Short Supply: A less gamy house rule

I am more or less happy with the way the card is. Don't forget there are two possibilities with Short Supply. The second one being to move one of your own units - most useful to avoid the likelihood of one your weakened units being eliminated. However I am not sure about the 'teleporting' of units to the baseline. I therefore limit the Out of Supply move to four hexes. In the case of a enemy unit whose path may be blocked, if you choose such a unit it merely moves as far as able up to four hexes.

Submitted a message but it appears to have been deleted

No, its up there Martin

Yes thanks - forgot to 'turn over the page'.

I would argue Short Supply is a "gamey rule" within a "gamey game". There is little about CCN that is historically accurate, but it does make for a very good game. For every rule one might think should be changed, I could also propose another. The handling of squares, for example, is rather poor, as is the idea that 2-3-4 attacking units can all be equally be defended by a single defending unit. The game works because it is a game, nothing more, nothing less.

Martin:

I think this may ultimately be the way to go with a Short Supply house rule.

Although, I am going to keep trying the "when it is drawn, it is activated" system (as opposed to having it "played" by your opponent). I think this adds an element of randomness, on which the believably of the movement is required.

Bangla:

I disagree with your assessment of CCN. Of course, the game is FULL of abstractions, but it produces believable results. But that is really a discussion for a different thread.

As I said earlier, I feel that Short Supply is gamey and an outlier within the context of CCN. That is the matter I am trying to approach here.

'Although, I am going to keep trying the "when it is drawn, it is activated" system (as opposed to having it "played" by your opponent). I think this adds an element of randomness, on which the believably of the movement is required.'

I assume the idea of this would be to make 'Short Supply' a random event. Have to say I quite like the idea. I think I'll try it out. After all you can't plan for your opponent being out pf supply - unless you raid their supply wagons of course, but that is not a factor in this game.

For me a game mechanic that reflects the unpredictability of battle, e.g. troops running out ammo, is great (I've nothing against well balanced random events).

My problem with this card, is precisely that it is NOT a random event and does not feel like one.

I had just about come to terms with it as gamey but acceptable in the original card deck, because at least playing it meant that you forfeited an alternative, which in itself could be punishing.

But placed in the tactics deck, it's impact is greatly and, IMHO, unnecessarily multiplied.

I played an epic version of Talavera last summer and I ended up playing Short Supply to break up my opponent's cavalry attack (lancers 'teleported' to the rear), whilst simultaneously unsquaring my infantry (can't see anything in the rules to stop me doing that) and successfully counterattacking.

Now as a random event, I could handle that, but as a preplanned move, it felt cheap and underhand. I eventually won the battle by a small margin, but felt like my victory had been sullied by playing that card. My opponent was extremely chivalrous about it, but I felt embarrassed as the more experienced player. Of course, we could come up with a narrative to explain this misfortune for the French, but the reality is that I should not have been able to combine the planning of my counterattack with an event that I could not have foreseen.

Now of course I can accept that it is a game and the playing of cards is an aspect of the game play and I respect the fact that RB has found a way to introduce interesting non-standard events within the general flow of the game (that's why I play almost nothing but his games as I think they are more playable and offer more plausible battles than any other system I've tried), but, leaving aside the problem of simulation, I simply think that this card is too powerful as part of the tactic deck.

In short, my personal preference, would be to omit or change this card. My suggestions are:

1) Agree with your opponent(s) to put this card aside.
2) Agree with your opponent(s) to only play this card as a default tactic card, i.e. move a leader.
3) Agree to play this card with an alternative effect - one suggestion as an alternative to the one previously proposed would be to play this card when your opponent declares a ranged attack: opponent battles normally, but immediately afterwards the battling unit is moved to a rear hex. That for me would keep the feel of the card, while reducing its power and giving it a more obvious relationship to battlefield events. I do also like the idea of it being played as a 'random event' card as FrenchricusRex suggests, but still feel a little uncomfortable about completely free choice about which unit to move, especially as you might well pick it up directly before your own turn. I definitely don't like the idea of being able to move your opponent's units completely freely (I would stick to the teleporting to the baseline or 4 hexes towards the baseline).

My absolute preference would be for RB/GMT to issue an alternative rule/replacement card that everyone could agree on...

Bolkonsky,

Earlier I wrote I don't really care about it as its just a game rather than anything like a serious simulation. But your post did make me realise one thing and I agree with it too.

The Short Supply in its old guise as a Command Card was a fairer existence. As you pointed out, with the old deck, one could play it but at the expense of not being able to do anything else for their turn (whether moving an enemy or friendly unit via Short Supply). I had the card played against me recently using the Tactics deck and it did feel like a double whammy. Have an attack messed up as the SS card is played and at the same time receive instant retaliation as the enemy takes advantage of the SS card. Vey harsh!

It should be returned as a Command Card, I agree.

I really like the idea of what you are presenting here. For a unit to almost magically reappear about 4 moves away from where it was to the baseline is pretty ridiculous. A command confusion seems like a better idea.

Another rule I have been toying with concerns forming square vs a cavalry charge. As units lose blocks, it represents the cohesion braking apart, not just casualties. To give a unit the automatic ablility to form square isnt overly bad, but what about situations where units had routed (such as the French 1st corps at Waterloo) and had no chance to form square? The rule I have been trying is any unit down to one block left has to roll a inf, arty or cav on a dice to form.