tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post6515891295563342935..comments2024-03-28T19:58:17.811+00:00Comments on Wargaming Miscellany: To save or not to save … that is the question?Robert (Bob) Corderyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-37771214208462890262009-12-09T19:21:46.478+00:002009-12-09T19:21:46.478+00:00Jim,
After sitting – and thinking – in the inevit...Jim,<br /><br />After sitting – and thinking – in the inevitable traffic jam on the way home from work today I pretty well came to the same conclusion; one simple 'saving throw' for cover is all that is needed. I will resist the impulse to complicate the whole thing with different 'types' of Tank Unit, as it will inevitably lead to a whole list of extra factors needing to be added (or subtracted) every time players want to resolve the outcome of fire and/or Close Combat.<br /><br />I will be making this point in my next blog entry.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-68772387962074641122009-12-09T18:20:36.389+00:002009-12-09T18:20:36.389+00:00Hi Bob,
Add one more vote for the saving throw me...Hi Bob,<br /><br />Add one more vote for the saving throw mechanism. Simple. Quick. A decision is made and the game moves on.<br /><br />Ross and Rob make a good point about complexity creeping back in with tank and gun type.<br /><br />KISS says there are just tanks and anti-tank guns, and field guns and howitzers, etc. No calibers, no armor types. Perhaps saving throws should be "in cover" or "not in cover" to start with.<br /><br />I look forward to the next test game.<br /><br />Happy Holidays,<br /><br />JimJim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11549600020726569568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-26694151756693424342009-12-09T13:35:42.211+00:002009-12-09T13:35:42.211+00:00Rob Dean,
I had been concentrating so much in my ...Rob Dean,<br /><br />I had been concentrating so much in my mind on the benefits of saving throws for different types of Tank Unit that I had not realised that I was so close to the top of the slippery slope into complexity. I will now have a serious re-think about having different types of tank included in the saving throw system.<br /><br />Many thanks for pointing this out.<br /><br />The roster system <i>looks</i> like it provides an answer, but I just don’t like too much bookkeeping – even with markers – during games as people tend to ‘forget’ to do it.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-77208059569295841512009-12-08T22:42:32.403+00:002009-12-08T22:42:32.403+00:00If you start thinking about differing throws for d...If you start thinking about differing throws for differing tanks weights, you'll be on to different numbers for different AT gun sizes next. Pretty soon it's not simple enough to remember, and then you're back to square one. (-: But as a limited scenario based modification, it would work. (E.g. WWII British vs Germans; all British guns are 75mm, differentiating between Mk IVs and Tigers would make sense, but mixing 6 pdrs, 75s, 17 pdrs, Mk IVs, Panthers and King Tigers would probably be a bit much.)<br /><br />The downside of the roster system is that it is irritating to track units by their identifying marks on the table, at least to me. Ross and I used a marker system with the Renaissance adaptation, which has it's own set of problems. I am intrigued, though, by the fact that the modern rules as written propose using a more complicated roster system. I've used the "4 across the board" with the ancients version, and it was ok (implemented with markers).Rob Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705547374834785174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-62524812146088350772009-12-08T13:37:50.342+00:002009-12-08T13:37:50.342+00:00Ross Mac,
I try to keep away from having too many...Ross Mac,<br /><br />I try to keep away from having too many plus or minus 'factors' in the rules that I use because I find that players tend to forget them, and that if they don't they tend to slow down the resolution of comabt as players try to do the mental mathematics involved in their heads.<br /><br />As a result, I am going to give saving throws a go; if they don't work, I can always removed them!<br /><br />By the way, you make a good point about saving throws in Close Combat; I will look at including them now that you have pointed out the flaw in my thinking.<br /><br />What you say about using more Units on the tabletop to increase the time it takes before one side gets obliterated is also well made. My problem is space. I just don't have enough to get more Units into play; as a result I have had to find an alternate option - hence the choice of saving throws.<br /><br />Many thanks for your feedback,<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-5927121808892146662009-12-08T11:46:59.688+00:002009-12-08T11:46:59.688+00:00Loat my internet connection just as I was sending ...Loat my internet connection just as I was sending a comment so my apologies if this is a duplication of content.<br /><br />There is already a mechanism to reduce a unit's melee strength if attacking uphill or over a stream. I prefer the idea of carrying that concept over to cover both for melee and shooting so that the effect of terrain is consistant.<br /><br />Saving throws work but they are a slippery slope, light tanks today...., but if you are going to use them, might be best to get rid of the -1 melee modifiers and apply the same saving throws in melee. Taking no account of cover in close combat might encourage banzai tacticts.<br /><br />To solve the other problem, the speed at which units diappear, another option is to increase the number of units in play so that each lost stand is less important but saving throws will work if the unit density stays low.Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-42408541152257890122009-12-08T09:38:29.549+00:002009-12-08T09:38:29.549+00:00Ogrefencer,
I intend to put my ideas down on pape...Ogrefencer,<br /><br />I intend to put my ideas down on paper later this morning ... other things permitting (Tuesday is my morning off work, but so far today it has involved a trip to the dentist and I have still got to go to the Post Office and Bank before midday!).<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />BobRobert (Bob) Corderyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13109130990434792266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6933470253715910366.post-81171239387941160062009-12-08T08:46:39.987+00:002009-12-08T08:46:39.987+00:00Hi Bob, I think the savings throw option is the wa...Hi Bob, I think the savings throw option is the way to go for sure and the varied roll for tank weights is also a very workable suggestion. I am eagerly looking forward to the next instalment!<br /><br />OgreDavid Crookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497436789811496047noreply@blogger.com