HHR Agenda

[Comassion]

Even though the rules aren't quite finalized, it's not too early to discuss exactly how we want to change the game. What we want to do here is:

1. Identify what is unbalanced and ahistorical in the current A&A game.

2. Decide what course of action we will take to rectify these issues.

After that, we can start discussing the changes we want to make to each individual unit, and release appropriate HHR stat cards for them.

So, to start off, I put the question to the other members of the Committee, and the community at large:

What is currently unbalanced or ahistorical with the current game?

[PatrickWR]

Currently, AAM is designed to be played as a 7-turn "pounce on the objective" game. As such, players will have to be both aggressive and tactical to secure the objective and eliminate resistance by turn 7.

However, the initial deployment zone (5 hexes from each opposing board edge) renders 50% of the map effectively moot for the purposes of the game. Tanks and infantry start the game altogether too close to both each other and the objective. Certain tanks take advantage of this to swarm and destroy expensive heavy tanks by turn 2 or 3.

I think the first issue to be addressed (before talking about changing individual units) is to agree that vehicles should start the game one hex in (as opposed to the standard 5). This would make for a much more tactical and enjoyable game. Infantry can still deploy 5 hexes in (so as not to minimize their game impact).

What do you guys think? One hex in sound appropriate for vehicles? Keep infantry at 5 hexes in?

[EricM 2404]

I would say 1 or 2 hex's in.Some of the first hex terrain is pretty meager. How is this justified historicaly (out of curiosity),no need for an article just a sentance or two.

Things I think need changed

1.Starting hex, as discussed by PatrickWR.
2.More map positions when rolling to determine the map played.
3.Adding The Month to Year (ex. Feb. 1942), it wouldn't take too much more space on the card
4.Sherman.
5."Easy Eight".
6.M3 Lee.
7.3" gun (just change it to smething else because of the size)
8.Helcat(Ditto, although this isn't the point of this rules reveiw)
9.PanzerII
10.PanzerIV (non SS)
11.Jagdpanther
12.Halftracks In general need fixed
13.Changing paratrooper would nerf SEs, but it would kill the SNLF
14.Non SS Panzergrendier
15.SMLE
16.Royal Engineer
17.snipers should be able to shoot one another

hmm thats all I can think of with my short attention span

[Dagger]

What do you guys think? One hex in sound appropriate for vehicles? Keep infantry at 5 hexes in?

Good first discussion. Currently we play almost identical to your parameters described here. 1 hex in for vehicles (that limits road quick vehicles to one per road) and 3 hexes in for infantry (allows access to cover).

Though I don't vote, my opinion would be that this would be a good first change as it doesn't change any unit stats but simply changes starting tactics, allowing for the things Patrick mentioned, to take place. The only acception being vehicles that have the SA Vanguard be allowed to utilize that SA as per normal but still following the 1 hex in starting point.

Dagger

[jiminy_fatal]

I agree totally with the starting hex positiion and had the opportunity to test it out tonight. (I guess that's why I am a playtester :(

Anyways, Vehicles started at the most 2 hexes in while infantry could deploy too 5. The game was much better, I could use the extended range of my large german tanks a ton better.

As far as historical concerns could go you could probably explain it something like this


"usually infantry and scout cars/jeeps would make the initial forays into unidentified terroritores looking for the enemy, lines of approach, and mines etc. Once contact was made with the enemy, the vehicles were usually called in from a central staging area. Farley Mowat's autobiography, And No Birds Sang, clearly explains this tactic. Frankly it is very dangerous to send one or two tanks rumbling alone up front... Perhaps north african campaigns might have different rules, but continental europe would easily fit into these situations.

[Domhnall101]

Not to be repetative but I agree.

Balancewise
I prefer the first 2 hex for vehicles over just the first as it give a little more of a tactical option to the players. Retaining the 5 hex for infantry works too. In my mind it allows for more effective armor infantry co-operation than now where you are usually obliged to place everything forward for possession of the objective and to manouver you vehicles in a sensable way I find that one has to move ones vehicles back and or horizontally to bring the mto where you want them. ( if that makes sense to anyone) And Jimny Fatals point about jeeps and scout cars is still valid if we assign vangard to the right combination of 'scout vehicles' .

