Biltong's Campaign Rules - Cont.

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

No advice on the maps then?

JM, in earlier posts announcing MPs I think it's pretty clear you just choose the 'next' battle named appropriately for your battle type...

Pragmatically though, unless these maps were all in a searchable database indexed not just by attack type but also point size, map size... I don't think you can really pick a map 'blind'- you really have to look at it.

For me it doesn't matter- the way I'm doing this, don't have the option of using them, boo hoo.

Eden</font>

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Max BrauHaus:

... I wouldn't suggest +1 for every casualty caused, but +1 if any casualties are caused, regardless of number. This makes squad experience growth more predictable; easier to manage.

Ok guys:

Done

Very easy to twist my arm (esp with a good argument)

Added a collumn. Not in the armor section though - too easy - then were back to crack

Note 4: Infantry gain 1 Experience point only for any number of Enemy Casualties - See Note 1 above.

Only infantry gain experience by causing enemy casualties. MG's, mortars, artillery, vehicles etc cannot gain exp. this way.

E.g.: If a Squad knocks out a tank (+2) killing 2 crewmen (+1) they will earn +3 Experience points.

The Squad also gains an Overall Exp point of 1.

If a Tank takes out 2 pillboxes (+2) and then gets knocked out (-1) and the remaining crew are 'Rattled' (-1) at the end of the battle - the crew gains zero Exp points.

However, the tank crew will still gain an Overall Exp point of 1.

[ December 18, 2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Biltong]

Scalpel suggests:

Item 27 (Force Size). Comment. Have you considered changing the label "Auxiliary" to "Task Force"?

And while you are at it, how about renaming "Scrounged" to "Attached"?

8. Item 34 (Fortifications). Shouldn't there also be an entry for Allied Probe?

Haven't got time to test - do you get fortifications in an allied probe? Thought you don't

Any comments for or against?

[ December 18, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

Old fashioned Excel spreadsheet - sortable and searchable on:

Whatever "Old fashioned" means, it can't be read in 4.0, and can't be saved as such...?

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Sorry, you can't use more than 8 pictures in one post

And :mad: count as images. Ask Mr Goodale (pronounced Good Ale) for more on that one.

What does the Force Size have to do with how historical my campaign is?

Well nothing, the way you ask it, but if the question is How does the size of the Historical-Yet-Random-Attached-Aux force matter, I'm guessing ten battalions of Romanians today, ten battalions of Hungarians tomorrow stretches credibility. But I admit that I don't really get what we're modelling with the whole aux thing.

Heh, I dropped the aux rolls because I thought they were on the insane side of historical accuracy. Or at least made the Force Mix unimportant. You can get Armor Force Mix without any tanks, or Infantry Only Force Mix with 250 pts tanks.

Now the world can rest- I get it.

As for historical accuracy, I trust BFC enough to think the automatic purchase will buy me "correct" units.

Yes!! ( #2 ) Now you're talking my language! This thinking was, of course, one of the key selling points in my Favor-From-AAR scheme, recently dealt a Total Defeat by our Supreme Commander. But I have two more ideas for leveraging BTS knowledge in regards the matters of 'Scrounging' and 'Replacements', which I'll get to... next post? ( #3 ) But same idea- let's use all that BTS knowledge already crammed in the game when we can.

My biggest problem is I never seems to get as much arty as I would like... Damn cheap auto-buyer!

YOU get ARTY?!? In Seven games I've gotten NONE, and it's starting to annoy me- in the last two games I have been *DESTROYED*. :mad: ( #4 ) Not having arty is one thing, assaulting on a wide open flattish field is another, but the two together is getting a bit old- the only type of battle so far...

This way I also get one of Apache's wishes, that "major offensive" happenings.

I personally don't see the need, but I can grok it, and maybe it would be cool to have a 'User Mods' section on a central site somewhere...? I mean we could post the little rules that we each have come up with to get our own thing working... ( #5 )

Of course not, discussing is gold. I never ment that we shouldn't discuss things.

No I never meant that you meant that. You're witnessing my genius for stating the obvious. ( #6 )

That's pretty much what I do too, but as I don't trust myself, I have to do a "Auto QB" run to see what aux units I should get. That also give some suspense, as in my last battle with only 2 AT guns against a soviet Armor probe.

OK, you have to WRITE DOWN what the QB got you, (*snicker*). I wish I could hit a 'gimme random' will *in* the purchase screens... There's just no way to get this whole thing to work the way we'd like...SE won't import a QB map, QB won't edit troops, can't import troops without map... Round and round, it's just a stymie in each direction.

As I've already rolled for whom and from where the Aux is, it's perfectly fine for me to "choose" them myself- I'm not going to choose things with +80 rarity or what have you... And as far as *suspense*!!! Uh... there's still a *bit* of that left, even after buying manually. ( #7 )

Too bad BFC didn't make the SE map generator as good as the QB one, it has all the needed info, number of flags, battle type for setup zones, map dimensions.

Gawd, no kidding. Oh, but wait!! Why don't we generate a 'smart' map in QB, and then import it into the SE, and then... oops. You understand why I'm insane, now, don't you?

BTW, did you know that you CAN use a user made map? Just Load it in the SE. You have to add your units again and change exp. and names, but at least you will have setup zones and flags placed, and a nice map to boot!

Not just a nice map, but usually a huge map. Map designers seem to always want to make something bigger than necessary... For me, my little co, an Aux force sometimes only one extra gun or so, to *assault* across one of those monster maps, with no arty... ( #8 ) It's just not going to happen. Maybe I could use them if I just multiply #turns by two. I'm serious.

In closing, I'd like to give you a smiley, but I can't- out of ammo!! Sorry...

Eden

[Yeknodathon]

These rules are good fun - I want to thank everyone's input.

Would be good to be able to edit forces before placing units on map - we could keep same unit names, casualty levels and swap favour for "upgrades" in hq qualities like command, rally, stealth etc... The only way I can see this happening is via third-party scenario setups to ensure there are no sneak peaks at enemy forces.

Alex

[86smopuim]

I created a new auto exp sheet if any one is interested.

auto exp, favor, version 6

I may do a version 7. Not sure.

[ December 18, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[SuperSulo]

Great Biltong, I'm looking forward to those horse rules. Make sure to make it possible to choose color and gender of the horsies. I want black stallions, that will be neat. Hmm or maybe white mustangs...

[SuperSulo]

Didn't know that the smilies counted as pictures... Suits me right for being such a festive guy.

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Well nothing, the way you ask it, but if the question is How does the size of the Historical-Yet-Random-Attached-Aux force matter, I'm guessing ten battalions of Romanians today, ten battalions of Hungarians tomorrow stretches credibility. But I admit that I don't really get what we're modelling with the whole aux thing.

Yeah, I guess that could be considered unhistorical... How about 7 bat's italians and 9 bat's hungarians?

But in reality (ie, in the game), it's a small chance of getting non-germans two battles in a row, only 9%. If that's too much, we could add a die to the nationality roll to make it something like a 0.09%. But it doesn't bother me that much, I think it's fun trying different nationalities. And I'm sure some poor german company had to whore with hungarians and romanians some time during the war, and I would be proud if that company were to be my company. So I keep the different nationalities.

I think the aux force is just a way to vary the Force Size (how's that for stating the obvious?). I would find it very boring to just play 700-800 pts battles all the time (ie without aux forces). So I guess what we are modelling with the whole aux thing is different sized battles. If the different nationality/division type isn't to your liking, just skip it and always choose german mech (or hungarian mountain).

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Now the world can rest- I get it.

I know I will sleep soundly tonight.

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Yes!! [snip] ( #2 ) Now you're talking my language! This thinking was, of course, one of the key selling points in my Favor-From-AAR scheme, recently dealt a Total Defeat by our Supreme Commander. But I have two more ideas for leveraging BTS knowledge in regards the matters of 'Scrounging' and 'Replacements', which I'll get to... next post? [snip] ( #3 ) But same idea- let's use all that BTS knowledge already crammed in the game when we can.

I'm anxious to see what you can cook up this time.

But remember, if you really want it, do it yourself. Use BFC's AAR numbers for favor. I'm sure the Supreme Commander wont courtmarshall you.

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

YOU get ARTY?!? In Seven games I've gotten NONE, and it's starting to annoy me- in the last two games I have been *DESTROYED*. [snip] ( #4 ) Not having arty is one thing, assaulting on a wide open flattish field is another, but the two together is getting a bit old- the only type of battle so far...

You've rolled up 7 straight battles with no arty whatsoever using the standard rules?! That's... "impossible". No, plain impossible. You must be doing something wrong.

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This way I also get one of Apache's wishes, that "major offensive" happenings.

I personally don't see the need, but I can grok it, and maybe it would be cool to have a 'User Mods' section on a central site somewhere...? I mean we could post the little rules that we each have come up with to get our own thing working... [snip] ( #5 )

</font>

[History Buff]

I wouldn't suggest +1 for every casualty caused, but +1 if any casualties are caused, regardless of number. This makes squad experience growth more predictable; easier to manage.

++++But there is a difference of of killing 10 enemy soldiers, and 1 enemy soldiers. Maybe 1 exp point for every 5 enemy dead?

For all those who say it's too easy to become crack, maybe the experience system is not to blame but possibly the QB you generate are to easy?+++++

[JaegerMeister]

History buff, your on the same lines as me with infantry kills, but i think it should be +1 exp only per squad for a minimum of 5 kills.

A 10 man inf squad should justify that exp gain with a minimum set amount, because it wouldn't gain much experience in real life from shooting one enemy soldier, but accounting for 50% of an enemy squad maybe would....ie even if they were green behind the ears, that experience would have at least 'bloodied' them.

[Ichthys]

A post from a few days back caught my attention but but there didn't appear to be a lot of discussion about it.

Someone had suggested that favor shouldn't be used to adjust the time of the next battle, especially a defensive battle-- and I think I saw a post stating that the next version will disallow using favor to adjust the date. Is this so?

Since I didn't see any discussion of the issue I thought I'd bring it back up myself. My thought is that one of the best uses of favor is to try and get 'light duty' assignments for my men away from the front where less fighting is likely to take place. I don't look at using favor in this context as refusing to fight when the enemy shows up, but more like arranging a 5-day pass for my men, or getting assigned to guard the motor pool. Maybe arranging a month of "training" far away from the front lines. [a side note, didn't someone suggest that a one month delay in date meant your men were going through training exercises and should thus get an experience point -- I liked that idea. ]

I think it is important to note that 80% of the time you cannot effect the date for the better. In June, because of the modifiers, your favor can only effect the date 1 time in 10. Now I don't think this should come cheap, the favor-cost should probably be changed to 30.

Now about the point the original poster made about choosing the time when on the defensive. I think we should roll up the battle-type before the time and then make the rule that no favor may be used to change the time for Allied attacks or MEs. Axis attacks you may have some influence using your favor.

-Andy

[Biltong]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Great Biltong, I'm looking forward to those horse rules. Make sure to make it possible to choose color and gender of the horsies. I want black stallions, that will be neat. Hmm or maybe white mustangs...

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

But it doesn't bother me that much, I think it's fun trying different nationalities.

Yes yes of course; you take me wrongly- I love anyone who shows up wearing a different colored uniform than my guys, believe me. My point is that it's hard to understand how this one company of men is hooking up with completely different force nationalities/types/sizes every week? Who are these guys, the Freelance Fascists? Do they advertise on for work on the internet??

My belief is that one particular company is in one particular division/battalion/thingie, and they're in that same spot pretty much for the rest of the war? Possibly the fuhrer will rename some things, to throw off the enemy, but still we just have a different name, and we're in the same place.

It might happen that the force surrounding the co is decimated, and the co is shuffled off to reform into some other force somewhere, but that wouldn't happen every week...???

I think the aux force is just a way to vary the Force Size (how's that for stating the obvious?).

It's not bad for a beginner. But the question is not about the *result*, that of varying the force size, it is about what is modelled, which means what is it in history which we are *simulating*. If we are not simulating anything, id est, if this aux force variability is just a *concession* to game play, then that's perfectly fine, I'm ecstatic about it I promise, but I'd just like to *know* what's going on. If it's a concession to game play, would someone please "admit" that, or something?

Or if it's perfectly accurate historically that this co has different friends every week, then would someone please just say "Yes it is" and I won't understand but at least I'll have what I really want- just to be clear on the yes or no of it.

I'm anxious to see what you can cook up this time.

My cooking causes you anxiety? Well don't worry- I've been nibbling at it, and it's pretty tasty. It's cooling right now...

But remember, if you really want it, do it yourself. Use BFC's AAR numbers for favor.

Just the "Final Result" percentage number... FAVOR += ("Final Result" - 50); I may produce and release an AAR sheet, following such a method, given the astounding popularity of my previous spreadsheet release. I am thinking that some of the small additions to the summation of favor, which would be justified by virtue of the fact that CM is not "thinking" from a campaign viewpoint, are 1) Enemy Surrender (gotta be an extra fruitcake for that one!), 2) Captured Weapons, 3) Company HQs should, I think be worth more than Platoon HQs, Battalion HQs more still...?

The entire issue of Captured Weapons I have been working on for some time- I've been keeping track of all weapons I capture and while I haven't figured out what to do with them, and in fact I don't think you can get Captured Weapons into your force in the *&$&*(@#$$ Scenario Editor....? Well, like I said, I'm still thinking about that issue.

You've rolled up 7 straight battles with no arty whatsoever using the standard rules?! That's... "impossible". No, plain impossible. You must be doing something wrong.

Er. I do have some little experience rolling icosahedra across the table and reading these kinds of tables... Ahem. But you are perhaps on to something here- let's look at table 31, and assume we are in June with an Axis Assault. The mods for this total to +5 (I ignore player exp), ergo the rolls of 1-10 become immediately mapped to 6-15. The highest die roll reads "10+ Goto Air". Since "10+" in the current domain consitutes 10-15, which is six out of ten outcomes, I will be going to Air sixty percent of the time. Follow? Only 6-9 which is four out of ten outcomes will get arty. So yes, it's very possible to get no arty. ( Ignoring for this discussion getting popped back into Arty from Air... I've had rain only once... )

Now is this what is meant, or should rolls outside of the 1-10 domain be re-rolled until one is found? If so, then the table should not read "10+" but "10 Goto Air" and "11+ Reroll". Follow? That would bring the (initial) GotoAir probability down from sixty to twenty percent.

