Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Fields of Fire» Forums » Variants

Subject: My take on removing enemy units when there is nothing to shoot at rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Antonio B-D
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi everyone,

There has been a recent trend in consimworld on the removal of enemy untis when there is nothing to shoot at. As you are aware the RAW say that when an enemy unit has nothing to shoot at, it disappears leaving, where the unit was a PC marker.

Ben has explained the rationale behind this (you never know what the enemy is up to) but for many people this seems a little gamey, especially when the new PC marker goes off board or to a card that already has a PC marker on.

My idea (I cannot post in consimworld, so I would be grateful if someone crossposted it) is the following:

The cards in the game represent areas more than specific terrain depictions, therefore a PC marker means that an area is not yet proven (as to know if there are enemy units in or with LOS to that area).

When a card is cleared of PC marker I take it to mean that (notwithstanding new units appearing) the area is "secured" i.e. there are no known enemy units in or with LOS to the card.

But, if THERE were enemy units with LOS to the card and your units disappear from the area (fall back or elimination) the card (the area) should revert to the unproven status, not to the cleared status.

Therefore, my HR (waiting for the new rulebook and Ben's take on this) is to remove units as usual when there is no US unit to fire at, but, place the PC marker (random) in the last card the enemy unit was firing at.

In this way, you maintain one of the games main assets (uncertainty as the PC marker could end up in no activation) and is (I think it is) thematically correct as you, captain of the company, would know that a certain area is not yet "secured" as there WAS something and still there COULD be there.

Variants to the variant

- The PC marker that you play on the card could be not random. Depending on the disappearence unit place an A, B or C PC marker (so, if it was an '88 you would place an A marker, and if it was an infiltrating squad place a C marker).

- You could note down the unit that disappear and, in case the PC marker resulted in contact, you could place the exact same unit that disappeared.


I would really appreciate your comments on this.

Antonio.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Crusher Crancko
Spain
Granollers
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
it makes sense to me!.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Krüger
Germany
Krefeld
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds good.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Guttag
United States
West Chester
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Antonio,

I'll see if I can post this thread on CSW as I started this "suggestion.


What I proposed on CSW was to make the Removal more "random" and dependent on the Defensive Tactics involved (and to keep this variant from getting too complicated) by using Action Cards as follows:

Delay 1/3 No action, 2-3/3 Remove

Hasty 1/2 No action, 2/2 Remove

Deliberate 1-2/3 No action, 3/3 Remove

There have also been suggestions that removal should depend on the type of unit (e.g., an 88 unit would be more difficult to remove). Again, there's lots of room for variants here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Davis
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
abendoso wrote:

Therefore, my HR (waiting for the new rulebook and Ben's take on this) is to remove units as usual when there is no US unit to fire at, but, place the PC marker (random) in the last card the enemy unit was firing at.

In this way, you maintain one of the games main assets (uncertainty as the PC marker could end up in no activation) and is (I think it is) thematically correct as you, captain of the company, would know that a certain area is not yet "secured" as there WAS something and still there COULD be there.

Variants to the variant

- The PC marker that you play on the card could be not random. Depending on the disappearence unit place an A, B or C PC marker (so, if it was an '88 you would place an A marker, and if it was an infiltrating squad place a C marker).

- You could note down the unit that disappear and, in case the PC marker resulted in contact, you could place the exact same unit that disappeared.


I would really appreciate your comments on this.

Antonio.
I'm not out to knock anyone's idea on this subject as the options to addressing this rule is plentiful.

But here is the problem I find with your variant 'Tonio. It will get alittle unrealistic in some of the Korean night missions.

The problem with changing the auto removal is that whatever you change it to must fit several different situations and what works in Normandy you will find doesn't work or feel right in Korea and/or Vietnam and vice versa.

If we use your variant in the Korean night missions you may find that the enemy has suddenly appeared right in front or in the mist of your lines, and maybe with something totally out of sync with what you were up against first. (Think of a squad being formed into say a RCL gun).
Of course no one can say for sure how the enemy will react on the
battlefield, so it's not unfathomable that the enemy unit will rush your lines, but still seems alittle far-fetched to me in that instance. (and I hate to think how unrealistic or how hard the mission just got if something terrible appeared like a command bunker).

If anyone is interested, I've playtested my variant (found right here on BGG) and have found it to withstand many of the teething problems I've experienced with other variants. Would love to hear feedback on it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antonio B-D
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[Disclosure: I have not yet played enough Korea to understand everything involved]

Lawrence,

I don't see the problem that you are referring to (see disclosure). If I abandon (or all the people die) a particular area/card, its only natural that the next time I enter it I must check to see if there are enemies around.

If the problem is that you may find something unexpected where you thought it was clear, well, tough luck, keep in mind that we are talking about areas, not specific terrain.

If I have the following cards.

C1 C2 C3

B1 B2 B3

A1 A2 A3

Lets say that I have cleared PC markers from all A and all B, except A2, but I only have units in A rows. When I clear A2 an enemy unit appears in C2 killing my unit in A2.

Now per the rules, the newly appeared unit in C2 should disappear and a PC marker placed in C2 -where there is already a PC marker- Now, my take is that I place the PC marker on A2 so next time I enter I may have an enemy in C2 or somewhere else, but that proves that A2 is yet to be cleared.

Now, if in the re-take of A2 I have to place an enemy package on a card that the first time around was not possible (lets say that I place it in A1 that I thought secure) would only mean that when you reach area A2 you manage to see something hidden in A1 (area) that you could not see before. I don't find unreasonable.

Nevertheless, as I said before, I am not sure I understand the problem that you mention so I may (probably) be very wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Gillman
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Hi,

Ben stated in the CSW FoF folder that the intension was that the pc marker should be replaced on the card that it was originally triggered from (that card that has just been vacated by your friendly unit/s) and not the card that the enemy unit was on:

"For the sake of a simple example let us assume we have one column of three rows. A US unit on row 1 and PC marker on rows 2 and 3. The US unit moves to row 2 and triggers an enemy in row 3 that shoots him to pieces. The US player vacates row 2 in the next turn and looses LOS to the enemy. At this point is where I think we have the problem. The enemy is removed from play and is replaced by a PC marker, but my original intent was that the PC Marker would be replaced on row 2, not just where the enemy was. The Potentional Contact should still exist on row 2 if vacated, as that was infact the Point of Contact - the potential did not go away"

So I actually think we're all on the same page as Ben's original intent?

Cheers,

Simon
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antonio B-D
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually when I playtested the game I think this was the original rule, later I got off the playtesting and somewhere in the middle the rule was changed (IIRC).

Nevertheless, I think the final ruling would give us an idea of where the game is heading.

If the rules keeps simple (yes, I know it is not simple) the system would be a medium-heavy weight system.

Simple options:

- Replacing the PC in the same card as the unit disappearing (current RAW).
- Placing a PC marker in the card where the last unit with LOS was (my take).
- Placing a PC marker back where the triggering PC marker was (please note that this is different to my take. Sometimes a contact may create an enemy unit and when the unit that created the contact disappears other units in other cards may still exist, and only when this disappear would the enemy unit vanish)

If the rules go for something complicated (i.e. different tables depending on the disappearing unit; keeping track of the unit that disappears, etc.) then the system would be developing into a heavy weight system.

For the record I don't see anything wrong in either possibilities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Davis
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
abendoso wrote:
Actually when I playtested the game I think this was the original rule, later I got off the playtesting and somewhere in the middle the rule was changed (IIRC).

Nevertheless, I think the final ruling would give us an idea of where the game is heading.

If the rules keeps simple (yes, I know it is not simple) the system would be a medium-heavy weight system.

Simple options:

- Replacing the PC in the same card as the unit disappearing (current RAW).
- Placing a PC marker in the card where the last unit with LOS was (my take).
- Placing a PC marker back where the triggering PC marker was (please note that this is different to my take. Sometimes a contact may create an enemy unit and when the unit that created the contact disappears other units in other cards may still exist, and only when this disappear would the enemy unit vanish)

If the rules go for something complicated (i.e. different tables depending on the disappearing unit; keeping track of the unit that disappears, etc.) then the system would be developing into a heavy weight system.

For the record I don't see anything wrong in either possibilities.
The reason you don't see anything wrong especially with your own idea, is because you haven't fully playtested it.

I'm telling you again, you are looking at the problem from one aspect, Normandy. Once you try and apply your variant to other campaigns, you are going to run into problems. I know for a fact that it will create problems in the first Korean mission where lost of LOS is not due to what the player has or hasn't done, but just to the fact that the visibility in the mission changes on its own.

Also, I think you underestimate the difficulty of the game as you progress into the other campaigns. Several of the Vietnam missions only give you one chance to complete it. Now you say, suck it up when an area that I've cleared suddenly becomes "uncleared" because of some variant?? I don't see how that is making the game better or more realistic. Frankly, it's not.

What you and several people are forgetting I believe, is that the simplest thing to do with the enemy unit that doesn't have LOS to an US unit, is to leave it alone. Why does the unit suddenly have to take legs and move or disappear? or worst yet, change into something totally different, which I find very unrealistic.

I just don't agree with this idea that the enemy will be so quick to manuever its units at the first sign of NO contact or no sight to the enemy.
If you (as a commander) have a MG team guarding an avenue of approach, would you be so quick to have it manuever out of position just because it has chased off the enemy? Isn't that the purpose of the unit being there in the first place?


And in defense of my variant, it doesn't take away the enemy's ability to manuever, but lessens it for the reasons I've already stated. It certainly doesn't complicate the game anymore than it aready is. It's another chart to reference.....nothing more and nothing less.

But hey, if you feel that I'm in err, please, play your variant to the hill.....but I would like for you to write me back after you played a couple more campaigns. I would love to know how you worked the problems out (and there will be problems.)
2 
 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.