Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Choosing sides
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11503		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Something I've wondered, would it not be more interesting to roll off SR+d6 to see who gets choice of deployment at the start of the game? Might spice things up a bit and lead to some less stereotyped games.

Thoughts?

Anyone remember why the currrent system was chosen?
Author:  blackhorizon [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
BFG uses a system like that. Good.
Author:  Morg [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Well, might be unsatisfying for the players with the lower strategy value. I prefer to let one player build the table up and let the other choose the side.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
It could lead to difficulties.

This would really only be an issue in friendly games, and your be over-ruled by scenario specifics which set out the defender.

In a home environment, as an 'official' rule, I can see the potential - 'I play a high SR force, come round to mine for a game and I will set up the table in advance'.

As an occasional thing, I cant see a problem, but I dont think that it needs a specific rule.
Author:  rpr [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Here in Finland some people already throw SR+d6 to determine who decides the deployment side. I do not exactly recall that does the winner choose that is this roll for just choosing the side or is it more like 'who is supposed to have higher SR for the entire startup', i.e. who decides the side AND setups first etc.  (the winner of the roll decides who is the one who chooses side and deploys first etc)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Eh, when strategy ratings are even, we always use the Birthday Rule...


Only kidding, of course we D6 it. :D
Author:  Shadowsword [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Eh, when strategy ratings are even, we always use the Birthday Rule...
Only kidding, of course we D6 it.
I can't believe that the birthday rule is still in the rules (Handbook 2008). Actually it's still in there.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
I love the principle behind the birthday rule, it's Jervis saying, 'This is the spirit of the game, now say hello to your opponent!'

Heck, it's my favourite rule in all of wargaming, even though I never use it, because of what it represents.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 20 2008,22:48)
QUOTE
I love the principle behind the birthday rule, it's Jervis saying, 'This is the spirit of the game, now say hello to your opponent!'

Heck, it's my favourite rule in all of wargaming, even though I never use it, because of what it represents.

While I wouldn't say it's my favorite, I generally agree with this sentiment.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
We roll off, high number chooses to Atk or Def. Def choose which side of the table to set up on. Based on SM1/TL1, Def can set up 24cms from his table edge and the Atk 6cms ... Has worked for us for almost 2 decades ! :)
Author:  Ginger [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:02 am ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
In other game systems I also use the asymetric deployment where the defender gets to set up first in more depth than the attacker, who then gets to go first. Note however, that this rule generally works better in those systems where each player moves his entire army in turn, thus?giving the attacker a huge advantage. Here, moving fomations alternately reduces this advantage significantly - but does not remove it entirely.

On this topic, I have always wondered why the player with the highest strategy gets to place Blitz and formations first - I always thought that the defender (ie the lower strategy rating) should set up first allowing the better strategy rating some chances for outmanoeuvering. Thoughts?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:08 am ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
On this topic, I have always wondered why the player with the highest strategy gets to place Blitz and formations first - I always thought that the defender (ie the lower strategy rating) should set up first allowing the better strategy rating some chances for outmanoeuvering. Thoughts?

I've always seen that as a balancing mechanism... the player who is likely to win the strategy rolls all game is forced to give up a little in the deployment phase, ceeding back a little bit of his advantage to the player with a lower strategy rating.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:44 am ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
Well, once the Def sets up, then the Atk, we still roll off to see who activates a det first. ?If you use Strategy Rating then that would be added to the roll at this time. We also play it that even if you win the roll, you can pass. And let your opponent activate a det. However, rarely does anyone pass ...
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Choosing sides
There are also some advantages to setting up objectives first.  It's not great, but since the objectives can't be within 30cm of each other, objective placement can force the opponent away from an area that they might otherwise want.

Personally, I'd say picking board edge is more important than objective placement.  Many times you can look at terrain and army composition and make an educated guess about the enemy's plans.  If the lower strat gets to "fight back" a bit with objective placment, that doesn't concern me.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/