It is currently Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:27 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Posts: 2524
Location: Scotland
barr7430 wrote:
Now... back to FIBUA.
Here are some comments from me on where I agree there is a problem but where I am reluctant to over complicate mechanics. I appreciated very much the comment from DPT that R2E does not attempt to micro manage every tiny detail (my broad idea has been recognized! :D )


I would urge caution in changing too much as I would hate to lose the ability of BUA changing hands many times during a battle.
Just my tuppence worth.
Cheers
Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: EK,Scotland
Enigmatic response Jedi Master... you passed no comment on the impact of the potential saving throw option.. :?:

_________________
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
Is anyone else worried about FIBUA becoming FUBAR?

I actually love the FIBUA rules as they are. And I still think that my idea for battalion guns along with only allowing them to fire in support of their regiment is the best way to go. They only get one dice but, they can do a hell of a lot of damage with it by causing an importunate morale check.

Jim

_________________
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: EK,Scotland
Yes, Brother of Jedi Master... I too have an eye on FUBAR and am attempting to ake the long view I think the best way to go is a short playtesting period before committing to anything in print

_________________
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
barr7430 wrote:
Yes, Brother of Jedi Master... I too have an eye on FUBAR and am attempting to ake the long view I think the best way to go is a short playtesting period before committing to anything in print

That, Dear Darth, is why you get the big bucks! :D

_________________
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Posts: 720
Location: Dumfries, Scotland
Sorry chaps but when the commander feels that it is better not to defend a built up area because he knows his troops will get a kicking there is a problem.
The example I used originally was using average troops with average dice rolls.
I just feel that the advantage should be with the defender whereas in the games I have played so far it is not.
Defended areas are fairly easy to capture whilst suffering minimal casualties at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: EK,Scotland
This is a very long post but for R2E players I think it is a vital read. Hope you can stay awake

The great debate – science versus playability

As I will commit(or not) to FIBUA amendments both in FOUR EMPIRES and in an errata document for Republic to Empire I have been conducting some play testing on the vexatious topic of how easy is it to capture a built up area. There are different and strongly held opinions on the subject so here is a series of dice thrown examples, not made up, not made through a program, but with toys on the table and cubes in the mitt.

BUILT UP AREA: 2B
Defenders: 24 model VETERAN infantry battalion
Attackers: 3 battalion brigade VETERAN, DRILLED, DRILLED.
Terrain: flat with no height advantage.

ATTACK 1 – Charge and shooting
All 3 attacking battalions charged. Defender reaction was OK and defensive fire delivered at PB range. Total shooting losses 5, distributed 2,2,1. The central Drilled battalion failed the charge home check. 2 battalions made it to the attack.
ATTACK 1 – Close combat
All units both attackers and defenders, chose to throw in battalion officers. The attackers also threw in their brigadier.
Attacking dice
Bn 1 = 6CGs + 1(Vet) + 2(CO) + 2(Brig ) = 11
Bn 2 = 6CGs + 2 (CO) = 8
Total = 19 dice
Defending dice
6CGs + 3(V) + 2(CO) + 3(BUA 50%) = 14 dice
Attackers scored 12 hits and Defenders 4. Difference of 8. Attacker wins and take 4 casualties whilst defender takes 12. This would mean the attacker has penetrated the perimeter for a total loss of 9 casualties whilst the defender has lost 50% strength and will check resolve for losing the combat.
I then applied the very simple amendment of making the Attacker re throw all hits. This brought the number down from 12 to 5. The total differential was then 1 which is a draw. The attacker was therefore not able to penetrate the perimeter and was disordered. 4 casualties were taken by each side. 2 were given to each attacking unit.
I followed the turn sequence allowing the defenders to reactivate the combat in their phase.
Defending dice
5CGs + 1V + 2(CO) + 3(BUA 50%) = 11
Attacking dice
Total was 18 halved to 9 for being disordered.
Defenders scored 5 hits and the Attackers 2. The attackers re throw on hits was all OK so the difference was 3 in favour of the Defenders. This meant 4 casualties to the Defenders and 7 to the Attackers (distributed 4 & 3 over the 2 units). Total Defender casualties now 8. Attacker Bn1 = 8 and Bn2 = 6. These numbers include shooting casualties on the way in. As the Attackers lost this bound they checked resolve. The Veteran unit stayed in the fight but the other bn achieved a waver result and disengaged. In the next round (which I did not fight) the attackers could choose to continue to fight or rest. They were not able to reinforce as both other battalions were disordered/wavering/disengaged. NO OFFICERS WERE HIT AT ANY STAGE ALTHOUGH ALL WERE DICED FOR.

