Well you did say it was for history buffs after all, and you know that thing about history… If no one writes it down nothing gets remembered! ;) haha
Yeah, so of course this system requires each player to bring a notepad, since it’s a basically a page per round, per player. But that’s not as burdensome as it sounds, because here game phases are strictly enforced, and everyone allots their moves at the same time. So it’s not like you’re sitting around, just waiting forever for the other guy to do all his moves, before you get a chance to go. The waiting around is what usually defeats a collapsed order (all Allies then all Axis etc) since nobody likes just rolling defense for an hour, while they wait for their side’s turn to come up. If you do everything at once, then the game has natural breaks by phase, so that game flow is preserved, and players don’t get bored.
Basically the way it works…
1. All players allot purchase and repair (purchase remains secret until the placement phase at the end of the round.)
2. Then all players write down their intended combat moves. (if you want to expand the blitz ability of armor during second tier of the combat phase, then any blitz moves through the lines could be written down at this point.)
3. Combat begins, all players reveal their moves at the same time. Heavy action and rolling for about 30 minutes to an hour.
a. Border Clashes (enemy armies crossing the same border must be resolved first.)
b. Normal Combat
c. Blitz Combat (blitz units that haven’t yet moved, may attempt to punch through the lines.)
Then there is another natural break in the action, as all players write down their non combat moves, and reinforce their positions.
4. All players reveal non com, place units, and collect income.
Then repeat into the next round.
It’s helpful to remove the restrictions on combat movement all together, and think of it not so much as a “combat” and “non combat” move, but as an “initial” move and “follow up” move. Initial Movement and Support Movement for example. This basically has to be written down, or else chaos ensues.
It actually takes less time to strictly enforce game phases and write down moves than you might expect. A timer can be helpful for this. It also prevents confusion, second guessing, or otherwise trying to exploit the order of battles.
From a gameplay standpoint, it is hard to support “retreating” under such a system. If you allow retreats in the midst of the combat phase then it really matters which battles occur first and which occur later. If you remove the retreat component then it doesn’t matter which order you run the battles in. You can alternate left side of the board first in one round, then right side of the board in the next (for variety) if you like. Once the moves are allotted, there is no going back to change them. This is why retreating in combat doesn’t work well, since it breaks with the “all moves allotted beforehand” idea. Basically you give up the attacker retreats dynamic, but you get other interesting gameplay dynamics in exchange. Its possible there may a way to handle retreating, but that was the main hang up for me.
If you’re curious what this would look like in the first round, most players will pull back and consolidate (especially their navies) if they are potentially at risk. So using an OOB board, this means the first round is often just positioning and set up.
This whole thing works a lot better, in terms of the game flow if you’re playing with more than 2 players (since the writing and the moves are much faster), and the actual dice rolling is more engaging, if you can split it up between 4 people.
I have only tried using a system like this on the Revised and AA50 boards. It basically busts the set up (though no more than an All Axis then All Allies turn order does) which is why I suggest more money. Awarding +1 ipc extra for a successful combat to take a territory for example. Or +5 for control of a VC. Or +10 for a capital, things like that. Since basically, more units are going to die per round.
Consider also how Navies move, which means you need more money to buy blocking units, and more money for air to run recon, and try to pin fleets. The same can be said of ground forces, though here the movement range is of course more limited. This type of gameplay gives a slight advantage to the attacker who can bring multiple armies across multiple borders into the territories they are attacking, which encourages more attack fanning and less stack pushing.
The main thing this type of game does is get rid of the “Omniscient General”, ie the player who knows exactly where the enemy is at all times, and exactly how many units they need to commit to a given attack/defense in order to beat the odds. Players who predominantly game Low Luck, might find that aspect rather annoying, but I think this type of gameplay definitely accords better with the real character of warfare during the period. Basically you know where the units are at the beginning of the round, but you don’t know where they will end up during combat, (and you also don’t know which units will be placed when the combats and moves are all finished.) This means you basically have to hedge your bets, and be a little conservative sometimes, or maybe not, if you are willing to risk the consequences. There is more variability, obviously, and more TUV destroyed on average, since players will be allotting their moves while still in the fog.
Contrast this with the OOB game, where the current player has complete foreknowledge, they know how many units will be defending against their attack in any given battle. They can conduct their moves with total confidence (if they bring in another fighter say, or an extra inf unit), knowing what the odds on the outcome will be.
Instead, here, players will spend less time calculating everything out to the Nth degree, and more time actually fighting. The secret “write it down” phase, allows sufficient time for deliberation and strategic discussion with your teammates, but without stifling the action a thousand times during a given round, as players argue back and forth with their teammates about what to do. “You have to do this, because of such and such!” or “Dude if you don’t do Y, then we’re going to lose!” etc. You’ve all seen I’m sure, how that sort of constant strategic banter can disrupt a multi player game. In this situation, all that discussion is confined to one period, the allot move phase. And the discussion can be more nuanced, since you don’t know what your enemy will do. Its not like it is OOB, where there is often just one right play, and the more experienced player who sees it, has to convince his buddy to see it too. Does that make sense? Basically I think there are definite gameplay advantages to doing things this way, which could accelerate the game pace over OBB in certain aspects. Its not just a time sink, what you give up in time requirements in one respect, you gain back in another. Its just a very different way to play, but one that strikes me as more historically accurate to the character of World War 2.
Clearly this type of game, is going to need some kind of balancing mechanism over the OOB set up.
This is definitely the case if you’re talking about a Fully Collapsed turn order where all players go at once, simultaneously (where you have no “Turns” per se, just Phases and Rounds, since everyone moves simultaneously/secretly), but its also still the case in a collapsed turn order by side (All Axis then All Allies etc) since in either case, the OOB unit set up, the income and production spread, is not designed to support such a concept. The whole thing was built ground up TBS, which is why in the past I have argued against a collapsed turn order, in favor of a variable turn order (by Nation.) But if you do want to try collapsed order, then I suggest that you balance by starting income adjustment.
Its better to change the money values, than it would be to change the unit set up or distribution. The latter takes too much time to implement, and so fewer people will try it. If the board can use the same OOB unit set up, but just change the starting IPCs values of certain Nations to balance for the new rules, or just change the IPCs awarded for certain simple objectives (like taking a territory or a VC) to balance for the new rules, that is always better. Since its easy to adopt.
