JPII Discussion

[Jon Pickens]

Side note from last Saturday's game:

Points to Ponder:

* How much do two stationary fire phases affect play balance in JPII? 

* If you play without the second fire phase, are you still playing JPII?

* Should a future scenario experiment with a JPII game without the second stationary fire phase?

I would really like everyone to weigh in on this.

[Zakath04]

If ammo limits were implemented, then it would be a better balance on the 2nd fire phase. Also, I feel that instead dog having a bonus, there should be a rapid fire penalty on the 2nd phase. 

I forget the level that JP2 is supposed to represent, but I think having to manage main gun ammo would help reduce the constant 2x shots a turn for defenders. 

Also, having a 3:1 or more advantage for the attackers will also make it more feasible. 1:1 or even 2:1 against a dug in unit with any sort of tactical sense is going to be a dicey proposition. 

Just my 2.5 cents, but I haven’t played Jagdpanzer in months. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fire for Effect" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fire-for-effe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/1416337336.106818.1602537339883%40connect.xfinity.com.

[Nebelwerfer41]

The stationary fire phase is fucking murderous in JPII (as it should be), which is why we struggle to adapt other campaign frameworks over to those rules. Whereas other systems will allow a slightly overbalanced force to take on a defender, as Adam said, you really need a 3:1 advantage in JPII. I don't like the idea of ammo limits, as that would create tons of bookkeeping for platoons of tanks. 

That being said, I think it is a useable system, you just have to understand that assaulting a prepared and defended position will be hard as hell for the attacker (as it should be). The referee needs to take that into account when designing the scenario and the attacker needs to use smoke or artillery barrages to blind/suppress the defenders as they approach. 

Theoretically, there is nothing that reduces the ROF for a moving tank in WWII (other than the loader being jostled around), it is just that your shots are horribly inaccurate. If you wanted to "balance" the system, you could try allowing a secondary fire phase for moving tanks at a greater difficulty, but I'm sure hits will be almost zero and it would eat up additional game time for very marginal results. 

Another tweak to reduce the effect of the secondary fire phase would be to get rid of the bonus for consecutive shots. I think a lot of time that bonus gets overlooked or mis-applied during the game anyway.

-Fritz

[Dave]

Adam and Jason make an important point about attacker:defender ratios. Evenly balanced meeting actions were relatively rare in military history although they are the norm in games. Good strategy usually led to attacks where the enemy was weakest. So, tactics developed on how to attack and how to defend. As someone with chronic bad luck with dice, I have always been more interested in uneven scenarios that allow for more than head-to-head dueling.  Like building bridges to outflank a main line of resistance...

DV

[Jon Pickens]

As always, everyone is invited to comment on this. Salient notes in bold. Some definitions: CiC=Commander in Chief, FP=Firepower, DF=Direct Fire. cs=consecutive shot.

Set Up: Last Saturday, a 2:1 hasty attack against a hasty defense (non-dug-in, non-fortified) resulted in the virtual annihilation of the attacker without loss to the defender. Outlier or systemic issue? We've had enough JPII attack-defense games go sour that I'm interested in exploring the issue. I would rather keep the "Hasty Attack vs. Hasty Defense" option for scenario design, and not lose it just because there is a building on the board.

Adam: To clarify for me, would I be correct in assuming your answers are:  1) unbalancing, 2) "no?", and 3) "no?" ?

Jason: To clarify for me, would I be correct in assuming your answers are:  1) unbalancing, 2) no, and 3) no?

Discussion points:

* Adam: JPII is company-level CiC at 2-4 players, battalion-level CiC at 6-8 players, and could probably go regimental in full convention event mode. ((I could even see a campaign set-up tracking a divisional operation, with the tactical games being limited to spearpoint battalion-sized "kampgruppe" actions, and specific division sub-units swapping in between the games.))