Historical
EricM 2404 makes a good point with adding months where possible and I would like to see an addition of battle fronts, probably in abreviation such as North Africa -NA, EEF-Euroean Easter Front etc.
i am drafting a couple of rought layouts for new stat cards so HHR stat cards are clearly different for Wotc offical cards. And I will circulate them for options as we go but adding this kin of info is easy and helps bring flavour.

Q. Should we deal with units by nationality or type. ie.'all Russians' or 'all AT Guns'
Perhaps a check list of the complete sets and people call out the units they have issues with and just deal with those we feel are a bit odd. This seems like an obvious statement but obvious doesn't get hurt from being repeated.

[Timmon]

Hi,

Im not sure if im allowed to propose things for discussion, but ill go ahead anyway :)

Machine guns (all of them) have too good change to disrupt and then kill light armor. Historically, there was good reason for using even thin armor plating on recon vehicles, and a reason for developing & deploying half tracks with armor.

Im currently eploring a fix as follows: all machine guns have SA: not armor piercing: this unit suffers -1 against vehicles of sub types armored car, tank and half track.

Im not sure if this completely covers all the intended vehicles though. In effect, all mg's retain ability to occasionally disrupt (and then to kill) light armor, but its significantly reduced.

Other single unit issues are
- Humber vs. 222 vs. PzII: humber's armor rating seems too strong, even taking into account speed of the vehicle, as both 222 and PzII are also known as fast vehicles. Additionally, PzII is gunned just like 222 and should be equal in ratings. Also, 222 and pzII have real turrets, Humber does not (at least not before mkIII AFAIK).

-German mortar: seems too useless as it lacks long range. Equally, Japanese mortar seems too good to be true, although I dont have a clue to its true performance.

-Snipers need to be limited to 0-1 per army build, as they were never deployed concentrated (kinda defeats purpose, as enemy looking for snipers is equally deadly and wary against single sniper or a platoon of snipers).

Just my 5 euro cents,

Timmon

[Domhnall101]

for Ease of access I am adding Dr. Cornelius's well thought out posting

I will be commenting on it in his posting but I am putting here to bring his ideas into the mix as easily as possible

I think it would be great for AAM to have a set of historical rules, especially if WotC officially supports the rules. Anything less than official recognition is just another set of house rules.

I applaud the members of the HHR committee, but am skeptical anything coherent will come out of a committee format. Have any of you ever tried working with a committee and especially management by consensus? Even with the best of intentions it is usually a mess.

I highly recommend having a leader/coordinator who will set the agenda, manage the process and have final authority.

Now try getting a committee to agree on who the HHR Rules Tsar will be and you start to see my point.

Here is my take on Historical House Rules:

The Doctor’s Wargame House Rules
Version 0.1

Goals:
#1. A system likely to be adopted in some way by WotC/AH, preferably as a supported tournament format.

#2. Modify AAM to be a more a historical-based, light tactical wargame and less a special ability driven game.

#3. Keep it simple. Do not add complexity.

#4. Only change what is absolutely necessary. This means changing only general rules and modifying special abilities. No changing point costs or statistics.

#5. Maintain balance between nationalities and differences in tactics and play styles. For example, US has cheap units like Sherman and Stuart that support rush tactics, Germany has variety of tanks with superior AT armament and long range which require skill and finesse.

#6. Encourage the use of “staple” units like MG, Mortar, Halftrack, etc. that were historically prevalent. Discourage the overuse of specialty units and “trick” tactics like Jeep+Bazooka and Flamethrowers in general.

1. General Rule Changes.
1.1. Setup: Vehicles set up one hex from the map edge, infantry sets up 5 hexes in.

1.2. Light Vehicles Blocking Tanks: Should vehicles with a base defense of 1 be able to block tanks? Example: Jeep blocking Tiger.

