Let me know how it goes (I never tried this before, I’ve been a bit busy)!
AARHE: Rule files
-
I think i may have come up with those ideas. Tekky added a few things as well.
The main thing id like to pick your brain with is the combat system. both land, naval and air. Is their anything you would like changed?
Also what you think about the ideas on Italy?
-
Game Sequence (page 1)
Yeah I actually put USSR’s bonus opening move separately before.
So how about:
1st Round
[USSR]Following Rounds
[Germany, Japan]
[USSR, UK, US]Blockade (p3)
Actually I shouldn’t say “SZ” since I don’t use that particular abbreivation elsewhere anyway.
The phase “friendly sea zone” is frequently used in both OOB and LHTR. I recall the definition being any sea zone with no enemy naval units. But then I just looked through and can’t find any definitions. Anyone know where the phase is defined?
German Blitzkrieg (p12)
I think the ARM special move through an unoccupied hostile territory is just called “Blitz” not “Blitzrieg”.
Although it can be confusing.
Imperious can give us another historic name.As for ARM/FTR 2 attacks in a 1 turn if 1st attack only lasted 1 cycle…we can look into that.
In fact we are considering a similar deal for naval combat!I’m just curious where did that come from/ who came up with that?
Yep Imperious came up with most of it. Wonderful isn’t it. Neutral territories are no longer useless.
-
Imp- I’ll give a closer look to combat and Italy next.
Tekkyy-
Actually what I was thinking regarding Game Sequence was this:
Under the game sequence section state that on every turn [Germany, Japan] go, then [Russia, UK, US] go. Don’t go into a sepatation of turn 1 from all other turns.
Then, in the NA section state that 1 of Russia’s NAs is that they get to move before the first turn in addition to all their normal moves. I think a good name for this would be Russian Winter. This is because historically Russian Winter should be restricted to only being used during the winter of 1941-1942 anyway. Matching Russian Winter with this rule would accomplish this. I know there have been some other ideas floating around regarding how to represent Russian Winter, but I think this new interpretation of Russian Winter is a better match. After all, didn’t Russian Winter save Moscow from being captured and thus very important to the outcome of the war? Wouldn’t adding an extra turn for Russia at the very start of the game also be very important to the outcome of the game (i.e. it’s a powerful NA)?
As for friendly SZ, it wouldn’t be hard just to define it or call it a non-hostile SZ. I was just unsure if their was such a thing as a neutral SZ (i.e. empty SZ). Apparently there isn’t such a thing because friendly SZ includes no units present in it.
Currently, I’m of the opinion that the blitzkreig tactic shouldn’t be restricted to just Germany (i.e. a German NA). I feel that instead how it’s defined should make it a better match with German strategy and thus used more often by the Germans. I always thought that Russia used blitzkreig during the end of WWII anyway, so why restrict it to Germany. Let’s just come up with another German NA in place of blitzkreig. Just my opinion.
-
Yes that would be easier to understand ( re: game sequence).
perhaps blitzkreig could be a learned concept? allmost like a technology… or wait it could be a german free NA and not counted against the ones they can select, while the alllies have to choose for it under the NA’s?
-
I think the NA Idea is better… Much better… Technology has to be something that is “physically” tangible and unatainable by another power (they could just copy tactics)…
GG
-
Ok so its a na that German starts with.
-
“they could just copy tactics” captures precisely why I don’t think blitz should be a German NA. By 1942 all nations had already studied the tactic in depth. After all, it did result in the defeat of france so it’s not like anyone overlooked it. All nations could perform blitzkreig by 1942. Germany and Russia only had the armor to do it effectively though. By making blitz available to all and restricting it well, we could have it viable only to Germany earlier in the game and Russia later in the game. I doubt US or UK or Japan wants to build that many tanks to ship over to Euro-Asia just to blitz. I wouldn’t waste money for that.
