Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Sergeants Miniatures Game: Day of Days» Forums » General

Subject: Road to Carentan: Numbers of decks for 2 player rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Allan Doyle

Virginia
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A friend of mine and myself have been playing through DoD. We both are anxiously awaiting the arrival of squad packs so we will be able to jump into Road to Carentan.

My question is; do most of you play R2C as 2+ players on 2+ players or do you play these one on one?

If one on one, do you build one deck for all soldiers or do you break the soldiers into teams each with their own action deck?

I haven't played a game with more than 6 soldiers per side yet, but have the impression that once you start bringing 10+ soldiers it would be better to split into multiple teams each with a separate deck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Ambush!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AKDoyle wrote:
If one on one, do you build one deck for all soldiers or do you break the soldiers into teams each with their own action deck?

I haven't played a game with more than 6 soldiers per side yet, but have the impression that once you start bringing 10+ soldiers it would be better to split into multiple teams each with a separate deck.
Hello, and welcome [to BGG, that is]!

Well, so far I prefer to play with 2 players, but regardless of the number of players or soldiers involved, I think it's more important that each team built has their own deck. The main thing to remember is that with more than one player, there will be multiple orders and that gets tricky sometimes coordinating mutually beneficial tactics toward differing strategic goals [unknown to one another].

I also think Jeff has recommended five soldiers as being the ideal minimum, (35 card deck), for each player, but I'm not sure if this recommendation still holds for each individual team deck. I'll just answer the more obvious stuff for you right now.

For purposes of discussion, let's assume 2 players with a full complement of 'team' decks. It certainly behooves you to consider both your order for the scenario and also the map terrain when formulating an overall strategic goal, and then build your decks tactically and separately based on soldier actions, weapons, hit and damage results, etc. that support the strategy. Because of this fact, you will always find a vast variety of different soldiers useful, so having a large collection really helps and you'll certainly be happy when they arrive.

As an example, (no guarantee that it's a good example though), a hold landmark order might be received in open terrain. The plan might be to use a rifle team to try and hold it throughout the game with an assault team also hiding in thick cover that may plan on bum rushing into it near the end of a scenario to seize it from the enemy if necessary to ensure its ultimate capture.

The assault team deck would ideally comprise a higher number of kill and wound damage results as well as a higher ability to move and move again, perhaps also hit more at close range and hide soldiers more easily by using their lower cover stats. By placing them into thick cover they would be able to lob grenades without being spotted, hide easily when they are, and rush anybody that gets too close with great lethality. Select your soldiers accordingly with this intent.

The other deck of soldiers would complement the first one in a totally different way through the differing tactics it would employ and would of course also be built intentionally around the various statistical requirements necessary to help ensure the mission's success. Keeping its distance from the enemy positionally near the rear of a landmark, shooting with higher hits at short and long range, higher zip and pin damage results, avoiding close combat through concentrated fire at nearest targets, etc.

Naturally, it's just a combination of having soldiers to choose from and lots of variety within them in order to have the flexibility on the deck creation side, coupled with your common sense about how to best formulate a strategy, the tactics that may or may not be dictated to you by the map terrain and specific mission objective that supports it all, and the ability to adapt during play to the unexpected or random events and opportunities that occur.

For example, if your fire team is able to pin a lot of enemy soldiers, you might combine your team tactics and assault the pinned solders suddenly with a burst of mobility and close combat advantages by attacking with the assault team instead of continuing to hide and wait it out. It just depends on recognizing your opportunities to maximize the effectiveness of your teams relative to the positions of all the combatants, and this is simply based on utilizing their intended tactical specificity to maximum effect at the proper times. Have fun with your new soldiers.

Cheers!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerry Tresman
United Kingdom
Christchurch
Dorset
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Brian. However each player has his own deck, the scenarios are designed that way. So in 4 player games 1 player can play a fireteam and the other a manoeuvre team.
So 2 player could play 4 player with two decks each.

5-7 soldiers per player is enough. Points wise it generally works out that way.

The system works well at this level and if you do play 4 player with 2 players I would reduce the number of soldiers per "player" to 4 or even 3 if an MG is one of them.

