There are a few scenarios (too few IMO) where SAN increases/decreases according the control of specific locations. This simulate the fact that some locations/buildings/hills are perfect for snipers and thus their control gives an advantage for SAN purposes.
In a urban scenario I'm just playtesting the only 1,5 level building is a Factory with Rooftops in Japanese hand. This gives the Japanese at start a very high SAN (5).
Victory Conditions require the defender (Chinese) must avoid the attacker (Japanese) exits from the North Edge. A group of isolated Japaneses control at start the Factory in the middle of the Chinese setup zone. So the Chinese must decide if to ignore the Factory and accept the high SAN for the duration of the scenario, OR divert a few units to seize the Factory lowering the enemy SAN as soon as possible. Japaneses must decide if evacuate the Factory using its occupants to get more exit VPs OR staying in the Factory (possibly reinforcing it) to mantain as long as possible the ultra-favorable SAN 5.
Both sides have a big decison to take potentially requiring a diversion of force from their primary and natural objective given by the VCs.
I think this approach should be used more often. Weave primary objectives with secondary ones, possibly partially colliding each other, force the players to think at different levels and make prognostic about the scenario development. To me is an improvement respect classic scenarios :"Make A" or "Control A+ B" where players must only perform materially a task and nothing else.
Here's the variable SAN SSR. I ask if the wording is clear and concise enough or the ASLish used can be improved.
SSR 3 : Japanese SAN drops immediately to 2 for the duration of the scenario when Chinese Controls the Factory and no Good Order Japanese Unit is on the Rooftops (B 23.8).
In a urban scenario I'm just playtesting the only 1,5 level building is a Factory with Rooftops in Japanese hand. This gives the Japanese at start a very high SAN (5).
Victory Conditions require the defender (Chinese) must avoid the attacker (Japanese) exits from the North Edge. A group of isolated Japaneses control at start the Factory in the middle of the Chinese setup zone. So the Chinese must decide if to ignore the Factory and accept the high SAN for the duration of the scenario, OR divert a few units to seize the Factory lowering the enemy SAN as soon as possible. Japaneses must decide if evacuate the Factory using its occupants to get more exit VPs OR staying in the Factory (possibly reinforcing it) to mantain as long as possible the ultra-favorable SAN 5.
Both sides have a big decison to take potentially requiring a diversion of force from their primary and natural objective given by the VCs.
I think this approach should be used more often. Weave primary objectives with secondary ones, possibly partially colliding each other, force the players to think at different levels and make prognostic about the scenario development. To me is an improvement respect classic scenarios :"Make A" or "Control A+ B" where players must only perform materially a task and nothing else.
Here's the variable SAN SSR. I ask if the wording is clear and concise enough or the ASLish used can be improved.
SSR 3 : Japanese SAN drops immediately to 2 for the duration of the scenario when Chinese Controls the Factory and no Good Order Japanese Unit is on the Rooftops (B 23.8).