How Was AP 4 Playtested withthe Bocage Rules?

[Fred Ingram]

I've solved the whole problem by simply not playing any Bocage scenarios. I'd just as soon play a beach landing or caves. With all the good scenarios out there why torture oneself?

Unfortunately, I have a local FTF opponent who actually made this decision - so all my bocage scenario playings will be at a tournament or on VASL

For some reason, the bocage rules never stick in his mind and he exhibits terrible tactics because of that - thus he dont want to play them anymore

 

[rdw5150]

Unfortunately, I have a local FTF opponent who actually made this decision - so all my bocage scenario playings will be at a tournament or on VASL

For some reason, the bocage rules never stick in his mind and he exhibits terrible tactics because of that - thus he don't want to play them anymore

I tend to shy away from them as well. I just do not think (for the most part) the rules are worth the effort. IMHO (my opinion only) Bocage helps the attacker as much as the defender, and that does not feel right to me.

We are thinking of playing the Purple Heart Draw CG, so, I will know after that how bad I do not like Bocage.

I have been reading articles on Bocage lately and I keep thinking that its just not worth it......

Everyone's mileage varies of course.

Peace

Roger

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I've always felt that the scenario DEFENDER should be the only side to benefit from the special bocage concealment provisions, with the ATTACKER sticking to 'normal' concealment Loss/Gain procedures.

 

[dlazov]

I could have sworn I glanced or at least read through that massive article in BFP 2 (or 3) on hedgrows. Although, I have not had the chance to put it into practice yet (been in the PTO or play testing East Front stuff), but I thought (from my vague memory) that the article by Chas was well written. Now I may be confusing this with the fact that I switched to read the BFP PTO articles since my face to face buddy drag/threw (just kidding Joe) me into the PTO.

Also, was it not in AP4 that there was those 4 or 5 pages of chapter B updates, again I have not played a Bocage scenario in a long time so I have not had need to re-read (re-visit) those rules.

 

[rdw5150]

I could have sworn I glanced or at least read through that massive article in BFP 2 (or 3) on hedgrows. Although, I have not had the chance to put it into practice yet (been in the PTO or play testing East Front stuff), but I thought (from my vague memory) that the article by Chas was well written. Now I may be confusing this with the fact that I switched to read the BFP PTO articles since my face to face buddy drag/threw (just kidding Joe) me into the PTO.

Also, was it not in AP4 that there was those 4 or 5 pages of chapter B updates, again I have not played a Bocage scenario in a long time so I have not had need to re-read (re-visit) those rules.

You are correct on both counts. The Chas Smith article(s) are really good and AP4 was where the Chapter B pages came from.

Peace

roger

 

[Fort]

I've always felt that the scenario DEFENDER should be the only side to benefit from the special bocage concealment provisions, with the ATTACKER sticking to 'normal' concealment Loss/Gain procedures.

I tend to agree...we use this as a house rule..and have a couple of others to remove the teleporting tank problem.

 

[AZslim]

I tend to shy away from them as well. I just do not think (for the most part) the rules are worth the effort. IMHO (my opinion only) Bocage helps the attacker as much as the defender, and that does not feel right to me.

We are thinking of playing the Purple Heart Draw CG, so, I will know after that how bad I do not like Bocage.

I have been reading articles on Bocage lately and I keep thinking that its just not worth it......

Everyone's mileage varies of course.

Peace

Roger

Howdy.

Don't let the nit picking here dissuade you from bocage. The rules aren't that bad, especially between two players who can agree oin how to play it. It looks like 99% of all playeres play that you can gain ? with no enemy LOS, even though as Scott points out the rule here is not well written. ASL excells at giving a 'feel' for a certian terrain. This goes for the confined bocage country. PHD looks too cool for you and your friend to pass up.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Agreed, Dont let badly written bocage rules stop you from playing PHD, its a great CG and iI had a ton of fun playing it. B9.55 is not clear but since MMP playtested AP 4 with units allowed to gain concealment with NO, ZERO, LOS to enemy and behind biocage and in an open ground hex, I guess thats the way we all should play it then.

it is what it is.

Scott

Howdy.

Don't let the nit picking here dissuade you from bocage. The rules aren't that bad, especially between two players who can agree oin how to play it. It looks like 99% of all playeres play that you can gain ? with no enemy LOS, even though as Scott points out the rule here is not well written. ASL excells at giving a 'feel' for a certian terrain. This goes for the confined bocage country. PHD looks too cool for you and your friend to pass up.

 

[James Taylor]

I tend to agree...we use this as a house rule..and have a couple of others to remove the teleporting tank problem.

Would like to see these posted.

JT

 

[Nadir_E]

Would like to see these posted.

JT

Same here, Fort.

 

[Fort]

Same here, Fort.

Bocage House Rules:
1. Vehicles can only claim Wall Advantage over a Bocage hexside during it's MPh and only upon entering, spending at least 1 MP to do so, or changing VCA in the location. (This means while your infantry may have WA...your tank in the same location may not until it's MPh)
2. HIP units can claim Wall Advantage.
3. vehicles crossing Bocage hexsides must announce which vertex any Underbelly LOS shots will be drawn to before declaration of any DF shots.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

but since MMP playtested AP 4 with units allowed to gain concealment with NO, ZERO, LOS to enemy and behind biocage and in an open ground hex, I guess thats the way we all should play it then.

I don't understand why there is such difficulty seeing the rationale for the rule. Picture the units occupying that hex actually lined up along the bocage hexside if it makes it easier to grasp; historically, that's where they were.

And it wasn't just a "hedge" they were sheltering behind, but a two or three foot solid earth embankment. They weren't in the middle of a 40 metre "open ground" field.

The game is based on abstractions; this is one of the fudges.

It's really not that hard, conceptually, to figure out.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Roger, don't let your unfamiliarity with bocage dissuade you from PHD (A VERY fun CG, and relatively quick too). I also believe bocage helps the Attacker too much, but having said that If I could change a rule, I would allow both sides to gain concealment at the end of a CCPh along with the changes noted by Fort (some good thoughts!). Some of the general DEFENDER benefits of bocage don't become readily apparant, but overall the are representational of fighting in that type of envirionment (or at least what I would have considered as difficulties/capabilities from what I've read).

 

[rdw5150]

Roger, don't let your unfamiliarity with bocage dissuade you from PHD (A VERY fun CG, and relatively quick too). I also believe bocage helps the Attacker too much, but having said that If I could change a rule, I would allow both sides to gain concealment at the end of a CCPh along with the changes noted by Fort (some good thoughts!). Some of the general DEFENDER benefits of bocage don't become readily apparant, but overall the are representational of fighting in that type of envirionment (or at least what I would have considered as difficulties/capabilities from what I've read).

Hi!

I think that Doug has me talked into it. He and I have been on an ASL break (I have been going through a state of "ASL melancholy lately" and it seems like a nice CG to start back up with (its been about 6 months since we played ASL).

I will probably ask him to at least look at the house rules of Fort. There are some (the teleporting tank and the fact that HIPed cannot gain WA) really bother me and those are nice house rules.

Peace

Roger

 

[SCK40]

Was the HIP/WA issue addressed in the J8 Debriefing, or am I missing another angle that went uncovered?

 

[rdw5150]

Was the HIP/WA issue addressed in the J8 Debriefing, or am I missing another angle that went uncovered?

I did not think it was, but honestly I am uncertain.

Peace

roger

 

[apbills]

Was the HIP/WA issue addressed in the J8 Debriefing, or am I missing another angle that went uncovered?

It must have been because I don't see anything in the current rules preventing a HIP unit from getting WA. In fact, the current rules specifically call out that a HIP unit needs to record it's WA status if it could choose (i.e., it is not Mandatory), implying that if it was mandatory a HIP unit would indeed have WA.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Was the HIP/WA issue addressed in the J8 Debriefing, or am I missing another angle that went uncovered?

Yes it was.

B9.324 (2008 version): Replace the last sentence with “A HIP unit that desires to claim WA during setup must secretly record such WA status [EXC: 9.323]. A HIP unit may forfeit WA (even if it had been mandatory) to an enemy unit claiming WA (even implicitly; 9.323) over a shared hexside and remain hidden but must be placed on board (concealed) to deny an enemy unit from claiming WA, or to claim WA that is not mandatory and was not recorded, or to forfeit WA if no enemy is claiming it. Hidden units are not considered when determining if broken/unarmed units may claim WA (9.32).”.