LHR OBA vs Pleva OBA

[CTABKA]

Why the LHR OBA rule is much better than the Pleva OBA rule.

Red Barricades Leaflet House Rule

11. OFFBOARD ARTILLERY: When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module, if the second permanently-removable red chit is drawn and less than two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile, return that red chit to the Draw Pile instead. Your OBA actions for this battery are done for this Player Turn (i.e., the second red chit can only be removed from the Draw Pile if at least two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile for that OBA Module).

vs 

Pleva OBA House Rule

Every time you draw a red chit, put it back in the Draw Pile along with another red chit. Battery Access is no longer lost due to drawing two red chits. Meanwhile, the extra chit draw mechanics of C1.21 remain the same.

Edited August 5, 2022 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

Russian OBA, assume that the drawing process is the following for both OBA rule variants, although very often it will not be since the Pleva OBA rule increase the chances for a string of drawing even more red chits than the LHR OBA rule version.

Ex A (Scarce Ammo): 1st red Chit drawn, 5 Black / 3 Red.(LHR: 5 Black / 2 Red vs Pleva: 5 Black / 4 Red).

2nd red Chit drawn (LHR: 5B / 2R vs Pleva: 5B / 5R).

1st black Chit drawn (LHR: 4B / 2R vs Pleva: 4 B / 5R).

3rd red Chit drawn (LHR: 4B / 2R vs Pleva: 4 B / 6R).

2nd black Chit drawn (LHR: 3B / 2R vs Pleva: 3B / 6R).

3rd black Chit drawn (LHR: 2B / 2R vs Pleva: 2B / 6R), last Fire Mission able to use before the scenario ends, and an extra draw have to be made since the enemy is concealed. With LHR the chance is 50% to draw a black chit, with Pleva rule the chance is only 25% to draw a black chit.

[Klas Malmström]

Utan att ha någon åsikt om för- och nack-delar med LHR eller Plevas variant (för jag har inte spelat med någon av dom), men den varianten av Plevas jag har sätt säger:

Every time you draw a red chit (including the first red chit), put it back in the Draw Pile along with another red chit.  Battery Access is no longer lost due to drawing two red chits.  Meanwhile, the extra chit draw mechanics of C1.21 remain the same.

 

Men det låter lite udda att lägga till en extra röd + att man lägger tillbaka den man drog, redan då man drar den första röda.

[Klas Malmström]

Jag håller på att korrekturläsa en artikel om OBA draws och "expected number of Fire Mission" - den tar faktiskt upp Pleva varianten....skall se vad den artikeln säger/tycker.

[CTABKA]

Russian OBA, assume that the drawing process is the following for both OBA rule variants, although very often it will not be since the Pleva OBA rule increase the chances for a string of drawing even more red chits than the LHR OBA rule version.

Ex B: (Normal Ammo) 1st Black Chit drawn, 5 Black / 2 Red. (4B / 2R for all three OBA variants; Original; LHR; Pleva).

2nd black Chit drawn (3B / 2R for all OBA variants).

1st red Chit drawn (Original/LHR: 3B / 1R vs Pleva: 3B / 3R).

2nd red Chit drawn (Original/LHR OBA ends vs Pleva: 3B / 4R).

3rd black Chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 2B / 4R).

3rd red Chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 2B / 5R).

4th black chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 1B / 5R).

4th red chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 1B / 6R).

Scenario Ends.

Note that the LHR never came into effect during the Example.

The Original OBA rule and the LHR OBA rule mostly play out the same during the Battery- Access-drawing-process, depending upon nationality and ammo availability.

Only about 25% chance that the LHR came into play. If the same scenario is played 4 times, then 3 times (in average) it will not matter if the LHR was in play or not. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

Minns att det finns en äldre artikel i Annual (eller General) om hur många svarta chits man förväntas dra. Beroende på Draw Pile.

[Klas Malmström]

1 hour ago, CTABKA said:

Minns att det finns en äldre artikel i Annual (eller General) om hur många svarta chits man förväntas dra. Beroende på Draw Pile.

Precis - First Impressions–An Introduction to ASL: Offboard Artillery. The GENERAL, Volume 24, #2. Av Robert Medrow.

[Peyre]

3 hours ago, CTABKA said:

Russian OBA, assume that the drawing process is the following for both OBA rule variants, although very often it will not be since the Pleva OBA rule increase the chances for a string of drawing even more red chits than the LHR OBA rule version.

Ex B: (Normal Ammo) 1st Black Chit drawn, 5 Black / 2 Red. (4B / 2R for all three OBA variants; Original; LHR; Pleva).

2nd black Chit drawn (3B / 2R for all OBA variants).

1st red Chit drawn (Original/LHR: 3B / 1R vs Pleva: 3B / 3R).

2nd red Chit drawn (Original/LHR OBA ends vs Pleva: 3B / 4R).

3rd black Chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 2B / 4R).

3rd red Chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 2B / 5R).

4th black chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 1B / 5R).

4th red chit drawn (only Pleva OBA in play: 1B / 6R).

Scenario Ends.

Note that the LHR never came into effect during the Example.

The Original OBA rule and the LHR OBA rule mostly play out the same during the Battery- Access-drawing-process, depending upon nationality and ammo availability.

Only about 25% chance that the LHR came into play. If the same scenario is played 4 times, then 3 times (in average) it will not matter if the LHR was in play or not. 

 

 

Med 25% chans att det boostar den med artilleri ger ju en slight fördel. Det är väl det man vill adressera med Pleva: Att den ska kunna användas även i exakt balanserade scenarion.

Jag tycker att LHR funkar bra men när det inträffar känns det ju som att den boostar den sidan.

Oftast när vi använder den är ju om du redan balanserat upp det scenariot.

[Klas Malmström]

2 hours ago, Peyre said:

Det är väl det man vill adressera med Pleva: Att den ska kunna användas även i exakt balanserade scenarion.

Vad Pleva har skrivit i samband med House Rule - i alla fall det som jag har är:

Steven rationalizes that, “placing an extra red chit into the deck was used to counter-balance the fact that two red chits will now no longer end the possibility of landing a Fire Mission. While a red heavy deck hurts the player with the OBA module, this alternative rule at least keeps the possibility of a successful Fire Mission alive.”  Steven explained that his objective was two-fold:
•    To decrease the chances of the OBA player obtaining zero Fire Missions, while, at the same time,
•    Not significantly affecting the expected number of Fire Missions for the various OBA Draw Piles.

 

Sedan har dom även detta i Albany turneringen (tror jag):
Along those lines, the variant also alters the C1.22/A9.72 malfunctioning Radio repair rules by allowing a malfunctioning Radio to repair on a dr of 1-2 and removes the possibility of permanently disabling the Radio on a repair dr of 6. Similarly, a Field Phone does not permanently Disable on an Original contact DR of 12 and will be able to be repaired on a repair dr of 1-2 while not permanently disabling on a repair dr of 6.