A 3 soldier deck will cycle very quickly especially if a MG and you have plenty of hit +. Maybe to deadly.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Ambush!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Starman54 wrote:
A 3 soldier deck will cycle very quickly especially if a MG and you have plenty of hit +. Maybe to deadly.


Yeah, I am thinking about this aspect as well. I haven't even played with my MG team yet, but in theory if you had a deck made up of only Hit+ weapons, that would wreck havoc on anything short of an armor/artillery/airstrike response.

Imagine if each SHOOT action led to five or six hits only to be refreshed every third action, producing ridiculous carnage every turn that two or three SHOOT actions pop up.

That is why I'm wondering how the MG42 is going to perform once I start using it and whether or not I need to do something to minimize the horrific potential of the MG teams I field, (such as some rule for an enemy team combining fire on MG targets for some kind of bonus hit pulls, like 'X' extra hit checks per 'X' soldiers combining their fire on the MG nest this action phase and playtest it until the balance feels right).

The goal being that I'm just not interested in playing with automatic weapons or vehicles, etc. if the result is that the original squad feel from DoD is ruined by unstoppable firepower. My German MG42 gunner has a Hit+ check on all 7 of his cards!!! What a monster. Why not just use him and his assistant and an MP40 leader together in a team and reshuffle every other turn? It's too much to comprehend already how that could possibly be balanced during play. surprise
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Doyle

Virginia
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow. I wasn't even thinking about the Shoot factor of several small decks. I was thinking about the increase in maneuverability with 3 four man teams vs 2 six man teams, or 1 twelve man team for that matter.

I'm all for keeping the rules as simple as possible, but there needs to be a minimum placed on 'team' sizes. I think minimum of 4 in DoD should be the standard for all teams.

All this is assuming it is acceptable for a single player to break their squad into several teams/decks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Ambush!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AKDoyle wrote:
Wow. I wasn't even thinking about the Shoot factor of several small decks. I was thinking about the increase in maneuverability with 3 four man teams vs 2 six man teams, or 1 twelve man team for that matter.
Right, positional formations for rapid response movement vs. rapid deck cycling firing tactics. Sorry for dropping this on your thread, it's a little off topic, although I suppose it does still deal with deck building strategies generally.

AKDoyle wrote:
I'm all for keeping the rules as simple as possible, but there needs to be a minimum placed on 'team' sizes. I think minimum of 4 in DoD should be the standard for all teams.

All this is assuming it is acceptable for a single player to break their squad into several teams/decks.
Please understand that I'm not advocating anything one way or another here, this is my own unofficial conjecture.

I don't like thinking about imposing deck building minimums at all, but the raw automatic firepower that I'm able to actually field right now is down right scary and as long as the deck is cycling rapidly, I don't see how anybody spotted could possibly survive the hail of lead once shooting commences.

Flanking or remaining unspotted would be the only hope so that means an hidden assault team lobbing lots of grenades I suppose, but as soon as they were spotted, (grenade or CC), they'd surely be hit multiple times.

IF it was intended to be legal that decks are built with as many or as few cards as a player wishes, I could easily build an MG42 deck right now that was composed of 21 cards that could be cycled completely every 4 or 5 SHOOT actions because of so many hit+ results, with a guaranteed hit rate at short and close range most likely above two-thirds of the time if I put the right 3 soldiers together.

(My MG gunner alone has 4/7 blast hits, close range hits = 2/7 as well as 1+/7, short range hits = 6+/7, long range hits = 2/7. It appears that this means even by himself and at short range I might only miss a target once! I could draw all six hit+ before a miss was drawn and then it would be time to reshuffle the deck already, reload to do it again!)

Also, with one of them being the MG assistant and another an MP40, 2 of the 3 guys would be able to fire the MG, which of course means cycling the deck even faster! Anyone spotted and foolish enough to undertake a frontal assault on approach would likely be hit 3 times each SHOOT phase at short range, (possibly more even, think about it, every hit check would likely be a hit+ greater than half the time).

