FMG COMBAT UNITS - Rules: COMMANDER

  • Customizer

    @Razor:

    @Viracocha:

    Honestly, adding any house rules always extends a game, and they add up fast.

    You are correct, can’t argue against that.

    Basically it boils down to what do you want with your life ? How to spend all the time ? Whats better, play a lot of cheap and fast games, or one high quality game ?
    I spend so many hours on work, and so many in bed, and they all feel wasted. So better skip the dull housework and gardening, let the au-pair from Thailand clean up the house and do the laundry, then you get extra time to put into an epic game of A&A with lots of house rules. You only live once, remember. Are you married ? Ditch the bithc and get even more playing time. It all comes down to decisions.

    Eh eh eh… good times.  I believe this convo is veering into areas that while pertinent to my A&A games, also takes in philosophical aspects that might be too extensive to cover on the forum.  I believe there is a happy medium in regard to playing time, depending on which gaming group I’m playing with.  Yeah I’m married, my wife is German and enjoys playing Germany in A&A (though of course not as much as me, preferring a couple other boardgames over A&A… I’ve grudgingly accepted this fact), she’s intelligent and hot, been with her for many years - certainly not going to “ditch the b****”. Don’t have any kids so no nanny.  I’m a writer and prof., sometimes I get to travel as part of research… making it a point to visit old battlefields.  So yeah, it does come down to decisions, those are some of mine.    :-D

  • TripleA '12

    Hey guys, just saw this thread and had myself a little read. I know some people are talking about different levels of skill for these commander units, with different IPC costs and the like. Well, how about this for an idea just off the wall:

    There could be three levels of a Commander unit’s Skill. Every Commander piece (whether placed in the initial setup or purchased subsequently) would begin at Skill level 1, or let’s say Colonel. Then, they gradually gain skill levels by achieving certain conditions; i.e. successfully invade after a large battle, direct a blitzkrieg or successfully repel an invasion by an overwhelming force, etc. There could be all sorts of different factors.

    As soon as a Commander accomplishes one of the many possible prerequisites, he will gain the next Skill level, and these could get incrementally harder to achieve.

    Skill 1 - Colonel
    Skill 2 - General
    Skill 3 - Field Marshall

    Of course, with the new skill levels could perhaps come greater Commander capabilities or something. Maybe the higher the level, the bigger armies he could command… I dunno.

    Just thought I’d throw this out there.

  • Customizer

    @Lozmoid:

    Hey guys, just saw this thread and had myself a little read. I know some people are talking about different levels of skill for these commander units, with different IPC costs and the like. Well, how about this for an idea just off the wall:

    There could be three levels of a Commander unit’s Skill. Every Commander piece (whether placed in the initial setup or purchased subsequently) would begin at Skill level 1, or let’s say Colonel. Then, they gradually gain skill levels by achieving certain conditions; i.e. successfully invade after a large battle, direct a blitzkrieg or successfully repel an invasion by an overwhelming force, etc. There could be all sorts of different factors.

    As soon as a Commander accomplishes one of the many possible prerequisites, he will gain the next Skill level, and these could get incrementally hearder to achieve.

    Skill 1 - Colonel
    Skill 2 - General
    Skill 3 - Field Marshall

    Of course, with the new skill levels could perhaps come greater Commander capabilities or something. Maybe the higher the level, the bigger armies he could command… I dunno.

    Just thought I’d throw this out there.

    Hmm… like the concept Loz.  Truth be told, if I had enough time to implement more house rules, I’d include ‘veteran unit’ type rules to reflect skill progression.  The more experienced the more capable.  It just makes sense.  I worry though that this is not simple enough if playing with a lot of other house rules Loz. But I think if you are able to host some campaign style sessions with A&A, concepts like this are the way to go…  Flesh it out more and try it out, would be curious to hear how it works.

  • Customizer

    Lozmoid has a excellent idea,…based in reality and giving depth to our “gameplay”.

    But IMHO it would further complicate an already very complicated game and lengthen them.  As an “optional” rule for people who like games to be long they would be great.

    Like Viracocha, I also like the idea of “veteran” units but feel it would also be too complicated and time consuming to implement.

    As the “typical” A&A global game takes 6-20 hours to fully play I’m not sure we need our gameplay lengthened further.

    Like Viracocha, I prefer the “rules” to be as Logical, Simple, and Fast in terms of Gameplay and Time as possible.  To overstate this point, I don’t think many players want things so complicated that we have to carry a 100-page rule book around.

