Prisoners In Scenario Design

[BigAl737]

Do you scenario designers out there account for prisoners when balancing a scenario design?

I'm not a very experienced player but my limited experience has revealed the value of the defender setting up HS "speed bumps". These HS are usually captured by the attacker early in a scenario. The attacker then must accept the detriments and limitations of being a guard.

In my limited experience, I've found that as the attacker, I must commit a HS or more to deal with prisoners during a scenario...infantry I can ill afford to lose as the inexperienced player that I am, thus it got me wondering if the effect of prisoners is designed into a scenario.

Possible Liebgott SSR: Guarding units may make a dr each friendly RPh. On a roll of 1-5, the prisoner unit is assumed to be automatically escorted off the friendly board edge by an inherent guard SMC and the prisoner counter is removed from the board. The SMC inherent guard does not take counter form. A dr of 6 has no effect. This dr does not count as a RPh action.

Al

 

[Robin Reeve]

If prisoners are a burden and no VP are allotted to them (a frequent occurence in VC), players can declare No Quarter.
But taking prisoners guarantees more that those units won't come back into battle, so it is not only a liability.
They also can be transfered to a single guard.

 

[Eagle4ty]

Not everyone plays with the Chapter E rules, but Interrogation (E2) is just an optional rule that only requires agreement by both parties to implement (No need for an SSR to so state [EXC: E2.4 Civilian Interrogation]), so there may be other reasons to take POWs that could perhaps offset an expenditure in manpower to guard them. If a CVP calculation is in effect that may well offset the loss of manpower to provide guards as well, not to mention even a guard with the same U.S.# as their POWs is not really hindered too much in many of the actions you may wish to accomplish with him. However, many scenarios simply refuse to count POWs as double CVP as a disincentive to take POWs or at least limit their potential large CVP impact.

 

[jrv]

German prisoners teach their Soviet captors new tactics.

JR

 

[jrv]

Possible Liebgott SSR: Guarding units may make a dr each friendly RPh. On a roll of 1-5, the prisoner unit is assumed to be automatically escorted off the friendly board edge by an inherent guard SMC and the prisoner counter is removed from the board. The SMC inherent guard does not take counter form. A dr of 6 has no effect. This dr does not count as a RPh action.

Not sure why you would want to do this. Prisoners add spice.

JR

 

[Carln0130]

Not sure why you would want to do this. Prisoners add spice.

JR

They add even more than just spice, they also add tactical decisions and consequences. Yes, POW's are PITA's. However, if you need to control buildings to win, you need to not declare NQ, since mopping up gets taken off the table, if you do. No small consideration in some scenarios. Indeed, even in a scenario where controlling buildings is not in the VC, it can still come in handy. So if you are fighting in an open field someplace and buildings are not part of the equation, nor prisoners that count for exit VC, which they sometimes do, or for CVP VC, for which they count double at game end, or if their own side is responsible for whacking them, then go ahead and waste them. That said, there are many, many circumstances where taking them is the right move. They are an important part of the game system.

I would also not employ the Chapter E rules lightly, if not declared by SSR. I once saw someone lose a tournament game they had won, because their opponent convinced them that interrogation of prisoners was a standard rule. The prisoners then got cuffed around and gave up some key HIP positions that led to a loss.

 

[c600g]

I was just asking about E2 Prisoners earlier today. It seems to me that if not mentioned by SSR, any scenario where the defender is trying to stay concealed would automatically incline that person to not favor interrogation rules.

Alan

 

[Eagle4ty]

I was just asking about E2 Prisoners earlier today. It seems to me that if not mentioned by SSR, any scenario where the defender is trying to stay concealed would automatically incline that person to not favor interrogation rules.

Alan

I agree the scenario defender, who usually benefits from HIP/Concealment to a greater extent than the scenario attacker, would incline that player to opt out of the interrogation rules if his only intent was to win. However, there are several scenarios out there that would be better served by applying the rule and especially "bug hunt" ones or a situation where the defender has a chance to bring a unit(s) out of HIP & move them back into a VC area at the end of the game. In most respects it really does spice up some otherwise mediocre scenarios.

