Pros and Cons of CRT's

[Dr. Foo]

We have the optional rule to use the 2D10 over the WiF CRT.

Is one favored over the other? What are the pros and cons of using the 2D10 over the WiF CRT or vice versa?

I've been using the 2D10 with mixed results. For a newbie, should I stick with the standard WiF CRT? [&:]

[paulderynck]

There is an option for the standard CRT (1D10) called Blitz mods. IMO 1D10 with Blitz Mods and 2D10 are not much different. Both are quite fluid and attacker-friendly. 2D10 has higher variance, meaning if you have good odds and still lose an attack, you've been more unlucky than if the same thing happened in 1D10. OTOH a low odds attack can succeed in 2D10 when it has no chance in 1D10.

Another important option in both cases is if you play with divisions and/or guns. This often means 3 defending units per hex and that plus 1D10 without Blitz mods gives you a good flavour -- of World War One! [:'(]

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Most people these days play 2D10, from what I understand.

2D10 is bloodier, relatively de-emphasizes odds and emphasizes massing armor and flipping units (so groundstrikes become more powerful vis a vis ground support), makes cities tougher to take, and is less random.


1D10 is kind of the opposite of those points. But if you're new, experiment around, see which one you think works better.

[Dabrion]

I am pretty sure the search will turn up tons of incarnations of this argument, worth a try

In short:
* Different distributions. 1d10 has a flat distribution (uniform). 2d10 is bell shaped distribution (binomial).
* 2d10 models a more historical combined arms / armor effect and gives more weight to specialised units.
* 2d10 respects divisions (usually giving halve the bonus an equivalent corpse would give).
* 2d10 is said to be a little more attacker friendly, mostly because it has the concept of half the forces being flipped.

Personally, I find 2D10 is cognitively easier to handle. You adjust on a linear scale (there is only one number parameter to a 2d10 attack roll), compared to the column shifts + drm. It is also more predictable. Although MWiF does a lot of calculations for you, you still have to have a mental heuristic of what forces you need to archive a certain goal.

With 1D10 I found it feasible to gamble on the attackers misfortune with cheap units (Russian "speed bumps"). You will not see this working (as much) with 2D10.

[Centuur]

Also, 2D10 give the occasional "strange result". I always say nowadays that the orders from Moscow to take Bessarabia by force after Germany refused the claim didn't reach the border, since I rolled two time a 2 in a row, disorganising the whole USSR army and not grabbing any hex in Bessarabia proper without any losses on both sides...

Fog of War?

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

Sounds like a bit of mutiny in the ranks. You need to get those commissars out in force, execute a few of the peons and put the revolutionary fervor into the rest.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge

Sounds like a bit of mutiny in the ranks. You need to get those commissars out in force, execute a few of the peons and put the revolutionary fervor into the rest.

Purge!

[Dabrion]

Sounds like your NKVD guys where busy elsewhere

[delatbabel]

The general consensus at the 2 WiFCons that I have been to (populated as they are by experienced players) is that the 2d10 table should always be used, and the 1d10 table should be removed from the rules.

I think that even for new players, the 2d10 table should always be used. Although there are occasional outliers (and I played against one guy who rolled 3 sets of 00 in a row), the combat results are a little more predictable. The die rolls are weighted towards the average 8 - 13 rolls which means there is usually less bellyaching about what happens if I roll a 1.