| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 24, 2024 - 06:27 am: Edit |
It's one of those dual edge sword rules.....
...if you just want to get out of dodge city - retreating when you want is the most important aspect.
If you offer a new approach and they accept - it might be another round you didn't want to fight.
It may also change the owed points, which could make an additional difference!
| By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 24, 2024 - 08:21 pm: Edit |
Okay, 3 CMVs doesn't sound like a problem, but it also sounds like less than 1 per year not simply within the limit of Gorn carrier production. I have to think that perhaps the CMV should have a 1 per year limit within the normal restriction on carrier production. That would still allow as many as 5 in the Y176 to Y180 time frame which is more that the 3 confirmed names in R6.76.
Any staff members have a comment on this? Chuck? Mike? Ryan?
| By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 24, 2024 - 08:23 pm: Edit |
And I commonly offer an approach before leaving just to test how badly the enemy really wants to fight. It just doesn't come up that often except at Hydrax or Kzintai.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, March 30, 2024 - 10:31 am: Edit |
I think there is a design flaw in the scenarios North-South War (CL #23) and Long-Distance War (CL #33). In both scenarios, each side starts by purchasing 300 points worth of ships for an at-start force and then has a per turn economy of about 100 points. Although at first glance this seems balanced, it really isn't. Here's why:
On turn one, player one adds his new construction and then attacks. This means the attack is 400 on 300. Then player two adds his new construction and attacks. However, this attack will be 400 on 400.
On turn two, player one will attack 500 on 400, and then player two will attack 500 on 500.
On turn three, player one attacks 600 on 500, and then it's 600 on 600.
As you can see, player one is always attacking with an advantage, and player two is always attacking at parity. This means that if the experience levels and die rolls are equal, player one should win.
A way to balance the scenario would be to give player two an advantage of 50% of the scenario's economy for his at-start force. In my example this would be 50 points, so player one would start with 300 and player two would start with 350. Then you would have:
Turn one: player one attacks 400 on 350 and then player two attacks 450 on 400.
Turn two: 500 on 450 and then 550 on 500.
And so on...
In my proposed revision, both sides get a chance to attack with a modest advantage on their turn. This seems more balanced than always allowing player one to attack with an advantage and having player two attack at parity.
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, March 30, 2024 - 06:33 pm: Edit |
JMW - Usually an attacker isn't going to attack if it's even odds. Two, remember that production starts at the capital (except for FFs on forward SBs) and there has to be an enemy base within 6 for that advantage to be taken (otherwise, its parity)
Reserves (if remembered) can blunt some of the attacker's advantage.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, March 30, 2024 - 08:24 pm: Edit |
I agree that an attacker isn't going to want to attack at even odds. That's why player two is in such a poor position. He has to fight from behind every turn.
Let's consider the first two turns in these scenarios in more detail. If you assume that neither player can reach the front line with new construction, then during the first half of turn one, player one attacks at 300 on 300. At the end of his turn, he advances his new construction to act as reserves. Thus, player two must fight at 300 on 400: his own 300 against player one's original 300 plus player one's 100 points in reserves. That is not a recipe for success. At the end of his turn, player two can also advance new construction for reserves.
On turn two, player one builds 100 in new construction, and has 400 from the previous turn already on the front lines. Thus, player one may attack at 400 on 400. Then player one's new construction is advanced to give him 500 strength on the front line. During player two's half, he has the 400 from the previous and 100 in new construction that can't yet reach the front. Therefore, he again is forced to attack at a disadvantage, this time at 400 on 500.
So because of the delay in getting new construction to the front, it' not so much that player one is always attacking at an advantage as much as it is that player two must always attack at a disadvantage. Either way, the setup significantly favors player one.
| By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, March 31, 2024 - 03:21 am: Edit |
The staff tends to ignore those scenarios and generally forget about their existence.
They are for players to do something other than the 4PW or General War.
Little to no staff time will be devoted unless directed by G.O.D. to do something.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Sunday, March 31, 2024 - 10:58 am: Edit |
Fair enough. If they are ever revisited, I think increasing player two's at-start force by 50 points should do the trick.
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 31, 2024 - 12:29 pm: Edit |
The scenarios are designed that way, to make one side the aggressor. Nobody starts a war if its going to be a fair fight. No revision is needed, nor would the scenario work if these changes were made. There is no design flaw. I graduated from command & general staff school and I understand the dynamics of war better than anyone here other than maybe Colonel Strong.
| By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 31, 2024 - 01:16 pm: Edit |
Additionally the aggressor is attacking into enemy defenses and likely to take more damage. The defender is counterattacking, which can have them attacking where there are no defenses. Thus the aggressor must have more to attack with early on.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |