Getting to know your Optional Rules - Printable Version
+- Forums (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards)
+-- Forum: The Firing Line (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Squad Battles (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Getting to know your Optional Rules (/showthread.php?tid=51167)
Pages: 1 2
Getting to know your Optional Rules - TheBigRedOne - 05-01-2009
I posted a poll a few weeks back on optional rules that players tend to use:
The two least chosen by the group were Optional Fire Results and Optional Assault Results. I found this interesting and actually had money that Alternate Fire Density would be the rule least used since it was implemented more for guerrilla type conflicts where one side has smaller teams of men (SAW, for instance).
So, I thought, maybe I was missing something. I went to the program and lifted the descriptions for both rules.
Quote:Optional Fire Results – when this rule is selected, each fire result is calculated as the average of two normal fire results. This has the effect of reducing the variation in results.
So, basically it takes two die rolls and averages them together, eliminating potentially wild results. In conversations I've had, a few folks seem to like the more random possibilities of the die rolls, arguing that it will mimic typical combat situations, where oftentimes strange things can happen.
Any thoughts from the crowd here about the usage of these rules?
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules II: Quality Loss Modifier - TheBigRedOne - 05-06-2009
OK, this rule a lot more people seemed to use. As per the User's Manual.
When the Quality Loss Modifier optional rule is selected, then the casualty and effectiveness losses suffered by infantry, both Teams and Leaders, is affected by a factor that depends on the quality of the unit:
• Units of Quality A have their losses modified by 0.5.
• Units of Quality B have their losses modified by 0.75.
• Units of Quality C have no change to their losses.
• Units of Quality D have their losses modified by 1.3.
• Units of Quality E have their losses modified by 1.6.
I think most gamers can get behind this rule simply because it takes a unit's morale into account when figuring out casualties. I use it in both AI and PBEM games.
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - Ozgur Budak - 05-06-2009
I dont use optional fire and assault results since I dont like the idea of "smoothing out the die roll" in a tactical game where players should live with uncertainty and shocking events.
I am generally using quality modifier. Skill and experience are crucial factors in combat. Yes bullets are bullets and flesh is flesh but experienced and well trained soldiers are able protect themselves better against enemy fire.They know how to expose smaller parts of their body, how to crawl or utilize the terrain for best effect.
Getting to know your Optional Rules III: Alternate Fire Density - TheBigRedOne - 05-08-2009
This is a rule that doesn't get a lot of play, I'd imagine, especially in the more conventional warfare style games. I think it would work well with some scenarios in SAW, but in a WWII title, probably not so much.
I recall when it came out, discussions focused on its use in more guerrilla style warfare (like the Mujahideen in SAW), as well as to counter that 'last man standing' scenario that we have all come up against where one lone soldier holds out against a fully armed squad(s). We've all been there.
The problem with AFD was that it made individual leaders in a hex very, very vulnerable. If you were to read the Grunt School tutorial over on Task Force Echo 4 (and you should), you'd find that having a platoon formation with the leader in a hex behind the MLR was a standard practice. It would allow any pinned squads to 'fall back' towards the leader to be rallied, and it kept the leader away from the heaviest fire. With AFD, if you did that, mostly what you'd get would be a quickly dead officer. Now, in combat it is the officer corps that usually takes a pretty good brunt of the casualties, so perhaps the rule isn't that far off of mark in what it's trying to accomplish. Thoughts?
Quote:Density Effect (general)
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - Wodin - 07-28-2009
I like the idea of alternative fire density as like you said it creates a game with high officer rates which is usually the norm in many accounts I've read of WW2 and Korea.
Maybe it isn't as true in later conflicts I'm not sure
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - Wodin - 07-28-2009
Also there are times Ive had two squads unable to kill that last man many times. This rule seems to stop that from happening.
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - jamesirc - 09-23-2010
Great Thread. Thanks Big Red One. Very Helpful.
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - Ironwulf - 03-01-2011
Thought some of you out there may find this tidbit useful on Optional Rule: Variable Ending.
I like this rule a lot. I find that the extra turns tend to appear in games where a Draw result is present on the last turn. So if a game is set to 25 turns, and your at turn 25 and its still a draw - I wouldn't be suprised to see a turn 26 generate... or even a turn 27 and turn 28.
Also once you enter those extra turns - you can never be quite sure if there will be that extra turn or not (within the limits set below). ^^
From the Sqb manual:
Variable Ending – when this rule is selected, it is possible for a scenario to continue past the specified last turn. For each 10 turns, or fraction of 10 turns, of the original scenario, the duration can be extended up to one additional turn.
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - TheBigRedOne - 03-02-2011
I've never been a big fan of the Variable Ending, especially if you are playing on defense.
It's challenging enough to withstand a good player's attack, but giving them the potential for an extra turn or two to try to take that final objective is brutal!
RE: Getting to know your Optional Rules - Compass Rose - 03-02-2011
(03-02-2011, 06:43 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote: It's challenging enough to withstand a good player's attack, but giving them the potential for an extra turn or two to try to take that final objective is brutal!The last time I played with it, I was holding my breath hoping I could hold on until the end, whenever that was to be.
Needlees to say, I'm not a fan of that option either!