correctly, they coult technically do fine, barring some across-the-board weakness, like lack of AT power. Yet the platoon system "hoses" them. :confused:

As for the Garand, I saw your argument and came to the conclusion that most of our arguments stem from it's evaluation. I feel that the Garand, as is, is undercosted, as much so as the SSPG, all proportion kept. After all, the thing rolls 1 dice MORE than the Ranger, costing 20% less! 9/8 dices, a CA of 8, all of that if adjacent to a leader. A bit like the SSPG is a gamebreaker because the SS-Hauptmann is always near... Try playing it out with a RDC & 3 Garands VS a SS-HF & 4 Mausers, and see who wins.

The BAR is also an abusive piece. The Bren is monstrous, too, but costlier at least. But this is more a deep dislike of the "covering fire" SA than any problem with the stats of the piece itself.

So, I restate, if the purpose of platoon cards is to help pieces see play, the SSPG being the worse offender, in your view, it should be the German mauser platoon that gets the biggest discount.

As for me, I've been playing with the new pieces since the day they came out, and the Garand didn't completely dissapear, nor the Red Devil cpt, nor the BAR (top-tier) and, quite frankly, the Bazooka is still seen from time to time, because the US simply doesn't have anything better to replace it with! Mausers are unheard of, as are MG-42's (SSPG kill infantry good, are 2 units at 5/5 for the cost of ONE MG-42 and most if not all combat is at medium range or less). Of course the SS-Hauptmann is there in almost every build, tho. So I cannot, for the best of me, fathom why, oh why, do the US get the largest discount.

Perhaps I'm just blind.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I think the US version of the Mauser Kar rifle platoon should have buffalo soldiers instead of Garands. Or Marine Rifleman. Both are never played like the MK. I also agree the US build is current and overly disounted.
Perhaps the German platoon should have an Oberleutnant instead of a Haup?

[grizzlybear]

how about adding sergeants to the mix

[Uncle_Joe]

UncleJoe, if Japan gets hosed because their units were historically weaker, shouldn't they cost LESS, and not MORE? I mean, no matter how weak they were and are represented, as long as they price them correctly, they coult technically do fine, barring some across-the-board weakness, like lack of AT power. Yet the platoon system "hoses" them.

I wasnt referring to the discount per se. But simply that because Japan has no answer to heavy rear armor, they are going to be at a disadvantage regardless of the discount in open play. Even if the discount were 50%, they will still like lose to a 2 KV or 2 Croc build. They simply dont have the capacity to take out the heavy armor.

So, I restate, if the purpose of platoon cards is to help pieces see play, the SSPG being the worse offender, in your view, it should be the German mauser platoon that gets the biggest discount.

IMO, that is incorrect logic. If the Brits suddenly got a SS-Pgr clone (Desert Rat Elite!! ;) ) and he was priced at 4 points, would that suddenly mean that the SMLE needs a bigger discount than the Mauser? No, of course not. But if the discount WASNT bigger, then still no one would play the SMLE because the Desert Rat would be a better buy. Such is the folly of trying to bass-ackwardsly balance the point costs. You cant just compare them to the piece that is rendering them obsolete and assume that that rates a bigger discount.

Thats why I think the best solution is a simple limit. That way the competition from those elites is eliminated. SS-Pgr or Rangers or Desert Rats may all be better buys, but they arent going to be present in any numbers so you cant base you strategy on them and you opponent doesnt have to metagame against them.

[Kaufschtick]

The BAR is also an abusive piece. The Bren is monstrous, too, but costlier at least. But this is more a deep dislike of the "covering fire" SA than any problem with the stats of the piece itself.

I always thought the "SA: Covering Fire" should have caused the attacked unit to roll one less AI attack dice.

[Uncle_Joe]

The BAR is also an abusive piece. The Bren is monstrous, too, but costlier at least. But this is more a deep dislike of the "covering fire" SA than any problem with the stats of the piece itself.

Yes, I find it a quite silly SA too. I dont ever find it gamebreaking though. It cant affect armor and the units themselves are fairly weak for the cost (and have no CA ability which is critical for infantry IMO).

But no one is going to base their winning strategy on the BAR. Its just too situational of a unit. And in fact, its actually weaker without elites in the mix since there will tend to be less effect from negating a 6 die Mauser shot over an 8 die SS-Pgr shot.

Unless the Amis spring 11 points for an SE Capt (a much less rewarding investment with a max of 2 Paras), the initiative advantage should largely be with the Germans. At worst its 50/50. I myself dont put too much stock in an otherwise weak unit that only functions it primary ability half the time.

Now the Bren with the Canadian NCO is pretty irritating and bordering on cheese, but that is the kind of 'cool' combo that they seem to be looking to reward. Send a Brummbar or a StuG their way and kill off half of that combo and the other half is again, pretty weak.

