Another LM scenario 8, question

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I have got LM and only just had a chance to examine the scenarios closely.

Looking at HR 3, the low bidder sets up on the objective hex.

Why on earth would any one want to win the bid? Maybe I have gone senile or am mis-reading the HRs, but a looser in the bid starts at full strength as well as sitting on the objective, IE is on the pig's back.

Is this in error and if it is not then what is the design rationale behind this?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
On further reading of the package, I think there may be a problem with the Campaign Game Information Table.

Whilst figuring out which column 3 or 7 (the start CVP columns) represented the start CVP of which side, I calculated the start CVP for a few scenarios and could not match up with the table.

Just to make sure that I am using the correct formula, the method I used was squad / crew=2, half squad (none at start) = 1, leader = 1 + negative leadership modifier, hero = 0, 5/8" ordinance = 2 and vehicle as per the ASL rules (A26.2). Unarmed squads treated same as armed squads.

The values I have calculated are as follows and are of the form "CG sequence, CPC, KMT", with any value of the form x+y being the personnel only+ordinance/vehicle (undoubled, ignoring G18.44).

CGS, CPC, KMT
1, 55, 72+4
2, 25, 51+10
3, 36, 58
4, 49, 30
5, 50, 52
6, 61, 64
7, 21, 26
8, 49, 53
9, 27, 46
10, 34+2, 31+2
11, 27, 30
12, 36, 38+2
13, 41, 26
14, 52, 58

Maybe I have got this completely arseways or might a playtest version of the table got released?
 

JR Brackin

Cardboard Challanged
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
574
Location
North of Philly
Country
llUnited States
I have got LM and only just had a chance to examine the scenarios closely.

Looking at HR 3, the low bidder sets up on the objective hex.

Why on earth would any one want to win the bid? Maybe I have gone senile or am mis-reading the HRs, but a looser in the bid starts at full strength as well as sitting on the objective, IE is on the pig's back.

Is this in error and if it is not then what is the design rationale behind this?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I missed the original post and just now noted it.

Remember you can bid zero squads and as a result live with the potential tie situation in step four. This is a tactical decision that the player will make at the beginning of the scenario.

I did not play test, only helped with the editing. Either Steve Dethleson or Jay Long could comment on the play testing.

I hope that this helps.

JR Brackin
 

JR Brackin

Cardboard Challanged
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
574
Location
North of Philly
Country
llUnited States
On further reading of the package, I think there may be a problem with the Campaign Game Information Table.

Whilst figuring out which column 3 or 7 (the start CVP columns) represented the start CVP of which side, I calculated the start CVP for a few scenarios and could not match up with the table.

Just to make sure that I am using the correct formula, the method I used was squad / crew=2, half squad (none at start) = 1, leader = 1 + negative leadership modifier, hero = 0, 5/8" ordinance = 2 and vehicle as per the ASL rules (A26.2). Unarmed squads treated same as armed squads.

The values I have calculated are as follows and are of the form "CG sequence, CPC, KMT", with any value of the form x+y being the personnel only+ordinance/vehicle (undoubled, ignoring G18.44).

CGS, CPC, KMT
1, 55, 72+4
2, 25, 51+10
3, 36, 58
4, 49, 30
5, 50, 52
6, 61, 64
7, 21, 26
8, 49, 53
9, 27, 46
10, 34+2, 31+2
11, 27, 30
12, 36, 38+2
13, 41, 26
14, 52, 58

Maybe I have got this completely arseways or might a playtest version of the table got released?
I am reviewong your numbers, they are more correct than the chart in my opinion. I will contact Steve to see where his numbers were derived.

Note that the numbers represent Infantry only; no vehicles, mmgs, or ordnance are incorporated into the numbers. That being said, there appears to be some issues in the chart. Hopefully Steve D can shed some light on these.

JR Brackin
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I am reviewong your numbers, they are more correct than the chart in my opinion. I will contact Steve to see where his numbers were derived.

Note that the numbers represent Infantry only; no vehicles, mmgs, or ordnance are incorporated into the numbers. That being said, there appears to be some issues in the chart. Hopefully Steve D can shed some light on these.

JR Brackin
The CVP calculation is give by " is based on the number Infantry CVP in ... No Tactical Objective, prisoners, E-VP, or Support Weapons are ever counted for CGVPs." Support Weapons are only weapons on 1/2" counters. I assumed that only Leaders/MMCs counted, but included 5/8" ordinance/vehicles (the Y part) in the X+Y, just in case there was something missing from either part of the above (just being ASL style pedantic).

The (I believe) incorrect table may have been calculated from early pre-play-test scenario CVP values. Is it a pain and misleading? Yes. Does it break the CG? No. The method of calculating the CGP bonus is explained in LM CG4. The table just takes some of the grunt work out of the calculation.

I was sent an email by "namless-J?" (Jay Long, I assume) about a week ago, but only read last night (my email is on an old desktop that use only once or twice a week, I post here on my laptop) and he said to delete the last clause of Lm 8, HR 3, IE " - And sets up their units ... occupied.]". He said this should be an official erratum. The deletion of that last clause makes bidding potentially worthwhile and makes sense as an option.

Although the CG table is a very visible and embarrassing problem, I am still pleased with overall package. The number of scenarios and the choice of subject matter are to be commended.
 
Top