Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Napoleonic 20» Forums » General

Subject: Variant - Some ideas for Solo play rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is re-post of my variant idea concerning Nap20 system (previously posted in Leipzig 20 page and copied here to allow Nap20 fans to share ideas and comments) laugh

First of all, thank you Victory point games, i just bought Levee en Masse and i am waiting delivery to knock on my door .

I just saw the Napoleonic 20 system and i really like it, i read the rules and tried Jena 20 on Cyberboard.

I often play solo so i was thinking about a little variant to give a taste of "fog of war" during Napoleonic 20 solo play.

---

When units are in combat the player must roll a die for every unit engaged and see the results below:

1-2 the combat value of the unit is reduced by 1
3-5 nothing happens
6 the combat value of the unit is raised by 1

This portraits the "will to fight" or the manouever ability of the General of the Corp/Division, and this should give a bit of unexpected during solo play.

The player will know the average value of the unit but not the real value.

And, if using the expansion kit with attacker and defender tactics and its matrix i will suggest this little house rule:

assuming the player should be always the attacking side (for he is the "active player"):

1 - shuffle all the defender counters and discard "face up" two of them (or just one... i am thinking about it)
2 - attacker will choose one attacking counter
3 - randomly choose one of the 3 (4) defender counters that are face down (or in a cup)
4 - reveal the counters and cross the matrix
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some problems should arise regarding unreliable units (leipzig special rules 16.8):

the problem should be avoided just applying "de plano" the optional rule as posted above and THEN checking unreliable units; or the optional rule for solo play should be not applied to unreliable units.

What is your opinion for unreliabe units?

Thank you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Andrea, while your overall concept is an interesting one, however, I see several potential problems with trying to actually apply it. I appreciate that you're trying to inject more unpredictability into the combat resolution process, but I think this isn't the right way to achieve that goal.

First, your process is mechanically clumsy. Having to roll a die for EVERY unit involved in EVERY battle is a lot of extra work (and time) for what's supposed to be a simple and fast playing game. At the very least you want to reduce the rolling down to a single roll per battle.

Second, because most battles typically involve multiple attackers against a single defender, your proposal would heavily skew combat resolution in favor of the defender. With twice the chance for a unit to lose a strength point rather than gain one, and the attacker usually having to make more rolls, it's far more likely that the attacker will lose strength than the defender. This wouldn't result in the appropriate "feel" for a period in which the offense was commonly more effective than the defense. I suspect it would also make for a duller game, as attacking is more "fun" than defending.

I'd recommend reducing the checks down to a single roll for each battle AND -- this will save time and keep the game moving quickly. I'd also change the fluctuation roll's range so that it's equally distributed:

1 = final combat differential reduced by -1
2-5 = no adjustment to final combat differential
6 = final combat differential increased by +1

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes-What Lance suggested
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you.

I agree concerning the roll's range.

I even agree that the game should become a bit cumbersome but it was just to let the solo player to have just one level of knowledge about the combat value of the units involved in the fight.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas E. Gebhardt
Germany
Birkenwerder
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lancer4321 wrote:

1 = final combat differential reduced by -1
2-5 = no adjustment to final combat differential
6 = final combat differential increased by +1


Lance,

what would be, if an attacker INTENTIONALLY wants to attack with a combat differential of "+1", even though the odds are higher (lets say to exlude "EX" results). Is the +1 increase in differential a MUST???


Andy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My main concept behind this ideas was to force the player not to count on strenght of units like they are always true.

By doing this a french Unit with value 3 attacking a russian unit with value 2 should become a fight from (2)-3-(4) for the french VS a (1)-2-(3).

Obviously this is just for the solo play, because a player is an human being and i suppose all solo players might have the mind focused on some hidden or unhidden strategy that will give a boring taste to the game.

I agree with Lance that a shift in combat differential should be better to let the game flow.

@Andreas, i thought about those differentials as a must; suppose you are in charge of some Italian Line infantry... and you think they can manage well against some Grenzers... but after an hour you see all the italians in rout. My idea, for solo play, is to expect the unexpected laugh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas E. Gebhardt
Germany
Birkenwerder
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adraeth Montecuccoli wrote:
suppose you are in charge of some Italian Line infantry... and you think they can manage well against some Grenzers... but after an hour you see all the italians in rout. My idea, for solo play, is to expect the unexpected laugh

Well Andrea,
you anticipate an example of Italian warriors against Austrian Grenzers would make a good scenario for proofing right?? (or was it against Prussian Jaegers or so ...) whistle whistle whistle

...just kidding....


Andy
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ehehehehehe laugh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
521tiger wrote:
...what would be, if an attacker INTENTIONALLY wants to attack with a combat differential of "+1", even though the odds are higher (lets say to exlude "EX" results). Is the +1 increase in differential a MUST?


It's Andrea's proposal, so I can't say. I personally don't think the proposed rule is necessary and that the system as presently configured works just fine, but I can understand his desire to inject more chaos/unpredictability into his games. The other problem is that if you make the +1 increase mandatory, you're essentially violating the strictures of Standard rule [9.5], which allows the attacker to "...reduce the Combat Differential of any given battle... resolving it at a lower differential."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrea Sbragia
Italy
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes it's just my proposal .

I do not think that rule (9.5) should be violated by this variant, because the concept behind this variant is to evaluate the strenght of the unit "before" every rule is applied.

The player just does not know if the unit is strenght X or X+1 or X-1, after calculating the real strenght the player will apply every rule.

The intention is not to overrule the core mechanics of the game, but just to have a solitaire experience with a bit of tension and unpredictability.
 
 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.