 

 

[carlsson]

Vi kör att andra (+ uppföljande förstås) röda blandas in med ett extra. Vi provade med första röda först, men det blev en grymt brant kurva uppåt på röda kort. För brant.

Det andra kortet har gett en mer rimlig balansering och ger samtidigt effekten att man alltid har en chans till OBA, även efter femte röda kortet... (trägen vinner 😝) Dvs, exakt som Pleva, fast det andra kortet istället.

 

Skillnaden mellan vår variant och Mels är egentligen hårfin, och vi ska testa den nästa gång. Fördelen är att man slipper tänka på att ha fler röda separat kort.

[CTABKA]

16 hours ago, Klas Malmström said:

 Pleva explained that his objective was two-fold:

•    To decrease the chances of the OBA player obtaining zero Fire Missions, while, at the same time,
•    Not significantly affecting the expected number of Fire Missions for the various OBA Draw Piles.

Det första påståendet stämmer att man ökar chansen att få ned artilleri om man har oturen att dra två röda chits i rad, men chansen att det blir 3 eller mer röda chits dragna i rad ökar avsevärt med hans OBA variant, dessutom att behöva dra en extra med chansen att bränna (dra en röd) den enda svarta chit man har erhållit är nu mycket stor. 

Det andra påståendet stämmer inte, inte ens om scenariot är 10 turns långt, det hjälper, men jag får hellre ned två FFE missions turns 2-4 trots att man drog två röda chits i början. Med Pleva OBA bör spannet på att få ned två FFE ligga på turns 2-8 (anta att scenariot är 5, 6 eller 7 turns långt) och att få ned FFE sent i scenariot är oftast betydelselöst (Observer är dessutom låst).

Edited July 4, 2022 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

15 hours ago, Klas Malmström said:

Sedan har dom även detta i Albany turneringen (tror jag):
Along those lines, the variant also alters the C1.22/A9.72 malfunctioning Radio repair rules by allowing a malfunctioning Radio to repair on a dr of 1-2 and removes the possibility of permanently disabling the Radio on a repair dr of 6. Similarly, a Field Phone does not permanently Disable on an Original contact DR of 12 and will be able to be repaired on a repair dr of 1-2 while not permanently disabling on a repair dr of 6.

LHR OBA regeln är mycket enklare, DR på 12 är ett vanligt slag, våra regler är ca 35% likvärdiga, men en repair dr på 1-2 krävs för det.

LHR 11: An Original Contact/Maintenance DR of 12 does not cause the breakdown of a Radio or elimination of a Field Phone, although an Original DR of 12 does cause the loss of Radio/Field-Phone Contact.

[CTABKA]

52 minutes ago, carlsson said:

Skillnaden mellan vår variant och Mels är egentligen hårfin, och vi ska testa den nästa gång. Fördelen är att man slipper tänka på att ha fler röda separat kort.

Vår variant är närmare Don Greenwoods OBA regler, den är hårfin, eran variant är inte det, och ett tidsslukande tråkigt bokförande/komma-ihåg hur varje OBA module skiftar i Draw pile har inget gemmensamt med hur orginal reglerna är utformade.

[CTABKA]

18 hours ago, Peyre said:

Med 25% chans att det boostar den med artilleri ger ju en slight fördel. Det är väl det man vill adressera med Pleva: Att den ska kunna användas även i exakt balanserade scenarion.

Jag tycker att LHR funkar bra men när det inträffar känns det ju som att den boostar den sidan.

Oftast när vi använder den är ju om du redan balanserat upp det scenariot.

Vi har alltid spelat med vår LHR OBA variant, regeln började användas 1994-95, lades ut på ASL forum 96 (långt före ASLSweden skapades).

Det jag alltid spelar först när OBA introduceras.

- ASL C Hedgehog of Peipsk - Germ OBA, Draw pile 8B / 4R

Om tysken drar två röda, något som OBA varianterna ska mildra så att scenarior inte barkar åt fanders, ser ut som följande.

Don Greenwood original rule, OBA ends, the observer may take up other duties.

LHR OBA, German third draw attempt, Draw Pile 8B / 3R.

Borås OBA, German third draw attempt, Draw Pile 8B / 4R.

Pleva OBA, German third draw attempt, Draw Pile 8B / 6R.

I Borås November 2021, spelade jag, HS21 Hervorst Hell, mot Hans B, han drog 2 röda i rad för båda hans tyska OBA moduler (dvs 4 röda i rad). Artilleriet var över, finns inga Tournament rules.

Lät han börja använda LHR OBA efter en diskussion med turneringsansvarig. Något som jag då fick veta även används i Norge när de spelar, de tycker att den synkar bäst.

Edited July 4, 2022 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

In Red Barricades CG III, A Russ OBA with Scarce Ammo (about 30-40% of Russian OBA is Scarce), after drawing two Red chits:

LHR OBA, Russian third draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 2R.

Borås OBA, Russian third draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 3R.

Pleva OBA, Russian third draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 5R.

...och om man drar som en Norrman 😀

LHR OBA, Russian 5th draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 2R.

Borås OBA, Russian 5th draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 5R.

Pleva OBA, Russian 5th draw attempt, from Draw Pile 5B / 7R.

Edited July 16, 2022 by CTABKA

[Klas Malmström]

8 hours ago, CTABKA said:

Det andra påståendet stämmer inte, inte ens om scenariot är 10 turns långt, det hjälper, men jag får hellre ned två FFE missions turns 2-4 trots att man drog två röda chits i början. Med Pleva OBA bör spannet på att få ned två FFE ligga på turns 2-8 (anta att scenariot är 5, 6 eller 7 turns långt) och att få ned FFE sent i scenariot är oftast betydelselöst (Observer är dessutom låst).

Enligt artikeln jag har korrekturläst - med statistik (där en professor i matte/statisk hjälp till, så jag tror siffrorna torde stämma) där man jämför "vanliga" reglerna med Plevas variant, drogs följande slutsatser - om man tittar på German/Russian Normal Ammunition.

Med upp till 12 chit draws (artikeln jämför mellan 12 och 6 draws hela tiden) - blir förväntat antal Fire Missions:
Tysk Normal Ammuntion (8B/3R): 4 (vanliga regler), 5.64 (Pleva).
Rysk Normal Ammuntion (5B/2R): 3.33 (vanliga regler), 4.08 (Pleva).

med tillhörande kommentar:
"Figure 7 visibly demonstrates that the expected number of Fire Missions is significantly increased when using the variant when up to twelve chit draws are allowed."

