• @ksmckay:

    @oztea:

    Well now that it has been explained I am for the proposed change.
    Perhaps with the caveat that you can’t totally vacate the contested territory. (ie you can’t empty Poland into Ukraine, one unit must stay behind at least)

    Unfortunately thats where you can game the system.� � Now the germans can move to Ukraine, leave 1 unit behind in Poland and then all of a sudden the Russians are completely stuck in Poland and cant follow the germans which just effectively gave up the front, away from Ukraine.� � If you had to fight every round this wouldnt be a problem but since you can leave a unit behind to be slaughtered and stall the russians it is a move that forces the russians to retreat to Moscow or wherever and give up Poland and Ukraine, possibly just because of 1 or 2 german units (1 left in Poland and 1 already in Ukr).� � I guess thats where the actual playtesting and less theorycrafting comes in.� �

    Hi all, I was the one who proposed the change initially and I am sorry I did not join the conversation earlier to justify it; it was a long day of work and I just got back.

    It seems like a lot of people are worried that “Oh no! if we do this change Germany (etc.) will be able to just move through enemy forces without having to stop!”

    As I will show, that is already the case that they can do that, but it is even more ridiculous now than I think you might be worrying the change will do. I will quote some of the examples from the other thread I have posted.

    For example, let’s say Austria takes switzerland turn 1. Germany moves in.
    Turn 2, Germany moves into Burgundy, contesting it, leaving 1 unit behind in switzerland. Italy moves in and contests Switzerland, the German inf there survives.
    Turn 3, Scenario 1: Austria does not attack in switzerland, it remains contested with 1 Germ inf, Germany can move from contested burgundy to switzerland because it is contested.
    Turn 3, Scenario 2: Austria attacks in switzerland, and wipes out the Italians. Austria takes control since it was the attacker. Germany CANNOT move from contested Burgundy to Switzerland, even though they still have an inf there.

    The above is an example where the rule makes it harder to retreat into an ally’s territory than a contested one. Paradoxically, clearing enemy units out to secure an ally’s retreat avenue (as would be the case logically), makes it harder for them to retreat.

    Here’s an example from round 2 let’s say.
    Austria’s turn, they move into Ukraine to contest it. Germany’s turn they move 1 unit in and don’t have to battle since it was already contested. At the same time, Germany moves into poland and contests that.

    Turn 3: Austria attacks and wins in Ukraine. Germany cannot move in (from contested poland).
    OR
    Turn 3: Ukraine remains contested (whether through failed Austrian attack or they don’t attack). Germany CAN move in.

    This is the big one, above. The worry about making the change is can opening, but it turns out that by contesting like this can opening is already quite possible. To avoid this Russia would have to abandon the territory round 2 so that Austria controls it. In the rules now, Russia would make it harder for the enemy to move its units into the territory by moving its units out. To put it bluntly, this is messed up. This only encourages Russia and other powers in similar situations to contest less territory, which isn’t to hard to predict will turn into turtling or worse.

    With the change, since the movement requires a unit of your power already be there, there still will not be situations where one power just takes a territory and then its ally can move in immediately from a contested, which would have been a problem IF I had proposed the rule to be ANY friendly territory instead of one that already had a unit of your power.

    If we are worried about it getting “gamey” or whatever, don’t be. It will get BETTER with my rule change. � Think of Russia’s position in the current game where they move out of the territory in question to make it no longer contested and therefore Germany would not be able to move in. Russia stops opposing the CP in a territory, and that makes it harder for the CP to move in? That’s what’s truly gamey and will lead to nonsensical gimmicks in-game.

    Britain, France, and the CP contest Belgium.
    Britain, France, and the CP contest Lorraine also.
    CP controls Ruhr and Alsace, France controls Picardy.

    France moves into Lorraine from Belgium.

    Now, if they attack and win, Britain CANNOT move their forces in to Lorraine. But, if it remains contested, Britain could move in. Unless Britain has enough transports for all the units in Belgium or they somehow have units in another adjacent territory that is contested with the CP (Which in the above scenario they don’t), they are trapped in Belgium.

    By clearing out Lorraine of enemy units, France actually traps its ally in an adjacent territory, even though logically it is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE.

    However, if there are CP forces remaining in Lorraine to oppose the Allies, Britain has no problem moving in.

    Now, you might say “well, just don’t trap your ally then.” Well, for me that’s not good enough. A bad rule is a bad rule, and avoiding its nonsensical-ness does not make it go away, it just makes the game bizarre.

    It seems like the main worry is that it will allow can opening more than is already allowed, which is not the case as I have shown above.

