Edison's Ridge CG

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
I should point out that while this CG is fun, it looks like the math is stacked against the Japs. The Japs have to do really well to force the US player to spend CPPs. Otherwise, the US player can just sit back and accumulate CPPs and knock down the Jap total VP.

There is a total of 152 VPs available from hex control. However, I figure that the Jap player can get about 65-75 at most. The US player on average should get about 101-102 CPPs. If he keeps his spending down to 50 CPPs that drops the Jap total to 15-25 VP. That means the Jap player has to get about 25-35 squads off-map, double that number around in a given small area or some combination of the two. The earliest opportunity the Jap player has to move units off-map is at the end of the 3rd CG date unless the Variable Game dr has been really good to him.

The Jap player has little margin for error and has to really hump to get into position. If he cannot take Hill 125 or if he takes it and it costs him too much he will have trouble making the Exit VP. He has to pick smart objective hexes that keep his units moving forward and allow him the option of on-map setup if necessary.
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Jeff, I think you want too much control. There are lots of reasons why fighting might stop, and many of them out of the hands of the local commander. I don't think there is a valid "realism" argument there.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
pitman said:
Jeff, I think you want too much control. There are lots of reasons why fighting might stop, and many of them out of the hands of the local commander. I don't think there is a valid "realism" argument there.
I am not looking for "realism"; I am looking at good game play. I am looking for a more elegant mechanic -- one that is based upon the events of the game and not an arbitrary one. It is not a question of too much control either. There are way too many events that take control from you as a player to begin with.

Let me give you a counter example. Assume that we didn't have concealment counters. The way we simulated concealment was that everytime you shot at an enenmy unit, you rolled a subsequent dr and if it came up a 5 or 6 you halved your FP. That mechanic would be just as valid as the current one. However, it just adds to the random element of the game without adding to game play.

This is how I feel about Variable Game end. A more elegant mechanic would be prefered.
 

Jay White

my sh*t is so tight
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
7
Location
Vancouver BC Canada
Country
llCanada
I don't agree with Waterrabbit. It's good the way it is.

You'd get "end of day land-grabs", which is WAY worse than what you're complaining about. Dice and randomness are part of the game. Like everything else in ASL, you have to plan around the random element.

If your attack was halted 1 turn early in a CG, that says to me that you were either unlucky (rolled a 1 on first turn), or didn't execute your attack quickly enough. If you were unlucky, your opponent was lucky, and I'll bet he's not complaining about the game end dr!

I don't listen to complaints about "i coulda done THIS, but the dice were bad!" Almost always, luck can be countered by good play. If you're complaining about dice, you're (mostly) making excuses about not succeeding.

I can see your point from spending CPP on a "+1" to the game end dr, though. That could be cool.

My sassy two cents!

-Jay
 
Last edited:

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
I think you are mistaking my complaint as a dice whine, which it is not (for the most part). I do think that design by dice is inelegant -- especially when there are so many other options.

Plus unless you have played this CG, I think you need to hold off on the CG ended too early comments. For example, the Japs can get VP for occupying Hill 125. However, if they don't stray and if they don't run into any opposition it takes their lead elements 6 turns to just get onto Hill 125. So, if the American places no units on this hill you might get two squads onto it in 6 turns. However, to have a chance at mounting an a credible threat against it you need 7-8 turns. (Ok, you can also get there in 4 turns if you can run full bore down the ridge with a leader -- good luck on that).

Also for most campaigns 6 turns is a little short given the size of the force pools involved. You can't just look at it in terms of one game. If there a 5 games and all end on turn 6, you have cut the legs out from under the strategic attacker.

In this CG the GE drs are 1,2,4,6, so planning for a 7th movement turn is not a crazy notion. In the first scenario there is a -1 to the GE dr, so it is not unexpected that it will end on turn 6. Kind of a poor design given the issue I pointed out above. Basically saying if you had a couple of extra turns you could score some cool VPs but we are not gonna all that to happen.

Also, you say it is good the way it is. However, unless you have experimented with several different alternatives this statement doesn't have much weight, IMHO. Just means you don't know any better. :p
 

sgtono

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland, OR
Country
llUnited States
I tend to agree with Jeff's last post. Unless you have played this CG, be careful what you say. As the Americans in this CG. already a very successful attack on my positions by the Japanese was curtailed and saved my arse for that CG day. The shorter the CG day the more dramatic the CG gets skewed against the Japanese.

The short CG day affects too many conditions for the Japanese, on map, off map, reinforcments, buying trails, night movement rules for cloaked counters and concealed units.

Now that I have said this, watch Tycho envelope my whole hill position and leave my Marine reinforcements out in the cold.

My two cents,

Keith
 

Legion

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
8
Location
Picton (NSW)
Country
llAustralia
While i think it would be crazy to make the end of game's for CGs fixed instead of random i do totally agree that 6 turns as a base is not enough...
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
27
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Legion, I am not suggesting that it be totally fixed in place. I am suggesting that the strategic attacker should have some influence over it or that it should be influenced by events of the game itself or some combination.

Hey Keith,
In my game with Santino I just barely isolated all of his units on Hill 125. So under game 4 the bulk of his force will be under Ammo Shortage and he won't be able to setup any reinforcements there directly. More importantly he won't be able to put a radio in on a level 4 hill location -- 100mm OBA is a bitch. :)
However, I can't win the game by hex occupation alone. I am going to have to exit a bunch of units off-map to have chance. Even then he could just choose not to spend any CPP the last day to deny me between 21-26 VP - which would negate 10-13 squads exited. All three CG dates we have played so far have ended on turn 6 (one ended on American turn 6). So, I still have a lot of ground to cover. Oh an I have commited a Battalion + two Eng. Platoons. I am committing two more companys this turn -- was almost tempted to try for 6 platoons and draw from the Lost Battalion. However, the VP cost is real steep for that.
 

Jay White

my sh*t is so tight
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
7
Location
Vancouver BC Canada
Country
llCanada
OK - i apologize, i was talking about all CGs, and i've never played ER. I forgot what thread i was in! :hush:

Just figured out these icons - woo hoo! i'm going to use the barf one ALL THE TIME. :kotz: hahaha... AWESOME!!!
 
Top