I’m glad you’re not against me… and I like mine more - of course. eh eh eh Fair enough Razor, good times. You play AA50th? I have some house rules that have been ‘sealed down’ over time (unlike some of these for global that I’ve been throwing around…).
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69861/expansion-rules
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/70044/aaa50-expansion-rules-tech-chart
LMFAO, you used one of my files for your grafics backround, the one i used for AARHE 4.0! LOL
Razor,
You proposed Commander rule(s) is the same as what I was proposing, but with the allowance of more units able to have the extra movement capabilities. I am for applying more limitation, which accompanies the idea that the commander unit is not necessarily a general. More like, field commanders. Of which there were many. Question concerning your commander general rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?
Well, regardless, I’m going to try and give both versions a go. Problem I foresee - and this is more my own problem though I’m sure others can relate, is that it does have potential to extend the game… and unfortunately, my games are usually limited to 2 days max. Though usually 1 (albeit sunrise to sunset - or noon till some hour in the morning). That’s where I see Paul’s rule a bit more applicable. I’m talking global. I think 50th for instance, could do with a little rule such as this (commander with a move troops variant) and it wouldn’t hurt game time overall, but global… it is already a really long game if we’re talking experienced players. But again, it’s my own prob.
Looking forward to trying all of them though… as I believe all have their merits.
Razor - Imp posted a lot of commander rules on this very thread…. but if they are part of some of the older ones he’s had on here for awhile, chances are I’m already familiar with them (some of his are incorporated into mine in the links above - including his nifty background for the page itself). But offhand, not sure which ones you’re referring to. Are there +/- 's involved? Not a fan of adding anymore of those…
“LMFAO, you used one of my files for your grafics backround, the one i used for AARHE 4.0! LOL”
I know - as you can see, I mentioned using that ‘graphics’ background earlier. Not really sure why this is so funny… that’s kind of a goofy response but oh well. You have any other backgrounds Imp? I’d like to change it up in a future house rules booklet - because it looks like my global house rules will be a lot more than two pages… (and I lack the time to whip up my own backgrounds - or when I do have the time, I’m lazy :| )
You’ll also notice some of your rules in there as well - you were the first (that I’m aware of) to have China go first (AA50th). So you took a gander - whaddya reckon? They’ve worked really well in balancing out the 50th - well, considering a game with tech. involved as well as NO’s.
@Vance:
right.
You still dont get it ? :-o
We are piece junkies, the more the better 8-)
Question concerning your
commandergeneral rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?
I think we should follow the official rules as close as possible. Then it will be:
COMBAT MOVE:
Attacker rolls dice.
Defender rolls dice.
Remove all casualties.
Attacker press continue combat or retreat.
Defender with no Leader present must do combat.
Defender with a Leader present press combat or retreat.
I think this is the simplest rule. Its like a defending sub must roll dice before it can submerge. I know there are other house rules out there with a different approach. Some houserules say the defender cant roll dice if they want to retreat the next round, and others tell you to split the defender. Let half the force defend and the other half retreat. I hate that kind of fantazy rules.
I think the most rational thing to do is to keep some link to the real world, and not lose touch with the reality.
In a real attack, the defenders will most likely shoot back. I cant imagine defenders put the rifle in the bag and start cleaning the camp when under fire, just because they plan to retreat the next day. So the most rational way will be, that both attackers and defenders fight one round of battle. Then, if one of the Leaders figure they will propably lose the fight, then that Leader call for retreat. Its better to fight another day than see your army utterly destroyed for nothing. This retreat will most likely happen during night or in a battlebreak, when the frontline divisions are killed, the units at the rear will start to withdraw.
Question concerning your
commandergeneral rule, when this retreat as a defender is made - do the attacking forces get a shot as they retreat?I think we should follow the official rules as close as possible. Then it will be:
COMBAT MOVE:
Attacker rolls dice.
Defender rolls dice.
Remove all casualties.
Attacker press continue combat or retreat.
Defender with no Leader present must do combat.
Defender with a Leader present press combat or retreat.
I think this is the simplest rule. Its like a defending sub must roll dice before it can submerge. I know there are other house rules out there with a different approach. Some houserules say the defender cant roll dice if they want to retreat the next round, and others tell you to split the defender. Let half the force defend and the other half retreat. I hate that kind of fantazy rules.
I think the most rational thing to do is to keep some link to the real world, and not lose touch with the reality.
In a real attack, the defenders will most likely shoot back. I cant imagine defenders put the rifle in the bag and start cleaning the camp when under fire, just because they plan to retreat the next day. So the most rational way will be, that both attackers and defenders fight one round of battle. Then, if one of the Leaders figure they will propably lose the fight, then that Leader call for retreat. Its better to fight another day than see your army utterly destroyed for nothing. This retreat will most likely happen during night or in a battlebreak, when the frontline divisions are killed, the units at the rear will start to withdraw.