In as much as this sub-forum is dedicated to scenario design, I believe several scenarios could benefit from its inclusion. Too often I have seen a design that could have been spiced up or even balanced out by the application of this rule rather than add a series of SSRs, alter the OBs, or radically change the length of a scenario just to ameliorate last minute "pop-goes-the-weasel" tactics. I would recommend that when doing your scenario analysis in design or actual play, to seriously consider this an option, especially in the aforementioned instances. There is a real hesitancy to include this rule as it adds too much chrome, takes away control from a player, or simply because it's normally an optional rule (WHAT? We're already playing ASL for Pete's sake). As an aside, I use the rule almost without discussion unless my opponent really objects to its use (just one more iron in the fire or a something to add to the bag of tricks). I guess it just depends upon your outlook of having fun and reacting to unforeseen situations in playing ASL. All good.:nod:

 

[Yuri0352]

Possible Liebgott SSR: Guarding units may make a dr each friendly RPh. On a roll of 1-5, the prisoner unit is assumed to be automatically escorted off the friendly board edge by an inherent guard SMC and the prisoner counter is removed from the board. The SMC inherent guard does not take counter form. A dr of 6 has no effect. This dr does not count as a RPh action.

Al

An interesting and creative SSR.
I would recommend limiting this SSR to early North Africa scenarios where Australian/British troops are capturing Italians, or similar situations.

 

[Yuri0352]

Personally, I would like to see some SSR similar to F.5 Surrender be applied in certain non-DTO scenarios. I consider it to be very annoying/gamey when I'm playing a France 1940 scenario and the German player invokes No Quarter to eliminate broken French units rather than manage them as prisoners.

 

[Brian W]

What annoys me most about the prisoner rules is the effect on victory that escaped prisoners can cause. If I were to suggest a change to the rules it would simply be that escaped prisoners are removed from the map and assumed to be evading capture, meaning that they are no longer casualties, but also they are not able to rearm (if not already rearmed due to killing their guards) and run around DMing, regaining control, and causing failure to rout casualties to the other side.

Most ASL casualties represent the dissolution of unit cohesion--i.e. elimination for failure to rout (FTR). So, you can watch a stack of three or more squads disappear off the face of the world never to return because a 6+1 ten hexes away blocks their rout path and an enemy jeep with a MMG is adjacent, but if those units have an enemy to surrender to, they also have a chance to return to the fight, and often a good chance if there is a leader surrendering.

 

[Carln0130]

Personally, I would like to see some SSR similar to F.5 Surrender be applied in certain non-DTO scenarios. I consider it to be very annoying/gamey when I'm playing a France 1940 scenario and the German player invokes No Quarter to eliminate broken French units rather than manage them as prisoners.

You'll like Dinant then. None of that.

 

[BigAl737]

Not sure why you would want to do this. Prisoners add spice.

JR

Just throwing an idea out there.

 

[BigAl737]

Thanks for the responses all.

As mentioned...

Interrogation is a benefit for the side taking prisoners but I don't see that rule implemented very often. Maybe it should be.

My Liebgott SSR was just an idea a designer might use to take prisoner variables out of a scenario if desired.

The biggest prisoner design consideration I see in use is that prisoners count double VP. That's certainly a benefit but shepherding prisoners off board takes resources. Is the cost/reward factor considered when designing a scenario?

What about those scenarios where prisoners VP don't help you win. Are extra units assigned to the OB to deal with prisoners? Is no quarter usually assumed?

During design, are prisoner considerations usually ignored and left for playtest to manifest any problems with the scenario design?

Any other considerations you talented scenario designers take into account?

 

[witchbottles]

Do you scenario designers out there account for prisoners when balancing a scenario design?

I'm not a very experienced player but my limited experience has revealed the value of the defender setting up HS "speed bumps". These HS are usually captured by the attacker early in a scenario. The attacker then must accept the detriments and limitations of being a guard.

In my limited experience, I've found that as the attacker, I must commit a HS or more to deal with prisoners during a scenario...infantry I can ill afford to lose as the inexperienced player that I am, thus it got me wondering if the effect of prisoners is designed into a scenario.

Possible Liebgott SSR: Guarding units may make a dr each friendly RPh. On a roll of 1-5, the prisoner unit is assumed to be automatically escorted off the friendly board edge by an inherent guard SMC and the prisoner counter is removed from the board. The SMC inherent guard does not take counter form. A dr of 6 has no effect. This dr does not count as a RPh action.

Al

I have done two that take prisoners into direct account, and am considering a third. In both the two cases, there are significant VC advantages for prisoners on both sides. In the one under consideration, it is because of a mass defection of troops during the fighting, it seems to have a mechanism for unit >Prisoner> unarmed unit> rearmed unit is the right way to address this.