I don't think I would unleash my rules to the unsuspecting public, they are far to ugly for public release. If "the scalpel"

saw it, he would travel to Sweden and kill me.

OhComeOnYaBigChicken. "Scalpel" is an Appalachian nickname meaning "Nice Little Boy Who Spends Too Much Time With GI Joe Action Figures", ok? Well let's at least brainstorm our methods together a bit, and perhaps we'll really get something of a workable alternate method happening, can we count on you for that, comrade? Yes? OK.

Yes, since I get more than a small AA gun for aux, I have to write it down to remember it...

Last game I had 1000 pts for QB setting, or 1700 internal pts adjusted for Assault, with 600 core, which means in the QB I had to select about 1100 SS Mechs who were in the neighborhood. I'm just not going to write down that 1100 points, I assure you, and I wouldn't hold it against a newbie to be turned off at the one more chore needed for that method...

Furthermore, you have no idea whatsoever how much AIR the AI has purchased for you, n'est-ce pas? Not that it does very often, still...

They really must hate campaign'ers. (Again, a joke. Relax, any-outsider-peeking-in).

"Relax" my foot- they need to get off their butts and do something NOW!! The rewrite can WAIT!!! :mad: :mad: "GRR." Two years is a long time to be hamstrung...

I would love to buy my own aux, to be able to use variable rarity.

But...? But what?

would I have bought only two AT guns that battle when you knew you were up against allied

Armor Force Mix? I think not...

Think again- last game was against allied armor... and I didn't have the *option* of purchasing any armor in QB. There I was, pushing these dang Guns up and down hills, with the one IVE from my core... Especially for an *assault*, do you consider it gamey to not choose what you need? It might not be available to you anyhow, and we could address the issue of high rarity with... a solution. Yes I see your point, but (especially in the case of axis assault/attack) is that complete utter randomness more important than... ease?

SCROUNGING FOR CRUMBS, AN OLD FASHIONED UKRAINIAN RECIPE by EDEN

Scrounged units apparently are "leaderless units scattered around the field" post battle. In other words, leftovers. Ok, so, unless this is what is meant by the rules in the first place, why not choose your scrounged units solely from what appears in your AAR game??? The previous game, I rolled 80 for scrounged units... I looked at the field, and I found a "Recon Squad" which totalled 81 points- close enough for me. So I've added an "Aufklarung" whatever squad to my core scenario...

They've worked out great- they're really getting along with the other guys...

Since I was victorious that game, I have no problems pretending that I've made a call to my CO and given him the great news and told him how much I could use THAT independent recon squad attached to my little party... Is it historical? Well, maybe not. But it seems alot more satisfying to me than the idea that we just go into the editor and pick whatever our hearts desire...!?!? Yes, from an RPG viewpoint, it strikes me as satisfying. For those doing the Auto QB step, it is guaranteed that the AAR field has historically accurate units. For me, well...

The only real problem, (that I see- chime in), is that if we scrounge infantry, we need restrictions and regulations concerning when and how replacements are available, ie, not what quality, but how many. Probably we should have such a thing anyway? Certainly it would be historically accurate to say that replacements are not always fully at our beck and call? Well more on reps next recipe...

It also raises the issue that this 'scrounging' units should really be half a constant matter of simple scrounging, and half a matter of calling in... you guessed it, 'favor'. Anyhow, what do you struggling masses out there think? I like it, and I'm definitely a struggling mass, but we won't know what *you* think, you lurker, until you break your beans and spill your chains. Arise!

REPLACEMENTS, A HISTORICALLY ACCURATE GAMBIT by EDEN

So my squad has lost two men, let's say. I would like to leverage BTS investment into the game as far as choosing what level of experience and quality the incoming replacements have. Like so:

Select the 'Quality' according to the appropriate table, or choosing 'Random' (depends on what Random really means in the game), or... Then merely let the QB AI determine the quality of each HQ and squad by purchasing the same exact force as your core force; look at the game, and for each unit there, the quality of the replacement is the quality of that unit. In other words, those *are* your replacements. Follow? This method is of course portable to the North or to 1945 or what have you, leverages BTS knowledge, et cetera yadda. Does require a 'step', but it's more replacing an existing one than adding one... For an RPG player I find this a very suitable answer, and of course it is accurate at least with regard the quality of what would be around at that time/place.