Yeah… I prefer the notion of keeping it as close to the original rules as possible. I was just debating if a “opportunity shot” should be implemented, that is, when and attacker or defender opts to retreat, the opposing forces get one round of attack without suffering return fire. I like the idea that pulling out does carry consequences, forces are always more exposed during a retreat. But it would extend everything all the more… debating…
Yeah - I hear ya, I’m a total piece junkie. eh eh eh
Problem I foresee - is that it does have potential to extend the game…
eh eh eh buddy, we dont know for sure before we have playtestet it some thousand times. I dont think defenders retreat will extend the game, because at some point the defender must stop and fight a last stand battle, usually in his capital. And I dont see how a bonus Breakthrough move will extend the game. Its far more logical that an extra move will shorten the game, since you get to the enemy capital faster.
What basically makes for a fast or slow game, is who you play with. Does your buddy need one hour for each turn the Goofy style, or is he a Speedy Gonzales lookalike ?
Also the play style make a differ. The more IPC’s you collect, the more pieces you purchase, the longer time to play. All the extra NO bonus income extend the game far more than a defender retreat rule or a Blitzkrieg rule.
When dealing with this issue, I also think the current official turn order extend the game more than a defender retreat rule. One player think, purchase, think, move, think, roll dice, think some more and finally place units, simultanesly with 7 others just wasting time. Now if Larry had listen to IL a few years ago, we would have an All Axis turn followed by an All Allied turn. That would make for fast play indeed.
Honestly, adding any house rules always extends a game, and they add up fast. Though obviously it does depend on the players as well, *shrug I’ve been playing A&A since 1981/82, and even playing the first version can sometimes take certain people much longer than others… often times the more experienced the player the longer it will take. :|
I was just debating if a “opportunity shot” should be implemented, that is, when and attacker or defender opts to retreat, the opposing forces get one round of attack without suffering return fire. I like the idea that pulling out does carry consequences, forces are always more exposed during a retreat.
Retreats always carry consequenses. If you retreat from a 1 IPC territory, then you lose 1 IPC income. If you retreat from a 5 IPC territory with VC, factory, Airbase and Naval Base, then even bigger consequens to you.
As for the playability and game balance. Remember that if the defender retreat, and the attacker got a Leader, the attacking motorized units may follow up with a Breakthrough combat move into next enemy territory for a second battle. Now when he comes to think about it, the defender may be better of with a Last stand battle in the first territory. The Defenders retreat and the Attackers Blitzkrieg rules got its own inherent mechanic and balance.
As for the link to the real world. Its correct that retreating forces are more exposed than dug-in forces. But the most exposed force of them all is the attacking force. And you never see the defenders taking a free shot at the attackers, now do you ? Tactical retreats is an art. You cover the retreat with smoke and minefields, and perhaps some suppressing artillery fire that always come in handy, or move in the dark at night, from one camuflaged foxhole to the next. Attacks, on the other hand, now that is some messy thing. Men with fixed bayonetts running into the mg-fire, with no place to hide. You know it takes 1000 bullets to kill a dug-in defender, but only 1 to kill an exposed attacker ?
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.
Retreats always carry consequenses. If you retreat from a 1 IPC territory, then you lose 1 IPC income. If you retreat from a 5 IPC territory with VC, factory, Airbase and Naval Base, then even bigger consequens to you.
Yep, hadn’t forgotten it, that was considered.
As for the playability and game balance. Remember that if the defender retreat, and the attacker got a Leader, the attacking motorized units may follow up with a Breakthrough combat move into next enemy territory for a second battle. Now when he comes to think about it, the defender may be better of with a Last stand battle in the first territory. The Defenders retreat and the Attackers Blitzkrieg rules got its own inherent mechanic and balance.
Oh yeah… I thought the same. Don’t get me wrong, I like it at face value.
As for the link to the real world. Its correct that retreating forces are more exposed than dug-in forces. But the most exposed force of them all is the attacking force. And you never see the defenders taking a free shot at the attackers, now do you ? Tactical retreats is an art. You cover the retreat with smoke and minefields, and perhaps some suppressing artillery fire that always come in handy, or move in the dark at night, from one camuflaged foxhole to the next. Attacks, on the other hand, now that is some messy thing. Men with fixed bayonetts running into the mg-fire, with no place to hide. You know it takes 1000 bullets to kill a dug-in defender, but only 1 to kill an exposed attacker ?
Well, you can go and create extrapolations on the possible scenarios in all sorts of various ways, I can just as likely go and write up situations where the tactical retreat as an ‘art’ does not apply, with historical references as well (as I’m sure you could). My point is in regard to the “shot of opportunity”, as to whether if the consequences of retreat are aptly reflected in the game with or without. Obviously you believe they are considered without the “shot of opportunity”, I’m on the fence so-to-speak. I’m eager to try both ways.
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
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.
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 MarshallOf 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.
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
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”
@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 ?
