France 1914- Delayed Disruption Reporting Optional Rule

[Belisarius]

I can't seem to find an explanation for the Delayed Disruption Reporting Optional Rule in the Main Program Help PDF.

Can anyone enlighten me??

Thanks,

BELISARIUS

[Ricky B]

I don't see anything written about it with the changes.txt except it exists - but basically you will only see disruption status as of the start of the turn, for enemy units. So you won't be able to see changes from your fire - you will have to guess when a unit has taken enough softening and try to assault, if the unit wasn't disrupted at the start. This is actually a rule intended for a different series, discussed at TC III but is part of shared code and so shows up in F'14 also, but I believe Ed/Volcano man does not feel it should be used there normally, as it is so hard to attack already, it would unbalanced many scenarios, in most cases.

Rick

[Volcano Man]

Right, Rick is correct. You can play around with it, and actually I would recommend it to be used if you are playing against the AI, but probably not against another human as it is difficult enough as the attacker as it is I think. But really, it all depends on how you prefer to play it. :)

[Glenn Saunders]

The bottom line is this.

The rule was added for a PzC game in test right now and we have a large pool of experienced PzC Players who can sit back, pile on just the right amount of artillery and wait til the defender Disrupts.And at that point they assault.

Under this rule, they won't be able to allocate arty shot after shot waiting for the Disruption to occur before moving to the next unit.

(and I guess the way F14 uses different Arty rules where this doesn't happen - so it is not an issue.)

Anyway - in PzC with this rule the attacker will have to judge when he want to top pounding on the defender and launch an assault. Or they can pound on the arty and wait next turn before assaulting - which gives the defender chance to recover from disruption.

The intent is to make it harder on the Attacker, in PzC where rates of advance are often faster than historical because players can and do push their troops longer and generally have more info available to make decisions on pushing forward the attack.

Glenn

[Belisarius]

Thanks fellas!!

Yeah, I could see me delaying assaults until the next turn, just to play it safe.

BELISARIUS

[Mr Grumpy]

An excellent new opt rule that (i believe) was a direct result of feedback supplied in a discussion group with JT at TillerCon III, a great example of the constant evolution of these titles driven by the community who play them.

Belisarius, you get a prize for being the first member to notice this change, it took a while but i knew someone would spot it.

[Al]

An excellent new opt rule that (i believe) was a direct result of feedback supplied in a discussion group with JT at TillerCon III, a great example of the constant evolution of these titles driven by the community who play them.

It was discussed at length at TC3 and how this rule, used in conjunction with other "realism" rules, would really add a new (and IMO a better) dimension to the game. Glad to see it added.

[jonnymacbrown]

"The intent is to make it harder on the Attacker, in PzC where rates of advance are often faster than historical because players can and do push their troops longer and generally have more info available to make decisions on pushing forward the attack."


What about making night movement a bit more difficult in PzC, including an increase in fatigue? jonny;)

[Nitram Draw]

This is great idea!

[Al]

Night Fatigue – with this rule selected, units that are active during Night turns will accumulate fatigue. The amount of Fatigue accumulated is up half the amount a unit would normally recover during a Night turn. It does not matter how far a unit moves or how many movement points are expended. Even units with no Fatigue may gain some variable amount of Fatigue if they are active during Night turns under this rule.

Not sure if your idea is to make it even more disruptive to move at night but the optional rule would seem to cover it. :chin: