A Few Thoughts on the New, "Pocket" Scenario Concept (I. e., PK1 through PK4)

[FrankH.]

I think the "pocket" scenario concept (there are 4 examples released with Journal 13) are going to be successful. Pretty sure we will see more of these. At least three of the first four are using some fairly innovative concepts. I won't go into any details about what I mean by that here. However, I will have some questions/clarifications which I will probably post separatetly for each individual scenario.

The pocket scenarios just barely fit on an 8 1/2 x 11 page. In one case, that of PK3 "Hot Toddy", there is not enough room for an Aftermath. (PK3 has the largest map of the four PK scenarios.) For all four scenarios there apparently is not enough room for any Scenario Balances, or terrain explanations (something I think is especially needed for Hot Toddy).

I get the the idea of keeping the scenario to one side of one card. Try to continue do this if and as possible. But if it's not possible for in future efforts? Reserve the back of one scenario in a future set of pocket scenarios for any additional text for the multiple scenarios. This can include Aftermath, Balance, maybe Special rules. (Probably no scenario OBs, except in the most extreme cases). The second card is just for reference info - no map.

 

[Wayne]

I prefer the finish of geoboards. Colors on geoboards pop.

These PK maps are more like some HASL maps. Print on stock having a higher clay content and a glossier look, perhaps?

But it's a small nit to pick.

 

[von Marwitz]

For those that don't yet have Journal 13 - what is a Pocket Scenario and a Pocket map?

von Marwitz

 

[klasmalmstrom]

For those that don't yet have Journal 13 - what is a Pocket Scenario and a Pocket map?

Map + all scenario information printed on the same scenario card.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

The pocket scenarios just barely fit on an 8 1/2 x 11 page. In one case, that of PK3 "Hot Toddy", there is not enough room for an Aftermath. (PK3 has the largest map of the four PK scenarios.) For all four scenarios there apparently is not enough room for any Scenario Balances, or terrain explanations (something I think is especially needed for Hot Toddy

Out of curiosity - what "terrain explanations" are needed to PK3 Hot Toddy?

 

[RandyT0001]

Out of curiosity - what "terrain explanations" are needed to PK3 Hot Toddy?

Probably questions if the RR is embankment or elevated. I do believe the RR is embankment b/c elevated would need specification in SSR. Or am I wrong?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Probably questions if the RR is embankment or elevated. I do believe the RR is embankment b/c elevated would need specification in SSR. Or am I wrong?

The "overlay" shows Elevated (same terrain depiction as an Elevated road) - Embankment needs to be specified in an SSR....

 

[FrankH.]

Out of curiosity - what "terrain explanations" are needed to PK3 Hot Toddy?

Need an SSR for what type of railroad overlay is depicted. If in any way elevated, how do the roads work in N3 and N8, as these cross the RR? If an under pass, can vehicles pass through (under) or only infantry?

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Need an SSR for what type of railroad overlay is depicted. If in any way elevated, how do the roads work in N3 and N8, as these cross the RR? If an under pass, can vehicles pass through (under) or only infantry?

The depiction shows Elevated - just like an Elevated Road.


B32.43 handles the x-ing.

32.43 ELEVATED RR CROSSING: In an ElRR-Xing, the RR is elevated and the Road is one level lower. The RR crosses the road on a stone bridge (6.) which extends to the hexsides of the two adjoining RR hexes. A unit entering an ElRR-Xing via a road hexside is at ground level in a separate Location underneath the bridge and must enter the hex at the road rate. A unit must cross a RR hexside in order to enter/exit an ElRR bridge Location [EXC: by Scaling (23.424)]. Normal bridge rules (6. and 5.21) apply to RR bridges [EXC: only Infantry/Cavalry may enter/exit the road Location via a RR hexside].


Edit - found an old Q/A..

B32.1
When you get a scenario that doesn’t specify the type of railroad (B32.1), what is the default type? Is there a default type, even?
A. Absent an SSR (which is always required to define an EmRR), the terrain in the RR overlay defines what type of RR it is:
GLRR. ElRR, or SuRR.

 

[FrankH.]

The depiction shows Elevated - just like an Elevated Road.


B32.43 handles the x-ing.

32.43 ELEVATED RR CROSSING: In an ElRR-Xing, the RR is elevated and the Road is one level lower. The RR crosses the road on a stone bridge (6.) which extends to the hexsides of the two adjoining RR hexes. A unit entering an ElRR-Xing via a road hexside is at ground level in a separate Location underneath the bridge and must enter the hex at the road rate. A unit must cross a RR hexside in order to enter/exit an ElRR bridge Location [EXC: by Scaling (23.424)]. Normal bridge rules (6. and 5.21) apply to RR bridges [EXC: only Infantry/Cavalry may enter/exit the road Location via a RR hexside].


Edit - found an old Q/A..

B32.1
When you get a scenario that doesn’t specify the type of railroad (B32.1), what is the default type? Is there a default type, even?
A. Absent an SSR (which is always required to define an EmRR), the terrain in the RR overlay defines what type of RR it is:
GLRR. ElRR, or SuRR.

OK, but I didn't and still don't see B32.43 referenced on the scenario card. I think it should be.

Separately, is the cost for Infantry/Cavalry to enter the road location via a RR hexside only 2 MF? I.e., twice the OG cost due to the elevation change? I realize it's not your decision, but seems like it ought to be a bit more, if there is a stone bridge (probably with vertical stone supports) that is 40 meters wide.

I may need to do some more reading in B32.

 

[Robin Reeve]

OK, but I didn't and still don't see B32.43 referenced on the scenario card. I think it should be.

As the rule applies without the need of an SSR, the reference is not mandatory.

 

[FrankH.]

As the rule applies without the need of an SSR, the reference is not mandatory.

Doesn't seem to be a rule. Instead a Q & A.

See "Edit - found an old Q/A.." of Klas.

I suppose MMP could publish all currently meaningful Q & A, but that would be an immense task and so far they have not done it. Anyway the idea should be with a pocket scenario is that everything needed is on the card. Other than the counters, of course.

All that would be needed is to add "4: B32.43 applies (to the RR)" to the SSR on the card. That's pretty short.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Doesn't the Q&A simply clarify the rule?
Otherwise, there would have been an errata, I believe.

 

[FrankH.]

Doesn't the Q&A simply clarify the rule?
Otherwise, there would have been an errata, I believe.

It does. But my point is not everyone has access to the Q & A. And it would take very little to just reference the relevant rule on the scenario card. Not saying an errata, just a note or clarification, is needed (maybe that's an errata?). And if the scenario is ever reprinted, add the SSR4 I mentioned.

 

[Cpl Uhl]

My only criticism of the PK scenarios as done in J13 is that they didn't take more advantage of the "unique board" opportunity. All the maps look like standard (matte) geoboards and the PTO one didn't even convert Orchard to Palm (a particularly annoying orthodoxy).

 

[von Marwitz]

Probably, the intention was to design a "low kit" / "fast preparation" type of scenario rather than a unique map-experience.

von Marwitz

 

[Cpl Uhl]

Fair enough, but gimme the palm trees at least!