Attack 2.
Same set up but 2 battalions failed to attack and only the Veterans were successful. The Defenders caused 2 casualties from fire but the Attackers charged home.
Attacking dice
6CGs + 1(Vet) + 2(CO) + 2(Brig ) = 11 dice
Defending dice
6CGs + 3(V) + 2(CO) + 3(BUA 50%) = 14 dice
Attackers scored 8 hits and Defenders 8. Difference of 0. Attacker takes 2 casualties whilst Defender takes 2. This would mean the Attacker had not penetrated the perimeter for a total loss of 4 casualties whilst the defender has lost 2.
I then applied the very simple amendment of making the Attacker re throw all hits. This brought the number down from 8 to 6. The total differential was then 2 which is a draw in favour of the defender. The attacker was therefore not able to penetrate the perimeter and was disordered. 6 casualties were taken by the Attackers and 4 by the Defender. No resolve checks no officers killed.

The Defenders chose to fight in their phase
Defending dice
5CGs + 3(Vet) + 2(CO) + 2(Brig ) = 12 dice
Attacking dice
5CGs + 1(V) + 2(CO) + 3(BUA 50%) = 11 dice halved for disorder = 6
Defenders scored 7 hits and Attackers 3 of which the re throws produced only 1 hit. Difference of 6. Attacker takes 10 casualties whilst Defender takes 4. This meant the Attacker had not penetrated the perimeter for a total loss of 18 casualties (including shooting) whilst the defender has lost 6. The attacking unit failed its resolve check and routed.

Attack 3

All 3 attacking battalions charged successfully. The defensive shooting caused 6 casualties 2 apiece but all battalions charged home.
Attacking dice
Bn 1 = 6CGs + 2(Vet) + 2(CO) + 2(Brig ) = 12 dice
Bn 2 = 6CGs +2(CO) = 8
Bn 3 = 6CGs +2(CO) = 8
Total = 28
Defending dice
6CGs + 1(V) + 2(CO) + 3(BUA 50%) = 12 dice
Attackers scored 9 hits which when re thrown dropped to 6 and Defenders scored 8 hits. This was a Draw with 4 casualties per side. Split was 1,2,1 on Attackers.
I kept the set up the same and threw again, 28 attacking dice v 12 defending. This time the attackers scored 6 hits after re throws and the defenders 9. Defenders win by 3. 4 casualties to them 7 to the attackers split 3,2,2
.


I kept the set up the same and threw again, 28 attacking dice v 12 defending. This time the attackers scored 12 hits after re throws and the defenders 5. Attackers win by 7. 4 casualties to the attackers and 11 to the defenders with the perimeter breached. Again not a single officer was killed in all of the rounds of combat.

Conclusion.
From this exercise I conclude that the arguments put forward so far by those seeking a change do not fully take into account ALL of the variables that can affect the result. At the same time, the very first attack appears to vindicate the argument that it is easy (with weight of numbers) to take a BUA.
The subsequent attacks where battalions drop out, the dice go in favour of the attackers, no officers are killed etc goes a long way to rebalance the argument towards the robustness of the original mechanic. I also feel strongly that the argument for change ignores the impact of committing large numbers of troops into an attack and the casualties taking from shooting which are not insignificant. Additionally the quality impact if officers are killed is potentially very damaging.
In true BH style I would also like to offer a counter argument to my own argument! I liked the re throw idea and it worked very simply and quickly BUT I believe, in isolation it swings the advantage too much toward the Defender and so, my solution is this:
If the re throw idea is officially adopted, I will put no limit on the size of the attacking force. This means the current 3:1 limit on Attacker v Defender would be removed and attackers could throw as many troops at a BUA as they wanted. Does this just move the argument to another place? I don’t believe so. The associated risks to attacking officers, adverse quality downgrades, sucking in huge numbers of troops needed elsewhere, poor resolve check results would raise the stakes on the attack of any BUA.

