Suicide Creek Central....

[Binko]

I'm beginning the initial set-up for this CG and it really seems like a lot of loose ends have never been cleaned up in the rules.

When I look back at this long topic I see that the designer appears to have stopped posting and answering questions way back in May 2011. And I don't see that any official errata was issued at all (at least not that I could find).

Right now I'm stuck on the Support Weapon Charts which I find to be something of a muddle. It seems that other people earlier in the topic were confused also and some others tried to help but all agreed that it was confusing.

I find this lack of official clarification to be troubling. But maybe I'm just spoiled by FB where Bill Cirillo has provided superb support and official errata were quick in coming.

 

[rcarter]

I'm beginning the initial set-up for this CG and it really seems like a lot of loose ends have never been cleaned up in the rules.

When I look back at this long topic I see that the designer appears to have stopped posting and answering questions way back in May 2011. And I don't see that any official errata was issued at all (at least not that I could find).

Right now I'm stuck on the Support Weapon Charts which I find to be something of a muddle. It seems that other people earlier in the topic were confused also and some others tried to help but all agreed that it was confusing.

I find this lack of official clarification to be troubling. But maybe I'm just spoiled by FB where Bill Cirillo has provided superb support and official errata were quick in coming.

Just wait til you try to puzzle out the perimeter rules.

This is a paraphrase but ...

"A non-ford stream hex can be a strategic location but is not part of a set up area"

Huh? ... not saying you can't figure it out, but it would have been nice to see an example of this since it is unlike most CG's.

Rick

 

[klasmalmstrom]

Right now I'm stuck on the Support Weapon Charts which I find to be something of a muddle. It seems that other people earlier in the topic were confused also and some others tried to help but all agreed that it was confusing.

Which part of the tables are unclear (not saying they are clear, just asking)?

 

[Binko]

Which part of the tables are unclear (not saying they are clear, just asking)?

First off, in the text of 4.7182 it says "Each Full Strength "I" RG receives all Equipment/Personnel counters listed for it." Does this mean that a full strength RG which will be the majority automatically receives all the SW in the chart automatically. If so, that means each 3 squad Platoon will have 4 SW which in crazy even for the Marines.

That's the first point of confusion. The second point is how the table actually is meant to work.

Look at the American SW Chart for I1 Rifle Platoon. There are three separate columns for MMG, Lt.Mtr and Baz43. In each column it tells you to roll "dr a" (where a is a superscript). In the Note for "dr a" it gives a table like so:
dr<=3:MMG
dr=4:MTR
dr=5:Baz43
dr=6:none

Here's the problem. If you read the chart as written you roll a "dr a" for each of the three weapons and then consult the table. When you roll on Baz43 you might get a MMG instead. But doing it this way a Rifle Platoon can easily get 3 MMG for 3 SQ which is nuts even for Marines. Even a depleted Platoon could get lucky dice and end up with 3 MMGs for 2 Squads!! Overall this will yield one SW per Squad which is quite excessive. In the SC scenario J131 First Love The Marines got 2 MMG and 1 Baz43 for 12 squads. This table, as written, will provide THREE TIMES that many SW.

So, you might conclude that maybe you are only supposed to roll one "dr a" and there is an error in the table so that there should only be one combined column for the MMG-LtMtr-Baz43. The problem with this is that it will give you some US Marine Platoons with no SW at all and only average 1 SW per Platoon. This seems more logical but doesn't fit well with the initial setup ratio of the Marines where they have 24 SW for 27 SQ.

As written I can't really find any way to put it all together so that it makes any sense.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I'm pretty sure you make one dr for footnote "a" and one dr for footnote "b" for a Full Strength RG I1.

 

[jrv]

So, you might conclude that maybe you are only supposed to roll one "dr a" and there is an error in the table so that there should only be one combined column for the MMG-LtMtr-Baz43. The problem with this is that it will give you some US Marine Platoons with no SW at all and only average 1 SW per Platoon. This seems more logical but doesn't fit well with the initial setup ratio of the Marines where they have 24 SW for 27 SQ.

I concluded there was only supposed to be one "dr a" per platoon. I didn't conclude that there was an error in the table. Footnote a explains itself, "MMG/LT. MTR/BAZ 43: make a dr for each RG I1 purchased/received to determine what SW (if any) it receives:" The footnote says that each platoon receives one SW covered by footnote "a", a MMG or a LT. MTR or a BAZ 43, at most, and may receive none (on a dr of 6). The footnote, in effect, creates the combined column for MMG-LtMtr-Baz43 that you are looking for.

