Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Enemy Action: Ardennes» Forums » Rules

Subject: GS: Deploying Allied Reserves rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm looking for some thoughts on how to break a tie, please

In s9.2 there's a subsection entitled 'more than one position' providing tie breaker instructions, all the way down to "..... If still more than one, place the reserve unit in the unit closest to a German unit." Problem is this still doesn't do it! So.....

I think there are several options:
1. Personal discretion (to my own advantage) - feels a bit like cheating!
2. Roll of the die - feels a bit too random
3. Closest to an existing unit in the same division (albeit still subject to the existing rules, including adjacent units and zocs), then Corp, then army - this seems to be less random and cheaty, and is what I have gone with.

I'd be grateful for any thoughts and comments, especially if there any alternative suggestions. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Mhh.. it seems strange, could you post a picture of that?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Kassel
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Add another compass direction , I suggest north, to the tie break. At least that is consistent with how the AI generally works. It has the disadvantage of being predictable and possibly something the player could use to advantage. Though not easily. Personally I think a die roll would be fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

A picture illustrating the situation would definately be nice.
There is no rule for how to handle these extremely rare situations so it's entirely up to you, but I suggest you go with #1.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Brown
United States
Westfield
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've had the same situation happen...it was S of Bastogne, had the same HV, were equally west, and an equal distance to a German unit. I eventually ended up going with closer to more German units as my tie-breaker. It seemed to be the "smartest" way for the Allies to slow the German advance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the responses, gents. I'll post up a picture when I've finished work today.

Interestingly, John, my problem is also in the Bastogne area.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Parsons
United Kingdom
Rochford
Essex
flag msg tools
We few,we happy few,we band of brothers;For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother: be he ne’er so vile;And gentlemen in England now-abed Shall think themself accurs’d they were no here That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stu123 wrote:
Thanks for the responses, gents. I'll post up a picture when I've finished work today.

Interestingly, John, my problem is also in the Bastogne area.


History tells us the problem in the Bastogne area

Was the American 101st Airborne

Huzzah!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here’s a photo of the six III corps units that I’m about to deploy into the Bastogne area; they are sorted with the lowest selector number at the top.



So the first unit, 04, seems pretty straightforward (famous last words), deploying into hex 1515.

The deployment of the second unit, 05, is the subject of my original post. It seems to me that based on the rules it could deploy into either 1714 or 2114. It's worth pointing out that whilst you can't see it in the photo Bastogne has an HV of 6. I chose to deploy into 1714 on the basis that it’s closer to the existing 4th Armoured unit in Bastogne. Incidentally, 1714 is also where it would have been placed using John’s approach of deploying toward the largest number of German units.

The photo below shows how I ended up placing all six units. Does this look right? On occasion I find myself merely thinking, rather than knowing, that I’ve placed the units correctly shake

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for posting!I think 1714 is not eligible since in the ZoC of the unit in Bastogne and the HV in 1714 is just 3. So, I'd select 2114
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Note that also 1813 is an elegible position since it would keep in communications the two units of the VIII corps
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
samuele wrote:
Note that also 1813 is an elegible position since it would keep in communications the two units of the VIII corps

I don't think this is true since it would also place it adjacent to the unit in Bastogne which is already in communication.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Brastias wrote:
samuele wrote:
Note that also 1813 is an elegible position since it would keep in communications the two units of the VIII corps

I don't think this is true since it would also place it adjacent to the unit in Bastogne which is already in communication.



I had to go back to the rule book,but according to the deployment method A, pag23, a unit can deploy in the ZoC of another unit if doing so opens communication to an OoC unit.
The point is that 1813 might be in danger of surround, but it depends on how previous units deployed
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

You can deploy reserves adjacent to a US unit if either of the following is true:

1. the position you deploy the reserve unit in has a HV of 5+, or
2. the adjacent unit is OOC but would be in communication after the reserve unit is deployed.

Neither of these are true in respect of the unit in Bastogne, so you can't place a reserve unit adjacent to it regardless of if it opens communication to another adjacent unit.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Brastias wrote:

You can deploy reserves adjacent to a US unit if either of the following is true:

1. the position you deploy the reserve unit in has a HV of 5+, or
2. the adjacent unit is OOC but would be in communication after the reserve unit is deployed.

Neither of these are true in respect of the unit in Bastogne, so you can't place a reserve unit adjacent to it regardless of if it opens communication to another adjacent unit.



I agree, in respect of the unit in Bastogne, but what about CCR 9A VIII and 327 101 VIII? Both are OOC and would be in communication with a deployment in 1813. Has the unit deployed in ZoCs to open communication to all the adjacent units?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brastias wrote:

You can deploy reserves adjacent to a US unit if either of the following is true:

1. the position you deploy the reserve unit in has a HV of 5+, or
2. the adjacent unit is OOC but would be in communication after the reserve unit is deployed.

Neither of these are true in respect of the unit in Bastogne, so you can't place a reserve unit adjacent to it regardless of if it opens communication to another adjacent unit.

Interesting; the rule says:
Quote:
The position is not adjacent to an Allied unit with a ZOC unless either of the following is true:
* The position has a Hold Value of 5 or 6
* The adjacent unit is out of communication and would be placed in communication by the placement of the reserve unit


So interpreting that literally, you are clearly right that 1813 is not an eligible placement hex ("the adjacent unit" in Bostogne is indeed not out of communication); yet I can't help but wonder if that second bullet point was intended to say "some adjacent unit is out of communication and would be placed in communication by the placement...", with the intent that this placement would be permitted because it would place that other adjacent unit (in 1812) into communication, which seems like an obviously Good Thing to do.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

While the question of intent is interesting and has been brought up several times before regarding other game situations, I would argue that the view on J.B.'s games in general and on EAA in particular is to follow the rules as they are written.

I assume questions like these eventually make their way to the people involved in writing and reviewing the rulebooks, and hopefully that will lead to fewer ambiguities (and more examples!) in the later games in this series.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brastias wrote:
I assume questions like these eventually make their way to the people involved in writing and reviewing the rulebooks, and hopefully that will lead to fewer ambiguities (and more examples!) in the later games in this series.

Yes, I hope we get some quasi-official comment/confirmation on this case. I agree generally about following rules as written, but I admit that this particular case has me wondering.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Firstly, thanks for the replies. BGG really is a fantastic community.

So... I misinterpreted the ZOC HV 5/6, thinking 1714 was acceptable because Bastogne had an HV of 6. Silly mistake.

Anyway, I've placed 04 in 1515, 05 in 2114 an 07 in 1613. The tricky bit comes placing 08, given the OOC condition mentioned above. Can it or can it not be placed in 1813? My interpretation of this is that the rule as written is a 'no', but the intent is surely to bring units back into communication wherever possible? Had the first word of the subrule read 'an' instead of 'the' then this intent would have been reflected in the rule. Hmmm, what to do!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hahaha, in the hour that I've been feeding kids breakfast etc since reading Martin's message the conversation has moved on! At least I'm on the right track though. We're all sharing the same conundrum! whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuele Falco
msg tools
mbmbmb
Stu123 wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the replies. BGG really is a fantastic community.

So... I misinterpreted the ZOC HV 5/6, thinking 1714 was acceptable because Bastogne had an HV of 6. Silly mistake.

Anyway, I've placed 04 in 1515, 05 in 2114 an 07 in 1613. The tricky bit comes placing 08, given the OOC condition mentioned above. Can it or can it not be placed in 1813? My interpretation of this is that the rule as written is a 'no', but the intent is surely to bring units back into communication wherever possible? Had the first word of the subrule read 'an' instead of 'the' then this intent would have been reflected in the rule. Hmmm, what to do!


I'd appreciate an official reply about this 1813. I think it's literally true that if you consider CCR 9A you're deploying a unit in its ZoC and you're also opening communication to it. I agree that the same does not apply to the unit in Bastogne
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Kassel
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
>but the intent is surely to bring units back into communication wherever possible?

The intent is that units behave locally without the god's eye view of the human player. In part this is a matter of keeping the AI decisions simple enough to operate. Partly they are expected to be suboptimal. After all, the AI get substantial advantages in card play - no deck size and combat cards every combat.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tom Kassel wrote:
>but the intent is surely to bring units back into communication wherever possible?

The intent is that units behave locally without the god's eye view of the human player. In part this is a matter of keeping the AI decisions simple enough to operate.

Well in this case, either interpretation would be equally simple to implement, I think.

Quote:
Partly they are expected to be suboptimal. After all, the AI get substantial advantages in card play - no deck size and combat cards every combat.

This is true!

So in your opinion, it is indeed intentional that the 2nd bullet point requires ALL adjacent allied units to be out of communication, not just SOME adjacent allied unit? (I think you were involved with the game's development, right?)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Kassel
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I spent a couple of years playtesting EA, initially GS but then AS for the bulk of the time. Nailing down the tie-breaks was a continuing problem.

In the current case, I think the strict ruling (all adjacent allied units must be place in communications) is best. Best because that ruling is possible and unambiguous.

Having said this, there is an argument for adopting pro-allied judgements as players become more familiar. Players get to learn, the AI does not. Some adjustments may be needed to keep the game challenging.

When I moved from GS testing to AS, my view was that a German strat win in GS was virtually a fluke of excellent dice and other random effects. Having played GS more often during the long wait for the AS vassal mod, I found I was winning strategically on 20th or 21st rather consistently, four of last five games. I have made some adjustment to correct this (applied in last two games) without great success.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, so sticking to the rules as written I have the following at the end of step 1 (Method A Check).



So then I go onto step 2, the Out-of-Contact Check (I'm on 22nd December, didn't I mention that...?).

Question 1: are those units deployed in step 1 eligible for redeployment in step 2? For example in the picture above unit 05, which has been rendered Out-of-Contact with the subsequent placing of unit 08. In this particular instance I think this question is academic as there are no other opportunities for Method A deployment at present, but it would be good to have a view for future occasions.

Question 2: irrespective of the answer to question 1, as an existing unit, unit 01 in Bastogne could be eligible for redeployment as an Out-of-Contact unit, which section 9.3 describes as: "the Allied unit is in Allied communication [tick] and no German unit is proximity [tick] and the removal of the unit would not create a gap in the Allied line" [hmmm]. So, removing unit 01 would create a gap in the line, BUT ultimately not if it were simply redeployed one hex east into hex 1813, which also has the effect of bringing units 14 & 24 back into communication. However, in reality there would be a period when there was a gap in the line as the unit was in the process of redeploying, which is perhaps what the rules are portraying, and I think leaves me erring on the side that this isn't an allowable move.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Åkerlund
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

1. Yes

2. Removing unit 01 would not create a gap in the Allied frontline so it's definately eligible for redeployment.

If we assume it had been part of the line, then as you say, it wouldn't be eligible for redeployment even if the hex it would be redeployed to had restored the frontline.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.