RF errata?

Perry

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
1,020
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
In RO CG III A Party In Our Streets when there is a Russian Assault do they have to capture 12 extra stone locations (which is the same as a Russian assault in all the other CGs) or do they have to capture 24? (which is what the German normally needs to win his assault).
We have added another erratum to the list on our Red Factories product page:

O11.6235, German (or Russian) Assault:, line 3, after “German” add “[or Russian in RO CG III]”. Line 4, after “Russian” add “[or German in RO CG III]”.

http://www.multimanpublishing.com/tabid/58/CategoryID/20/ProductID/343/Default.aspx
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,173
Reaction score
1,005
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
RO CG III seems to have been overlooked somewhat in the proofing of RF. Which makes me wonder; are all the refit phase tables applicable to this CG as they stand? For example the Russians get worse leaders (including AL), and less OBA ammo. The fortification table is geared up to the Germans being on the attack and so the Germans cannot purchase pillboxes or AT ditches. But they can purchase 40x AP mine factors per scenario. Which is more than the Russians had on the defence.

Is this all as it should be? (It could well be correct since the far better historical DRMs for the Russians in the CG will even out the disadvantages they face.)
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,173
Reaction score
1,005
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
Another query is do the Russians have booby trap capability in RO CG III?
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,173
Reaction score
1,005
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
Not really, no. The Chapter looks pretty much like the submission.
No need to get defensive. Perhaps it is not the proofing at fault but the production. I was not trying to lay blame.

But the truth is that there are two confirmed cases where RO CG III was overlooked. Plus the unanswered questions about the tables in the refit phase....

To be honest it is the proofreading of the chapter that ought to notice that RO CG III has been overlooked.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,634
Reaction score
922
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
RO CG III seems to have been overlooked somewhat in the proofing of RF. Which makes me wonder; are all the refit phase tables applicable to this CG as they stand? For example the Russians get worse leaders (including AL), and less OBA ammo. The fortification table is geared up to the Germans being on the attack and so the Germans cannot purchase pillboxes or AT ditches. But they can purchase 40x AP mine factors per scenario. Which is more than the Russians had on the defence.

Is this all as it should be? (It could well be correct since the far better historical DRMs for the Russians in the CG will even out the disadvantages they face.)
The reinforcement tables are as intended.
 
Top