    IMHO we should all consider how each “rule” affects the overall “Big Picture” of Simplicity and Speed of Execution in our games.  Adding “rules” impacts gameplay in terms of SIMPLICITY/COMPLICATION of execution and in TIME.  If the “rules” are enough of a benifit and are simple enough to execute in time,…then I think most players would want them, myself included.

    Of course, everyone has differrent tastes but I prefer things to move along somewhat so you don’t have several players just sitting around watching one player go through a long, complicated turn.

    ------------------------------

    In the “Solomons Campaign” game that Tigerman and I are designing we are adding many COMPLICATIONS to the game,…such as:

    All of the new and/or proposed Units
    Along with their numerous new A/D/M/C factors
    And all of the new CAPABILITIES that the new units represent
    And a Supply/Logistics aspect (remember this is Guadalcanal)

    BUT,…we aren’t adding anything unless it is LOGICAL to have, SIMPLE to execute, and FAST in gameplay terms.  If we didn’t keep in mind the “Big Picture” we could easily end up with a “Monster” of a game that wouldn’t be FUN for most people.  I’m glad to say thus far I think we’ve succeeded in including everything and not having it being too complicated or time consuming.  Of course, there will also be “options” to allow for differring gameplay tastes.

    I was determined that Tigerman and I should adhere to my Logical, Simple, and Fast methods for our upcoming game,…and I believe it will be much improved
    (read more FUN) because of it.

    Of course, these are only my opinions and should only be considerred as that.  I’m not on any soapbox here, but thought we should keep “the Big Picture” in mind and how every change affects it.

    “Tall Paul”


  • @Tall:

    Like Viracocha, I also like the idea of “veteran” units but feel it would also be too complicated and time consuming to implement.

    In 1946 a study named “Combat neuroses - The development of combat exhaustion” stated that after 15 days of combat a soldier was at his peak, and he could keep this efficency for another 20 days. After 35 days he would need rest, or get exhausted. This study stated that a soldier was able to 240 days of combat during his career. After that he would be too exhausted for further duty.

    A good example is the famous Desert Rats at Caen in 1944. After 2 years of desert combat in North Africa, this men were exhausted and got utterly destroyed by fresh and young kids of the SS. Hitlerjugend. So to give a specific unit a higher combat value for each battle it survives, is not historically correct, and ruin playability too. Much to keep track on when one inf stack attack at 1, another inf stack attack at 2 or less, and then another inf stack attack at 3 or less, and the same with the artillery stacks, and tanks stack etc etc.

    I figure, when you purchase a Tank for 6 IPC, it has a high attack value of 3 or less because this unit got good weapons and a lot of training. One turn is equal to 3 months, so if the tank roll a hit in first round of combat, this is the men at their peak, and when they roll a miss, the men are combat exhausted.


  • Commanders should just allow re-rolls of specific units which missed.

    Admirals could get a re-roll of a battleship that missed
    General gets re-rolls of specific units that missed ( tanks/ mech or Art/ Infantry)

    Or they boost specific units ( specifics to be determined)

    Rommel boosts 2 mech or two artillery +1 for one round
    Manstein could boost 3-4 tanks
    Chuikov could boost three infantry +1 in Victory Cities
    Also a general could be required to obtain combat bonuses ( artillery boost infantry only with General, etc)

    Anything more than that and it is no longer fun.

    Each player would have a “hand” of certain number of these leaders available on fixed turns, and would get use of perhaps one per front.

    Germany would have 4  ( one might be an admiral for u-boats)

    Russia would have 2

    Italy 1

    Japan would have 3 and 2 of these would be admirals

    USA would have 3 and 2 of these would be admirals

    UK would have 2

    France 1

    China 1

  • Customizer

    I LIKE ILs “Re-Roll” idea and I think we should consider the possibility further.

    However, IMHO I DON’T like ILs “Boost” in attack/defense for specific units.  This is one of the few times I disgree with our Imperious Leader’s suggestions, because he almost always has the correct conclusions.

    And I still like the “Commander’s” simple presence enabling certain “capabilities” to the units under his command(within his “range”).  (Example-the Air Force Generals’ presence enabling Paratroop Drops).

    As far as the starting numbers of “Commander” units for each country I’m completely open to the suggestions of the group.  IL’s suggestions for commander totals seem quite logical.

    “Tall Paul”

  • Customizer

    @Razor:

    @Tall:

    Like Viracocha, I also like the idea of “veteran” units but feel it would also be too complicated and time consuming to implement.

    In 1946 a study named “Combat neuroses - The development of combat exhaustion” stated that after 15 days of combat a soldier was at his peak, and he could keep this efficency for another 20 days. After 35 days he would need rest, or get exhausted. This study stated that a soldier was able to 240 days of combat during his career. After that he would be too exhausted for further duty.

    A good example is the famous Desert Rats at Caen in 1944. After 2 years of desert combat in North Africa, this men were exhausted and got utterly destroyed by fresh and young kids of the SS. Hitlerjugend. So to give a specific unit a higher combat value for each battle it survives, is not historically correct, and ruin playability too. Much to keep track on when one inf stack attack at 1, another inf stack attack at 2 or less, and then another inf stack attack at 3 or less, and the same with the artillery stacks, and tanks stack etc etc.

    I figure, when you purchase a Tank for 6 IPC, it has a high attack value of 3 or less because this unit got good weapons and a lot of training. One turn is equal to 3 months, so if the tank roll a hit in first round of combat, this is the men at their peak, and when they roll a miss, the men are combat exhausted.

    Yeah… I believe Paul and I are referring to the many units that proved themselves repeatedly, their experience enabling them to be highly successful on the field.  But your notion of that “when you purchase a Tank for 6 IPC, it has -” sounds good as well.


  • @Imperious:

    Germany would have 4  ( one might be an admiral for u-boats)

    Exactely where should Admiral Donetz be placed ?

    Out at sea together with his subs, and die when they sink ?
    In a territory with Naval Base and Enigma, so he can mail all his subs and tell them to re-roll ?


  • @Imperious:

    Each player would have a “hand” of certain number of these leaders available on fixed turns, and would get use of perhaps one per front.

    Dont like it, figure this will make it a scripted game. And what if you purchase all infantry in turn 5, and the only Leader available that turn is an admiral ? This is so against the spirit of A&A. This is what I dont like with the WWII- The struggle for Europe and Pacific game, Rommel will always turn up in Libya turn 8, and you better own Libya that turn, or Rommel go straight to POW-camp.

    In the spirit of A&A, you spend the extra money and purchase the Leader that you really want, anytime.
    In case you are short of cash, let the men fight without a Leader.


  • @Imperious:

    Or they boost specific units ( specifics to be determined)

    Rommel boosts 2 mech or two artillery +1 for one round
    Manstein could boost 3-4 tanks
    Chuikov could boost three infantry +1 in Victory Cities

    Guess what, I’m against the specific unit re-roll too.

    I dont think FMG or HBG are making person specific Leader units, only a generic piece, so the Leader rule need to be streamlined.

    • Each Leader may re-roll 5 dice every turn.
    • The Leader must be present in the territory/seazone where the re-rolling take place.
    • A Leader can be purchased the same way as other units, and die when he is the last piece, just like a Tranny.

    Anything else than that, and it aint funny no more, man

  • Customizer

    Razor,

    A German Admiral could be placed in Normandy(after it’s captured) and his command capabilities would depend on his “range”, let’s say 3.  If his range couldn’t cover everything in the Atlantic and elsewhere, he would either have to:

    A.  Go to sea to enable complete coverage, or B. Forfeit complete coverage.

    A good example would be when the Allies couldn’t provide air coverage of the convoys in
    “mid-ocean” because of the range of their aircraft.

    If he went to sea he would need to have plenty of escorts to protect him, or run the risk of going down with his ship, like Admiral Lutjens on the Bismark.

    I don’t understand any difficulty with this.

    “Tall Paul”

  • Customizer

    Like I said previously, I’m in favor of the larger countrys’ starting with a smaller number of “commanders”(possibly 2).  That would allow each country to emphasize the strategies they prefer through their purchases of units and “commanders”.

    “Tall Paul”

  • Customizer

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • Each Leader may re-roll 5 dice every turn.

    IMHO I think it might be more equitable, and much less game-changing if the Leader only
    "re-rolled a percentage of the rolls, (1/2, 1/3), or possibly just a smaller number, whatever people feel is fair but not too powerfull.

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • The Leader must be present in the territory/seazone where the re-rolling take place.

    If we use the “range” method, he wouldn’t have to be in the exact land/sea zone, only within “range” (of his command).

