Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a result without an explicit rule...

Units at 1 strength in assault combat must pass a morale check before their round. If the units are attacking and it is the third round, and they fail their morale check, they cannot retreat.

I presume they would be eliminated?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steffan O'Sullivan
United States
Plymouth
NH
flag msg tools
"To be honorable and just is our only defense against men without honor or justice." -Diogenes of Sinope
badge
If ye see the laird, tell him this makes the twelve hunner and nineteen time that Jennet Clouston has called down the curse on him and his house, byre and stable, man, guest, and master, wife, miss, or bairn—black be their fall! -RLStevenson
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm - we've actually played attackers automatically retreat in round three. We've never checked morale. It never occurred to us that we might be playing it wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sos1 wrote:
Hmm - we've actually played attackers automatically retreat in round three. We've never checked morale. It never occurred to us that we might be playing it wrong.


Well, they would automatically retreat if they were at strength 2 or higher. But I'm curious about the specific situation where units with 1 strength have to pass a morale check before their round action.

The relevant rule:

Quote:

9.3 ASSAULT MORALE

All units at strength 1 in an Assault must make a Morale Check at the start of their assault round. HQs ignore this unless they are the only unit in the assault.

PASS: Unit can fire or retreat normally. FAIL: Unit is disrupted and cannot fire or retreat this assault round.

NOTE: use the morale of a commanding HQ located in the Assault hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steffan O'Sullivan
United States
Plymouth
NH
flag msg tools
"To be honorable and just is our only defense against men without honor or justice." -Diogenes of Sinope
badge
If ye see the laird, tell him this makes the twelve hunner and nineteen time that Jennet Clouston has called down the curse on him and his house, byre and stable, man, guest, and master, wife, miss, or bairn—black be their fall! -RLStevenson
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, I instantly understood the implications of your initial question. We may have been playing it wrong. It just never occurred to us to check attacker's morale round 3.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Kwasny
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I think rule 9.2, (B) covers this situation:

"Attacker: Fire or Retreat each unit, except must retreat in Round 3 (no attacker morale checks in round 3)."

So 1-step attacking units do not check morale at the start of their round 3, they simply retreat.
6 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mvkwasny wrote:
I think rule 9.2, (B) covers this situation:

"Attacker: Fire or Retreat each unit, except must retreat in Round 3 (no attacker morale checks in round 3)."

So 1-step attacking units do not check morale at the start of their round 3, they simply retreat.


Outstanding! A clear answer form the rules which I overlooked. Some GG for your help!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Kwasny
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks! I just re-read the rules last night, so I remembered seeing that rule (which I had also missed the first time I played!).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I'm still waiting for my KS copy to arrive (they did say Europe would take a few weeks longer), but I'm certainly looking forward to this game. I have high expectations of it!

Anyone played enough to do some kind of review yet?

Other squad based WW2 games I own are:

* Tide of Iron ( I love miniatures)
* Axis and Allies Miniatures (Did I mention I love miniatures (-;)
* Conflict of Heroes (Rule wise the one I like best, but no miniatures (-;

I also played Combat Commander once at a friend's place, but somehow that one didn't really appeal to me...

I really think Combat Infantry will be a great addition to my WW2 squad level based games:

1. Block game
2. Fog of War
3. Innovative concepts I read about in the rules (HQ's; command range...)
4. Fast playing (?)
5. Easy to carry
6. Realtively few rules to digest, but ostensibly offering quite a lot of depth, from what I've read.
7. ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:
I'm still waiting for my KS copy to arrive (they did say Europe would take a few weeks longer), but I'm certainly looking forward to this game. I have high expectations of it!

Anyone played enough to do some kind of review yet?

Other squad based WW2 games I own are:

* Tide of Iron ( I love miniatures)
* Axis and Allies Miniatures (Did I mention I love miniatures (-
* Conflict of Heroes (Rule wise the one I like best, but no miniatures (-;

I also played Combat Commander once at a friend's place, but somehow that one didn't really appeal to me...


From the couple of games I've played, I enjoy the system a lot. Combat Commander is my #1 game and I've played so much, I find myself having to read carefully to grok the different ways of doing things in CI.

I'd say it will be much closer to Conflict of Heroes than the other two. It's Squad combat done Columbia style which means hexside limits and the means forcing you into flanking maneuvers and some other tactical considerations.

Quote:


I really think Combat Infantry will be a great addition to my WW2 squad level based games:

1. Block game
2. Fog of War

I think this is pretty good for a squad level game. They've worked it out with the tanks (they take hits without armor if they are hidden but get armor if they are revealed). Fog of war is fun since you don't know what you're up against until you engage. The rule for attacking whole hexes or targeting face up units also seems a good way to handle the notion of hidden units versus those that have revealed themselves by firing.

Quote:

3. Innovative concepts I read about in the rules (HQ's; command range...)

The HQ system is actually pretty cool. It emphasizes the important of leaders and adds the element of command level organization. Most squad games you just get some leaders that get assigned to these troops or those troops. Here, you have to keep your platoon coherence in order to accomplish things.

