From: Douglas Hayden Subject: TGWaS Errata from AP Woo, got my reply from Avalanche Press on TGWaS questions. I'm currently checking to see if they have any official errata. ---------- Doug Hayden grimlock@multiverse.com ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 13:22:09 -0400 (EDT) From: AvlchPress@aol.com To: grimlock@multiverse.com Subject: Re: GWaS (was Re: Krieg!) Doug, Thank you for forwarding the material from former playtester Terry Rooker. As for the specifics: General rule of thumb: ships are face-down if they are not within sighting range. If it's a surprise encounter, then all ships are face-up. (Which is why a surprise encounter at night is not a pretty sight...) THIS IS CORRECT; SEE 6.34 > Some ships start the game in port with some activation requirement. For > most missions you have to plot at least 2 game turns ahead. The rules no > where state if these in port ships already have their first 2 turns > plotted and can immediately move upon activation. That is how we've been > playing it. But looking through the scenarios I've found at least one > where there is a special case to allow the in port ships to do just > that! So, if it's a special case, then does that mean we've been playing > it wrong? If so, then the scenarios are even more unwinnable (did I say > that? is that possible?:-) A PLAYER MAY BEGIN WRITING ORDERS FOR SUCH SHIPS > In some scenarios you can get points for bombarding coastal areas or > facilities. In some of those, the victory conditions state the points > are earned per turn bombarded. In others it just says you get X points > for bombarding a port. If so that means you only get the points once. > Since it is a small amount 2 or 4 points and the point margin to win is > large such as 20 points, then doing the bombardment is pointless. > Considering most of the ships have at least 6 or 7 points, you are going > to have to sink ships to win and 2 or 4 extra points aren't really going > to factor into the equation. Even worse if you bombard you commit > yourself to a single location which makes it easier for your opponent to > concentrate against you. So even trying to bombard can be > countproductive. However, if you run in, bombard, then run out without engaging the enemy, you win. VP for bombardment, IMO, is a catalyst to make sure the other guy is out looking for your ships. And don't forget that no matter how insignificant it may seem - every VP counts. DOUG IS CORRECT. THE SUBTLETY SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST ON SOME. > p.s. Maybe there's a lesson here? GWaS got rave reviews when first > released. Most of the raves involved the graphics and how well it worked > as an operational level scenario generator for miniatures games. Since > miniatures gamers want to use their fleets they would probably have a > tendency to maneuver for fleet actions, thus ignoring some of the other > options for gaining victory points. The designer did say that anyone looking for a slugfest could do so. He also said that all the scenarios were historically correct, thus an inherent lack of balance in most of them. DOUG ONCE AGAIN HAS UNDERSTOOD WHAT IS AFOOT. Some questions I have for the crew at AP: 1.) The Too-Short Black Sea Scenario: As Terry stated in an earlier post, the time limit on one of the Eastern scenarios make it impossible for the CP to achieve their goal in the time alotted. (Can't remember the scenario # off-hand.) Is this the correct time limit? EASTERN SCENARIO 3 SHOULD BE 30 TURNS LONG 2.) Where's Wilhelm? In the Triple-Alliance scenario (again I forget the #), the Germans start at Naples with Goeben, Breslau, but no Adm. Souchon. Was this an intentional omission (to deny the CP a Goeben raiding force)? YOU MAY ADD SOUCHON IF YOU WISH Also in the same scenario, the Italians need more Lampo DDs than they have counters for. ITALY HAS FOUR SUCH COUNTERS (MAXIMUM 12 SHIPS); THE SCENARIO CALLS FOR 10 LAMPO CLASS DESTROYERS