TeaLeaf -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/24/2015 10:15:35 AM)
|
I agree with you Cohen -2D10 represents WW2 warfare best, for its dynamic nature. In general with 2D10, defending becomes much less a priority (or an option, for that matter). Counterattacking is the key to success there. I stil doubt where my preference would be... 1D10 and 2D10 giving quite different playstyles. 2D10 seems better for WW2 but I think also gives an unreasonable better shot at hexes like Gibraltar. With 2D10, best I can get to is 64% chance of taking that Rock in 1 roll, 1D10 50% chance of taking it in 1 roll. But that is only if all conditions are favourable to Germany and everything works out for them. Which are a lot of variables and uncertainties... IF, for example, the optional Defensive Shore Bombardment is 'on', and the CW can keep a large BB fleet around, then... Or if Germany fails to disrupt all defenders, etc. etc. I learnt to play the game a few decades ago, when only 1D10 was available and I learnt to mount quite effective defenses with the soviets during Barbarossa (simply reduce the odds levels to 2:1). After starting to play 2D10, I learnt that Soviet defenses during Barbarossa mean next to nothing (even if I can reduce odds levels along the entire front line to 2:1), but armoured counterattacking results in a lot more German losses, as opposed to only Soviet ones.
|
|
|
|