1D10 vs 2D10 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WIF School



Message

nilssone85 -> 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 3:45:35 PM)

Hi!
We are just about to start over for e new game and is looking through the optional rules.
I the past I have always played with the 1D10 combat tables but many people seems to prefer the 2D10. What is the pros and cons between the two options? What optional rules should be activated to make sure the two options work the best?

As a start I guess the statistics will limit the extreme results with the 2d10 table.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 4:15:11 PM)

There has been discussion about this, although I don't think a thread dedicated to it.

Personally I am surprised 1D10 is even in MWiF. Why some play with it I don't really understand. 2D10 is the gold standard...as that is what the vast majority play. I have been to three cons, and do not recall any table playing 1d10 (not saying its never happened).

Get used to playing the 2d10 if you want to find more/better opponents.




Courtenay -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 6:16:54 PM)

See this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3415372&mpage=1&key=1d10�

And this one:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3509358&mpage=1&key=1d10�



paulderynck -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 6:19:34 PM)

1D10 with blitz mods is not all that different than 2D10 and some people actually prefer it because they dislike losing a combat on a 1 or 2 percent shot.




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 7:00:36 PM)

I cant believe a player would be that risk averse to be worried about a 1-2% chance. They probably don't like playing the Axis then either.



nilssone85 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 8:24:17 PM)

Well, saying that because everybody else is using something is really not a god argument, is it? See history of earth being flat for instance ;-)



nilssone85 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 8:25:14 PM)

Thank you!



paulderynck -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 8:25:29 PM)

You don't avoid making the attack. It's probably the same attack in 1D10 you'd make with a 10% chance of failure. It's just a lot more irritating when it fails on a freaky die roll.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 8:50:00 PM)

In this case Nilssone, if you want to play with the big boys, you better learn and adapt to the game they play. Its kinda like college football (1d10) vs Pro football (2d10). Also, say I suddenly decided that I wanted to play with 1d10 with my face to face group...they would look at me with confused looks on their face, then laugh with or at me (depending on if they thought I was joking), and if they thought I was serious laugh some more and simply state: NO!

When our group began to play WiF, I recall initial discussions concerning how we wanted to play (not just xd10)...the consensus was that since some of us had aspirations to play not only at cons, but also a rival group in south Florida, that we should play the game mainstream and not get caught up in crazy bs. So that was our "because everybody else is using/flat Earth/climate change" moment. I'm glad we did it since several of us went on to play some awesome games both in Michigan as well as Germany, and we kicked the you know what out of our rival group.

To each his own, but if you want to expand your multi-player possibilities...go with 2d10.



AlbertN -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/20/2015 10:30:54 PM)

I'd not play with the D10. I admit I've not tried it - but the 2D10 provides better average results in general. Disastrous attacks which were highly successful on the "paper" of a plan can happen, so a desperate attack can go astonishingly good - but these are minor percentances.

The fact you average 2 dices instead of just rolling one tends to make combat results more predictable - but never certain unless it's an auto attack.

Also the added variables - in both results and modifiers - suits my tastes and adds a layer of complexity and planning from player side to not understimate. Well - complexity - in planning still.

The fact you can get extra losses on terrain, to disorganize half of your troops, that your HQ support is -reliable- on demand and not a random die roll which could or could not work ... just makes the 2D10 superior.
I am quite curious actually to even see the 3D10 - not that it will be coded in MWiF but I'd still like to see it.




brian brian -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 3:39:56 AM)

1d10 is like the lunch menu. 2d10 is like the full dinner buffet.

Sorry, no aphorism for the 3d10, barely glanced at it then my copy of the Annual went gone away again. World in Flames Annuals are worth every penny however, I should just buy another one.



Orm -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 5:14:01 AM)

After reading these posts I do recall one of the reasons why I do not go to cons.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 5:26:41 PM)

Orm, you have more than one reason to not go to cons?

FYI: Euro WiFcon is an awesome event. Well put together, the location is excellent. Lots of interesting people to meet...we made friends with three guys from Arhus Denmark (our opponents). Harry Rowland (creator of WiF) has been known to make his appearance there as well.

The only problem we had was that we brought our game from the US, and used national markers to indicate conquered minors (swastika symbol for the Germans). One day we went to lunch with our Danish bros, returned to find our German swastika markers all had damage markers on top of them. The organizer ran over to our table with a red face and told us please don't use those markers, they are illegal and the con could lose the location! Wow![X(] The other thing is, if a game has to be adjudicated, it will go as a draw.

I would recommend Warspite not go however, there is a group photo on the last day[;)]



Orm -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 5:39:29 PM)

The main concern is actually time and the distance.

I've been there once and I would really like to go again.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 5:43:14 PM)

Distance? Its in your back yard!

http://eurowif.de/



Orm -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 6:04:44 PM)

Unfortunately, a 800 miles, one way drive, is a bit to far even if it is in my back yard. [:)]



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/21/2015 6:43:23 PM)

I see it begins tomorrow!

Watch for Rudiger on table two...he's really good! One of my buddies from Denmark (Carsten) is on table 3. Two guys from Sweden as well.



TeaLeaf -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/23/2015 7:33:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nilssone85

Hi!
We are just about to start over for e new game and is looking through the optional rules.
I the past I have always played with the 1D10 combat tables but many people seems to prefer the 2D10. What is the pros and cons between the two options? What optional rules should be activated to make sure the two options work the best?

As a start I guess the statistics will limit the extreme results with the 2d10 table.


From my personal experience: you are right.
2D10 is much more predictable (Bell Curve). When playing opponents who know how to play, I find the 2D10 too easy to 'abuse'.
With maximum mofiers for your combat rolls, 2:1 attacks have a solid chance on a good result with the 2D10 (i.e. not getting too much units disorganised).
With the 1D10 however, it is much much harder to launch a 2:1 attack that is favourable.

It's a matter of style. IMHO, the game is best learnt 1D10, to play with the 2D10 later.
But in general I found that you will most likely loose the game if you play 2D10-style with the 1D10 CRT and vice-versa (unless you are extremely lucky).
1D10 style is more static because it is much easier to defend (just reduce the odds levels to 2:1). 2D10 style is much more dynamic because it is much easier to attack with good results.

I suspect that because of this, France and Russia are having a harder time in a 2D10 game, since early in the war (when they are attacked), the allies have few units, are on the defense, and the 2D10 favours the attacker (early game this is the axis obviously).



AlbertN -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/23/2015 8:54:53 PM)

Technically WW2 is dynamic and not static. It should be attack and counterattack (albeit hard to mirror on a Corp / Army level and one could say is wrapped in the combat itself).

It favors attacks the 2d10 - I can agree to that. Gibraltar would be impossible or almost to seize with the 1d10 for example, because you'd struggle to get at the 2:1 ratio in most cases for instance.
So many landings against garrisoned islands would be pratically a nightmare.

If that makes the difference between dynamic game, and static WW1 alike game, by all means I'd pick the dynamic.



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.



Orm -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/24/2015 2:25:21 PM)

I do not agree that 2d10 represents WW2 better.

I do not even agree that WWII was a attacking / counterattacking war. Especially not on the scale represented in MWIF.



TeaLeaf -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/24/2015 6:47:01 PM)

So then you find the 1D10 representing WW2 better? Please share!
I know I often got a 'WWI-feeling' of the 1D10: Defender (France/Spain+CW/Russia) makes sure the attacker can only attack at 2:1 and the attacker in turn does either not attack out of fear for the dice or attacks in the hope of good rolls. Bad rolls stop the offensive quite quickly, good rolls collapses the defense. Dice won the game for you.

Now that I think about it more, I think 1D10 favors the defender too much, 2D10 the attacker.
Maybe there can be a middle ground where being allowed to choose the blitz or assault table also entitles the player to choose which CRT to use, either 1D10 or 2D10...



paulderynck -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/24/2015 10:59:36 PM)

1D10 combined with guns and divisions will give the WWI effect. If you then add Blitz mods, you get mobility back. So it depends on which table is used with which options.



brian brian -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/29/2015 2:58:42 AM)

The die modifiers on the 2d10 are frequently brought up in these discussions. I think that thinking is a little bit of a hold-over from playing "classic" wargames. Where there is just Attacker:Defender factors unit counters and 3:1 will take the hex but there remains a question of casualties. It is also a bit of a headache to learn the fine points of the 2d10 when the game already has a head-spinning amount of fine details.

I prefer the 2d10 because it rewards combined arms planning to a larger degree, and also using a good build strategy. Is having 6 squadrons of ground attack aircraft interdict every moving enemy in the area of the objective worth an extra odds level on a wargame CRT? Who knows? That is just as subjective as saying 41st Panzer has 9 attack factors and Russia's 23rd Army has 3.

Are holding your Engineers in reserve until they are then worth half an odds level when assaulting a major urban city? You will never know on the 1d10.

And you can play defense well on the 2D10. The defense has modifiers to put to use at times, but they also have to pay more attention to the terrain they attempt to hold. 1d10 with Blitz mods doesn't illustrate that nearly as much as 2d10.

There is also the question of using the 2d10 modifiers to take key hexes such as Gibraltar and Leningrad. For Gibraltar, I am fine with that. The hex is completely over-rated on defense in the game. It should be impossible to take by sea invasion. It should fall without much of a die roll if you completely control the skies of southern Spain and Spanish Morocco. I just don't see 7 divisions cramming into the place, but we can't have special exception rules.

For Leningrad, the 2d10 modifiers were never really tried, that I can recall from cursory knowledge of the siege (I am currently starting to read a volume on just that topic though). A Finnish ski-troop led assault across Lake Ladoga? Stalingrad-like massing of the German Pioneers? The siege artillery used against Sevastopol? Offensive Chit? Army Group North's total reserves? Here too I am fine with 2d10 die modifiers paving a route to success.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/29/2015 3:38:47 AM)

Brian, you make a good point about 2d10 on defense. I also agree about Gibraltar...I don't think it should be possible to invade...and it should not be able to hold 7 divisions. But why not special exception rules, there already are...and for Gibraltar?

I would like to see you write something about what you are reading...sounds very interesting! I was always surprised the Germans didn't take care of that pimple. It seemed to me Hitler wanted to make the people there suffer more than he wanted to take the city. I just don't get it. Did not the Germans send the siege artillery they used vs Sevastopol to Leningrad?...or was that a plan that never was followed through on? I always wondered what Army Group North was up to while Case Blue was under way...seems like not much, but maybe they were neutered for the southern push?



brian brian -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/29/2015 1:18:08 PM)

I'm sure I will learn some details on the Siege but I'm not too optimistic overall. Clearly written by an approved Soviet historian and composed entirely of survivor interviews; it took 40 pages for the first use of any gunpowder on June 22nd, though along the way I heard the details of several symphonies being played around the USSR on the third Saturday in June in 1941.

I do know that Manstein's 11th Army was transferred from the Crimea to the Leningrad front after the fall of Sevastopol. But Hitler remained wishy-washy on that and slowly disassembled the various assets into other sectors.



AlbertN -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/29/2015 4:08:53 PM)

I feel the terrain has little impact - at least on the rolls. But in the 2D10 it mirrors in "extra losses" on the charts which makes it interesting.

So in the end that balances it out. But at times I feel a -1 a bit too little for a wood area or a city area (hex).

The main issue though is not related to the combat table, but that the defender often has limited choices of losses, meanwhile a careful attacker who plans well in advance in many cases has the MOT-Div or that MIL / INF-Div to immolate for the cause. That in my eyes would be the major problem. Some friends I know house rule that the first loss must always be corp sized (Which means in a Blitz attack, you lose a MOT first. Not sure what they do when ENG are involved, but ENG units are very precious since they required 5 turns to be rebuild and in most cases I'd be happy that the enemy - if attacking especially - burns out their ENG more so than a MOT).



paulderynck -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (10/29/2015 5:52:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
...but they also have to pay more attention to the terrain they attempt to hold. 1d10 with Blitz mods doesn't illustrate that nearly as much as 2d10.

How so? Half an odds column for AT is about it.



Orm -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (11/1/2015 8:45:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf
So then you find the 1D10 representing WW2 better? Please share!

I do find the 1d10 table a better representation of WW2 combat.

In my opinion;

The 2d10 table reduce the importance of combat odds to much.

The importance of close air support is reduced to much in the 2d10 table.

As been mentioned I believe that the 'dynamic' nature of attacking and counterattacking in WWII is part of the actual combat die roll. During WWII one side was the attacker and the other was the defender and the defender did not launch army sized counter attacks all the time. How many times did France, or CW, counter attack (army sized) during the Battle of France?



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: 1D10 vs 2D10 (11/2/2015 4:10:26 AM)

quote:

quote:ORIGINAL: TeaLeaf So then you find the 1D10 representing WW2 better? Please share! I do find the 1d10 table a better representation of WW2 combat. In my opinion; The 2d10 table reduce the importance of combat odds to much. The importance of close air support is reduced to much in the 2d10 table. As been mentioned I believe that the 'dynamic' nature of attacking and counterattacking in WWII is part of the actual combat die roll. During WWII one side was the attacker and the other was the defender and the defender did not launch army sized counter attacks all the time. How many times did France, or CW, counter attack (army sized) during the Battle of France?



_____________________________ Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett



Its amazing to me how people see the 'world' so differently.

Odds were of paramount importance in pre-WWII history. WWII to modern warfare less so. Close air support is extremely important in 2d10...perhaps deficiencies in 1d10 make it even more so than 2d10?

France or CW could not conduct army sized counter attacks in the Battle of France...that's why it didn't happen. That's a 5 week window of WWII you selected.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625