On the whole, very pleased with this.
Money still collected at the end of a turn, but mitigated somewhat by contested tt rule.
Not sure what Larry means when referring to Austrian navy “in port”. Does that mean in port in Trieste (and therefore not vulnerable to sea combat), or is it considered to be at sea in the Adriantic?
Only one movement phase - always argued for this. But the lack of strategic movement will be a big handicap for the CPs. Will almost certainly houserule rail movement in, but of course not into contested areas.
Air units can attack vs ground after obtaining air supremacy. This is something that effects my suggested fighter development; starting recon aircraft had limited ability vs ground, but since it looks like nobody starts with aircraft we can assume that recon planes are not counted.
Tanks defend only on 1. Just how it should be.
I suggested recently that tanks in attack should depend on infantry and artillery support, so it looks like this is substantially what happens. No tank only columns, again just as it should be.
Capture capitals still the victory conditions. Bummer. However, I imaging that the CP team will be tossing in the sponge long before the Allies move into Vienna or Berlin.
Finally, I assume the described turn is for demonstation purposes only. Otherwise, how stupid is Austria to attack and mobilize against them three neutrals in a single turn?
Pleased with what I saw, no real complaints and a big hurrah for Romania (though I’m sure it’s staged). This whole “Neutral Powers” deal will be interesting, I don’t forsee Switzerland being left alone this time, by either a crafy German or crafty Frenchmen.
The tanks seems fine now that I think about it, normally I would say give them two hit points, but with only one round of combat it’s basically the same thing with them just absorbing a hit.
Big question though…how will Naval Combat work?
I would guess that naval combat works in much the same way - contested SZs, only one round of combat.
Another thought - no mention of retreats as an option for either player. Presumably on its own turn a power can withdraw units from a contested tt, but should it suffer a penalty for doing so, assuming that only no-man’s land separates the front line in a CT?
Not sure I like the mandatory Austrian attack - will Germany have a similar obligatory move into Belgium?
The only action before Germany’s attack was Austria bombarding Belgrade, hardly the equivalent of an invasion. My turn order would be:
1. Germany, (Bolsheviks)
2. France, Britain, (Italy)
3. Austria, (Turkey)
4. Russia, (USA)
It seems there’s no heavy artillery, that is an option to bombard an adjoining tt, but looks like Battleships have this option.
Some nice mechanics given the scale of the game,the victory conditions :-P just don’t jell for me maybe
some Victory Levels are included if neither side manages the capitals thing?
All in all looks good.
Money still collected at the end of a turn, but mitigated somewhat by contested tt rule.
Yeah, what are the reasons for that ?
Since there are no SBR in this game, there is no need to have stashed money. A better way would be to collect income in phase 1 and use it all. Then there would be no need for money certificates, wich are not included in the game anyway. Would it be too KISS ?
Presumably because it gives a player the chance to clear his tts of enemy units, and thus regain income from them, before he collects cash.
Without this it would be too easy to cut down a player’s income by just dumping units into all his tts to make them contested.
Without this it would be too easy to cut down a player’s income by just dumping units into all his tts to make them contested.
That would be one way to abandon the classic infantry stack, you want to attack with enough men to survive and contest the tts, and not just strafe with one inf and some barrage.
I saw the single post over at Harris design but didn’t have permission to view the forum until today. I didn’t think it would be this much detail. Thanks Larry!
Very interesting, from past descriptions I was guessing the contested territory rules would apply only to Germany’s Western Front.
Tanks canceling 1 hit is pretty cool as is contested territories generating no income. I have to go quick, but one thing I wondered (and am guessing no) is if you start your turn in a contested territory, can you move into another contested territory from there?
Ships seem cheap if Austria is making 26, but who knows what Gerry is making.
Pretty cool that units are all boosted up 1 (dice are still 6 sided, ja?), will mean that even though one round of combat is allowed, there will be some changes in unit presence.
I am not a programmer, but this looks like Veqryn’s worst nightmare. :-o
Funny how his game has nearly the same exact concept from this game:
Both allow forces to remain in the same area over a period of turns and they don’t allow retreats except to a friendly territory ( non contested)
Contesting:
On land
When withdrawing from combat, the attacker has the option of remaining in the territory and contesting it instead of withdrawing back to their territory. This is done by placing a no-man’s-land counter in the land area. Coexisting is forbidden during amphibious landings.
In a situation with multiple attacking nationalities, if a defender chooses to coexist, then the next allied force may attack as normal. While a territory is contested, each side may bring in reinforcements from the outside. Either side on their own turn can conduct further combat or just leave the units in opposition. Units are not allowed to move out of the territory to another enemy or contested area without first moving back through a friendly territory, i.e. units with a movement of two can use one movement point to move to a rear “friendly” space and then move into another combat situation with the second movement point. Railroads do not function in a contested area.
