Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » General

Subject: Pulling Interesting Rules from CC:P into CC:E/M? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So i was pursuing the new rules for CC and it occurred to me that, while most of them are specific to the theater (and very well done btw!), some of them would actually make CC:E more interesting IMHO:

Unit Stacking—Now enforced per hex, not
per player. Overstacking is also allowed
but with a penalty: In a hex, each soldier
icon beyond 7 reduces that hex’s Cover by
1.

and

Defense Rolls—An Attack Total at least
twice the Defense Total outright eliminates
the targeted unit. (encourages ire groups;
discourages overstacking).

I really like these two rules, as anything that gives the player more options (do i put that extra half squad in the building in order to get more firepower or leave him behind in reserve so i have the best cover?) is usually good on my part. I also like the extra change to defensive rolls that helps make the first rule a bit more punishing so it's not a "no brainier" to put 2 squads in the same hex all the time (sometimes all it would take to push the squad down to half the firepower is 1 or 2 less cover).


So what do you guys (and Chad) think? Would this work well as an optional rule in CC:E/M?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Once Badger- my #1 WW2 protagonist- and I play CC we'll no doubt take some of the new rules across to the ETO. Those 2 you've mentioned Adam strike me as likely candidates.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
United States
Edmond
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
admin
Convention Committee
badge
BGG.CON! BGG.CON SPRING! BGG@SEA!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I saw that C3i #21 will have counters and additional variant rules for CC:E...I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are tweaks of CC rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Grossman
United States
Grand Junction
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JMcL63 wrote:
Once Badger- my #1 WW2 protagonist- and I play CC we'll no doubt take some of the new rules across to the ETO. Those 2 you've mentioned Adam strike me as likely candidates.


I've been trying to avoid reading the CC rules and even thinking about when it will show up at my door, but I may try these two rules in one of my solo games this weekend. Both mechanics are very much in line with the rest of CC -- simple and likely to produce the desired effects.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the couple of games I've played with this overstacking rule (also present in the forthcoming Stalingrad battle pack for CC:E), I find the overstacking rule creates some extreme situations with huge stacks that inflict heavy losses then take heavy losses themselves. Chad thinks I'm nuts to create those big stacks in the first place. I guess the odds would suggest that he's probably right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I find the overstacking rule creates some extreme situations with huge stacks that inflict heavy losses then take heavy losses themselves.

Sometimes this is the right thing to do depending on the current game state. You create for yourself a high-risk, high-reward situation -- a person's overall style of play will dictate how often this will occur.

Luckily, nobody during the extensive playtest and demo period of CC has shown this mechanic to be broken; indeed, every player I've been in contact with readily enjoyed the option, even when not used to its extreme potential.

And, yes, upon mutual agreement between the two players the CC stacking rules work fine in CC:E/M with no detrimental effect on game play or balance (same goes for the auto-kill rule).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Unit Stacking—Now enforced per hex, not
per player."

Hmmm, I've only briefly skimmed some of the new rules, but I don't get what it means stacking is "per player" in CC:E/M. Am I missing something obvious here?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
war_hero wrote:
I don't get what it means stacking is "per player" in CC:E/M. Am I missing something obvious here?

In CC:E/M, each player can have up to 7 soldier silhouettes in a hex without suffering casualties.

In CC, normal stacking is 7 per hex, not player. Thus the cover of a hex begins to drop if there is more than 7 soldier silhouettes within it regardless of whether those silhouettes come from units of one or both players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
In CC:E/M, each player can have up to 7 soldier silhouettes in a hex without suffering casualties.


Of course, in CC:E/M, overstacking casualties only occur at the end of a turn, and it's not possible (I think) for a hex to be occupied by both players at that time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Massey
United States
Teachey
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Casual wargamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="Bridger"]
Quote:
pursuing the new rules for CC








I believe you mean perusing? shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Chad Jensen wrote:
In CC:E/M, each player can have up to 7 soldier silhouettes in a hex without suffering casualties.


Of course, in CC:E/M, overstacking casualties only occur at the end of a turn, and it's not possible (I think) for a hex to be occupied by both players at that time.


And what you think is also what I thought. But Chad's answer makes sense.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
war_hero wrote:
I don't get what it means stacking is "per player" in CC:E/M. Am I missing something obvious here?

In CC:E/M, each player can have up to 7 soldier silhouettes in a hex without suffering casualties.

In CC, normal stacking is 7 per hex, not player. Thus the cover of a hex begins to drop if there is more than 7 soldier silhouettes within it regardless of whether those silhouettes come from units of one or both players.


gulp surprise surprise gulp

Wow....I've played the game over 20 times (CCE and CCM combined), and have always played that rule per hex, not per player.

shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
r3gamer wrote:
Chad Jensen wrote:
war_hero wrote:
I don't get what it means stacking is "per player" in CC:E/M. Am I missing something obvious here?

In CC:E/M, each player can have up to 7 soldier silhouettes in a hex without suffering casualties.

In CC, normal stacking is 7 per hex, not player. Thus the cover of a hex begins to drop if there is more than 7 soldier silhouettes within it regardless of whether those silhouettes come from units of one or both players.


gulp surprise surprise gulp

Wow....I've played the game over 20 times (CCE and CCM combined), and have always played that rule per hex, not per player.

shake


Well i don't think it matters, melee is resolved before the end of the turn, so there will never be a stacking problem due to both sides pushing the limit over 7 (stacking limit is only resolved at the end of the turn).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
r3gamer wrote:
Wow....I've played the game over 20 times (CCE and CCM combined), and have always played that rule per hex, not per player.


As I said above, in CC:E/M, the application of the rule comes out exactly the same if it's per hex or per player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Good to know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
As I said above, in CC:E/M, the application of the rule comes out exactly the same if it's per hex or per player.

Indeed it does. But I had to state that stacking was per hex or per player (or per something) in order for the rule to work in the first place. Also, like most rules in CC I intentionally put in (or left out, as the case may be) specifics in order to allow for the broadest possible spectrum of player choice and/or scenario Special Rules. Many of these specifics are quite innocuous -- like what's being discussed here -- but COULD become important at some future date for a scenario that hasn't yet been designed.

However, for CC this phrase needed to subtlely change to being "per hex". Yes, it may seem like the change is unneccessary: especially as rule 19.1 prohibits putting an SR in or adjacent to a melee hex. But one could still drift into or adjacent to the melee hex. So, for example, if that melee hex contained 1 US squad & 2 Japanese squads (12 total silhouettes) the cover for that errant bombardment would be modified by -5 for all those squads -- not just modified by -1 for the Japanese ones. This change (per hex vs per player) also leaves open the possibility of a scenario designer allowing a fire attack or SR to target a melee hex via scenario special rule and have the new CC-style stacking work as intended.
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.