Liberation shipping

[Matt W]

I don't change the numbers at all in hidden unit scenarios. I am playing one now and the hidden units have managed to destroy two steps of foot units and one tank step in firing from "hidden" status. Three of my four hidden units have now revealed themselves and one foot step has been lost from them. This is about normal.

The primary impact of hidden units is typically to slow advances, especially if there is territory behind the advance that can cause significant disrutpion in victory conditions and to cause losses from ambush. This is based on my experience in ftf play. I then use this knowledge in my solo plays to advance slowly and carefully, rooting out the hidden units from terrain, whether they are there or not and stumbling, therefore, into the ambushes. Obviously I know where the ambush is but I use the patterned movement anyhow - kind of like an SSR.

[campsawyer]

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.

These would be more infiltration units than hidden. I like the idea to have some units off board appearing in the middle of a battle removing the all knowing aspect.

Moving is another issue once moved they are not hidden. But if the hidden units are in a large woods and they see something coming they my choose to move back into the woods wait for the main body to pass and hit some of the supporting units. This would be a nice feature if the proper rules could be flushed out.

[dengelwood]

Thanks for the answers to my rules questions. Like you, I question the intent of the rule vs. the strict reading of it. I'm no expert when it comes to the effectiveness of Flails viz a viz Engineers, but I have to think that the former's brute force method of removing mines is far more effective, and quicker, than the latter's (bayonets and metal detectors).

I don't see that Flails are given equivalency to Engineers when entering a minefield. That seems like an extrapolation on your part. My reading is that they are NOT like Engineers and impart none of an Engineer's ability (other than clearing mines).

Indeed, if a Crab can only remove 1 mine point per three activations, then how can it ever receive more than a -1 modifier for mine removal? It seems that they CAN remove ALL mine points, subtracting 1 from the damage roll for each point removed. If that's the case, then clearly they are not equivalent to engineers, but a special case. Sorry about being lawyerly about this, but I haven't played a game yet with mines that an engineer had the time or inclination to clear. That's why I think that for Crabs, the removal attempt is immediate.

[campsawyer]

Thanks for the answers to my rules questions. Like you, I question the intent of the rule vs. the strict reading of it. I'm no expert when it comes to the effectiveness of Flails viz a viz Engineers, but I have to think that the former's brute force method of removing mines is far more effective, and quicker, than the latter's (bayonets and metal detectors).

I don't see that Flails are given equivalency to Engineers when entering a minefield. That seems like an extrapolation on your part. My reading is that they are NOT like Engineers and impart none of an Engineer's ability (other than clearing mines).

Indeed, if a Crab can only remove 1 mine point per three activations, then how can it ever receive more than a -1 modifier for mine removal? It seems that they CAN remove ALL mine points, subtracting 1 from the damage roll for each point removed. If that's the case, then clearly they are not equivalent to engineers, but a special case. Sorry about being lawyerly about this, but I haven't played a game yet with mines that an engineer had the time or inclination to clear. That's why I think that for Crabs, the removal attempt is immediate.

I would agree that the Flails should be faster but not immediate and even with a big armored tank to protect you in is not without danger and there should be a chance of consequence, beyond the breaking of the chains. With ENG's they enter the hex but are only attacked by 2 or 3SP mines and even then there is 66% of no damage entering the hex. I would feel this is reasonable chance of the mines still inflicting damage on the Flails.

I could see the Flail clearing the entire hex in one activation with the associated possible penalty increasing for the density.

As a sample play, I could see a Flail moving into a mine hex on it's first activation. Possibly being attacked by the mines, then on a subsequent activation it removing any number of mines in the hex, with the associated possible loss of the Flails chains. This would clear the whole hex of mines in two activations as opposed to the ENG which require at least four turns to accomplish the same task.

[dengelwood]

that's a reasonable compromise, given that flails moved little better than 1 MPH in a minefield. So, Flails move into a minefield; that's one activation with any damage incurred. Next activation they can begin to clear mines, one or more mine points. That's a good way to play it and is the way I'll be implementing the rule. Good feedback. Perhaps feed the 4th edition rules with this?

[dengelwood]

Hi,

Regarding the disussion above about flails, here are my house rules for Flail tanks (aka "Crabs"; an unfortunate nom de guerre):

1. Flails may clear one hex of mines per turn.
2. Flails must stop before entering a mine hex. The next activation they may enter that mine hex and clear it of mines. Roll for damage as per SSR. Reasoning: Flails moved just over 1 MPH when clearing mines. Exception: See (3).
3. Flails that enter a mine hex and do not attempt to clear it of mines roll for mine damage as per the appropriate mine damage rules. As per (2) above, a Flail could enter a mine hex without stopping but must check for mine damage and may not clear that hex of mines.
4. Flails may clear less than two points of mines to avoid the negative loss modifier.
5. Flails must be in good order to clear mines. They may not be disrupted or demoralized.
6. A reduced strength flail may clear a maximum of 1 mine point per activation.

[campsawyer]

Hi,

Regarding the disussion above about flails, here are my house rules for Flail tanks (aka "Crabs"; an unfortunate nom de guerre):

1. Flails may clear one hex of mines per turn.
2. Flails must stop before entering a mine hex. The next activation they may enter that mine hex and clear it of mines. Roll for damage as per SSR. Reasoning: Flails moved just over 1 MPH when clearing mines. Exception: See (3).
3. Flails that enter a mine hex and do not attempt to clear it of mines roll for mine damage as per the appropriate mine damage rules. As per (2) above, a Flail could enter a mine hex without stopping but must check for mine damage and may not clear that hex of mines.
4. Flails may clear less than two points of mines to avoid the negative loss modifier.
5. Flails must be in good order to clear mines. They may not be disrupted or demoralized.
6. A reduced strength flail may clear a maximum of 1 mine point per activation.

Some seem reasonable, some might not. I have pushed an email over to the developer to chime in on this for his thoughts.

[dengelwood]

Thanks, looking forward to a response.

[otto]

Has anybody not received it yet?
well, me included.
Ottavio

[vince hughes]

Whilst Wayne was at my place today for a game, we discussed the new Lib. pack.

Maybe this is hyper-critical, but we had a couple of areas of disappointment and they were all on production.

I understand why many wax lyrical about the new counters, but both Wayne and I were unhappy that we will be unable to mix them in with the rest of the collection. They really are just too thick. I guess that's more of a wargame nerdy thing I am displaying, but whilst Jay for example likes clipping counters, I do like my PG collection of counters to look roughly the same.

The maps. We were also both surprised that as Guy did the art for both Lib and FoF, we thought that the same colour pallet could/would have been used for the Lib set so that these 'French' maps could all be used together without an obvious difference. That was a chance missed, or is it simply one printing company's printing colour does not match another ? I don't know, but was under the impression a computer installed pallet would produce the same shades. We also thought the maps a little too dark and that the hill slopes looked more alpine in their aesthetical appearance.