Most agree that the attacker has a distinct advantage in PzC now known as TOC. Many new rules such delayed disruption reporting, limited air recon and quality fatigue are used to reequilibrate the game. Much of the dysequilibration is due to the mechanics of an IGOUGO system.
Many board games and some other computer games attempt to solve this by calling each side's "turn" a phase in the greater context of a complete game turn. Housekeeping such as calculating supply, isolation is done for both sides at the beginning or end of a turn - and this is what could be done in TOC. This would serve to give the defender the time needed to adjust almost as if in real time. For example, in the current paradigm if the attacker attacks and surrounds a defender stack, this stack is immediately isolated /OOS as of the defender's turn. I propose that the defender be allowed to move and react in his phase aka "turn" in the state he was at the beginning of the attacker's phase aka "turn". Thus one attacker and one defender move = 1 game turn, with both sides keeping then state they were in at the beginning of the turn until the next turn.
This would really help the defender, and in general the defender is in need of help. :soap:
Marquo
(07-21-2011, 04:26 AM)Marquo Wrote: [ -> ]Most agree that the attacker has a distinct advantage in PzC now known as TOC. Many new rules such delayed disruption reporting, limited air recon and quality fatigue are used to reequilibrate the game. Much of the dysequilibration is due to the mechanics of an IGOUGO system.
Many board games and some other computer games attempt to solve this by calling each side's "turn" a phase in the greater context of a complete game turn. Housekeeping such as calculating supply, isolation is done for both sides at the beginning or end of a turn - and this is what could be done in TOC. This would serve to give the defender the time needed to adjust almost as if in real time. For example, in the current paradigm if the attacker attacks and surrounds a defender stack, this stack is immediately isolated /OOS as of the defender's turn. I propose that the defender be allowed to move and react in his phase aka "turn" in the state he was at the beginning of the attacker's phase aka "turn". Thus one attacker and one defender move = 1 game turn, with both sides keeping then state they were in at the beginning of the turn until the next turn.
This would really help the defender, and in general the defender is in need of help. :soap:
Marquo
I like it. Another idea, borrowed from the American Civil War campaigns series, would be that if a unit is not physically blocked by an opposing unit or impassible terrain, it should always be able to move into a vacant hex, even if an enemy zone of control extends into that hex. It would, of course, be subject to opportunity fire, and maybe even an additional x % loss. It seems too easy to isolate units as it is. Just my $.02 US worth....
Two other possible pro-defender modifications already possible within the current game:
-Lower the stacking limit and the accompanying limit on how much outgoing fire can be directed from a hex. This has to be done in the .pdt as part of the overall scenario design. It alleviates the problem of the phasing player forming large "kill stacks" of armor and then bumping them vigorously against the same defending hex, each "kill stack" taking their turn and moving away before the next one arrives.
-Play with the "Manual Defensive Fire" Optional Rule on. This brings several defender advantages:
--Non phasing player always fires before the phasing player, insuring that the defender will get his licks in.
--Phasing player cannot use the fact that he has just cleared a hex of defenders to launch a rapid exploitattion through the cleared hex, but has to wait a turn, thus giving the defender a chance to respond.
--Lower movement rates.
--Phasing player can go into "Travel mode" without fearing taking hits, thus making it easier for the defender to slip away.
--Units deploying out of "Travel mode" remains vulnerable for the rest of the phasing players turn and all of the opponenets next turn, requiring the attacker to be much more deliberate. No more wheeling up next to the defender in "T-mode", going out of it and blazing away.
There is just one major disadvantage: this mode of play doubles up the number of PBEM files needed to be exchanged.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but doesn't the attacker get to enjoy some advantage? He is picking the point of attack, concentrating his forces, controlling the initiative...
Now, I am a big fan of the new delayed disruption rule, especially when I am the defender
, and I hate it when my opponents manipulate the system....hint...don't play those guys again :conf:...but....
I am leery of making wholesale changes to the system in a quest for truly even matches. I have found the H2H scenarios more than satisfying and enjoyable to play as either attacker or defender.
Unfortunately, WWII was not rife with even matches throughout...most of the war saw one side whooping the other, the whooper or whoopee varying by the year...
Thanks for my time on the :soap:...Jon
The best defense is an offense. As "defending side" in any scenario have a reserve. Learn when is the best time to commit your reserve. In some scenarios even having a single unit fresh to commit at the right place, at the right time can change the outcome.
Passive defense has its role to play as the defender never has enough troops. Otherwise he would not be the "defender"!
Being able to throw a counter punch on your enemy can change the initiative, frustrate the attacker to not "race for the rear", and even make him stop for a crucial turn or two to reorganize.
Finally, he who defends everything defends nothing.
Dog Soldier
(07-22-2011, 05:18 AM)Dog Soldier Wrote: [ -> ]The best defense is an offense. As "defending side" in any scenario have a reserve. Learn when is the best time to commit your reserve. In some scenarios even having a single unit fresh to commit at the right place, at the right time can change the outcome.
Passive defense has its role to play as the defender never has enough troops. Otherwise he would not be the "defender"!
Being able to throw a counter punch on your enemy can change the initiative, frustrate the attacker to not "race for the rear", and even make him stop for a crucial turn or two to reorganize.
Finally, he who defends everything defends nothing.
Dog Soldier
I am not looking for ways to defend or attack better, rather suggesting that the IGOUGO system gives the attacking side (be it attacking attacker or counterattacking defender, or whatever) an inherent advantages which is amplifier by the dys-synchrony of events and moves. I do not think it would be too hard to delay OOS/isolation status by what amounts to one move. I know of no other game where supply status is calculated immediately after the opponent's move, and one does not have anytime at all to react.
So, as it stands, three armoured units stacked together in one hex in full supply can be surrounded by 3 piss ant AA units, or whatever, and the next turn be OOS and isolated; really? All that in 2 or 3 hours of "real time?" Whatever. :rolleyes:
I think World in Flames actually does it within the combat system - so that if a unit advanced after combat, and cut off a unit, then that isolation effect was counted in the same combat phase; if speaking to turn based wargames (granted at a much different scale). I suppose the point being, that they are out there.
(07-23-2011, 07:45 AM)trauth116 Wrote: [ -> ]I think World in Flames actually does it within the combat system - so that if a unit advanced after combat, and cut off a unit, then that isolation effect was counted in the same combat phase; if speaking to turn based wargames (granted at a much different scale). I suppose the point being, that they are out there.
I am sure there are some; but in a tactical simulation like TOC with 2 - 3 hour turns it seems really harsh to say the least to impose OOS and supply as soon as a unit is cut off.
Marquo
