"Pz8 Comments and a question" Topic

While looking for some simple rules to use for convention games for Cold War scenarios I remembered PZ8. For those not familiar PZ8 is a set of two page rules covering various time periods and scales. You can find a set here: PDF link

Looking them over again have concluded that side B has a big advantage due to the sequence of play. Side A moves. Then B fires and then moves. Finally A fires. A will have to suffer any casualties from B before it can fire. Further B can fire and then duck out of sight or increase the range if it so chooses. Friend and I have come up with some possible fixes keeping to the spirit of fast play and simple game rules. Interested in your comments and how you deal with it.

First one can assign B to a side with superior leadership and tactics. For example assign B to the Germans for most battles and periods on the Eastern front.
Second switch each turn. A goes first on the first turn but B goes first the next.
Third roll for initiative with high roll deciding to move first or second. Variation may be to set a limit, say 2 times winning initiative before passing it to other player.

Also a question of damage from hits. Hits are cumulative such that 2 Disorganized equals a Suppressed and two Suppressed equals a Destroy. What do you do if a Suppressed gets a Disorganized? If you keep track such that the target now has one of each (and another Disorganized or Suppressed would destroy the target) What do you do with a successful rally roll? Remove the Suppressed and leave the Disorganized? Remove the Disorganized and leave the Suppressed?

I'd remove the Disorganized, since a successful rally roll removes a Disorganized, but doesn't remove the Suppressed but reduces it to a Disorganized. Of course, if you'd be happier converting the Suppressed to a Disorganized and then, since the unit now has two Disorganized markers, declaring it Suppressed, knock yourself out.

Add to your possible solutions on sequence, a simple die roll each turn: odds, Army A is Red, evens, Army B is. No one ever gets to choose, which removes an element of gamesmanship.

Is thre something you've not told us? If the entire game sequence is just "Side A moves. Then B fires and then moves. Finally A fires". Then it all turns on which side exposes itself first e.g. A moves after it fires and before B gets a chance to shoot back.

Robert good alternative. Just thinking about those times when one side goes 3, 4, or 3ven more times first. Also we were leaning towards your solution on effects.

Billy
The turn sequence is:
1. A moves
2. B fires
3. B moves
4. A fires
5. A and B rally

Rinse and repeat

A possible downside is that if Side A or B consistently wins initiative, then the game is back to unbalanced sequence. Have seen Gettysburg Soldiers games go very bad when one side fires first several turns in a row.

This is basically the move sequence in Panzerblitz. Essentially each side fires, then moves, with a rally segment stuck in the middle.

Shoot then move works very well for post nineteenth century games as it gives the defence an inherent advantage.

I'd try it and see before changing it. Generally the Pz8 rules work fine with little tweaking needed (apart from ranges and moves distances as some are hilariously short).

I've gone to turn sequences that allow the activating side to select from a menu of order options (Move just being one of them, along with Fire, and a Hold order).

The Hold order posture allows a firing response later in the sequence vs. enemy units activating for movement Or firing.

Many rules have this 'active' Hold order mechanic in them – often just vs. subsequent enemy movement, but not firing.

An 'active' Hold order allows for overwatch support by the offensive side, and an ambush response by the defending side (basically, it allows for a firefight response by units that are in a covering posture – this is imbedded tactical doctrine).

Marc, not sure if you would want to modify the PZ8 rules to allow for this active Hold option taken during the 'Move' phase – it would allow for overwatch response to enemy fire taking place (if only during the B fire phase – and/if that's all the further you wanted to use it for).

Again, it's often how firefights do begin – and further develop into 'full Fire' exchanges.

Some really great ideas guys, please keep them coming!

The nice thing about these rules is at just two pages, including charts, one can add a bit of "chrome" and not break the system.

The ranges and movement distances are a bit short but do allow for a nice size engagement in a small area. With more room can see doubling rather easily. At the stated ranges and distances these probably play best at 2/3mm, 6mm (the stated range) and possibly 10/12mm. Would look rather ridiculous at 20mm!

I've used Pz8 modern rules to game small engagements in 1/300 for
The Donbas circa 2014. I want to add some extra chrome, I like the idea of a hold/over watch order. I plan to incorporate some special event cards as well (tank mine, mud, etc) to give a little extra flavor.

I'd also like to make some unit cards like the old Battlefront WW2 game where I can just look at the T-64 stats rather than on the rules. Basically just visual eye candy aids.

I think you're right about size and distance, Marc, but since I only do WWII in 2mm and 6mm, it's not a problem for me.

Hello,

- the turn sequence is intended to advantage the Defender (Side B) in scenarios.
- if a Suppressed gets a Disorganized, remains Suppressed (you don't keep track of the Disorganized result); it's more difficult to Destroy a target, rather than Suppress it.
- ranges are intended for 1/300 or smaller, on a small table.

Thanks Deserter. Really did a good job with these rules and an impressive range of eras. Much in your debt my friend.

My pleasure, I am glad that the old Pz8 rules are still played and appreciated.

They are a great rules and we often play them (I particularly like the WW1 trench warfare and WW2 aur combat rules).