Gorzej jak zapomną i będzie to kuczowe dla gry.Andreas von Breslau pisze:Może by tak po prostu każdy ustalił przed grą z kolegą jak gramy - i już. Takie to proste.
[FAQ] Atak "zredukowanej" armi
- Jasz
- Général de Brigade
- Posty: 2146
- Rejestracja: poniedziałek, 11 września 2006, 21:12
- Lokalizacja: Warszawa
źle się wyraziłem chodziło mi o to, że nie ścigająAndy pisze:A jak odróżnić korpus, który "od zawsze" był tylko korpusem, od takiego, który kiedyś dawno był armią?jasz pisze:Wydaj mi się jednak, że scigać powinna tylko jednostak która nie poniosła, żednych zanczących strat a więc taka która nie była redukowana (ani w cześniej ani wyniku tej walki).
Czy uznajemy, że oficjalnie zostało ustalone, że nie ściga???
Właśnie to, między innymi, jest ważnym argumentem za wersją "nie ma paska - jest pościg".
Wciąż nie czuję się przekonany do wersji "korpus w pełnej sile, który powstał z armii, nie ściga".
a) oddziały które nie są w pełnej sile na początku starcia (mają pasek)
b) oraz takie które w trakcie starcia stracą zostają zmuszenie do redukcji
chyba nie jest to bardzo skomplikowane
Dla uspokojenia sumienia zbyt praworządnych graczy : taki korpus pojawia się i pozostaje w pełnej sile po walce, bo nie jest zmuszony do odwrócenia na słabszą stronę No, i jest zgodność z instrukcją
Ostatnio zmieniony czwartek, 1 stycznia 1970, 01:00 przez Andy, łącznie zmieniany 1 raz.
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few...
Premier Winston Churchill, 20 sierpnia 1940 r.
...and for so little.
Porucznik pilot Michael Appleby, dzienny żołd 14 szylingów i 6 pensów
Premier Winston Churchill, 20 sierpnia 1940 r.
...and for so little.
Porucznik pilot Michael Appleby, dzienny żołd 14 szylingów i 6 pensów
- Andreas von Breslau
- Kapitän zur See
- Posty: 1625
- Rejestracja: środa, 17 maja 2006, 12:10
- Lokalizacja: Warszawa
- Comandante
- General de División
- Posty: 3012
- Rejestracja: piątek, 12 maja 2006, 21:51
- Lokalizacja: Verulamium
- Been thanked: 3 times
cały świat gra tak jak mówię, proszę, oto moje pytanie i oficjalna odpowiedż:
once more on advance after combat
"12.5.1 If the Attacker wins the Combat and any attacking units remain at full strength, all defending units not eliminated must retreat. This is regardless of the size of the remaining full strength attacking units or the number of steps actually removed by each side. 12.6.1 All remaining full strength attacking units may advance if the defending units retreat or are completely eliminated."
We have reduced GE army winning the combat and getting 3LF. It's replaced with the full strengh corps. Is the corps capable of advancing now? Or it's not, since none of attacking units REMAINED at full strength?
I just want to make it clear,. And why the first sentence of the rule is just not simple:
"If the Attacker wins the Combat and any attacking units is still at full strength..."
to make it more obvious?
thanx for your answer (and no, I am not dumb)
----------------------
"Is the corps capable of advancing now? "
Yes. .
******************
proponuję wreszcie zakonczyc ten temat
once more on advance after combat
"12.5.1 If the Attacker wins the Combat and any attacking units remain at full strength, all defending units not eliminated must retreat. This is regardless of the size of the remaining full strength attacking units or the number of steps actually removed by each side. 12.6.1 All remaining full strength attacking units may advance if the defending units retreat or are completely eliminated."
We have reduced GE army winning the combat and getting 3LF. It's replaced with the full strengh corps. Is the corps capable of advancing now? Or it's not, since none of attacking units REMAINED at full strength?
I just want to make it clear,. And why the first sentence of the rule is just not simple:
"If the Attacker wins the Combat and any attacking units is still at full strength..."
to make it more obvious?
thanx for your answer (and no, I am not dumb)
----------------------
"Is the corps capable of advancing now? "
Yes. .
******************
proponuję wreszcie zakonczyc ten temat
Powyższe opinie są mojego autorstwa.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.
- Comandante
- General de División
- Posty: 3012
- Rejestracja: piątek, 12 maja 2006, 21:51
- Lokalizacja: Verulamium
- Been thanked: 3 times
jeszcze dwa glosy z Consima - dla tych co znają angielski:
David Docter:
Well stated, Rob. I gave up trying to explain the basis for rules in games a long time ago. Only important thing to me is if they make for a fun game with some historical flavor, that, hopefully is faithful (where much of the debate usually occurs) to the major political & military strategic dynamics of a historical conflict.
Italy? PoG's a fun GAME that gets played a TON. CSA taking DC in FtP at least a 1/3 of the games I play? FtP is a fun GAME that gets played a TON. Rome getting sacked? Right, Hannibal is a fun GAME, etc....
----
Jim Falling:
If you didn't allow replacement corps that are fresh enable advance, the game would not be as mobile. Retreats would be less common. The rule helps with some "illusion of movement". Remember also that the retreat/advance rules also factor into attrition and losses, i.e. negating retreats.
So, it is a counter-intuitive rule, but don't discount the design for effect that the rule represents/enables.
David Docter:
Well stated, Rob. I gave up trying to explain the basis for rules in games a long time ago. Only important thing to me is if they make for a fun game with some historical flavor, that, hopefully is faithful (where much of the debate usually occurs) to the major political & military strategic dynamics of a historical conflict.
Italy? PoG's a fun GAME that gets played a TON. CSA taking DC in FtP at least a 1/3 of the games I play? FtP is a fun GAME that gets played a TON. Rome getting sacked? Right, Hannibal is a fun GAME, etc....
----
Jim Falling:
If you didn't allow replacement corps that are fresh enable advance, the game would not be as mobile. Retreats would be less common. The rule helps with some "illusion of movement". Remember also that the retreat/advance rules also factor into attrition and losses, i.e. negating retreats.
So, it is a counter-intuitive rule, but don't discount the design for effect that the rule represents/enables.
Powyższe opinie są mojego autorstwa.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.
- Comandante
- General de División
- Posty: 3012
- Rejestracja: piątek, 12 maja 2006, 21:51
- Lokalizacja: Verulamium
- Been thanked: 3 times
no i ostatecznie od samego twórcy gry:
The inability of reduced units to advance is a key part of making PoG play like WWI instead of WWII (which is why reduced units can advance in BtB). As for corps advancing when the reduced army couldn't, I didn't (and don't) see any reason to add dirt to the rules on that account-for one thing advancing a corps in that situation is often simply an invitation for the corps to be annihilated. When a corps advance helps you, well luck in wargames (as in war) comes in many forms.
Ted
The inability of reduced units to advance is a key part of making PoG play like WWI instead of WWII (which is why reduced units can advance in BtB). As for corps advancing when the reduced army couldn't, I didn't (and don't) see any reason to add dirt to the rules on that account-for one thing advancing a corps in that situation is often simply an invitation for the corps to be annihilated. When a corps advance helps you, well luck in wargames (as in war) comes in many forms.
Ted
Powyższe opinie są mojego autorstwa.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.
Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone.