Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Rommel in the Desert» Forums » Rules

Subject: Isn't it strange... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Isn't it strange that a Minefield gives Double Defense and a Fortress gives Double Damage ("double dice defensive fire") to the defender?

Has anyone tried it the other way around? Having tried Crusader Rex before Rommel (you get double defense when withdrawing to the castle in CR), these rules feel counterintuitive. I can anticipate this changing the game quite a bit, so I don't know if it would work.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Sadler
United States
Olney
Maryland
flag msg tools
From the Halls of Montezuma...
badge
...to the Shores of Tripoli...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Minefields definitely take the spring out of your step on the offensive. They do relatively little damage to units as a whole, but take away the ability to maneuver quickly and freely. Sometimes they are even labelled as minefields to dissuade the enemy from using approaches.

A stable and protected position is hard to assault in modern warfare. Sieges and city assaults in the modern era only come at a great price of life because soldiers cannot sit out of bowshot. I know that even tiny pillboxes and the like can become a real bugbear at the fireteam and squad level. I imagine fortresses would be many magnitudes worse.

I am merely offering these as possible justifications for the differences. The former I feel better about than the latter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://poetryinacup.org/poems/abagoftools.html

i saw this on the front page of bgg and it reminded me of that poem. my dad told me about it a long time ago, how he found it on a flyer or something and it struck him. his birthday is coming up and i think i'll try to get it engraved on something for him.

strange, indeed!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim C
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Try the forums at www.consimworld.com. They have a seperate folder for RitD. You'll get responses there from people who've played the game numerous times, if not from the designer himself.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Thanks all for the input.... I'm on my way to consimworld...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Not strange at all. Minefields - like walls, barbwires, tank obstacles - are defensive fotifications. They are not offensive weapons, making ambush on unsuspecting victims. In many instances the location of mines are known to both sides. They take the momentum out of an offensive, slow down manuevers rather than inflict any substantial damage. Once someone step on a mine, the minefield's cover is blown, all it does from then on is delay the enemy's progression.

A fort, on the other hand, places the defenders in a better position to lay down fire upon the attackers, hence the bonus in firepower. That is my explanation anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim C
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well I think it's more of a design question as to why fortification modifiers are treated differently in two different games. Why, in Crusader Rex and just about every other game I've played, are defenders in forts given a defensive bonus, whereas in RitD defenders are given an offensive bonus? Asked another way, I understand that a defender in a fort can lay down fire more effectively, but why wouldn't they have the defensive bonus from occupying a fort?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I do not have the answer to that question but I can make an attempt:

Attaining a good position to lay down fire upon the enemy usually implies exposing yourself to his fire too. The fortification assures that you will not expose yourself while attaining that position. So your firepower against him is doubled while his firepower against you remains the same.

Example:
Let's say an engagement usually takes place at a distance of 1.5 km when both sides exert limited firepower upon one another. A fortification places you 750 meters closer so that your firepower is increased but his is still limited by your superior cover.

Now to double both your firepower and defense would be double counting the effects of a fortification.

I know I am playing the lawyer here but I told you I don't have the answer, just an explanation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LC
United States
Florissant
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The minefield explanation for restricting offensive maneuver was very good and seems right. The benefit of the Fortress Double Fire in this game is that you can build a minefield in the fortress without having to come up with something like TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE defense where the fortress would then be virtually impregnable from a game standpoint because left over hits from a round are lost.

Just imagine what a double step unit with triple/quadruple defense would look likeshake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Mortensen
Denmark
Copenhagen
kbh v
flag msg tools
I would recommend reading The Rommel papers (edtied by B.H. Liddell-hart) then you will get a picture of how costly it was to attack a Fortress.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.