 

Tittar man på endast 6 chit draws ser det ut så här...
Tysk Normal Ammuntion (8B/3R): 3.58 (vanliga regler), 3.73 (Pleva).
Rysk Normal Ammuntion (5B/2R): 3.33 (vanliga regler), 3.18 (Pleva).

med tillhörande kommentar:
"Unlike the results in Figure 7, the comparative outcomes shown in Figure 8 are much closer for each draw pile when we compare the standard Battery Access depletion rule against the variant."

Dessa siffror säger ju dock inte när i ett scenario man kan förvänta sig att få ner en Fire Mission (som du skriver, det kan ju vara stor skillnad på att få ner en Fire Mission tidigt i ett scenario, kontra att få ner två stycken sent), och det är ju inte så ofta man gör upp till 12 chit draws (vet faktiskt inte varför dom valde det numret i artikeln). Plus att dom inte heller tar hänsyn till ev "extra" chit draws.
 

Men som sagt var (igen) - jag har ingen åsikt i frågan om dessa varianter - har aldrig spelet med någon variant. Men jag tycker själv att direkt lägga till en röd när man drar den först (enligt Pleva) låter lite udda/märkligt.

[CTABKA]

12 hours ago, Klas Malmström said:

Enligt artikeln jag har korrekturläst - med statistik (där en professor i matte/statisk hjälp till, så jag tror siffrorna torde stämma) där man jämför "vanliga" reglerna med Plevas variant, drogs följande slutsatser - om man tittar på German/Russian Normal Ammunition.

Med upp till 12 chit draws (artikeln jämför mellan 12 och 6 draws hela tiden) - blir förväntat antal Fire Missions:
Tysk Normal Ammuntion (8B/3R): 4 (vanliga regler), 5.64 (Pleva).
Rysk Normal Ammuntion (5B/2R): 3.33 (vanliga regler), 4.08 (Pleva).

med tillhörande kommentar:
"Figure 7 visibly demonstrates that the expected number of Fire Missions is significantly increased when using the variant when up to twelve chit draws are allowed."

 

Tittar man på endast 6 chit draws ser det ut så här...
Tysk Normal Ammuntion (8B/3R): 3.58 (vanliga regler), 3.73 (Pleva).
Rysk Normal Ammuntion (5B/2R): 3.33 (vanliga regler), 3.18 (Pleva).

med tillhörande kommentar:
"Unlike the results in Figure 7, the comparative outcomes shown in Figure 8 are much closer for each draw pile when we compare the standard Battery Access depletion rule against the variant."

Dessa siffror säger ju dock inte när i ett scenario man kan förvänta sig att få ner en Fire Mission (som du skriver, det kan ju vara stor skillnad på att få ner en Fire Mission tidigt i ett scenario, kontra att få ner två stycken sent), och det är ju inte så ofta man gör upp till 12 chit draws (vet faktiskt inte varför dom valde det numret i artikeln). Plus att dom inte heller tar hänsyn till ev "extra" chit draws.
 

Men som sagt var (igen) - jag har ingen åsikt i frågan om dessa varianter - har aldrig spelet med någon variant. Men jag tycker själv att direkt lägga till en röd när man drar den först (enligt Pleva) låter lite udda/märkligt.

Med den matten kan vi konstatera (12 chits är knappt relevant) att 6 chit draws ser det ut så här...
Tysk Normal Ammuntion (8B/3R): 3.58 (vanliga regler och LHR 11), 3.73 (Pleva).
Rysk Normal Ammuntion (5B/2R): 3.33 (vanliga regler och LHR 11), 3.18 (Pleva).

[CTABKA]

OBA Varianterna tillkom på grund av Bad chits drawn: a) 2R chits drawn in a row

b) 1B & 2R or c) 1R & 1B & 1R

Artikeln bör därför baseras på det, dvs 2R chits drawn:

a) (Pleva ) Russ OBA 5B / 4R and Germ OBA 8B / 5R 

a) (LHR 11) Russ OBA 5B / 1R and Germ OBA 8B / 2R

 

1B and 2R chits or 1R & 1B & 1R drawn:

b) (Pleva) Russ OBA 4B / 4R and Germ OBA 7B / 5R 

b) (LHR 11) Russ OBA 4B / 1R and Germ OBA 7B / 2R

Möjligen framgår det i artikeln varför Pleva OBA regel tillkom, om det är för att rätta till 2 red chits drawn - early, så har den misslyckats fundamentalt, med att göra en "Naval OBA rule with more red chits twist".

Edited July 16, 2022 by CTABKA

[Sparafucil3]

Hey guys. I have been doing some thinking on OBA and Klas pointed me to this thread (and Google translate helped too  ). I too proofed the article Klas mentioned earlier and I recently re-read the Medrow's article. What strikes me about the upcoming article and Medrow's is they speak in terms of "card pulls" without explaining or considering what that ACTUALLY means. A BLACK card represents THREE player turns of activity (at least). On the first player turn, you draw a card, you place an AR, and resolved to an SR. On the second player turn, you convert the SR to an FFE:1, resolve it, and flip to to an FFE:2. On player turn 3, you resolve the FFE:2 and flip to an FFE:C. Finally, on player turn 4, you can draw another card. To pull 6 BLACK cards takes AT LEAST 18 player turns, a FULL 9 turn game. As such, both of these articles are a little divorced from the game's realities. 

So I wrote some python code to simulate the games. What you see below is what I see. First, the assumptions:

• I am not considering situations that require an extra card draw
• I am not worrying about accuracy, or break down for radios or phones
• I am assuming the player is smart enough to place his AR in LOS 

Looking at the image, 

• Game Length is in FULL ASL terms. Yes, 15 is a lot of turns but you need long games to get to the "mathematically expected games" which are determined using "card pulls" 
• Contact Num -- the number to roll <= for Contact. 
  • The script does account for the Maintenance DRM 
  • The script does account for loss of Contact when conducting actions
• Conversion Rate: this is a randomizing factor for conversion from SR to FFE:1. Where is 100, assumes you convert EVERY chance you get. Where it is 50, it assumes you would convert it 50% of the time or move it 50% of the time. IMO, 50% is too high but I am not sure what a more realistic number is for it. 
• Black Cards is the number of Black Cards drawn on average. 
• Zero through 4+ is the number of FFE:1's placed. On the Zero mission line, you can see things like .01 (7). This means .01% of 100K games resulted in zero missions. The number (7) is the actual number of games.
• Only a 5 Black/2 Red deck is being considered here. 

With those constraints, you can see the Leaflet rules are hands down better for long games. The correlate very closely to the Standard Rules. But those "Long Games" are 15 turns here. When we consider more realistic games (6 and 8 turns), the numbers become much more consistent across all the systems. In the 6 - 8 range, I think the Borås system is actually closer to the Standard rules. Each system is close in terms of Black cards, but the Borås system matches the zero/one/two/three/four plus mission total more closely than the other three. 

