Which rule do you want to change?

Justiciar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
4,420
Likes
1,112
Points
163
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
I don't believe a conspiracy requires secure communications. A secret conspiracy might.

JR
The word at its root is about secrecy. Webster's Unabridged. I am not breaking out my OED v. 1.

1. Planning and acting together secretly...
 

mgmasl

Active Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
3,870
Likes
181
Points
63
Location
Cadiz
Country
llSpain
Usemos español como idioma secreto para preparar el nuevo gran tomo :cool:

A propósito, ¡Feliz Navidad!
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,809
Likes
2,522
Points
163
Location
Dublin
Country
llIreland
My understanding is that Individual-1 does not have the attention span required to play a HASL campaign.
Yeah, true, but he keeps insisting on trying, regardless of advice. Last scenario date he managed to knock his own 10-2 USMC SMC right off the board with his tiny hands. Refit and Replenishment phase is becoming increasingly difficult for him due to his restricted counter set. He has flogged "A.2 Errors" to death as well. Robert, his opponent, keeps capturing and KIAing his units, mainly for Failure To Rout and Isolation.
 
Last edited:

Steven Pleva

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,252
Likes
697
Points
113
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
Do you find that the cumulative effects of #s 2 and 3 change the pacing and time requirements in scenarios? I have always felt that from a certain perspective ASL pins too infrequently, but I see from a design perspective why it is the way it is. I would think that these rules would tend to make defenses a bit more tough.

Would you play #s 5 and 6 in a CG? Totally get it in a scenario, where the loss of key weapons can make a scenario virtually unwinnable, but I don't think the same would apply in a CG.

Really like 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13.

I like the idea of 1, divorcing rof from how good a shot is, but I would need to see how it handles first.

Not too sure on 9, 10, and 14.

9 just seems to make special ammo more plentiful, and I am a bit hesitant to do that, as I'm not too sure of the benefit. I get the argument that one doesn't want to make a whole plan that counts on having APCR and then not get the DR, but it seems to me that a scenario that a side can only win if they make an APCR roll is lacking a key SSR somewhere.

I kinda like 14, introduces some randomness into the stun/uk process, but I wonder about the balance implications.

10 seems neat, but it seems really dependent on when it happens. An DEFENDER unit berserking in the RPh, no problem. A DEFENDER unit berserking at the end of the AFPh? Big issue for the ATTACKER, as almost all his units will be limited to PBF/TBPF/PFP. For ATTACKER berserks, I feel the inability of the player to prep his berserkers into the objective is a bit of a loss. What do you feel this rule adds to play?

Absolutely no criticism implied here, just wondering what led you to adopt some of these, and how you feel they change the game.
You have to be careful applying 2 and 3. For the mini tourney these are used for I try to make sure these won't make things too tough on the attacker. Best when combined with 6 and 7 morale troops. 8 morale units can become problematic.

I agree that 5 (repair number adjustment) is probably not necessary for a CG. However, the benefit of 6 (repair timing) is that the opponent doesn't know whether an enemy weapon system is up or down. This is critical in "Dance of Death" situations. I think its benefit is valid for scenarios and CGs alike.

9 (special ammo) drives more realistic behavior. Instead of using special ammo as an extra TH chance when the TH number is low, you'd save it for when your chances of hitting were greater. Let's take a common example: Let's say you have a Gun with A5. Player's often use it when they are moving as the TH is around a 5. In this case they have a 28% of hitting. If the TH was a 9, it'd still have a 28% of hitting with APCR. With my rule, the chance of hitting while moving (TH=5) would be 42%*28% = 12% total. Using the APCR when the TH=9 would be 42%*83% = 35%. I think this forces more realistic decisions and rewards using APCR on "good" shots.

10 (Insta Berserk) is the best of the bunch, IMHO. Unfortunately, it only happens once or twice a scenario.

I have to believe that 14 has a negligible effect on balance. Shock/UKs are just not that common and they have a high variability anyway with 1/3 of all Shocks ending up as Eliminated.

Steve
 

CTKnudsen

Active Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
319
Likes
131
Points
43
Location
Oromocto, NB
Country
llCanada
You have to be careful applying 2 and 3. For the mini tourney these are used for I try to make sure these won't make things too tough on the attacker. Best when combined with 6 and 7 morale troops. 8 morale units can become problematic.

I agree that 5 (repair number adjustment) is probably not necessary for a CG. However, the benefit of 6 (repair timing) is that the opponent doesn't know whether an enemy weapon system is up or down. This is critical in "Dance of Death" situations. I think its benefit is valid for scenarios and CGs alike.

9 (special ammo) drives more realistic behavior. Instead of using special ammo as an extra TH chance when the TH number is low, you'd save it for when your chances of hitting were greater. Let's take a common example: Let's say you have a Gun with A5. Player's often use it when they are moving as the TH is around a 5. In this case they have a 28% of hitting. If the TH was a 9, it'd still have a 28% of hitting with APCR. With my rule, the chance of hitting while moving (TH=5) would be 42%*28% = 12% total. Using the APCR when the TH=9 would be 42%*83% = 35%. I think this forces more realistic decisions and rewards using APCR on "good" shots.

