Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I hate to mention this, but with the 1d10 system there doesn't seem to be any bonus or loss penalty for the defender's winterized units. So the defender winterized choice in 1d10 may not be too important and could be skipped?

The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I'd say the Destruction of Army Group Center involved the use of a Soviet OC or two, but applied more on an opportunistic scale then on a totally pre-planned one.

The Soviet Summer Offensive against German Army Group Center, Operation Bagration, was well preplanned. Alot of supplies and units had been stocked up for it.

Some examples of the preparations:
1) In order to maximise the chances of success, a major campaign of deception—maskirovka—was undertaken to convince the German High Command that the summer offensive would, in fact, be in the south against Army Group North Ukraine. German forces were transferred southwards to Army Group North Ukraine throughout the summer, in order to meet an attack there. This left Army Group Centre dangerously weakened, as Stavka had intended.

2) The main offensive began in the early morning of 23 June, with an artillery bombardment of unprecedented scale against the defensive works.

3) The attack of Galitsky's 11th Guards Army along the Moscow - Minsk highway near Orsha was preceded by specialised engineer units; mine rolling PT-34 tanks were committed along with assault engineer companies and assault gun regiments.

-Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I hate to mention this, but with the 1d10 system there doesn't seem to be any bonus or loss penalty for the defender's winterized units. So the defender winterized choice in 1d10 may not be too important and could be skipped?

The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

quote:


Ok, I haven't played 1d10 in a looong time and probably never will again. So you are saying that if a MTN and an INF are attacked in snow, and the defender has to take one loss, the MTN must be chosen, unless they pretend the weather is clear for this attack only? I thought 'declining' unit abilities didn't creep into the rules until 2d10. The 1d10 rules don't say anything about the defender's units making any difference at all and the "if you use this power" seems to imply only the attacker has a choice; the rules impose a penalty on every attack in bad weather. So if the defender wants to save his MTN unit, he has to decline the weather advantages altogether? I'm pretty sure that when we did play 1d10, we didn't do things that way, and perhaps remaining 1d10 players play it like that? I could read that rule as applying to the attacker only, and reading that the defenders winterized units are vulnerable like that is one of those odd-for-new-players quirks Steve just mentioned, and to my mind is perhaps something applied backwards to that rule after the 'declining' option became part of the game. It seems like an extra penalty for a 1d10 defender, and quite a Faustian choice - to help save this valuable unit, I have to make it more vulnerable - without getting the defensive column shift 'power' one would in effect receive if playing 2d10, if you decide to use the 'power'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Yes, knowing the quirks in the rules can be an advantage when playing the game, especially against someone who doesn't know them. [Personally, I prefer rules without quirks.]

In my role as the developer here, I want the game to be well received by new players. Obviously, the fewer quirks the better from the new player's point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I hate to mention this, but with the 1d10 system there doesn't seem to be any bonus or loss penalty for the defender's winterized units. So the defender winterized choice in 1d10 may not be too important and could be skipped?

The first loss must be a winterized unit if you take the column shift.

No that is incorrect, in 1D10 it only applies to the attacker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
On what is the RAC change to RAW based? The 2d10 that I have has none of that text.

Also, if you allow players to decline the winter bonus, you'll need to clarify 3(c) of the 2d10 notes. That is, if I have two units attacking and one is Winterized, but I refuse the winterized bonus, am I still exempt from the bad weather extra loss?

What I quoted is straight from the RAW 7.0 PDF. I made no changes to this section for RAC.

Ah, that's for the 1d10. I've been focusing on the 2d10. I *guess* that it would be a stretch to deny the flexibility on the 2d10 then. C'est la guerre.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

About the declinability of engineers and winterized boni, this has been debated ad nauseum, ad tedium, ad barfium on the rules list and on the main list and now here???

Please, the designer of the game has stated in the FAQ and repeatedly in narrative messages on the rules list, that they are declinable. (He also said he's willing to change the ruling if a "majority" {whatever that is?} agree they should not be declinable.)

I have opened a poll on the main Yahoo list for this purpose.

Side point on Engineers - I have made attacks across rivers and into double factory stacks with engineers and declined the bonus because I did not want to risk losing the engineer. It was enpough of a penalty in the combat to be halved by the river or minused by the factory stack to not also be increased by risking the loss of a valuable unit. To say the solution is to not attack with them is stupid, since I could attack with them in a combat where their special ability is not needed - so why do I lose the availability of their combat factors in the case where I "could" use their ability?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well, that is 3 votes for "supply is (re)determined at time of combat" being the predominant rule - which makes sense to me. I'll go with the latter interpretation then.

I would have made it 4 votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
On what is the RAC change to RAW based? The 2d10 that I have has none of that text.

Also, if you allow players to decline the winter bonus, you'll need to clarify 3(c) of the 2d10 notes. That is, if I have two units attacking and one is Winterized, but I refuse the winterized bonus, am I still exempt from the bad weather extra loss?

What I quoted is straight from the RAW 7.0 PDF. I made no changes to this section for RAC.

Ah, that's for the 1d10. I've been focusing on the 2d10. I *guess* that it would be a stretch to deny the flexibility on the 2d10 then. C'est la guerre.

What is valid for 1d10 CRT is still valid for 2d10 if it is not contradicted by what the 2d10 CRT says, and it is not contradicted in the 2d10 CRT that the winterized & ENG bonuses are declinable. The 2d10 CRT is only listing the bonuses & penalties of the winterized & ENG units, and nowhere does it say that the "may" in RAW becomes a "must" with 2d10 CRT.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

About the declinability of engineers and winterized boni, this has been debated ad nauseum, ad tedium, ad barfium on the rules list and on the main list and now here???

Please, the designer of the game has stated in the FAQ and repeatedly in narrative messages on the rules list, that they are declinable. (He also said he's willing to change the ruling if a "majority" {whatever that is?} agree they should not be declinable.)

I have opened a poll on the main Yahoo list for this purpose.

Side point on Engineers - I have made attacks across rivers and into double factory stacks with engineers and declined the bonus because I did not want to risk losing the engineer. It was enpough of a penalty in the combat to be halved by the river or minused by the factory stack to not also be increased by risking the loss of a valuable unit. To say the solution is to not attack with them is stupid, since I could attack with them in a combat where their special ability is not needed - so why do I lose the availability of their combat factors in the case where I "could" use their ability?

Totaly agreed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

The timing of the decision to double units with an Ochit. Steve has it at the time of the declaration of the combat. RAW says you do it right before calculating final odds. The former is fairly simple and also resolves issues such as how to account for overcommitment of shore bombardment and ground support. The latter is, well, RAW

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

Well, RAW says :
"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

There would be no "If" in this sentence if the use of the ENG benefit in an attack was mandatory.
So an ENG can attack like a regular INF and not suffer first loss.
IMO, considering real life and real world ENG usage, this is stupid to think that an ENG that is involved in a combat is always building bridges, or crounched in the cities' sewers or demolishing enemy fortifications (using their benefit). They can be here only for the manpower's sake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I did just think of a fine point to the application of the rule, that I had never considered before. The answer seems obvious, but I want to be clear. If a 1-4 Engineer is attacking across a river, and it declines to double another attacking unit, the Engineer would be halved as well, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I did just think of a fine point to the application of the rule, that I had never considered before. The answer seems obvious, but I want to be clear. If a 1-4 Engineer is attacking across a river, and it declines to double another attacking unit, the Engineer would be halved as well, correct?

Sure, why wouldn't it ?
The "benefit" ENG have is to build bridges over rivers to allow for non halved attack. If they were not halved, this would mean that they would build bridges, but only for them, why not, but in that case they are using their "benefit".

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The bonus might be what saves you from any casualties at all; I guess my glass is half-full when I attack something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I don't usually comment on rules as there are people infinitly more qualified than I. Since opinions are so strong could someone ask Harry and just get this resolved by the creator of the game?

I was offline for moving for the past week, so could you please help me to catch up.
What is the issue that is still not yet solved ?

The timing of the decision to double units with an Ochit. Steve has it at the time of the declaration of the combat. RAW says you do it right before calculating final odds. The former is fairly simple and also resolves issues such as how to account for overcommitment of shore bombardment and ground support. The latter is, well, RAW

Well, it seems to me that all people play it the first way (at the time of the declaration of the combat). It would be too complicated to have it right before calculating final odds.
Especially as it was already clarified that you could apply Ground Support and Shore Bombardment up to the doubled value of the combat units of the attacking units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: doctormm
Harry's "wrong" here. It may be what he intended, or what he wants it to say, it may end up being what gets written into MWiF, but it's not what the rules say.

TBH, ENG should have 0 factors and ONLY provide combat mods.

Well, RAW says :
"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

There would be no "If" in this sentence if the use of the ENG benefit in an attack was mandatory.
So an ENG can attack like a regular INF and not suffer first loss.
IMO, considering real life and real world ENG usage, this is stupid to think that an ENG that is involved in a combat is always building bridges, or crounched in the cities' sewers or demolishing enemy fortifications (using their benefit). They can be here only for the manpower's sake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

In the  above combat resolution is seems to me that the 2D10 table was used and the roll of 4 adds to the basic +15 if the fraction did not make it +16. Then the end result would be a 19 or 20 and the loss picture is different. If it was assault the attacker would lose 2 units and disrupt half and the defender would lose his unit and the city would fall.  

The screen does not state whether it was assault or blitz.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

[small point ... when using fractional odds the rules have you explicitly truncate the + number that you add to the die roll to tenths only, with no rounding, so you might wish to show the number only out to the tenth place? And you would have to force the computer to truncate rather than round the number; depending on OS it would tend to round the # as it went to display to an explicit amount of places?]

It might help a tiny little bit to always declare one of the three possibilities "All attacking units are disorganized / Half of the surviving attacking units are disorganized / No attacking units are disorganized", but with only the one example shown, I predict you are already on top of that. ?

Does the 'Attacking Units' window keep an ART unit that is bombarding out of the window, or differentiate it somehow? Just checking. Otherwise you'd get people trying to assign losses/disorganize results to one.