Again, this is just a 5B / 2R deck. I plan on completing 8B / 3R with a Contact Num of 8 (standard German) and then the American 10B / 3R (contact 8  )  tomorrow. After that, I may do all of the card draw possibilities. but only under "game conditions" .  -- jim

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Sparafucil3

[CTABKA]

I find it interesting, to see your conclusions, although think some conclusions raise questions and are not easy to understand. Think our OBA experience beat your Python Code.

- Supporting Fire in Borås used the standard OBA rule but the Leaflet OBA rule, is from November 2021 implemented. Agreed with Andreas C. during my round when 4 red chits where pulled by my opponent, so play could countinue. Did not wanted to win due to poor tournament rules.

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by CTABKA

[Sparafucil3]

No simulation is perfect. There are assumptions being made to simplify actual game play. For instance, I don't think there is any way to accurately reflect the decision to convert or not convert. There is no accounting for LOS or extra card draws. I have no mechanism to account for radio malfunction and repair. How often should I cancel and FFE:1 and start a more important fire missions? Those are things you'll have to factor in on your own. Any judgements I made on their game impact would just be more assumptions clouding the results. 

My biggest desire was to explore the idea of chit draws inside the concept of the game turns, something all the previous literature ignores. When doing that, all of the systems are reasonably close to the Standard rules so as to be considered the same. The Leaflet rules are the best at protecting against zero mission games. The Borås rules due a better job of adhering to the the frequency of the Standard rules. The Borås rules and Leaflet Rules also protect to the composition of the deck when it comes to extra card draw possibilities. 

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. All of these systems are close enough together so as to be the same within some narrow margin of error. Any of the modifications do an excellent job of preventing ZERO fire missions for a double RED. After that, it all comes down to taste, and there is no accounting for that in any kind of simulation. 

 

[Sparafucil3]

Here is an 8B / 3R deck. 

Also, because of the way random numbers are generated in python, I can force the same string of numbers from one test run to the next. As such, the ONLY difference between one run and the next is the changing of the test parameters. The allows me to see the difference the parameter makes and not have to worry about the vagaries of random numbers being different from one run to the next. 

Also, let me explain the Borås deck just in case. It is similar to the Pleva mod except it starts shuffling 2 RED cards back into the deck on the SECOND RED card, not the first like the original. My group used to calls this "MOD PLEVA". Klas explained it to me as the Borås method so I use that term here. 

In the 6 turn comparison, all of the methods are fairly close to the Standard deck and they all do a good job of protecting against zero missions. In the 8 turn column, all of the variations are pushing the limits of "fairly close" to the Standard deck. They are close to being no good. This is particularly telling in the Three Missions and Four Plus Mission rows of the data. The Borås method in particular seems to be more deadly. Perhaps later I will run some experiments to see where these models might break down. The longer the game goes, the more the Leaflet method should be preferred though. It is the closest to the Standard rules in the 15 turn game so it's deviation from Standard will be the lowest over the long run. 

Melvin: would you be open to some errata on your Leaflet rules? The first sentence of rule 11 should read: 

When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module and no more than one black and/or red chit(s) have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile and the second permanently-removed red chit is drawn, return it to the Draw Pile instead, and that ends the Observer’s OBA actions for that Player Turn ..

The "and/or" there means the deck should end on 1B and 1R which is clearly not your intent. 

 

[Klas Malmström]

35 minutes ago, Sparafucil3 said:

Also, let me explain the Borås deck just in case. It is similar to the Pleva mod except it starts shuffling 2 RED cards back into the deck on the SECOND RED card, not the first like the original. My group used to calls this "MOD PLEVA". Klas explained it to me as the Borås method so I use that term here.

...och bara för att vara tydlig - jag kallade det som Carlsson beskrev här:
https://forum.aslsweden.com/index.php?/topic/6964-lhr-oba-vs-pleva-oba/&do=findComment&comment=31358

 

för "Borås"-varianten, när jag beskrev den för Jim. Så "Borås" är denna i hans simuleringar - inte vad eventuellt används i Supporing Fire.

[CTABKA]

Find the different OBA stats rather similiar with few exceptions and ignore the more real issue, why? the OBA variants were created.

They were created due to Bad chits drawn, the only stats needed is the diffrences when that happens, and the differences will be clear and tangible.

Article should be based upon - bad chits drawn issue.

DRAW PILE 5B / 2R -Norm Ammo- 8B / 3R

2R chits drawn in a row, Draw pile, before 3rd chit is drawn:

Pleva ) Russ OBA 5B / 4R ...........Germ OBA 8B / 5R 

Borås ) Russ OBA 5B / 2R ..........Germ OBA 8B / 3R 

Leaflet ) Russ OBA 5B / 1R .........Germ OBA 8B / 2R

................................................................................

1B and 2R chits or 1R & 1B & 1R drawn, before 3rd chit draw:

Pleva) Russ OBA 4B / 4R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 5R 

Borås) Russ OBA 4B / 2R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 3R

Leaflet) Russ OBA 4B / 1R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 2R

.....................................................................................

DRAW PILE 5B / 3R -Scarce Ammo- 8B / 4R (Hedgehog of Piepsk)

2R chits drawn in a row, Draw pile, before 3rd chit is drawn:

Pleva ) Russ OBA 5B / 5R ...........Germ OBA 8B / 6R 

Borås ) Russ OBA 5B / 3R ..........Germ OBA 8B / 4R 

Leaflet ) Russ OBA 5B / 2R .........Germ OBA 8B / 3R

................................................................................

1B and 2R chits or 1R & 1B & 1R drawn, before 3rd chit draw:

Pleva) Russ OBA 4B / 5R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 6R 

Borås) Russ OBA 4B / 3R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 4R

Leaflet) Russ OBA 4B / 2R ..........Germ OBA 7B / 3R

Extra chit drawn becomes even worse with the two Pleva variants.

[Klas Malmström]

Ser ut (för mig) som om det inte är så stor statistisk skillnad mellan dom olika varianterna i ett "normalt" 6-8 turns scenario.

Skillnaden ligger väl i att Pleva, Leaflet, och Carlsson/Borås varianterna minskar risken för att man inte skall få in en enda Fire Missions (kan ju fortfarande ske om man envisas med att dra röda kort hela tiden :- ) ). Med Pleva varianten kan man dessutom aldrig garanterat (två röda) bli av med OBA Modulen.

Skulle jag välja en variant så är nog Pleva varianten den sista jag skulle välja - tycker att lägga till en röd vi den första röda är för "hårt". Det "drabbar" ju inte endast ordinarie draws, utan även "extra" dylika, också något som är relevant att betänka enlig mig - tror Mel även nämnde det ovan.

