@Krieghund said in Latest Tournament Rules?:
I have created a new topic with a file containing the rules. Could someone please “sticky” it? Thanks.
Done, thanks a lot!
Possible Rules Change
-
blatantly nonsensical
Not making sense historically doesnt make it nonsensical. There are a hundred other things one could complain about the game about that are just as nonsensical historically but still are in place to make the game playable.Â
:wink: But as I have shown it makes it less playable by encouraging retreats to slow the enemy down. The rule was the way it was to stop the can opener where Germany moves into a formerly allied controlled territory Austria has just taken. The change still maintains that as impossible.
What is the potential for abuse with my change?
See scenario described above. That is a type of can-opening and one that is preventable in the current rules even if it is done in a way that someone might not like. It gives more options to the attacker than the defender. You can argue thats a good thing and thats fine - dont really care, thats not the point I am discussing. But it still affects the way the game is played, and has an affect on balance.Â
There are other ways to allow retreats then the exact wording proposed.
What sort of ways? If it moves you farther away from an enemy capital or something like that?Â
Don’t you mean the current rules give more options to the defender?
I don’t recall anyone saying that there would be no effect on the game, what I do recall saying was that it would still avoid the can opener issue, since the power moving into the territory must already have units there. Germany can’t just move through to the territory Austria has taken, and they can’t just move a plane into a territory to move their units in later. The current rule is not just a way that “someone might not like” The whole rule discourages powers like Russia from contesting their territory, powers like Germany and Austria for actually taking Russian territory, and powers like Britain and France from doing anything other than sitting in a big stack, all because the rule is “preventing” something that the change to the rules that I proposed prevents anyways.
Would it really be so terrible to make it that a power at least try to take a territory from an enemy to prevent them from moving into it, rather than the power abandoning the territory to prevent the enemy from moving into it? This would encourage conflict which encourages resolution of the game.
Maybe you are just playing devil’s advocate, or maybe you do believe the rules are better as they are now, either way I appreciate you taking a stance that the change is not obviously better, it gives us a chance to see if there are more drawbacks than benefits.
-
@WILD:
I also think that powers like the US & UK that don’t have many (any) territories on the continent, it would get them trapped quite often w/o being able to retreat to a friendly land that has your units in it. Keep in mind that this will also slightly weaken the UK front lines too, keeping an inf or two in reserve for an escape route. In these contested territories 1-2 units can make a big difference.
Plus it really doesn’t make sense that you aren’t given the option to retreat to a friendly territory when you already have units there
Bill,
I do like the new rule proposal, but I’m still miffed that on the western front especially that the French have different rules for retreating then their UK and US allies fighting in the same territory. Clearly the allies fighting in France were partners through thick and thin and I see no reason to have to have even a single unit in the same territory the French can retreat to for them to be allowed to retreat or they are trapped. Still makes no sense.
I like the new rule proposal, but I would add that you can treat friendly “Original owned territories” of your alliance the same as if it was yours. This way the US and UK fighting in France could withdraw exactly the same as their allies, the French.
In occupied territories, having at least one unit makes sense.
-
The main reason to require the inf is that that provides one rule for the movement whether an advance or retreat and is very simple. From a contested tt you can go to a transport, a territory you control, or a territory that started the turn with at least 1 of your land units. Most importantly, the change does not allow the rampant can opening the current rule is in existence to prevent.
I agree that it is not perfect logically to disallow UK from retreating to a French controlled tt back towards paris, but at least by leaving an inf behind the UK has SOME way to do that. I fear that any change much greater in scope than the one that I had presented will not be considered, so that is why I am quite satisfied with the rule as I presented it.
The game is far better with my proposed rule change than it is without it, and I don’t think it’s worth it to lose that change by demanding an even more intrusive one. If I were starting the game from scratch I might support your idea.
I guess the question is, if there were either the change as written or no change at all, which does each person support as being better for the game, and why?
-
More specifically, the question is does the proposed change help the game without opening up the possibility of the Central Powers blitzing into Russia too quickly by leap-frogging over each other.
-
Considering the power that would like to do so must already have an infantry in the destination before its turn started under the change, and that the CP can already do this if the destination tt is contested anyways, it’s safe to say the answer is no. The key is that the infantry must already be there, which totally throws out the window the worry of a move-through more potent than the CP can already currently do with contesting a tt.
-
Yes, and bear in mind that the western allies will be doing the same against Germany on the western front soon enough.
With the great Moscow Revolution swindle likely denying them Moscow, I’m prepared to give the CPs a break in the east.
-
Consideration must be given to the change both with and without the Russian Revolution, as it is an optional rule.
-
More specifically, the question is does the proposed change help the game without opening up the possibility of the Central Powers blitzing into Russia too quickly by leap-frogging over each other.