    Right now, it’s easier to move into a territory when there are enemy units there opposing you than when your ally has the whole thing locked down. The current rules encourage retreat and turtling. My solution provides a little bit of logic to a bizarre situation, and most importantly, still avoids the problem (can opening) that this current rule was established to prevent in the first place.

    The real question to ask is what would get worse with the rule change? We already know for a fact that the change would make more sense logically, and it is quite probable that the change will make for a better game anyways (where powers won’t be giving TT’s to the enemy to avoid allowing an ally of that enemy to move in), so what is worse about it, if anything?


  • I would keep it simple. Choose on of these two options:

    1. Free Movement: a player may move units in a contested territory into any adjacent contested (at his turns start–by his or an allied power) territory or any adjacent friendly territory.

    2. No Movement: a player may not move units from a contested territory. Units in a contested territory are pinned until one side wins.


  • @hasdrubal207:

    I would keep it simple. Choose on of these two options:

    1. Free Movement: a player may move units in a contested territory into any adjacent contested (at his turns start–by his or an allied power) territory or any adjacent friendly territory.

    2. No Movement: a player may not move units from a contested territory. Units in a contested territory are pinned until one side wins.

    Actually the No Movement might be the best solution. WWI was a static war, units were not pulled out of a combat sector on one end of the front and shuffled over to another sector hundreds of miles away (the scale of the territories) just to get an advantge where the line was weaker.

    The war WAS a meat grinder. This rule is more consistant with the WWII games in that the defender NEVER gets any choice to withdraw from an attack and must keep fighting till it is destroyed or the attacker calls it off. If the attacker calls it off and you don’t let them move out of the contested area, you are still commited to that sector of the battlefield and will fight as the defender.

    This way only new troops coming to the front have a choice as to where the get deployed, and if you what to form a new defensive line in the next area back, you start building it up while your troops at the fron hang on as long as they can.

    That rule would be simple and solves all the problems about “can openers” etc. The only caveat I would add is to allow Fighters to leave the territory, and they could go anywhere.

    Neeed to think more about how that changes the game, but it would end the nonsense.

    Kim

  • Official Q&A

    @KimRYoung:

    The only caveat I would add is to allow Fighters to leave the territory, and they could go anywhere.

    This is already true.

    Again, folks, please contain this discussion to the topic at hand.  We are NOT considering radically changing the movement rules.


  • The question is, if germany contests Poland, does it have dominance over enough of the territory to move forces behind its own lines eastward to Ukraine?
    Is it fair if they can?

    This is probably a common version of the question that a lot will ask so I will address it quickly, read my posts above for more detail.

    They already CAN do what the quoted post worries about, Ukraine just needs to be also contested with 1 German unit there. As soon as Ukraine is no longer contested and becomes controlled by Austria, Germany all of a sudden can’t move in, even though logically it should be easier.

    This rule currently also has bizarre implications with reinforcement (see the britain/france example) and retreat (see the Switzerland example).

    The “thesis” would basically be this:

    Preventing movement from a contested to a friendly was done to prevent can opening. However, it doesn’t even do that currently, and the rule makes movement for retreats, advances, and reinforcements incredibly bizarre and nonsensical. By changing the rule to allow a power to move into a ally’s territory if there is a unit of the moving power in there at the start of the turn, the head-scratching movement restrictions are removed while still preventing the can openers the restriction was included to prevent.

  • '19

    While the retreat rules I think are obvious and I like the proposed change it does change the dynamics of advancement in a way that can be somewhat abused.  You can argue that you can abuse the original rule in different situations and thats fine but it doesnt change the fact that this can create some issues as well.

    Scenario

    Large Russian force in Belarus, large german force in East germany, large Austrian force in Galicia.

    Austians move several units into Ukraine, most units into Poland
    Russians want to attack the Poland force as it is the more dangerous and this gives it a chance to whittle it down.  Maybe it can spare some units into Ukraine maybe it cant, either way Ukraine is either contested or its not.  Battle ensues in Poland, something happens, remains contested use your imagination on how it went.
    Germans move a ftr from east german front to Ukraine move large stack into Poland, engage or dont engage, whatever.

    Next turn
    Austria reinforces Ukraine, if there were any russians it wipes them out.
    Russia has to decide now continue to defend in Poland where it might have good odds and can prevent the dangerous germans from advancing or retreat into Bel.  They would like to stay and hold the germans back which they can do in current rules.  But with new rules they dont have a choice, they have to retreat because if they dont the german stack will float through their lines into Ukr and then Russia is in true danger.  As the dangerous german force has leapfrogged Poland into Ukraine.  This is preventable in the current rules but in the second the options are less for the defender.  Thats kind of the 1-2 can opener scenario that the original rule prevents and isnt really that farfetched.

