Liberation shipping

[campsawyer]

Check the SSRs under hidden units for solo rules

[dengelwood]

Not much of a help, really. Vague and generic. They advise to add "up to 1/3 leaders/units" when not using the hidden rules. What does that mean exactly? Count all the leaders and give 1/3 as much? Count all combat units and allot 1/3 as much? Which type? 1/3 of each unit type (infantry, armor, AT, Arty)? Yikes. Seems to render a given scenario purely arbitrary and maybe unplayable. Would like to see something a bit more specific. Not happy about the "hidden" rules, at least from a solitaire world.

[campsawyer]

Read toward the bottom, it says "If this is too much bother, don't use them". Simple for solo.

[dengelwood]

Of course I read to the bottom. I just think that something must be missing when playing solitaire. If the the game plays one way multi-palyer, then it plays fundamentally differently alone. That's my point. You have to use different , and arbitrary, rules depending upon the circumstance. Uniformity sits in coach. Each solitaire session becomes a roll-your-own game, and purely subjective. Any objective analysis goes out the window unless a second player accepts your "rules."

[campsawyer]

Of course I read to the bottom. I just think that something must be missing when playing solitaire. If the the game plays one way multi-palyer, then it plays fundamentally differently alone. That's my point. You have to use different , and arbitrary, rules depending upon the circumstance. Uniformity sits in coach. Each solitaire session becomes a roll-your-own game, and purely subjective. Any objective analysis goes out the window unless a second player accepts your "rules."

Of course hidden units are played differently FtF v. Solo no matter what method that you use. Not using the rule is the simplest and least complex.

But if you really need to play solo hidden, the rule goes like this. Create scraps of paper with the hidden unit and create an equal number with dummy, place in cup. Create the same number scraps, both real and dummy, and use them to mark the possible hidden hexes. When you need to reveal, pull a scrap and use as result of the occupation of the hex. If you want a hidden hex to fire just replace the hidden scrap with the unit that is firing.

Does it create parity with FtF play and solo, no, but I don't think they can ever compare because each game already is its own unique play. The fact that you create new leader characteristics for each play can change each game to be something different, so not all will be the same. Also just playing solo is always quite different from FtF play anyway.

[Matt W]

I've read all the approaches to this and I can say with certainty that none will replace ftf play with hidden units. On the other hand, once you have played the game that way a few times you will understand how you will sweep the board with a pattern of units to find the hidden units and can replicate that type of play by the non-hidden side and have them run into the ambushes that go along with hidden units quite easily.

I have always felt that the "set up 2 different locations for each hidden unit" approach doesn't work because I tend to set up my hidden units in supporting positions. If half go to one set of positions and the other half to the other I end up with no advantage to the hidden units at alland possibly an insane set up as a result. Better to set up without the rules or (as I do) cover the hidden units with smoke markers and remind myself that I cannot see those positions until I am within the spotting distance for hidden units or they fire. This plays easily, maintains much of the play of what the hidden units provide without arbitrarily destroying the integrity of the defense.

While it does not replicate the tension of the use of hidden units in ftf play it does replicate the results quite well.

[dengelwood]

Interesting Matt, thanks. I do the same thing and was wondering what others do. Do you also follow the recommendations to fuss with the number or do you leave them as written?

[dengelwood]

Rules Question: Flail tanks and clearing minefields.

1. A Flail entering a minefield may immediately attempt to remove that mine, rolling for damage, and subtracting 1 from the die for each mine point removed. There is no turn lag when removing mines unless the Flail elects to remove only 1 point from a 2 or 3 point mine. On subsequent turns it may attempt to reduce the value of mines in a hex and roll for damage. Is this correct?

2. Flails do not roll for a mine attack if they attempt to remove at least 1 point of mines upon entering a mine hex. If they do not make a mine clearing attempt, they roll for the mine attack just as other units. Though this is nowhere stated explicitly in the rules this is an inference I've drawn. Is this reasonable?

[campsawyer]

Rules Question: Flail tanks and clearing minefields.

1. A Flail entering a minefield may immediately attempt to remove that mine, rolling for damage, and subtracting 1 from the die for each mine point removed. There is no turn lag when removing mines unless the Flail elects to remove only 1 point from a 2 or 3 point mine. On subsequent turns it may attempt to reduce the value of mines in a hex and roll for damage. Is this correct?

2. Flails do not roll for a mine attack if they attempt to remove at least 1 point of mines upon entering a mine hex. If they do not make a mine clearing attempt, they roll for the mine attack just as other units. Though this is nowhere stated explicitly in the rules this is an inference I've drawn. Is this reasonable?

My reading of the SSR it states that Crabs may enter a hex containing a minefield marker and attempt to remove it in the same manner as an engineer (16.7). This means the process for the ENG is still used, rules (16,73 and 16.75) So, to answer the questions:

1. Fail mine clearing works like ENG clearing per 16.75. So only one SP is removed after three turns, if two Crabs are working together two SP's are removed after three turns. Then roll for Crabs survival, subtracting one or two for the mine SP removed. (A question here is the wording of the modifier says impulse, which I assume means activation)

2. Per 16.73 the Crab would reduce the number of minefield attacks but would not be immune.

With all of this said, I wonder about the way that this rule was intended.

[larry marak]

Hidden set up is always a problem in solitaire. But it does eliminate some of the Zeus-eye view of the gameboard players suffer from. Better might be randomly rolled reinforcements both entering the board and dug in but only visible at X-hexes distance. You'd create a rr (random reinforcement) table custom to each scenario.

Ideally in a solo game the player would only know the class of the target (some kind of vehicle, some kind of non vehicle cluster) until resolving the first or second firing, whichever scores a hit first.

Both of these procedures would work well in true solo games, neither would be much good in two player. They would however infinitely increase the replay value of scenarios.