Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
2 Posts

Valor & Victory» Forums » Rules

Subject: newbie question concerning CP and a nitpicking rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bruno Lambert
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
hello,

First of all: thank you Barry for the great free game! I haven't played it yet, but plan to get it printed and the first game is scheduled for next week!

I do have a misunderstanding of an example of the CP-rules.
In the rulebook of 15/01/2012 there is an example of close assault on page 13. The 6 CP's that the assaulting units receive after the attack are distributed as following: destroy one squad for 5 CP, and pin another for 1 CP. Isn't it more efficient if distributed as follows: reduce both squads to half-squads (2 times 3 CP by going from a 5 CR unit to a 2 CR unit) and pin none? Until next command phase, the German player has two full able half squads that can soak up 4 CP before being eliminated, can soak up two CP by being pinned and have a combined APFP of 4 instead of only one squad that can't do anything.
As a side question and comment: if the units haven't moved or fired before, they are in my scenario still eligible for defensive/OP fire if the American player has yet to play?
When the next command phase of the German player arrives, he can combine them both in a new full squad, hereby winning a CR and receiving the same outcome as in the example, but with the bonus of not having the squad being exposed as pinned.
Feel free to criticize my strategy.

Oh, and at last, I have a small nitpicking thing with your wording: on page 7 of the afore mentioned rulebook is written, under the header 10.9 Hill: unit that enters a hill hex (i.e. moves from a ground level hex to a Level 1 hill hex, or from a Level 1 hill hex to a Level 2 hill hex) must expend one extra Movement Point in addition to the normal cost of the terrain in the hex.
Wouldn't it be better to specify: "...unit that enters a hill hex uphill..." or something like that, in contrast to the further on mentioned downhill case, as this is the situation you clearly mean?

Also, since a few weeks back, I have an obsession with justification. Wouldn't a full justification of the text make it look more crisp and readable? That's only an opinion, not even a comment.

Thank you for the time and effort!
Greetings
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Doyle
United States
Lynchburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruno_L wrote:
hello,

First of all: thank you Barry for the great free game! I haven't played it yet, but plan to get it printed and the first game is scheduled for next week!



Hello Bruno -- thank you very much for the compliment. I never imagined, in my wildest dreams, that V&V would become so popular. I felt it was just a fun hobby, and a few folks might find it interesting, but it has grown far beyond anything I ever expected.

Now I need to decide how to proceed with it, managing the communities expectations with how much time I can invest in it.

Bruno_L wrote:


I do have a misunderstanding of an example of the CP-rules.
In the rulebook of 15/01/2012 there is an example of close assault on page 13. The 6 CP's that the assaulting units receive after the attack are distributed as following: destroy one squad for 5 CP, and pin another for 1 CP. Isn't it more efficient if distributed as follows: reduce both squads to half-squads (2 times 3 CP by going from a 5 CR unit to a 2 CR unit) and pin none? Until next command phase, the German player has two full able half squads that can soak up 4 CP before being eliminated, can soak up two CP by being pinned and have a combined APFP of 4 instead of only one squad that can't do anything.
As a side question and comment: if the units haven't moved or fired before, they are in my scenario still eligible for defensive/OP fire if the American player has yet to play?
When the next command phase of the German player arrives, he can combine them both in a new full squad, hereby winning a CR and receiving the same outcome as in the example, but with the bonus of not having the squad being exposed as pinned.
Feel free to criticize my strategy.



Yes, that's certainly a great option, and may be better than the one in the example. But, remember -- you do have a chance at the end of the turn to rally that unit, and if you're successful you have two full squads available.

Deciding how to distribute the CPs you suffer is one the best mechanics in the game, IMHO, but it can lead to a great deal of stress.

Bruno_L wrote:


Oh, and at last, I have a small nitpicking thing with your wording: on page 7 of the afore mentioned rulebook is written, under the header 10.9 Hill: unit that enters a hill hex (i.e. moves from a ground level hex to a Level 1 hill hex, or from a Level 1 hill hex to a Level 2 hill hex) must expend one extra Movement Point in addition to the normal cost of the terrain in the hex.
Wouldn't it be better to specify: "...unit that enters a hill hex uphill..." or something like that, in contrast to the further on mentioned downhill case, as this is the situation you clearly mean?



Good suggestion, and if I do an update to the rules -- not anytime soon, though -- I may make that clarification.

Bruno_L wrote:


Also, since a few weeks back, I have an obsession with justification. Wouldn't a full justification of the text make it look more crisp and readable? That's only an opinion, not even a comment.



Personally, I don't like using justification in document layout, and especially since I never use hyphenation. Justified text can lead to wacky sentences that are spread across the whole line, with huge gaps between the words, and I just think it looks bad.

Even though justification is becoming more popular I still prefer ragged text. I'm an old school graphic designer, so I'm stuck in my ways...

Welcome to V&V!
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 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.