 

Vad gäller artikeln i nästa Journal så är den främst inriktad på matematiken/statistiken bakom t.ex., "hur många Fire Missions får man i snitt ner", "sannolikheten att inte få någon alls". Mest rå-data "analys" mao. Jag har korrekturläst den och mig gav den inte så mycket. Skall sägas att jämförelsen standard <--> Pleva endast är en del av artikeln.

I ASL scenario spel-sammanhang anser jag att den inte är så relevant...för många faktorer är uteslutna...men jag tror även det är svårt att ta hänsyn till alla.

Bästa sättet att avgöra vilken variant/standard man tycker funkar bäst är sannolikt att spela med dom olika. Statistik/simuleringar säger endast en del av "sanningen".

[Sparafucil3]

1 hour ago, CTABKA said:

Find the different OBA stats rather similiar with few exceptions and ignore the more real issue, why? the OBA variants were created.

They were created due to Bad chits drawn, the only stats needed is the diffrences when that happens, and the differences will be clear and tangible.

Article should be based upon - bad chits drawn issue.

I know WHY they were created. I haven't talked about that because I agree with the reasoning and I thought it self evident. 

However, IMO saying the only comparison that matters is comparing the zero fire mission chance isn't fair at all. Take a look at the 8 turn game I showed above and look at the distribution of zero, one, two, three and four plus fire missions. There are nearly 14% more three mission games using the Pleva and Carlsson/Borås variant. The Carlsson/Borås is even worse in the 4+ mission line. Your Leaflet rules how ever show a very similar distribution to the Standard module in the three- and four plus mission lines. I would bet the 2 mission line would be very close too if you allowed the module to expire after 1 Black instead of 2 Black. 

IMO, for games under 6 turns long, any of these systems are pretty much interchangeable. The Pleva and Carlsson/Borås systems don't eliminate the chance of a RED card--which is their stated intention--but they do GREATLY diminish the likelihood. In that respect, both of these system CAN--but rarely will--fail with their stated intention.  

But at about 8 turns, the Leaflet system begins to emerge as the better system. I was pretty sure the "add RED cards" strategy would break down over time. Now I know where that is. I was not sure ANY system would be close to the Standard model but I now know that's false. The Leaflet system is a damn good change. I will try to run a comparison allowing elimination of the model after the first BLACK to see if it is even closer. 

[CTABKA]

Greenwood & Leaflet OBA rules are very similiar during play.

About 25%  that the Leaflet OBA rules differs in its outcome in regards to bad drawn of permanently red chits, Extra red chits drawn and rolling a DR of 12 on the Radio/Phone.

75% of times the Leaflet OBA rule will not come into play at all. Also, Leader observer(s) will be released earlier of its observer role and can take up other combat duties. Due to the less red chits involved.

The 2 Pleva OBA variants take longer time to play with, due to more bookkeeping, with shifting Drawpiles in both directions and can easily spiral out of control during bad red chits drawn. The fire missions FFE blasts will make a later apperance during play and tactical advantage will be lost due to frontlines have changed and perhaps friendly troops have already entererd the area their OBA was supposed to have targeted with FFE earlier.

 

 

[Sparafucil3]

11 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Greenwood & Leaflet OBA rules are very similiar during play.

They are close. They are nearly identical when you allow for one BLACK rather than forcing two. IMO, the best OBA system would be one which used the LHR and allowed for a minimum of 1 BLACK card. Any second Red before the FIRST BLACK get's shuffled back into the deck. Any SECOND RED after one or more BLACK cards ends the module. I can now show that empirically. 

Interestingly, this is effectively the same as saying "First Card is automatically Black" by SSR. -- jim

[CTABKA]

47 minutes ago, Sparafucil3 said:

They are close. They are nearly identical when you allow for one BLACK rather than forcing two. IMO, the best OBA system would be one which used the LHR and allowed for a minimum of 1 BLACK card. Any second Red before the FIRST BLACK get's shuffled back into the deck. Any SECOND RED after one or more BLACK cards ends the module. I can now show that empirically. 

Interestingly, this is effectively the same as saying "First Card is automatically Black" by SSR. -- jim

One permanently (regardless if automatically) Black card drawn can be eliminated due to an extra Red chit drawn.

Then the problem returns at worse odds of drawing a string of red chits, due to less black chits in the draw pile 

Only one black chit converted into an FFE is not of much use if it shatters off target, or a string of DR- results in no effect. Two (or more) black chits is the best approach and what you should expect in a Scenario.

Edited August 1, 2022 by CTABKA

[Sparafucil3]

So backing up my last post, here is one final table comparing Standard, LHR, LHR (allowing 1 BLACK), and Pleva Rules. 

Over long the long haul, the Pleva rules are unbalancing. The tipping point is somewhere between 8 and 15 turns. I do not know for sure if that tipping point is also deck dependent. The effect of adding cards on additional draws is also bad. 

The LHR do a good job of remaining close to the Standard rules for all ranges but one: 1 FFE fire mission. That is by design. But that design causes some variance relative to the Standard model. It does an EXCELLENT job making sure you get at least one mission (something like 1 in 10 billion chance to not get at least one). But in pushing for at least two missions, it does skew the expected missions to the right. You can see that in the graph below. 

The LHR +1B (using the LHR but allowing for only 1 Black). Is exceptionally close to the Standard model. 

You can clearly see how the Pleva model falls apart on long games. 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Sparafucil3

[Sparafucil3]

26 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

Only one black chit converted into an FFE is not of much use if it shatters off target, or a string of DR- results in no effect. Two (or more) black chits is the best approach and what you should expect in a Scenario.

There is no doubt there are many things that can't be accounted for in a simulation. The real game is too complex. Accounting for those differences and the model are up to the player. After all, your second chit is not of much use if it too, shatters off target, or suffers a string of bad DR, results in no effect. 

I am not trying to measure results. Imagine all the possible combinations of TEM and OBAs column alone. Then add in LOS requirements, conversion requirements, accuracy DR's, malfunction DR, and any other rule applicable and it becomes impossible to predict the outcomes. That way lays madness. I am trying to measure opportunities (BLACK Cards drawn) and show the possible range of outcomes measured in possible fire missions for those conditions. What all of that means and how it gets integrated into an ASL game is on the player. 

Thanks everyone for the reasoned discussion. Much appreciated. -- jim

[Fiedler]

14 hours ago, CTABKA said:

I find it interesting, to see your conclusions, although think some conclusions raise questions and are not easy to understand. Think our OBA experience bet your Python Code.

 

Utan att föringa er erfarenhet så tenderar jag att tro mer på matematik om man diskuterar statistik och sannolikhet.

