Abusing horses and trucks

[Shad]

Should each side be required to attempt to rally demoralized units when a turn ends?

That would cut both ways as it would give people who legitimately didn't have a chance but wanted one a guaranteed end-of-turn rally attempt.

I look at it another way. As been stated before with demoralized units you have lost control over them and they are looking to save themselves from the immediate fight. By forcing them to attempt to recover, this is another way you don't have control over them.

I understand your (plural) positions but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make with that last post, which I will now explain via example:

The Scenario:
I have an assault with a lone unactivated demoralized unit and some good order units adjacent who are ready to dive in next turn. All outside the assault have already been activated.

I also have a smattering of demoralized units and leaders across the board as happens during long battles.

Situation 1: FoW never materializes
I will do everything I can to avoid having to try and rally the unit in the assault, as odds are he will fail, flee, suffer a parting shot, and be killed. "Everything I can" absolutely includes moving wagons and such one by one waiting for FoW to save me. If I can escape having to rally him next turn, depending on initiative, I might be able to reinforce the assault.

Situation 2: FoW happens immediately
My assault situation is preserved, but I don't get a chance to rally my wandering men.

Situation 3: FoW happens immediately, but Joe's house rule forces me to rally my men
Ok, I'll probably lose that assault hex, but I also am "forced" to try and rally all my disparate units and leaders that I otherwise would have lost an opportunity to rally. I am delighted and happily oblige.

Joe's proposal does not solve the problem very cleanly, is my point.

I think HMN is correct in seeking to agree to playing conventions before the match begins.

[JoeBuckeye]

Joe's proposal does not solve the problem very cleanly, is my point.

True, I was only looking at it from the POV of someone desperately trying to avoid the rally attempt.

I can't count the number of turns I wanted to rally someone but never got around to it because the FOW roll hit.

[campsawyer]

Situation 1: FoW never materializes
I will do everything I can to avoid having to try and rally the unit in the assault, as odds are he will fail, flee, suffer a parting shot, and be killed. "Everything I can" absolutely includes moving wagons and such one by one waiting for FoW to save me. If I can escape having to rally him next turn, depending on initiative, I might be able to reinforce the assault.

But this can never happen, If FoW does not occur, you MUST attempt to rally the demoralized units per RaW. If they pass great they have a little more chance, but if they fail, they must flee one hex, plus the assaulting units have a good chance of killing them by fleeing fire. Yes, there is a chance to survive, but I have seen more kills than survival of these demoralized units.

As for the reinforcements for the demoralized units, if it recovers then they will come into the assault, but the rule guarantee that the failure of the demoralized unit gets the heck out of there.

[vince hughes]

I will make sure to discuss the rule with my next Skype opponent as I have no idea what is his interpretation of the rule.

I've had this used against me and have used it in turn also. It really is not that big a problem for me in the game system, and the leaving of such units absolutely will lead to their demise sooner or later. If it is late in the game then IMO c'est la vie ?

I also believe that like a sports season, all the good and bad evens itself out over the longer term. One day you are a victim, the next day, the perpetrator.

There are two other painful areas you may find yourself entering.

If you agree to use the rule without 'gamey' tactics, what happens if one considers one such move gamey, but the other genuinely wants to move a transport somewhere that the 'accussr' has not recognised as important ? Dispute ?

Secondly, believe me. Playing without FOW lengthens the game, allows players the knowledge they can activate everything and changes the whole nature of the game.

[Hugmenot]

As to your two points, Vince:

1. If we agree on the interpretation of a rule, I expect you to be true to your word and not abuse the system. In other words, I would assume there is some strategic or tactical importance in moving your transport units.

2. My opinion is shuffling transport units one at a time to avoid required, undesirable events also changes the nature of the game, and not for the better.

[larry marak]

Nothing makes you appreciate the value of preserving your transport than reading accounts of the withdrawl from Korsun Pocket. Not only were thousand left behind due to lack of transport, but when the exhausted, hyperthemic and wounded remnant did make it across the river to German controled territory, they were unable to get medical evacuation to rear area medical facilities because the commanders on the scene dared not risk the horses or trucks to enemy artillery fire.

The focus of our scenarios is strictly limited to the moment of combat, as if no battle occurs before and after. As Campsawyer says, loss of transport is its own punishment in campaign sequences.

Optional rule: Loss of trucks and wagons subtracts one point per from the owners' victory point total in all scenarios. Your opponent still would rather target your combat units, but will target your transport if you are foolish enough to leave it vulnerable to hamstring you.

[campsawyer]

Optional rule: Loss of trucks and wagons subtracts one point per from the owners' victory point total in all scenarios. Your opponent still would rather target your combat units, but will target your transport if you are foolish enough to leave it vulnerable to hamstring you.

I believe that would be a bit to harsh to subtract victory points for transports. The reasoning is that in many scenarios you will stack a transport with a forward gun, just in case they need to try to get out. Given that a X eliminates both the unit and one transport in specific scenarios with step loss points now you have doubled the loss, thereby changing the scenario.

[Hugmenot]

I think the optional rule is fine as written and the two adversaries can decide how to interpret it before deciding whether to use it.

If I can't agree with my opponent, I'll suggest we roll which interpretation to use in the first game and repeat/not repeat the experience depending on level of enjoyment/annoyance.

[vince hughes]

As to your two points, Vince:

1. If we agree on the interpretation of a rule, I expect you to be true to your word and not abuse the system. In other words, I would assume there is some strategic or tactical importance in moving your transport units.

2. My opinion is shuffling transport units one at a time to avoid required, undesirable events also changes the nature of the game, and not for the better.

I would not even bother to 'interpret' the rule, as it needs no interpretation ? Either play FOW and accept activations by your opponent that upset you or don't play FOW..... Job done !

[saracv3]

An old string here, but another proposed House Rule I've played with since the inception. Roll FOW  after "pass" segments. This will counter some of the asymmetrical situation.

FOW is fun. It adds an X factor and is cruel.