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • A Leader can be purchased the same way as other units, and die when he is the last piece, just like a Tranny.

    I agree 100% with you on this as it allows the player to emphasize his personal strategies.  Whether they be Naval, Army, or Air Force.

    “Tall Paul”

  • '12

    @Tall:

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • Each Leader may re-roll 5 dice every turn.

    IMHO I think it might be more equitable, and much less game-changing if the Leader only
    "re-rolled a percentage of the rolls, (1/2, 1/3), or possibly just a smaller number, whatever people feel is fair but not too powerfull.

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • The Leader must be present in the territory/seazone where the re-rolling take place.

    If we use the “range” method, he wouldn’t have to be in the exact land/sea zone, only within “range” (of his command).

    @Razor:

    @Imperious:

    • A Leader can be purchased the same way as other units, and die when he is the last piece, just like a Tranny.

    I agree 100% with you on this as it allows the player to emphasize his personal strategies.  Whether they be Naval, Army, or Air Force.

    “Tall Paul”

    Completely agree with Tall Paul here on units’ power.  Slightest changes in this game’s balance and play REALLY affect things so I’d say keep it low if you like the re-roll concept…only two or three tops (IMHO).

    On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc).  A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”

    For killing off the unit, either they should die like anyone else, or perhaps can be considered captured and held by the captor until ransomed by the owner at which point sent back to the nearest Victory City/home territory controlled??  Just a thought maybe…

  • Customizer

    DFWSupertrooper,

    On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc).  A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”

    DFWSupertrooper,  I agree with your general thoughts concerning the “range” of land Generals.

    –---------------------------

    But as for the Naval Admirals they usually (but not always) had much larger “theater” sized commands (“range”).  Like “Atlantic”, “South Pacific”, “Pacific Ocean Areas”, etc.
    I believe the Admirals would need a larger “range”,…OR just give them a
    geographical “range”, such as “Atlantic”.

    What does everyone think???    (concerning the Admirals)

    “Tall Paul”

  • '12

    @Tall:

    DFWSupertrooper,

    On “range” I feel this way - the size of a terriory is VERY large in a military scale (i.e. - ALL of Central France, ALL of Western Germany, etc).  A Corps or Army Commander would likely only affect units in the same territory - that to me is a “Field Commander” vs a “Theater” Commander or “Supreme Commander.”

    DFWSupertrooper,  I agree with your general thoughts concerning the “range” of land Generals.

    –---------------------------

    But as for the Naval Admirals they usually (but not always) had much larger “theater” sized commands (“range”).  Like “Atlantic”, “South Pacific”, “Pacific Ocean Areas”, etc.
    I believe the Admirals would need a larger “range”,…OR just give them a
    geographical “range”, such as “Atlantic”.

    What does everyone think???    (concerning the Admirals)

    “Tall Paul”

    Yeah, Paul.  Agreed.  I think your idea is spot on on that - perhaps a Field Commander unit should be different than a Fleet Commander unit in scope?


  • The range thing is not necessary. What we have is field generals vs. centralized high command which makes strategic decisions.

    Patton is a field commander and should direct units only in his area.

    Eisenhower is a strategic commander and effects where people like Patton fight.

    So the benefit of a field commander should include combat bonuses or re rolls.

    The benefit of a strategic commander ( located within say 6 spaces of directed units) could be greater movement, placement bonus ( you can place a build say somewhere a factory is not) or  perhaps defender retreats.

  • Customizer

    IL,

    I believe what DFWSupertrooper and I were referring to was the the differrences between an ARMY GENERAL and a NAVY ADMIRAL.
                                                                                        "Tall Paul


  • I was not responding to those posts, just making a comment of general note.

    I guess on defense a field general should have this

    On attack i would prefer to see re rolls on tanks or mech if they miss, or some unique combined arms bonus ( Each air unit, 2 move unit, and 1 move unit gets free roll at 4 or less?)

    An Admiral would need air unit, submarine and surface warship at 1:1:1 and get extra 4 or less

    Strategic commander ( the one with range past his own space) can move 1 space units +1 in movement or NCM, or use points to place new units in non- factory city?

    Perhaps a General could have 5 points each ( 5 star general) or whatever…each action costs 1 point.

    Each point gets one extra movement or re-roll. On defense perhaps infantry can be boosted +1 if they are in home areas.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

46

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts