Curtis Lemay
Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004 From: Houston, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panama Here is everything that is wrong with your one size fits all solution. Please take particular note of the bolded underlined portion. That portion means that one battle will (sorry. that should be COULD instead of WILL) end the turn for all battles on the map no matter what the Maximum Rounds Per Battle is set at. Well, except maybe 1. No. The check you underlined below is independent of individual battles. It's the same for any size scenario. And it's a good thing - one that we have no desire to eliminate. It counters some of the distortions of IGOUGO. "Turn Burn", on the other hand (which was the issue here) can be completely addressed by the MRPB parameter. quote:
Low MRPB values can minimize “Turn burn,” but at the cost of attacks not having enough tactical rounds to retreat defenders. So what? It preserves the tactical rounds so you can then continue till they do retreat. quote:
Low MRPB values can also yield better results from using Tactical and Local Reserve Deployments. ?? Only in the sense that there will now be more combat phases for them to react in - wasn't that the point? quote:
You can more safely use progressively higher Loss Tolerance settings for Attacks, with low MRPB values, since the number of tactical rounds that stubborn units continue attacks and defenses will be attenuated. Sounds like a good thing. But, note that that would only be ensured if the setting was 1. Any value above that would still require some consideration of attack complexity. quote:
While some Scenarios will benefit from very low MRPB values, it is generally not recommended to set it lower than 3, as this also attenuates the number of rounds that Artillery, Naval, and Air units will bombard for, at their higher Loss Tolerance settings,... Again, this causes no real harm. The rounds are still there. quote:
...and may also adversely affect the net bonuses that positive shock values have in reducing the number of tactical rounds expended during combat. It is recommended that Scenario designers using Shock events generally set this value to be no less than the following: (Highest Value Shock – 70) / 10 Your mileage may vary; playtest for overall effect throughout the campaign. I don't know for a fact that that is the case, and I don't know why it would be. I doubt it was rigorously tested. But, even if it is, for very large scenarios, eliminating turn burn trumps any consideration of the above. Nevertheless, I don't recommend setting the MRPB below 3 for most cases - it eliminates a lot of skill factors. But, if you really want to totally eliminate turn burn, you can. And for the case of Europe Aflame, a value lower than 99 would definitely be recommended. I repeat: That's the problem here. quote:
Another effect to keep in mind when setting this value is that the chance for ending the Turn by a “Proficiency Check” is not affected. Thus, while players may realize more sets of Attacks throughout their Turn, with low MRPB values, they will conversely be more likely to have the Turn ended (eventually) by a failed Proficiency Check, since one is made at the end of each series of Attacks. See Turn Over (14.1) for details. Scenario designers who change this from the default should indicate the value used in their Scenario Briefing. Well, wouldn't that be the objective of eliminating turn burn? More combat phases? Nevertheless, the above actually depends upon the rounds strategy the player implements. You can still expend more than one round, even if the MRPB is set to 1, via late units. So, you could set up both round 1 and round 2 attacks at the start of the turn. Two rounds would be expended - and there would still only be one check against prof, etc. But at least that would be at the control of the player. Again, could there be more sophistication available in some fashion? Sure. But to say it hasn't been addressed is a complete falsehood. The MRPB addresses turn burn in a very effective fashion. If designers would just use it.
|