Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » Rules

Subject: Overstacking gives your opponent VPs? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
E. Strathmeyer
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rule 8.2 says that overstacked units are eliminated after a deploy action. Rule 7.1 says that any elimination causes VPs. I assume that elimination due to generates VPs for my opponent?

Example: I advance two squads into a hex and defeat an enemy squad in melee. I get 2VP, but I am now overstacked. I deploy one of the squads into two teams and eliminate one of the teams. My opponent get 1VP.

If this is right, it definitely makes the "overstack for better melee" tactic less attractive.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is right.

And sometimes, often times, it is worth the VP loss to get a key terrain feature.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Oliver......one cool cat
badge
MEOW!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am a very strong proponent of using the overstacking rules from CC;pacific in my CC:E games. That is, each pictured figure over 7 in the hex decreases the hex's cover value by 1. It really works quite well IMO.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Petdoc wrote:
I am a very strong proponent of using the overstacking rules from CC;pacific in my CC:E games. That is, each pictured figure over 7 in the hex decreases the hex's cover value by 1. It really works quite well IMO.


That's also in the city rules for BP2.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Huffman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Supreme Court Listener
badge
Supporter of the National Flag Football League
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Petdoc wrote:
I am a very strong proponent of using the overstacking rules from CC;pacific in my CC:E games. That is, each pictured figure over 7 in the hex decreases the hex's cover value by 1. It really works quite well IMO.


So we tried that for quite some time. I think I'd be happier with it if it were a -2 modifier per figure. -1 was not enough of a dis-incentive for the opponent to overstack an extra leader and get a massive leader bonus for big attacks.

But I will say that overall, I did like using it. It gives certain factions huge advantages, though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We played with the Pacific overstacking in CC:E rule for about a year. Decided that it completely ruins games using Resistance forces, and feels cheesy whenever one or another party hugely overstacks what is obviously the crucial melee, making it a foregone conclusion.

We went back to the purity of the original CC:E overstacking rules and have been much happier since.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Shockley
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When I have a leader and a bunch of squads, I will often run a couple squads together with a leader for the positional advantage it affords - gotta love that leader, squad, team + weapon stack. The VP loss is often worth it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
René van den Assem
Netherlands
Hengelo
Overijssel
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It does make it less attractive.
BUT less so than killer-melee stacks would kill the game arrrhshakegulp
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James
United Kingdom
Sheffield
South Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
strathmeyer wrote:

If this is right, it definitely makes the "overstack for better melee" tactic less attractive.


Depends on the context really. If you can hamstring your opponent's entire force by taking out their best leader at the cost of a vp and a half squad then it might be worth it.

I think a vp's value changes depending on the situation you're in and the original rules make melee a risky option. Makes things nice and tense.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magnus Maximus wrote:
When I have a leader and a bunch of squads, I will often run a couple squads together with a leader for the positional advantage it affords - gotta love that leader, squad, team + weapon stack. The VP loss is often worth it.



Wow, Steve, it SOUNDS like you might be adding the weapon firepower into your melee firepower. Please tell us you have NOT been playing this way. Probably I'm just misunderstanding you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian S.
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
01010011 01001000 01000001 01001100 01001100 00100000 01010111 01000101 00100000 01010000 01001100 01000001 01011001 00100000 01000001 00100000 01000111 01000001 01001101 01000101 00111111
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chicklewis wrote:
Magnus Maximus wrote:
When I have a leader and a bunch of squads, I will often run a couple squads together with a leader for the positional advantage it affords - gotta love that leader, squad, team + weapon stack. The VP loss is often worth it.



Wow, Steve, it SOUNDS like you might be adding the weapon firepower into your melee firepower. Please tell us you have NOT been playing this way. Probably I'm just misunderstanding you.
And if you're not misunderstanding him? Even if he's making a mistake, big deal. He learns and moves on.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmm, guess I might need to finally start using emoticons.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Huffman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
Supreme Court Listener
badge
Supporter of the National Flag Football League
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chicklewis wrote:
Hmmm, guess I might need to finally start using emoticons.


wow
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Shockley
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chicklewis wrote:
Magnus Maximus wrote:
When I have a leader and a bunch of squads, I will often run a couple squads together with a leader for the positional advantage it affords - gotta love that leader, squad, team + weapon stack. The VP loss is often worth it.



Wow, Steve, it SOUNDS like you might be adding the weapon firepower into your melee firepower. Please tell us you have NOT been playing this way. Probably I'm just misunderstanding you.


No, I haven't been doing that - although I see how you might have inferred it from my post!

I only meant that the ease of maneuver and concentration advantage you get by turning a squad to a team can sometimes be worth the VP.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sduke wrote:
It is right.

And sometimes, often times, it is worth the VP loss to get a key terrain feature.


Or to push the enemy over his surrender limit.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BrentS
Australia
Sydney
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never played CC: Pacific but having just played through the Stalingrad Battle Pack, I'll say that my preference is the original stacking limitations with Deployment consequences. I enjoyed the variety provided by the Stalingrad rules but the additional rules overlay, particularly the extra variable calculation involved in the stacking rules, detract somewhat from smooth play for me...…..great for the occasional foray into the distinctive and unique situation of Stalingrad but not my preference for everyday regular play.

Brent.
3 
 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.