After some considerable thought – and some excellent advice and comments from Ogrefencer, Ross Mac, Rob Dean, and Jim Wright – I have made the decision to add a ‘saving throw’ mechanism to the next draft of my adaptation of Joseph Morschauser’s ‘Modern’ period wargames rules.
I intend to use the ‘saving throw’ mechanism I outlined in my blog entry of Monday 7th December:
I intend to use the ‘saving throw’ mechanism I outlined in my blog entry of Monday 7th December:
‘Every unit that is hit by gunfire (but NOT Units destroyed during Close Combat) would be allowed a saving throw:
- 6: Units in the open are not destroyed
- 5 or 6: Units in soft cover (woods, built-up areas etc.) are not destroyed
- 4, 5, or 6: Units in hard cover (trenches, pillboxes etc.) are not destroyed’
.jpg)
Way to go Bob! I dont think this adds to the complexity to any great degree and as you rightly pointed out - 'Letting the Dice Decide' would be keeping in spirit with the original set. I am looking forward to the next incarnation of the rules - more so now I have some time to do something with them!
ReplyDeleteAll the best,
Ogre
Ogrefencer,
ReplyDeleteI think it was the right decision made for the right reasons. I only hope that it works!
With a bit of luck the latest draft of the rules should be available over the weekend, but with the way things are going at present, anything could happen!
All the best,
Bob
After thinking some more about no saving throws in melee, it may not be a bad thing to encourage close combat in some situations. For example a Honey facing a Pzr IV would be advised to brave the return fire and rush in close to have a better chance of a kill or a tank vs a pillbox which has a better chance it it xloses to point blank range. I look forward to the next playtest.
ReplyDelete-Ross
Just a general comment on saving throws: I usually like mechanisms in my rules where an atacker rolls a die for success (the 'to hit' roll), and the defender rolls to negate the success (the 'saving throw', but the nomenclature may vary ...).
ReplyDeleteThere is an advantage when using die modifiers. I always take care that the modifier is applied to the die roll made by the player who has access to the information.
E.g. if the quality of the troops or equipment is taken into account, it should be applied to the die roll made by the player controlling the troops. If the strength of tank armour would be an issue, it should be a positive modifier on the saving throw rather than a negative modifier on the to-hit roll. That way, die rolls are made very quickly without asking each other all the time 'What's the type of your troops so I can apply the correct modifier to my die roll?'.
It's just a general design principle that I like for my own rules, rather than combining all possible effects in a single die roll. As long as the overall probability of a succesful action remains the same, I prefer 2 die rolls for the reasons mentioned above rather than a single one.
Ross Mac,
ReplyDeleteI was hoping that if Close Combat was made more deadly than Fire Combat (hence no saving throws) players might only use Close Combat when it was appropriate. Your example is exactly what I hope that players will do!
Likewise I expect Soviet troops in a Stalingrad-type battle to get in close whereas the Germans would prefer to fight at a distance. The former have the numbers - which they can afford to 'lose' (up to a point) - whereas the latter have firepower that is negated when the fighting gets too close for comfort.
I only hope that I will be able to finish the redraft of the rules by the weekend and that I get enough free time for the play-test.
All the best,
Bob
Ph.D,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very interesting number of points, and whilst I was reading them it struck me that rather than the attacker throwing a D6 die to see if they 'hit' an enemy unit, and then defender throwing a D6 die to see if they are destroyed or not, why not combine the two - as is the case with Close Combat - into two dice being thrown at the same time.
This would be faster and also consistent with the existing rules; it is a 'win-win' situation as far as I can see!
Many thanks for your very helpful comments.
All the best,
Bob
Who rolls the dice shouldn't affect the outcome so I have to laugh at myself for this but, I HATE having the other guy roll for MY troops! Having the attacker roll both dice at once was one of the 1st things I dropped. There is something emotionally satisfying about competing die rolls for combat whether comparing scores or making a save to counter the enemy's attack. Also helps keep both sides engaged when not playing solo. -Ross
ReplyDeleteRoss Mac,
ReplyDeleteAh ha! I had not actually thought of that!
Because almost all my wargaming is solo (I do have some friends ... it is just difficult for us to get together very often to fight battle) I had forgotten how important it is for players to throw dice for THEIR units!
We wargamers are a strange bunch of individuals at times, aren't we?
All the best,
Bob