[boardwargaming] Re: [Consim-l] Monte Cassino

[Mike NotSpecified]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off Thunder at Cassino yet, I'm just 
little troubled at what aspect of reality the mechanics are portraying.  That 
is a bit of problem in any game, but there is enough of a disconnect here to 
infringe on my suspension of disbelief.

For those who are not familar with the system.  Both sides start with every 
unit in uncommitted status.  You alternate impulses in which you can activate 
all or some of the uncommitted units in any one area, those units then either 
move or fire, and then become committed.  Uncommitted units have farily high 
defense strengths and committed units have very low, even zero defense 
strengths.  Or, instead of committing any units, you can pass, but if your 
opponent also passes, then no further movement or fire is possible this turn, 
you resolve close combat in contested areas and end the turn.

So there is an obvious advantage to passing, you get to see what your opponent 
is doing and his committed untis are much more vulnerable to your fire.  You 
are also obviously risking the end of the turn and of course there are times 
when it is a race to get units into a particualr spot so you want to move. 
 But one of your key decisions is to pass or not.  (Which has what real world 
counterpart?)

Unlike the later games (BN and TPS) there is no automatic end of turn, as long 
as you avoid the double pass, you are guaranteed to be able to move/fire every 
unit every turn.  So there is a tendency to drag things out, commit one unit 
in some unimportant sector just to put the onus back on the other guy.  The 
hope is eventually he'll have to move first in some important sector and then 
you have the advantage of being able to pick your spots.  This can really drag 
out the game.  Read the seris replay in The Genral (24-6 I think) and you'll 
see what I mean.  One innocous move after another until somebody runs out of 
stalling tactics and pretty much has to commit.  It's more like Chess than 
combat I'd say.

Has anybody ever experimented with grafting an automatic end of turn rule like 
from TPS onto this game?

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:22:33 +0300
  "Mircea Pauca" <mircea.pauca at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Thunder at Cassino yes, does not explicitly have leader counters but
> leadership effects are included with the basic rules and various rules:
> 
> - Basic impulse system: represents nicely the 'subjective' limitation
> of command under time pressure - can only respond from one area
> at once. In the first two games (SoArnhem and TaCassino) also it
> shows tactical stalemates (Zugzwang), the fear of exposing to enemy
> fires (but also fear of mutual Pass not doing anything else important).
> 
> - Higher-unit integrity: as units take losses and no longer 3 units of
> the same (company) are together, offensive fire is not as effective.
> Esp. shows the confusion of Germans scattered in the city after the
> Allied area bombing.
> - In/flexibility of support assets (represented by Arty observer units):
> Allies have much less choice, it's predictable amd often have 'blank'
> turns while observers advance, while weaker German fires directed
> from up the Abbey can strike anywhere.
> 
> Overall, Thunder at Cassino feels more Grand tactical with the
> pre-parsed ranges of fire (MG hinders movement in adjacent areas
> so would mean 500-1000 m). I've briefly seen a PzGren (or it was ATS?)
> game and it was much more "literally" tactical, needing explicit
> terrain analysis and tooking risks with the random LOS.
> 
> I can rant more about the niceties of the Impulse system. Great for
> blitz-minded FTF, but can also be PBEM with *really* dedicated
> opponents (Thanks, Tom Cundiff!).
> 
> Anywhere well versed enough in literary theory to comment about
> the subjective perception/causality/time in Impulse games and
> literary techniques of John Brunner, Dos Passos, Hans Hellmut Kirst ?
> They write in short passages from contrasting character's viewpoints
> arranged in a sort of... musical counterpoint, instead of longer linear
> chapters (... they would be the classical I go/you go rules).
> 
> Have fun !
> Mircea
> 
> 2008/7/13, Mike NotSpecified <blockhead at bresnan.net>:
>>
>> Two things are immediately obviously different, PG empahasises Leaders and
>> Morale, while TAC ignores both.  I think that is a good example of the
>> evolution of the hobby, it is now kinda hard to credit a game without
>> morale
>> or leaders, yet that was perfectly acceptable in the day...
>>
>> I really want to like TAC, I remember agonnizing over the decision to
>> purchase
>> it when it first came out.  I had long been interested in the battle, but
>> the
>> area movement and (IIRC) the playing time scared me off.  Later (much
>> later,
>> after ebay had been invented) I got a copy.  I played around with the
>> introductory sceanrio (Castle Hill) enough to whet my appatite, then put it
>> away until this weekend.
>>
>> Now I want to be sucked in, it seems like a great game.  But even as I
>> appreciate the "gut-wrenching" decision points of the game mechanics, I
>> find
>> myself wondering how well connected my player experience is to the reality?
>> Not sure I'm expressing that well, trying to say something like, while I
>> recognize the tension in trying to play this well, I'm not sure I'm really
>> getting much insight to the battle.
>>
>> And of course I say that after only two turns so who knows.  But I expect
>> that
>> to be a major theme, after playing AH and APLs version, which one really
>> gave
>> me those insights into the battle?  Hopefully both!
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
>> Brian McCue <brianmccue22312 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> And I was inspired to start Rick's book by the promised
>> >> soon release of a  Cassino game from Avalanche as part of their
>> >> PanzerGrenadier series.  I  generally like that series and look forward
>> > to
>> >>comparing their Cassino game to the AH classic.
>> >
>> > I, too, have ordered Avalanche's Panzergrenadier Cassino game; I've never
>> >played the AH game, but I look forward to your comparison of the two.
>> >
>> > At a slightly smaller scale, I believe that Critical Hit has announced an
>> >ATS (Advanced Tobruk System) game on Monte Cassino as well, but they
>> announce
>> >games long before they bring them out, do not enter the hyperbaric chamber
>> >yet on that one.
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>