* Jason: I agree that tracking ammo is a pain and not a preferred balancing factor. (I required limited ammo tracking in the last game with the "embedded AT by platoon" scenario rule. I only allowed one shot to keep down the record-keeping. That didn't work.) My latest idea for a house-rule for a non-paperwork late war squad/platoon AT capability follows:

Each infantry platoon HQ has an AT capability (generally one DF attack per turn that replaces the usual FP attack, using data assigned for the scenario, example: UK: Piat). The attack can be used by the HQ or can be assigned for the turn to a single squad of the platoon's infantry during the fire phases of use.

((This idea is based on the player-as-company-commander. The NPC platoon leaders are assumed to deploy assets at their level appropriately for their situation, so it's deliberately flexible for the player. The default is AT assets are shifted to meet enemy AFV threats as needed at that level. This can, of course, be altered by scenario conditions. An additional limit might restrict AT asset assignment to platoon command range (6" micro/12" HO). That type of fine tuning is for continued discussion.))  Thoughts?

Jason: I agree a second moving fire phase would be a lot of pain for little gain. I always pictured the move-and-fire status to be a short dash with the vehicle stopping for a hasty shot, then dashing on. I don't believe WWII technology was advanced enough to make a shot while rolling much more than a waste of ammunition. Does anyone have access to appropriate tanker training materials for the period?

(( Update: US FM17-12 Armor Force Field Manual, 1943, notes " expert crews" might hit at 600 yards or less when moving--on p46 it reinforces firing on the move is an emergency measure and never to be done at ranges over 600 yards--that's 24" in JPII. I expect most contemporary docs from other powers would be similar. British "dash-shot-dash" tactics are described in Robert Crisp's memoir, Brazen Chariots, repub. 2005.))

Jason: For the 2nd Fire Phase, I agree that the consecutive fire modifiers are a real pain to apply correctly, and slow the game down, a lot. Pre-designating and tracking tank-shot pairing for each side across even three phases is a playability killer. (By the way, the cs bonus wraps from 2nd F Phase to the St Fire phase of the next turn, see p17, col 2--sheesh! I don't think we ever actually played that.)

Way back, we tried a simplified house rule of platoon-to-platoon tank fire that randomized hits (like FP combat) and replaced the individual tank modifiers with a platoon adjustment of +/-1. It seemed to work well in Kevin's African Campaign, but I didn't use it in the demo.

Jason's suggestion of getting rid of the cs modiers in our games works for me, too. Thoughts?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/0357d823-4c9d-40da-9732-2972ac4e9c6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fullmetal]

I personally would not take out the 2nd fire stationary from the rules, if you do you might as well develop and make your own rule set.  Because you have out flanked, or out played your enemy you doesn't mean you should get the 2nd shot.  An i have talked to the creator of the rules at a con years ago, about why he included the 2nd Shot stationary is, you have achieved surprise or semi surprise on the enemy, you have gotten the first round out and down range more less a ranging shot unless you roll good.  the 2nd shot stationary is well the enemy now realizes there's something bad up aheadhe panics and you have time to real lock down and make a good shot.  

The main issue with any real war game is the same thing i have said for years is the whole GOD complex i know where you are and i know which way to go to get to you.  Because in real life it doesnt work that way.  I would love to see a die roll to spot things ie.. the tank commander is looking a specfic way he rolls good he spots bad sorry you didn't don't care you are only 6 inches from the said unit.  

The other issue Jon is when you go outside the micro 6mm scale for JP II it gets to deadly to quickly plus the terrain is to small for the gaming area, now if you did it on a gym floor it would be different, 6mm is good for the size tables we play on,  and even then it still is hard to push or outflank the enemy at times. 

Jason said it best you smoke, you artillery you strafe to get a stationary unit to move, also realize in JP II  1 stress token means that unit cant fire no matter 1st, 2nd or moving fire.  I also like playing with the optional rule of 3 or more stress tokens in one turn destroys the unit.  

Kevin 

[Nebelwerfer41]

"Jason: To clarify for me, would I be correct in assuming your answers are:  1) unbalancing, 2) no, and 3) no?"

-Correct

Re: Ammo limits - I was speaking mostly to ammo limits for tanks. I don't want to track the number of rounds of various types of ammo each tank has. For Infantry AT weapons, I think it is easy enough to track "This infantry unit has 3 bazooka shots." You could also add in a out-of-ammo mechanic in which after each shot, you roll a d6. On a 2-6, the unit has depleted its AT ammo. The die type and target number can be modified by scenario or unit type.

To Kevin's point, I agree that perfect battlefield knowledge is a big hindrance to a good microarmor scenario. I have always been a fan of dummy markers and hidden unit placement. It takes a little effort before the game begins, but worth the effort. The key is not not get bogged down with an excessive number of tokens. 50% dummy ratio to real forces is a good number. This also rewards good scouting.

Scale is a bag factor as well. If you don't have the room to maneuver, the attacker is severely limited.

To a greater extend, the time frame for the scenario should also allow for adequate maneuvering. A lot of times when we play, the real exchanges don't start to happen until later in the day and we have to wrap shortly thereafter. I recommend that the referee can adjudicate a lot of the early moves based on CiC orders and direct unit commander intent. For instance, a lot of our scenarios involve mixed units of tanks and infantry, if the infantry are tasked with creeping along through cover to the edge of a woodline before the tanks assault, the game rarely runs long enough for the infantry to get into position or engage other infantry before the tankers get impatient and push forward. 

To remedy this, you can have the infantry pre-positioned for an assault before the game turns begin, or break the scenario into two. First, a scouting and positioning scenario in which the infantry move up with some light recon. They have a set number of turns to get into position or recon the area, then the game ends. Unit locations are recorded and the next session takes place with the main assault.

Basically, a lot of the fixes would revolve around scenario design. You can't play JPII like Jim Clark's rules. Getting rid of CS bonuses would help to reduce the overwhelming advantage for the defenders. If we find that if weakens the defenders too much, you could put it back in, but make it platoon vs platoon, rather than individual tanks. I also like the idea of randomizing hits on a platoon basis, or you could allocate all hits on a single target if you now you have very little chance of defeating your opponent's armor. As much as Zimmy loves to allocate shots from specific tanks to specific targets, it does slow the game down a lot.

-Fritz

[Fullmetal]

All is true what Jason has stated.  Also i need to find it i have a excel sheet of house rules we added when we where doing the N. Africa campaign.  One was the platoon fire 1. its faster, 2. its faster.  When i start the new Russian Eastern campaign in March of 2021 I will be implementing some house rules, biggest thing is map is going to be a sector of a front not the whole front.  there will be several villages to medium sized towns that depending on the year i start either the russians will be in control of or the germans or maybe both.  This way infantry and combined arms will be used more.  I do like the idea of maybe having a game prior to the game such as Jason stated, where recon light infantry maybe goes in first.  There will be a lot less tankes in the new campaign.  We wont be seeing the huge colums of tanks coming over the horizon.  More like one company at most or maybe a couple of platoons.  Ideas are still rolling around in my head.  I also want to come up with a hiden movement or chits dummy counters also.  

Kevin 

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:16:41 PM UTC-4, Jon Pickens wrote:

[Jon Pickens]

Dave: Thanks for checking in. Your post left me no clue how you'd weigh in on the actual questions. Got an opinion on these?

Jason: Thanks for the clarification. More thoughts below.

Kevin: Thanks for responding, especially for relaying the designer's view, which is always helpful.

Thoughts:

Kevin: Jason has since weighed in on "God eye", so later on this one.

Lethality: Not sure I buy into the increasing scale makes things more deadly, especially since the vehicle ranges are unchanged in the conversion. If there is no change in ranges or shooting mechanics, then exactly what is making the game more deadly? Platoon-level morale for everyone tends to break the units faster, but doesn't increase lethality per se.

I agree with Jason that the mechanics are brutal. But the only difference I can immediately see between the lethality of micro and HO scale is that the smaller scale gives you more troops on the table so it takes longer to lose them.