I very much look forward to your comments if you are still awake!

_________________
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 492
Location: Lanarkshire
Very interesting Barry,

Can see where you are going with the re-roll favouring the defenders too much, although I still believe that it is still too easy for multiple attacking units to take BUA's.

But as you rightly point out at the start its a case of science over playability,I don't think many of us want lots of minute details rather a more concise way of dealing with the situation.

I know that you don't want another table but I feel that the casualties caused by the defenders is the problem with FIBUA, they are not enough when assaults are mounted by multiple units, mainly because the casualty table is primarily designed for 1 to 1 unit combats, units only getting a modifier for supporting units.Whereas in an assault the casualties are spread across all of the attacking units which in most cases dilutes the effect considerably.

But having said all that they still make for a great game as they stand, and as DOB said its the ebb and flow of taking and retaking BUA's that adds to the realism of the period, so maybe just leave well alone.

Bob

_________________
We are not retreating - we are advancing in another direction. Macarthur, Douglas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Posts: 5816
Location: EK,Scotland
Actually Bob the re throw thing does take care of the casualty imbalance somewhat because it pulls down the differential of hits thus evening out the casualties. It may mean that more units have to be thrown in to the attack but the 'spectacular' gaps which favour the attacker may disappear and mean messier attacks, more troops and the defenders hanging on for longer as there are more 'drawn' results. A draw is automatic disorder for the attackers outsdie so the only way to get the odds back in their favour is to pile in more men. Might be a very easy 'sort'. We will try it at Derby along with the new artillery amendments. You can beat me up in the bar! :lol:

_________________
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:23 am
Posts: 1994
Location: Vienna, Austria
That colorisation HIT'S the eye :D

Hm, but after you cleared this out what else remains to be settled than?
Batallion Guns and their free use for hunting units on extreme distances I believe, or did I miss the solution?
I confess that is MY kind of hornets nest :wink:

_________________
„Macht Euch Euren Dregg alleene“

"Sort your filth out by yourself!" The King of Saxony Friedrich August III., at his abdication 1918, referred to the quarrels in the parliament and the squabbling within the provisional government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 371
Location: Castrop-Rauxel, NRW, Germany
I know I am a bit late to the party (completely missed this topic until today). And i have to say I have not played enough games to really comment here, but there is one comment from page one that caught my eye:

barr7430 wrote:
Also interesting stuff Bob. I am pondering the disorder thing. I also had thought about a differetn casualty chart but opted agaistthat idea simply because R2E has occasionally been cited as chart heavy and I didn't want any more!

Still, the debate even so far has stimulated several ideas and threads of development


I do not think that one should worry about that. Those people who call a game chart heavy will do so whenever a game has more then three or four (or simply because they do not like historical simulations at all but rather want a game that looks historical). R2E will never get down to that number of charts, so it will never loose that "stain" anyway.
On the other hand adding a chart that will clearly only see use in one situation (FIBUA in this case) does not add confusion, so I am fine with that. And I think if the target audience is so, too... to hell with those who dispise the game due to its number of charts!

Cheers,

Burkhard

_________________
Visit my blog at http://dhcwargamesblog.wordpress.com/
or our homepage at http://www.DHC-Wargames.de


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:59 pm
Posts: 9
So how is the book coming along?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:51 am
Posts: 1220
Location: Chesapeake, VA USA
The core chapters are finished except for the placement of final photos. We are working on the appendices which include the scenarios/sample games. Both Barry and I have been spread a bit thin of late... it should still be out this summer, but I don't have a date for you.

_________________
Clarence
http://www.quindiastudios.blogspot.com

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Posts: 2524
Location: Scotland
Barry and myself fought the sample game on Tuesday and what a great battle it was and in the balance right up to the last move. I've still to do a write up of the game but all the scenarios have been written and I think Barry is taking some more pics. Some photos of the sample game will be up on my blog soon.
Cheers
Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: R2E UPDATING & AMENDMENTS YOU HELP NEEDED
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:59 pm
Posts: 9
So is it all about hte 18th century now or is there still any plans on releasing R2E 2?

I have eagerlyy awaited the book all summer and its time to start gaming :D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.092s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]