Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:
I can easily show how such a breakdown rule will influence the game-balance, and I dont think anyone has argued that it will not have an effect...so why do it? Why?
Well... playtest will tell... and if you're right, the whole idea will be dumped.
As to having anyone arguing that it won't have the drastic effects you mention, I wonder if you read what I wrote 2 months ago, and am still writing, so I think I'd better stop.
Cheers !
Patrice
Gee, I think you guys disagree on this.
Some observations. WIF was originally designed as a corps/army level game. The scales for the map and turns/impulses are intrinsically linked to that decision. So is the land combat results table. As the game was played over the years, ADG introduced special divisonal sized units and incorporated the previously separate HQ units into corps sized units. It use to be that crappy HQs were used to get three units in a hex and they often took the hit. The introduction of breaking corps down into divisions clearly was done with eyes wide open by ADG as to how the players would use that capability.
The answer to "Why Divisional Breakdown?" is pretty easy. In a corps level game, the loss of a corps is a heavy defeat. Losing two in one combat is even worse. This is especially true for an HQ corps or armor corps. Players will always complain about the randomness of the dice rolls ruining their perfectly good plans and in this situation, they will want losses to be more gradual. Many other games with a corps scale are designed with step level losses. For example, a single corps might be able to take three hits before it disappears entirely. That wasn't a viable option for WiF because it directly affects the counter mix and the information displayed on the counters. A lot of games with step losses use separate markers for the number of steps remaining. Doubling the number of counters on the board would have been a disaster for WiF. So, I assume that the divisional breakdown accommodates at least three elements of the war that ADG wanted WiF to simulate better than it had without divisions: (1) special smaller units - Eng, AT, AA, ..., (2) the capability to perform operations that historically were not done by a corps - invasions of small islands, defending the odd isolated hex, and (3) a more graduated system for taking losses during land combat.
ADG reworked the land CRT a couple of times and I have to believe that it reflects their current thinking on what is an accurate number of losses for the various odds ratios for both assault and blitzkrieg. The 2 Die 10 land CRT has the attacker taking 3, 4, and 5 losses rather commonly (it was quite a shock to me the first time I saw it). If the players are not using divisions to take those number of losses, the game will be very fast, because they won't have any units left to move.
The controls on the use of divisions are subtle (aside from the limited number in the WiF counter mix). (1) Divisions do not have ZOCs and are easily overrun if left alone in a hex. They pretty much have to be stacked with a corps to have any combat value. Even two or three divisions stacked together in a hex are very close to worthless. (2) Breaking down a corps needs to be done behind the lines and the divisions then moved into place. (3) In terms of action limits, moving a division is the same as moving a corps. (4) The number of corps available is unaffected by the divisional breakdown rule. If a player breaks down 6 corps into divisions, then that is 6 fewer corps that he has available. (5) The logisitcs of breaking down a lot of corps into divisions, moving them around to perform some function and them reassembling them to reform into corps requires a lot of moves (land, sea, and possibly air) and takes most of a year to accomplish. Working with corps units to perform the same tasks is faster and is less stressful on the action limits.
I actually view the divisions as sort of quasi-replacement units. Most front line corps were never completely destroyed in combat even though they took heavy losses. Reinforcements/replacements were brought in from the homeland and the corps was returned to close to its original strength. At least, that is what the commanders hoped to achieve. It was a constant struggle for them and the quality of the unit's performance could be severely changed. Rather than removing corps units that have taken step losses from the front lines and then restoring them to full strength with reinforcements, WiF uses divisions to achieve almost the same effect. I even suspect that a unit being disrupted is a partial cover for units casualties with reorganization modelling replacements arriving.
The introduction of an optional rule permitting unlimited break down of corps into divisions was originally proposed for MWIF to help China and Japan fill the increase in frontline hexes that the unified scale map creates in China. Whether this rule hurts more than it helps remains to be seen. As Patrice pointed out, the limits imposed by the counter mix were regretted by Harry, and in that sense were an acknowledgement of a constraint that lay outside of Harry's desired WiF simulation of WW II.
As you probably knew from the start of this post, I agree with Patrice that play testing is the best place to resolve this discussion. I still have to write up the actual rule on unlimited divisonal breakdown; though by now, it is pretty well formulated in my head.
_____________________________
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
|
Printable Version
RE: Rules Lawyers - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread