Posts made by KimRYoung

That’s a fair assessment. Do you think that perhaps the level for Italy and the Ottomans should be raised then?

Kim

By the way, played the game twice (as Allies) and painfully defeated my opponents who are claiming that the game is not balanced. Are they correct?

Play using the Larry harris Tournament rules, minus the economic/political collapse  (except for Russia to represent the revolution), and play till you capture the capitals and you’ll find its more balanced.

Still needs some work to make German U-boats viable as a threat, but we have had the Axis win a few games this way.

Kim

We were unclear on whether the 2-space movement could be used to reinforce contested territories and so we didn’t allow it.  I think if we had the game would have been completely ridiculous.

Yes you can reinforce contested areas, and in fact attack if you choose to.

Your game actually ran similar to one of the games we played with Italy going into Turkey to try to force economic collapes. It did work, but the Turks recovered. With help from the French and US, Italy avoided economic collapes though.

Personally, I think that for a home game playing without the economic/political rules but using everthing else is great! You could apply the economic/political collapes to the Russians as an alternate to the OOB rules and I think they would be better.

The 2-move rule and increased naval move from a naval base are the key rules that improves the original OOB rules. Set up changes also are good.

Kim

With OOB rules, your second choice is optimal. With average luck you win both and eliminate the UK fleet forcing them to build ships right back to protect transports. It also delays getting British troops on the mainland.

Kim

The idea I proposed (based as close as possible to the actual events of the sub war), was that during a combat round in which any subs declared they are submerging, they could only be removed as a casualty from hits by Cruisers and Battleships if the hit roll was a “1” otherwise the hit would have go on a non-submerging sub or any other ship, or be lost if it could not be assigned. Enemy subs still hit normal during this round of combat.

Effectively, if you are attacking only subs in a seas zone, your capital ships could only hit them if they roll a one for the single round of combat they get to attack them. This assures a fairly high survivability for subs at sea when attacked.

I have tried this in some mock trials, and it does make USW viable, as it is much harder to kill subs. Also gives the Allies a reason to buy their own subs (escorting transports with friendly subs became a common tactic to stop USW).

It was a simple idea too.

Kim

No. We have played quit a few games from OOB to now the 2-move tournament rules. In neither case do the Germans even bother to build a single sub. The reason is simple, the subs will die the minute they set sail from port and never have any effect. The few times we tried, the subs were attacked by the allies and destroyed in a single round.

It is simply of no value to get any return on buying subs. Much better to just by land units and keep the ground war going. Only way to make it viable is to make the subs more survivable.

Kim

@Tyberius:

U.S. forces didn’t attack anyone.Â

below is from the FAQ thread (pg. 14):

As the United States is neutral before it’s at war, it has no friends or enemies; therefore it may not move units into territories controlled by other Allied powers.  It also may not load units onto transports before it’s at war.

What you did was not Legal with the US., Sorry

Kim

On a side note: the 2 movement rule seems to better the central powers on the Eastern front but might allow the allies to put pressure on the Germans right away

It’s actually the other way around. Once you have played a few games you’ll see.

Kim

@BJCard:

Kim, you say tournament rules; I thought those were the economic win conditions?

Doesn’t the OOB Russian Revolution rules (clarified by Kreig) help the CPs by making it easier to secure the East front?  Why would you make it harder for by forcing the CPs into taking Moscow?

So you advocate the 2 land movement?  What about sea?

BJ,
Larry’s tournament rules compiled the 2 move rule with some set up changes as well as the economic/political collapse rules. It also put forth “victory conditions” based upon playing to a time limit for tournaments. The VC conditions for taking capitals is same as OOB and that’s what we play to.

The Rules Larry added for economic/political collapse now apply to Every Power (and no Russian Revolution), they actually work in a similar way to the Russian revolution and you can knock out the ability to buy units and collect income prior to capturing the capital.

Once Russia collapses economically, she will be out of the game in a turn or two, and the Central Powers can march into the Capital to collect her IPCs and one of the Victory conditions. Works better and more clearly then the revolution.

At sea, naval units now get +1 move bonus when starting a move from a naval base. These work great. The US can now get troops to France right away, then ship the transports right back the following turn.

You will find there is a greater number of strategies now, and  tough decisions are going to have to be made. Don’t theorize who you think has an edge…play the game!

Kim

We have played quite a few games now with the 2-move rules. These work great! Lots of action, very competitive, never a dull moment. Have also been playing Larry’s tournament rules too. Not ready to sign off on the victory conditions yet, but game play is really good and play is dynamic. You will have a lot more fun with these rules then OOB, and you will find the Central Powers will be much stronger now.

There still is some fine tuning being done based on actual games played (as opposed to the theorists) but this is probably going to be the standard for the future of this game in my opinion. I know my group will stick with playing this system from now on.

Might see some small changes in game set up in the future, but for now, you can’t go wrong with them.

My personal recommendation is play the Tournament Rules for now, but play to the OOB victory conditions. Forget the Russian revolution rules OOB.

You may seem some minor changes in the future, but for now, you will enjoy this a great deal more.

Kim

We have pretty much found in our group that any USW rules are not worth the bother. All the German subs are lost during round one and nobody builds anymore during the crucial early turns. Simply put, given the choice of say adding 3 subs to the fleet or 6 infantry to send to the front, the infantry is way more valuable.

Unless subs survivability are improved, they will usually be killed off quickly and for very little return.

Kim

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

Add 2 German Cruisers (East Africa, Istanbul) 1 battleship (Kiel). It forces the Allies to actually pick a spot to focus navally, rather than having its cake and eating it too in all areas.

Von, there is no historical justification for adding German 2 cruisers off E. Africa or Istanbul. There IS justification for another Battleship off Kiel, provided you also give one to England. The Germans also had subs in the Med, so starting one in SZ 17 would be reasonable.

Kim

With the 2-move variant catching on, it may be difficult to get a handle on OOB strategies. With the 2-move rule in place, the CPs have more options now and the Turks CAN get into Africa to make a difference.

Kim

Also we are trying to find a way to get US into the game sooner.  This might help combat the longer game

Greg, consider using the +1 to Naval Movement when begining the turn in a sea zone with a friendly naval base (ala 1940). This gets the Americans to France on turn 4 instead of turn 5.

Kim

Thanks for clearing that up Bill.

Probably only an issue if Austria avoids Romania turn one, which they might, so needs to be clarified. Thanks for pointing that situation out for us.

Kim

Krieg,

The rule is worded correctly as it states clearly can only move ONE space into a hostile or Neutral territory. Romania is neutral at the start of the game I thought(as is Portugal, Belgium, etc.) much like AA 1940 neutrals so you could not move in two to activate it, nor move through it as the rule is written. At least that is how we interpetted it. Still might be helpful to clarifiy. maybe I’m wrong.

Von, in the original proposal, there was no movement of two territories into a contested battle, but further suggestions that this was a workable idea (particlarly how Krieg worded it) went forward.

Actully being able to move 2 areas into a contested area really made for some dynamic moves in our game we’re still playing. in one case, a decision to launch an attack that was 50/50 to end up controlled or contested was not made due to opponents large reserves sitting two areas away that could move in and counter attack unless the area was captured and controlled. Now you have to really consider who all could counter attack or throw in reserves if you are trying to make a stand.

Kim

Starting playing using the 2-move idea (along with naval changes) and though we are still playing, first impressions from the early turns were very favorable.

The best was on the western front we actually had a “Battle of the Marne”, with the Germans taking Belgium turn one, while massing all other troops in Alsace with the 2 move rule. The French defended Lorraine strong to counter this threat.

Turn 2, the Germans captured Picardy and contested Lorraine, while again reserves move up to be in position to move in to contested Lorraine or follow the strong right hook.

Austrians have already taken Veince and moving to contest Tuscany and capture Piedmont. Getting support to the front much quicker now makes this a threat.

Eastern front is very much alive with the Russians able to consolidate and support her efforts. the CP is trying a strategy of holding firm while trying to take Paris and Rome. Not sure how this will play out, but the action has been very dynamic compared to OOB games we played.

The war in the Middle East is developing into a grueling fight for Mesopotamia with both the Turks and UK able to get troops there with the 2 move from their placement at Constantinople and India in to a contested battle.

Hope to pick up play later to see this to conclusion.

Kim

The second part for moving out of a contested territory is the same as the newly revised rule for moving out of a contested territory isn’t it? (DJ may not have know about this officially revised rule though).

That is correct sir

Kim

2. He is also exploring some variations for movement, that will speed things up over at his site. He is looking at allowing ground units to move two spaces, as long as the 2nd move doesn’t end in combat or in a contested territory (I think that’s the latest thought). If using the extra move you basically need to stay in friendly territories. It’s kind like having a non combat move rolled into the established single move phase (pretty cool IMO).

Bill, the latest is you CAN move two into a contested territory, you just have to stop upon entering. Also can only move to an adjacent territory when moving out of a contested to either a friendly or contested (if you have units there already).

Kim

@Texas:

@KimRYoung:

• the French and Italian fleets are now damaged and susceptible to counterattack on A2

By What?

Kim

They were damaged from their attack on the Austrian fleet.

And who is going to attack them, the Austrians are sunk.

Kim