Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
redmist1122
Posts: 675
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by redmist1122 »

[quote="oozeboss"]My entire playing history of Chain of Command doubled last Friday night when my Panzergrenadiers got in their second (and almost certainly, their last) game before I offer them up for inevitable sacrifice at John Bond's forthcoming CoC extravaganza at MOAB in two week's time.

Also, when I brewed up said Sherman with a Panzershreck almost immediately after it made its grand entrance, should there have been two Force Morale rolls for the loss of the AFV and the death of its Junior Leader?



So, maybe a word thingy here, but when you "KO'd" a tank, we take it as the vehicle is out of action with no crew issues and just the morale roll (the crew just disappeared off the table. In the respect of "Explodes", then we would roll two die rolls for AFV KO'd and Jr leader killed.

Hope that helps.
Greg P.
Tucson, AZ, USA

User avatar
oozeboss
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:25 am
Location: In the Shadow of the Temple of Mir-Anda, Sydney, Australia

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by oozeboss »

No hyperbole issues here.

Blew it up. Big Time.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7778
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by Truscott Trotter »

"Rectum Billy, rectum"
" Sure did Miss!"

User avatar
Steve McG
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:15 am
Location: Sydney ... and not too far from Manly Beach

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by Steve McG »

Seret wrote:
Limiting choices to list 1-3 would severely suck if you had a big mismatch between force ratings. If you rolled a 1 or 2 and were facing a much better enemy then bringing 6 medics or adjutants to the fight is going to do nothing to make the game more balanced.
An interesting response to a possible problem. I have not struck such a problem myself. I also agree that the rules are not meant to be read literally all the time. Otherwise we do end up with "Phil Barker" like problems.

The problem I have is that the "intention" of the scenario guidelines feels like it is trying to limit the selections available. Plus this makes sense in the context of a struggle in No Man's Land.

I actually like the "Duke's" compromise a bit more. It seems to limit the lists available (as the guidelines suggest) but gives a bit more freedom to choose if there is a mismatch.

Steve
There's a fundamental truth to our nature. Man must explore. ... Neil Armstrong

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7778
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by Truscott Trotter »

I have been involved in this discussion before but my feeling is the way the support rules are written are not a mistake or sloppy or an oversight I think they are meant to say exactly what they clearly say.

In fact I would not be surprised if they were meant to be 1-3 support points period.

Its a patrol mission not an armoured thrust.

Perhaps Rich did not consider that people would use +9 units Vs -1 units for this mission?

batesmotel34
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by batesmotel34 »

This is the full support text for Patrol:For support roll 1D6.

"On a roll of 1 or 2, both sides may select support from List 1 (amended depending on relative Platoon Strength Ratings). On a roll of 3 or 4, they may select support from List 2. On a roll of 5 or 6, List 3 is used. Neither side may select entrenchments, static defences or a preliminary barrage as their choices."

If you want to read this literally, it seems the weaker platoon only gets to include the difference in support points if a 1 or 2 is rolled. And for each range of roles, all supports must come the corresponding list, e.g. on a 5 or 6, each side may only use a support from List 3, not one from list 2 and 1 from list 1, or 3 from list 1. Some how I don't think this is how Rich intended it to be read.

There is also an explicit exclusion for static defenses, etc, so I assume Rich would have listed AFV, heavy weapons as well if they were intended to be excluded. I could certainly see agreeing withan opponent to limit choices to list 3 and below if you both agree but I don't believe there is any specific in the rules as written to do that.

Chris

p.s. I'm also a long time ancients player so have had lots of practice arguing rules WRG style with other players and even with Mr. Barker himself. This isn't how TFL rules are written or meant to be enjoyed.

mgluteus
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:02 pm
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by mgluteus »

Chris wrote: "I'm also a long time ancients player so have had lots of practice arguing rules WRG style with other players and even with Mr. Barker himself."

How well I know
Greeting Chris - I hope to get to Hudson someday to participate in COC game.
Dick Bryant

andyskinner
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by andyskinner »

I was going to say that the "amended ..." note didn't look at all to me that it was limited to just one of the cases.

But then I got distracted by Dick's note, and my reaction is:
Hey, are they playing CoC in Hudson? Old Colony?

andy
I cheer for Nick.

User avatar
MLB
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by MLB »

Truscott Trotter wrote:In fact I would not be surprised if they were meant to be 1-3 support points period.

Its a patrol mission not an armoured thrust.

Perhaps Rich did not consider that people would use +9 units Vs -1 units for this mission?
I tend to agree. To my mind the Patrol scenario represents a delicately balanced infantry encounter on neutral ground. Vehicle support, if any, is low key and as much transport as fighting vehicle (half track, Bren carrier etc). Neither side has any advantage in terms of terrain and both sides have a very similar objective.

It's easy to throw it off balance if you tamper too much and even Rich can be guilty of that. Look at scenario 1 in Storming the Citadel. In its first incarnation it had flaws that made the objective too easy for the Germans and from my recent playing the new changes have made this less a Patrol and more an Attack & Defend, but without the supports adjusted accordingly. I think Patrol should be just that - core platoons with minimal support encountering each other in neutral terrain, both seeking the same objective. Once both sides have different objectives, or the levels of support increase dramatically I'm not sure it's any longer a Patrol scenario.
The Tactical Painter https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com
Painting little soldiers for tactical battles on the table top

captain_nutrageous
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:49 am

Re: Support Points in Scenario One: The Patrol

Post by captain_nutrageous »

Seemes straightforward to me. Both sides get 1-3 points of support, weaker side gets the balance. Each side has flexibility to choose from different lists up to their level. So level 7, you can take any combo up to 7. Exclusions are fortifications as specifically listed.

Esentially if the two platoons are fairly even then neither will have any major support. If one side is outmatched then they are going to need some reasonable support to balance the mission. If I'm patrolling with Brit infantry against panzergrenadiers and we both have two points of support - it only goes one way. If Brits have seven and panzergrenadiers three - Brits can get an extra squad plus a sniper and that is probably what they need.

If the players want to exclude something e.g. no tracked AFVs then just agree on it, but I don't think the rules prohibit it.

Post Reply