Whats your definition of leap-frogging? Currently the CP can do a type of leap-frogging if both territories are contested. But Russia can choose to not contest the second territory and prevent the movement and thus leap frogging. with the change that choice is taken away from the Russians. Or are you looking for a different type of leap frogging or just waiting to see more in game results and how it is actually used rather than hypotheticals?
-
But Russia can choose to not contest the second territory and prevent the movement and thus leap frogging. with the change that choice is taken away from the Russians.Â
This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.
I think it might be exaggerated in some minds how easy it is to pull off a “can-opener” with the rule I proposed. It’s harder than you might think. This example is with the proposed change.
Let’s look at Germany and Austria in Russia. Poland is Rus/Ger contested.
On Germany’s turn they would need to move a unit in Ukraine (from Galicia let’s say) to move into there on their NEXT turn from the contested. Let’s not ignore that the German unit has to get to a place where it can move into the location that it would like to move through to in the first place. Next it needs to be even possible to move a unit into Ukr and it survives this turn. This means either Germany needs to be strong enough to move into that territory, or Austria must have already cleared that out for them. In addition, the German unit needs to survive on Allied turns through to the next German turn.
Compare this to the dreaded actual can opener situation where on Austria’s turn they can attack Ukraine, and on Germany’s turn they can just move in if controlled. The change does NOT allow that, and fear of that is the reason why the rules disallowed movement from contested to allied.
-
Don’t mistake discussion for some personal attack or even a lack of support for the rule.
This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.
Im not saying one way or the other. Just pointing out the change. Its not an abuse of the rules, it is the rules, and could very well have been part of the design and intent. I dont know and unless you were there and part of the design team you dont either, whether you think its dumb or not isn’t the question.
Saying over and over that there is nothing wrong with the rule is unproductive. Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.
-
Whats your definition of leap-frogging?
An example would be if there were a German force contesting Poland with Russia, then Austria-Hungary on its turn moves into and contests Ukraine. The current rule prevents Germany from abandoning its fight in Poland to jump into Ukraine and get one step closer to Moscow without having to fight to get there. Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.
Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.Â
Well said.
-
Don’t mistake discussion for some personal attack or even a lack of support for the rule.
This isn’t exactly a bad thing. Having a choice isn’t a good thing if it leads to abuse of rules and gamesmanship.
Im not saying one way or the other. Just pointing out the change. Its not an abuse of the rules, it is the rules, and could very well have been part of the design and intent. I dont know and unless you were there and part of the design team you dont either, whether you think its dumb or not isn’t the question.
Saying over and over that there is nothing wrong with the rule is unproductive. Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.
I definitely did not see it as a personal attack, I admit that I did see it as a lack of support.
I do admit that I tend to be saying the same thing  over again, but it’s not as though I am merely saying it is bad, I am trying to say the evidence in a different way and provide new evidence. In my opinion it IS productive to try to find the best way of explaining the case for the change, just like it would be to state the best argument against the change. So far as I can recall you are the only person who has offered reasons why the change is not obviously a good idea; I thank you for that as it has caused me to examine the issue a little deeper.
-
An example would be if there were a German force contesting Poland with Russia, then Austria-Hungary on its turn moves into and contests Ukraine. The current rule prevents Germany from abandoning its fight in Poland to jump into Ukraine and get one step closer to Moscow without having to fight to get there. Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.
- For those that have not been reading the whole discussion please keep in mind that under the current rules, Germany is not prevented from skipping the fight in Poland if they have one unit in Ukraine and Ukraine is contested. However, if Ukraine is AH controlled, Germany could not move in.
The rules change would not allow the leap-frogging described quoted above.
-
Whats your definition of leap-frogging?
An example would be if there were a German force contesting Poland with Russia, then Austria-Hungary on its turn moves into and contests Ukraine. The current rule prevents Germany from abandoning its fight in Poland to jump into Ukraine and get one step closer to Moscow without having to fight to get there. Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.
Spending time thinking about ways to abuse it and see how that affects the game is productive, if there is a way someone will find it and the purpose of this discussion is to do that now.�Â
Well said.
Excellent discussion and good question about leap-frogging- though under the proposed rule you still have to have units there in your “escape valve tt”.
I really don’t know the answer to this right now- gotta play a few games.
:-) -
I agree with vonLettow I do not see how the propsed rule change (which I totally support) allows the leap frog effect.
-
Leap-frogging is basically taking advantage of the turn order to capitalize on your allies’ advances, which circumvents the purpose of contesting territories.
I think contested territories are a huge improvement over the issues with the classic WWII line, wich in fact were kind of gamey. Typically you could see a stack in Germany and a stack in Russia, and one inf in Poland who would dubble-collect income after unlimited back and forth battles. Some times an ally would clear out that lone inf, and let the other allies tanks “leap-frog” (Blitz) and attack the enemy stack. Not to mention all the strafe attacks just to wear down a stack, and retreat just before you got stuck in that territory. You could even attack a territory (Yugo)from two different directions South Germany and Rumania), and after one round of battle, if the defender survived, you could retreat all your attacking units to one territory (Rumania), and abuse this attack as infantry express to get your inf faster to the front than if they had to walk in friendly territories. So yes, you guys are doing a great job.
