I think he has some fair comments there, some are personal observations like the comment regarding what suppression should do with reduction of firepower. However suppression in Gruntz is built to reduce effectiveness at an abstract level i.e. remove an action which can have a big impact on a units ability to strike back and I did not want a mechanic that was another layer with regard to shooting. It was discussed initially but I decided to keep the focus on the waxed condition causing suppression because things became a bit cluttered with regard to resolution of shooting.
If they don't like 2D6 there is nothing much I can do for them
. Battletech and the bell-curve for probability was my driver to help avoid the escalation of dice you see in other games. I think 2D6 and the various target factors was my best way of handling a game where you could mix vehicles and troops together without vehicles just becoming giant versions of infantry.
I tried to answer his points on the blog comments but I overloaded it. So here they are:
Q: Weapons do not posses a rate of fire statistic.
This was a tough one because in initial play tests I had ROF for weapons and it ended up being a dice fest, so I abstracted it for a "just above skirmish" level of games. However due to feedback like yours I decided to add it for the 1.1 update and it has now been playtested over the last few months. So a simple mechanism will be included to allow repeat follow-style fire.
Q: Suppression is based on casualties, not hits.
The game mechanism for suppression is key to tactical play, which is why Commanders can remove it and it plays a key role with the new Assault rules. A preview download is here:
www.gruntz.biz/2012/05/new-assault-rules-11.html I tried many different variants in play test to come up with one simple situation that would degrade a target units performance on the subsequent activation without creating fussy book-keeping. I think it works well, even if it is abstracted to the point where the incoming fire is seen as only impacting the unit when it waxes a model. It feels like it works at the moment but I would certainly welcome some alternative ideas.
Q: Suppression does not reduce return fire.
As with the previous another we did try a lot different ideas but settled on a simple one based on casulties. I have found during repeat play that suppression is a fundamental part of the game that does degrade the opponent with minimal book keeping. You might grow to like it. However house rules are very welcome and some have made it directly into the 1.1 update this year. So if you wanted to add a modifier to the shooting of the unit it on an activation where it started in suppressed condition it certainly feels like it would fit within the general flow of the game.
Q: Squad sizes are limited and controlled. I'm not sure I really like the 6-8man squads.
The new Army builder will allow for sizes from 4 to 10. This was a feature we soon found people wanted last year and was quickly added to the development plan.
Q: The army builder is easy to use but fundamentally flawed.
There are now 3 or 4 different spreadsheets and variations around. I think on the forum there are some links and modifications made by players to extend it. However I have a master one which breaks out the calculations and my own focus is not the official army builder project for Gruntz called "Barracks" details here
Q: 2D6 mechanics. Neither me or Phyllion were really sold on these.
I am not sure I can help you much on this one because I can usually accommodate feedback by looking at adjustments but the 2D6 mechanism is at the heart of the game. I am a big fan of the 2D6 probability curve as you mention and enjoy boardgames and systems that use it, rather than escalated dice numbers and the tradition established by GW (leading to FOW and many other systems). That was a personal taste aspect and a driver in developing the stats which I looked at the probability of hit factors based on the curve for 2D6 + modifiers. I had a mathematician friend create a spreadsheet that mapped out the probability based on groups firing at each other and potential causalities and on paper it looked good. Then we put them to the playtest to work out how the game felt. From a design perspective I also started with a 1D6 mechanism but could not work out a way to adapt it to work for larger vehicles and still retain a mix of smaller troops whilst not making the larger vehicles just feel like "big troops".
There is one thing you might have benefited from. Using matched pairs of dice really speeds up play and you can see how I use them in my latest couple of videos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FzmelGViRY&list=UU7hdmRjMmkVxrCn-biR-Egg&index=4&feature=plcp Please do keep the feedback coming, however tough the subject is I hope I can help! The forum has become a very good place to discuss rules ideas and game action reports, painting ideas etc. You would be really welcome to join and I would really like to see more feedback.
Another helping hand are these stat definitions:
gruntz15.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=disc&action=display&thread=507 They are useful for guiding what level to focus stats. I had one player try Gruntz in the US and they made most of the shooting skills 2 or 3. This made for a very difficult game and sadly I don't think they ever wanted to touch the rules again!
. Battletech and the bell-curve for probability was my driver to help avoid the escalation of dice you see in other games. I think 2D6 and the various target factors was my best way of handling a game where you could mix vehicles and troops together without vehicles just becoming giant versions of infantry.