I've been trying to really get my arms around how the CRT is favorable to the attacker. It alludes to this in the RB and I've seen numerous posts by Alan (et al.) describe this in detail on CSW posts.
But in application, I just don't see it.
As the Axis I have very limited RPs, so when I get an EX, it really hurts. And every round of combat when I have 3 to 5 battles going, I'm sure to get at least 2 EX. Not so bad if they are low odds, but they happen at odds of 5-1!
Granted, as a long time grognard, I'm use to EX results at closer odds like 3-1 and lower, but higher than that it just hurts. No much reward for attacking at 4-1 or 5-1 when the risk is almost the same at 2-1!!! This is the conclusion I'm coming to. Make tons of 2-1 attacks because you'll generally take the same losses at 3-1, 4-1 or 5-1.
I think the real KILLER is when I'm attacking with CAS, and I get an Exchange. For example, I'll attack at 2-1 with +3 CAS ... and say I roll a "3." Which is ST. That would kind of suck.
But if I get 1 shift (3-1), it is a DP. Not so bad, so defender can decide to stay or go.
If I get 2 shifts (4-1), then it is a DR. Okay, so I can take the hex and I (the attacker) tell him where to Retreat to.
But if I hit Yahtzee (5-1) ... then I'm screwed with the EX. Not only does the Defender pick my loss, but he gets to pick his path of retreat. Not to mention any airplane silhouettes I may be subject to (e-gahd).
So why can't the Attacker choose how many shifts up to what his dice roll allows? In the Yahtzee example above, I'd have preferred to stop with the DR instead of taking more losses. Or rather let him make the choice with a DP. And EX is clearly a loss for the attacker. Why can't I use my aircraft silhouettes as I want to (or not at all)? Why do they have to be included?
This would even allow me NOT to use a combat shift if I got an air silhouettes. It'll open up a lot of choices.
Brian
change it at low odds to defender exchange i.e DX the defender picks the casualties and then AX attacker picks the casualties you could even do the same with stale mates AS and DS etc. so 4:1? also for the air shifts hits you could do it is the owners choice i.e the person who owns the unit that is going to get the shift can choose to take the plane damage for the shift or not. after all sometimes you as the attack may curse more when your dive bomber is damaged because you know you can't rush recover it back for the defense which is more important at the time then take the square etc.
I suspect that choosing how many Shifts to apply would be a big Soviet edge at any time during the war. They make lower-odds attacks, and would be interested in whether they are forcing retreats or trading steps and such. The Germans typically make high-odds attacks, and would nullify some EX's, but this is a smaller benefit. Of course, their lower odds attacks would also be more effective (than previously) due to choice. If I were bothered by the irony of earned Shifts forcing undesired EX's, I would house it thus: such EX's could be converted to a DP. Some would prefer a rule change, of course. At this point, I would not like such a change (for what it's worth). With Leading Strong, I don't see much difference RE the issue of who decides step losses as discussed by my friend Cohen. If the defender decided for both sides on ST and Attacker on EX, that would be fine--though I am not used to it.
Yeah, what does HE know?
Right now, I'm more inclined to just take what you roll and not have extra options afterward. In aggregate the results are coming out "about right." Altering the CRT with Attacker option to ignore their own shifts I really think will "tilt the table" more than is good for the overall game.
Case-by-case, yeah... maybe. But if you roll the camera back and look at the whole game over many, many turns, I fear the table will tilt too much. So, there's where my thinking is on this right now.
What do you mean by iffy?
Also, one or two games isn't going to tell anyone anything. It needs to be across the entire playtest board to have validity.
To choose the specific result you want from CAS dices seems a bit iffy to me. It can be interesting to an extent, sure but it gives a lot more flexibility to the CAS dices.
But it's something that can be tested in a game or two and see how it pans out before to make further evaluations - as it was already suggested above by Alan.
That was my worry too. I't hard to know but in some ways, a 5-1 attack should be safer for the attacker.
Hence my original post. Allow the attacker, after the DR, to select how many of the CAS he wants to use.
It doesn't lesson those bad 5-1 or 4-1 effects fully, but allows for a small mitigation of the problem we all see...
That was my worry too. I't hard to know but in some ways, a 5-1 attack should be safer for the attacker.
Personally don't think so because ST is still present in the 4-1 table, but it's not present in the 5-1 table. Pratically makes the 5-1 table 'safer' for the attacker, but makes low odd attacks less 'convenient'.
I remember seeing that and wondering if would simply take away too many armour casualties. I just don't know if there is a good solution. I can see some advantages to it though.
I actually proposed a different change long ago as I realized the EX result is quite nasty. To simply make that at the EX, the attacker chooses both losses (his own and the defender's); whilst at ST results it's the defender to choose both losses.
An AL result too should give the defender the possibility to pick the loss of the attacker.
I disagree. You yourself stated that in your game the Axis rolled with 90% success on the shifts. I have been on the other end as the Axis, and when I get a shift, it goes to a worse result. And the important part is that the Axis advantage in 41 turns flat in 42 and SHIFTS to the USSR in 43.... don't forget to consider the length of the game.
I'm also a proponent of KISS. I believe my suggestion is much simpler in comparison.
This is an interesting idea but could be too powerful in practice. I just went through the first six months as a Soviet with the Axis rolling about 90% success on the combat shift dice. If he could have chosen what table to move up to, it would have been even worse that it was. Each of those results now requires a decision point at the table which could also lead to more delays as people think about options. What about either allowing only one dice to be ignored or perhaps only the damaged air unit result? This would allow you to either press the attack to get a better result or save your aircraft for a later turn. This could keep the Axis from suffering a catastrophic set of damage rolls unless they really needed to win the attacks.
I'll talk to Graham about it, but my problem is that we move at a snail's pace compared to the real development team ... as we don't Vassal FTF it ... rather just use PBEM.
(And to think, we use to use the US Postal Service and the Stock Exchange ... and here we are complaining about the speed of e-mail games ... lmao).
So our perspective is slightly different than the team's ... being that our moves are performed at a more relaxed and well thought out pace. :-)
Brian
You know, Doc, you could try that idea out for yourself and let us know what you find... That would be helpful. :D
Leading Strong is a rule that addresses a broken element by which Reduced German Inf Corps could often yield KG Remnants, so it often made sense not to Improve them and to include them in stacks and attacks (one in each). I used to welcome EX's as Germans--though not at high odds, of course. The Ground CRT could be arranged differently so that a specific roll would be an EX from 2:1 through 5:1 odds (say, a "2"), as could a DR. In this way, while your odds would be unchanged of getting each result, you wouldn't notice several Shifts actually leading to a worse result. This might please a fair number of players. I personally am fine with how things are, but I don't matter much. Another issue relates to concern that the Germans will lose too many full-price Steps by '42, now that KG's are more rare than ever. We haven't yet had any games reach this point to indicate just how much this may be a problem. If we were to allow Shifts to either be used in total or ignored, or even to select the number of Shifts that would apply, we would be making a very attacker-friendly change--one that the Russians would make more use of later. This is an interesting proposal.
That's true, Doc, and an interesting proposal. Allow us to discuss this for a bit before replying. Thanks!!!