But the rules should be simple and rational. When UK is not allowed to retreat from a battle to seak safety at its French allies, and Germany is not allowed to hide behind the Austrians, just because they failed to get a liason unit there in time, then that rule is beyound common sense, and bound for derogatory land.
As I said, the map is the issue. Moscow is too close to Berlin. I know Larry from years back, and suspect he did this on purpose just to tease people. But you can keep on with rule change proposals for ever if that is your kind of fun, but I tell you that as long Moscow is two steps away from Berlin then Russia cant trade land for time as they usual do in real wars, and since you at the same time placed Paris like 8 steps away from Berlin, then we will not get the WWI feeling. Next time buy a real Atlas before you start drawing maps.
-
I can respect your issues with the map, but as I am sure you know changing that is not an option, especially not in this thread. Given the framework we have, would you support this change?
-
Razor,
I see no reason to be condescending and rude towards Larry about the map. His record on game designing is excellent. In fact when anomalies in game mechanics, game balance and other rules issues come up with his games, he and Krieg have accepted constructive criticsm and suggestions to make the game better as this thread has done.
You may not like the map, but as Von said, that is NOT going to change. So if you problems with what is proposed or have better ideas lets hear them, but lets not berate the designers who are trying to listen and make improvements.
Kim
-
To me, the topic address one of two advancement choices.
Either advance separately along two fronts, (hence Germany moved a large force into Poland)
or. advance as one along one front (Austria moves into Ukraine, Germany moves into Austrian held territories clearing Russian single infantry as needed, thus can opening)
This rule change seems to be advocating for a change that makes the two front war more advantageous or viable than a 1 front battle. These are choices based on play styles established probably from earlier game types.
As written, (when Russia pulls out of Poland, they leave 1 unit to stall) ok, so Germany is stalled one round. What prevents Germany from moving next to Moscow or into Austrian contested/held Ukraine next turn? Remember if Austria is in Ukraine, Russia must choose which fronts to attack with its larger force, thus committing them for a turn. And if Ukraine is contested, Germany will be able to move a large force in without firing a shot.
Remember, you are knocking down Russia’s IPCs when you outmaneuver them and they retreat backwards.
Personally, its way to early to change rules, give the community months to try out different approaches, and then address recurring issues if a larger body agrees with the minority’s current distaste of the way this new game plays when compared to older tactics from other versions. Having lived through this with global 1940 being changed so frequently, and too early, only to cater to a vocal minority; I was left with less enthusiasm for the game then before. If the vocal members are upset with the game let them house rule it until the time that others come to the same conclusion. The game does not have to be “fixed” the month it comes out, remember, changes will persist for years to come, lets give the community at least half a year too, before we change things.
Basically as written, Russia can stall Germany once in Poland and once in Ukraine or Belarus, or Livonia. So if the Russians stall twice and they are 3 spaces away, by turn 5 Moscow can be contested or be collecting very low amounts of IPCs.
Remember if the Russians counterattack into these territories they are (stuck the round they attack) , move into Moscow, contest it and reinforce the other battles, and then they are stuck permanently.Isn’t Russia going to lose all of the money from contested territories or retreating? Doesn’t this give the CPs a lot of IPCs when this is over?
Heaven forbid, there is another approach: Lead with Germany: Build up turn 1, Move into Poland turn 2 with Germany, reinforce and/or clear with Austria’s stack: Move into Belarus, Livonia, or Ukraine (whichever is empty, let Russia try to counterattack the combined German/Austrian stack) turn 3: Move Austria in the same clearing or reinforcing: Move into Moscow turn 4(contesting it if able) so Austria can then move in for the capture or contest-ation. This prevents any stalling other than by shear defensive numbers.
Here are the numbers for this argument:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30597.0 -
Razor you have a point as far as the map goes between Berlin and Moscow there are 3 territories (about 1150 miles), and between Berlin and Paris there are 4 territories (about 650 miles). The map is purposely distorted for game play though. The territories on the western front are about half the size of those on the eastern front and more urban. You are conquering much smaller chunks of land on the western front because of the dug in trench warfare that the game try’s to simulate. Movement on the eastern front is much better just because it was much more rural, so you can gain/lose much larger land masses or at least can keep larger areas contested.
You do have a valid point though. If there was 1 more territory between Berlin/Vienna to Moscow the leap frogging thing wouldn’t be an issue with the proposed rule change. The map isn’t going to change though, so lets be done with that (at least in this thread).
Suggested Topics