Anybody who miraculously survived the frontal firing arc of that massacre or simply tried to flank it would get hosed by my grease gunner guarding the nest and its blind spots. Forget the six pack, that's a whole keg-stand of whup-ass, dude. The more I think about it, the more I hope this is all wrong because it seems 'busted'.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, taken to extremes, you might just go with one super guy and cycle his 7 cards around and around, for awhile. Of course, you do need to Sight. Being able to Move would be handy from time to time. Maybe Hide is a waste since you plan on shooting every turn... And then there's the thought of multiple shots coming in for every one going out...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Doyle

Virginia
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kduke wrote:
Well, taken to extremes, you might just go with one super guy and cycle his 7 cards around and around, for awhile. Of course, you do need to Sight. Being able to Move would be handy from time to time. Maybe Hide is a waste since you plan on shooting every turn... And then there's the thought of multiple shots coming in for every one going out...


If we are able to break our soldiers into teams, I would assume each team would have it's own deck and be required to play action card for each Phase Card. Each team would have it own turn in Initiative also, which opens another can of worms.

I think the normal game mechanics would prevent single man teams as 'Shortfalls" would be an issue. BTW, what happen if your deck cannot complete a Shortfall?

So what we are looking at here is the potential to create a 12 man force. Break it into specialized teams. ae Spotting teams, Fast moving assault teams, Firebase teams.

With no min a person could potentially do:
3 man MG team - lots of shooting
3 man assault team
3 man assault team
3 man command/spotting team

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I would be pushing the limits of my brain to keep up with two teams. Four plus would cause it to shut down. gulp

TBH I do see a need to set limits on team building.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Koch
United States
Omaha
Nebraska
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
R M Chair General wrote:
Also, with one of them being the MG assistant and another an MP40, 2 of the 3 guys would be able to fire the MG, which of course means cycling the deck even faster! Anyone spotted and foolish enough to undertake a frontal assault on approach would likely be hit 3 times each SHOOT phase at short range, (possibly more even, think about it, every hit check would likely be a hit+ greater than half the time).


Isn't charging a MG insanity anyways? Remember that each deck is for the soldiers you control. If you only controlled the MG team and defenders it would be boring (IMO). There is also the chance (though small) that your shoot actions might not turn up before enough move actions to allow the enemy to close ranks.

Additionally you could create a team of long range shooters to pick of MG teams at long range.

Granted I don't have any MG teams to play with (yet) but I don't see things as "broken" as much as I think it is playing style. I try to play as if I am in each of these soldiers boots. Time will tell us what is hiding behind the curtain!

I never considered breaking down and playing two or more "teams" myself. If I am playing I group all of my cards so I have my deck and hand. Too confusing for my small brain to split time. This is even harder when you need to keep orders hidden from everyone (including friendlies).
-Rob
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerry Tresman
United Kingdom
Christchurch
Dorset
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Player Vs Teams Vs Action Decks.

The VP guidlines per play should b stuck to within say 10-15%So and each player should have one deck.

If playing 4 player as 2 player then each player has two plyer decks.

I really would not advocate having 1 player drive multiple teams with each deck.


The VP and 1-2 leader limit per player is about right IMO.

So a 8VP Leader and a 7VP MG + 4VP assist + some grenades and a 4VP soldier may form a one player team.

the opposition may have 2 6vP leaders and 3 x 3VP and grenades.
This will work but splitting them into 2 teams with 2 decks will definitely break the balance.

I have found that its fairly easy to use the DoD scenarios as a guide to DYO, t still works but trying to over do the deck building and build super teams may be fun bit I dont believe will be rewarding.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Ambush!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robkoch2112 wrote:
Isn't charging a MG insanity anyways?
True, unless they are actual assault oriented and built specifically to be lethal using this tactic.
robkoch2112 wrote:
Additionally you could create a team of long range shooters to pick of MG teams at long range.
Also an excellent point and strategy. You'd have your own long range fire team to complement your MG crew and the MG crew would move into their sweet spot range (for me it's short range, see below) to augment the killing percentages during shoot actions.

robkoch2112 wrote:
Granted I don't have any MG teams to play with (yet) but I don't see things as "broken" as much as I think it is playing style. I try to play as if I am in each of these soldiers boots. Time will tell us what is hiding behind the curtain!
I knew I shouldn't have said "busted" when I meant overpowered. I agree time will tell. I am throwing out hypotheticals only here and anticipating tactical responses to my run and gun style offense.

I also admit that a style can become predictable and exploitable, but only if it really isn't overpowered to begin with. It may also become an expected but dominant strategy that works too well to effectively prevent.

One thing is certain though, no amount of conjecture or theorizing can predict what emergent strategies will reveal once the plans are actually put to the test in battle. It will require tweaking on the fly, but a good plan today is better than no plan tomorrow.

robkoch2112 wrote:
I never considered breaking down and playing two or more "teams" myself. If I am playing I group all of my cards so I have my deck and hand. Too confusing for my small brain to split time. This is even harder when you need to keep orders hidden from everyone (including friendlies).
-Rob
You'll probably make the adjustments to deck splitting the first time the enemy completely destroys you by doing it himself. The hidden orders are a potential problem as you say. That part of it is too situational to be theorized about in detail, but it's easy to assume they'll either mesh with each other well or not.

kduke wrote:
Well, taken to extremes, you might just go with one super guy and cycle his 7 cards around and around, for awhile. Of course, you do need to Sight. Being able to Move would be handy from time to time. Maybe Hide is a waste since you plan on shooting every turn... And then there's the thought of multiple shots coming in for every one going out...
Actually, I was thinking of going with at least the MG gunner and his assistant since they will both fire the MG?

For only 10VP I can field them both:
Schrieber is the MG gunner:
Blast = 4
Toss = 8
Close = 2/1+
Short = 6+
Long = 2
Zip = 4
Pin = 0
Wound = 2
Kill = 1

Fiedler is the assistant:
Blast = 3
Toss = 7
Close = 4
Short = 2
Long = 2
Zip = 3
Pin = 1
Wound = 2
Kill = 1

As far as sighting, grenade tossing takes care of that and is automatic spotting whether or not the hit succeeds (which is still 50% anyway). So no need to look first to spot, this is all run and gun, baby!

It's true moving is useful (and necessary) to get into short range which is the best for them. If a turn has no shoot action, then the MG crew might trade some space for time if necessary to maintain a similar relative distance and shoot percentage until the next shoot action does pop up. This will also adjust the shooting arc and keep those determined assault troopers from bum rushing you.

Once the shooting actually starts with a new or reloaded deck, close range gives a 50% hit result with a 7% chance of a hit+ success, short range jumps way up to 57% with first shot and a tremendous 43% hit+, and long range is a respectable 29% hit check result. The deck is recycled after 14 pulls. These results will of course be skewed to the extent that 3 cards are being pulled right away each turn, so depending on what they are the percent to hit would increase or decrease some. Still, looks pretty darned lethal to me to have that much deck cycling going on when the range is adjusted to account for the maximum percentages.

The other major thing to consider is that the named soldier firing the gun (either one in this hypothetical) is doing so TWICE per shoot action. So even though a lot of shots might be coming in, even more shots are likely to be pouring out with all the hit+ opportunities for each double shoot action per phase. Someone hit multiple times IS going to die or maybe four guys are pinned right away which takes care of any chance to rush in if a turn ends up without another shoot action phase.

So, one guy tosses a grenade first, spotting one or more targets in the blast and then shoots, the other one shoots the MG twice, right? Is this all legal in theory at least?

Whatever happens it seems clear that there are great opportunities for dynamic action once the MG42 makes its appearance. It should strike some terror into the opponent as he struggles to deal with the nest.

I predict an awful lot of grenadiers with phenomenal hiding skills in the response to help out those long range gunners trying to keep their distance to favor their sweet spot, that is, if the long range is possible to maintain for a while. Also, with only 14 cards in a deck, an unforeseen strategy might involve the enemy 'counting cards', watching the damage results extremely closely before deciding when to act.
 
 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.