commander sandbagging?

[polarole]

hi,

is commander sandbagging possbile in the game and how do i do it?

bye
ole

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: polarole

hi,

is commander sandbagging possbile in the game and how do i do it?

bye
ole

No idea what sandbagging is.


Regards
Bresh

[polarole]

hi,

sandbagging is reducing your commanders tactical rating on purpose:

e.g. you have a 4 leader and fight a 2 leader for +1/0
in the boardgame you can sandbag yourself to a 3 leader for 0/-1 if you happen to have cav sup. e.g.

i hope its clear what is meant now?

bye
ole

[Jimmer]

No, that is not available. It really should be, as leaders with a 4 tactical use this tactic all the time in the board game.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

No, that is not available. It really should be, as leaders with a 4 tactical use this tactic all the time in the board game.

Maybe this isn't allowed in EiH?

[Jimmer]

I suspect a programming constraint more than EiH. But, I never played EiH, so I don't really know.

[DCWhitworth]

This was logged as issue 254 in Mantis. The call is listed as fixed in v1.05 but from the descrioption I'm not 100% sure Marshall has understood the issue. 

[Jimmer]

I'll check it out. This one is pretty important in certain situations. For instance, if Massena catches a British corps with no leader stuck somewhere, he would typically have a +1/0 under the current rules. But, since he most likely brought cavalry, he can make it +1/-1 by dropping his rating to a 3 (0/-1 and then +1 for cav superiority).
 
Since almost every power sits their main army under a 4 leader most of the time, this is a pretty big change from the original.

[MarshallEllis]

I clearly misunderstood issue #254. I will reopen and look at this for 1.07
 
 

[DCWhitworth]

I would have thought this could be done automatically with a simple logical test. There are very few occasions when there is truly a 'choice', usually the best option is obvious.

[Ted1066]

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted

I have the same question???

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted

I have the same question???

7.5.2.9.1.2: If desired, a player may declare at the start of a combat round that his commander's tactical rating is less than it actually is for purposes of determining the die roll modifiers on the COMMANDER CHART.

[Ted1066]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

was sandbagging an option in EiA? I don't recall whether the player had choice as to what to set his leader rating to.

Ted

I have the same question???

7.5.2.9.1.2: If desired, a player may declare at the start of a combat round that his commander's tactical rating is less than it actually is for purposes of determining the die roll modifiers on the COMMANDER CHART.

Well, kick @$$! Given that this is a subsection of a subsection of a subsection, etc., I'm not surprised I missed this. This is a rather important rule though! It's been added back to Mantis then (or at least updated)?

Ted

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Well, kick @$$! Given that this is a subsection of a subsection of a subsection, etc., I'm not surprised I missed this. This is a rather important rule though! It's been added back to Mantis then (or at least updated)?

Ted

Not the deepest subsection by a long way. There is 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 and it's companion 8.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 [:)]

[Dancing Bear]

The easiest way to do this is to make it automatic. Have the game calculate cav superiority, then adjust the leadership ratios until the optimum ratio is found.

I'm not sure how important this is however, because lets say the attacker sandbags to take advantage of cav superiority, can't the defender also sandbag to nulify the advantage. How often can any sand bagging move by the attacker not be matched by a counter sand bagging move by the defender? Is it really that often?

[MarshallEllis]

Another good question???
 

[NeverMan]

During the course of the game it happens and I, personally, think the output/input ratio is high on this one. If I ever had a vote (which I doubt) then my vote goes to putting it in. Can't be that hard to code in, honestly.

If Cav Superiority
If roll mod == +1
MinusTactRating()
ReadjustRollMod()

Let me know if I missed something.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

I would have thought this could be done automatically with a simple logical test. There are very few occasions when there is truly a 'choice', usually the best option is obvious.

I would still like to have the option, but maybe have the "obvious" one pre-selected? Alternately, show me what the results are (if you choose 4, it will be +1/0, but if you choose 3, it will be 0/-1, etc.)

The other time this comes into play is when reinforcements arrive, and the new corps cause one leader to go over his maximum, thus lowering his tactical rating.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

The easiest way to do this is to make it automatic. Have the game calculate cav superiority, then adjust the leadership ratios until the optimum ratio is found.

I'm not sure how important this is however, because lets say the attacker sandbags to take advantage of cav superiority, can't the defender also sandbag to nulify the advantage. How often can any sand bagging move by the attacker not be matched by a counter sand bagging move by the defender? Is it really that often?

Not really. The big time it matters is when the attacker has a choice of +1/0 vs 0/-1. Then, if the side sandbagging has cav superiority, he can turn 0/-1 into +1/-1, whereas +1/0 stays +1/0.

However, when ones opponent has cav superiority, choosing a lower tactical rating might cause what would have been a +1/+1 battle to be fought on the 0/0 table instead. This would imply fewer casualties and lower morale loss (or, if done in reverse, the opposite). An army with superior troop counts is very interested in keeping the battle going as long as possible. Using a lower table means the possibility of extra days of combat (or even extra rounds). Or, in the reverse case, a low troop count army might want to get it over with as soon as possible.

Also, the choice is made AFTER you see the forces arrayed against you, which could change your choices.