1.3. Stacking Limit: Should the stacking limit be increased from 2 to 3 units? (requires extensive playtest to make sure infantry is not too strong)

1.4. Soldiers vs Artillery: Is it useful to make a distinction between Soldiers and Towed Artillery?

1.5. Tournament Rules: Can the DCI tiebreaker be improved? Does the DCI tiebreaker encourage stalling or “gaming” the victory condition in 60 minutes? Can tournament rules be changed to work better in 60 minutes? For example, checking for Objective hex control starting at the end of turn 6.

1.6. Tournament Armor Advantage: Does the all-armor strategy have an undue advantage due to point denial in a 60 minute timed tournament? If so, is there a way to encourage combined arms without force composition limits? Example Tiebreaker: each player scores victory points for surviving units, infantry on the objective hexes count double VP.

1.7. Tournament Random Maps: Is it unbalancing or unfair for each pair of players to roll separately for maps? For example, one player may play the same map multiple times in a tournament. Is it better to have all players play on the same map each round of a tournament? Proposed Solution: Tournament Judge rolls a d6 before each round and each pair of players plays the map rolled. Re-roll if the same map is rolled more than once. (This ensures that all players have a “level playing ground” and guarantees that most maps will be used in a tournament.)

1.8. In Good Order: Define a new game term In Good Order to mean a unit that is not Disrupted or Damaged.

2. Force Composition Requirements.
2.1. Is it necessary or desirable to have force composition limits? For example, no more than 70% vehicles or soldiers in armies of 150 points and less.

2.2. Is it necessary or desirable to limit the number of certain specialty or support units? For example, no more than one Sniper in 100 points, no more than two in 150+ points.

3. Special Ability Changes
3.1. Flamethrowers: specifically, how big a problem is the Crocodile? Should Flamethrower auto-kill be limited to units in good order? Note that Flamethrowers were historically used against fixed positions like bunkers, pillboxes and entrenched infantry. Flamethrowers were not commonly used against armored vehicles, for a variety of reasons.

3.2. Scout Car Strike & Fade: Is the Humber unrealistic as it is used in game play? Does the Humber make certain units like AT Guns and Leaders much more vulnerable than they should be?

3.3. Jeep as an assault vehicle: Is the Jeep+Bazooka/Flamethrower realistic and does it upset game balance or discourage use of certain staple units? Shouldn't the Halftrack be the assault vehicle?

3.4. Banzai Charge / Angriff with AT Guns: Is this an issue, and is it resolved by defining Towed Artillery as a separate type?

3.5. Snipers: Are Snipers too powerful? Do Snipers discourage the use of staple units like MG and Mortar?
Proposed Solution: Snipers may attack other Snipers within range and LOS.

3.6. Paratroopers: Change Paratrooper SA to Vanguard 6. (Credit to Der Leiter)

3.7. Head Shot: Change Head Shot to affect only Vehicles with printed front defense of 3 or less. (This basically covers all open-topped vehicles and a few light tanks.)

3.8. BAR Gunner: Change Covering Fire to “Soldiers with point cost of 5 or less attacked by this unit may not attack this turn.” (Covering Fire is undercosted and deters the use of AT Guns.)

3.9. Veteran Rhino: How to fix the Rhino?- Remove Veteran Crew? Replace Veteran Crew with SS-Determination? Make Veteran Rhino Unique?

3.10. Cossack Captain + Tank Transport: Is it an issue?

3.11. Halftracks: How to make Halftracks more cost effective?
Increase carrying capacity to two units of total cost 10 or less? Change Transport rules to be more flexible?

thank you Dr Cornelius

[Fluffy]

I like the 1-2 hex idea, althou it is not very realistic, infantry in front of tank? sounds a bit weird, but if it works, better.

About balancing, the thing I find most unbalancing nowadays are the sherman-panzerIV comparison and the AT gun's price, they just die too easilly to humbers or even sd kfd 222

[Comassion]

Im not sure if im allowed to propose things for discussion, but ill go ahead anyway

Everyone is welcome to speak here. The more input, the better.

I favor using setup rules using just 1 hex in for vehicles, and 5 in for Infantry (for the standard game).

How is this justified historicaly (out of curiosity),no need for an article just a sentance or two.

Starting further back better allows the Germans to take advantage of the extended range SA that much of their armor has. This has both historical and balance benefits, since German armor is currently priced with Extended Range in mind, and German weapons and superior optics historically allowed German tanks to hit Allied armor more accurately at longer ranges. Starting vehicles further back lets the Germans actually do that, while the standard setup rules allow allied armor to get in under Extended ranges on the very first turn.

EricM 2404 makes a good point with adding months where possible and I would like to see an addition of battle fronts, probably in abreviation such as North Africa -NA, EEF-Euroean Easter Front etc.

While I'm sure we have room on the cards for both of these, I think that the work entailed for adding the appropriate month to each card is a bit much. First, we'd have to pick the appropriate criteria - what month is appropriate? Is it the month that the first vehicle rolls off the assembly line, the first time it saw combat, or when it was generally available? Beyond that, we'd have to add Theatre and Month to every unit in the set, and overall, the addition of the Month doesn't add much to play relevance, except for people who specifically want a May 1942 battle, or people who are running a campaign with monthly intervals. I think it's better to keep our own job simple, and only change the Year where appropriate (like on the KV-1).

[PatrickWR]

I like the 1-2 hex idea, althou it is not very realistic, infantry in front of tank? sounds a bit weird, but if it works, better.


Ah, but you aren't forced to deploy your infantry 5 hexes in...if you want to keep your tactical force together, deploy the infantry alongside the tank, or one hex in front of 'em.

Everyone, hold onto your specific unit concerns, we'll have a forum for those soon enough. I think we should put this "1 hex for vehicles, 5 hexes for infantry" thing to a vote and possibly move on...?

[Bobsalt]

Personally, my friends and I have been starting with everything at 2 hexes. Yes, this does slow the infantry down, but it also has increased the use of jeeps and halftracks. I can see the reasoning behind 1 hex for vehicles, 5 for infantry, as this does allow for a "time on target" attack, but I think having everything start together is more realistic. It also makes for more complex decision making - do I send the armor on ahead, or do I hold back and wait for the infantry support to come up? Perhaps a compromise of starting everything at 3 hexes?

[PatrickWR]

Bob, see my post above. If the tanks are forced to start 1 hex in, tactics-minded players will willingly keep their infantry near the tanks for force cohesion purposes. The net effect amongst us historical players will be tanks on hex 1, infantry on hexes 2-5. Still encourages jeep and half-track play so that infantry can keep up with the tanks.

[Comassion]

We've gotten a lot of good input on this thread, thank you everyone. I'd like to break it down now into a subset of categories that the committee members can vote on.

Basically, most of the items below will form general topics for revisions. Those items are broken out into general unit types. Note that each unit falling into a specific category can still be dealt with inidividually - for example, the Easy-Eight has obviously ahistorical stats, but that doesn't mean that all heavy armor needs fixing. All mortars, on the other hand, can't fire indirectly, and I propose that we address that.

After more than half of us vote yes on any agenda item, we'll start a seperate thread for each agenda item to discuss it. Once we have our agenda, I'll start the threads a few at a time, so we aren't bogged down discussing ten things at once.

For each unit category (I'll use AT guns as an example), we'll look at the whole of the units. What's wrong with AT guns? Do they die too easily? Can they not kill armor as well as they should? Can they move around the battlefield too quickly? Once we decide what's wrong with AT guns and how to fix it, we then address the individual units, applying the change that we come up with for AT guns to each one and costing it appropriately.

So, general categories for our agenda:

Setup rules: Do we change them? I vote yes.

Adding availability month to stat cards: I vote no.

Adding theatre of operations to stat cards: I vote no.

Force composition: Should we add rules that impose limits on how much of an army can consist of a particular unit or unit type? An all-mortar army is certainly unrealistic, but I beleive that if our revisions are done well, force composition will take care of itself. I vote that we don't add force composition rules.


Unit categories to address:

Heavy armor (Armor 6-8 tanks): I feel that most heavy tanks are fine, I vote no.

Medium armor (Armor 4-5 tanks): Again, I think that most medium tanks are fine. I vote no.

Light armor (Armor 2-3 tanks): Machineguns and mortars can seriously threaten light armor at all ranges. Is that historical? I vote that we examine light tanks in general.

Tank Destroyers: TDs like the Nashorn, Archer, and M-18 Hellcat vary widely in their abilities - so much so that I feel the units should be addressed seperately. I therefore vote no to addressing Tank Destroyers as a whole.

Halftracks: Currently they seem too expensive to have the place that they historically had on the battlefield. And is fighting platform a realistic SA? I vote that we examine halftracks.

Scout cars: Strike and fade makes them extremely hard to kill, even with AT guns. I vote we examine scout cars.

AT guns: They can move at the same rate as a soldier (if they don't fire), and seem to die too easily without really posing a big threat to tanks. I vote that we examine AT guns.

Machineguns: They're almost on the money, but weren't machineguns historically more static units than they are in A&AM? I vote that we examine MGs.

Mortars: No indirect fire, and just as mobile as regular infantry. I vote that we examine mortars.

Snipers: Superior Camo may be too powerful, and several people seem to want to see sniper duels at ranges greater than 1. Are sniper duels realistic, however? I vote that we examine snipers.

Paratroopers: Many people have issues with the paratroopers as they work now. I vote that we examine paratroopers.

AT Infantry: I think that the current Anti-Tank infantry units are just fine. I vote that we leave AT infantry as-is.

Commanders: I'm generally happy with the way commanders work in the system. I vote against examining commanders.

Basic Infantry: I feel that most of the basic infantry are done well and (usually) appropriately costed. I vote that we leave basic infantry alone.


I'd like the committee members to vote on each of the above issues, and I'll consolidate the ones we vote 'yes' on into an overall agenda, and then go about creating seperate threads for each agenda item.

[Bobsalt]

You posted as I was typing mine.

I see your point, but still prefer being limited to 2-3 hexes from the edge. What I see happening with a 5 hex set up is players always starting at 5 hexes, and then after looking things over they may wait one turn to move any infantry to let the tanks move up. This would again mean no need for jeeps and halftracks.

On the other hand, starting at 2-3 hexes does concede the objective at the beginning to things like the Parabomb (which desperately needs to be fixed). 5 hexes also means engagment will occur faster and fewer turns are wasted trying to get your infantry up.

I think there are good points on both sides of this - perfect material for discussion by a group such as this.

[PatrickWR]

Bob, I see your points. In light of that, I agree that deployment zones should be 2-3 hexes for all units.

[Bobsalt]

Setup rules: Do we change them? I vote yes.

My vote is yes.

Adding month and / or possibly theatre of operations to unit stat cards: I vote no.

No to month, but I think theater of ops should be considered. For example, consider someone using a Croc against the Japanese.


Force composition: Should we add rules that impose limits on how much of an army can consist of a particular unit or unit type? An all-mortar army is certainly unrealistic, but I beleive that if our revisions are done well, force composition will take care of itself. I vote that we don't add force composition rules.

My vote is no.

Unit categories to address:

Heavy armor (Armor 6-8 tanks): I feel that most heavy tanks are fine, I vote no.

I vote No.

Medium armor (Armor 4-5 tanks): Again, I think that most medium tanks are fine. I vote no.

I think there is at least one that should be looked at. Is armor 3 really right for a Pz III?

Light armor (Armor 2-3 tanks): Machineguns and mortars can seriously threaten light armor at all ranges. Is that historical? I vote that we examine light tanks in general.

I vote Yes.

Halftracks: Currently they seem too expensive to have the place that they historically had on the battlefield. And is fighting platform a realistic SA? I vote that we examine halftracks.

I agree.

Scout cars: Strike and fade makes them extremely hard to kill, even with AT guns. I vote we examine scout cars.
I agree.

AT guns: They can move at the same rate as a soldier (if they don't fire), and seem to die too easily without really posing a big threat to tanks. I vote that we examine AT guns.
I agree.

Machineguns: They're almost on the money, but weren't machineguns historically more static units than they are in A&AM? I vote that we examine MGs.
I agree.

Mortars: No indirect fire, and just as mobile as regular infantry. I vote that we examine mortars.

I’d table this one for the time being until we find out whether or not WOTC definitely is or is not going to add indirect fire rules to the game. If they aren’t, we can proceed, but if they are, I think we should wait to see what they look like before tackling them – otherwise, we could find ourselves doing a lot of work for nothing.

Snipers: Superior Camo may be too powerful, and several people seem to want to see sniper duels at ranges greater than 1. Are sniper duels realistic, however? I vote that we examine snipers.

I agree.

Paratroopers: Many people have issues with the paratroopers as they work now. I vote that we examine paratroopers.

You think? Obviously, I agree.

AT Infantry: I think that the current Anti-Tank infantry units are just fine. I vote that we leave AT infantry as-is.

I agree.

Commanders: I'm generally happy with the way commanders work in the system. I vote against examining commanders.

I agree.

Basic Infantry: I feel that most of the basic infantry are done well and (usually) appropriately costed. I vote that we leave basic infantry alone.

I agree.

[Comassion]

I think there is at least one that should be looked at. Is armor 3 really right for a Pz III?

If a unit of concern is 'just the one bad apple' in the category, it's likely that we'll address it seperately as a single unit. Anyway, the Panzer III is currently in the light tank category.


You make a good point about tabling mortars for later, based on what WOTC might add in the future. We can set the issue aside even if we want to discuss it until we've discussed many of the other issues.

Since you have seperate votes for month and theatre of operations, I'll seperate them into two categories.

[Domhnall101]

ok here we go

Setup rules: Do we change them?
yes.

Adding month and / or possibly theatre of operations to unit stat cards:
I live without month but I feel theatre of war will help guide players into build that are more historical. The paint job on many of the figures reflect this anyway.

Force composition: Should we add rules that impose limits on how much of an army can consist of a particular unit or unit type? An all-mortar army is certainly unrealistic, but I beleive that if our revisions are done well, force composition will take care of itself.
no

Unit categories to address:

Heavy armor (Armor 6-8 tanks):
no.

Medium armor (Armor 4-5 tanks):
no.

Light armor (Armor 2-3 tanks):
yes

Tank Destroyers:
no

Halftracks:
yes

Scout cars:
yes

AT guns:
yes

Machineguns: I have few ideas on mgs in their suppressive role.
Yes

Mortars:
yes

Snipers:
yes

Paratroopers: Bloody hell YES!

AT Infantry:
No

Commanders:
no. (but we may involve them in a indirect fire solution)

Basic Infantry:
no.



I think we will find agreement on these areas pretty quickly.
Once we get into these perhaps Comassion will post a thread for everyone to list the individual units and the issues they see with them so we have a list to address. And I think will give us a good sense of the level of problems with a particular unit

[PatrickWR]

Setup rules: Do we change them? I vote yes.

Yes, as described above.

Adding month and / or possibly theatre of operations to unit stat cards: I vote no.

No to month restrictions (it's just a game...) but I'd be comfortable restricting units to one of 3 theaters: Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Pacific. Rather than noting which units are permissible in each theater, we could save ourselves some work and simply note which units are not allowed in certain theaters (Crocs in the Pacific, for example).

Force composition: Should we add rules that impose limits on how much of an army can consist of a particular unit or unit type? An all-mortar army is certainly unrealistic, but I beleive that if our revisions are done well, force composition will take care of itself. I vote that we don't add force composition rules.

No, let's leave this up to the players.

Unit categories to address:

Heavy armor (Armor 6-8 tanks): I feel that most heavy tanks are fine, I vote no.

They are fine, though I think we could stand to take a look at the Jagdpanther's cost.

Medium armor (Armor 4-5 tanks): Again, I think that most medium tanks are fine. I vote no.

I agree with Bob that a couple tanks in this category merit a closer look.

Light armor (Armor 2-3 tanks): Machineguns and mortars can seriously threaten light armor at all ranges. Is that historical? I vote that we examine light tanks in general.

Yes, let's re-evaluate these units to keep 'em safe from machineguns and mortars.

Halftracks: Currently they seem too expensive to have the place that they historically had on the battlefield. And is fighting platform a realistic SA? I vote that we examine halftracks.

I agree.

Scout cars: Strike and fade makes them extremely hard to kill, even with AT guns. I vote we examine scout cars.

Yes, and I think the problem can be rectified with a simple cost increase. Maybe not.

AT guns: They can move at the same rate as a soldier (if they don't fire), and seem to die too easily without really posing a big threat to tanks. I vote that we examine AT guns.

Agreed.

Machineguns: They're almost on the money, but weren't machineguns historically more static units than they are in A&AM? I vote that we examine MGs.

I'll agree, but I really don't have a problem right now with MGs.

Mortars: No indirect fire, and just as mobile as regular infantry. I vote that we examine mortars.

Agree, indirect fire would be cool. Let's be careful pairing that with shrapnel, though...we could end up with uber-units.

Snipers: Superior Camo may be too powerful, and several people seem to want to see sniper duels at ranges greater than 1. Are sniper duels realistic, however? I vote that we examine snipers.

I agree.

Paratroopers: Many people have issues with the paratroopers as they work now. I vote that we examine paratroopers.

Agreed.

AT Infantry: I think that the current Anti-Tank infantry units are just fine. I vote that we leave AT infantry as-is.

I agree.

Commanders: I'm generally happy with the way commanders work in the system. I vote against examining commanders.

I agree.

Basic Infantry: I feel that most of the basic infantry are done well and (usually) appropriately costed. I vote that we leave basic infantry alone.

I agree.

[Domhnall101]

I've done a first quick draft of a card layout.
I will post a couple of more styles over the next week if Comassion can set up a layout thread we can put the to the vote and allow others to contribute too. Make suggestions etc. Final Layout and content will be decided on by the commitee but I'd like to get input from as many as possible.

The layouts I have attached is for the Pak 38. The over all color scheme will be grey forthe Axis and Green/kaki forthe allies. Are people interested in more color range? Every country is not really possible as they are too many but the major combatants would be easy Britian US, Germany, Soviet, Japanese. I don't want to get into my fav country needs its own color debates.
Are people interested in seeing card rotation differences between armour and infantry?(horizontal - Vertical)

If one is selected I will run out a senario sheet to match.

[Comassion]

I'm making several new discussion threads at the moment, and one is for card layout. Go ahead and post these images there - they all look great, by the way.

[Bobsalt]

Personally, I think going with a horizontal layout (image 3 or 4) would be a very good idea as a standard template. This way, anyone playing the game would know at a glance whether the card is the official game or the HHR version.

[Comassion]

HHR's current Agenda:

The following issues are being discussed in seperate threads:

HHR Card layout

Addressing individual units

Setup rules

Adding theatre of operations to stat cards

Unit categories:

Light Armor (Armor 2-3 tanks)

Halftracks

Scout cars

AT Guns

Machineguns

Mortars (Tabled until we find out about future indirect fire rules or run out of other stuff)

Snipers

Paratroopers


Individual units to address (Not in the above categories):

None yet, see Individual Units thread.

[Fluffy]

I belive only 1 hex for vehicles forces too much to spread them in the back (maybe if you let them force a bit the stack rules it would be better). I like to pack my vehicles specially when I am not having the heaviest tank. I would prefer 2 hex.

What I find lovelly about this rule is that humbar won't be able to get a free cheap kill on a pak first turn :). Not even the Pzr II (wich was its only purpose)

[Comassion]

We're making good progress!

HHR's current Agenda:

The following issues are being discussed in seperate threads:

HHR Card layout - done

Addressing individual units - in progress

Setup rules - done

Adding theatre of operations to stat cards - under research to assign theatres

Unit categories:

Light Armor (Armor 2-3 tanks) - in progress

Halftracks - tabled for later

Scout cars - done

AT Guns - in progress

Machineguns - done

Mortars - Tabled for now, since there will be a Forward Observer in Set III, presumably with indirect fire rules.

Snipers - Haven't started yet

Paratroopers - In progress


Individual units addressed (We'll make faster progress on these once we finish the more general topics):

Easy-Eight