 

Med det sagt föredrar jag någon (utan inbördes rangordning) av de tre alternativa metoderna före standard ASL OBA.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Fiedler

[Klas Malmström]

17 minutes ago, Fiedler said:

Utan att föringa er erfarenhet så tenderar jag att tro mer på matematik om man diskuterar statistik och sannolikhet.

Matematik/statistik ljuger inte vad gäller sannolikheten....dock är det svårare att använda den när man skall se på hur(i-vilka-lägen OBA används. Modellerna blir alltför komplicerade...så där tror jag test/erfarenhet kommer in....

[CTABKA]

8 hours ago, Sparafucil3 said:

They are close. They are nearly identical when you allow for one BLACK rather than forcing two.

Not true, the Leaflet OBA rule is identical to the standard Greenwood OBA design 75% of the times

Only about one OBA module out of 4 OBA modules used, will the Leaflet rule make a difference, your stats implies (or not clearly written) that the Leaflet OBA rule is always a bit different than the ASL OBA rules.

EX: 17 october , Red Barricades, a typical start of CG III

Russians start with two Btln MTR 80+mm

id A, Norm Ammo 5B / 2R.........id B, Scarce Ammo 5B / 3R

Germans start with two Btln MTR 80+mm (one with Pre-Reg hex, and each with an offb'd Observer )

id C, Plentiful Ammo 10B / 3R......id D, Norm Ammo 8B / 3R

The Russians will make about 20 Contact DR with their Field Phones (50% chance a DR of 12 is made, it is still poor luck but the OBA can 'possible' continue to call in more fire mission unless a 2nd Red chit drawn ends the module).

About 50% that one OBA module of the four modules only receive none or only 1 black chit with the Original rule, but yet again the LHR intervene and allow the OBA module to be operational,  it is still poor luck since the OBA actions are delayed, and enemy troops have been alerted that a pause of the enemy artillery have occurred.

- One time in the early-mid 1990+, my buddy Danne box:ed both his Russian field Phones on the first day 17/10 of the CG, he retained both his Btln MTR, but it did not matter since the CG ended after that.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by CTABKA

[Sparafucil3]

3 hours ago, CTABKA said:

Not true, the Leaflet OBA rule is identical to the standard Greenwood OBA design 75% of the times

Only about one OBA module out of 4 OBA modules used, will the Leaflet rule make a difference, your stats implies (or not clearly written) that the Leaflet OBA rule is always a bit different than the ASL OBA rules.

LHR is much like car insurance: just because you didn't need your car insurance doesn't mean you aren't covered against accident. 

A simple statement like "75% of the time" doesn't cover it either. For ANY deck, the only failing pulls are RED RED, RED BLACK RED, or BLACK RED RED. Any other pull combination will have 2 BLACK before the second RED. So for a 5B/2R deck, the chance of failing to get 2 FFE is about 15%. For an 8B/3R deck its about 15%. For a 10B/3R deck, its about 11%. Now a 5B/3R deck--Russians with Scarce Ammo--has about a 28% chance of NOT/NOT getting 2 FFE.

Broadly speaking, every deck which has RED cards < half the number of Black Cards (FRD) is likely below your 75% threshold.  Any combination where the number of RED >= half the number of BLACK cards (FRD) is likely above your 75% threshold. Decks where the number of RED cards is equal to half of the BLACK cards come very close to your 75% threshold but are generally below it. 

Again, broadly speaking, unless the deck is inflicted with Scarce Ammo, the chances of using protection against the three bad sequences is generally below 15%. 

Of all the rules I have examined WRT OBA, the LHR are by far the best I have seen. I intend to adopt them in my game play with the modification for 1 BLACK chit I outlined above. To me, that is the perfect balance between protecting against 2 RED cards without making OBA more effective than the standard model. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Sparafucil3

[CTABKA]

About 75% estimation is perhaps better expressed in the range from 65-80, in the range from 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5,  depending on the Draw pile (Pleva OBA should be down to only 10-20%).

But only one Black chit as you suggest is not a good option, do not believe any scenario designer estimate only Fire Mission in the scenario, especially if Hvy Artillery 120+mm , 150+mm is involved.

Remember when we played with the original Greenwood OBA rules that purchase of a high-CPP-cost-large-calibre artillery was a no-no , and if it happened to be purchased it would be attached with an Offb'd Observer if possible (to avoid the dreaded Contact DR of 12), and Pre-Reg hex to increase black chits drawn and be able to quickly hammer  enemy position.

 

[CTABKA]

Stavka OBA variant, for the long 10 turns  scenarios.

- SA 2b Spoils of War - Germ OBA 80+mm 9B / 3R, Pre-Reg hexes, Spottar Plane, function as an all-seeing-Offb'd Observer.

- SA 6E On The Bound - Germ OBA 100+mm 8B / 3R

Two 10 Game Turns, Stavka Archives scenarios, each OBA ends first when all 3 Red Chits have been drawn.

Discovered during playtest that the Germans needed their artillery to last longer, due to the length of the scenarios and the strength of the Russian OB.

[Sparafucil3]

9 hours ago, CTABKA said:

But only one Black chit as you suggest is not a good option, do not believe any scenario designer estimate only Fire Mission in the scenario, especially if Hvy Artillery 120+mm , 150+mm is involved.

IMO, you give scenario designers too much credit. I wish scenario designers would publish notes about how the OBA worked in playtesting. So many designers have said "you can win without the OBA". All that does is tell me the scenario is a dog if I get my OBA. Most designers I have met are not good players themselves. 

 

[Sparafucil3]

Melvin, 

Could you write me a couple of sentences about what you were trying to do with your OBA system? What were your goals? What was your intention? What do you want it to accomplish? I am asking because I am going to write an article discussing the merits of all these different OBA systems to expose them to a broader audience. I don't want to misrepresent your intentions. Thanks. -- jim

[CTABKA]

STALINGRAD - RED BARRICADES & OCTOBER - Leaflet House Rules (with footnotes)

11. OFFBOARD ARTILLERY: When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module, if the second permanently-removable red chit is drawn and less than two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile, return that red chit to the Draw Pile instead. Your OBA actions for this battery are done for this Player Turn (i.e., the second red chit can only be removed from the Draw Pile if at least two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile for that OBA Module). An Original Contact/Maintenance DR of 12 does not cause the breakdown of a Radio or elimination of a Field Phone, although an Original DR of 12 does cause the loss of Radio/Field-Phone Contact. A Security Area line of hexes (C1.23) can be drawn to any non-Isolated Location and is never cut for any reason (i.e., the line can have bends and is never cut by FFE/enemy-DR-of-2).

HIP OBSERVER ON ROOF: Each HIP leader in possession of only a Field Phone (or Radio) in a Roof Location remains HIP despite enemy LOS to its Location (i.e., as opposed to other units, see B23.82).

