New Team Game--Tarawa (Proud and Few)

[burroughs]

Hello there

If there's still a vacancy in the Yankee camp, I'd gladly fill that in. Indeed, what are the optional rules? ...

[TheBigRedOne]

The optional rules, as it pertains to the actual game engine, can be discussed if we have enough interest in perusing the team game. I would imagine Vehicle Fire Over and Quality Loss Modifier would be the two I'd start off with. Those are my 'standards' when I play. Alternate Fire Density may also be one due to the fairly compact nature of the map once the Marines land. This is something that Marc can comment on. I've asked him to jump in here now that there seems to be enough interest in going forward.

From Marc in an EMAIL:

One of the biggest house-rules I made was that LCVPs should not cross the reef;

This will require the Marine commanders to honor that house rule. The other option would be for him to edit the game and make those a different vehicle that can't enter the shallow water. I think the US player will be able to honor that house rule without having to modify the game. Big boy rules, honor system. If they deviate, I expect the Japanese commanders to call them on it.

[burroughs]

Count me in if I can only keep up with the pace once I know what it is going to be like.

As a rule of thumb I activate all the optional rules for the sake of realismof the tactical level engagements the way I make it out from the manuals I only leave both fire & assault results out and that's becaue of them evening out the values and thus the outcome.The coral reef & shallow water house rule is definitely a reasonable one according to what I know of the WWII Pacific theater warfare.

[TheBigRedOne]

I would recommend on this particular scenario that the Variable Ending also be left off, especially since team games haven't been explored all that much in SB. This gives both sides an ending to shoot for with their tactics.

However, if the participants feel strongly about any particular rule, they can feel free to play with it, providing they all come to a consensus on it.

[burroughs]

I would recommend on this particular scenario that the Variable Ending also be left off, especially since team games haven't been explored all that much in SB. This gives both sides an ending to shoot for with their tactics.

However, if the participants feel strongly about any particular rule, they can feel free to play with it, providing they all come to a consensus on it.

Well,I have always been bewildered with the fact that so many people hate this rule since it's so hard core realistic.I sn't the virtue of a ingenious field commander to expect the unexpected, foresee what's impossible to predict and be at least one step ahead of the enemy and the circumstances?Personally I was disappointed that it seems that the variable ending option is mostly active when it's a draw - I think that could be definitely even more random so no-one should feel secure unless his mastery and skills enable him to control the battlefield fully that's the true nature of warafre of any level: inability to control the chaos completely and necessity to do it.

A voice for the variable ending option on here, but I am open to the other settnings

[Jeff Conner]

Gentlemen:

I would like to partake if there is still room. If not, I believe Alan mentioned the possibility of getting two team games started. I would be happy to wait for the second game if necessary.

One of the reasons that the variable ending optional rule is not real popular in PBEM games is that the rule is not used (to the best of my knowledge anyway) in playtesting or scenario design. Consequently, adding turns to the end of the game can seriously change the play balance in favor of the attacker. I have never seen a game end before the number of allotted turns when using this rule, which would be a benefit to the defender. I believe the algorithm used to determine if the game continues another turn has more to do with the contention for objectives than the overall score in the game, but I could be mistaken on this.

Jeff

[Compass Rose]

I've used Variable Ending a few times however, I normally play with it off. The last time I used it, I was at the losing end of a scenario. I was praying that the scenario would end however, it continued for a few extra turns which make my game even longer than it was already was.

If the SB series had a "Early Termination Bid" option as it is available in the EAW, ACW, and NAP series, I would be more in favor to use it. However, since it is not offered in SB, I feel that the Variable Ending option can make scenarios too long, especially if it is a rout with one side already having a Major Victory.

[TheBigRedOne]

Hard core realism would be not knowing how many turns a scenario has from the very beginning (this would be a cool feature if it could ever be implemented). Adding on 0-3 (0-15 minutes of real time) turns at the end of a known value does add some complexity, but not quite to the level of true realism. After-all, SB is a game that is turn-based. That in itself is hardly hard-core realism.

Most of the battles I've played either with PBEM or versus the AI, the outcome is typically in hand at the end of the allotted time. Very few instances have ever swung a game either way based on having an extra turn or two, but I do know that it has happened.

Again, I'm open to whatever rules the participants wish, as long as it's a consensus.


Let's recap thus far:

Oz and Rabbit wish to man the Japanese defenses.

Chad's a maybe
Ritchie
Burroughs
Jeff

[Compass Rose]

I just wanted to say "Thanks" to Marc for taking on this huge project. By the sounds of it, it is easy to see that he poured in a ton of hours to research and create it.

[TheBigRedOne]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't sleep.