PDA

View Full Version : Summa Contra Expert Rules


Sharpe
02-16-2007, 06:45 PM
In order to promote cohesion and aid the designers, this is a thread for those who want to deal with the rules in toto.

1. Platoon Cards--There are as many game situations as there were platoon organizations in WWII. Therefore, instead of locking players into rigid formulae, why not take the Chinese menu approach. Allow players to select a certain number of units from specific categories (Column A--commanders; Column B--basic infantry; Column C--personal Anti-tank weapons; Column D--crew-served MGs) and give them a 33% discount on the grouping.

2. Enfilade Fire--My personal motto is "Avoid Crack Shot like the Plague." Add 1 or 2 Attack Dice. Better yet, if a player creates an enfilade situation, each success over the minimum to destroy the unit grants -1 on the cover roll. Example: A Garand has one Mauser directly in front of it and another behind it. The first Mauser rolls 5 successes on its eight dice. The Garand makes cover on 5+.

3. Special Units--The definition of a scenario implies limiting the choice of units. If you mean to introduce limits into tournament or casual play, then the Law of Unintended Consequences will rear its ugly head. Limiting heroes was sensible. No more intervention is necessary. Let the invisible hand of the tournament market place handle this.

4. Firing at Aircraft--See Number 2 above. A better idea would be to limit the number of units which can fire at aircraft, i.e. no more than 3 units without anti-air can fire at each aircraft per assault phase. No double shot without anti-air. Anything but die-roll modifiers.

5. Defensive Fire--Expanding defensive fire would paralyze the gameboard. This is a problem that can be solved by players and interference would largely prove counter-productive. See Law of Unintended Consequences. The best thing that could be done for the game now is to rule that defensive fire causes units to stop except when specifically excluded (Polish Cavalry).

6. Overwatch--This is the most sensible suggestion, but overwatch declaration should occur after the aircraft phase and before both assault phases. Otherwise, the first player would gain an inordinate advantage, especially if coupled with a change in the initiative (if overwatch persists past the assault phases).

7. Grazing Fire--Maybe make this a form of overwatch that covers a cone-shaped area. Any unit that moves or fires in that area receives an attack from the MG with an immediate face-up result. Since grazing fire was designed more to pin, maybe it should be limited to disruption. I'm not sure about which way to go, but an unforeseen loophole in this rule could make MGs the new uberunit.

8. Gun Shield--Should have been an SA allowing a reroll for cover or a cover roll in the open.


All in all, the best solution to most of the problems in the game is correctly pricing the units.

Vikingwarrior
02-16-2007, 06:52 PM
"All in all, the best solution to most of the problems in the game is correctly pricing the units."

Here, here I couldn't agree more. However that will not solve the airplane problems.

Eisenheim
02-16-2007, 08:32 PM
Why do feel it's necessary to avoid die roll modifiers? It's just one way of raising or lowering the expected number of successes. Adding or subtracting dice is another way. The die roll modifiers take into account that tactics like flanking increased an attacks effectiveness proportionally and not simply by a fixed amount. It seams to me like a more elegant mechanic for increasing effectiveness in certain situations. I would agree that crack shot as an ability (at least for anyone other than snipers) is an issue, but it isn't inherently flawed as a game mechanic.

Sharpe
02-16-2007, 09:34 PM
Modifying the die roll up or down should only be used in very specific situations to portray either an ability confined to a small group (snipers) or a gross difference (air vs antiair, formed troops vs disrupted troops). The problem is that it is not elegant at all. It is a much more significant change to the odds than usually is necessary. I think a 10% change in probability should be considered very significant. +1 to all dice is way bigger than that. Since we don't use percentile dice, we need to be careful how we change the probability. Taking small steps is usually better for both gaming and remaining true to history.

Besides, you start combining it with Ammo dumps and all Hades breaks loose.

Uncle_Joe
02-16-2007, 10:47 PM
Enfilade: So the moral of the story would be not to get flanked. That makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. And a 33% increase in firepower is probably not out of line for having units drawing flanking fire on you. The game doesnt really model morale effects, but this abstractly simulates having enemy units behind you and the panic that usually ensues.

The +1 per dies also ensures that the modifier is consistant. Its 33% more whether you normal roll 2 dice or 11 dice. If it were +2 dice or something, then in that example its a 100% increase in firepower for the weaker unit, but less than 10% for the stronger? That doesnt make sense.

At the very least, enfilade is condition that you can maneuver to avoid. You can use obstacles, Overwatch, and additional units to cover your flanks. I really dont think its going to be as easy to do as it appears once people are aware of it and guarding against it.

And finally, as I said above, I believe it tips the hat to the cheaper infantry a bit. 7 Mauser MIGHT actually be able to contest with 4 SS-Pgr or Rangers if they can flank. And it will be much harder to flank those 7 guys than the 4 more expensive guys. It also puts more emphasis on cover over the defense factor of the units. And currently even the cheapest infantry gets the same cover save as the top of the line guys.

boersma8
02-17-2007, 12:26 AM
"All in all, the best solution to most of the problems in the game is correctly pricing the units."

Here, here I couldn't agree more. However that will not solve the airplane problems.

Exactly. If everything had been correctly priced from the start, there wouldn't have been a need to make units playable again. They would've been all along!

Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the current effort that's being made, and many suggestions seem very promising. The way things are now it's always better to have two SS panzergrenadirs than one machine gun, so I do believe the MG's need an extra bonus of some sort. I agree with sharp that the best possible result for any additional units being fired at should be an immediate face-up disruption. Otherwise the MG's indeed will become the new ueberunits. Limiting secondary ( grazing) attacks to face-up disruptions is already very potent, but it might actually cause you to take a 4/4 defense unit over 2 5/5's. I guess that's good....

Are there also going to be rules that will allow the Katyusha and Nebelwerfer indirect fire? Will the Sturmovik become the tankkiller it really was? I also think those are essential issues!

shadowhooch
02-17-2007, 08:35 AM
I'm not sure if I agree with your alternative solutions;
but I COMPLETELY agree with your concerns about the changes.
Well put.