RUSSIAN OFFBOARD ARTILLERY OBSERVER: Each Russian OBA Module purchased on 24th October and thereafter, has the option to have an Offboard Observer assigned to it (at no cost). The Offboard Observer is at level 3 of any east-edge hex, secretly recorded before German setup.

SPOTTER PLANE: Ignore E7.6-.62 and use the following rule instead: A Spotter Plane is only available for non-Rocket OBA > 100+mm and is an Offboard Observer (C1.63) with the ability of LOS to all Locations [EXC: Sewer/Culvert] on the map and Hindrance drm never apply to the Accuracy dr. A Spotter Plane is immediately revealed when the Module assigned to the Spotter Plane has its SR or AR converted to an FFE:1 (place a Spotter Plane on the map, a Glider counter may be used). Only one Spotter Plane is allowed per CG scenario and may not be used in Overcast/Mist weather conditions.

footnotes

Offboard Artillery: This simple draw-pile rule, that could be implemented in the official rules, will let you remove at least two black chits from the draw pile. There are many ways an OBA module can become a failure, but breakdown of a Radio or elimination of a Field Phone (DR of 12) are the most frequent failures. A DR of 12 will now only be a temporary failure and not, as before, mostly a permanent failure. A Field Phone’s Security Area line is a rather boring surveillance-rule. Can also be subjected to very gamey tactics if the opponent knows or suspects the observer’s hidden location. Now the Field Phone’s Security Area line can be drawn to any non-Isolated Location, makes more sense (note without the House Rule, a security line must be able to run through friendly Controlled terrain and cannot have bends around enemy controlled hexes, see SSR CG6 [O11.4]). We are very pleased, with how these OBA rules have worked out while playing with them. When we now roll a DR of 12 for Radio/Field-Phone Contact or draw the second red chit (with only one [or no] black chit permanently removed) it is still considered to be bad luck, but much less so than before.

HIP Observers on Roof: An artillery observer (like a Sniper) should have an easier task of staying hidden as opposed to other units on roofs. Recon by fire (or movement) vs suspected observers on roofs is dangerous enough, if revealed. Simple discover by LOS within 16 hexes is not what we wanted in our games, and now we can avoid the routine of unit(s) setup plot on roofs, to hopefully discover a clumsy/tired roof setup of an enemy observer within 16 hexes. When playing the CG, with a shrinking perimeter for the Russians, it is getting harder to have an observer (on-board) that will not easily be searched out with a hail of enemy fire. The Germans will also benefit from this rule, only less so.

Russian Offboard Artillery Observer: As the Germans historically approached the area beyond the factory complex towards the Volga river, the artillery intensity from the Russians increased in ferocity. You could claim that there is no 2nd level locations around the ferry camp area or 3rd level locations on the Volga edge hexes. Still, the Russians had the area the Germans were attacking across well mapped out in advance, the Russian offboard observers are in that sense just another abstraction among many of this game. The rule simulate the following: After the German build-up and the first day (23rd Oct) of attack that was unleashed into the Red October factory complex and also towards the railway embankment on the Red Barricades map from the west direction. Chuikov had a lengthy phone call with the artillery general, that without massive artillery support – now – the front would collapse and reinforcements not be able to arrive in time.

Spotter Plane: Chapters E, F, and G would benefit if a total re-write of them was done since much of them is clearly the opposite of design for effect, simplicity, and clarity or simple a bad joke (Animal-Pack, Convoy, Panjis, etc.). The too complex language-text used for most of them is not in comparison with chapters A-D (or chapter O). They also seem to be written, more with the intent of heavy realism in mind (or you could say too little abstraction) instead of playability. The very thing that the written introduction to Chapters A-D claims to have tried to avoid in an attempt to preserve it as a simpler game of this scale. Anyhow, this simplified Design for Effect house rule for Spotter Planes, that will speed up play, replaces the 37 lines of rule text found in chapter E and the God of War has a real presence in the sky above. Lastly, the original rule for a Spotter Plane that allows a Mistaken attack to occur, why does it even have to exist? We usually bomb our own troops with artillery anyhow in the CG, no need for a rule that allows the Russians to gain temporary control over the German OBA module with 150+mm artillery guns (or 100+mm).

Edited August 4, 2022 by CTABKA

[carlsson]

Jim, welcome to the forums!

To add some words to this interesting discussion; I think it's important to know there is a *reason* we changed the original rules. Personally, I hate to change rules, but sometimes you just have to – you spend so many hours playing this game, and we play because we want to have fun. By adding extra red chits instead of ending Battery Access permanently, you still have the *chance* of getting OBA access, but it gets harder for every red chit you draw. In CG's especially, as Melvin pointed out above, you don't want to spend a lot of CPP's to just see your OBA go away after one mission. We decided that there will always be a chance – It's just more fun that way.

We started altering the chit pile 10-15 years ago. At first by adding one red chit with the first and upcoming red ones, and mix them back in the pile. When trying this we realized that it was way to steep – ie, after a couple of red chits the pile was too crowded with red ones, and it was unplayable (maybe that's not what the statistic says, but that is what happened for us). 

So we altered the process by adding a red chit with the second red instead. Still a chance to get OBA, and still fun. 

 

This is how we are playing today, and this is also the rules we currently have at Supporting Fire (you must have missed this last year Mel, the rules existed). 

With this said, I don't know what is best. I just know that OBA is fun!  

[carlsson]

40 minutes ago, CTABKA said:

No we did not, you admitted such a rule did not exist, the new OBA text writing layout have never been seen before on the Supporting Fire web site.

Before 2021 we had the following rule:

- If the scenario contains OBA the owner will get a minimum of one black chit draw. Meaning, if the two red chits first then the second red chit is considered a black chit and it will be your final fire mission. 

(Which is also saved by the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210801155233/https://supportingfire.com/attractions/ )

 

For the 2021 tournament we changed it to the same as ASO, I remember that you and I talked about it and you had opinions about the wording.  

However, this is very Off Topic, if we remember differently it doesn't matter. You solved it good anyways.

[Sparafucil3]

2 hours ago, carlsson said:

Jim, welcome to the forums!

To add some words to this interesting discussion; I think it's important to know there is a *reason* we changed the original rules. Personally, I hate to change rules, but sometimes you just have to – you spend so many hours playing this game, and we play because we want to have fun. By adding extra red chits instead of ending Battery Access permanently, you still have the *chance* of getting OBA access, but it gets harder for every red chit you draw. In CG's especially, as Melvin pointed out above, you don't want to spend a lot of CPP's to just see your OBA go away after one mission. We decided that there will always be a chance – It's just more fun that way.

We started altering the chit pile 10-15 years ago. At first by adding one red chit with the first and upcoming red ones, and mix them back in the pile. When trying this we realized that it was way to steep – ie, after a couple of red chits the pile was too crowded with red ones, and it was unplayable (maybe that's not what the statistic says, but that is what happened for us). 

So we altered the process by adding a red chit with the second red instead. Still a chance to get OBA, and still fun. 

 

This is how we are playing today, and this is also the rules we currently have at Supporting Fire (you must have missed this last year Mel, the rules existed). 

With this said, I don't know what is best. I just know that OBA is fun!  

Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. I am working on an OBA article seeking to understand the various methods of altering the double-red issue. The one you use is one sometimes called "Modified Pleva" rules in the the US. 

Based on all my work, each of the systems are excellent protecting against double red. Each system can still pull nothing but red cards and still get no OBA. Systems that add red cards back into the deck are most likely to suffer from this. As the number of Red Cards becomes equal to half the black cards--for what ever reason--the decks become very chaotic. Adding Red cards to the deck makes this happen quicker. 

Each of these systems also do a very good job of staying close to the Standard model for 10 turn games or shorter. Systems that ADD Red cards break down from this point, significantly deviating from the Standard model. 

Which system is best depends on your design decisions. For these decisions, it comes down to your beliefs on how OBA "should" be done and there is no way to measure or quantify that. FWIW, all these systems try to protect the radio so I am not going to speak to that. It is worth noting that LHR won't even let the Radio malfunction, let alone break/X. 

PLEVA: I spoke with Steve. He had a couple of reasons for his method. First, he wanted to stop the double Red. But second, he didn't want OBA to EVER go away because once it does, the other side starts playing differently. He wanted the player facing OBA to always be under the threat of a new mission. His system accomplishes this. Steve is OK with the added red chits affecting EXTRA CHIT draws. His reasoning is there should be some price to pay for your OBA never going away. 

Borås: Based on your post, your reasoning sounds much like Steve's for his system. I did not include this system in my last graphic as it is not statistically different from Steve's system. The profile looks much the same and it responds much the same. 

LHR: Per Melvin's post above, there is a goal of stopping double red from stopping two Fire missions. It does this flawlessly. Melvin also worries about extra red cards effect EXTRA CHIT draws. His system accounts for this too. It is pretty elegant and, IMO, better than schemes which ADD cards to the decks. 

LHR1B: This system has all the same objectives of the LHR EXCEPT a belief that there should be two FFE at a minimum. Otherwise, it is exactly like the LHR rules. 

If you want to remain true to the "Standard" distribution of FFE, then LHR1B is the best system out there. If you think there should be 2 FFE, then the LHR is hands down better. If you worry about the effects of extra red cards on extra chit draws, then the LHR-based rules are best in class. If you want the OBA to ALWAYS be a threat, then either RED card addition system will work. The are relatively the same.

If I were designing OBA today, I would use LHR1B. It remains truest to the original rules without skewing the resultant number of FFE significantly compared to the standard model. It also sidesteps the extra card problem. I would probably also maintain Melvin's "Radios don't break" position as well. I think that makes a lot of sense for something this critical to the game. Perhaps I would allow the radio to malfunction, make the repair dr 1 - 3/4, and a 6 would not eliminate the radio. But IMO, making OBA even more dicey than it already can be is a bad design decision. 

 

[Sparafucil3]

2 hours ago, CTABKA said:

No we did not, you admitted such a rule did not exist, the new OBA text writing layout have never been seen before on the Supporting Fire web site.

FWIW, you need to change the wording of your rule too IMO:

Quote

When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module and no more than one black and/or red chit(s) have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile and the second permanently-removed red chit is drawn, return it to the Draw Pile instead,

Red AND Black permanently removed and second red chit is drawn is a dead deck per this. Black OR Red and second red chit is also a dead deck per this. The same logic would hold for RED and/or RED. It is only your example which makes your intent clear. The rule should probably read something like: 

Quote

When attempting Battery Access for an OBA Module, if the second permanently-removable red chit is drawn and less than two black chits have been permanently removed from the Draw Pile, return that red chit to the Draw Pile instead. Your OBA actions for this battery are done for this turn.

This is more in line with your example. Just my .02. -- jim

[CTABKA]

I can change it , only Swedes and a Finn involved in the English text, if you think it would be more clear, I believe you and will update the documents.

The documents for Operation Veritable, Red Barricades and Red October have been updated almost along the lines you suggested.

Edited August 4, 2022 by CTABKA

[CTABKA]

Jim wrote "It is worth noting that LHR won't even let the Radio malfunction, let alone break/X. "

That is true, but the exceptions are IFT KIA results (and CC) that can Break/X a Phone/Radio

[CTABKA]

The article could also include the STAVKA ARCHIVES OBA variants for the East Front (used for 20 Player Turns scenarios).

STAVKA ARCHIVES OBA:

German OBA ends first when 3 Red chits have been drawn for a German OBA Module. Different possible OBA Draw Piles: 8-10B / 3-4R

Russian OBA end first when 3 Red chits have been drawn for a Russian OBA Module. Different OBA Draw Piles: 5-7B / 2-3R, when the 2nd red chit is drawn, return it to the draw pile (even for Scarce Ammo), so it is possible to draw a 3rd red chit that would end the OBA Module.

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by CTABKA

[Klas Malmström]

23 hours ago, carlsson said:

With this said, I don't know what is best. I just know that OBA is fun!  

I think it is mostly down to personal preference due to experience with different variants...not having played with any of the variants, I will say that Pleva variant is likely the last one I would try.

[Sparafucil3]

@CTABKA Do you have a link where your Leaflet House Rules are available outside of this forum? I don't want to flood the forum with people coming to look for the rules. If you do not have a link, do you mind if I post a copy of the most current on my blog? I am writing an article on OBA systems and I will be speaking about yours and I want to direct people to the rules if they would like to try them. I don't think it would be fair to expect them to sign up here, nor would it be fair to the forum members here to have to wade through a bunch of new people. Please let me know. Thanks! -- jim

 

[carlsson]

1 hour ago, Sparafucil3 said:

@CTABKA Do you have a link where your Leaflet House Rules are available outside of this forum? I don't want to flood the forum with people coming to look for the rules. If you do not have a link, do you mind if I post a copy of the most current on my blog? I am writing an article on OBA systems and I will be speaking about yours and I want to direct people to the rules if they would like to try them. I don't think it would be fair to expect them to sign up here, nor would it be fair to the forum members here to have to wade through a bunch of new people. Please let me know. Thanks! -- jim

 

Or, two options:
- Make them available at aslsweden.com (ie, outside the forum).

- Allow guests to download files from the forum (which is basically a privilege set in the forum engine). The default is to not allow guest download, but I can't see the harm if spam bots download various ASL content? (Maybe we catch a new player from India that way!? 😂)