    I think the main reason the rule needs tweaked is for retreat purposes.  I dont have a problem with the rules as they are when attacking (the retreat - a lone inf is the annoyance there) but when retreating in foreign territory you are basically screwed in a number of legitimate cases.

    I think the rule should be tweaked to allow retreat into territories you control, territories you are contesting, and then friendly territories that are original allied territories (or central powers territoires for the cp).

    The current rule does prevent can-opening.  The current rule provides more of a defenders advantage except when the defense is going poorly and it needs to retreat.  The new rule allows retreats under some circumstances, why should I need units behind me to retreat - not advance - into friendly territory.  I think the reason currently is to make the rule wording simpler which it does but also is a little too limiting.  Axis and Allies is a somewhat complicated game, adding another line to the rules doesnt all of a sudden make them unintelligible and for tricky things there are already tons of questions - thats what an official faq is for.


  • Your story is irrelevant because Germany could not move the plane that way (bottom of page 15 of rules).

    Also realize that if Germany had gotten an infantry to Ukraine, and Ukraine had remained contested rather than Austrian controlled, Germany still could have moved through under the current rules. What makes my change NOT abusive is that it requires that a unit of the moving power already be there.

    What would have happened in your example if Germany got a land unit to Ukraine and Austria had NOT won in Ukraine on the Next Turn?

    The way that leapfrogging is preventable is the current rules is by retreating out of territories that would be contested, where your retreat from a tt makes it harder for the enemy to move in. Wha….?

    What’s abusable is that a power retreating, like Russia out of a contested Ukraine, actually slows the enemy down more than remaining in the territory.

    As Krieghund has showed, the wording will still be quite simple if and when the rule is changed, so keeping the wording simple just isn’t a good reason to resist the change.

  • '19

    ok didnt feel like checking the rules on that one.  so replace it with an inf.  In the current rules.  Russia has the choice of retreating from Ukraine or poland or not.  Then it can continue to engage the dangerous force in Poland without being leapfrogged.  In the new rules it doesnt have that choice.

    Im not saying that keeping the wording simple is necessary, im saying thats why they are what they are now.

    And this discussion isnt about the retreating from a terrritory and leaving a unit behind and slowing the enemy so that part doesnt matter and I wont continue the discussion on it.

  • '19

    And to add some other things/answer all  your questions -

    If Ukraine had remained contested with germany having a unit there then at least the russians in Poland would have the option to engage the Ukrainians instead of being forced to be leapfrogged or retreat out of everything.  In the new proposed rule it helps in some situations but can be abused in other situations.  And in this case it helps the attacker and hurts the defender and allows leapfrogging/can-opening in a way that the original rules dont.  That doesnt necessarily mean that the rule cant go forward but it should be and is part of the discussion.

    And not everything has to make sense historically, and there is no way this game ever will.  It is first and foremost a game and that means having rules, some of which might be tougher to justify but are necessary to improve playability.  The goal should be to satisfy both of course but thats not always possible.

    I think the inability to retreat severely affects the playability as do many people.  So the question is how to adjust the rules to satisfy that without allowing for new abuses - such as can opening.  Maybe this proposal is the answer, maybe its a different version, or maybe its leaving things as they are.


  • @ksmckay:

    And this discussion isnt about the retreating from a terrritory and leaving a unit behind and slowing the enemy so that part doesnt matter and I wont continue the discussion on it.

    Perhaps you may not want to continue discussion on it, but this issue is central to why the current rules are so bizarre.

    Under my rule change, a power MUST have a unit in the destination territory to move there.

    The fear of can opening was in a scenario where, for example, Germany and Russia contested Poland, and Austria conquers Ukraine. Suddenly, Germany would be able to move through to Ukraine. That is not what I am talking about allowing.

    Under the change, there needs to have already been a  German unit there.
    Currently, if there is a German unit there and the TT is contested, Germany can move into it from contested Poland.
    Currently, if there is a German unit there and the TT is NOT contested, Germany can’t move from contested Poland there.

    What does this do? Well, first of all, not only is it blatantly nonsensical, it also has effects on the game in other ways. First, it penalizes the attacker for taking enemy territory, since keeping Ukraine contested would have allowed them to move faster. Second, it rewards the defender for retreating out of contested territories, since putting less units in the way of the enemy actually slows the enemy down more in these cases. The potential for abuse here is quite high

    What is the potential for abuse with my change? Well, it allows a power to move units into a territory it already had units in. It allows allies to create avenues of retreat for each other. It allows a power to attack and clear out a territory and having that attack allow and ally to move in rather than trapping that ally in an adjacent territory where before the attack, they were NOT trapped.


  • Just my two cents without having played with the rule change. I like because it streamlines the rules a bit more. There is no need for a difference in rules in regards to contested vs. controlled. Also… from what I have played, it appears that the Central powers have trouble enough as it is, and Russia is no piece of cake to beat. This could serve to make Russia more cautious about advancing, helping the central powers advance as Russia hangs back.

  • '19

    @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    Perhaps you may not want to continue discussion on it, but this issue is central to why the current rules are so bizarre.

    Perhaps you should read the discussion, Krieghund mentions several times that he doesnt want to discuss that issue and since what he says goes - perhaps you should listen and save that discussion for another place.


  • @ksmckay:

    @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    Perhaps you may not want to continue discussion on it, but this issue is central to why the current rules are so bizarre.

    Perhaps you should read the discussion, Krieghund mentions several times that he doesnt want to discuss that issue and since what he says goes - perhaps you should listen and save that discussion for another place.

    Then maybe I did not read what you meant, only what the words seemed to me to say. It seemed like you were talking about the situation where in the current rules, it slows down the CP more when Russia retreats than when they stay contested in the Ukraine in the example. Were you talking about something else?

  • '19

    @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    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.

    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.

    There are other ways to allow retreats then the exact wording proposed.


  • In the first game (practice) I went hard at Russia with Austria/Germany (even the Turks were on Russian soil). The Russian player sucked the CP deep into the belly of the beast and very little came back. The Russians were forced into a turn 5 revolution (had a chance of a turn 4 rev, but my Austrians didn’t survive my 35 unit assault on the the 64 unit Russian stack which would have locked the Russians in their capital as a contested territoy). The 5th turn I was able to lock down the Russians w/a 2nd wave of Austrians/Germans by contesting their capital essentially keeping the Russians locked down to a couple territories, as they were unable to perform attacks they clearly would have won. They revolted with the upper hand, with about 25 units left on the board (I don’t think I could have taken Moscow). This new rule could have aided the Russian only if the UK was also deep in side Russian territory to possibly give them an avenue, but it would have been more likely the UK would have been used to attack German/Austrian units to un-contest Russian territories to allow the Russians to launch attacks. If this rule will gives a slight advantage to the CP on the Russian front I think it would be worth the change, because the CP units I lost just to force a rev and the fact the any survivors are a long way from home makes it very difficult on the CP in my very short experience. BTW with what it cost to force the Russians out, I was losing ground to the advancing French/English. We didn’t play it through, and the western allies would have had a hard time dropping Berlin. I was defiantly on the down slide though. Both the Turks & Austrians had troubles of their own too, and the front lines were on their own orig territories.

    In our 2nd game (now starting turn 3) I’m Russia (and France BTW), and both these super powers are going hard for Germany, hitting German stacks every chance I get. I’ve won some good battles, and Austria is going to have to give up some of its offensive positions against Russia (I think) to bail out the Germans. My Russians just broke through the German line (may have trapped themselves in Prussia though), and the French are on the move on their front. The Germans are having a hard time already w/multiple fronts (they have lost some pretty big battle already).

    In both these games the allies got total naval dominance early (everywhere), even though the Germans go hard against the UK Atlantic/Canadian fleets because the French have a couple battleships to gain the upper hand. The CP were (are) hard pressed in both of these games, and movement is a problem for them (w/o the sea’s). This is only a couple games, but most are reporting serious problems w/CP so far. If this change gives the CP a slight advantage against Russia I think it is worth further testing, and we will most likely use it as a house rule until we get official word one way or the other just to see what effects it may have.

  • '19

    I think the biggest impact of this rule will be the affect on retreating mixed stacks which comes up on the western front more than anywhere else as the allies have stacks with french, UK, and US (with limited play experience so far).  I think this rule will tend to help the allies more than the CP.


  • @ksmckay:

    I think the biggest impact of this rule will be the affect on retreating mixed stacks which comes up on the western front more than anywhere else as the allies have stacks with french, UK, and US (with limited play experience so far).  I think this rule will tend to help the allies more than the CP.

    Yeah your right it will help the allies when retreating. It will also have an impact when any two (or more) powers are retreating. This could also happen for the CP. If they are dominating the western front, they very well could be losing ground on the Russian front and need to back peddle together out of territories they contest with Russia. They would need to split up if one of them couldn’t retreat to a friendly they have unit(s) in.

    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


  • @ksmckay:

    @vonLettowVorbeck1914:

    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.

    @ksmckay:

    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?

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 7
  • 8
  • 21
  • 3
  • 36
  • 47
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

189

Online

17.1k

Users

39.5k

Topics

1.7m

Posts