Hatten In Flames available for pre-order

[Philippe D.]

Not official but the Lone Canuck Publishing CG rules are pretty well baked certainly less issues to work through than CH versions.

Yeah, this is what I realize by reading the LCP rules; they show very few differences from one to the next.

One thing LCP rules seem to have, that MMP rules don't (haven't checked them all though) is that they assume each side to have multiple controlled zones, with redeployment from one to another between scenarios quite constrained. The original RB rules were based on the "one date = one day" assumption, while most (all?) LCP CGs correspond to a single day, so that makes sense (and having one side buy lots of fortifications from one date to the next makes less sense).

 

[zgrose]

If the standard CG rules dropped the CG rules I hate and used the versions I like (see perimeters), then I’d be for a standard set.

 

[Robin Reeve]

HF1 continued (solo) : German Turn 3, RPh.
American steamroller hard to slow down - Germans botched some crucial defensive fire (i.e. bad rolls).

 

[Robin Reeve]

HF1 game end.
US crushing victory.
I really liked the feel of the scenario - even though the Americans had hardly any problem laying SMOKE and the Germans didn't have good DRs at crucial moments...

 

[Sully]

If the standard CG rules dropped the CG rules I hate and used the versions I like (see perimeters), then I’d be for a standard set.

Which perimeter rules do you like?

 

[zgrose]

Which perimeter rules do you like?

I like the strategic location ZOC style setup areas over the Red Barricade style point-to-point line perimeters.

I find them easier to play.

 

[jrv]

I like the strategic location ZOC style setup areas over the Red Barricade style point-to-point line perimeters.

I find them easier to play.

ZOC work better where there are large areas and small numbers of strategic locations, e.g. KGP. Where there are dense strategic locations (e.g. Red Barricades) the ZOC would create no-man's land behind the front line of strategic locations when friendly and enemy strategic locations are adjacent. IMHO perimeter (alternate-) hexgrains tend to work better in those cases.

JR

 

[zgrose]

ZOC work better where there are large areas and small numbers of strategic locations, e.g. KGP. Where there are dense strategic locations (e.g. Red Barricades) the ZOC would create no-man's land behind the front line of strategic locations when friendly and enemy strategic locations are adjacent. IMHO perimeter (alternate-) hexgrains tend to work better in those cases.

JR

Obviously these standardized CG rules wouldn't be retroactive, but maybe empty strategic locations "adjacent" to the enemy front lines "should" be a no-man's land in these dense situations. ZOC perimeters can encourage strategic play to establish "actual" control of a region of the mapboard.

My original post was more to the issue that if there is going to be a standard that everyone will enjoy using, there are going to be issues with how standard it can/should be when there is more than one perfectly justifiable way to do something.

Maybe a standard set of tools like here is the standard line-perimeter RePh step and here is the standard zone-perimeter RePh step would be a reasonable middle-ground.

 

[jrv]

Obviously these standardized CG rules wouldn't be retroactive, but maybe empty strategic locations "adjacent" to the enemy front lines "should" be a no-man's land in these dense situations. ZOC perimeters can encourage strategic play to establish "actual" control of a region of the mapboard.

My original post was more to the issue that if there is going to be a standard that everyone will enjoy using, there are going to be issues with how standard it can/should be when there is more than one perfectly justifiable way to do something.

Maybe a standard set of tools like here is the standard line-perimeter RePh step and here is the standard zone-perimeter RePh step would be a reasonable middle-ground.

I may not be explaining the problem well. In the following red barricades picture if you use two-hex ZOC the three areas, F34, G33 & F36, end up mutually isolating each other (with a little help from H37). Rather than having a front line, you have one side's front line, an area of mutual isolation & no-man's land, and then the other side's front line. I don't think this is what you want in most cases. In order to game the system and prevent this you have to dig/buy foxholes (or objective hexes or other strategic locations) in places not because you want foxholes but because you want to avoid the mutual isolation trap. Suicide creek has this issue because of the thin crust of light jungle at the stream edge (light jungle is a strategic location while dense jungle is not), and as the Japanese I considered where I needed to put foxholes to thicken the line of strategic locations.



JR

 

[zgrose]

You explained yourself fine. These hypothetical rules would account for the German units in E33 and E34 at scenario end to prevent the buildings from become isolated.

If we are restricted to only using the CG concepts previously released, you are probably correct in your assessment.

 

[jrv]

You explained yourself fine. These hypothetical rules would account for the German units in E33 and E34 at scenario end to prevent the buildings from become isolated.

In the ZOC rules we have had to date, MMC (and most, but not all, units) are not strategic. A unit in E33 would end up in no-man's land and would have to escape. Even if you made them strategic, you now have to spend more time making sure you have halfsquads in positions to prevent mutual isolation. I would have the halfsquad there digging a foxhole so that he can be relieved of cracker line duty and move on to be useful. My belief is that you will end up spending more time "gaming the system" with "cracker line duty MMCs" and "cracker line foxholes" and less time playing ASL for fun.

JR

 

[Perry]

Cracking good use of "cracker line."

 

[jrv]

One other point about the ZOC perimeter: it can be a problem when there is more than one location in a hex. In Pegasus Bridge I left a HIP German halfsquad in the upper level of one of the buildings near the bridge. My opponent did not check, and it really cramped his setup area in the next CG date. On the one hand that's on him. On the other in a CG like RB or VotG where there are lots and lots of hexes with multiple locations, a ZOC system (at least as currently written) would force the attacker to ignore those other locations at his peril. ZOC perimeters work better (produce less perimeter busy work) when there is only (or mostly only) one location in a hex. Hexgrain perimeters work more with less trouble when there are multiple locations.

JR