When contested, the economic value of the territory is halved (rounded down) for economic value, placement and production. Only the original owner gets the income and can produce there.At Sea
Fleets may coexist in a sea. Ships in this case are separated from one another in the zone. They may bring reinforcements in from a nearby zone, and unlike land units, may move from the contested sea zone to another (subject to interception). The value of any convoy zone is halved (rounded down) for economic worth. Only the original owner of the convoy may collect it.
Only difference is income is collected at 50% to owner.
Larry did mention the Romanian troops could either be reinforced or pulled back on Russia’s turn, so I’m assuming that yes, on your strategic movement phase you can abandon contested territories. There should be nothing to stop you from doing this of course, it happened several times during the war.
So, when two sides are facing each other over some 100 yards of no man’s land, one of them can just decide to up and walk away, and the enemy will just wave to them and cry “cheerio!”, rather than shell them or pursue with cavalry?
Oh, I forgot - no cavalry.
So, when two sides are facing each other over some 100 yards of no man’s land, one of them can just decide to up and walk away, and the enemy will just wave to them and cry “cheerio!”, rather than shell them or pursue with cavalry?
Oh, I forgot - no cavalry.
Yes? Hell they did it when the enemy was 25 yards away. Look at Gallipoli, not a man killed. The German withdrawl from the Somme to the Hindenburg line, both large scale operations within close contact with the enemy that went off without much fanfare and often caught the opposing forces off guard. It’s not like they put up signs saying “we are leaving, please do not shell us during the hours of 0200-1200”. But instead falling back on well laid out timetables and defensive positions.
Gallipoli was by sea at night, hardly the same thing. The Turks were probably glad to let them go…
But as someone had suggested on HGD, you’ll probably always prefer to leave a single infantry in there just to stop the enemy controlling the tt automatically, and to impede his future movements. That is (I assume) he’ll have to spend a turn attacking the lone defender before he can move units through the tt.
Its a return of the “nuisance” attacker, used to block defenders retreat routes in some systems.
Looking again at the setup picture, I think Turkey AND Russia have ships in the Black Sea. However, the Russian ship may well be “in port” (Sebastopol?), with the Turk on the open sea. From what LH said about the Austrian navy it seems that ships can indeed stay in port - another improvement I’ve been campaigning for.
The Austrian dreadnought also looks like it may be moored at Trieste. I just hope the size of the pieces and board doesn’t lead to arguments over which ships were and were not in port…
On the other hand the Black Sea may be two SZs and I’m completely wrong…
Shouldn’t Germany have a cruiser in the Madagascar SZ?
Not sure if the parent thread has been linked or not, here it is:
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=16531
So, when two sides are facing each other over some 100 yards of no man’s land, one of them can just decide to up and walk away, and the enemy will just wave to them and cry “cheerio!”, rather than shell them or pursue with cavalry?
Oh, I forgot - no cavalry.
They certainly don’t ‘walk away’ into another battle from a battle. They retire from combat, get pulled out of line to regroup, etc.
Cavalry didn’t cover retreats in this war except sporadically in the middle east theater.
It’s been said that if Germany had cavalry in the west in 1918 they could have exploited the gains of the Spring offensive much better. By that time, their cavalry was almost all stationed on the eastern front, holding down the tt ceded by russia.
The Allied kept large cavalry units in the west throughout, but they were kept in reserve waiting for a breakthrough that never came. Only in the Hundred Days Battles did they have the chance, and played a big part in rounding up German prisoners.
As I understand the combat rules, a lone tank attacking a single defender is effectively invulnerable. It might be worth using tanks for nuisance attacks, forcing contested status on lightly defender areas.
Looking again at the setup picture, I think Turkey AND Russia have ships in the Black Sea.
You cant rely on this, not one of these pics were ever accurate in any AA game. Some blockhead just set up these pieces and they didn’t get in the planes or tanks, so they just thru together whatever they had at the time.
It’s been said that if Germany had cavalry in the west in 1918 they could have exploited the gains of the Spring offensive much better. By that time, their cavalry was almost all stationed on the eastern front, holding down the tt ceded by russia.
The Allied kept large cavalry units in the west throughout, but they were kept in reserve waiting for a breakthrough that never came. Only in the Hundred Days Battles did they have the chance, and played a big part in rounding up German prisoners.
As I understand the combat rules, a lone tank attacking a single defender is effectively invulnerable. It might be worth using tanks for nuisance attacks, forcing contested status on lightly defender areas.
The game has no Cavalry, why talk about it?
Tanks reduce hits in this game, so buying them saves “lives”…but you have to have infantry because of the pairing rules bonus.
