Hello all-
First, I want to be clear.:
@Drifter Man 's force selection was within the rules. He had the option of using either Armor or Armored Infantry as his core force, and having King Tigers as a formation or as single vehicles. He met the requirement that the majority of bonus points be spent on the intended Reserve unit - i.e., he purchased a King Tiger. (I don't think this is breaching OPSEC at this point). If he had not done the latter, I would have disallowed his start. I DO look at what everyone is doing.
Second: The rules give the GM (me) the authority to make mid-campaign adjustments in rules, including: "In the event that unit purchasing consistently generates negative player experiences and clear, ahistorical/unrealistic outcomes, addition purchasing restrictions may be enacted." There's no doubt that this is a NPE for
@jackal , but I have to weigh a lot of things before making a change. Context is king.
Sometimes battles are won and lost at the unit purchase screen. We've all been on both sides of that, and this is one of those times. Had
@jackal brought different forces, it may have been a different game. But, within the self-limited constraints of using an Infantry force, Jackal did buy based on what he expected to face (likely, up to a platoon of King Tigers with accompanying armored infantry). And while the battle
outcome is not going to be ahistorical, the notion of a full company of AA halftracks storming all the way to the gates of Budapest certainly is. I contrast that with German 81mm mortars - being on the wrong side of those can be an NPE, but Germans having access to battalion mortars isn't ahistorical and it is reasonable to expect Soviets players to plan for it.
A key question is: To what extent does a player have the right to have foreknowledge of what he will be facing, or to be surprised? I think there is a fine balance here. At the CM QB level, by the time the QB is happening and two forces are colliding, there has likely been some OP reports, aerial or ground recon, SIGNINT, etc. that limits the element of surprise at the Map Unit (i.e., 5th SS Pz Div) and even at the formation level (i.e., "A panzer battalion is headed our way!"). Yet, detailed composition is and should be unknown. Finding the balance between players who love purchasing optimization that allows for some tactical surprises vs allowing reasonable foreknowledge is a challenge. Soviets in Tarjan who know a King Tiger battalion is headed their way might have to expect an infantry attack before the Germans commit KTs, but they would certainly be surprised if the entire AA vehicle strength of the V SS Panzerkorps comes over the hill.
A second key question is: To what extent should (or CAN) this campaign be historical? Although much of what I've tried to do is to be historical (maps, briefings, units, etc.), the collision with CM mechanics leaves much to be desired. If I had to do this again, I'd probably assign each unit a core formation for each battle and that's it. This would alienate the players that love purchasing, and its not something I am considering for mid-campaign. Either way, someone's not going to like it. You have to decide if this is OK for you.
I'm not (yet) telling you what I am changing. I am telling you what I am thinking, so that when a decision is made it doesn't feel arbitrary. It may not be the decision you want, but you are being heard.
What I am considering is:
1) Numeric limitations on support vehicles (AA, SPG, SPH). Possibly some, possibly all, need to think about how to clearly define this.
2) Explicitly enforcing a minimum purchase requirement when using an armored Reserve. This is tricky since a) KTs and ISs are really expensive, leaving fewer points for other, needed things, and b) I don't really want to create an environment where they are NEVER USED because of the expense. We should WANT to see these behemoths in the games!
3) Eliminating "Fog of War" for QB. Previously, each side would not explicitly know what formation they were facing prior to QB purchase. However, the battle briefings allowed astute players to figure this out....some of the time, but not others. That would not have impacted
@jackal vs
@Drifter Man , but it certainly impacts other games.
I'll review the time limit (45 vs 30 minutes) after this round, as well as the "Attack vs. Probe" standard. Each round provides more data. I'll make changes
if the trend in winning and losing is defined by these parameters vs. the decision-making of commanders. For the record, it is my belief that Round 1 had good examples of both (sometimes at the same time
, whereas Round 2 was the latter - hence I made changes after Round 1, but not Round 2.
As for the 100% valid complaint about start delays, I will implement something for Round 4 so that there is a clear start time, a plan for alternative players to start a game if needed, and possibly a penalty for exceeding that start time other than for vacation/illness. I will clearer about start times (for me, I assumed you all assumed it was when I send the e-mail with battle parameters). Some folks love to test test test before starting, and I support this obsession but we will have limits. I really don't want to be in the business of picking folks' forces for them and starting a battle; far easier to play out something already started. But there will be a plan.
There's a lot of passion here, but it is (proverbially) "just a game,"
and one that neither side is clearly winning or losing yet. So, I don't see a reason to panic. As I've said before, I think the campaign will have worked well if it isn't decided before Round 6, because that means both sides had a good chance to win. Only you can decide if its something on which you want to spend your time.
