I like Brian's idea about the first turn defender's confusion. The different postures for the defender are also interesting (see: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4436730). I just suddenly got an idea: is it also possible to do a set of similar postures for attackers? This may simulate the case that division (or even corps) commanders may not 100% follow the (army) General's commands. With a high probability, they will follow your orders, but there is no guarantee in real life!
The following is one possible suggestion.
PROBLEM IN COORDINATION
Assume that with more units it is harder to coordinate. After both players have revealed their missions, each player rolls 2d6 and has his coordination check. If the result is less than or equal to the number of his units involved (including air point but excluding units that contribute zero combat factor to the combat), that player's coordination check fails and he must choose his mission RANDOMLY and uses it in the combat. Otherwise, the original mission is used in the combat. Note: only allowable mission can be chosen, e.g., attacker with no armored unit cannot choose Blitzkrieg.
USE OF INTELLIGENCE (ATTACKER ONLY)
After both players have chosen their combat missions (but not revealed yet), the attacker can optionally spend his combat factor(s) in his attacking units to gain an advantage through the use of intelligence. By spending X combat factors (where X must be less than the total combat factors of the attacking units after applying all modifiers), the attacking units will have X deducted from this modified total combat factors while the defender is doing his casualty check. However, the attacker can roll 2d6. If the result is less than or equal to 2 times X, then the attacker can change his mission after the defender reveals his mission.
Another variant for human-to-human game:
USE OF INTELLIGENCE (BOTH SIDES)
After both players have chosen their combat missions (but not revealed yet), each player can optionally spend his combat factor(s) in his units to gain an advantage through the use of intelligence. Each player secretly grabs zero or more coins (or any chits) in his hand to indicate how many combat factors he would like to spend on the use of intelligence. The amount of combat factors spent must be less than the total combat factors of the player's units involved in the combat after applying all modifiers. A player spending X combat factors means that his modified total combat factors will be decreased by X while his opponent is doing casualty check. Then both players show each other simultaneously the number of coins in their hands. The player with more coins is the winner of intelligence and gets the advantage of intelligence. If there is a tie, skip the following and continue the remaining steps in the combat procedure. Let Y be the difference of the numbers of coins of both players. The winner of the intelligence can then roll 1d6. If the result is less than or equal to Y, then he can change his mission after his opponent's mission is revealed.
"USE OF INTELLIGENCE" is conducted before "PROBLEM OF COORDINATION". In the other words, after a player has successfully conducted intelligence and changed his mission, his final mission may still change due to the problem of coordination.
Comments are welcome.
P.S. The different criteria used in the two versions of "use of intelligence" is because in the second version, it is usually less likely to have a large Y (difference of the combat factors spent on intelligence), and so an easier criteria is used to have a success in conducting intelligence.
(Edit: "Problem in coordination" was revised to be used by both sides.)
- Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2010 7:02 am (Total Number of Edits: 5)
- Posted Tue Jan 5, 2010 5:59 am
Interesting notions Edward, try them out in a few games and let us know what you think. Most wargames don't go into problems of coordination, friction and limited intelligence and I like to see it when they do.