10 (Insta Berserk) is the best of the bunch, IMHO. Unfortunately, it only happens once or twice a scenario.

I have to believe that 14 has a negligible effect on balance. Shock/UKs are just not that common and they have a high variability anyway with 1/3 of all Shocks ending up as Eliminated.

Steve
Thanks Steve! I totally see what you are at with #9, and agree - somehow I hadn't thought through the implications of divorcing the availability and TH DRs.

I will have to give 10 a try, I imagine it makes things a bit more wild and woolly.
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,902
Likes
1,574
Points
163
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I have to believe that 14 has a negligible effect on balance. Shock/UKs are just not that common and they have a high variability anyway with 1/3 of all Shocks ending up as Eliminated.
In my experience, it's 50%, all of mine eliminated, all of my opponents back on the first dr ;) -- jim
 

jrv

Vare, legiones redde!
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,971
Likes
3,655
Points
163
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I would add an element of luck to the Gun Duel, beyond the case where the DRM match. As it stands the Gun Duel is (mostly) a known result. If you are going to lose a gun duel you avoid it (unless you don't care, like a Tiger II coming up against an ATR). If winning has an element of luck then you might take an unfavorable Gun Duel anyway. The change might be as simple as adding a dr divided by 3 (FRD) to the Gun Duel DRM before comparing. That might give a gambler incentive to risk one when the Gun Duel would be an automatic loss in the regular rules, and it might make a cautious player even more cautious.

JR
 

Steven Pleva

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,252
Likes
697
Points
113
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
I would add an element of luck to the Gun Duel, beyond the case where the DRM match. As it stands the Gun Duel is (mostly) a known result. If you are going to lose a gun duel you avoid it (unless you don't care, like a Tiger II coming up against an ATR). If winning has an element of luck then you might take an unfavorable Gun Duel anyway. The change might be as simple as adding a dr divided by 3 (FRD) to the Gun Duel DRM before comparing. That might give a gambler incentive to risk one when the Gun Duel would be an automatic loss in the regular rules, and it might make a cautious player even more cautious.

JR
Oooh, I like this idea. Alternatively, you could add the wdr of the TH DR to Gun Duel determination. This would require that both players commit to the shot...
Steve
 

jrv

Vare, legiones redde!
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,971
Likes
3,655
Points
163
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Oooh, I like this idea. Alternatively, you could add the wdr of the TH DR to Gun Duel determination. This would require that both players commit to the shot...
Adding the entire wdr makes it much more dicey. I went with a dr divided by 3 FRD to limit the variation somewhat, so that players don't start declaring gun duels just 'cause you never know. On the other hand adding the wdr would be more playable as you wouldn't have to throw more dice and you wouldn't have to an added computation. Personally I want the non-luck part to dominate but not entirely. With a full dr the luck part can overwhelm the non-luck part. With the #/3 FRD the non-luck part has more sway. But do what you think works best.

JR
 

Steven Pleva

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
3,252
Likes
697
Points
113
Location
Connecticut
Country
llUnited States
Adding the entire wdr makes it much more dicey. I went with a dr divided by 3 FRD to limit the variation somewhat, so that players don't start declaring gun duels just 'cause you never know. On the other hand adding the wdr would be more playable as you wouldn't have to throw more dice and you wouldn't have to an added computation. Personally I want the non-luck part to dominate but not entirely. With a full dr the luck part can overwhelm the non-luck part. With the #/3 FRD the non-luck part has more sway. But do what you think works best.

JR
Dividing by three seems a little too neutered:
Diff Percentage
2 6%
1 25%
0 39%
-1 25%
-2 6%

Dividing by two gives you the following adjustment:
Diff Percentage
3 3%
2 11%
1 22%
0 28%
-1 22%
-2 11%
-3 3%

Only 14% to get a 2 or 3 adjustment in your favor. If one were to go down this path, I think this is a decent compromise...
Steve
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,902
Likes
1,574
Points
163
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I would add an element of luck to the Gun Duel, beyond the case where the DRM match. As it stands the Gun Duel is (mostly) a known result. If you are going to lose a gun duel you avoid it (unless you don't care, like a Tiger II coming up against an ATR). If winning has an element of luck then you might take an unfavorable Gun Duel anyway. The change might be as simple as adding a dr divided by 3 (FRD) to the Gun Duel DRM before comparing. That might give a gambler incentive to risk one when the Gun Duel would be an automatic loss in the regular rules, and it might make a cautious player even more cautious.

JR
I declare Gun Duel all the time. It's not about winning, it's about getting a chance if I survive. If there is more than one thing that can shoot at me, I will take it. Of course, when I defend, I make sure to declare the shots that can't get Gun Duels if I have more than one opportunity for the same reason. -- jim
 
Top