Lists are collections of scenarios that have a common theme - anything from "Scenarios I'll never play because...", through to "Scenarios with Tigers in the snow"
Scenario Misc Rules - Please Comment!(views: 7278) Generate Inventory ReportIt appears that several of the people who are updating the scenarios here are having questions about how best to handle the "Misc Rules" entry. I think that it would be good if there was a consistent way to handle this. In this list I am going to discuss the scenarios I have been working on, and also review the basic scenarios from Beyond Valor. Please add your ideas and suggestions as comments. Uploaded by: richfam: 2006-10-17 05:20:59
|richfam||Misc Rules: A: FTV w D: FB
This was already present in the scenario page, so I have left it unchanged... but I'm not happy with it. I read it as the attacker gets flamethrower tanks and the defender gets fortified buildings. I'm really not sure what the "w" is supposed to mean.
(A) I don't like abbreviations: they make the users of this site guess as to the meaning.
(B) I think Misc Rules should be limited to items in the SSRs. The presence of flamethrower tanks should be mentioned in the Overview (which I did) and not in the Misc Rules section.
(C) I don't see the point of adding attacker/defender designations. In most cases, this is obvious (fortified buildings almost always benefit the defender). But I could be convinced... and perhaps this is better left as a judgment call on the part of the person updating the scenario.
I would like to change this scenario to read:
Misc Rules: fortified buildings
|richfam||Misc Rules: HIP, berserk
This scenario had no Misc Rules, so these are the ones I added. Both sides are allowed to use HIP, and I don't see any point in designating the "berserk" as affecting the attacker since that is actually covered in the Overview.
|richfam||Misc Rules: factory
"Factory" seems an obvious choice: it only appears via SSR and greatly changes how a large multi-hex building plays.
This scenario is also one of the very few that feature secret victory conditions, although this is NOT handled via SSR. Should this also be in Misc Rules, or is my mention of it in the Overview sufficient?
|richfam||Misc Rules: D: AS
The defender suffers from ammunition shortage. I would prefer this written out as:
...again with the Overview handling the fact that the defenders have the shortage. I would also add "Blaze" to the Misc Rules.
|richfam||Misc Rules: D: AS, FB
The defender has ammunition shortage and fortified buildings... but this completely ignores Fanatic, Stealthy, MOL, Sewer Movement, and HIP! I really think that all of these should be mentioned in the Misc Rules section for this scenario.
Any specific details about the use of these items should go either into the Overview, or possibly into a scenario comment.
|richfam||Misc Rules: D: BT, FB, Sewer
BT would be booby traps. Another argument against the use of abbreviations like this is that we are getting a rather long list of Misc Rules items... and the longer the list, the harder it will be to find suitable abbreviations for everything.
|richfam||Misc Rules: D: Air
"Air" must be a mistake... I have no clue as to what it could mean, as there is no air support in this scenario (unless it was added in BV3, which I do not have).
Many scenarios, like this one, include SSRs for the placement of rubble prior to the start of the game. Should that be noted in the Misc Rules section?
|richfam||Misc Rules: A: AS, Tr3
More mysteriousness: ammunition shortage and "Tr3"... what does "Tr3" mean? I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue, even after reading through the scenario SSRs.
|richfam||Some weapons in this scenario can be Bore Sighted. Should that be a Misc Rule?
|richfam||Misc Rules: D: AC3
"AC3" I interpret as the defender having three armored cupolas. I'd leave off the "3" and write out the "AC".
This scenario also has SSRs that restrict movement. I'm thinking that such SSRs should also be mentioned in the Misc Rules section, with the exact details (attack and/or defender?) left to the Overview.
|richfam||Here's an alphabetical list of the Misc Rules terms that I have proposed above. Regardless of whether this list is used or not, I think we need to develop a standardized list of Misc Rules items that everyone uses... it will make this site much more useful and easier to use. What should be added to this list... or what alternate list would you propose instead?|
|Dave||Nice list, Jay. What about Fighter/Bombers, Snow, Beach Landings, Platoon Movement, Cavalry, Motorcycles, Parachute drops or Swimming?
|Jim Rupp||Most of the abbreviations were lifted from the Cronology of War. There was a separate "decoder ring" page of the CoW that told what each one was. For example, "Tr#" stands for "# of Trucks". I do agree, this is rather cryptic. Using a checkbox field of unusual rules which generates the text entry would be a better approach, not to mention make my hands feel better than typing all that in.|
|richfam||> What about...
Yes, if we are going to go by SSRs then every rule section in Chapter E will need to be added to the list (except night actions, which are already handled separately). A complete list will be much longer than my short sample list.
> Most of the abbreviations were lifted from the Cronology of War. There was a separate "decoder ring" page of the CoW that told what each one was.
Anyone have a link to this page, or can they post that list here?
> For example, "Tr#" stands for "# of Trucks".
Hmmm... why would knowing whether a scenario included trucks (let alone how many of them) be important?
The more fundamental question is: what purpose should the Misc Rules field serve? (or what purpose was it intended to serve?)
I see it as a quick way to find scenarios of interest. For example, I personally like scenarios that allow HIP units, but I tend to avoid scenarios with booby traps. Glancing at the Misc Rules entry for a scenario to get a quick summary of what special rules it uses is easier than reading through all of that scenario's SSRs.
> Using a checkbox field of unusual rules which generates the text entry would be a better approach, not to mention make my hands feel better than typing all that in.
No typing errors, and no carpal tunnel problems... :)
A key advantage to this would be that it facilitates searching. If all entries use standardized terms, then queries such as "find all scenarios with fortified buildings but no HIP units" become easy to do, which I think would be immensely useful.
Along these lines, one could then argue that the flamethrower tanks from "With Flame and Shell" SHOULD be included, so that a user could search for all scenarios that use flamethrower tanks... but I still think this is a misuse of the Misc Rules field. I think it would be better to add a "Unit Types" field in which we could list the types (but not quantity) of vehicles, guns, squads, and (possibly) leaders that are used by the scenario. This would not only allow searching for rare stuff like specific flamethrower tanks, but also interesting queries such as "find all scenarios pitting Panthers against Fireflys." Such a field would also require a standardized list of counter names: Mk V, Pz V, Pzkpfw VG, Panther, German vehicle #27... only one of these could be used.
But, if we do allow something "FT AFV" in the Misc Rules field, then where do we draw the line? What qualifies a vehicle or gun type for special mention?
|richfam||Oops... looks like paragraph breaks get stripped out of the comments. :(|
|Dave||fixed. I've also added a wiki page which makes adding suggestions a little easier. Please see: This Wiki Page for more details.|