Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When I was explaining the game a few days ago and going through the damage chits I noticed that the Vehicle Immobilized damage marker applies -1DM as a penalty to frontal DV, but applies a +1DM bonus to the flank DV.

I couldn't explain why. I'm puzzled by this bonus - I'd say that a vehicle that's been immobilized (either by losing a track/wheel or getting hung up on an obstacle) is definitely an easier target regardless what direction the incoming fire is from.

Is the +1DM flank bonus a mistake? And if not I'd like to find out the design team's rationale for the bonus.


The marker is question is the bottom right yellow marker in this image:
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Ingram
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alex.

Uwe answered this over on the CSW threads, here...

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.1dd0ee71/937

and here...

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@@.1dd0ee71/950

and probably elsewhere but I think you'll get the design intent from the above.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you Barry - that's exactly what I needed to be pointed at. I'd use CSW more than I do if it didn't feel quite so much like self-flagellation to navigate...!

I understand Uwe's reasoning and explanation although I'm not sure that I agree with it. But... since I haven't got to a tank scenario yet I'm not about to leap to any conclusions without seeing how it works in action.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam D.
United States
Suquamish
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read both explanations and neither make sense to me. I mean literally. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand what the reasoning is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Palmer
Canada
Ayr
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheCollector wrote:
I read both explanations and neither make sense to me. I mean literally. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand what the reasoning is.


Hmm, I'll try to explain it.

Let's say I have a tank, and it has a 25% chance of being immobilized, a 25% chance of being otherwise damaged, and a 50% chance of having nothing further happen to it.

Now that tank gets immobilized. It cannot get immobilized again, so that means its odds are 33% getting damaged, and 67% chance of nothing further happening to it.

Obviously getting immobilized will increase the odds of taking damage from enemy somewhat, but you should get the idea - the odds of "nothing further happening to it" have increased. Shooting at the tank's flank is simply not going to do much more to it, even if you hit it - it's already not moving, and that's the most likely thing to happen to a tank if you hit it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adam, my interpretation of it (and I had to read it a couple of times before it clicked) is that:

25% of the hit markers are Vehicle Immobilized (specifically 5 out of 20). The reasoning postulates that drawing a second Vehicle Immobilized chit should by rights have no additional effect on a vehicle that's already stuck - but as the rules mechanics would have it, a second hit (i.e. damage chit) will destroy the vehicle (even if it's just another Immobilize).

So... By giving a bonus to the flank DR (which is where track/wheel damaging shots normally come from) the chance of getting a second Immoblization counter is reduced.

The problem I see with that is that it also reduces the chance of any other kind of hit, which I feel should be greater or at the very least equal to when the target is mobile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Palmer
Canada
Ayr
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Prodromoi wrote:
The problem I see with that is that it also reduces the chance of any other kind of hit, which I feel should be greater or at the very least equal to when the target is mobile.


I would argue that it doesn't reduce the chance of "any other kind of hit", since at this point ALL hits are "any other kind of hit", since the second hit will destroy. With a +1 DM, your odds of hitting are at most reduced by around 17% (if it changes your required roll from a 6 to a 7, or a 7 to an 8, the odds are reduced by even less in any other case.) However, your odds of pulling out an "immobilized" hit counter (assuming the only immobilized hit counter used is the one on the current tank) is 20%.

So your odds of getting "any other kind of hit" have actually improved by at least 3%, often by more.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Felkor wrote:
I would argue that it doesn't reduce the chance of "any other kind of hit", since at this point ALL hits are "any other kind of hit"

Ah... very valid point, thank you. And while I feel a bit of explanation in the rules would have helped it seeming so counter-intuitive, I can't see any way of explaining it simply and briefly - and it doesn't call for a long bit of blurb in the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Palmer
Canada
Ayr
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Prodromoi wrote:
Felkor wrote:
I would argue that it doesn't reduce the chance of "any other kind of hit", since at this point ALL hits are "any other kind of hit"

Ah... very valid point, thank you. And while I feel a bit of explanation in the rules would have helped it seeming so counter-intuitive, I can't see any way of explaining it simply and briefly - and it doesn't call for a long bit of blurb in the rules.


It's true; often playing this game we get confused by the values on the hit counters. However, when we get Uwe's explanations, they make a lot of sense. He has taken many different factors and probabilities and abstracted them into a single number. Most tactical wargames (ASL would be the extreme example) take the opposite route, giving every factor its own number. It's often difficult to see what Uwe is getting at with his numbers, even though the end results are often very similar with much fewer calculations and rules look-ups to be made during game play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dustin boggs
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
these are my overtexts and
badge
now I am without geek gold :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always explaned this flank increase as the shaken troops are more aware of their surroundings and are concentrating on an all around defence while they regroup rather than pressing ahead assuming they are safe on their flanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Think about how the 2 hits fit into the theme:

Hit 1: immobilized. No real damage was done to the tanks armor, but its treads/wheels were rendered immobile.

Hit 2: Kills the tank. This means that hit 2 would have to do enough damage to punch through the armor by itself, since the first hit did not hinder the actual protection of the armor. The increase in flank defense represents this, i think. Sure, the tank cant move, but its still a TANK, and you will need a solid hit to bring it out of commission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam D.
United States
Suquamish
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for the replies to my ignorance. I disagree with how the problem was solved since it is so counter intuitive in my opinion but at least now I get it
 
 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.