Defender retreat
Defender may choose to retreat some or all of his units after attacker declares intention to press on with the attack, with exceptions to land units already offloaded in an amphibious assault. Retreating land units must retreat to friendly adjacent territories with no pending combat. Retreating air units retreat to a friendly territory with no pending combat within 2 spaces. In the case where all adjacent friendly territories have pending combat, the involved combats are resolved together, cycle by cycle and retreats can only be made to friendly territories with no pending combat.
This is from the Phase 2 document. This rule can be expoited by the attacker sending a small force into battle over an adjacent territory just so as to stop a large retreating force from being able to retreat there. This would be very unrealistic. It is also overly complicated IMO. Instead how about we do this… any units that retreat into an embattled territory (this is a territory with unresolved combat BTW) may only be placed in that territory after the resolution of that combat (i.e. they do not participate in that combat). If the attacker wins the combat over that embattled territory, then all the retreated units are instantly all removed as casualties. If the defender wins, then all the retreating units are placed in that territory. What do you think?
-
How bout if that “trick” is pulled by the attacker we fix it by the following:
If defending forces decide to retreat and all the availible adjacent territories are under attack, then all those combats are settled on a round per round basis. One combat round is performed in each territory. Once at least one territory is cleared to retreat to, then those defending units can retreat to that open territory. That kinda solves the problem w/o too much extra rules. Many times this will not even come up but it can.
the other method is way too harsh… because the other territories can be just a few units against a few units and the real battle with substantial forces would lose too much. WE allready have a defender “gets surrounded” thing with armor forcing each infantry to roll a d6 losing it on a one. the Attacker gets as many rolls as he has an advantage in tanks.
-
the other method is way too harsh… because the other territories can be just a few units against a few units and the real battle with substantial forces would lose too much. WE allready have a defender “gets surrounded” thing with armor forcing each infantry to roll a d6 losing it on a one. the Attacker gets as many rolls as he has an advantage in tanks.
i was thinking that the retreating force is not defeated just because of the enemy force that they would be unwittingly running into, but more because the retreating force is unwittingly sandwiched into both the force ahead of them that won the battle and the force behind them that they ran from in the first place. This “sandwiching” is what causes their demise and should therefore be weighed into account when making the decision to retreat to that territory. This sandwiching could (and should) be a tactic commonly used more more experienced players and thus invoking more tactical strategy into the game… a very good thing IMO.
I think we should come up with more rules that invite (and allow) better tacticians to win more often instead of such having it be a number-cruching game of odds.
-
Attacker Retreat
Attacker may choose to retreat some or all of his units. Retreating naval units must retreat to adjacent territories which they came from.
Defender Retreat
Defender may choose to retreat some or all of his units after attacker declares intention to press on with the attack. Retreating naval units must retreat to friendly adjacent sea zones with no unresolved combat. In the case where all adjacent friendly territories have pending combat, the involved combats are resolved together, cycle by cycle and retreats can only be made to friendly territories with no pending combat.
So the attacker is more restricted than the defender in where he can retreat? What if we made the attacker choose where the defender can retreat? I think it’s justified because the attacking units shield where the defending units can and can’t retreat. Obviously, the defending units can never retreat where the attacking units came from. This would invoke a little more strategy to the game.
I’m worried that if we keep the rule as it is now that the defender will retreat naval units just so they will be able to attack a space 1 extra move away.
-
Game Seqeunce
I like to remind you guys why we did not just make it axis then allies from the start.
We thought it would hurt USSR too much to let Germany go before USSR. The way the game starts it should be USSR’s counterattack right?Germany could gather at West Russia. 6 FTR, 1 BMR, 4 ARM, 9 INF.
or Germany could take out Karelia, Archangel and Cauca?
So if its a USSR NA it would have to be standard. Like Germany’s Biltzreig NA.
But when people don’t play with NA we could have a problem.Defender Retreat, Land Combat, into Unresolved Combat Zone
Making a small attack into potential retreat zones to prevent retreat is unrealistic.
But letting large armies retreat into unresolved combat zone and just be destroyed if combat is lost there is also unrealistic.
Its difficult.
Defender Retreat, Naval Combat, Extra Move
Yeah thats often the main argument against having Defender Retreat at all. The idea of attacker deciding retreat is interesting. In fact the nature of naval combat is different to land combat, such that I think the player that remains (whether attack or defender) should have this ability.
-
Defender Retreat, Naval Combat, Extra Move
Yeah thats often the main argument against having Defender Retreat at all. The idea of attacker deciding retreat is interesting. In fact the nature of naval combat is different to land combat, such that I think the player that remains (whether attack or defender) should have this ability.
I’m glad you can see my point as to how that can be realistic. I think that you are right that it’s better if we have the defender choose where the attaker can retreat. For example, in the old rules, Germany could attack Karelia with a large force from Eastern Europe and a small backtracking force Archangel. If combat wasn’t resolved by the frist round, then Germany could retreat everyone to Archangel and thus gaining an extra move (move 2 not 1) for all those units in Eastern Europe to get to Archangel in one move. If the defender (Russia in the example) picks where the attacker (Germany) could retreat then Germany wouldn’t be able to do this unrealistic maneuver. I think this would be a good change.
So if its a USSR NA it would have to be standard. Like Germany’s Biltzreig NA.
But when people don’t play with NA we could have a problem.Why can’t NAs be thought of as more standard? I know we initially thought of them as non-standard, but why can’t we challenge that idea? I think people would like it because it’s shows a history lesson… what would have happened in WWII if there were or weren’t a Russian Winter? People can see for themselves by either using or not using this NA.
-
in the old rules, Germany could attack Karelia with a large force…
No I am referring to naval combat where remaining force can prevent retreating forces from retreating to certain spaces.
For land combat individual attacking units can only retreat the direction they came from. Movement on land is not as fluid.Why can’t NAs be thought of as more standard?
Actually, for realism I’ve always thought NAs should be standard and ALL NAs should be active no picking.
But for that we really need to cut down on NAs per nation.But by “standard” in my previous message I meant like how German Blitzreig should be a standard NA, no “NA points” used for picking that NA.
-
So will players have to write down how many attacking units are coming from which territory in case they decide to retreat? How else will the attacker remember how many units came from which territories?
-
I hope its easy to remember.
-
Attacks will be conducted by leaving the attacking units in their original territories and moving them in only if the defender has lost. Their is no physical need to “push” the plastic in … its not no limit poker
-
hehe sometimes leaving units on the game board can be confusing too
oh well, if its a problem write it down I guess
-
This “retreat to spaces with unresolved combat” is problematic.
This is for both land and naval combat.I start to consider theduke’s “just die” solution.
Or maybe new combat occurs. -
This “retreat to spaces with unresolved combat” is problematic.
This is for both land and naval combat.The solution must be universal and easy. The just die thing can be rigged in such a way to kill too many units for nothing.
If pieces remain in combat territories from where they came from and the defender cant retreat because all possible retreats are blocked by various combats, then they should be forced to fight to the death, or held in limbo until all other combats are resolved and only then can retreat or face additional combats.
example: Soviets trapped due to blocked retreat. 1) resolve other combats and retreats first 2) if still no retreat is possible then its a fight to the death.
Thats simple and realistic. This can work for both land and naval.
Naval retreats: must be among the closest route toward your home nation in terms of spaces available.
-
The solution must be universal and easy. The just die thing can be rigged in such a way to kill too many units for nothing.
I’d like to point out that “many units can be killed for nothing” only when the defender chooses to retreat there. I would look at the combat in the territory I’m retreated into, and only choose to retreat there if there was only <5% chance I’d lose that battle. If I then lose that battle by some miracle, then I knew my odds and took that chance. The moral of this example is that “many units are killed” only if the defender accepts the risk. The defender knows what he’s doing, let him choose. And why is the defender force sandwiched between the 2 enemy forces an unrealistic annihilation anyway? I like the rule… simple and justifiably realistic IMO.
Suggested Topics