About the objection, (I foresee), that reps would more likely be green than an 'average' soldier at that time/place, we could temper their quality, and simplify the process at the same time, no less, but considering a quality picked by the AI to be at the bottom of the scale. So if you lost two guys in 1 squad 1 platoon, do the QB thing, look at it's 1s 1p, and it's a Regular, (which currently means anything from 10 to 59), you would use "10" as the numeric value to average in with the 8 remaining guys in the squad...

Yeah well... that's my, uh, two cents. Can I get a comment? Critique? Hate mail? Fruitcake?

Eden

[EDIT- dang linewrap...]

[ December 19, 2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[Biltong]

Some Feedback

I’m busy with the cleaning up BCR… Getting rid of inconsistencies and mostly: clarifying BCR. The modifiers and ‘actual rules’ seem to be in place.

There have been a number of posts in the last 2 or 3 pages with some great ideas for fine-tuning BCR.

I haven’t replied to most of them, because each time I would have to shoot the idea ‘down’. Not because the idea was ‘bad’ – quite the opposite….

It’s just that I’m concerned with the length and complexity of BCR… I’ve had a number of comments from newbies re ‘having one look’ and deciding against trying BCR because it looked too complex.

At the moment BCR is 15 pages. Clarifying the rules is going to add +- 2 more pages.

Rolling up a battle manually can take up to half an hour (if you know what you are doing). I’ve decided some days back, that this is it: “Goal 4. Keep it short and simple enough to allow most players to understand and use it.”

… No further expansion.

Which doesn’t mean that inconsistencies/errors will not be fixed or that I won’t consider really good ideas for inclusion.

What to do with the ‘mod ideas’? I’m concerned that they will be lost.

Couple of possibilities:

As I mentioned before: look for a Mod database where players can load their versions of BCR or just a description and document. I just think that most players will find this too much work and most ideas will be lost.

Once BCR is ‘finished’ we can start a BCR mod post where guys can post their ideas and then ‘someone?’ can record these in a document that can be downloaded from the sites. The doc could be sorted by section/rule number as well as mayor topics such as Auxiliary; Scrounged etc.

A person or rather a team of guys creating a modular Grog Expansion hosted in a mod site where players can browse which sections/modules they would like to include in their rules.

Combinations of the above?

The problem would be: who is going to do this?

Once I’m finished with BCR. I’m going to start playing it. I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t had time since I started BCR (3? months ago) to play a single game. Obviously this is unacceptable: I haven’t been able to test any of the rules myself. Once I start playing, I’m sure, there will be some changes to be done. Then it’s on to ‘42 South’. Helmut and myself have already started on research and we should start with the new set within a month or 2.

Bottom line: I’m going to be too busy for any of the above, although I would love to be involved in the Grog Expansion.

So, if there is any real interest, we’ll need volunteers….

Bottom line: Don’t throw away your ideas, just because I (or anyone else) didn’t respond to them. There might be a place where they can be used.

BTW: Claude “the Scalpel” and myself are working on the idea of splitting BCR into a Walkthrough doc for 1st time/1st battle players and a clean – shorter BCR with all the “1st battle” notes/rules removed. I want to make the BCR as short as possible to save you (and myself) the hassle and time of printing a lot of pages every time there’s an update

FGS Don't stop with the ideas... Post so that they can be discussed. Once they are on the board we can always get hold of them again once a formal storage method has been arranged.

Keep 'em rolling

Biltong

[SuperSulo]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

My point is that it's hard to understand how this one company of men is hooking up with completely different force nationalities/types/sizes every week? Who are these guys, the Freelance Fascists? Do they advertise on for work on the internet??

My belief is that one particular company is in one particular division/battalion/thingie, and they're in that same spot pretty much for the rest of the war? Possibly the fuhrer will rename some things, to throw off the enemy, but still we just have a different name, and we're in the same place.

It might happen that the force surrounding the co is decimated, and the co is shuffled off to reform into some other force somewhere, but that wouldn't happen every week...???

Not every week, only 9% of the weeks.

I really have no idea how these things went in the real war, so I can't answer... I just do what's fun!

and I liked that "the Freelance Fascists" comment, funny!

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think the aux force is just a way to vary the Force Size (how's that for stating the obvious?).

It's not bad for a beginner. But the question is not about the *result*, that of varying the force size, it is about what is modelled, which means what is it in history which we are *simulating*. If we are not simulating anything, id est, if this aux force variability is just a *concession* to game play, then that's perfectly fine, I'm ecstatic about it I promise, but I'd just like to *know* what's going on. If it's a concession to game play, would someone please "admit" that, or something?

Or if it's perfectly accurate historically that this co has different friends every week, then would someone please just say "Yes it is" and I won't understand but at least I'll have what I really want- just to be clear on the yes or no of it.

</font>

[SuperSulo]

Originally posted by Biltong:

“Goal 4. Keep it short and simple enough to allow most players to understand and use it.”

… No further expansion.

I never got this KISS thing, who wants something simple?! I'm taking a MiG approach to "my" rules... MiG? Make it Good! Meaning, never let simplicity stand in the way of something that can make it better. Newbies/simpletons be damned! But then my rules are just for me, so I don't have your problem... I totally understand/agree with your decission.

Originally posted by Biltong:

What to do with the ‘mod ideas’?

I too think it would be a lost cause. At least for the "public", those of us who do/play our own rules could sure use a "campaign thread" to discuss things.

Originally posted by Biltong:

A person or rather a team of guys creating a modular Grog Expansion hosted in a mod site where players can browse which sections/modules they would like to include in their rules.

[snip]

Bottom line: I’m going to be too busy for any of the above, although I would love to be involved in the Grog Expansion.

I would love a "Grog Expansion" (to mess up with my own crazy ideas), but... wouldn't we need a grog for that?

Originally posted by Biltong:

BTW: Claude “the Scalpel” and myself are working on the idea of splitting BCR into a Walkthrough doc for 1st time/1st battle players and a clean – shorter BCR with all the “1st battle” notes/rules removed. I want to make the BCR as short as possible to save you (and myself) the hassle and time of printing a lot of pages every time there’s an update

That sounds like a good idea.

BTW, do you people actually print out the rules/sheets? What's wrong with alt-tab/esc to excel and type directly into the sheets? If you have excel that is...

[Biltong]

Hi Guys - I'm still here

You might think I've been ignoring you, but I've just been rushing to get all the scheduled changes+ in for tonights deadline to send to the team.

Normally I would try and reply to all posts, but they were coming in too thick and fast - I wouldn't have been able to get anything done.

But - as you'll notice from the Update list below (done & to be done) I have been keeping tabs on what's been discussed

OK - since nobody reads the Update doc and since it's now short enough (for the 1st time)

COMPLETED PAST WEEK

1. Finalize Unit Exp Gain/Replacements

2. Change Note 3 After Replacement Exp Calc and all references.

3. Changed 56 Normal Replacements to cater for different quality replacements on different months.

4. Created a table for Replacement Quality percentages through the years.

5. Changed Battle Groups to starts off as Regular in all docs.

6. Create BCR Goals doc and include into Intro.

7. Investigate & fix Favor

8. 1 point exp per inf squad etc if they had any kills

9. Note on Historical Accuracy for Attached/Task Force

10. Claude’s Errata – too many to report individually. Most were implemented.

11. Claude’s 1 and 10 die only changes

12. Claude’s Immediate/Counter Attack/Assault Note 8 cleanup

13 Change Scrounged to Attached and Auxiliary to Task Force.

As for what is STILL OUTSTANDING:

1. Mansteins new Christmas Map Pack

2. Do Claude’s layout changes – also see Eden’s use of .1 for pre-parameters

3. Redo Intro Doc to and check examples for changes. Link 1st post directly to Intro Doc and give a shorter description and concentrate more on what’s new. THREAD NEARLY FULL

4. Investigate & revise the effect of Counter/Immediate Attack on parameters. Claude

5. Write 1st Battle doc - Claude volunteered TG

6. Point out the BCR goal: “5. Enable anyone to Expand or Modify BCR to his own taste.” to expansion providers – i.e.: please provide notes so that anyone can expand or modify what you are doing.

7. “I would really like to get some vehicle transport for my Attached units.” Claude. Investigate and clean up.

8. Investigate Arty/Air – time for air (include dawn, but not dusk); Allied armor more likely to get air; Ax assault etc modifiers pushing points too high; If you get Air you don’t get any arty etc.

9. Item 34 (Fortifications). Shouldn't there also be an entry for Allied Probe? To be tested

10. Create rules to cater for specific battles, e.g.: City, River Crossing etc.

11. Are armor and other aux values high enough? Will you actually be able to buy something in those sections for the lowest points on offer? If not (haven’t had time to check), is it worth reviewing points and starting with lowest being something you could use and working up.? Apache B – catered for Green June 41 costs – need further investigation/thought

12. Investigate: Sewer movement

· Only Large Towns?

· By Building Type

· Does the AI use Sewer Movement at all?

13. Edit & cleanup Numbering system & logical flow of the Notes

14. Create FAQ doc for web sites when FAQ’s are finished.

15. Create Difficulty Feedback Questionnaire. Mail & Post

16. Ask for someone to set up a database (online?) where players can submit their results to be used for analysis and improvement of the rules & modifiers. Once BCR has settled down.

17. Arrange a database/new thread? for BCR mods.

Looks like a lot, but shouldn't take too long. You should've seen the list a couple of weeks ago

And I'm on holiday for the next 3 weeks!!!

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Not every week, only 9% of the weeks.

Speaking not just of nation, but also division type, then pretty much every week, but...

I really have no idea how these things went in the real war, so I can't answer...

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that was a possibility.

You can only use the "captured" weapons that BFC included, not something you captured yourself. So in -42 you can only get a M34 and some AT gun, I think.

Aha. That does sound right, since there are few captured weapons one ever sees... Well, nuts.

Ah ok, I suspected you were doing this "mistake". What I do/did when I rolled air, I just bought one plane and spent the rest of the "arty/air" pts on arty. I don't know if that's what you are supposed to do, but it made sense to me.

And that's why I'm prodding you to talk to us- the possibility that I/we noobs could infer such a thing from what's in the rules there is almost zero.

Going on assault without arty is, as you have notice, quite insane.

Well a (virtual) man's gotta do what a (virtual) man's gotta do, and of course I'm trusting these rules to have the right amount/likelihood of arty... Sure I've had some bad luck, but... I guess I'll try it your way, since it's hard to understand why axis wouldn't have plenty o' arty at the beginning of the war, you must be right. But it sure doesn't say that.

Speaking of bad arty luck; Battle 09 I got two 105mm guys... in Fog and Rain. OK, funny. ButWaitTheresMore. I gave them each a target just a wee bit out of LOS, and yeah, of course they started dumping all over my *rear* troops. Ok, still funny. Then I "Adjust" fire to a place *IN* LOS... it's still dropping on my troops.

Eventually I just had to say, "Hey guys, let's just forget it, OK? Thanks for trying. Really."

My brain doesn't storm, more of a breeze... But sure, I'll stay. As Biltong said he's put BCR on "feature lock", all we can do is discuss "add on's" and such.

True, our Supreme Commander has defected to the Darkside of SelfGratification, while we Selfless Individuals suffer long hours of Gruelling 'Playtesting' for the Good of the Party... For our discussion, the winds of change, (you're almost done with me poking you, perhaps), for the rules, the ice of feature lock.

You just have to write down like "1 bat. ss mech rifle", "2 LMG", "1 50mm mortar" or something like that... But ok, some people are lazy.

You see? Just a *little* bit of practice, and this stating-the-obvious thing will come to you naturally!!

I do, actually. 0. It NEVER buys any air. Ever.

(Disclaimer: That might not be 100% accurate. Just in my experience.)

Interesting. Strike one problem on your method.

I don't know if that really makes a difference, but maybe it can help us drop this with a "ah right, different rules"?

I'm not trying to change your mind, btw! Just want to hear your solutions *and* your problems with alternate methods. But don't worry- you've served your time. And who can say whether further discussion on rule mods has any point to it, given the recent decision from High Command. At least until we possibly have a central site to list them, or... something...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

SCROUNGING FOR CRUMBS, AN OLD FASHIONED UKRAINIAN RECIPE by EDEN

Hmm I like it, and I kinda do the same thing, except the favor thingy.</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

(S.O.) 2. Do Claude’s layout changes – also see Eden’s use of .1 for pre-parameters

The suggestion was to rename all pre-roll sections with a "0." prefix : "0.1 , 0.2 ... " In a very similar way, I've found one point I think would really help the rules ease-of-use factor.

Each of those pre-roll sections, by definition, is referring to a section somewhere in the Parameters sheet, so for example Section 2, (or "Section 0.2" ) currently says in the instructions box "Enter this value in 38 on the parameters sheet..."

That number, in this case *38*, it would be really nice to have a separate column for, with that number in BOLD, for each of the prerolls...

In parentheses, really. Like so, for the first row of TIME

0.2 | TIME | ( 38 ) | In case of immediate attack, yadda

If you don't get what I'm saying, which is perfectly understandable, just say so and I'd be happy to send you something making it clearer.

12. Investigate: Sewer movement

Sewers are only available between Large buildings in town, so... To be honest, I think we could all just put Sewer Movement as "Allowed" and forget about it till the end of time. If there are no suitable sewers of course there won't be any sewer movement, so unless I'm missing something, why worry?

Eden

[ December 20, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[Biltong]

Hiya, Super

I would love a "Grog Expansion" (to mess up with my own crazy ideas), but... wouldn't we need a grog for that?

Would be nice – when they sent e-mails the quality was always top notch, but BCR’s history side is reasonably simple: Dates/weather/mayor battles/river crossings/city battles/terrain… etc All data mostly ‘broad’ or averages and quite easy to get hold of. Helmut has just popped into a military library near Munich and got a pile of books and maps for ‘42 South’ – It’s not as if we’re coding CMBB with armor thickness and wind deflection on shell etc.

Also think that once we start with a Grog version the grogs might peep in to see that we don’t sully their name.

For contentious issues we can also go to them for more info – 3 or 4 of them has already offered help.

But don’t underestimate the team either – no shortage of logic; ideas; research etc.

I just don’t want to commit – 1st priority is to get BCR to 45 – at least with the South.

Anyway – we’ll see if someone steps up to the plate.

BTW, do you people actually print out the rules/sheets? What's wrong with alt-tab/esc to excel and type directly into the sheets? If you have excel that is...

Too slow on my machine… Also – 2 of the kids are now playing BCR so the printed rules travel

[Biltong]

Originally posted by History Buff:

I wouldn't suggest +1 for every casualty caused, but +1 if any casualties are caused, regardless of number. This makes squad experience growth more predictable; easier to manage.

++++But there is a difference of of killing 10 enemy soldiers, and 1 enemy soldiers. Maybe 1 exp point for every 5 enemy dead?

For all those who say it's too easy to become crack, maybe the experience system is not to blame but possibly the QB you generate are to easy?+++++

JaegerMeister/History Buff

My first thought was in the same vein, but then I realized: what about CO's – the odds of them killing 5 or more is highly improbable… So decided to KISS. But, obviously, it’s very easy for someone to decide on his own mod for that rule. E.g.: +1 for one kill for CO’s; +1 For 5 kills for squads; +2 for 10 kills; +3 for 15 etc… A squad that kills 10 enemy deserves points and has (more than likely)picked up a lot of casualties themselves with the resultant replacement drag

v1.5 due Tue states:

"Note 4: Infantry gain 1 Experience point only for any number of Enemy Casualties....

....Only infantry (Co's, Squads, Zook teams etc.) gain experience by causing enemy casualties. MG's, mortars, artillery, vehicles, tanks etc cannot gain exp. this way."

… but possibly the QB you generate are to easy?

Player exp too low or the not-so-new-anymore Provisional Force formula making it too easy?

I also suspect that some of the players who complain about the ease with which their squads obtain vet/crack status are playing at a too easy 'Player Exp.' setting… maybe even with Computer Exp bonus set at ‘none’

Biltong

[ December 20, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

These rules are good fun - I want to thank everyone's input.

Would be good to be able to edit forces before placing units on map - we could keep same unit names, casualty levels and swap favour for "upgrades" in hq qualities like command, rally, stealth etc...

Alex

Hmmm would be nice... would be nice...

Maybe one day. Have you tried the Map Expansion packs yet... They help a bit

Biltong

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Mare Ichthys:

A post from a few days back caught my attention but but there didn't appear to be a lot of discussion about it.

Someone had suggested that favor shouldn't be used to adjust the time of the next battle, especially a defensive battle-- and I think I saw a post stating that the next version will disallow using favor to adjust the date. Is this so?

Since I didn't see any discussion of the issue I thought I'd bring it back up myself. My thought is that one of the best uses of favor is to try and get 'light duty' assignments for my men away from the front where less fighting is likely to take place. I don't look at using favor in this context as refusing to fight when the enemy shows up, but more like arranging a 5-day pass for my men, or getting assigned to guard the motor pool. Maybe arranging a month of "training" far away from the front lines. [a side note, didn't someone suggest that a one month delay in date meant your men were going through training exercises and should thus get an experience point -- I liked that idea. ]

I think it is important to note that 80% of the time you cannot effect the date for the better. In June, because of the modifiers, your favor can only effect the date 1 time in 10. Now I don't think this should come cheap, the favor-cost should probably be changed to 30.

Now about the point the original poster made about choosing the time when on the defensive. I think we should roll up the battle-type before the time and then make the rule that no favor may be used to change the time for Allied attacks or MEs. Axis attacks you may have some influence using your favor.

-Andy

Hi Andy,

Tue 24th v1.5 comes out with:

"Note 14 - Date

.... If this battle is not a Counter Attack/Assault you can trade in 30 points of Favor to alter the die by a maximum of 1.

If this battle is an Immediate Attack/Assault you can trade in 50 points of Favor to alter the die by a maximum of 1...."

Counter/Immediate Attacks/Assaults are decided on in the After battle parameters... i.e.: before the next battle is rolled up. So you'll automatically know if one is planned before rolling up the Date/Time in the next battle.

BTW Time also has:

"Can trade in 20 points of Favor to alter die by maximum of 1....

In the case of Immediate/Counter Attack/Assault Time cannot be altered by Favor."

Quite a lot of outstanding isues have been cleared up in the coming version.

Biltong

[SuperSulo]

Another (oh no!) thought about experience gain:

HQ units. Their main task is to lead the squads/MG's/mortars, right? Not to kill infantry or tanks. So, they really should get experience from how their squads are doing, not just their own accomplishments.

You know I'm right.

But ok, lets drop it, KISS and make up (out?). I'll see if I will MiG it in my rules.