While the idea checking the table against the initial OB is interesting as a bit of trivia, I would have almost no expectation that they would have to match.

JR

 

[Binko]

OK, that's what you guys "think", "suppose" or "conclude". My partner and I are struggling to reach our own best guess. Bottom line is that we are all trying to cobble it together to make sense as we each see fit. But where in the heck is the official clarification of how exactly it works?

The table itself has three separate columns, one each for MMG, MTR and Baz. Each of those 3 columns shows a "dr a". If you were only supposed to role once it would have been simple to have one combined column for all three weapons showing one "dr a". When I see a table that shows THREE "dr a" then I conclude that I'm supposed to roll "dr a" three times. So, yes, I think the table is very unclear.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

OK, that's what you guys "think", "suppose" and "conclude". But the table itself has three separate columns, one each for MMG, MTR and Baz. Each of those 3 columns shows a "dr a". If you were only supposed to role once it would have been simple to have one combined column for all three weapons showing one "dr a". When I see a table that shows THREE "dr a" then I conclude that I'm supposed to roll "dr a" three times.

Yes, I realize now that that would have been clearer - I didn't think about it when I proofread these rules back when. Have you sent MMP/Pery a Q&A on the matter?

 

[Binko]

Yes, I realize now that that would have been clearer - I didn't think about it when I proofread these rules back when. Have you sent MMP/Pery a Q&A on the matter?

My opponent did. Meanwhile we put the SC CG on hold and are veering off to Budapest.

What makes the interpretation of the table so difficult is that doing it one way seems to give you too many SW while doing it the other way gives you too few. It's hard to find the logic.

 

[zgrose]

The answer is in:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?110814-Suicide-Creek-Z4-7182&p=1567677&viewfull=1#post1567677

Assuming a Full-Strength Rifle Platoon (RG I1) you first roll once for footnote a - getting either a MMG, a M2 60mm MTR, a BAZ43, or nothing.
Then you make another dr per footnote b to see if you get a DC or not.

Translated, I think this is a better form for the chart:

 

[LaFajita]

A question concerning Night Rules in this CG -- What exactly is the NVR for SC scenarios? The CG? For some reason I am unable to find the answer in either "One Miserable Night" or "The Green Inferno" CG.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

A question concerning Night Rules in this CG -- What exactly is the NVR for SC scenarios? The CG? For some reason I am unable to find the answer in either "One Miserable Night" or "The Green Inferno" CG.

See SSR SC1.1 (last sentence): "..At night the Base NVR is 2."

 

[LaFajita]

Talk about hiding in plain sight! Thx, Klas!

 

[zgrose]

First time with a RePH so hopefully these questions not too basic:

Q: In the image below, A12 (Japanese) and A13 (American) are both Isolated in a separate Setup Area?

I believe so because A13 is not Uncontrolled and B12 is not Enterable for purposes for Setup Areas (and/or not Uncontrolled since it is a No-Man's Land).

So 4.7056 says they can attempt Escape or stay put (presumably creating a 1 hex Setup Area for both?).

 

[zgrose]

Q: In this image, P12 and Q13 are not Isolated since they can't trace through Uncontrolled Territory (since NML is not Uncontrolled) so are Isolated and would form another Setup Area?

 

[zgrose]

Q: Does the Setup Area "grow" down to the Entry Area or will I have to setup in the ribbon of Strategic Locations+2 hexes?

The counters are the controlled Strategic Locations. The overlay markers are the Setup Area locations created by those Strategic Locations.

The Americans have 3 Setup Areas and the Japanese have 2 as best I can tell. (I've simplified the American back field for now).


(addon) When figuring No-Man's Land, are they actually overlapping Setup Areas or just distance? For instance, O12 is not Enterable to the Japanese but is within 2 hexes of Strategic Locations on both sides.

 

[snave]

So 4.7056 says they can attempt Escape or stay put (presumably creating a 1 hex Setup Area for both?).

I haven't looked at this too closely, but it sounds right.

 

[snave]

duplicate deleted.

 

[snave]

Q: In this image, P12 and Q13 are not Isolated since they can't trace through Uncontrolled Territory (since NML is not Uncontrolled) so are Isolated and would form another Setup Area?

I am sorry this question doesn't make any sense to me. Can you reword it?

 

[snave]

Q: Does the Setup Area "grow" down to the Entry Area or will I have to setup in the ribbon of Strategic Locations+2 hexes?

You have to create some strategic locations to make the setup area extend to the board edge. (foxholes usually).

The other question didn't make sense to me.