One way to decrease lethality effects is to base morale on the company instead of the platoon. By making morale checks less frequent, you can extend the combat "life" of the morale unit. Problem is, we usually don't give players more than a company in any scale, so when that goes, it all goes for the player. In the last Afrika Campaign game, as I recall, we ran platoon morale for armor, and company morale for infantry. Is it more fun to lose successive waves of small units, or to have the whole force collapse somewhere between halfway and two-thirds of the way through the game?

The main advantages of micro-scale are board space for maneuver and ease of transporting the models to the game site. While theoretically I like maneuver, in practice, with the short move distances and long ranges, maneuver is discouraged. Also lots of maneuver room often means no conclusion is reached in the time available. These days, I favor reaching and resolving a battle crisis point. That's one reason why, in my scenarios, I try to go with at least some infantry closing to assault by turn 2 at the latest. (This was frustrated in in the Saturday game by the village just happening to be 2-1/2 moves from the US infantry start line--it was about 9" behind the German start line. Only one US squad attempted an assault, and it failed its morale check. An opportunity for 3-4 squads to check, occurred, but passed quickly.)

It may be JPII discourages player aggressiveness in general. ((Advance, the hammer falls. Stop, you get parity if you can find cover. Advance, the hammer falls again. In the battalion-level 1944 rules, the turn sequence gave the attacker two shots, followed by the defender's two shots. This, combined with short ranges (1"/100m vs JPII 1"/25m) and long movements (10 minute turns vs 1 minute) created a dynamic in which an aggressive attacker might destroy a defender but would get hammered if the attack wasn't successful. It also created a tendency for tanks to go in waves, with advantage to having the last reserves. There other reasons those rules fail, but they used to draw me back yearly with their elegance.))

I ran JPII in Europe '44 in HO because that's the theater and time I have troops for. There's a laundry list of things I want to try going forward:

1) Platoon support mortars using direct observation.

2) Smoke mission support for the attacker.

3) Platoon fire for tanks

4) Non-record-keeping infantry AT capability

5) Company-based morale (if a lot of people want to see it)

(this last will stretch the limits of my HO collection--I can probably field 4 US commands and 2 German ones with a few more infantry (I probably could field a small 3rd German command of heaviest tanks for a Battle of the Bulge game--but I'd like to run a few more scenarios before doing something that ambitious.)

Jason: Ammo Limits: Thanks for clarifying. I agree and would further include Infantry AT in the "no record-keeping" column if possible. I prefer ammo depletion by die roll as a scenario condition, maybe a two-stage effect where first you go low, then you go out.

Recon: I'm a fan of recon systems  generally to open an action, but you don't want players sitting around for this type of pre-game action. Maybe as a sub-game for CiCs or CiC-designates when we break early in an earlier week? In the demo HO game, I had Recon commands set up, but too few players to get them in (I went with a combined infantry/tank force for the Germans, and an infantry command and an armor command for the US).

One thing that hinders pre-game planning is the difficulty of producing electronic maps pregame that match what the board will have. A lot of my scenarios have scratch-drawn maps--I still haven't converted Saturday's scenario to an electronic record--that needs doing yet.

"God's Eye"/Dummy Markers: I like markers also. I do think 1/2-inch markers are too small. I would prefer, especially for micro, dummy markers with the same "footprint" as a platoon. (That gets a little unwieldy for HO, but cardboard is cheap--if the next HO game goes better, I might introduce dummy markers in a third game.) One downside is markers tend to slow the game down. It might be better to develop player aggressiveness on offense in general as a group before introducing elements that encourage more caution.

I am attaching a WWII scenario design article I've found interesting.

Kevin: By all means, please post the Afrika house rules when you find them.

I am attaching a scenario generator for a Polish campaign you might adapt to a Russian campaign.

As long as I am attaching, here is the current platoon morale sheet. Haven't done the notes on filling it out yet.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fire for Effect" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fire-for-effe...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/07aacd57-2749-43e2-ba31-f50d59c94503o%40googlegroups.com.

