3rd vs 2nd

[SteveT]

I am wondering if it’s worth buying 3rd or not. I am thinking not but…

I’m interested in the opinions and findings of those who have played both sets

From the 8 or so games I have seen on videos it, 3rd seems to produce more erratic outcomes and needs more rolling.

 

[Mark]

I love 3rd, as a friend of mine put it, “it’s more Killy”

we have found that the drop in to hit from 3 to 4 isn’t a problem, and you definitely get less 7+ to hit rolls.

the new mission system is an improvement over the old system.

yes my soviets suffer due to losing their free unit, but the rest of my armies are living it!

US, rather than the not suffering -1 to hit on the move, now get the old rapid fire rule of the Brits. Where as the British version is only on a fire order now witch is probably good as it’s going to make me try out the others!

having saves from cover is no biggy and games seem to play faster.

overall I move the new rules, been playing since 1st edition, and can happily say this is the best version by a long way.

hope this helps

[SteveT]

Thanks, It was the more ‘kill’ part that was bothering me. Does that detract from tactics or does it actually make people more realistically cautious ?

[Greg]

Hi Steven T

My take is that there are not many changes but the changes have made it a bit more immersive. What do I mean by immersive.. V2 need a lot of 7 up rolls to pin and then to kill was just as unlikely. This lead to a game with not much killing and if units got pinned they ended up not getting to participate very much in the game. All a firing actions was one sided. In V3 the chances of hitting are very much increased hence pins can stack up quickly but are also removed quicker getting the men back into action if managed correctly utilizing your leaders which are also more influential in V3. Damaging also occurs more easily and then the cover saves and this is where the opposing player gets to play in the attackers turn thus causing a more immersive feel as both parties are involved. So yes killing occurs more frequently but then it is war and realistic. Close combat is also very deadly in V3 and should only be considered when the defending section has been whittled down a bit, once again more realistic. With the new platoon structure it lends to more Historical type games. To me it feels as if this version favors the historical fun players more than the tournament players.

 

Cheers

Greg

 

[Mike]

The one thing that has been noticeable is that assaults are not as good of an idea as they once were.  Unless you need to gamble on a decisive result, advancing to point blank range and using shooting is more efficient.  The negative benefit of assaulting is compounded when the defender is in cover.  Still some armies like the Japanese with big squads and “fanatic” can still pull off the assault.  In our recent, games my 15-man Japanese squads assaulting my opponents 10-man squads continue to crush them though the Japanese squad can be pretty wrecked afterwards.  Also, you tend to see more heavy weapon and artillery platoons, tanks are a bit “nerfed” with their reduced machine gun fire. Anyway, these are our impressions.

[Greg]

Hi Mike, I disagree with the Tank statement. They are cheaper and their main guns fire more accurately and are more deadly. MMG’s on tanks have been nerfed yes but to put it into a more realistic spectrum. Coax and hull gunners never had a great view hence their inaccuracy when firing and therefore they only get half the dice. The MMG gunner firing from atop also was not as accurate due to the tanks movement and instability  also realistic. I would have given it the full dice if the tank was stationery as this can increase the gunners stability and hence accuracy. I feel that the tournament gamers see it as nerfed as they were so accustomed to the old way and hardly used tanks except for the Dakka versions, give it some time and it will grow on you. The MMG’s on the dakkas still put out a lot of punch. I agree with assaults but this to is more realistic and once again the tournament players are to accustomed to the old way. I must admit a was very negative at first with V3 but the more I play the better it gets and the better the feel.

Cheers

Greg

 

[Mike]

I did not say, I do not like V3 or that I did not agree with the changes to tank MMG fire (I do for the reasons you mentioned), just that they are less intimidating.  In V2, tanks could control a part of the battlefield as no one wanted to contest ground against a tank with 2 or more MMGs.  Now, a large infantry unit can seize an objective an absorb the tank fire for two or more turns.  I am looking forward to playing a game in more open terrain (we have been gaming the Pacific as part of our Fall campaign).  I do not play in tournaments, so my observation was purely one of comparing V2 to V3 in how the game plays.  I do wish they had preserved the “reinforced platoon” as an option, especially for smaller point games. Regarding assaults, we feel that if the defender fires at an assaulting unit prior to the assault, then combat should be simultaneous even if the defending unit is in cover, but we play the rules as written.

[Greg]

Hi Mike

Was not saying you dislike anything or if I came across as attacking, not my intention sorry for that. Each has his opinions and we may disagree. Open terrain games are deadly as they should be not as much fun though. Yes the new platoon structure have resulted in the games being bigger now and more figures are required, hint  hint Warlord sales strategy.

 

Cheers

Greg

 

 

 

[Mike]

I did not take your comment as “attacking” me, simply misunderstanding me.  So, no worries, I took no offense.  I was simply noting that I don’t find tanks as intimidating as they were before.  Many players thought the new rules would lead to many armor platoons and moving the game away from being infantry based.  While we are seeing some armor platoons show up in our games, they are far less “commanding” than we first thought they would be.

[SteveT]

Thanks for all the replies.

Sounds to me like it’s becoming a bit more “gamey”. For me, 2nd captures very well the desperation of men being pinned under fire and the gradual gains being made here and there, with so many (even small) decisions having significant consequences. None of the online games I have watched for 3rd seem to capture that at all. It seems just so erratic. They might as well be space marines in WW2 uniforms. Maybe I’ve not seen the right kinds of game yet.

Perhaps it will  go the way  D&D did, where the best earlier versions were continued under another guise,  leaving the official version to become an ever more politically-correct game suitable for  the easily-offended. Perhaps a Bolt Action 2.5, with the best of 3 added back into 2?

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts