Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Combat Commander: Pacific» Forums » Rules

Subject: The Perils (or not) of over stacking! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Bishop
United Kingdom
Lytham St. Annes
Lancashire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reading through the CC rulebook and trying to assimilate the changes between this and CC:E/M it struck me that the ‘new’ stacking rule (applies to BP Stalingrad also of course) appears to create a bit of an anomaly when it comes to attacks which set the cover of the attacked hex to zero.
I’m thinking specifically of Flamethrowers and Minefields which both specify that the cover is ‘automatically set to 0, and cannot be modified by any means’. The penalty for over stacking therefore does not apply when being attacked by either of these means.
This seems rather counter intuitive; why should Flamethrowers (FT) for instance be relatively less effective against crowded hexes than Machine Guns or rifles?

Obviously the net effect will depend upon how much a hex is over stacked, a building hex would have to have 3 extra figures to give, say, a grouped fire attack the same effect as a FT but at 4 figures the cover becomes -1 for the group and still 0 for the FT.

Just curious to discover if there is some design rationale behind this; was it just kept at zero for simplicity and standardisation or is there some deeper meaning that escapes me?

googoo
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LEUNG CHI KEUNG
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
According to 5.6 Flamethrowers affects target's Cover to '0'. And it is not affecting the overstacking penalty [15.2.2 Overstacking Penalty.]

Therefore the mentioned problem should not happen.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Coker
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
badge
This is my tank for Combat Commander
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmm, I can read it either way personally. I think a ruling is in order.

Certainly applying the penalty feels more logical to me, but I won't pretend to speak for Chad.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
automatically set to 0, and cannot be modified by any means

This is still correct.

Quote:
was it just kept at zero for simplicity and standardisation

Pretty much. That and the fact that it really won't matter 99% of the time.

For example: when are you going to be firing a flamethrower? At troops in the open? Or at troops in a 3-Cover building or 6-Cover bunker? Would that hex really be so overstacked so as to make the modified Cover -1 or less, thereby having a FT actually raise the Cover to 0? Not likely. And, if so, why not fire the unit that is carrying the FT first so as to break/kill those enemy units -- taking advantage of your opponent's poor stacking decision -- before the FT finishes them off. Indeed: eliminate enough of his guys with your unit's fire attack and the stacking in the target hex can very easily normalize, thus bringing the FT's special ability back to the forefront. In any case, go ahead and let us know if your opponent is ever dumb enough to overstack a Cave by FIVE silhouettes when you have a FT nearby. I guarantee that that FT will be the very least of his worries.

The two rules work just fine together. HOW you use them will determine their net worth.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I think a ruling is in order.

What part of the rules are unclear?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Coker
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
badge
This is my tank for Combat Commander
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
Quote:
I think a ruling is in order.

What part of the rules are unclear?


Well, reading them again, they are pretty clear. I tried to read them as Eric seemed to above and thought I saw it, but it's slipped away again.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bishop
United Kingdom
Lytham St. Annes
Lancashire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for you answer Chad.

Yes, I realised while reading the rules that there wouldn't be many instances where this phenomenon would occur; the pillbox example sprang to mind (this being the Pacific an all ). However I can see the odd extra squad being placed in a building bringing the cover down to -1 for 'normal' attacks.

In my mind I also envisaged a huge stack stumbling into a minefield and suffering terribly because of its mass but as it stands there is no difference from a normal stack.
I was more curious about the rationale behind this than the actual effects when I posed the question.

As usual thanks for taking the time to respond.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
As usual thanks for taking the time to respond.

You're welcome, Steve.

Once you actually begin playing, I think you'll find the overall changes in CC-P well worth the time invested learning their nuances -- both individually and in concert with one another. Enjoy!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.