[Nebelwerfer41]

"Lethality: Not sure I buy into the increasing scale makes things more deadly, especially since the vehicle ranges are unchanged in the conversion. If there is no change in ranges or shooting mechanics, then exactly what is making the game more deadly? Platoon-level morale for everyone tends to break the units faster, but doesn't increase lethality per se. " - Larger scale minis gives a player fewer commands and tanks. When those limited number of tanks are destroyed, the game is done for that player. That is what I meant. Also, it is harder to get a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio on a smaller space. Larger scale games are like knife fights in a dark closet.   

"Recon: I'm a fan of recon systems  generally to open an action, but you don't want players sitting around for this type of pre-game action. " - Run it as a separate scenario as I suggested.

"While theoretically I like maneuver, in practice, with the short move distances and long ranges, maneuver is discouraged. Also lots of maneuver room often means no conclusion is reached in the time available" - This is more of a time management issue. I've played plenty of micro-scale games with a limited number of participants and was able to execute a fair amount of maneuvering if people just execute their turns quickly. Also, it helps if you can get the game rolling at 10:00 or 11:00. 

I think a lot of maneuvering can be adjudicated by some pre game CiC discussion and flexibility in the scenario. If a commander is going to assault a position, they usually won't do it from a single front (or board edge). Usually you will want to assault from two directions and the CiC will direct some forces to approach from a different sector. In our games, we usually start from a single board edge, so if a player wants to move a force to attack from another axis, they have to drive all the way around the board. Allow for attackers to start the game from different start positions.

Re: Dummy tokens, I don't think you need larger tokens, you just need to assume that the token reflects the center of the formation. Measure sighting to the token, but allow for a 3" or 4" bubble. if the range is close.

Regarding limits on figures, Isn't there a literal pile of micro-armor sitting up at the Griffon?

-Fritz

[Jon Pickens]

On 10/16/2020 9:04 AM Nebelwerfer41 <nebelw...@gmail.com> wrote:

"L ethality: Not sure I buy into the increasing scale makes things more deadly, especially since the vehicle ranges are unchanged in the conversion. If there is no change in ranges or shooting mechanics, then exactly what is making the game more deadly? Platoon-level morale for everyone tends to break the units faster, but doesn't increase lethality per se. " - Larger scale minis gives a player fewer commands and tanks. When those limited number of tanks are destroyed, the game is done for that player. That is what I meant. Also, it is harder to get a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio on a smaller space. Larger scale games are like knife fights in a dark closet.   

OK. I think for now I'll continue to develop scenarios with resources I have. One advantage is I think it's a path to combined arms and solving the basic issue of learning successful aggressive tactics with the rules.

Y" Recon: I'm a fan of recon systems  generally to open an action, but you don't want players sitting around for this type of pre-game action. " - Run it as a separate scenario as I suggested.

Unfortunately, I have recon assets for two people, not six to eight. But I could see maybe running two two-player boards at some future date.

"While theoretically I like maneuver, in practice, with the short move distances and long ranges, maneuver is discouraged. Also lots of maneuver room often means no conclusion is reached in the time available" - This is more of a time management issue. I've played plenty of micro-scale games with a limited number of participants and was able to execute a fair amount of maneuvering if people just execute their turns quickly. Also, it helps if you can get the game rolling at 10:00 or 11:00. 

You can't get a game going at the Griffon at 10:00am. No way to get a board set up before the doors open Saturday. A board setup usually goes 30min to an hour. The last Saturday set-up of an 8x6 table took an hour--and that was only because Nieves pitched in. Getting the game itself organized (introducing the new forms, explaining the terrain and notes, etc.) took almost an hour. This last period should be reducible with practice, but there was no pre-game staffing time last Saturday, so I think the the minimum time allowance might go down to maybe 30 minutes. Once pre-game operations are time-minimized, I see piece-pushing happening maybe 11:00 at the earliest in optimal conditions. Josh is there with Battletech. I'm still working on it.

I think a lot of maneuvering can be adjudicated by some pre game CiC discussion and flexibility in the scenario. If a commander is going to assault a position, they usually won't do it from a single front (or board edge). Usually you will want to assault from two directions and the CiC will direct some forces to approach from a different sector. In our games, we usually start from a single board edge, so if a player wants to move a force to attack from another axis, they have to drive all the way around the board. Allow for attackers to start the game from different start positions.

I really like your direction with this--one of the on-going issues is it's never quite certain how many players are going to show. I would like see the occasional cauldron battle, just as a change of pace from the usual frontal assault games. I found a real corker of a scenario online, set just about the same period as the game I ran Saturday, but IMO our group isn't ready for it--not enough aggressive players and not enough people comfortable with JPII combined arms and infantry operations. I want to pull it out one of these days and run it--each commander has independent orders, and the lines of advance and maneuver cross in interesting ways. It's not exactly written for JPII, and would take some adaptation to work with them. Maybe later...

Re: Dummy tokens, I don't think you need larger tokens, you just need to assume that the token reflects the center of the formation. Measure sighting to the token, but allow for a 3" or 4" bubble. if the range is close.

My experience has been that people always put the markers too close together. Then there's a jam-up when it's time to put the pieces out. We had the same problem with CLS map-marking games--players continually low-balled the space their units took up. Bigger markers make this a non-issue.So it's worth a little extra prep time to make them.

Regarding limits on figures, Isn't there a literal pile of micro-armor sitting up at the Griffon?

Don't know. I had a blue tackle box in the locker for awhile, but I took out the non-Afrikan stuff when it was obvious it wasn't going to be used. I took the whole box home when the Afrika campaign stopped. I don't have organized units, but most of the non-Afrika micro I have is maybe twenty US Shermans painted for Western Europe, a smattering of UK armor, some German bits, and very little infantry. Call the whole collection maybe 2 dozen jewel boxes and some unpainted odds and ends. If there is any interest I could provide some vehicles, but there is very little Russian and that's where we're going next. I have about 4 stands of 1944-organized infantry, and maybe 50 unpainted micro figures I could paint and mount or use for Infantry HQ stands for that campaign.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/253c20c3-f7b6-4b23-8b6b-b44212906a62n%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Pauley]

*I'm okay with the platoon fire as it does speed up the game markedly. 

*The 2nd stationary fire should be retained.  There is an advantage for a defensive position.  It does not take that long (less than an hour) to set up, dig in, some camo, and to bore sight.

*Ammo limits for each unit should be known, especially for the defender.  You would set up defensive positions based on how long a unit can stay in the fight.

*As memory serves me in most war gaming, a 2 to1 attack odds are dicey, a 3 to 1 should bring victory........Unless you are attacking U.S. Marines.  Ask the Chi Coms, Japanese Imperial Troops, German infantry, Barbary Pirates, etc. about this.

*We always have had too many units.  If we go 2 companies of armor for 1 side, that would be 28 tanks (full TOE) across 96 inches, the width of 2 tables.  That is 3.02 inches between each tank taking into account each tank being about 3/8 of an inch wide.

Too many tanks.

*The God's eye is the biggest problem. It does not allow any surprise maneuvers, therefore, no real maneuvering.  We played a N. Africa battle and I was allowed to secretly move a platoon of Shermans through woods where they could not be seen until they pulled up to the edge of the woods.  They surprised a column of armored cars sprinting around our left flank and the killing ensued.  Even thou some of the armored cars got through and almost caused great havoc, none of this would have happened if God's eye was working.   Even if you had dummy markers something like this would not take place.    Maybe we have initial written orders for unit of when they can move/engage/formation/etc.  They have to continue with orders until "X" happens.  "X" could be coming under fire, sighting, reaching an objective, etc. 

This might be able to be done with a double blind system, but that will take rooms and probably 3 game masters to move units.  I'll think more about this. 

*I really don't care for heavy/med arty during the game.  In 2 of the 3 battles of the N. Africa campaign, Arty turned the tide before the battle could really be started.  

*There has to be a penalty for the Reid Bollan paradox manuever.

*North Africa

The North Africa campaign was interesting in that you couldn't be strong everywhere and had to be weak somewhere, but the Commander had to make the choice!  I always like the idea of giving more choice to the players. 

*60mm mortars are a company not platoon (U.S.) support weapon & could direct fire.  It could also indirect fire without radio with their section leader yelling elevation/deflection from 20 meters away, 81mm were battalion.    

Zim

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fire-for-effect/2104354668.124359.1602893986476%40connect.xfinity.com

.

[Jon Pickens]

Thanks for checking in.

On 10/19/2020 12:08 AM 'Scott Pauley' via Fire for Effect <fire-fo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*I'm okay with the platoon fire as it does speed up the game markedly. 

My next JPII game will use tank platoon fire.

*The 2nd stationary fire should be retained.  There is an advantage for a defensive position.  It does not take that long (less than an hour) to set up, dig in, some camo, and to bore sight.

Definite trend in the sentiment continuing here. Nov 7, and probably beyond, I will use the standard turn sequence in my scenarios.

*Ammo limits for each unit should be known, especially for the defender.  You would set up defensive positions based on how long a unit can stay in the fight.

Where ammo is an issue, this is usually treated as a scenario condition, and should be in the commander's notes. So far, the question of record-keeping vs paperless treatment has been left up to scenario design. I will be experimenting with paperless squad-level infantry AT in the next game.
Tanks generally carry sufficient ammo, but certain tanks tended to have short loads (I'm thinking Firefly, but I could be wrong). Some vehicles were famous for it, just as some were famous for mechanical unreliability (like the British A-series tanks). At present, I am disinclined to experiment with vehicle ammo shortages, but if I did, it would definitely be part of the scenario notes, would be at least a two-step system (low->out), and might have a turn trigger.
I would also be thinking about some sort of supply vehicle/dump/rearming condition as an advanced option, though a game or two with shortages as a limiter would precede any experiments with resupply. It's a ways off for me as a scenario designer at this point.

*As memory serves me in most war gaming, a 2 to1 attack odds are dicey, a 3 to 1 should bring victory........Unless you are attacking U.S. Marines.  Ask the Chi Coms, Japanese Imperial Troops, German infantry, Barbary Pirates, etc. about this.

Avalon Hill hex-and-counter games gave a 2:1 a 1/6 chance of A Elim and 1/6 chance of A Back, so dicey. The 3:1 would always work, but you often had to sacrifice other units at worse odds to get that.

JPII gives US marines +1 Morale, +0 Quality as a default, which is the same default as US Airborne and US Armor Infantry. The WWII Marine Infantry in 1944 (Saipan onwards) was organized significantly differently than other US Infantry, having 3 fire teams of 4 men in a squad, with each team having a BAR--the establishment BAR strength was triple that of other US Infantry. I think a case might be made for FP 8/4 and Quality +1, depending on the specific battle. Unfortunately, I don't have enough Japanese to do anything Pacific right now.

* We always have had too many units.  If we go 2 companies of armor for 1 side, that would be 28 tanks (full TOE) across 96 inches, the width of 2 tables.  That is 3.02 inches between each tank taking into account each tank being about 3/8 of an inch wide.

Too many tanks.

Disagree. A 75 yd distance between vehicles doesn't square with historical footage I've seen. In JPII, the US 1944 Tank Company has 3 platoons of 5, plus a 2 vehicle command platoon, 17.  A 1944 UK Tank Company has 18.  A German tank company has 17, 14 for a heavy company. A 1944 Soviet tank company has 10 tanks.

A reasonable micro frontage for a US tank company using an echeloned attack is 10" wide x 8" deep . The "book" formation is a lead platoon followed 4" (100 yd) back by the second platoon and 8" back for the 3rd platoon. These waves carry the attack by leapfrogging. The  company HQ platoon, usually takes position between the 2nd and 3rd platoons. A typical player zone is about 2 feet of board edge--so there's a lot of empty there. In a two-up, one-back deployment, 20" of frontage is about right for a battalion. So a player's typical 2-foot frontage for a company command is more than generous.

((I would suggest that JPII is so brutal that, absent airpower and artillery, US armor needs about 4:1 odds to successfully attack a stationary (hasty defense) force of German tanks no heavier than late-model PIVs. It's far too easy just to stack German advantages: superior morale, superior quality, stationary fire advantage, cover advantage, hidden unit advantage, penetration table advantage [yes--if a Sherman and PIV hit each other at medium range, the PIV has a 50% kill chance, the Sherman has a 33% kill chance--I doubt the historical disparity between these tanks was that pronounced.))

((It gets a bit ridiculous when you do some reading about how tank fire worked in WW2. The biggest variable for armor penetration was not testing-ground shell velocity, defending armor thickness, armor slope, armor construction method (riveted/welded), or even armor material (face-hardening, etc.).

The single most significant variable was how many times the individual attacking weapon had been fired. This is a nightmare to quantify, but using the Normandy campaign as an example--who is most likely to have new, fresh equipment, and who is most likely to be patching through with worn tubes? But we play with these rules anyway.))

*The God's eye is the biggest problem. It does not allow any surprise maneuvers, therefore, no real maneuvering.  We played a N. Africa battle and I was allowed to secretly move a platoon of Shermans through woods where they could not be seen until they pulled up to the edge of the woods.  They surprised a column of armored cars sprinting around our left flank and the killing ensued.  Even thou some of the armored cars got through and almost caused great havoc, none of this would have happened if God's eye was working.   Even if you had dummy markers something like this would not take place.    Maybe we have initial written orders for unit of when they can move/engage/formation/etc.  They have to continue with orders until "X" happens.  "X" could be coming under fire, sighting, reaching an objective, etc. 

This might be able to be done with a double blind system, but that will take rooms and probably 3 game masters to move units.  I'll think more about this. 

I think a lot of us want to go here, but we just haven't experimented much.  While people are learning, I'll introduce large "suspected enemy position" markers. Maybe as soon as game 3, if we get enough people for the attack game Nov 7.

*I really don't care for heavy/med arty during the game.  In 2 of the 3 battles of the N. Africa campaign, Arty turned the tide before the battle could really be started.  

I don't think we use the artillery rules right. Too much time chasing misses. Miss distances are potentially way more than historical barrage deviations.

Scenario designers generally don't assign number of fire missions or target reference points (TRPs). Most players don't know how to apply ranging shots. We seldom get enough tubes to create a beaten zone or a decent smoke screen. That said, I think the way forward is to deal with platoon/company assets first, and maybe allow in medium mortar or artillery support on smoke missions at first. That's my ambition for Nov 7.

JPII in general puts too much emphasis on individual shells. For example, the US 105mm M2A1 Howitzer had a fire rate of 3 rounds per minute sustained and 10 rpm maximum. JPII time scale is 1-2 minutes per turn. So why are we chasing a circular burst based on one shell, when a pattern of half a dozen shells in a beaten zone would be more in line with the game's scale? We hand-wave stuff like this just like we do in Battletech.

*There has to be a penalty for the Reid Bollan paradox manuever.

You do need to define this.

*North Africa

The North Africa campaign was interesting in that you couldn't be strong everywhere and had to be weak somewhere, but the Commander had to make the choice!  I always like the idea of giving more choice to the players. 

Agree about player choice.

*60mm mortars are a company not platoon (U.S.) support weapon & could direct fire.  It could also indirect fire without radio with their section leader yelling elevation/deflection from 20 meters away, 81mm were battalion.    

I might have misspoken on this--you are right about the 60s being company assets. JPII does let you assign heavy weapon sections to platoons for a specific battle, though, and if this is done, platoons 1 and 2 might get the MMGs, and the reserve platoon might get the mortars. The 81s are battalion assets, as you mention. JPII does let them operate via direct observation, though the rounds land in the Artillery Impact phase.

Zim