Quote:

4. Fast playing (?)

Not too sure about that. I think Scenario 1, which we've place twice, has taken around a couple of hours. That's a reasonable time. When I play CC, we play quickly. Maybe because we're learning the CI system, we play a little slower.
Quote:

5. Easy to carry

It is a nice compact package. Until we get expansions... laugh
Quote:

6. Realtively few rules to digest, but ostensibly offering quite a lot of depth, from what I've read.
7. ?


That's pretty accurate. The random draw of battalion assets made the two games we played (same scenario) pretty different. They force you to adapt your plan.

After some forum discussion, I think I've nailed down all the rules. On my own, I think some rules might have been a little tougher to get because I'm bringing assumptions from other games.

Making a squad level block game is a tough nut to crack. War Stories tried and didn't do a good job. I think CI has nailed it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Although I understand the decision behind making tanks lose their armor when hidden, I find it quite difficult to justify it. Are we supposed to assume they have their hatches open or the crew are having a smoke outside of the tank or what?

Mind you, I'm not criticizing the game here, I just like being presented with plausible reasons behind certain game-play mechanics and decisions. I also have have understood this slightly wrong, because, as I said, I haven't yet received the game and only quickly glanced over the rules once.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Kwasny
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:
Although I understand the decision behind making tanks lose their armor when hidden, I find it quite difficult to justify it. Are we supposed to assume they have their hatches open or the crew are having a smoke outside of the tank or what?

Mind you, I'm not criticizing the game here, I just like being presented with plausible reasons behind certain game-play mechanics and decisions. I also have have understood this slightly wrong, because, as I said, I haven't yet received the game and only quickly glanced over the rules once.


It's a cigarette break!

I think it is mostly just a mechanism to keep the game from being too complex. With the optional rule, you can always have your tank lying face up and thus always has the armor rating in effect. However, after a couple playings, I have found at times I prefer to stand the tank back up - say a 2-step tank is in a hex with a couple 4-step infantry but within range of a larger enemy AT or tank. The chances of the enemy hitting the tank when firing just at the hex are slim, but targeting the tank with the larger AT or tank will give a good chance of inflicting a hit or two. It is a nice extra decision for players to make. Explaining what it represents in real life is tougher - I suppose it could simply mean the tank is at the far back of the hex (an extra 100 meters away, perhaps behind a slight rise), with the infantry squads well in front and thus attracting the attention of the enemy units. But if the tank is alone in a hex, I certainly want to leave it face up to get its armor rating.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:
Although I understand the decision behind making tanks lose their armor when hidden, I find it quite difficult to justify it. Are we supposed to assume they have their hatches open or the crew are having a smoke outside of the tank or what?

Mind you, I'm not criticizing the game here, I just like being presented with plausible reasons behind certain game-play mechanics and decisions. I also have have understood this slightly wrong, because, as I said, I haven't yet received the game and only quickly glanced over the rules once.


From the p.1 Sidebar:
Quote:
fog-of-war is essential to simulate WWII tactical combat. Players are never sure of the exact strength or type of enemy units until they fire or an enemy-occupied hex is assaulted.

Tanks are an exception. Veteran infantry could determine the location and identity of tanks just from the sound of their engines. Hence, tanks are revealed when they fire or move.


The question is how do you simulate that with a block wargame in which whole hexes are targeted?

If you had an infantry and a tank in a hex, and the hex is hit, and both blocks are up, what do you do with the tank? If you don't rotate it, your opponent knows it's a tank. If you do rotate it, what does that mean? The tank was hit by rifle fire?

I think the rule as written works even if the rationale for a hidden tank taking hits is a bit sketchy. But it is pretty obvious that the presence of tanks was generally pretty obvious to infantry.

There's a little bit of "fog of war with blocks is the best way to do a squad level game" implicit in the rules for CI, with the sort of implied backstep, "well, except maybe for tanks..."

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Aw, crap; gonna be sore in the morning...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mvkwasny wrote:
I have found at times I prefer to stand the tank back up - say a 2-step tank is in a hex with a couple 4-step infantry but within range of a larger enemy AT or tank. The chances of the enemy hitting the tank when firing just at the hex are slim, but targeting the tank with the larger AT or tank will give a good chance of inflicting a hit or two. It is a nice extra decision for players to make.
thumbsup Exactly. Infantry helps screen the tank and can rally to absorb hits. Avoid tank targeting by waiting as long as possible to activate and fire each game turn (preferably on an enemy MG nest to complement the friendlies nearby).

mvkwasny wrote:
Explaining what it represents in real life is tougher - I suppose it could simply mean the tank is at the far back of the hex (an extra 100 meters away, perhaps behind a slight rise), with the infantry squads well in front and thus attracting the attention of the enemy units. But if the tank is alone in a hex, I certainly want to leave it face up to get its armor rating.
thumbsup Sounds good to me. Makes perfect sense: further distance and more immediate threat.

The tank gets hit when the defending infantry screen ablates and enemy fire is concentrated on the distant target for effect.
 
 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.