[polish_horsy]

we play that units hit by covering fire are at -1 modifier. Hell at least you get to roll the dice. not being able to roll dice at all makes the axis player very annoyed.

[Kaufschtick]

we play that units hit by covering fire are at -1 modifier. Hell at least you get to roll the dice. not being able to roll dice at all makes the axis player very annoyed.

I think -1 to each attack dice is too powerful. Give the BARs and BRENs a close assault value and -1 dice, seems about right to me. Now an MG42 might cause one to loose your attack altogether...

[fifleche]

UJ, I pointed out the deficiency in AT power of the Japanese too. Yet, they get hosed in platoon pricing, on top of that. This makes no sense whatsoever. The Japanses are screwed because they lack proper AT attacks; let's give them even less chances by giving them less of a discount on infantry platoons!" :confused:

As for the flawed logic, I was simply basing my argument upon the stated intent, on the article page, of the "platoon pricing" system. IF the purpose is to encourage a different unit selection by offering discounts on less-desirable units, THEN the SMLE & Mausers should have MORE than the oft-played Garand & Mosins. It is logic within that system. But if you consider the "platoon pricing" out of that WOTC-stated context, you will of course arrive to a different conclusion than I do. I just happen to follow the leader, whereas you beat the bushes. :)

I agree fully that limiting 5/5 infantry is the easiest/more sensible way to do this, yet it feels... incomplete, too. After all, when paratroopers were deployed, they were more than a pair of squads, there were a whole DIVISION dropped! The same can be told about the even-more numerous SS-Panzergrenadier. Thus, limiting isn't to my taste. I would rather see a repricing upwards of all 5/5 infantry pieces rather than limiting them. But this is a whole different can of worms.

As for not basing their winning strategy on the BAR, have you ever played the official D-Day scenario? The one where the Allies have the initiative each round? Blam. It happened once and can happen again. Stupid SA :mad:

[Uncle_Joe]

I agree fully that limiting 5/5 infantry is the easiest/more sensible way to do this, yet it feels... incomplete, too. After all, when paratroopers were deployed, they were more than a pair of squads, there were a whole DIVISION dropped! The same can be told about the even-more numerous SS-Panzergrenadier. Thus, limiting isn't to my taste. I would rather see a repricing upwards of all 5/5 infantry pieces rather than limiting them. But this is a whole different can of worms.

Agreed. The best solution would indeed be a repricing or a tweaking (like all 5/5s are treated as 4/4 Steely Resolve). But I think we are all in agreement that the odds of that happening are about nil. In absence of that, I think a limit is the easiest and most consistant way to otherwise fix the problem.

As for not basing their winning strategy on the BAR, have you ever played the official D-Day scenario? The one where the Allies have the initiative each round? Blam. It happened once and can happen again. Stupid SA

Thats a broken scenario rule, not a broken game piece. Play a scenario where the Axis automatically get the initiative each round and see how useful those BARs are. :D

But it is indeed a stupid SA...I mean, my troops can handle getting blasted by 105s, shelled by 81mm mortars, subjected to half a million rounds of .50cal from a quad mount, but god forbid an AUTOMATIC RIFLE (with a small clip!) fires at them. :rolleyes:

Then again, there are awful lot of stupid SAs and abilities out there...

BMW anti-tank assault troops? Please....
Head Shot? I guess we all forgot how to button up our tanks
Artillery Hunter??? Um....where did THAT one come from...

WW2: The Gathering.... at its finest! ;)

[Qmark]

WW2: The Gathering.... at its finest! ;)Hell, I've gotten used to 1-5% of any given Magic set being not-horrible. Why should another Wizards line be any different?

[Richter von Manthofen]

On Eben Emael the wehrmacht dropped around 60-150 (Must look it up) Fallschirmjäger - no need for complete divisions.

[XAos]

Except that the GenCon tourneys proved otherwise. Not only did a GERMAN build win, it went undefeated! I cant see how anyone can look at that evidence in the face and say that US have been the best.

Personally, I believe it is the Ranger that puts the US 'over the top'. Because now they can out-cheese the cheesers at their own game.
But the winning squad from gencon promptly got banned. By restricting the number of heros played. It's more than a bit moot to consider a squad that it's now illegal to play.

[Marquis]

Uncle Joe, you arn't quite right the top team at Gencon also had Japanses heros and commanders. So it was an Axis team that won, and yes it almost lost to my Paratroppers and mortars, one cover roll less, one cover roll more and the record would be different. Either way I'm glad that the heros are limited and I'm glad that defensive fire now has a chance a killing a hero. But I digress...

[boersma8]

I always liked Northern Rommels idea of platoon cards and am glad to see such an idea adapted (adopted?). But my platoons have more units than the examples posted in the expert rules. I thought each figure represented fewer men, ie a US platoon has 3 rifle squads of two Garands each for a total of six. :confused:

I dislike that all the units in the platoon still count towards the 15 unit limit. They should also get a break on that, particularly the Japanese and Russians. One drawback I think should be incorporated into platoon rules would be that it couldn't move or attack (other than defensive fire/overwatch) the turn after it loses its commander ("Where's Apone? Where's Apone!?").

I agree with shadowhooch and others, I would rather see across the board recosting and revamping of units capabilities toward historical performance to correct the "small problem." New cards with new costs and data labled as EXPERT would be aces in my book.

Yes, that'd be nice. O the other hand, two different sets of cards?......Why not reissue a limited number of them and prize them corectly ( SS panzergrenadier 7, Sherman 23, jagdpanther 40, Ranger 6/7, US mortar 21etc. ) While we're at it give German vehicles higher AV values, Katyusha and Nebelwerfer indirect fire, all mortars need spotters and give some planes the dice they deserve against vehicles ( Sturmovik) a la HHR ( 14 dice at range zero...) Seems a lot less work and trouble to me than inventing expert rules ( although I really like the concepts of grazing fire, tank shock and defilade fire....)

[Marquis]

Seems a lot less work and trouble to me than inventing expert rules ( although I really like the concepts of grazing fire, tank shock and defilade fire....)

Are you kidding? Reprint the cards costs money, repricing the units would be a ton of work and there is no guarrantee people would be happy in the end. New rules cost nothing but brain time and some webspace that they are already paying for. Platoon Pricing is their attempt to make poorly priced units more acceptable.

[boersma8]

Are you kidding? Reprint the cards costs money, repricing the units would be a ton of work and there is no guarrantee people would be happy in the end. New rules cost nothing but brain time and some webspace that they are already paying for. Platoon Pricing is their attempt to make poorly priced units more acceptable.

You're probably right. Maybe they should've waited another year before releasing this game and have it playtested more.....:mad: It's a terrific game, but it shouldn't have needed all these fixes.....

[Uncle_Joe]

But the winning squad from gencon promptly got banned.

OK, then look at the winning army from the BotB tournament...11 SS-Pgr, 1 Hero. In fact, look at EVERY German army in the top 5 for that tournament...what do you see? A mass of SS-Pgr.

Its LONG past time for that unit to be restricted or changed. And along with it, take care of the rest of the 5/5s so that we dont see Parabombs or Ranger swarms anymore either.

[Autarch]

Are you kidding? Reprint the cards costs money, repricing the units would be a ton of work and there is no guarrantee people would be happy in the end. New rules cost nothing but brain time and some webspace that they are already paying for. Platoon Pricing is their attempt to make poorly priced units more acceptable.

It is my impression that these rules changes are only going to be available online, probably as addenda in the FAQ or articles in the archive. If WotC wants to go all out, they could recycle the rules manual template and insert new text and diagrams. Players could then download/print it at their own expense.

How would doing this for rules be any different than having discussions on recosting/stating units and providing the final changes by editing the cards then making them available online for download/printing? And if WotC is going to reprint the manual for purchase, how much more expensive can it be to produce 20-30 game cards than a 32+ page rulebook?

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of platoon cards. I'd like to see something like an "H" in the corner denoting if it is historical, and some platoon specific SAs as well. Its a new fun factor to extend longevity of the game until that next set comes out.

But I think fixing the "small problem with balance" would be better done through a more direct method of recosting and restating problem units.

[jlutin]

I would rather they reprice cards that are out now than keep issuing an endless stream of more and more powerful units. That has killed many a game.

Besides, let people send in the old cards for free replacements. That will build a database of players and allow for marketing opportunties. (ie more junk mail).

[Cpt. John Miller]

I would rather they reprice cards that are out now than keep issuing an endless stream of more and more powerful units. That has killed many a game.

Besides, let people send in the old cards for free replacements. That will build a database of players and allow for marketing opportunties. (ie more junk mail).

Not gonna happen. All the guys lobbying for recosted units are spinning their wheels. Let's concentrate on some fixes that don't require WotC to dismantle the entire game. Which they won't do anyway. No new unit costs. Can you imagine if instead of limiting heros to one per build they instead just doubled their cost? That would be a sucky answer and it still is.

[NorthernRommel]

Not gonna happen. All the guys lobbying for recosted units are spinning their wheels. Let's concentrate on some fixes that don't require WotC to dismantle the entire game. Which they won't do anyway. No new unit costs.


Some of us already have done that. But to do it properly takes time I agree.

If armies were restricted to nations only (with some units designated common - Vickers as maxim, Stuart both american and british, etc.) then it would easily permit better balance in army formation and play. Sure the Germans would still have SSPGs, but combining them with Japanese units to play is just insulting.


Can you imagine if instead of limiting heros to one per build they instead just doubled their cost? That would be a sucky answer and it still is.

Hereos as mechanic was poorly implemented unfortunately. So rather then start out using it in a conservative fashion, they now have to backpedal a lot in order to make useful changes. If they had released a set that was half heroes and half other thing then maybe it could have carried it off well. But that would have required more playtesting then I think they are comfortable with.

[Autarch]

There have been a dizzying array of platoon suggestions posted from humorous (polish horsy) to original (Northern Rommel) to eye meltingly extensive (M2A0).

But WotC have put some limitations on platoon builds: 1 for 1 unit count toward 15 limit, no more than 5 minis per platoon, cost ceiling of 35 points. The upper limit of discounting seems to be about 70% of cost.

So in essence, WotC is saying here is our chance to get 30% off the most overpriced units as long as it falls within those parameters.

Right, on with it, then.

Jagdgruppe A
1 Nashorn, 1 Luftwaffe Infantrymen
Cost: 35

Jagdgruppe B
1 Jagdpather
Cost: 41 (eh I know, over 35 but what are you going to do)

Jagdgruppe C
1 Panzer IV G, 1 Panzerschreck, 1 Goliath
Cost 35

Jagdgruppe D
2 FlaK 36
Cost 27

Jagdzug
2 Sd Kfz 251, 2 Panzerfaust, 1 BMW
Cost 35

Panzerzug
SS Panther G
Cost 35

Scouttrupp
2 Puma
Cost 33

AA Gruppe
1 FlaK 36, 1 Wirbelwind, 1 FlaK 38, 1 Luftwaffe Infantryman
Cost 35

Panzergrenadier Zug
2 Sd Kfz 251, 4 Panzergrenadiers
Cost 34

etc and on and on

It seems it would be easier just to have a formula that players could plug units into and get a discount on instead of having lists and lists of platoons.

I do like the idea of platoon card SAs, such as Human Wave (no stacking limits, units in platoon only count as .5 point toward 15 unit limit) Suicide Squad (ignores 1st Damage marker) and Infiltrators (deploy in enemy occupied hexes during any assault phase, may attack).

These platoons would be at cost, but gain the SA with the only caveat they must remain within 1 hex of each other.

[XAos]

But WotC have put some limitations on platoon builds: 1 for 1 unit count toward 15 limit,

I think that limit is one of the reasons that platoon cards won't solve the problem. They need to break that rule explicitly or the Japanese army for one, will never be playable.
e.g. If they change that to, each platoon counts as 5 units for the 15 limit. Regardless of the actual number of minis.
So a platoon of 7 Arisaka rifles + an Imperial sargent for say 30 points would count as only 5 units.

[Colonel_Panic]

I do like the idea of platoon card SAs, such as Human Wave (no stacking limits, units in platoon only count as .5 point toward 15 unit limit) Suicide Squad (ignores 1st Damage marker) and Infiltrators (deploy in enemy occupied hexes during any assault phase, may attack).

These platoons would be at cost, but gain the SA with the only caveat they must remain within 1 hex of each other.

Yes sir!
This is exactly why I really like the idea with platoon cards, it gives the gamedesigners (WotC) freedom to "fix" pricing, and to tweak SAs or create new interesting units out of old dustcollectors, and it also opens up a whole new world of opportunities for creating "random" games.

[boersma8]

we play that units hit by covering fire are at -1 modifier. Hell at least you get to roll the dice. not being able to roll dice at all makes the axis player very annoyed.

Yes. Another "solution" would simply be to also give the Axis ( esp. Germany) a unit with covering fire. At least then if your crippled by it you can say to yourself: "Maybe I should've put some units with CF in my own army too".

Or ( but that would be redefining an SA again) CF only workd when you've scored at least one hit ( disruption) As is now, a mere attack is enough, even if they're all misses......

[boersma8]

how about adding sergeants to the mix

Yes, a new NCO and/ or officer giving an attack bonus ( +1 or possibly + 2 extra dice) to regular ( = 4/4/ or lower inf.); ok problem with the mortars, so explicitely state Mauser, SMLE, Mosin Nagant etc.) would suddenly make regular infantry playable again too. Let's say this NCO costs 7 points. SA as stated. take 1 of these guys + 5 Mausers ( which now have attacks comparable to SS panzergrenadiers...) for a total of 22 points. You could get 4 SS panzergrenadiers for this, but chances are they NOW will be shot by the regular infantry and you have two extra pieces ( including the officer). First I thought the officer should be very costly, but if you want to stimulate the purchase of regular infantry, I suppose such an officer should be rather cheap. You can give him def 4 with steely resolve two, so he won't be that easily taken out either.....( by a single attack)