Brian Train  - Apr 5, 2006 1:08 pm (#58 Total: 59)  
"There may be other universes based on all sorts of principles, 
but ours is based on war and games." - William S. Burroughs 
	 
Combat System Tweaks

I have just returned from a visit to the Fiery Dragon Productions
Bulletin Board, which has discussion areas relating to the Counter
Strike series of games (mostly my designs). 

Someone posted in rather blunt terms that he thought the combat system
was completely "bugged", wondered if there had been any playtesting
before the game was released, and asserted that it was worthless to
build divisions in the game. 

I didn't expect such a reaction, though sometimes I am glad when my
games seem to make people angry; it shows they have thought about what I
was trying to do. 

Yes, of course there was playtesting before release; in fact, the combat
system is retro-fitted from Battle for China, which was itself a
development of the original Arriba Espana design. The original Arriba
combat system used a combination of disruption and loss results that, in
retrospect, did not work well at all. 

His complaint was that the present combat system does not scale well at
extreme odds. In an example, he postulated that a defending Battlegroup
(BG) of three 4 CF divisions could be attacked by three BGs of a single
1 CF brigade each, reducing the defenders to nothing because the CRT
would always inflict at least 1 CF losses on the defender each time,
which could only be satisfied by eliminating an entire division. 

Fair enough, I guess, but I'd like to see real troops who would
willingly obey orders for a 1-12 odds attack! Once again, I forget that
some folks are actually playing a GAME here. 

I designed the combat system to be bloody for both sides, and in the
middle of the Combat Results Table (1-1 to 2-1 odds) this works out
well. Anyway, here are two simple tweaks that I thought would address
his problems, and perhaps people here would like to try them out as
well: 

1. Addition to Rule 9.2, first paragraph: "Eliminating an Armor or
Artillery AP, a Fortification counter, or a brigade counts as a 1 CF
loss. A 2 CF REM counter is replaced by a brigade counter for a loss of
1 CF. A one-step division is replaced by a brigade, or a two-step
division is replaced by a 2 CF REM counter, for a loss of 3 CF. If a
brigade counter of the right type is not available, or on an E
(Elimination) result, the entire unit is eliminated without making these
substitutions." 

2. (addition to 9.2) The defender's result is decreased by 1 for each
notional column to the left of the 1-3 odds column (so an attack at 1-4
odds would generally result in no losses to the defender). The
defender's result is increased by 1, or the attacker's result reduced by
1 (attacker's choice, and may be a combination) for each notional column
to the right of 5-1 odds column (so an attack at 8-1 odds could see the
defender's result increased by 3, or the attacker's reduced by 3, or 2
on one side and 1 on the other). 

The first tweak gives extra depth to divisional counters; think of 4 CF
divisions now as 2-step units and 5 CF divisions as three-steppers. The
second tweak (which I lifted from Freikorps, another MDG/Fiery Dragon
game I designed) makes it impossible for a single brigade to make a dent
in anything more than a division, unless it has help from APs and a high
Cadre level, and a "killer stack" of two or more divisions can crush a
single brigade generally without losses (though that's a Major Offensive
that will cost you an EP: rule 9.1.1). 

It now becomes desirable to build divisions after all, to give extra
depth and staying power to your armies, in addition to the political
benefits of foreign Support or Intervention. 

This also creates a sort of "overrun" rule (without having to write an
entirely new rule, something I would rather not do) that Philippe and
Dan wrote about earlier, in that a BG made up of a division-plus with an
Armor AP included can now roam around in an Area crushing single-brigade
(that is to say, isolated and mutually unsupporting) BGs under rule 9.3,
Breakthrough Attacks. This is not a game-breaker either since
Breakthrough attacks are limited to the Area they started in, and under
9.2.1 Required Losses, the Armor AP will eventually become a casualty,
bringing the proto-blitzkrieg to a halt. (You could limit the effect of
this further by using the Variable Doctrine optional rule, 15.5) 

See if these two simple additions will address any problems you might
have with the combat system. As always, I welcome comments, provided
they are at least polite.